Topic 'extortion' in forum '' - dslreports.com

Re: extortion

Mon, 11 Jul 2011 13:21:17 EDT

MyDogHsFleas posted :

said by KrK:

Ah, but they do go after individuals all the time. That's what this is all about....

Yes but it's been mass letters to hundreds or thousands of people, not one-at-a-time, which was my point.

Re: extortion

Mon, 11 Jul 2011 01:43:22 EDT

KrK posted : Ah, but they do go after individuals all the time. That's what this is all about....

Re: extortion

Sat, 09 Jul 2011 15:39:52 EDT

MyDogHsFleas posted :

said by KrK:

Nope, but they do go after the people who make said tools and shut them down, sue them, and charge them with enabling copyright infringement.

Correct. And, factually, they are doing exactly what they are charged with. This goes along with my reality check on what's happening here. The RIAA/MPAA/content owners are not, generally, going after individual violators one at a time. They go with mass letters (which haven't worked out all that well for them, publicity-wise), and they go after the enablers -- the Napsters, Limewires, Pirate Bays of the world, and those who build the pirating tools and disseminate them.

And frankly, they don't care about individual violators as long as they do it within their personal domain (e.g. ripping DVDs) and don't get on the Internet to do it.

Re: extortion

Sat, 09 Jul 2011 01:11:38 EDT

KrK posted : Nope, but they do go after the people who make said tools and shut them down, sue them, and charge them with enabling copyright infringement.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini

Re: extortion

Fri, 08 Jul 2011 20:37:36 EDT

MyDogHsFleas posted : Correct.

As a practical matter no one is going after you for making personal backups with DVDcrypt or other similar tools.

Re: extortion

Fri, 08 Jul 2011 19:50:56 EDT

KrK posted : Interesting. How do they get around the "It's a crime to circumnavigate a copy protection scheme" clause of the DMCA?

An example would be DVD. You're allowed to make a backup copy BUT not allowed to decode to actually make the copy.

So it's legal to HAVE a backup just illegal to actually MAKE a backup, if you get my drift.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini

Re: extortion

Fri, 08 Jul 2011 12:50:08 EDT

MyDogHsFleas posted :

said by KrK:

said by frdrizzt:

You are allowed to make backup copies of things you legally own,

Bzzzzt. Wrong guess. They took that away years ago. You're not allowed to backup anything unless they specifically say you can.

That's what I used to think too, and a real IP attorney on this site pointed me to some new regs that allow you to make backups under fair use. A single backup per item, if I recall. This is for the USA.

Re: extortion

Fri, 08 Jul 2011 12:46:05 EDT

MyDogHsFleas posted :

said by JRW2:

said by MyDogHsFleas:

D). In point of fact it is NOT a defense to pirating to say "but I bought the DVD then ~~lost or~~ damaged it". There is no exception on the copyright law for that situation. The legal thing to do would be to buy a new copy.

What if it is no longer is available for sale???

Then the legal thing to do would be to buy or rent a used DVD. Or if you can't find one you're out of luck.

Practically speaking, if you rented or borrowed a DVD, made a personal copy, and returned it, no one is ever going to catch you. But that is not to say it's legal.

Re: extortion

Fri, 08 Jul 2011 12:22:17 EDT

JRW2 posted :

said by MyDogHsFleas:

What if it is no longer is available for sale???
--
RIAA/MPAA... Bite me!!!!
In constant search for intelligent life on Earth!

Re: extortion

Fri, 08 Jul 2011 12:18:48 EDT

MyDogHsFleas posted : Re commissioning a copy of an expensive designer dress: no i believe that is perfectly OK as long as they don't put the designer brand on it. I say that because I don't think designer dress makers copyright their designs, only trademark their brands. (I could be wrong here.)

This analogous situation in music, say, would be a cover band putting out their version of a song. Since the song is copyrighted, they have to get permission from the copyright owner or they cannot do it. Unlike the designer dress example.

Bottom line is that you can't on your own copy something that's copyrighted unless (a) you have a license to do so, or negotiate one, or (b) it's covered under fair use.

Re: extortion

Fri, 08 Jul 2011 12:12:32 EDT

MyDogHsFleas posted :

said by Kamus:

said by MyDogHsFleas:

But, Your Honor, that guy WOULD NOT SELL ME HIS CAR! So I HAD to take it! I'm clearly NOT GUILTY under the doctrine of EVERYONE HAS TO SELL ME WHAT I WANT OR I GET TO TAKE IT!

That's a pretty dumb analogy, and i have a feeling that you know this very well.
You're basically implying that if i copy a movie, the original i lost.

You're dumb.

A) no need for name calling.
B) no I am not taking a position I don't actually believe.
C) I think you are mixing up two threads. The one I am responding to essentially said that it is justified to pirate a TV show if it hasn't been made available for legal purchase as a DVD in it's original form.
D). In point of fact it is NOT a defense to pirating to say "but I bought the DVD then lost or damaged it". There is no exception on the copyright law for that situation. The legal thing to do would be to buy a new copy.

Re: extortion

Fri, 08 Jul 2011 05:10:47 EDT

Rekrul posted :

said by MyDogHsFleas:

Oh listen Your Honor... it's even better than I said. It wasn't a car! It was only a picture of a unique, handbuilt car! Listen, Your Honor! They used to sell this picture with a nice frame! Then they stopped selling it, and I could only buy it as a poster! WHY WON'T THEY SELL IT WITH A FRAME! Now, that totally justifies why it's OK for me to steal it. Listen... here's the capper... if they want another one with a frame, THEY CAN JUST PRINT ANOTHER PICTURE! It's not like I *actually* took something from him.

So.... not only should you let me go, you should praise me as a hero for liberating that framed car picture! Otherwise no one could enjoy it!

If your wife/girlfriend wants an expensive designer dress that costs more than the big-screen plasma TV you've had your eye on, would you be breaking the law if you hired someone to make an exact duplicate of that dress for a fraction of the cost? Note that I'm not talking about passing off the copy as the real thing, I'm talking about simply making a copy of the dress for someone you know to wear.

Please cite the exact laws that would be broken by this act.

Re: extortion

Fri, 08 Jul 2011 04:39:41 EDT

Kamus posted :

said by MyDogHsFleas:

But, Your Honor, that guy WOULD NOT SELL ME HIS CAR! So I HAD to take it! I'm clearly NOT GUILTY under the doctrine of EVERYONE HAS TO SELL ME WHAT I WANT OR I GET TO TAKE IT!

That's a pretty dumb analogy, and i have a feeling that you know this very well.
You're basically implying that if i copy a movie, the original i lost.

You're dumb.

Re: extortion

Thu, 07 Jul 2011 23:41:25 EDT

KrK posted :

said by frdrizzt:

You are allowed to make backup copies of things you legally own,

Bzzzzt. Wrong guess. They took that away years ago. You're not allowed to backup anything unless they specifically say you can.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini

Re: extortion

Thu, 07 Jul 2011 20:28:46 EDT

r81984 posted :

said by hottboiinnc:

already done with people already stealing things they refuse to pay for. If people did the honest thing and paid for shit they wouldn't get notices or tossed into court anyway. But this isn't about even going to court. It's a simple notice. No big deal. But yet you have people on here claiming their Rights are violated when in actually NONE were. You don't even have rights when you're using a private network to start off with.

You have rights. The customer owns the services, they are paying for it. The ISP would not exist without the customer.
The ISP only needs to do what the customer is paying for not what the MPAA or RIAA wants.

Every day there is another story how ISPs are limiting/destroying the internet. We need real net neutrality laws and fast.

Soon the only way to get a real internet connection will be to pay like $10 a month for a VPN service in a foreign country. It is a joke that customers will have to pay more to a separate company just to get what their ISP should already be providing.
--
...brought to you by Carl's Jr.

Re: extortion

Thu, 07 Jul 2011 20:24:44 EDT

r81984 posted :

said by hottboiinnc:

it can be done due to they are NOT suing you! So by not suing or pressing charges against you they do NOT have to establish guilt on anyone. Instead they are "educating" you on what your connection has been used for. But if the CUSTOMER was FOLLOWING the law to start off with; they would NOT get the notices.

And no where does this even imply its a law. Instead the companies agreed to this together and decide to enforce education onto the customer when their connections have been used in illegal activities.

And again; you don't have to defend your innocence. Just click on the message and go away. You don't have to do anything else!

Customer's are not paying ISPs to pass along hearsay from 3rd parties.
Customer's are not paying ISPs to educated them on anything.

If ISPs did not keep records of IP addresses customers would not get any notices either.
--
...brought to you by Carl's Jr.

Re: extortion

Thu, 07 Jul 2011 20:21:48 EDT

MyDogHsFleas posted :

said by Rekrul:

said by MyDogHsFleas:

But, Your Honor, that guy WOULD NOT SELL ME HIS CAR! So I HAD to take it! I'm clearly NOT GUILTY under the doctrine of EVERYONE HAS TO SELL ME WHAT I WANT OR I GET TO TAKE IT!

How do you "take" someone's copy of a digital file? Does the act of downloading it magically erase it from the other person's computer?

You're comparing depriving someone of an actual physical object with making an exact copy of something that can be infinitely duplicated.

If the content had value to the owners, they'd be selling it. They're not keeping it off the market out of some artistic desire. To them, these shows are the equivalent of that broken fan sitting in your attic or garage. The only difference is that where you'd probably throw it out, they're obsessive hoarders who will never part with anything no matter how useless it is to them.

Re: extortion

Thu, 07 Jul 2011 19:48:39 EDT

rradina posted : Come on. Get real and be serious. This is just silly. Copyright holders are under no obligation to sell copies of their work. The fact that they don't want to sell copies doesn't invalid their hold on the copyright. Disney periodically offers their "classics" for sale but only for a limited time. If you miss their offer, that doesn't mean it's a free for all.

Turn this around and get real. If you created something and held a copyright and for whatever reason didn't want to sell copies, do you want folks stealing from you?

This issue isn't at all about any of this shit. For crying out loud, just stop it. The significance here is the fact that the ISPs and content owners have decided to create some sort of sidebar court system because the copyright holders weren't finding satisfaction in the normal court system. Nothing more, nothing less. There's nothing about this development that changes any of the landscape regarding whether or not it's justified or right to copy something that you don't own or already own but think you are entitled to something that may or may not be fair or right but that's the law.

Re: extortion

Thu, 07 Jul 2011 19:42:42 EDT

rradina posted : Yes.

Re: extortion

Thu, 07 Jul 2011 18:56:48 EDT

Rekrul posted :

said by MyDogHsFleas:

But, Your Honor, that guy WOULD NOT SELL ME HIS CAR! So I HAD to take it! I'm clearly NOT GUILTY under the doctrine of EVERYONE HAS TO SELL ME WHAT I WANT OR I GET TO TAKE IT!

Re: extortion

Thu, 07 Jul 2011 18:43:35 EDT

Rekrul posted :

said by rradina:

What bearing does this have on the discussion? Is your assertion that copyright protection ends as soon as legal means to obtain or view the content is no longer offered?

I was responding to a message that claimed that people just didn't want to pay for things. I was pointing out that it's not that simple. If the studios don't want me to pirate these things, where are my legal options to buy them?

said by rradina:

Is your assertion that copyright protection ends as soon as legal means to obtain or view the content is no longer offered?

If nobody is offering a particular bit of content for sale, how are they harmed if people share it for free?

Re: extortion

Thu, 07 Jul 2011 17:48:45 EDT

MyDogHsFleas posted :

said by Rekrul:

said by hottboiinnc:

already done with people already stealing things they refuse to pay for. If people did the honest thing and paid for shit they wouldn't get notices or tossed into court anyway.

I want to buy legal copies of the TV shows Special Unit 2, Strange Luck, All Souls, Close to Home and Committed. Can you please tell me where to get them?

Oh, I also want to buy a legal copy of the show WKRP in Cincinnati uncut with all the ORIGINAL music. Think you can find that one for me too?

But, Your Honor, that guy WOULD NOT SELL ME HIS CAR! So I HAD to take it! I'm clearly NOT GUILTY under the doctrine of EVERYONE HAS TO SELL ME WHAT I WANT OR I GET TO TAKE IT!

Re: extortion

Thu, 07 Jul 2011 17:39:34 EDT

flbas1 posted : I'm very sure the constitution guarantees that this end-around is not allowed because it says something about setting up "private courts" (or something to that effect) and it sure sounds like that's what this is.

they found a way around the constitution:

»consumerist.com/2011/04/supreme-···its.html

Re: extortion

Thu, 07 Jul 2011 17:02:15 EDT

frdrizzt posted :

said by JRW2:

said by rradina:

What bearing does this have on the discussion? Is your assertion that copyright protection ends as soon as legal means to obtain or view the content is no longer offered?

OK, what about the person who holds a LEGAL copy of a movie/tv show/CD, that is damaged, and no longer available for purchase.....
What about that person, are they illegally downloading a copy of a "work" they legally own???

You are allowed to make backup copies of things you legally own, but I don't believe that you have a right to download a copy of something you have. However, that is really a moot point, because most notices I read about come from a user uploading said content, not downloading. You definitely do not have the right to distribute copyright material even if you do own it.

Re: extortion

Thu, 07 Jul 2011 16:00:37 EDT

bt posted :

said by hottboiinnc:

But if the CUSTOMER was FOLLOWING the law to start off with; they would NOT get the notices.

I've received notices for copyright infringements that definitely did not occur in my household. At the time, I was the only computer user, and had no wireless to leech off of. I didn't download it, and there was no way anyone else could have downloaded it via my internet connection.

Re: extortion

Thu, 07 Jul 2011 16:00:26 EDT

JRW2 posted :

said by rradina:

What bearing does this have on the discussion? Is your assertion that copyright protection ends as soon as legal means to obtain or view the content is no longer offered?

Re: extortion

Thu, 07 Jul 2011 15:32:51 EDT

rradina posted : What bearing does this have on the discussion? Is your assertion that copyright protection ends as soon as legal means to obtain or view the content is no longer offered?

Re: extortion

Thu, 07 Jul 2011 15:21:28 EDT

rradina posted : So if the DHCP records get crossed and it looks like my service accesses illegal content, an external review board will send me an educational notice that I can ignore?

The ole "just ignore it" strategy works so well for identity theft victims.

Re: extortion

Thu, 07 Jul 2011 14:51:13 EDT

Rekrul posted :

said by hottboiinnc:

already done with people already stealing things they refuse to pay for. If people did the honest thing and paid for shit they wouldn't get notices or tossed into court anyway.

Re: extortion

Thu, 07 Jul 2011 14:37:16 EDT

zalternate posted :

said by hottboiinnc:

this is NOT being done in a court of law.

If someone accuses me of a crime, I am going to be asking the ISP(or any accuser) for full evidence of this supposed crime. Times and IP address and files supposedly uploaded or downloaded, headers of the browser or file sharing program used. Who is the accuser(the copyright owner company and not just a front of a ambulance chasing lawyer firm that temporarily gets the copyright ownership to be able to make money off of stupid people who shit their pants and get the check book out when a notice is received). If a lawyer firm sets up a honeypot to harvest users IP's who connect to it, the users better know that for when the extortion notice shows up.

I don't file share either. And back when I was on dialup, I would have my firewall interface up as I dialed in and connected. In some connections I would see at least 30 hits incoming(for at least 2 minutes) from the former IP address users file sharing program. Now with that many hits on me, how do I know that the ISP is not going to send me a notice, since I got that IP as it had just ended from the other user. ISP Clocks are not always accurate, just ask a couple hundred users on an Irish ISP as of late.

Spains copyright mafia arrested for fraud and many other crimes.
»torrentfreak.com/music-rights-gr···-110702/

Is someone accuses my dog of shitting in their yard, they'd better not just be saying "it was a brown dog" and automatically blame me, since my dog has never, ever gotten out of the yard and I can easily point out whose brown dog is always roaming the streets.

In British Columbia, there is a open serial killer file titled "the highway of tears". Women were killed over many years in an area. Cops decide to be more proactive with the investigation of the case, and threaten many,many cab drivers in Prince George to "donate" a DNA sample so that the cab drivers(including ones new to the area) can be declared innocent. It's a f*cking travesty of justice. Threats should not be taken lightly and false accuser must be dragged in to the courts and punished for their "threats" and extortion tactics.
--
Prisoners are treated better than supposedly free North Americans.

Re: extortion

Thu, 07 Jul 2011 14:33:08 EDT

hottboiinnc posted : already done with people already stealing things they refuse to pay for. If people did the honest thing and paid for shit they wouldn't get notices or tossed into court anyway. But this isn't about even going to court. It's a simple notice. No big deal. But yet you have people on here claiming their Rights are violated when in actually NONE were. You don't even have rights when you're using a private network to start off with.

Re: extortion

Thu, 07 Jul 2011 14:27:21 EDT

firephoto posted :

said by Camelot One:

said by hottboiinnc:

But if the CUSTOMER was FOLLOWING the law to start off with; they would NOT get the notices.

Well that part simply isn't true. But I agree, as long as this is a no-action agreement, who cares.

The action is the records the ISP will start saving concerning customer use. The scumbags then just have to do some legalese with the ISP and they have exactly the evidence they want and any random customer can be brought up on charges and made an example of.
--
Say no to JAMS!

Re: extortion

Thu, 07 Jul 2011 14:12:50 EDT

Camelot One posted :

said by hottboiinnc:

But if the CUSTOMER was FOLLOWING the law to start off with; they would NOT get the notices.

Well that part simply isn't true. But I agree, as long as this is a no-action agreement, who cares.

Re: extortion

Thu, 07 Jul 2011 14:08:03 EDT

hottboiinnc posted : it can be done due to they are NOT suing you! So by not suing or pressing charges against you they do NOT have to establish guilt on anyone. Instead they are "educating" you on what your connection has been used for. But if the CUSTOMER was FOLLOWING the law to start off with; they would NOT get the notices.

And no where does this even imply its a law. Instead the companies agreed to this together and decide to enforce education onto the customer when their connections have been used in illegal activities.

And again; you don't have to defend your innocence. Just click on the message and go away. You don't have to do anything else!

Re: extortion

Thu, 07 Jul 2011 14:04:27 EDT

rradina posted : Couldn't agree more. How can any of this proceed without due process that establishes guilt? I'm very sure the constitution guarantees that this end-around is not allowed because it says something about setting up "private courts" (or something to that effect) and it sure sounds like that's what this is.

I suppose if they weren't citing a real law, they can operate their service with whatever restrictions and review boards they like but the basic premise here is that they are calling the activity illegal meaning they are accusing you of breaking a real law and handing out punishment without due process.

It's beyond me how this will stand. Hopefully they'll target some rich bastard and they will have the resources to return fire and get it reviewed by our legal system.

Before anyone believes this doesn't affect them because you don't engage in this activity, accusations are only as accurate as who owned the IP they think committed the activity. If the ISP goofs and thinks YOUR computer used that ISP, it sure sounds like you'll have to defend your innocence.

Re: extortion

Thu, 07 Jul 2011 14:04:08 EDT

hottboiinnc posted : this is NOT being done in a court of law. So suing them would be pointless and tossed out. Hell an ISP would not even bother to go to court but settle outside. And you have NO right of innocence when leasing a private network from the Provider. Comcast has that in their TOS so it's a moot topic with them. You don't have for access to the Internet. But pay for access to THEIR private network.

extortion

Thu, 07 Jul 2011 13:38:29 EDT

zalternate posted : Extortion is quite the profitable business model. And crime pays, until they hit the one Judge who is actually educated on how the Law is supposed to work.

By the way? Do you get your $35 dollars back(plus the time spent to contest the punishment) when you are found to be 100% INNOCENT of any crime? I rather doubt it. The law states that you are Innocent until proved guilty(in a court of Law) and to be imposing a punishment based on an "accusation" is a crime(wheres all the evidence as well??). Time to sue the ISP's in small claims court for violating your constitutional Rights(Right of innocence).

quote:
Users who feel they're falsely accused can pay a $35 fee to have a supposedly (we'll see) independent review take place:

A qualified, independent entity, separate from the Center for Copyright Information, will be engaged to establish and operate the Independent Review mechanism. Under this system, before a Mitigation Measure is imposed, a subscriber may request independent review to invalidate the alert and avoid any Mitigation Measure on the basis that the online activity in question is lawful (e.g. protected by fair use or authorized by the owner of the copyrighted material) or that the subscriber’s account was identified in error. This is a non-exclusive alternative, and subscribers retain the right to challenge any action in a court of law. An independent reviewer will have access to expert advice on copyright law.

Make sure to check the background of any "independent reviewer", as some of them are nothing but paid shills, to give the impression of an 'unbiased third party'.

--
Prisoners are treated better than supposedly free North Americans.