Fox, Paramount and Warner Brothers logo's on Bittorent page than sue downloaders.

I have been catching up on a court case here in Australia between my isp,iiNet and AFACT (Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft) some threads here:Film industry starts landmark piracy case against iiNet and Studios sue iiNet over video piracy I came across this Big piece of information concerning Fox, Paramount, Warner Brothers having their logo's on Bittorents homepage which says to me they must have a contractual relationship with Bittorent that allow these downloads and than these Big Four plus others begin Legal proceedings against isp's or single down-loaders

This concerns all clients of these ISP's as the costs of these court cases may lead to an increase in client costs as AFACT places the onus and costs to deal with infringements firmly on the Internet Service Providers!

Looks like a trap,one big Trap! for All concerned
This is a world test case so the outcome will became global

Zelong.

[edit on 30/10/09 by Zelong]

It could be any number of things.

A Site which makes its money by providing illicit access to data they dont own are hardly going to have qualms about illegally using another companies logo's.

That said it is not uncommon for companies to seed their own torrents so they can log ips of people who are illicitly downloading their copyrighted material.

As a stretch of that its not outside the realm of possability that companies may create these sites themselves for that purpose, but given how there are well known sites that provide that service already it would probably be a waste of resources to create their own sites for the purpose of trapping people.

Additionaly going over downloaders is traditionally a risky business in terms of winning finicially meaningful court cases, these companies spend most their efforts going after the uploaders / seeders of which there are significantly less than there are downloaders.

'BitTorrent', per se, is just the delivery method. Torrents in themselves are not illegal, nor is the software used to download using this method. There are many legal downloads available through the BitTorrent software, and other applications using this delivery method. There are no illegal torrents available for download at the BitTorrent site, and the film studios and other copyright holders have been very active in developing a relationship with the developers of the original BitTorrent software in order to try and stop illegal downloads.

So there's your answer. BitTorrent is not illegal, only torrents for copyright material are. None of these are available on the BitTorrent site, which is why copyright holders have tried to align themselves with BitTorrent.

reply to post by gYvMessanger


All good points gYvMessanger, so you mean like a "Big Trap"

Additionaly going over downloaders is traditionally a risky business in terms of winning finicially meaningful court cases, these companies spend most their efforts going after the uploaders / seeders of which there are significantly less than there are downloaders.

Source

from PDF:
Mr Cobden also detailed the tens of thousands of copyright notices ISPs receive from across the globe from a wide range of the copyright holders. Mr Cobden told the Court iiNet had received over 3000 pages of notices from more than 1350 emails over a seven day period from copyright holders about allegations of breaches. He said if all the notices iiNet received from film studios over a five month period were printed it would take 180 large folders and more than 12 trolleys to bring them into the court. He said no one can seriously be expected to respond to all these and it was not reasonable or appropriate for iiNet to respond to such allegations of copyright breaches.

Zelong.

reply to post by TheStev

Thanks for reply TheStev,
I came back to put up some more information links.
(as above Source and from PDF:)

'BitTorrent', per se, is just the delivery method. Torrents in themselves are not illegal, nor is the software used to download using this method.

Yes I think this was proven in another court case
iiNet are an ISP that does have the support of the people


Zelong.

[edit on 30/10/09 by Zelong]

reply to post by Zelong


Yes but the trouble is that the ISP's do not (currently) have any control over what data you stream through the service they provide.

It is incredibly hard to prove that a user at a location has actually downloaded copyrighted material unless the person in question has been deliberately careless.

You can say that the network was used at a specific time with an IP that has been assigned to a specific policy holder, but that doesnt mean the network hasnt been tapped into by an illicit user who in turn is downloading that material.

To prove that the material is in the possession of someone in the household they need the device with the actual data stored on it, not just proof that the data passed through the network.

Now alright people may have that data just laying around obviously on their computer, but I expect most don't.

The cost involved on a state level for going after downloaders (in time taken to obtain hard drives and go through them etc) is pretty high, and its not something they will jump on in most places unless there has been consistently serious breaches of copyright law, normally in the form of uploading.

Most of the time the court cases we here against downloaders and ISPs are saber wrattling coming from the companies who are having their work stolen, as oppossed to serious attempts at winning in a court of law, they are just trying to scare people into following the position they want.

However until media companies catch up with the way people who download their data want to use their data and provide reasonably priced legal routes for them to do so (by this i mean a ebook should be cheaper than a paper book, certinaly shouldnt be twice as much, tv shows need to stream whenever someone demands it etc ). They will continue to face major issues from pirates.

[edit on 30-10-2009 by gYvMessanger]

Originally posted by gYvMessanger

That said it is not uncommon for companies to seed their own torrents so they can log ips of people who are illicitly downloading their copyrighted material.

This is quite plainly a form of entrapment. I wouldn't fancy their chances of making a charge stick. You can't break the law to enforce it.

IRM

reply to post by gYvMessanger

Yes but the trouble is that the ISP's do not (currently) have any control over what data you stream through the service they provide.

That is correct nor does any ISP like that idea it's called an **"Internet Filter" here in Australia which slows down speeds up to 70% where a "Black List" is enabled which can be controlled by a Government.

This case is a Double Edged Sword

**More on the Australian "Internet Filter" Uproar in Australia over plan to block Web sites

Zelong.

[edit on 30/10/09 by Zelong]

www.bittorrent.com...

1. 3.1. Commercial Content. BitTorrent has partnered with certain content providers to offer commercial movies, professional videos, and other content (“Commercial Content”) on the Sites. Your purchase or use of any Commercial Content obtained from BitTorrent is subject to the Commercial Content Terms of Service. If you purchase any Commercial Content from BitTorrent, you also agree to the Store Terms of Service.



Content and Torrents

“Content” means any text, graphics, pictures, audio, videos, or other materials available from the Sites. “Permitted Content” means Content—whether created by you, assigned to you, or licensed to you from a third party—that you have the right to copy, modify, display, perform (whether by means of a digital audio transmission or otherwise), and distribute, as well as the right to sublicense all of the foregoing rights to third parties without restriction. There are three types of Content:

1. 3.1. Commercial Content. BitTorrent has partnered with certain content providers to offer commercial movies, professional videos, and other content (“Commercial Content”) on the Sites. Your purchase or use of any Commercial Content obtained from BitTorrent is subject to the Commercial Content Terms of Service. If you purchase any Commercial Content from BitTorrent, you also agree to the Store Terms of Service.
2. 3.2. BT-Hosted User Content. From time to time, certain portions of the Sites may enable Registered Users to upload copies of any Permitted Content to be stored on the Sites for access, viewing, and/or downloading by other users of the Sites (“BT-Hosted User Content”).
3. 3.3. User-Hosted User Content From time to time, certain portions of the Sites may enable Registered Users to upload Torrent Files (defined below) to the Sites for Permitted Content that will not be stored on the Sites (“User-Hosted User Content”). BT-Hosted User Content and User-Hosted User Content are collectively referred to as “User Content”; if provided by or through you or under your direction then such content is “Your User Content.”

A “Torrent File” is a file that the Client Software uses to find and download parts of a related Content file using the BitTorrent™ protocol. A Torrent File can be stored separately from its Content file. If a Content file is replicated at multiple locations, the Client Software works with the Torrent File to efficiently download different parts of the file from different locations.

Mod Edit: External Source Tags Instructions – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 31/10/2009 by ArMaP]

reply to post by OpTiMuS_PrImE


So you have pasted something here why?
I expect way-more than a Lazy Copy and Paste comment.

This does concern you too.The outcome will be global


Zelong

[edit on 31/10/09 by Zelong]

What I want to know is, if the Pirate Bay case was used as a guide, could BitTorrent be declared illegal?

Originally posted by honkusbobo
What I want to know is, if the Pirate Bay case was used as a guide, could BitTorrent be declared illegal?

What you want to know is leach, you are way nill informed with your question

Zelong.

[edit on 31/10/09 by Zelong]

Originally posted by Zelong


I came across this Big piece of information concerning Fox, Paramount, Warner Brothers having their logo's on Bittorents homepage which says to me they must have a contractual relationship with Bittorent that allow these downloads and than these Big Four plus others begin Legal proceedings against isp's or single down-loaders

[edit on 30/10/09 by Zelong]

There was this part on Sesame Street with a song that went: "One of these things is not like the other." There's a big difference between content providers distributing content through methods they control and third party entities doing it.

This is quite plainly a form of entrapment.

No, it's not. Entrapment is the act of a law enforcement agent.