Nearly 100,000 P2P Users Sued In the Past Year

An anonymous reader writes "The avalanche of copyright infringement lawsuits in the United States, mainly against BitTorrent users, are about to hit a dubious milestone. In total 99,924 defendants have been sued in the last 12 months, and new cases are being filed at a rapid rate. Adult companies in particular have embraced the profitable pay-up-or-else scheme where tens of millions of dollars are at stake." Though, as other readers point out, both judges and cable companies are getting tired of the endless subpoenas in P2P porn cases.

Comments

problem solved

[thehodapp]

don't be a victim. Use a proxy.

Re:problem solved

[Anonymous Coward]

For downloading the torrent files:

- proxy.org
- proxy4free.com

Downloading through p2p:

- btguard.com

Re:problem solved

[MacGyver2210]

Proxies are seriously slow unless you configure your own in some way, or know someone with a nice low-user high-speed setup in an anonymous location.

Re:problem solved

[icebraining]

Oh, but they are. Well, maybe not seeding, but certainly with logging P2P clients which log your IP when you share with them.
The only way to be really protected is using a proxy/VPN.

See http://bitaudit.com/ for example.

Re:problem solved

[Lord Bitman]

given that all of these lawsuits are over uploads, not downloads, couldn't you just...not upload?
I mean really, how hard is that?

Re:problem solved

[Anonymous Coward]

It's easy but dickish.

Re:problem solved

[Profane MuthaFucka]

ipredator.se works pretty well.

Big question though - on Windows if the proxy fails, all your traffic starts going through the regular internet connection again. Does anyone know how to block all internet traffic unless the proxy is up and working?

Re:problem solved

[linuxpyro]

Here's a thought: In order to get you, don't they have to prove that you have the entire file? Like by downloading the entire file from one peer? So, could you avoid problems if you say took a laptop to a variety of different Internet connections and spread the uploading?

Re:problem solved

[GameboyRMH]

The MAFIAA doesn't seem to monitor the downloading of the torrent files themselves (which makes sense, since the torrent files don't contain infringing content).

BTguard looks like it can do the job of proxying a BT client, as long as the speeds are decent. Curiously it only says it's compatible with uTorrent and Vuze. Does it use some kind of plugin or does it work with any client that can run through a proxy?

Re:problem solved

[hesaigo999ca]

Tor to the rescue.

Re:problem solved

[Lord Bitman]

no, they don't.

How about the rest of the relevant statistics?

[Gaygirlie]

How about the rest of the relevant statistics? Ie. how many of those actually went to court, and in how many of those did the judge actually rule in benefit of the porn company? Just saying that 100,000 people got sued doesn't really tell enough.

I'm not too good with spreadsheets and I can't see such information in the article itself.

Re:How about the rest of the relevant statistics?

[mickwd]

Speaking of statistic, 100,000 is starting to be a big group of.....voters. Especially if you include the families of those affected.

Big enough to make the difference in some marginal seats.

Perhaps it's time to start asking questions of which politicians do and don't support these legal actions.

Politiians are whores for your votes - perhaps it's time to start using that fact.

Re:How about the rest of the relevant statistics?

[muuh-gnu]

> Perhaps it's time to start asking questions of which politicians do and don't support these legal actions.

And when they promise not to support this but then do?
And then you look for somebody else for the next election, and then they also promise not to but then do?

The fundamental problem here is: you cant punish politicians for outright lying other than not voting for them the next time. But because there always pass several years between the elections, the electorate simply forgets who broke what promise years ago. They tend to trust their guts and weight recent believeable promises way more than on long forgotten lies. Knowing that, in order to get elected you merely have to make believeable promises. After being elected you then can base your decisions on what to actually _do_ solely on who pays the most.

If we had a system like in Switzerland, where any law the public does not agree with can be invalidated with a successful referendum, the politicians could be trained to not to introduce laws which with a high probability would be invalidated anyway _and_ would damage their party's chances to get reelected next time. Also Switzerland has a real and more dynamical multi party system with more than merely two (identical) choices, but thats a another story.

Re:How about the rest of the relevant statistics?

[crackspackle]

How about the rest of the relevant statistics? Ie. how many of those actually went to court, and in how many of those did the judge actually rule in benefit of the porn company? Just saying that 100,000 people got sued doesn't really tell enough.

I'm not too good with spreadsheets and I can't see such information in the article itself.

The fact this number of people in the U.S. were sued is sufficient enough reason for me to avoid file sharing completely. No disposition of case is easier than not having been sued at all. Regardless of my beliefs on the ethics of file sharing or the dubious length of copyright holder rights, there are far many other causes of greater concern than for me to waste my time or risk significant legal exposure to prove I'm right on a point that could be argued correctly ad infinitum on either side of the coin, especially when it comes to torrents which are trivial to track. You ask for more statistics but given that there are a smaller number of file sharers than the population as a whole, that number is more than enough for me. Yes, I did read the article and yes, that number applies to the United States alone.

Re:How about the rest of the relevant statistics?

[lee1026]

We do have a system like that here in California. It is not working extremely well as the people just keep voting in spending increases while voting down tax increases.

Re:How about the rest of the relevant statistics?

[Ihmhi]

And when they promise not to support this but then do?

Well, some may view it as extreme for breaking one promise, but the official could always be recalled. Remember Gray Davis? A big stink was made about how he essentially was kicked out of office by the people. Massive media circus.

If someone blatantly balks on their promises to a large degree, the people always have the option to initiate the recall vote. I'm personally note sure if it's an option in all states or just a few; it really should be available everywhere.

Re:How about the rest of the relevant statistics?

[zippthorne]

It could be worse. They could be voting for both spending increases and tax increases.

Taxes never balance the budget in a situation like you've apparently got, because when an "acceptable deficit level" is found, all that increasing taxes does is mask the cost of the spending and make it appear that even even more increases are possible...

Re:How about the rest of the relevant statistics?

[Rob the Bold]

It could be worse. They could be voting for both spending increases and tax increases.

Taxes never balance the budget in a situation like you've apparently got, because when an "acceptable deficit level" is found, all that increasing taxes does is mask the cost of the spending and make it appear that even even more increases are possible...

How exactly would the people demonstrating a willingness to pay for what they want their government to provide be "worse"? Wouldn't that be the definition of "fiscal responsibility"?

Re:How about the rest of the relevant statistics?

[Internetuser1248]

I think the best solution is to introduce perjury laws to politics. Any campaign speeches or official announcements made by candidates should be legally considered to be under oath, and saying anything that turns out to be untrue would leave them open to criminal perjury charges. No I am not so naive that I believe this would change how politicians behave once in office, but it should make them think a bit more carefully about what they say on the campaign trail.

Oh and what that guy earlier said about having more than just two identical political parties, that would help too.

Re:How about the rest of the relevant statistics?

[rtb61]

Porn, obviously it is not about lawsuits, it is simple extortion, pay up or, we will disclose to friends, relatives, neighbours and co-workers the type of off colour porn we claim you download, now try and prove you didn't.

In this case it takes people of courage to counter sue, for the intent to cause psychological harm and slander by the blatant extortion attempt.

Re:How about the rest of the relevant statistics?

[zippthorne]

Does the tax increase apply to everybody, or just the people that voted for the increased spending?

Re:How about the rest of the relevant statistics?

[owlstead]

I know that you Americans are always against paying taxes, but how the hell that got modded to insightful is completely beyond me. Yeah, right, actually paying for your expenses always gives the idea that you can spend even more. What kind of argument is that?

Re:How about the rest of the relevant statistics?

[Rob the Bold]

Does the tax increase apply to everybody, or just the people that voted for the increased spending?

Do you oppose democracy?

Re:How about the rest of the relevant statistics?

[zippthorne]

Sometimes. It's not the paragon of ethics, after all. There are downsides to it, too.

Particularly when it comes to giving yourself authority over another person's resources. I'm not sure you can call it fiscally responsible to be willing to spend other people's money on stuff you want.

Sometimes democracy is the best way of averaging out everyone's competing interests. But sometimes it's two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner...

Re:How about the rest of the relevant statistics?

[stdarg]

If we restricted voting to taxpayers with a positive annual income tax burden, you'd have a point.

Re:How about the rest of the relevant statistics?

[vuffi_raa]

spend other people's money on stuff you want.

I'm not old - let's get rid of medicare until I need it - I live in san francisco, so I say cut off funding to southern california because I don't care about them.... yep that works

Re:How about the rest of the relevant statistics?

[Sarius64]

Trust me, southern California would like this much more than you would.

So what's a "victim" to do?

[Ritz_Just_Ritz]

So you get an extortion note. Then what? Do you settle? If not, do you hire a lawyer? Do you do nothing and wait to see if an actual trial happens?

Who's to say that someone isn't being naughty and spoofing your address? Or perhaps someone has sniffed enough of your wireless AP traffic to divine the password and go to town downloading crap?

Re:So what's a "victim" to do?

[sakdoctor]

This is prohibition 2.0
Smiting the random, in an attempt to hold back the tide.

Re:So what's a "victim" to do?

[Anonymous Coward]

If they just send you an angry letter, you can laugh at them. In their faces for preference*.

If presented with an actual lawsuit, you will have to consult a lawyer. Remember that some lawyers are good at trials and others are good with technicalities. It's best if you know whom in your area to trust with what. But not always possible, I'm afraid. Never trust only your own interpretation of the law, it WILL BE biased in cases concerning yourself. Consult multiple lawyers if you feel the suit warrants it.

And NEVER, EVER do you not show up at the court**. If a date has been set and they later say they won't pursue the suit, you're better off showing up anyway. Sure, it's expensive and you could possibly have a default judgement reversed if you can show they lied, but prevention is way better than cure in this case.

Yes, the above is expensive. It's a system designed to make money.

Now take note: IAANAL, IANA American. But the above is a good rule of thumb in most places in the western world.

* If you did everything they claim, don't laugh in writing. They might give it to the judge, who might not like it.
** Or at least send your lawyer.

Re:So what's a "victim" to do?

[dougmc]

99.9999% = all but 1 in 1,000,000. So are you really claiming that less than one of the people sued in the last year wasn't guilty?

Unfortunately, these are civil issues, not criminal issues, so the ideas of "innocent until proven guilty", "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt", "you are entitled to an attorney, and if you can not afford one, one will be appointed to you" and even "you have the right to remain silent" do not apply. In particular, "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" is replaced by a "preponderance of evidence" -- so if the jury thinks there's a 51% chance you're guilty -- that means guilty.

Re:So what's a "victim" to do?

[king neckbeard]

I think the numbers we have regarding HADOPI had much higher false positives.

Re:So what's a "victim" to do?

[Anonymous Coward]

You are expected to secure your wifi a.

Uh, what? You are? Where is that written?

Re:So what's a "victim" to do?

[Anonymous Coward]

Almost all wifi routers set up by cable companies are using WEP. A billion years ago the FBI had a news conference about WEP security which is anything but secure, and demonstrated it can be broken in 2 minutes. That was well after anyone with a remote interest in network knew how bad it was.

Most people can use applications they download, most people have no idea about different security protocols. A secure icon and entering a password has every indication they are secure. My entire neighborhood believes they are secure, all but one is using WEP. Anyone can be using their network, just park behind the fence, do the deed. Move on.

You think a consumer should understand minutia of a specialized field? That's BS. Do you service your own car, assuming you can afford something remotely modern?

Re:So what's a "victim" to do?

[CohibaVancouver]

Seriously, if you want the content then pay for it

Mod parent up.

It's time to face facts - Torrenting copywritten videos and audio files is eventually going to get you bitten - And you can make all the academic arguements you want about 'data wanting to be free' and blah blah blah but the fact remains that as things sit today the law isn't on your side. Do I rip my DVDs and put them on my iPod? Absolutely. Do I share those rips online? No damn way.

Re:So what's a "victim" to do?

[Anonymous Coward]

So, in your twisted little world, you consider it perfectly allright for someone to sue a kid, a college student, or someone who might not have top not security skills for millions of dollars for a movie that might cost $15 to watch at a theater.

You are the type of person which causes a lot of people here in the US a lot of misery because you condone extreme penalties for relatively small infractions. No wonder why our jails are packed with nonviolent inmates. But, I'm sure you have Corrections Company of America stock, so every person in jail is more cash in your pocket.

Realistically, each violation should be something like $50 to $100 or something like that. Condoning far greater amounts just means you condone tyranny.

Re:So what's a "victim" to do?

[nurb432]

It just doesn't matter. You are expected to secure your wifi and not doing so isn't a blanket excuse. If it were then everyone would leave their wifi open and there would be no suits.

Of course it matters, as it inserts 'reasonable doubt' into the equation. There are also viruses, etc that factor into this.

Just beacuse they THINK i did something wrong does not make it true, and they need to prove it was *me*. I am speaking from expirence to the extent that years ago my Linux based router ( back in the dialup days, not recently ) was hacked into and was turned into a Russian porn IRC bot for a day ( it was quickly discovered and remedied, and I notified the next guy in the chain as a good citizen ). But who knows what could have happens for those 8 hours or so. Major corporations are hit to, it really can happen to the best of us.

The only thing i'm guilty of if i get hacked is violating my AUP with my ISP. Its not much different than if someone steals my locked car and uses it in a crime. I didn't commit a crime.

Re:So what's a "victim" to do?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

I suspect that that is why(in addition to the fact that there are a lot of independent porn outfits, rather than the comparatively small number of feature film publishers, with the biggest often working through the MPAA) the porn guys find the extortion notes so convenient.

All else being equal, most people would much rather go to court and create a public record of the dispute over whether or not they downloaded $OSCAR_NOMINEE than whether or not they downloaded "Weapons of Ass Destruction, Vol. 14"...

Re:So what's a "victim" to do?

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, if you want the content then pay for it

Mod parent up.

It's time to face facts - Torrenting copywritten videos and audio files is eventually going to get you bitten - And you can make all the academic arguements you want about 'data wanting to be free' and blah blah blah but the fact remains that as things sit today the law isn't on your side. Do I rip my DVDs and put them on my iPod? Absolutely. Do I share those rips online? No damn way.

Go away mom.

Re:So what's a "victim" to do?

[Znork]

if you want the content then pay for it.

Ah, sorry, I consider supporting antidemocratic forces with money unethical. I'd rather pay for proxies and VPN tunnels.

<i>not having it probably won't hurt you much.</i>

Certainly not. But someone else might want it, in which case I can help them by sharing.

<i>In short, they are slowly tightening this noose</i>

Hardly. With nextgen f2f and darknets it'll slip permanently out of reach.

<i>Can we start to agree to stop playing this sick game with the content creators</i>

You misspelled content controllers. The content creators are on the sidelines as they, as a general rule, are already getting screwed out of any money by the industry.

This is not a game. The economic burden of IPR is unmaintainable in a free market economy and will become ever less bearable as production costs in the rest of the economy fall and the monopoly effects of IPR render the affected economies uncompetitive. The control burden is incompatible with free speech and freedom in general. The political burden of having private taxation rights like IPR automatically lead to corruption and alienation from voters.

Re:So what's a "victim" to do?

[calmofthestorm]

I don't think "theft" means what you think it does. http://memset.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/piracy-vs-theft.jpg

Re:So what's a "victim" to do?

[Danse]

... how about you suck it up, acknowledge you got caught, and pay the fine?

99.9999% of these people are guilty of an illegal act. Pretending otherwise is ridiculous and deliberately trying to avoid that point.

Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

Hmm... made-up statistics, presumption of guilt. The new American justice.

Re:So what's a "victim" to do?

[VanessaE]

So, if I decide a TV program is out of the question for some reason (either because I can't receive it at all, or because I won't be there at broadcast time), then it is still a genuine crime that should be punishable by destroying my life with insane charges? Even though that TV content is available over free-to-air broadcast as well as freely accessible places like Hulu? Even though I am one of those who doesn't respond to commercials? Thankfully that hasn't happened to me, as I choose not to download if only to avoid the assholes out there who can't see the damage they're doing to their own brands.

The "crime": Downloading a copyrighted work.

The "fine": A demand for remittance to a private company, who claims to act on behalf of the copyright holder of the work in question, initially for an amount that is often thousands of times the fair market value of that work, and which is issued in such a manner as to bypass the courts and ignore due process entirely. If it goes to the courts, it can become a civil judgment reaching into the millions-of-dollars range (see Capitol v. Thomas, the defendant lost to the tune of $1.5M). At no point does it become a criminal charge.

The "time": Anywhere from a serious financial headache if you pay off the initial demand, to just plain bankruptcy if you lose in court. To most people, the latter may as well be life in prison.

Sorry, your argument doesn't fly here.

Re:So what's a "victim" to do?

[Anonymous Coward]

It just doesn't matter. You are expected to secure your wifi and not doing so isn't a blanket excuse.

Is there a law, anywhere, that says as much? Unless it is illegal to have an open wifi, we are not expected (by who?) to do anything.

Re:So what's a "victim" to do?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, but what happens when you lose that data, and find yourself with no DVDs? Are you going to ask nicely the retailer to give them new ones, or links to legally download the rips? No, you're going to buy them again, just as you bought them when they were packed as VHS, and CD's etc.

Regardless, it's all besides the point, all these suits exist because they want more money, not because they want to recoup their loses to piracy. If that was the case, then PC gamers would have been targeted.

Re:So what's a "victim" to do?

[westlake]

So you get an extortion note.

An offer to settle a claim out of court is not extortion.

The problem is not going to go away. Save your rants for someone who isn't billing you by the hour.

Who's to say that someone isn't being naughty and spoofing your address? Or perhaps someone has sniffed enough of your wireless AP traffic to divine the password and go to town downloading crap?

"Who's to say?"

You are.

It's your defense.

But look at what your argument implies about the taste in media, the range of the signal and the technical knowledge, persistence, and resources of your neighbors.

In a civil case, the simpler explanation almost always wins.

Re:So what's a "victim" to do?

[Anonymous Coward]

As a teenager my family were very poor. We had cheap clothes, ate cheap food and I certainly did not get an allowance, (unlike most of my friends). But I loved music, so I copied CDs to tape. I also loved computer games so I pirated games by swapping floppy disks in the playground. No sales were lost as a result of my piracy, I didn't have the money to buy this stuff, but my life was clearly improved.

I don't give a fuck that you think I should have missed out. You attitude stinks and if we all thought like you the world would be a shitty place.

I have since spent a lot on content. I bought most of the CDs that I taped and hundreds more besides, mostly from independent labels. However, I freely share my library with friends and a few people have complete copies of my music library (more than 600 CDs, all ripped). I hope they get significant enjoyment out of it.

Go pirates. As long as you always consider the moral implications of what you're doing and are comfortable with, you're not really hurting anyone. If anyone gives you an answer like parent, tell them to fuck right off.

Re:So what's a "victim" to do?

[crackspackle]

Seriously, if you want the content then pay for it

Mod parent up. It's time to face facts - Torrenting copywritten videos and audio files is eventually going to get you bitten - And you can make all the academic arguements you want about 'data wanting to be free' and blah blah blah but the fact remains that as things sit today the law isn't on your side. Do I rip my DVDs and put them on my iPod? Absolutely. Do I share those rips online? No damn way.

and we should mod you up as well

Re:So what's a "victim" to do?

[vertinox]

It just doesn't matter. You are expected to secure your wifi and not doing so isn't a blanket excuse. If it were then everyone would leave their wifi open and there would be no suits.

There is no law, legal requirement, or precedent (AFAIK) that one must secure your router.

Adding to that, there is no law saying the owner of the router is to be punished for unauthorized but illegal use of their network.

Otherwise, people who pirate on coffee shop networks would therefore get the coffee shop in trouble.

BTW, if you have the money, you can get your lawyer to convince the judge to have a jury, you can convince them that the router was hacked regardless of the letter of the law. Remember, in the USA juries can in most cases override the law if they want.

Though the loosing side can always appeal and I'm sure in this instant the MPAA/RIAA have the money.

That said, I'm more concerned about someone hacking my own network to do illegal activity to get me in trouble as I live in a very populous neighborhood. Though, its on of those situations where I just have to be faster than the slowest person to outrun the bear and there does seem to be open networks around me.

I'm not pro-piracy at all, its just that what you are advocating is that innocent people are guilty of copyright infringment if their networks are used unauthorized.

Re:So what's a "victim" to do?

[hairyfeet]

Actually I'd say mod the parent (and you) down, because you seem to miss the point that the *.A.As of this world want to have their cake and eat it too and you seem to think that is fine, which it is not. Here's an example:

According to the EULAs and the *.A.As you are NOT buying any copy, you are getting a license which is how they think they can get around Fair Use. Okay, I'll play. That means that since I bought a license that means I get a replacement when it gets torn up or broken, right? After all I already have a license! Oh no no no, that is when they say you bought a copy and know you have to buy it again!

BULLSHIT! total bullshit! Never in history have you been allowed to use licenses and physical objects in a "whichever way we feel today" change at will. It is either A OR B which have clear legal definitions based on them, not this BS where they get to claim the legal protections of both but the legal obligations of neither.

That of course don't even bring up the fact that they used treasonous bribery to make the clearly worded" by securing for limited Times clause of the constitution into "forever minus a single day" perversion of the law. The entire system has been allowed to be so corrupted that We, The People don't get a voice in the discussion, and until we do then copyrights should be treated as the shame that they are.

Never forget its original intent, now broken by bribery: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." It was supposed to be a TRADE, nothing more. In return for a LIMITED time to profit We, The People got a richer Public Domain which allowed us to "stand on the shoulders of giants" only now those shoulders are owned by the *.A.As, and this leads to stagnation and processed crap like we have now.

How anyone can support this sick joke is beyond me. It is a perversion of everything our Founding Fathers wrote on the subject.

Re:So what's a "victim" to do?

[Anonymous Coward]

>'reasonable doubt'

Kids are so civically illiterate these days. It's a civil suit; all the jury needs is "preponderance of the evidence" to nail you, a much, much lower bar.

Re:So what's a "victim" to do?

[mikael_j]

I'd pay for it if I could.

That's my main argument for TV shows.

I suppose I could technically wait for months until the shows air here in Sweden (because the producers of the content don't want to upset the swedish TV channels by allowing online distribution through the iTunes store or similar venues) but then there's the issue of me not having a TV.

I am willing to pay for TV shows but I can't unless you count "wait for months and then watch a version with commercials at a predetermined time on a device I don't own" as paying.

Re:So what's a "victim" to do?

[Nyder]

...
Personally I think it is time to just stop with the torrents. They expose people to too much risk. Even if they aren't exposing you to risk then you are exposing your neighbor by using their wireless. And if you are using TOR you're slowing that down for everyone and stop it.

Seriously, if you want the content then pay for it. if you can't afford it then don't watch/listen. I can almost guarantee that losing the latest stuff that the porn industry has turned out will in no way impair your enjoyment of life. If it isn't available in your country then it isn't. The same caveat applies...not having it probably won't hurt you much. ...

We can vote with our dollars here. I personally gave up torrents probably two years ago and I really don't miss it. There are a few legal avenues that work and are not too expensive. For the stuff that is too hard to get I ignore it. It will either eventually be legal to buy cheaply or I'll just simply never see it. Can we start to agree to stop playing this sick game with the content creators where they try to make us pay and we try not to?

First off, I'd like to say, fuck you.

It don't matter if I use torrent to get copy right material or not. In fact, even if torrents ceased to exist the Corps would still use piracy as an excuse.

You don't understand. Piracy is just an excuse to Corporation to apply crappy drm and laws to try to maximize their profit. That is all. They are still making money, they are just crying because in stead of getting $3 billion, they are getting $1 or $2 Billion in profit.

I don't buy most stuff. Music, Movies, TV Shows, most games (I do buy some games), I download. Guess what? I wouldn't buy most that shit anyways. Movies? I can go without. TV Shows? I can, well, watch on TV. Games? Most the ones I play, I purchase, ones I don't purchase are usually crappy shit I wouldn't give to me enemies.

And guess what? Most the peeps doing what I do, are just like me. And we aren't effecting the fucking bottom line of this out of control corporation. They are crying wolf, and you are buying it.

So, next time, before you spout "Let's get rid of torrents" learn exactly what you are saying, and maybe figure out if it would be effective.

Here's a little history.

Before Torrents there was:

Copy parties (where you'd meet in person and copy software)
BBS (Bulletion Board Systems) People would call up using their modems and download software.
Internet Age: FTP, FSP, then IRC, the P2P programs (Naspter, limewire, etc), then fucking finally Torrents.

So get fucking rid of torrents, and something new will pop up.

So, your solution, won't do shit for anyone.

And I do vote with my dollars. I don't spend it on crap, and I know the stuff is crap because I scope it out, for free, before hand. See, the corps can't put out something hoping I will be an unaware consumer and buy it up. I am a smart shopper. I can get stuff for free, so if you want me to fucking pay for it, it needs to be worth it. That is what really scares the corporations, is people like me.

Re:So what's a "victim" to do?

[drb226]

Prohibition was stopping anyone MAKING alcohol. This is stopping you helping yourself to other peoples work

Quite a naive description. Copyright holders have a stronger legal position to strike at people who distribute their copyrighted work. "Making" a place where you can get alcohol illegally and "making" a place where you can get copyrighted material illegally are quite analogous in my eyes.

The main idea behind prohibition was not that creating alcoholic beverages in and of itself was bad, but that consuming it was bad, and therefore those who enable its distribution should be restricted. This is again analogous with the idea that consuming copyrighted material (without paying for it) is bad, and therefore those who enable its distribution should be restricted.

Re:So what's a "victim" to do?

[h4rr4r]

Netflix.

They will mail you discs, if you rip them no one would ever know. You should never do that though, it would make you almost as bad a person as the MPAA executives.

Re:So what's a "victim" to do?

[CohibaVancouver]

See, you keep this cycle of being fed crap. You keep this cycle of DRM going, and you keep this cycle of corps crying over non existance loss in profits going.

You're missing my point- You can get on whatever rightous high horse you want, but the fact remains that if you keep torrenting Dexter or Star Trek or whatever then sooner or later you are going to get bitten, and it's going to cost you a lot of money. You can spend thousands and go all the way to the courts, and you'll lose. If you don't want to get bitten, go on Rotten Tomatoes to see what's good, then order it from Netflix.

Re:So what's a "victim" to do?

[king neckbeard]

So, you should obey a law you see as unjust because there's a minor chance that you might get sued over it? Most signs point to the mass lawsuits not holding up, and on an individual level it's completely unprofitable.

Re:So what's a "victim" to do?

[rduke15]

A billion years ago the FBI had a news conference about WEP security which is anything but secure, and demonstrated it can be broken in 2 minutes

.

Well in practice, it's more like 10 to 30 minutes, once you are used to doing it.

First you need to find a WEP AP, and where I live, they are few and far between. Everything is WPA or WPA2.
Then it has to be not too far away so that you have a good signal.
Then you need a supported network card. USB wifis are cheap, but you may have to try several until you find one that actually works for injectionj.
Then you need various software (or a Backtrack VM) and know how to use it.

Once you have the right wifi card and have put together the right software and learned how to use it, if the WEP AP is not too far, you may be able to get the key in about 10 miinutes. In 2 minutes, I can hardly just find my USB key, plug it in and start the VM. And at that point, I don't even know yet which AP on which channel I would want to crack.

Re:So what's a "victim" to do?

[bmo]

"Of course it matters, as it inserts 'reasonable doubt' into the equation."

Instead of using my mod points in this thread, I'm going to reply, because this is kinda important that people understand this.

The standard of proof in civil suits is not the same as in criminal accusations. It's "preponderance of the evidence" which is fuzzy to define and varies from state to state, sometimes reducing lawsuits to a crapshoot, which is why many people and companies sue for the sake of suing as if it's a lottery.

"Reasonable doubt" is not enough to defend yourself in a civil suit.

For a definition, see:

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Preponderance+of+Evidence

--
BMO

Re:So what's a "victim" to do?

[RogerWilco]

Seriously, if you want the content then pay for it. if you can't afford it then don't watch/listen. I can almost guarantee that losing the latest stuff that the porn industry has turned out will in no way impair your enjoyment of life. If it isn't available in your country then it isn't. The same caveat applies...not having it probably won't hurt you much.

I would like to pay for it. But nobody is selling it.

I'm not talking about porn. But products like movies and TV series and books.

A lot of what is produced in a certain country will never be available outside it. This certainly holds true for stuff made in Japan, India or France, but even a lot of stuff that gets made in the USA never gets outside Region 1. If you happen to be an expat, or just interested in a culture that's not your own, you often have very little legal options.

The second problem is format. This is two-fold. On the one side older material is often not available in newer format, and on the other side a lot of the newer formats are not yet available where I live. The only way to often watch/listen/read stuff like this, is to first shift it's format to a newer one. Sometimes it's just inconvenience, like when you have a choice between watching something on VHS on your VCR and TV at home, or in some digital form on your iPad on a train.

I would say that over 80% of the material I would want to watch/listen/read is currently not legally obtainable for me, not even for a million euros, if I had them. Once you get outside the main area of distribution of the stuff you're interested in, this becomes a very real problem.

Your argument no longer is sufficient, unless I would limit myself to browsing slashdot and walks in the park. Most of what the local media offer just doesn't have my interest, or is not in a format that I can use.

I have even written to various content providers, and potential distributors, to plead with them to make certain things available. But until now this has had no effect. Even a service like iTunes or Amazon doesn't carry the stuff I'm interested in. Well they do, but not if you have an IP address from the wrong geographical location. They simply refuse to sell to me because of the country I live in.

Re:So what's a "victim" to do?

[TheDarkMaster]

Mod the parent up, please. I completly agree

Re:So what's a "victim" to do?

[RogerWilco]

I simply can't pay for the content I want, because nobody wants to sell it so me because of the country I live in. See my longer reply to the grandparent.
Services like iTunes and Amazon carry the stuff I'm interested in, but will not sell to IP addresses or credit-card holders in my geographical location.

And it's not some weird backwater that I live in. It's basically Amsterdam in the Netherlands.

But as soon as you live outside the main target market, you can often only obtain certain content illegally. How much content in French, Japanese, Swahili or Hindi do you have access to?

Re:So what's a "victim" to do?

[RogerWilco]

Most stuff I'm interested in doesn't even get picked up by any of the local radio/TV. I live in the Netherlands but happen to have very international tastes.

There are two separate issues:
- Regional availability
- Format

Neither should be a problem in the Internet Age, but they are.

Re:So what's a "victim" to do?

[nurb432]

But you forget that the media giants are buying laws so its considered criminal. ( so that tax dollars are used instead of their own )

It already is if they trump up the dollar amounts.

Re:So what's a "victim" to do?

[CohibaVancouver]

Most signs point to the mass lawsuits not holding up, and on an individual level it's completely unprofitable.

TFA indicates that 100K people were sued last year alone, with the average defendant settling out of court for $1000, as $1K is considerably cheaper than the cost of going to court. Doesn't sound to me like it's not working...

Re:So what's a "victim" to do?

[Scarletdown]

If you don't want to get bitten, go on Rotten Tomatoes to see what's good, then order it from Netflix.

There is a slight problem with this solution. The series I am most interested in getting and seeing again was never released on VHS or DVD as far as I know. I haven't checked any torrent sites yet, so I don't know if there are any episodes floating around out there, but I would otherwise be willing to fork over some hard earned $$ to HB (or whoever controls the rights) if they would go ahead and put out a DVD boxed set of what was one of my top favorite cartoons back in the early 70s: Sinbad Jr. and His Magic Belt

Re:So what's a "victim" to do?

[cheekyjohnson]

Unfortunately, these are civil issues, not criminal issues, so the ideas of "innocent until proven guilty", "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt", "you are entitled to an attorney, and if you can not afford one, one will be appointed to you" and even "you have the right to remain silent" do not apply.

This was a terrible, terrible idea.

Re:So what's a "victim" to do?

[cheekyjohnson]

but I have NEVER seen a virus-like program load up its own bittorrent engine and start seeding the blu-ray of avatar or download child porn.

That doesn't mean that it couldn't be done. Innocent until/unless proven guilty should always be applied, civil suit or not. Otherwise you will run a far greater risk of innocent people being caught in the crossfire, which is far worse than 'bad' people getting away with it. Either prove it or get out.

Re:So what's a "victim" to do?

[kramulous]

Hey, it's citizen science .... if many think it is true then it must be.

Re:So what's a "victim" to do?

[commodore64_love]

The full quote is: âoeOn the one hand information wants to be expensive, because itâ(TM)s so valuable. The right information in the right place just changes your life. - On the other hand, information wants to be free, because the cost of getting it out is getting lower and lower all the time. - So you have these two, value of information & cheap distribution of same, fighting against each other.â - Stewart Brand
And in regards to copyright, a man with an IQ of 170 once opined:

"If Nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.

"That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by Nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation.

"Inventions then cannot, by Natural right, be a subject of property..... grants of this sort can be justified in very peculiar cases only, if at all; the danger being very great that the good resulting from the operation of the monopoly, may produce more evil than good [example: RIAA and MPAA]." - Thomas Jefferson

Re:So what's a "victim" to do?

[commodore64_love]

>>>Can we start to agree to stop playing this sick game with the content creators where they try to make us pay and we try not to?

Media is the ONLY industry that does not warranty their creations. In every other market, even lowly candybars, you are provided with a guarantee: "If for any reason you are not satisfied, return the unused portion for a refund or store credit." THAT is why I download. I don't want to pay for shit, and then be stuck with the $20 DVD for the rest of my life. I want to be able to have the same guarantee that *every other product* provides - customer satisfaction or money back. (Or store credit.)

But since that's not available, I try before I buy and have saved literally thousands of dollars by avoiding ____ like Transformers 2, Twilight, New Moon, Sherlock Holmes, Batman Begins, Star Wars Clone Wars, and on and on. (By the way 'read the reviews' doesn't work - those things are bought-and-paid by the companies selling the movies. Reviews cannot be trusted.)

Of course if I do find something I like, such as Babylon 5, Deep Space Nine, Gattaca, et cetera then I will certainly buy it. The people who created these deserve to get paid for doing excellent work. But I don't want to throw-away money on junk - I can't afford it.

Re:So what's a "victim" to do?

[atamido]

I wish I had mod points to mod you up. Civil suits simply aren't anywhere near the level of criminal suits, and the decisions can be almost trivial.

Re:So what's a "victim" to do?

[shutdown -p now]

Do you think that, if we moved our copyright laws all the way back to where they were at the time of the Founding Fathers (particularly terms), most people who pirate media today would stop doing so? When I see at the most popular items at, say, TPB, I see stuff that was released in the last year or two. The original copyright term was 14 years. Do the math.

Re:So what's a "victim" to do?

[shutdown -p now]

I don't see where GP says that it's "perfectly alright". What he does say is that such **AA tactics don't give anyone a moral carte blanche to violate copyright.

I think that he is taking it too far - for example, in my opinion, it is perfectly moral to pirate something that is not available in your market at all. I've been in such situation myself and know just how frustrating it can be, and there can certainly be no "lost sale" claimed there. But, in general, his point is solid.

Re:So what's a "victim" to do?

[shutdown -p now]

It don't matter if I use torrent to get copy right material or not. In fact, even if torrents ceased to exist the Corps would still use piracy as an excuse.

That's true. But I suspect also that, even if DRM ceased to exist tomorrow, and copyright terms were scaled back to the original 14 years, some other variation of the general "fighting for good by sticking it to the Man" would still be used as an excuse for all the folk who, ultimately, just want to have their cake without paying for it.

Music, Movies, TV Shows, most games (I do buy some games), I download. Guess what? I wouldn't buy most that shit anyways.

Then why download?

Re:So what's a "victim" to do?

[SnEptUne]

There is one problem, why do we need to go backward in this technology era? Why do I, as a producer of creative contents, need to invest in infrastructure to serve people who want to download music/video that I licensed public domain?

Re:So what's a "victim" to do?

[hairyfeet]

Actually yes I do, especially for music. Imagine if you will a "copyright free zone" where anyone can take what they want and do with it what they will. I could get together with a friend and make cool "DOS on a disc" that would let you play all those classics for free simply by putting in the CD, artists would be able to sample and remix, new twists and ideas would spring up like daisy all over the place.

Because of this free bonanza the current media brokers would have to compete. No more of this "$20 a DVD, $15 a CD" and endless repackaging crap, they would instead have to compete on value by giving us MORE and better deals for our money..

I would argue the reason you see the latest releases on TPB is simply the penalty is the same if it is a 5 minute old movie or a 50 year old one, you'll get the same fines and court BS, so why shouldn't they take the latest and greatest? Will the *.A.As go "Oh, you were just getting classic, that's okay then" hell no, so why should they care?

Re:So what's a "victim" to do?

[king neckbeard]

Where are you getting that the average defendant has settled out of court? I'm not sure if the average defendant has even been named yet, let alone giving into fear tactics. More importantly, it doesn't seem like any judges are buying it and are throwing out cases, so even if almost everyone up to this point has been identified and settled, the money train won't last long. This is particularly true of those who keep up with these things, and can be informed that it will never make it to court.

Re:So what's a "victim" to do?

[metacell]

By downloading music, you don't deprive any other person use of the music. Those who are for copyright have argued that you deprive the artist of potential profits from music sales, but this has turned out to be false; the music industry's revenues have continued to increase since filesharing became popular in the late 1990's. But a larger part of the revenue now goes to the artists directly, instead of through the record companies, which is why we see CD sales plumetting and the record companies complaining loudly.

Re:So what's a "victim" to do?

[metacell]

It's not the content *creators* (the artists and writers) who are using DRM and suing people. It's the content *distributors* (like record companies) who do, because they are the ones who gain from the existence of copyright.

The artists are surprisingly often okay with pirating, even those who signed a contract with record companies. Watch this cool clip, for example: Joss Stone on piracy.

Sharing content over the Internet enables more people to enjoy it, without damaging the artists - the music industry's revenues have continued to increase strongly since filesharing became popular in the late 1990's. The problem (for the record companies) is that a larger percentage of the revenues are going directly to the artists.

Re:So what's a "victim" to do?

[metacell]

It's time to face facts - Torrenting copywritten videos and audio files is eventually going to get you bitten - And you can make all the academic arguements you want about 'data wanting to be free' and blah blah blah but the fact remains that as things sit today the law isn't on your side.

How about protesting unjust laws by breaking them?

Copyright benefits the distributors, but not the majority of the artists.

Re:So what's a "victim" to do?

[metacell]

Do you think that, if we moved our copyright laws all the way back to where they were at the time of the Founding Fathers (particularly terms), most people who pirate media today would stop doing so? When I see at the most popular items at, say, TPB, I see stuff that was released in the last year or two. The original copyright term was 14 years. Do the math.

You're right. 14 years is far too long for copyright to last. The purpose of copyright is to "promote the arts and sciences", so it is only possible to justify as long a copyright term as is needed to "promote the arts and sciences". Specifically, a copyright term which is longer than the economic life of a work doesn't provide any additional incentive to the artist.

It turnes out that the vast majority of novels are only commercially viable through their first printing, so copyright protection after the first printing is not really needed. A small number of books are so successful they get reprinted - but if you think about it, if they're so successful, their authors should be motivated enough to continue writing by the money they earned on the first printing. After all, lots of authors who *don't* get reprinted are motivated to continue writing.

It turns out that even huge, expensive productions like movies rarely make any money to speak of five years after their release, so it's very hard to justify a copyright longer than five years, if our main concern is to "promote the arts and sciences".

So should people wait five years before they download movies, so they don't cut into the producers' and distributors' profits? No, I don't think so. It turns out that, on the average, people spend at least as much money on movies and music even if they pirate. There's now research which shows that those who pirate the most, are also those who spend the most money on things like concerts and merchandise. Pirating creates interest in movies and music, and helps consumers weed out the good from the bad. Pirating is beneficial for the market.
See, for example, the recent study from the Japanese government which concludes that piracy boosts anime sales. (TorrentFreak)

In fact, except for just after the global economic crisis, the total revenues of both the movie industry and the music industry have continued to increase since filesharing took off in the late 1990's. Unfortunately for the record companies, a larger percentage of the revenues are now ending up in the artists' pockets.

Re:So what's a "victim" to do?

[metacell]

Plus, there's the content that doesn't get translated to your market. Lots and lots of animé and manga, which would otherwise have been inaccessible to the English-speaking public, is fansubbed and scanlated. This is technically illegal, but fortunately, most of the Japanese producers have the economic sense to turn their blind eye towards it, since they ultimately benefit from the increased explosure.

Re:So what's a "victim" to do?

[metacell]

Let's use GGP's example of someone being naughty and spoofing your address on a torrent. It is a ridiculous claim; there is no evidence that this kind of spoofing is even remotely likely to occur.

Actually, a kind of spoofing occurs all the time. Some BitTorrent trackers insert a small percentage of false IP adresses in the list of participants in a torrent, for the very reason to provide plausible deniability to the actual torrent users.
I also think the "hijacked router" scenario is plausible, since it's easy to break into many routers and can be used by someone to hide their own downloading.

I agree with you, though, that the main issue is the laws being insane in the first place. But I think the core of the problem is that private copying of copyrighted material is outlawed. There's no need for it; artists and writers are able to make money on their work without copyright protection.

Re:So what's a "victim" to do?

[metacell]

"Trivial"? You mean "arbitrary"?

Re:So what's a "victim" to do?

[metacell]

Actually, the CDs you copied to tape were legal. You paid for making that copy with the special tax on tapes which goes directly into the music producers' pockets.

Copying the games was illegal, but I'm glad you did it. I think it's silly that kids, students and poor people should abstain from watching/listening to something they couldn't afford to buy anyway.

Oh, and your story, about your pirating stimulating your music interest and causing you to buy even more music, is not an unusual one.

Re:So what's a "victim" to do?

[metacell]

To get more to choose from. A lot of people buy what they can afford, and pirate the rest. That way, the industry gets just as many sales as they would have got without pirating.

Pirating is not primarily used as a money-saver; it's used as a way to get access to more content for the same price. That's one of the reasons the music, movie and gaming industries' revenues have continued to increase despite massive filesharing.

Re:So what's a "victim" to do?

[metacell]

But I suspect also that, even if DRM ceased to exist tomorrow, and copyright terms were scaled back to the original 14 years, some other variation of the general "fighting for good by sticking it to the Man" would still be used as an excuse for all the folk who, ultimately, just want to have their cake without paying for it.

That's most likely true. But I'm glad people find excuses to pirate, since pirating seems to be beneficial to the market as a whole. It not only enables more people to enjoy the content without hurting the artists financially, it even seems to stimulate the production of new content.

Re:So what's a "victim" to do?

[atamido]

Yes, that's the right word. It didn't look quite right when I wrote it, but I was tired and in a hurry.

Re:So what's a "victim" to do?

[frozentier]

Do I rip my DVDs and put them on my iPod? Absolutely.

And you do realize that ripping your own encrypted DVD and putting it on your own iPod is 100% illegal because you circumnavigated the DRM of the disc, right? By doing that, you are as guilty of breaking the law as anyone downloading the same disc. That is, unless all you own are $2 Laurel and Hardy DVDs where the company didn't bother to encrypt the disc at all.

Re:So what's a "victim" to do?

[frozentier]

Meant to say "circumvented"... it's still early.

Re:So what's a "victim" to do?

[Draek]

You're correct on "theft" of course, but "piracy" is the act of hijacking passing ships with either a cutlass and a sharp wit or, in modern times, a bazooka and a bunch of AKs. The act of making a copy that infringes on the author's state-granted rights to control them is, unsurprisingly, called "copyright infringement".

Re:So what's a "victim" to do?

[CohibaVancouver]

And you do realize that ripping your own encrypted DVD and putting it on your own iPod is 100% illegal because you circumnavigated the DRM of the disc, right?

Yes, of course. I never said I *agree* with all of these laws - I'm just saying that they're currently the law of the land and if you bittorrent you're going to get caught sooner or later, and it's going to cost you time and money. Ripping a DVD to your iPod is, on the other hand, very low risk as there's no easy way for the copyright holder to know you've done it.

Re:So what's a "victim" to do?

[Omestes]

... how about you suck it up, acknowledge you got caught, and pay the fine?

I would advocate this, but only if the fines made any sense whatsoever. Right now piracy fines are like tacking $10,000,000 to jaywalking offenses, completely disproportional to their actual harm (if any).

If someone is caught pirating a single track or film, they shouldn't have to file for bankruptcy as result. They should be charged, at VERY most, and if we decide "1 download = one last sale" (which is completely falacious), 99c*total PROVEN downloaders. 99c being the going rate for downloads, probably better if we picked the cheapest possible source, or an average of all legal sources for this figure. That would be fair.

Also not using these lawsuits as extortion or a side business, but as a legitimate way of trying to thwart piracy would be a start.

In a perfect word we would adopt some form of sane policy, both thwarting piracy and keeping them from being abused, while we thresh out some actual fair (to society) copyright laws.

Re:So what's a "victim" to do?

[dougmc]

This was a terrible, terrible idea.

No, this was a triumph.
I'm making a note here: HUGE SUCCESS.
It's hard to overstate my satisfaction.
RIAA/MPAA/Porn producers
We do what we can
because we want more money.
For the good of all of us.
Except the ones who aren't stockholders.

More seriously, the legal system sort of forced them into this. The illegality of downloading copyrighted media is iffy at best, and it would be next to impossible to get the police to go after anybody but the largest uploaders. So they're doing what they can, and if they make some bucks while they're at it -- so much the better (for them, anyways.)

Re:So what's a "victim" to do?

[bit01]

excuse for all the folk who, ultimately, just want to have their cake without paying for it.

... who, ultimately, think artificial scarcity is a crock. Sharing, particularly by those who would be unable to/don't want to waste money is a perfectly sensible thing to do.

People have been sharing since the dawn of time and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. The fact that some vested interests are in denial about that reality is a large part of the problem.

Then why download?

Because it is a sensible thing to do that makes the world a better place and harms no one.

---

It's wrong that an intellectual property creator should not be rewarded for their work.
It's equally wrong that an IP creator should be rewarded too many times for the one piece of work, for exactly the same reasons.
Reform IP law and stop the M$/RIAA abuse.

Re:So what's a "victim" to do?

[shutdown -p now]

People have been sharing since the dawn of time and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with sharing - provided that you share your stuff. Rather than "share" on someone else's behalf.

Re:So what's a "victim" to do?

[vuffi_raa]

Who's to say that someone isn't being naughty and spoofing your address? Or perhaps someone has sniffed enough of your wireless AP traffic to divine the password and go to town downloading crap?

the sniffing is the one that I worry about - if you search for wireless networks in my apartment you get something like 50-60 addresses, I am sure that most of them are more secure than me as well because I haven't replaced my router for quite a while, so when it comes to herd theory I might in fact be falling behind - though sniffers are so good nowadays that i don't necessarily see the justification in spending the $.

Re:So what's a "victim" to do?

[rusl]

... how about you suck it up, acknowledge you got caught, and pay the fine?

99.9999% of these people are guilty of an illegal act. Pretending otherwise is ridiculous and deliberately trying to avoid that point.

Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

Right, you can't make a criminally bad Hollywood movie if you want respect or people to not copy it. People will. And various RIAA/MPAA "you are a bad guy" flak BS will continue to have negligible effect as planned.

They actually profit from our free sharing of their terrible movies. Until "piracy" the movie business was dying. Now it's doing well because they get free publicity and distribution. And they get imbecile to convince a few of the gullible into paying a premium tax on top of the profit they already make from you sharing. Free publicity = more sales. Lost potential revenue from all the copies people don't pay for is BS that's like saying I thought of the iphone 10 years ago when I painted my cell phone white apple owes me. The lost potential calculation is there to hide that they pay zero for you advertising/distributing their movie and they make 100% of the sales that result from that free promotion.

Re:So what's a "victim" to do?

[rusl]

whatever, who pays you to say that nonsense?

Worst part - it doesn't even work

[dkleinsc]

100,000 P2P users means that if you illegally download something you have approximately a %0.25 chance of being sued. If you're trying to deter people from a behavior, you have to increase the chance that there will be negative consequences for that behavior.

And of course it doesn't help that many of those 100,000 may well be guilty of nothing. Being sued doesn't necessarily make somebody actually liable, but the RIAA's tactics are all about making the cost of defending yourself higher than the cost of settling, as NewYorkCountryLawyer has made very clear for a while now.

Re:Worst part - it doesn't even work

[Anonymous Coward]

but the legal system's tactics are all about making the cost of defending yourself higher than the cost of settling

FTFY.

I wish this problem were limited to the RIAA. That'd be an improvement. Fact is there are two sets of law. If you are wealthy you can afford to throw lawyers at any legal challenge and tie it up in court for years even if you truly are liable. If you are an average person a lawsuit esp from a corporation is an immense threat to your livelihood even if you have broken no law.

This has been so well-known for so many years ... the fact that no one in power has even attempted to change it is evidence that it's intentional.

Re:Worst part - it doesn't even work

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the strategy is to raise the expected costs of piracy. It doesn't matter if you have such a low probability if there is a high cost and low benefit. The expected value is equal to the sum of the probability and its corresponding outcome. So let's say this case the movie is a $30 value, there is a .25% chance of getting caught (this assumes a 100% chance of paying even if you are caught) and a resulting fine of $300,000. The expected value of stealing the movie is .9975*30 + .0025*(-300,000). Therefore, on average the pirate loses about $720. But if you lower the damages, or the likelihood of caught, the value of theft goes up. That is why the damages and fees in the cases can reach the insane. It is to make piracy not worth it.

Re:Worst part - it doesn't even work

[Anonymous Coward]

Your formula is correct but a little misleading. It also assumes that you lose the benefit of the movie and the fine. It doesn't not factor in that you get to enjoy the movie in all cases.

Re:Worst part - it doesn't even work

[ldconfig]

The RIAA was not the first to use these tactics. It was DirecTV

Re:Worst part - it doesn't even work

[MrOctogon]

Sound logic, but the person who gets caught should not have to pay for their inability to adequately enforce the law. The fine should be proportionate to the crime, not proportionate to the number of people they can catch.

Re:Worst part - it doesn't even work

[MaskedSlacker]

That is why the damages and fees in the cases can reach the insane. It is to make piracy not worth it.

I can make up fairy tale reasons for things too. The earth goes around the sun because banana!

The reason damages are so high is because the laws were originally written with large-scale commercial copyright infringement in mind. That used to be the only kind of copyright infringement that was feasible. The penalties have simply never been adjusted because the *AA likes it the way it is.

Re:Worst part - it doesn't even work

[icebraining]

Therefore, on average the pirate loses about $720.

Yes, and the average person has one testicle, half a uterus and less that two legs.

Re:Worst part - it doesn't even work

[dkleinsc]

It turns out the penalty for being caught doesn't make much difference. One thing criminologists generally agree on is that it's the chance of getting caught that matters much more than the consequences when you do get caught. Part of it is that our monkey brains don't do a good job calculating the situations with a really small chance of something bad happening but really nasty consequences if it happens.

Re:Worst part - it doesn't even work

[crackspackle]

a 1 in 400 chance of a being sued is enough to avoid negative behavior is for most people, at least for a life altering event. I believe most people would consider being sued in a case where they well could be wrong and well could end up spending lots and lots of money and time a life altering event. I would not for a minute say the two are comparable but for your understanding, the risk of getting AIDS from unprotected vaginal intercourse are 1 in 5,000,000 and you don't hear of many people doing that outside a committed relationship, do you ?

Granted the two aren't comparable and my intent wasn't to dredge up something akin to an odious Hitler analogy, but if you get sued it could well become a lifetime of financial ruin for you. No house, no credit cards, high insurance and many job rejections. It could well be the end of your financial life.

Re:Worst part - it doesn't even work

[BitZtream]

Considering that almost all politicians are lawyers, you have to be really naive to expect it to be any different.

Re:Worst part - it doesn't even work

[Jerbiton]

I would not for a minute say the two are comparable but for your understanding, the risk of getting AIDS from unprotected vaginal intercourse are 1 in 5,000,000 and you don't hear of many people doing that outside a committed relationship, do you ?

In terms of expensive life altering events, I'd wager that unprotected vaginal intercourse comes with a somewhat greater risk of getting KIDS. It's a good thing all of those are born to parents in committed relationships - otherwise your analogy might argue that quite a few people risk life altering events without thinking too hard about it at all.

Re:Worst part - it doesn't even work

[metacell]

I think the strategy is to raise the expected costs of piracy. It doesn't matter if you have such a low probability if there is a high cost and low benefit. The expected value is equal to the sum of the probability and its corresponding outcome.

That would work if people were rational and had an intuitive grasp of probability. Unfortunately, people tend to ignore very small risks, even if the cost is very high. That's one of the reasons harsher punishments is not an effective way to decrease crime. You need to increase the "risk of getting caught" side of the equation to make it work.

There's also a purely rational reason fines beyond a certain point tend to be ignored. Once you slap an average citizen with a fine of more than, say, a few hundred thousand dollars, they have no way to pay it back in their lifetime. So a fine of $500 000 or $500 000 000 makes no difference; the defendant will be living under the same minimum conditions the rest of their lives anyway.

Title is misleading

[Anonymous Coward]

Nearly 100,000 alleged P2P Users Sued In the Past Year

FTFY

Re:Title is misleading

[Smauler]

You know, using P2P is not illegal, and has many non-copyright infringing uses...

What if all 100,000 turned on the companies?

[NicknamesAreStupid]

I know that most cannot afford to even spend the time. But if they did, they would bankrupt these guys under a sea of legal expenses. They would be forced to respond in thousands of jurisdictions. It would be like getting devoured by fire ants. Just a thought.

Re:What if all 100,000 turned on the companies?

[artor3]

They'd just drop the weakest suits, and nail the others for millions. Remember, they can walk away from the suit pretty much whenever they want.

Re:What if all 100,000 turned on the companies?

[MrOctogon]

But they can't walk away from a counter-suit.

Re:What if all 100,000 turned on the companies?

[MacGyver2210]

So pull the leverage to your side. If you sue them for lost wages in dealing with their frivolous harassment, then they don't have the option of dropping that suit. If you sue for harassment in general, they don't get to say "Nevermind, we weren't harassing you...suit dropped".

It may be an expense they expect, but the time suck will make it completely worthless for them to continue with that tactic.

I2P

[Anonymous Coward]

This is why I now only use I2P Postman (anonymous bittorrent) for movies and games. Demonoid for books.
I2P usually takes a few days to download a 1080p movie, but it is worth the wait with the security and anonymity.

Re:I2P

[MightyMartian]

I can't quite figure out, with all the free porn out there, why anyone would want to actual pirate any of it. I mean, fucking is fucking, right?

Re:I2P

[Anonymous Coward]

I use StrongVPN, which is super cheap, like $10 per year or something, and feel very safe downloading anything I want with anonymity. Plus, over VPN, all your traffic is encrypted, including email, etc.

Re:I2P

[Smauler]

Anonymity is essentially non-existant on the internet. You can make it difficult for people, but you'll never be 100% anonymous.

Re:I2P

[sakdoctor]

Great. Clog up the exit nodes of I2P and TOR so that users with a real political need can't access the web.

At least get a VPN that terminates in Scandinavia.

Re:I2P

[Anonymous Coward]

Bittorrent is a legitimate use of I2P. The devs have even made their own bittorrent client, I2PSnark, which is fully integrated with the network and with I2P's Postman tracker.

Re:I2P

[bemymonkey]

Interesting, the website says $55 a year and up for specials. I'm guessing regulars are even more expensive?

Re:I2P

[John.Banister]

If that was the case, then there wouldn't be all that free porn out there. I don't think the advertising revenue, would pay for a free porn site if no one downloaded porn more than once. I mean, who would go back for a second video clip, fucking is fucking, right?

Re:I2P

[Anonymous Coward]

Demonoid? Here, a little tip for you, "private tracker" doesn't mean a damn thing. Your actions aren't private.
Your actions are as public as any other tracker.
The term private tracker should be erased from existence since it gives people a false sense of security with the word private.

If you managed to get in to an invite-only tracker, you can bet your ass that media companies got in long before you did.
They have people dedicated to searching sites and chats for new information on trackers, invites and general banter to see what to do.
At least, the terribly greedy ones.

Re:I2P

[jonbryce]

Which is fine until StrongVPN get subponaed. See for example hushmail.

Re:I2P

[icebraining]

If you use a VPN from a different country it should be mostly fine. I doubt they'll spend the time and money to ask a different country's legal system to subpoena the company and get the logs back - even if it's legal.

Re:I2P

[icebraining]

From their website:

Many applications are available that interface with I2P, including mail, peer-peer, IRC chat, and others.

They also have the sections "I2P BitTorrent", "I2Phex" and "iMule". I'm pretty sure they don't discourage it.

Tor is different, and yes, you should keep P2P out of it.

Good!

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember saying "Napster is just a search engine, sue the users who are actually committing copyright infringement"? It's good to see the recording industry is doing that. Those who are guilty deserve to be convicted and fined. They should be fined around the $1-$10 per item cost of the materiel they're warezing, but that's a different matter.

Re:Good!

[king neckbeard]

Nobody is stealing here, and the penalty should be reasonably close to the amount of harm done.

Re:Good!

[shutdown -p now]

So if I try to steal something from a shop and get caught, I should be free to walk as soon as I pay the price on the sticker? A brilliant idea.

Re:Good!

[king neckbeard]

Copyright infringement is not theft, and this is a civil manner, not a criminal one. Even in criminal theft, it's not particularly wise to throw someone in jail for a year for shoplifting a pack of gum.

Re:Good!

[shutdown -p now]

Copyright infringement is not theft, and this is a civil manner, not a criminal one.

You're wrong - copyright infringement, even non-commercial, can be a criminal matter in US if it's willful, and an "exchange of copyright works is involved" (which is the case for practically any P2P network). It's even worse if it is done for commercial gain (i.e. you illegaly redistribute for profit).

Even in criminal theft, it's not particularly wise to throw someone in jail for a year for shoplifting a pack of gum.

I agree that the standing penalties for copyright infringement are way higher than is reasonable. My point was that only asking the infringer to pay for the cost of the copies made is also not particularly reasonable - some punitive damages are in order as well (but certainly not thousands of dollars, nor any jail time).

Re:Good!

[king neckbeard]

Yes, copyright infringement can be a criminal matter, but even most commercial, large scale willful copyright infringement is not pursued criminally. With p2p, the mathematical average is going to be 1:1 ratio, so they sent one copy and received one copy, which is hardly the scale that our courts would ever care about. Furthermore, the standard of proof for criminal acts is 'beyond a reasonable doubt', and defendants are innocent until proven guilty.

As for what is reasonable, I doubt that you'll be able to get reasonable fees for any personal infringement would justify the court fees. And that's really not such a bad thing. Copyright was made in an environment when printing presses were not that widespread, while now, the average person has the capability of cheaply and quickly reproducing anything that exists in a digital form.

Re:400 million to go

[Anonymous Coward]

Rapist sand murderers? My, America is worse than I thought.

A Momentous Occasion

[kyle5t]

What a milestone! It will be the first time ever that 100,000 people were sued for copyright infringement in 12.00913 months!

Copyrighting information

[Anonymous Coward]

The U.S: government should just copyright all it's confidential documents. Then any newspaper publishing the diplomatic cables given to Wikileaks would be liable for copyright infringement. So would the thousands who download any other leaked document. And so would Wikileaks for received the documents and not destroying them right away.
Copyright law sure is awesome.

Re:Copyrighting information

[Professr3]

Who would own the copyright? Most people seem to have forgotten that everything the government owns is public property - copyrighting something in the name of the public domain doesn't really have much effect. This is why you can request copies of any government documents (of course, they make you pay a fee, and they redact them, and take years, etc.). The only reason you don't always get the documents you request is if they've been deemed secret for reasons of "national security".

Re:Copyrighting information

[t0p]

Written works (which obviously includes "confidential documents" are, by international convention, covered by copyright as soon as they are created. No one has to "copyright them" (whatever that's supposed to mean).

Re:Copyrighting information

[MaskedSlacker]

The Federal Government cannot own copyrights by law.

Re:Copyrighting information

[king neckbeard]

But in the US, you can't sue for statutory damages unless it's a registered copyright, and works for/of the US government are not copyrightable.

Re:Copyrighting information

[Professr3]

Owning part of the collective rights to something is not the same as having complete control over it. The purpose of those areas in federal buildings and military installations is only (or more easily) achievable if they restrict public access. The public still owns the building, but the public has also elected people who passed laws to designate areas as off-limits for the sake of efficiency and national safety.

Whether or not you or I agree with those access restrictions is an entirely different matter, and it doesn't affect our (collective) ownership of the facilities.

Re:Copyrighting information

[thogard]

The US seems to me mostly unique in the concept that it's works belong to the people and therefor are public domain. Commonwealth countries all have a "Crown Copyright" and most of the EU the copyright belongs to the Government. The strangest is the cases where public documents are covered by a copyright of the government at the time when it was created (and for US readers, the "government" is the people in power at the time, not something like "copyright US Senate")

An interesting thing is I don't know of a single country that copyrights is money yet every country has laws in place about making copies. To me that would imply that copyright on government works is legally new concept.

Re:Copyrighting information

[atamido]

No, the federal government can't copyright stuff by law, but they can own copyrights. So to get around this, they pay other businesses to produce and copyright a work, and the purchase the copyright.

I couldn't tell you why they think it's a good idea, but it's what they do.

Re:Copyrighting information

[metacell]

Here in Sweden, government documents are specifically exempted from copyright. The law doesn't state anything about who the government documents belong to; it simply states that copyright law does not apply to them, and therefore they are free to copy.

There are, of course, laws regulating which documents can and can't be released to the public.

profitable, you say?

[king neckbeard]

Has there actually been any evidence that any plaintiff has even made their lawyer's fees back? If not, calling it profitable is questionable

Re:profitable, you say?

[king neckbeard]

I'm not entirely sure how the lawyer payment thing works, but I know that the RIAA has lost money on their lawsuits despite 'winning.' I understand that some parties in the mass p2p suits have collected some money from those that settled, but that doesn't mean there's a net profit involved.

Business model...

[noodler]

Upload some porn material for which you own the copyright and then sue all the people that download it.
I say it's brilliant.

Re:Business model...

[ldconfig]

The RIAA has been pulling that one for years

Re:Business model...

[The Wild Norseman]

The RIAA has been pulling that one for years

Yeah, well I've been pulling one for years too. I guess that's something we have in common...

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

halp

[drougie]

I'm one of the guys who received one of these letters over a porn torrent. It instructs me to log into their website (I haven't) to find out how much they want, offer's off the table March something yada yada. My ISP guy suggests I just lie low and ignore the thing.

What do?

Re:halp

[Anonymous Coward]

Consult a lawyer. You don't want to be caught out in any trickery their lawyers pull, and them requiring a website visit instead of spelling everything out in the letter is suspicious in and of itself. Even if you decide to settle, if you've got a lawyer he/she can at least tell you whether your payment to these creeps will end the matter or if it'll somehow open you up to additional legal problems.

Re:halp

[icebraining]

Call a lawyer.

Re:halp

[metacell]

I think that's pretty bad advice. Sure, there are bad lawyers who don't do much for their clients, but even those will help you avoid pitfalls which are hard to spot for the layman.

Off-topic, but actually on-topic

[Andy Smith]

Settle-or-else cases need to be made illegal.

Last year I was driving in Glasgow city centre for the first time, and I drove along an unmarked bus lane. (Signs in the wrong place, no markings on the road, etc.) Two police officers stopped me and although they knew the lane was inadequately marked, they had been told to give everyone a ticket so that's what they did. They said it would never go to court and, even if it did, I was sure to win. They were really nice about it, or so I thought at the time.

Months later I received notice of court action, with an offer to avoid court action by paying a £60 fine. That's when I spoke to a lawyer for advice. His advice with to just pay it, because the system is stacked against you.

Here's what would happen if I didn't pay:

1. I'd have to go to court TWICE in a city hundreds of miles away. Let's say £40 fuel each time. If I had to stay overnight then let's say another £40 for a hotel each time. So that's £160.

2. Courts are known for ignoring the law on bus lanes. Legally the lane must be marked in certain ways, but courts don't take that in to account. If the lane is registered with the council as bus-only then you've broken the law.

3. In the very unlikely event that you win, you can't claim back your fuel / hotel costs, or any kind of compensation.

This has been going on for decades.

All the record / movie companies are doing now is exactly what the police have been doing for a very long time. They give people two choices:

1. Pay a relatively small fee to avoid court action, or
2. Prove yourself innocent and pay more.

As much as I can see the bad side of what I'm about to say, I believe the law needs to change so that settlement offers are outlawed. Police, councils, individuals, copyright holders, or whoever, must either take you to court or leave you alone. Intimidation, which is the intent of settlement offers, should be a criminal offence.

Re:Off-topic, but actually on-topic

[zippthorne]

I'm going to guess that you paid the "small fee to avoid court action."

Regardless, if this happens in the future I urge you and anyone else, to opt for the court option. It's the fact that everyone basically takes option (1) that they can get away with that kind of shenanigans.

Re:Off-topic, but actually on-topic

[RogerWilco]

I would have gone to court, even if it would have cost me more in the end, purely on principle.

Re:Off-topic, but actually on-topic

[rahvin112]

The problem is everyone wants to fight traffic citations even if they are wrong. People go in trying to challenge the law, speed measurements, signs, striping, officer behavior, you name it. There are so many of them handed out every year that even if 1% were challenged the courts would grind to a halt. So for the reason the courts the US basically ignore any plea regardless of merits unless you hire a lawyer. Hire a lawyer and show you are serious and the case will probably be dismissed or pleaded to nothing. In most US jurisdictions the Judge will cut the fine in half or less if you come to court and be respectful and ask to reduce the fine but they won't usually knock off the points on your license. But come in there challenging the validity of radar speed enforcement or something else and you will likely get tossed out with the full fine.

Re:Off-topic, but actually on-topic

[metacell]

You make it sound like a popularity contest, not a legal procedure where a case is judged on its merits. Unfortunately, I'm not sure you're wrong.

Re:Off-topic, but actually on-topic

[Andy Smith]

Unfortunately, regardless of the poor signage, my lawyer advised me that I would almost certainly be found guilty and then I would have a criminal record. Yes, a criminal record, for driving in a bus lane that I didn't know was a bus lane. It's probable that at some point in my career I'm going to want to work abroad, and I can't risk having a criminal record that may create work visa problems.

That's to say nothing of the 6 points on my driving license and a fine of up to £1000. And in motoring cases, the courts seem to think that "up to" means "this is how much the fine should be".

The whole thing stinks. It's a stealth tax, enforced by intimidation.

MPAA studios own TV news

[tepples]

Politiians are whores for your votes

Major copyright owners can provide more votes than concerned members of the public because major copyright owners control the major U.S. television news media. This lets major copyright owners manipulate voters' awareness of both issues and candidates.

Re:MPAA studios own TV news

[drb226]

See also Framing (social sciences).

Three-fourths of the states

[tepples]

If we had a system like in Switzerland, where any law the public does not agree with can be invalidated with a successful referendum

Then we'd have three-fourths of the states being able to pass federal laws right over the Congress's head. Such an amendment process already exists if 34 state legislatures call a convention to propose an amendment to the Constitution and 38 state legislatures ratify the amendment.

Re:Three-fourths of the states

[Anonymous Coward]

To fix pasting into comments in Chrome: Open a comment in a new tab before replying, or compose in a text editor first.

That's not a "fix", it's a "workaround".

Re:Three-fourths of the states

[drb226]

any law the public doesn't agree with [could] be invalidated with a successful referendum...

Then we'd have three-fourths of the states being able to pass federal laws...

No, the states would be able to undo laws being passed, not necessarily pass laws themselves.

Re:Three-fourths of the states

[Rob the Bold]

To fix pasting into comments in Chrome: Open a comment in a new tab before replying, or compose in a text editor first.

That's not a "fix", it's a "workaround".

Depends if it's a bug or a feature . . .

Re:Three-fourths of the states

[Kvasio]

you've said "state legislatures", GP said "where the public does not agree". Your solution just brings the same problem to the different people, you cannot trust that state legislatures will do what voters wish for.

Re:Three-fourths of the states

[tepples]

The MPAA's news machine doesn't control state legislature races as tightly as it does U.S. House and Senate races.

Out of print, now what's the value?

[tepples]

So let's say this case the movie is a $30 value

What's the market value of a copyrighted work whose copyright owner has declined to offer copies for sale to the public? Case in point: Disney's Song of the South, and Nintendo's Mother and Mother 3 outside Japan.

Re:Out of print, now what's the value?

[h4rr4r]

It should be 0. Refusal to sell should be an immediate loss of copyright protection. Copyright exists to entice creators to produce works for society, if you are not going to share them with society you have no right to such protection.

Re:Out of print, now what's the value?

[frozentier]

What's the market value of a copyrighted work whose copyright owner has declined to offer copies for sale to the public? Case in point: Disney's Song of the South, and Nintendo's Mother and Mother 3 outside Japan.

It should be the same as a similar work from the same source. An unreleased Beatles song isn't worth $1 billion just because it's unreleased. If someone found a mint condition Picasso that nobody knew about and refused to sell it, that wouldn't be worth $1 billion either. I'm just saying that availability of an item still only plays a partial part in determining it's value.

Re:400 million to go

[nurb432]

Rapists and murders don't effect the media giant's revenue stream. In fact they enhance it due to 'made for TV movies' and pseudo 'news commentatry' shows that come out of the drawn out court cases.

Policitians are not whores for votes

[iYk6]

Politicians are whores for corporate money. They then become johns, where they use that money to pay for advertising, rallies, and such. We are the scabies who follow around the whores and the johns. When it's all over, for some reason, the politician with the most scabies declares themselves the winner.

Causation

[icepick72]

Oddly, most of those subpoenaed have long since gone blind.

And anonymous coward blathers ...

[thomst]

An anonymous reader writes "The avalanche of copyright infringement lawsuits in the United States, mainly against BitTorrent users, are about to hit a dubious milestone. In total 99,924 defendants have been sued in the last 12 months, and new cases are being filed at a rapid rate. Adult companies in particular have embraced the profitable pay-up-or-else scheme where tens of millions of dollars are at stake."

What utter bullshit.

Judges are throwing aggregated lawsuits out as fast as they're being filed. Both in Britain and the U.S., they've consistently ruled that individual downloaders must be sued individually - and the D.C. judge here in the States told the pr0n asshats that they had to sue individuals in their home jurisdictions for good measure. These cases may have been filed, but NONE of them has come to trial.

And none of them will, because it simply doesn't pencil out for the law firms involved. Some shysters here and in Olde Blighty thought they saw an angle to shoot - and they've gotten shot down themselves. These weasels are no credible threat to anyone. DON'T pay their extortion demands - respond with a promise to counter-sue them for defamation of character, instead. I'll bet you a shiny, new, Ohio quarter you won't hear another peep out of them.

Re:and zero were ruled guilty

[Anne Thwacks]

"You are hereby sentenced to be taken from hence to a place of intoxication, there to be tiddled until you wink. May God have mercy on your soul".

No free lunch.

[westlake]

So, if I decide a TV program is out of the question for some reason (either because I can't receive it at all, or because I won't be there at broadcast time), then it is still a genuine crime that should be punishable by destroying my life with insane charges?

At no point does it become a criminal charge

In the US it can become a federal criminal charge - and it can escalate to a felony charge.

That has been the law since the NET (No Electronic Theft) Act of 1997.

P2P is all about "file sharing." The unlicensed wholesale re-distribution of protected works through P2P networks.

That is why statutory damages apply - and it is why the geek would be the first to scream bloody murder if his uploaded shares could be successfully watermarked and traced back to him.

Even though I am one of those who doesn't respond to commercials?

The geek is the gift of god in cross-examination.

His self-regard, and boundless sense of entitlement to a free media fix is the one message you want the jury to take away from his testimony.

It really doesn't get any better than this.

Re:No free lunch.

[Omestes]

P2P is all about "file sharing." The unlicensed wholesale re-distribution of protected works through P2P networks.

P2P is all about file sharing... correct. The rest of that statement is false. File Sharing is about "sharing files", some of these files can be illegitimate. Most P2P might be piracy, but not all P2P is piracy. Just the other day I used P2P to get a patch for Starcraft II, and download a copy of Linux. I must be a dirty pirate.

I did download a copy of Windows7 from Pirate Bay too! Mostly because the copy from a legitimate source wouldn't actually install (downloaded multiple times, burned multiple times, all a failure). Upon installing my "pirated" copy of Windows, I entered my legally purchased serial number. Damn, I must be stopped!

A majority of P2P might be piracy. I don't have proper statistics, and am not aware of any objective study proving this, but it might be true. But it doesn't matter, since conflating P2P with piracy is still fallacious. In the last week I used about 10 torrents, an not a single download was illegal.

Re:No free lunch.

[VanessaE]

In the US it can become a federal criminal charge - and it can escalate to a felony charge.

That has been the law since the NET (No Electronic Theft) Act of 1997.

If and only if a government entity of some kind issues the lawsuit. Do you honestly think that the media companies would be suing only in civil court if they could be directly suing in the criminal courts? Instead, they lobby for changes to our laws, and press our ISPs and government agencies to expend resources to fight what they perceive to be this world-destroying problem.

P2P is all about "file sharing." The unlicensed wholesale re-distribution of protected works through P2P networks.

While P2P probably is primarily used for unlawful file sharing, that isn't its only use, we all know that here. To imply otherwise makes you unaware of its full potential.

That is why statutory damages apply - and it is why the geek would be the first to scream bloody murder if his uploaded shares could be successfully watermarked and traced back to him.

I think you mean "her", and I have no such watermarked shares to be spread around, because I don't buy from sources who do such things. I only buy physical media, because I can be reasonably sure that I can use that media indefinitely and anonymously.

Even though I am one of those who doesn't respond to commercials?

The geek is the gift of god in cross-examination.

His self-regard, and boundless sense of entitlement to a free media fix is the one message you want the jury to take away from his testimony.

As is evidenced by having moved it to the bottom of your reply, my statement was taken entirely out of context. Since I was using "Free to air TV" as an example, "commercials" should be taken literally, meaning advertisements. "Free to air" means I am not required by any law, process, device, contract, etc. to pay for in any way whatsoever the content which is transmitted, and that I am free to record that content and use that recording any way I see fit, whether it is an episode of a TV series, a song on a radio, or even a movie, provided I don't distribute it. As I said, I don't respond to commercials (whether on a "free to air" broadcast or not), so those who would profit from those commercials won't do so on my account.

There is no difference whatsoever in their profits or my costs for watching/listening to a "free to air" broadcast as it is transmitted, versus watching/listening to it via a downloaded file.

All of that aside, the only "entitlement" I feel is that which every American is supposed to be guaranteed by law - public domain after X years, the right to make backups, the right to record, that sort of thing. Furthermore, whether any of your commentary were correct or not is moot, because aside from the punishment not fitting the infraction, I plainly said in my post that "I choose not to download [...]", meaning I don't run any kind of P2P software, I don't download from warez/share sites, I don't use USEnet binaries, nor any other method that results in unlawful distribution of content.

I can afford to buy the content that I want, and I don't want to deal with the headaches if I get caught using any of the above tools, even if I'm doing something legitimate.

Different thought and experience.

[Anonymous Coward]

QWEST communications shut off my internet service because they received a series of complaints regarding illegal file sharing from my address. QWEST did not notify me in advance. At about 1 PM on Monday my internet was shut off while I was watching a Youtube video. I called QWEST up to ask why; at that time I was told illegal file sharing. I was also told that I would have to file a DMCA dispute. When I asked how without a carrier, QWEST turned the line back on. At that time QWEST emailed me the DMCA complaints. After reviewing the complaints, I noticed one thing that stood out: There were multiple complaints for the same file from Media Sentry, their subsequent company Peer Media, and Warner Brothers. This was not numerous instances of file sharing, but rather a single instance complained about numerous times to inflate the number of complaints. (I caught the file later that evening and shut the node down.)

In conversations with QWEST Tech. Support escalation team, QWEST told me that their system could not be infiltrated when I mentioned that all of the local email was being used to send spam. I began to dig, as a result I found reports coming from Australia, Mexico, and Chile, as well as CERT and Security Focus warnings for the modem that the CMS carrier used to update the modems was being used to hack into customer networks. This fit in with my speculations and observations. I shut off QWEST's remote management and put Wireshark on the line. There was still unexplained communication on the line. I eventually tracked the communications to the QWEST CMS carrier. After even longer, I located the URL and IP address and firewalled them. I then pulled the software off the modem, reverse engineered part of it and prohibited communication with the QUEST update server, and then reflashed the modem. After monitoring the line for a few hours, there were no more unexplained communications from the modem. There is also no more spam being sent from the local email addresses.

After this was done (20 hours later), I filed a two page DMCA dispute using, without specificity, every defense in the DMCA. Should the mafiAA's try to come after me, I did leave out that my home network had been penetrated, but I also documented every bit of the work and calls to secure my network.

What I recommend to any that are accused, or sent notice of illegal file sharing, is to file a DMCA dispute with your carrier before any negative action is taken by the carrier, if you are notified.

Part of this story is to notify others that while QWEST asserts that they do not take action against subscribers other than to send the notice, that QWEST, along with may other carriers does in fact disable service, but that they do it without notifying you at all. Also be forewarned that the IP vice president/attorney for QWEST serves on the Board of Directors for a few IP interests.

Has anyone thought of what happens when your network is compromised by an exploit that the telco's say does not exist, but of which there are CERT advisories for, and that person is then a victim of one of these frivolous lawsuits? How many others may have the skill to stop an exploit in its tracks, esp endusers? How ethical is it for a telco to place exploitable back doors, or back doors period, in modems that they have sold you? How important is carrier privacy? How ethical is it for a carrier not to inform you as soon as they receive notice of an alleged DMCA violation?

spankwire, etc?

[markass530]

not that I've ever used any of these sits, but what about the likes of tubestack, xxhamster, and youporn, etc?? All these are straight up websites, With an infinite amount of porn, and I don't think any of it is "Public Domain Porn"

Passing a law

[tepples]

the states would be able to undo laws being passed, not necessarily pass laws themselves.

A supermajority of states can amend the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, trumping even the United States Code. How does amending the Constitution not count as passing a law?

Re:Passing a law

[metacell]

I think the grandparent was referring to the Swiss procedure.

Sounds like a business opportunity...

[DanielRavenNest]

For "Lawsuit Insurance". If you worry about getting nuisance suits, which is what these are, pay a small fee and be covered for them (either hiring a lawyer, or getting reimbursed for paying the demanded amount, whichever you choose). Since the odds are small that you will be sued, the fee will be small too. The insurer has an incentive to work out the best response letters, legal tactics, etc, and supply them to their customers.

Re:Sounds like a business opportunity...

[drinkypoo]

It's called "prepaid legal". You're also betting that the company will still be around when you need them.

Hey, porn industry.

[Grapplebeam]

Suing because your business model is no longer viable won't work in the long run. The same thing happened to newspapers.

Are VPN user's being sued?

[nanospook]

I wonder how many of the 100,000 were using a VPN? I run a VPN (supervpn $4 a month) before downloading content. I am aware that vpn can be broken but figure they are not going to spend that resource when there are plenty of other users downloading without VPN. Is this true or am I making a bad assumption?

Re:Are VPN user's being sued?

[Omniscientist]

There are multiple VPN providers that advertise their services as a way to use BitTorrent anonymously. While that may seem like a meaningless marketing gimmick, it lets you know about how the service owners intend their product to be used. There are many VPN providers that will actually block BitTorrent traffic, namely because of the subpoenas they may have received in the past in response to filesharing. Plenty of people use VPN in order to circumvent harsh government censorship and control, as opposed to downloading crappy music or movies. So, don't expect all VPN providers to tolerate your use of their services for filesharing purposes.

Depending on the service and various time-variant factors, you can expect speeds to be fairly satisfactory. I wouldn't expect speeds in the 1.0+ MB/s range or anything. Perhaps someone can offer experience contrary to that.

In regards to industry lawyers getting your info from VPN providers: sure, that's still a possibility. That's why it is important to see what country the VPN is based in, as laws regarding the matter differ from place to place. Also, these providers prominently advertise their policy in regards to logging user information. Some will say they keep no logs; a more believable pitch is that they keep logs only for one or more days. Whether you believe any of that or not is up to you, but without logs, there wouldn't be anything connecting you to what you were doing.

Re:Are VPN user's being sued?

[metacell]

The VPN provider doesn't need to log which IP addresses are masqueraded as which, or can let a number of users share the same IP address, much like a NAT router. At least that's the case here in Sweden, where the laws for Internet providers do not apply for VPN providers.

It does cause a substantial drop in speed, though, at least if you have a fast connection to begin with (I have 100 Mbit/s).

Re:Are VPN user's being sued?

[nanospook]

Speed has been more than sufficient.. It really depends on how many seeders there are.. I do think though that there are many bit torrent users that do not use a vpn service and are thus "easier" to focus on than someone who is using a vpn..