| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 120244 | 2011-08-31 09:50:00 | Copyright Letters | Twelvevolts (5457) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 1227848 | 2011-09-05 09:32:00 | . But should a 21 year old student in a flat of 8 be financially liable for the actions of 7 of his/her peers? Nope, so don't put it in your name, Sort out your own net feed if there is any issues. In the event that it is in your name, pirating is going on and you get two warnings then unplug the router and tell em to go to hell. That's a respect issue, something that is normally lacking in flatting situations, particularly where immature people are involved. If you know its going on, You know you're the one that has to face the music, then take suitable action. if anyone let it get to the point they get fined then that is their failure. |
Metla (12) | ||
| 1227849 | 2011-09-05 09:32:00 | @agent 24 I dont think so, simply using torrent software won't get you in trouble. The copyright holders don't care about anything you legitimately download, so unless you "accidentally" download a movie or something you are fine. The torrent software doesn't magically go off and break the law by itself. World of warcraft's downloader is a p2p torrent client with 12 million users and it doesn't get you in any trouble. The only thing any honest user has to worry about is someone else using your account for downloading illegal material either a member of your household or someone hacking your wireless etc, or maybe someone falsifying your IP adress (less likely) |
dugimodo (138) | ||
| 1227850 | 2011-09-05 11:15:00 | One of the pages I posted about showed if you used a DHT feature it could send query\search strings of pirated material from other people through your connection (as it is designed to do) and other people may pick up on that as meaning YOU are downloading those things. | Agent_24 (57) | ||
| 1227851 | 2011-09-05 19:43:00 | So, no one has a letter yet.... I'm not surprised, the government wont want all that publicity before the elections but I reckon that: 1. None or very few will be receive them before the elections. 2. There will be an increased numer after the elections (i.e. a flood of them) 3. That the bill will be review after the election and become even more of a monster. |
porkster (6331) | ||
| 1227852 | 2011-09-05 19:51:00 | So, no one has a letter yet.... I'm not surprised, the government wont want all that publicity before the elections but I reckon that: 1. None or very few will be receive them before the elections. 2. There will be an increased numer after the elections (i.e. a flood of them) 3. That the bill will be review after the election and become even more of a monster. If an ISP receives a complaint from a copyright holder they have to send the letter to the account holder within 14 days, the government has no control over this. |
Safari (3993) | ||
| 1227853 | 2011-09-05 20:20:00 | @agent 24 I dont think so, simply using torrent software won't get you in trouble. The copyright holders don't care about anything you legitimately download, so unless you "accidentally" download a movie or something you are fine. The torrent software doesn't magically go off and break the law by itself. World of warcraft's downloader is a p2p torrent client with 12 million users and it doesn't get you in any trouble. The only thing any honest user has to worry about is someone else using your account for downloading illegal material either a member of your household or someone hacking your wireless etc, or maybe someone falsifying your IP adress (less likely) As I understood it you could under this law make an accusation against anyone without proving you were the copyright holder and it was up to the accused to prove they didn't infringe on the copyright. Seems like something for everyone to worry about potentially. |
Twelvevolts (5457) | ||
| 1227854 | 2011-09-05 21:52:00 | The copyright holders appear to assume that anyone downloading their material is a dangerous criminal attempting to end civilisation as we know it. Did they willingly produced this stuff knowing it would provoke widespread criminal activity? It appears the criminal intent is a bit higher up the chain, it would better serve justice and save much exposure of the vulnerable if either the production or the copyrighting of it was prohibited. | R2x1 (4628) | ||
| 1227855 | 2011-09-05 22:01:00 | The copyright holders appear to assume that anyone downloading their material is a dangerous criminal attempting to end civilisation as we know it. Did they willingly produced this stuff knowing it would provoke widespread criminal activity? It appears the criminal intent is a bit higher up the chain, it would better serve justice and save much exposure of the vulnerable if either the production or the copyrighting of it was prohibited. We musn't stop the rich from getting richer. |
Cicero (40) | ||
| 1227856 | 2011-09-05 22:50:00 | We can't. It's the law. ;) | R2x1 (4628) | ||
| 1227857 | 2011-09-05 22:55:00 | The movie earlier in the week about a pirate radio boat got me seeing parallels with media piracy. Basically both cases involve the establishment in their suits and money trying to tell the consumer what the consumer wants. The consumers eventually demonstrated what they wanted by defying the established business model and demonstrating how popular a change to the media/content/delivery could be. Slowly, reluctantantly, the uptight behemoth of the industry rolled over to a newer way of doing business that catered to everybody. TV broadcasters are going to feel a lot more heat eventually as well once fibre starts to make it possible for people to routinely choose what they want, when they want it. |
Paul.Cov (425) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 | |||||