how-to block ads
|
Kaltes
Premium
join:2002-12-04
Los Angeles, CA
| reply to scrummie02
They clearly haven't developed in yours
said by scrummie02  :I am glad to see the the concepts of logic and reasoning have developed fully in your brain.../sarcasm. heh | |
J D McDorce
Premium
join:2001-12-29
Westland, MI
| reply to Kaltes
Re: No big deal, idle threats
said by Kaltes :(1) They can't subpoena based on p2p use. Read RIAA v Verizon. So p2p use WILL NOT result in a successful subpoena. RIAA v. Verizon found that a 512(h) subpoena was not applicable to p2p. While the RIAA can no longer get a court clerk to rubber stamp a subpoena, they can still get a judge to issue a subpoena for subscriber information if a "John Doe" lawsuit is filed, even for p2p use.
(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. BMG Music, et al v. Gonzalez | |
mario620
join:2003-06-27
Los Angeles, CA
| reply to staticmaker
Re: Notice of Claim of Copyright Infringement
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. if yu want to buy some professional security/firewall software please email me. otherwise at least get something free dsomewhere said by Aluminum :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  What are the steps in order to cloak or hide myself? I have zone alarm suite (paid version) installed already. | |
mario620
join:2003-06-27
Los Angeles, CA
1 edit | reply to mario620
Update!
Just check zone alarm settings under the firewall part of the program and blocked: incoming netbios ports 135,137-9445, outgoing netbios same ports, incoming ping (icmp echo), other incoming pings icmp, outgoing ping (icmp echo),other outgoing icmp, incoming igmp,and outgoing igmp. But now I got the yellow light on the bottom of utorrent. | |
Combat Chuck
Too Many Cannibals
Premium
join:2001-11-29
Erie, PA
| said by mario620 :Update! Just check zone alarm settings under the firewall part of the program and blocked: incoming netbios ports 135,137-9445, outgoing netbios same ports, incoming ping (icmp echo), other incoming pings icmp, outgoing ping (icmp echo),other outgoing icmp, incoming igmp,and outgoing igmp. But now I got the yellow light on the bottom of utorrent. Don't put too much faith in what staticmaker said. A firewall would not have prevented what happened to you other than if it had blocked you from using bittorrent in the first place.
As for blocking IP addresses, realize that that is not a perfect solution as:
a. methods implemented to decentralize torrents and allow clients to cope with a tracker being down rely on spreading your IP address to as many places as possible. Thus they'll still be able to identify you via you're ISP (tho won't be able to download directly from you)
b. blocklists are reactive. So there is a period of time when addresses that you want blocked aren't because there hasn't been enough time to identify them.
--
He that winna lout an lift a preen wull nivver be warth a groat. | |
Kaltes
Premium
join:2002-12-04
Los Angeles, CA
1 edit | reply to J D McDorce
Re: No big deal, idle threats
said by J D McDorce :While the RIAA can no longer get a court clerk to rubber stamp a subpoena, they can still get a judge to issue a subpoena for subscriber information if a "John Doe" lawsuit is filed, even for p2p use. They have to file a lawsuit, not knowing who you are, and then go to a court for a subpoena, which you have an opportunity to quash. This is extremely expensive for them to do, and not practical. This is why the RIAA was fighting for the use of 512 subpoenas, and this is why the RIAA's loss in that case is a big deal.
For you to act like a doe subpoena is the same thing as a 512 expedited supoena is supremely ignorant. The doe route gives you due process, whereas the 512 route is a rubber stamp without any judicial review. Either you really don't understand the issues, or you are making bad faith arguments because you just want to keep arguing with me.
said by J D McDorce :BMG Music, et al v. Gonzalez Try again. I said take TO COURT, meaning to trial. Everyone knows the RIAA filed thousands of lawsuits. The case you are citing was resolved on summary judgment (this means without a court trial), because the defendant had COMPLETELY ADMITTED LIABILITY.
Of course, I'm sure even these cases, where the defendant hands the RIAA their case on a silver platter, are rare. It is simply too expensive for the RIAA to pay the attorney's fees for these cases, and the vast majority of p2p users are judgment proof, meaning the RIAA will never get a penny from them because they have no assets. | |
JimF
join:2003-06-15
Allentown, PA
1 edit | reply to Kaltes
said by Kaltes :This is no different from getting a TIVO or some similar device to record shows, then taking out the commercials. It is quite different than using a TIVO. There, he has already paid the fee (through his cable TV provider) to see the show, and the TIVO is merely time-shifting it. Here, he may not even have paid for cable at all. If you do not see the difference, I am sure the copyright holder does. | |
JimF
join:2003-06-15
Allentown, PA
1 edit | reply to Kaltes
said by Kaltes : They have to file a lawsuit, not knowing who you are, and then go to a court for a subpoena, which you have an opportunity to quash. This is extremely expensive for them to do, and not practical. ,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Everyone knows the RIAA filed thousands of lawsuits. The case you are citing was resolved on summary judgment (this means without a court trial), because the defendant had COMPLETELY ADMITTED LIABILITY. ,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Of course, I'm sure even these cases, where the defendant hands the RIAA their case on a silver platter, are rare. It is simply too expensive for the RIAA to pay the attorney's fees for these cases, and the vast majority of p2p users are judgment proof, meaning the RIAA will never get a penny from them because they have no assets. 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. | |
Konaguy
Live From Kailua-Kona, Hawaii
Premium
join:2000-10-21
Kailua Kona, HI
 ·Hawaiian Telcom
| reply to Kaltes
said by Kaltes :So maybe you should go get a clue before spouting off, Sherlock. Wrong NET was enacted to fix a loophole in the law
that copyright infringement without financial
gain was legal. Think about it P2P=copyright infringement
without monetary gain.
Sherlock has it crossed your mind that if people illegally
downloaded copyrighted material the content folks would have
no incentive to make movies, software etc. You sound like
a socialist who believes everything including the water should be free. | |
Konaguy
Live From Kailua-Kona, Hawaii
Premium
join:2000-10-21
Kailua Kona, HI
·Hawaiian Telcom
| reply to Kaltes
said by Kaltes :#1. I am a lawyer. I am probably the only lawyer posting in this topic. Well that is surprising, I would think someone of your caliber
would be a law abiding citizen.. I guess not. As far as I can
see you are commiting malpractice. | |
J D McDorce
Premium
join:2001-12-29
Westland, MI
| reply to Kaltes
Believe it or not, I am not clairvoyant. You had previously indicated that p2p use WILL NOT result in a successful subpoena. I indicated that p2p use could, in fact, result in user information being obtained from the ISP as a result of a subpoena, noting that RIAA v. Verizon led to the discontinued use of 512(h) subpoenas by the RIAA for this type of action. Nowhere did I indicate a John Doe subpoena is the same thing as a 512(h) subpoena.
As for "to court" meaning "to trial", you have my apologies. Apparently I assumed that a case adjudicated by a Federal Judge and upheld by the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit qualified as going to court. My read on the case is that while Gonzalez did not dispute the fact that the material was on her computer, she claimed the downloaded material fell under fair use and not infringement. While Gonzalez felt that she was not admitting liability, the courts certainly felt differently. The appellate ruling makes for an extremely interesting read, if you haven't done so already. | |
Kaltes
Premium
join:2002-12-04
Los Angeles, CA
| reply to JimF
said by JimF :said by Kaltes :This is no different from getting a TIVO or some similar device to record shows, then taking out the commercials. It is quite different than using a TIVO. There, he has already paid the fee (through his cable TV provider) to see the show, and the TIVO is merely time-shifting it. Here, he may not even have paid for cable at all. If you do not see the difference, I am sure the copyright holder does. time-shifting is one of those ridiculous fictions that cover up the truth. the supreme court used it as an excuse to reach a pro-consumer result in the betamax case. the logical extension of this argument, space-shifting, was rejected in the napster case.
What really matters, is that the convenience of hundreds of millions of consumers outweighs the ability of copyright holders to have absolute, limitless control over the distribution of their works. It is not in the public's best interest to give the copyright holders limitless control, and the last time I checked, it was the public's interest that mattered. The copyright holders should only have their way when it is in the public's interest to give them their way.
As it stands now, the copyright holders have power far in excess of the public interest, because of the effectiveness of their lobbying operations, whereas the public at large is not mobilized and is nearly powerless on this issue legislatively.
Therefore, the copyright holders will naturally use their lobbying power to get unfair laws drafted, and the public will simply ignore those unjust laws. When push comes to shove, and someone tries to throw an 11-years-old p2p user in jail, the copyright holders lose, and they know it. This kind of thing has already happened, for example when sellout Congressman Berman tried to legalize RIAA computer hacking. The outcry that resulted shut that little plan down. | |
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. | |
Anonymous0
@comcast.net
|  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
| 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
| 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! | |
Anonymous Coward
@comcast.net
| reply to mario620
Re: Notice of Claim of Copyright Infringement
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... | |
DVOOR8
join:2001-12-24
USA | How long after the alleged violation occured, did you get the letter? | |
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. :\. | |
Kaltes
Premium
join:2002-12-04
Los Angeles, CA
| 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. | |
|
