plenty of legal uses of the protocol. whats different here?
e.
Grande doesn’t explain why or when developers of torrent clients should be held liable for piracy. Popular torrent clients and sites that distribute this software are typically content-neutral and don’t actively encourage piracy. That is similar to the defense Grande relies on.
just graspin at straws it seems
In a way, they’re making a point. Just because they provide internet shouldn’t mean that they are the ones that should pay damages to record companies. But neither should torrent client developers. If you can’t catch the end user, then that’s your problem. If you’re that concerned, make your material more accessibile.
Plenty of legal uses. For example, it was legitimately faster for me to install deluge and torrent Ubuntu than it was to just download Ubuntu.
There’s so many other legitimate uses, but that’s the main one I used it for
It’s pretty easy: there’s no culpability on either side. It’s not either-or. If guns and ammo and knife manufacturers are not responsible for murder than neither are ISPs and software developers responsible for piracy.
If the courts don’t like that an IP isn’t a person, then they can pressure congress to change the laws. Until then, everyone can go fuck off
Double whammy, corporations are not people and should also have laws changed.
Corporations treated as persons only gives board people the ability to vote twice while the workers can’t.
Maybe in response to this we should all download a bunch of new music, then delete it all because it’s complete garbage.
How did the saying go? [NOUN_1] don’t [VERB] [NOUN_2], it’s people that [VERB] [NOUN_2].
So parents can sue gun companies right?
Torrent clients don’t download torrents, people download torrents. See? No difference.
