|
|
|
|
|
|
by oefrha
2065 days ago
|
|
|
I’d say a publicly disseminated free tool is pretty different from for-profit services with contracts. Other than the very vague case from which we can conclude nothing, all other cases are clearly for-profit, and the QQ credential stuffing case specifically established that the for-profit service provider was aware/suspicious of the criminal abuse as part of the conviction. > only because RIAA doesn't file a complaint Pretty sure RIAA/MPAA aren’t targeting China (yet), it’s still a bittorrenting Wild West according to my Chinese sources. They’ll need lawyers specialized in Chinese law and be prepared to navigate a foreign legal system if they want to look that way, frivolous DMCA takedowns that they file hundreds a day won’t do. The power of a legal threat lies in the fact that there could be follow-up legal action; it’s toothless if no legal action could follow. |
|
|
Pretty sure they already have Chinese lawyers. While suing every single BitTorrent user would be an exercise in futility, the effort is much more justified when limited to the handful of big video platforms, where the licensing fees are enough to offset the legal costs of enforcing compliance. Those platforms are using their licensed content to convert free users into paid (e.g. first few episodes are free to get you hooked, the rest requires a VIP account), so they also have an incentive to prevent pirates from undercutting them with a free copy on their own platform.
I think torrents will get less and less popular in China due to an increasingly mobile-first user base and rising incomes making paid content more convenient that piracy. I know someone active in the subbing scene, and they recently had to handle an entire subtitling project on their own because the other members quit the group. (I don't know why they quit, though. Maybe they just grew out of the hobby.)