Rivalarrival @ Rivalarrival @lemmy.today Posts 3Comments 3,570Joined 2 yr. ago
Thomas Paine said that he who would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression, lest he set a precedent that will reach back to himself.
Your argument here seems to be "fuck meta". Does you opposition remain when it us an actual pirate bring accused? If so, fuck you. If not, why are you trying to lose this for the rest of us?
Undisputed. And irrelevant. The uploader is making and distributing the copy. The downloaded is merely receiving it.
No, sorry, burden of proof is on the plaintiff, not the defendant. If you're suing, you have to prove the defendant's culpability; you can't simply assume it.
The question isn't whether a copy is being made. The question is who is making the copy. That person is the uploaded, not the downloaded.
The missing "usually" was the issue. When that was added, your statement became true... And it became functionally irrelevant to the issue at hand: Fecesbook took special care to leech only.
This argument has been around since the Napster era. Nobody has ever been successfully prosecuted for downloading, and until the law is rewritten to specifically include "receiving" as an offense, nobody ever will.
Of they ever tried to get that law enacted, it would fail unless "personal use" was exempted.
Two are needed to complete a transfer, but only the first can originate one.
Only the first knows what the transfer actually is. I could request a nice video on pirates, and you could send me https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ
Their similarity is not in question. The fact is that you cannot make a copy of something until you have received it. The copy you receive was not created by you: it was created by the sender. You are merely receiving that copy; you are not creating that copy.
There is a spreadsheet on my desktop. You cannot create a copy. I can create a copy and send it to you. Two copies now exist on the planet; I made the copy. You merely received.
Make a copy of the spreadsheet on my desktop.
What's that? You don't have access to my desktop? How are you going to copy it, then?
You need the work to be distributed to you, and come to be in your possession, before you can make a copy. So, I can send you a copy of that spreadsheet. Two copies now exist: the one on my desktop, and the one I sent you. I made the copy. I am responsible for making the copy, and I am responsible for distributing it to you.
When you move it from your download folder to your desktop, there are still only two copies in the world. When you copy it from your desktop to a thumb drive, now there are three, and you are responsible for the last one.
You cannot make a copy of something you do not have.
If that were actually true (it's not), then explain this:
"Plenty of people get letters for leeching only"
Either they were leeching (downloading) only, in which case the letters claiming infringement are without merit, or they were seeding (uploading) as well, and thus infringing.
(Technically, that's a false dichotomy... There's other possibilities I don't want to get into right now.)
And that is transferring the data.
I don't even have the data. I can't do anything involving the actual data. I can't copy it. I can't transfer it. The UPLOADER is the only one with the capability of transferring the data.
You then initiate the actual transfer. Your computer actively does that.
No, it does not. It requests the data. The server is perfectly capable of answering that request with "Fuck off, I don't want to."
It keeps the transfer going and recieves the network packets.
It keeps telling the server "I received that part, thanks, can I have some more?" The server is free to never start the transfer, or to stop it at any time.
Receiving those packets is neither "copying" nor "distributing".
It literally copies them into RAM and then copies them again onto your harddrive.
And then back again, into and out of ram every time you watch it... That's not copying. If that was copying, you wouldn't be able to use a DVD, as that act "copies" the disk every time you watch it. That theory has been raised a few times; to my knowledge, it has never been successful.
Can you instruct someone to do something illegal and you're fine?
Generally speaking, yes. The examples you gave certainly don't fit the general case, though. Suppose you're my Uber driver. I break no law when I ask you to drive faster than the speed limit, or blow through a stop light. You're free to refuse such requests.
I am the reader
Rather narcissistic of you to assume you are our sole audience...
Plenty of people get letters for leeching only -
So what? You can write me a letter saying you have me on camera receiving a thumb drive that contains an infringing copy of the latest blockbuster release, and I'll say "So? There's nothing illegal about having received an infringing copy of the latest blockbuster release. Go talk to the guy who handed it to me."
Those letters are not formal accusations, and certainly aren't convictions. There is a reason why they are sending you a letter and not serving a leecher with a copyright lawsuit: They know that that suit would be thrown out when they can't actually claim a copy was made or distributed.
"Saving" is not "copying". "Saving" is "receiving".
I don't have access to an original; I am physically incapable of creating a "copy".
One of us seems intent on repeatedly misrepresenting the situation. I am inclined to leave the determination of that point to the reader.
Well, did the uploader push it onto my computer, or was it me who clicked on something and initiated the transfer?
It is NOT ILLEGAL TO ASK FOR A COPY. Copyright law does not prohibit you from asking me for a copy of a work. You are perfectly free to ask me for that copy.
I am not free to give you that copy. If I give you that copy, I am infringing on copyright, not you.
There isn't anything infringement for me to offer to giver you a copy.
If I stand in front of MPAA headquarters with a big red button that says "I will make and give you an illegal copy of a movie if you press this button", I have not violated copyright.
If you press the button, you have not violated copyright. You have merely indicated that you would like to receive an illegal copy; you have not created that copy, nor have you distributed a copy.
If you take the thumb drive I give you, and put it in your pocket, you still have not violated copyright. You still have not created a copy, nor have you distributed a copy. You are now in possession of that copy, but "possession" is not infringement. You would have to do something further with that copy before you would actually infringe on copyright: You would have to create an additional copy, or distribute the copy I gave you to someone else.
I violated copyright when I put the work on the thumb drive, and I violated it again when you received it, but you have done nothing illegal. You did not initiate the transfer; I did, either when I put the big red button out there, or when I handed you the thumb drive.
I mean if I steal an orange in the supermarket,
If you stick a knife in my face and tell me "your thumb drive or your life", in addition to the numerous actual criminal penalties you face, the rights holder could, arguably, claim that you have infringed on copyright by distributing a copy.
It doesn't get us anything new. It does put a big, gaping hole in the FUD that has been spread about the supposed "illegality" of downloading.
No one asked for a copy, they just took it.
When I click a link, I am sending a request to a server. I am asking that server to provide me with information. The server's operator is responsible for determining if and how the server should respond to my request. I don't control that server. I can't force it to send me data. I can only ask. If it is configured to accede to my request, it will start sending data, which may or may not be the data I requested. If it doesn't want to, it can tell me to pound sand. The operator of that server is responsible for the server's actions. The operator of that server is the uploader.
If Meta actually "just took it", we wouldn't be having a discussion about copyright. We would be talking about "Unlawful access to a computer".
They didn't "receive" a copy.
They absolutely did.
They actively pursued the content...
Actively pursuing content is perfectly lawful.
...and made a copy without permission...
You can't copy something you do not possess. The entity who copied it was the uploader, not the downloader. That uploader created and distributed a copy by sending a bitstream to the receiver. Putting that bitstream on their hard drive is "receiving" not "creating a copy".
...for profit.
A profit motive is only relevant if we are talking about a fair use exemption. They aren't raising a fair use defense.
Making a copy of copyrighted content without permission is illegal.
Which they did not do. The uploader may have violated the law, but the downloader has not.
which says the copyright holder has exclusive rights (1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies [...] Which is kind of what you do when downloading something.
The uploader does that. Not the downloader. You can't copy something you do not possess; the copy is created by the uploader. The copy on your harddisk was created and distributed by the uploader; you did not create the copy, nor did you distribute it. You merely received it.
Exchanging metadata does not violate copyright. I can stand on the sidewalk in front of MPAA headquarters, asking people to provide me with a copy of the latest blockbuster without infringing on anyone's copyright. I can even offer to buy it.
So long as they are not further copying or distributing the work, they are not infringing on copyright.
Using it for their own profit is only an issue if they are claiming a fair use exemption. They aren't claiming fair use. They don't need to claim fair use, because requesting and receiving works is not a prohibited act under copyright law. The prohibited acts are copying and distribution, which can only be performed by the sender, not the receiver.
Has anyone in the US ever been busted for downloading from a direct download portal?
Nobody in the US has ever been busted on copyright grounds for downloading anything, regardless of source. The law does not provide for enforcement against downloading; only uploading.
Yeah? Then do it. Show me a law relevant to this case that makes downloading an infringement.
You will be able to cite plenty of unenforceable propaganda, sure. The RIAA, MPAA, and various other trolls have broadly misrepresented the topic. You'll even find this sort of FUD repeated by certain officials and government agencies.
But you will not any actual law relevant to this case. You will not find any judicial precedent where someone has been found to have violated copyright law solely for requesting and receiving copyrighted material.
Copyright law does not provide an enforcement mechanism against a recipient, even when that recipient knowingly requests an infringing copy. The only available mechanisms are against the entity creating the copy, and the entity distributing the copy.
You can prove me wrong by citing US Code, Federal regulation, or judicial precedent. I will not accept corporate propaganda, nor statements made by government entities unless those statements actually carry the force of law.
The closest you will be able to come is a theory that the "receiver" is somehow conspiring or colluding with the "sender", and the law and precedent on conspiracy/collusion doesn't quite fit. (Private trackers are getting close to that line, though...)