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.

(SFGate)   Kentucky woman goes trolling for copyright trolls   (sfgate.com) divider line 52
    More: Spiffy, Kentucky, copyright troll  
•       •       •

12950 clicks; posted to Main » on 11 Jul 2012 at 10:27 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2012-07-11 08:19:26 AM
A Kentucky woman, Jennifer Barker, is suing the five companies that targeted her and is seeking class-action status to hold the companies accountable for harassing calls for settlements.

She's not the first to make a similar claim. A previous case held that tracing infringement to an IP address was enough to bring a non-frivolous lawsuit against the apparent user of the IP address. Whether the "owner" of the address was responsible is considered a legitimately disputed question of fact.

If courts follow that precedent (which is probably not binding) her case would be a loser.
 
2012-07-11 08:43:12 AM
damn, i feel sorry for the croatian immigrant. poor guy probably doesn't have enough money to own a computer, let alone pay for the connection to download porn. these jerks need to go after rupert murdoch, i bet he's downloaded enough raw film productions to fund the croatian guy's birth nation for life.
 
2012-07-11 09:55:21 AM
I read that headline with Neil Diamond's voice.
 
2012-07-11 10:32:27 AM
The film company sues a series of "John Does" and "Jane Does" identified only by Internet provider numbers...

Randazza said generally, when an Internet provider number shows up...


I want to kick this journalist in the teeth.
 
2012-07-11 10:33:45 AM
The judge cited three "John Does" in one of the cases before him. Each had reasons or proof that they didn't or couldn't have downloaded the porn in question. One was at work, another was an octogenarian with "neither the wherewithal nor interest" in such a download, while a third found copying such a film contrary to her "religious, moral, ethical and personal views."

Would not such a claim actually increase the credibility of a claim of illicit acquisition and distribution of pornographic materials?
 
2012-07-11 10:35:10 AM

AlwaysRightBoy: I read that headline with Neil Diamond's Ian Gillan's voice.


With the good Lord accompanying
 
2012-07-11 10:35:44 AM

talulahgosh: damn, i feel sorry for the croatian immigrant. poor guy probably doesn't have enough money to own a computer, let alone pay for the connection to download porn. these jerks need to go after rupert murdoch, i bet he's downloaded enough raw film productions to fund the croatian guy's birth nation for life.


Cast a net over the US Capitol's network. And each of the state capitol buildings. Then go for every government-owned or -run facility. And after you're done prosecuting them us*, we can talk about private citizens.

I'd like to see how many of our lawmakers would be affected by this abuse of the legal system (and make sure they can't use public/campaign funds to defend themselves). Put them in our (slightly soggy) shoes for once.

* work for the feds, but no way in the FSM's beer garden would I ever view/download porn at work
// and no way they'd ever be allowed to snoop there
 
2012-07-11 10:36:24 AM
She's suing Apple?
 
2012-07-11 10:39:38 AM

talulahgosh: damn, i feel sorry for the croatian immigrant. poor guy probably doesn't have enough money to own a computer, let alone pay for the connection to download porn.


Keep reading. It later says he set up a wireless router at his house for his kids and is claiming a neighbor or a passer-by must have logged on to his un-secure router to download the porn.
 
2012-07-11 10:41:34 AM
Good alibi, my wireless access is unsecured...
 
2012-07-11 10:45:32 AM
I'm not all that computer-literate, but does viewing a video clip on a free website constitute "downloading", or is that when only you actually store the clip on your computer?

/I'm curious in an academic sense.
//A friend asked me about this the other day.
 
2012-07-11 10:45:52 AM

Mirrorz: talulahgosh: damn, i feel sorry for the croatian immigrant. poor guy probably doesn't have enough money to own a computer, let alone pay for the connection to download porn.

Keep reading. It later says he set up a wireless router at his house for his kids and is claiming a neighbor or a passer-by must have logged on to his un-secure router to download the porn.


I'm waiting for the first person to actually show up in court and demonstrate how to download a torrent from an unsecured WIFI signal near the courthouse.
 
2012-07-11 10:46:39 AM
Of course if I was downloading pr0n left right and center and got caught, I'd definitely go with the "it wasn't me, I don't know how to use a computer" strategy as well. Say that, even if you are as guilty as sin, and you've instantly got Ars Technica and Cory Doctorow proclaiming your innocence.

I wonder what "reasonable doubt" is for some people. ISPs keep records of IP addresses assigned to client computers - so it's not out of the ballpark that she's guilty. Other than performing a search and seizure on someone's computer - what proof would be acceptable?

Or are we all pretending that no one is downloading copyright infringing pr0n in a way that they could be tracked?

Sure - we can keep excusing this stuff - but at some point legislators are going to say "hey these nerds are telling me that you can't ever track people on the internets - lets do something about that because of terrorism" and suddenly you have hardware based computer certificates installed on everyone's computer.
 
2012-07-11 10:46:40 AM
Frequently, the film companies band together and seek a waiver of court fees for the lawsuits, minimizing their costs and making any money collected from the calls strictly profit.

Henry described the lawsuits as a business model that's probably more profitable than making films.

"It's brilliant in one sense of the word," Henry said. "But, it's wrong. It's just absolutely wrong."

Some federal judges are starting to agree and push back. Magistrate Judge Gary R. Brown in the Eastern District of New York pointed out how unreasonable the assumptions made by the film companies are in a ruling handed down in May in a case involving K-Beech.

The judge cited three "John Does" in one of the cases before him. Each had reasons or proof that they didn't or couldn't have downloaded the porn in question.


Perhaps we can take their own "use scare tactics and make an example out of a couple of people" approach and turn it around on them. Find a couple of e-mails showing that they don't really care whether they're getting the right people and/or ignore proof of innocence, start charging them under the RICO Act and send in the federal marshals with the TV cameras close behind.
 
2012-07-11 10:51:18 AM
Aim for the trolls ! Kill the trolls !!

Link
 
2012-07-11 10:51:42 AM

Dimensio: The judge cited three "John Does" in one of the cases before him. Each had reasons or proof that they didn't or couldn't have downloaded the porn in question. One was at work, another was an octogenarian with "neither the wherewithal nor interest" in such a download, while a third found copying such a film contrary to her "religious, moral, ethical and personal views."

Would not such a claim actually increase the credibility of a claim of illicit acquisition and distribution of pornographic materials?


Proclaiming your innocence is a sure sign of guilt!

Link

P.S. I'm not the messiah. I'm a very naughty boy.
 
2012-07-11 10:51:53 AM
Internet provider number

Swing and a miss.
 
2012-07-11 10:52:08 AM
Has no one heard of DHCP? FFS, I don't even get the same external IP all the time. Unless the ISPs have records of which MAC belongs to which account, and which MAC had which IP at which time (something I highly doubt), how can they even draw the line from A to B?
 
2012-07-11 10:55:32 AM
What I can't quite figure out is where the pirate videos are being hosted, and why the copyright holders don't seem interested in pursuing the uploaders. Could it be that these people are THEMSELVES uploading the "pirated" videos, so that they can then extort $$$ from the downloaders, or those they THINK are the downloaders?

'Cuz, you know, people involved in the porn-production/distribution industry are fine, upstanding citizens. Engaging in criminal activity would never occur to any of them....
 
2012-07-11 10:56:47 AM

PWildcat: Has no one heard of DHCP? FFS, I don't even get the same external IP all the time. Unless the ISPs have records of which MAC belongs to which account, and which MAC had which IP at which time (something I highly doubt), how can they even draw the line from A to B?


They know exactly what IP address was assigned to a particular login at a particular time. So they can track back any traffic as having come from a particular account.

But like they said in the article, it's similar to claiming that the person who pays the phone bill must be the person responsible for making the phone call.
 
2012-07-11 10:57:23 AM

PWildcat: Has no one heard of DHCP? FFS, I don't even get the same external IP all the time. Unless the ISPs have records of which MAC belongs to which account, and which MAC had which IP at which time (something I highly doubt), how can they even draw the line from A to B?


3/10
Internet Provider Numbers don't work that way
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2012-07-11 10:59:37 AM
narkor

Capitol v. Thomas is instructive on the proof required. She started off with the "not me" defense. She was unconvincing for several reasons.

People with more convincing denials have had the RIAA pay their legal fees.

And I agree that we should worry about the perception of a big problem. If politicians think this is a serious IP theft problem, not the usual lobbyists' begging, honest people will lose anonymous internet access. So will the less clever dishonest people.
 
2012-07-11 11:01:22 AM
markfara
I'm not all that computer-literate, but does viewing a video clip on a free website constitute "downloading", or is that when only you actually store the clip on your computer?


Doesn't really matter because the extortion company hired by the producer of "Backdoor Sluts 10 - Bend over like Beckham" won't get at your IP address when you watch their video on www.whackofftothisttube.com.

I'm pretty sure that all of those cases are actually about uploading or "making available" those movies and not about downloading them, i.e. people were using Bittorrent or a Gnutella/Limewire client (yeah, right, in 2012) configured with "please sue me"-settings where you also upload what you're downloading.
 
2012-07-11 11:02:07 AM

markfara: I'm not all that computer-literate, but does viewing a video clip on a free website constitute "downloading", or is that when only you actually store the clip on your computer?

/I'm curious in an academic sense.
//A friend asked me about this the other day.


I think the bulk of these are from people downloading porn via Bit Torrent...
 
2012-07-11 11:02:40 AM
i.imgur.com
 
2012-07-11 11:03:26 AM

BurnShrike: PWildcat: Has no one heard of DHCP? FFS, I don't even get the same external IP all the time. Unless the ISPs have records of which MAC belongs to which account, and which MAC had which IP at which time (something I highly doubt), how can they even draw the line from A to B?

They know exactly what IP address was assigned to a particular login at a particular time. So they can track back any traffic as having come from a particular account.

But like they said in the article, it's similar to claiming that the person who pays the phone bill must be the person responsible for making the phone call.


I wonder how long are those ip/mac records are required to be maintained? Let's say you haven't downloaded a torrent in more than a year and have since replaced your modem/changed providers?
 
2012-07-11 11:04:09 AM

The Voice of Doom: Doesn't really matter because the extortion company hired by the producer of "Backdoor Sluts 10 - Bend over like Beckham" won't get at your IP address when you watch their video on www.whackofftothisttube.com.

I'm pretty sure that all of those cases are actually about uploading or "making available" those movies and not about downloading them, i.e. people were using Bittorrent or a Gnutella/Limewire client (yeah, right, in 2012) configured with "please sue me"-settings where you also upload what you're downloading.


I lol'd. I knew I had you favorited for a reason.
 
2012-07-11 11:05:09 AM
This thread would have 200+ posts by now if the title included the word "Porn"
 
2012-07-11 11:08:40 AM
OK, can't wait to see The Oatmeal get mixed up in this one.
 
2012-07-11 11:14:15 AM

BurnShrike: The film company sues a series of "John Does" and "Jane Does" identified only by Internet provider numbers...

Randazza said generally, when an Internet provider number shows up...

I want to kick this journalist in the teeth.


I came here to say this.

shiatty dilettante journalists are shiatty and dabbly.
 
2012-07-11 11:17:00 AM

mjones73: markfara: I'm not all that computer-literate, but does viewing a video clip on a free website constitute "downloading", or is that when only you actually store the clip on your computer?

/I'm curious in an academic sense.
//A friend asked me about this the other day.

I think the bulk of these are from people downloading porn via Bit Torrent...


The question then arises: Why the hell download porn when you can just get online and watch it (and save dickspace, if you catch my drift)? I mean, is there some NRA-like fear out there that the government's going to swoop down and snatch (snicker) all the online porn?

Gotta say, I don't get it. . . .

/cold, dead fingers. . . .
 
2012-07-11 11:20:02 AM
Wasilla Hillbilly
3/10
Internet Provider Numbers don't work that way


Oh, you should read Arne Dahl's book..um.. I guess it is or will be called "Chinese Whispers" in English.

In this novel the super-duper crime fighters of his fictional new Pan-European police unit have learned that people have found ways to hide their IPs through anonymizers.
But fret not!
The super duper crime fighters have computer experts and those have found out that there's something called M-A-C addresses unique to each computer. so they're not bothering with easily faked IP addresses, they're tracing emails back to the M-A-C address of the sending computer and geolocate the sender via that M-A-C address.
 
2012-07-11 11:27:56 AM

Harvey Manfrenjensenjen: start charging them under the RICO Act


According to this article that's exactly what they're doing. I hope they crush the trolls.
 
2012-07-11 11:34:54 AM
markfara
The question then arises: Why the hell download porn when you can just get online and watch it (and save dickspace, if you catch my drift)? I mean, is there some NRA-like fear out there that the government's going to swoop down and snatch (snicker) all the online porn?

Your friend that asked you about downloading porn told the cousin of a friend of some guy a colleague of mine knows that you often find sample clips on those streaming sites; I guess sometimes your friend might fancy to get the whole video or other stuff that's similar to it or features the same pair of boobs.
So he plops the name of the video, website, actress attached to the boobs or whatever in a search engine and accidentally forgets to add "-torrent -torrents -rar -sketchyOneClickHostingProviderName.com" to the query.
 
2012-07-11 11:58:50 AM

PWildcat: Has no one heard of DHCP? FFS, I don't even get the same external IP all the time. Unless the ISPs have records of which MAC belongs to which account, and which MAC had which IP at which time (something I highly doubt), how can they even draw the line from A to B?


The info that the plaintiff has includes an IP address and the date/time that it was used to download the material. Your ISP knows which customer was assigned that IP address at that time.
 
2012-07-11 12:02:14 PM

markfara: I'm not all that computer-literate, but does viewing a video clip on a free website constitute "downloading", or is that when only you actually store the clip on your computer?

/I'm curious in an academic sense.
//A friend asked me about this the other day.


To "download" means "to transfer from a remote computer to yours." You do that when you view a streaming video clip, or even view a static Web page. Doesn't matter whether you save the file to your hard drive or not.
 
2012-07-11 12:05:54 PM

The Voice of Doom: Wasilla Hillbilly
3/10
Internet Provider Numbers don't work that way

Oh, you should read Arne Dahl's book..um.. I guess it is or will be called "Chinese Whispers" in English.

In this novel the super-duper crime fighters of his fictional new Pan-European police unit have learned that people have found ways to hide their IPs through anonymizers.
But fret not!
The super duper crime fighters have computer experts and those have found out that there's something called M-A-C addresses unique to each computer. so they're not bothering with easily faked IP addresses, they're tracing emails back to the M-A-C address of the sending computer and geolocate the sender via that M-A-C address.


Sounds like a perfectly cromulent method of investigation.
 
2012-07-11 12:15:09 PM
"I have never used a computer, much less used one to download a movie," Gotvald wrote in an affidavit.
...
"I believe that a neighbor or passer-by access my wireless Internet connection and used it to download Raw Films' movie Raw Rescue," Gotvald wrote.


And that, my friends, is perjury.
 
2012-07-11 12:24:57 PM

Jument: "I have never used a computer, much less used one to download a movie," Gotvald wrote in an affidavit.
...
"I believe that a neighbor or passer-by access my wireless Internet connection and used it to download Raw Films' movie Raw Rescue," Gotvald wrote.

And that, my friends, is perjury.


THANK YOU. Geez...I read every comment and was ready to post a similar one:

Doesn't know how to use a computer but owns a wireless access point?

Ahem...as I argue with myself:

Perhaps he was given a wireless router with his cable internet so that he could access his blu-ray or internet enabled TV.

Okay, fine. I'll say we need more to the story.
 
2012-07-11 12:27:39 PM
Was more expecting this to be about Michael Steel. Haven't heard about this lawyer.
 
2012-07-11 12:31:52 PM

WhoGAS: Perhaps he was given a wireless router with his cable internet so that he could access his blu-ray or internet enabled TV.


That's possible but I think extremely unlikely.

And besides, he's "never used a computer". Really? Never in his life has he ever once touched any type of PC? That's even more unlikely.
 
2012-07-11 12:52:39 PM

airsupport: BurnShrike: The film company sues a series of "John Does" and "Jane Does" identified only by Internet provider numbers...

Randazza said generally, when an Internet provider number shows up...

I want to kick this journalist in the teeth.

I came here to say this.

shiatty dilettante journalists are shiatty and dabbly.


i361.photobucket.com

I find that even usually good new souces can make me a suicidal parrot when they attempt to explain military law.
 
2012-07-11 12:53:57 PM

PWildcat: Has no one heard of DHCP? FFS, I don't even get the same external IP all the time. Unless the ISPs have records of which MAC belongs to which account, and which MAC had which IP at which time (something I highly doubt), how can they even draw the line from A to B?


You should learn to wwwebsite as on the internet
 
2012-07-11 01:06:23 PM
WhoGAS
Jument:
"I have never used a computer, much less used one to download a movie," Gotvald wrote in an affidavit.
"I believe that a neighbor or passer-by access my wireless Internet connection and used it to download Raw Films' movie Raw Rescue," Gotvald wrote.
And that, my friends, is perjury.


THANK YOU. Geez...I read every comment and was ready to post a similar one:
Doesn't know how to use a computer but owns a wireless access point?


To quote TFA:
"Gotvald, who set up a wireless account for his college-aged children,"
Just because he pays the bills for the connection doesn't mean he uses a computer.

Jument
And besides, he's "never used a computer". Really? Never in his life has he ever once touched any type of PC? That's even more unlikely.



I can certainly imagine someone in his late 50s not using a computer at home my grandparents had / have never used one.

If you haven't grown up with computers, don't have a job that requires you to use one (a lot), can't imagine using one for entertainment and if you, if need be, can go to your kids and ask them to do something for you with that thing every once in a while... why bother getting one and learn how to use it.

Heck, I've heard of some fossilized professor(s) at the university's math department (yeah, probably not a professor for numerics or computational mathematics) who refused to use computers and had their emails printed by their secretary who would then, if needed, type the replies and send them - because a computer is essentially a type writer and this means it's only a secretary's tool.
 
2012-07-11 02:49:29 PM
Movie companies are even stupider than record companies, the porn studios just hope tons of people pay up to avoid their name getting out, which is tantamount to extortion. I wonder how many people have had to pay the racket letters that haven't watched porn since the 70's?

They should run background checks on the names they get and sick to people in the 18-34 bracket, particularly men. Judges will look a lot less kindly on a 24-year-old IT professional saying he's never used a computer than a 78-year-old illiterate immigrant. But no, these guys just fire their shot into the wind and cause PR disasters left and right, while the rest of the internet slowly migrates to more and more anonymous sites with free porn stolen from the same companies. Now users and sites are completely untraceable and untouchable, often based in less copyright-friendly nations, that fold and reopen under new names with "new owners" as soon as they're taken down.
 
2012-07-11 03:38:29 PM

markfara: I'm not all that computer-literate, but does viewing a video clip on a free website constitute "downloading", or is that when only you actually store the clip on your computer?

/I'm curious in an academic sense.
//A friend asked me about this the other day.


I also have a friend in a similar situation. He is a good person and loves his country, and we're not even that close of friends, but he wanted to know for a paper he's writing.
 
2012-07-11 03:55:24 PM

The Voice of Doom: "Gotvald, who set up a wireless account for his college-aged children,"
Just because he pays the bills for the connection doesn't mean he uses a computer.


Good point. I missed that. But given that it seems fairly likely that his kids downloaded the movie, no? Shouldn't his defense at least attempted to claim that his kids wouldn't have done it (ha ha, right).

And still doubt that "I have never used a computer" is accurate. Even in your extreme examples, those people would have all likely at least once used a computer, no? The guy is 57. Not really old enough to have never once used a PC in some way at least once.
 
2012-07-11 04:10:03 PM

Jument: But given that it seems fairly likely that his kids downloaded the movie, no?


If he paid for their car and his adult offspring killed someone would you say he's responsible?

If they were to charge the college age kids this would be a different story.
 
2012-07-11 04:10:27 PM

serial arseonist: PWildcat: Has no one heard of DHCP? FFS, I don't even get the same external IP all the time. Unless the ISPs have records of which MAC belongs to which account, and which MAC had which IP at which time (something I highly doubt), how can they even draw the line from A to B?

You should learn to wwwebsite as on the series of tubes we call internets


FTFY
 
2012-07-11 04:16:37 PM

optimistic_cynic: Jument: But given that it seems fairly likely that his kids downloaded the movie, no?

If he paid for their car and his adult offspring killed someone would you say he's responsible?

If they were to charge the college age kids this would be a different story.


I suspect the law does not treat copyright infringement and manslaughter the same, for obvious reasons.

His defense is that someone used his wifi. My point was only that it seems a heck of a lot more likely that it was his kids, and that it was odd that his defense was that he doesn't use a computer with no mention of the people in his household who do.
 
Displayed 50 of 52 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