When someone at Sony, Universal and Fox use bittorrent, why is that not legal distribution? Especially when they hire someone to spy on bittorrent users, because in that case their distribution is clearly authorized. Maybe the blocklists used by torrent clients should be inverted?
It's about intent. If you didn't know that Sony was distributing this film, you cannot claim you were downloading a film from Sony directly. You'd have to prove you knew that before downloading it, which you generally cannot do. I don't know of any tracker that will tell you what IPs are currently connected (though it might be possible).
Even then, while downloading you're generally uploading as well, so you could still be charged with distribution.
> I don't know of any tracker that will tell you what IPs are currently connected
Maybe I don't fully understand your comment but every tracker will tell you what IPs are currently connected. That is what trackers do, that is the very feature that make them trackers.
Sorry, my brain made the connection from the previous sentence between "before you begin to download" to "telling you the IPs". I should have added that to the sentence that confused you as well, I haven't seen any that tell you the IPs that are currently connected before you begin to download. So you have to initiate the download before you can find out who is connected.
I've always felt that when two torrent clients start talking, they should require each other to say something to the effect: "I am an agent of the copyright holder of this material, and I hereby authorize you to use and distribute this material freely" before sending any data. Try to sue someone in court when you have your investigator on record telling them they can use and distribute your works.
Won't work for FLOSS/CC licensed material, or public domain works. The distributor is not an agent for the copyright holder; she either has a license which allows redistribution, or does not need one to legally redistribute.
So, your disclaimer is reduced to "I am legally allowed to redistribute this media". Which is pointless. It's inherently implied by the fact that you are redistributing the work. Unless you are breaking the law - in which case, why would lying about it bother you?
Oh, yes, I am totally authorised to redistribute this media. And these genuine Rolex watches I am selling for $20 fell off the back of a truck. They are definitely not fakes infringing on trademarks, nor are they actual genuine articles which are stolen and being fenced, no siree!
