dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
1872
Mr Matt
join:2008-01-29
Eustis, FL

Mr Matt

Member

More pain for the innocent!

How many false positives will the copyright trolls prosecute? How many innocent subscribers will be blackmailed by the copyright trolls? On the internet your guilty until you prove yourself innocent! I guess the lawmakers have the same feces filled brains as some of the Supreme Court Justices. I would like to see a serious class action suit against the copyright weasels!

The Supreme Court says a corporation has greater rights than a person and the lawmakers refuse to pass a law that makes the trolls prove the name of the person that downloaded copyrighted material and not the person assigned the IP address. The justice system should be renamed the injustice system!
MyDogHsFleas
Premium Member
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX

2 recommendations

MyDogHsFleas

Premium Member

Let's get real here. This is a civil suit where a preponderance of evidence prevails, not a criminal prosecution which must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

It's not like you're locked up for murder or something and all they have is the IP address from which you searched for the victim's address and to buy a gun. In that case maybe you could argue "it wasn't me doing the searches". In these civil lawsuits, at least 98% of the cases (and I'm being conservative) are cut-and-dried some guy just did the BitTorrent thing to get a free copy of the movie.

So freakin' pay up. You made a mistake. Stop whining about "false positives", they are few and far between. Most of them are going to be "My roommate/kid/spouse/whatever used my computer! It wasn't me!" Well, if you are paying the bill for the connection, you are responsible for the TOS and civil copyright violations that go on on that connection. So get over it and pay the freakin' $1500 and move on.
BlueC
join:2009-11-26
Minneapolis, MN

BlueC

Member

...because an IP address automatically defines who's responsible.

Let's get real here.
MyDogHsFleas
Premium Member
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX

MyDogHsFleas

Premium Member

said by BlueC:

...because an IP address automatically defines who's responsible.

Let's get real here.

Did you even read my post?

The "It's not mine" defense is a classic one. In a civil suit it's not worth much. A preponderance of evidence is what counts, not "beyond reasonable doubt". If your IP address torrented copyrighted material, well, then, it was either you, or someone using the IP address you were paying for and agreed to a TOS saying you wouldn't allow that to happen.

Or maybe... SOMEONE SET ME UP! The other classic lame defense. Oooohhh... someone who HAD IT IN FOR ME broke in and torrented Hurt Locker because they KNEW they'd get me in trouble with EXACTLY THAT MOVIE!

Dude, you will so lose that jury trial if that's what you push for. It's a lot cheaper to pay the $1500 and move on.
Wilsdom
join:2009-08-06

Wilsdom

Member

The plaintiff is claiming to have witnessed you uploading. Why is his word any more preponderant than yours? As for moving on, screw that. Copyright laws are misapplied, and only a coward and corrupt person encourages injustice.
Mr Matt
join:2008-01-29
Eustis, FL

Mr Matt to MyDogHsFleas

Member

to MyDogHsFleas
Here in Florida there is a growing dissatisfaction with traffic signal cameras. Why? The owner of the vehicle gets the citation not the driver. Not so wonderful when the driver was a mechanic at the car dealer where you had the car serviced and you get a citation several weeks later, because they ran a red light. In this case the Plate Number does not identify the driver. Same problem when justice allows lawsuits against user of the IP address.
BlueC
join:2009-11-26
Minneapolis, MN

BlueC to MyDogHsFleas

Member

to MyDogHsFleas
And how exactly do you know the public IP address assigned to you isn't shared by others?

Murdoc49
Premium Member
join:2009-02-08
Manitowoc, WI

Murdoc49 to MyDogHsFleas

Premium Member

to MyDogHsFleas
said by MyDogHsFleas:

said by BlueC:

...because an IP address automatically defines who's responsible.

Let's get real here.

Did you even read my post?

The "It's not mine" defense is a classic one. In a civil suit it's not worth much. A preponderance of evidence is what counts, not "beyond reasonable doubt". If your IP address torrented copyrighted material, well, then, it was either you, or someone using the IP address you were paying for and agreed to a TOS saying you wouldn't allow that to happen.

Or maybe... SOMEONE SET ME UP! The other classic lame defense. Oooohhh... someone who HAD IT IN FOR ME broke in and torrented Hurt Locker because they KNEW they'd get me in trouble with EXACTLY THAT MOVIE!

Dude, you will so lose that jury trial if that's what you push for. It's a lot cheaper to pay the $1500 and move on.

What about rotating ip addresses. I bet somone could be wrongly accused with that type of stuff.
MyDogHsFleas
Premium Member
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX

MyDogHsFleas to Wilsdom

Premium Member

to Wilsdom
said by Wilsdom:

The plaintiff is claiming to have witnessed you uploading. Why is his word any more preponderant than yours?

Not at all. Read the lawsuit that I linked. No such claim is made.

Copyright laws are misapplied, and only a coward and corrupt person encourages injustice.

If it's your position that copyrights should not be enforceable on the Internet and no one should be stopped from sharing digital copies of content, then just say that, OK? Quit making half-assed "It's not my dope, officer! Someone must have put it in my pocket!" arguments.
MyDogHsFleas

MyDogHsFleas to BlueC

Premium Member

to BlueC
said by BlueC:

And how exactly do you know the public IP address assigned to you isn't shared by others?

Because the ISP said so when they responded to the court order and gave up your name/address?

Is this a trick question or something?
Mr Matt
join:2008-01-29
Eustis, FL

Mr Matt to BlueC

Member

to BlueC
The real injustice is when some indifferent, lackadaisical ISP employee identifies the wrong customer to the copyright trolls, as being assigned the guilty IP address, when the copyrighted material was downloaded. That is when the guilty until proven innocent civil law kicks in. Who has $10,000.00 to unlimited financial resources to fight such a legal transgression? Of course that is the fraud behind this legalized extortion. Hopefully like in Great Britain an American Judge will determine that an IP address is not a person.
hottboiinnc4
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH

hottboiinnc4 to Murdoc49

Member

to Murdoc49
ever heard of time stamps?

coldmoon
Premium Member
join:2002-02-04
Fulton, NY

coldmoon to MyDogHsFleas

Premium Member

to MyDogHsFleas
quote:
...Well, if you are paying the bill for the connection, you are responsible for the TOS and civil copyright violations that go on on that connection.
Citation needed...
hottboiinnc4
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH

hottboiinnc4 to Mr Matt

Member

to Mr Matt
those are civil. Have been heard by courts over and over and over again. You can also tell RedFlex that YOU were not driving the car if you have proof and report the person who was - or in that case- the company who had the car. And if you want to get rid of the cameras; start banning together and doing it! actually get groups of people to show how many accidents are CAUSED by the cameras and NOT actually stopped.
Mr Matt
join:2008-01-29
Eustis, FL

Mr Matt to Murdoc49

Member

to Murdoc49
There have already been several cases REPORTED IN THIS NEWSLETTER where the wrong customer has been identified as being assigned a dynamic IP address while copyrighted material was downloaded. After considerable cost to the customer it was proven that the ISP made a mistake. How many such incidents have not been reported?
owensdj
join:2001-09-05
Easley, SC

owensdj to MyDogHsFleas

Member

to MyDogHsFleas
MyDogHsFleas there are many, many innocent people who are getting caught up in these copyright lawsuits. What if their ISP sets them up with a wifi router and leaves the security wide open? I've seen it happen so don't try to say it doesn't. These people could be the ones being extorted for $1,500 instead of their neighbor who downloaded the movie.
kerya666
join:2002-12-20
Valrico, FL

kerya666 to MyDogHsFleas

Member

to MyDogHsFleas
So I guess someone should go and visit MyDogHsFleas:tie him up at the house then downlaod whole bunch of movies (including butthurt locker) and kiddy porn through his internet connection, take his car-bike-helicopter (provided by copyright copr. probably :P) and run people over while blasting everyone with his gun(s) you missed previously. Plant whole bunch of mari-jay plants in the back yard. Return everything back to the house and call the cops.

"It's not my dope, officer! Someone must have put it in my pocket!"
Good luck proving anything.

Everyone talks big until they are on the receiving end.

Tactics they employ are a witch-hunt of the present time.
Besides what if I own the movie and my upload speed is 0? having my IP proves nothing.
MyDogHsFleas
Premium Member
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX

MyDogHsFleas

Premium Member

said by kerya666:

So I guess someone should go and visit MyDogHsFleas:tie him up at the house then downlaod whole bunch of movies (including butthurt locker) and kiddy porn through his internet connection, take his car-bike-helicopter (provided by copyright copr. probably :P) and run people over while blasting everyone with his gun(s) you missed previously. Plant whole bunch of mari-jay plants in the back yard. Return everything back to the house and call the cops.

This is probably the stupidest response I've ever received on this site.

If I ever got one of these letters (which I won't), I'd deal with it.

If you or anyone else tried these criminal acts, you'd pay for them.

Grow up.
MyDogHsFleas

MyDogHsFleas to owensdj

Premium Member

to owensdj
said by owensdj:

MyDogHsFleas there are many, many innocent people who are getting caught up in these copyright lawsuits. What if their ISP sets them up with a wifi router and leaves the security wide open? I've seen it happen so don't try to say it doesn't. These people could be the ones being extorted for $1,500 instead of their neighbor who downloaded the movie.

Who? Name them. Do you believe them? This the classic "No officer someone must have put that in my purse/pocket" defense.

And if you're stupid enough to leave your wifi router wide open (BTW no ISP does this who provides a router that I know of... it's people buying Linksys routers from Craigslist or something), well, pay the money and deal with it.
MyDogHsFleas

MyDogHsFleas to Mr Matt

Premium Member

to Mr Matt
said by Mr Matt:

There have already been several cases REPORTED IN THIS NEWSLETTER where the wrong customer has been identified as being assigned a dynamic IP address while copyrighted material was downloaded. After considerable cost to the customer it was proven that the ISP made a mistake.

Let's see the links.
MyDogHsFleas

MyDogHsFleas to coldmoon

Premium Member

to coldmoon
said by coldmoon:

quote:
...Well, if you are paying the bill for the connection, you are responsible for the TOS and civil copyright violations that go on on that connection.
Citation needed...

here's what my TOS says: (Road Runner)
quote:
18. You May Not Transfer Your Rights or Responsibilities to Another Person

Except with our consent, you may not transfer or assign (in other words, make another person legally responsible for) the Services, the Customer Use Equipment or your obligation to comply with our Customer Agreements.

I believe that nails it. It astonishes me that you'd think otherwise. OF COURSE a supplier of a service is going to hold the customer who signed up for it responsible for use of that service. How else could it be?

coldmoon
Premium Member
join:2002-02-04
Fulton, NY

coldmoon

Premium Member

said by MyDogHsFleas:

said by coldmoon:

quote:
...Well, if you are paying the bill for the connection, you are responsible for the TOS and civil copyright violations that go on on that connection.
Citation needed...

here's what my TOS says: (Road Runner)
quote:
18. You May Not Transfer Your Rights or Responsibilities to Another Person

Except with our consent, you may not transfer or assign (in other words, make another person legally responsible for) the Services, the Customer Use Equipment or your obligation to comply with our Customer Agreements.

I believe that nails it. It astonishes me that you'd think otherwise. OF COURSE a supplier of a service is going to hold the customer who signed up for it responsible for use of that service. How else could it be?

That is simply boilerplate to say that you may not give your account and/or equipment to someone else and therefore be free of any obligations to pay your monthly service fee, return the ISP provided equipment, or have your account simply transfered to a third party without interruption in the service itself.

Think of that legalize to mean that like the car you have a loan for, you cannot simply give the car and loan to your neighbor and be free of the loan obligation to the bank.

In this scenario, the only obligation you have is to observe the TOS or your account can be terminated. Now if there is something in the TOS that says you must secure your router, that may have some validity; but only so far as their being able to terminate your service and account.

Where in that blurb or the more expansive TOS does it say that you are responsible for the CR infringement of others who may have used your connection with or without your explicit permission?
rahvin112
join:2002-05-24
Sandy, UT

rahvin112 to MyDogHsFleas

Member

to MyDogHsFleas
said by MyDogHsFleas:

Well, if you are paying the bill for the connection, you are responsible for the TOS and civil copyright violations that go on on that connection.

No you are not. Just as I'm not responsible if someone steals my car and commits vehicular homicide with it, nor would I be responsible if someone used my tools to rob a bank. If what you suggested were true it would be quite easy to destroy someones life without them even doing anything. That you would even suggest that someone could be held liable for actions that aren't their own is frankly disgusting.
rahvin112

rahvin112 to MyDogHsFleas

Member

to MyDogHsFleas
You are the one suggesting that people should be held liable for the actions of others. If you don't like his suggestions then maybe you should reconsider YOUR position because that is exactly what you claimed the law is.

The most interesting part is the "I'd deal with it". Much like all the hypocrites like yourself you would run to the ACLU/EFF and claim you are being persecuted if you got a letter and didn't do anything, right after claiming several posts beforehand that you would be responsible regardless.
MyDogHsFleas
Premium Member
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX

MyDogHsFleas to coldmoon

Premium Member

to coldmoon
said by coldmoon:

Where in that blurb or the more expansive TOS does it say that you are responsible for the CR infringement of others who may have used your connection with or without your explicit permission?

How much more explicit does it need to be? I cannot make another person legally responsible for my obligation to comply with our Customer Agreements. Seems quite clear to me.

coldmoon
Premium Member
join:2002-02-04
Fulton, NY

coldmoon

Premium Member

said by MyDogHsFleas:

said by coldmoon:

Where in that blurb or the more expansive TOS does it say that you are responsible for the CR infringement of others who may have used your connection with or without your explicit permission?

How much more explicit does it need to be? I cannot make another person legally responsible for my obligation to comply with our Customer Agreements. Seems quite clear to me.

I did not argue against that. What I asked is where in your TOS does it say that you, as the account holder, are responsible for the CR infringement activities of someone using your connection; regardless of whether that person has your permission to use your connection or not?

delusion ftl
@tmodns.net

delusion ftl to MyDogHsFleas

Anon

to MyDogHsFleas
Your post shows a fundamental lack of understanding of how they gather evidence and what evidence they gather.

I doubt they'd ever accurately testify about how they actually gather the data, but it's likely that they connect to a tracker/peer exchange gather all the ip addresses, sort them by easily sueable addresses (home internet connections in America) and start hitting up isp's for subscribers to extort.

See the thing with bittorrent is that unless the studios downloaded the entire movie from one ip-address (which never happens) they really dont know what that user has. Meaning I could connect to the hurt locker torrent and select only the sample file or a single piece (10 seconds) which is an amount that is easily under fair use. Not only that but sometimes you get sub-pieces from different users. I highly doubt they verify this or track it as it would be difficult to do. Furthermore they could connect to you but you never actually upload a valid piece of data. And even further, if the release was in rar format the data you may get from an infringer may actually in itself be non-infringing as it cannot in itself represent any actual viewable data.

So you've got a dubious way of gathering targets via ip. (I would venture a false positive rate near 20%) And lack of "proof" that the ip address actually infringed. In an environment of open wifi, or easily crackable secured wifi, cable modem cloning and so on. Anyone who thinks an ip address alone is sufficiently accurate to targeting the perpetrator has been grossly misled. No matter what the burden of proof is.

If I were a judge, knowing what I know about technology. Without actual evidence (hard drive, confession, etc...) There is FAR from clear and convincing or preponderance of evidence in the way these cases are brought.

The studios know this though. However you don't, and most judges don't though and that's what they exploit.

KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium Member
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
Netgear WNDR3700v2
Zoom 5341J

KrK to MyDogHsFleas

Premium Member

to MyDogHsFleas
said by MyDogHsFleas:

Let's get real here.

Let's get real here. Innocent or not, lawyers bills will cost you more then the demand for settlement. So, yes, it's extortion. Sure you could fight it tooth and nail, but it's going to cost you big time.

Guilty till you prove yourself innocent, with the settlement demands carefully set to make people just have to cop the settlement and fork over the cash. If they asked for a really high amount more people would have to fight it. These are designed to just farm in money.

vpoko
Premium Member
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA

vpoko to MyDogHsFleas

Premium Member

to MyDogHsFleas
Now you're getting confused. You violating an agreement between yourself and your ISP does not create a tort claim by a third party (the copyright holder). Copyright statutes only provide for damages against actual infringers, your TOS cannot extend that to someone who didn't actually commit the tort.

And your comment farther above about it being civil and hence not very important and hence you should just pay the thing is just bizarre.

Murdoc49
Premium Member
join:2009-02-08
Manitowoc, WI

Murdoc49 to MyDogHsFleas

Premium Member

to MyDogHsFleas
said by MyDogHsFleas:

said by Mr Matt:

There have already been several cases REPORTED IN THIS NEWSLETTER where the wrong customer has been identified as being assigned a dynamic IP address while copyrighted material was downloaded. After considerable cost to the customer it was proven that the ISP made a mistake.

Let's see the links.

Are you implying ISP's don't make mistakes? Remember the time when someone that didn't own a computer got caught in the middle? They are out to shake people down for easy money.