In article <n1g5met0oqjvcaglug79n6uf9gu7mk79u8@4ax.com>,
SL <SerpentLord@Evil.Incarn8> wrote:
> I don't know what to think about this. How these image sets
> are obtained from wherever, I have no idea. Am I sharing what's been
> shared, what's been shared, what's been shared...I have no way to
> tell. I am clueless.
I don't think it matters or that you need to know the, uh, "chain of
possession" of anything. All I was getting at is that with so much
other stuff Out There to choose from, it's easy to avoid those few
specific studios. I mean, I also don't think it matters what happens
to be on the disks of your computer, or my computer, or any collector's
computer. What does matter is flying under the radar. So I'm not
saying don't possess the stuff from those studios (who cares about
that); I'm just saying that it might not be a good idea to post it.
At the moment, the copyright trolls mostly seem to be focusing on the
sharing of their material using Bittorrent, which is understandable
because it's trivially easy to get the IP addresses of the seeders
unless they're using VPNs. (When a troll's lawyer has the IP
addresses, he sends stern letters to the ISPs owning those addresses,
demanding the names and other information of those customers, and of
course the ISPs comply.) However, I also pointed to that case of
Perfect 10 versus Giganews (which, I'm glad to say, Giganews won hands
down, thereby bankrupting Perfect 10, hooray), and that was to show
that the copyright trolls don't always stop at Bittorrent; sometimes
they also go after Usenet uploaders.
If you want the back-story with Giganews, just follow the links in the
text of those articles on torrentfreak.com that I pointed to. It's all
there.
Giganews is just an example. I know you don't use Giganews, but that
doesn't matter. The same thing applies, in principle, to any Usenet
provider.
|
|