Virgin Media to trial filesharing monitoring system

[v14]

Definition of Sharing:

Sharing is the joint use of a resource or space


Cant be much clearer than that can it !

If you want to quote Peter and Jane then yes.

 

[nozzer]

If you want to quote Peter and Jane then yes.

Is Oxford English good enough for you ?

Sharing: to have or use something at the same time as somebody else.

Sharing of an item does not imply ownership of that item, simply participation in the usage of that item with others.

 

[señor ding dong]

You may not be sharing your files but you are effectively sharing the use of files which dont belong to you, which makes you a "file sharer", regardless of transfer direction.

Yes, regardless of the definition of "sharing", legally, it would be extremely difficult to win a case against someone downloading from newsgroups. If you're not the one uploading the content, and by extension infringing on the copyright holder's rights, you're almost untouchable. It's similar to how the cable companies have never been able to secure a conviction against single individuals circumventing their encryption, and really only take legal action against people profiting from the sale of dodgy boxes, cards and related services. Every one of the MP3 download cases won by music companies around the world have been based on the premise of the downloader also uploading, due to how the P2P systems work.

 

[v14]

Yes, regardless of the definition of "sharing", legally, it would be extremely difficult to win a case against someone downloading from newsgroups. If you're not the one uploading the content, and by extension infringing on the copyright holder's rights, you're almost untouchable. It's similar to how the cable companies have never been able to secure a conviction against single individuals circumventing their encryption, and really only take legal action against people profiting from the sale of dodgy boxes, cards and related services. Every one of the MP3 download cases won by music companies around the world have been based on the premise of the downloader also uploading, due to how the P2P systems work.

That was exactly my point.

The act of downloading does not make you a sharer. The only sharers are the uploader and the host.

 

[hawkish]

I can see both sides of this sharing argument but as I see it you cannot share without someone to share with. if personA is the provider they remain a provider until personB starts downloading from them, then personA becomes a sharer and personB has initiated the act of sharing. Its a process that can only be defined with both parties involved.

or as is my understanding

 

[señor ding dong]

I can see both sides of this sharing argument but as I see it you cannot share without someone to share with. if personA is the provider they remain a provider until personB starts downloading from them, then personA becomes a sharer and personB has initiated the act of sharing. Its a process that can only be defined with both parties involved.

or as is my understanding

But that's just semantics. In practical terms, it's an issue of what can or cannot be prosecuted or penalized. We all know that downloading movies, mp3s, etc, is kind of suspect, even if we find ways to justify it to ourselves with claims about greedy studios and publishers and that sort of thing, but the simple reality is that there has so far been almost no legal way for copyright holders to touch individual downloaders who weren't also uploading, which is why it's really only BT users that have come under close scrutiny in recent years. That may well change at some point in the future, I'm just commenting on current conditions.

 

[hawkish]

But that's just semantics. In practical terms, it's an issue of what can or cannot be prosecuted or penalized. We all know that downloading movies, mp3s, etc, is kind of suspect, even if we find ways to justify it to ourselves with claims about greedy studios and publishers and that sort of thing, but the simple reality is that there has so far been almost no legal way for copyright holders to touch individual downloaders who weren't also uploading, which is why it's really only BT users that have come under close scrutiny in recent years. That may well change at some point in the future, I'm just commenting on current conditions.

agreed, I suppose time will tell what the copyright definition will entail

what if the news server was in non eu / us territory. china, russia. Does this mean out of juristriction?

 

[señor ding dong]

what if the news server was in non eu / us territory. china, russia. Does this mean out of juristriction?

Certainly as far as prosecution of the news provider is concerned, and it would be equally impossible to obtain court ordered up/download records from said provider, which US or EU providers could conceivably be compelled to hand over, if one of their users became the subject of an investigation. But as I said, even when using US/EU providers, it's extremely difficult, not to mention impractical, for copyright holders to go after individual usenet downloaders, but it's not unlikely that the providers might eventually have to deal with changes in legislation specifically targeting newsgroups.