obama admin iracy crackdown

[No Limit]

Which points did I ignore?

 

[Link]

The legal aspect.

It is a criminal offence only if the person sells the downloads onwards. If you don't believe me, try and find 1 example of anyone being successfully criminally prosecuted in either UK or USA case law where they weren't making a profit (You won't because its never happened). Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying its right, I'm saying its not a crime, and saying "Actually it is a crime, because I say so" just makes you sound uninformed.

And no, I didn't say it justified download piracy, I was just pointing it out that its not a clear cut case of "pirate downloads = lost money". Which is a fact that the recording industry should be making a note of. But when they ignore it completely, as they always have, it really is a case of "their loss"

 

[VirusType2]

Although you are technically corrected that's called streaming.

Semantics; it makes no difference. You are not authorized to access the copyrighted files in any manner. Think the FBI cares if you downloaded unauthorized media or just streamed it? If they find it in your cache, you are guilty.

Once you do that you downloaded it, until then you streamed it.

It is downloaded to your hard drive when you stream a media file.

 

[No Limit]

Semantics; it makes no difference. You are not authorized to access the copyrighted files in any manner. Think the FBI cares if you downloaded unauthorized media or just streamed it? If they find it in your cache, you are guilty.

How are you supposed to know what is legal on youtube and what isn't? This makes no sense to me.

It is downloaded to your hard drive when you stream a media file.

But once you close the browser the file is gone. Again, you are technically right when you stream something parts of the file (sometimes the entire file) is downloaded to your hard drive temporarily. But there is a word for that, it's called streaming and it is much different from downloading a file to your hard drive.

 

[No Limit]

The legal aspect.

It is a criminal offence only if the person sells the downloads onwards. If you don't believe me, try and find 1 example of anyone being successfully criminally prosecuted in either UK or USA case law where they weren't making a profit (You won't because its never happened). Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying its right, I'm saying its not a crime, and saying "Actually it is a crime, because I say so" just makes you sound uninformed.

I'm not a lawyer, you might be right it's a civil issue. But anytime you download using bittorrent and many other filesharing methods just by downloading something you are automatically distribution that file on top of the download, making you criminally liable.

And no, I didn't say it justified download piracy, I was just pointing it out that its not a clear cut case of "pirate downloads = lost money". Which is a fact that the recording industry should be making a note of. But when they ignore it completely, as they always have, it really is a case of "their loss"

How is it not a case of lost money? The record company does not get concert proceeds as far as I know. And you obviously like Linkin Park, if you couldn't download their music illegally you would probably go out and buy it. But since you can get it for free that's the route you go which has a direct profit loss on the company that produced the tracks.

 

[VirusType2]

How are you supposed to know what is legal on youtube and what isn't?

I guess you would have to look into local laws. Copyright laws are absolutely crazy, I mean, everyone should know that by now. Supposedly if you take a photograph of someone standing near a copyrighted artwork on the wall, you are breaking the law.

It's just a matter of if they want to spend thousands - or hundreds of thousands of dollars to prosecute someone. They want to win, and they want to win substantially. Losing can even set president that hamper them in future cases.

Just to be clear, I've been saying all along: they are not going to pursue someone who watches Youtube.

They are after people that are sharing it (uploading it). There, they can argue that they lost revenue by this. One person uploaded a copyrighted music video which was viewed by 95,000 people. That's distributing copyrighted works without authorization.

But generally you are totally right, they really want people who intended to download the file, rather than stream it. Showing willful intent is a slam-dunk. So, filesharing sites are a prime target. Youtube operates in some kind of gray area - not to mention it is backed by one of the top 3 technology companies in the world, so they surely have an extremely powerful legal team.


We are defining law as we go.

In the future I see more worldwide services finally becoming available. For example, the BBC may cooperate with other media conglomerates to offer the BBC as a paid service in the US, or even as a subscription service using P2P. The BBC is currently funding a P2P project (though I don't have any further details), and devices like GoogleTV may play a part in something like this.

 

[Link]

I'm not a lawyer, you might be right it's a civil issue. But anytime you download using bittorrent and many other filesharing methods just by downloading something you are automatically distribution that file on top of the download, making you criminally liable.

Jesus. Wrong. Distribution is not a criminal offence. I'm not going over this point again, because it is not a subject for dicussion, it is a fact. It. Is. Only. A. Criminal. Offence. If. You. Profit. Argue this point again and I will ignore it.

How is it not a case of lost money? The record company does not get concert proceeds as far as I know. And you obviously like Linkin Park, if you couldn't download their music illegally you would probably go out and buy it. But since you can get it for free that's the route you go which has a direct profit loss on the company that produced the tracks.

Of course they do, don't be stupid.
Anyway, I just said I wouldn't have bought all of thier albums. Theres 1 or 2 I like enough to buy, but I wouldn't have bought them all. So let me break it down for you.

6 albums at £10 = £60
2 Concert tickets = £90
£90-£60 = £30

So, in terms of money handed over, they have made more from me on this 1 concert than if I bought all thier albums. And thats assuming I don't buy any merchandise. And that assumes I downloaded all thier albums (And I bought hybrid theory, and I think I bought minutes to midnight). Yes, you can argue that I should have bought all thier albums AND bought the concert tickets, but I wouldn't have, so saying otherwise is moot.

This is becoming repetetive. I'm not saying piracy is morally justifiable, I'm saying it is not the big issue the RIAA and others say it is, and the fact that they are the way they are over it means I have no sympathy for them. None.

 

[Tyguy]

So, in terms of money handed over, they have made more from me on this 1 concert than if I bought all thier albums.

You somehow see this as a justification to download their music for free? What if you hadn't gone to the concert - are we to assume you would delete the songs you didn't pay for? How can we take your arguments seriously if you legitimize your actions by such fatuous standards?

Yes, you can argue that I should have bought all thier albums AND bought the concert tickets, but I wouldn't have, so saying otherwise is moot.

If I worked tirelessly and spent a lot of money in developing a CD (studio time, etc.) I would be angry if I learned my music was being handed out for free, especially if they told me "well I wouldn't have paid for it in the first place".

Really, your logic needs a lobotomy...

 

[CptStern]

So, in terms of money handed over, they have made more from me on this 1 concert than if I bought all thier albums.

you have no way of knowing this. especially since profit margins on this sort fo stuff is rarely publicised. in any event I dont see how that justifies pirating at all; your excuse is that "I paid for some so that makes it ok to take everything else"

 

[Yuri]

Trying to legitimize piracy is not the best approach. You can point out studies which show that pirates also buy music more often, but the only conclusion is that piracy may not be affecting the economy, so government intervention is not required.

 

[No Limit]

Jesus. Wrong. Distribution is not a criminal offence. I'm not going over this point again, because it is not a subject for dicussion, it is a fact. It. Is. Only. A. Criminal. Offence. If. You. Profit. Argue this point again and I will ignore it.

You know what blows, you are making me quote the RIAA:

http://www.riaa.com/physicalpiracy.php?content_selector=piracy_online_the_law

Federal law provides severe civil and criminal penalties for the unauthorized reproduction, distribution, rental or digital transmission of copyrighted sound recordings. (Title 17, United States Code, Sections 501 and 506). The FBI investigates allegations of criminal copyright infringement and violators will be prosecuted.

Before you call the RIAA stupid and lying here is the law that clearly says it is criminal to knowing infringe copyright laws with the following conditions:

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#506

by the distribution of a work being prepared for commercial distribution, by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial distribution.

So not sure if I should believe Link because he clearly knows everything or the actual text of copyright laws.

Of course they do, don't be stupid.

So, in terms of money handed over, they have made more from me on this 1 concert than if I bought all thier albums.

I see so if I buy windows that gives me a right to pirate any other software Microsoft makes. I love you logic for why it's ok for you to steal their music. "Well I paid for a concert once, so they own me free music for the rest of my life!"

 

[Link]

I have said repeatedly, I am not trying to justify downloading, I have NEVER said it is morally justifieds. Everything I have said is aimed at making the following 2 points:

Downloading it not a crime
Downloading is not causing the downfall of music, and not everyone who downloads does nothing except take.

If I worked tirelessly and spent a lot of money in developing a CD (studio time, etc.) I would be angry if I learned my music was being handed out for free, especially if they told me "well I wouldn't have paid for it in the first place"

Tell me this. If you had to choose between no-one downloading your music for free, and some of those would-be-downloaders buying it instead, or some people downloading it free, but some of those downloaders buying tickets/merc, is it clear cut on which is best for you? Seriously, I'm actually asking you to think about it and tell me what you think.

 

[CptStern]

and not everyone who downloads does nothing except take.

lol, this is terrible logic. but they STILL take dont they? i\even if it's only a song. that whole idea that it's ok so long as you pay for some of it is retarded

 

[No Limit]

I have said repeatedly, I am not trying to justify downloading, I have NEVER said it is morally justifieds. Everything I have said is aimed at making the following 2 points:

Downloading it not a crime

Yes it is, see above.

Downloading is not causing the downfall of music, and not everyone who downloads does nothing except take.

Nobody said it was the downfall of music. People said piracy costs the industry a lot of money. Which is absolutely true as you yourself just proved since you haven't bought a single Linkin Park CD yet you have them all.

Tell me this. If you had to choose between no-one downloading your music for free, and some of those would-be-downloaders buying it instead, or some people downloading it free, but some of those downloaders buying tickets/merc, is it clear cut on which is best for you? Seriously, I'm actually asking you to think about it and tell me what you think.

It doesn't matter what we think. What matters is what the person that owns the content thinks. It is up to them to decide how to distribute their content. If they want to give it away for free on the internet as some bands have done, great. If they don't that is their choice. You have no legal right to make that decision for them.

 

[Krynn72]

Yes it is, see above.

No it isn't. Don't quote the RIAA, they don't have a solid history of truth telling. Besides, that link you provided doesn't make any distinction between civil and criminal offenses.

Read up on Dowling Vs. United States (1985):

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=473&invol=207

It is not a criminal offense unless you make a profit.

 

[No Limit]

I quoted the law directly:

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#506

(B) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000; or

(C) by the distribution of a work being prepared for commercial distribution, by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial distribution.

It says "Criminal offenses:" right in the heading above those.

Again, I'm not a lawyer but that seems pretty clear to me. I would bet most people that download music illegally have more than $1,000 worth of pirated content (not sure that they would get that much content in 180 days though) and most redistribute it because they get it from bittorrent or other file sharing methods that upload the content you download automatically.

 

[Link]

lol, this is terrible logic. but they STILL take dont they? i\even if it's only a song. that whole idea that it's ok so long as you pay for some of it is retarded

Its only terrible logic if I was saying "It justifies it", but as I have stated over and over and over again, I am not saying that. Please don't quote small parts of what I say and batter them for not making sense, when taken out of context. It demeans the whole debate.

Limit. If your going to insist on quoting small chunks of that particualr law, allow me to reply in kind:

Apart from "for profit" distribution, it is only criminal if:

(C) by the distribution of a work being prepared for commercial distribution, by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial distribution.

Intended for commercial distributed meaning:

(A) a computer program, a musical work, a motion picture or other audiovisual work, or a sound recording, if, at the time of unauthorized distribution —

(i) the copyright owner has a reasonable expectation of commercial distribution; and

(ii) the copies or phonorecords of the work have not been commercially distributed; or

(B) a motion picture, if, at the time of unauthorized distribution, the motion picture —

(i) has been made available for viewing in a motion picture exhibition facility; and

(ii) has not been made available in copies for sale to the general public in the United States in a format intended to permit viewing outside a motion picture exhibition facility.

Basically, if its been released for home use, its not criminal infringment

 

[Yuri]

Are you sure "commercial distribution" doesn't just mean the product is for sale... as in, commercially distributed?

 

[No Limit]

Limit. If your going to insist on quoting small chunks of that particualr law, allow me to reply in kind:

Basically, if its been released for home use, its not criminal infringment

Under "criminal offenses:"

Any person who willfully infringes a copyright shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, if the infringement was committed —

(A) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain;

(B) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000; or

(C) by the distribution of a work being prepared for commercial distribution, by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial distribution.

That means if you download more than $1,000 worth of content in a 180 day period you are comitting a criminal offense. That also means if you only download one song but you did it through a filesharing service such as bittorrent you are also committing a criminal offense as you are automatically making that content available on a computer network. It also means if you burn people the music to CDs then sell it no matter how little money you make you committed a criminal offense.

All this means that your original claim:

Jesus. Wrong. Distribution is not a criminal offence. I'm not going over this point again, because it is not a subject for dicussion, it is a fact. It. Is. Only. A. Criminal. Offence. If. You. Profit. Argue this point again and I will ignore it.

Is totally wrong.

You also don't seem to understand what commercial distribution means. It means any product meant for resale. This includes Linkin Park CDs.

 

[Link]

I'm sorry. My statement was entirely inaccurate, because every average downloader consumes... *quick maths*... 100 music albums, or 66 movies, or 33 games every 3 months. Of course thats assuming they restrict themselves to only new releases...

Not to mention that to be prosecuted for this, they would have to have evidence for each of the 100 music albums, 66 movies...yes, "Its totally wrong"

Honestly, I get why you want to prove me wrong. I will stay out of most "piracy" discussions. The only reason I'm involved in this one is that theres been some inaccurate information thrown about. I sought to correct that, and I think most people will accept that I have done so. I'm not here to argue the moralistic virtues of piracy/anti-piracy, I have my own stance and thats a matter of (my own) opinion, and not something I wish to debate on the internet. I'm simply saying that if you are branding swathes of people as "criminals", that you've got to expect them to correct you.

If you do want to continue to discuss this, please consider this. These days it is just about guaranteed that a friend or reletive of yours is/has downloaded somethnig at some point. Would you, in all seriousness, call them a criminal to their face? You don't even need to answer that, I'm just asking you to think about it.

 

[No Limit]

I'm sorry. My statement was entirely inaccurate,

OMG, OMG, he's going to be reasonable.

because every average downloader consumes... *quick maths*... 100 music albums, or 66 movies, or 33 games every 3 months. Of course thats assuming they restrict themselves to only new releases...

Not to mention that to be prosecuted for this, they would have to have evidence for each of the 100 music albums, 66 movies...yes, "Its totally wrong"

Ahh shit, guess not.

- 15 new movie releases (1 movie every 12 days): $300
- 20 new CD releases (1 CD every 9 days): $200
- 20 Pirated Porn Movies (1 porno every 9 days): $200
- 6 Pirated Games (1 game a month): $360

You're at $1060 and just committed a criminal offense. Is that your average user? Probably not. But certainly not uncommon. And don't pretend that's the only area where you were totally wrong.

The other area was where you said that distribution is not illegal. It clearly is. And if you download just one illegal song using bit torrent or any other file sharing service that automatically shares your files (almost all of them) you committed a criminal offense.

This wouldn't be a big deal if your absolute assurance to the contrary wasn't so comical. Seriously bro, this is what you said:

Jesus. Wrong. Distribution is not a criminal offence. I'm not going over this point again, because it is not a subject for dicussion, it is a fact. It. Is. Only. A. Criminal. Offence. If. You. Profit. Argue this point again and I will ignore it.

I mean come on, it's funny.

I will stay out of most "piracy" discussions. The only reason I'm involved in this one is that theres been some inaccurate information thrown about. I sought to correct that, and I think most people will accept that I have done so.

I dont think most people will accept that, most of the inaccurate information in this thread came from you.

If you do want to continue to discuss this, please consider this. These days it is just about guaranteed that a friend or reletive of yours is/has downloaded somethnig at some point. Would you, in all seriousness, call them a criminal to their face? You don't even need to answer that, I'm just asking you to think about it.

No, I will not call you or my family members criminals. Just as I will not call pot smokers criminals. Or speeders. But the fact is you are breaking the law. You are trying to pretend otherwise which is absurd. I also won't pretend that it doesn't do any harm to our economy, as it clearly does.

 

[Tyguy]

I have my own stance and thats a matter of (my own) opinion, and not something I wish to debate on the internet.

-1 respect

If you do want to continue to discuss this

I'M CAUGHT IN THE ****ING TWILIGHT ZONE!!!

These days it is just about guaranteed that a friend or reletive of yours is/has downloaded somethnig at some point. Would you, in all seriousness, call them a criminal to their face? You don't even need to answer that, I'm just asking you to think about it.

Your brain is not operating correctly.

I would call every single person who has knowingly downloaded copyrighted material a criminal, especially to their society hating faces. But you have no reason to worry because, after all...

And second, I just spent £90 on Linkin park tickets.

 

[Link]

I am not playing the "quote by quote" debate game. It is used mostly for taking peoples words out of context to discredit them.

No Limit - Fine, yes, I acknowledge, you are correct. If someone downloads specifically new releases, then it is possible to reach the "criminal" stage of downloading according to US law according to a strict reading of the rules.

Tyguy - Your post doesn't appear to contain anything other than "I disagree with you, so your stupid", so I assume your not actually after a response, except possibly the final part, which as above, is taken totally out of context, so I shall ignore it.

 

[Tyguy]

What do you expect? You respond to almost every point with some conflated sense of self-importance, which would be fine if you had ANY ground to stand on, whatsoever. You essentially said that paying to see a Linkin Park concert has influence over pirating laws and have yet to justify that statement. It's like trying to take someone's comment at face value when you know they believe in unicorns.

I dunno, If I'm in the minority with this I'll let it go.

 

[Yuri]

Well, I think I understand his overall point: Link is not trying to justify piracy but instead simply state it does not have a profoundly harmful impact on musicians or record companies. This is because many pirates end up also buying much from these artists and companies, perhaps sometimes more.

Now, I don't agree, but I don't find that opinion particularly offensive. It does seem to be a very common opinion to have, too.

It's when he started saying that piracy isn't a crime that got me.

 

[Link]

Thanks Erestheux. In fairness, I'm not saying it doesn't have a harmful impact, I accept it does have a negative impact. What I'm saying is its not a one way street, but its treated like it is.

Ty, I expect reasoned debate, which "I disagree, Moron" does not count as. I also expect not to be paraphrased incorrectly. For example, I did not say in any way that paying for linkin park tickets had any bearing on the legal status of downloading my albums, and I don't think anything I said even implied that (or if I did, you have a point, I was incorrect to imply it)

End of the day, your stance on this seems (to me) to be that you think that piracy is morally wrong, but that's not the point I'm trying to make. I have already conceded that it is a crime in certain circumstances, so in all honesty, I'm not sure what point your trying to make, other than I am the spawn of Satan, and that my opinion is wrong.

 

[No Limit]

I am not playing the "quote by quote" debate game. It is used mostly for taking peoples words out of context to discredit them.

No Limit - Fine, yes, I acknowledge, you are correct. If someone downloads specifically new releases, then it is possible to reach the "criminal" stage of downloading according to US law according to a strict reading of the rules.

Not wanting to play the quote game doesn't give you a right to ignore the third time I corrected you on this.

Downloading $1,000 worth of music is just one way it can be a criminal offense. The other which is far more common and applies to virtually every person that pirates content is when you download something using filesharing you automatically make that content available online. That means even if you download one illegal song using bittorrent you just committed a criminal offense.

Also, it's not a matter of some strict reading of the law. The law is perfectly clear. What other way would you read that law?

And finally, this discussion could have ended a long time ago yet you continue to want to hold on to something that simply is not true.

 

[Link]

Your right, how rude of me. I shall address this now.

Interesting, I just re-read the section you referred to (http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#506) and I have to admit that I missed a rather important part of that.

by the reproduction or distribution

So actually downloading is not in itself a criminal offense, only uploading. Seeing as it specifically states "1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works", and it is not possible to do that until your download has finished and you begin to seed, as long as you set your software to stop as soon as download completes, you never meet this requirement

Not that this takes into account the non-p2p "media locker" type of file sharing which is becoming more and more common, in which you don't upload anything at all

So I do stand corrected. Uploading is, once it reaches a certain level, in fact a criminal offense. And this is clearly talking about the levels required in your breakdown (15 new movie releases (1 movie every 12 days): $300), so sending the odd copy to a mate wouldn't make it criminal either.

So having made that concession, my position now is, downloading is not a criminal offense.

 

[No Limit]

Here is the entire law:

a) Criminal Infringement. —

(1) In general. — Any person who willfully infringes a copyright shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, if the infringement was committed —

(A) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain;

(B) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000; or

(C) by the distribution of a work being prepared for commercial distribution, by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial distribution.

You quoted a tiny section out of (B). If you download something you are reproducing that work. I don't know how you got that to mean you need to upload the entire work for it to be criminal, nothing in that law can be construed that way as all parts of a song are copyrighted, not just the whole thing. Otherwise commercials could use 30 seconds from any song they wanted to and the artists couldn't do anything about it.

(C) clearly outlines that if you make the work available on a network you are committing a criminal offense. It doesn't say how much of the work you need to make available, it simply says you can't make it available at all.

I'm not a lawyer and neither are you, but all this is pretty clear yet you can't help trying to hold on to that crazy idea that downloading illegal content isn't in fact illegal. Let it go bro.

 

[Link]

I picked out the only pertinent aspect - To clarify...

Section A does not apply because there is no commercial or financial gain.

Section B specifiacally states a value based on "1 or more copies". This is not "part thereof", so providing a partial upload would not meet these conditions.

Section C only apply to stuff that has been leaked, and camcorder footage of movies. Do you think the majority of downloads are shitty handy cam recordings, or DVD rips?

So, as before, none of the above requirements fit your average downloader. Weird how that seems pretty clear to me...

 

[No Limit]

1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works does not mean it has to be the entire content. All parts of a song are copyrighted. The logic you are using is I can make a website that allows people to download any album in the world as long as I leave off the last half second of each song. Again, I explained this to you above and again you ignored me only to repeat your original statement.

And things that are leaked are not only camcorders or DVDs, where in the world did you get that idea? CDs are leaked all the time. I can gurantee your average bittorrent user has downloaded leaked content atleast once. Wether it be a upcoming CD, upcoming movie, or even upcoming software.

How much longer do you want to keep arguing this?

 

[Link]

Sorry, but yes it does have to be the entire content. It specifically states (as you yourself quoted) "1 or more copies". I'm not being pedantic here, that is very clearly defined. A portion of somethnig can never represet "1 or more copies" and nor can multiple copies of the same "portion". The point of that particular paragraph? It appears to specifically be to rule out people who arn't "uploaders". You may see it differently, but it seems clear to me.

Also, do you like shooting yourself in the foot? I have (again) just re-read your link. Your whole argument about the "leaked" stuff actually, again only applies to distribution. So, again, that particular bit of law does not make it "illegal" to download anything, leaked or otherwise. Another point I would have missed if you hadn't "Kept arguing this"

How long do I want to keep this going? Seriously dude, apart from the point when I thought I was wrong, in which, lets be honest, I did humbly aknowledge that you were right (Even though, as it turned out, your wern't), I have ultimately shot down every one of your arguments. In truth, I'm getting bored of repeating myself (its been 2 days ffs), however, you strike me as the type, that if I stopped posting, you would consider it a victory. So, to answer your question, I will keep "arguing" this untill either:

You get bored and give up
You aknowledge that you are not correct about "Downloading being illegal"

I suspect claming victory when I said (incorrectly), you were right is sounding like a good idea right now? (As apposed to trying to beat me over the head with it, which hasn't exactly worked out for you). If thats true, then you really might want to consider dropping this. But hey, if you want to keep trying to squeeze more and more "point" out of less and less, keep going.

 

[No Limit]

So you are saying I am legally allowed to make a web site and post the MP3s for any album ever released for download as long as I remove the last second of every song? Damn, I'm gonna get rich.

I'm glad you are so much smarter than our law makers, I can't believe they didn't see this loop hole when they were writing the laws. They should probably hire you. And from now on when I need some really wise legal advice I know who to go to.

 

[Vegeta897]

So you are saying I am legally allowed to make a web site and post the MP3s for any album ever released for download as long as I remove the last second of every song? Damn, I'm gonna get rich.

Wait... how? If you're letting people download for free...

 

[Danimal]

Just thought I'd pop in to say:

I get the impression from the hyperbole used to describe piracy that it is a vastly more important issue to the Obama administration than say helping the uninsured or curbing the outrageous practices of large banks.

Obama's ran by the large banks. ;D

 

[Yuri]

Wait... how? If you're letting people download for free...

He could sell adspace, probably make a fortune!

 

[Krynn72]

But shit! Ads on the internet are often created by using copyrighted content! Hes ****ed!

Also, I'm not familiar with torrents and p2p software, but I thought that if you were to only partially download something, the file simply wouldn't play. And don't these programs take bits from each node thats seeding them, rather than downloading a whole, completed file from just one source?

 

[Link]

So you are saying I am legally allowed to make a web site and post the MP3s for any album ever released for download as long as I remove the last second of every song? Damn, I'm gonna get rich.

I'm glad you are so much smarter than our law makers, I can't believe they didn't see this loop hole when they were writing the laws. They should probably hire you. And from now on when I need some really wise legal advice I know who to go to.

Technically under a strict reading of those rules, yes. I wouldn't test it myself mind you.

More importantly though, your analogy is flawed (assuming your still talking about the upload side of bit torrent) as there is a difference between an MP3 of a song that has been recorded 1 second short, and an MP3 that is missing the last few hundred bytes. And that's assuming that its the bytes at the end that are missing, which with bit torrent is statistically unlikely, so often a missing part can make it unplayable.
So whilst a court may find that an MP3 minus 1 second counts as "1 copy" that wouldn't automatically mean that they would say the same about a partial torrent upload.

 

[No Limit]

Technically under a strict reading of those rules, yes. I wouldn't test it myself mind you.

More importantly though, your analogy is flawed (assuming your still talking about the upload side of bit torrent) as there is a difference between an MP3 of a song that has been recorded 1 second short, and an MP3 that is missing the last few hundred bytes. And that's assuming that its the bytes at the end that are missing, which with bit torrent is statistically unlikely, so often a missing part can make it unplayable.
So whilst a court may find that an MP3 minus 1 second counts as "1 copy" that wouldn't automatically mean that they would say the same about a partial torrent upload.

Except that on average you upload as much as 50% of a song while the download takes place. And by far the majority of torrent users don't turn off seeding.

But I'm curious, why wouldn't you test it? According to what you defined as "1 copy" that only defines the entire file, there is no other way to read that. That means I have nothing to worry about by opening such a site unless your definition of "1 copy" is wrong (it is).

 

[No Limit]

Wait... how? If you're letting people download for free...

The market for that type of site is huge, it would spread across the internet like a wild fire. You could then sell all sorts of advertising.

Also, I'm not familiar with torrents and p2p software, but I thought that if you were to only partially download something, the file simply wouldn't play. And don't these programs take bits from each node thats seeding them, rather than downloading a whole, completed file from just one source?

Yes, but bits of files still fall under copyright laws, you don't need to be a lawyer to know that assuming otherwise is absurd. And you upload those bits in order. When you first start downloading the song you will leech the first bits of that song to numerous people, as you get more of the file you leech more and more of it all the way to the end. If the idea that this is legal weren't absurd I could reproduce parts of any copyright works however I wanted to as long as I didn't reproduce the entire thing. Unreleased movies, music, games (leaving out a few levels), etc, etc, etc.