Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(BBC)   Are you responsible for piracy traced to your net connection? Let's ask 12 people too dumb to get out of jury duty   (bbc.co.uk) divider line 75
    More: Interesting, Internet Protocol, landmark case, settled out of court, TorrentFreak  
•       •       •

4737 clicks; posted to Geek » on 10 Oct 2012 at 6:30 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2012-10-10 03:50:31 PM  
fark you subby. i spent six months on a grand jury, and i can assure you most of them had a higher iQ then yours.
 
2012-10-10 04:00:44 PM  

Cewley: fark you subby. i spent six months on a grand jury, and i can assure you most of them had a higher iQ then yours.

Then yours? Kinda shot your premise there.
 
2012-10-10 04:03:31 PM  
Judge Colin Birss QC accused Mr Crossley of bringing the "legal profession into disrepute" and the case was dismissed.

Sadly, our legal system doesn't have enough repute to dis for a judge to reason that way here.
 
2012-10-10 04:22:16 PM  

Cewley: fark you subby. i spent six months on a grand jury, and i can assure you most of them had a higher iQ then yours.


Most, maybe, but not all.

/not subby
/People pirate porn? Why?
 
2012-10-10 05:02:28 PM  

Relatively Obscure: /People pirate porn? Why?


Because they're behind on technology. They were just figuring out how to search pictures when torrents started to show up. Now they're downloading torrents when most tech-savvy people know that tons of sites are just straight streaming it.

I think it's kinda funny that the porn industry is using their status as a sleazy industry to force people into settlements instead of taking it to court. People don't want their names showing up in newspapers saying "ScottyDoesn'tKnow v. BangBros Inc. in the illegal distribution of Ass Pirates 9"
 
2012-10-10 05:07:58 PM  

scottydoesntknow: Relatively Obscure: /People pirate porn? Why?

Because they're behind on technology. They were just figuring out how to search pictures when torrents started to show up. Now they're downloading torrents when most tech-savvy people know that tons of sites are just straight streaming it.

I think it's kinda funny that the porn industry is using their status as a sleazy industry to force people into settlements instead of taking it to court. People don't want their names showing up in newspapers saying "ScottyDoesn'tKnow v. BangBros Inc. in the illegal distribution of Ass Pirates 9"


Maybe, but it's just not that goddamn tough. I can open up my browser, type nothing but "PORN" into the address bar, and it brings up a link to streaming porn. That seems easier to figure out than torrents. But, some people are easy to overestimate, it's true. A friend of mine did recently have to give a talk at her work on using email. So, you could be right.
 
2012-10-10 05:14:33 PM  

Relatively Obscure: scottydoesntknow: Relatively Obscure: /People pirate porn? Why?

Because they're behind on technology. They were just figuring out how to search pictures when torrents started to show up. Now they're downloading torrents when most tech-savvy people know that tons of sites are just straight streaming it.

I think it's kinda funny that the porn industry is using their status as a sleazy industry to force people into settlements instead of taking it to court. People don't want their names showing up in newspapers saying "ScottyDoesn'tKnow v. BangBros Inc. in the illegal distribution of Ass Pirates 9"

Maybe, but it's just not that goddamn tough. I can open up my browser, type nothing but "PORN" into the address bar, and it brings up a link to streaming porn. That seems easier to figure out than torrents. But, some people are easy to overestimate, it's true. A friend of mine did recently have to give a talk at her work on using email. So, you could be right.


Hell they could also be collectors. Knew a guy in college who had 4 500GB externals. 3 of those were jam packed with nothing but porn.

/He was also caught beating it by all 3 of his roommates, so he was not the brightest bulb in the bunch
//Stickiest definitely, but not the brightest
 
2012-10-10 05:40:13 PM  
So there are a few things going on here:

First off - I think the porn company is doing nothing more than reinforcing that they are sleazy - "We think you downloaded Fisting Hairy Lesbian Midgets #12, pay us a $3000 copyright infringement settlement or we will take you to court and your name will end up on public documents stating that you were accused of torrenting Fisting Hairy Lesbian Midgets #12" - There is a shame/embarrassment aspect to a suit like that, and while I do not have an answer as how to properly address this...I do feel it is something that does need to be looked at.

Second - Piracy does not necessarily = lost sales. What I mean by that is that just because I downloaded the newest Katy Perry album and listened to it, it also does not mean that I would have been willing to pay for it if the option to download it "for free" was not available. Presumption of lost sales is a dumb way or at least a very narrow way to look at the issue.

Finally, the issue at hand - I think as time goes on, this issue will be treated like guns. If someone burglarizes your home, takes your guns and uses them in a crime, you are not responsible for their crimes. So, if someone uses your internet connection, it is silly to hold you as the ISPs customer accountable, especially if you have taken steps to secure your WiFi connection. Also, if you take hacked PCs, hijacked systems, bot nets, proxys and the like into account here, the idea of an IP Address equaling a person is even less of a legit argument.
 
2012-10-10 06:41:46 PM  
So, my neighbor who had an unsecured wireless router can face prosecution if I pirate off his connection??? Better use of my time than changing her signal id to 'Slutwhohasloudsexwithrandommen' and then securing it with the password 'password' and putting her computer ip address as 'blocked'. But charging her $100 to undo the stuff I did and blaming 'Those farking teenagers' is awesome.

/and she's hot
//no pics
 
2012-10-10 06:42:39 PM  

scottydoesntknow: I think it's kinda funny that the porn industry is using their status as a sleazy industry to force people into settlements instead of taking it to court. People don't want their names showing up in newspapers saying "ScottyDoesn'tKnow v. BangBros Inc. in the illegal distribution of Ass Pirates 9"


Approves
www.wearysloth.com

I remember warning conservatives that the IP legislation would help the Porn industry the most.

Ha ha.

/usenet, sniff
 
2012-10-10 06:48:18 PM  

Relatively Obscure: /People pirate porn? Why?


Well, HD, and believe it or not there's some people that actually like the mass-produced sterile "industry porn".
 
2012-10-10 06:49:06 PM  
Here's an odd realization I had: if this is successful, in that the IP address is not considered sufficient to prove an individual user did the downloading, then I expect the industry to (slowly) get behind pushing IPv6.

Why? Because there are so many addresses, NAT pretty much doesn't happen anymore, even on residential routers (the few that support IPv6 anyway). Connections are given a range of public addresses to choose from, which are assigned to every device on the network. No private addresses, even behind the firewall. Any torrenting done with IPv6 would be tracked to an IP address that represented an individual computer, not the residential router the computer connects through.

This, of course, assumes that the RIAA/MPAA has any people who actually understand technology. They did figure out how to spell "IP Address" on a subpoena though, so maybe there's one or two hiding in there.
 
2012-10-10 06:53:41 PM  

yukichigai: Here's an odd realization I had: if this is successful, in that the IP address is not considered sufficient to prove an individual user did the downloading, then I expect the industry to (slowly) get behind pushing IPv6.

Why? Because there are so many addresses, NAT pretty much doesn't happen anymore, even on residential routers (the few that support IPv6 anyway). Connections are given a range of public addresses to choose from, which are assigned to every device on the network. No private addresses, even behind the firewall. Any torrenting done with IPv6 would be tracked to an IP address that represented an individual computer, not the residential router the computer connects through.

This, of course, assumes that the RIAA/MPAA has any people who actually understand technology. They did figure out how to spell "IP Address" on a subpoena though, so maybe there's one or two hiding in there.


There will always be whores.
 
2012-10-10 06:54:26 PM  

Endive Wombat: So there are a few things going on here:

First off -

They're protecting their product. And, really, the porn industry isn't exactly oozing with decency, good will, and righteousness here.

Second - It doesn't have to. Especially if the plaintiff is doing more than just 'taking' a copy, but providing that material for distribution. Bittorrent = distribution. Lost sales are irrelevant, someone is taking liberties that are not theirs to take.

Finally, the issue at hand - That depends. Were your guns safely stored and secured, or did you leave them loaded and laying on your front lawn?
 
2012-10-10 07:04:43 PM  
i3.kym-cdn.com
 
2012-10-10 07:06:00 PM  

yukichigai: Here's an odd realization I had: if this is successful, in that the IP address is not considered sufficient to prove an individual user did the downloading, then I expect the industry to (slowly) get behind pushing IPv6.

Why? Because there are so many addresses, NAT pretty much doesn't happen anymore, even on residential routers (the few that support IPv6 anyway).


The Cathedral And The Bazaar.

There will be nat6, because some corps will create artificial scarcity around ipv6 addresses ("Another address? Why yes ... $5pcm please") and bofhs will be too incompetent/lazy/malicious to set them up properly. ("Another address? Why yes ... moar Jolt plox") There will be that itch, someone will scratch it, and $industry will suddenly need to show that nat6 wasn't happening -- same as now.

But by all means can they push for it now -- ipv6 is good. But it won't be as good for them as they think
 
2012-10-10 07:08:06 PM  

Endive Wombat: So there are a few things going on here:

First off - ... There is a shame/embarrassment aspect to a suit like that, and while I do not have an answer as how to properly address this...I do feel it is something that does need to be looked at.


Agreed... I'd suggest that the record could be redacted - the complaint could say something like "Porn Co. claims that Endive Wombat has willingly made infringing copies of [redacted] while [redacted] with a [redacted] in his [redacted]."

Second - Piracy does not necessarily = lost sales. What I mean by that is that just because I downloaded the newest Katy Perry album and listened to it, it also does not mean that I would have been willing to pay for it if the option to download it "for free" was not available. Presumption of lost sales is a dumb way or at least a very narrow way to look at the issue.

It's their property, so you don't get to say "I don't think your property is worth shiat, so I should feel free to use it without paying you." If you really didn't think it was worth at least some use, then you wouldn't have used it. For example, I haven't downloaded the latest Justin Beiber album because not only am I not willing to pay for it, I'm not even willing to listen to it for free.
By pirating something, you're saying it has value... You're just disagreeing on what you should have to pay for that value.

Finally, the issue at hand - I think as time goes on, this issue will be treated like guns. If someone burglarizes your home, takes your guns and uses them in a crime, you are not responsible for their crimes. So, if someone uses your internet connection, it is silly to hold you as the ISPs customer accountable, especially if you have taken steps to secure your WiFi connection. Also, if you take hacked PCs, hijacked systems, bot nets, proxys and the like into account here, the idea of an IP Address equaling a person is even less of a legit argument.

Yes, with the similar argument that if you leave your guns lying around, loaded and unsecured on your front porch, and some neighbor kid picks one up and shoots someone, you will be held liable for your negligence.
But that said, I don't think it will be a judicial decision that creates that liability... Rather, I could see an ISP requiring in your contractual terms of service that you stipulate that you're responsible for all data flowing through your modem, regardless of who's actually triggering the application layer requests, and agree to waive any arguments to the contrary in court.
 
2012-10-10 07:10:20 PM  

Cinaed: Endive Wombat: So there are a few things going on here:

First off - They're protecting their product. And, really, the porn industry isn't exactly oozing with decency, good will, and righteousness here.

Second - It doesn't have to. Especially if the plaintiff is doing more than just 'taking' a copy, but providing that material for distribution. Bittorrent = distribution. Lost sales are irrelevant, someone is taking liberties that are not theirs to take.

Finally, the issue at hand - That depends. Were your guns safely stored and secured, or did you leave them loaded and laying on your front lawn?


1 - Nothing wrong with protecting ones product. My opinion - potentially bad situation, due to the highly potential embarrassment factor of the specific content, especially if you falsely accuse them.

2 - Yes, I understand how Bit torrent works - what you are talking about here is "making available". But I still stand by the fact that pirated download does not necessarily = a lost sale(s)

3 - In the purest sense, I should be able to have a giant neon sign with giant arrows leading to the location of my secured and unsecured guns...coming onto my property and into my home with out my consent is called trespassing and it is already a crime. Define secured. Why does it matter if they are loaded? Am I less at fault if a gun is tucked is a concealed place next to my bed vs openly sitting on my kitchen counter?

Not trying to argue with you, just how I see things
 
2012-10-10 07:10:45 PM  
I remember reading about the porn company that was doing mass lawsuits didn't actually own any of the copyrights they were suing over.
 
2012-10-10 07:12:33 PM  

Theaetetus: Yes, with the similar argument that if you leave your guns lying around, loaded and unsecured on your front porch, and some neighbor kid picks one up and shoots someone, you will be held liable for your negligence.


Actually, you may be liable in that case - I believe you want to see tort law on "attractive nuisance"
 
2012-10-10 07:14:11 PM  

Endive Wombat: 2 - Yes, I understand how Bit torrent works - what you are talking about here is "making available". But I still stand by the fact that pirated download does not necessarily = a lost sale(s)


Ah, but we're not talking about downloads (or rather, everyone is talking about downloads, but they shouldn't be, because the copyright owners only go after uploaders). An upload does necessarily = a lost sale of a distribution license. If you want to set up XXXWombatTube.com, legally hosting porn videos, those video publishers are going to want their license fees and royalties. If you instead illegally distribute them, they have lost those fees and royalties.
 
2012-10-10 07:14:53 PM  

Endive Wombat: Theaetetus: Yes, with the similar argument that if you leave your guns lying around, loaded and unsecured on your front porch, and some neighbor kid picks one up and shoots someone, you will be held liable for your negligence.

Actually, you may be liable in that case - I believe you want to see tort law on "attractive nuisance"


I believe you want to read a little closer. ;)
 
2012-10-10 07:17:38 PM  
I spent four weeks on a grand jury once.

It was an interesting experience. Plus, it was a legit reason to get half the day off work. And there was plenty of downtime to catch up on my reading. And after that I can't be called again for at least eight years.

So yeah, not so bad at all.
 
2012-10-10 07:17:38 PM  
imageshack.us

Good luck!
 
2012-10-10 07:27:15 PM  

Great Janitor: So, my neighbor who had an unsecured wireless router can face prosecution if I pirate off his connection???


You wouldn't download your neighbour's car, would you?
 
2012-10-10 07:35:46 PM  

serial arseonist: Great Janitor: So, my neighbor who had an unsecured wireless router can face prosecution if I pirate off his connection???

You wouldn't download your neighbour's car, would you?


oh hell yeah. Just as soon as I download enough hard drives to store the data and some 3D printers to assemble everything.
 
2012-10-10 07:43:31 PM  

serial arseonist: Great Janitor: So, my neighbor who had an unsecured wireless router can face prosecution if I pirate off his connection???

You wouldn't download your neighbour's car, would you?


Fark you, I would if I could.
 
2012-10-10 07:45:06 PM  
Why don't more people just pay for a legal service?

OK, I know there's the whole "you can't beat free", but Fyre allows you one studio for $8 (so like 700 movies). It's peanuts and you'll get your porn straight away in reasonable quality. No hanging around waiting for torrents.
 
2012-10-10 08:02:22 PM  

olddeegee: Cewley: fark you subby. i spent six months on a grand jury, and i can assure you most of them had a higher iQ then yours.
Then yours? Kinda shot your premise there.


Well, he/she did say "most."

/and "them"
 
2012-10-10 08:06:55 PM  

LGeezer: yukichigai: Here's an odd realization I had: if this is successful, in that the IP address is not considered sufficient to prove an individual user did the downloading, then I expect the industry to (slowly) get behind pushing IPv6.

Why? Because there are so many addresses, NAT pretty much doesn't happen anymore, even on residential routers (the few that support IPv6 anyway).

The Cathedral And The Bazaar.

There will be nat6, because some corps will create artificial scarcity around ipv6 addresses ("Another address? Why yes ... $5pcm please") and bofhs will be too incompetent/lazy/malicious to set them up properly. ("Another address? Why yes ... moar Jolt plox") There will be that itch, someone will scratch it, and $industry will suddenly need to show that nat6 wasn't happening -- same as now.

But by all means can they push for it now -- ipv6 is good. But it won't be as good for them as they think


Yeah, but I see nat6 as being more of a corporate thing, rather than a "every residential router will have this" sort of thing. Think about it: residential routers always have the bare minimum necessary to be functional on the internet, unless you buy the $150+ version. Why include nat6 when you can just forward DHCP6 requests to the ISP's servers? It's not as if there's any shortage of IPv6 addresses (more than one quintillion per every square inch of surface on the planet), and literally every ISP implementation of IPv6 I've seen so far just hands out as many IP addresses as the network asks for, no extra charge.

I honestly see the standard setup for IPv6, at least in the residential realm, being individual public IPs for each computer. Behind a firewall, sure, but each IP will be distinct and unique - and more importantly, logged by the ISP.
 
2012-10-10 08:06:57 PM  
Experts have questioned whether the IP address is sufficient evidence because it identifies an internet connection rather than an individual.

Can you trace it back to a MAC address? Too bad, then.
 
2012-10-10 08:20:09 PM  

farkeruk: Why don't more people just pay for a legal service?

OK, I know there's the whole "you can't beat free", but Fyre allows you one studio for $8 (so like 700 movies). It's peanuts and you'll get your porn straight away in reasonable quality. No hanging around waiting for torrents.


It's only hot if it's illegal. DUH!
 
2012-10-10 08:21:02 PM  

Tommy Moo: farkeruk: Why don't more people just pay for a legal service?

OK, I know there's the whole "you can't beat free", but Fyre allows you one studio for $8 (so like 700 movies). It's peanuts and you'll get your porn straight away in reasonable quality. No hanging around waiting for torrents.

It's only hot if it's illegal. DUH!


Er... wait. I just realized that that could be taken WAAAAAAY out of context :/
 
2012-10-10 08:25:54 PM  

Honest Bender: Experts have questioned whether the IP address is sufficient evidence because it identifies an internet connection rather than an individual.

Can you trace it back to a MAC address? Too bad, then.


This, too, shall be spoofed.
 
2012-10-10 08:53:55 PM  

Mechdemon: Honest Bender: Experts have questioned whether the IP address is sufficient evidence because it identifies an internet connection rather than an individual.

Can you trace it back to a MAC address? Too bad, then.

This, too, shall be spoofed.


More importantly, you trace it back to a cable modem and wifi access point. Okay... Who committed infringement? George Modemowner? Jane, his wife? Daughter Judy? Tard boy Elroy? Their housekeeper, Rosie? The neighbors upstairs, downstairs, either side, across the hall, etc.?
That's the real issue.
 
2012-10-10 08:59:10 PM  

scottydoesntknow: Relatively Obscure: /People pirate porn? Why?Because they're behind on technology. They were just figuring out how to search pictures when torrents started to show up. Now they're downloading torrents when most tech-savvy people know that tons of sites are just straight streaming it.


If you watch a video in a browser the only way to skip the boring parts and seek forward a bit is that you start clicking around with your mouse, using your right hand. If you download and play it in your video player software you can do the skipping with your left hand by pressing keys, which is not only convenient but is also faster.

/I said too much
 
paj
2012-10-10 09:18:36 PM  
tblop.com? what?
 
2012-10-10 09:29:38 PM  

Theaetetus: Mechdemon: Honest Bender: Experts have questioned whether the IP address is sufficient evidence because it identifies an internet connection rather than an individual.

Can you trace it back to a MAC address? Too bad, then.

This, too, shall be spoofed.

More importantly, you trace it back to a cable modem and wifi access point. Okay... Who committed infringement? George Modemowner? Jane, his wife? Daughter Judy? Tard boy Elroy? Their housekeeper, Rosie? The neighbors upstairs, downstairs, either side, across the hall, etc.?
That's the real issue.


Hmmm, there seems reasonable doubt as to the identity of the actual downloader...
 
2012-10-10 09:37:45 PM  

Cewley: fark you subby. i spent six months on a grand jury, and i can assure you most of them had a higher iQ then yours.


Yup -- had jury duty twice and I agree. The average Farker wishes they were as smart and considerate as the members of the jury were.

You see, it's really "edgy" (in a college freshman kind of way) to assume that everyone in the world is more ignorant than they are. But eventually they grow up. Well, not everyone, because you occasionally see the retarded 40-something in Occupy Wall Street gatherings, but most grow up.
 
2012-10-10 09:38:49 PM  

Relatively Obscure: Maybe, but it's just not that goddamn tough. I can open up my browser, type nothing but "PORN" into the address bar, and it brings up a link to streaming porn. That seems easier to figure out than torrents. But, some people are easy to overestimate, it's true. A friend of mine did recently have to give a talk at her work on using email. So, you could be right.


Sometimes you're in a situation where a decent live internet connection isn't available and you have to fall back on the bank, the office network is slow and/or blocks streaming protocols but luckily you've got a USB stick and thanks to that 25 page test you just brought in the students are too preoccupied to bother you, even with the sound really low.
 
2012-10-10 09:57:10 PM  
At least in this state there don't seem to be any "smart" exemptions. You can't claim work-related hardship because it's illegal to fire somebody for having jury duty. The only ways out seem to be excused illness or having to care for someone too young or too old to take care of their own poop.
 
2012-10-10 10:34:35 PM  
And of course there's the whole ip spoofing issue.
 
2012-10-10 11:11:02 PM  
DNRTFA, but I hope subby gets accused of a crime he did not commit, and has to rely on convincing a jury full of folks "not smart enough to get out of jury duty" that he didn't do it.

Been on 3 juries. One was a murder trial. Sitting in judgement of another human being, and being charged with deciding if that person should have to lose his life for the crime he was accused of, was the most difficult thing I have ever done in my life.
 
2012-10-10 11:47:57 PM  

Nem Wan: At least in this state there don't seem to be any "smart" exemptions. You can't claim work-related hardship because it's illegal to fire somebody for having jury duty. The only ways out seem to be excused illness or having to care for someone too young or too old to take care of their own poop.


I don't need a "smart" exemption.

I can't speak for the rest of the world, but here in Western Australia if you show up looking like someone with an education you'll get kicked off the jury rather quickly. The lawyers only want easily-led jurors.
 
2012-10-10 11:51:08 PM  

BigLuca: serial arseonist: Great Janitor: So, my neighbor who had an unsecured wireless router can face prosecution if I pirate off his connection???

You wouldn't download your neighbour's car, would you?

Fark you, I would if I could.


Huh.

Answering his rhetorical question actually makes me think:

If you could download your neighbor's car and have an exact copy of it, who lost money here?

Nobody. Only the company of that vehicle didn't GAIN money nor did you LOSE money.

So when we can download physical objects and print them to 3D printers...well, what's gonna happen then?

Other than greed, what's the issue?

/I do not support piracy because it only hurts the developers who get stock options based on company sales as a huge benefit
 
2012-10-11 12:01:32 AM  

WhoGAS: BigLuca: serial arseonist: Great Janitor: So, my neighbor who had an unsecured wireless router can face prosecution if I pirate off his connection???

You wouldn't download your neighbour's car, would you?

Fark you, I would if I could.

Huh.

Answering his rhetorical question actually makes me think:

If you could download your neighbor's car and have an exact copy of it, who lost money here?

Nobody. Only the company of that vehicle didn't GAIN money nor did you LOSE money.

So when we can download physical objects and print them to 3D printers...well, what's gonna happen then?

Other than greed, what's the issue?

/I do not support piracy because it only hurts the developers who get stock options based on company sales as a huge benefit


That argument was made a while ago after they started the "You wouldn't download a car, if you could, would you?" in the previews of movies at the theatre.
 
2012-10-11 12:20:03 AM  
You know it's also stealing when we hotlink images without paying royalties for their use.

And it's even worse because we're taxing their servers!

Fark!
 
2012-10-11 12:21:08 AM  

Theaetetus: It's their property, so you don't get to say "I don't think your property is worth shiat, so I should feel free to use it without paying you." If you really didn't think it was worth at least some use, then you wouldn't have used it. For example, I haven't downloaded the latest Justin Beiber album because not only am I not willing to pay for it, I'm not even willing to listen to it for free.
By pirating something, you're saying it has value... You're just disagreeing on what you should have to pay for that value.


You know what? Home Depot could care less if I return a prehung door and said I'm not happy with it.

Why can't I do that with digital purchases?
 
2012-10-11 12:32:57 AM  

Nem Wan: At least in this state there don't seem to be any "smart" exemptions. You can't claim work-related hardship because it's illegal to fire somebody for having jury duty. The only ways out seem to be excused illness or having to care for someone too young or too old to take care of their own poop.


You don't fire them on the spot, but in the next round of layoffs, you damn well better believe they remember. At-will means fark you in Latin.
 
2012-10-11 05:55:47 AM  

Theaetetus: Endive Wombat: So there are a few things going on here:


It's their property, so you don't get to say "I don't think your property is worth shiat, so I should feel free to use it without paying you." If you really didn't think it was worth at least some use, then you wouldn't have used it. For example, I haven't downloaded the latest Justin Beiber album because not only am I not willing to pay for it, I'm not even willing to listen to it for free.
By pirating something, you're saying it has value... You're just disagreeing on what you should have to pay for that value.


No, it is not property, you dolt. It is an exclusive, but time-limited right. Property rights are roughly eternal, copyrights aren't and shouldn't.
 
2012-10-11 07:35:39 AM  

Endive Wombat: 1 - Nothing wrong with protecting ones product. My opinion - potentially bad situation, due to the highly potential embarrassment factor of the specific content, especially if you falsely accuse them.


Unless you're dealing with a system of dynamic IP addresses, hard to be falsely accused. That's not to say a mother and father wouldn't be embarrassed because their teenaged son is seeding a dozen hard core porn videos, but that's a different matter.

2 - Yes, I understand how Bit torrent works - what you are talking about here is "making available". But I still stand by the fact that pirated download does not necessarily = a lost sale(s)

I concur, it doesn't necessarily mean lost sales. That's why the simple 'taking' of a copy is a difficult crime to prosecute. Distribution is the key word. If I am willingly and willfully making something available, that's tantamount to distribution. Lost sales or not, distribution is the right of the copyright holder, period. End of story. 'Making available' is the illegal act that need not have any lost sales figure included in the complaint.

3 - In the purest sense, I should be able to have a giant neon sign with giant arrows leading to the location of my secured and unsecured guns...coming onto my property and into my home with out my consent is called trespassing and it is already a crime. Define secured. Why does it matter if they are loaded? Am I less at fault if a gun is tucked is a concealed place next to my bed vs openly sitting on my kitchen counter?

It's a matter of negligence. Someone uses my property, service, etc to commit a crime because I didn't make a good faith effort to maintain, control, or otherwise secure them gives me some measure of fault. Perhaps not full Murder One level, but thinking I am somehow absolved of all wrong-doing is naive. One can, and should, be expected to take care of their shiat.
 
2012-10-11 07:58:39 AM  

Cinaed: One can, and should, be expected to take care of their shiat.


Correct. I was just trying to make a point that at some point, there is a slippery slope on what is considered secured vs unsecured.

I can foresee there being an infringement case in the future where someone did have their router secured, but only by WEP and the passcode was "passcode" or their phone number or something simple like that. Technically, they "did" secure it, but the plaintif will argue that they did not do enough and should have been using WPA2-PSK, or 256 bit keys or some other over the top WiFi protection scheme. Oh, and they should have had SSID broadcast turned off too!
 
2012-10-11 08:04:15 AM  

yukichigai: This, of course, assumes that the RIAA/MPAA has any people who actually understand technology.


+1 Funny
 
2012-10-11 08:35:02 AM  

The wonderful travels of a turd: Theaetetus: Endive Wombat: So there are a few things going on here:


It's their property, so you don't get to say "I don't think your property is worth shiat, so I should feel free to use it without paying you." If you really didn't think it was worth at least some use, then you wouldn't have used it. For example, I haven't downloaded the latest Justin Beiber album because not only am I not willing to pay for it, I'm not even willing to listen to it for free.
By pirating something, you're saying it has value... You're just disagreeing on what you should have to pay for that value.


No, it is not property, you dolt. It is an exclusive, but time-limited right. Property rights are roughly eternal, copyrights aren't and shouldn't.


No, it is, you dolt. If I lease a house for a year, it's a time-limited right, but that house is still property. Specifically, I possess a leasehold estate. The fact that it's time-limited is irrelevant.

Plus, way to miss the point of that entire post. Good jorb. You sure do know how to pedantically attack one tiny word in a paragraph and disregard the rest of it. Though, it would have been better if you were actually correct.
 
2012-10-11 08:36:25 AM  

StoPPeRmobile: Theaetetus: It's their property, so you don't get to say "I don't think your property is worth shiat, so I should feel free to use it without paying you." If you really didn't think it was worth at least some use, then you wouldn't have used it. For example, I haven't downloaded the latest Justin Beiber album because not only am I not willing to pay for it, I'm not even willing to listen to it for free.
By pirating something, you're saying it has value... You're just disagreeing on what you should have to pay for that value.

You know what? Home Depot could care less if I return a prehung door and said I'm not happy with it.

Why can't I do that with digital purchases?


Home Depot could also have said "all sales are final". If you don't like that digital purchases have return restrictions, don't buy them.
 
2012-10-11 08:38:20 AM  

Endive Wombat: Cinaed: One can, and should, be expected to take care of their shiat.

Correct. I was just trying to make a point that at some point, there is a slippery slope on what is considered secured vs unsecured.

I can foresee there being an infringement case in the future where someone did have their router secured, but only by WEP and the passcode was "passcode" or their phone number or something simple like that. Technically, they "did" secure it, but the plaintif will argue that they did not do enough and should have been using WPA2-PSK, or 256 bit keys or some other over the top WiFi protection scheme. Oh, and they should have had SSID broadcast turned off too!


That's why I could see ISPs doing a blanket stipulation of liability for data through the modem as part of their TOS. You say your neighbor hacked your Wifi? Fine, bring them in as a third party defendant under rule 14... but now the burden is on you to show it was your neighbor.
This makes sense for a technical reason too - unlike the plaintiff or your ISP, you have access to your router and its logs, so why shouldn't that burden of proof be placed on you?
 
2012-10-11 09:21:19 AM  

Theaetetus: Endive Wombat: Cinaed: One can, and should, be expected to take care of their shiat.

Correct. I was just trying to make a point that at some point, there is a slippery slope on what is considered secured vs unsecured.

I can foresee there being an infringement case in the future where someone did have their router secured, but only by WEP and the passcode was "passcode" or their phone number or something simple like that. Technically, they "did" secure it, but the plaintif will argue that they did not do enough and should have been using WPA2-PSK, or 256 bit keys or some other over the top WiFi protection scheme. Oh, and they should have had SSID broadcast turned off too!

That's why I could see ISPs doing a blanket stipulation of liability for data through the modem as part of their TOS. You say your neighbor hacked your Wifi? Fine, bring them in as a third party defendant under rule 14... but now the burden is on you to show it was your neighbor.
This makes sense for a technical reason too - unlike the plaintiff or your ISP, you have access to your router and its logs, so why shouldn't that burden of proof be placed on you?


What you are proposing is far beyond the capabilities of most users.
 
2012-10-11 09:43:53 AM  

Endive Wombat: Cinaed: One can, and should, be expected to take care of their shiat.

Correct. I was just trying to make a point that at some point, there is a slippery slope on what is considered secured vs unsecured.


True. It is indeed. I think the key element is showing a good faith effort.

I can foresee there being an infringement case in the future where someone did have their router secured, but only by WEP and the passcode was "passcode" or their phone number or something simple like that. Technically, they "did" secure it, but the plaintif will argue that they did not do enough and should have been using WPA2-PSK, or 256 bit keys or some other over the top WiFi protection scheme. Oh, and they should have had SSID broadcast turned off too!

I would say even that basic WEP protection would be sufficient to showcase a good faith effort. Showing that someone else willfully, and willingly, broke past that protection to steal access ought to absolve the ISP subscriber of wrong-doing, and put the onus on the second party who broke the law already. Original subscriber the victim two times over.

On the other hand, leaving one's wireless network unprotected shows either gross ignorance of the technology they're using, or a willful disregard for the potential consequences. Sure, not the 'Murder One' situation, but they don't get to just point and say that they have no responsibility in the matter.
 
2012-10-11 09:46:35 AM  

Endive Wombat: What you are proposing is far beyond the capabilities of most users.


Which part? Accessing the logs? If that's beyond their capabilities, then so is wiping those logs. So, when they get a nasty letter and contact a lawyer, the first thing the lawyer will do is have someone check the logs. Easy peasey.
 
2012-10-11 09:48:18 AM  

Cinaed: I would say even that basic WEP protection would be sufficient to showcase a good faith effort. Showing that someone else willfully, and willingly, broke past that protection to steal access ought to absolve the ISP subscriber of wrong-doing, and put the onus on the second party who broke the law already.


Like I said, the ISP subscriber uses their logs to show that a third party accessed their Wifi, and brings that person in to the suit as a third party defendant to indemnify them.
 
2012-10-11 10:11:11 AM  

Theaetetus: Endive Wombat: What you are proposing is far beyond the capabilities of most users.

Which part? Accessing the logs? If that's beyond their capabilities, then so is wiping those logs. So, when they get a nasty letter and contact a lawyer, the first thing the lawyer will do is have someone check the logs. Easy peasey.


Most routers you need to turn the logging on. From what I can remember, the "Easy 1, 2, 3 Setup Wizard" does not offer turning on logging as an option. Ergo, outside the scope of most users technical abilities/knowledge.
 
2012-10-11 10:32:03 AM  

Endive Wombat: Theaetetus: Endive Wombat: What you are proposing is far beyond the capabilities of most users.

Which part? Accessing the logs? If that's beyond their capabilities, then so is wiping those logs. So, when they get a nasty letter and contact a lawyer, the first thing the lawyer will do is have someone check the logs. Easy peasey.

Most routers you need to turn the logging on. From what I can remember, the "Easy 1, 2, 3 Setup Wizard" does not offer turning on logging as an option. Ergo, outside the scope of most users technical abilities/knowledge.


Fair enough, but it probably should.
 
2012-10-11 10:33:28 AM  

Theaetetus: Endive Wombat: Theaetetus: Endive Wombat: What you are proposing is far beyond the capabilities of most users.

Which part? Accessing the logs? If that's beyond their capabilities, then so is wiping those logs. So, when they get a nasty letter and contact a lawyer, the first thing the lawyer will do is have someone check the logs. Easy peasey.

Most routers you need to turn the logging on. From what I can remember, the "Easy 1, 2, 3 Setup Wizard" does not offer turning on logging as an option. Ergo, outside the scope of most users technical abilities/knowledge.

Fair enough, but it probably should.


Agreed.
 
2012-10-11 11:31:42 AM  

Theaetetus: StoPPeRmobile: Theaetetus: It's their property, so you don't get to say "I don't think your property is worth shiat, so I should feel free to use it without paying you." If you really didn't think it was worth at least some use, then you wouldn't have used it. For example, I haven't downloaded the latest Justin Beiber album because not only am I not willing to pay for it, I'm not even willing to listen to it for free.
By pirating something, you're saying it has value... You're just disagreeing on what you should have to pay for that value.

You know what? Home Depot could care less if I return a prehung door and said I'm not happy with it.

Why can't I do that with digital purchases?

Home Depot could also have said "all sales are final". If you don't like that digital purchases have return restrictions, don't buy them.


That does'nt answer the question.
 
2012-10-11 12:21:16 PM  

enik: Cewley: fark you subby. i spent six months on a grand jury, and i can assure you most of them had a higher iQ then yours.

Yup -- had jury duty twice and I agree. The average Farker wishes they were as smart and considerate as the members of the jury were.


Personally, I don't think it's dumb to do one's civic duty. Smart people should be on juries. Then, maybe we wouldn't have so many verdicts to complain about in the media.
 
2012-10-11 01:17:32 PM  
Theaetetus: More importantly, you trace it back to a cable modem and wifi access point. Okay.

More importantly, can you reliably prove that they infringed on anything. There are gray areas. For example.

Q1) Bob pays for cable TV, but a flash flood warning for an adjacent county farks up his recording of Breaking Bad, Bob downloads the episode from bittorrent. Is Bob infringing?

A1) If bob is also uploading said video, IMO yes, he is infringing (he's making the show available to people who might not have a license to view said show).

B1) If bob has uploading turned off for said video, then IMO no, he's not infringing. He has a license to view said show, via his cable co payment, and he's not making the video available to anyone else.

BUT, here's the problem with these automatic bots. When you're connected to a torrent, whether you're downloading or uploading and/or have uploading turned off for a file, your connection will still show in the swarm.

The vast majority of these bots take the lazy way out (they connect to the swarm and get a list of everyone that they can) some popular bots take the super lazy way out (they don't even connect to the swarm, they just scrape a web site).

So, you have a list of people in the swarm, you see Bob on the list, you send him a C&D, and bob is like "WTF, I paid money to watch your show and the network farked it up with a flash flood warning that doesn't even apply to my city and I didn't upload shiat".

Furthermore, did you guys actually try to connect to bob to see if you could download from him? Then how do you know he was actually sharing anything? For all you know, Bob is another bot that's gathering lists of users and isn't actually uploading or downloading anything.

--------------

Now Joe owns a huge collection of DVDs, he's a DVD addict and has all sorts of stuff, lots buried in storage at the bottom of stacks of hundreds of DVDs.

Joe is also anal retentive, and has a DB that shows every DVD that he owns.

Digitizing his vast collection would take Joe an eternity.
Finding a specific DVD in his collection is also a big waste of time, it could take hours to days.

So, Joe heads off to bittorrent to download the specific movie that he wants to see, Joe is also tech savvy, so he has uploading disabled for his movie torrents.

Is Joe infringing? (how can he infringe on something that he already owns?)

// can you record songs off of the radio?
// can you capture audio from internet streams?
// can you download any show that's sent OTA (since literally anyone with an antenna can grab it)
// can you download any show that your cable subscription provides?
// can you download MP3s for broken CDs that you own? Can you buy broken CDs dirt cheap? (is the license transferred with the CD?)
// can you get them to send you a new CD for a broken CD? You're paying for the license, right, so a replacement CD should be fairly cheap
 
2012-10-11 01:19:59 PM  
Honest Bender: Can you trace it back to a MAC address? Too bad, then.

Good luck with that.

lordargent.com
 
2012-10-11 01:57:22 PM  

lordargent: Theaetetus: More importantly, you trace it back to a cable modem and wifi access point. Okay.

More importantly, can you reliably prove that they infringed on anything. There are gray areas. For example.

Q1) Bob pays for cable TV, but a flash flood warning for an adjacent county farks up his recording of Breaking Bad, Bob downloads the episode from bittorrent. Is Bob infringing?

A1) If bob is also uploading said video, IMO yes, he is infringing (he's making the show available to people who might not have a license to view said show).

B1) If bob has uploading turned off for said video, then IMO no, he's not infringing. He has a license to view said show, via his cable co payment, and he's not making the video available to anyone else.


While I would tend to agree - specifically in that he has a fair use argument for format-shifting-by-proxy - this has not yet been tested in court.
And if I were the other side, I'd also add on induced infringement. :)

BUT, here's the problem with these automatic bots. When you're connected to a torrent, whether you're downloading or uploading and/or have uploading turned off for a file, your connection will still show in the swarm.

The vast majority of these bots take the lazy way out (they connect to the swarm and get a list of everyone that they can) some popular bots take the super lazy way out (they don't even connect to the swarm, they just scrape a web site).

So, you have a list of people in the swarm, you see Bob on the list, you send him a C&D, and bob is like "WTF, I paid money to watch your show and the network farked it up with a flash flood warning that doesn't even apply to my city and I didn't upload shiat".


Nah, you download a copy from Bob. You see the list of people in the swarm, you pick one randomly, and you block all incoming data from everyone except him. Then you get a full copy exclusively from him. When Bob says "WTF, I didn't upload shiat," you show your server log and say the settlement offer just doubled.

Furthermore, did you guys actually try to connect to bob to see if you could download from him?

See above - they actually do. Otherwise, they wouldn't actually have enough evidence to bring a claim in the first place.

Now Joe owns a huge collection of DVDs, he's a DVD addict and has all sorts of stuff, lots buried in storage at the bottom of stacks of hundreds of DVDs.

Joe is also anal retentive, and has a DB that shows every DVD that he owns.

Digitizing his vast collection would take Joe an eternity.
Finding a specific DVD in his collection is also a big waste of time, it could take hours to days.

So, Joe heads off to bittorrent to download the specific movie that he wants to see, Joe is also tech savvy, so he has uploading disabled for his movie torrents.

Is Joe infringing? (how can he infringe on something that he already owns?)


This is similar to the above - you have a fair use argument that you're entitled to format shift, so therefore you should be entitled to use someone else's format shifting apparatus. There'd still be the induced infringement argument.

... that said, Joe is never going to get sued. As noted above, the RIAA/MPAA download a full copy before they send someone a nastygram. If Joe isn't uploading, they can't do that. They can shake their fists impotently because they know that he's downloading from someone else, but they can't prove it unless they are that someone else - but then Joe would actually be getting a legal copy.

// can you record songs off of the radio?

Yes, provided you don't edit the broadcast.

// can you capture audio from internet streams?

Nope, because you're creating a derivative audio-only work (unless you're talking about recording Pandora or the like, in which case you're violating the ToS, therefore don't have a license to listen, and therefore are committing copyright infringement).

// can you download any show that's sent OTA (since literally anyone with an antenna can grab it)
// can you download any show that your cable subscription provides?


Nope, so far the courts have only considered direct recording of the original broadcast for time-shifting purposes to be fair use. Downloading the show would have a substantial effect on the rerun market, so the courts are unlikely to consider that fair use.

// can you download MP3s for broken CDs that you own? Can you buy broken CDs dirt cheap? (is the license transferred with the CD?)
// can you get them to send you a new CD for a broken CD? You're paying for the license, right, so a replacement CD should be fairly cheap


Now, that's a good question. No, to the latter, as you paid a one-time fee and they're not responsible for providing you a backup. You could have legally made a copy of the CD for archival purposes. But buying a broken CD and downloading the corresponding MP3? It's an untested area and I think you could make a good argument for fair use, but I also think you'd have a better chance of winning every state lottery on the same day than getting sued at all.
 
2012-10-11 02:05:08 PM  

Theaetetus:
No, it is, you dolt. If I lease a house for a year, it's a time-limited right, but that house is still property. Specifically, I possess a leasehold estate. The fact that it's time-limited is irrelevant.

Plus, way to miss the point of that entire post. Good jorb. You sure do know how to pedantically attack one tiny word in a paragraph and disregard the rest of it. Though, it would have been better if you were actually correct.


Ah, you conveniently overlook that the lease is a contractual limitation on the owner's property rights to the house that is self-imposed by the owner. Plus that you've showed that you have no farking clue whatsoever about the major property law concepts in both common law and civil law jurisdictions. Another tiny clue to you missing the point would be the US Constitution that treats copyright entirely different from normal property. But hey, that would mean that you'd have to acknowledge that you're the one that is factually incorrect.
 
2012-10-11 02:31:02 PM  
Theaetetus: this has not yet been tested in court.

Yep, no precedent yet, hence gray area.

"WTF, I didn't upload shiat," you show your server log and say the settlement offer just doubled.

That's what they're supposed to do, but there are very few (if any) that actually do that vs doing it the lazy way.

Most of them just send a bunch of infringement notices to an ISP.

that said, Joe is never going to get sued. As noted above, the RIAA/MPAA download a full copy before they send someone a nastygram.

I doubt that they actually do this. It requires too many unbelievable things for me.

1) That the RIAA is technically savvy enough to do this the right way (vs the lazy way).

2) That bother downloading the entire thing (because then, someone could just set their ratio to .75 (or something below 1). The RIAA would never be able to get a full copy from an individual.

// I've gotten one of those (you've been caught infringing) notices from my cable company/ISP for downloading a TV show. I pointed out that the cable was out in my area the day that show aired and that outage prevented my DVR from recording the content that I was paying them a huge monthly fee to access. I never heard anything again.

The upload bandwidth for that torrent was set to 0 (actually, all of my uploads are set to 0 by default, and I only change it for safe torrents). Granted this wasn't a RIAA notice (it originated with the owners of the TV show), but it shows that there are folks using the lazy method.

// another gray area question, Bob gets a DVD from netflix, but it's scratched to hell, is he infringing if he just torrents it?
 
2012-10-11 02:31:27 PM  
lordargent:

As for Bob - He pays for cable TV, which means that he pays a license for a specific type of acquisition and use. So, under current law (not common sense), yes, technically he is in violation/he is infringing.

As for Joe - He has paid for a DVD, which allows him to watch a show on a specific medium. So, under current law (not common sense), yes, technically he is in violation/he is infringing.
 
2012-10-11 03:21:40 PM  

lordargent: I doubt that they actually do this. It requires too many unbelievable things for me.

1) That the RIAA is technically savvy enough to do this the right way (vs the lazy way).


They hire experts - specifically MediaSentry - who absolutely are savvy enough.

2) That bother downloading the entire thing (because then, someone could just set their ratio to .75 (or something below 1). The RIAA would never be able to get a full copy from an individual.

They don't actually need to download the entire thing, just a significant portion. If you only have a 10 second clip (or even a 30 second clip), you have a great fair use argument that you were getting a sample for commentary/criticism. If you've got 75% of a song or television show, your argument disappears.
Additionally, the only way setting your ratio to that would result in them not getting a full copy would be if you were using per-client ratios (which none of the current apps do, I think), or if you were only uploading a single work and you had only downloaded that single work. If you grabbed three episodes, then .75 would be enough to upload two full ones and the beginning of the third, for example.

// I've gotten one of those (you've been caught infringing) notices from my cable company/ISP for downloading a TV show. I pointed out that the cable was out in my area the day that show aired and that outage prevented my DVR from recording the content that I was paying them a huge monthly fee to access. I never heard anything again.

The upload bandwidth for that torrent was set to 0 (actually, all of my uploads are set to 0 by default, and I only change it for safe torrents). Granted this wasn't a RIAA notice (it originated with the owners of the TV show), but it shows that there are folks using the lazy method.


They're also not filing suits, though. ;)

// another gray area question, Bob gets a DVD from netflix, but it's scratched to hell, is he infringing if he just torrents it?

I think that would be a tougher argument, similar to the "my CD is broken, so I'm entitled to download it" argument above. I think Bob would be safer to not upload while he torrents.
 
2012-10-11 03:50:10 PM  
Thought so.
 
2012-10-11 04:42:01 PM  
Theaetetus: the only way setting your ratio to that would result in them not getting a full copy would be if you were using per-client ratios (which none of the current apps do, I think), or if you were only uploading a single work and you had only downloaded that single work. If you grabbed three episodes, then .75 would be enough to upload two full ones and the beginning of the third, for example.

Ratios can be set at a per torrent ratio.

So if you set it to .75, that means that you could only upload a maximum of 75% of that show (you download 100% but only return 75%). That's to ALL peers. IE if someone grabs 5% from you, then the remaining peers can only grab 70%. So you can basically guarantee that nobody would ever be able to get a full copy from you.

But you moved the goalpoast has moved, before it was "the RIAA/MPAA download a full copy before they send someone a nastygram" and now it's "They don't actually need to download the entire thing, just a significant portion". (Which reinforces my point that they wouldn't bother to download the entire thing.)

Theaetetus: They hire experts - specifically MediaSentry - who absolutely are savvy enough.

I doubt that as well, media sentry is the same company the RIAA used to use, but they got dropped back in 2009 for DTEC.

One of the lawyers from one of those RIAA piracy cases stated "MediaSentry couldn't prove defendants had shared their files with anyone other than MediaSentry investigators.".
 
2012-10-11 05:11:40 PM  

lordargent: Theaetetus: the only way setting your ratio to that would result in them not getting a full copy would be if you were using per-client ratios (which none of the current apps do, I think), or if you were only uploading a single work and you had only downloaded that single work. If you grabbed three episodes, then .75 would be enough to upload two full ones and the beginning of the third, for example.

Ratios can be set at a per torrent ratio.

So if you set it to .75, that means that you could only upload a maximum of 75% of that show (you download 100% but only return 75%). That's to ALL peers. IE if someone grabs 5% from you, then the remaining peers can only grab 70%. So you can basically guarantee that nobody would ever be able to get a full copy from you.

But you moved the goalpoast has moved, before it was "the RIAA/MPAA download a full copy before they send someone a nastygram" and now it's "They don't actually need to download the entire thing, just a significant portion". (Which reinforces my point that they wouldn't bother to download the entire thing.)


Sorry about that. The latter is the correct one - they need to grab some, more than a small sample for the aforementioned reason, but there's no need for them to get the full 100%.

Theaetetus: They hire experts - specifically MediaSentry - who absolutely are savvy enough.

I doubt that as well, media sentry is the same company the RIAA used to use, but they got dropped back in 2009 for DTEC.

One of the lawyers from one of those RIAA piracy cases stated "MediaSentry couldn't prove defendants had shared their files with anyone other than MediaSentry investigators.".


So? That's all that's necessary to prove infringement, which is why both Thomas-Rasset and Tenenbaum lost on liability.
 
Displayed 75 of 75 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report