[d1sxeyes]

> Download your favorite artist's discography for personal use? If the MPAA had its way (and it occasionally has), torrenting that could bankrupt you.

I don't think that there are any clear examples of cases where ONLY downloading has resulted in huge fines. All the big bankrupting level fines have been for both downloading and sharing.

You mention that 'torrenting' could bankrupt you, and that is true, but the main reason for the huge fines are that you are taking part in distribution rather than just 'downloading for personal use'.

[0points]

> I don't think that there are any clear examples of cases where ONLY downloading has resulted in huge fines.

They [1, and others] been hunting and fining downloaders for over a decade now, with the only "evidence" being IP addresses connected with the torrent [2].

1: https://www.njordlaw.com/filesharing-and-downloading-films/q...

2: https://admin.ovpn.com/en/blog/online-integrity-new-threats-...

[gruez]

>with the only "evidence" being IP addresses connected with the torrent [2].

Is that an unreasonable assumption? As much as people like to come up with excuses like "I had open wifi!" or "I was running a TOR node", judges don't seem inclined to believe them, probably for the same reason they don't seem inclined to believe excuses like "somebody took my car on a joyride and then returned it!" for parking tickets. Remember, both non-commercial copyright infringement lawsuits and parking tickets are tried in civil court, which means the standard is "preponderance of evidence", not "beyond reasonable doubt".

[actionfromafar]

DHCP addresses often shuffle on reboots. I don't trust ISPs to keep completely accurate records or give them out in a correct manner if they do.

[gruez]

>I don't trust ISPs to keep completely accurate records or give them out in a correct manner if they do.

How hard could it be to keep DHCP logs? Assuming they exist at all, what would cause it to be incorrect?

[d1sxeyes]

I'm sure they exist. I think the point is more that you shouldn't need to trust your ISP's record-keeping to avoid life-alteringly big fines.

[0points]

You are missing the point I was replying to, specifically that parent suggested people were only hunted for creating/uploading pirated content, not merely participating in the torrent.

[gruez]

>specifically that parent suggested people were only hunted for creating/uploading pirated content, not merely participating in the torrent.

For all intents and purposes, participating in the torrent almost guarantees that you seeded, because all torrent clients upload as you download.

[0points]

These are two separate things:

* Making content available for unauthorized distribution

* Distributing unauthorized content that someone else already made available

Seeding isn't making content available, it's keeping content available.

[d1sxeyes]

That’s a really interesting distinction. Clearly there’s an “original crime”, the first person to rip the CD and put it online (or whatever kids do to pirate music nowadays).

But then if I download a file, create a copy, and share it with you, have I done anything wrong?

To all intents and purposes, seeding is an act of reproduction. You, while keeping your copy, create copies of (parts) of the file and share it to someone else to allow them to assemble a new, second copy.

Whether this is, or should be, a crime is a different question altogether. The main point I was making is that it’s the copying/sharing to other people which seems to be a crucial element in these prosecutions.

That’s likely intentional: the last thing the *AA folks want is a decision that creating a copy of a copyrighted work for your own personal use is not a crime. But it does seem the courts have decided: making a copy for someone else is indeed illegal.

[gruez]

But both are illegal? I suspect if it came out that some torrent seeder was actually part of some sort of piracy ring responsible for ripping the movies, they'd get far stiffer penalties than the few thousand $ fine that typical torrenters get. Moreover isn't AI companies also "keeping content available"?

[d1sxeyes]

Yes, but torrenting is not ONLY downloading, it's both. The articles you link are very clearly talking about 'Sharing' (from link 2: "File sharing consists of both download and upload of a file.").

[0points]

Yes, thats lawyer speak to make clients/victims believe there is no distinction.

Hint: there is a distinction.

[d1sxeyes]

There is indeed, but not when you’re torrenting (i.e. you can’t download without also uploading).

[0points]

Even when you are torrenting, there is a clear distinction of the different roles.

Copying from another comment I wrote here:

> These are two separate things:

> * Making content available for unauthorized distribution

> * Distributing unauthorized content that someone else already made available

> Seeding isn't making content available, it's keeping content available.

[d1sxeyes]

Replied to your other comment (sorry, didn’t clock that we had two threads ongoing)

[jdiff]

Given the lack of sense in treating each peer as a lost sale for damages, I think we can safely say they're only interested in making examples out of people and would absolutely go after people for only downloading if the law permitted. Thankfully it's not, but maybe they lobby to make changes in that direction to try and curb future AI industry shenanigans.

[jajko]

You contradict yourself. There were numerous public cases where they chased people downloading few mp3s just for themselves, and made into example case with massive fines.

If you don't understand how torrents work on technical level I suggest at least some shallow reading. Property rights holders don't care about details, as long as you tick the box of sending a single packet to somebody, off to court with ya.

[d1sxeyes]

> There were numerous public cases where they chased people downloading few mp3s just for themselves

If this is true, I have been unable to find any. Can you please share? In all of the cases I was able to find, the huge fines were based on also uploading.

> If you don't understand how torrents work on technical level I suggest at least some shallow reading

This is a bit patronising, and I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. My point is that the only prosecutions I've been able to find are where they were able to prove uploading as well as downloading (and yes, the fact that someone used BitTorrent makes it a slam-dunk, because the protocol makes it impossible to download without also uploading). Are you trying to argue that someone who torrents a copyrighted work doesn't also share it?