NetFixer
Freedom is NOT Free
Premium
join:2004-06-24
Murfreesboro, TN
 ·AT&T Southeast
 ·Vonage
 ·Cingular Wireless
·AT&T CallVantage
4 edits | reply to snipper_cr
Re: Copyright email...
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
join:2002-01-22
Wheaton, IL
clubs:
| 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 |
|
tiny
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
clubs:
| 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. |
|
Asmodeus
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
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| 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..  |
|
Asmodeus
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
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
1 edit | said by Asmodeus :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 |
|
sageb0
join:2002-01-16
Surrey, BC | reply to ihateskapunk
slap on the wrist from mpaa?
what next? metallica sues u for rmiaa violations by sharing mp3's with your fellow metallicafans? |
|
snipper_cr
join:2002-01-22
Wheaton, IL
clubs:
1 edit | I doubt that the actual band will go and sue a person cause that is just suicide for them. I mean i know the band wants their money but to have it said that they are suing FANS for listening to their music (i know its "stealing") would just be bad publicity. Most likely it would be the RIAA specifically suing the person - that is, if the case ever went to court. No case has (as far as I know, correct me if im wrong) gone to court and had a ruling. All have been either dropped or thrown out. Although, didnt good charlotte try suing a fan and get some serious back lash for that?
I assume something like a DMCA warning stays on your record for ever. I got one of those from ATT (before it was comcast) cause I was hosting movies on mIRC for DCC download. Obviously I stopped immediately and ever since been much more careful. That was over 5 years ago.
--
Serenity Day - June 23rd 2006. You Can't Stop the Signal |
|
