dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
12417
share rss forum feed


spike010101
Premium
join:2003-11-28
Lacey, WA

1 edit

Copyright email...

I got this. does it mean they are going to sue or anything?

»www.winmxunlimited.net/email.txt



FFH
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5

said by spike010101:

I got this. does it mean they are going to sue or anything?

»www.winmxunlimited.net/email.txt
Maybe. You got caught using P2P to download a movie, but using bittorent it also made it available for upload. They can sue. Will they? Who knows. Do much of this?
--
--
My BLOG
My Web Page


Nerdtalker
Working Hard, Or Hardly Working?
Premium,MVM
join:2003-02-18
Tucson, AZ
reply to spike010101

Generally, no. That's just another DMCA notification letter.

Keep a copy, yes, but don't reply. A reply is generally taken as some sort of admission/flag that you actually did it. It's more of a slap-on-the-wrist than anything. You probably should delete the file, just to be in the open about everything.
--
"Some people never see the light till it shines thru bullet holes." -Bruce Cockburn

I'm testing Gmail's spam filters: Broadbandreports1@gmail.com
Spam: 12900+ messages currently using 406 MB.



spike010101
Premium
join:2003-11-28
Lacey, WA
reply to spike010101

So in other words, don't worry about it?



Big_D
Premium
join:2003-06-02
Augusta, GA

said by spike010101:

So in other words, don't worry about it?
Well, I wouldn't suggest continuing to make copyrighted files available for upload, but I think your in the clear for this incident. If you are caught again though, probably will be more then a warning.
--
You want the truth? You can't handle the truth!

ihateskapunk

join:2005-08-28
Lake Zurich, IL

ha, my friend got his internet shut off in the dorms down here at u of illinois for uploading spiderman 2 on the network all night... needless to say with a t3 and no bandwidth cap he was able to upload the movie to about 50 people overnight. at least one of those people he sent it to was columbia pictures because that's who contacted our dorm network guru. luckily, all he had to do was tell this guy he was sorry and that he wouldnt do it again.



Nerdtalker
Working Hard, Or Hardly Working?
Premium,MVM
join:2003-02-18
Tucson, AZ
reply to spike010101

said by spike010101:

So in other words, don't worry about it?
I wouldn't take it that lightly, but you don't need to worry about an imminent lawsuit or anything.

I (as of yet) haven't heard of anybody seeing imminent legal action as a result of one, or multiple letters. It's ironic, you're probably more likely to see real action from consuming the bandwidth itself than as a consequence of it being copyrighted material!
--
"Some people never see the light till it shines thru bullet holes." -Bruce Cockburn

I'm testing Gmail's spam filters: Broadbandreports1@gmail.com
Spam: 12900+ messages currently using 406 MB.


snipper_cr
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Wheaton, IL
reply to spike010101

Wow, they are speeding their claims up. That was on the 7th and its only the 10th.

Glad to see you are only downloading high quality DVDrips with AC3 audio. aXXo is a great release group

Anyways...what proof does anyone have that the person in context actually is downloading copyrighted material? I mean, its a file, John Tucker Must Die (was it any good?), but thats it. Isnt it sort of like busting someone who has a box labled "THIS BOX CONTAINS POT" but really has nothing inside? I am by no means a legal person but to me thats what it sounds like.

The only way they can know if there is illegalness going on is to download the file FROM the person, make sure it is copyrighted work, then they can be sued.

Does that make sense?
--
Serenity Day - June 23rd 2006. You Can't Stop the Signal



NetFixer
From my cold dead hands
Premium
join:2004-06-24
The Boro
Reviews:
·Cingular Wireless
·Comcast Business..
·Vonage
·Comcast

1 recommendation

And then, there are those who either don't know the difference (or at least pretend that they don't know the difference) between downloading and making a file available on a server for others to download. Doing the latter is also a violation of the Comcast TOS for residential customers regardless of the file's intellectual property status.
--
History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Test your firewall. Smell the flowers.



spike010101
Premium
join:2003-11-28
Lacey, WA

1 edit

1 recommendation

reply to spike010101

lol


bigskank

join:2002-06-07
Norman, OK

1 edit

First of all it would be incredibly unwise of you to make any further statements like this in the forum, or anywhere else. You have just publicly admitted guilt to copyright infringement. The RIAA/MPAA trolls are capable of monitoring a forum like this. Especially if you would end up on the stand (it's a civil lawsuit, so you have no choice but to testify) and you're asked if you've talked to anyone about the infringement and what you said.

Second, that being said, I wouldn't lose too much sleep over that letter. It's a lot less likely you'll be sued over a single case of infringement. However, you might browse through the yellow pages and find an attorney or two in your area who know about copyright infringements, just in case you are sued. That way, you are prepared. Don't bother contacting any of them unless you are actually sued (you'll know if you are b/c you'll either have a process server show up on your doorstep or a registered letter come in the mail).


cableman0327

join:2004-10-10
Westminster, MD
reply to spike010101

I work for comcast, and from my understanding, (what we've been told),is that this is your one any only warning, the next time your caught, then they will turn your info over to the **aa, 99.9% it takes the 2cd notice for them to turn your info over..Good Luck



ShootToThril
Tell The Truth
Premium
join:2004-06-07
Sherman Oaks, CA
reply to spike010101

I still don't understand why you would take the chance messing with copyright material over the internet. If you want to avoid this type of danger just rent the movie and rip it yourself for your own use, why mess with sharing and downloading copyright materials over P2P or Bit Torrent.



snipper_cr
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Wheaton, IL
reply to NetFixer

said by NetFixer:

And then, there are those who either don't know the difference (or at least pretend that they don't know the difference) between downloading and making a file available on a server for others to download. Doing the latter is also a violation of the Comcast TOS for residential customers regardless of the file's intellectual property status.
I have not read the TOS, but if thats the case, then simply making a website is a violation of the TOS.

Lets say, I upload family pics to a server, say, angelfire, and others access it. Based on your post, that is a violation of TOS.

Sending an email, uploads a file to a server and is then accessed by the end client.

Heck... your posting here is a file made viewable to anyone.
--
Serenity Day - June 23rd 2006. You Can't Stop the Signal

ihateskapunk

join:2005-08-28
Lake Zurich, IL

i think he's referring mostly to copyrighted material?



Big_D
Premium
join:2003-06-02
Augusta, GA

He's referring to making a file available for others to download on their Comcast connection. In other words running a server, which is against the TOS.
--
You want the truth? You can't handle the truth!



Vengarr

join:2001-11-05
Louisville, KY

It is a very good bet the MPAA will be contacting you in the near future and offering a settlement. I would prepare for a lawsuit and get ready for a ride.



mpaasucks

@shawcable.net
reply to spike010101

Two words - encrypted protocol.

Cheers.


jaorgeron
Premium
join:2003-11-13
Kenner, LA
reply to spike010101

»Dodge the RIAA: Turn Off Wi-Fi Security
this might help.



spike010101
Premium
join:2003-11-28
Lacey, WA
reply to mpaasucks

encryption has nothing to do with it. Anyone can query a tracker and find out who is downloading what file.



NetFixer
From my cold dead hands
Premium
join:2004-06-24
The Boro
Reviews:
·Cingular Wireless
·Comcast Business..
·Vonage
·Comcast

4 edits
reply to snipper_cr

said by snipper_cr:

I have not read the TOS, but if thats the case, then simply making a website is a violation of the TOS.
Self imposed ignorance has never been a good defense in either civil or criminal court. As for dealing with Comcast, that company's policy automatically assumes that all of it's customers are guilty, whether they are ignorant or not.

Read and enjoy: »www.comcast.net/terms/

said by snipper_cr:

Lets say, I upload family pics to a server, say, angelfire, and others access it. Based on your post, that is a violation of TOS.

Sending an email, uploads a file to a server and is then accessed by the end client.

Heck... your posting here is a file made viewable to anyone.
This is total BS as you well know, and this is the end of my replies to you.
--
History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Test your firewall. Smell the flowers.


snipper_cr
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Wheaton, IL

You might want to post something thats correct then when dealing with things as detailed as TOS. Your vagueness rivals the DMCA. Also, I have no reason to be in civil or criminal court since I have not done anything wrong. Perhaps you could be more helpful to the original poster.

As the previous person was saying, encryption does not make your activities unseen. They can still see who is tied with the tracker, get your IP addy then submit that to your ISP. The main thing encryption is good for is bypassing throttling of any form because its harder to compare packets.
--
Serenity Day - June 23rd 2006. You Can't Stop the Signal



A1
Premium
join:2005-08-28
PA
reply to spike010101

PeerGuardian improves your chances of not getting another warning like that again.
If you want to keep on with your P2P habit a tool like PeerGuardian is essential

»phoenixlabs.org/pg2/


AnonShawUser

join:2006-06-17
Calgary, AB
reply to spike010101

said by spike010101:

encryption has nothing to do with it. Anyone can query a tracker and find out who is downloading what file.
You miss the point of the article. It's about disabling the encryption/external security measures of a wireless router. If you do that, they can't actually prove that it was you that was doing it and you could just use the "insecure wireless" defense, so they can't actually prove you downloaded a single thing, because it could have been someone else grabbing it from your connection, in a location you couldn't stop them. Like off your property.

(random topic postings are -fun-)


Nerdtalker
Working Hard, Or Hardly Working?
Premium,MVM
join:2003-02-18
Tucson, AZ
reply to spike010101

I think the general consensus (at least that I've reached), by reading numerous threads all detailing the same infamous letter, is that no real consequence arises, especially for a first-time offense.

Even the wording of the actual letter is reasonably tame. Delete the file, and don't do it again is what it tells me. Be careful about what you download, and from where in the future. Public trackers are inherently targets for organizations that monitor copyrighted material "infringement." I guess the wise thing for me to say at this point is that the only way to not get caught is to not engage in the first place.

Regardless, if anybody really followed-up on these things, there'd be an influx of threads that at least have something to that effect in this forum, and others. Needless to say, I'm still waiting...
--
"Some people never see the light till it shines thru bullet holes." -Bruce Cockburn

I'm testing Gmail's spam filters: Broadbandreports1@gmail.com
Spam: 12900+ messages currently using 406 MB.


Methadras

join:2004-05-26
Spring Valley, CA
reply to spike010101

first of all, simply having the name of copyrighted material slapped onto a file and then saying you are illegally downloading is immaterial... if i created a 700meg junk file and called it lord.of.the.rings.XaNaX-MaVeN and then started uploading it, would that constitute copyright illegality and/or illegal downloading/uploading...? First of all unless there is specific packet sniffing going on, then any company hired by the mpaa/riaa to be watchdogs and then tattletales against users because they either seeding or leeching need to have the entire file in their possession and verify it is that movie or song...

people are having these letters sent to them based on file name capture via bittorrent... you don't see this with FTP or IRC and you have to ask yourself why...? even if they decided to prosecute, it is on them to prove that the file you downloaded or were serving was the actual content they are accusing you of stealing... either way, unless there is extensive packet analysis, which I doubt, most people can fight these letters, i believe (just my opinion) with relative ease... any smart and savvy attorney would ask the isp/mpaa/riaa/watchdog merc group hired by these people if the offending data matches the content you are being accused of stealing and if so what analysis was brought to bear to prove that... you should end up hearing the words "case dismissed, court is adjourned" with sound of a gavel right behind it...



NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:11
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
reply to spike010101

It is just a notice of violation of the DMCA. If the MPAA was actually going to sue, you probably would hear about it through registered U.S.P.S. mail.

You will hear a lot of speculation about downloading. Forget about it. Nobody has been sued for downloading. It is the uploading which is the problem. P2P, or "Peer-To-Peer" filesharing means just that: "File Sharing". With BitTorrent, you upload as you download. The classic Gnutella, and similar, networks involve setting up a shared folder. You do this over a public network (the Internet) and you invite any member of the public to find your shared files.

There are a few ways you can try to foil detection, and there may be a few defenses which will work in your favor in a legal system designed to favor the defense ("innocent until proven guilty"); but the ultimate question is: "Is it worth the trouble"?

If you want to avoid these kinds of letters, you need to avoid file sharing applications. They will nail you on the unauthorized distribution of copyright protected content.

Limit your use of P2P to files you are authorized to share.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum


robct
rob

join:2004-04-09
Waterbury, CT
reply to spike010101

That's not even a good movie worth getting in trouble over! Jeez..


Methadras

join:2004-05-26
Spring Valley, CA
reply to NormanS

said by NormanS:

It is just a notice of violation of the DMCA. If the MPAA was actually going to sue, you probably would hear about it through registered U.S.P.S. mail.

You will hear a lot of speculation about downloading. Forget about it. Nobody has been sued for downloading. It is the uploading which is the problem. P2P, or "Peer-To-Peer" filesharing means just that: "File Sharing". With BitTorrent, you upload as you download. The classic Gnutella, and similar, networks involve setting up a shared folder. You do this over a public network (the Internet) and you invite any member of the public to find your shared files.

There are a few ways you can try to foil detection, and there may be a few defenses which will work in your favor in a legal system designed to favor the defense ("innocent until proven guilty"); but the ultimate question is: "Is it worth the trouble"?

If you want to avoid these kinds of letters, you need to avoid file sharing applications. They will nail you on the unauthorized distribution of copyright protected content.

Limit your use of P2P to files you are authorized to share.
what is your answer to getting a dmca/mpaa/riaa notification on files that are named to copyrighted material, but the actual data is either not what is described via the file name or is just junk...? since p2p is nothing more than multiple users giving up chunks of data to other peers in a swarm recombining that data from those other sources, then how are the xxaa's knowing what you are getting or serving...?


NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:11
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET

1 edit

said by Methadras:

what is your answer to getting a dmca/mpaa/riaa notification on files that are named to copyrighted material, but the actual data is either not what is described via the file name or is just junk...? since p2p is nothing more than multiple users giving up chunks of data to other peers in a swarm recombining that data from those other sources, then how are the xxaa's knowing what you are getting or serving...?
They complete the download, and play it? How hard is that? Or maybe they can download 10% - 25% and get a checksum signature for that portion downloaded.

In any case, I doubt that they can go before a court with just the title. The judge is going to want substantial evidence of the unauthorized upload.

OTOH, how much evidence is your ISP going to want to see before they TOS you?

It is a legal gamble, for them as well as for you. Only you can decide if the risk is worth the trouble. But a simple email notice isn't much to worry about, in itself. It is just a heads up that you need to re-examine your activity.

--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum