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.
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.
Same with large academic datasets. You can’t rely on most academics to maintain their work past publication, nor to have machines capable of serving that much data in one go.
plenty of legal uses of the protocol. whats different here?
e.
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
Same with large academic datasets. You can’t rely on most academics to maintain their work past publication, nor to have machines capable of serving that much data in one go.