Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
 ·Site5.com
 ·AT&T Midwest
 ·Comcast
| reply to raythompsontn
Re: Bad Article, Poor Advice
said by raythompsontn  :said by Nightfall :You are responsible for the data being transmitted on that connection. Why? Where is that a law? What about the attacks on my system that are unsolicited that are blocked by the router? Am I responsible for that traffic? There may be such wording in the agreement with the ISP allowing them to terminate your service. But as for being responsible for the data on the connection, there is no such law, civil or criminal. Such laws would make airlines, busses, trains, boats, etc. responsible and liable for any drugs that were smuggled. There is also no law that requires you to secure your connection. As long as your wireless device does not violate FCC radio transmission rules in regards to power, frequency, and cross talk. When dealing with theft of copyright material it is necessary to prove the person actually did the deed. That is going to require more than an IP address which is simply attached to a box with no capability to initiate any download music transactions. Those that have settled know they uploaded music. Those that have not uploaded need to fight with all their resources. When they win they should then sue the **IA for harrassment, defamation of character, and frivilous lawsuit. In your example, you are talking about attacks on your system that are unsolicited that are being blocked by the router. Why would you be responsible for that? You are the one getting attacked. I am not sure why you used this example, because it is entirely different.
I don't know if there is a law on this per se, but I can tell you that people have been sued and companies have won a lot from lawsuits. Simple fact of the matter is if you are doleing out copyrighted material, and it is proven to come from your location, then you are responsible. Its the same thing if you picked up your phone and called to threaten the president. It came from your house, therefore, someone in your house must have placed the call. It may have not been you, it may have been someone who broke into your house.
The examples you give are a little extreme, because if you look at it from a ISP standpoint, the airlines and buses wouldn't be responsible for drug trafficking. The ISP isn't responsible in this case, its the account that is doing the deed. Same goes for the airline and buses.
That is also correct on the wireless, which is why this woman won in court. I never disputed anything like that, so I assume you were trying to repeat the point of the article or something.
Here is where it gets sticky...
How are you going to prove a person actually did the deed? The only way would be a computer scanning, which most high level computer people could format and reinstall very quickly leaving no trace of such evidence. The only way to truely catch these people is the way the FBI and other law enforcement agencies catch people today and that is with sting operations where they show up unannounced to arrest the individual and confiscate the systems, router, and so on. You can wait until you get to court to subpoena those things because data can be erased. All traces can be removed.
Hey, I am all about bringing these people to justice, but I am not all about giving up all our rights to privacy.
This problem is not going to go away, however, something must be done to protect the intellectual property rights of everyone involved. Companies who own the rights to this material need to have the right to control how it is distributed. Same goes for individuals. The problem is that the government and law enforcement agencies are powerless for the most part to stop it.
That doesn't mean these people shouldn't be sued.
--
My Domain
Nightfall's Hockey and Life Journal |
|
Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
·Site5.com
·AT&T Midwest
·Comcast
| reply to quatrix
said by quatrix :said by Nightfall :I am all about limiting the **AA frivolous lawsuits, but I think people who commit copyright infringement should be punished in some way. Watch out, you'll be called a troll for having morals. I have been called much worse. 
--
My Domain
Nightfall's Hockey and Life Journal |
|
Pirate515
Premium
join:2001-01-22
Brooklyn, NY
|  reply to Midak
said by Midak :My suggestion to anyone being sued is deny all allegations, under no circumstances let them win by not showing up for court and always make them prove their case to the fullest. Also, as a matter of good measure and to force the other side to incur more legal costs, file an answer AND counter claim. Most attorneys who earn their keep through a contingency basis start charging hourly fees to their client once a counter claim has been established. This is quite often the deciding factor as to whether the plaintiff wants to continue the suit or not. Great suggestion, but when taking on an organization with huge amount of money in the bank such as RIAA, does it really pay to drag the thing on? You are forgetting that the defendant's lawyer(s) also charge by the hour, and when individual Joe Schmoe takes on the RIAA, he will run out of money way much faster than RIAA will. That is why the majority of those who get sued choose to settle, as they are presented with 2 choices: pay RIAA $5,000-10,000 to make this go away or spend several times more defending themselves with no guarantee of winning, and if they do lose, you could owe up to $150,000 per song.
Of course, there are people out there with enough money to drag the lawsuits on for as long as it takes, but something tells me that RIAA doesn't pick on them. They are too afraid to tackle someone of their own size, they'd rather prey on small and weak.
--
Ask me no questions, and I'll tell you no lies...
A MESSAGE to the RIAA and the MPAA: You shouldn't wound what you can't kill... |
|
Midak
Doctors suck
Premium
join:2002-02-26
Yonkers, NY
| They may have a huge bankroll but the reason for that is they dont spend it where they dont ned to. If I told you I could get 5k each from 100 suits while only spending 150 in court costs and 25% to my attorney and do this fast, why waste the time and money on the ones where I will spend 5k in attorney fees due to them charging me hourly for their defense of the counter claim? Sure, I could defend the counterclaim, bury the poor sap I am suing and get a judgment for $150k but now I have to try to collect it. Now, instead of just making up for the $150 investment, I have to also make up for the $5k in attorney fees so even if I do a wage garnishment, the first $5150 is just getting back what I invested. No, the quick money for the win every time. Poor people make poor payers, the more affluent can afford to defend the claims. That said, if you have no real estate, file your answer and counter claim pro-se claiming harrassment and lack of evidence. Also be sure to include the plaintiffs attorney in your counter claim to really grab their attention. |
|
guitarzan
Premium
join:2004-05-04
Skytop, PA
·epix
| reply to Nightfall
said by Nightfall : You seem to think since the RIAA have filed frivolous lawsuits means that everyone who infringe on copyright should be passed by. You also seem to think that every lawsuit is frivolous, which is not accurate. The digital trail is clear, and those people who are traced should be sued in civil court and they should get penalized in court or settling out of court. How did the RIAA "find" the digital trail of deceased persons, or people who have not owned computers?
What ever tactics or methods used to determine the digital trace of deceased people, seriously casts a frivolous shadow on all civil suits they file.
It's hard to believe anything they say as truthful, given' the payola, collusion and non payment of past due royalties to their artists, they somehow "could not find".
--
Bass....the glue of rhythm and harmony...the heartbeat of the band.! Shaking the earth with deep,sonorous vibrations.The dark ominous thunder of an approching storm. |
|
raythompsontn
join:2001-01-11
Oliver Springs, TN
| reply to Nightfall
said by Nightfall :I don't know if there is a law on this per se, but I can tell you that people have been sued and companies have won a lot from lawsuits. Simple fact of the matter is if you are doleing out copyrighted material, and it is proven to come from your location, then you are responsible. Its the same thing if you picked up your phone and called to threaten the president. It came from your house, therefore, someone in your house must have placed the call. It may have not been you, it may have been someone who broke into your house. And therein lies the problem. In your example if you could prove that your house was broken into I doubt you would have any consequences. You could also claim that your wireless phone was compromised. The SS would have to prove through voice analysis that it was indeed you. What if someone stole your cell phone and used your phone to make the same call. Same scenario.
There are no laws that require you to lock your house, your car, your boat. You suffer because the object was stolen. But any actions that were taken with your stolen property, property that was used without your permission, is not something for which you can be charged with the crime. Stupidity is not illegal.
Neither is NOT securing your wireless connection illegal. The courts would have to prove that you had the material in question on your computer. Data coming from your connection is sufficient enough to get a conviction when the wireless connection is open to the world.
Problem is the cost of proving you are innocent. You would have to hire a lawyer, pay to have your computer analyzed by an independant group, loose time off from work. Defending yourself would basically cost a fortune.
That is where the **IA gains the upper hand. They could bankrupt many smaller cities. To have an organization sue someone based on sketchy evidence, or in many cases, incorrect evidence, is extortion.
In the days of the protection rackets the mob would have shop owners pay to be left alone. The **IA is doing the same thing. They think you may some of their material, no absolute proof only a thin coincidence, and the **IA offer to leave you alone for a small fortune. Otherwise they will break you and basically make your life worthless.
This is a dangerous precedence that is being set. Imagine if you will that Microsoft decides to sue you because they think you copied software simply because you had a self burnt copy of Windows XP in your possession. I do this with all my software CD's and keep the originals in a secure location. Microsoft could make the case that I am copying and distributing their software. I would have to defend myself at extreme expense. I would be found innocent, but I would also be left with no funds. Microsoft would have broken me.
Having done nothing illegal and you still wind up being destroyed. That is extortion, the process of extracting money simply because you can. Playground bullying at it's finest. |
|
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA
| reply to fiberguy
Actually, the minimum punishment is $750 per violation. If you have 1,000 violations (like RIAA claims that the people that sue have), then that is $750,000. The courts might work with you as far as payment goes: A lien on your income, sale of real estate that you own, etc. However, they won't reduce the verdict just because you don't have the funds to cut a check right then and there.
Of course, the RIAA might never see most of their hypothetical verdict even at the minimum, but that's not the point. Even if the court did alter the final amount based on what the person could pay, the RIAA would use the potential of huge penalties to scare people into settling. The maximum punishment is $150,000 per song, so the RIAA will claim that your choice is take their $3,000 settlement or face $150,000,000 in fines (plus legal fees and time spent fighting the case). |
|
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA
| reply to Midak
said by Midak :My suggestion to anyone being sued is deny all allegations, under no circumstances let them win by not showing up for court and always make them prove their case to the fullest. Also, as a matter of good measure and to force the other side to incur more legal costs, file an answer AND counter claim. Most attorneys who earn their keep through a contingency basis start charging hourly fees to their client once a counter claim has been established. This is quite often the deciding factor as to whether the plaintiff wants to continue the suit or not. This is good advice in theory. In practice though, the people being sued have limited time and resources to fight a long, protracted case. Anything that will create a financial hit on the RIAA will bankrupt your average Joe. The RIAA knows this and is counting on people to take the quick and easy settlement rather than fight the charges (even if the person is innocent). |
|
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA
| reply to Midak
They (the RIAA) might not fight the case and just drop it. Or they might decide to make an example of you. Would you be willing to risk the time, energy, and money to fight the case (even if you were innocent)? I'm not too sure I would. The $3,000 settlement would be a lot of money, but it would mean that it would all go away quickly rather than dragging on. It's sad, but true. And that's the main reason why I think that the penalties need to be changed.
If the fines faced were only $3,000 or so, then I'd bet that the RIAA would be suing a lot less people (based on better information) and the innocent people would be more likely to fight the charges. |
|
Kilroy
Premium,MVM
join:2002-11-21
Ann Arbor, MI
·WOW Internet and C..
| reply to Nightfall
said by Nightfall :said by PolarBear :ALL of the **AA lawsuits are simply scare tactics. Like a mean dog or a school bully; show them you aren't scared, and they start backing down really quick! I don't mean to laugh at your statement, but I have to. How many lawsuits have the **IA won? NONE. Do you know why none of these cases have been resolved in court? Because if the **IA loses, even one, a precedent is set and this tactic will no longer work.
--
I'm for freedom - go ahead and call me a terrorist. I won't give up my freedom for you to feel safe. |
|
Midak
Doctors suck
Premium
join:2002-02-26
Yonkers, NY
| reply to Jason Levine
said by Jason Levine :They (the RIAA) might not fight the case and just drop it. Or they might decide to make an example of you. Would you be willing to risk the time, energy, and money to fight the case (even if you were innocent)? Yes I would. I have been to court more times that I can count and nothing sucks more than to go to court against a pro-se defendant that has a clue what he/she is doing because the judge is always biased in favor of the pro-se defendant who sounds even somewhat credible vs. the big corp with too much money to throw around. |
|
swhx7
Premium
join:2006-07-23
Elbonia | reply to B
If you're trying to get away with something, it would make more sense to free-ride on a neighbor's or business's wireless connection. |
|
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| reply to Midak
Wow! Are you an attorney? Giving advice? with out a disclaimer?
Either you are not an attorney, or you need to know better....
--
"Wipe out the national deficit over night... Tax the stupid!" - about 50 gMail invites available. PM if you'd like one. |
|
Iridium
Premium
join:2003-04-02
Los Angeles, CA
·DSL EXTREME
| reply to swhx7
Re: Bad Article, Poor Advice
said by swhx7 :If you're trying to get away with something, it would make more sense to free-ride on a neighbor's or business's wireless connection. This is what I do. I never do it at home, just anyhwere I can get on the net anonymously.
--
Start the Revolution, download Opera, »www.opera.com |
|
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA
| reply to Midak
said by Midak :Yes I would. I have been to court more times that I can count and nothing sucks more than to go to court against a pro-se defendant that has a clue what he/she is doing because the judge is always biased in favor of the pro-se defendant who sounds even somewhat credible vs. the big corp with too much money to throw around. I would applaud you then for going to court to fight to clear your good name. Unfortunately, you are in the minority. Most people wouldn't know what they are doing if they went to court.
To the average Joe, a multimillion dollar lawsuit against them coming out of the blue is a very scary thing. They don't know which way to turn or what to do. Their whole life could be ruined. And then the offer comes in from the RIAA's Settlement Center to forget the whole thing for a "mere" $3,000. Sure, it's still a lot of money, but it is less than the millions they could wind up owing and it saves them the time, expense, and stress of an actual lawsuit. So they take the settlement. |
|
Midak
Doctors suck
Premium
join:2002-02-26
Yonkers, NY | Agreed. In my business, this is what we hope for. Judgments mean nothing without the cash being paid. Any plaintiff that does this often enough knows it's a gamble going to court, regardless of how strong you feel your case is. |
|
Midak
Doctors suck
Premium
join:2002-02-26
Yonkers, NY
| reply to fiberguy
Re: Bad Article, Poor Advice
said by fiberguy :Wow! Are you an attorney? Giving advice? with out a disclaimer? Either you are not an attorney, or you need to know better.... Please stop spewing bad advice and providing misinformation. I know better from experience, while your claims are based on who you say you know. Have a nice day.  |
|
