Downloading and possible breach of copyright?

[fr33d0m]

Usually the downloading of anything even with owning of an original is breaking copyright. But you are allowed to keep the file file for 24 hours.

Problem with P2P is you share the file. Also game companies hinder you from copying the disc you own (Perfectly legal) but putting security software on them.

[daKlone]

Copying your 'own' games is still tricky legally, since although it is legal to make a backup copy it is ILLEGAL to circumvent any protection schemes put in place by the manufacturer in order to do it - confused? You will be!!!

[locutus]

Putting the systems in place to stop people making a backup is also skirting the law, as people have the right to back things up.... it is a minefield!

[woad]

You have no right - under UK law - to make a backup copy. It is an urban myth that you do, probably stems from the fact that during the late 70's and early 80's most software installation instructions advised the user to make a backup copy [or two] and install from that, putting the original media in a safe location. It was also widely considered at the time to be best practice, never to install from original media.

This was an era when disk drives were not wholly reliable, and head crashed were quite common. The read/write head would literally hit the disk, gouging scratches into the surface.

But to re-iterate the point, you have no legal right to make a backup copy unless the terms of the software provide for it. Otherwise, it is "unlawful".

[locutus]

The Copyright (Computer Programs) Regulations 1992

50A.—(1) It is not an infringement of copyright for a lawful user of a copy of a computer program to make any back up copy of it which it is necessary for him to have for the purposes of his lawful use.

(2) For the purposes of this section and sections 50B and 50C a person is a lawful user of a computer program if (whether under a licence to do any acts restricted by the copyright in the program or otherwise), he has a right to use the program.

(3) Where an act is permitted under this section, it is irrelevant whether or not there exists any term or condition in an agreement which purports to prohibit or restrict the act (such terms being, by virtue of section 296A, void).

It is your lawful right to create a backup providing you have the legal right to use the software.

[daKlone]

Sorry Woad, but you are wrong. To quote the Copyright, Designs & Patents Act 1988:

"Back up copies.
50A.—(1) It is not an infringement of copyright for a lawful user of a copy of a computer program to make any back up copy of it which it is necessary for him to have for the purposes of his lawful use.

(2) For the purposes of this section and sections 50B and 50C a person is a lawful user of a computer program if (whether under a licence to do any acts restricted by the copyright in the program or otherwise), he has a right to use the program.

(3) Where an act is permitted under this section, it is irrelevant whether or not there exists any term or condition in an agreement which purports to prohibit or restrict the act (such terms being, by virtue of section 296A, void)."

[daKlone]

Locutus: SNAP!

[locutus]

SNA... damnit... I never win at that game!

[The_Grumlin]

Media in most instances of infingement is irrelevant, it is the license which is usually purchased. You need to check the EULA or license agreement that came with the application/game.

It is my understanding that to prove their case the Agents acting for the copyright holders (Atari) would have to make a physical connection to your machine to confirm that the material is made available for sharing. Not just by the collection of IP addresses in the swarm or distributed network.

It also worth looking at the detailed studies done into p2p monitoring and copyright infingment. Particularly the parts about poor detection and false positives. Also look at the cases where they get is very wrong quite a few have been reported in last few months.

[fr33d0m]

Actually it has been seen that the companies doing the sueing for copyright infringement arnt actually checking the game was actually downloaded/completed.

They only see a connection from a computer to a server they set up hosting the file on a p2p network and get the user info from that IP. Also that still doesnt prove that the user of that IP actually donwloaded the file to their own computer. But cliaming your wifi was broken into is still a little sketchy.

[The_Grumlin]

This is the problem Davenports etc are assuming that the ip's connected to a (possibile unverified) torrent are uploading copyright material, unless they have directly sourced (honey potted) the torrent or downloaded in full the material distributed in torrent they can not assume that the torrent even carries material which is copyrighted. That is a torrent or any item advertised on P2P networks as a game may contain rar'd pictures, saved games, or unrelated material.

It can only be established that the torrent has material which is copyrighted by downloading and are acting as agents for the copyright holder (before downloading the material).

Then they would have to make a connection to all those machine connected and establish if they are sharing the material (not downloading). If you use a torrent app it will show the status of connected peers i.e. how much they have downloaded or sharing. Without a connection there is no proof of DATA TRANSFER BETWEEN PEERS. Being attched to a torrent (host Tracker) or in the swarm is not a crime.

What ever Davenport or any other organisation that takes some one to court has to prove is DATA HAS TRANSFERED from the defendants machine to their machine and that data is an integral part of the material which they claim is copyright. This requires capture of traffic and logging of peer connections - proof that will need to be provided to prove their case.

Fr33d0m is right in that this is what Davenports have been doing via a third pary. It would be easily challenged as it proves nothing, and as far as I know all Davenports cases have either been settled or not defended (by default).

WIFI is NOT secure and can be broken sometimes in minutes at the most can take three to four hours dependant on capture traffic.

Do not rely on any key encryption protocols only, use additional security such as MAC filtering, logging, no DHCP, external authentication source i.e. server/RADIUS/CERTIFICATE will make it much harder to hack.

[fr33d0m]

Read this.
ISPs Hand Over Details of ‘Several Thousand’ Pirates | TorrentFreak

There is also another story on that site about the lawyers of the company not having any evidence but people arnt turning up in court to actually contest it!

What really annoys me about this is. If I produce a file. Music, Document, Application etc. And put it on a p2p network and start logging all the people who download it. I can make money by sueing them! Or even better get there information and start sending them threataning letters. This cant be right can it?

[huggy41]

hi all if you youself produced the music then put it on a p2p site you gave it to the public free if you copy writed it first then put it on the site your self for people to download then that is entrapment .i use newsgroups where the law i think is abit vague as i send avi's to a post where my brother in new zealand downloads them this is not illegal as it belongs to me.

[forgerecordings79]

Originally Posted by Conniff

They have jumped on the bandwagon started by the music industry who are trying to make us believe that downloading is the reason they don't sell as many as they used to and not the fault of the crap on the cd. It's just another money making scam.

This is off-topic, and you probably can see where Im going to go with this due to my username, but downloading is different to the case of the OP.

To take something rather than pay for it and then say the reason is that the content is crap.. oh dear. I know you're not saying you personally do that but the attitude pours from your words.

Theft is theft.

Someone who loses their media and downloads to replace it is a different issue.

[locutus]

I believe conniff meant that CD's contents are mostly talentless factory produces manufactured rubish, so no-one is buying them but the music industry are saying that the reason it's not selling as much is because people have illegally downloaded it.

[goginng]

interesting read would like to hear the outcome i was going to post a url to a free widley used program that blocks all these types

but i cant post url's as its my first post look up

peer guardian 2 on your fav search engine and use along with your fav p2p program

now there was a supposed case recently of a women being fined i think (as i cant remember) £16000 in a court for downloading a game the only problem was (it was on news for one day and internet) that this women didnt seem to exsist scare mongering


semms my posts are being deleted only trying to help could the staff member private message me as to the reason my post is deleted thankyou

[bigcarpman]

This is a topic I have had a lot or experiance in. It is a simple matter - downloading any copyrighted material via a peer to peer system is illegal. It makes no difference if you purchased the orriginal disk and then broke it, thats like saying "I bought a car, then I crashed it, and now I am entitled to steal a brand new one". Its your fault if you broke the disk. Trust me on this, I have taken advise from a solicitor about this in regard to protecting software that I own the copyright to.