I have recently set up a bad blue server of all my music (+4000 songs) available for download via an http url. I have attached this URL as a sig on my emails (ie my name). Now, being Canadian, am I now actually allowed to do this? Was the ruling more about being able to allow people access to files, or was it more about the right of ISP's to maintain user confidentiality. IE, P2P networks aside, could doing what I'm doing get me in shit?
TIA
hmm, thats iffy, im pretty sure its illegal if its being hosted, and if it can be accessed anytime. It may be like warez.
Im not too sure.
it means canadians cant be leeching off of us americans no more =)
it also means you americans can leach off of us, to avoid lawsuits :)
Has the blues got you down...IRS, perhaps?Originally Posted by shawners
I believe the judge stated if you're not actively offering the files it is not illegal. Eg. P2P.
The fact that you actively setup a server for people to download, may get you into problems.
i got 1600 dollars back in march =)
Excellent! I got a measly $67 but its better than paying. Oh by the way, that would only be about 40 bucks US.
My understanding of the ruling is much like Siskabush's. I think the Judge's ruling was limited to p2p tech. and newsgroups, but there might be some legal loophole but can't say for sure.
"Every time a friend succeeds, I die a little."
"Fifty percent of people won't vote, and fifty percent don't read newspapers. I hope it's the same fifty percent."
"Write something, even if it's just a suicide note."
The Wit and wisdom of
Gore Vidal
Geez, talk about confusion. Nobody seems to really know one way or the other. I had a thread closed at hardware central just for discussing the issue.
http://discussions.hardwarecentral.c...hreadid=156983
Thanks for the replies. I guess i'll take my chances.
I would think that the ruling is based under the assumption that you are hosting material on a p2p network where your are indirectly sharing files. By indirect I mean you are not advertising the use or broadcasting its existance.. The program tells other people you have the file and you become part of a chain.. In your case you are purposely and directly advertising the fact that people can download copyrighted material from you.....
God I hope that makes sence................. :finger
P2P is cool....But P3P.. Oh boy!!
tax is on everything, gas tax, tax on electricity, water, property tax, car tax, state inspection/ renewal regestration, federal tax, state tax, sales tax, cable has tax, phone bill,. .It could be very taxing.
If i had kids i could got up to 2100 dollars back, but when we got our house and paid closing cost and everything. we end up getting alot back, i dont know how much next year, but hopefully with property tax figured in.. ill know something good be on the way.
Well, simply providing a url to a site that has downloads available to friends isnt any more advertising than having the option to cruise a file list in any given p2p software. I'm not soliciting business of any sort, its merely an appendage to my emails. Its a slippery slope I know, but i fail to see a hard fast difference. The user is merely clicking on a link rather than openning a p2p application. I mean your not "indirectly" sharing files using a p2p app, it is one of only two possible intentions as soon as you execute the application.
Send me an email sometime buddy
P2P is cool....But P3P.. Oh boy!!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks