Interesting info from both the sophisticated lady and the guy with the V for Vendetta mask, but I was literally referencing what I said; some people were downloading freeware from the Pirate Bay, then were quite surprised to discover .mp4 and .avi where they were expecting .exe in the zip files they received.
Libraries pay a licensing fee each time an item is checked out. That's why it's illegal to use bittorrent to share unlicensed content that you haven't created yourself. That's also why it's fine to use bittorrent to share copies of Audacity or Pixel Dungeon, for example, but Micro$##t might have something to say if you seed Security Essentials.
Bittorrent is entirely digital and each file comes in separate chunks from a multitude of users, whereas a lending library is primarily physical and each copy of work you borrow comes from a single location. Additionally, bittorrent results in a file you can keep for as long as you have use of it, a lending library features time limits. That do you?
You mean those who allegedly torrented certain films, but were actually torrenting similarly named freeware? I phrased my statement the way I did because allegations =/= provable actions in every case.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that if the defendant who raised this defence is right, then it could be said that there's no case to answer here. After all, anybody who downloaded torrents seeded by Malibu Media are in the exact same position as those who purchased content sold by Malibu Media: legal owners of copies of films released by Malibu Media.
Am I the only one who believes it's possible that James Woods was snorting a lot of coke whilst taking all the shit Seth MacFarlane throws at him, but he's now coming down off the crap sufficiently to be oversensitive to what is obviously opinion from someone who doesn't reach nearly as large an audience as Family Guy does?