If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Network World)   Copyright troll's lawsuit against porn hound's innocent roommate may cost us our free Wi-Fi   (networkworld.com) divider line 58
    More: Asinine, Wi-Fi, porn  
•       •       •

7615 clicks; posted to Geek » on 19 Jun 2012 at 10:30 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



58 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-06-19 10:32:37 AM  
I don't get free WiFi, and I don't think they were planning to offer it in my area anytime soon.
 
2012-06-19 10:34:57 AM  
www.eff.org
I find this shocking!
 
2012-06-19 10:35:41 AM  

DrunkenBob: I don't get free WiFi, and I don't think they were planning to offer it in my area anytime soon.


I bet there is free wifi in your area somewhere. Heck even Krystals & McDonalds offer it here and I live in the backwoods south
 
2012-06-19 10:35:46 AM  
"So your evidence is that This IP address and this MAC address were downloading porn?"

"Yes."

*Hurls a cable modem at trolls head* "THEN SUE IT!"

/It would be worth the contempt of court and assault and battery charges.
 
2012-06-19 10:35:46 AM  
In every case, it has been ruled that the provider is not responsible. They're just hoping someone is dumb enough to settle out of court.
 
2012-06-19 10:37:22 AM  
I don't think this would blanket all free wi-fi. As roommates there is a reasonable case that one may have known what the other downloaded as they probably discussed it. Doubt you'd have a case that people are calling up Starbucks corporate to say "thanks for the bandwidth to get meh free pron!"

/IANAL
//Using reason though so this may not apply to the law :(
 
2012-06-19 10:44:42 AM  

DoBeDoBeDo: Doubt you'd have a case that people are calling up Starbucks corporate to say "thanks for the bandwidth to get meh free pron!"

/IANAL


You say that, and then you advertise that you're downloading anal porn.
 
2012-06-19 10:53:36 AM  
Why would anyone download porn? Is it that you're going to be away from a internet connection for a day, and you can't hold off fapping for 24 hours?
 
2012-06-19 10:59:01 AM  
Interesting comment in the article that you can't copyright pron. Really?
 
2012-06-19 11:02:31 AM  

PsyLord: Interesting comment in the article that you can't copyright pron. Really?


No, of course you can.
 
2012-06-19 11:03:39 AM  
Manufacturers of computers and monitors probably know that people watch illegal movies on them. Therefore, we should sue the manufacturers. Also, oil is used in the manufacturing process of all that plastic used in devices used for illegal downloads, so the oil industry is responsible as well.

For the love of God, I hope the RIAA doesn't get in on this action.
 
2012-06-19 11:12:01 AM  

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: Why would anyone download porn? Is it that you're going to be away from a internet connection for a day, and you can't hold off fapping for 24 hours?


From my own experience, I had a roommate who would watch porn on his phone while we were sitting on the couch watching TV in my living room.

I stopped inviting him down after that.
 
2012-06-19 11:17:57 AM  
All copyright lawsuits against individuals should be limited to small claims, require the litigant to positively identify the actual people being accused in the filing, and result in fines against the litigant if they lose the case. Damages are capped at 1x the retail value of each item being shared illegally.

Anything more than that should require the litigant to file a criminal complaint and law enforcement should the attempt to establish that the target is running an actual piracy operation at which point the defendant should be charged in criminal court.

I don't have a problem with them attacking robbers, I have a problem with them abusing non-criminal courts just to engage in shakedowns.
 
2012-06-19 11:22:24 AM  
The porn industry has adopted an aggressive legal strategy against piracy in part because piracy of its products is rampant, but also because its lawyers are well aware that a defendant's fear of merely being identified publicly in a lawsuit associated with pornography can be enough to compel some to settle even the most bogus of claims.

Yeah, this won't be a winning strategy if they ever knocked on my door.

"Do you want everyone to know you downloaded midget porn?!"

"Hell yeah, that would be hysterical."
 
2012-06-19 11:23:17 AM  
Comcast should know that it's customers sometimes download copyrighted material and thus should be shut down forever.

It's only logical.
 
2012-06-19 11:31:21 AM  
I live with two roommates who both had been caught downloading movies. Since my name is on the bill I got the DMCA letters. That is the part that bothers me. I can tell them both to knock it off but if they don't I'm the one that gets sued. And i really don't want to go to court over Transformers 3 or Monte Carlo...
 
2012-06-19 11:34:43 AM  
So, if someone were to shoot a patent lawyer troll, does the gun manufacturer or the bullet manufacturer get sued?
 
2012-06-19 11:39:05 AM  

Splinshints: Damages are capped at 1x the retail value of each item being shared illegally.


If that was implemented, why would anyone ever purchase legally?
Buy a copy = $1
Pirate copies, get caught = $1
Pirate copies, don't get caught = $0
 
2012-06-19 11:40:22 AM  

geek_mars: So, if someone were to shoot a patent lawyer troll, does the gun manufacturer or the bullet manufacturer get sued?


Patent, copyright, they're the same thing, right? I mean, look, they're spelled and pronounced the same.
 
2012-06-19 11:52:07 AM  

Theaetetus: geek_mars: So, if someone were to shoot a patent lawyer troll, does the gun manufacturer or the bullet manufacturer get sued?

Patent, copyright, they're the same thing, right? I mean, look, they're spelled and pronounced the same.


Also, the appellation of "troll" in IP is rapidly just becoming the same as "activist judge" which of course means "judge who ruled the way i don't like." You know its bad when the guy who invented the term patent troll works for a big ol' patent troll but explains how it doesn't apply.
 
2012-06-19 11:55:05 AM  

Splinshints: All copyright lawsuits against individuals should be limited to small claims, require the litigant to positively identify the actual people being accused in the filing, and result in fines against the litigant if they lose the case. Damages are capped at 1x the retail value of each item being shared illegally.

Anything more than that should require the litigant to file a criminal complaint and law enforcement should the attempt to establish that the target is running an actual piracy operation at which point the defendant should be charged in criminal court.

I don't have a problem with them attacking robbers, I have a problem with them abusing non-criminal courts just to engage in shakedowns.


Translation: "I don't have a problem with criminal courts, i just don't believe in civil ones."

The whole if it is not a crime it is not a tort mentality is the second weirdest thing i know of in the internet's general disdain for IP. The biggest of course is the belief that infringement for personal profit is somehow not bad, but infringement for commercial profit is.
 
2012-06-19 11:56:10 AM  
Most free WiFi hotspots I've seen make you click through a page of legal boilerplate explaining that you agree to not use their network to do any illegal activity. I'd assume that this would absolve them of any responsibility for what the user did while on their networks, since the user agreed to their TOS.
 
2012-06-19 11:58:45 AM  

Theaetetus: DoBeDoBeDo: Doubt you'd have a case that people are calling up Starbucks corporate to say "thanks for the bandwidth to get meh free pron!"

/IANAL

You say that, and then you advertise that you're downloading anal porn.


Well yeah but I didn't say WHERE I was downloading Anal porn, and that would be the crux of the argument now wouldn't it???

/Your mom's house
 
2012-06-19 12:01:02 PM  

DoBeDoBeDo: Theaetetus: DoBeDoBeDo: Doubt you'd have a case that people are calling up Starbucks corporate to say "thanks for the bandwidth to get meh free pron!"

/IANAL

You say that, and then you advertise that you're downloading anal porn.

Well yeah but I didn't say WHERE I was downloading Anal porn, and that would be the crux of the argument now wouldn't it???

/Your mom's house


hey now, if its at his moms house i know what kind of anal "downloading" you are doing
 
2012-06-19 12:08:28 PM  

Tellingthem: I live with two roommates who both had been caught downloading movies. Since my name is on the bill I got the DMCA letters. That is the part that bothers me. I can tell them both to knock it off but if they don't I'm the one that gets sued. And i really don't want to go to court over Transformers 3 or Monte Carlo...


If you find out they're illegally downloading on a cable bill in your name, you cut off their internet access. It's that simple. They can get service in their own name if they want.
 
2012-06-19 12:18:51 PM  

Theaetetus: Splinshints: Damages are capped at 1x the retail value of each item being shared illegally.

If that was implemented, why would anyone ever purchase legally?
Buy a copy = $1
Pirate copies, get caught = $1
Pirate copies, don't get caught = $0


So cap it at 10x. Songs are $10 per infraction, movies are $100 (or $50. They go for $5 in the iTunes store?). You share a full album, that's $100.

None of this "the song would have sold 22,000 more copies if this 12-year-old in MN hadn't downloaded a single copy, so we're asking for $2,000,000 in damages!" business. Losses are losses, missed projections are missed projections.

Also, RIAA and Friends should be required to turn over, as part of discovery, the means and methods used to find out people's IPs. You hire a snoop, we see their files. The People retain a right to know if a private party has violated their civil rights in a civil proceeding. (I'd like to add that they should be made to follow the same rules as cops for evidence and searches, but no way in hell do I want RIAA serving me legal documents.)
 
2012-06-19 12:24:58 PM  
If the innocent roomate is responsible, the ISP is responsible as well for allowing the illegal content to be downloaded. Also, every router it passed through, every hop it made, would be potentially responsible for not filtering. Heck, an arguement could be made that they are more responsible since they have the means of monitoring traffic whereas the innocent roomate may not have the 'smarts' for it.

/The whole view is insane. The provider did not break a law.
 
2012-06-19 12:30:07 PM  
So wait, part of their reasoning is that he might have known about the piracy? I'm glad we can prosecute people based on what they might have done now.
 
2012-06-19 12:31:33 PM  

Dr Dreidel: Theaetetus: Splinshints: Damages are capped at 1x the retail value of each item being shared illegally.

If that was implemented, why would anyone ever purchase legally?
Buy a copy = $1
Pirate copies, get caught = $1
Pirate copies, don't get caught = $0

So cap it at 10x. Songs are $10 per infraction, movies are $100 (or $50. They go for $5 in the iTunes store?). You share a full album, that's $100.

None of this "the song would have sold 22,000 more copies if this 12-year-old in MN hadn't downloaded a single copy, so we're asking for $2,000,000 in damages!" business. Losses are losses, missed projections are missed projections.


Ok lets put the straw men aside and talk law. At present the max stat damages for willful infringement are $150,000. Thus without proving damages the most they could hit that 12 yr old would be 150k. That seems high. I agree. Of course it seems unlikely that a court would impose such a penalty, as it is the courts discretion to set damages under the statute - but still. Of course what is actually likely to happen in such a case is that the court will assess a penalty based on what it feels is correct and what the likely limited evidence shows. Most of the stat damages cases against individuals I have heard of that did not have mitigating circumstances (like Tenenbaum in the 1st cir.) fell out to ~ 100-1000 per work infringed.

Also, RIAA and Friends should be required to turn over, as part of discovery, the means and methods used to find out people's IPs. You hire a snoop, we see their files. The People retain a right to know if a private party has violated their civil rights in a civil proceeding. (I'd like to add that they should be made to follow the same rules as cops for evidence and searches, but no way in hell do I want RIAA serving me legal documents.)

How is that a violation of their civil rights? no not being attacky - just how is that a violation of right?
 
2012-06-19 12:43:33 PM  

redpanda2: So wait, part of their reasoning is that he might have known about the piracy? I'm glad we can prosecute people based on what they might have done now.


Sigh ok - here are the requirements (simplified) for the two kinds of secondary liability in copyright:

Vicarious Liability:
i. Party can control/supervise the premises where infringement occurs; and
ii. obtain direct financial benefit from the infringement

Contributory Liability
i. with knowledge of infringement,
ii. induces, causes, or materially contributes to infringement

Thus under vicarious liability, if you own a night club and the DJ is playing infringing music and you have a say over what the DJ can or cannot play, then you can be liable even if you do not know that the music is infringing because you had a duty to find out and you made a profit off of the infringement (from guests). The key to vicarious liability is control. Its a fairly rare action, and would likely have very little applicability against private citizen roommates.

Under Contributory liability, you must KNOW there is infringement (or be willfully blind to its happening) and you must actually do something to help/encourage it. Thus if you pay for the internet, and you know that your roommate is using it to download "buttpumpers 7, butt-pumpier" it could be a colorable argument that you had 1) knowledge and 2) as the person providing the internet you materially contributed to infringement.

Now as to your question, what if we dont have evidence that the second party KNEW, but we have tons of other evidence that suggests that there was really no reasonable way he did not know. In that instance, we can find evidence of knowledge based on reason. Thats a question for the jury or the judge (finder of fact). Its the whole point of having a trial in this instance. Its kinda 90% of what finders of fact do.
 
2012-06-19 12:44:26 PM  

Teiritzamna: Most of the stat damages cases against individuals I have heard of that did not have mitigating circumstances (like Tenenbaum in the 1st cir.) fell out to ~ 100-1000 per work infringed.


The case I alluded to enacted a judgement of $2,300,000 or so against a woman who shared 30 songs. 30 songs = 2.3 million only if you're a record exec, and even then it's probably not that much. 1000x value for each "theft" in that case would only work out to $30k, so clearly RIAA is up to some shenanigans.

Teiritzamna: Also, RIAA and Friends should be required to turn over, as part of discovery, the means and methods used to find out people's IPs. You hire a snoop, we see their files. The People retain a right to know if a private party has violated their civil rights in a civil proceeding. (I'd like to add that they should be made to follow the same rules as cops for evidence and searches, but no way in hell do I want RIAA serving me legal documents.)

How is that a violation of their civil rights? no not being attacky - just how is that a violation of right?


If RIAA essentially cyber-snoops on me to get my IP/MAC address (or physical address; or they bully my ISP into turning over my records - am I allowed to sue to block my ISP from turning my name over? I think there's a law that protects/allows them), I want to know if they've violated either my civil rights or state/federal law in the process. As I understand, right now RIAA is protected because their methods to snoop on suspected infringers are considered "business practices" and therefore not subject to disclosure during discovery.

Basically, I want to know - SPECIFICALLY - how they found me and my computer.
 
2012-06-19 12:50:24 PM  

Dr Dreidel: Basically, I want to know - SPECIFICALLY - how they found me and my computer.


Probably by creating a GUI interface using visual basic to track your IP.
 
2012-06-19 01:02:50 PM  

Theaetetus: geek_mars: So, if someone were to shoot a patent lawyer troll, does the gun manufacturer or the bullet manufacturer get sued?

Patent, copyright, they're the same thing, right? I mean, look, they're spelled and pronounced the same.


Thank FSM you're here to point out my word misuse to me. I'm not sure I could go on having made such a drastic mistake. I'm going to pen a letter to my parents and ever teacher I've ever had letting them know they're not half the educator you are for having let me grow up without ensuring I never made a slight mistake on an internet forum. Then maybe I'll be able to sleep at night. Of course, they might have trouble sleeping after they learn of their immense failure, but they should have thought of that when they failed to make me perfectly mistake free.
 
2012-06-19 01:04:03 PM  

Yuri Futanari: Dr Dreidel: Basically, I want to know - SPECIFICALLY - how they found me and my computer.

Probably by creating a GUI interface using visual basic to track your IP.


Congratulations, you've found an IP address. Good for you. What's the next step?
 
2012-06-19 01:05:50 PM  
Love how when someone pirates stuff, fark freetards think that no one should be held to account.
 
2012-06-19 01:10:30 PM  

Dr Dreidel: The case I alluded to enacted a judgement of $2,300,000 or so against a woman who shared 30 songs. 30 songs = 2.3 million only if you're a record exec, and even then it's probably not that much. 1000x value for each "theft" in that case would only work out to $30k, so clearly RIAA is up to some shenanigans.


Do you happen to remember the name of the case or any other information - i would like to check it out and see what happened.
 
2012-06-19 01:13:57 PM  

geek_mars: Theaetetus: geek_mars: So, if someone were to shoot a patent lawyer troll, does the gun manufacturer or the bullet manufacturer get sued?

Patent, copyright, they're the same thing, right? I mean, look, they're spelled and pronounced the same.

Thank FSM you're here to point out my word misuse to me. I'm not sure I could go on having made such a drastic mistake. I'm going to pen a letter to my parents and ever teacher I've ever had letting them know they're not half the educator you are for having let me grow up without ensuring I never made a slight mistake on an internet forum. Then maybe I'll be able to sleep at night. Of course, they might have trouble sleeping after they learn of their immense failure, but they should have thought of that when they failed to make me perfectly mistake free.


Perhaps those teachers and parents would be better served if you instead took a remedial English course. I'm not entirely sure that any of them would be able to efficiently read your screed, should you pen one.
 
2012-06-19 01:18:17 PM  

geek_mars: Thank FSM you're here to point out my word misuse to me. I'm not sure I could go on having made such a drastic mistake. I'm going to pen a letter to my parents and ever teacher I've ever had letting them know they're not half the educator you are for having let me grow up without ensuring I never made a slight mistake on an internet forum. Then maybe I'll be able to sleep at night. Of course, they might have trouble sleeping after they learn of their immense failure, but they should have thought of that when they failed to make me perfectly mistake free.


Well to be fair chief, its not just word misuse but gross concept misuse. Its as if a) you rolled into a thread about cars and made a silly and irrelevant statement that happened to be about motorcycles b) someone pointed out to you that what you said had fark all with the topic of cars and c) you then got pouty about your ignorance of the subject and scope of the thread's discussion and treated the person who noted your irrelevance as if he were cruelly persecuting you for a tiny technical distinction between motor-vehicles.

This is exacerbated by the fact that at least once per IP thread someone yammers on about copyrights when the subject is patents or trademarks when the subject is copyrights. Its like nails on the blackboard to people who know what the hell they are talking about.

i know, i know, welcome to fark.
 
2012-06-19 01:18:30 PM  

Theaetetus: Buy a copy = $1


Where do you get $1 from? I said the retail value of the copy. And toss in a fine and reasonable legal costs for good measure.

Teiritzamna: Translation: "I don't have a problem with criminal courts, i just don't believe in civil ones."


When the civil courts are being used almost exclusively in these cases to shake down targets and strongarm people into settelements, yea, I have a problem believing that the civil courts can handle them.
 
2012-06-19 01:26:04 PM  

Teiritzamna: Also, RIAA and Friends should be required to turn over, as part of discovery, the means and methods used to find out people's IPs. You hire a snoop, we see their files. The People retain a right to know if a private party has violated their civil rights in a civil proceeding. (I'd like to add that they should be made to follow the same rules as cops for evidence and searches, but no way in hell do I want RIAA serving me legal documents.)

How is that a violation of their civil rights? no not being attacky - just how is that a violation of right?


The point, as I understand it, is that we don't know if they have been violated. We deserve the ability to find out - as it's germane to our defense.
 
2012-06-19 01:39:15 PM  

Teiritzamna: Dr Dreidel: The case I alluded to enacted a judgement of $2,300,000 or so against a woman who shared 30 songs. 30 songs = 2.3 million only if you're a record exec, and even then it's probably not that much. 1000x value for each "theft" in that case would only work out to $30k, so clearly RIAA is up to some shenanigans.

Do you happen to remember the name of the case or any other information - i would like to check it out and see what happened.


The numbers are different but similar for the Minnesota woman who the RIAA sued. Here is the most recent article I saw:
"In 2007, the jury in the initial trial decided Thomas-Rasset should pay a $212,000 fine for downloading songs by Green Day, Janet Jackson, Godsmack and Richard Marx. An error in jury instruction brought the case to trial a second time, which resulted in the steep $1.92 million fine, or $80,000 per downloaded song. The Justice Department defended the massive fine, but last week a Minnesota judge ruled that $1.92 million was "simply shocking" before lowering it to $54,000.

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/riaa-minnesota-mom-going-to-tri al-for-third-time-over-illegal-downloads-20100128#ixzz1yGIM5CzK

There was also the case if a graduate student in Boston:

"Tenenbaum was fined $675,000, but in 2009, a federal judge in Boston downgraded the penalty to just $67,500, deeming the original fine "unconstitutionally excessive."

Following pleas for further leniency from Tenenbaum and indignant filings from the RIAA, a federal appeals court revisited the ruling last year and reinstated the $675,000 judgment against Tenenbaum, a graduate student in his late twenties pursuing a physics PhD at Boston University."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/05/21/supreme-court-wont-hear-appe al-from-student-hit-with-675000-music-downloading/#ixzz1yGIq9SNK
 
2012-06-19 02:14:51 PM  

Teiritzamna: Dr Dreidel: The case I alluded to enacted a judgement of $2,300,000 or so against a woman who shared 30 songs. 30 songs = 2.3 million only if you're a record exec, and even then it's probably not that much. 1000x value for each "theft" in that case would only work out to $30k, so clearly RIAA is up to some shenanigans.

Do you happen to remember the name of the case or any other information - i would like to check it out and see what happened.


You forgot about Thomas-Rasset? O.o
 
2012-06-19 02:20:40 PM  

Dr Dreidel: None of this "the song would have sold 22,000 more copies if this 12-year-old in MN hadn't downloaded a single copy, so we're asking for $2,000,000 in damages!" business. Losses are losses, missed projections are missed projections.


First, as noted above, it's only up to $150k per work (and really, if they have better lawyers, it's only up to $30k per work).

Second, this isn't about downloading a copy. No leecher has ever been sued, for multiple reasons, both legal (easy fair use arguments, easy non-infringement position) and practical (you can't find a leecher unless you're the seeder).
No, this is about distribution licenses. Say you want to start an online music store, and sell copies of the latest Katy Perry crap. Do you think you can go to Capitol Records and offer them a dollar in exchange for getting to distribute thousands of copies, and they'll say yes? Do you think Apple pays the record companies a single dollar, once, and then sells hundreds of thousands of copies of a song with nothing more due?
We're not talking about retail price of a song. We're talking about the cost of a non-exclusive distribution license... and what unlicensed distribution does to the value of their existing exclusive distribution licenses.

Dr Dreidel: If RIAA essentially cyber-snoops on me to get my IP/MAC address (or physical address; or they bully my ISP into turning over my records - am I allowed to sue to block my ISP from turning my name over? I think there's a law that protects/allows them), I want to know if they've violated either my civil rights or state/federal law in the process. As I understand, right now RIAA is protected because their methods to snoop on suspected infringers are considered "business practices" and therefore not subject to disclosure during discovery.

Basically, I want to know - SPECIFICALLY - how they found me and my computer.


As I said, they download from you. The only packets they sniff are their own.
 
2012-06-19 02:31:38 PM  

narkor: Love how when someone pirates stuff, fark freetards think that no one should be held to account.


Almost as bad as the fark retards who think that people should be held accountable with no proof they downloaded anything.
 
2012-06-19 02:33:07 PM  

Theaetetus: Dr Dreidel: None of this "the song would have sold 22,000 more copies if this 12-year-old in MN hadn't downloaded a single copy, so we're asking for $2,000,000 in damages!" business. Losses are losses, missed projections are missed projections.

First, as noted above, it's only up to $150k per work (and really, if they have better lawyers, it's only up to $30k per work).

Second, this isn't about downloading a copy. No leecher has ever been sued, for multiple reasons, both legal (easy fair use arguments, easy non-infringement position) and practical (you can't find a leecher unless you're the seeder).
No, this is about distribution licenses. Say you want to start an online music store, and sell copies of the latest Katy Perry crap. Do you think you can go to Capitol Records and offer them a dollar in exchange for getting to distribute thousands of copies, and they'll say yes? Do you think Apple pays the record companies a single dollar, once, and then sells hundreds of thousands of copies of a song with nothing more due?
We're not talking about retail price of a song. We're talking about the cost of a non-exclusive distribution license... and what unlicensed distribution does to the value of their existing exclusive distribution licenses.


Well, that's at least an argument.

Though, how does RIAA get around the notion that distribution would not be possible without the services provided by the ISP (which handles the actual 1s-and-0s distribution) and the software manufacturers (which handle the ability to copy and connect the illegal copies to others) - are there suits in the works which handle this shared liability?

Not that that's a defense, but it does show RIAA's legal position to be..let's say "one based more on the ease of extracting money" than it is based on "recouping losses".

Dr Dreidel: If RIAA essentially cyber-snoops on me to get my IP/MAC address (or physical address; or they bully my ISP into turning over my records - am I allowed to sue to block my ISP from turning my name over? I think there's a law that protects/allows them), I want to know if they've violated either my civil rights or state/federal law in the process. As I understand, right now RIAA is protected because their methods to snoop on suspected infringers are considered "business practices" and therefore not subject to disclosure during discovery.

Basically, I want to know - SPECIFICALLY - how they found me and my computer.

As I said, they download from you. The only packets they sniff are their own.


So let them show, in court, how they used the very same actionable method they accuse me of (illegally obtaining a copy of the work and re-seeding it) to bust me. AND, unless they can prove in court what the settings on the program are, perhaps they are also guilty of seeding that song back out. If they won't protect their own copyrighted work, why should I be bound to protect it? Isn't that part of a) IP law, and b) why RIAA so aggressively pursues IP theft cases?

I'm not suggesting it's always done shadily. I just need RIAA to prove what they did, and hiding behind "corporate secrets" isn't good enough for me. It shouldn't be good enough for anyone else, either.
 
2012-06-19 02:46:34 PM  

Dr Dreidel: Well, that's at least an argument.

Though, how does RIAA get around the notion that distribution would not be possible without the services provided by the ISP (which handles the actual 1s-and-0s distribution) and the software manufacturers (which handle the ability to copy and connect the illegal copies to others) - are there suits in the works which handle this shared liability?


The ISPs are common carriers, and the software has substantial non-infringing uses*. It's why the Feds don't go after the telephone company when you do a drug deal over the phone. They don't utilize the service, so they're not responsible for content.
The argument is that the roommate here isn't acting as a common carrier, but had knowledge of what his roommate was using the computer for. Did they ever surf the web together? Did they watch Anal Blasters 7 together? Did he ever look over his roommate's shoulder at a funny video? Then he's potentially not a common carrier.

That said, that's just the argument. I'm not saying it's a winner.

*the RIAA did sue Napster, as well as Grokster, and won

Dr Dreidel: So let them show, in court, how they used the very same actionable method they accuse me of (illegally obtaining a copy of the work and re-seeding it) to bust me.


1) They're the rights owner, so they cannot possibly "illegally" obtain a copy of the work.
2) Who said they're re-seeding it? I guarantee you that they're leeching. They have to - uploading would result in potential legal defenses for anyone they seed to.
3) And they do show it in court. MediaSentry testified as a witness and had to show logs and documentation.

AND, unless they can prove in court what the settings on the program are, perhaps they are also guilty of seeding that song back out. If they won't protect their own copyrighted work, why should I be bound to protect it? Isn't that part of a) IP law, and b) why RIAA so aggressively pursues IP theft cases?

That defense only works in trademark. Copyright owners are under no duty to protect their copyrights. Furthermore, they don't seed and they do show their work in court.

I'm not suggesting it's always done shadily. I just need RIAA to prove what they did, and hiding behind "corporate secrets" isn't good enough for me. It shouldn't be good enough for anyone else, either.

Sure, feel free... The problem is that they're under no requirement to show you their work out of court. So, if you want to get sued by them, and then raise those issues in your defense, you absolutely can - and yes, if MediaSentry doesn't testify, then you've got a really good argument.
Problem is, if they do testify (which they will - they've got a contract that says they will), then you're farked, and are facing those super high damage awards.
 
2012-06-19 03:28:20 PM  

Tellingthem: I live with two roommates who both had been caught downloading movies. Since my name is on the bill I got the DMCA letters. That is the part that bothers me. I can tell them both to knock it off but if they don't I'm the one that gets sued. And i really don't want to go to court over Transformers 3 or Monte Carlo...


If they're using their own computers and you have logging set up (and the router isn't overwriting the logs), that's not as much of a problem as you think.

Your roomates will hate you, but it doesn't sound like they're the type to take responsibility for things anyway.

Alternatively, throttle connections for any systems that connect to the network besides yours (easy to do with most GUI-based routers these days). If the bill is in your name, I don't see a problem with this.
 
2012-06-19 06:21:28 PM  
I have no idea if this is legally valid, but I think it would be rather hilarious if it worked:

You make a piece of software that encrypts an arbitrary file and including a small copyrightable work of your own. You explicitly indicate that the contents aren't for use by the ??AA or their agents, etc. If they sue you, you discover how they were able to find out what you were sharing (ie: they were sitting with the same torrent open you were), then you initiate DCMA proceedings against them for circumventing the DRM on your IP. Make sure to use the same dollar amounts as your crude penis drawing is worth exactly as much as most of their theatrical releases.
 
2012-06-19 06:23:55 PM  

Theaetetus: 2) Who said they're re-seeding it? I guarantee you that they're leeching. They have to - uploading would result in potential legal defenses for anyone they seed to.


You know, someone should just sit on every torrent they can, not leaching or seeding; just looking for industry IPs who are seeding. Then make those logs as public as possible.
 
2012-06-19 06:29:29 PM  

ProfessorOhki: Theaetetus: 2) Who said they're re-seeding it? I guarantee you that they're leeching. They have to - uploading would result in potential legal defenses for anyone they seed to.

You know, someone should just sit on every torrent they can, not leaching or seeding; just looking for industry IPs who are seeding. Then make those logs as public as possible.


I would imagine that the industry would make the claim that by connecting to the tracker, you intended to make the IP available for download, and are therefore an infringer, so here is a bill for eleventy billion.
 
Displayed 50 of 58 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report