Techless
Like I care
Premium
join:2002-07-19
Hypoluxo | reply to triggz
Re: Comcast is spying on me!
Avoid DMCA copyright infringement, very bad time to do that.
Stick with child abuse, nobody in the federal government seems too concerned about that.
--
You never call me when you're sober - Evanescence |
|
hamman_4
Premium
join:2003-04-10
96003-6602
| reply to triggz
I would expect that comcast is registered under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 (DMCA). Under the DMCA, copyright owners have the right to notify Comcast if they believe that a Comcast customer has infringed the copyright owner's work(s). If Comcast receives a notice from a copyright owner alleging any Customer has committed copyright infringement, Comcast will notify the Customer of the alleged infringement. If Comcast receives more than one notice alleging copyright infringement on Customer's part, Customer may be deemed a "repeat copyright infringer." Comcast will usually reserve the right to terminate the accounts of repeat copyright infringers.
Consider this a warning only. If ordered by a court of competent jurisdiction, Comcast could be obligated to disclose your name and address to the recording or movie company or their representatives. In such cases, Comcast will always send you a notice before providing your personal information to a third party.
Things like this are always traced via the ip address of the offending party. Some claim that programs such as "Peerguardian" will hide your ip from those that are scanning thru the various links found in programs such as MIRC however I am not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that these programs are as effective as they claim.
The safest way to avoid copyright infringement penalties is to discontinue using free music- and movie-sharing programs over the Internet and to remove the programs from your computer. I think we all know which programs those would be.
--
"Gordie Taught Them All Howe" |
|
NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA | reply to Tom Sawyer
Concur. |
|
Tom Sawyer
join:2004-02-27
1 edit | reply to K Patterson
Well, with the same caveat concerning my profession...
If it's not the copyright holder (or authorized party) then they are also in violation of the DMCA.
If the works are fake, then there is no crime.
Not sure if the DMCA covers intent; I would guess, "no"... but I'm not sure.
--
A modern day warrior... |
|
K Patterson
Premium,MVM
join:2006-03-12
Columbus, OH
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to Tom Sawyer
Let's start with the fact that I am an engineer, not an attorney.
What I think/believe/guess is:
The copyright holder itself is not posting the works.
The works are fake.
The downloader sought out the site.
So the argument would go that the downloader knew/should have known that he had no rights to download, and that he was in fact trying to obtain their copyright works unlawfully. |
|
Tom Sawyer
join:2004-02-27
| reply to K Patterson
quote:
"In any case, making their goods available in that manner would be, legally speaking, "entrapment". You are not allowed to catch a crook by enticing him to commit a crime."
Absolutely correct, but there are two caveats:
If it is a criminal matter, you only have to avoid the enticement. You can, for example, put a cop out on the street pretending to be a hooker and get a conviction if he/she does nothing more than acquiesce to a john's solicitation.
If it is a civil matter, then it is katie bar the door. Enticement is lawful, and it is used often, or so I am told.
Not to take away in any way from a typically useful NormanS contribution!
Cheers,
Kip
I've thought a lot about this tactic for catching downloaders. The problem I see with it is that if the copyright holders are putting material up for download, aren't they are implicitly authorizing people to download it? Which means it is no longer a crime?
--
A modern day warrior... |
|
NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
 ·Pacific Bell - SBC
1 edit | reply to Daniel8802
There is nothing wrong with BitTorrent clients, that I can see. I have never used them for downloading RIAA/MPAA properties, though; nor will I ever.
Now, if the RIAJ/MPAJ decides to complain to my ISP, I will have to rethink that approach. I haven't gotten a letter...yet.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
Daniel8802
join:2004-07-09
Sewell, NJ
clubs:
| reply to NormanS
said by NormanS  :said by Daniel8802 :After checking my email, I found that I got the same one over a month ago. Nothing has happened. I guess I should stop using bittorrent. Either use a P2P client which doesn't upload, or stop downloading RIAA/MPAA properties. I have.
--
My Blog - Upcoming Podcast - New Blog Site |
|
NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| reply to Daniel8802
said by Daniel8802 :After checking my email, I found that I got the same one over a month ago. Nothing has happened. I guess I should stop using bittorrent. Either use a P2P client which doesn't upload, or stop downloading RIAA/MPAA properties.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
Daniel8802
join:2004-07-09
Sewell, NJ
clubs: | reply to triggz
After checking my email, I found that I got the same one over a month ago. Nothing has happened. I guess I should stop using bittorrent.
--
My Blog - Upcoming Podcast - New Blog Site |
|
TOPDAWG
Premium
join:2005-04-27
Midland, ON
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| reply to DMS1
Not if I come up with a really good excuse on why I did it.
I love on-line thief's. IF they feel a company is screwing them they cry foul all day long but let them do it and they make up 200 reasons on why it's ok.
OH wait I'm sorry it's copyright law they're braking to be a thief means you have to take a object. |
|
DMS1
join:2005-04-06
Carrollton, TX
| reply to Gaines
said by Gaines :You broke the law. Period. Now take responsibility for it.
I find it funny that you think things are so cut and dry yet have the sig that you do. "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -
Benjamin Franklin, Founding Father.
Copyright law in it's current state is a perversion brought about by an industry's attempt to maintain their business model. These threats of legal action have nothing to do with actual morals or "intellectual property rights" and everything to do with protecting the interests of large corporations. Just because something is made into law doesn't mean it's moral and just because a punishment is assigned doesn't mean it's just. I'm not a religious person, but I know that there is something in the bible called the ten commandments, one of which states "Thou shall not steal". Taking for free something that one would normally have to pay for, and for which others do pay, certainly seems immoral to me. |
|
Gaines
join:2004-10-07
Nashville, TN
| reply to maartena
You broke the law. Period. Now take responsibility for it.
I find it funny that you think things are so cut and dry yet have the sig that you do.
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -
Benjamin Franklin, Founding Father.
Copyright law in it's current state is a perversion brought about by an industry's attempt to maintain their business model. These threats of legal action have nothing to do with actual morals or "intellectual property rights" and everything to do with protecting the interests of large corporations.
Just because something is made into law doesn't mean it's moral and just because a punishment is assigned doesn't mean it's just. |
|
NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| reply to hoyleysox
said by hoyleysox :The music industry may change their business model. They may be able to earn more money suing people that download their music for $4k n civil court than by selling it for $17 a cd. They can't use their own attorneys in a small claims court. I don't know if they can even get subpoenas. If they go through a regular civil procedure, where they can use attorneys, and subpoenas, those subpoenas and attorneys, plus court filing fees, mean that they need to set their sights higher than $4K to profit. Also, whether small claims, or regular civil trial, they have to file in the jurisdiction of the infringer. That was part of what they lost, on appeal, when a higher court sided with Verizon. Under the DMCA "Form Subpoena", they could file action in their jurisdiction; and, often, the infringer didn't hear about it until a judgement was awarded. Now they can't work it that way.
Howver, lawyers could stand to make $ recouping court costs.
The bar has been raised for the RIAA/MPAA when filing for action.
The fact that someone bought the weapon does not prove that he/she commited the crime.
Not really a pertinent analogy. I am not aware that the RIAA/MPAA has ever actually filed for criminal action. They have filed a mountain of civil suits. The big ones against Napster, and others of that ilk, and smaller ones under DMCA "Form subpoenas", the latter of which are no longer viable since Verizon appealed their use.
As for WiFi as a defense? I wonder how long before they bring up the "attractive nuisance" argument. You have to fence in your swimming pool. You will be held accountable for injury, if you don't. As for your "weapon" analogy, in California, at least, if a weapon that I have bought, and not transferred to another owner, is used in a manner which results in personal injury, I could be held liable for the injury, even if I did not wield that weapon, or use it to commit whatever crime.
I can see the RIAA/MPAA using a like argument, though, without a specific law, it is tricky to decide how it would come out. But there are sufficient precedents in other matters that you can't take comfort in what you think you know about insecure WiFi networks.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
hoyleysox
join:2003-11-07
Long Beach, CA
·Cox HSI
·Time Warner Cable
| reply to NormanS
I don't disagree with that. If the music industry catches you, it's not worth it to fight it unless you have a free lawyer.
The music industry may change their business model. They may be able to earn more money suing people that download their music for $4k n civil court than by selling it for $17 a cd.
Howver, lawyers could stand to make $ recouping court costs. The fact that someone bought the weapon does not prove that he/she commited the crime. |
|
kc5fog
join:2005-09-09
Hitchcock, TX
2 edits | reply to TOPDAWG
Comcast wasn't being nice. Comcast was acting in their best interests by keep him as a customer. Comcast being a "pipe" has them in a "held harmless" situation. If the he gets caught downloading illegal copyrighted stuff, illegal porno ETC its HIS violation not the ISP. So comcast ISN'T being nice, he is paying his bill and they are offering him service. ComCast and other ISP's would loose ALLOT of customers if they cut them loose every time they get a letter like that. Its been proven numerous times that a carrier is not responsible for a subscribers activities with-in reason.
|
|
tainotopole
join:2004-11-11
Henderson, NV
| reply to triggz
I have a great site that tells you what is owned and what isnt owned by RIAA 
»www.magnetbox.com/riaa/search.asp
Anyway, I dont think entrapment will hold much in the court against some Joe Bob. |
|
NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| reply to Doctor Four
BT has never been a problem for me. But I don't use it to download RIAA/MPAA member intellectual properties. I don't download anything I know to belong to members of the RIAA/MPAA.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
Doctor Four
My other vehicle is a TARDIS
Premium
join:2000-09-05
Dallas, TX
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| reply to triggz
BitTorrent is one of the riskiest p2p protocols to be
using right now, what with the MPAA's & RIAA's enforcement
companies heavily scanning users on it. Best not to use it
anymore and go with something safer that doesn't require
you to share, like Usenet. With BT, you are uploading as
you are downloading. And in this case it probably isn't
Comcast that is the originator of the DMCA notice, but
rather a company like BayTSP, who simply forwarded the
infringement details on to Comcast.
--
"Kayura or Badamon, whichever you are, you should know that I will never give up this battle. By the will of the Ancient, I shall succeed!" - Shuten (Anubis) from the Ronin Warriors. Taking the 'L' out of Play: the Big Music/Hollywood Mantra |
|
gallowsroad
join:2004-08-09
Tulsa, OK
| reply to netgear
There is no difference between an ISP run News Group service and a premium one except far faster download speeds and longer binary retention for the paid service. If anything, when it comes to safety, you are probably better off using only your ISPs news groups - the nature of Usenet makes it very difficult to trace who is uploading, and far harder to determine who is downloading files.
More importantly, without a *viable* subpoena, no ISP will give up this sort of information because it opens a huge can of worms.
Sooner or later this will come to some sort of head in the form of a spate of lawsuits between the RIAA/MPAA on one side and major ISPs on the other.
In the end, gathering and/or distributing copyright infringed material is illegal and if/when you are caught, the penalties could, as we say in the old country, really suck ass.
--
Ha ha haaaaaaa....ever get the feeling you've been cheated?
- John Lydon, last Sex Pistols show |
|
