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"



Source



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:)


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]

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

---

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...

---

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?

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

Zelong.

[edit on 31/10/09 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.



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