Slyck.com
 
Slyck Chatbox - And More

Another copyright question. Limited company

Discuss any general File-Sharing Topic or Issue

Please use the relevant forum below for non file-sharing issues or questions about a specific program or network.
Forum rules
PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING: Slyck Forum Rules

Another copyright question. Limited company

Postby bobb » Thu Jan 03, 2013 8:59 pm

Just a thought... My understand that an Ltd company is limited in responsibility by its shareholder fund. Imagine you are a keen P2P user who happened to get caught in some nasty legal sh1te like Goldent eye or other basterds?

Imagine you are going to court and say - yeah the account holder is my limited company Wan Ker and Bros Ltd. I had momentary lapse in judgment and I may have downloaded something but I don't remember what because I was drunk. I never actually watched that and I deleted it next morning because I was ashamed of myself.

Sorry.

Here is 20 quid - the amount of the shares registered for the company in the Companies House. the maximum liability..

Is my understanding correct? is this viable scenario?
bobb
 
Posts: 59
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 8:43 am

Re: Another copyright question. Limited company

Postby Lee1001 » Fri Jan 04, 2013 4:09 pm

Ignorance of the law is no excuse,you'd be guilty.
Lee1001
 
Posts: 671
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2006 6:12 am

Re: Another copyright question. Limited company

Postby bobb » Fri Jan 04, 2013 8:32 pm

I am sorry.. Lee.. where did you read about ignorance? try harder please

my post says - I admit I downloaded it and pay the maximum liability the account holder has - 20 quid..

question Lee is not how to get off the hook but rather if an account holder is a limited company wont be it reasonable to assume that the liability in this case cannot exceed the LTD company liability (in my example - 20 quid).

yes / no / don't know / don't care?
bobb
 
Posts: 59
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 8:43 am

Re: Another copyright question. Limited company

Postby DukePPUk » Sat Jan 05, 2013 6:59 pm

I don't think incorporating would help, because it is you not the company being accused of copyright infringement. So while yes, if they sued the company, your liability would be limited to whatever the limitation on the company was, if they sued you they could get everything from you personally.

Now, if it was the company doing the downloading (with you doing so as a director), it might be a bit different, but the court would probably throw that out by finding that the company was being used as a sham.
DukePPUk
 
Posts: 128
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2010 3:45 am

Re: Another copyright question. Limited company

Postby bobb » Sun Jan 06, 2013 4:24 pm

Ok.. but imagine it happened that the company wasn't a sham and the account was made in name of the company (by O2 records) and the company was paying the O2 fees (so the judge wont be able to throw that out).. they will have to sue the company as the account holder.

will my argument stand?
bobb
 
Posts: 59
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 8:43 am

Re: Another copyright question. Limited company

Postby ejonesss » Sun Jan 06, 2013 4:39 pm

Lee1001 wrote:Ignorance of the law is no excuse,you'd be guilty.





here is an interesting theory.

what happens if you did something that angered someone and they break into your house and plant child porn or equiv. in level of illegality on your computer or even your tivo box via the tivo stream feature.

just like the oj simpson glove can you be set up or are there safeguards in the legal system to prevent framing someone so easy?
…-..-..-..-..-.-----.-…-..-…-..-…-...
ejonesss
 
Posts: 2973
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2003 5:43 pm

Re: Another copyright question. Limited company

Postby DukePPUk » Sun Jan 06, 2013 7:44 pm

bobb wrote:Ok.. but imagine it happened that the company wasn't a sham and the account was made in name of the company (by O2 records) and the company was paying the O2 fees (so the judge wont be able to throw that out).. they will have to sue the company as the account holder.

They don't have to sue the company. They would get the company's details from the NPO, but that doesn't mean they have to sue the company and them only. They could try to get the relevant information from the Company / it's director(s) as to who they should be suing, then going after them.

It's the same as a situation where the subscriber either doesn't use the connection, or obviously didn't infringe the copyright, but someone else using the connection did - they bully the subscriber into handing over the details of whoever did, then can sue them.

ejonesss wrote:what happens if you did something that angered someone and they break into your house and plant child porn or equiv. in level of illegality on your computer or even your tivo box via the tivo stream feature.

Ignorance of the law is (afaik) never an excuse, but ignorance of some fact can be.

Possession of indecent images of a child is illegal under s160 Criminal Justice Act 1988, and everything but possession under s1 Protection of Children Act 1978. In both cases the defendant has a defence if he can prove "that he had not himself seen the photograph or pseudo-photograph and did not know, nor had any cause to suspect, it to be indecent."

In theory. In practice, convincing a jury or the police that will be rather difficult (although I think it has happened in set-up cases), so basically, you're screwed. But indecent images of children is an area of law where reason tends to go out the window (particularly when juries and the press are involved). The same sort of "lack of knowledge of fact" applies in other areas, for example with both secondary copyright infringement and criminal copyright infringement the claimant/prosecution has to prove that the defendant knew or had reason to believe that the article was an infringing copy. This doesn't apply to primary infringement, though.
DukePPUk
 
Posts: 128
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2010 3:45 am

Re: Another copyright question. Limited company

Postby ejonesss » Mon Jan 07, 2013 1:49 am

what i was asking is is the law so uncaring that the will look at the fact you possess the images because of how badly the morals of minors are corrupted just not give care and put someone away hollywood style?
…-..-..-..-..-.-----.-…-..-…-..-…-...
ejonesss
 
Posts: 2973
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2003 5:43 pm

Re: Another copyright question. Limited company

Postby bobb » Mon Jan 07, 2013 8:09 am

ejonesss wrote:here is an interesting theory.

what happens if you did something that angered someone and they break into your house and plant child porn or equiv. in level of illegality on your computer or even your tivo box via the tivo stream feature.

just like the oj simpson glove can you be set up or are there safeguards in the legal system to prevent framing someone so easy?
that is my worry too - see my other question (part 4). but I guess it is easier to plant few grams of cocaine that mucking with your computer

P.S. I also understand that there is a national entertainment in england - burn the person alive if you are angered :)) 20L of petrol is much more reliable and cheaper way to avenge your aching ago ;)
bobb
 
Posts: 59
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 8:43 am

Re: Another copyright question. Limited company

Postby ejonesss » Mon Jan 07, 2013 9:36 am

burning them alive they can get you on arson but setting someone up with child porn because child porn is so illegal real or virtual just possessing it can get you busted and go directly to jail and queations asked later..

most other crimes they investigate then they come after you.
…-..-..-..-..-.-----.-…-..-…-..-…-...
ejonesss
 
Posts: 2973
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2003 5:43 pm

Re: Another copyright question. Limited company

Postby aninnocent » Fri Feb 22, 2013 4:45 am

Just to chip in on the original question.
I would suggest that like a company that cannot provide details of who was driving its vehicle through a speed camera were they not able to provide details of who was using its internet connection they would go after the Company Secretary.
In criminal matters anyway.
aninnocent
 
Posts: 53
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2013 8:57 am

Re: Another copyright question. Limited company

Postby rupert bloone » Fri Feb 22, 2013 12:15 pm

bobb wrote:yes / no / don't know / don't care?


i am sorry bobb but you are screwered.

you admittted in the other tread that the law cannot help or see some different so the outcome is there to see.

porn is wrong and you should not see it. you get a nasty mind and your morals go to not return.

but donwloading it is making it worst as you are spreading filth beyond the tv into the words of jesus christ who FORBID this crime

best

rupert
rupert bloone
 
Posts: 54
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 7:27 am

Re: Another copyright question. Limited company

Postby HouseCrowd » Sat Feb 23, 2013 7:17 am

rupert bloone wrote:but donwloading it is making it worst as you are spreading filth beyond the tv into the words of jesus christ who FORBID this crime


WTF!?! :lol:

What is this, the Middle Ages!?
There are 10 types of people in the World; those who understand binary, and those who do not.
User avatar
HouseCrowd
 
Posts: 33862
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2003 4:18 am
Location: UK

Re: Another copyright question. Limited company

Postby tmc » Sun Feb 24, 2013 7:30 pm

Here's another tact.. TPB case in sweden had lots of evidence that could have been used against the 3 founders including pro-piracy statements about the purposes of their tracker site.. but instead they went the corrupt route for conviction. They did so because depite the verdict, the laws in Sweden are totally inadequate to shut down piracy and/or torrent sites. Also, there is not enough support among the people to shut it down. Laws in most of Euruope concerning intellectual property are slowly being rewritten to mirror those in the USA. Also, when that's not possible, there are other more invasive methods used such as trade coersion, threats, international political pressure,etc. However, regimes where the USA isn't particularly a "FRIEND" or politically aligned, this can prove extremely difficult to impossible. Places such as North Korea, Iran, Syria, Cuba, Pakistan, and most Asian countries.

Though, for a small country of 50 million people (UK), vast portions of the country are getting wired for Fiber, so Kudos on that.
tmc
 
Posts: 1104
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2007 9:04 am
Location: usa

Re: Another copyright question. Limited company

Postby rupert bloone » Mon Feb 25, 2013 4:29 am

HouseCrowd wrote:
rupert bloone wrote:but donwloading it is making it worst as you are spreading filth beyond the tv into the words of jesus christ who FORBID this crime


WTF!?! :lol:

What is this, the Middle Ages!?


sorry my bad english

beyond the tv into the WORLD of jesus christ
rupert bloone
 
Posts: 54
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 7:27 am

Re: Another copyright question. Limited company

Postby HouseCrowd » Mon Feb 25, 2013 8:04 am

rupert bloone wrote:sorry my bad english

beyond the tv into the WORLD of jesus christ



It wasn't your use of English or your typing error that had me roaring with laughter, it was the whole 'Jesus hates porn' thing. Good one!

... assuming you're joking of course!
There are 10 types of people in the World; those who understand binary, and those who do not.
User avatar
HouseCrowd
 
Posts: 33862
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2003 4:18 am
Location: UK


Return to General File-Sharing Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron
© 2001-2008 Slyck.com