juniorx
join:2006-02-05
St John'S, NL | reply to bullinchinas
Re: Notice of Claim of Copyright Infringement
it is estimated that 200 million people fileshare at any given time. for those posting "don't share copyrighted material", are you part of the minority or is it Hypocrisy? |
|
bullinchinas
join:2006-04-09
Gary, IN
1 edit | reply to Lumberjack
reply to mario620
First, you shouldn't share copyrighted material. Second unless you have a license to obtain/use the material you shouldn't obtain it (regardless of the source).
Here are the common reasons people do stupid things with copying data (not pointing any fingers here).
1) They think it costs to much to legally obtain. Ah yes, "I don't want to pay $20 for a CD; it's not fair, so I'll download it, ha". This is stupid. Even though the commercial is stupid (we've all seen it by now) you most likely don't steal tangible items (purse, car, etc..) yet because data can be "copied" you think its not stealing. The license and laws state that copying digital works (usually) is a bad thing unless you own the original and don't distribute the copies.
2) The law on copyright isn't fair. This one is a pure excuse people use when they don't want to pay for copyrighted works (almost the same as #1 above). Guess what folks, like other things in the US and other countries if you don't like the law work to change it. If you just bitch and complain it means nothing (except you're a looser).
3) They don't read the license. For software this is simple. If you can obtain it for free and the license says its free, fine... just follow the license for distribution rights. If you had to buy it or the license says you have to buy it don't give away copies (reselling the original is ok). Moves/tv shows etc. "credits" and usually the credits have a copyright statement. This usually tells you that the owner owns it and users can't just take it and resell/give it away.
4) For software, this is my favorite... "Software should be free, damn the copyright, patents and licenses!" While I enjoy using GPL, BSD and Apache style license (as well as others that give away for free) I also write software for a job. When you steal software its like stealing a car... it costs to design, assemble and produce so where the @#@# do people get off thinking it should all be free? In the case of the GPL and other free license the auther decided to be nice and give the software away. With other software (MS, Oracle, WinRar, etc..) the author spent time, money and effort to bring you applications you use and for the most part enjoy. They need to eat and you need the software so like buying a car, you should buy the software. I can go on and on about this.. but as most of us "experienced users/engineers" know Linux and most popular GPL licensed projects would be nowhere today with out some sort of income. While the software can be obtained for free people have been paid to work on it or have gained financially from using it (hmm, does this server run on Apache? Does it host adds?).
Anyway enough of my rant...
Do you work for the MPAA or the RIAA? |
|
bbrandy
join:2006-06-20
Colorado Springs, CO | reply to mario620
OP, what did you ever decide to do? Did anything happen?
Update please.
Thanks |
|
Davemaster
Premium
join:2006-03-02
Marietta, GA
| reply to mdmaddox
said by mdmaddox  :I have just one point when you say "Now they already allow you the option to record it yourself by a VCR or DVR for your personal use" Does They = Program owners? or does They = The U.S. Court System? My vote is with the Court. It was the US Supreme court in a 1984 decision for consumers |
|
Kaltes
Premium
join:2002-12-04
Los Angeles, CA
| reply to jagged
advice from people making wild guesses or lying
said by jagged :Since it's like going to a store and taking videos/music without paying for it and sneaking out. No it isn't. Anyone with common sense can see the difference. Making this argument just makes you look stupid.
said by jagged :It also could be illegal because of the way passwords are obtained. Sometimes by stealing the customer database, or brute forcing. With companies who use 3rd party billing the passwords are on the credit card biller's site, using a stolen pass almost equals stealing someone's identiy. Often getting in with a stolen pass you can see the profile of the person and personal information. You obviously don't know what you're talking about. Using a cracked password is not 'illegal'. It might be grounds for a civil lawsuit in certain situations under the DMCA, but that civil remedy has so far been used as an anti-competitive corporate weapon, not against consumers. There are other laws aimed at hacking and unauthorized entry, but that isn't the kind of thing that would come into play when downloading music, movies, and software using p2p programs.
Something like bugmenot.com would fit under what he was talking about: you use 'cracked' passwords to access news sites and download their news articles.
said by slaskoske :If you run the network and someone uses it to do something illegal, you may be held liable under the law. No, you are NOT liable. Period.
said by slaskoske :Secondly, they may try to subpoena logs from your router. If you are skilled enough to delete those logs yet supposedly too stupid to set up security, what is the court supposed to think? Yeah right, like some residential router is going to have logs with any kind of detail going back any length of time. Most residential routers, and this includes every one I've owned, only log things related to the firewall, if anything, and that depends on your settings.
Besides, when it comes to civil discovery in a lawsuit, I don't think you understand how the process works. |
|
slaskoske
join:2006-03-24
Lancaster, PA
| reply to Clever Name
Re: Notice of Claim of Copyright Infringement
said by Clever Name :I think owning a wireless router and claiming you're too ignorant to secure it properly would be a fairly good alibi. Some VERY evil copyright infringer must have hijacked my wireless connection and downloaded that horrible tv show.  It's no alibi at all. If you run the network and someone uses it to do something illegal, you may be held liable under the law. Secondly, they may try to subpoena logs from your router. If you are skilled enough to delete those logs yet supposedly too stupid to set up security, what is the court supposed to think? |
|
jagged
join:2003-07-01
Boynton Beach, FL
| reply to GTGear
It's possible that downloading with cracked/stolen password is copyright infringment and even stealing.
Since it's like going to a store and taking videos/music without paying for it and sneaking out.
It also could be illegal because of the way passwords are obtained. Sometimes by stealing the customer database, or brute forcing. With companies who use 3rd party billing the passwords are on the credit card biller's site, using a stolen pass almost equals stealing someone's identiy. Often getting in with a stolen pass you can see the profile of the person and personal information.
As someone said, 'When In Doubt Don't Do It' |
|
accc
@comcast.net | reply to DVOOR8
It was sent a day after the incident. I didn't find out about it till a month later since that e-mail never gets checked. |
|
Kaltes
Premium
join:2002-12-04
Los Angeles, CA
| reply to GTGear
Circumvention of technological protection measures is a new thing copyright holders can sue you for under the DMCA. Bypassing such a measure with a cracked password would probably fall within that.
I don't know of anyone getting sued for this kind of thing. The new laws are really for things like targetting people who release cracks like DeCSS, and more importantly for targeting businesses who attempt to make/sell anything that would let you bypass DRM stuff.
For example, a printer company, I think Lexmark, was trying to put people selling ink cartridges for its printer out of business using copyright laws, so it could hold a monopoly on the ink and charge grossly inflated prices. That way they could sell you the printer really cheap (at a loss or close to it) and gouge you on the ink. |
|
GTGear
join:2005-12-31
Los Angeles, CA
| reply to mario620
Hey, While a discussion of this is going on, I have a quick question. Its something I've been wanting to know for awhile, Is it possible to get in trouble for using a cracked password to DL material? We were having a discussion of this in class. The teacher, of course, couldnt give a answer. So is it possible? And if so, would that be considered copyright infringement? |
|
MoxyDrink
join:2006-03-29
Franklin, TN
2 edits | reply to mario620
I read now the RIAA is suing people just for downloading (read: not sharing), these scumbags need to be stopped one of these days.
--
Hi. I like the great American drink Moxie. My favorite man is Haamster. |
|
DVOOR8
join:2001-12-24
USA
 ·Optimum Online
| reply to acccc
said by acccc :
I didin't get a letter I got an e-mail. I was just saying that I never would have even known about it since I never check that e-mail address. They should've mailed me a real letter. For all I know it could've been my neighbor using my wireless. :\.
OK, I'll try again........How long after the alleged violation did you get the letter via email. |
|
Kaltes
Premium
join:2002-12-04
Los Angeles, CA
| reply to acccc
said by acccc :
I didin't get a letter I got an e-mail. I was just saying that I never would have even known about it since I never check that e-mail address. They should've mailed me a real letter. For all I know it could've been my neighbor using my wireless. :\.
It could very well have been your neighbor. That is why it is impossible for the RIAA and friends to actually make these allegations stick against a savvy target. All the RIAA and friends can get is an IP address and the identity of the person who pays for that connection. You are not legally responsible for how your internet is used, only for what you personally do. The RIAA and friends can't prove, or really evidence in any way, that you personally did any downloading.
If you did do it, the RIAA and friends could potentially get evidence that your computer was used for the downloading by paying for expensive electronic discovery experts to copy your hard drive(s) and then analyze the copies. This assumes you havent gotten rid of those hard drives by that point, as people often do once every few years to upgrade. This kind of thing is done in huge, expensive cases, but it just wouldn't be cost-effective in this situation. Besides, someone else could have been using your computer, so even this evidence is not conclusive. |
|
acccc
@comcast.net
| reply to mario620
I didin't get a letter I got an e-mail. I was just saying that I never would have even known about it since I never check that e-mail address. They should've mailed me a real letter. For all I know it could've been my neighbor using my wireless. :\. |
|
DVOOR8
join:2001-12-24
USA | reply to Anonymous Coward
How long after the alleged violation occured, did you get the letter? |
|
Anonymous Coward
@comcast.net
| reply to mario620
I got one of these same exact leters about a month ago for a movie. I promptly deleted the %40 portion that I actually got from BT. The thing is I never ever check my comcast e-mail and that's where the notification was sent. I checked it today and I received the letter on March 1st. Aren't they supposed to send you something through real mail as well? If I hadn't checked it I wouldn't have even known about it... |
|
Anonymous0
@comcast.net
| reply to Kaltes
Re: No big deal, idle threats
said by Kaltes :
So the counter-notice appears to me in this context to just be a ploy to trick p2p users into handing over something the copyright holders are not legally entitled to: your identity.
Makes sense, thank you! |
|
Kaltes
Premium
join:2002-12-04
Los Angeles, CA
| reply to Anonymous0
said by Anonymous0 : said by Kaltes :
Yes there is always a (ver tiny) chance the OP could get sued. There is probably a bigger chance I could get sued. I download lots of tv shows. I am not even slightly afraid of getting sued, though, and everyone else needn't be afraid either. As long as you don't admit liability, the only way they can get you is to either (1) get a default because you don't respond to the suit at all, or (2) take you to trial. As long as you just show up to court when you get notice of court dates, and you file an answer after you get the complaint, you have very little to be worried about.
Similar situation as OP here. What is your take on the counter notification to the notice of claim of copyright infringement? Just ignore it? Well all providing a counter notice does is make it easier for whoever it is that is churning out these notices to sue you. (or more likely, send you a threatening letter to extort a 'settlement') The notice doesn't even apply to the p2p context. If you look at the law, the only discussion of counter notice deals with situations where, for example, the ISP gets notice then disables/deletes content on your ISP-hosted web site. The counter-notice in that context gives you an opportunity to tell the ISP that the copyright holder is wrong, and that the files at issue do not infringe his copyrights. The ISP then must restore your web site in 10-14 days.
It is simply impossible to give proper counter-notice in the p2p context. One thing your counter-notice must include is "Identification of the material that has been removed or to which access has been disabled", but no material has been removed or had access disabled. The ISP has not, and lacks the means to, remove material on your hard drive or selectively deny access to it.
So the counter-notice appears to me in this context to just be a ploy to trick p2p users into handing over something the copyright holders are not legally entitled to: your identity. |
|
Anonymous0
@comcast.net
|  reply to Kaltes
said by Kaltes :
Yes there is always a (ver tiny) chance the OP could get sued. There is probably a bigger chance I could get sued. I download lots of tv shows. I am not even slightly afraid of getting sued, though, and everyone else needn't be afraid either. As long as you don't admit liability, the only way they can get you is to either (1) get a default because you don't respond to the suit at all, or (2) take you to trial. As long as you just show up to court when you get notice of court dates, and you file an answer after you get the complaint, you have very little to be worried about.
Similar situation as OP here. What is your take on the counter notification to the notice of claim of copyright infringement? Just ignore it? |
|
Kaltes
Premium
join:2002-12-04
Los Angeles, CA
| reply to JimF
said by JimF :I don't think you see the logic of your own argument. It is equally expensive for the defendant to quash the subpoena, maybe more so, since they have to hire an attorney in each case, whereas the RIAA could do so en mass. Of course they don't go to trial, since as you point out, they would recover nothing. That doesn't mean people don't get sued; as you point out, thousands did. The OP could too. There is not much to be gained in economies of scale when it comes to lawsuits. Bigger law firms that handle larger volumes of cases charge MORE money, not less. A given lawyer can only do so much work. The fact is that Doe lawsuits are extremely expensive and impossible to do on a large scale. One of the biggest reasons for this is that the vast majority of people the RIAA sues will have no assets or assets the RIAA can't touch. As a general rule, unless your litigation target is middle-class or better, you won't see a dime from them even if you win. Even with middle-class people, it would be difficult and time-consuming to actually get any money, not to mention it would be a PR nightmare.
This is why the RIAA and others rely almost exclusively on extorted settlements, because all of those problems are avoided. It cost them VERY LITTLE MONEY in the past to get most settlements using the DMCA. All they have to do is pay the company who gets them the IP, fill in a notice form, then fill out a subpoena form. After that, they would send a threatening letter, then sit back and wait for their money. This could be profitable for them.
By contrast, with Doe suits, they have to pay lawyers up front to file lawsuits, then continue to pay lawyers to work the case. This quickly adds up into thousands of dollars, exceeding what they could extort out of most people in settlement. Even if some people did quickly settle, many others wouldn't because they simply didn't have the money. This means the vast majority of lawsuits are guaranteed losers, sure to result in the RIAA spending thousands and having nothing to show for it. RIAA then has no choice but to either dismiss the suit, or waste tens of thousands to get a worthless judgment.
Yes there is always a (ver tiny) chance the OP could get sued. There is probably a bigger chance I could get sued. I download lots of tv shows. I am not even slightly afraid of getting sued, though, and everyone else needn't be afraid either. As long as you don't admit liability, the only way they can get you is to either (1) get a default because you don't respond to the suit at all, or (2) take you to trial. As long as you just show up to court when you get notice of court dates, and you file an answer after you get the complaint, you have very little to be worried about.
That's my take on it. |
|
