dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
483
share rss forum feed


gatorkram
Need for Speed
Premium
join:2002-07-22
Winterville, NC
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Suddenlink

1 recommendation

Oh boy...

I have always had the feeling, these people have no clue what they are doing..

I asked a question a long time ago, in another post, about how these companies go about figuring out what you are doing, is even infringement.

Do they host the files themselves like a honeypot, and wait for people to connect, download and share, or do they just randomly look for files with particular names, and then join those swarms, and start collecting IPs, etc.

I wonder, how much you even have to share, before it becomes a violation, or how much of a download you have to complete.

So many questions, and so few real answers... I don't see any problems at all from this, oh and I have some water front property you might be interested in...

edit: spelling
--
What the heck is a GatorKram? »www.gatorkram.com



jmad980

join:2012-06-16

1 recommendation

There's basically no punishment for filing a false DMCA claim, and many are automated.

As for the Six strike system I imagine it's an even simpler process for them to go through, without any checks or balances.



aciddrink

join:2000-08-26
Reviews:
·Insight Communic..

1 recommendation

reply to gatorkram

Those are all valid questions, and ones I would like to find out.

If I were a betting man, I would say they will eventually begin hosting files in order to draw people in and log IP's. This is afterall, the easiest way to get their "job" done.

Do these firms get paid based on the quantity of people they "catch"/entrap?



elios

join:2005-11-15
Springfield, MO
reply to gatorkram

yup totally couldnt fail in any way ..... RIGHT
i think a big I TOLD YOU SO is in order here to all the people that said it would effect people not pirating


clone

join:2000-12-11
Portage, IN

1 recommendation

reply to aciddrink

I doubt they would ever host the files, not for the purpose of suing the downloaders, anyway.

This stems from the fact that they try to falsely claim the huge damages (hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars) based on the fact that you were sharing it with a ton of people who potentially could download it.

If you download one copy, they can sue you for $14.95, or whatever the going rate of the DVD or album currently is. This is why they never sue downloaders, and always sue uploaders.



cdru
Go Colts
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:7
reply to gatorkram

said by gatorkram:

I have always had the feeling, these people have no clue what they are doing.

They know what they are doing. They are putting minimal effort into a complex problem. They know that their detection methods are going to have a lot of false positives. But they don't care.

I asked a question a long time ago, in another post, about how these companies go about figuring out what you are doing, is even infringement.

If they are working on the behalf of the copyright owner and are authorized to "distribute" it (which their service agreement most likely stipulates) then it's not infringement on their behalf. They may be authorized to give up the content but the infringer isn't authorized to accept it.

Do they host the files themselves like a honeypot, and wait for people to connect, download and share, or do they just randomly look for files with particular names, and then join those swarms, and start collecting IPs, etc.

Both.

I wonder, how much you even have to share, before it becomes a violation, or how much of a download you have to complete.

Technically, anything not covered by fair use and is unauthorized is infringement, so 1 bit. But then you have the practicality of differentiating what's infringing content and what's just coincidence. While it doesn't make a legal precedence here, I believe a judge in the UK stated that it had to be the entire piece of work and that just a fraction of it was not sufficient. For torrent related cases, if there are multiple people in the swarm (most likely) then it would be near impossible to prove that an entire work was downloaded from a single source. And if an infringer advertised that he had 100% completion to accept requests, just saying you are offering the file I don't think is sufficient to argue infringement, the actual infringement has to happen.

All these uncertainties are why so very few copyright infringement cases go to actual trial. It's expensive, and the copyright holders also don't want to go through all the costs with legally dubious cases and little precedence to go upon.


Camelot One
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-21
Greenwood, IN
kudos:1

1 recommendation

reply to aciddrink

said by aciddrink:

Do these firms get paid based on the quantity of people they "catch"/entrap?

A conspiracy theorist would point out that with the 6 strikes only generating letters and slow downs, the real money to be made here is actually in the false claims. Few will pay to protest being caught downloading something they know is a violation, but nearly EVERYONE who gets a false claim will pay $35 to prove they did nothing wrong. And it is my understanding that you are out the money no matter what the final ruling.


Kilroy
Premium,MVM
join:2002-11-21
Saint Paul, MN
reply to cdru

said by cdru:

said by gatorkram:

I wonder, how much you even have to share, before it becomes a violation, or how much of a download you have to complete.

Technically, anything not covered by fair use and is unauthorized is infringement, so 1 bit.

So, they have two files they are enforcing copyrights for, one has a first bit of 0 and the other has a first bit of 1, so EVERYTHING is a copyright violtion subject to a $35 review if you feel like paying for it.

In reality the more bad press this plan gets the better for consumers.
--
“Progress isn't made by early risers. It's made by lazy men trying to find easier ways to do something.” ¯ Robert A. Heinlein

CXM_Splicer
Looking at the bigger picture
Premium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:1

1 recommendation

reply to clone

No, if they hosted a file that would be the equivalent to them giving away property they own. You cannot offer something for free and then claim infringement when someone takes it. They go after 'uploaders' because that's the only ones they can collect sufficient evidence on.



Camelot One
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-21
Greenwood, IN
kudos:1

said by CXM_Splicer:

No, if they hosted a file that would be the equivalent to them giving away property they own. You cannot offer something for free and then claim infringement when someone takes it. They go after 'uploaders' because that's the only ones they can collect sufficient evidence on.

You are half right. But with the torrent protocols, you are distributing (without permission) the moment you start downloading. So they can seed the file, and still nail you for distribution while you download it.
--
Intel i7-2600k /ASRock P67 Extreme4 /4x 4Gb G.Skill /2x Intel 510 series 250Gb SSD /3x WD20EADS 2TB /2x PNY GTX 260 /Silverstone 850W /Custom water cooler /Antec Twelve-Hundred


aciddrink

join:2000-08-26
reply to Camelot One

Exactly. It's an inherently flawed yet genius system. Throw around an extreme number of letters/notices, whether real or fake. Then sit back and enjoy the money that comes rolling in.


Chubbysumo

join:2009-12-01
Superior, WI
Reviews:
·Charter
reply to gatorkram

said by gatorkram:

Do they host the files themselves like a honeypot, and wait for people to connect, download and share, or do they just randomly look for files with particular names, and then join those swarms, and start collecting IPs, etc.

They hop on a torrent swarm, and then monitor what IP connect, and take a "snapshot" of the IP downloading something. A judge just ruled that their "evidence" is not even admissible in court, since it only shows the suspected criminal downloading a piece of the file(which is covered under creative use), and it does not reasonably identify the downloader, just the subscriber household.


BonezX
Basement Dweller
Premium
join:2004-04-13
Canada
kudos:1
reply to gatorkram

said by gatorkram:

I have always had the feeling, these people have no clue what they are doing..

I asked a question a long time ago, in another post, about how these companies go about figuring out what you are doing, is even infringement.

Do they host the files themselves like a honeypot, and wait for people to connect, download and share, or do they just randomly look for files with particular names, and then join those swarms, and start collecting IPs, etc.

I wonder, how much you even have to share, before it becomes a violation, or how much of a download you have to complete.

So many questions, and so few real answers... I don't see any problems at all from this, oh and I have some water front property you might be interested in...

edit: spelling

the "companies" are working on behalf of the copyright holder, which would allow them to honeypot and mass pull IP addresses. i know it looks seriously dirty to do(considering that you don't get the entire FILE from them, only a part realistically).

and remember, they are acting on behalf of the RIAA/MPAA so they don't have to sign contracts with actual artists to pursue people.

CXM_Splicer
Looking at the bigger picture
Premium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:1
reply to Camelot One

They don't use standard torrent programs specifically because they make blocks available as soon as they are complete. They use custom programs which monitor the trackers and don't share anything.

If Honeypoting were legal, they would be going after the downloaders like that... not the uploaders. They would in fact be the uploaders which is why it doesn't work. If a defense lawyer found out a copyright holder was allowing the material to be given away for free the whole case would be thrown out very quickly.


TechnoGeek

join:2013-01-07
reply to jmad980

Oh no penalty eh...

So what if I file a claim against them with their service provider? Or are business accounts exempt?

Either way, hmm....



Kai

@teksavvy.com
reply to aciddrink

I call that... A "Pyramid Lawsuit"!

1 uploader spreads to several, which spreads to more and more... And then they use it as a means to launch charges or lawsuits of the likes to funnel money to themselves.



Hope Dreyer

@verizon.net
reply to Camelot One

Actually you get the $35 back, if they find you not guilty... Another reason for them to not find you not guilty.



Camelot One
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-21
Greenwood, IN
kudos:1

said by Hope Dreyer :

Actually you get the $35 back, if they find you not guilty...

Please name your source, I have not been able to find anything stating that.


Hope Dreier

@verizon.net

"Finally, Lesser explained to Ars that consumers will have to pay $35 to the CAS to initiate a review procedure, which will be refunded if the consumer wins the review."

In »arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012···cost-35/

As I said the fact that they, like the Spanish Inquisition, get to keep your money if they find you guilty indicates to me that they are unlikely to be finding to many people innocent.