> Ill defend that torrent in court to my last breath.
Well, not that you would win on those grounds, but you wouldn't have to you wouldn't ever be charged in Canada anyway unless you left it seeding for mad long.
Well, not that you would win on those grounds, but you wouldn't have to you wouldn't ever be charged in Canada anyway unless you left it seeding for mad long.
Movies that are 100% paid by public money are not available to see anywhere, after a short theater release. Even if you are willing to pay for it.
I fear the result is that the public funding will dry up completely, shutting down an entire industry. That would be a big cultural loss, just because they manage the funds so badly. Fund projects people actually want to watch. Fund more diverse works. And make the damned product available to the population that paid for it.
Kind of like how US streaming companies are purging content for 'tax breaks' but then you don't find a copy of the content anywhere.
Your argument is "I take what I want because I want it and I have no other way" isn't at all convincing.
Canada doesn't turn a blind eye, they explicitly decriminalized it especially for people that are not distributing.
Your argument would be bunk regardless though.
I almost mentioned that in my comment to preempt you mentioning that, seems I should have. Jury nullification would not apply in your case, and the jury may not even have that option.
If you honestly think you could take some illegally with the defense "I wanted it" and walk you are delusional.
On a different but related note It's worth remembering that the reason piracy is enforced with legal payment demands in Germany and Japan, but not the US, UK or most of continental Europe, is that civil disobedience made such legal demands ineffective in most territories.
> Jury nullification can occur in most common law jurisdictions (i.e.: legal systems that descend from the British legal system). There's no specific limit (say civil versus criminal) on when it can occur
You need to do some more reading. As much as people like to post jury nullification as though it's some sort of 'aha', it's kind of amazing they miss all the stories and articles about how jury nullification is removed as a practical option for a jury to exercise.
> And it absolutely could apply in a copyright case - that happened to come before a jury. It specifically does not depend on the validity of a legal defence, but despite it.
A judge will order what facts a jury can consider and deliberate on.
The parents argument "I took it because I wanted it" wouldn't even be allowed as a defense most likely, and certainly the jury would not be allowed to consider it.
> On a different but related note It's worth remembering that the reason piracy is enforced with legal payment demands in Germany and Japan, but not the US, UK or most of continental Europe, is that civil disobedience made such legal demands ineffective in most territories.
What are you talking about when you say "civil disobedience"
Clearly you have no legal education, at all. Someone told you about jury nullification or you read an article and now you think it has all sort of powers it actually doesn't.
The judge doesn't matter. Jury nullification doesn't matter.
"I took it because I wanted it" is a shitty argument, end of story.