jap
Premium
join:2003-08-10
038xx
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to USA Zombie
Re: Notice of Claim of Copyright Infringement
said by USA Zombie  :After looking at the first post it seems to me the person was running a tracker. No, that letter is for a single infraction. |
|
USA Zombie
Premium
join:2002-08-22
Seattle, WA
| reply to mario620
quote:
Infringing Filename: Will.And.Grace.S08E15.HDTV.XviD-LOL.avi
Infringing Filesize: 183711744
Infringers IP Address: 00.000.00.00
Infringers DNS Name: c-00-000-00-00.hsd1.ca.comcast.net
Infringing URL: 00.000.00.00:51323\Will.And.Grace.S08E15.HDTV.XviD-LOL.avi
The last entry is the tracker and I bet that it was the same IP address (his) as the others.
Why else would the poster change it? |
|
Combat Chuck
Too Many Cannibals
Premium
join:2001-11-29
Erie, PA
1 edit | said by USA Zombie : quote:
Infringing Filename: Will.And.Grace.S08E15.HDTV.XviD-LOL.avi
Infringing Filesize: 183711744
Infringers IP Address: 00.000.00.00
Infringers DNS Name: c-00-000-00-00.hsd1.ca.comcast.net
Infringing URL: 00.000.00.00:51323\Will.And.Grace.S08E15.HDTV.XviD-LOL.avi
The last entry is the tracker and I bet that it was the same IP address (his) as the others. Why else would the poster change it? Cause he saw an IP address and wasn't sure if it was his/didn't want to incriminate himself/didn't want to incriminate the person running the tracker/was being considerate of the person running the tracker possibly not wanting his IP posted on a public website.
--
He that winna lout an lift a preen wull nivver be warth a groat. |
|
mario620
join:2003-06-27
Los Angeles, CA
| reply to USA Zombie
said by USA Zombie : quote:
Infringing Filename: Will.And.Grace.S08E15.HDTV.XviD-LOL.avi
Infringing Filesize: 183711744
Infringers IP Address: 00.000.00.00
Infringers DNS Name: c-00-000-00-00.hsd1.ca.comcast.net
Infringing URL: 00.000.00.00:51323\Will.And.Grace.S08E15.HDTV.XviD-LOL.avi
The last entry is the tracker and I bet that it was the same IP address (his) as the others. Why else would the poster change it? I changed all ip's listed to keep everyone safe on this forum. I changed my own and the trackers, I think I did I don't remember the ip #'s off hand. Why add wood to the fire?
And thx for everone's input. I'm just going to ignore this. And be more careful in the future. |
|
oldTDNickell
Premium
join:2000-12-19
Federal Way, WA
| said by mario620 :said by USA Zombie : quote:
Infringing Filename: Will.And.Grace.S08E15.HDTV.XviD-LOL.avi
Infringing Filesize: 183711744
Infringers IP Address: 00.000.00.00
Infringers DNS Name: c-00-000-00-00.hsd1.ca.comcast.net
Infringing URL: 00.000.00.00:51323\Will.And.Grace.S08E15.HDTV.XviD-LOL.avi
The last entry is the tracker and I bet that it was the same IP address (his) as the others. Why else would the poster change it? I changed all ip's listed to keep everyone safe on this forum. I changed my own and the trackers, I think I did I don't remember the ip #'s off hand. Why add wood to the fire? And thx for everone's input. I'm just going to ignore this. And be more careful in the future. Yep that all there is to that.Good luck.:):) |
|
Yikes what a waste
@comcast.net | reply to mario620
First off, what real Man watches Will & Grace? I think you should be mad you were caught watching such a whack show. All the millions of things to dl, and You go after this crap. No sympathy here. |
|
Kaltes
Premium
join:2002-12-04
Los Angeles, CA
| reply to b1gdr3
Re: No big deal, idle threats
said by b1gdr3 :said by Kaltes :So don't try to condemn others when you are acting as a shill for a criminal cartel. I'm neither a shill or a fool. Just because you don't like or agree with the law does not exempt you from having to follow it. I'd say encouraging people to say the hell with the law is n't the brightest way to go, but people are going to do what they are going to do. I sincerely hope the OP took the sane peoples advice on this matter. You have no clue what copyright is, do you? You aren't breaking the law when you infringe a copyright. You are interfering with a PRIVATE RIGHT that a copyright holder can enforce with a CIVIL lawsuit. There are many things that are not "against the law" that are instead dealt with privately through lawsuits. |
|
Konaguy
Live From Kailua-Kona, Hawaii
Premium
join:2000-10-21
Kailua Kona, HI
 ·Hawaiian Telcom
| said by Kaltes : You have no clue what copyright is, do you? You aren't breaking the law when you infringe a copyright. You are interfering with a PRIVATE RIGHT that a copyright holder can enforce with a CIVIL lawsuit. There are many things that are not "against the law" that are instead dealt with privately through lawsuits. Explain this one sherlock ?
»www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrim···8red.htm
»news.com.com/2010-1071-982121.html |
|
staticmaker
join:2006-03-18
Sarasota, FL
| reply to mario620
Re: Notice of Claim of Copyright Infringement
if you're gonna' dload "illegal" stuff....you must protect youself. people who get busted are just stupid because it takes only a few things to remain safe. if you "cloak" youself then you are "invisible" to those who want to ping your pc to get info on you. For starters.....use a firewall to bounce "pings" from other companies trying to identify you. set your browser's security settings to not allow active content and delete your cookies periodically. if yu want to buy some professional security/firewall software please email me. otherwise at least get something free dsomewhere |
|
rog
Premium
join:2002-07-03
BC
·Shaw
| reply to motoracer
said by motoracer :Why not just stop the problem at the source and stop downloading/uploading copyrighted material  With that attitude there would be no technological advancement. Stealing copyrighted material has led to all sorts of new improvements in software etc. RIAA's actions have driven software developers to new heights. Kinda like turning a country into a school for terrorists. |
|
Shawn3B
@tci.com
| reply to mario620
I will not go into details as to why I know what I know, but I CAN speak with * FIRST-HAND * experience and knowledge. It's been a few years, so I don't recall all of the (legal) specifics exactly (I was also not an expert)... but I can probably speak to this as well as anyone has. If you're going to read any post, this is the post to read! There have been a few posts that are right on, and others that are well off (of reality and/or law).
First, sharing/distributing/broadcasting (others to downloading/receiving from you) copyrighted material is illegal (in the United States specifically, unless you are the owner of said material, or have a license to distribute). Second, downloading copyrighted material from an unauthorized (aka non-official) source is illegal. Being legal or illegal has nothing to do with what you may think is "right" or agree with or what is "best" or what is "common-sense" or whatnot, just what the law IS. Also, no money needs to exchange hands for the act of copyright infringement to be illegal, this just adds to the severity of crime.
So, a movie TRAILER (as well as the movie, of course) is copyrighted, a TV show is copyrighted and software (most) is copyrighted. You may think you are doing a service by sharing movie trailers, but you are not legally authorized to do so. TV shows are licensed to be broadcast, unless you have a contract that allows you to broadcast that material, you are in violation. You may not agree with this, but here is probably the primary reason... the OWNER of the material has the RIGHT to control whom broadcasts it, and under what conditions. This includes commercials, among other things. A DVR/VCR records commercials, you just have the power to skip them, but that's off the point. Sharing a TV series/episode WITH commercials is STILL a violation, you are doing so outside of the control of the owner of the material, and hence the legal issue. Without commercials is a CLEAR violation. Fair use is simply you recording/backing something up for YOUR personal use.
If ALL you are doing is downloading, it's hard (maybe impossible, legally) to get caught. Only the copyright holder, or legal agent acting on behalf of such, could really know what you are downloading IS actually the digital form of their copyrighted works but this gets off the point some. Files have "signatures" that can be tracked, using various terms... forensic signatures, data/file lineage, etc. For example, encoded (compressed) data has signatures as to what software and version encoded it, various databases can be used to track a specific file to the first time it was seen and where it was seen, etc. If you are found, via whatever means (a search warrant for example) to have files that are "forensically" a match to such material, you are probably in trouble.
From the ISP perspective, there are different legal interpretations and I don't believe any clear precedent yet, but a DMCA notice is a legal notification. The copyright holder, or their agent, sends an official notice to a REGISTERED address. The ISP, if it does nothing, may become legally liable for the infringement. If the ISP notifies their customer, their legal liability is greatly reduced - possibly eliminated. Repeat offenses (of any copyrighted material) complicate matters. First, if the same copyright holder/agent is involved, they likely have a database that will/may alert them to the repeat infringement, via IP, handle, etc. If it is two independent infringements, only the ISP should know. ISP's vary, some will suspend/terminate on a second offense, others more offenses, and others virtually unlimited number of DMCA offenses.
As I understand it, the ISP will NOT provide the customer information to the copyright holder/agent for a DMCA notification, only a SUBPOENA for such information. An issue of dispute, the DMCA was used to issue 'blanket' subpoenas with limited (reduced) due process. However, this still goes through a (minimal) court process. Verizon fought this, with other ISP's. One of the problems is these subpoenas are not filed individually, but enmasse, usually in one official request (not individually). Largely, only the RIAA was doing this.
The DMCA warning in this thread was just a DMCA notification, not a letter informing of a release of information in response to a subpoena. This is one point I cannot recall clearly... I'm fairly sure the Cable Privacy Act of 1984 (and other revisions/amendments, etc) requires cable companies (maybe communication companies in general) to notify their customer of a subpoena. I'm not sure a DMCA subpoena can do this, but DOJ subpoenas often have a clause that prohibits the ISP/cable company from notifying their customer due to legal investigation and/or national security, etc, etc issues.
If I recall correctly, a counter notification is ONLY if you dispute the said material is actually copyrighted, or you have a legal right to distribute the material, or you are claiming your fair-use rights, etc. It is NOT to confirm you received the notice. You SHOULD respond to your ISP to confirm this (that you are now in compliance with their policies/AUP), sometimes failure to do so leaves a case open and puts your account subject to flags for future complaints or suspension because you did not response. Whereas a response may, or may not, reduce this risk. A counter notification is a legal response from you, claiming the material listed or the complaint is not DMCA compliant or is otherwise invalid. The DMCA agent only needs to act in "good faith," but in theory they should verify that the file size and/or MD5 signature, and/or actual content is the material it is claimed to be (not all files are what they say they are). Again, this is often where a database comes into play.
While I don't agree with the DMCA, if you are violating copyright and get caught, you probably deserve what you get. |
|
Combat Chuck
Too Many Cannibals
Premium
join:2001-11-29
Erie, PA
1 edit | reply to staticmaker
said by staticmaker :if you're gonna' dload "illegal" stuff....you must protect youself. people who get busted are just stupid because it takes only a few things to remain safe. if you "cloak" youself then you are "invisible" to those who want to ping your pc to get info on you. For starters.....use a firewall to bounce "pings" from other companies trying to identify you. set your browser's security settings to not allow active content and delete your cookies periodically. None of which would have prevented the entity in question from getting the IP address of the OP.
said by staticmaker :if yu want to buy some professional security/firewall software please email me. Oh...so I take it the "the government has opened an investigation against you, your IP address from when you grabbed this image has been logged and we ran a reverse dns know approximately where you live at least if your ISP keeps their DNS info detailed enough" popups aren't bringing in the big bucks anymore.
on another note
said by the anonymous expert, non-expert directly above:
First, sharing/distributing/broadcasting (others to downloading/receiving from you) copyrighted material is illegal (in the United States specifically, unless you are the owner of said material, or have a license to distribute). Second, downloading copyrighted material from an unauthorized (aka non-official) source is illegal. Being legal or illegal has nothing to do with what you may think is "right" or agree with or what is "best" or what is "common-sense" or whatnot, just what the law IS. Also, no money needs to exchange hands for the act of copyright infringement to be illegal, this just adds to the severity of crime. Linux breaks your argument as it is both copyrighted and legal for anyone to distribute. Although this statement:
If you're going to read any post, this is the post to read! pretty much says "skip to end of post now" anyway, so I guess it doesn't matter.
--
He that winna lout an lift a preen wull nivver be warth a groat. |
|
DreamWraith
Premium
join:2004-04-07
Mount Vernon, WA | reply to mario620
Come on children. At the very least, be illegal intelegently. Common sense rules using something such as peer guardian at the very least. |
|
TraumaJunkie
Premium
join:2004-03-05
Knoxville, TN
| reply to Kaltes
Re: No big deal, idle threats
First of all ISPs do have the ability to block commonly used ports that P@P programs use. Change the ports you say? Then those could be blocked also. And it is not Comcast or any other ISP that cares, if you re-read the mail it basically states that Comcast was presented with information from the copyright holder that you have downloaded a copyrighted file. The holder of the copyright KNOWS the IP number you used to DL the file (probably because you were also sharing the parts you had DL'd while getting the rest of the episode) because they were DL'ing it from you! If I were you I would respond and state the file has been deleted. Unless you do so, the next step will be for the copyright owner to get a court order for Comcast to provide the name and address of the person who has the IP assigned the date and time they DL'd the file and then take you to court.
Taking these Monday morning armchair quarterback's legal adice is not wise. The RIAA and the MPAA have sucessfully sued thousands of copyright infringement violators..do you wanna be next????
said by Kaltes :If I were you, I'd just ignore it. You downloaded will & grace using bittorrent? big deal. Comcast has no means of blocking access, nor are they required to by law. I don't see them actually doing anything at all about this. After all, Comcast benefits from p2p use because it is one of the attractions of broadband. This is a tactic a company is using to scare you. The only thing you have to fear is fear itself, quite literally. If you blow this off, like I would, you'll see that ultimately it is hot air. In the extremely unlikely event that you were to get sued, you could merely claim that you did not download the file. It would be impossible for the company suing you to prove that you did, unless you came out and admitted it. - changing IP won't matter - deleting the file won't matter - whether you continue to use BT or not won't matter said by mario620 :Sounds like I should just sit and wait and see what happens. Good idea. If I were you, I would throw it away and do nothing, or send a counter-notice. said by J D McDorce : ISPs (in this case, Comcast) are bound by the DMCA to provide notification to their customers should the copyright holder (or their agent) report alleged infringements of their works. No, they are not. They are required to give the user notice when they receive a subpoena from the copyright holder requesting their customer's identity. If you don't want them to get your identity, you can send a counter-notice. Otherwise, they get it. said by J D McDorce : Had it been a work of music associated with the RIAA, you would likely have been presented with the opportunity (by a party other than Comcast) to pay several thousand dollars to avoid being sued by a RIAA member instead of receiving an email from Comcast. You would have seen the comcast letter first, then the RIAA demand letter (an empty threat) sometime later. said by oldTDNickell :Just don't do it again and you will be alright Allow yourself to be intimidated, and the copyright terrorists win. said by motoracer :Why not just stop the problem at the source and stop downloading/uploading copyrighted material Maybe he likes to watch will & grace, and doesn't have a TIVO to record it with 'legally'? :P I download episodes of TV shows all the time. It is a convenient thing that means I don't have to schedule my life around when a given show is going to be on TV. I could care less if the copyright holder doesn't like it. This is no different from getting a TIVO or some similar device to record shows, then taking out the commercials.
--
I'm not really sure what I am doing, but I'm doing it anyway! |
|
Aluminum
Premium
join:2006-01-23
Manassas, VA
| reply to mario620
Re: Notice of Claim of Copyright Infringement
Anyone with half a clue runs at least a modest IP address filter with their BT.
You have no reason to let over half the IP ranges out there even see your computer. Theres so many dead ranges people use to fake stuff, and massive blocks owned by darpa or some of the early iana members.
Most of the p2p tracking stuff is outsourced to xyzcompany123 whose ip ranges are found out very fast. (lets see, they query trackers all day long, try to connect to 50000000 addresses but never serve up anything that works....HMMM I WONDER) Hell some of them don't even make it that far, the deal is known in advance and you just look them up in the registry.
Its also amazing how many assholes out there try to spoof connections to my seed with 192.168.x.x or 10.0.x.x, I get at least a dozen a day.
Enough random n00bs get served up as fodder and it keeps them from trying harder to search, probably why no bt client yet builds in a filter...but theres always plugins  |
|
scrummie02
Bentley
Premium
join:2004-04-16
Arlington, VA
| reply to Kaltes
Re: No big deal, idle threats
"Maybe he likes to watch will & grace, and doesn't have a TIVO to record it with 'legally'? :P I download episodes of TV shows all the time. It is a convenient thing that means I don't have to schedule my life around when a given show is going to be on TV. I could care less if the copyright holder doesn't like it. This is no different from getting a TIVO or some similar device to record shows, then taking out the commercials."
I agree...with the last part anyway. I don't download music, but I do download TV shows because I give comcast enough money every month for cable and HBO. I certainly don't want to give them "extra" money for a DVR every month when I can download the show and watch it later. In my opinion that is the same and recording it on my old VCR and watching it later. It's public television not even HBO, so if I download something from CBS, FOX, UPN, ABC, NBC in my opinion it's not copyright infringement because it's free television anyway. I will continue to download Family Guy, War at Home, American Idol and 24 as I see fit because I have a lot of things going on right now and I miss the shows. |
|
scrummie02
Bentley
Premium
join:2004-04-16
Arlington, VA
| reply to quatra
Re: Notice of Claim of Copyright Infringement
"Maybe he likes to watch will & grace, and doesn't have a TIVO to record it with 'legally'? :P I download episodes of TV shows all the time. It is a convenient thing that means I don't have to schedule my life around when a given show is going to be on TV. I could care less if the copyright holder doesn't like it. This is no different from getting a TIVO or some similar device to record shows, then taking out the commercials." - quatra
The terrorists have websites too, so everyone that hosts websites or as an account with a web hosting provider should be drawn and quartered too. Why stop there? The terrorists use the internet to spew their islamofacist teachings, everyone who uses the internet should be drawn and quartered as well. Oh yeah, they make little video tapes of Osama bin F*ckface too, we should hang all those that use personal video cameras as well. Since they also release audio tapes as well, we better get every single person that has a personal cassette recorder or similar device that can record and regurgitate audio.
I am glad to see the the concepts of logic and reasoning have developed fully in your brain.../sarcasm. |
|
Kaltes
Premium
join:2002-12-04
Los Angeles, CA
| reply to Konaguy
Re: No big deal, idle threats
said by Konaguy :said by Kaltes : You have no clue what copyright is, do you? You aren't breaking the law when you infringe a copyright. You are interfering with a PRIVATE RIGHT that a copyright holder can enforce with a CIVIL lawsuit. There are many things that are not "against the law" that are instead dealt with privately through lawsuits. Explain this one sherlock ? » www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrim···8red.htm» news.com.com/2010-1071-982121.html The NET criminalized large scale commercial piracy. The provisions that could possibly affect people using p2p are not at issue here, because downloading an episode of a TV show clearly does not fit under that law.
Secondly, that law has NEVER BEEN ENFORCED against p2p suers by the DOJ. Nor will it ever be enforced by them. Ashcroft was LOBBIED by the copyright holders to attempt to throw p2p users in jail and he rejected their efforts. Any attempt to enforce the law would result in immediate Constitutional challenges along with a public outcry and a rapid repeal of the law by Congressmen who can't afford to piss the public off.
So maybe you should go get a clue before spouting off, Sherlock. |
|
AI682
@ucr.edu
| reply to mario620
Re: Notice of Claim of Copyright Infringement
I have yet to read about anyone getting sued for downloading a tv show, now movies that's another story, beside more television networks have provided Shows available to download, of course with a small fee, and some have finally figured out wow we can allow people to watch are show and generate even more advertising money by allowing free downloads with ads whichs are even more focused on the individual watching the show. It could be worse being caught downloading Brokeback Mountain, that would suck. |
|
Kaltes
Premium
join:2002-12-04
Los Angeles, CA
| reply to TraumaJunkie
Re: No big deal, idle threats
said by TraumaJunkie :First of all ISPs do have the ability to block commonly used ports that P@P programs use. The ISPs do not have the ability or the inclination to single out individual users and block specific ports from those users.
said by TraumaJunkie :Change the ports you say? Then those could be blocked also. There are some ports the ISPs can't block, like port 80, for obvious reasons. ISPs also cannot block most p2p ports for the reason that once word gets out that they're doing it, they will lose customers. The ISPs are NOT the copyright holders, they have different and competing interests. The ISPs want to make money, and p2p is a GOOD THING for them. The only reason that some ISPs block ports is that they are either short-sightedly using it as a form of bandwidth capping to cut down traffic, or they have individual stupid executives that put the RIAA's interests before the interests of their own company.
said by TraumaJunkie :Unless you do so, the next step will be for the copyright owner to get a court order for Comcast to provide the name and address of the person who has the IP assigned the date and time they DL'd the file and then take you to court. (1) They can't subpoena based on p2p use. Read RIAA v Verizon. So p2p use WILL NOT result in a successful subpoena.
(2) You show me one case ONE CASE where the RIAA has taken someone to court. All they do is threaten and extort settlements from people who are ignorant of the law. The fact is, the RIAA isn't going to spend $30,000+ on lawyers to get a judgment that will at most be a few thousand dollars.
said by TraumaJunkie :Taking these Monday morning armchair quarterback's legal adice is not wise. The RIAA and the MPAA have sucessfully sued thousands of copyright infringement violators..do you wanna be next????
#1. I am a lawyer. I am probably the only lawyer posting in this topic.
#2. You are wrong. The RIAA hasn't successfully sued anybody. They have sent threatening letters and extorted middle class people into 'settlements'. |
|
