joako
Premium
join:2000-09-07
/dev/null
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| reply to fiberguy
Re: Contract Law
said by fiberguy  :said by mikepd :I would really like to see this practice of three violations and the subscriber gets disconnected challenged in court. Courts tend to take a dim view of contracts that give too much control to one side over the other party. Even if it is published as part of the TOS, it can still be held null and void by a court as unfair so it would be very interesting to see how this would play out before a judge. The provider has a right to take actions against those who violate 'the rules'.. and, to this day, distributing copyrighted material is not legal. The TOS clearly states you are not allowed to do it.. if it's against the TOS to do so, they certainly have the right, based on the TOS as it is, to simply pull your access on the first violation if they really wanted to. What calls into play, more so than your opinion of favoring one side, is if the provider has enough evidence to be sure that you were in violation. Here comes the flames for this.. I really don't think the xxAA is just sending out letters at random with out first having obtained the material they reported. Since they have the "rights" to the protected work, they also have a right to make the allegations. This "contract law" is based on actual law.. the TOS agreement is simply stating they are going to enforce laws. What you're talking about is the action they take while enforcing them, to which I agree. Yea because DMCA notices are CONCRETE PROOF.
I got one the other day for something in the colo (first one ever). It said "infringing URL »tpb.thepiratebay.org" no matter what you say I do not host any site for the pirate bay. And you know what there is some linux software that has (and probably still does) use TPB as their tracker site for the offical bt distribution!
--
09:F9:11:02:9D:74:E3:5B:D8:41:56:C5:63:56:88:C0 |
|
TomClancy
Freedom isn't free
join:2003-04-23
...
| reply to fiberguy
You can't break the law to prosecute someone who has broken the law. And by that I mean they aren't allowed to track what I'm do online which is against the privacy act. That is why this would never sand in court.
--
Freedom isn't free! |
|
Doctor Four
My other vehicle is a TARDIS
Premium
join:2000-09-05
Dallas, TX
·AT&T U-Verse
| reply to funchords
It isn't just the studios and the major recording labels that are misusing the DMCA. Increasingly, it is being used as a tool to silence dissenting opinions. $cientology lately have been notorious for abusing it, getting some 4000 anti-CoS Youtube videos taken down, claiming copyrights. Well after counterclaims, most of those videos are back up.
--
"The trouble with computers, of course, is that they are very sophisticated idiots." - Doctor Who (from Robot)
|
|
NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
 ·Pacific Bell - SBC
| reply to TomClancy
said by TomClancy :You can't break the law to prosecute someone who has broken the law. And by that I mean they aren't allowed to track what I'm do online which is against the privacy act. That is why this would never sand in court. Unfortunately, for you, most P2P protocols are based on a public announcement of files available for download. When you publicly advertise having the goods, anybody, even MediaSentry agents of the xxAA, are invited to access your IP address. You can't use such a protocol, then hide behind your "privacy" when it suits you.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
TomClancy
Freedom isn't free
join:2003-04-23
... | Just because I'm walking on a PUBLIC road doesn't mean you have the right to track my movements. Get it, go it? Good!
--
Freedom isn't free! |
|
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
 ·Skype
| said by TomClancy :Just because I'm walking on a PUBLIC road doesn't mean you have the right to track my movements. Ummm. Yeah, it does. |
|
TomClancy
Freedom isn't free
join:2003-04-23
... | You do that and I call the cops. What is going to happened?
--
Freedom isn't free! |
|
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
| It's not illegal.
When I'm in public, I'm not in private. Someone can follow me, photograph me, call their friends daily and tell them what I'm wearing -- all legal.
Public is the opposite of private.
It doesn't mean that someone can harass or threaten me, but they certainly can track my public movements and there's nothing I can do about it.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
|
|
NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| reply to TomClancy
said by TomClancy :Just because I'm walking on a PUBLIC road doesn't mean you have the right to track my movements. Get it, go it? Good! If I am wearing a sandwich board offering free peanuts, you damned well can follow me around, trying to get them.
P2P means participating in a public exchange of data. You advertise (the sandwich board) that you have something to offer; advertise it to the public. You are inviting public scrutiny. And MediaSentry has just as much right to connect to the public BitTorrent tracker as you, or I. And to figure out who is doing what with that tracker.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
TomClancy
Freedom isn't free
join:2003-04-23
... | What? From your logic than BayTSP is guilty also.
--
Freedom isn't free! |
|
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC | guilty of what? |
|
TomClancy
Freedom isn't free
join:2003-04-23
... | Never mind, you can't be that dumb. I'm just gonna leave and continue to watch Idiocracy.
--
Freedom isn't free! |
|
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC | No, it was a sincere question. |
|
NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| reply to TomClancy
said by TomClancy :What? From your logic than BayTSP is guilty also. I assume that you mean of "unauthorized" distribution? Or do you mean of downloading?
Either way, I am not sure why you would think that. They can certainly run a P2P client which merely downloads. And, as authorized agents for those clients seeking protection of their IP, their clients (the IP owning ones, not the downloading ones) surely give them permission to D/L from P2P networks, as a method of obtaining those very public announcements I mentioned. So they would not be guilty of anything. The issue is "authorization"; and their clients aren't going to deny them authorization to join torrents, or do whatever else it takes to obtain that publicly announced IP address.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| reply to TomClancy
I hope you don't play chess. If you think through your chess moves as thoroughly as you think through how the agents of IP owners obtain their information, you must lose. A lot.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
TomClancy
Freedom isn't free
join:2003-04-23
...
1 edit | Lets say that BayTSP is just downloading without seeding, which I highly doubt. But anyways, with only downloading they can only see the seeders and not the downloaders. So how are they caching people that are just downloading and not seeding anything. That just tells me the they are seeding as well. If they have authorization to seed then I have the same authorization to download. You can't give me your car keys to your car and then turn around and tell me that I stole it. Doesn't matter which way they go they are still breaking the law to prosecute someone. Which wouldn't fly in court.
BTW, Idiocracy is a good movie, it reminds me of this forum, you should see it. 
--
Freedom isn't free! |
|
TomClancy
Freedom isn't free
join:2003-04-23
...
| reply to NormanS
said by NormanS :I hope you don't play chess. If you think through your chess moves as thoroughly as you think through how the agents of IP owners obtain their information, you must lose. A lot. Dude, spare me with you chess club. |
|
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
| reply to TomClancy
Generally, trackers give you a random list of xxx members of the swarm. If your client drops seeders while you're seeding (and nearly all do), that's a function of the client, not the tracker.
I think your observation, "So how are they caching people that are just downloading and not seeding anything. That just tells me the they are seeding as well. If they have authorization to seed then I have the same authorization to download," is a valid one. Keep in mind that we're talking about DMCA notices in this case, not pre-litigation settlements, lawsuits or criminal actions. The bar of proof is not high at all. They literally only need to see your IP address in the swarm.
I wonder about NormanS's position that MediaSentry has the right to connect to the tracker -- given that they're not sources. That situation has a ton of nuances. As he says, MediaSentry probably has the right to connect by default, and the tracker owner has the right to say who can and cannot connect. MediaSentry probably loses that right should the server owner demand it must stop connecting. It certainly also loses that right if its intent is to electronically disrupt/attack the tracker or the peers in the swarm (which many antip2p companies have done). (This commentary applies only to the tracker, which is a different thing than the website.)
Thanks for the Idiocracy tip.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
|
|
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| reply to RadioDoc
said by RadioDoc :It is not 'cracking technology' though according to Real. It allows a 'fair use' transfer from one media to another, not the creation of another copy of the work. This is some murky (and deep) water. .. and for once, we agree. |
|
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| reply to TomClancy
said by TomClancy :You do that and I call the cops. What is going to happened? When you are in public, you do not have "a reasonable expectation to privacy"... if you don't want to be photographed, if you don't want to be watched, you have a right to stay out of the public square, in your home, behind your curtains, where you DO have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
If you call the cops, they will tell you the same thing.
Ever heard of the cases constantly be tossed out of court recently regarding this? Girls/boys gone bad? (The ones where they film people at Mardi-Gras or Spring Break acting fools and selling it?) How about the cases where someone was in public in a restaurant and her photo was shot and sold (sorry, forget the name, but recently on CNN & Fox News).. all tossed out.
When you are in public, you can't expect that what you do wont be captured on some sort of media, and used, because it can.
Now stalking.. there are very specific conditions that have to be met prior to you using THAT as a claim. |
|
