dslreports logo
 story category
U.S. Copyright Group Launches Largest P2P Suit Ever
With Help From Verizon and Charter

The law firm Dunlap, Grubb and Weaver (aka the U.S. Copyright Group) has perfected the "copyright-o-matic" approach to P2P lawsuits, sending out letters en masse threatening users unless they settle for the rock-bottom initial price tag of $1,500. The goal is to both scare P2P users and create a new revenue stream, though the group has run into some legal hiccups for threatening and suing unidentified P2P users via often dubious evidence, and for doing so en masse. The firm this week launched the largest BitTorrent lawsuit ever, suing 24,583 BitTorrent users for sharing the film Hurt Locker. The suit highlights how ISPs are happily helping the law firm with their efforts:

quote:
Click for full size
In a status report obtained by TorrentFreak, Voltage Pictures lawyers give the U.S. District Court of Columbia an overview of the massive list of alleged BitTorrent downloaders they filed complaints against. This report reveals that most defendants are subscribers of Comcast (10,532), followed by Verizon (5,239), Charter (2,699) and Time Warner (1,750).

The report also provides details on the agreements the lawyers have struck with various ISPs regarding the release of subscribers’ personal information. There is currently no agreement with Comcast, while Charter has promised to look up 150 IP-addresses a month and Verizon 100 a month for all ongoing BitTorrent lawsuits.


The only real hiccup the law firm ran into when securing ISP cooperation was when Time Warner Cable complained that the lookups cost them money (about $45 in admin costs per subscriber) and the ISP should be compensated for their trouble. Most ISPs who have capped the number of lookups per month have done so due to cost concerns, not because they're worried about privacy or the criticisms that Dunlap, Grubb and Weaver are engaged in a legally dubious shakedown. Users whose ISPs turn over their personal information will then receive a settlement offer from the law firm, who relies on the fact that most of the recipients of these settlement offers lack the funds to head to court.

Page two of the court document highlights all of the ISPs the law firm currently has deals with. That list includes Bresnan, Charter, Clearwire, Mediacom, MidContinent Communications, Verizon and Wave. Contrary to the Torrent Freak story it does appear that there is a deal with Comcast, though the details are specified as "confidential."
view:
topics flat nest 
page: 1 · 2 · next

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

FFH5

Premium Member

Suing for downloading or uploading?

Since all these cases are for bittorrent users, and because uploading is the generally illegal activity, could the case actually be for the uploading activity that is part of a bittorrent download?

poopiepants
join:2003-10-04
King, NC

poopiepants

Member

Re: Suing for downloading or uploading?

legalized extortion.. gotta love it.
WernerSchutz
join:2009-08-04
Sugar Land, TX

WernerSchutz

Member

Re: Suing for downloading or uploading?

We have legalized bribery (lobbying) so why not ? Corporations and politicians are above the law.

ITALIAN926
join:2003-08-16

ITALIAN926 to poopiepants

Member

to poopiepants
Stop downloading copyrighted material. Whats the problem? I feel no sympathy for these people.

Smith6612
MVM
join:2008-02-01
North Tonawanda, NY
·Charter
Ubee EU2251
Ubiquiti UAP-IW-HD
Ubiquiti UniFi AP-AC-HD

Smith6612

MVM

Re: Suing for downloading or uploading?

Kind of tough to do. Visiting DSLReports involves you "downloading" copyrighted content. See the bottom of this web page

But yes, as far as copyright media you have to pay for to obtain, I wish people would stop. Too many people ask me how to obtain music/movies for free, and I simply tell them "I don't know, sorry!" even though I technically do know how to obtain them. I don't consume what I don't want to buy.

ITALIAN926
join:2003-08-16

ITALIAN926

Member

Re: Suing for downloading or uploading?

You know what I meant Mr. Smith !

Smith6612
MVM
join:2008-02-01
North Tonawanda, NY

Smith6612

MVM

Re: Suing for downloading or uploading?

Lol ;D

alex0915
@optonline.net

alex0915 to ITALIAN926

Anon

to ITALIAN926
I feel no sympathy for the large corporations and lawyers who are turning this country to !#$^ I dont even look at any of the downloads but I will keep downloading my 500 mb a month I now have over 500 gb on external drives which I freely redistribute. I beg someone to go after me, as they will have the largest harassment suit in world history. These corporate pirates only care about their bottom lines and not about any starving artist-- who gets little or nothing. I hope the media corporations die a torturous death and anything I can do to expedite that, I will

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

FFH5

Premium Member

Re: Suing for downloading or uploading?

said by alex0915 :

I feel no sympathy for the large corporations and lawyers who are turning this country to !#$^ I dont even look at any of the downloads but I will keep downloading my 500 mb a month I now have over 500 gb on external drives which I freely redistribute. I beg someone to go after me, as they will have the largest harassment suit in world history. These corporate pirates only care about their bottom lines and not about any starving artist-- who gets little or nothing. I hope the media corporations die a torturous death and anything I can do to expedite that, I will

You may get your wish if you keep providing copyrighted works with that attitude.

ITALIAN926
join:2003-08-16

ITALIAN926 to alex0915

Member

to alex0915
SInce youre sooo BRAVE, why dont you publicly announce your IP address. While youre at it, tell us your MAC address. lol. Fool.

heat84
DSLR Influencer
join:2004-03-11
Delray Beach, FL

heat84 to FFH5

Member

to FFH5
Uploading that's part of downloading? Do you mean ACK packets? Uploading is not part of a Bit Torrent download. They just happen at the same time until the downloading is finished. Then its all uploading except for ACK packets.

The law suit only cares that you illegally shared a file with someone. not how the protocol works. I can just imagine explaining Bit torrent to a jury. Of course most of these cases won't get that far.

If you don't have money to fight this in court, you don't have money for a settlement either. So what's in it for the law firm? Publicity?

DavePR
join:2008-06-04
Canyon Country, CA

DavePR

Member

Re: Suing for downloading or uploading?

I'm pretty sure only a-holes download without seeding.

disconnected
@snet.net

disconnected to heat84

Anon

to heat84
said by heat84:

If you don't have money to fight this in court, you don't have money for a settlement either. So what's in it for the law firm? Publicity?

Unless the accused happens to be Mark Newton, a New Jersey resident who represents himself pro-se and is involved in HUNDREDS of lawsuits about a different matter. Anyone with the time and snakelike cunning of Mark Newton could make life pretty miserable for the **AAs.

fonzbear2000
Premium Member
join:2005-08-09
Saint Paul, MN

fonzbear2000 to FFH5

Premium Member

to FFH5
said by FFH5:

Since all these cases are for bittorrent users, and because uploading is the generally illegal activity, could the case actually be for the uploading activity that is part of a bittorrent download?

Well, unless you put your own copy on the net and shared it, in order to upload, you have to have downloaded as well. So, it's a bit of both.
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144

openbox9 to FFH5

Premium Member

to FFH5
I thought both downloading and uploading content without explicit license was a violation of copyright law. 67845017 See Profile can correct us, but I believe this discussion has occurred around here before.

fonzbear2000
Premium Member
join:2005-08-09
Saint Paul, MN

fonzbear2000

Premium Member

Re: Suing for downloading or uploading?

said by openbox9:

I thought both downloading and uploading content without explicit license was a violation of copyright law. 67845017 See Profile can correct us, but I believe this discussion has occurred around here before.

It is, but the only way people can get busted is if they're sharing(uploading) the content, but in order to upload, you have to have downloaded first.
67845017 (banned)
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL

67845017 (banned)

Member

Re: Suing for downloading or uploading?

Uploading and downloading copyrighted content without the copyright holder's permission is illegal. But, uploading is much easier to detect. And, there's more bang for the buck, since a single uploader is enabling infringement by many downloaders.

These things are always very interesting, since the case law on downloading is unsettled.
MyDogHsFleas
Premium Member
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX

MyDogHsFleas

Premium Member

Re: Suing for downloading or uploading?

said by 67845017:

since the case law on downloading is unsettled.

Links? Details?
67845017 (banned)
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL

67845017 (banned)

Member

Re: Suing for downloading or uploading?

What kind of links and details are you looking for? There aren't adjudicated lawsuits on downloading for the very reason I stated. Why sue a single downloader when you can sue an uploader that is causing much more damage?

You may think these guys have an unlimited budget, but like any business, they have to make the best use of their dollars. I've worked in lots of fortune 500 companies and I don't ever recall that we were given unlimited litigation budgets in any company.
MyDogHsFleas
Premium Member
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX

MyDogHsFleas

Premium Member

Re: Suing for downloading or uploading?

said by 67845017:

What kind of links and details are you looking for? There aren't adjudicated lawsuits on downloading for the very reason I stated.

No big deal, since you said "case law is unsettled", I thought maybe you had some interesting links on various cases in your back pocket. I guess what you really meant was "copyright violation cases on downloaders haven't really been adjudicated".
67845017 (banned)
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL

67845017 (banned)

Member

Re: Suing for downloading or uploading?

Well, the BMG Music, et al v. Gonzalez case is pretty much as close to an adjudicated case of "downloading is illegal" as we have right now. The problem is that it wasn't a clear-cut simply downloading only type of issue, but was tied in with uploading. That being said, the 7th circuit court of appeals was pretty clear in whacking her for downloading. »www.muddlawoffices.com/R ··· alez.pdf
MyDogHsFleas
Premium Member
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX

MyDogHsFleas

Premium Member

Re: Suing for downloading or uploading?

said by 67845017:

Well, the BMG Music, et al v. Gonzalez case is pretty much as close to an adjudicated case of "downloading is illegal" as we have right now. The problem is that it wasn't a clear-cut simply downloading only type of issue, but was tied in with uploading. That being said, the 7th circuit court of appeals was pretty clear in whacking her for downloading. »www.muddlawoffices.com/R ··· alez.pdf

Very interesting and well-written/clear opinion -- thanks for the link!

I read it quickly and didn't see anything about uploading in there. Did you? I thought it was all about downloading via Kazaa.
67845017 (banned)
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL

67845017 (banned)

Member

Re: Suing for downloading or uploading?

Yeah, it wasn't really an uploading versus downloading matter. I think that issue may have been raised in the oral arguments, but I'm not quite sure. I didn't follow the case very carefully.

In the end it was really a fair use decision. As such, the appellate court operated under the premise that downloading was illegal in this case and that the claim of fair use was not a viable defense. It kind of short circuited the crazy theories that get thrown around on here regarding honey-pots and the mechanics of torrents.
MyDogHsFleas
Premium Member
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX

2 recommendations

MyDogHsFleas

Premium Member

Re: Suing for downloading or uploading?

Yeah, I've been trying to educate/correct people around here on the reality of copyright laws, licensing terms, and "fair use". People really get some out-there ideas. I think they confuse how they think it should be with how it really is. I think they also think I'm arguing with them when mostly I'm trying to educate them on the reality of the situation.

I mean, it's one thing to know you are breaking copyright law and do it anyway. Look, I do it myself sometimes. I use DVD decrypter to make operational copies of DVDs I own, and keep the originals unused, because too often they've gotten scratched and rendered unplayable in spots. I use iTunes to burn a few tens of copies of mix CDs to hand out at very special events (anniversary parties, weddings). Both of these are totally illegal! And I know it. But I'm taking the (extremely small) risk because the alternative is way too costly and mostly annoying. I mean, I'm really not going to buy two copies of a DVD, and I'm really not going to buy 20 copies of a song from iTunes under 20 different accounts just so that I can burn it into 20 mix CDs legally to hand out to good friends and family.

And, it's another thing to pretend that you are in the right when you do stuff like the people in these cases are doing. And, worse, that the people suing you for what you are doing are evil, mendacious, incompetent, and are violating your rights. To me, that's just... no other way to put it... stupid.
67845017 (banned)
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL

67845017 (banned)

Member

Re: Suing for downloading or uploading?

+1

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

FFH5

Premium Member

Re: Suing for downloading or uploading?

+2
Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium Member
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ

Kearnstd to MyDogHsFleas

Premium Member

to MyDogHsFleas
said by MyDogHsFleas:

Yeah, I've been trying to educate/correct people around here on the reality of copyright laws, licensing terms, and "fair use". People really get some out-there ideas. I think they confuse how they think it should be with how it really is. I think they also think I'm arguing with them when mostly I'm trying to educate them on the reality of the situation.

I mean, it's one thing to know you are breaking copyright law and do it anyway. Look, I do it myself sometimes. I use DVD decrypter to make operational copies of DVDs I own, and keep the originals unused, because too often they've gotten scratched and rendered unplayable in spots. I use iTunes to burn a few tens of copies of mix CDs to hand out at very special events (anniversary parties, weddings). Both of these are totally illegal! And I know it. But I'm taking the (extremely small) risk because the alternative is way too costly and mostly annoying. I mean, I'm really not going to buy two copies of a DVD, and I'm really not going to buy 20 copies of a song from iTunes under 20 different accounts just so that I can burn it into 20 mix CDs legally to hand out to good friends and family.

And, it's another thing to pretend that you are in the right when you do stuff like the people in these cases are doing. And, worse, that the people suing you for what you are doing are evil, mendacious, incompetent, and are violating your rights. To me, that's just... no other way to put it... stupid.

See I never knew putting DVDs to my Media Server was Illegal, because I saw it as a backup which is allowed by US Copyright Law.
MyDogHsFleas
Premium Member
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX

MyDogHsFleas

Premium Member

Re: Suing for downloading or uploading?

said by Kearnstd:

See I never knew putting DVDs to my Media Server was Illegal, because I saw it as a backup which is allowed by US Copyright Law.

When you say "putting DVDs to my Media Server" -- I assume you mean cracking the encryption and putting the VOD files on a file server? Yes, that is not allowed by your license, and is also a DMCA violation because you cracked encryption intended to protect content.

Now, will you ever get caught? Almost certainly not, since (presumably) this is all on your home LAN and not shared out to the world, so how would they find out?

And, there is nothing in US Copyright Law that "allows backup". I hate to be harsh, but I see this all the time -- people just making stuff up and claiming it's part of the Copyright Law. It's not.

Again, that said, is making a backup for yourself (not distributing it and certainly not selling it to others) a good idea, despite the fact that it's a copyright violation? In many cases, yes, IMO. But don't pretend it's all legal and covered, because it's not.

You're really just proving my exact point. Lots and lots of people have wrong ideas about what the copyright laws are and what they mean. Look, I am no expert, but I can read and understand, that's really all you have to do. Do not listen to what others say, because they are often wrong.

Please understand this is not a matter of opinion or an argument. The things I am telling you are easily verifiable facts.
TheRogueX
join:2003-03-26
Springfield, MO

TheRogueX

Member

Re: Suing for downloading or uploading?

said by MyDogHsFleas:

And, there is nothing in US Copyright Law that "allows backup". I hate to be harsh, but I see this all the time -- people just making stuff up and claiming it's part of the Copyright Law. It's not

Actually, in terms of software at least, US Copyright Law allows for the user to make one copy of the software for archival(backup) purposes. That archive is linked to the original, though; if you sell/give away the original, you have to destroy the archive, or otherwise send it with the original.

I'm not sure if this relates to music and/or video though, and I'm not in the mood to look it up right now.
67845017 (banned)
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL

67845017 (banned)

Member

Re: Suing for downloading or uploading?

Different statutes.
MyDogHsFleas
Premium Member
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX

MyDogHsFleas to TheRogueX

Premium Member

to TheRogueX
said by TheRogueX:

said by MyDogHsFleas:

And, there is nothing in US Copyright Law that "allows backup". I hate to be harsh, but I see this all the time -- people just making stuff up and claiming it's part of the Copyright Law. It's not

Actually, in terms of software at least, US Copyright Law allows for the user to make one copy of the software for archival(backup) purposes. That archive is linked to the original, though; if you sell/give away the original, you have to destroy the archive, or otherwise send it with the original.

No you're thinking of the Audio Home Recording Act (AHRA) of 1992, which explicitly allows backup copies on audio cassettes only. There is no provision in the US Copyright Law or any other law that generally allows users to make backup copies of software. The software EULA may allow you to do that under license, or not.

So, once again this is a fiction people keep saying. I really don't get why people keep doing this. It's easy enough to look it up in WikiPedia or whatever.

••••
67845017 (banned)
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL

67845017 (banned) to Kearnstd

Member

to Kearnstd
Even though you are cracking the encryption and violating the DMCA, fair use is still an affirmative defense. I would argue that you are covered under fair use.

I consider myself an expert.

••••

NoLuckChuck
@teksavvy.com

NoLuckChuck to Kearnstd

Anon

to Kearnstd
But if you don't have nothin' you can't lose nothin' unless you get sued and have the unfortunate luck to hit a powerball lottery grand prize. I say bring back the lash for these swindlers that prey on internet users. I say to the DMCA or whatever that organization is *get* a job!!

WHT
join:2010-03-26
Rosston, TX

WHT to 67845017

Member

to 67845017
said by 67845017:

Uploading and downloading copyrighted content without the copyright holder's permission is illegal.

Any legal citations that say DOWNLOADING is infringement?

Sounds like these goons assume you are uploading just because you were observed downloading.
67845017 (banned)
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL

67845017 (banned)

Member

Re: Suing for downloading or uploading?

The copyright statute.
PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR

1 recommendation

PDXPLT to WHT

Member

to WHT
Uh, the U.S Copyright Act? U.S. law and international treaties grant copyright owners almost exclusive control over what gets done with their property. In spite of internet myths, except for very narrow "fair use" provisions, anything you do with copyrighted content needs the permission of the owner.
MyDogHsFleas
Premium Member
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX

MyDogHsFleas to FFH5

Premium Member

to FFH5
As usual I had to search Google for a while to find the actual source document to read, rather than just being able to click on a link in Karl's story. Because, to answer even a simple question like this, you have to be able to read the lawsuit complaint that has been sent out.

Here it is: »reporter.blogs.com/files ··· 2578.pdf

What it basically says, in response to your question, is that BitTorrent is a "swarm" activity in which each participant both downloads and uploads to and from many other participants simultaneously. Therefore, there's lots of infringement going on from each named participant, both download and upload. It is not specific as to which one it's suing for, but they keep talking about how every downloader is also an uploader, so I guess they're suing everyone for both illegal copying and also distribution.

The relief they ask is:
- an injunction against further illegal activity
- Damages
- Plaintiff's costs
- Plaintiff's attorneys' fees
- Other relief as directed by the Court
hottboiinnc4
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH

1 recommendation

hottboiinnc4

Member

Re: Suing for downloading or uploading?

blogs don't link to anything that is an actual source. they only link to other blogs and their own content.
gorehound
join:2009-06-19
Portland, ME

gorehound to FFH5

Member

to FFH5
someone needs to superglue their office daily.
if you live in their neighborhood buy yourself a tube and goop it on.

a useful trick i learned whilst supergluing bank doors in the anarchist 70's
Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium Member
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ

Kearnstd to FFH5

Premium Member

to FFH5
Technically even downloading is Illegal, however downloading TV shows is a grey area(if one downloads an episode of The Simpsons how is it different than tuning in on FOX or watching the recording on a DVR?)

Also catching Downloaders requires one to do the efforts of setting up a honeypot and then that opens a whole new can of worms. If Warner Brothers is trying to catch downloaders and offers a movie up in a Honey Pot, then when it comes to a court the defense could argue it was legal because it came from the movie company.

it is nearly impossible to trace downloaders on P2P without the uploaders having software that keeps logs of what IPs they sent to. and again of a copyright group turned on utorrent and uploaded that could be seen as an authorized download from the movie company.
InvalidError
join:2008-02-03

InvalidError

Member

Re: Suing for downloading or uploading?

said by Kearnstd:

Also catching Downloaders requires one to do the efforts of setting up a honeypot and then that opens a whole new can of worms. If Warner Brothers is trying to catch downloaders and offers a movie up in a Honey Pot, then when it comes to a court the defense could argue it was legal because it came from the movie company.

Not really, the honeypot could be setup with clients that have their upload disabled. Even with upload was enabled, the honeypot is still not an authorized distribution channel for people to get content from, the torrent itself is not published, hosted or initially seeded by any authorized WB distributor.

Before you say that the honeypot is infringing, keep in mind that it is operating under direct orders from copyright holders to collect IPs from infringers, there is no violation there, the honeypot has the copyright holders' blessing to "infringe" for that purpose, much like covert ops have the authorities' blessing to do (almost) whatever they need to to investigate their targets.
Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium Member
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ

Kearnstd to FFH5

Premium Member

to FFH5
Upside is violating the DMCA is not even Morally wrong. its not like you are shoplifting or something. breaking DRM to make something more useful is never ever a bad thing.

see: No CD cracks for PC games. even those of us with Legit copies used them to save wear and tear on the optical drives.

then steam came along and solved that problem for good.

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

FFH5

Premium Member

Torrentfreak says no Comcast agreement; not true

The court document does state that there is a confidential agreement with Comcast.

From news article:
»torrentfreak.com/hurt-lo ··· -110523/

There is currently no agreement with Comcast,

But from court doc:
»www.scribd.com/fullscree ··· 56070036



Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02

Karl Bode

News Guy

Re: Torrentfreak says no Comcast agreement; not true

Nice spot...

Uncle Paul
join:2003-02-04
USA

Uncle Paul

Member

Is there a court order

to turn over subscriber information or is this a voluntary action by the ISPs?

•••••••••
Mr Matt
join:2008-01-29
Eustis, FL

Mr Matt

Member

More pain for the innocent!

How many false positives will the copyright trolls prosecute? How many innocent subscribers will be blackmailed by the copyright trolls? On the internet your guilty until you prove yourself innocent! I guess the lawmakers have the same feces filled brains as some of the Supreme Court Justices. I would like to see a serious class action suit against the copyright weasels!

The Supreme Court says a corporation has greater rights than a person and the lawmakers refuse to pass a law that makes the trolls prove the name of the person that downloaded copyrighted material and not the person assigned the IP address. The justice system should be renamed the injustice system!

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Yikes2000
join:2001-08-15
Irvine, CA

Yikes2000

Member

New Legal Defense

I've been thinking...

In layman term, BitTorrent chops up the movie and everyone shares the chopped up pieces. And someone working for the plaintiff must join the sharing swarm to gather everyone's IPs. However, in so doing, isn't the plaintiff in effect authorizing the sharing process? The plaintiff owns the copyright. They and their agents are the only ones that could legally share the movie. And they did...

•••••••
Kamus
join:2011-01-27
El Paso, TX

1 recommendation

Kamus

Member

The hurt locker? more like...

This is the sorest lawsuit i've ever seen, it's like:

"OMG, we won the oscar, yet Avatar made all that money... THOSE DAMN PIRATES!"

This movie should be renamed to "The butthurt locker" instead.
MyDogHsFleas
Premium Member
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX

MyDogHsFleas

Premium Member

Re: The hurt locker? more like...

old_wiz_60
join:2005-06-03
Bedford, MA

old_wiz_60

Member

wonder if..

the "us copyright group" even owns the copyrights?

Just legalized extortion, a big plus for shady lawyers in the U.S..

So innocent people have a choice of paying $1500 for something they did not even do vs paying their own lawyers ? amount of money. sheesh.

•••
charlesh93
join:2009-05-08
Pittsburgh, PA

charlesh93

Member

backup copy?

What if you own the movie? I thought it was legal to make a backup of any media you have,which was the defense of why people were allowed to have ROM's for video games...

Sounds like it would be cheaper to quickly obtain a real copy of the movie than pay the penalty.

••••••••••••
BiggA
Premium Member
join:2005-11-23
Central CT
·Frontier FiberOp..
Asus RT-AC68

BiggA

Premium Member

Absurd

This is totally out of control. The solution is to get rid of punitive damages, and only allow actual ones for noncommercial copyright infreingement, but our government doesn't have the backbone to that.

Oh, and haven't these guys learned anything from the music industry?

••••••••••••

ArrayList
DevOps
Premium Member
join:2005-03-19
Mullica Hill, NJ

ArrayList

Premium Member

would never download

that piece of shit movie.

xsquid
@madisontelco.com

xsquid

Anon

Confused

So, I'm a little confused on the process that happens here.

I work for an ISP and get the subpoenas that require our company to turn over subscriber information. We send any subpoena to our counsel to ensure it is valid, enforceable and applicable to our network. Once we receive verification, we check our server logs, get the timestamps and identifying information and cross check that with plant and billing records to identify the customer. Only at that point is any information ever provided.

We are a relatively small provider and hopefully beneath the notice of most of this type of activity, however we do get our share of requests from Law Enforcement.

Do the USCG lawsuits somehow bypass this process? Is a subpoena issued? If so, I wouldn't think an ISP could ignore the requirement. An ISP isn't required to give information in any other circumstance I am aware of.

The reason that I mention this is that there is a type of DMCA notice that I have been seeing for some time, one that is requested to be passed on to the customer. In the notice is a threat of a lawsuit unless the customer accesses a site and pays. To date, we have not received a follow up subpoena to one of these extortion demands......

Transmaster
Don't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY

Transmaster

Member

Re: Confused X 2

What about this?

»www.piracynetwork.com/pi ··· tes.html

According to this Judges are not looking at this Copy Right outfit with much favor, and their cases are crumbling.

tshirt
Premium Member
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA

tshirt

Premium Member

Re: Confused X 2

Which is part of the reason they are offering to settle so cheap. ($1500 is very cheap compared to their cost of preparing for court, if they think you won't settle)
This is mass production, over building a individual case.
bluedyedvd
join:2007-04-15
Overland Park, KS

1 edit

bluedyedvd

Member

acs-law

someone will acs-law these fuckers

xsquid
@madisontelco.com

xsquid

Anon

Re: acs-law

What a great opportunity for anonymous to make a statement to these a$$hats.

conk2k
@rccd.net

conk2k

Anon

no more freedoms

What ever happened to "Innocent until proven guilty". Government is getting more corrupt the more time that passes.
MyDogHsFleas
Premium Member
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX

MyDogHsFleas

Premium Member

Re: no more freedoms

It's a civil suit, "innocent until proven guilty" or more properly a "presumption of innocence" simply does not apply. It's more about a preponderance of evidence.

santyatwork
@comcastbusiness.net

santyatwork

Anon

fat fingering the IP Address?

So someone sees an IP address that is in violation and they have to write it down, then it gets written in an official form to be submitted etc. By the time it gets to the ISP who's to say that some one didn't transpose a couple of digits or fat finger the keyboard hitting a 9 instead of an 8 etc. Wrong person gets the notice. How would you provide defense or what ever in that case? How do you prove or disprove that happening?

I don't torrent anything in my house, I'm the only one on the computer/living in the house and I recieved a similar letter from my ISP 3 or 4 months ago. It was one of those being passed on by my ISP so my personal info was not released to what ever company it was. I ignored the letter and haven't heard a thing since.
MyDogHsFleas
Premium Member
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX

MyDogHsFleas

Premium Member

Re: fat fingering the IP Address?

said by santyatwork :

I don't torrent anything in my house, I'm the only one on the computer/living in the house and I recieved a similar letter from my ISP 3 or 4 months ago.

A more plausible explanation than fat-fingering is that it was a scam attempt. I've heard of these being done. If you send them a check, they're happy. If not, they move on. This would explain why you never heard from them again. If it was a legitimate lawsuit, you most certainly would have.
Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium Member
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ

Kearnstd

Premium Member

ISPs should charge more!

10k per IP address they want researched unless a judge actually orders them to look it up.

And the courts should charge 50k per copyright lawsuit IP address.

this would help reduce the number of shotgun lawsuits. for example this batch would cost US Copyright group $1,229,150,000 if the courts charged 50k per IP.

Though maybe make it 50k for John Doe lawsuits. I bet that would drive a stake into the heart of the lawsuit monster. just imagine what it would cost for someone doing 50k IPs John Doe style at 50k per IP.

IowaCowboy
Lost in the Supermarket
Premium Member
join:2010-10-16
Springfield, MA

IowaCowboy

Premium Member

Defendant's rights

I wonder if the defendants are entitled to recover attorney's fees as a counterclaim for frivolous claims by the plaintiffs. And I wonder how many of the defendants they are going to drag into court that are "judgement proof" because they get their income solely from government entitlements like TADFC, SSI/SSDI, Veteran's benefits, etc. You can get a judgement against someone but you cannot always collect on it like if their income and/or assets fall into the exemptions, they are judgement proof, or they ultimately file for bankruptcy which wipes out their debts and any judgements with some exceptions (such as child support).

Disclaimer: I am not an attorney but I do know basic consumer rights.
MyDogHsFleas
Premium Member
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX

MyDogHsFleas

Premium Member

Re: Defendant's rights

On your first point, not damn likely. It is extremely hard in the USA to countersue for frivolous claims and win. Basically anyone can sue anyone for anything at any time without having to pay the other sides' costs. Other countries IMO do a better job of this with "loser pays" systems.

On your second point, well, that's the way it is. Just because you get a judgement doesn't mean you are going to collect.

David
Premium Member
join:2002-05-30
Granite City, IL

David

Premium Member

Hey karl?

Isn't this going to be short lived after this ruling?

»torrentfreak.com/ip-addr ··· -110503/

basically the judge said in that case that the IP address doesn't equal a person.
krazyfiend
join:2011-02-15

krazyfiend

Member

Re: Hey karl?

said by David:

Isn't this going to be short lived after this ruling?

»torrentfreak.com/ip-addr ··· -110503/

basically the judge said in that case that the IP address doesn't equal a person.

the hope is that other judges take note & this sets a precedent for others to follow suit--when you read through what the judge wrote, it's clear this one was not happy w/ the extortion/strong arm tactics being employed

Those whove been reading TorrentFreak for long enough may remember how the MPAA and RIAA accused a printer at the University of Washington of copyright infringement a few years ago.

»torrentfreak.com/study-r ··· -080605/

With their research, the researchers pointed out that gathering evidence on BitTorrent downloaders is full of pitfalls.
MyDogHsFleas
Premium Member
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX

MyDogHsFleas to David

Premium Member

to David
It'll be interesting to see what happens with this. I think there are a couple of points on the other side:

1) This is just a district judge, subject to a couple of layers of overturning. And AFAIK he stands alone, no other judges have quashed subpoenas with this logic.

2) There were extenuating circumstances, namely this was a porn company suing, so I think the judge felt that the potential for embarrassing damage to the alleged violators was greater than normal.
bakorican
join:2004-02-28
germany

bakorican

Member

This is rediculous!!!

Hurt Locker Theatrical Performance
Total US Gross $17,017,811
International Gross $32,660,965
Worldwide Gross $49,678,776
Home Market Performance
US DVD Sales: $33,614,050

These slimebags want to extort more money with this scheme than the actual Total US Gross revenue the movie generated. 24,000 x $1,500 = 36 Million. Get fn real.

cdru
Go Colts
MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN

cdru

MVM

Re: This is rediculous!!!

said by bakorican:

These slimebags want to extort more money with this scheme than the actual Total US Gross revenue the movie generated. 24,000 x $1,500 = 36 Million. Get fn real.

Which is why they want additional. I mean, it won best picture. Surely it could make more than $33m right?
jfmezei
Premium Member
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC

jfmezei

Premium Member

BitTorrent is a legitimate corporation

It should be noted that BitTorrent is a legitimate corporation that uses the bittorrent protocol to distribute legally purchased movies with some DRM in it.

So the MAFIAA cannot really be suing BitTorrent as the text of this thread states. It should be updated to use "bittorrent protocol" or just bittorrent to ensu8re there is no reference to a legitimate corporation being sued by Hollywood's MAFIAA.

alex0915
@optonline.net

alex0915

Anon

and btw

thank god for legit institutions like electronic frontier foundation who stand up to these corporate tyrants-- these corporations are like the nazis in their terroristic methods of going after people who clearly get bullied....

There is much criticism of the RIAA's policy and method of suing individuals for copyright infringement, notably with Internet-based pressure groups such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation and FreeCulture.[83] To date, the RIAA has sued more than 20,000[84] people in the United States suspected of distributing copyrighted works and settled approximately 2,500 of the cases. Brad Templeton of the Electronic Frontier Foundation has called these types of lawsuits spamigation and implied they are done merely to intimidate people.[85]

The RIAA in 2003 attempted to sue Sarah Seabury Ward, a 66-year-old sculptor in Boston, Massachusetts, alleging that she shared more than 2,000 songs illegally. The case was dismissed when it was discovered that Ward was a computer novice.

The RIAA was criticized in the media after they subpoenaed Gertrude Walton, an 83-year-old woman who died in December 2004.[86] Walton was accused of swapping rock, pop and rap songs. RIAA spokesman Jonathan Lamy commented that legal proceedings had commenced before Walton died. "Our evidence gathering and our subsequent legal actions all were initiated weeks and even months ago."

In a Brooklyn case, Elektra v. Schwartz,[87] against RaeJ Schwartz, a Queens woman with Multiple Sclerosis, the RIAA's lawyers wrote to the Judge that they were in possession of a letter in which "...America Online, Inc., has confirmed that Defendant was the owner of the internet access account through which hundreds of Plaintiffs’ sound recordings were downloaded and distributed to the public without Plaintiffs’ consent." After the defense received a copy of the letter, it turned out that the letter merely identified Ms. Schwartz as the owner of an internet access account and said nothing at all about "downloading" or "distributing".[88]

The RIAA has also been criticized for bringing lawsuits against children, including 12-year-old Brianna LaHara of New York City in 2003.[48] and 13 year old Brittany Chan of Michigan. Under the threat of a possible defendant's motion for summary judgment and attorneys fees, the RIAA withdrew the case Priority Records v. Chan.[89][90] while LaHara's mother agreed to pay $2,000 in settlements. The RIAA also sued the 16-year old son of Patricia Santangelo of Wappingers Falls, New York [91] and the 10-year-old daughter of Tanya Andersen in Oregon.[92] Santangelo's case is pending while Andersen's case was dismissed in 2007 [93]

The RIAA's recent targeting of students has generated controversy as well. An April 4, 2006 story in the MIT campus newspaper The Tech indicates that an RIAA representative stated to Cassi Hunt, an alleged file-sharer, that previously, "the RIAA has been known to suggest that students drop out of college or go to community college in order to be able to afford settlements."[94]

The RIAA has also filed a lawsuit against a woman who has never bought, turned on, or used a personal computer for using an "online distribution system" to obtain unlicensed music files.[95] This occurred again in the Walls case; "I don't understand this", said James Walls, "How can they sue us when we don't even have a computer?".[96]

The RIAA filed a lawsuit against Larry Scantlebury, a man who had died. They offered the deceased man's family a period of sixty days to grieve the death before they began to depose members of Mr. Scantlebury’s family for the suit against his estate.[97]
page: 1 · 2 · next