Comments on: BPI to get 31 file sharer names http://www.p2pnet.net/story/4195 p2pnet.net - reader powered Wed, 01 Feb 2012 15:11:09 -0300 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/4195/comment-page-1#comment-11108 Reader's Write Tue, 15 Mar 2005 05:04:52 +0000 #comment-11108 Hey it maybe only 31 so far, but last week it was Christmas on Neighbours, it just take Britain a couple of months to catch up. Geth Hey it maybe only 31 so far, but last week it was Christmas on Neighbours, it just take Britain a couple of months to catch up.
Geth

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/4195/comment-page-1#comment-11072 Reader's Write Mon, 14 Mar 2005 20:14:31 +0000 #comment-11072 That's good old British ingenuity for you. The RIAA have terrorised 10,000 innocent internet users, the BPI have managed a mighty... 31. Rule Britannia! That’s good old British ingenuity for you. The RIAA have terrorised 10,000 innocent internet users, the BPI have managed a mighty… 31. Rule Britannia!

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/4195/comment-page-1#comment-11059 Reader's Write Mon, 14 Mar 2005 12:52:53 +0000 #comment-11059 Jon... Hi... it's method (methlabs) here... Do you have any information on the file-sharers or any way to contact them? I've got a few arguments for legal defence that I'd like these people to know. ('Fair Use', knowing that the downloading party isn't breaking 'Fair Use', the actual extent of damage caused by that particular misdemeanour, etc.) Having a file available isn't the same as being caught passing the file to someone else AND doing so knowing that the other person would be breaking the law by receiving a copy of whatever it is they're downloading. Surely, they (the BPI/RIAA/courts/etc) should be forced to provide the evidence of your file transfer to/from a 3rd party, AND... where the downloader also doesn't have a claim over copyright or fair use. They would have to know this to KNOW a crime has been comitted... otherwise... they're basing their claims on speculation, assumptions and guesswork. - They only SUSPECT you have illegally transferred files. For them to know that there was an ILLEGAL file transfer between the litigation target and a 3rd party... they'd have to know who that 3rd party is, be unaffiliated with them AND know that they wouldn't be operating outside of 'fair use'. - To do this, they'd need to know who initiated the download. If they knew this, they'll know who instigated the transfer and therefore.. is the real guilty party. That's my theory anyway!! |||=+|-| Jon… Hi… it’s method (methlabs) here… Do you have any information on the file-sharers or any way to contact them? I’ve got a few arguments for legal defence that I’d like these people to know. (’Fair Use’, knowing that the downloading party isn’t breaking ‘Fair Use’, the actual extent of damage caused by that particular misdemeanour, etc.)

Having a file available isn’t the same as being caught passing the file to someone else AND doing so knowing that the other person would be breaking the law by receiving a copy of whatever it is they’re downloading.

Surely, they (the BPI/RIAA/courts/etc) should be forced to provide the evidence of your file transfer to/from a 3rd party, AND… where the downloader also doesn’t have a claim over copyright or fair use. They would have to know this to KNOW a crime has been comitted… otherwise… they’re basing their claims on speculation, assumptions and guesswork. – They only SUSPECT you have illegally transferred files.

For them to know that there was an ILLEGAL file transfer between the litigation target and a 3rd party… they’d have to know who that 3rd party is, be unaffiliated with them AND know that they wouldn’t be operating outside of ‘fair use’. – To do this, they’d need to know who initiated the download. If they knew this, they’ll know who instigated the transfer and therefore.. is the real guilty party.

That’s my theory anyway!!

|||=+|-|

]]>