This happened to me about two years ago. I lost my internet connectivity for the rest of the term (about 6 weeks). Went on break, came back, and it was working again. Of course, this was 2 years ago before the MPAA took a apage out of the RIAA playbook. Who knows how it works now.

It comes off that way sometimes when you see someone boohooing about getting caught, doing what they know is against the law.

Go punch a random guy in the face, then come here and cry about how they are going to sue your ass for medical payments.

Thats what im thinking at this point. Mainly because you said it.

You know-- You can think it's fake all you want, but it's *NOT* fake. Bah... You know, I think I made a mistake in posting this here.

All I get is:

1.) "You're lying"
2.) "You deserved it" or
3.) Some inane and overly useless comment o.0

Edit: And, for the record, I don't care if some of you want to call me a liar because I'll just ignore your posts. I really have no reason to make this up and some of your comments *REALLY* aren't helping.

Anyway, I did call the courthouse and they told me that there wasn't any trial scheduled for me and to call the number on the letter. Well, I tried to call the number and it went through (I guess I didn't dial it right the first time). Anyway, I really didn't get anywhere because, for such a big company, they just give you the runaround and transfer you from department to department. Anyway, I called the courthouse back and they stated the same thing that some of you did: That unless I actually get served not to worry about it (That is to say that it might not happen, but that there's no use in worrying about something that hasn't happened yet).

Why because no one sympathizes and says what you want to hear? You broke the law, be a man accept responsibility and work a deal with them.... I am sure they and the system would rather work something out than to spend a lot of time and money and not be able to collect.

heres a website that you may find interesting, 789
http://p2pnet.net/index.php

there are a few stories about how people have responded to being sued/threatened, as well as general copyright and privacy news.

789:

First -- calm down.

Second -- this is not legitimate.


Now I realize you've responded harshly to other posters who've told you it's fake, but I offer you a different perspective.

I'm an active and donating member of EFF (Electronic Freedom Frontier -- www.eff.com) and I'm directly opposed to every action the RIAA has taken in the last year. There's a similar thread elsewhere in General Discussion of a woman who's finally suing the RIAA for their questionable "bully" tactics. I do not respect them as an organization, and I've not funded their cause by buying an RIAA-endorsed-company CD in years. I myself download songs and occasionally movies, and will continue to do so until the RIAA and the MPAA (their partner in crime) stop dragging their 'customers' into court for nonexistant "lost costs." They've somehow managed to convince the court system thus far that $500,000 is fair price for "stealing" a movie. Not only would stealing a PHYSICAL COPY of the movie be far less than this, you're not (realistically) stealing anything. Because we live in a digital world, things can be given bitwise to another person without every destroying their original. Do I think the RIAA or MPAA should recieve a royalty? Sure.. but not $500,000. They're a very corrupt organization (look at some of the action reports on EFF.com) and are trying their hardest to remove our "fair use rights" which were established long ago. During the age of the casette tape and the VHS similar organizations tried to stop their progress because they were afraid to update their liscensing scheme. (Basically, I'm on YOUR side).

^^ To the would-be flamers, I realize that you can feel differently than I do above, but I would apprecite you not derailing it by attacking my opinion. I only offered this as an explanation for 789.

Look very carefully at ALL the documents you've recieved. Although I have an extreme distate for the RIAA, they're usually very official in their dealings with the "criminals" trading their movies or songs. There are PLENTY of hoaxes out there, posing as the RIAA or MPAA, designed by organizations who support their causes. They could simply choose an IP or physical address at random and send you a form letter like the one you've gotten. Likewise, pranksters seem to be enjoying a similar process, as I just got an "RIAA warning letter" via email. A trace of the headers shows it wasn't anyone remotely associated with them and was in fact just a student at our University.

Soo --- a long story short -- unless you get something OFFICIAL, take this "litigation warning" with a large grain of salt. I'm not implying that you've made it up or that the documents you've recieved don't SEEM official, but I'd be willing to bet with near 90% certainty that you have nothing to be worried about in the near future.

Aggression is born out of fear . . . . . . . . the music and movie companies are terrified that the gravy train they have been riding for the last 30 years is being exposed for the over-priced sham which it is . . . by the internet. Its the last thrashings of a dying animal . . they cant stop this. Is it possible that Britney and Eminem and Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman dont really deserve the millions they 'earn'?

Its all scare tactics . . . if you dont feel confident enough to circumvent the system with your own pc then get yourself down to your local market and buy what you need anonimously. This is unstoppable and maybe pop stars and movie stars might be brought back down to earth in terms of what they earn . . . and thats a good thing. The rest of us work damn hard for it.

PS : Are you sure you dowloaded the movie and not some scam trojan virus? I heard you had bought a new pc because the old hard disk had failed? Deny it all.

PPS : I remember in the 1970's every 12" vinyl album had the words "Home Taping Is Killing Music" printed in large letters on the liner sleeve. Looking at what we are offered today it looks like music has certainly suffered but not the profits!

Likewise, you might want to check out http://www.boycott-riaa.com/mission.

They have similar stories of people effected by RIAA hoaxes as well as the organization themslves.

(It's no surpise that in a google search for RIAA "boycott-riaa.com" and "EFF.com" are the second and third listings)

I don't think people are calling YOU a liar; when they say it's "fake" they're saying someone ELSE made it up, maybe as a prank.

A little creative Googling hit a page of a guy who also got this letter from good ol' Aaron:

Well said, Mike. :)

http://www.rushgaming.net/

EDIT to clarify something for you. The waters are still murky as far as the courts are concerned when it comes to downloading. If you can demonstrate that you have or had a copy of the movie prior to downloading then they have absolutely no case. Even under the unrealistic DMCA, you still have the fair use to make copies (digital or otherwise) of your media for backup purposes. Don't ever give up that right.

If you are worried at all about the validity of these letters, simply call the civil division of the court you are allegedly being sued in. If the phone number is not on the summons just google the courts name that most definitely will be on it, and find their number. Tell the clerk your case number, which will also be on the summons if it is real, and they will verify if the case is legit. Also as has been said, if the alleged paper with a court date on it was not either served to you personally by a Registerd Process Server, a Sheriff in your county district, or by certified mail in which you signed for, it is not legal service and the case will be placed off calendar. It is also possible to have the entire case thrown out if you are not served propery.

Some of the people in this thread crack me up being so self-righteous, even though if they were in his situation they'd be shitting a brick as well. :) I still think it's fake, but good luck to whatever happens, and if it IS real, sorry that it had to be you. :(

-Lasereth

Whatever, if everyone obeyed laws throughout history where would civilization stand now? What would America be like?

Narc, that's what I think. :crazy:

If you havn't been issued a summons to court, and still don't get one, you've been done over.
Find the bastard and introduce him to the blunt end of a crowbar.

I want to know what happens this an intriguing story.
Sucks to be him but kinda interesting to see how this transpires

I seem to be repeating myself, but... You're missing the point. If you break the law, don't expect nothing bad to happen to you. I never said not to download anything.

What I said had nothing to do with civil disobedience or conscientious objection.

*sigh*

The point is that I reject the commodification of human relations into relations of exploitation.

The noise a person makes when they sing or play should be free - not a commodity to be packaged, sold, and to sue people if they dare to try listen to it without paying the sufficient dues to the capitalist machine.

To sing is an act of rebellion agaisnt the RIAA.

How soon before they demand royalties for singing "their" songs?

Do you think there is any appropriate claim for intellectual property of any kind? You seem to suggest that as soon as any human production is out there, it belongs to everybody and nobody. There is genuine work that goes into the production of "the noise a person makes when they sing or play". The fact that someone demands payment for a song of their own creation is not exploitation, unless you think compensation is a form of exploitation.

Me thinks that many of you missed the lesson on "Personal Accountability" while growing up.

This is how life works: if you believe that the RIAA is gouging prices, then you call your D.A. and have them file suit over the matter. You don't get to steal and then use their gouging, your ignorance, or your "I couldn't afford it, so I stole it" defence.

This is a rather unreasonable position to hold. Allow me to write out your premises - and please correct me if I'm wrong. Bracketed premises are implied, but not stated.

1. Human relations should not be commodified into relations of exploitation.
2. [Singing is a human relation.]
C. Singing should not be commodified into a relation of exploitation. (Syllogism)

3. Singing should not be commodified into a relation of exploitation.
4. [People should not be exploited for listening to music.]
5. [Suing is a form of exploitation.]
C. People should not be sued for listening to music.

6. Singing is an act of rebellion against the RIAA.
(This doesn't seem to be connected to any of your other arguments.)

The confusion begins with your use of the term "human relations" in your first premise. Music is included within it, so that is some clue that we are talking about non-physical things that are created by humans. I am tempted to call it intellectual property.

It follows that intellectual property should not be used to create relations of exploitation. Selling intellectual property or suing people who "steal" it, then, is a relationship of exploitation and should not be permitted.

It seems that the conclusion of your argument is that it is improper to charge people money for their intellectual creations.

Have I got this right? :hmm:

[QUOTE=X_789_X]You know, I think I made a mistake in posting this here./QUOTE]

You think you made a mistake posting your culpability on a public web forum?
Get a fucking grip, there are only a few people in this thread giving you excellent advice...and one of the first things we told you was that posting your guilt here was a definate mistake...yet you keep doing it.

That's your choice.
It's also your choice to believe a group of people who either haven't had actual experiences with these kinds of processes or do not have your best interest in mind when they make a comment to you regarding your situation. They may be acting in good faith, but the only person you can be sure will act in your best interest is a paid attorney (and yeah, that excludes yourself from acting in your best interest, too. as any good attorney will tell you, you are likely your worst enemy and your comments in here indicate that--and I'm not talking about your whining, I'm referring to your self-incriminating statements).

Regardless, you can be served in a number of ways. Unless someone in here is actually a process server, no one posting knows whether the method they chose to serve you was legitimate or not. Just keep in mind, it's more likely that you are misreading the letter. Civil trial is that last thing litigants do, they don't start with it. Trials are costly and time-consuming. Just because you can't find your name on a docket at the local courthouse doesn't mean you aren't in deep shit. You've already described that you recieved a copy of a letter that they sent to your univserity. Did you bother to check whether it's been officially received and what they plan on doing about it? I don't feel like going back through this thread, but I seem to recall you posting that your school had actually warned you about the policy regarding illegal downloads and basically told you that you were on your own as far as legal representation.

If you aren't going to take any initiative and determine whether any of this is real (and my opinion is that it most certainly is), then why would you think you could solicit free legal advice from any of us qualified to give it? Let me give you a hint: you can lament about how we aren't listening to you in here, but if you walk into any decent attorney's office and do the same thing to him or her rather than listen to the advice given, you are going to get tossed out on your ear...so don't do it.

Dude you could just like -settle out of court with Mr Hand.

http://www.right-thinking.com/images...ds/spicoli.jpg

Don't worry about it, if it's even true.

Downloading the item isn't something you'd get in trouble for - it's sharing it.

Besides, just because they claim to sue for $50k doesn't mean you will owe that amount. Most likely it'll get tossed out.

They have to also prove that you actually downloaded it.

If I were you, I'd go out and buy a wireless router. Leave it open and unsecured. Claim it wasn't you, that someone got into your network.

They also have to take your computer and inspect it to prove you downloaded it. IP address alone doesn't prove jack shit. You can't just randomly sue someone for $50k because you feel like it.

If you do all of the above, there's no way they can prove it was you and you have not a single thing to worry about.

There's so many ways to get out of this type of thing :D

all private property is theft.

Wow, i've downloaded two pirared songs in my whole life... and well... this is a reason never to do it again... :/

Sweetpea

People...

You don't get busted for DOWNLOADING.

You get busted for SHARING.

If you download, don't worry about it. And like many have said, you have to be summoned. A simple letter in the mailbox does not bind you to anything.

If you download, don't let this thread deter you. It's just a scare tactic.

[edit]

People think these cases are sealed and done. That's only because the party involved gets scared and admits to fault and settles. Most people don't realize that there is a LOT they HAVE to prove - and if you actually went through the whole process, odds are in YOUR favor, not theirs.

For instance, the IP could be spoofed... or if you have unsecre wireless as I mentioned above. Them winning in this case is as good as me randomly accusing someone of something and suing them for $50k.

Most don't realize that, and that's why people are so scared and quick to give in.

I've never understood that point of view. Please explain.

All of these suggestions will secure a finding against you.
Keep in mind, everyone, that this is not a criminal trial. The rules as most people know them do not apply.

First of all, they don't have to "prove" something in the traditional sense. They only have to demonstrate it's more likely than not. That means, they say you did it, have some records indicating your computer was the culprit, and then the onus is on you to demonstrate, with evidence, how your computer wasn't used. How do you propose to do that? It can't just be on your word. You might be able to argue that someone else spoofed your IP, but you have to demontrate it in a civil court. This isn't about convincing a jury that your explanation is reasonable (like a criminal trial). You would have to actually show some factual basis that your IP was stolen. Something like a police report or an actual paper trail form the network administrators at your ISP (the university; unlikely since they've already indicated you are on your own. You can subpoena records, but you aren't going to find what you are looking for because you know you did it and that someone didn't spoof your IP).

Regardless of whether you can demonstrate with evidence that your computer wasn't used in the transgression, you are tempted to argue you didn't do it. I'm sad to inform you that in a civil trial that doesn't particularly matter. This isn't a "crime." You don't need mens rea to commit a civil offense. The trial court will determine liability, not guilt. Think of it this way, if you park your car on a hill, but don't pull the brake hard enough (or worse, you actually do but the brake fails), you are still liable for the damages incurred from your vehicle rolling down the hill and smacking into someone's van. You might be able to sue the manufacturer of the brake and vehicle if you can demonstrate you used it correctly and it failed. BUT, the analogy would be that your argument would hinge on whether your router is inherently insecure and there was no possible way for you to prevent someone else from using it. Even then, I suspect you would be liable for using equipment that was insecure. Going back to the vehicle analogy, you can't just hop out of your car and hope it doesn't roll back because it doesn't have a brake. You have an obligation to not park on a hill. The router: you would have an obligation to not connect it to the internet.

Civil court is where the adults play, the rules are not in your favor by any stretch of the imagination. Law is an interesting phenomenon in that the long-shotters (those who use it everyday and are most experienced with it) have the advantage...knowing the ins and outs of a particular legal argument. How much experience do you have with these laws? These types of arguments?

You should be afraid...be very afraid.

If anyone knows anything about the technology and how easy it is to do something, such as hook into unsecured wireless, it's entirely possible and usually in your favor. Do you realize how common wardriving is, and people who do that with the intention of fraud so they wouldn't be detected?

You aren't as liable as you'd think if you had an unsecured wireless router. If you simply take it out of the box, plug it in... that's all you as the consumer need to know. You aren't REQUIRED to secure it, or know about securing it. They won't hold that against you. Trust me. It's very different from the car analogy.

You'll find that the industry and the people who represent them are illiterate when it comes to this type of thing.

I wouldn't be at all afraid.

Like I said, criminal defense is about possibilities. Civil defense is about evidence.

Stompy is counseling you to make the case that it's possible for someone else to have done this. No one will disagree with that, but you won't even have a chance at being exonerated unless you can demonstrate over 51% certainty for the court that someone else actually did. They didn't, so how are you going to demonstrate that someone did?

I am aware of wardriving, technology, wireless security, and hacking. I'm also in the unique situation that I know about it in relation to law. Stompy is inccrrect in at least two of his assumptions: that the logical principles are not analogous to my car example (they are, and the thing that operates against you here is the concept of jurisprudence where the court will review cases it views are similar and apply the same principles) and that the plaintiffs will not be well-versed in internet technology. Both of those assumptions are not only incorret, they are dangerous to assume when $50,000 dollars is at stake.

Now, you asked for free legal advice. This is where you get the wonderful choice you may never have in real life (presumabley because you have to pay for initial counsel): you can look at the quality of one person's advice contrasted against the others. You can, for example, directly compare what I've written with numerous people telling you that you have not much or nothing to worry about. What works in your favor is that you can verify what I've written by calling an attorney or even a cursory internet search.

Let me explain to you how Stompy's suggestion will directly work against your favor:
You will need to argue that your internet connection is insecure and that someone else used your computer or masqueraded as your computer in order to facilitate the theft. You have a serious problem here...because the truth of the matter is if it's so insecure, you do have an obligation to secure it. You don't in the sense that if nothing happens, then you won't ever have to worry about it. But you do in the sense that if something like this happens, you have to demonstrate to the court that you took reasonable efforts to limit your liability.

Let me give you another example: would you be surprised to learn that if you leave your vehicle unsecured and someone steals it, you may be found (partially) liable for damages incurred from the criminal's actions?

You don't just get to plug something into the wall and forget about it if it presents risk to yourself or others. And Stompy's argument hinges on your making a successful claim that harm exists by nature in an internet connection.


Stompy, if you think my car examples are not analogous to the router arguments, then it's on you to dispute them and demonstrate why they are not...consider it a rough run at a legal argument disputing my contetion.... (you guys see how this works? you don't just get to say: no it isn't...you have to construct an argument why it isn't so).

Since this suddenly turned into a courtroom, no reasonably educated person would be aware of the difference of wireless encryption standards. The manual for his router undoubtedly has instructions for setting it up, but none for securing it properly. I think perhaps you have more legal knowledge than technological knowledge if you believe this is not the case. He cannot be expected to control ultimate security, as it has been demonstrated in case law over and over that completely securing your computer is reasonably impossible.

If you really must apply your car metaphor, then an insecure wireless connection (provided the person reasonably read the manual and installed it to the best of their knowledge) then they are at no liability. This would be true in the case that the manual for your car never explicitly said that you had to lock your car for it to be secured. In this case, you would not be liable if a criminal stole your car and wreaked havoc with it.

Experience in these types of cases matters more than not. ;)

But yeah, it boils down to the judge, but no one will allow a $50k suit to go through. It's just not reasonable.

More than likely, you will be asked to not do it again and it will be thrown out.

Yes, civil and trial are different, but that doesn't mean a big company can just produce an IP address, target a user, and sue them for $50k. You can't just randomly sue someone based on the fact that ALL you have is the IP. IP alone means NOTHING. It takes a lot more than that. You can question where they got the IP to begin with, and much more.

If alll they have is the IP and nothing more (and they won't have anything more), it's ridiculously easy to counter that. Not to mention they have to validate that you actually downloaded it. Without an inspection of the computer, this will not go through. If you wipe the file and any trace of P2P apps, you are clear.

I won't keep arguing about the unsecure wireless, but you are NOT obligated to secure it and it will not be held against you.

It's not rocket science. There is a process they have to follow, and in cases like this, it's hard to lose unless you admit guilt. When it comes to P2P, there are many tricks. You can argue till you're blue in the face, but anyone who knows anything about these cases will tell you the same thing I am.

The bottom line: it is incredibly difficult for them to prove anything since all they have is an IP address. The only time people lose is when they admit fault. That's it, really.

[edit]
And I don't really care to defend my point any further since this type of thing has been my forte ever since these cases have started. Have you done research on them at all? Google! It's easy. There's where I did 100% of my research. If you choose not to, and rely on me to provide the links, so be it, but I'd read up a bit more on this for additional insight as to what really works and what doesn't.

I agree, in fact, I wrote this at the end of my comment before yours in this thread:
If you have direct experience with these kinds of cases, by all means please post your briefs and summaries so the OP can benefit from your successful cases.

I was going to reply to you and JinnKai more in-depth, but then you edited this into your post:

I don't think there's much more to say to that, other than yes I have researched this and it isn't just my "forte" (and I don't have anything against hobbyists, but this is exactly why I strongly suggested that the OP and anyone else experiencing legal troubles retain an attorney rather than rely on anonymous advice--even mine).

Do not show up in court in full pirate regalia.

i think the EFF has a defense fund to help out people being sued.
I also think i read somewhere that people have started counter sueing under the RICO act.

C'mon say it. You know you want to. No need to keep dancing around it......counselor. ;)

Hey, I'm just a 1L, so take my advice for what's it's worth, but I can definitely second smooth's point regarding the standard of proof. All the RIAA or whoever has to prove is that it's more likely than not that you downloaded the stuff. And I suspect that the college's records are going to be more than adequate to show that. The main question is whether or not they really want to go through with a trial.

True. We don't have anything against lawyers here.

Sorry for a mild threadjack, but there's been two questions I've been wanting to ask, and this seems like a pretty suitable environment to do so.

1) How can they sue someone who has downloaded say 50 movies for $50,000? Sort of a reverse puntitive damages thing?

2) If you don't share the music you download (i.e. after you download any song, close the program and remove the file from the shared folder), can they still get you? I've heard that they track people who share, not people who download.

Also, sorry if these topics have been addressed, after I typed this whole thing I just saw that there were 3 more pages.

this isn't true. it only applies for criminal cases. and if NBC is suing you, it's a civil case. so get a lawyer. however, this whole thread sounds fishy to me becasue i would think that if NBC was going to take action against you, it would be criminal. so keep up the good work for NBC and continue scaring the hell out of people so people don't keep downloading your movies for free.

The more i read this thread, the more i realize that this guy is full of crap and spreading propaganda. First, he gets a letter directly from NBC, NOT THE COURTS??? Second, he says that he sees this letter when he gets home from work. If you get a letter that you're being sued it's either gonna be Certified so you have to sign for it or its gonna be personally served to you by someone. my advice to anyone who reads this, mark this guy X_789_X up as a propoganda plant.

Wel, since he has been registered since 2003, even though he only has a handfull of posts, I think it is unlikely that he has been waiting around for 2 years to "spring into action".

As to the speculations about summons being served, mailed, etc, I found this:

http://phonl.com/fl_law/rules/frcp/frcp1070.htm

Now I'm not a lawyer (nor do I pretend to imply that I am one on internet forums), but the way I read this, is that civil sommons can be served by mail in Florida, but only by certified mail.

isn't that what i said? and as far as waiting 2 years to spring into action. how many posts has the guy had in those years...he's still marked as a rookie, heck, i've only been here about a month and have more...beware

Proudhoum said that property is theft, but Marx qualiftied it that private property is theft in his opinion.


What it means is that all natural resources belong to all humankind equally, and to claim ownership of them privately is an act of theft.

It means that all commodities produced under capitalist relations of production involve the exploitation and the alienation of labour, they are artefacts made of original theft, of original sin.

The whole concept of "owning" is contradictory to the true social nature of mankind, the concept of "property" is a deviation of human nature.

EDIT: nevermind

Anyone here ever been nabbed for password sharing? Can and do they prosecute people for that?

Bend Over.

Hello Ben....I'm glad to meet you!

No....BEND OVUH!

I think I saw Fast Times on DVD at a local grocery store in the $9.99 titles. It hardly seems worth the trouble to download it in the first place when you can find it for that price legally.

What was the cute lil brunette's name??? Hmmm....

wow, i'm mainly joining this thread for updates, but i wonder what would happen if the mpaa knew about all the people who use netflix and just copy the movies and return them

Well, they do. 321 Studios, who gave us DVD XCopy, has been run into the ground because of precisely that. Didn't I hear that DVD Decrypter was also told to shut down? Now, we all know that the software still works, and there are various other forms of software out there that do this type of thing, but they are becoming harder to obtain and the big names are being shut down.

With DVD Blue Ray and HD DVD on the horizon, these programs will no longer work, and the copy protection will be much more advanced and harder to circumvent.

Oic. However, we're not talking about natural resources but about intellectual property. You can't say that what I think of belongs to you or anyone else but me, so I won't accept that a song written by James Blunt (to pick one from the air) belongs to you or anyone else either.


Interesting idea. Horseshit, though, for those of us who don't believe in Original Sin. If my father "sins" and is punished, say by removal of a hand, that doesn't make any children of his after that hand-less.

As proven by what?

Just to keep it clear: SF, I'm not arguing with you but with the idea. Please defend it as you can, to try to explain it more thoroughly.

Several corrections and (perhaps unjustified) comments:

I wish people would stop calling copyrighted material "intellectual property". They aren't the same thing. Copyright is a subset of intellectual property, and not necessarily subject to all the same rules and connotations that any other type of IP might be.

Strange Famous is obviously a socialist. Since this is not a politics thread, I'm going to keep my political opinions out of it.

EFF is the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and they are at http://www.eff.org/ ... I should know since I've been to their office in San Francisco.

Another one:
Please, people. Copyright infringement is NOT theft ("stealing"). By definition. This is a standard selection of the media industry's propaganda, and equating infringement with theft even incidentally gives their anti-consumer agenda undue legitimacy.

Oh? How do you define "stealing" then?

Stealing/Theft/Larceny:
The unlawful taking, carrying, leading, or riding away of property from the possession, or constructive possession, of another person.

Copyright Infringement:
Infringement involves engaging in one of the practices that are exclusively reserved for a copyright owner, without a license to do so.

You might not steal a DVD from a store - but you may watch a movie without the license to do so. It's a tricky difference to understand and probably would take a competent lawyer to put in understandable terms, but it does appear as though there is an actual difference (hence why all of these people are being charged with the civil charge of copyright infringement instead of criminal larceny suits).

I can't answer that. What I can say is that if I write a program and make it available for sale, and you take and use a copy w/o paying for it, or take and give away copies w/o paying for them, or pay for a copy and give away further copies, that you are making the program available to others w/o my permission and are denying me payment for my effort. This is known as "theft".

Well, you can ignore the common and legal definitions all you want and make up your own, but it won't stand up in any court of law.

In my book, if you steal from me, I'll do what I can to take you out financially. Fuck the supposed "definitions" you quote.

Yeah woohoo! Dictionary burning party at my place! Fuck the definitions!

It's more a matter of the fact that the definition quoted is not definitive.

Maybe not according to the RIAA. Also according to the RIAA, every time you download a song, you kill a kitten. (And cause a poor music executive to starve. :()

I'm not going to argue much on this point - the law should probably be updated with respect to newer technology, but that will be a very long and sticky debating process.

However, I do know that under the current US legal system, it isn't theft. I know the RIAA/MPAA wants to hurt the filesharers as much as possible, and felony theft charges would be just the way - but all they're doing is filing civil suits, because the law says it isn't theft.

It's not just the RIAA/MPAA. It's also software makers, book authors, and other makers of non-physical property. Process designers, for instance.

denim, I'm not trying to pick a fight, honest :) I completely understand what you mean - my mother is an author. It's just that I don't think the criminal code was written with these kind of innovations in mind, as before the advent of computers, it was much more trouble to borrow someone's book and write out a copy of it than it was to just go buy it or borrow & read.

I don't know what should be done for the legal system to fix this, but the current legal codes need a lot of updating for pretty much everything concerning computers (hacking, copyright infringement, spamming, fraud, etc.). One of the biggest problems - I think - is that the people responsible for the laws don't know the technology.

I don't think there's anything wrong with the laws (in this regard, anyway. Certainly in general there's a lot wrong with them.). There's nothing different between copying a physical book and copying a file except the latter can be done at no cost. It wasn't theft before computers and it isn't theft now, no matter how much certain groups would like to pretend otherwise. Theft implies a direct loss of property to another individual. There is no such direct loss in copyright infringement. I'm not sure where there is any debate here in the absence of willful ignorance.

From what I remember hearing quite a while back (20 years?), there've been machines for quite a while now into which you insert a bound book, and they turn the pages and copy them all, turning out... a bound book. This isn't new stuff here.

Yes, some things need better definition. The key point is that you can have "theft", including "theft of service" now that I think about it (ever roll a whore? hardly a recent idea), w/o loss of the original item. The issue, it seems to me, isn't a matter of proper definition, but of detection and enforcement.

But then, we've got a bit of a problem with that in this country (USA) in general.

So, erm, how did this turn out???

hm... i guess the bastard stopped posting.

Yeah, supposedly everything went down today.

I've received a letter like this one from MPAA and Universal when I was around 16 years old. I used to have a private server on FTP before all this kazaa stuff in which I had ripped movies on. The letter didn't have a court date on it but it said something about a $250,000 fine or some nonsense. I threw it out because it didn't say anything about appearing it court, it was more of a warning. A couple days later my internet was cutoff. I called the company and they said I needed to take my server down because the MPAA contacted them. I just said "uhhh I don't know what you're talking about, I don't run a server, I'm only 16 years old." They put the internet back on and that was the end of that.

I was pretty lucky, probably because this was before the MPAA and RIAA were really going after people, plus I was a minor.

I got another letter threatening to sue me from a clothing company because I ordered a fake shirt off ebay and it was seized by customs. I called the lawyer and told him that he can't sue me for having the counterfeit shirt because I never received it and I never knew it was fake until I got the letter from customs. I told him if he wanted to sue anyone it should be the factory in Asia producing the shirts and not the person who bought them. I think me losing my money is punishment enough. Needless to say I never had to go to court or talk to them anymore.

On a related note, I got a letter saying that I owed the US Government $200 for the cost of BEING arrested on an Army base, or I'd be taken to collections. I sent them a polite letter to the jist of " (a) fuck you, I didn't ask to be arrested so I'm not paying you a dime and (b) after being arrested and summoned to court, the case was dropped because I hadn't commited a crime so.. (c) FUCK YOU..

Needless to say their warning was useless too... it's amazing how hard companies will try to scare you into submission (without actually doing anything..)