|
uniqs 81 |
|
|
|
Kaltes Premium Member join:2002-12-04 Los Angeles, CA |
to mario620
No big deal, idle threatsIf I were you, I'd just ignore it. You downloaded will & grace using bittorrent? big deal. Comcast has no means of blocking access, nor are they required to by law. I don't see them actually doing anything at all about this. After all, Comcast benefits from p2p use because it is one of the attractions of broadband. This is a tactic a company is using to scare you. The only thing you have to fear is fear itself, quite literally. If you blow this off, like I would, you'll see that ultimately it is hot air. In the extremely unlikely event that you were to get sued, you could merely claim that you did not download the file. It would be impossible for the company suing you to prove that you did, unless you came out and admitted it. - changing IP won't matter - deleting the file won't matter - whether you continue to use BT or not won't matter said by mario620:Sounds like I should just sit and wait and see what happens. Good idea. If I were you, I would throw it away and do nothing, or send a counter-notice. said by J D McDorce: ISPs (in this case, Comcast) are bound by the DMCA to provide notification to their customers should the copyright holder (or their agent) report alleged infringements of their works. No, they are not. They are required to give the user notice when they receive a subpoena from the copyright holder requesting their customer's identity. If you don't want them to get your identity, you can send a counter-notice. Otherwise, they get it. said by J D McDorce: Had it been a work of music associated with the RIAA, you would likely have been presented with the opportunity (by a party other than Comcast) to pay several thousand dollars to avoid being sued by a RIAA member instead of receiving an email from Comcast. You would have seen the comcast letter first, then the RIAA demand letter (an empty threat) sometime later. said by oldTDNickell5:Just don't do it again and you will be alright Allow yourself to be intimidated, and the copyright terrorists win. said by motoracer:Why not just stop the problem at the source and stop downloading/uploading copyrighted material Maybe he likes to watch will & grace, and doesn't have a TIVO to record it with 'legally'? :P I download episodes of TV shows all the time. It is a convenient thing that means I don't have to schedule my life around when a given show is going to be on TV. I could care less if the copyright holder doesn't like it. This is no different from getting a TIVO or some similar device to record shows, then taking out the commercials. | actions · 2006-Mar-17 12:19 am · (locked) | |
said by J D McDorce: ISPs (in this case, Comcast) are bound by the DMCA to provide notification to their customers should the copyright holder (or their agent) report alleged infringements of their works. No, they are not. They are required to give the user notice when they receive a subpoena from the copyright holder requesting their customer's identity. If you don't want them to get your identity, you can send a counter-notice. Otherwise, they get it.
Sending the counter notice is the one thing left in my mind. If I send the notice and state that I have deleted the file. I don't want to put myself in that hole. So I really don't know what to do in that case. Also can my isp scan my hard drive for other stuff? I have deleted everything that I can think of that could link me to more trouble. | actions · 2006-Mar-17 2:01 am · (locked) | |
to Kaltes
I don't know about comcast but Adelphia will give you a warning and the 2nd time you get complained on they will disconnect you i know 2 people i work with who were kicked off Adelphia for copyright infringement so if you have other choices for isp's don't worry about it | actions · 2006-Mar-17 4:34 am · (locked) | jap Premium Member join:2003-08-10 038xx 1 edit |
to mario620
said by mario620:Also can my isp scan my hard drive for other stuff? I have deleted everything that I can think of that could link me to more trouble. No, your ISP cannot scan your stored files: they can only see data as it is being transferred across their network. Traditionally these notices go nowhere - especially on TV content. Sending a counter notice is a double-edged sword. On the one hand it firmly establishes that you received, read and comprehend the Comcast notice, thus removing the option to later play dumb about it. On the other it does place the onus back upon the copyright owner to escalate to the next level (supeona) if they want to pursue it. You may want to check what the EFF is currently recommending and go with that. Personally I would ignore it. Good luck sorting it out. | actions · 2006-Mar-17 5:58 am · (locked) | |
to Kaltes
said by Kaltes:said by J D McDorce: ISPs (in this case, Comcast) are bound by the DMCA to provide notification to their customers should the copyright holder (or their agent) report alleged infringements of their works. No, they are not. They are required to give the user notice when they receive a subpoena from the copyright holder requesting their customer's identity. If you don't want them to get your identity, you can send a counter-notice. Otherwise, they get it. said by J D McDorce: Had it been a work of music associated with the RIAA, you would likely have been presented with the opportunity (by a party other than Comcast) to pay several thousand dollars to avoid being sued by a RIAA member instead of receiving an email from Comcast. You would have seen the comcast letter first, then the RIAA demand letter (an empty threat) sometime later. Apparently we do not share the same interpretation of 17 USC 512 (» www.law.cornell.edu/usco ··· 00-.html ). In addition, I am not aware of either a requirement or a practice by ISPs to notify their customers in the event that their identifying information be requested via subpoena. | actions · 2006-Mar-17 7:07 am · (locked) | Kaltes Premium Member join:2002-12-04 Los Angeles, CA
2 recommendations |
to mario620
said by mario620: If I send the notice and state that I have deleted the file. I don't want to put myself in that hole. So I really don't know what to do in that case. Also can my isp scan my hard drive for other stuff? I have deleted everything that I can think of that could link me to more trouble. #1. Legally, the ISP should not be handing over your identity. Any notice they could have been given would be defective. This was settled by the RIAA v Verizon case. p2p activity is NOT vulnerable to DMCA 17 USC 512(h) notices. No one should be able to (legally) get your identity from your ISP as a result of p2p use. #2. Do not send a counter-notice saying you deleted the file. The counter-notice must include your name, address, and telephone number, and a statement that the subscriber consents to the jurisdiction of Federal District Court for the judicial district in which the address is located, and that the subscriber will accept service of process from the person who provided notification under subsection (c)(1)(C) or an agent of such person. This counter notice is GIVEN TO THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER, making it easier for them to sue you, if they were so inclined. It makes little sense to provide a counter notice in the case of p2p. #3. No, your ISP can NOT scan your hard drive. #4. You should not overreact to this, the RIAA and its fellow copyright abusers prey on the ignorance and paranoia of good people who are doing nothing at all wrong by making use of the convenience of new technology the copyright holders refuse to embrace because the new technology makes it harder for them to manipulate and control the market. said by mark_y_k:I don't know about comcast but Adelphia will give you a warning and the 2nd time you get complained on they will disconnect you i know 2 people i work with who were kicked off Adelphia for copyright infringement so if you have other choices for isp's don't worry about it I'm sure you could easily call up and get re-connected. Adelphia has NO INCENTIVE to kick off its own users. NONE. I highly doubt they have a company-wide policy of doing this, because it is against their business interests. Adelphia has NO LIABILITY for what its users do, they can legally ignore anything the RIAA et al. sends them. said by Clever Name:I think owning a wireless router and claiming you're too ignorant to secure it properly would be a fairly good alibi. Some VERY evil copyright infringer must have hijacked my wireless connection and downloaded that horrible tv show. It is easier to merely say that other people have access to your computer, and that you did not download any such file. It would be impossible for them to prove you personally downloaded it, and unless they could do that, they lose and YOU get YOUR attorney's fees. said by jap:Traditionally these notices go nowhere - especially on TV content. Sending a counter notice is a double-edged sword. On the one hand it firmly establishes that you received, read and comprehend the Comcast notice, thus removing the option to later play dumb about it. On the other it does place the onus back upon the copyright owner to escalate to the next level (supeona) if they want to pursue it. You may want to check what the EFF is currently recommending and go with that. Personally I would ignore it. Good luck sorting it out. Good advice, I would only correct one thing: the counter-notice hands the copyright holder everything they need to sue you on a silver platter. Even if they can't get your identity from the ISP (and they legally couldn't ANYWAY), you have now handed it to them. So, this is just a trick they are using to get your info from you. said by J D McDorce:In addition, I am not aware of either a requirement or a practice by ISPs to notify their customers in the event that their identifying information be requested via subpoena. I don't know their policies, but they must notify you so that you can respond to the subpoena. The subpoenas are govered by the federal rules of civil procedure, in particular: » www.law.cornell.edu/rule ··· le45.htmsaid by b1gdr3:Yes, you should worry about it. Listening to these wannabe legal experts here can have your ass in a sling. Delete the file, uninstall bittorrent, and follow the Terms Of Service. If he follows "wannabe legal experts" he can still enjoy his downloads. If he follows "company shills" then he doesn't. As far as having his ass in a sling, can you point to ONE case where the RIAA took someone using p2p to trial and won? You can't, despite them filing lawsuits for YEARS. They make empty threats and manipulate people through ignorance and fear in order to extort money. If you ignore them, they have no power over you. said by cableties:I'd be embarassed to even post that, let alone try to get convincing arguments that try to justify the illegal uploading/distribution of someone else's property. You are entitled to sheepishly follow the whims of the copyright cartel if that is your choice in life, but do not dare to pass judgment on those who resist them. Someone else's property? That is insanity. There is no real property involved. There is no theft involved. The only thing involved is a copyright cartel which routinely breaks the law to engage in price fixing and other monopolistic behavior, versus good people who refuse to go along with the cartel's tactics. If everyone just rolled over like you, iTunes would not exist. You'd be paying $20 for a music CD loaded with malware that screwed with your computer. So don't try to condemn others when you are acting as a shill for a criminal cartel. | actions · 2006-Mar-17 11:30 am · (locked) | | Combat ChuckToo Many Cannibals Premium Member join:2001-11-29 Verona, PA 1 edit
1 recommendation |
said by Kaltes:If he follows "wannabe legal experts" he can still enjoy his downloads. If he follows "company shills" then he doesn't. So are you volunteering to cover his legal expenses if he follows your advice and is wrong? Throwing around terms like "company shills" should be reason enough to not follow your advice. With a few exceptions I don't think anyone here really cares if he continues to share files or not we're just warning him of the potential outcomes. I agree that if he does nothing different that there's little chance that anything bad will happen but the potential still exists. Pretending that the danger does not exist in the name of a crusade against the media is foolish. You can tease a chained dog in relative safety, but at some point that dog might not be chained. | actions · 2006-Mar-17 12:31 pm · (locked) | b1gdr3I Blame Your Mother join:2001-07-28 York, PA |
to Kaltes
said by Kaltes:So don't try to condemn others when you are acting as a shill for a criminal cartel. I'm neither a shill or a fool. Just because you don't like or agree with the law does not exempt you from having to follow it. I'd say encouraging people to say the hell with the law is n't the brightest way to go, but people are going to do what they are going to do. I sincerely hope the OP took the sane peoples advice on this matter. | actions · 2006-Mar-17 3:14 pm · (locked) | Kaltes Premium Member join:2002-12-04 Los Angeles, CA |
Kaltes
Premium Member
2006-Mar-18 12:23 am
said by b1gdr3:said by Kaltes:So don't try to condemn others when you are acting as a shill for a criminal cartel. I'm neither a shill or a fool. Just because you don't like or agree with the law does not exempt you from having to follow it. I'd say encouraging people to say the hell with the law is n't the brightest way to go, but people are going to do what they are going to do. I sincerely hope the OP took the sane peoples advice on this matter. You have no clue what copyright is, do you? You aren't breaking the law when you infringe a copyright. You are interfering with a PRIVATE RIGHT that a copyright holder can enforce with a CIVIL lawsuit. There are many things that are not "against the law" that are instead dealt with privately through lawsuits. | actions · 2006-Mar-18 12:23 am · (locked) | KonaguyLive From Hawaii Premium Member join:2000-10-21 Kailua Kona, HI ·Hawaiian Telcom
|
Konaguy
Premium Member
2006-Mar-18 12:49 am
said by Kaltes: You have no clue what copyright is, do you? You aren't breaking the law when you infringe a copyright. You are interfering with a PRIVATE RIGHT that a copyright holder can enforce with a CIVIL lawsuit. There are many things that are not "against the law" that are instead dealt with privately through lawsuits. Explain this one sherlock ? » www.usdoj.gov/criminal/c ··· 8red.htm» news.com.com/2010-1071-9 ··· 121.html | actions · 2006-Mar-18 12:49 am · (locked) | |
to Kaltes
First of all ISPs do have the ability to block commonly used ports that P@P programs use. Change the ports you say? Then those could be blocked also. And it is not Comcast or any other ISP that cares, if you re-read the mail it basically states that Comcast was presented with information from the copyright holder that you have downloaded a copyrighted file. The holder of the copyright KNOWS the IP number you used to DL the file (probably because you were also sharing the parts you had DL'd while getting the rest of the episode) because they were DL'ing it from you! If I were you I would respond and state the file has been deleted. Unless you do so, the next step will be for the copyright owner to get a court order for Comcast to provide the name and address of the person who has the IP assigned the date and time they DL'd the file and then take you to court. Taking these Monday morning armchair quarterback's legal adice is not wise. The RIAA and the MPAA have sucessfully sued thousands of copyright infringement violators..do you wanna be next???? said by Kaltes:If I were you, I'd just ignore it. You downloaded will & grace using bittorrent? big deal. Comcast has no means of blocking access, nor are they required to by law. I don't see them actually doing anything at all about this. After all, Comcast benefits from p2p use because it is one of the attractions of broadband. This is a tactic a company is using to scare you. The only thing you have to fear is fear itself, quite literally. If you blow this off, like I would, you'll see that ultimately it is hot air. In the extremely unlikely event that you were to get sued, you could merely claim that you did not download the file. It would be impossible for the company suing you to prove that you did, unless you came out and admitted it. - changing IP won't matter - deleting the file won't matter - whether you continue to use BT or not won't matter said by mario620:Sounds like I should just sit and wait and see what happens. Good idea. If I were you, I would throw it away and do nothing, or send a counter-notice. said by J D McDorce: ISPs (in this case, Comcast) are bound by the DMCA to provide notification to their customers should the copyright holder (or their agent) report alleged infringements of their works. No, they are not. They are required to give the user notice when they receive a subpoena from the copyright holder requesting their customer's identity. If you don't want them to get your identity, you can send a counter-notice. Otherwise, they get it. said by J D McDorce: Had it been a work of music associated with the RIAA, you would likely have been presented with the opportunity (by a party other than Comcast) to pay several thousand dollars to avoid being sued by a RIAA member instead of receiving an email from Comcast. You would have seen the comcast letter first, then the RIAA demand letter (an empty threat) sometime later. said by oldTDNickell5:Just don't do it again and you will be alright Allow yourself to be intimidated, and the copyright terrorists win. said by motoracer:Why not just stop the problem at the source and stop downloading/uploading copyrighted material Maybe he likes to watch will & grace, and doesn't have a TIVO to record it with 'legally'? :P I download episodes of TV shows all the time. It is a convenient thing that means I don't have to schedule my life around when a given show is going to be on TV. I could care less if the copyright holder doesn't like it. This is no different from getting a TIVO or some similar device to record shows, then taking out the commercials. | actions · 2006-Mar-18 10:29 am · (locked) | scrummie02Bentley Premium Member join:2004-04-16 Arlington, VA |
to Kaltes
"Maybe he likes to watch will & grace, and doesn't have a TIVO to record it with 'legally'? :P I download episodes of TV shows all the time. It is a convenient thing that means I don't have to schedule my life around when a given show is going to be on TV. I could care less if the copyright holder doesn't like it. This is no different from getting a TIVO or some similar device to record shows, then taking out the commercials."
I agree...with the last part anyway. I don't download music, but I do download TV shows because I give comcast enough money every month for cable and HBO. I certainly don't want to give them "extra" money for a DVR every month when I can download the show and watch it later. In my opinion that is the same and recording it on my old VCR and watching it later. It's public television not even HBO, so if I download something from CBS, FOX, UPN, ABC, NBC in my opinion it's not copyright infringement because it's free television anyway. I will continue to download Family Guy, War at Home, American Idol and 24 as I see fit because I have a lot of things going on right now and I miss the shows. | actions · 2006-Mar-18 11:37 am · (locked) | | Kaltes Premium Member join:2002-12-04 Los Angeles, CA |
to Konaguy
said by Konaguy:said by Kaltes: You have no clue what copyright is, do you? You aren't breaking the law when you infringe a copyright. You are interfering with a PRIVATE RIGHT that a copyright holder can enforce with a CIVIL lawsuit. There are many things that are not "against the law" that are instead dealt with privately through lawsuits. Explain this one sherlock ? » www.usdoj.gov/criminal/c ··· 8red.htm» news.com.com/2010-1071-9 ··· 121.html The NET criminalized large scale commercial piracy. The provisions that could possibly affect people using p2p are not at issue here, because downloading an episode of a TV show clearly does not fit under that law. Secondly, that law has NEVER BEEN ENFORCED against p2p suers by the DOJ. Nor will it ever be enforced by them. Ashcroft was LOBBIED by the copyright holders to attempt to throw p2p users in jail and he rejected their efforts. Any attempt to enforce the law would result in immediate Constitutional challenges along with a public outcry and a rapid repeal of the law by Congressmen who can't afford to piss the public off. So maybe you should go get a clue before spouting off, Sherlock. | actions · 2006-Mar-18 12:44 pm · (locked) | Kaltes |
to TraumaJunkie
said by TraumaJunkie:First of all ISPs do have the ability to block commonly used ports that P@P programs use. The ISPs do not have the ability or the inclination to single out individual users and block specific ports from those users. said by TraumaJunkie:Change the ports you say? Then those could be blocked also. There are some ports the ISPs can't block, like port 80, for obvious reasons. ISPs also cannot block most p2p ports for the reason that once word gets out that they're doing it, they will lose customers. The ISPs are NOT the copyright holders, they have different and competing interests. The ISPs want to make money, and p2p is a GOOD THING for them. The only reason that some ISPs block ports is that they are either short-sightedly using it as a form of bandwidth capping to cut down traffic, or they have individual stupid executives that put the RIAA's interests before the interests of their own company. said by TraumaJunkie:Unless you do so, the next step will be for the copyright owner to get a court order for Comcast to provide the name and address of the person who has the IP assigned the date and time they DL'd the file and then take you to court. (1) They can't subpoena based on p2p use. Read RIAA v Verizon. So p2p use WILL NOT result in a successful subpoena. (2) You show me one case ONE CASE where the RIAA has taken someone to court. All they do is threaten and extort settlements from people who are ignorant of the law. The fact is, the RIAA isn't going to spend $30,000+ on lawyers to get a judgment that will at most be a few thousand dollars. said by TraumaJunkie:Taking these Monday morning armchair quarterback's legal adice is not wise. The RIAA and the MPAA have sucessfully sued thousands of copyright infringement violators..do you wanna be next???? #1. I am a lawyer. I am probably the only lawyer posting in this topic. #2. You are wrong. The RIAA hasn't successfully sued anybody. They have sent threatening letters and extorted middle class people into 'settlements'. | actions · 2006-Mar-18 1:00 pm · (locked) | |
said by Kaltes:(1) They can't subpoena based on p2p use. Read RIAA v Verizon. So p2p use WILL NOT result in a successful subpoena. RIAA v. Verizon found that a 512(h) subpoena was not applicable to p2p. While the RIAA can no longer get a court clerk to rubber stamp a subpoena, they can still get a judge to issue a subpoena for subscriber information if a "John Doe" lawsuit is filed, even for p2p use. (2) You show me one case ONE CASE where the RIAA has taken someone to court. All they do is threaten and extort settlements from people who are ignorant of the law. The fact is, the RIAA isn't going to spend $30,000+ on lawyers to get a judgment that will at most be a few thousand dollars. BMG Music, et al v. Gonzalez | actions · 2006-Mar-18 2:50 pm · (locked) | Kaltes Premium Member join:2002-12-04 Los Angeles, CA 1 edit |
Kaltes
Premium Member
2006-Mar-18 8:21 pm
said by J D McDorce:While the RIAA can no longer get a court clerk to rubber stamp a subpoena, they can still get a judge to issue a subpoena for subscriber information if a "John Doe" lawsuit is filed, even for p2p use. They have to file a lawsuit, not knowing who you are, and then go to a court for a subpoena, which you have an opportunity to quash. This is extremely expensive for them to do, and not practical. This is why the RIAA was fighting for the use of 512 subpoenas, and this is why the RIAA's loss in that case is a big deal. For you to act like a doe subpoena is the same thing as a 512 expedited supoena is supremely ignorant. The doe route gives you due process, whereas the 512 route is a rubber stamp without any judicial review. Either you really don't understand the issues, or you are making bad faith arguments because you just want to keep arguing with me. Try again. I said take TO COURT, meaning to trial. Everyone knows the RIAA filed thousands of lawsuits. The case you are citing was resolved on summary judgment (this means without a court trial), because the defendant had COMPLETELY ADMITTED LIABILITY. Of course, I'm sure even these cases, where the defendant hands the RIAA their case on a silver platter, are rare. It is simply too expensive for the RIAA to pay the attorney's fees for these cases, and the vast majority of p2p users are judgment proof, meaning the RIAA will never get a penny from them because they have no assets. | actions · 2006-Mar-18 8:21 pm · (locked) | JimF Premium Member join:2003-06-15 Allentown, PA 1 edit |
to Kaltes
said by Kaltes:This is no different from getting a TIVO or some similar device to record shows, then taking out the commercials. It is quite different than using a TIVO. There, he has already paid the fee (through his cable TV provider) to see the show, and the TIVO is merely time-shifting it. Here, he may not even have paid for cable at all. If you do not see the difference, I am sure the copyright holder does. | actions · 2006-Mar-18 9:21 pm · (locked) | JimF 1 edit |
to Kaltes
said by Kaltes: They have to file a lawsuit, not knowing who you are, and then go to a court for a subpoena, which you have an opportunity to quash. This is extremely expensive for them to do, and not practical. ,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Everyone knows the RIAA filed thousands of lawsuits. The case you are citing was resolved on summary judgment (this means without a court trial), because the defendant had COMPLETELY ADMITTED LIABILITY. ,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Of course, I'm sure even these cases, where the defendant hands the RIAA their case on a silver platter, are rare. It is simply too expensive for the RIAA to pay the attorney's fees for these cases, and the vast majority of p2p users are judgment proof, meaning the RIAA will never get a penny from them because they have no assets. I don't think you see the logic of your own argument. It is equally expensive for the defendant to quash the subpoena, maybe more so, since they have to hire an attorney in each case, whereas the RIAA could do so en mass. Of course they don't go to trial, since as you point out, they would recover nothing. That doesn't mean people don't get sued; as you point out, thousands did. The OP could too. | actions · 2006-Mar-18 9:37 pm · (locked) | KonaguyLive From Hawaii Premium Member join:2000-10-21 Kailua Kona, HI ·Hawaiian Telcom
|
to Kaltes
said by Kaltes:So maybe you should go get a clue before spouting off, Sherlock. Wrong NET was enacted to fix a loophole in the law that copyright infringement without financial gain was legal. Think about it P2P=copyright infringement without monetary gain. Sherlock has it crossed your mind that if people illegally downloaded copyrighted material the content folks would have no incentive to make movies, software etc. You sound like a socialist who believes everything including the water should be free. | actions · 2006-Mar-19 12:13 am · (locked) | Konaguy |
to Kaltes
said by Kaltes:#1. I am a lawyer. I am probably the only lawyer posting in this topic. Well that is surprising, I would think someone of your caliber would be a law abiding citizen.. I guess not. As far as I can see you are commiting malpractice. | actions · 2006-Mar-19 12:16 am · (locked) | |
to Kaltes
Believe it or not, I am not clairvoyant. You had previously indicated that p2p use WILL NOT result in a successful subpoena. I indicated that p2p use could, in fact, result in user information being obtained from the ISP as a result of a subpoena, noting that RIAA v. Verizon led to the discontinued use of 512(h) subpoenas by the RIAA for this type of action. Nowhere did I indicate a John Doe subpoena is the same thing as a 512(h) subpoena.
As for "to court" meaning "to trial", you have my apologies. Apparently I assumed that a case adjudicated by a Federal Judge and upheld by the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit qualified as going to court. My read on the case is that while Gonzalez did not dispute the fact that the material was on her computer, she claimed the downloaded material fell under fair use and not infringement. While Gonzalez felt that she was not admitting liability, the courts certainly felt differently. The appellate ruling makes for an extremely interesting read, if you haven't done so already. | actions · 2006-Mar-19 8:53 am · (locked) | Kaltes Premium Member join:2002-12-04 Los Angeles, CA |
to JimF
said by JimF:said by Kaltes:This is no different from getting a TIVO or some similar device to record shows, then taking out the commercials. It is quite different than using a TIVO. There, he has already paid the fee (through his cable TV provider) to see the show, and the TIVO is merely time-shifting it. Here, he may not even have paid for cable at all. If you do not see the difference, I am sure the copyright holder does. time-shifting is one of those ridiculous fictions that cover up the truth. the supreme court used it as an excuse to reach a pro-consumer result in the betamax case. the logical extension of this argument, space-shifting, was rejected in the napster case. What really matters, is that the convenience of hundreds of millions of consumers outweighs the ability of copyright holders to have absolute, limitless control over the distribution of their works. It is not in the public's best interest to give the copyright holders limitless control, and the last time I checked, it was the public's interest that mattered. The copyright holders should only have their way when it is in the public's interest to give them their way. As it stands now, the copyright holders have power far in excess of the public interest, because of the effectiveness of their lobbying operations, whereas the public at large is not mobilized and is nearly powerless on this issue legislatively. Therefore, the copyright holders will naturally use their lobbying power to get unfair laws drafted, and the public will simply ignore those unjust laws. When push comes to shove, and someone tries to throw an 11-years-old p2p user in jail, the copyright holders lose, and they know it. This kind of thing has already happened, for example when sellout Congressman Berman tried to legalize RIAA computer hacking. The outcry that resulted shut that little plan down. | actions · 2006-Mar-19 2:31 pm · (locked) | Kaltes |
to JimF
said by JimF:I don't think you see the logic of your own argument. It is equally expensive for the defendant to quash the subpoena, maybe more so, since they have to hire an attorney in each case, whereas the RIAA could do so en mass. Of course they don't go to trial, since as you point out, they would recover nothing. That doesn't mean people don't get sued; as you point out, thousands did. The OP could too. There is not much to be gained in economies of scale when it comes to lawsuits. Bigger law firms that handle larger volumes of cases charge MORE money, not less. A given lawyer can only do so much work. The fact is that Doe lawsuits are extremely expensive and impossible to do on a large scale. One of the biggest reasons for this is that the vast majority of people the RIAA sues will have no assets or assets the RIAA can't touch. As a general rule, unless your litigation target is middle-class or better, you won't see a dime from them even if you win. Even with middle-class people, it would be difficult and time-consuming to actually get any money, not to mention it would be a PR nightmare. This is why the RIAA and others rely almost exclusively on extorted settlements, because all of those problems are avoided. It cost them VERY LITTLE MONEY in the past to get most settlements using the DMCA. All they have to do is pay the company who gets them the IP, fill in a notice form, then fill out a subpoena form. After that, they would send a threatening letter, then sit back and wait for their money. This could be profitable for them. By contrast, with Doe suits, they have to pay lawyers up front to file lawsuits, then continue to pay lawyers to work the case. This quickly adds up into thousands of dollars, exceeding what they could extort out of most people in settlement. Even if some people did quickly settle, many others wouldn't because they simply didn't have the money. This means the vast majority of lawsuits are guaranteed losers, sure to result in the RIAA spending thousands and having nothing to show for it. RIAA then has no choice but to either dismiss the suit, or waste tens of thousands to get a worthless judgment. Yes there is always a (ver tiny) chance the OP could get sued. There is probably a bigger chance I could get sued. I download lots of tv shows. I am not even slightly afraid of getting sued, though, and everyone else needn't be afraid either. As long as you don't admit liability, the only way they can get you is to either (1) get a default because you don't respond to the suit at all, or (2) take you to trial. As long as you just show up to court when you get notice of court dates, and you file an answer after you get the complaint, you have very little to be worried about. That's my take on it. | actions · 2006-Mar-19 6:08 pm · (locked) | |
Anonymous0
Anon
2006-Mar-21 12:11 am
said by Kaltes : Yes there is always a (ver tiny) chance the OP could get sued. There is probably a bigger chance I could get sued. I download lots of tv shows. I am not even slightly afraid of getting sued, though, and everyone else needn't be afraid either. As long as you don't admit liability, the only way they can get you is to either (1) get a default because you don't respond to the suit at all, or (2) take you to trial. As long as you just show up to court when you get notice of court dates, and you file an answer after you get the complaint, you have very little to be worried about.
Similar situation as OP here. What is your take on the counter notification to the notice of claim of copyright infringement? Just ignore it? | actions · 2006-Mar-21 12:11 am · (locked) | Kaltes Premium Member join:2002-12-04 Los Angeles, CA |
Kaltes
Premium Member
2006-Mar-22 9:03 pm
said by Anonymous0 :said by Kaltes : Yes there is always a (ver tiny) chance the OP could get sued. There is probably a bigger chance I could get sued. I download lots of tv shows. I am not even slightly afraid of getting sued, though, and everyone else needn't be afraid either. As long as you don't admit liability, the only way they can get you is to either (1) get a default because you don't respond to the suit at all, or (2) take you to trial. As long as you just show up to court when you get notice of court dates, and you file an answer after you get the complaint, you have very little to be worried about.
Similar situation as OP here. What is your take on the counter notification to the notice of claim of copyright infringement? Just ignore it? Well all providing a counter notice does is make it easier for whoever it is that is churning out these notices to sue you. (or more likely, send you a threatening letter to extort a 'settlement') The notice doesn't even apply to the p2p context. If you look at the law, the only discussion of counter notice deals with situations where, for example, the ISP gets notice then disables/deletes content on your ISP-hosted web site. The counter-notice in that context gives you an opportunity to tell the ISP that the copyright holder is wrong, and that the files at issue do not infringe his copyrights. The ISP then must restore your web site in 10-14 days. It is simply impossible to give proper counter-notice in the p2p context. One thing your counter-notice must include is "Identification of the material that has been removed or to which access has been disabled", but no material has been removed or had access disabled. The ISP has not, and lacks the means to, remove material on your hard drive or selectively deny access to it. So the counter-notice appears to me in this context to just be a ploy to trick p2p users into handing over something the copyright holders are not legally entitled to: your identity. | actions · 2006-Mar-22 9:03 pm · (locked) | |
Anonymous0
Anon
2006-Mar-22 9:47 pm
said by Kaltes : So the counter-notice appears to me in this context to just be a ploy to trick p2p users into handing over something the copyright holders are not legally entitled to: your identity.
Makes sense, thank you! | actions · 2006-Mar-22 9:47 pm · (locked) |
|