gatorkramNeed for Speed Premium Member join:2002-07-22 Winterville, NC
1 recommendation |
Oh boy...I have always had the feeling, these people have no clue what they are doing.. I asked a question a long time ago, in another post, about how these companies go about figuring out what you are doing, is even infringement. Do they host the files themselves like a honeypot, and wait for people to connect, download and share, or do they just randomly look for files with particular names, and then join those swarms, and start collecting IPs, etc. I wonder, how much you even have to share, before it becomes a violation, or how much of a download you have to complete. So many questions, and so few real answers... I don't see any problems at all from this, oh and I have some water front property you might be interested in... edit: spelling |
|
1 recommendation |
Heh213
Member
2013-Mar-4 9:33 am
There's basically no punishment for filing a false DMCA claim, and many are automated.
As for the Six strike system I imagine it's an even simpler process for them to go through, without any checks or balances. |
|
1 recommendation |
to gatorkram
Those are all valid questions, and ones I would like to find out.
If I were a betting man, I would say they will eventually begin hosting files in order to draw people in and log IP's. This is afterall, the easiest way to get their "job" done.
Do these firms get paid based on the quantity of people they "catch"/entrap? |
|
mazhurg Premium Member join:2004-05-02 Brighton, ON |
mazhurg
Premium Member
2013-Mar-4 9:40 am
Surprize!6 strikes model is perfect for the ISPs, who can refuse a free extra $35/user?
It's a perfect corporate world where even innocence must be purchased. |
|
|
elios join:2005-11-15 Springfield, MO |
to gatorkram
Re: Oh boy...yup totally couldnt fail in any way ..... RIGHT i think a big I TOLD YOU SO is in order here to all the people that said it would effect people not pirating |
|
clone (banned) join:2000-12-11 Portage, IN
1 recommendation |
to AnonPerson
I doubt they would ever host the files, not for the purpose of suing the downloaders, anyway.
This stems from the fact that they try to falsely claim the huge damages (hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars) based on the fact that you were sharing it with a ton of people who potentially could download it.
If you download one copy, they can sue you for $14.95, or whatever the going rate of the DVD or album currently is. This is why they never sue downloaders, and always sue uploaders. |
|
|
DisconnectJust disconnect. After everyone has left and no one goes to the movies maybe they might get it? |
|
ArrayListDevOps Premium Member join:2005-03-19 Mullica Hill, NJ |
yep. that's the most rational, logical expectation ever. |
|
cdruGo Colts MVM join:2003-05-14 Fort Wayne, IN |
to gatorkram
Re: Oh boy...said by gatorkram:I have always had the feeling, these people have no clue what they are doing. They know what they are doing. They are putting minimal effort into a complex problem. They know that their detection methods are going to have a lot of false positives. But they don't care. I asked a question a long time ago, in another post, about how these companies go about figuring out what you are doing, is even infringement. If they are working on the behalf of the copyright owner and are authorized to "distribute" it (which their service agreement most likely stipulates) then it's not infringement on their behalf. They may be authorized to give up the content but the infringer isn't authorized to accept it. Do they host the files themselves like a honeypot, and wait for people to connect, download and share, or do they just randomly look for files with particular names, and then join those swarms, and start collecting IPs, etc. Both. I wonder, how much you even have to share, before it becomes a violation, or how much of a download you have to complete. Technically, anything not covered by fair use and is unauthorized is infringement, so 1 bit. But then you have the practicality of differentiating what's infringing content and what's just coincidence. While it doesn't make a legal precedence here, I believe a judge in the UK stated that it had to be the entire piece of work and that just a fraction of it was not sufficient. For torrent related cases, if there are multiple people in the swarm (most likely) then it would be near impossible to prove that an entire work was downloaded from a single source. And if an infringer advertised that he had 100% completion to accept requests, just saying you are offering the file I don't think is sufficient to argue infringement, the actual infringement has to happen. All these uncertainties are why so very few copyright infringement cases go to actual trial. It's expensive, and the copyright holders also don't want to go through all the costs with legally dubious cases and little precedence to go upon. |
|
|
OmagicQPosting in a thread near you join:2003-10-23 Bakersfield, CA |
Its a large download...must be pirated content!I suspect this will start to be the case. Pretty soon they will be flagging people for downloading linux distributions as 'warez' |
|
|
said by OmagicQ:I suspect this will start to be the case. Pretty soon they will be flagging people for downloading linux distributions as 'warez' That would be pretty funny, especially since I download 80TB per month. |
|
me1212 join:2008-11-20 Lees Summit, MO |
me1212
Member
2013-Mar-4 10:34 am
I wonder how the game makers will/would respond to this?Some companies love mods for games, some people will buy a game just because of a mod, and some companies(like valve) get some employees from the modding community. I really want to see how/if the gaming companies react to this. |
|
|
OTA violationsHere's why it's hard to take the whole DMCA thing seriously. When shows like House and Grimm are broadcast OTA and are readily available to record, why is it so wrong to transfer one of these recordings from one location to another for personal viewing? This used to be considered fair use. |
|
slckusr Premium Member join:2003-03-17 Greenville, SC |
slckusr
Premium Member
2013-Mar-4 10:47 am
said by mlcarson:Here's why it's hard to take the whole DMCA thing seriously. When shows like House and Grimm are broadcast OTA and are readily available to record, why is it so wrong to transfer one of these recordings from one location to another for personal viewing? This used to be considered fair use. Im legally allowed to do that, If i capture it myself and move it to another device. Like when my DVR records the show and i watch it on my cellphone at work. I paid for that content to be saved at home so i can use it on MY other devices. |
|
phxmarkWhat Country Are We Living In? join:2000-12-27 Glendale, AZ |
to mlcarson
Fair use has been dead for along time. Hollywood does not like time shifting. Look at how they are trying to kill off the Hopper and other DVR systems. |
|
jmn1207 Premium Member join:2000-07-19 Sterling, VA |
jmn1207
Premium Member
2013-Mar-4 10:53 am
ProtestsWouldn't it be in the DMCA's best interest to send out millions of false alerts to innocent people?
A person that legitimately violated copyright is not likely to pay $35 to protest, only the falsely accused have any reason to want to protest.
If there is no reciprocal punishment for blatantly false accusations, they may as well just send Guido and Big Tony door-to-door to shake up the locals for "protection" money. |
|
Woody79_00I run Linux am I still a PC? Premium Member join:2004-07-08 united state |
to phxmark
Re: OTA violationssaid by phxmark:Fair use has been dead for along time. Hollywood does not like time shifting. Look at how they are trying to kill off the Hopper and other DVR systems. this right here. personally this is saddening...these people are destroying and butchering the Internet...mark my words in the next 20 years..the internet we knew..the free and open internet will be dead...bank on it... |
|
Woody79_00 |
to jmn1207
Re: Protestssaid by jmn1207:Wouldn't it be in the DMCA's best interest to send out millions of false alerts to innocent people?
A person that legitimately violated copyright is not likely to pay $35 to protest, only the falsely accused have any reason to want to protest.
If there is no reciprocal punishment for blatantly false accusations, they may as well just send Guido and Big Tony door-to-door to shake up the locals for "protection" money. Of course! this is the plan all along....that 35 dolalr fee is just s shake down...a way to extort or extract more money from the consumer...thats all it is...and one way or another...they will get that money from us... |
|
1 recommendation |
to AnonPerson
Re: Oh boy...said by AnonPerson:Do these firms get paid based on the quantity of people they "catch"/entrap? A conspiracy theorist would point out that with the 6 strikes only generating letters and slow downs, the real money to be made here is actually in the false claims. Few will pay to protest being caught downloading something they know is a violation, but nearly EVERYONE who gets a false claim will pay $35 to prove they did nothing wrong. And it is my understanding that you are out the money no matter what the final ruling. |
|
gaforces (banned)United We Stand, Divided We Fall join:2002-04-07 Santa Cruz, CA 1 edit |
gaforces (banned)
Member
2013-Mar-4 11:26 am
4 strikes?So if the mod builder/distributor got dmca for those items listed, does that mean that person has 4 strikes already and have to pay 35x4=140?
I expect the mod builder could prove damages like loss of paypal donations or something. Violation of the 4th Amendment (unreasonable search and seizure), and 3rd Amendment (freedom of speech.)
Since damages and punishment are so high it could be considered a capitol offence. There is all kinds of wrong with this. Wronged people will seek redress. Theres gonna be a lot of lawyers on retainer for this mess.
And 6 strikes is voluntary? lolz |
|
|
to OmagicQ
Re: Its a large download...must be pirated content!It must be, you're downloading it without paying somebody...
Where's my CUT says everyone.
I MUST SQUEEZE CONSUMERS FOR EVERY RED CENT, NO MATTER THE COST |
|
skeechanAi Otsukaholic Premium Member join:2012-01-26 AA169|170 |
skeechan
Premium Member
2013-Mar-4 12:14 pm
What SHOULD happen...You pay the $35 and if it turns out you are right, whoever filed the DMCA request pays a $1000 penalty for the false accusation.
In the meantime, how is being accused of a crime not defamation?
If I go about telling someone that you are a child molester you certainly could sue me for the defamation. |
|
Kilroy MVM join:2002-11-21 Saint Paul, MN |
to cdru
Re: Oh boy...said by cdru:said by gatorkram:I wonder, how much you even have to share, before it becomes a violation, or how much of a download you have to complete. Technically, anything not covered by fair use and is unauthorized is infringement, so 1 bit. So, they have two files they are enforcing copyrights for, one has a first bit of 0 and the other has a first bit of 1, so EVERYTHING is a copyright violtion subject to a $35 review if you feel like paying for it. In reality the more bad press this plan gets the better for consumers. |
|
2 recommendations |
Bleeding us dry.Guilty until proven innocent, that's the American Way now that Corporations control the country. |
|
|
If you're going to do it get it right,False positives should result in a fine paid TO the falsely accused customer. I don't really care if they implement this CAS but if they are going to do it they need to get it right,....all the time,....or pay for their missteps,.....IMO.
That includes insecure and or hacked wireless networks. |
|
JohnInSJ Premium Member join:2003-09-22 Aptos, CA |
JohnInSJ
Premium Member
2013-Mar-4 12:41 pm
contents, not file name...Does anyone know if the said file actually didn't contain one of the listed items in the DMCA notice? One would expect it's not looking for file names, but rather hashing content and matching hashes against a database.
It's not very hard at all to rename a file "I am not a pirated movie.txt" after all. |
|
CXM_SplicerLooking at the bigger picture Premium Member join:2011-08-11 NYC
1 recommendation |
to clone
Re: Oh boy...No, if they hosted a file that would be the equivalent to them giving away property they own. You cannot offer something for free and then claim infringement when someone takes it. They go after 'uploaders' because that's the only ones they can collect sufficient evidence on. |
|
danawhitakerSpace...The Final Frontier Premium Member join:2002-03-02 Thorndale, ON |
And this is why......my ISP, Mediacom, is a bunch of fools for having a 3 strikes and you're permanently disconnected policy. People stick up for the system, but scenarios like this show how someone could get screwed very easily, and good luck fighting your case with the ISP. |
|
|
to jmn1207
Re: ProtestsThey might be taking a page from the Nigerian scammers and using the shotgun approach - send out mass quantities (emails/violations), and even if only a small percentage "bites", they're still way ahead monetarily. |
|
|
to CXM_Splicer
Re: Oh boy...said by CXM_Splicer:No, if they hosted a file that would be the equivalent to them giving away property they own. You cannot offer something for free and then claim infringement when someone takes it. They go after 'uploaders' because that's the only ones they can collect sufficient evidence on. You are half right. But with the torrent protocols, you are distributing (without permission) the moment you start downloading. So they can seed the file, and still nail you for distribution while you download it. |
|