Playing devil's advocate just a little, it would seem to me that violating the TOS of Time Warner would not automatically make you liable for damages to the RIAA, a different entity (okay, forget for a moment that Time Warner might own the rights to the music or movie you downloaded). Two different issues, IMO.

According to what some have said here, if I could manage to download kiddie porn at the local high school, the principal could be arrested.

Lastly, fuck the RIAA. I just read that they sued some guy for ripping his legally owned CDs to his computer.

First, they created a scenario in which, by purchasing a CD, you only had "the rights to use the music." Not transferable, therefore you couldn't (according to them) loan out or re-sell the CD. Now it seems you don't have the rights to the music you buy, either.

At the risk of being repetitive, fuck them with a six-foot dildo.

I haven't heard of the case, but the tests that show data from overwritten drives can be recovered were done with ridiculously low density media compared to today's technology. If you're really worried, overwrite it with random data, but unless you're protecting state secrets, doing 3 writes is paranoid and 7 is ridiculous.

Why not just use a different HD instead. I personally have 2 HD one with a lot of information and the OS and software. But how would they really know if you yanked the second drive or swapped it with another. Maybe I am being naive if so tell me so.

So, I'd love to chime in here. Here is my take.

Terms of Service has nothing to do with copyright law. It is a contract. Lets assume that your ISP ToS said that each time your ISP called your house and asked for "Betty" you had to mail them one hundred million dollars. This would obviously be handled the same way and software ToS is handled in court... largely dismissed because not many people read these 20 page documents and we all know it.

Lets assume something else for fun here. Lets say you have an open network, and a hacker uses your network to hack a government system which ultimately sends the entire economy crashing to calamity. Since you didn't meet all the provisions in the ToS, a contract with an ISP, you think you are responsible for the hackers actions.

Acting like small business contracts have anything to do with law is absurd.

To prosecute somebody for something, it must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that they committed said crime. Proof of action is NOT synonymous with proof of possibility. On the other hand. Say the ISP incurred a fine for the illegal download activity. I believe that the ISP could sue the open network provider for losses incurred by not following the ToS and probably win. Disregard for contract resulted in loss, the party in breach should be responsible. This has nothing to do with criminal proceeding though.

Am I way off base? Have I misunderstood American law my whole life?

So, I'd love to chime in here. Here is my take.

Terms of Service has nothing to do with copyright law. It is a contract. Lets assume that your ISP ToS said that each time your ISP called your house and asked for "Betty" you had to mail them one hundred million dollars. This would obviously be handled the same way and software ToS is handled in court... largely dismissed because not many people read these 20 page documents and we all know it.

Lets assume something else for fun here. Lets say you have an open network, and a hacker uses your network to hack a government system which ultimately sends the entire economy crashing to calamity. Since you didn't meet all the provisions in the ToS, a contract with an ISP, you think you are responsible for the hackers actions.

Acting like small business contracts have anything to do with law is absurd.

To prosecute somebody for something, it must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that they committed said crime. Proof of action is NOT synonymous with proof of possibility. On the other hand. Say the ISP incurred a fine for the illegal download activity. I believe that the ISP could sue the open network provider for losses incurred by not following the ToS and probably win. Disregard for contract resulted in loss, the party in breach should be responsible. This has nothing to do with criminal proceeding though.

Am I way off base? Have I misunderstood American law my whole life?

7 wipes is standard DOD practice. I think the Gutmann method does 35 wipes.

So if you're worried about it, go download Dban, type DOD when the screen comes up and wait a few hours.. no more worries. Just be careful with Dban.. it will wipe any and all drives on the system no questions asked.

Turns out the DOD no longer finds 7 passes acceptable as a means of destroying data, as of 2007. An agency within it, the DSS (Defense Security Service) outlines destruction policies of data.

I still think 7 passes is enough. Electron microscopes and pattern backtracking algorithms can only see so far back into the past of a hard drive platter.

Ignorance is no excuse, just because you didn't know about it or didn't take the time to read the TOS doesn't mean you're exempt from it.
This is an extreme circumstance and has no comparison to downloading copyrighted material so it's pointless to respond to.
It isn't a law, it's a legally binding contract between you and your ISP saying you take responsibility for YOUR account. I know, I know it's crazy you're responsible for your account, what a wacky concept.
They have proof, they have logs saying that said material was downloaded by said account at said time on said day, they don't need much more proof than that.
Way off base, start by reading the TOS with your ISP, you'll see you're responsible for the activity on your account, plain and simple, links have been posted in this thread to show that already.

Unfortunately, I believe you are incorrect. I agree with you ideologically. I love the idea of honest contracts. One where both parties clearly state the provisions. However, corporate bureaucracy and sesquipidalian lawyers have caused this to no longer be the case. ToS's are such a joke that many court circuits know it, and have started throwing out ToS agreements. Many ToS are recognized as BS. Like not being allowed to return software after it is opened, but you can't read the ToS until opening it, and by opening it you agree to be bound by the ToS enclosed. Better yet when the ToS says that the ToS can change at any time without notification and that you will automatically be understood to agree with those terms as well.

You are correct ignorance does not exonerate you of responsibility to the contract, but conversely it does not force responsibility for the crime not proven to be committed by you.
Extreme circumstances are the only circumstances that belong being compared. They make clear the blunders in logic.

Not wacky at all. What is wacky is assuming this makes you criminally responsible for all actions on your account.
Yes, they have proof that the download happened through your account, nobody is arguing that. What they don't have proof of, is that YOU downloaded that material using your account. So, losses incurred are your responsibility, but criminally you still need to prove that I broke the law.
It's like you still aren't aware of the argument at hand. The argument from me isn't that you aren't responsible to the contract, it is that you aren't criminally responsible unless proven to be.

herk, can you clarify waht you see here that's illegal? I see no criminal action being taken, only civil. I think the burden of proof will be diffenent in the separate court systems.

Herk, no one has mentioned criminal actions being taken, so it's like you still aren't aware of the argument at hand.
Not when the extreme circumstance being used has nothing to do with the conversation at hand. Destroying a countries economy by hacking records is just a wee bit different than downloading copyrighted materials, and the charges for such would differ greatly.
Criminally responsible, no, responsible for action on your account, you sure are.
So they have proof that the download happened through your account, which YOU are responsible for, so they now have proof YOU did it.

From the opening post.
"They said that Paramount had sent them an e-mail saying I downloaded a movie illegally"

Is it not illegal to download copyrighted materials? Illegal doesn't necessarily mean a criminal offense has taken place, the matter could be handled with civil suit instead. Think HTA is speeding a criminal offense? Is speeding legal?

Changed 1 word. Otherwise, it's like you've turned into ratbastid and I'm just nodding along.

I've never heard of anyone arrested for copyright infringement or serving time for it. I think that this is just a case of sloppy language (the OP) being interpreted by a bunch of precise people (us).

Thanks for the change Jazz. I agree, I think the OP just didn't pick his words careful enough and now people like us are pulling our own meanings out of them.

OJ could be another example of not being criminally guilty (although for shady reasons) yet he was still civilly responsible for the deaths.

It is illegal to download copyrighted material. Illegal does mean a crime was committed. My point is that criminal and civil offenses are two different things. In this case, it is quite black and white that the ISP customer is responsible for the action on his/her account, just like you say. Because of this they would lose in a civil suit, understandably(this would only involve a termination of the contract including server and possibly a civil suit to recover lost money). However, the insinuation that he is somehow at risk of suffering criminal penalty because you are responsible for the actions occurring on your open network is absurd. You could only suffer these if it could be proven that you were THE person who performed the illegal act; not the person having up a network upon which an illegal act was committed.

Just out of curiosity, are you aware of an actual criminal statute that makes copyright infringement/downloading copyrighted material an actual crime? I'll google it when I get a chance, but I'm wondering if you know off the top of your head. No biggie if you don't, but you seem to be on the ball with this stuff and might save me the trouble.

Title 17

That is good stuff right there.:thumbsup:

I just think the TOS is only good between the ISP and the end user.


paramount doesn't make the TOS, and TOS is not LAW, it's simply a service agreement so the ISP isn't responsible for your misuse. That way they can be like "i told them so!"

In short, IF IN REALITY someone else used your connection to download a movie, the most you're in trouble for is violating your TOS. You didn't commit a crime.

In the same breath, paramount might want to milk you for negligence or being party to assisting an illegal act, but thats hardly the same as being convicted of copyright infringement or software piracy

Yeah, right on Shauk. I think we all pretty much agree to be honest. Would you say that we probably agree, Silent_Jay? ;)

Doubtful, but it doesn't matter anyways, anything else I add is just going to be me regurgitating my own points again as I've already made my case.

According to Wikipedia (I have not fact checked it, someone may want to) the DMCA assigns these criminal penalties:
* A fine of not more than $500,000 or imprisonment for not more than five years, or both, for the first offense.
* A fine of not more than $1 million and imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both, for repeated offenses.




For reference, here's a link to the infringement statute, and the criminal infringement section

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html

If I leave my keys in my car doesn't it doesn't give anyone the right to take it, much like having an unsecured network doesn't give anyone the right to use it. I'm not responsible if someone steals my car and uses it in another crime, why should I be responsible for someone logging into my network and using it for a crime?

Try getting your insurance to cover it. It may not give anyone the right to use your open network, but your TOS says you should have it protected, ignorance is no excuse once again.

This is a little off topic, but I always fear about being caught with torrents. Try to use Usenet! Some one might inform me that is a lot less safe, but until then Usenet is my method of choice.

Since the whole torrentspy.com thing happened and the court wanted them to track their users, I found a way that I believe to be more safe when I do download torrents. Plus torrentspy will not allow people from the US to search so it works to get around it too!

Goto http://www.anonymouse.org/

You can browse websites anonymously and they traffic all of the data like a proxy server to your computer. It is slow, but worth the trouble.

Anyone think that this will help, or am I mistaken? Hope that helps someone