I'm Being Sued For Piracy... - Page 4 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

politicophile · 10-06-2005, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strange Famous

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?

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?

smooth · 10-06-2005, 12:59 PM

[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.

Astrocloud · 10-07-2005, 05:33 AM

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

Stompy · 10-07-2005, 12:08 PM

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

Strange Famous · 10-07-2005, 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by politicophile

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?

all private property is theft.

Sweetpea · 10-07-2005, 12:16 PM

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

Sweetpea

Stompy · 10-07-2005, 12:19 PM

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.

denim · 10-07-2005, 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strange Famous

all private property is theft.

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

smooth · 10-07-2005, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stompy

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

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.

Stompy · 10-07-2005, 12:40 PM

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.

smooth · 10-07-2005, 01:16 PM

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).

Jinn · 10-07-2005, 01:31 PM

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.

Stompy · 10-07-2005, 01:34 PM

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.

smooth · 10-07-2005, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Experience in these types of cases matters more than not.

I agree, in fact, I wrote this at the end of my comment before yours in this thread:

Quote:

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?

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:

Quote:

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.

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).

Giant Hamburger · 10-07-2005, 02:02 PM

Do not show up in court in full pirate regalia.

thesupermikey · 10-07-2005, 02:38 PM

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.

mrklixx · 10-07-2005, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth

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).

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

asaris · 10-07-2005, 04:04 PM

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.

denim · 10-07-2005, 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrklixx

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

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

Shpoop · 10-07-2005, 07:35 PM

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.

Ganggreen · 10-07-2005, 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

get a lawyer, if you can't afford one, then the courts will appoint one for you for no charge.

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.

Ganggreen · 10-07-2005, 09:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by X_789_X

I downloaded "Fast Times at Ridgemont High" off of Bearshare about a week ago and today, when I get home from work, I see a letter from NBC Universal stating that I'm being sued for $50,000

and that a court date has been set up on the 20th on this month.

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.

mrklixx · 10-07-2005, 11:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ganggreen

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

Quote:

Florida Rules of Civil Procedure
RULE 1.070 PROCESS

(a) Summons; Issuance. Upon the commencement of the action, summons or other process authorized by law shall be issued forthwith by the clerk or judge under the clerk's or the judge's signature and the seal of the court and delivered for service without praecipe.

(b) Service; By Whom Made. Service of process may be made by an officer authorized by law to serve process, but the court may appoint any competent person not interested in the action to serve the process. When so appointed, the person serving process shall make proof of service by affidavit promptly and in any event within the time during which the person served must respond to the process. Failure to make proof of service shall not affect the validity of the service. When any process is returned not executed or returned improperly executed for any defendant, the party causing its issuance shall be entitled to such additional process against the unserved party as is required to effect service.

(c) Service; Numerous Defendants. If there is more than 1 defendant, the clerk or judge shall issue as many writs of process against the several defendants as may be directed by the plaintiff or the plaintiff's attorney.

(d) Service by Publication. Service of process by publication may be made as provided by statute.

(e) Copies of Initial Pleading for Persons Served. At the time of personal service of process a copy of the initial pleading shall be delivered to the party upon whom service is made. The date and hour of service shall be endorsed on the original process and all copies of it by the person making the service. The party seeking to effect personal service shall furnish the person making service with the necessary copies. When the service is made by publication, copies of the initial pleadings shall be furnished to the clerk and mailed by the clerk with the notice of action to all to all parties whose addresses are stated in the initial pleading or sworn statement.

(f) Service of Orders. If personal service of a court order is to be made, the original order shall be filed with the clerk, who shall certify or verify a copy of it without charge. The person making service shall use the certified copy instead of the original order in the same manner as original process in making service.

(g) Fees; Service of Pleadings. The statutory compensation for making service shall not be increased by the simultaneous delivery or mailing of the copy of the initial pleading in conformity with this rule.

(h) Pleading Basis. When service of process is to be made under statutes authorizing service on nonresidents of Florida, it is sufficient to plead the basis for service in the language of the statute without pleading the facts supporting service.

(i) Service of Process by Mail. A defendant may accept service of process by mail.

(1) Acceptance of service of a complaint by mail does not thereby waive any objection to the venue or to the jurisdiction of the court over the person of the defendant.

(2) A plaintiff may notify any defendant of the commencement of the action and request that the defendant waive service of a summons. The notice and request shall:

(A) be in writing and be addressed directly to the defendant, if an individual, or to an officer or managing or general agent of the defendant or other agent authorized by appointment or law to receive service of process;

(B) be dispatched by certified mail, return receipt requested;

(C) be accompanied by a copy of the complaint and shall identify the court in which it has been filed;

(D) inform the defendant of the consequences of compliance and of failure to comply with the request;

(E) state the date on which the request is sent;

(F) allow the defendant twenty days from the date on which the request is received to return the waiver, or, if the address of the defendant is outside of the United States, thirty days from the date on which it is received to return the waiver; and

(G) provide the defendant with an extra copy of the notice and request, including the waiver, as well as a prepaid means of compliance in writing.

(3) If a defendant fails to comply with a request for waiver within the time provided herein, the court shall impose the costs subsequently incurred in effecting service on the defendant unless good cause for the failure is shown.

(4) A defendant who, before being served with process, timely returns a waiver so requested is not required to respond to the complaint until sixty days after the date the defendant received the request for waiver of service. For purposes of computing any time prescribed or allowed by these rules, service of process shall be deemed effected 20 days before the time required to respond to the complaint.

(5) When the plaintiff files a waiver of service with the court, the action shall proceed, except as provided in subdivision (4) above, as if a summons and complaint had been served at the time of filing the waiver, and no further proof of service shall be required.

(j) Summons; Time Limit. If service of the initial process and initial pleading is not made upon a defendant within 120 days after filing of the initial pleading, the court, on its own initiative after notice or on motion, shall direct that service be effected within a specified time or shall dismiss the action without prejudice or drop that defendant as a party; provided that if the plaintiff shows good cause or excusable neglect for the failure, the court shall extend the time for service for an appropriate period. A dismissal under this subdivision shall not be considered a voluntary dismissal or operate as an adjudication on the merits under rule 1.420(a)(1).

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.

Ganggreen · 10-08-2005, 06:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrklixx

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

Strange Famous · 10-08-2005, 07:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by denim

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

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.

Schwan · 10-08-2005, 08:23 AM

EDIT: nevermind

fulltiltgonzo · 10-08-2005, 08:44 AM

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

Blackthorn · 10-08-2005, 09:01 AM

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....

Paq · 10-08-2005, 09:31 AM

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

docbungle · 10-08-2005, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paq

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.

denim · 10-08-2005, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strange Famous

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.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strange Famous

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.

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.

Quote:

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

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.

oberon · 10-08-2005, 07:44 PM

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.

n0nsensical · 10-08-2005, 11:51 PM

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.

denim · 10-09-2005, 07:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by n0nsensical

Another one:
Please, people. Copyright infringement is NOT theft ("stealing"). By definition.

Oh? How do you define "stealing" then?

Pragma · 10-09-2005, 10:56 AM

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).

denim · 10-09-2005, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pragma

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".

n0nsensical · 10-09-2005, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by denim

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.

denim · 10-09-2005, 02:40 PM

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.

n0nsensical · 10-09-2005, 02:44 PM

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

denim · 10-09-2005, 02:53 PM

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

10-06-2005, 12:59 PM	#122 (permalink)
smooth Junkie Location: Right here	[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. __________________ "The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

10-07-2005, 12:08 PM	#124 (permalink)
Stompy Banned from being Banned Location: Donkey	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 __________________ I love lamp. Last edited by Stompy; 10-07-2005 at 12:13 PM..

10-07-2005, 12:16 PM	#126 (permalink)
Sweetpea Fade out Location: in love	Wow, i've downloaded two pirared songs in my whole life... and well... this is a reason never to do it again... :/ Sweetpea __________________ Having a Pet Will Change Your Life! Looking for a great pet?! Click Here! "I am the Type of Person Who Can Get Away With A lot, Simply Because I Don't Ask Permission for the Privilege of Being Myself"

10-07-2005, 12:19 PM	#127 (permalink)
Stompy Banned from being Banned Location: Donkey	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 love lamp. Last edited by Stompy; 10-07-2005 at 12:25 PM..

10-07-2005, 12:40 PM	#130 (permalink)
Stompy Banned from being Banned Location: Donkey	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. __________________ I love lamp. Last edited by Stompy; 10-07-2005 at 12:44 PM..

10-07-2005, 05:33 AM	#123 (permalink)
Astrocloud Apocalypse Nerd	Dude you could just like -settle out of court with Mr Hand.

10-07-2005, 01:16 PM	#131 (permalink)
smooth Junkie Location: Right here	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). __________________ "The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

10-07-2005, 01:31 PM	#132 (permalink)
Jinn Lover - Protector - Teacher Location: Seattle, WA	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. __________________ "I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

10-07-2005, 01:34 PM	#133 (permalink)
Stompy Banned from being Banned Location: Donkey	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 love lamp. Last edited by Stompy; 10-07-2005 at 01:46 PM..

10-07-2005, 02:02 PM	#135 (permalink)
Giant Hamburger Gastrolithuanian Location: low-velocity Earth orbit	Do not show up in court in full pirate regalia.

10-07-2005, 02:38 PM	#136 (permalink)
thesupermikey I got blisters on me fingers!!! Location: In my stressless expectation free zone.	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. __________________ If you are not outraged than you are not paying attention! "Reality has a well-known liberal bias" - Steven Colbert

10-07-2005, 04:04 PM	#138 (permalink)
asaris Mad Philosopher Location: Washington, DC	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. __________________ "Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht." "The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm." -- Friedrich Nietzsche

10-07-2005, 07:35 PM	#140 (permalink)
Shpoop Curious Location: NJ (but just for college)	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.

10-08-2005, 08:23 AM	#146 (permalink)
Schwan A boy and his dog Location: EU!	EDIT: nevermind Last edited by Schwan; 10-08-2005 at 08:28 AM..

10-08-2005, 08:44 AM	#147 (permalink)
fulltiltgonzo Upright	Anyone here ever been nabbed for password sharing? Can and do they prosecute people for that? __________________ I venture to suggest that patriotism is not a short and frenzied outburst of emotion but the tranquil and steady dedication of a lifetime. - Adlai Stevenson

10-08-2005, 09:01 AM	#148 (permalink)
Blackthorn Beware the Mad Irish Location: Wish I was on the N17...	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.... __________________ What are you willing to give up in order to get what you want?

10-08-2005, 09:31 AM	#149 (permalink)
Paq Junkie Location: South Carolina	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 __________________ Live. Chris

10-08-2005, 07:44 PM	#152 (permalink)
oberon Quadrature Amplitude Modulator Location: Denver	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. __________________ "There are finer fish in the sea than have ever been caught." -- Irish proverb

10-08-2005, 11:51 PM	#153 (permalink)
n0nsensical Junkie Location: 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. __________________ "Prohibition will work great injury to the cause of temperance. It is a species of intemperance within itself, for it goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation, and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes. A Prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded." --Abraham Lincoln Last edited by n0nsensical; 10-09-2005 at 12:21 AM..

10-09-2005, 10:56 AM	#155 (permalink)
Pragma I am Winter Born Location: Alexandria, VA	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). __________________ Eat antimatter, Posleen-boy!

10-09-2005, 02:40 PM	#158 (permalink)
denim Banned Location: Massachusetts, USA	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.

10-09-2005, 02:44 PM	#159 (permalink)
n0nsensical Junkie Location: San Francisco	Yeah woohoo! Dictionary burning party at my place! Fuck the definitions!

10-09-2005, 02:53 PM	#160 (permalink)
denim Banned Location: Massachusetts, USA	It's more a matter of the fact that the definition quoted is not definitive.