NetFixer
Freedom is NOT Free
Premium
join:2004-06-24
Murfreesboro, TN
 ·AT&T Southeast
 ·Vonage
 ·Cingular Wireless
·AT&T CallVantage
| reply to eric87m
Re: Notice of Claim of Copyright Infrigement letter
There is really no need for speculation regarding U.S. copyright law, just go to the horse's mouth and read it for yourself. You can download/view a PDF file of the entire contents of Title 17 related to U.S. copyright law, or view individual chapters in PDF or HTML format.
U.S. Copyright Office - Copyright Law of the United States
--
History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Test your firewall. | Stop and smell the flowers. |
|
jbob
Reach Out and Touch Someone
Premium
join:2004-04-26
Little Rock, AR
 ·Comcast
·AT&T Southwest
| reply to NormanS
said by NormanS  :said by K Patterson :said by Maarvin :It is legal to download. And where does this appear in the law? It is just as illegal as sharing. Just a lot harder to catch you at it. I have never been able to find the law which explicitly makes downloading illegal. I've always assumed it is like the law against cannibalism; there is no such law. You can legally eat human meat as long as you don't violate some law such as the prohibition against killing humans, or committing mayhem on their corpses. I tend to agree with that. It is obvious the RIAA only seems to go after those that have limited knowledge of what is going on with their P2P software. The term download has become the buzzword for the industry even though the actual downloading is probably not the crime. The crime is providing your downloads to others called Distribution. The assumption is that if you are downloading it(a song for instance) then you by default must by uploading it too which is not always the case.
The differences here are between Criminal law and Civil law in regards to theft by possession/receiving. In other words we don't care how you got, just don't provide it to anyone else. |
|
NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| reply to MrPeach
said by MrPeach :
Run Peer Guardian 2. I received 2 of those notices then started running PG2 and haven't gotten another since.
<facetiousness>
I love "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" logic!
</facetiousness>
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| reply to K Patterson
said by K Patterson :said by Maarvin :It is legal to download. And where does this appear in the law? It is just as illegal as sharing. Just a lot harder to catch you at it. I have never been able to find the law which explicitly makes downloading illegal. I've always assumed it is like the law against cannibalism; there is no such law. You can legally eat human meat as long as you don't violate some law such as the prohibition against killing humans, or committing mayhem on their corpses.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
MrPeach
@comcast.net | reply to eric87m
Run Peer Guardian 2. I received 2 of those notices then started running PG2 and haven't gotten another since. |
|
Morty
Premium
join:2004-09-18
| reply to K Patterson
said by K Patterson :said by Maarvin :It is legal to download. And where does this appear in the law? It is just as illegal as sharing. Just a lot harder to catch you at it. It is illegal to download copyrighted material in the US. Even if you own a copy of a movie for example, it is still illegal to download the movie, as the rights sold to you are for the DVD. Legally, you can create a backup copy, given that it is not shared to anyone else. In Canada, the copyright laws are more slack, and state that it is not illegal to download copyright material given that the material being downloaded is being used for personal or educational uses, and that it is not sold or redistributed in any form. Therefore, in the US it is illegal to download or upload, and in Canada it is legal to download material (pending it is for personal/educational use), however it is illegal to upload any of the data. The US Government and movie/music industry have been pushing for the Canadian Government to change this legislation. |
|
axelrose
Ban Tornadoes
join:2005-05-25
Chattanooga, TN
·Comcast
| reply to K Patterson
said by K Patterson :Motown vs. DiPietro » www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDF.asp?fi···sSumJudgShe threw the computer away - apparently. As you read through the ruling, you'll see that she kind of goes with the wind. The concept is called Spoliation of Evidence. Wikipedia has a short article on it. It seems they were arguing if she LIED about throwing the computer out to the trash.
Then they wanted to see if she acted in good faith when she threw the computer away. Was she doing it to get rid of evidence or just throwing it away because it's her computer and she can do what she wants.
This all seems very convenient for the plaintiff's since the Lady is alone and has to jump through two hurdles just based on the 'custody of evidence'
I don't think average people should be required to understand the law-firm written laws regarding copyright laws, do you?
Most of these more recent laws took into consideration custody of evidence. What about encryption? I could see someone given a letter, responding saying they make it a regular habit to encrypt all data to protect themselves from government eyes.
They could prove, with dates, that they didn't 'just start' encrypting data but that it was a regular practice long before being given notice of copyright infringement.
I also don't like the Cigarette company like tactics of the Plaintiffs’ parties being allowed to bait servers with faked copies of music and movies.
They need to rewrite the entire case law on copyright infringement, and include a broad definition regarding internet and media piracy.
I don't think we should coddle people who break the law no more than we should encourage people to write laws too complicated for a person to avoid retaining a lawyer who's fees would be no less than $5K-$10K for a very simple and short matter as copyright infringement.
how bout you?
--
"If you wait by the river long enough, the bodies of your enemies will float by." - Sun Tsu (544 – 496 BC) |
|
K Patterson
Premium,MVM
join:2006-03-12
Columbus, OH
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to axelrose
Motown vs. DiPietro
»www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDF.asp?fi···sSumJudg
She threw the computer away - apparently. As you read through the ruling, you'll see that she kind of goes with the wind.
The concept is called Spoliation of Evidence. Wikipedia has a short article on it. |
|
axelrose
Ban Tornadoes
join:2005-05-25
Chattanooga, TN
·Comcast
| reply to K Patterson
said by K Patterson :said by axelrose :said by K Patterson :What you do NOT want to do is reformat your hard drive. There's a good reason why damning documents and emails show up in law suits - because the evidence against the defendants is less damning than the act of destroying it. It converts a civil wrong into a serious felony. Not trying to pick a fight BUT what if the person simply replaced the hard drive with a new one and put the old one in a nice acid bath or simply went to the local landfill? The RIAA went so long knowing no one could afford a record duplicator and suddenly someone went and made evil magnetic tape recorders. They were caught off guard, then went to sleep for 20 years and complained no one woke them up in time. I got 2 of those letters. Chewbacca defense. After you have been served it is a crime. Before you have been served it is simply stupid. Judges are not dumb. Ever heard of Arthur Anderson? That is exactly what they did, only with paper files. Bye bye company, leaders go to jail. It is certainly reasonable to delete files that you shouldn't have downloaded, but do you really think that anyone can get away with denying that they did it? The ultimate sanction, by the way, is to be told that you may not offer a defense against the action. There is one defendant at present who did just what you suggested. Big mistake. The judge has already said in effect that she is a liar. A case exists where the defendant Replaced the Hard Drive?
Cane you cite please?
--
"If you wait by the river long enough, the bodies of your enemies will float by." - Sun Tsu (544 – 496 BC) |
|
K Patterson
Premium,MVM
join:2006-03-12
Columbus, OH
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to Maarvin
said by Maarvin :It is legal to download. And where does this appear in the law?
It is just as illegal as sharing. Just a lot harder to catch you at it. |
|
K Patterson
Premium,MVM
join:2006-03-12
Columbus, OH
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to axelrose
said by axelrose :said by K Patterson :What you do NOT want to do is reformat your hard drive. There's a good reason why damning documents and emails show up in law suits - because the evidence against the defendants is less damning than the act of destroying it. It converts a civil wrong into a serious felony. Not trying to pick a fight BUT what if the person simply replaced the hard drive with a new one and put the old one in a nice acid bath or simply went to the local landfill? The RIAA went so long knowing no one could afford a record duplicator and suddenly someone went and made evil magnetic tape recorders. They were caught off guard, then went to sleep for 20 years and complained no one woke them up in time. I got 2 of those letters. Chewbacca defense. After you have been served it is a crime. Before you have been served it is simply stupid. Judges are not dumb. Ever heard of Arthur Anderson? That is exactly what they did, only with paper files. Bye bye company, leaders go to jail.
It is certainly reasonable to delete files that you shouldn't have downloaded, but do you really think that anyone can get away with denying that they did it? The ultimate sanction, by the way, is to be told that you may not offer a defense against the action. There is one defendant at present who did just what you suggested. Big mistake. The judge has already said in effect that she is a liar. |
|
axelrose
Ban Tornadoes
join:2005-05-25
Chattanooga, TN
·Comcast
| reply to eric87m
I need to pass something on about this issue, see if you remember it.
About 5 years ago a major network did a story about the MPAA and RIAA's efforts to stop piracy. One admitted they had a STAFF of people who would make exact sized kb/mb/GB copies of their own copyrighted material, then upload a junk file or one that would simply display or inform the downloader that piracy is Wrong.
Their goal was to make your chances of getting the actual pirated software/cd/movie a lot lower. One example was a popular Movie at the time. They had uploaded nearly 50% of available copies, each one was a junk file.
I wonder what a jury or judge would think of that practice?
Remember, the REAL 50% of the copies could disappear for several hours since it depends on Peers. This could make 100% of the available copies to be junk files, basically the MPAA or RIAA would be feeding people fake files for hours.
How is that different from cigarette companies dumping FAKE packs of cigarettes inside schools?
Their claim would be ?
Hey , just curious and wondering about this.
--
"If you wait by the river long enough, the bodies of your enemies will float by." - Sun Tsu (544 – 496 BC) |
|
axelrose
Ban Tornadoes
join:2005-05-25
Chattanooga, TN
·Comcast
| reply to K Patterson
said by K Patterson :What you do NOT want to do is reformat your hard drive. There's a good reason why damning documents and emails show up in law suits - because the evidence against the defendants is less damning than the act of destroying it. It converts a civil wrong into a serious felony. Not trying to pick a fight BUT what if the person simply replaced the hard drive with a new one and put the old one in a nice acid bath or simply went to the local landfill?
The RIAA went so long knowing no one could afford a record duplicator and suddenly someone went and made evil magnetic tape recorders. They were caught off guard, then went to sleep for 20 years and complained no one woke them up in time.
I got 2 of those letters. Chewbacca defense.
--
"If you wait by the river long enough, the bodies of your enemies will float by." - Sun Tsu (544 – 496 BC) |
|
NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| reply to FiL
Peers showing...sort of. |
said by FiL :"The evidence they likely have is a copy of the infringer's shared directory, and copies of files they downloaded from it containing material for which they or their clients own the license" You mean the copyright holder hacked his way onto this persons computer, looked through the files in said directory JUST to find his one or two copyrighted works? I think THAT is a more offensive act to perform then downloading copyrighted material. lol. crazy. said by FiL :You mean the copyright holder hacked his way onto this persons computer, looked through the files in said directory JUST to find his one or two copyrighted works? I think THAT is a more offensive act to perform then downloading copyrighted material. lol. crazy. Not at all. P2P means "Peer to peer"; you make files available for upload in exchange for the download. That it the underlying basis of P2P "file sharing". If you set up LimeWire at the default setting; if you join a torrent with Azureus, you are explicitly inviting others to check out what files you are working with. "Hacking" isn't necessary at all!
The copyright owners are doing exactly the same thing the file sharers are doing; looking for public shares of files.
I masked the IP addresses in this peer list; but each one of the peers can see my IP address, as well as the file being down/uploaded. This is the risk you take when you run P2P. If you don't want others to see your IP address, you shouldn't run P2P applications.
Significantly, with traditional P2P in the classic Napster model, you have files in a shared directory which is publicly announced to the Internet.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
FiL
Premium
join:2005-08-16
Silver Spring, MD
| reply to K Patterson
"The evidence they likely have is a copy of the infringer's shared directory, and copies of files they downloaded from it containing material for which they or their clients own the license"
You mean the copyright holder hacked his way onto this persons computer, looked through the files in said directory JUST to find his one or two copyrighted works? I think THAT is a more offensive act to perform then downloading copyrighted material. lol. crazy. |
|
Maarvin
Premium
join:2005-04-11
Denver, CO
·Comcast
| reply to eric87m
Forget it and be thankful that all you got was a letter from Comcast. This is the risk that all P2P users take when they download movies, music, etc.
It is legal to download. It is not legal to upload; this is distributing copyrighted material. Try to find a site that won't shut you down if you don't keep your ratio to ~1:1 and shut off your upload. |
|
NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| reply to jbob
said by jbob :I think yours is more correct. Wasn't one of the "Privacy" concerns is that the government was trying make the ISPs maintain logs for over 30 days? The ISPs were complaining as to cost of maintaining unlimited logs where the public was crying "privacy" issues. I believe, at least until recently, most ISPs only maintained 30 day logs. Not sure which is correct though. Realistically, I would guess they would keep logs for at least seven days, and, possibly, up to thirty days.
I worked for a company which rotated seven VHS tapes for the security cameras. If you needed to see what happened in the parking lots, you'd best ask within seven days of the event. The tapes were coded by day of the week, and re-used.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| reply to roztaylor
said by roztaylor :Related question: My AT&T (SBC Yahoo) DSL account is setup as DHCP (i.e. I don't own/have a fixed IP address). When I do an IPCONFIG, it shows 10 minutes as the lifetime of the IP address. I typically reboot my PC a couple times per week. Each time I reboot, I receive a new IP address. So, does my ISP maintain a log that shows which customer has which IP address at which time & date? Yes. They need such a log for troubleshooting; and to handle abuse notifies. I have certainly sent my share of abuse notifies to sbcglobal abuse; mostly for spam received from zombified customers of "art&t Yahoo! HSI" (formerly called, "SBC Yahoo! DSL Service").
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
jbob
Reach Out and Touch Someone
Premium
join:2004-04-26
Little Rock, AR
·Comcast
·AT&T Southwest
| reply to Apollo729
said by Apollo729 :said by Nightfall :I used to do contract work for an ISP and I can tell you they keep years of data on who gets what IP address. They aren't required by law to do so, but almost all major ISPs do it. In short, this won't work.  Ditto, but, I've seen the flip side too, more then a few times I've found no logs at all because they used too much disk space or some other misguided reason. Not just on servers mind you, on desktops as well, hundreds of computers, newer models with large hard drives, nothing installed but XP and Office; one or two hundred GB free and they turn off windows built in logs to save space. There's always two sides to a coin, no one can say for sure that any given ISP or even part of an ISP goes by the book, either the law or their own rules, so his ISP may keep logs or they may not; at the end of the day these networks are run by people and people don't always do things the right way, or even the logical way. I think yours is more correct. Wasn't one of the "Privacy" concerns is that the government was trying make the ISPs maintain logs for over 30 days? The ISPs were complaining as to cost of maintaining unlimited logs where the public was crying "privacy" issues. I believe, at least until recently, most ISPs only maintained 30 day logs. Not sure which is correct though. |
|
Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
 ·Site5.com
·AT&T Midwest
·Comcast
| reply to Apollo729
said by Apollo729 :said by Nightfall :I used to do contract work for an ISP and I can tell you they keep years of data on who gets what IP address. They aren't required by law to do so, but almost all major ISPs do it. In short, this won't work. Ditto, but, I've seen the flip side too, more then a few times I've found no logs at all because they used too much disk space or some other misguided reason. Not just on servers mind you, on desktops as well, hundreds of computers, newer models with large hard drives, nothing installed but XP and Office; one or two hundred GB free and they turn off windows built in logs to save space. There's always two sides to a coin, no one can say for sure that any given ISP or even part of an ISP goes by the book, either the law or their own rules, so his ISP may keep logs or they may not; at the end of the day these networks are run by people and people don't always do things the right way, or even the logical way. Very true as well. I guess the question is, do you feel lucky? I know, if I was downloading illegal files, I wouldn't want to bank on the fact that my ISP wasn't keeping records like that. Its a gamble that, knowing your luck, wouldn't pay off. Its best to assume that they do things the right way to cover their asses.
--
My Domain
Nightfall's Hockey and Life Journal |
|
