UK court to unmask 150 'file-sharers' - Page 5

Jimfishybob · 02-02-2006, 21:44

Let me make sure i've got this straight. Software vendors insist, (as a means to their own ends), in all EULA's that the purchaser never buys the software, only a license to use it. So the only difference between a legitimate user and one who downloaded the software is that the downloader is using an un-licensed product. The implication of the EULA is that the software is freely available but you must pay for the right to use it.

So firstly, surely evidence of the software on the PC would not be enough, proof of usage would be required. (granted, not difficult to prove).

To commit theft you must have an intent to deprive the rightful owner, (i'm paraphrasing the legal aspect), if you never had any intention of purchasing this license then no deprivation has taken place. It's not like going into Woolies and nicking a Kit-Kat, because that Kit-Kat could have been sold to someone else and you remove that potential revenue from the retailer. In the case of license theft, there is no proof of loss of revenue and consequently no theft has taken place.

I'm don't neccessarily agree with the points above but playing devil's advocate for a second, publishers cannot tell legitimate users that they never own the software and then bleat to downloaders about stealing it.

Smilie · 02-02-2006, 23:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by hjf288

Cant an appeal be launched to the European Courts? Its quite clear that the BPI and other corporate henchmen will be looking to use this now to bully people.

but who will launch the appeal??
dont think the ISPs will pay for it as theres not that much in for them (or is there??)
as i dont think they will lose that many customers over this

**Chris** · 03-02-2006, 10:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by hjf288

Well the data protection act is pretty useless, anyone with enough corporate muscle can shuftie the information they need to bring actions.

I mean dont get me started on all the BS that happened in America with the RIAA and its subpoenas for downloading. The amount of innocents that were affected wasnt something to be proud of.

Cant an appeal be launched to the European Courts? Its quite clear that the BPI and other corporate henchmen will be looking to use this now to bully people.

Bully who exactly? If you have material in breach of copyright on your HDD, you have to be prepared for the consequences. In this media savvy age, even kids know that warez is naughty.

mcmanic · 03-02-2006, 15:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris T

even kids know that warez is naughty.

but it won't stop them and neither will this, end product - pointless

DieDieMyDarling · 03-02-2006, 19:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jimfishybob

Let me make sure i've got this straight. Software vendors insist, (as a means to their own ends), in all EULA's that the purchaser never buys the software, only a license to use it. So the only difference between a legitimate user and one who downloaded the software is that the downloader is using an un-licensed product. The implication of the EULA is that the software is freely available but you must pay for the right to use it.

So firstly, surely evidence of the software on the PC would not be enough, proof of usage would be required. (granted, not difficult to prove).

To commit theft you must have an intent to deprive the rightful owner, (i'm paraphrasing the legal aspect), if you never had any intention of purchasing this license then no deprivation has taken place. It's not like going into Woolies and nicking a Kit-Kat, because that Kit-Kat could have been sold to someone else and you remove that potential revenue from the retailer. In the case of license theft, there is no proof of loss of revenue and consequently no theft has taken place.

I'm don't neccessarily agree with the points above but playing devil's advocate for a second, publishers cannot tell legitimate users that they never own the software and then bleat to downloaders about stealing it.

I'm guessing their argument would be that although the software is freely available, it's only freely available on THEIR websites and networks, and that it is illegal to redistribute the software without prior permission.
So it would be a crime of giving away intellectual property, that didn't belon g to you.

Personally speaking i think most users that download cracked/serialled software, have no intentions of ever buying it, or anything like it, as for example things like Photoshop are just too expensive for most people. The companies aren't really losing revenue because of it, and to prosecute is pointless, as it only puts the company in a bad light among other users, some of who might buy the product.

The fact that there's only 150 people being sought after would suggest they are not really interested Joe Bloggs downloading the latest version of Photoshop, and are going to the root of the problem, those that upload the software to all the P2P networks, and make it possible for Joe Bloggs to get his hands on it.

Gareth · 03-02-2006, 19:54

Not sure if they're simply not bothered about the downloaders, or whether software piracy is so rife - even in 'developed' countries such as the UK - that they would have a hard time prosecuting everyone who downloads stuff illegally. By going for the uploaders, like you say, they're essentially trying to cut the supply off at source which I guess they see as a more effective approach.

mcmanic · 03-02-2006, 20:45

yeah but the REAL uploaders don't use P2P to distribute the latest goods. Its average Joe Blogs who knows no better that uses them.

driver_problems · 04-02-2006, 00:49

so consider this then. I decide to make a podcast video thing and dub it in with songs/music with no copyright permission and splice them into a video diary effort. If I charge no money for this and issue it as a free podcast am I in breach of copyright then?

Gareth · 04-02-2006, 01:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcmanic

yeah but the REAL uploaders don't use P2P to distribute the latest goods. Its average Joe Blogs who knows no better that uses them.

True, and although we occaisionally see reports of the big groups such as Drink or Die being taken down, the majority of the time it's just the small fry, small time users that get targetted. The words 'lowest', 'fruit' and 'picked' kinda spring to mind.

Driver_Problems.... yeah, if you share something that is copyrighted then you are liable for prosecution, even if you don't gain financially from doing so.

Bifta · 04-02-2006, 08:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gareth

True, and although we occaisionally see reports of the big groups such as Drink or Die being taken down, the majority of the time it's just the small fry, small time users that get targetted. The words 'lowest', 'fruit' and 'picked' kinda spring to mind.

Don't forget Fairlight, they were probably the biggest around.

mcmanic · 04-02-2006, 11:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bifta

Don't forget Fairlight, they were probably the biggest around.

which have been replaced by various other new groups, its a never ending circle.

andygrif · 04-02-2006, 12:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by hjf288

Well the data protection act is pretty useless, anyone with enough corporate muscle can shuftie the information they need to bring actions.

I mean dont get me started on all the BS that happened in America with the RIAA and its subpoenas for downloading. The amount of innocents that were affected wasnt something to be proud of.

Cant an appeal be launched to the European Courts? Its quite clear that the BPI and other corporate henchmen will be looking to use this now to bully people.

Let's look another aspect of DPA then: CCTV footage. If you had your car broken into in the car park of a store that had the car park covered by CCTV cameras, you would think it would be perfectly acceptable to ask the store to show the tapes to the police, right?

Wrong! They are covered by the DPA, therefore there has to be an application made to override the DPA in that case to follow-up on it.

You would not expect the person comitting the offence to appeal to Europe to protect him from proescution for something he did wrong do you?

So why do expect the same court to allow you to continue infringing someone else's copyright without redress?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jimfishybob

To commit theft you must have an intent to deprive the rightful owner, (i'm paraphrasing the legal aspect), if you never had any intention of purchasing this license then no deprivation has taken place. It's not like going into Woolies and nicking a Kit-Kat, because that Kit-Kat could have been sold to someone else and you remove that potential revenue from the retailer. In the case of license theft, there is no proof of loss of revenue and consequently no theft has taken place.

The point is that you are not comitting 'theft', no matter how many times people like the BPI use the word. You are causing losses by the infringement of copyright. What they are seeking is damages to make up the losses that are incurred by lost sales, etc.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcmanic

but it won't stop them and neither will this, end product - pointless

And your evidence to back this is what? I agree that it's unlikely to 'stop' piracy, the same as the RIAA / BPI actions have not 'stopped' music sharing - but it didn make a huge impact on the number of people sharing. So a few high-profile cases where people have to hand over many thousands of pounds will deter many of the the casual pirates.

In addition, if you take out a few key players, the product (for want of a better word) becomes more difficult for casual users to find, and they will go elsewhere (such as a shop, or an open source product) instead.

So whilst it won't stamp it all out completely, it is far from pointless. And that's the point!

MadGamer · 04-02-2006, 13:08

I know that the programs aren't illegal in themselves (P2P) but the files are. if ther likes of the RIAA, the police etc, dont want us to download files off of P2P, then WHY do the companies develope these programs? The public know that if they download illegally they will soon be caught and prosecuted.

darwin101 · 04-02-2006, 15:00

It amazes me that the emphasis is on people downloading software/music, in most case I would bet for their own personal use.

I have been going to my local Sunday boot market regularly for the last few weeks and the same people are there week in, week out, selling bundles of software, games and music.

These people are openly making a living from this trade. Perhaps the authorities should re-examine where their initiatives should really be placed.

mcmanic · 04-02-2006, 15:00

it is pointless, for every 150 people caught, another 150 people will take there place no matter how much news headlines it makes. For every scene group thats gets busted new groups appear.
All it will do is make the creators of these programs develop new idea's and be more determined to stop these people from finding out what people are sharing (which is already happening)