Judge Wants Those Sued By US Copyright Group Informed Of Rights All parties must draft letters detailing a user's options Thursday Jul 01 2010 15:18 EDT As we noted yesterday, the Electronic Frontier Foundation went to court to try and challenge the U.S. Copyright Group's attempt to streamline their "settlement-o-matic" business by lumping tens of thousands of accused copyright infringers into one. That's something the EFF argued wasn't legal, and "deprives the defendants of fair access to individual justice." According to the EFF, the Judge in the case has ordered that those involved in the mass lawsuits be sent a new letter informing them of their legal rights, with the content agreed upon by ISPs, the U.S. Copyright Group, and digital rights groups like the EFF and ACLU. Says the EFF: quote: During the hearing, Judge Rosemary M. Collyer said that while the plaintiffs had a right to pursue legitimate claims, she was also concerned that the defendants’ interests be protected as well, and that the defendants might not have a fair opportunity to raise legal objections. As a result, Judge Collyer ordered the plaintiffs, TWC and amici to work together to draft a notice that could be sent to subscribers whose information is sought. The notice is intended to help educate the defendants about the case and their legal options, such as the option to challenge jurisdiction.
Of course getting all these groups to agree won't be easy, given the U.S. Copyright Group's entire business model is based upon language that is intended to terrify users into settling for $1,500 to $2,500 -- or face penalties up to $150,000 for each shared film. |
Desdinova Premium Member join:2003-01-26 Gaithersburg, MD 1 edit |
Hmmm...Add an explanation of juror's rights and we may be making some tentative steps towards shifting control of the legal system away from the larger interests and back towards those who are REALLY supposed to control it: the people. | |
| |
2 recommendations |
Re: Hmmm...said by Desdinova:Add an explanation of juror's rights and we may be making some tentative steps towards shifting control of the legal system away from the larger interests and back towards those who are REALLY supposed to control it: the people. I agree. That would be a good way to nullify laws bought and paid for by corporations. Like the militia, the jury was intended to be a place for citizens to executive executive control, through consensus of their peers and within a framework created by government. Autonomous, yet in concert with other members of the community. Dependent upon society for the framework to exercise such power, yet acting against society if necessary. In the case of the jury, it was a way for individuals to wield the executive veto power on a case-by-case basis. However, both the militia and jury were predicated on universal participation, and a citizenry possessing "civic virtue." It's hard to imagine a society so far from such ideals when they ceded their martial duty (the militia) to the National Guard (a standing army, for all intents and purposes). And, most Americans *shamelessly* try to find ways to get out of jury duty -- even if it means lying! The importance of universality was that those executive powers be wielded by a group of individuals who truly represent society at large. The importance of civic virtue was that those executive powers be wielded by a group who reached consensus through deliberation of "the common good," not their own self interest (such as all the jurors just wanting to go home and get back to their World of Warcraft, or copulating.). Considering the society we've become, I'm not sure the "fully informed jury" (or jury nullification -- jurors doing more than just weighing the facts of the case) is such a hot idea. It would be like giving 5 year olds the key to the car and telling them to behave like grown ups (because that's what the founding generation envisioned). | |
|
kadosHail Odin Premium Member join:2003-03-14 Watertown, SD |
kados
Premium Member
2010-Jul-1 3:30 pm
About time someone helpsOk, not sure how to put this, but it's about time someone stands up to these people. It's been proven time and time again that downloading files does not hurt the companies. File sharers buy and attend more movies, concerts, and buy more dvds and cd's than anyone else. I'd also have to say the real reason most people infringe on copyrights is simply the cost of said software. I know people who use, lets say photoshop for example, and they download it instead of paying the $800+ pricetag. Most of these are home users who use it to play with pictures or what ever and never use it to make a dime, it's just not feasable for them to purchase it. I also know people who will download a movie, watch it and then decide to buy it, I am one of them. I download alot of movies, and if there is one I really like, I'll go buy the dvd and not think twice, Avatar is a perfect example. I snagged it on BT watched it, and the day it came out on bluray, I bought it. | |
| | br1252 join:2007-04-10 Norwalk, CT 1 edit |
br1252
Member
2010-Jul-1 3:50 pm
Re: About time someone helpsYou were supposed to have gone to the movie and paid the $10-$15 to see it, THEN buy the disc when it came out. | |
| | | newviewEx .. Ex .. Exactly Premium Member join:2001-10-01 Parsonsburg, MD |
newview
Premium Member
2010-Jul-1 3:56 pm
Re: About time someone helpssaid by br1252:You were supposed to have gone to the movie and paid the $10-$15 to see it, THEN buy the disc when it came out. Correction: You were supposed to have gone to the movie and paid the $10-$15, then watch 20 minutes of advertisements, THEN see the movie, then buy the disc, watch 20 minutes of advertisements, THEN see the movie on disc. | |
| | | | Metatron2008You're it Premium Member join:2008-09-02 united state
1 recommendation |
Re: About time someone helpsHow about you are supposed to follow the law? That may be foreign to some of you, but if you aren't gonna buy it, don't download it. | |
| | | | | elios join:2005-11-15 Springfield, MO |
elios
Member
2010-Jul-1 4:18 pm
Re: About time someone helpssaid by Metatron2008:How about you are supposed to follow the law? That may be foreign to some of you, but if you aren't gonna buy it, don't download it. why follow an unjust law? enough people say screw the law and you cant sue/arrest them all | |
| | | | | | Metatron2008You're it Premium Member join:2008-09-02 united state |
Re: About time someone helpssaid by elios:said by Metatron2008:How about you are supposed to follow the law? That may be foreign to some of you, but if you aren't gonna buy it, don't download it. why follow an unjust law? enough people say screw the law and you cant sue/arrest them all how exactly is supporting artists or not downloading unjust? Get over your entitlement issues, people like you are everything that's wrong with society today. | |
| | | | | | | cdruGo Colts MVM join:2003-05-14 Fort Wayne, IN |
cdru
MVM
2010-Jul-1 4:57 pm
Re: About time someone helpssaid by Metatron2008:how exactly is supporting artists or not downloading unjust? Supporting the artist? Hahaha that's funny. Ask Winston Groom how much of of the 3% of Forest Gump's proceeds he ever received for writing it. Or the Tolkien estate that was contracted to receive 7.5% of the profit from the LOTR trilogy that took in over $1b domestically alone. Then you'll find out how well the artists are being supported by sales. | |
| | | | | | | | Metatron2008You're it Premium Member join:2008-09-02 united state |
Re: About time someone helpssaid by cdru:said by Metatron2008:how exactly is supporting artists or not downloading unjust? Hahaha that's funny. It's only about as funny as the average pirate excuse, so keep laughing. | |
| | | | | | | | | cdruGo Colts MVM join:2003-05-14 Fort Wayne, IN |
cdru
MVM
2010-Jul-1 5:09 pm
Re: About time someone helpssaid by Metatron2008:It's only about as funny as the average pirate excuse, so keep laughing. You're right. The average pirate excuse holds as much water as the studios claiming that pirating "hurts the artist". They were hurting far earlier in the process then when the pirates put it on the internet. It's all along the same lines as "Think of the children" and "help prevent terrorism". It really has nothing to do with it at all but it makes a good sound byte. | |
| | | | | | | | | | Metatron2008You're it Premium Member join:2008-09-02 united state |
Re: About time someone helpsStealing doesn't help though, no matter what corporations do. I hate it when pirates think they are fighting corporations by acting just like them or worse. | |
| | | | | | | | | | ArrayListDevOps Premium Member join:2005-03-19 Mullica Hill, NJ |
Re: About time someone helpsor worse you say.. I ask what you mean by that. what can be worse than acting like the evil *IAA? seriously. how can you get worse than either of those industries? | |
| | | | | | | | | | Metatron2008You're it Premium Member join:2008-09-02 united state |
Re: About time someone helpssaid by ArrayList:or worse you say.. I ask what you mean by that. what can be worse than acting like the evil *IAA? seriously. how can you get worse than either of those industries? Large scale criminal operations selling thousands of cheap pirated goods. Of all the things I say about pirates they at least know what to pay for stolen property (0$) | |
| | | | | | | | | | ArrayListDevOps Premium Member join:2005-03-19 Mullica Hill, NJ |
Re: About time someone helpsif you think the piracy in the United States is bad, which it isn't, you should check out the insane piracy networks in place in the middle east and asia. it makes p2p look peaceful. The criminals are the people who steal and make a living on it. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
to Metatron2008
said by Metatron2008:Stealing doesn't help though, no matter what corporations do. Then again by the same law you are so adamant about, it is not stealing. said by Metatron2008:I hate it when pirates think they are fighting corporations by acting just like them or worse. Then maybe the corporations should have though of that before paying for legislation that made copyright a joke and continued to erode people's fair use of works. They created the 'perceived' problem. Besides, if the history of this country teaches you something is that sometimes unfair laws deserve to be broken. | |
| | | | | | | | | | GlobalMindDomino Dude, POWER Systems Guy Premium Member join:2001-10-29 Indianapolis, IN
1 recommendation |
to Metatron2008
said by Metatron2008:Stealing doesn't help though, no matter what corporations do. Well ok first, it isn't stealing. Certainly not legally. Second, when all of their precious award shows are held at the VFW hall with everyone wearing clothes from WalMart, then we can talk. The big talent and the big studios still get paid, TONS. All at the expense of the people actually doing the damn work behind the scenes. Pay Tom Cruise $250k for a picture instead of $20 mil and then we'll talk. I buy what I want, I listen to what I want. I don't download "illegally." I know several bands I am a fan of, including RUSH have said likely no more studio albums because it costs too much and the industry just isn't supporting it. Of course those who are bound to get the money still will. And bands who actually know how to play live will tour and make more that way then they ever will releasing records under labels who have since their inception existed by profiting off of the backs of artists they pay pennies compared to what the label keeps, just so the artist gets their taste of what it feels like to make it. Please don't defend the fscking industry execs the labels and the whole corrupt BS system OK? There's just no point. It's indefensible. Want to defend copyright? Fine, howabout reverting the limits back to what they were intended and not extended to 1000 years past the life of the last living relative of the artist which is basically what it is now with the labels being the ones "owning" the copyrights. | |
| | | | | | | | | | Sammer join:2005-12-22 Canonsburg, PA |
Sammer
Member
2010-Jul-2 1:07 am
Re: About time someone helpssaid by GlobalMind:Want to defend copyright? Fine, howabout reverting the limits back to what they were intended and not extended to 1000 years past the life of the last living relative of the artist which is basically what it is now with the labels being the ones "owning" the copyrights. While your remarks are more than a bit over the top there were no corporate copyrights originally. They were intended for authors and artists who are actual living breathing human beings and not legal entities known as corporations. As the Declaration of Independence states, individual humans beings have certain inalienable rights endowed by the Creator. Individual Copyrights may allow artists to pursue happiness. Corporations are not human (they have no mortal soul) and the only rights they have or should have are given (and can be taken away) by government. So if anyone views corporate copyrights or any copyrights extending more than fifty years as an abomination of justice, I certainly see your point. | |
| | | | | | | | | | GlobalMindDomino Dude, POWER Systems Guy Premium Member join:2001-10-29 Indianapolis, IN |
Re: About time someone helpssaid by Sammer:said by GlobalMind:Want to defend copyright? Fine, howabout reverting the limits back to what they were intended and not extended to 1000 years past the life of the last living relative of the artist which is basically what it is now with the labels being the ones "owning" the copyrights. While your remarks are more than a bit over the top there were no corporate copyrights originally. They were intended for authors and artists who are actual living breathing human beings and not legal entities known as corporations. As the Declaration of Independence states, individual humans beings have certain inalienable rights endowed by the Creator. Individual Copyrights may allow artists to pursue happiness. Corporations are not human (they have no mortal soul) and the only rights they have or should have are given (and can be taken away) by government. So if anyone views corporate copyrights or any copyrights extending more than fifty years as an abomination of justice, I certainly see your point. You are correct and I am well aware of what the original intent of copyright was. However, it's been bastardized into what we have today, driven not by the actual artists but by the corporate interests who control the music business. Not all the artists "own" the copyrights to their music. As to length, the term was originally set, and it's been gradually changed over the years. In the cases of copyrights being owned by the corporation, that "life" of the artist becomes essentially forever. You consider my comments over the top, but I know there's those who absolutely support what I've said. | |
|
| | | | PCDEC join:2004-10-12 Allentown, PA |
to Metatron2008
"If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so." Thomas Jefferson | |
| | | | | | cdruGo Colts MVM join:2003-05-14 Fort Wayne, IN |
cdru
MVM
2010-Jul-2 11:54 am
Re: About time someone helpssaid by PCDEC:"If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so." Thomas Jefferson So what part of the law is unjust? If you find one part of the law unjust, does that make the entire law unjust? | |
|
| | | | Z80A Premium Member join:2009-11-23 1 edit |
to Metatron2008
You mean like abuse of process laws, anti-hacking laws, unusual punishment laws, bribery laws, extortion laws, fair-use laws, etc? Or you do mean copyright laws | |
|
| | | 1 edit |
to newview
You can skip ads on discs (just not FBI/Interpol's warnings) and go right to the menu
And it does not take more than mere few seconds! | |
| | | | |
1 recommendation |
Re: About time someone helpssaid by chgo_man99:You can skip ads on discs (just not FBI/Interpol's warnings) and go right to the menu And it does not take more than mere few seconds! I guess you have not come across some disc's that prevent skipping of some of the crap before the movie. | |
| | | | | | |
Re: About time someone helpsMost DVD players today allow you to go right to the movie playing by hitting STOP STOP PLAY bypassing all the junk AND the menu. | |
| | | | | | |
to zalternate
I've had movies where, upon pressing next track to skip ahead, will put you back at the beginning of ALL the previews again. Seems like a punishment! | |
|
| | | |
to newview
said by newview:said by br1252:You were supposed to have gone to the movie and paid the $10-$15 to see it, THEN buy the disc when it came out. Correction: You were supposed to have gone to the movie and paid the $10-$15, then watch 20 minutes of advertisements, THEN see the movie, then buy the disc, watch 20 minutes of advertisements, THEN see the movie on disc. Correction on the correction YOu were supposed to goto the movie with a friend paying 15$ each ( 30$) then buy each a pop n popcorn worth 15-20$ each ( 40$:70$) then watch the adverts then see the movie and it sucks, then go buy a dvdr for a computer to watch ( 40$) and anohter one for your dvdr player for tv ( 40$) then buy a BLuray DISC ( 80$) and then open the window in your high rise and JUMP OUT, cause your bankrupted | |
| | | | KearnstdSpace Elf Premium Member join:2002-01-22 Mullica Hill, NJ |
to newview
said by newview:said by br1252:You were supposed to have gone to the movie and paid the $10-$15 to see it, THEN buy the disc when it came out. Correction: You were supposed to have gone to the movie and paid the $10-$15, then watch 20 minutes of advertisements, THEN see the movie, then buy the disc, watch 20 minutes of advertisements, THEN see the movie on disc. and dont forget if you want a copy for the kids to watch in the minivan you should bring the original or buy a second copy. because making one on a DVD-R so that you dont risk damage to your original. in their eyes you just became a pirate. | |
| | | | FutureMonDude Whats mine say?
join:2000-10-05 Marina, CA |
to newview
said by newview:said by br1252:You were supposed to have gone to the movie and paid the $10-$15 to see it, THEN buy the disc when it came out. Correction: You were supposed to have gone to the movie and paid the $10-$15, then watch 20 minutes of advertisements, THEN see the movie, then buy the disc, watch 20 minutes of advertisements, THEN see the movie on disc. LOL There are no advertisements on the Avatar disc. ...I know, I know...it's an exception... - FM | |
| | | | | newviewEx .. Ex .. Exactly Premium Member join:2001-10-01 Parsonsburg, MD |
newview
Premium Member
2010-Jul-1 7:22 pm
Re: About time someone helpssaid by FutureMon:LOL There are no advertisements on the Avatar disc. Thanks for that bit of info . . . I'll put that on my "ok to buy" list. | |
| | | | | | FutureMonDude Whats mine say?
join:2000-10-05 Marina, CA |
Re: About time someone helpssaid by newview:said by FutureMon:LOL There are no advertisements on the Avatar disc. Thanks for that bit of info . . . I'll put that on my "ok to buy" list. It was a trade off. The studios wanted to put all their crap on it, but James refused. So they met in the middle and the disc has no ads or previews, but it also doesn't have the other stuff you might normally get like extras, commentarys, deleted scenes, etc. - FM | |
| | | | | | | •••
| | | | fiberguy2My views are my own. Premium Member join:2005-05-20 |
to newview
said by newview:said by br1252:You were supposed to have gone to the movie and paid the $10-$15 to see it, THEN buy the disc when it came out. Correction: You were supposed to have gone to the movie and paid the $10-$15, then watch 20 minutes of advertisements, THEN see the movie, then buy the disc, watch 20 minutes of advertisements, THEN see the movie on disc. So? Where are you trying to come up with some notion that they're not supposed to show you any commercials or advertisements before or after the movie.. and how does that still justify your having the right to decide on your own that you somehow have the right to simply take something that's not yours because you don't like it.. .. the next time I'm in a 7-11 convenient store to buy gasoline, and when I see all the ads all around the store, I guess that should be justification for me to simply walk outside and drive away with out paying, right? | |
| | | | | |
talz13
Member
2010-Jul-2 3:14 pm
Re: About time someone helpsOf course you should drive away without paying. The gas is just going to duplicate itself for the next customer... Oh wait, that's digital IP... | |
| | | | | | fiberguy2My views are my own. Premium Member join:2005-05-20 1 edit |
Re: About time someone helpsDigital property is as much property as is tangible.
This is the core issue.. you people think that it's okay since it's digital.. and reproduction is so simple that it's okay. That's just wrong. You're not paying for the media you get, you're paying for the content be it on a DVD, VHS tape or a digital replication that can easily be reproduced.
... and people wonder why they want copy protections installed.
They've made their intent clear.. it's NOT okay just because it's digital or because computers make it easy today to make this stuff happen. They made their intent known by telling you it's not okay, there are laws that state it's not okay, and they've sued people and won saying "it's not okay"... yet, you still sit here and act like it somehow is.
When are you guys going to learn? | |
|
| FFH5 Premium Member join:2002-03-03 Tavistock NJ |
FFH5 to kados
Premium Member
2010-Jul-1 4:02 pm
to kados
said by kados: It's been proven time and time again that downloading files does not hurt the companies That is not PROVED. It is merely alleged. 1 side(content providers) exaggerates the harm done. The other side(I want everything for free anarchists) claims there is NO harm. Both are merely trying to advance their own agendas. The truth lies somewhere in between. | |
| | | •••••••• | | KearnstdSpace Elf Premium Member join:2002-01-22 Mullica Hill, NJ |
to kados
Thankfully VLC can skip all that crap.
sadly for some reason the hardware DVD player makers dont make an option called "Skip to Movie" | |
| | | mtech join:2002-10-20 72405 |
mtech
Member
2010-Jul-1 5:30 pm
Re: About time someone helpsHow about "Menu","Play"? | |
| | | | Avder join:2002-05-08 Moorhead, MN |
Avder
Member
2010-Jul-1 10:09 pm
Re: About time someone helpsIts becoming entirely too common for the studios to forcibly employ the user-prohibited-actions "feature" of the DVD spec in order to force you to sit through advertisements each and every time you watch the film. They already employ it to force you to sit through the FBI warnings (In three separate languages, no less), and numerous disclaimers about how the directors commentary doesnt reflect on the studios, yadda, yadda, yadda. Its bad enough that most discs nowadays start by playing advertisements for upcoming films. But if a disc that I bought and paid good money for employs prohibited actions to force viewing of the ads, I violate the circumvention clause of the DMCA in order to rip and re-burn in an ad-free format.
When I hit Menu, and then Play, I want the movie to start playing. Not start playing 5 minutes later.
The Pirates can attempt to justify their actions as much as they want, but one thing going for the Pirated film experience is you simply get to the damned movie a lot faster. If Paying Customers got the same treatment, it would help eliminate that aspect of piracy. And this applies to all forms of copyright: Music, Movies, and Software (especially games). | |
|
| DeathK Premium Member join:2002-06-16 Cincinnati, OH |
to kados
said by kados:it's just not feasable for them to purchase it. Then they don't get to use it. It's really that simple. By obtaining the software/product without a legal transaction having taken place they've committed an illegal act. | |
| | |
to kados
Guys, it's your/our legislators that have been bought off by these interests. Stop moaning, start voting. The statutory damages intended to scare users were created by law, and if you want to change that you need to contact your senator & representative. | |
|
KearnstdSpace Elf Premium Member join:2002-01-22 Mullica Hill, NJ |
Kearnstd
Premium Member
2010-Jul-1 3:31 pm
they should also be required to...goto the local court of the person being sued if they decide to go the non settlement option. or in short they should not be allowed to sue a Florida resident in say California even if they do use federal courts. since the recording industry has the resources to send lawyers everywhere they should have to travel to sue. | |
| | RARPSL join:1999-12-08 Suffern, NY |
RARPSL
Member
2010-Jul-1 4:32 pm
Re: they should also be required to...said by Kearnstd:goto the local court of the person being sued if they decide to go the non settlement option. or in short they should not be allowed to sue a Florida resident in say California even if they do use federal courts. since the recording industry has the resources to send lawyers everywhere they should have to travel to sue. There is a separate issue that your suggestion ignores. The mass ("John Doe") suit is intended to find out who to send the blackmail letters to and bypass the need to inform the alleged pirates that their identity is being sought without any way to for them to block/fight the fishing expedition. Unless the Judge requires that the letter be sent by the ISP WITHOUT the customer's identity being revealed to the Copyright Mob until the customer has had a chance to fight the request, there should be NO mass identity discovery suits allowed. | |
|
FFH5 Premium Member join:2002-03-03 Tavistock NJ |
FFH5
Premium Member
2010-Jul-1 3:59 pm
Reverse class action lawsuit ?Regular class action lawsuits are when very many in a class of plaintiffs sue a single or a couple defendants for a wrong(like against Apple & their antenna). What the US Copyright Group is trying to do is the reverse of that. That is a single plaintiff is trying to sue a class of defendants.
Sounds like an interesting theory. The judge hasn't ruled out the concept. Only looks like she is trying to make sure proper notification is made to the defendants(copyright infringers).
Will be interesting to see how this proceeds. Turn-around is fair play. | |
| | cdruGo Colts MVM join:2003-05-14 Fort Wayne, IN |
cdru
MVM
2010-Jul-1 5:40 pm
Re: Reverse class action lawsuit ?said by FFH5:Regular class action lawsuits are when very many in a class of plaintiffs sue a single or a couple defendants for a wrong(like against Apple & their antenna). What the US Copyright Group is trying to do is the reverse of that. That is a single plaintiff is trying to sue a class of defendants. Sounds like an interesting theory. The judge hasn't ruled out the concept. Only looks like she is trying to make sure proper notification is made to the defendants(copyright infringers). It will never happen, at least for the actual trial once John Doe 1-15000 is discovered. With a class action lawsuit, multiple people go after a single entity with identical claims where the defense wouldn't put up differing defenses for each plaintiff, they are defending against X number of identical cases. In what you theorize, one entity going after multiple individuals who each wholly and separately are accused of committing some type of infraction, each with their unique set of circumstances and evidence. What evidence, discovery, etc that applies to John Doe 1 would not apply to Jon Doe 2-15,000. Not to mention that each defendant would have the right to represented by their own lawyer. Unless the trial is going to be held in a football stadium, it's just not practical/possible. | |
| | KearnstdSpace Elf Premium Member join:2002-01-22 Mullica Hill, NJ |
to FFH5
id imagine each defendant has a right to demand a jury trial in their district as well. ie they can demand the case not be in say California. | |
|
|
In other words...the judge caved to the attorneys and is just allowing legalized extortion, regardless of proof. Now that the attorneys know the judge will rule in their favor, they can collect all they want.
It's amazing that the federal judges are now just tools for corporations, but I guess it's not really surprising. The time is far past when the judicial system gave a rat's tushie about individual rights. What matters now is how can the judicial system help businesses, which are far more important than stupid citizens. | |
| | Ubee E31U2V1 (Software) pfSense Netgear WNR3500L
|
Re: In other words...said by old_wiz_60:the judge caved to the attorneys and is just allowing legalized extortion, regardless of proof. Now that the attorneys know the judge will rule in their favor, they can collect all they want. It's amazing that the federal judges are now just tools for corporations, but I guess it's not really surprising. The time is far past when the judicial system gave a rat's tushie about individual rights. What matters now is how can the judicial system help businesses, which are far more important than stupid citizens. No, the judge is only requiring that USCG inform all those John Doe's of their right to fight the subpoena and having their true name published on the case dockets. This will be very easy for most people to quash. Most people simply have to say that they have an open WiFi that they use, and they are excluded. Also, one need only claim that they wish to be sued in their own district, and they would get dropped, because USCG does not want to pay for 14000 INDIVIDUAL lawsuits. it would be extremly expensive, and extremely time consuming. 14000 individual suits could take centuries to conclude, hence why USCG has lumped them all into a single suit. the EFF need only inform people on how to separate their suit, and if enough people do it, USCG will go under. I believe the EFF need only prove that people that are lumped together have no reasonable connection to each. Unless USCG can prove that ALL 14000 IP address were on AT THE SAME TIME, and CONNECTED TO ALL OTHERS, there is no connection between the 14000 john doe's. | |
|
|
chubbyanon
Anon
2010-Jul-1 5:00 pm
anyone ever heard of a Guttmann?For anyone who received one of these threat letters, you should google eraser or guttman. Their FAQ threats are ridiculous, and should be taken for less than the electricity to put in on your monitor. If ANY "forensic" team could prove that you used a Gutmann, they cannot prove what you got rid of, so therefor, there is not any evidence. I'm not suggesting that anyone involved go and destroy evidence, as this isn't really lawful. oh wait, its a civil suit, they have very low standards to begin with, so don't just delete, erase with a DoD 7, or a guttmann. that leaves them with NOTHING to even prove you removed anything, and will be relying on self incrimination. just don't talk to them to solve that. these lawyers piss me off to no extent, and need to be shut down. their approach is nothing more than EXTORTION, and its a very fine line on legality with these letters flying out the door. I'm tempted to start a download to get one of these letters to drag them thru the courts in my state. they would not fare too well with me and my lawyers. | |
| moes Premium Member join:2009-11-15 Cedar City, UT |
moes
Premium Member
2010-Jul-1 8:03 pm
intresting.Let them send one of these letters to me and I will make the biggest shit storm this side of the grand canyon. The industry is way to corrupt for me to put my money into it, there already extorting prices on movies and disc's. My biggest complaint is the artists or actors never get any of the money that is earned from this, they put in the hardwork, while jim bob sits in his nice comfy chair in his office and drives a 100k Mercedes and lives in a 2 million dollar house and collects the artists money for nothing. So try to extort me with a letter. well goto court over it | |
| |
GodsOwnTruth
Anon
2010-Jul-1 8:41 pm
No WayEvery person who has been sued so far by the RIAA has won the first trial or won on appeal. The only losers are those that settle. Discovery could take decades and cost the movie industry billions. The RIAA, DirecTV and other have learned their lessons well, now its the movie industries turn. | |
| | |
Anamin
Anon
2010-Jul-2 12:10 pm
Re: No WayReally you might want to look at Jammie Thomas. Pretty sure she has lost twice in court. Oh also might want to look at Joel Tenenbaum... yeah pretty sure he lost big in court also. Does anyone check facts before posting? | |
|
|
Give me this small $ or else you will pay big!Legal extortion is great isnt it. Remember extortion doesnt require violence or anything of the sort.
settling for $1,500 to $2,500 -- or face penalties up to $150,000 for each shared film.
These copyright groups should be on trial for extortion. Stop this ability of having a business model of a shakedown. | |
| | Z80A Premium Member join:2009-11-23 |
Z80A
Premium Member
2010-Jul-4 2:52 pm
Re: Give me this small $ or else you will pay big!The RIAA and MPAA are engaged in racketeering. | |
|
|
Memory is illegalSince we are All made of individual atoms and atoms utilize the forces of nature (Strong Nuclear Force, Weak Nuclear Force, Gravity, and last but not least, Electro Magnetic Force), one is in violation of this law if you retain any information using such forces of nature. Technically under copyright protection memorizing any copyrighted material is illegal. | |
| |
hehe note this part with the content agreed upon by ISPs, the U.S. Copyright Group, and digital rights groups like the EFF and ACLU., means if the isp dont see it as copyright they dont have to concent right? | |
| jmorlanHmm... That's funny. MVM join:2001-02-05 Pacifica, CA |
The judge did the right thing.What can anybody object to here? Shouldn't targets of litigation be informed of their rights? Every criminal gets informed of his/her rights. Why shouldn't people getting sued get the same rights?
The judge did the right thing. | |
|
| |
|
|