The Digital Economy Bill (UK)

2010-07-25 18:04:40

#76

Winston_Churchill: Bazinga!; +521|6997|Toronto | Canada

FFLink wrote:
https://encrypted.google.com/search?hl=en&q=rapidshare+users+caught&btnG=Search
https://encrypted.google.com/search?hl= … p;gs_rfai=

Can't think of many other search terms. Something about them being fined for having music on there 2 years ago, but nothing about users being hit.

You're welcome to prove me wrong, no one else has so far.

What are we proving wrong? Everything about RS in inferior... The only real people that have been prosecuted for P2P sharing are site admins and even then there have been about 5.

http://www.noisecreep.com/2010/03/26/ar … lesharing/

RS tracks IPs, cool.

I've never seen anything about a regular user on a private tracker being prosecuted. Dont group public trackers and private trackers into one, theyre not the same thing at all.

2010-07-25 18:14:37

#77

FFLink: There is.; +1,380|6949|Devon, England

That is contradictory to Rapidshare's privacy policy. They have the ability for users to optionally allow RS to log their IPs, but other than that, they can't.

If anyone is caught downloading because of RS passing on their IP address, they can get RS done for breaching their privacy policy.

Again, I'll post the link: http://rapidshare.com/privacypolicy.html

A company as big as RS can't just lie to its paying customers.

2010-07-25 18:16:01

#78

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6729

there's a difference between logging an IP and profiling your visitors for reselling/business purposes

and having the activity logs / IP address of a suspected criminal requested as part of a legal warrant and investigation

RS cannot say 'no' to that.

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2010-07-25 18:19:32

#79

FFLink: There is.; +1,380|6949|Devon, England

You didn't even read the link.

Typical Uzique

2010-07-25 18:23:28

#80

Winston_Churchill: Bazinga!; +521|6997|Toronto | Canada

And again, I'll say... how do they catch account sharers without logging IPs?

And again, I'll say... RS is one of the biggest supporters of RIAA/MPAA, they made a big effort to become a movie providing service for them not too long ago. If they're that far on the side of the big guys, how long do you think it'll be before they give them everything? They've already proven that they dont care at all about their customers.

2010-07-25 18:31:02

#81

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6729

FFLink wrote:
You didn't even read the link.

Typical Uzique

i did read the link, it's just that ive also studied the law on the area for 2 years and know that rapidshare has legal obligations...

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2010-07-25 18:34:44

#82

FFLink: There is.; +1,380|6949|Devon, England

Your second point is speculation, but I like your first point. It's an interesting point, at that.

I can't provide an argument for that, other than a guess as to say that download logs are different to premium account logs. If they logged the downloads for premium accounts, there would most likely be a way for users to check their download history. The link says they log the beginning of an IP in order to check whether or not the 'downloader' has a premium account.

Either way, though, my point still stands that it's clearly written in their privacy policy and they can't turn their back on that without suffering consequences themselves. Therefore it's not in their interest at all to do so, without changing their policy and alerting its users of the change. If that happens, then of course I'll move on.

But until then, it's safe for comfortable piracy.

2010-07-25 18:39:09

#83

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6729

rapidshare privacy policy is not a legally binding jurisdiction in itself... the common/legislative law of the land will supercede it immediately on any matter that the state/authorities feel is necessary. although rapidshare have written a privacy policy to respect the privacy and rights of their users, there is a point when they can and will be forced to give over the 'guarded' information to investigating parties. 'not in the interest' of the company to do so... of course not, but then again technically according to the law the company shouldn't be offering a means of acquiring illegal content. that's why they're working closely with the copyright-associations to try and stay on the 'right side' of them.

the very worst that rapidshare could get for mandatorily giving away 'private' information to copyright-agencies or police authorities is a civil law proceeding against them, sueing. and it would immediately fall flat because the judge and defending parties would explain the necessity of the action for a matter of criminal law - the other side of the legal framework that is seen as being more serious and thus always having binding precedent.

so... as i said in my very first post...

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2010-07-26 02:04:33

#84

FFLink: There is.; +1,380|6949|Devon, England

Mere speculation. You have a correct direction to assume from, but there's no still no real reason to fear RS. They play dumb to the files hosted on their servers, as they can't know what's up there without being blamed again for assisting piracy, but they will instantly take down any file that's been marked as copyrighted, proving they probably don't even check the file before hand if it's reported by a large company.

You stick to your torrents, and I'll stick to my RS. I will let you know if they ever get to me about piracy, but until then, my opinion stands. We clearly have different needs and methods for piracy.

2010-07-26 04:33:40

#85

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6729

how the fuck is LEGAL PRECEDENT 'mere speculation'? RS will have to hand over all of their records as soon as the copyright-agencies and legal authorities ask them for it: they CANNOT say no. obstruction of justice, interfering with a criminal investigation, breaking business-laws themselves... etc. it is NOT SPECULATING to simply state that RS is as risky as any other simple, website-based source: risky in the fact that as soon as the litigating bodies come a-knockin', they have to start fessin' up all that they know and have.

different needs and methods... sure. but the law is the law and the pragmatic FACT here (not speculation) is that it is far easier for the RIAA and federal authorities to go to RS and say "give us the details on this IP" than to try and crack a private-torrent ring and trace all of the torrent files to one client-user. MUCH easier.

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2010-07-26 05:09:13

#86

unnamednewbie13: Moderator; +2,053|7030|PNW

BBC wrote:
The creative industries estimate that six million people in the UK regularly file-share copyright content without permission, costing the industries revenue that they cannot recoup.

A recent industry study, by economics firm TERA Consultants, estimated that the UK's creative industries experienced losses of £1.2bn in 2008 due to piracy.

I think industry losses are greatly exaggerated. Many of these numbers assume that people who download pirated media would have otherwise had the budget or intention to purchase it. I speak in favor of one neglected aspect of piracy, and that is watching TV shows on Youtube more than quadrupled my show season purchases on DVD and BR, and downloading games and ROMs to test in my adolescence resulted in my building up an enormous legit video game library that I would have otherwise had no interest in...if I even knew some of the titles existed.

That's about all I've got to say on it for now. Headed out for a couple days to the other side of the state, and the computer's staying behind.

2010-07-26 06:09:54

#87

FFLink: There is.; +1,380|6949|Devon, England

Uzique wrote:
how the fuck is LEGAL PRECEDENT 'mere speculation'? RS will have to hand over all of their records as soon as the copyright-agencies and legal authorities ask them for it: they CANNOT say no. obstruction of justice, interfering with a criminal investigation, breaking business-laws themselves... etc. it is NOT SPECULATING to simply state that RS is as risky as any other simple, website-based source: risky in the fact that as soon as the litigating bodies come a-knockin', they have to start fessin' up all that they know and have.

different needs and methods... sure. but the law is the law and the pragmatic FACT here (not speculation) is that it is far easier for the RIAA and federal authorities to go to RS and say "give us the details on this IP" than to try and crack a private-torrent ring and trace all of the torrent files to one client-user. MUCH easier.

I'm not disputing whether or not they can say "No" to the law, but they can say "We don't keep data on who downloads what" which, going by their privacy policy, they don't log IPs for downloads.

Last edited by FFLink (2010-07-26 06:10:20)

2010-07-26 06:16:41

#88

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6729

i can assure you that they do keep data... every single company must, by law, keep records of its business and actions...

saying they do not have any records is evading legal culpability for their part in proliferating copyrighted material.

their 'privacy policy', as i said earlier, ensures that they don't redistribute or sell their data to marketing/business/3rd party.

the law is an entirely different matter.

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2010-07-26 06:23:49

#89

FFLink: There is.; +1,380|6949|Devon, England

You're really boring me now with your bollocks 'assurance' and our worthless persistence in our arguments is getting crazy.

I'm going back to ignoring your posts for a bit. Twas a good laugh, though.

2010-07-26 06:29:26

#90

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6729

... because you were wrong? and i was right all along? that rapidshare is legally culpable and is a far less reliable 'privacy barrier' than torrent-technology and large private trackers? okay. wonderful. glad that this has been out in the public domain so its a firm 1-0. i did say about 5 posts ago that ive had direct experience with piracy-warnings, know the law on the matter very well, and have used different methods extensively. you should have known... but typically obstinate. now wonderfully ignorant .

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2010-07-26 12:18:19

#91

Bertster7: Confused Pothead; +1,101|6839|SE London

Uzique wrote:
FFLink wrote:
You didn't even read the link.

Typical Uzique
i did read the link, it's just that ive also studied the law on the area for 2 years and know that rapidshare has legal obligations...

Which would only apply to uploaders.

There is no legal requirement for them to log the IPs of downloaders.

2010-07-26 12:55:27

#92

Surgeons: U shud proabbly f off u fat prik; +3,097|6748|Gogledd Cymru

Will a mod please change the fucking title, has been pissing me off for ages.

2010-07-26 13:05:20

#93

Zimmer: Un Moderador; +1,688|7014|Scotland

Done.

2010-07-26 13:13:15

#94

Surgeons: U shud proabbly f off u fat prik; +3,097|6748|Gogledd Cymru

I sounded like an asshole with my previous post , I assure you all my report was civilised and pleasant.

2010-07-26 14:16:44

#95

Finray: Hup! Dos, Tres, Cuatro; +2,629|6046|Catherine Black

What did it used to be?

2010-07-26 16:56:17

#96

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6729

Bertster7 wrote:
Uzique wrote:
FFLink wrote:
You didn't even read the link.

Typical Uzique
i did read the link, it's just that ive also studied the law on the area for 2 years and know that rapidshare has legal obligations...

Which would only apply to uploaders.

There is no legal requirement for them to log the IPs of downloaders.

downloaders are also legally breaking the law - they just target prolific uploaders/sharers as they are considered the most damaging criminals, in pecuniary terms.

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2010-07-26 17:23:21

#97

Surgeons: U shud proabbly f off u fat prik; +3,097|6748|Gogledd Cymru

Finray wrote:
What did it used to be?

Economy was spelt Econoomy.

Shit was annoying.

2010-07-27 06:16:33

#98

Bertster7: Confused Pothead; +1,101|6839|SE London

Uzique wrote:
Bertster7 wrote:
Uzique wrote:

i did read the link, it's just that ive also studied the law on the area for 2 years and know that rapidshare has legal obligations...

Which would only apply to uploaders.

There is no legal requirement for them to log the IPs of downloaders.
downloaders are also legally breaking the law - they just target prolific uploaders/sharers as they are considered the most damaging criminals, in pecuniary terms.

Not relevant.

They have no legal requirement to log IPs of downloaders, as you suggest.

2010-07-27 12:53:59

#99

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6729

not at the moment... that's the whole point of this discussion on the bill... that's the steps the authorities are trying to make.

essentially once the ISP's get onboard as 'internet police', individual websites will have little chance to barter or negotiate.

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2010-07-27 13:17:19

#100

Bertster7: Confused Pothead; +1,101|6839|SE London

Uzique wrote:
not at the moment... that's the whole point of this discussion on the bill... that's the steps the authorities are trying to make.

essentially once the ISP's get onboard as 'internet police', individual websites will have little chance to barter or negotiate.

So currently, based on their privacy policy, it looks like they don't log the IPs of downloaders and so there is no added risk from that.

It's rather poor practice to go claiming they have legal responsibilities to do these things, when their legal responsibilities are not actually relevant to the point.

BF2S Forums The Digital Economy Bill (UK)

FFLink wrote:

FFLink wrote:

BBC wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Uzique wrote:

FFLink wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Uzique wrote:

FFLink wrote:

Finray wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Board footer