112
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 01 May 2024
112 points (98.3% liked)
Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ
54424 readers
323 users here now
⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.
Rules • Full Version
1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy
2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote
3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs
4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others
Loot, Pillage, & Plunder
📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):
💰 Please help cover server costs.
 |
 |
|---|---|
| Ko-fi | Liberapay |
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
In Australia an ISP went to extreme lengths to have a ruling, spending four years in litigation:
https://torrentfreak.com/iinet-isp-not-liable-for-bittorrent-piracy-high-court-rules-120420/
That's excellent for their clients. I'm guessing it set a precedent and the industry stopped trying anything else.
I didn't follow the most recent developments here in Canada but AFAIK, a decade ago the industry tried to sue individuals that were "pirating", and lost because they couldn't proof that an IP could be associated with a single person, or something like that. Then the industry pretty much stopped trying to sue individuals from that point. They still send the threatening letters, but they don't do anything else because past experiences with our courts didn't go well for them.
Of course, there is a very very slim chance that the industry will try to sue a few individuals to scare others and create a new precedent, but it's going to be a civil suit because it's not even criminal here.
it did, basically in Australia content owners are free to demand restitution for the actual loss suffered (ie the cost of a dvd) and if you ignore them, they are free to take you to small claims court over it, wearing the cost of doing so. so it essentially ended copy claims