
Yeah i'm really confused so if anyone saw the news or anything tell me what's going on...
RIAA/MPAA doesn't care much about the intent of Bram Cohen, what they're saying is that because it is currently being used mostly for trading copyright materials, it should be outlawed. For the specifics, google for "INDUCE Act".Lowest wrote:I believe BT was made for companies to share files easier so I can't see it getting outlawed since it wasn't designed with the thought of illegal file sharing like most other p2p programs.
But BT is being used by companies for legitimate reasons so I don't think it will matter, it's like saying MSN can be used to share illegal files, if it can be proven that it was made for legal reasons there's no way they'll stop it. (Just like the vcr)Poochy wrote:RIAA/MPAA doesn't care much about the intent of Bram Cohen, what they're saying is that because it is currently being used mostly for trading copyright materials, it should be outlawed. For the specifics, google for "INDUCE Act".Lowest wrote:I believe BT was made for companies to share files easier so I can't see it getting outlawed since it wasn't designed with the thought of illegal file sharing like most other p2p programs.
They don't need to outlaw the technology, but if they say "hey, your company is developing products based on a technology that could be used for piracy, and therefore you must have the intent to facilitate it, ergo you must be guilty", then the end result is the same (because no one/company would want to take this risk). Just look at the MGM vs Grokster case that made it to the Supreme Courtpokute wrote:As strong as they push, there is no way that the supreme court would ever (even if they were ALL appointed by Bush) support the outlawing of a basic technology. There is nothing provably bad about P2P.
Since you bring up the MGM vs Grokster, the ruling states that the developer is only liable if they made software with the intention of it being used for illegal means, (which is what I said) that includes them advertising it as such a software, which incidentally rules BT out since like I stated it wasn't (and is proven that it wasn't) made with that in mind.Poochy wrote:They don't need to outlaw the technology, but if they say "hey, your company is developing products based on a technology that could be used for piracy, and therefore you must have the intent to facilitate it, ergo you must be guilty", then the end result is the same (because no one/company would want to take this risk). Just look at the MGM vs Grokster case that made it to the Supreme Courtpokute wrote:As strong as they push, there is no way that the supreme court would ever (even if they were ALL appointed by Bush) support the outlawing of a basic technology. There is nothing provably bad about P2P..
Grokster is a company, whereas BT is a technology. Now consider RIAA/MPAA going after BT software makers (client, tracker, whatever) using the same logic as in the Grokster case. In this case, and especially if things like the INDUCE ACT are passed (which fortunately it hasn't), then I fear that there is a potential for company/people to stop developing BT, or any other P2P software, alltogether, just for fear of being sued (doesn't matter if you're actually guilty or not, the threat is enough).Since you bring up the MGM vs Grokster, the ruling states that the developer is only liable if they made software with the intention of it being used for illegal means, (which is what I said) that includes them advertising it as such a software, which incidentally rules BT out since like I stated it wasn't (and is proven that it wasn't) made with that in mind.
theslydog wrote:Nothing is really legal. However, if you stick to tv shows (no dvd rips) from Asia that are not in English you should be pretty safe. A lot of this is tolerated because fan subs help promote these OS companies and have assisted in them sometimes gaining additional contracts with the likes of Bandai etc. So it can actually unofficially be a win win situation.
There is some conflict with fan subs and some streaming sites like Crunchyroll. The new era of charged subbed streaming is just beginning - where this leads to legally is anyone's guess.
MU? mega somethingload? easier to get caught. fully traceable. IP is in fact visible and recorded while the file in question remains on MU's servers. torrents require somebody to actively be watching you. files in question don't truly exist in full.Arhazivory wrote:It's near to impossible that you can be caught using MU links.
Just out of curiosity. How is it easier to get caught with MU? I mean with torrents the license holder can start downloading and see everyone elses IP directly. But with MU how would they know? Wouldn't they actively need to work together with MU?InTr4nceWeTrust wrote:MU? mega somethingload? easier to get caught. fully traceable. IP is in fact visible and recorded while the file in question remains on MU's servers. torrents require somebody to actively be watching you. files in question don't truly exist in full.Arhazivory wrote:It's near to impossible that you can be caught using MU links.
the people that get caught are those that are downloading or uploading hundreds of gigabytes of files that are copyrighted/licensed in that area in a short period of time. also some ISPs care more than others.
Hmmm...interesting. I stand corrected. -_-InTr4nceWeTrust wrote:MU? mega somethingload? easier to get caught. fully traceable. IP is in fact visible and recorded while the file in question remains on MU's servers. torrents require somebody to actively be watching you. files in question don't truly exist in full.Arhazivory wrote:It's near to impossible that you can be caught using MU links.
the people that get caught are those that are downloading or uploading hundreds of gigabytes of files that are copyrighted/licensed in that area in a short period of time. also some ISPs care more than others.
With the Internet, the RIAA/MPIAA just don't realize how much competition they have.The only reason I've bought any Asian entertainment is as a result of my lack of interest in N. American entertainment and the freedom to view the works on line. I think it's good marketing to download and view/listen to online entertainment. Quite honestly I would no longer support Funimation because of the stunt they pulled last year. I'd prefer to buy the Japanese copies directly and add in my own English subs. American protectionism has already created a negative platform for their entertainment industry and will only lead to it's continued demise.
Yea, I agree it has to do with costs. Anime and drama makers (especially in Asia countries) don't seem to bother with copyright issues, maybe it has to do with budget constraints. I think another reason is because they have more copyright infringements in their own country to bother to make the case abroad.Riea wrote:If you're on the other side of the world... the cost of figuring out the laws and then trying to enforce it would cost more then they would ever gain.
Oh!! There was a case for the piracy of Wii Super Mario Bros that got settled recently. Apparently, some guy uploaded it in Autralia before the commercial release and is fined for $1.3 Million.Riea wrote:some of the corps are idiots...
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests