That's how they locate you and send you the letter you have been caught in the act of literally downloading their copyrighted material. If you are downloading P2P-style and one of the anti-P2P organisations or copyright holders are watching (like a sting op, essentially), your IP address is identified from the swarm, and they can subpoena your ISP to identify you by name and address. Now the losses are in the felony category. 10 albums at $10 a piece EACH downloaded from your computer 200 times? $20,000. that's $2,000 in losses they can try to recoup from you. If you are sharing copyrighted files - knowingly or not - then studios can claim damages for EVERY download someone makes from you.ĭownloaded a new popular CD? Left your computer on overnight? While you slept, dozens - or hundreds - of people may have downloaded it from your computer via the P2P file-sharing software you used to download it. That's why it is so fast.Ĭopyright holders aren't after the downloaders so much. Bittorrent, for example, shares the data you are downloading back to others. What people get in trouble for is sharing the content - and many people are sharing content without knowing it. You don't get arrested for watching a movie you could have rented for $4 or purchased for $20. You aren't going to get arrested for watching a movie online even if it is illegal - well, maybe you could in some countries with very oppressive regimes, but elsewhere. If streaming becomes copyrighted then God help us. Therefore, it is not you who has infringed, but the individual who has uploaded it in the first place. You have no intent in downloading the article in question, just access it. What happens now is that your ISP looks into it, sends you letters of the charges you have incurred infringing on copy right. What happens if a person does the same? Well they are still infringing on copyrights, however its not held to the same standard. Why? They provided a platform with the intent of having it available for people being able to share and send MP3s to one another. To my knowledge the people who were held accountable were not from the same group as the people downloading the copyrighted music, but rather the company Napster only. What I mean by that is the court was specifically talking about Napster and it's service that it provided to people. The case you have listed there has been reversed in part but still holds on the matters you are talking about, mostly.
0 kommentar(er)
