dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
32
share rss forum feed


aciddrink

join:2000-08-26

1 recommendation

reply to gatorkram

Re: Oh boy...

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?


clone

join:2000-12-11
Portage, IN

1 recommendation

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.



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.

CXM_Splicer
Looking at the bigger picture
Premium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:2

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.


CXM_Splicer
Looking at the bigger picture
Premium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:2
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.



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.