Accused of torrenting copyrighted material

3,075 posts in this topic

2 hours ago, A.N.Other said:

I hear that the French part of Canada is like South Los Angeles. :ph34r:

People speak redneck French in South LA?

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, someonesdaughter said:

 

Wrong, it's the other classic: 'When in Rome do as the Romans do'. I'm sure you've heard it before. Whoever expects the Romans to change for him is mistaken and better served if he doesn't go to Rome at all. And not going anywhere is different than going away from somewhere. 

 

 

Then you have first of all a wrong information in your profile. 

 

 

You turn everything around so it suits you, huh? But that doesn't work. The judgment you quoted was about the term 'rechtsradikal' and the defendant had to go as far as the Federal Constitutional Court - in the lower courts he was sentenced. If you derive a right for yourself from this individual case decision, sooner or later you will fall hard on your nose. 

 

Correct, still in CH, just fixed that.

Now then, you are simply not getting it. It´s not about the wording, you can change "Rechtsradikal" with "Brezensalzer" it makes no difference, it´s all about the intent. Germany as you may know is full of nuances; if I were to call a certain person an idiot (something I would never do by the way, god forbid ) it could be considered an insult and that person could get all gnarly, load the lawyer up for bear and call open season on Slammer´s ass. If it is my opinion that said person is an idiot then this is protected by the laws of free speech.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, sneaker said:

It is already punishable through criminal law. Fine or up to 3 years prison. But that doesn't stop civil cases, you could get both.

https://dejure.org/gesetze/UrhG/106.html

 

AFAIK the case would proceed in a criminal court only if there is exploitation involved.   But thank you for bringing the exact paragraph, I had actually never read it and indeed it does not mention exploitation.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just as a side thought

 

As far as I understand it, when you get one of these letters asking for money, it comprises of two parts

1) The estimated loss of revenue the copy write holders are losing from you uploading.

2) The cost of the lawyers, needed to recover the lose of the copy write holders revenue.

 

From what I have read, you get a letter saying you have up loaded for 20 seconds, for one of the many 4MB part files required to make the whole movie.

 

From  a legal point of view, how do the lawyers, argue that because you have uploaded a part of a movie that that you have damaged the copy write holders revenue ? I mean who is going to pay for a 20 second section of a movie ? - do the lawyers not have to show, how much the copy write holders have lost money from this ? to make a judgment on how much you should pay for the copy write infringement !

If the lawyers say, yes but with the other bits of the movie, the copy write holders have lost money - whats this got to do with a single up loader  ? and why should the uploaded have to pay for a single part of the movie that without the other parts would be useless/worthless.

 

If in the end, if it cannot be proven, how much the copy write holders have lost from a single uploaded part, then the lawyers fees are also not relevant - as nothing has been lost by the copy write holders. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, yesterday said:

 

On 10.4.2019, 16:22:01, someonesdaughter said:

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, yesterday said:

From  a legal point of view, how do the lawyers, argue that because you have uploaded a part of a movie that that you have damaged the copy write holders revenue ? I mean who is going to pay for a 20 second section of a movie ?

 

Because those 20 seconds will be downloaded by another person thereby completing their download and they will have a completed film at zero cost.

 

People who are too cheap to pay for a whole and complete movie certainly wouldn't pay for 20 seconds of one.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, fraufruit said:

 

Because those 20 seconds will be downloaded by another person thereby completing their download and they will have a completed film at zero cost.

 

People who are too cheap to pay for a whole and complete movie certainly wouldn't pay for 20 seconds of one.

 

ok, the lawyers can show that I ( in this case for example ) up loaded that 4MB section of the movie.

 

But at that point, the lawyers have not distributed the movie, because the movie has not been distributed, the lawyers cannot argue that the copy write owner has lost any money - and therefore cannot ask me to pay for the lost income, because there has not been any loss. Its only if the lawyers take the movie and distribute it that any loss might occur.

 

I thought in all cases, you are being asked ( in a civil case ), to compensate the copy write holder for the lost income  because you have shared a part of the movie - but unless the lawyers actually distribute the movie - then the copy write owners have not lost anything.

 

I mean I know its a mute point, because its wrong to do it anyway, but not sure how legally it stacks up.

 

 

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought, that's the difference between a civil case and a Criminal case

 

civil case, mean you pay for the effects of what you have done. ie slander, copy write infringement - loss of money

Criminal case you pay for having broken a law ie driving too fast and got caught, murder  etc

 

not sure :wub:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I had some money to blow on lawyers (and free time) I would do this experiment:

 

I would rewrite some bits of a bit torrent client and advertise myself as a seeder of a file (movie or music track) and then transmit only invalid blocks of data, let's say just zeros.   Of course the client would discard the blocks as invalid because they can't do anything with them, and maybe after a while I would be marked as a bad seeder in the swarm.    I would need to do some research about which data is available to the public in the swarm to see if this is enough for the lawyers to think I am uploading data.    If this works, then it would be a proof that the lawyers can't prove that I am really sharing copyrighted data.

 

But it sound too easy, so I have my doubts, some clever person should have figured that out already by now.

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Krieg said:

If I had some money to blow on lawyers (and free time) I would do this experiment:

 

I would rewrite some bits of a bit torrent client and advertise myself as a seeder of a file (movie or music track) and then transmit only invalid blocks of data, let's say just zeros.   Of course the client would discard the blocks as invalid because they can't do anything with them, and maybe after a while I would be marked as a bad seeder in the swarm.    I would need to do some research about which data is available to the public in the swarm to see if this is enough for the lawyers to think I am uploading data.    If this works, then it would be a prove that the lawyers can't prove that I am really sharing copyrighted data.

 

But it sound too easy, so I have my doubts, some clever person should have figured that out already by now.

Almost sure that some clever person has figured that bit out, only you would need a clever person who is not only an expert on the topic but also a lawyer and they may be thin on the ground.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Krieg said:

If I had some money to blow on lawyers (and free time) I would do this experiment:

 

Why would you do that?  It sounds a bit like the guy who buys a bullet proof vest and gets his friend to shoot him to test it.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because solving puzzles is really interesting to some people.   But not if they are going to cost me too much.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its trivial for them to connect to an existing swarm, download a few blocks and check they are valid (crc check).  I dont know whether they actually do that or not, but my suspicion is that they do.  The comments I have seen on TT often talk about "uploading for 11 seconds" or somesuch, which I suspect is the lawyer collecting data for a few seconds to clearly demonstrate that they are uploading the file.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are still many things that could be interesting to research if you are into understanding how things work.  For example, I would keep a log of every IP I uploaded data to.   Only upload to one IP every 48 hours (in case they are connecting from a different timezone).   So if they caught me I would know which IP it was.   I would keep as well all information I can gather from those IPs, where they are, who they belong to, and so on.

 

I have actually never seen what exact proof they bring to the court, that would be as well very interesting.   The information they send you in the cease and desist would not hold in court, so they must have much more proof, because they have won plenty of cases.   AFAIK, the cases they lost was not because the defendant proved they didn't do it, it was because it was done but under conditions reasonably out of the control of the defendant.

 

Most bit torrent clients provide simple blacklisting functionality.  So if someone was doing this kind of research in Germany it would be possible to limit the effect of the lawyers activities.  

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont diasgree in principle, but I think you will find that people did all this work years back and it turned out not to be much use https://torrentfreak.com/bittorrent-blocklists-are-even-less-effective-than-pirate-site-blocking-181231/

 

I mean, if you actually want to go through the processs of being sued to see what its like then I could understand that.  But I dont think you would be breaking new ground.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I do not understand is why people still use bit torrent sites, as you can be found out - when there are so many streaming sites, that you do not need to upload from, that gives you the movies etc ,or use a seedbox or just use a VPN.

 

As said, I feel sorry for the people coming from other lands, that just have not heard about the way things are done in Germany, and hence get a fine on their first offence.

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, yesterday said:

What I do not understand is why people still use bit torrent sites, as you can be found out - when there are so many streaming sites, that you do not need to upload from, that gives you the movies etc ,or use a seedbox or just use a VPN.

 

Mostly because they do not want to pay anything at all.  So asking them to pay for a seedbox of a VPN would go against their goals.    They want the latest stuff and for free.

 

The illegal streaming sites might be a solution for some people, but other people really want to have the downloaded files for whatever reason.   Maybe to watch them again and again.  Or to watch them online.   Most times it is just data hoarding.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, yesterday said:

 

ok, the lawyers can show that I ( in this case for example ) up loaded that 4MB section of the movie.

 

But at that point, the lawyers have not distributed the movie, because the movie has not been distributed, the lawyers cannot argue that the copy write owner has lost any money - and therefore cannot ask me to pay for the lost income, because there has not been any loss. Its only if the lawyers take the movie and distribute it that any loss might occur.

They use the so called "Lizenzanalogie". It's roughly like this: you offered their content to the world via BitTorrent. The "damage" they claim is the answer to the question "what would they have charged you for a license to offer their content via BitTorrent?"

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11.4.2019, 21:49:39, slammer said:

Now then, you are simply not getting it.

 

As usual, you're the one who doesn't get it - on several levels: 

 

On 11.4.2019, 21:49:39, slammer said:

 

It´s not about the wording, you can change "Rechtsradikal" with "Brezensalzer" it makes no difference,

 

Wrong, it's about the wording, the context and intention. The case you cited was one of agitated political discussion - and the Federal Constitutional Court ruled that the wording (!) in this context (!) should be understood as a value judgement. The one that' been called 'rechtsradikal' himself created the context by spreading anti-Semitic conspiracy theories in a political discussion. 

But that is not necessarily the case with any other insult. While 'right-wing radical' is also a political classification, the terms "scum" and "Gestapo" you use are not (quite apart from the fact that "scum" is Nazi vocabulary and says more about the one who uses the word than about the one who is so called). 

The Federal Constitutional Court also stated in the ruling that 'right-wing radical' is not permissible per se. In another context this can lead to severe penalties. The respective courts in the lower instances must carefully examine each individual case. 

And you don't understand that either: that such individual case decisions do not unfold a general validity to which you could refer.

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now