Hacker News Reader

Comment by Jagat | Hacker News Reader

How is this going to make any difference?

Pirated content is already available in US and other countries via thepiratebay and other torrents sites. Pirating copyrighted content is already considered illegal in the US, and is being actively monitored by media companies. If this Antiguan website indeed becomes accessible to Americans, or say other country, how will downloading from this site differ from downloading via torrents. Since torrent usage is already being monitored in US, there's a high likelihood that American ISPs would monitor the usage of this site as well.

Edit: Downloading copyrighted content -> Pirating copyrighted content.

View on HN

"Pirating" is the act of acquiring a copy of a copyrighted work in a way that is contrary to existing law. "Downloading" Copyrighted works can be done completely legally, the simplest example being to buy a copy of a movie on itunes and transferring it to your phone or tablet. This is a 'third' way of legally downloading content which is sort of like buying property with a tax lien on it, the government (in this case the WTO) has stepped in, set aside the rights of the property owner, and is sanctioning an action to make whole the person or entity who is wronged.

So the WTO sets aside the rights of US Copyright holders and allows Antiqua to sell those works, allowing it to recover damages that the US Government has failed to pay. The government could "pay" the $21M fine and the WTO would rescind this, but if they do that then they show that they are wrong in denying access to the US market for Antiqua gambling interests. If they don't pay it, they are bound by membership in the WTO to abide by its decisions. It is a delicious paradox.

""Pirating" is the act of acquiring a copy of a copyrighted work in a way that is contrary to existing law."

Okay - I'll bite. What does that mean? How does one acquire a copy of a copyrighted work in a way that is contrary to existing law? Or, alternatively, How does one acquire a copy of a copyrighted work in a way that is compliant with existing law? As a "Pro-IP Law" enthusiast, I'm genuinely interested - my layperson's understanding of the law is that it deals with distribution, not downloading.

Its pretty simple actually, the owner of the copy 'right' expressly authorizes the copy being given to you. That is in accordance with the law. So any number of examples, you buy a book at the book store, you buy a DVD, you watch a movie at the theater, all of these actions result in a 'copy' of the work coming into your possession that is sanctioned by the owner of the right.

Any illegal copy is one in which the owner hasn't sanctioned transferring a copy to you.

Copyright law carves out specific exemptions for lending libraries and the First Sale doctrine, part of the unified commercial code (UCC) gives you the right to transfer your copy to a third party as long as no new copies are created (so you no longer have a copy).

Note I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice.

You missed parent's question, which is how the recipient can violate copyright.

You are describing how the sender can violate copyright.

Fair enough, in the US it apparently only affects the receiver if one can prove they knew they were in receipt of stolen goods.

Surely the recipient is copying the data from their network router onto their own computer, and likely from there to their hard-drive.

They have copied the data.

"Downloading copyrighted content is already considered illegal in US"

Not to my knowledge - I'd be happy to be corrected on this though. My understanding is that it's only the unauthorized distribution that's illegal, not the downloading. In this situation, Antigua has a WTO authorization.

The reason why torrents are illegal, is that most clients turn you into a distribution node as well as downloading node.

Yes. If you accidentally say "stealing" the word police will be all over you, but for some reason the misconception that downloading and uploading are equivalent goes uncorrected.

And - it's a very important distinction. How do I know that the movies, songs, tv that I download from itunes.com, amazon.com, mp3.com, musicmp3.ru, mp3shake.com, etc, etc.. are authorized to sell them to me?

Well in the case of iTunes and Amazon they have written agreements with the copyright holders which give them permission to sell you copies as long as they pay the copyright holder a specific amount of money.

The way you know this is the case is that copyright holders sue people without such agreements in the court system. So when a record label sues Amazon for some service that offers copies of music, you can infer that the music label does not believe that there is an agreement in place which gives Amazon that right.

It's unreasonable to expect the average person to follow the goings on of the US courts.

The good news is you don't have to. You're not, afaik, liable for buying an MP3 from Amazon which later turns out to be unauthorized.

The closest I believe anyone has ever come is when an unauthorized copy of 1984 showed up, Amazon zapped it from people's Kindles (and gave refunds, and promised to not do that again). None of those people were in any danger of being sued.

But, how is an average person supposed to tell the difference between iTunes, Amazon, and a "download this song for free" site they found on Google, that just so happens to use BitTorrent for distributing those files?

BitTorrent links don't work without installing a BitTorrent client?

I'm not entirely unsympathetic, but ignorance of the law has never been an effective defense (for any law), and neither has the "but I was tricked" defense. This is not peculiar to copyright law or computer law. There have been some cases where people did succeed with "I had so much malware, I didn't know what my computer was doing", but that's something you'll have to argue in court.

But why should consumers presume that installing a BitTorrent client means that the download is illegal? It's an unjust expectation on the part of the copyright holders. Note that I'm not necessarily arguing with you specifically, but with the idea that it's obvious that some downloads are legal and others are not, as well as the idea that "BitTorrent" automatically means illegal.

When you install BItTorrent, you become a distributor. You better make sure that you have distribution rights for any IP that you are distributing, or you are violating copyright law. That part is straight forward, and has been pretty much settled in the last decade.

That doesn't mean the settled law is right. How is the average person supposed to know that their torrent client is "seeding"? Ask anybody off the street who the distributor is in that kind of system and they'll say it's the one who uploaded the .torrent, just like the distributor is Adobe or Blizzard or the BBC when they use P2P to distribute stuff.

Some BitTorrent clients are installed by default on the OS when you buy the computer.

There are dozens (at least) of sources of music on the internet, with authentic sounding/looking web-fronts. I'm not really sure whether, prior to downloading music from that site, it's (A) reasonable to expect someone about to download music to do a full court-system search in all relevant jurisdictions to determine if a copyright suit has been filed against said web-fronts, and (B) even more complex, make a legal assessment of the validity of that lawsuit.

While I think the vast majority of us would agree that there is no practical liability for downloading music from iTunes/Amazon/mp3.com/etc... without doing a full legal assessment of that activity, I'm genuinely interested as to whether there is any De Jure legal liability (on the part of the downloader) associated with purchasing/downloading content in which the distributor had not fully obtained distribution rights.

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/

The punchline, http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#501, is you can't do any of these things, http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#106, or you're in trouble. Mere possession is not listed, the author is not granted an exclusive license to own a copy.

Then there's http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap6.html#602 in the event you're downloading internationally. I'm not sure downloading counts as importing, but even so it specifically excludes people importing a single copy for private use.

I think the difference here is that Antigua is going to sell the pirated material, while usually it's distributed without fees. It's hard to say how successful such effort would be for Antigua (competing with the same free pirated content), but some can support it just to make the point.

Thrown in some fast streaming with download options. Include a ad supported version. Offer it worldwide.

I can see that work quite fine in competing with existing services out there.

Pirating hasn't been tested in the courts, really, it's the distributing that will get you a lawsuit. This is because what would that law look like? If someone sent you an email with a newspaper article inside you'd be violating it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com