On 07/08/2015 16:35, whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 7 August 2015 16:00:28 UTC+1, RJH wrote:
On 07/08/2015 15:02, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article ,
Davey writes:
On Fri, 7 Aug 2015 05:19:36 -0700 (PDT)
Martin Bonner wrote:

If this is the case, the owner of the account owes Sky,

Err, no.

Why not? If a film was downloaded using the Sky service, then the
account owner owes Sky for that download.
Who downloaded it is of no consequence.

Exactly the wrong way around.

I have no love of Sky, but why is this not the case?

What offence are you suggesting the broadband account owner committed?


IIUC, it's the hosting of the film, not the downloading, that's at
issue. As Tim+ tries to point out.

I've never understood why people host pirated files without protecting
their anonymity.

In the past they perhaps didn't care or in some cases as our student said he didn't know he was sharing it.
Sometimes people like the idea that they are providing a service to others.

Actually, yes, I remember from using a torrent programme, sharing is
part and parcel of downloading. And if you leave the torrent prog open,
it continues to upload.

We do that all the time here, provide info and even do jobs as DIYers that can take jobs from the professionals but as yet that's not illegal.


That was a serious point Jeremy Hardy once made, in an argument against
DIY in general, and flat packs in particular.

Just about the only thing I disagree with him about.

--
Cheers, Rob