Landmark Usenet Piracy Verdict Stands, Despite RIAA and MPAA Protests

[pcslookout]

https://torrentfreak.com/landmark-u...stands-despite-riaa-and-mpaa-protests-170510/

Interesting case.

To the people who ask why Usenet can't be taken down here is a perfect example. Remember Newsgroup providers have a lot of money!

 

[FelixDeCat]

lol

 

[WelshBloke]

I feel dirty doing this but... I agree with the MPAA

"“Courts have long held that a plaintiff can satisfy the direct financial benefit prong by showing that the general availability of a particular type of infringing material on the defendant’s premises—or, in the internet context, through the defendant’s site or service—draws third-parties hoping to obtain infringing material,” the MPAA wrote. "

Thats exactly why most people sign up to giganews and the like.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

I feel dirty doing this but... I agree with the MPAA

"“Courts have long held that a plaintiff can satisfy the direct financial benefit prong by showing that the general availability of a particular type of infringing material on the defendant’s premises—or, in the internet context, through the defendant’s site or service—draws third-parties hoping to obtain infringing material,” the MPAA wrote. "

Thats exactly why most people sign up to giganews and the like.

Can't you extend that same argument to the internet as a whole? There's no doubt that the reason many many people pay for internet every month is essentially unlimited free TV, movies, music, software and porn. Can you sue ISPs because their services are allowing access to copyrighted material and drawing in customers solely for that reason?

 

[WelshBloke]

Can't you extend that same argument to the internet as a whole? There's no doubt that the reason many many people pay for internet every month is essentially unlimited free TV, movies, music, software and porn. Can you sue ISPs because their services are allowing access to copyrighted material and drawing in customers solely for that reason?

There's a slight difference in scale. The majority of people don't get Internet connections just to pirate, the majority of people pay for access to binary newsgroups to... download Linux distros?

 

[GagHalfrunt]

There's a slight difference in scale. The majority of people don't get Internet connections just to pirate, the majority of people pay for access to binary newsgroups to... download Linux distros?

The ruling does not mention scale. And if you want to talk scale, my argument is WAY bigger than the one singling out Usenet. While nearly 100% of newsgroups users are downloading pirated material, those users are a tiny tiny tiny drop in a very large bucket. And while perhaps only a small percentage of internet people use the net for the sole, or primary purpose of downloading, it's still a flood compared to newsgroup traffic. Usenet accounts for bupkis compared to other methods of file sharing.

 

[WelshBloke]

While nearly 100% of newsgroups users are downloading pirated material, those users are a tiny tiny tiny drop in a very large bucket.

I'm never employing you as my lawyer!

That's exactly what the MPAA were arguing and I was agreeing with. That the vast majority of usenet users signed up for the free booty!

 

[WhoBeDaPlaya]

There's a slight difference in scale. The majority of people don't get Internet connections just to pirate, the majority of people pay for access to binary newsgroups to... download Linux distros?

That and /alt/bin/kinkyshit

 

[Charmonium]

So the Ct of Appeals refusal to hear the case basically allows a decision to stand that reverses whatever precedent the MPAA was relying on.

 

[Exterous]

I'm never employing you as my lawyer!

That's exactly what the MPAA were arguing and I was agreeing with. That the vast majority of usenet users signed up for the free booty!

They lost any claim on the high road when they abused the American judicial system to extort money from people and force cumbersome and completely ineffective copyright protections on legitimate customers instead of realizing the change in the market.

 

[TheELF]

Can't you extend that same argument to the internet as a whole? There's no doubt that the reason many many people pay for internet every month is essentially unlimited free TV, movies, music, software and porn. Can you sue ISPs because their services are allowing access to copyrighted material and drawing in customers solely for that reason?

Think of the internet as a town,ISPs provide you the means to enter the town, you might be entering the town to do something illegal but just entering the town is not, and can not be made,illegal.
Usenet is like the big warehouse at the docks that's filled with smuggled/stolen goods,just entering it is already illegal.

 

[shortylickens]

I love Perfect 10 but they have been annoying with how they treat customers and random internet users.

 

[pcslookout]

I feel dirty doing this but... I agree with the MPAA

"“Courts have long held that a plaintiff can satisfy the direct financial benefit prong by showing that the general availability of a particular type of infringing material on the defendant’s premises—or, in the internet context, through the defendant’s site or service—draws third-parties hoping to obtain infringing material,” the MPAA wrote. "

Thats exactly why most people sign up to giganews and the like.

Of course you would.

 

[WelshBloke]

Of course you would.

Not sure that I understand your post there, could you expand a bit?