Online piracy

I will often download something im not 100% sure i like. For instance if I know there is a new album out for a band I will probably download it and listen to it once or twice. I will then either delete it and forget about it or keep the download and go buy the original album. Its the same with games for me, if its a once off thing and I realize that I dont like the game then I have lost nothing but if I like it and intend to play it then I will buy it.
 
BLaZor2 said:
It's quite funny. most people who complain about caps and top up 20GB's are usually pirates. :D
Click to expand...

I suppose you have the figures to back that up?

Could you please provide the peer-reviewed article that deals with this I would find that quite an interesting read.
 
PeterCH said:
Those damages have been restricted to the USA mostly. Secondly they weren't for downloading but for uploading. These were people who made songs and movies available in their Kazaa, Bittorrent, WinMX etc (P2P) applications. The damages awarded were not for downloads and no-one was ever sued for downloading a song or a movie.
Click to expand...

The cases were, in fact, for both downloading and sharing. If you'd followed the cases, you'd know that the courts stuck down the notion that 'making available' copyright material was the same as distributing it. You can't be sued just for making things available, there must be some reasonable evidence that the songs/movies were actually distributed, which, if you're an idiot like Tenenbaum, you admit to and try to get around it with a 'fair use' defense, which is never going to work. I never said anyone was sued just for downloading, I said that in civil cases involving copyright infringement, the companies involved had pushed for significant damages. I clearly also said that people were not likely to get sued at all. I was simply say that if you were charged, then it could and probably would be more costly than licensing the copyright in the first place, even if it were just for downloading. If US cases are precedents, then you can be awarded statutory damages (far in excess of cost of the license) in cases of copyright infringment even when such infringment has no financial impact on the copyright holder. That's why I put the 'if other cases are precedents' disclaimer. People don't get sued for just downloading because it just isn't worth it to do so when you can sue people who also distribute, and all of these suits create bad press, which is why the RIAA has stopped issuing new suits, and has instead tried to settle with most sharers.

My point, again, is just that if you are sued, you are almost certain to face damages in excess of the cost of the license, which is consistent with the Copyright Act and other cases, not necessarily in this country. The worst that can happen for just downloading, say, a movie is not just paying the price of the movie. I also distinctly said piracy was not a criminal offence.
 
Last edited:
Arko2 said:
I see every day, a group of people near the police station by a cafe, sitting on the ground and sorting
the DVD's. Putting them in covers and many plastic bags full of DVDs. All titles you can think of. Police
are passing by and just looking. So they make real money, while a pirate downloads for his own use.
And I remember getting the first Lost Episodes, after season one I purchased the whole set for
around R350 because even so I knew the season I could from the Boxset have it in another Language.
Also purchased the Season Two. Without pirating it I would have never purchased it.
Click to expand...

The cops won't do anything since the copyright holder (or his agent - SAFACT) has to press charges.
 
Rudimental said:
The cases were, in fact, for both downloading and sharing.
Click to expand...

The cases were for making available ie distributing.

If you'd followed the cases, you'd know that the courts stuck down the notion that 'making available' copyright material was the same as distributing it. You can't be sued just for making things available, there must be some reasonable evidence that the songs/movies were actually distributed, which, if you're an idiot like Tenenbaum, you admit to and try to get around it with a 'fair use' defense, which is never going to work.
Click to expand...

The damages resulted from distributing not from downloading. If the damages were from downloading they'd be "cost of song" x "number of files in kazaa folder". Instead they were more substantial to make up for "lost sales" due to distribution.

I never said anyone was sued just for downloading, I said that in civil cases involving copyright infringement, the companies involved had pushed for significant damages.
Click to expand...

In America, they usually do that. It is a pretty litigious society with huge awards.

I clearly also said that people were not likely to get sued at all. I was simply say that if you were charged,
Click to expand...

You won't be charged because it's not a crime to breach copyright without otherwise reselling, distributing, etc. You're also mixing criminal law and civil law. You cannot be charged in civil cases (being sued).

hen it could and probably would be more costly than licensing the copyright in the first place, even if it were just for downloading. If US cases are precedents, then you can be awarded statutory damages (far in excess of cost of the license) in cases of copyright infringment even when such infringment has no financial impact on the copyright holder.
Click to expand...

That depends on the local law. In America people often sue for millions and win millions. Large awards or lawsuits for large awards seem to be the norm there. You can contrast that with the EU or Scandinavian countries.

That's why I put the 'if other cases are precedents' disclaimer. People don't get sued for just downloading because it just isn't worth it to do so when you can sue people who also distribute, and all of these suits create bad press, which is why the RIAA has stopped issuing new suits, and has instead tried to settle with most sharers.
Click to expand...

You could, in theory, be sued for anything. You could show a middle finger to the CEO of Telkom and he could in theory sue you for that.

My point, again, is just that if you are sued, you are almost certain to face damages in excess of the cost of the license, which is consistent with the Copyright Act and other cases, not necessarily in this country. The worst that can happen for just downloading, say, a movie is not just paying the price of the movie. I also distinctly said piracy was not a criminal offence.
Click to expand...

Piracy can be a criminal offense. In most of the world, copying for personal use is not considered criminal. Ideally we, as people, need to outlaw copyrights entirely.
 
The first link is Jammie Thomas, the second one is a woman who's taken out class action against RIAA after much harrasment.
 
If you read the cases on Wiki, they were sued for sharing - sure that included 'downloading' but the word 'sharing' appears there. There has not been a pure 'download' C&D letter or suit AFAIK. If someone has info to the contrary, pls post.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X