Digiprotect Admits It Shares Files Just To Blackmail People Another forum, I forget where, had some posts from people who had been contacted by this company. The posters stated that they just ignored the letters or emails and nothing happened. Digiprotect sounds like the phony bill collectors who, for the last few years, have bought old, junk debt, like defaulted record and book club memberships and then tried to collect using telemarketer tactics.
While these people rant and threaten, they apparently never follow through since a loss in court could bring down their scam. I myself was called three times a day for almost two years by such a company, or at least my phone blocker was. Result; they just faded away. But I read on web forums that some folks had paid them just to stop the calls. Ironically, that didn't stop the calls. The con-men simply demanded more money.
I might fear the RIAA but I have my doubts that Digiprotect really intends to pursue their questionable case in court. Rather, like any blackmailer, once they find a good mark they will milk the sucker dry.
[Alert] "Three Strikes" Campaign Exibits Scam-like Behaviour Reading the article on the BSA's statements regarding their support of "Three Strikes" legislation, the "Danger, Will Robinson!!" alert went off in my head, when I realized that there are three topics to that issue, and they were given the exact opposite amount of attention that they deserved:
#3. Due Process. Serious (stuff) when we're dealing with a penalty that could deprive an individual of his ability to engage in his profession and support his family. Made it way too easy for those scheming, "Sacks of (stuff)" to set the topic of the debate and deprive the other two, the most important one completely, of their proper attention in the debate:
#2. "Three Strikes", applied to?? While it was touched upon that 3 incidents of illegal activity by different members of a family could get that family's connection terminated, what about other settings, such as business or institutional? Could three students cause their whole high school to lose its connectivity, or worse, could three disgruntled employees sabotage their employer by intentionally earning one each?
Oh, they don't want that brought up! Figures.
#1. Evidence Standards: "WHAT Constitutes PROOF that, for example, the "strikee" was actually engaged in downloading the infringing file he is accused of?" This is a sore spot for me, and, the mechanism in my example is based on an actual FALSE POSITIVE DMCA complaint filed with my ISP. I have, however, changed the type and name of the file in my example, to better show the flimsy EXCRETA a movie distributor considers "proof":
Say, someone is contracted by Adobe to hunt for those downloading pirated copies of their software via BitTorrent. Deciding to go after those downloading "Acrobat", they know, obviously, that can't be a search term, so they search torrents instead for "After Effects".....I was accused of downloading the full-length move, "The Fountain", a few years back, in .FLAC format(!), that managed to compress it to a tiny 50 MB.
Their search nets them a few thousand torrents with "After Effects" in one of their filenames. Deciding that actually looking at the name of the file that has "After Effects" in it, they don't bother to check if the file size is large enough to actually hold what they are about to accuse someone of downloading (which could be done by software). Needless to say, the payload is not bothered to be positively ID'd.
They commence collecting IP addresses of those participating in each torrent.
Kinko Schmuck is an aficionado of offbeat movies. He reads about an amateur "short" called "The After Effects of Nasal Sex" had been posted to The Pirate Bay, by its maker, as a way to get it out there to the masses. Finding the title irresistibly tasteless, 10 minutes later he's downloading it.
5 days later, he receives a *harsh* email from his ISP that Adobe has filed a DMCA complaint alleging that Adobe Acrobat was illegally downloaded by someone at his IP address.
The evidence standard must be "Topic #1", then, those not involved in illegal activities need a "Safe Harbor" they can qualify themselves for, after only which it would be finally be appropriate to discuss dragging those accused of being actually responsible for the illegal act through the legal process.
"First things first!", *A-holes!
It's absolutely certain that any given database will eventually corrupt itself -- that's why we make backups.
Too much data in one place is absolutely corrupting -- that's why we have the Second Amendment!