Hacker News Reader

Comment by johnphillips54 | Hacker News Reader

When they sue you, isn't it actually for the uploading (the "posting" of copyrighted material by allowing other torrent users to download bits of the file from your computer) and not the actual downloading?

Is that why they don't target DDL users of sites like Rapidshare and Hotfile, because the file is only downloaded but not uploaded by the user, unlike on torrents? I'm sure trying to seize the user logs of DDL sites through some form of legal action might be difficult as well.

View on HN

The "This Week in Law" podcast has touched on this issue a few times:

http://twit.tv/twil

Although I can't remember the specific episodes.

Sorry to reply to my own post, but I'm now wondering if they can sue you for just downloading from DDLs or USENET (without the uploading activity inherent to torrents,) couldn't they theoretically also sue users of youtube or other video sites for the playing of copyrighted material, which I imagine from a legal perspective is essentially the same as downloading it from a DDL?

I think the idea is that while downloading a copyrighted work is still illegal, uploading is distribution, which is one of the indicators of "willfulness" which exposes you to the high statutory limits.

Yea. If they were to sue you for downloading (but not uploading) they could have huge landmark cases for millions of dollars in damages. Because the current math goes like:

  statutory damage limit = $150k
  people we *think* you distributed to = 1 million people
  damages = $150k * 1m = profit!

You would have a hard time convincing a judge that either: a) the copyright owner suffered millions in damages over a single download of a movie or b) that the person needs millions of dollars in damages to 'teach people a lesson.'

Reply on news.ycombinator.com