BitTorrent User Guilty Of Piracy

DIY News writes "A Hong Kong man has been convicted of movie internet piracy in what is believed to be the first case involving BitTorrent file-sharing software. The man was found guilty of copyright infringement for distributing three Hollywood blockbusters using BitTorrent."

Comments

In other news ...

[TheGavster]

In other news, a man in Delaware has been found guilty of beating another man to death with a toaster. The toaster industry declined to comment.

Re:Next Gen p2p

[ronocdh]

Since these systems have no advantage whatsoever over non-anonymous systems like Bittorrent except when being used to distribute material illegally, it will be easy to get such a change to the law made.

That's like saying only criminals have things to hide, therefore good citizens will not mind a compulsory search and seizure. "You want a warrant? What are you, a terrorist?" We have a right not to show the government everything we do. That doesn't make it illegal.

Hey, at least we got buttsex back from the Republicans.

Re:Next Gen p2p

[UnrefinedLayman]

the people at Guantanamo were all captured on the battlefield against US soldiers, operating under the control of no nation, not signatories to any of the Geneva conventions, are not US citizens, and in many cases have been shown to have attended training events on terrorism tactics.

So, what, is war now something that you can't go to without first passing some tests? People aren't allowed to defend their land from invasion by a foreign force without first checking in with the head-office and reading "7 Habits of Highly Effective Soldiers" and "Everything I Ever Needed to Know I Learned at the Geneva Convention"?

I think people are quick to dismiss the rights of those held in Cuba; if our places were reversed and it was a Middle Eastern country invading the US to spread Shariah Islamic Law, would you be so quick to condemn your countrymen--fellow citizens--caught fighting that force? Because they're disorganized and haven't been through boot camp?

The fact is those people were defending against invaders, ideological differences aside, and were not wealthy enough to have a highly-organized and well-trained militia like much of the rest of the world. Just like many Americans don't feel the government adequately represents their interests abroad, it's certainly within the realm of reason that some of those individuals did not feel Osama bin Laden represented their interests in attacking the US, but when a counter-attack was launched it was a matter of defending their home and way of life.

Being poor requires fighting face-to-face and with short-range mortar and explosives, not invisibly from the skies like Americans, and these people resorted to whatever tactics were necessary to muster a defense against invaders. In my opinion (whose weight is questionable), it is much more a terrorist act to strike at an enemy from the sky without fear of retribution than to fight him on level-ground, face-to-face. At least when you can see your enemy you know who you've killed, instead of accidentally exploding a wedding party.

The reasons you're giving for giving the OK for locking up these prisoners of war sound an awful lot like the reasons given for rounding up and imprisoning or killing Native Americans (and I have therefore a hard time accepting that). My point behind replying is to say that the quickness with which you determine guilt and innocence can easily be turned on you and the ones about whom you care. Justification of the treatment is justification of your own treatment.

I am not speaking regarding the rest of your post (which may or may not have merit).