IMO personal security would only be improved if we diversified away from "the open web".
"Flood the field" with protocols and pre-shared key networks where we have to generate keys together in meat space, make it too expensive to operate the panopticon.
Everyone putting their eggs in the open web basket, gathering in that public commons means all it takes is one bomb on us all, so to speak.
US-centric here: I feel that uploading a small percentage of a file as a condition of downloading the whole thing may very well fall under fair use - most BT traffic is noncommercial, the portion of the covered work uploaded by "leeches" is very small and probably would be covered by the "30-second" rule often quoted in fair use discussions. The only really arguable point is the "effect on the work's value", but then again an average leech is not uploading enough of the work to have that much of a material effect on the work's value.
Softlink data to the appropriate mount
The options are endless and tech nerds can 1:1 help friends and family
Locking the knowledge into corporate silos is a huge security risk. The masses should be just as competent and informed so they don't panic
Minority say over the economy and government is just fascism. These people are not deities. They're normal meat and bone
We have processes to replace politicians and workers; we need processes to replace the rich.
Free speech is a circular right and there is no freedom from consequences of speech. They can face consequences too
It is also not even required to show that that single byte was uploaded, your IP getting logged as part of the swarm suffices. The burden of proof is on you now. It was much, much worse than in the US.
While all this is technically still true today, a new law a few years ago luckily mostly blocked the path. It was badly needed, because the situation was horribly abused by law firms.
10010110
I heard a rumour that this byte also exists in the Legend of Zelda! No go get em Mr Policeman!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roadshow_Films_Pty_Ltd_v_iiNet...
Of course Telco's can choose to be involved, perhaps accept payment to lookup and snitch, etc. but for the most part a number of ISPs in Au just wash their hands of devoting resources to play connect the dots for others.
1. Copyright holder files bullshit charges against the IP holder. 2. Police investigates and for this purpose gets the personal data for the given IP address. 3. Copyright holder gets personal data of the subscriber from the police. 4. Copyright holder aborts charges so police stops investigation and is no longer involved. 5. Copyright holder contacts the subscriber to extort money.
Police complained about the many bullshit charges, so of course a law was made so ISPs had to give out personal data directly to the copyright holders.
“Here’s byte 0x67, which is at offset 0x729B1A38 of Copyrighted_Blockbuster.4k.mkv, as requested” is different from “here’s byte 0x67, and it’s the first byte of my text response to your comment”.
What if someone would release software that would connect to random swarms and not upload or download anything? Would they still be criminally liable? You could disguise the purpose by saying it's measuring swarm diversity.
If you receive child porn in your mailbox and the package is caught, you better have a really good story. Like, prior documented proof of harassment.
In regards to your question, and Germany specifically: Media companies hire specialist lawyers. These lawyers prefer to sue in Hamburg, where the courts are known to be very media company friendly. It's just not likely that you ran some experiment and didn't upload anything, so you better have it documented well enough to convince the court.
I would think that at least a couple dozen of those 100 random people will report to the police. These reports can be used in court, and may or may not convince the judge that you're also one of the victims. You'd also think there was other circumstantial material to be used either arguing for or against.
Compare to torrenting: Not a dozen of 100 people will independently and proactively report that they ran some "experiments". You're on your own with that story, and it sure sounds like an excuse (to me) even if it were true. Plenty of people end up in jail (or with fines) being innocent. Real world is not the movies. Real courts do not need 100% certainty to "prove guilty according to law".
If the judge does not believe you, expect to pay something like 3-6 months of income. If he does, you only have to pay your lawyer (the opponent will not). Back then, I'd say it was a 50:50 chance, provided you have excellent documentation and a good lawyer.
Ideally in english but all is translatable.
This is not consistent with current Fair Use application. The TL;DR is that the use must be for a new expression that is protected by either the 1st amendment or copyright itself. I don't know of a single case where it has applied to mere distribution. I would be astounded if there is such a case because that isn't within the expressed purpose of the doctrine.
Hetzner is in Germany, the server is in Finland, the accuser is in the US. The only way to win is to either move away, or lobby for your countries to stop respecting US copyright laws.