Quote:
Originally Posted by heero_yuy
I suspect that you also have to allow scripting, which I normally block for all but white listed sites and even then only trusted scripts.
Scripts will execute without you even clicking on anything, so called "drive by shooting", unless blocked.
|
You would still have to visit whatever sites have that exploit. We're not talking about any site they choose eg BBC News or this one.
---------- Post added at 20:35 ---------- Previous post was at 20:10 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul
You can of course block uploading on a client, and state you did so.
So unless they have logs showing they actually downloaded pieces from you, that argument is pretty dead
Im sure I also read that it can be argued that parts (peices) are useless on their own (partial, non working downloads are a common problem) so its unlikely anyone downloaded a complete (working) copy just from you (or anyone specific).
|
Don't use P2P myself.
In which case they wouldn't have your IP address in the first place. I thought they can only use IP addresses that "advertise" they have content X.
Downloads are not seen as the issue, although it still breaks copyright. They're not focussed on who has downloaded anything, but who has uploaded it.
Not sure they could ever prove that somebody else managed to download every single part from a particular person. Would that make these court cases invalid? If each part is small(short) enough, would a single part be covered by "fair use"?
I thought the whole notion of P2P was not to have people having to all download from the one source. The download impact is shared around.