K Patterson
Premium,MVM
join:2006-03-12
Columbus, OH
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to eric87m
Re: Notice of Claim of Copyright Infrigement letter
If the injured party wants to pursue your infringement, he will file an ex-parte (without informing the other party, whose name he doesn't know as yet) lawsuit against John Doe, serve your ISP and obtain your name. He will then sue you and offer to settle for some amount. If it is the RIAA, that will probably be $4500.
You can choose to defend. It will cost maybe $50 grand. You are not apt to win.
Here is a site with a lot of information:
»recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/
What you do NOT want to do is reformat your hard drive. There's a good reason why damning documents and emails show up in law suits - because the evidence against the defendants is less damning than the act of destroying it. It converts a civil wrong into a serious felony.
Some folks will rail at the plaintiffs, and surely RIAA and the like deserve criticism. None of that changes your situation - you took something that was not yours to take (and offered to redistribute it, which is how you got caught - they have copies of your shared directory).
Best thing is to hope that you are not pursued. And, stop downloading!! |
|
axelrose
Ban Tornadoes
join:2005-05-25
Chattanooga, TN
·Comcast
| said by K Patterson  :What you do NOT want to do is reformat your hard drive. There's a good reason why damning documents and emails show up in law suits - because the evidence against the defendants is less damning than the act of destroying it. It converts a civil wrong into a serious felony. Not trying to pick a fight BUT what if the person simply replaced the hard drive with a new one and put the old one in a nice acid bath or simply went to the local landfill?
The RIAA went so long knowing no one could afford a record duplicator and suddenly someone went and made evil magnetic tape recorders. They were caught off guard, then went to sleep for 20 years and complained no one woke them up in time.
I got 2 of those letters. Chewbacca defense.
--
"If you wait by the river long enough, the bodies of your enemies will float by." - Sun Tsu (544 – 496 BC) |
|
K Patterson
Premium,MVM
join:2006-03-12
Columbus, OH
·RoadRunner Cable
| said by axelrose :said by K Patterson :What you do NOT want to do is reformat your hard drive. There's a good reason why damning documents and emails show up in law suits - because the evidence against the defendants is less damning than the act of destroying it. It converts a civil wrong into a serious felony. Not trying to pick a fight BUT what if the person simply replaced the hard drive with a new one and put the old one in a nice acid bath or simply went to the local landfill? The RIAA went so long knowing no one could afford a record duplicator and suddenly someone went and made evil magnetic tape recorders. They were caught off guard, then went to sleep for 20 years and complained no one woke them up in time. I got 2 of those letters. Chewbacca defense. After you have been served it is a crime. Before you have been served it is simply stupid. Judges are not dumb. Ever heard of Arthur Anderson? That is exactly what they did, only with paper files. Bye bye company, leaders go to jail.
It is certainly reasonable to delete files that you shouldn't have downloaded, but do you really think that anyone can get away with denying that they did it? The ultimate sanction, by the way, is to be told that you may not offer a defense against the action. There is one defendant at present who did just what you suggested. Big mistake. The judge has already said in effect that she is a liar. |
|
axelrose
Ban Tornadoes
join:2005-05-25
Chattanooga, TN
·Comcast
| said by K Patterson :said by axelrose :said by K Patterson :What you do NOT want to do is reformat your hard drive. There's a good reason why damning documents and emails show up in law suits - because the evidence against the defendants is less damning than the act of destroying it. It converts a civil wrong into a serious felony. Not trying to pick a fight BUT what if the person simply replaced the hard drive with a new one and put the old one in a nice acid bath or simply went to the local landfill? The RIAA went so long knowing no one could afford a record duplicator and suddenly someone went and made evil magnetic tape recorders. They were caught off guard, then went to sleep for 20 years and complained no one woke them up in time. I got 2 of those letters. Chewbacca defense. After you have been served it is a crime. Before you have been served it is simply stupid. Judges are not dumb. Ever heard of Arthur Anderson? That is exactly what they did, only with paper files. Bye bye company, leaders go to jail. It is certainly reasonable to delete files that you shouldn't have downloaded, but do you really think that anyone can get away with denying that they did it? The ultimate sanction, by the way, is to be told that you may not offer a defense against the action. There is one defendant at present who did just what you suggested. Big mistake. The judge has already said in effect that she is a liar. A case exists where the defendant Replaced the Hard Drive?
Cane you cite please?
--
"If you wait by the river long enough, the bodies of your enemies will float by." - Sun Tsu (544 – 496 BC) |
|
K Patterson
Premium,MVM
join:2006-03-12
Columbus, OH
·RoadRunner Cable
| Motown vs. DiPietro
»www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDF.asp?fi···sSumJudg
She threw the computer away - apparently. As you read through the ruling, you'll see that she kind of goes with the wind.
The concept is called Spoliation of Evidence. Wikipedia has a short article on it. |
|
axelrose
Ban Tornadoes
join:2005-05-25
Chattanooga, TN
·Comcast
| said by K Patterson :Motown vs. DiPietro » www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDF.asp?fi···sSumJudgShe threw the computer away - apparently. As you read through the ruling, you'll see that she kind of goes with the wind. The concept is called Spoliation of Evidence. Wikipedia has a short article on it. It seems they were arguing if she LIED about throwing the computer out to the trash.
Then they wanted to see if she acted in good faith when she threw the computer away. Was she doing it to get rid of evidence or just throwing it away because it's her computer and she can do what she wants.
This all seems very convenient for the plaintiff's since the Lady is alone and has to jump through two hurdles just based on the 'custody of evidence'
I don't think average people should be required to understand the law-firm written laws regarding copyright laws, do you?
Most of these more recent laws took into consideration custody of evidence. What about encryption? I could see someone given a letter, responding saying they make it a regular habit to encrypt all data to protect themselves from government eyes.
They could prove, with dates, that they didn't 'just start' encrypting data but that it was a regular practice long before being given notice of copyright infringement.
I also don't like the Cigarette company like tactics of the Plaintiffs’ parties being allowed to bait servers with faked copies of music and movies.
They need to rewrite the entire case law on copyright infringement, and include a broad definition regarding internet and media piracy.
I don't think we should coddle people who break the law no more than we should encourage people to write laws too complicated for a person to avoid retaining a lawyer who's fees would be no less than $5K-$10K for a very simple and short matter as copyright infringement.
how bout you?
--
"If you wait by the river long enough, the bodies of your enemies will float by." - Sun Tsu (544 – 496 BC) |
|
