| Thats a stretch Countering actual lawsuits they file once people are identified would be one thing. But the John Doe suits are filed just to obtain the persons real name, with a NEW lawsuit filed against that individual later. I guess you could argue people have the right to keep their identity private, but only the person who's privacy was being invaded could make that claim. And until they are identified, they wouldn't know to fight it. |
|
Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| This would all be a MOOT ISSUE if people would stop uploading and downloading COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL. Forget the phrase "if its free, its for me" ... Download legally, put restrictions on your childs access, and secure your WI-Fi .. Youll be A-OK. If you got caught, boo-hoo. |
|
| What if you are mistakenly identified? You are sued in a mass John Doe lawsuit where you have little chance to defend yourself from having your identity revealed. Once it is revealed, you are given a choice: 1) Settle for $3K or so and admit to being a pirate or 2) Face a long, costly lawsuit that could result in fines topping $1 million.
We really don't know what the false positive rate of this process is because the settlement forces the defendants to keep quiet and the copyright groups (US Copyright Group/RIAA) don't tend to allow third parties in to verify their processes.
--
-Jason Levine |
|
1 edit | reply to ITALIAN926
Good point but heres the thing, all of those John Does are not pirates. If you follow these lawsuits some are eldarly couples without any type of computer to speak of and some have been known to be dead, and dead for some time. The problem here isn't the legality of gaining copyrighted material but rather how these lawsuits are being conducted by 3rd parties and their questionable means of gaining these users information. |
|
|
|
Reviews:
 ·Charter
| reply to Jason Levine
said by Jason Levine:We really don't know what the false positive rate of this process is because the settlement forces the defendants to keep quiet and the copyright groups (US Copyright Group/RIAA) don't tend to allow third parties in to verify their processes. Actually, as part of the Discovery process of a civil law suit, the accused can have their own company verify the process in which the accuser gained the information to start the suit. there was a calling on DSLreports a few weeks ago about a company who wanted to verify Dunlap, Grubb, and Weaver's(US copyright group) resources, but since it was not a part of the suit, it could not. so they wanted anyone who was involved to contact them, so they could see if the DGW's info was cour-worthy. no idea what happened to that. |
|
 firephotoKDEPremium
join:2003-03-18
Brewster, WA
 ·Frontier Communi..
| reply to ITALIAN926
said by ITALIAN926:This would all be a MOOT ISSUE if people would stop uploading and downloading COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL. Forget the phrase "if its free, its for me" ... Download legally, put restrictions on your childs access, and secure your WI-Fi .. Youll be A-OK. If you got caught, boo-hoo. Almost everything is copyrighted. Quit abusing the word.
--
Say no to JAMS! |
|
Reviews:
·Optimum Online
·Verizon FiOS
| reply to ITALIAN926
said by ITALIAN926:This would all be a MOOT ISSUE if people would stop uploading and downloading COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL. Forget the phrase "if its free, its for me" ... Download legally, put restrictions on your childs access, and secure your WI-Fi .. Youll be A-OK. If you got caught, boo-hoo. You just don't understand do you? This process is faulty and is not based on any real proof that you did anything wrong. This is extortion, plain and simple. |
|
bt
join:2009-02-26
canada
kudos:1 Reviews:
·Start Communicat..
1 edit | reply to Jason Levine
He's right in the sense that if everyone stopped doing it, the issue would probably go away. If there is no illegal activity going on, it's kind of hard to identify the wrong person as having done it. I really doubt there are many false positives where they got the right person but it was actually a legal activity (other than differences in the laws between jurisdictions).
But hey, it's a total pipe dream to expect that to happen. There's no getting this genie back in the bottle completely. |
|
| They've sued printers (as in those machines that HP, Epson, etc make), dead people, grandparents (for downloading rap) and a college professor (for an MP3 that had "Usher" in the file name). If this many false positives cropped up, how many were quieted because paying $3,000 to make it go away is easier than spending time and money fighting to clear your name with the threat of possibly losing and bankruptcy?
--
-Jason Levine |
|
 BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | reply to firephoto
said by firephoto:said by ITALIAN926:This would all be a MOOT ISSUE if people would stop uploading and downloading COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL. Forget the phrase "if its free, its for me" ... Download legally, put restrictions on your childs access, and secure your WI-Fi .. Youll be A-OK. If you got caught, boo-hoo. Almost everything is copyrighted. Quit abusing the word. So what if its copyrightrighted the the copyright owners has certain rights. Don't abuse them. it's pretty simple. Are the copyrights laws crazy? Sure. Do they need to be fixed? Sure. Well then there's away you go about to get that changed. Abusing copyright laws is NOT one of them. All that ensures is that the copyright owners get even more stringent laws passed which is the exact opposite of what you'd want. |
|
firephotoKDEPremium
join:2003-03-18
Brewster, WA Reviews:
·Frontier Communi..
| said by BF69:said by firephoto:said by ITALIAN926:This would all be a MOOT ISSUE if people would stop uploading and downloading COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL. Forget the phrase "if its free, its for me" ... Download legally, put restrictions on your childs access, and secure your WI-Fi .. Youll be A-OK. If you got caught, boo-hoo. Almost everything is copyrighted. Quit abusing the word. So what if its copyrightrighted the the copyright owners has certain rights. Don't abuse them. it's pretty simple. Are the copyrights laws crazy? Sure. Do they need to be fixed? Sure. Well then there's away you go about to get that changed. Abusing copyright laws is NOT one of them. All that ensures is that the copyright owners get even more stringent laws passed which is the exact opposite of what you'd want. Downloading copyrighted material does not relate in any way to the law or someones rights being broken. Thus, quit abusing the word copyright when it comes to any and all buzzword FUD that relates to illegal file sharing.
--
Say no to JAMS! |
|
| reply to BF69
said by BF69:said by firephoto:said by ITALIAN926:This would all be a MOOT ISSUE if people would stop uploading and downloading COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL. Forget the phrase "if its free, its for me" ... Download legally, put restrictions on your childs access, and secure your WI-Fi .. Youll be A-OK. If you got caught, boo-hoo. Almost everything is copyrighted. Quit abusing the word. So what if its copyrightrighted the the copyright owners has certain rights. Don't abuse them. it's pretty simple. Are the copyrights laws crazy? Sure. Do they need to be fixed? Sure. Well then there's away you go about to get that changed. Abusing copyright laws is NOT one of them. All that ensures is that the copyright owners get even more stringent laws passed which is the exact opposite of what you'd want. Let them pass more stringent laws. That way people will wake up about this shit and kick the ass of those buying these laws to be passed by corrupt, senile politicians.
It needs to reach a breaking point for things to get better. This is the country that after all, believed Prohibition was a good thing. Every time you defend imbecile laws like the copyright one think about that. |
|
1 edit | reply to bt
said by bt:He's right in the sense that if everyone stopped doing it, the issue would probably go away. If there is no illegal activity going on, it's kind of hard to identify the wrong person as having done it. I really doubt there are many false positives where they got the right person but it was actually a legal activity (other than differences in the laws between jurisdictions). But hey, it's a total pipe dream to expect that to happen. There's no getting this genie back in the bottle completely. so lower term rates to 10 years and make it life in person for anything under ten years and open the public domain on the rest
ends meaningless lawsuits , ends need for more taxes and ends hard ships and burdens on people across all lands and puts money back into the rest of the economy, which then means MORE JOBS for everyone rather then the 5 people running the labels and the 5000 lawyers they hire.
P.S. your gonna have a ton more support with a term rate at ten years then one at 95 years plus maybe another 75 or whatever..... |
|
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
1 edit | reply to ITALIAN926
This is not extortion. If Im being falsely accused of downloading a movie, they WILL NOT be able to prove it. Sure, they can have access to my computer if they really wanted.. but they will find NOTHING on my hard drive. They couldnt possibly prove otherwise because it DID NOT HAPPEN.
Who will pay $3000 if theyre being wrongfully accused? NOBODY. Unless of course theyre WEALTHY and dont want a headache. OR.. if theyre UNSURE if their family , friends , or neighbors using their unsecured wi-fi is at fault.
You people make me laugh defending file sharers. STOP DOING IT and youll be fine. |
|
| said by ITALIAN926:This is not extortion. If Im being falsely accused of downloading a movie, they WILL NOT be able to prove it. Sure, they can have access to my computer if they really wanted.. but they will find NOTHING on my hard drive. They couldnt possibly prove otherwise because it DID NOT HAPPEN. Who will pay $3000 if theyre being wrongfully accused? NOBODY. Unless of course theyre WEALTHY and dont want a headache. OR.. if theyre UNSURE if their family , friends , or neighbors using their unsecured wi-fi is at fault. You people make me laugh defending file sharers. STOP DOING IT and youll be fine. The problem is that their entire plan relies on the cost of fighting the suit being greater than just handing over your $3k. And it would be. Even you were 100% innocent, you'd have to fork over a lot more than that just on the retainer to get a lawyer involved. |
|
| reply to ITALIAN926
If I were wrongly accused, I would have to serious consider the $3,000 settlement over fighting a lawsuit. I don't have much money to spare and while $3K would be a big hit on our bank account, paying a lawyer and spending the time fighting a lawsuit (which would likely not be based in a court near me) would be a bigger hit.
My best hope, if I fought back, would be that I would have the headache and expense of a lawsuit for a year or so, win and then have another headache/expense of trying to get the copyright group to pay my legal fees. If I was successful in that, I might even wind up even on money spent/won back. The time spent and stress inflicted on me would never be paid back, though.
In short, I wouldn't blame someone for taking the $3,000 shortcut. It is purposefully designed to be the easier path to getting your life back.
--
-Jason Levine |
|
| reply to ITALIAN926
and your the guy if who found $100 bill on the ground would turn it in to the bank to huh |
|
| reply to Jason Levine
and do this to americans that are allready struggling 1g mite as well be 1 million fuck em |
|
KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | reply to Jason Levine
said by Jason Levine:If I were wrongly accused, I would have to serious consider the $3,000 settlement over fighting a lawsuit. I don't have much money to spare and while $3K would be a big hit on our bank account, paying a lawyer and spending the time fighting a lawsuit (which would likely not be based in a court near me) would be a bigger hit. My best hope, if I fought back, would be that I would have the headache and expense of a lawsuit for a year or so, win and then have another headache/expense of trying to get the copyright group to pay my legal fees. If I was successful in that, I might even wind up even on money spent/won back. The time spent and stress inflicted on me would never be paid back, though. In short, I wouldn't blame someone for taking the $3,000 shortcut. It is purposefully designed to be the easier path to getting your life back. i wonder with how they pick distant courts if someone could refuse to pay anything and simply state. "That ruling did not happen in my own state, so it does not apply to me".
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports |
|
| I am reasonably sure these things are all handled in Federal court, so that wouldn't apply. Nor would it even in state court, as judgments from any state are enforceable across the country. |
|
