Slashdot Mirror


Ask Slashdot: Who Has Been Sued By the RIAA?

First time accepted submitter blackfrancis75 writes "We keep hearing different figures quoting the thousands of people who've been sued by RIAA for illegally downloading online music, but I don't know anyone personally to whom it's happened. In fact it seems no-one I know knows anyone to whom it happened. Do you know anyone who was sued for 'piracy', or were you sued yourself? What was your experience?"

407 comments

  1. Legal Threats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    I've been sent 2 or 3 legal threats from copyright holders and my ISP over the years. I ignored them and nothing ever happened.

    1. Re:Legal Threats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Same here. Tons of threats, no action.

    2. Re:Legal Threats by Toam · · Score: 2

      I'm generally ignorant to this issue, but I've always wondered how they would be persued...

      I've had a few of those come to my household in the past, when I've been living in share houses. The notice would come to the person whos name was on the internet connection, but you might have 4 people using that internet connection, plus if its a wireless connection who is to say that those pesky neighbours haven't cracked your security?

      What would the procedure be for them to actually follow up on an allegation of copyright infringement under such circumstances?

    3. Re:Legal Threats by Baloroth · · Score: 3, Insightful

      (Threaten to) sue you and force you to choose between a settlement or crushing legal fees.

      They usually prefer the "threaten" route: less paperwork for them when they extort you. Really, of course, it is about creating fear in the hearts of people so they avoid anything the RIAA and kin dislike, so an actual suite is counter-productive and they usually avoid it unless they have a pretty solid case.

      Of course, IANAL.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    4. Re:Legal Threats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Not RIAA, but I know at least one guy that was hit with a huge fine ("settlement") over a movie download. A really shitty movie his son downloaded, at that.

      I once got a call from my ISP about it, and even got notices at our workplace over it.

      Always movie stuff though... never music.

    5. Re:Legal Threats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      I like you. You can come over to my house and sue my sister.

    6. Re:Legal Threats by HopefulIntern · · Score: 1

      Out of interest, were they all pertaining to use of P2P programs? Had they seen P2P traffic?
      All this talk of shutting down locker sites had me trying to figure out if the reason is that with these sites (just downloading over HTTP port 80) means the ISP cannot do much to see illegal downloads, so the *IAA go after the source instead, whereas with P2P they can see traffic over a different protocol which sets off alarm bells and therefore triggers more scrutiny of traffic.

    7. Re:Legal Threats by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 4, Informative
      I was one of the "John Doe's" during the DeCSS episode. Eventually, the school where I had hosted my DeCSS mirror got a letter from the MAFIAA. We had a meeting (including school director, a couple of teachers, etc.), and together we decided to do nothing, and to just ignore it. Nothing ever followed, the site stayed up for years after this, until it fell into obsolescence.

      More recently, I posted a video on Facebook to mock the Costa Concordia disaster: a photo of captain Schettino with "Alles im Griff auf dem sinkenden Schiff" ("everything under control on the sinking ship") by Udo Jürgens as the sound track. Predictably the automated system pulled the video, and sent me a take-down notice giving me the option to file a counter notice. Which I did: the video went back online, is still online, and this act never had any consequences.

      But maybe it helps that I don't live in the US...

      In general, if I get legal threats from abroad I ignore them. If I get legal threats from a local lawyer, I remove the offending item but never respond to or acknowledge the letter, nor pay any fines or whatever additional thing they ask for. So far, I've never got a problem from this approach.

    8. Re:Legal Threats by gl4ss · · Score: 3, Interesting

      he shouldn't have settled. his son would've been liable only for shown damages(extremely hard to show).

      settling is how you admit without a court, it's really skewed and pays only for the trolls salary.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    9. Re:Legal Threats by Sheepy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I was John Doe #34.

      I was quite worried when we received the email from Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP but they had put all recipients in the CC field so someone quickly set up a mailing list.

      I was in the UK and at that time, had never been to the US, so I figured the Californian court wouldn't have jurisdiction.

    10. Re:Legal Threats by SpinningCone · · Score: 4, Insightful

      settling is what normal people do. The RIAA and the MPAA have people whose 8-5 job it is to rake you over the coals of the legal system. even if you win it will drain you emotionally, physically and financially to fight.

      he could loose is job to to absence and poor performance, his family due to stress. then there's the legal bill. likely it would cost nearly as much to fight so why wait?

      our current system favors the wealthy and large companies and corporations . your average man must sacrifice their lives to get any justice.

    11. Re:Legal Threats by slartibartfastatp · · Score: 0

      I remember back in 2002 when some student uploaded a .arj file containing DOOM 2 to the state university website. I heard there was a huge process and the university ended up closing the server and paying what was at the time a million dollars.

      --
      -- --
    12. Re:Legal Threats by Catbeller · · Score: 1

      The "damges only" part of the law is long gone. It's something like a quarter million dollars in damages per song. What once was a civil law matter - provable damages - is now a federal crime, a felony.

    13. Re:Legal Threats by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Just so long as you don't gouge out my eyes and cross-examine me.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    14. Re:Legal Threats by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      I wish you two cowards were logged in. I've had no problems with copyright infringement per se -- I allowed folks to use my stuff with permission and without cost as long as I was given credit, but one part of my old Quake site was perhaps the most plagairized piece of work on the internet.

      I sent out a whole bunch of takedown notices on those, and most were .edu domains.

      I never sued anybody though, the schools were good at taking the plagairized material down. private ISPs I sometimes had to threaten.

      Look, guys, you can't take someone else's work and put your name to it like you created it! You can't understand WHY what you did was way out of bounds? How could someone so dumbb ever pass a college entrance exam?

    15. Re:Legal Threats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the U.S., one of the first thing they teach you in college, in Introduction to networking, is that YOU are responsible for YOUR internet. Wi-Fi cracked or not YOU are responsible for everything that goes through your internet.

    16. Re:Legal Threats by b4dc0d3r · · Score: 1

      A coworker said her daughter, in college, got the legal threats. I don't know if they were the same empty letters as AC above, or if they had legal backings. I provided as much information as I could, with links to NYCL and other resources. But they settled the old fashioned way, with a check, because it would be too expensive to fight, and "she probably did it".

      Getting letters from your ISP is a completely different thing. It basically means the copyright holder complained to the ISP, and the ISP (implicitly) claimed something like "safe harbor" and sent the takedown notice to you ("Please stop uploading things so we don't get more complaints"). There is no legal backing to this, and at most your ISP can claim TOS violation and unsubscribe you.

      Getting sued directly is also a completely different thing. That's when an actual lawsuit gets filed, naming a specific person or IP address. We know that Thomas and Tenenbaum did, and via NYCL we know of several other cases where MediaSentry was thrown out for acting like a private investigator without a license, and several where MediaSentry changed tactics and came back. So yeah, it happened to a lot of people.

    17. Re:Legal Threats by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      Responsible and culpable are two different things.

    18. Re:Legal Threats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same here. Only threat I received was for a movie that was not out on DVD yet.

    19. Re:Legal Threats by Cederic · · Score: 1

      You are not however legally liable for the illegal actions of some other cunt.

      Next week on "Advice from Anonymous Coward", the scary news that you could face decades in prison if your stolen car is used in a bank robbery.

    20. Re:Legal Threats by Oxford_Comma_Lover · · Score: 3, Informative

      Look, guys, you can't take someone else's work and put your name to it like you created it! You can't understand WHY what you did was way out of bounds? How could someone so dumbb ever pass a college entrance exam?

      Actually, half the time that's plagiarism, which isn't the same thing as copyright violation. The other half it's not plagiarism because it's done with permission, which still isn't the same thing as copyright violation but is usually also not copyright violation. Plagiarism has to do with credit. Copyright has to do with the right to copy.

      For example, judicial opinions are usually written by clerks, but the credit goes to the judges. If that were done without permission, it would be copyright violation. (At least in any other field in the world--judicial opinions may be a special case.) It would also be plagiarism.

      One guy I know had his stuff used by a major network. They got his permission to use it, I'm sure he did a blanket rights agreement, and they pretended a bunch of stuff was their work. That was morally plagiarism but legally probably fine.

      One article I know was submitted to an academic journal with the same material as another already published article--even the graph. That was plagiarism and copyright violation.

      --
      -- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
    21. Re:Legal Threats by IMightB · · Score: 2

      Ahh those were the days, when the little people could tell the big people to, basically, go "Shove it up their orifice-of-choice"... and get away with it. The big people didn't like that so much and bought themselves some laws that said being rude to them doesn't fly anymore. They also bought a nice Indoctrination Campaign that has turned "Sharing is Caring" to "Sharing is Thievery".

      Sadly, I remember the days when the internet was everything it was everything it was promised to be; a great tool for the people. Now, it has become a tool to control the people and for benefit and profit. Where everything is tracked, monitored and filtered for your own protection.

      Dammit! What have they done to our Internet?!?!

    22. Re:Legal Threats by Toam · · Score: 1

      I guess it's pretty lucky that they only let people with college degrees set up networks and use the internet, then.

    23. Re:Legal Threats by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      That is correct, and the mods did well on your comment. Copyright violation is usually not plagairism, sometimes plagairism isn't copyright violation, but usually plagairism is also copyright violation.

      Unfortunately, when your work is plagairized your only recourse is the copyright violation aspect. If it's one of the edge cases you mention where the plagairism isn't also copyright infringement, then unfortunately you have no recourse.

    24. Re:Legal Threats by umberjon · · Score: 1

      I happened to stumble upon this quote in the Sheepy's email by accident: "which thus enables users to illegally pirate copies of DVD videos."
      Guess I'll just have to legally pirate content from now on.

    25. Re:Legal Threats by doccus · · Score: 1

      | Dammit! What have they done to our Internet?!?!| "They" have taken back "Their" internet.. they just let us poor plebes tool around with it for a bit, so it could be improved, and then "they" took it (or are in the process of taking it) back.. remember.. it was ARPANET first .. and as far as "they" are concerned, it only exists to keep the "serfs" in line..

  2. People really were sued by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

    My sister was sued by the RIAA for making files available on Kazaa. She ended up settling with them.

    1. Re:People really were sued by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What was the settlement?

    2. Re:People really were sued by djlowe · · Score: 2, Insightful

      My sister was sued by the RIAA for making files available on Kazaa. She ended up settling with them.

      Is this really what Slashdot has devolved to? An AC posts such a statement, without any proof of veracity, and gets modded up to +5 Informative?

      My attempts at sarcasm, to point out how ridiculous that is, are being modded down... WTF?

      Regards

      dj

    3. Re:People really were sued by blackfrancis75 · · Score: 1

      That was going to be my other question - how can you be sued for making a file available (as opposed to downloading it illegally).
      If I leave my MP3 collection on an unsecure FTP site - can I be sued for that? What specific law am I breaking?
      What if I leave my car door unlocked so someone can steal my CDs?

    4. Re:People really were sued by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Christ, dude, come off it. It was an answer to the question at hand. This isn't Wikipedia. There are no "citation needed" tags. The fact that the comment was anonymous has no bearing on its relevance and your attention to it is just bizarre. (I'm posting AC even though I have an account.) Modding up an answer to the titular question is in no way ridiculous.

    5. Re:People really were sued by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      My sister was sued by the RIAA for making files available on Kazaa. She ended up settling with them.

      Is this really what Slashdot has devolved to? An AC posts such a statement, without any proof of veracity, and gets modded up to +5 Informative?

      My attempts at sarcasm, to point out how ridiculous that is, are being modded down... WTF?

      Regards

      dj

      It's *you* who devolved into crude sexual comments about AC's sister. All you are is some crude and disgusting idiot with an obviously strong bias for attention-seeking who goes by the pseudonymous handle "djlowe" and keeps posting repeatedly about the same thing. I'll trust the veracity of an AC's statement over anything you say any day of the week. That's the W behind your WTF. Happy to have helped.

    6. Re:People really were sued by Skarecrow77 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      it's always been uploading the file to others that they're pissed off about, not downloading it yourself.

      sure they don't want you downloading music illegally, but what they tend to sue people for is offering the file out to others. Which of course just about every peer-to-peer file sharing system does by default. So people confuse one with the other.

      I think there's a pretty big difference (at least legally speaking) between leaving your (legal-for-you-to-use) files on an insecure ftp site that somebody might find by accident, and putting your files on a public site and then advertising their existence to people looking to download them.

      I'm not saying that they don't both have the potential to end you up in court, but one is going to be far far easier for the prosecution to proceed with than the other.

    7. Re:People really were sued by timeOday · · Score: 1

      What would you accept as proof? As you may know, establishing the true identity of people is dicey. Which is basically the entire issue of DRM in a nutshell.

    8. Re:People really were sued by blackfrancis75 · · Score: 1

      I see; that does make sense.
      Thanks for responding

    9. Re:People really were sued by Zakabog · · Score: 5, Funny

      The RIAA once sued my sister...

      Mynd you, RIAA lawsuites kan be pretti nasti...

    10. Re:People really were sued by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't believe it if you don't want to, true story.....

      My Grandmother, a good Catholic with 28 grand and great grand children, got the letter..
      She was *really* pissed the day The Laurence Welk show went off the air.
      So I have know doubt, obviously , it was her downloading the death metal.
      My cousin, a lawyer, advised just to settle.

      Extortion folks, plain and simple.

      I am now an avid supporter of the EFF.

    11. Re:People really were sued by smitty97 · · Score: 5, Funny

      We apologize for the fault in the parent post. Those responsible have been sacked.

      --
      mod me funny
    12. Re:People really were sued by NoKaOi · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well, in the first place: A claim by an AC, about a sister, has no veracity

      Right, because if you're not posting as AC, it automatically means you're telling the truth. I'm sure nobody would ever lie when they are logged in. I say this as I sit here on my private jet filled with gorgeous naked women. And, since I have an IQ of 320, you must know that I'm telling the truth about that.

    13. Re:People really were sued by djlowe · · Score: 0, Troll

      What would you accept as proof?

      With regards to a plain statement that she settled, as the AC states? There would be court documents that attest to such, and references to the same: These would be public record, and the AC could refer to them.

      Regards,

      dj

    14. Re:People really were sued by djlowe · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      The fact that the comment was anonymous has no bearing on its relevance

      Huh? The fact that it was AC has EVERY bearing, especially considering that it was stated as a bald fact, without ANY evidence to support it. It was one sentence. I could just as easily have said "My 200 year old grandma got sued by the RIAA and she settled with them, and died the same day".

      Oh,and it's true! Now, prove me wrong.

      Regards,

      dj

    15. Re:People really were sued by Glug · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's *you* who devolved into crude sexual comments about AC's sister. All you are is some crude and disgusting idiot with an obviously strong bias for attention-seeking who goes by the pseudonymous handle "djlowe" and keeps posting repeatedly about the same thing. I'll trust the veracity of an AC's statement over anything you say any day of the week. That's the W behind your WTF. Happy to have helped.

      Well, in the first place: A claim by an AC, about a sister, has no veracity: I can just as easily state this: My sister is a fucking slut. This, despite the fact that I have no sister. See how that works? In addition, despite the fact that I have a pseudonymous handle "djlowe"? I've been here for a VERY long time, under that handle: I'd tend to think that that has more weight than all of you AC's :)

      It's *you* who devolved into crude sexual comments about AC's sister

      That was intentional - to point out the fact that there's NO way for any of us to know whether or not the AC's sister even exists. Can you prove that she does? Can you disprove that she didn't give me the clap? Or that she was a bad lay?

      I'll trust the veracity of an AC's statement over anything you say any day of the week

      Says the next AC *grin* Why doesn't that surprise me? Tell you what - when you grow a pair, you come and post non-AC. Regards, dj

      Okay, here I am. Again, I'll trust the veracity of something an AC says, who has nothing to gain or lose, over an immature attention-seeking poster any day of the week. Now you know for a fact that it's true.

    16. Re:People really were sued by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Surely an IQ that high can see that a non-AC post, particularly one by a 5 digit userid, has the possibility of having a history that can be evaluated to give insight to the posters credibility and motivations that have shaped the post?

      I'm barely cracking 140 here and that possibility just deafens me with its screaming... just saying. /s/ Another 5 digit userid with the good sense to post AC when drunk.

    17. Re:People really were sued by Skarecrow77 · · Score: 5, Funny

      for a woman presumably born while Thomas Jefferson was president, her embrace of digital media is admirable.

    18. Re:People really were sued by Trahloc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The question was does anyone know anyone who was sued. Not can anyone prove without a shadow of a doubt that they know someone who was sued, we'll need you to pee in this cup as well please. If someone wants to be a douche and lie, so be it, but an A/C claiming to know someone is a valid, if unverifiable, response.

      --
      The Goal: A long simple life filled with many complex toys.
    19. Re:People really were sued by shentino · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not to mention that someone potentially on the RIAA's legal radar may well have a good reason to remain anonymous.

    20. Re:People really were sued by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You took offense? That must be really embarrassing for you...

    21. Re:People really were sued by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Is this really what Slashdot has devolved to? An AC posts such a statement, without any proof of veracity, and gets modded up to +5 Informative?

      I don't see why you bring up that it is posted by an AC.
      The AC post gets modded higher than yours because it is better.
      You have some odd idea that it is easier to verify the information if you know who posted it but somehow I doubt that his/her sister would be willing to let you see any written agreement between her and the RIAA to verify his claim.
      Please go back and read your "reputable" newspaper and tell yourself that the journalists even lifted a finger to verify their sources and that the sources themselves actually based their information on something that you could verify if you know who they were.

    22. Re:People really were sued by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't believe you.

    23. Re:People really were sued by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The laws with large penalties (ones worth their time) are the ones that were designed to prevent sales of bootlegged media. These laws only apply to people who are distributing works so they typically only go after uploaders.

      In the original context it made sense to have large fines for a single work since they'd be selling many copies of the same work. Now they use the same laws to go after people distributing 1-2 copies each of many different works.

    24. Re:People really were sued by Chysn · · Score: 2

      No evidence, nothing.

      What evidence would you deem sufficient for claiming that one's sister had been sued by the RIAA?

      --
      --I'm so big, my sig has its own sig.
      -- See?
    25. Re:People really were sued by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do not understand the joke; please explain.

    26. Re:People really were sued by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      We apologise again for the fault in the parent post. Those responsible for sacking the people who have just been sacked

    27. Re:People really were sued by Maritz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'd tend to think that that has more weight than all of you AC's :)

      None of it has any weight. No-one cares. It's a message board on the internet. If you start demanding proof for everything people say you're going to be mightily disappointed.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    28. Re:People really were sued by shiftless · · Score: 1

      lol, right?

    29. Re:People really were sued by DarwinSurvivor · · Score: 1

      Had your cousin been visiting her recently? Perhaps with his laptop...?

    30. Re:People really were sued by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wouldn't the AC then have to share private, personal information in order to satisfy your ruthless hunt for verification?

      This isn't Wikipedia. Citations aren't required.

    31. Re:People really were sued by Tastecicles · · Score: 1

      link to court dailies?
      scan of the summons?
      not forgetting of course, a copy of the birth certificate and a picture of AC and his sister taken with the front page of today's paper.

      Commence to Flamebait modding...

      --
      Operation Guillotine is in effect.
    32. Re:People really were sued by gl4ss · · Score: 2

      so the old school way of using hacked/insecure ftp's to download/share is actually _safer_? at most you're going to be hit with unauthorized use of computer systems and in many cases it was debatable if you knew it was unauthorized I guess. much smaller fines than what the RIAA mob is trying to extort from people!

      anyone else remember downloading shit off from them? ftp://random.ip/../../../../etc/look/here/rzr/ ? that's how I found my first mp3, two princes by spin doctors, had to g.. more probably altavista to find winplay3 to play it..

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    33. Re:People really were sued by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And those who sacked the responsible, have been sacked !

    34. Re:People really were sued by Tastecicles · · Score: 1

      (in the UK): there is no law against downloading *anything*.
      *However* there is precedent galore for convictions due to the content downloaded, eg bomb plans, morally objectionable images of minors...).
      Making files available on an open server is a bit of a problem, moreso if they're copyrighted: then you fall into the hole of unauthorised distribution.
      Making files available on a password-protected server is LEGALLY OK. Notwithstanding the strength of the password or the method of distribution of the password, you might find yourself in the same boat as TPB in that regard; TPB never hosted copyrighted material, all they did was supply the needle. At that point it's down to proof of intent.

      Incidentally, I had a few C&D notices from Youtube, my old ISP (Virgin), and my mail provider (STM), they all got the same response: "I have no contract with [**AA]. I have no interest in contracting with [**AA]. [**AA] own no copyrights, therefore have no claim. The copyright belongs to the author. If the author has a problem with me, then the AUTHOR can air that to me himself. I do not talk to lawyers."

      --
      Operation Guillotine is in effect.
    35. Re:People really were sued by Tastecicles · · Score: 4, Funny

      We apologise for the epic failure of the parent post to understand the Python reference. Those responsible have had their Geek cards revoked.

      --
      Operation Guillotine is in effect.
    36. Re:People really were sued by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      I can vouch; I'm the RIAA and I sued his sister.

    37. Re:People really were sued by Stoopiduk · · Score: 1

      Tell you what - when you grow a pair, you come and post non-AC.

      Regards,

      dj

      Yeah, that AC throwing in an on-topic unverifiable anecdote really is ruining the quality of Slashdot comments, internet tough guy.

    38. Re:People really were sued by Stoopiduk · · Score: 1

      Virgin now have a rather annoying habit of killing all of my torrent uploads. Unfortunately I didn't notice until 35GB or so of Tvtorrents credits had run dry.

      In my defence I had a few legal files being shared too, which makes it an outrage rather than an effective way of preventing distribution of copyrighted material.

    39. Re:People really were sued by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Well, in the first place: A claim by an AC, about a sister, has no veracity: I can just as easily state this: My sister is a fucking slut. This, despite the fact that I have no sister. See how that works?"

      I don't know who you are or whether what you claim is correct. In fact, maybe you have a sister and she really is a full-time professional, for all I know. All this occurs despite knowing there's a name signed to your post because I can't verify what you say either.

      In other words, it works exactly the same for me as an AC as it does for your behind your pseudonym: don't trust what you can't verify.

      Given that the original request was for anecdotes about actually being sued by the RIAA, I'm not sure how people could easily supply anything but unverifiable anecdotes unless they happen to have scanned-in letters from the RIAA or can refer people to public court documents. In both cases people may not want to reveal that much information even if they had it, and there are still ways to fake it (yeah, that's me, "John Doe", my real name, in that Righthaven court case dated June 21, 2009).

      Being able to identify the source of a comment does make some difference to the way it is going to be evaluated, but A) how do you know someone is who they claim they are, and B) failing to put a (potentially pseudonymous) name to a post doesn't automatically mean that what is being said is useless. It's *all* hard to verify.

      Instead of being so proud of your willingness to stand behind your pseudonym, versus a despicable AC, why don't you just read the damn posts and decide for yourself whether or not to consider them worth anything from the evidence supplied? If not, then move on to the next one or perhaps filter out all the ACs so that you never have to see them.

      Personally, I think you're just have mod point envy. I'm a different AC, but I too have gotten +5 informative mods on my posts several times because apparently there are enough people out there who are willing to rate the message, not the messenger. Deal with it.

    40. Re:People really were sued by Captain+Hook · · Score: 3, Informative

      Opening credits to Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

      The credits were run in English with Swedish Translations. After a while the Swedish Translator got bored and starting writing various off-topic comments including "A Moose Once bit my sister"

      Holy Grail Opening Sequence

      --
      These comments are my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the other voices in my head.
    41. Re:People really were sued by Tastecicles · · Score: 1

      having just checked, this made me absolutely piss: one of my videos is blocked in 235 countries, including the UK. It is still available in the US and ELEVEN other provinces (Jersey, Guernsey, IOM among them). It's one of the videos I used a Creed track on.

      --
      Operation Guillotine is in effect.
    42. Re:People really were sued by Stoopiduk · · Score: 3, Funny

      Must be a matter of taste, I'd ban any video with a Creed track on it in every country ;-)

    43. Re:People really were sued by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Copyright prohibits copying and distribution; only the uploader is copying and distributing (or, for sites, the uploader and the site owner). Downloading, AFAICT, isn't even illegal.

    44. Re:People really were sued by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      If I leave my MP3 collection on an unsecure FTP site - can I be sued for that?

      Good question. Although it's not so much breaking the law as violating their exclusive legal rights. Only the copyright holder may distribute copies

      It seems that merely making available isn't infringement (unless there have been other court decisions to contradict that). So the copyright holder would need to prove that something was downloaded. This is a civil suit, so the standards of proof are lower than a criminal prosecution, but I suspect this would still be hard for them.

      They'd probably also need to prove that you did this deliberately. If they had repeatedly contacted you to inform you of the unsecured FTP server, they could argue this was deliberate.

      Since it's not deliberate, the person they should sue is the person who did act deliberately. I don't think there's any precedent for negligently allowing copyright infringement.

      What if I leave my car door unlocked so someone can steal my CDs?

      This is one of those cases where it's important to distinguish between copyright and theft. The record company has no title to those CDs, so has no grounds to sue. No copy was made. Your rights (ownership) have been violated. While this is typically dealt with by the police and criminal law system, I believe you could sue the thief.

    45. Re:People really were sued by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Distribution is generally a black & white violation of copyright in most countries.
      Downloading is however a gray area in many countries (it is comparable with video taping something of TV to watch later, which is usually not considered illegal)

      So downloading using protocols such as FTP or HTTP is less likely to get you into trouble (only downloading) whereas BitTorrent is more likely to land you legal action as while downloading you're distributing as well.

    46. Re:People really were sued by mcneely.mike · · Score: 0

      And yes, i know... wrong their. Whatever.

      --
      soylentnews.org Go there to enjoy the people!
    47. Re:People really were sued by arisvega · · Score: 1

      I say this as I sit here on my private jet filled with gorgeous naked women.

      Pictures! Or it didnae happen!

      --
      The three laws of thermodynamics:(1) You can't win. (2) You can't break even. (3) You can't even quit.
    48. Re:People really were sued by DuckDodgers · · Score: 3, Interesting

      My brother was sued for pirating a movie. He settled out of court with the film company, and one of the terms of the agreement was that he not even disclose that it happened (so it was a violation of those terms for him to tell me about it). I wouldn't be surprised if hundreds or thousands of others had similar settlements.

      Of course I can't provide evidence and it would be absurd to take something written in a Slashdot comment on faith.

    49. Re:People really were sued by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't know about anyone else, but I post AC because A) I don't like having yet another log in to remember B) The mod system here is one of the most abusable systems I've ever seen, and C) I think it's funny when you loggers whine about how AC posts can be better than yours.

    50. Re:People really were sued by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's because the copyright law protects the distribution right. The violation is in the "making available", not the downloading.

    51. Re:People really were sued by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Huh? The fact that it was AC has EVERY bearing, especially considering that it was stated as a bald fact, without ANY evidence to support it.

      This is a discussion board, not fucking Wikipedia (and even they sometimes go overboard on citations). For example, I just decided to make you a "Foe" and I was judge, jury and executioner on that one. You didn't get any due process, you didn't get a fair trial, you didn't get a defense attorney and you've got zero right to an appeal. It's not based on any law or standard other than it's shared out at my whim for people I think deserved it or caught me on a bad day or for no reason whatsoever. Because we're on slashdot and not in a court of law. Likewise, you don't need to prove a story to leave a comment.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    52. Re:People really were sued by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whooosh... smitty understood and responded in kind.

    53. Re:People really were sued by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      so the old school way of using hacked/insecure ftp's to download/share is actually _safer_?

      Yep, there's actually a way to config google to search for MP3s on servers that aren't all that secure. However, a lot of companies now know about this trend and have set up "fake" Apache directories - when you click on the link it takes you to an MP3 purchasing site. (I wonder what their actual rate of follow-through is?)

      IANAL, but I think if someone had an FTP or something of the sort and it was unsecured and publicly available, the courts would have a hard time proving that it was "unauthorized access" in the spirit of that law.

    54. Re:People really were sued by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      What does any of this have to do with a programming language?!!?!!

    55. Re:People really were sued by Theaetetus · · Score: 1

      That was going to be my other question - how can you be sued for making a file available (as opposed to downloading it illegally). If I leave my MP3 collection on an unsecure FTP site - can I be sued for that? What specific law am I breaking? 17 USC 501 et. seq. You're distributing copies without right to do so. Your argument is not that you didn't distribute copies, but that you didn't do so intentionally. But, that would most likely fail since you intentionally put the files on an unsecure site.

      What if I leave my car door unlocked so someone can steal my CDs?

      Unless someone has a nanoscale makerbot with them, they're not making copies.

    56. Re:People really were sued by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I say this as I sit here

      [citation needed]

    57. Re:People really were sued by oldmac31310 · · Score: 1

      Well said!

      --
      http://www.acetonestudio.com
    58. Re:People really were sued by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      If you start demanding proof for everything people say you're going to be mightily disappointed.

      Prove it.

      Yup, another instance of infinite recursion!

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    59. Re:People really were sued by Kirth · · Score: 1

      Given Thomas Jefferson stance on many subjects, I can clearly see that his contemporaries might absolutely have very decent ideas about things like censorship or artificial monopolies.

      Today, he probably would be member of the Pirate Party.

      --
      "The more prohibitions there are, The poorer the people will be" -- Lao Tse
    60. Re:People really were sued by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love that all your trolling is getting modded "0, flamebait" while the AC's get "5, funny" and "4, insightful". If you care that much about mod points, stop whining and post something useful.

    61. Re:People really were sued by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 1

      Seriously? This from djlowe is what started the whole thing:

      My sister was sued by the RIAA for making files available on Kazaa. She ended up settling with them.

      I sued your sister for giving me the clap, and she settled with me, too.

      Oh, and, she wasn't that great a lay, either, though I couldn't get any money for that.

      So, do I get modded up as Informative, too?

      Regards,

      dj

      You call that classy?

    62. Re:People really were sued by mcneely.mike · · Score: 0

      Sorry, no... i call classy the people who post logged, instead of the eight year olds who post idiot stuff AC.
      The AC's are killing off slashdot.

      --
      soylentnews.org Go there to enjoy the people!
    63. Re:People really were sued by Digital+Vomit · · Score: 3, Funny

      A claim by an AC, about a sister, has no veracity: I can just as easily state this: My sister is a fucking slut. This, despite the fact that I have no sister. See how that works?

      Disowning your sister will not make her change her slutty ways.

      --
      Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
    64. Re:People really were sued by AuralityKev · · Score: 1

      Mind explaining how they do that? Now you've got me worried about my own TvTorrents credit situation :)

    65. Re:People really were sued by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And, since I have an IQ of 320, you must know that I'm telling the truth about that.

      Wow, an IQ of 320? That's 5 more than Mortimer McMire and 6 more than Billy Blaze!

    66. Re:People really were sued by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      Ahh... but truthiness depends on how many digits your slashID has. Since my number is half the length of yours, I can be trusted twice as much. And I happen to know that what you said was false. "Your" private jet is in fact a timeshare.

    67. Re:People really were sued by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That depends. What is their position on owning slaves?

    68. Re:People really were sued by Chysn · · Score: 1

      Sure, but all that stuff can be forged. Of course, it would be ridiculous to forge that stuff, wouldn't it? In fact, it seems (to me) almost as ridiculous to falsely claim that one's sister has been sued as it would be to actively falsify evidence. Sure, I wouldn't put any money on that claim being true, but somebody getting stressed out about it to this extent seems kind of sad.

      --
      --I'm so big, my sig has its own sig.
      -- See?
    69. Re:People really were sued by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Just because you generated the video, does not mean it is legal for you to put a copyrighted song on it. That is illegal, as it isn't even covered under the standard fair use defense. In the future, use creative commons music if you don't want to risk your video being blocked.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  3. yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    A friend of mine has to bootleg internet access because he bootlegged everything else too much.

    I think that might be more common...they get your ISP to "ban you" from their service. But, I'm sure he got legal threats. I just don't remember any specifics past that.

  4. They don't need to sue you ... by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ... all they need to do is to claim everything, including birdsongs, belongs to them

    http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/02/26/2141246/youtube-identifies-birdsong-as-copyrighted-music

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:They don't need to sue you ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll help you. If you're going to troll properly, be sure to spell your slurs correctly. It's K-I-K-E. You're welcome.

  5. well, if you want to be technical... by bmo · · Score: 4, Informative

    "We keep hearing different figures quoting the thousands of people who've been sued by RIAA "

    The people actually sued by the RIAA for file sharing is actually zero.

    nil.

    Nobody.

    Because they don't own the copyrights. It's the studios that do. These studios are members of the RIAA, but in the US, at least, to have standing to sue, you must have the actual copyright yourself. The press always confuses the RIAA with the studios, because the RIAA has the loudest mouth.

    We saw lack of standing with SCO. They kept insisting that they owned the copyrights to SysV, but the plain language of the APA didn't say they do, and in order for copyright to change hands (in that case from Novell to SCO) there has to be a positive statement *in writing on paper* that the copyright is transfered.

    The judge in the case and Novell eventually got SCO to fuck off, but it took 7 years.

    Similarly in these cases, it's not "The RIAA vs Joe Blough," it's "IRS Records vs Jane Sawless" because the RIAA does not own the copyright to "I Stabbed A Monkey" but IRS Records does.

    --
    BMO

    1. Re:well, if you want to be technical... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      :o that sounds like an awesome song. //internet

    2. Re:well, if you want to be technical... by larry+bagina · · Score: 1

      No one has been sued for *downloading* music. You get sued for uploading/distributing/making available.

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    3. Re:well, if you want to be technical... by bmo · · Score: 4, Informative

      >No one has been sued for *downloading* music. You get sued for uploading/distributing/making available.

      Please note the actual word I used.

      Sharing, as in putting it in your share folder.

      Thank you and have a nice day.

      --
      BMO

    4. Re:well, if you want to be technical... by Anthony+Mouse · · Score: 1

      No one has been sued for *downloading* music. You get sued for uploading/distributing/making available.

      I kind of wonder if there is any actual legal reason for that, or if it's just that the only way to catch a downloader is to be the uploader and the RIAA wouldn't be caught dead uploading "pirated" music.

    5. Re:well, if you want to be technical... by hoggoth · · Score: 1

      It is. Great ripping song, fun to drink and sing along to. It recounts the legend of "The Chalvey Stab Monkey".

      --
      - For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)
    6. Re:well, if you want to be technical... by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's mainly because of the technical reason you identified: it's hard to catch people who only download, unless they download from you (or you obtain logs from someone who was uploading).

      There is a bit of legal strategy as well, though; even the RIAA has finite legal resources, and it's not as though the few lawsuits (or even the more common settlements, probably) are a profit center for them. Given this, it's more efficient to go for the head of the snake, as it were. That's why they like to sue / pressure people who are behind entire file sharing networks (e.g. Napster, Grokster, MegaUpload) since that could (if it worked) cut off lots of file sharers in one stroke. Suing uploaders is less efficient, but still could prevent at least some downloading from occurring. Suing a downloader is the least efficient thing of all, since it only stops that one person with no beneficial side effects. That isn't to say that it would never happen, but it can't possibly be a high priority.

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    7. Re:well, if you want to be technical... by Kleen13 · · Score: 1

      I thought mp3's were legal to download as review material for 24 hours. Was/is that true?

      --
      That sinking feeling deep in your gut when you KNOW you screwed up bad summed up with: {head desk} {head desk}
    8. Re:well, if you want to be technical... by cdrudge · · Score: 1

      No. Only video game roms. And software isos. I think it may just be a warez thing, not a mp3z thing.

    9. Re:well, if you want to be technical... by Endo13 · · Score: 1

      Really?

      I've always been under the impression that it's because it's only uploading (ie. "distributing") that's illegal, not downloading.

      --
      There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
    10. Re:well, if you want to be technical... by Skarecrow77 · · Score: 1

      no more than it's legal to take a book home from the bookstore to review for 24 hours before you decide to buy it.

      Where would you get that idea from?

    11. Re:well, if you want to be technical... by Kleen13 · · Score: 1

      I've been hearing that since MP3's 1st came out... That's why I'm curious.

      --
      That sinking feeling deep in your gut when you KNOW you screwed up bad summed up with: {head desk} {head desk}
    12. Re:well, if you want to be technical... by Aryden · · Score: 1

      Bad analogy. One is copyright infringement, the other is theft.

    13. Re:well, if you want to be technical... by PhrstBrn · · Score: 1

      Partially correct. Both are illegal, but the fines for distributing material are much larger than just downloading. It's similar to possession of drugs vs drug trafficking.

    14. Re:well, if you want to be technical... by yukk · · Score: 1

      no more than it's legal to take a book home from the bookstore to review for 24 hours before you decide to buy it.

      Where would you get that idea from?

      Don't the libraries let you do this ? In fact, I think they let you take it home for long enough to read the whole thing !

      --
      The trouble with the rat race is that even if you win, you're still a rat." Lily Tomlin
    15. Re:well, if you want to be technical... by Skarecrow77 · · Score: 2

      ok, you want a more technically correct analogy?

      What makes you think that you can take the book at the bookstore into the back room, xerox the book's pages, and take it home and read those pages for 24 hours before what you just did becomes illegal? why wouldn't it be illegal the second you did it, what does a 24 hour period have to do with it?

      answer: nothing.

    16. Re:well, if you want to be technical... by Skarecrow77 · · Score: 1

      They sure do! I used to borrow books from the library every week. You ever borrowed an mp3 from a library?

      A library is either a public or a private institution, where either way funds have been set aside to purchase works (generally copyrighted works) for use of the members of the library. The temporary loans of these works to members is fully supported by the laws of the united states.

      downloading an mp3 off of bitorrent is none of these things.

      The closest we have to a legal "mp3 library" is spotify (and it actually uses vorbis, not mp3, not that the format makes any difference), which I do in fact use.

    17. Re:well, if you want to be technical... by Skarecrow77 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      hearsay and rumor, nothing else. it's the digital equivalent to "I hear you can't get pregnant the first time you have sex"

    18. Re:well, if you want to be technical... by Skarecrow77 · · Score: 1

      pretty sure it's never been legal for those either.

      also, eating pop rocks and pepsi together still won't kill you.

    19. Re:well, if you want to be technical... by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 3, Informative

      Both are illegal, as are a few other things besides. Well, actually, if one looks at the precise language of the statute, while distribution is illegal, uploading doesn't meet the definition of distribution, so it either has to be something else that is illegal (my money would be on some form of secondary liability, where in essence the assistance that the uploader provides the downloader for the downloader's offense makes the uploader liable too) or it is perfectly okay. There's a case underway where someone is finally making that argument, but I doubt that the courts looking at it are ever going to side with pirates merely because of the actual language of the law. Justice could stand to be blinder.

      Anyway, you can see a list of the major types of copyright infringement at 17 USC 106 (definitions are helpfully provided at 17 USC 101 -- n.b. that definitions provided in the statute override ordinary dictionary definitions).

      And, since all else being equal, they are just forms of the same offense -- infringement -- the remedies are the same for both: Actual damages and profits, and perhaps costs, fees, an injunction, even the destruction of copies and copying equipment (though I don't think I've heard of a court ordering the destruction of anyone's computer in this sort of case -- I wonder why the other side has neglected such a mean tactic). And, if the work is eligible (it usually will be for anything you'd get in copyright trouble for downloading), statutory damages, if the plaintiff so opts. Civil remedies for copyright infringement may be found at 17 USC 502-505. Section 504 is the major bit.

      There's no real distinction for civil damages as to whether one acted in a saintly or fiendish fashion with regard to infringement. It won't matter for actual damages and profits. But statutory damages simply must fall within a particular range between a minimum and a maximum in the statute. In practice, if you've gotten to the point where you're being sued in a case like this, the minimum can't be lowered, and the maximum can be relied upon to be raised as high as it'll go. The actual number in that range is picked by the jury, who may do so for entirely inscrutable reasons, and may then be reduced by the judge to as low as the minimum, as the judge sees fit.

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    20. Re:well, if you want to be technical... by Kleen13 · · Score: 1

      Based on? Anything supporting your statement?

      --
      That sinking feeling deep in your gut when you KNOW you screwed up bad summed up with: {head desk} {head desk}
    21. Re:well, if you want to be technical... by Kell+Bengal · · Score: 1

      The Chalvey monkey story actually makes for weirdly interesting reading.

      --
      Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
      altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
    22. Re:well, if you want to be technical... by Skarecrow77 · · Score: 2

      well there is this
      http://www.gamefaqs.com/features/help/entry.html?cat=24

      and this
      http://www.pro-music.org/Content/questions/DosAndDonts.php#Q13

      and this
      http://www.uky.edu/UKIT/security/policy_riaa.htm

      and so on... but more over, why in the world would it make any sense to make copyright infringement only kick in after 24 hours? who would write a law like that? nobody would, because nobody has. it's an urban legend, continually circulated, just like all urban legends.

    23. Re:well, if you want to be technical... by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

      In some countries, "legal infrigement" is not an offense and anti-counterfeiting laws are used, on shaky legal grounds, to pretend you use a trademark illegally.

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    24. Re:well, if you want to be technical... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and the RIAA wouldn't be caught dead uploading "pirated" music.

      I seem to remember that in the Napster days that is exactly what they did. They did outsource the dirty work to 3rd parties though.

      And people that have been sued by copyright holders for downloading? hardly any. That's not the business model. The model is to threaten with legal action in order to get a settlement.

    25. Re:well, if you want to be technical... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I ate pop rocks and pepsi together and died, you insensitive clod!

    26. Re:well, if you want to be technical... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I'm not disagreeing that it is copyright infringement, but I'd also like to point out that giving away sample chapters or even the entire book is a pretty effective marketing strategy.

      Most authors net benefit from piracy, sometimes massively.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    27. Re:well, if you want to be technical... by HopefulIntern · · Score: 1

      Let's not get into arguments about what "the law" is before we establish which jurisdiction we're talking about. I was under the impression the 24-hour law was only in Germany.

    28. Re:well, if you want to be technical... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Suing a downloader is the least efficient thing of all, since it only stops that one person with no beneficial side effects.

      Suing one downloader: yes.
      Suing one downloader for every 2 downloaders: no.

      The merits for the RIAA aren't in an individual case. They're in shaping public perception.
      These cases help to make Joe Sixpack/Kegpack afraid of downloading. And that does impact file sharing.

    29. Re:well, if you want to be technical... by Tastecicles · · Score: 0

      funny story: a friend of mine who distributed bootleg DVDs had this nice little loophole that meant that whenever he was dragged into court for his activities, he always walked out with a huge grin on his face. The reason he walked every single time? The loophole was this: when he copied a DVD, he copied just the movie: the start and end credits were edited out. No extras either. When he copied the cover art, he obliterated the barcode and any studio logos. Since it was the studios suing him, they couldn't make anything stick because he was distributing derivative works (proved in evidence) and because there were no marks identifying the studio they had nothing to pin him for trademark infringement.

      --
      Operation Guillotine is in effect.
    30. Re:well, if you want to be technical... by ratboy666 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Downloading is not Copyright Infringement. Downloading is simply downloading. There is no way to determine a priori whether any Internet file transfer has Copyright authorization.

      Especially now that Copyright is automatically granted and registration is no longer required.

      In order to make Downloading an offense, registration would need to be returned.

      And, if (please argue the point) Downloading is indeed illegal, and everything (yes, EVERYTHING) has a Copyright, and the status of a "legal" Download cannot be a priori determined, then it would simply be insanity to use the "internet". Both from a content producer and a content consumer perspective.

      There simply cannot be anonimity. Everyone would have to know that I wrote this post, before reading it, in order to determine the a priori Copyright status.

      Your thoughts?

      --
      Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
    31. Re:well, if you want to be technical... by NekSnappa · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I call horseshit on this one.

      There is no way that simply removing the credits, and anything that identifies who the original producer of a movie was, is enough of a change to classify it as a derivative work. It's not the titles and the cover that are "the work." It's the movie itself.

      Therefore the whole thing would just about have to be re-edited to show your friends vision of what could be made using the same bits of footage for it to be derivative of the original. Otherwise it's just the original without giving credit.

      --
      I want to shoot the messenger!
    32. Re:well, if you want to be technical... by Kjella · · Score: 2

      Anything you merely display is not a copyright violation, like me reading your copyrighted post in a web browser. Fixing it to a permanent medium like downloading is a violation of the reproduction right, assuming it's not covered by fair use AND the bits you're storing were legally distributed. This should be obvious, the same way you couldn't hook up a bunch of DVD recorders to a legal TV broadcast and sell your own DVDs. Also, all copies of an illegal copy are illegal no matter what. That so many armchair quarterback lawyers here claim otherwise is a good example of why you should not go here for legal advice. Read the Napster case if you don't believe me.

      Your attempts at trying to be a smartass would be mauled in court. Even if there's nothing about the door itself that tells you whether you're trespassing or not, the judge would obviously look at the context and if you were walking in doors in my apartment building it's obvious they're not meant for public access while the door to the McDonald's obviously is. That is, if you are on TPB and click a link that appears to point to a pirate copy, nobody will accept that you "a priori" don't actually know if the file contains that until you download it, at best it's a possible defense if you were trolled into clicking something worse than a goatse link.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    33. Re:well, if you want to be technical... by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      n.b. that definitions provided in the statute override ordinary dictionary definitions

      Okay, now I want to write a piece of "brainfuck legislation". It will have a preamble in which it will define terms ridiculously, and not only using letters (e.g., "xq5$(z" will be defined as "intentional", etc), and then the text of the bill will read like line noise.

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    34. Re:well, if you want to be technical... by Teancum · · Score: 1

      The problem with "fixing to a permanent medium" is something very tricky with computers and electronic technology. For very legitimate reasons web pages are stored on hard drives even if only for temporary storage. Even storing something just in RAM can be considered in the legal context as being in "a permanent medium".

      All of this has been argued, not just on Slashdot but in legal briefs and even judicial rulings, so it is rehashing stuff that has been said in the past but it is a useful to note that laws written for printed works don't really go smoothly for content on computers.

      BTW, there is the concept of personal fair use that is often ignored by folks like the RIAA. If you have somehow obtained copyrighted content through legal channels (viewed a web page, purchased a CD/DVD/flash card, or even a piece of sheet music) you can copy that content for "personal use" as much or as often as you want. There is even a legitimate need so far as doing that for archival purposes. Such "personal fair use" is even explicitly noted in US copyright law. The only thing you can't do is to redistribute that content without permission.

      The problem with downloading from a known purveyor of illegal content is more along the lines of participation in a conspiracy to commit a crime as your are indirectly (or perhaps more directly if you sent money to support the server) supporting the illegal redistribution of that content. It is the person or company that is redistributing the content that is breaking the law.

      Again, the problem of electronic devices gets nasty, because an ISP is treated as a "common carrier" that has specific laws that exempt them from being prosecuted for copyright infringement, and a similar kind of law applies to operators of generic websites that otherwise merely allow you to host content... such as YouTube or even DropBox. Anyway, that is where it gets real ugly and the law gets extremely confusing because contradictory laws get applied arbitrarily and inconsistently.

      The problem for services like Napster, Freenet, BitTorrent, or even Wikipedia (more exactly for this purpose... the Wikimedia Commons) is the nature of the content being generally used with the service. Napster got into trouble because about the only thing it was really being used for was the illegal redistribution of copyrighted content.... not because very legitimate "open source" works could also be redistributed in that channel. On the other hand, the Wikimedia Commons generally doesn't have a problem with folks like the RIAA explicitly because the typical use of that service is for content to support Wikipedia (and the Wikimedia Commons goes out of their way to cull content that doesn't have explicit redistribution licenses). I quit using Freenet in part because a substantial portion of the bandwidth was being used for child pornography... if other more legitimate content was being carried on that network I'd be much more supportive. It is on this issue that the "free content distribution" projects wander from strictly legal issues and turn more political, and where law enforcement gets selective if most of what that project is doing is unsavory. Just because it can be used for legitimate purposes is often not sufficient for legal protection.

    35. Re:well, if you want to be technical... by Anthony+Mouse · · Score: 1

      These cases help to make Joe Sixpack/Kegpack afraid of downloading. And that does impact file sharing.

      Not by any evidence it doesn't. The amount of file sharing going on more than doubled in the first three years after they started suing people.

      Although I suppose by "impact" you could mean "publicize the existence of file sharing and make people hate the record labels enough to use it instead of paying."

    36. Re:well, if you want to be technical... by Teancum · · Score: 1

      There are a number of similarities between crafting legislation and writing software. The difference is that software eventually does have to pass through a machine in order to be useful and a machine is unforgiving if there are contradictory instructions in terms of what that machine should be doing. Legislation just passes those kind of instructions through and expects judges to figure out how to resolve those conflicts instead.

    37. Re:well, if you want to be technical... by OakDragon · · Score: 1

      Could you send me a copy? Thanks!

    38. Re:well, if you want to be technical... by Teancum · · Score: 1

      But it is legal to take a book home from the public library for 24 hours to review it and then return that book only to get another book from that library. Book publishers haven't been too happy about the situation, but the U.S. Copyright Office tends to be sympathetic to libraries (especially sense that office falls under the jurisdiction of the Librarian of Congress).

      A really odd thing is how some public libraries are now "loaning" content electronically. How that works out is sort of weird from a legal standpoint.

    39. Re:well, if you want to be technical... by Teancum · · Score: 1

      My local public library now allows me to login and access content electronically, including downloading PDF files and yes, even MP3s. It is technically a "checkin/checkout" system but the content is now handled completely electronically instead of through a physical medium and done over the internet. What MP3 files you can download are restricted and you can't upload files (at least not without some substantial intervention by the head librarian), but it is being done.

      About the only thing that restricts this library from being literally available to everybody in the world is that you still need to physically show up at the library to get a patron card in order to access the service.

    40. Re:well, if you want to be technical... by hellop2 · · Score: 1

      I think that you are missing the point of the OP. It also seems that you erroneously believe that "displaying" is different than "downloading". However, things you view on the Internet are downloaded to your computer's harddrive, and also copied into RAM. So, if you were to view a photo that I had copyrighted, simply by visiting a website, you have already committed two instances of copyright violation.

      I believe the OP's point was that the idea of downloading being a copyright violation is untenable because one cannot determine before the fact, that a particular website will not contain copyrighted material.

      @OP, to argue your point. Copyright law prohibits unauthorized reproduction of copyrighted works. The "Four Factor" test for fair use doesn't mention intent. Ignorance is not a defense, etc.. So, as I hereby copyright this entire post, all rights reserved 2012. You are all in violation, and you may consider this a lawful DMCA takedown notice that you must remove this post from your browser cache, RAM and whiteout the offending reproduction on your screen.

      --
      How many more years will slashdot have an off-by-one error on your Score in your profile?
    41. Re:well, if you want to be technical... by Theaetetus · · Score: 1

      It's mainly because of the technical reason you identified: it's hard to catch people who only download, unless they download from you (or you obtain logs from someone who was uploading).

      True. Just to further add, you could make a reasonable argument that if the alleged infringer got the copyrighted file from the copyright owner (uploading to catch people who download), then they actually obtained a legal copy from someone with authorization to distribute and are not an infringer.

    42. Re:well, if you want to be technical... by ratboy666 · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Thank you. Exactly correct. I am going to expand on my thesis a bit, because I am going to reference this post instead of responding to others.

      In the past, I have proposed a "Copyright Illustration Machine". It consists of a photocopier, with a piece of paper containing something locked into the scanner. It is sealed, and there is no way to determine the contents of that paper. Other than press the "Copy" button.

      The paper contains some material, along with a Copyright notice, specifically DISALLOWING any reproduction.

      The "Copy" button is labelled "Press Me".

      The button is pushed, and the "button pusher" is immediately descended up by Copyright Lawyers, acting on behalf of the original Author.

      Personally, I would build this as a piece of Art -- and the paper would chide the Copier for having copied.

      The Legal Question: is it legal to push the button? If Downloading is Copyright Infringement, the answer is no, regardless of the labelling of the "Copy" button.

      Another factor is that the intent of the Downloader is not a part of the "crime". To make it a "crime", requires that permission to copy (or, in the case of this discussion, to download) had NOT been granted by the Copyright holder. In other words, it is up to the Downloader to determine the state of mind of the Copyright holder. This holds now that Copyright is implicit.

      Notice also how the SCO case ended up revolving around whether Copyright itself had been transferred? And these determinations must be made by someone just using a Web Browser. All they see is a Web Site, that is functional. If the material was not meant to be there, and didn't have AT LEAST Copyright for allowing Download, would not the Copyright holder have pursued action against the provider?

      How about the following as a "reasonable" provision -- if Google indexed it, and it is still available, it (whatever it is) is fair to Download. If the Copyright holder can't be arsed to "google" for their own property, they (arguably) have permitted Downloading.

      --
      Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
    43. Re:well, if you want to be technical... by ratboy666 · · Score: 1

      Kjella

      I am not trying to be a "smartass". I just want to get rid of the meme that Downloading is Copyright Infringement. It cannot reasonably be so.

      Please read my continued reply at:

      http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2713117&cid=39288473

      As to the assertion that "McDonalds" is public -- it isn't.

      Heart of Atlanta V. United States argued that being a private establishment allowed the hotel to refuse to serve blacks. They lost, but not because of that -- the US argued that Congress had authority due to Interstate Commerce.

      If that hadn't held, the 5th and 13th Amendments would have, and the US would have lost.

      In fact, Downloading may be illegal, and, if it comes to court, eventually that same Interstate Commerce clause will likely be used to make it law.

      Thanks for the discussion, and I am looking forward to hearing your opinions.

      --
      Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
    44. Re:well, if you want to be technical... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is obviously false because:

      For copyright protection to attach to a later, allegedly derivative work, it must display some originality of its own. It cannot be a rote, uncreative variation on the earlier, underlying work. The latter work must contain sufficient new expression, over and above that embodied in the earlier work for the latter work to satisfy copyright law's requirement of originality.

      Citation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work#When_does_derivative-work_copyright_exist.3F

      Furthermore, here is a simple test that can be done in the courtroom in about 5 minutes:

      1. Put in the pirated DVD and an original copy. Play a random scene side by side and compare.
      2. Hold up the covers. Compare the art side by side.

      In both cases, it will be plainly obvious that this is a copy with all identifying information removed.

      This is a lot like taking a picture from a professional photographer's website, photoshopping out all identifying information, and then claiming it is a derivative. I'm trying to imagine a jurisdiction where this would actually hold up.

    45. Re:well, if you want to be technical... by Kjella · · Score: 1

      As to the assertion that "McDonalds" is public -- it isn't.

      Well, it's certainly open to the public. As in, if you walked into a McDonald's and they tried to charge you with trespass you'd have a good faith belief they wanted customers to come inside, even if no sign explicitly said customers welcome. There's no sign on my door that explicitly says stay out, but there the presumption would be the other way. That's what I'm talking about.

      I am not trying to be a "smartass". I just want to get rid of the meme that Downloading is Copyright Infringement. It cannot reasonably be so.

      The trouble with your "reductio ad absurdum" attempt is that the law doesn't find that absurd. Copyright is a strict liability offense, same as bedding jailbait. I'm sure many have asked "How was I supposed to know?" and the law doesn't care. It doesn't care how old she said she was. It doesn't care if she showed you a fake id. It doesn't care if she looked 30. If you did it, you're guilty. Same with copyright, the law doesn't care how you should have known it was copyright infringement. In fact there's a section in the statutory damages that says even if you can prove you didn't know, you're still liable for somewhat lesser damages ($200-30000 instead of $750-150000 if I recall correctly). So if you say it can't reasonably be so, then I'm telling you that's how it unreasonably is.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    46. Re:well, if you want to be technical... by Kjella · · Score: 1

      I think that you are missing the point of the OP. It also seems that you erroneously believe that "displaying" is different than "downloading". However, things you view on the Internet are downloaded to your computer's harddrive, and also copied into RAM. So, if you were to view a photo that I had copyrighted, simply by visiting a website, you have already committed two instances of copyright violation.

      No, read 117(a)(1). I don't commit any copyright violation until I right-click and say "Save as...", copies made automatically to network buffer, browser cache, RAM, display buffer etc. don't count. Note that this is part of copyright law though, if you get caught with other illegal stuff then your browser cache may be just as incriminating as a normal file.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    47. Re:well, if you want to be technical... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why you should not go here for legal advice.

      Like your misstatement of the law, for instance. The right of public display is indeed one of those that my be infringed. Also, a copy of an unauthorized copy can in fact be authorized.

      Maybe you need to read the napster case again. Or some basic u.s. code.

    48. Re:well, if you want to be technical... by Carnildo · · Score: 1

      I call horseshit too, but for a different reason. He is indeed making a derivative work, but it doesn't fall into any of the classes of protected derivative work (parody, critical commentary, etc.), which makes it a straight-up copyright violation. Any lawyer or judge who's ever so much as glanced at copyright law knows this.

      --
      "They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
    49. Re:well, if you want to be technical... by Tastecicles · · Score: 1

      I'm talking about trademark dilution. When you REMOVE trademarks, devices and logos YOU ARE DILUTING NOTHING.

      --
      Operation Guillotine is in effect.
    50. Re:well, if you want to be technical... by ratboy666 · · Score: 1

      And you would be so wrong -- fixing to RAM to extract information (eg. what your Web Browser does) can be considered Copyright Infringement. Ref.

      MAI v. Peak
      TicketMaster v. RMG Techs, and
      Facebook v. Power Ventures

      would give the relevant precedents for you.

      "copies made automatically to network buffer, browser cache, RAM, display buffer etc" DO COUNT. In the US, anyway, other jurisdictions may be different.

      --
      Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
    51. Re:well, if you want to be technical... by ratboy666 · · Score: 1

      Sorry for replying to myself -- I hit "Submit" too fast.

      The question is not if a Browser can infringe Copyright -- it can, but if providing content creates a "transitive Copyright".

      My contention is that it must. And you are right -- this is law. Reasonable doesn't work (see the cases I gave you). But a basis of common law is predictability, and since the prediction is that a random web page is ok to access, that this behaviour (web browsing) is right and lawful. Without this, internet commerce doesn't work.

      In other words, EVEN THOUGH, legally, your browser commits acts of Copyright Infringement by fixing my comment into RAM, extracting from it, and displaying it (ref the case law I gave you), the activity is still lawful, because we work under a presumption that IF I provided the material on the 'web, I must have (implicitly) provided permission.

      In my reading, nothing else supports the 'web.

      If another party provides the information, we still want it to be a Copyright Infringement -- but how is the end user to know the difference? There is no (reliable) means to determine one party from another.

      Which is why I stated that this leads to no anonymity. It may be possible to broker this, which is why I suggested Google as a litmus test. Google responds to DMCA requests, and removes such search results. If material can be reached through Google, can it be considered "safe". If so, anonymity can be retained.

      Your thoughts?

      --
      Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
    52. Re:well, if you want to be technical... by Sasha-Whitefur · · Score: 1

      As it was said. "if it wasn't written down, it didnt happen."' From a Tom Clancy novel.

    53. Re:well, if you want to be technical... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A non sequitur in caps, nice. FYI: shouting doesn't make you any more right or wrong.

      I'm not saying your story didn't actually happen, I'm saying based on the existing law it is extremely unlikely this did happen without other factors not included in your telling of it.

  6. I have to wonder if any non AC's will respond.... by mark-t · · Score: 2, Informative

    I mean, other than to make a metacomment, such as this. At the time I'm posting this, the only posts that are admitting to this are AC.

  7. Post Anonymously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Because I am not allowed to talk about it as part of the settlement.

    1. Re:Post Anonymously by ThePeices · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But since you posted that as an AC, why are you still not talking about it?

  8. Me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    My wifi is open (but I keep my own activity logs in case the FBI does a kiddy porn raid). The RIAA sent me some nasty letters demanded money. I told them to fuck off. They filed a lawsuit. The judge wouldn't allow my evidence. Apparently, calling a judge a cocksucker is a good way to spend the weekend in jail for contempt of court. Who knew. We're still pretrial (it's dragged on for over a year and a half now).

    1. Re:Me by Skarecrow77 · · Score: 1

      you're not a lawyer are you?

    2. Re:Me by Aryden · · Score: 1

      apparently not, though I have heard a lawyer (mine) call a judge a "coke snorting moron" to which she (the judge) wasn't very amused. In his defense, he was sleeping with her.

    3. Re:Me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My wifi is open (but I keep my own activity logs in case the FBI does a kiddy porn raid). The RIAA sent me some nasty letters demanded money. I told them to fuck off. They filed a lawsuit. The judge wouldn't allow my evidence. Apparently, calling a judge a cocksucker is a good way to spend the weekend in jail for contempt of court. Who knew. We're still pretrial (it's dragged on for over a year and a half now).

      What was your evidence? Was it not allowed because it wasn't relevant or because you were standing in the courtroom yelling expletives and throwing manila envelopes on the floor? From your post, I honestly can't tell.

      Courts are virtual machines. Laws are the instructions they run. Plaintiffs and defendants try to load code overlays on top of each other, insert jumps, and influence how the machine interprets the instructions. Please approach an RIAA lawsuit with more skill and finesse than beating on the side of the computer and hollering like an idiot or you not only destroy your own chances of success, but you make life harder for others trying to fight similar fights later on.

    4. Re:Me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure that sleeping with a coke-snorting moron is not a sanctioned legal defense.

    5. Re:Me by oldmac31310 · · Score: 1

      The were 'sleeping' together in the courtroom?

      --
      http://www.acetonestudio.com
    6. Re:Me by oldmac31310 · · Score: 1

      You give the courts too much credit! If they were more machine like there might actually be more efficiency and dare I suggest, more justice. Court buildings are filled with all sorts of people - sure some good ones, but a lot of avaricious, ambitious, two-faced, drug deranged assholes (I'm talking about the people that work there not the average Joes). If machines were like that we would have stayed in the stone age.

      --
      http://www.acetonestudio.com
    7. Re:Me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not strictly related to the parent post, but I cannot quite understand how someone with wifi can be convicted for doing anything online, assuming all they have on him is an IP address.

      I read somewhere that the ISP states or makes you agree that you're responsible for your internet connection, but what does that mean, exactly?
      Do I have to password protect my wifi? How long and/or complex must the password be?

      I mean, connecting to some stranger's wifi is very easy. Not to every wifi, but a lot of them don't have a password or have a very simple one.
      How is that not a perfect defense?

    8. Re:Me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I call BS on this entire thread. You could have blackmailed the judge and lawyer after hearing that, and no one would call a judge a "cocksucker" in court. At least no one that posts to slashdot.

    9. Re:Me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently, calling a judge a cocksucker is a good way to spend the weekend in jail for contempt of court.

      Not in California state courts, where all the judges ARE actually cocksuckers.

    10. Re:Me by Aryden · · Score: 1

      Sure, in front of the court reporter, clerk, solicitors et al.... I mean really, bow-chicka-wow-wow.

  9. Re:I have to wonder if any non AC's will respond.. by izomiac · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It wouldn't surprise me if there's something akin to a non-disclosure agreement in the settlement offer, thus ensuring nobody should give specifics or post under their primary username. That's also likely the reason the submitter hasn't found much information about the experience.

  10. Can they talk about it? by Jason+Levine · · Score: 5, Informative

    At one point, I thought that the settlement that the RIAA pushed people to accept included clauses that prevented people from talking about the settlement. The RIAA, however, had no such restrictions. This way, the RIAA could say all they want about the "dirty, rotten pirate" they stopped but the sued individual couldn't provide their side. I'm not sure if this is still true, but could be part of the reason why we don't hear of many people on Slashdot who were sued.

    --
    My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
  11. I was sued by the RIAA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It was during 2007 while I was just finishing up my PhD in the States. I got a court summons the same month I defended my thesis. My guess is that I got careless with my music downloads while I was getting lots of music to burn through the hours while working on my thesis. I just ignored it, defended my thesis, and went back home in Europe as I was planning to anyway. Got a few threatening letters forwarded to me for a while after... Ignored those, too, and never really heard anything else after a while.

    1. Re:I was sued by the RIAA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you been back in the US since then? If you failed to appear in court, you may have a bench warrant out for you.

    2. Re:I was sued by the RIAA by psychonaut · · Score: 1

      Do they issue warrants for civil cases? I would have thought that his failure to appear would simply result in a default judgment entered against him. I'd advise the AC to check his credit report to see if there any outstanding debts which the plaintiff has reported as unpaid.

    3. Re:I was sued by the RIAA by tsalaroth · · Score: 1

      Yes, if you were served and didn't appear. That "being served" part is the key. A cease & desist / threatening letter isn't a summons.

  12. Sued? No. Threatened? Yes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I didn't get sued, but when I was in college I got an email from my university's IT department that if I didn't respond before 8:00 am the next day(which was about 16 hours away from when they sent the email) they would cut off my internet. Why? Because they received a letter from one of the MPAA members(I forget which one now, it's been a few years) saying that I was torrenting some random disc of a TV show off some Spanish torrent site. I basically responded to the IT department saying that I couldn't stop seeding the torrent file because I never had it in the first place and requested some more information on the actual complaint they had been sent, I'm not sure how they handled the complaint with the company but I never heard anything else after that.

    1. Re:Sued? No. Threatened? Yes. by Myopic · · Score: 2

      Really? I would have demanded a little more information. That organization in fact slandered you with false accusations, and you could have a tort against them. It would hardly ever come to that, but you could have fun writing letters and disturbing their lawyers for a while.

    2. Re:Sued? No. Threatened? Yes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      isn't that libel?

    3. Re:Sued? No. Threatened? Yes. by Myopic · · Score: 1

      I'm not exactly sure. Libel is when you write it down, and this was indeed written down, but I always thought libel also required publication, whereas this was simply a letter sent to a college.

      I just looked it up and it says that libel needs to be "published". I'm not sure what the exact law is on this, but if you can enlighten me I'll thank you for it. And anyway of course the point stands.

    4. Re:Sued? No. Threatened? Yes. by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      well, it was a letter sent to a 3rd party.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    5. Re:Sued? No. Threatened? Yes. by I+Read+Good · · Score: 1

      Actually, it's likely that the letter went to the university citing infringing traffic from one of the university's public facing IP addresses to YoQuieroTorrents.com. I'd assume it was the responsibility of the school's IT guy to pass along the warning to the appropriate network user. If GP's university's IT department is anything like mine, the dude probably 'effed up reading the NAT logs. Or GP lied to IT to cover his ass. Either way, there was probably no slandering/libeling on the part of the MPAA goons; they wouldn't make that sort of mistake.

    6. Re:Sued? No. Threatened? Yes. by Myopic · · Score: 1

      That's a good point. Associating the IP with the human was probably done by the Uni. I still would have asked for some more information, for the fun of it, knowing I was innocent. You never know whose collar might get hot.

      One thing, though: "MPAA goons... wouldn't make that sort of mistake" is totally wrong. They make that kind of mistake all the time -- there have been many stories about it.

  13. Re:I have to wonder if any non AC's will respond.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    That is exactly the issue. Happens all the time, especially in the medical field. You get a payout and are barred from saying anything to anyone. This leaves everyone else in the dark as to how bad things really are.

  14. The closest I've heard of this is by __aaqvdr516 · · Score: 2

    The closest I've heard of anything like this was a co-worker who received a letter from his ISP with a cease and desist. The letter listed the infringing files that he downloaded by name. It said something to the effect of "if you do this again you may be disconnected and/or sued". He still downloads things.

    1. Re:The closest I've heard of this is by Larryish · · Score: 1, Informative

      Got my cable cut off once over dling a movie still in the theaters.

      Stupid public tracker.

      One time I heard a fictional story about someone using a VPS in a foreign country, and transmission-daemon.

    2. Re:The closest I've heard of this is by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Years ago I had a letter from my ISP saying someone had accused me of downloading some borland software. I wrote back saying they were mistaken and show me the evidence. Never heard any more.

      That is how they operate. Go after people who don't respond. They don't want it to end up in court.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    3. Re:The closest I've heard of this is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In a former position, we used to get letters from the organization that represented the game companies. I always respected them as they listed the exact file, stated what game it was, that they owned the copyright to, listed some of the consequences referencing the law, and then said as an IT department they were confident we were aware of the potential consequences and were confident we would handle this properly so this would be the only letter we'd get.

      At first, we always ran them through legal and then would speak to the individual; eventually we just started talking to the individuals. Usually it was some one who brought a personal laptop in to work (graduate students typically) and we'd explain how they could get in big trouble for breaking university rules including having fellowships pulled, they'd typically have already promised not to do it again, and that would be the end of it. (well one person we got three letters on so I think he got referred to academic affairs).

      I just respect them as the letter was polite, it explicitly said they were going to take no action, but clearly stated they expected us to do something which was reasonable given the situation.

    4. Re:The closest I've heard of this is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I heard a similar story once. Something about qbittorrent having a great web UI..

  15. probability? by blueworm · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yeah I don't know anyone either, probably because thousands of people sued out of over three-hundred-million U.S. citizens doesn't make for a very high probability that you will personally meet someone who has been sued. The original submitter is a joke, and should never have been approved on this site.

    1. Re:probability? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Three hundred million is a bit of an exaggeration considering the number of citizens that illegal download music and movies are substantially south of that number. Also, if the submitter has a tendency of asking everyone he ever comes in contact with if they know anyone who's been sued by the RIAA, that could actually cover a rather large number of people--enough to possibly make it significant. I know people who do things like that (ask everyone the know a question along those lines).

    2. Re:probability? by boarder8925 · · Score: 1

      The original submitter is a joke, and should never have been approved on this site.In other words, it's perfectly suited for Slashdot?

      /ducks

    3. Re:probability? by blackfrancis75 · · Score: 1

      should never have been approved on this site.

      The fact that dozens of people have responded with the information I was asking for is proof that it should.
      Are you worried about your favourite site getting 'cluttered' with articles which you personally have no interest in?

    4. Re:probability? by genocism · · Score: 3, Funny

      It's called networking. If everyone at Slashdot knows a few hundred people it's a broad sample. See - Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon. ...In retrospect, you're probably right. Most people here know two, maybe three people. I yield to your wisdom sir.

    5. Re:probability? by Myopic · · Score: 1

      Nah, this is just a good excuse to bring up a continuing topic in the nerd community which hasn't had a headline recently.

      Besides, most people know, what, a couple thousand people well enough that they would say, 'yes, I know a person who was sued'? So what would the math be, fifteen thousand lawsuits, by a couple thousand acquaintances, is about thirty million, so one in ten Americans would know a defendant.

      Or try lower numbers: let's say you only know five hundred people well enough, and there were only ten thousand lawsuits, that would be five million acquaintances, or one acquaintance per sixty Americans.

      But it's not surprising that both you and I are in the fifty-nine out of sixty people who don't have such an acquaintance.

    6. Re:probability? by multimediavt · · Score: 1

      Yeah I don't know anyone either, probably because thousands of people sued out of over three-hundred-million U.S. citizens doesn't make for a very high probability that you will personally meet someone who has been sued. The original submitter is a joke, and should never have been approved on this site.

      Yeah, but everyone is six degrees or less from Kevin Mother Fucking Bacon!

    7. Re:probability? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh cool, we have a new one here:)

    8. Re:probability? by dredwerker · · Score: 2

      Although the six degrees of separation doesn't work in the way that most people think. There is generally a couple of really well connected people in the network. I find this to be true with my friends where most people have a few other friends(less actual close friends) and one person who knows and keeps in contact with say 50ish. He collects friends.

      This is what happened in the original experiment with the letters.

      "In an experiment in which 160 letters were mailed out, 24 reached the target in his Sharon, Massachusetts home. Of those 24, 16 were given to the target person by the same person Milgram calls "Mr. Jacobs", a clothing merchant. Of those that reached him at his office, more than half came from two other men.[5]"

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_world_experiment

      --
      On a long enough timeline. The survival rate for everyone drops to zero. Chuck Palahniuk, Fight Club, 1996
    9. Re:probability? by Mitreya · · Score: 1

      Yeah I don't know anyone either, probably because thousands of people sued out of over three-hundred-million U.S. citizens doesn't make for a very high probability that you will personally meet someone who has been sued.

      It is really not that hard, mind you. /. crowd is more likely to know someone... My roommate (about 6 years ago) was threatened by RIAA for downloading a movie soundtrack. Her lawyer had advised her to settle for the default offer of (2K or 3K?). Fortunately, the internet was in her name and she was the one who downloaded the files. Otherwise it could have been ugly.

    10. Re:probability? by biodata · · Score: 1

      Is it really true that thousands of people have been sued, i.e. actually been to court? I can believe that thousands of people have been threatened with extortion to pay a settlement, but that's a bit different.

      --
      Korma: Good
    11. Re:probability? by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Although the six degrees of separation doesn't work in the way that most people think.

      Not to mention degrees of separation doesn't really practically mean anything. Say two child actors both work with a very old man on separate occasions. Old man dies. How many degrees of separation? One, even though for the vast majority of their life there's no connection at all. The degrees of separation go backwards, forwards, sideways in all possible combinations.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  16. I know someone who has by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I know of someone who was sued by the RIAA, the fines are on the order of the following

    1. pay 5k through an automated settlement system
    2. try to fight, and get offered a settlement where you pay 125k (this effectively happens the moment you force one of their lawyers to be on the phone for more than 5 minutes)
    3. continue to fight and see them try to charge you with the full 250k per infringement that they're allowed to hit you with.

    The person I knew had a good case to fight it with, but had no conceivable way of coping with a 125k settlement. (they actually hadn't downloaded any of the songs )

    1. Re:I know someone who has by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      I'm not a lawyer, but this my recommendation if it were me.

      If you've knowingly been downloading music by whatever means, man up and pay the 5k. You have absolutely know way for sure to know if they're bluffing or in fact have logged IPs captured from one of their P2P honeypots. No effing way would gamble 5k over 125k! But then again, I wouldn't be pirating music anyways. So there ya go. I hope my personal insight is helpful to some of you out there.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    2. Re:I know someone who has by MacDork · · Score: 1

      I'm not a lawyer either, but this is my recommendation if it were me.

      Fight it. Take them to court. Ask the judge why the same group who distributed the file sharing software is now being allowed to sue you. Why doesn't Grokster apply to AOL? Why does it only apply to Grokster?

    3. Re:I know someone who has by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm not a lawyer, but this my recommendation if it were me.

      If you've knowingly been downloading music by whatever means, man up and pay the 5k. You have absolutely know way for sure to know if they're bluffing or in fact have logged IPs captured from one of their P2P honeypots. No effing way would gamble 5k over 125k! But then again, I wouldn't be pirating music anyways. So there ya go. I hope my personal insight is helpful to some of you out there.

      That's a rational, selfish, decision. Even if you are innocent the wasted time, fees, and risk of losing do not make it worth fighting the MAFIAA in their turf. However, if everyone was too afraid to fight opression blacks would still be forced to ride on the back of the bus and India would still be forced to import British salt. So although on the individual level the best decision is to give up and suck Satan's monstruous cock, on the community level the only logical decision is to stand and fight.
      We must fight the lawsuits, we must go to jury duty and always, no matter what, side with whoever is man enough to face the MAFIAA; it doesn't matter if the law says the punishment for listening to a bad song without paying for it is bankruptcy - that is a bad law and it's everyone's duty to disobey it. The MAFIAA must be defeated while we still can, they are a formidable opponent and won't rest until they have bought every law on the book.

    4. Re:I know someone who has by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Licensing agreements for public performance. A public performance does not grant a license to anyone who experiences it. Only the group that obtains the license for a public performance is allowed to perform the work publicly. Anyone that records that public performance without permission from the copyright holder does not have a license and is violating the copyright, doubly so if they go on to share that record with somebody else, even on the same site that the original is hosted on.

      As so many have posted above, if you have a strong case then your best bet is probably to ignore it. Paying 5k when you didn't download anything is a crock of shit, but paying legal fees to prove that you didn't download anything is still a crock of shit. If they force you into court and you win, it's pretty easy to get the corporation to pay for your legal fees.

    5. Re:I know someone who has by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not a lawyer but...

      You did not download the files. A neighbor or passerby in the street hacked your wifi network and and downloaded the files.
      Also, your hard disk is encrypted and the stress of the lawsuit made you forget your password.

    6. Re:I know someone who has by Mitreya · · Score: 1

      Fight it. Take them to court.

      Have you not heard the part about 125K settlement? Even at low probability (0.10 or 0.05) of loss, that is unacceptable to most people.
      Also, do you know how much lawyers cost, per-hour? You are guaranteed to spend those 5K on lawyer fees even if you win. Might as well pay the 5K and avoid the hassle/risk.

    7. Re:I know someone who has by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      Wow, even people who don't pirate are willing to pay $5k if you send them a threatening letter. I'm going to get rich.

    8. Re:I know someone who has by unami · · Score: 1

      so he she/paid 5k because for something he/she didn't do, because he/she got a threatening letter from someone? and that"s even kind of legal? sounds like our country is controlled by the mafia.

    9. Re:I know someone who has by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      If you've knowingly been downloading music

      Reading comprehension. You fail it! If you truly feel that you've been wrongly targeted for something you played no part in, then by all means fight it. I never said anything to counter that position.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    10. Re:I know someone who has by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know of someone who was sued by the RIAA

      They weren't sued by the RIAA, because the RIAA does not have ownership of the copyrights, and therefore has no standing to sue.

      They were sued by someone like "SONY ENTERTAINMENT". One of the most important jobs of the RIAA is to make sure that you do not associate a name like "SONY ENTERTAINMENT" with anything bad. The name "RIAA" is substituted instead to deflect bad PR away from their members. This substitution of names is effectively a massive lie that is perpetrated on the public.

      In your case, the RIAA was successful in getting you to believe this lie, and to repeat it for them.

    11. Re:I know someone who has by oldmac31310 · · Score: 1

      Sorry, no, it is not in the least bit helpful.

      --
      http://www.acetonestudio.com
    12. Re:I know someone who has by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The judge will tell you to go get fucked. They don't like rhetorical questions from a smart ass that hasn't even taken the bar exam (let alone passed it). You haven't ever been in court before, have you?

    13. Re:I know someone who has by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not a lawyer, but this my recommendation if it were me.

      If you've knowingly been downloading music by whatever means, man up and pay the 5k. You have absolutely know way for sure to know if they're bluffing or in fact have logged IPs captured from one of their P2P honeypots. No effing way would gamble 5k over 125k! But then again, I wouldn't be pirating music anyways. So there ya go. I hope my personal insight is helpful to some of you out there.

      Thats all well and good, but what happens if you are like me and have an old router that only has WEP encryption and somebody hacks it and downloads tons of music from P2P sites? You may know in your heart of hearts that you never downloaded any music personally, but would you still be willing to pay the $5k settlement?

  17. Non-RIAA cases by feedayeen · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Over the course of downloading several terabytes of materials in several thousand torrents, I've received 2 letters neither of which threatened legal action but were along the lines of, 'we caught you, it's illegal, stop doing it'. One was for a movie I had never downloaded, the other was for a tv series which is available freely on the Internet from their website that I had been downloading.

    My response to both is the same. I've never seen the movie I was accused of torrenting and never will and I stopped watching the tv series.

  18. Not sued, but "contacted. by suso · · Score: 5, Informative

    I wasn't sued, but I was one of the first to receive a cease and desist letter from them back in 1998. I was a student at Indiana University and ran a server there in my dorm room which hosted one of my friend's website who had copyrighted "top 40" mp3s on it. Other than the university lightly punishing me, nothing really came of it.

    1. Re:Not sued, but "contacted. by Myopic · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yeah. A couple years ago I got a cease and desist letter. It was hilarious. I lived in an apartment building and ran an intentionally open wireless network. (I had one private with password, one public with no password. I did this as an anonymous favor to my building mates.) One day I got a letter threatening action if I didn't stop downloading, or whatever, and the specific movie they were complaining about was "I Love You, Man".

      Now listen to me. Listen carefully. I would never, ever, not in a million years, be interested in "I Love You, Man". I certainly was downloading other things, but there is no way that I would have ever searched for that movie, let alone spent any effort to pirate it. Never.

      So, I just ignored the fucking letter. I didn't close my wireless, I didn't warn my neighbors, and I never got another letter. Fuck them. I wasn't very afraid of a lawsuit (because they are rare), and in the unlikely scenario of being sued, I could be another good example of why an IP address does not identify a human being. It would have been a ton of hassle, and I hate hassle, but I'm also just the right kind of asshole to push back against them, if it ever came to that.

      However, if they caught me downloading stuff that I actually did download, well then I'd probably push back a little, and then settle. You do the crime, you pay the dime.

    2. Re:Not sued, but "contacted. by sinnergy · · Score: 1

      I wish I had mine from late 1996 still. P-100 with a 1 gig drive (wooo!) and 16 megs of ram running NT 3.5.1 and ZBserver with custom Perl scripts running as an ATM node on a 655 Mbps network that was down 60% of the time.

      Ah those were the days.

    3. Re:Not sued, but "contacted. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      I thought "I Love You, Man" was pretty good. Thanks for seeding.

    4. Re:Not sued, but "contacted. by FairAndHateful · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I wasn't sued, but I was one of the first to receive a cease and desist letter from them back in 1998. I was a student at Indiana University...

      Holy Shit! I was working for UITS then!

      You never would have talked to me about this, and I would have had nothing to do with reporting you, but damn, that makes it feel like a small world.

      I was never even lightly punished by the university, but occasionally my manager would tell us "would you stop screwing around on Napster and try to do some work? I'm sitting right next to you for chrissake!"

    5. Re:Not sued, but "contacted. by jpapon · · Score: 1, Funny

      You're missing out. It was a pretty good movie.

      --
      -- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
    6. Re:Not sued, but "contacted. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      i used to think i would use the open wifi excuse as well until a buddy pointed out the crucial point... if they seized my computer looking for 'i love you man' or whatever other tripe, while they wouldn't find it, they would find a host of other content of dubious ownership. With a good enough lawyer, I may be able to squeak through the loophole for the original charge but i don't believe the rest of of would be drop so easily (despite what I have learned from law and order).

    7. Re:Not sued, but "contacted. by flyneye · · Score: 1

      But, somewhere out there, someone is going to let the puss run to his head and we're all gonna hear on the news how some maniac blew up the RIAA or the Capitol Records building or somesuch similar. I'll even bet a Newsclown puts some nutball up to it , just to get an award on the story. There'll be some politician behind it all too.It's a ruthless world out there, I'm building a bunker till it all blows over. Mainstream music just is sooooo not worth paying for, let alone dying for.

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    8. Re:Not sued, but "contacted. by biodata · · Score: 1

      Can a company sieze your equipment for a non-criminal matter?

      --
      Korma: Good
    9. Re:Not sued, but "contacted. by muindaur · · Score: 4, Informative

      At most they can file a motion for discovery, and then a motion to compel. The rules vary by state, but you could be held in contempt: worse yet have a default judgement against you.

      Source to back it up:

      http://www.ohiolegalservices.org/public/legal_problem/courts-hearings/documents-and-papers-from-a-court/motion-to-compel-discovery-and-sanctions/qandact_view

      *Disclaimer*

      I'm not a lawyer (accounting students must take business law), and this is not legal advice, nor should this be construed as such.

    10. Re:Not sued, but "contacted. by nhat11 · · Score: 0

      " I could be another good example of why an IP address does not identify a human being" I think this is a pretty bad example since you had your network open and the IP/MAC was yours so it's your responsibility.

    11. Re:Not sued, but "contacted. by PsyciatricHelp · · Score: 2

      While I don't download music or movies due to paranoia. I do have a large collection. All of which is saved to my server, (debian core with 4 1tb sata drives in a raid 5 and fully Encrypted.) None of the PCs connected to it know its encrypted. Everything runs pretty fast. I average 56MBps transfer rates. and if it is powered off. I have to ssh into it to allow access to the drive again. FYI Random filling 3TB of space takes a really long time.

    12. Re:Not sued, but "contacted. by xobyte · · Score: 1

      My buddy at UT Martin wrote ZBserver. I was one of the first to use it :)

    13. Re:Not sued, but "contacted. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A 7, V 9 Thanks!

    14. Re:Not sued, but "contacted. by rcuhljr · · Score: 2

      I received my only cease and desist letter around 06 for downloading a game I already owned. I'd left my NWN2 cds at home when I went back to school and just grabbed a new copy of it and used my cd keys for the install. The annoying part was they sent the letter to my schools IT department, who just told me I was in violation, so I deleted everything questionable only to find out it was the one thing I didn't delete because I legitimately owned. This is probably why I'm such a sucker for steam now and have 200+ games on my account.

    15. Re:Not sued, but "contacted. by Myopic · · Score: 1

      No it's not. Why would it be? IP addresses don't commit copyright infringement.

    16. Re:Not sued, but "contacted. by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      I'm building a bunker till it all blows over.

      Have fun in there (but not too much). We'll "miss" you.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    17. Re:Not sued, but "contacted. by nevermore94 · · Score: 2

      Same here. My college was sent one of those C & D letters back in 1997 for a a student running an open FTP server that became a rather popular trading place for a while. We had the only dorm room on campus that had a network connection after my roommates and I hacked a pair of ADSL modems into the campus phone system between our room and the computer lab. I was given the letter and asked to shut it down, but they didn't even take away our connection. Our server was built from spare parts including a 486 motherboard and pair of old hard drives literally housed in a pizza box and running Slackware Linux. I found the FTP server to be quite fascinating in what people would upload to share. I discovered new bands that I had never heard of and would have never bought from later if people hadn't uploaded songs from them to it.

      --
      Nevermore.
    18. Re:Not sued, but "contacted. by ae1294 · · Score: 1

      Hey I just filed my LLC based wholly on your sage advice.. Thanks Bro...

    19. Re:Not sued, but "contacted. by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      I don't think they can go on a fishing expedition. If they can prove you were part of a torrent swarm downloading something, you are technically downloading and uploading at the same time. If your friend rips his CD to mp3's and "loans" you some that he thinks you will like they can't do anything. They can only get you for distributing and that is impossible to prove if they just see files on your server.

    20. Re:Not sued, but "contacted. by ae1294 · · Score: 1

      But, somewhere out there, someone is going to let the puss run to his head and we're all gonna hear on the news how some maniac blew up the RIAA or the Capitol Records building or somesuch similar. I'll even bet a Newsclown puts some nutball up to it , just to get an award on the story. There'll be some politician behind it all too.It's a ruthless world out there, I'm building a bunker till it all blows over. Mainstream music just is sooooo not worth paying for, let alone dying for.

      I had never considered doing that. The voices in my head tell me it's a great idea! Thanks Bro.

    21. Re:Not sued, but "contacted. by flyneye · · Score: 1

      Even a stopped clock gets to be right twice a day.

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    22. Re:Not sued, but "contacted. by flyneye · · Score: 1

      No need to miss me, I've got broadband access. (at least until the coming coronal mass ejection storms flatten all the transistors on the planet except mine in my groovy lead lined love bunker bayyyybeeeeee! Shagadelic.

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    23. Re:Not sued, but "contacted. by nobuddy · · Score: 1

      Like many, I would appear to be a golden catch for the RIAA if they ever came after me.
      1) I have a large collection of MP3 music. Not the largest, but about 1Tb or so of music alone. I also have several external drives full of movies. Enough that I have external drives named "Comedy" "Action" "Documentary" etc...
      2) I will not cooperate with letters or demands. They will have to seize my computer.
      3) Said laptop is encrypted with TrueCrypt to a decent (but not maximum) level. I will not cooperate on the pass phrase. yes, phrase.

      4) and most importantly... I own every song or movie I have. Either ripped from CD/DVD or purchased online legitimately.

      I do run torrents for a variety of things, I am no innocent. Mainly to try a game and see if I want to buy it. If I like it, I go buy it. If not, I don't. Yes, that is piracy by definition, and I accept that. But RIAA/MPAA has no authority on games. All that effort they would spend on getting mys system, breaking in or getting a court to force me to let them in, then identifying the "pirated" content will result in me showing proof of ownership for it ALL, and a counter-suit for harrassment, pshych damages, damage to reputation, trauma on my kids, loss of work, and anything else I can throw at them at prices I get to deem appropriate ($7000 a song sounds reasonable to them, so why not me?) I will assrape them and use sand for lube.
      I have the perfect lawyer in mind. Ruthless, and would eat his way through a bussload of nuns to get to his goal. just the kind of lawyer every person hates, but secretly wants on their side in the courtroom.

    24. Re:Not sued, but "contacted. by nhat11 · · Score: 0

      So a gun doesn't kill someone but the person holding the gun does. You own the IP address and the MAC.

    25. Re:Not sued, but "contacted. by Myopic · · Score: 1

      The IP address isn't the gun. The gun is the hard drive. I didn't download that movie onto my hard drive. That is to say: I didn't copy the movie; therefore I cannot have committed copyright infringement. It might be possible for them to push a Napster-type "contributory infringement" claim against me, but I think that's extremely far fetched. In any case, I correctly judged from the letter that my best course of action was to do nothing.

  19. I was (sorta) by shift3 · · Score: 5, Informative

    I was USAF stationed in Germany. I wont lie.... I download a few things from Torrents... 99.9% of that was TV Shows since it was hard to watch 6 hours ahead (AFN is crap)... Right before i left Germany, i got a certified letter in the mail stating (in german) that i download Bens Fold Five or something. Anyone that knows me, knows i listen to metal.. and metal.. and mostly all metal... Also, they said i downloaded it around 8am on a sunday.... Again, anyone that knew me knows i dont even wake up till noon on sundays... The letter stated that i owed 6000 euro to some lawyer in Munchen. Well, since it came to me and not the base legal office, i ignored it... and left country a few months later (my tour was over)... So, i was never sued by the RIAA directly... but i was told i owed money for a song i allegedly downloaded.

    Disclaimer: I am not in the AF... I do not represent the AF.... I may or may not have had a few drinks... and i "CBF"ed to capitalize my "i"s or even use correct grammar... Get over it...

    --
    You fall and receive 6334 damage.
    You die.
    1. Re:I was (sorta) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I love you man!! You speak for 99% of us!!!

    2. Re:I was (sorta) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The German system is slightly different... freelance lawyers routinely connect to all the known trackers and dump the IP addresses contained in there. They then filter for German IPs and submit then to a judge in order to receive a subpoena for the ISP. They then go to the ISP to get all the information connected to said IP in said time-frame. The letter you receive normally contains the whole lot, along with an offer: pay about 1000 within 6 weeks or they drag you to court (they get to choose the court, not all landers consider torrents illegal). If you pay and get caught again within 24 months, the penalty jumps to 20K, a third time will require you to sell your house and/or spare organs.

      If the certified letter didn't contain a copy of the subpoena and the ISP's legal department answer, the lawyer was possibly just fishing for easy money.

    3. Re:I was (sorta) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      that "lawyer in munich" was most likely freiherr v. gravenreuth who was known for making a living by sending cease&desist letters to anyone within a 5000 mile radius.

    4. Re:I was (sorta) by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1

      The letter stated that i owed 6000 euro to some lawyer in Munchen.

      hehe, you were not the only one, welcome to the club!

      But I've got some good news for you: the lawyer has committed suicide in 2010 :-)

    5. Re:I was (sorta) by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      I download a few things from Torrents... 99.9%

      A few = over 1000?

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    6. Re:I was (sorta) by tsalaroth · · Score: 1

      You're dumb enough to want to be in the military. Your opinion is worth nothing. Now, go kill some brown people because the flag told you to do so.

      Now that this no longer hurts my head to read, let's address this.

      Discounting the Marines, most folks join the military (in the US, anyway) to pay for college / get a nice fat down-payment on a house. They do their 4-6 years, and they're done. Many of those also overlap with those who join out of a sense of duty to protect the Constitution and the *ideal* of their country, not the reality.

      Now, whose opinion is worth less? The person who puts their life on the line by joining the military - regardless of their opinion of the current war / "police action", and successfully survives to become a civilian afterwards... OR.. the AC who spouts bullshit - poorly?

    7. Re:I was (sorta) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The USAF lets you sleep til noon on Sundays?

      (Word verification is "midday". Spooky.)

    8. Re:I was (sorta) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lawyer in Munich ... it was not by pure coincidence a certain Mr. Günter Freiherr von Gravenreuth? Yes, he is well known for these stunts. Look him up, there is lots of stuff around about him.

  20. Not a lot by Charliemopps · · Score: 5, Informative

    So I used to work in the part of an ISP that dealt with the copyright complaints and law enforcement requests. The large copyright owners (like record companies) were the only ones that really sent us anything. They hired companies that represented them, collected info off of torrent clients, file sharing programs and websites and then sent complaints to us. That I know of, no request ever came for actual customer records. None... ever. While I worked there, no requests ever came, no that worked there could remember it ever happening, and I'm still friends with people that work there and they still tell me they've never had a request. We got law enforcement requests... but even those we're pretty rare. Local police don't really seem all that interested in anything more than emergency requests revolving around hostage situations (typically crazy boyfriends locked himself in girlfriends house with a gun/knife) The FBI would send requests to us, but they were often very elaborate requests having to do with con-artists or embezzlement cases where they were just looking for billing records. Wire-taps are VERY rare.

    I'm not sure how many people get sued, but I serviced several million customers and none ever got anything more than a meaningless email from their ISP that likely went to a mailbox they hadn't used in years. I've believed for a while now that the lawsuits you hear about are more likely just scare tactics and there's really not that much legal action taken.

    1. Re:Not a lot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The FBI would send requests to us, but they were often very elaborate requests having to do with con-artists or embezzlement cases where they were just looking for billing records.

      I wasn't aware the FBI made it a habit of informing ISPs of the reasons for their information requests.

    2. Re:Not a lot by LordSkippy · · Score: 1

      I wasn't aware the FBI made it a habit of informing ISPs of the reasons for their information requests.

      I've worked for an ISP and recall the FBI asking for information, logs, and any records we had on one customer. I did not see the request or any legal documents presented by the FBI, so I don't know if they contain information about the reason for the request. However, it was only minutes between when the request was fulfilled to when everyone knew why the FBI made the request. So, if the FBI didn't explicitly state why they were making the request, it doesn't take long for a sysadmin to see a pattern in the information being handed to the FBI.

      --
      My karma is in a nose dive
    3. Re:Not a lot by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

      They'd just tell us. Often the first point of contact was a phone call. The FBI agent knows that he's a lot more likely to get the information he's looking for if he's friendly and helpful, has a chat and explains what's going on. As cut and dry as a warrant may seem, it's really up to the person pulling the info how much effort they want to put into it. We're talking about mainframes from the 60's... cross referencing data and the like is a pain in the ass. Sure we can dump it all to a text file and send it to him. But if he sends the warrant and says he's looking for a pattern of phone calls to banks in a certain area... and the admins bored... the admin can organize the data in such a way to make it a lot easier on the FBI agent. If the agents a prick, we can simply fax him 1000 pages plain phone numbers in the worst font we can find and the warrants fulfilled. If he's cool and you're excited about helping him, you can send him a spreadsheet with all the info cross reference and tagged. Here are banks, here are credit unions, here he was been calling some woman in L.A. every Thursday at 3pm for 2 years. Sysadmins are good at finding that sort of thing, why not be nice to us?

  21. One of my neighbors, sort of.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The people who live a few houses away didn't quite get sued by a recording company, but close enough I think. I don't have any firsthand knowledge, but they're friends of a friend.

    They received one of the "pay us $X and we won't take you to court" letters -- apparently one of their kids had been using Limewire or the equivalent, and had the download folder set up to make files available on the network. I have a feeling this is how most of the people who received such a letter got "caught."

    Last I heard, they quietly paid the extortion fee. I hope a revocation of computer privileges for the offender, or some other disciplinary action on their part, followed.

    1. Re:One of my neighbors, sort of.... by DamnStupidElf · · Score: 2

      I hope a revocation of computer privileges for the offender, or some other disciplinary action on their part, followed.

      Sadly, no, it looks like the RIAA and other MAFIAA members still have an online presence.

  22. I got warned. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    While I was living at Bruce Hall at ANU, I woke up one day to find my network connection didn't work. I phoned the campus IT support and they told me they'd disconnected my port for torrenting a crack for the Sims 2 that my partner wanted. Ironically, despite all the less-than-legit stuff I'd torrented in the past, this was for a game she legitimately owned but the CD drive in her machine was broken. Given that we were poor students and unable to afford a new one, I got her a crack for it.

    I got it reconnected after I wrote them a thing saying I'd be a good boy. Only time it happened in about four years.

    Posting AC to avoid raep.

    1. Re:I got warned. by HopefulIntern · · Score: 1

      Hmm I was under the impression using a crack for a game you own was legal..? Hence the legality of gamecopyworld (btw, use that for cracks/NOCD binaries and avoid torrents)

    2. Re:I got warned. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's likely the torrenting and not the use that was the problem.

  23. Want to find people who have settled? Try dorms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I've already noticed that most replies of being caught(or allegedly so) said they were in college, and having lived in a town with two universities while frequently going to college parties, I have met people(college students) who claim to have settled out of court with a representative of the music industry. It's difficult to discern truth from fiction story time, however, college campuses would be a good place to look for people who have settled out of court in a way that would have pushed their situation from the public eye(thus keeping them from being included in any kind of statistics), because most campuses have already made deals with the RIAA which allows them to spy on the students through their WANS.

  24. Re:I have to wonder if any non AC's will respond.. by mark-t · · Score: 1

    And what if you don't accept the payout?

  25. Re:My Experience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    tl;dr. So did Ike end up getting sued by the RIAA or not?

  26. I was sued! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I called the police when I was trying to download some porn and accidentally ended up with some pirated songs instead. It was Justin Bieber and Katy Perry, so they didn't punish me.

    1. Re:I was sued! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unlike this guys who tried to download music and got kiddy porn (and called the police). Banned from seeing his own kids
      http://www.geekosystem.com/man-accidentally-child-porn/

    2. Re:I was sued! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some might think that Biebs and Perry was punishment enough...
      Go listen to Rebecca Black so we can make sure your really sorry and will never do it again.

    3. Re:I was sued! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They did.

    4. Re:I was sued! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Justin Bieber and Katy Perry?
      What kind of porn were you trying to download, you sick pervert you?
      And where can I find it?

    5. Re:I was sued! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I called the police when I was trying to download some porn and accidentally ended up with some pirated songs instead. It was Justin Bieber and Katy Perry, so they didn't punish me.

      ..further.

    6. Re:I was sued! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was Justin Bieber and Katy Perry, so they didn't punish me.

      Since they didn't come in and delete those files for you, I'd say you got punished plenty.

  27. Re:I have to wonder if any non AC's will respond.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Then you spend the next decade or so wrapped up in litigation and spending thousands of dollars in legal fees.

    Oh and you don't respond to this Ask Slashdot because doing so would probably get you in trouble with the judge.

    (For the record, I've been threatened legal action by the RIAA once and my ISP twice. I ignored them every time and nothing ever became of it.)

  28. Australia Nuff Said by mattydont · · Score: 1

    But really, TPG are the only ISP I know of in Oz that send out infringement notices (purely to cover their arse).

    1. Re:Australia Nuff Said by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But really, TPG are the only ISP I know of in Oz that send out infringement notices (purely to cover their arse).

      Not true, I am with DCSI in Gippsland Victoria and have received two cease and desist letters form them for downloading torrents..

  29. my bosses son by luther349 · · Score: 3, Informative

    my bosses son was sued by the riaa for downloading a bunch of mp3s. she had to foot the bill as well.

    1. Re:my bosses son by biodata · · Score: 1

      Actually sued, or just threatened with extortion and 'encouraged' to settle?

      --
      Korma: Good
    2. Re:my bosses son by luther349 · · Score: 1

      threatened with extortion you knoe the old give us money or we will sue for crazy ammounts.

  30. I sometimes wonder if I'll get a takedown notice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I'm a singer-songwriter, and post all of my songs on my website for free download in a variety of formats. I sometimes wonder if I'll get a take-down notice from the RIAA or some similar simply due to some undiscerning software they might run. I doubt it, but it would be interesting.

  31. A friend was by finity · · Score: 1
    I have a friend who was sued by the RIAA or one of their members. I don't know anything about it, except that he and a few others all decided to settle, and that they were all in college at the time. He's doing well now.

    There have been a few news stories about the grandma who was sued, or the cute college coed that was sued, too. Not that I know them, but the people do exist.

    1. Re:A friend was by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      He settled after being sued or before? If he settled upon receiving the letter, then no, he was not sued.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  32. contacted by the MPAA by rrossman2 · · Score: 1

    Back in 99/2000, the university at the time called me in to judicial affairs because the MPAA had sent a letter or other wise contacted them about a file that was available on my "personal page" hosted at the university. Now granted I hadn't had access to the page in over two years or so at the time as I was now out of school and no longer had access. Anyhow, the file was the source for DeCSS, which the MPAA contacted the school about because its "copyright violation", which the judicial affairs lady told me the university took very seriously (but the lady didn't seem to understand I had no control over or access to the page anymore, as I was no longer a student).

    I also interned under a guy who had received two notices from Comcast within a week or so of each other (which he had shown me).. his first and second strike letters for downloading TV shows and movies

  33. Re:I sometimes wonder if I'll get a takedown notic by pecosdave · · Score: 2

    It happened to The Offspring. They got in trouble for putting their music up for free.

    (I still can't figure out why they chose to distribute their music in Quicktime format)

    --
    The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
  34. Interesting.... by mark-t · · Score: 5, Interesting

    All the posts that I've seen from people who said that they simply ignored threats from the RIAA are stating that nothing ever came of the threats.

    Are there any accounts of somebody who tried to ignore it, and found that they could not?

    1. Re:Interesting.... by Kethinov · · Score: 2

      *crickets*

      It does indeed look like the vast majority of the people on Slashdot who've had these sorts of close calls ignored it and it went away.

      I wonder if the pattern works like this:

      - 90% of the accused ignore it and it goes away.
      - 9% settle out of fear, not knowing they could probably just ignore it and it'll go away.
      - 1% are too prideful and deny the accusation, thereby making it easy for the **AA to force a big, showboating trial (e.g. Joel Tenenbaum or Jamie Thomas).

      The moral of the story:

      1. Odds against a copyright holder ever catching you in the act are insanely low to begin with, especially if you use obscure torrent sites, private trackers, or other means of concealing the file sharing.

      2. If you are among the unlucky few who are accused, ignore the accusation as long as possible. Odds are the accuser will move on to easier targets.

      --
      You're right, I wouldn't steal a car. But if it were possible, I sure as hell would download one!
    2. Re:Interesting.... by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      if you contact them after their contact, they know they contacted a real living person that can be pushed further. also that adds billable hours to your "case".

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    3. Re:Interesting.... by LordSkippy · · Score: 1

      "Don't fight it son. Confess quickly! If you hold out too long you could jeopardize your credit rating."
      - Guard, from the movie Brazil

      --
      My karma is in a nose dive
    4. Re:Interesting.... by Coren22 · · Score: 1
      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  35. University Letters by j33px0r · · Score: 3, Informative

    My students who live on campus will receive disciplinary action for downloading music via torrent or whatever program they are using. They are required to attend a couple sessions on the illegal nature of their activities. The sessions including watching a few videos & sign some papers saying their sorry or some such nonsense. I've had 3 or 4 claim this has happened.

    1. Re:University Letters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The sessions including watching a few videos & sign some papers saying their sorry or some such nonsense

      I think I saw those videos on TPB.

  36. Not RIAA but New Sensations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Kind of funny this came up, I havent been sued by the RIIA but New Sensations inc has me in their sights.

    I was contacted by my ISP that a company New Sensations representing copyright holders of about 7 adult movies I had allegedly downloaded. They listed the titles downloaded and the times. They also included a link for each case for a settlement I could just pay online. The settlement offered is 200$ per title and there are 7 which comes to 1400$.

    The thing is I didnt actually download any of those files the internet while being in my name is used by a friend not even in the same house.

    So I am wondering how I should handle this I could ignore it, but the email has language that seems to state if I dont take the settlements by april 5th they will proceed to sue. I contacted the eff about this but they just reffered me to some lawyers I could contact

    1. Re:Not RIAA but New Sensations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      different company, but about the same run around here as well. claimed it was one file, which was freely available via streaming just by googling. i was contacted several months (4-6) after the alleged download, via suppoena to my web hosting isp. I could ether pay their settlement of $5000, or goto texas and fight it. lawyer fees plus travel would easily add up to $150K plus, with no real chance of winning. got a negoatiated settlemet for ~$2500, which included an NDA style agreement. Still had to pay lawyer fees of ~$1200 as well, so about 3700 total. the really shitty part? I scoured every hard drive i own for this alleged file, the drives in our hosting environment, and couldnt find it. i'm 110% sure i never downloaded it, but cant afford to prove my innocence. those of us who are wrongly accused have no recource but to pay, or pay big.

      talk with a lawyer, it doesnt matter who actually downloaded the file, it doesnt matter if it even happened. your faced with ether paying them, or summary judgement for tons and tons more money. since your name is on the account attached to that IP, your the one on the kill list sadly. If it was your friend make him pay your legal fees and the settlement in your behalf.

    2. Re:Not RIAA but New Sensations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Disclaimer - This post is made with the US centric viewpoint of the copyright shakedowns currently sweeping the country. For other countries the rules are different but the scam remains the same.

      Copyright Trolls will almost NEVER take someone to court unless that person contacts them and admits fault or knowledge of the event and then refuses to pay the settlement.

      AC #1 - You should have gotten a notice from your ISP prior to any contact from a troll that they were seeking your information. For the ISP to randomly forward on a notice seems off in the current troll landscape. It appears from a quick look that your troll might be lying to you. I believe the cases for New Sensations are being handled by Ira Siegel and I think all of those cases have been tossed by the courts. Check fightcopyrighttrolls.com for information on your case. Trolls often like to get the subscriber information and then dismiss the case, then work down the list threatening to sue... but rarely follow through. Sophisticated Jane Doe has much history in this area, and does her best to keep up to date on all of the cases.

      AC #2 - Sadly you would not have to have gone to TX to defend the case, unless you were in the jurisdiction of the court which is unlikely. They sued you in the court convenient for them, not where the alleged infringement occurred or where you reside. Federal Rules say they can't force you to court across the country.
      Texas suggests your troll was Evan Stone (the bad lawyer not the porn star). He is working his way towards getting disbarred. The lawyer you sought help from screwed you. A summary judgement only occurs if you refuse to answer the summons to appear in court, not if you tell the troll to go to hell.

      Actually it does matter who downloaded the file, while some lawyers like to claim that because you pay for the account it is your fault this novel idea has never been tested in court. A good analogy would be someone stole your car and then robbed a bank, you should not be facing charges yourself for robbing the bank.
      The "tech" used to identify IP addresses has never been vetted as reliable, and an IP Address =! a person. Most of the copyright troll cases have "experts" from a tracking firm... a majority of them appear to be different names for the same company (an effort to keep all of their cases from getting tossed if 1 fails) Guardaley . Guardaley had their evidence thrown out by a German court and was sued by a partner lawfirm because they covered up their tech is flawed.
      They now provide data for a large portion of the US version of the copyright trolls.

      You will need to make your own decision, but I highly suggest the trip to http://fightcopyrighttrolls.com/ to get more information and education on how these scams work.

      I remain...
      TAC

    3. Re:Not RIAA but New Sensations by adenied · · Score: 2

      This has been going on for a long time. I have a friend who had some nice three letter domains back in the late 1990s. A largish company decided that the Internet was cool and they wanted them. They had some trademarks that were remotely related to the domain names but my friend (and a simple whois check) had records indicating he had the domains well before they even existed as a company.

      They made him a cash offer that was in the low five figures. He wanted to keep the domains. They said take the money or we'll sue you for copyright infringement. He talked to a lawyer and was basically told, look, you actually have a strong case here. You could litigate this and you might actually win. But it's going to end up costing you about what they're offering for the domains and a lot of time. If they're worth that much to you might as well just sell them and be done with it.

      At this point my friend took the cash.

    4. Re:Not RIAA but New Sensations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless you are paying for a static IP your ISP account is not tied to an IP address. Your ISP account only entitles you to access the internet. They can change your IP address as often as they want.

    5. Re:Not RIAA but New Sensations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've never heard of a more wonderful scam! It's perfect! Find name and address of a man. Accuse of downloading porn. Demand payment. I've got to get in on this.

    6. Re:Not RIAA but New Sensations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Others have beaten you to the punch....
      They sued a blind man. - He settled because he is an IT "Security guy" and they had open wifi at the time. Was cheaper to settle than take the public shaming.
      They sued a 70 yr old Grandmother. - When she got the media involved, the troll admitted his "perfect infallible system" was incorrect.
      They have sued people who can prove they were out of the country during the time in question.
      They have sued a couple in their 80s who can barely work the computer.
      They have sued people who do not own a computer anymore, it was sold to stay afloat and it was cheaper to keep the "full package" from the telco than to cut back to just a landline.
      These are just the popular stories, people who settle get slapped with NDA's to keep them from telling their story of why it was better to pay off the extortion than to deal with the public shaming of their name coming up with hardcore porn titles.

      None of these Judges seem to be aware of the university paper, and its follow up work, showing its easy to "frame" a laser printer for torrenting.
      One Judge got a partial clue after the FBI raided a mans house for child porn, only to discover an IP address alone doesn't mean someone is guilty. Someone hacked into the families WiFi and was downloading. They caught the bad guy shortly there after when they paid more attention and tracked the computer not just the IP. Funny that.

      Your best bet for getting rich under this current scam is to create a movie, copyright it, upload a torrent, seed it and record every IP you see connecting. Then you pay $350 to file a suit to get the names of several thousand people. Then dismiss the case so the Judge doesn't get mad, work your way down the list threatening to sue for $150,000 or they can settle for $3000 which is way less than what it would cost to get a lawyer to take the case and avoids your name coming up in a search attached to "Insert vile porn title here involving grannies and huge cocks or maybe she-males".

      No way it can just be extortion... IP is our most valuable asset... for lawyers to get rich on. Many of them get well over 50% of the settlement cash before paying their "client".

      I remain...
      TAC

  37. Re:I sometimes wonder if I'll get a takedown notic by aitikin · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Interesting scenario. My mentor's friend was going to play a fundraiser at a bar or some other public venue. He's in a record contract and an ASCAP artist. Now this is a little different than posting your songs online for free, but he was told by ASCAP lawyers that the venue would have to pay $XXXX in order to pay for the ASCAP licensing as they would be performing ASCAP songs. Obviously they could not afford this fine, so he came up with the idea that he would only use his own original compositions. The ASCAP lawyers stated that, because he was an ASCAP artist, his songs cannot be performed either without violating their licensing agreements. I don't think he's with ASCAP anymore.

    Long story short...probably. Furthermore, ASCAP can make the *AAs look good, but at least the majority of the money ends up in the hands of the artist with ASCAP (or so I've been told by many ASCAP artists).

    --
    "Don't meddle in the affairs of a patent dragon, for thou art tasty and good with ketchup." ~ohcrapitssteve
  38. Re:i was by poetmatt · · Score: 1

    You can't afford $0? $0 bankrupted you? Mod funny but informative, certainly not.

    That's the actual value, in contrast to their settlement letters.

    I've been wondering if they'd ever get brazen enough to send me one but then I remembered that private trackers + peerblock generally = you'll never see a letter in your lifetime.

  39. Re:I have to wonder if any non AC's will respond.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    In 2001 I was a student at Iowa State University. There were some people running a search spider on campus that would look through all open SMB shares and index them. If I would have lived on campus I'd have more immediate details about what actually happened, but I do know that they were expelled and settled out of court, I just don't have the details.

    Strangetalk.net is a message board a lot of students use, but I haven't been able to find a lot of details in the archives either (admittedly, I didn't look too hard)

    I changed my MAC daily with a spoofer and hung out on guest network.

  40. Except for one small thing... by multimediavt · · Score: 1

    That is exactly the issue. Happens all the time, especially in the medical field. You get a payout and are barred from saying anything to anyone. This leaves everyone else in the dark as to how bad things really are.

    Except, the settlement in this case would be the person paying the corporation, not vice versa. Why on Earth would the corporation NOT want to make that information public? The effect of suing in the first place is to strike fear of financial ruin into the hearts of all who would share anything. There would be no gag order, and speculating anyone ducking as an AC would be most likely doing so because they are still engaged in illegal activity, as far as the members of the RIAA are concerned, and don't want to get caught again. Maybe? I have not personally been "served" with any nasty-grams, but worked for many years in IT at a university where cease and desist letters were almost a daily occurrence for a while. Have never known anyone personally to have been served or sued.

    1. Re:Except for one small thing... by unrtst · · Score: 1

      Why on Earth would the corporation NOT want to make that information public? The effect of suing in the first place is to strike fear of financial ruin into the hearts of all who would share anything.

      Precisely because they do NOT want to strike fear of financial ruin into the hearts of all their customers.

      Most people know it's technically wrong to download "free music", but nearly everyone does it, and those same people also buy a lot of music. IMO, the RIAA is smarter than we give them credit for. They know those illegal downloads actually help them sell stuff, but it's a balancing act. If it were legal and everyone freely shared all music on the same network, they'd go bust (picture the hey days of napster, but legalized). On the other hand, if they go after every single person that is infringing, it would be such a wide majority of people that everyone would react and fight back (think of all the judges, lawyers, congressmen, police, etc.... plus everyone that is a close friend or family to all of them).

      They're playing a careful game and making an example of a person here so that this story is possible.... it's an ubran legend that people get sued by the RIAA, one we're all pretty sure is true, but not so common that half of our friends and family have been directly affected. It keeps everyone from being entirely open with their sharing, which makes it just difficult enough that people will still buy stuff.

      This /. story is great precisely because only the AC's are saying they've been threatened but nothing has come of it. And who knows how many of these posts are shills?

  41. Re:i was by psych0sis · · Score: 1

    my question is... where do you find/get access to these trackers? :/

  42. Re:I have to wonder if any non AC's will respond.. by mark-t · · Score: 1

    Why would one spend thousands in legal fees? I mean, if somebody is willing to pay somebody to keep their mouth shut about something, then they are already clearly at a disadvantaged point anyways. I mean, if you don't have any proof of what you're supposed to keep quite about, then there's not any sense in them offering you a payout anyways, since it would be your word against theirs. And as long as you had such proof, you could trivially present it in court yourself... no legal fees involved whatsoever.

  43. A friend of mine was sued by the RIAA... by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 4, Interesting

    After he died. It actually made Slashdot.

    --
    Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
  44. We sued them. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Then their member corps sued us. Money is only part of it. It's more about ego and control.

  45. I had a C&D.. by Billlagr · · Score: 1

    From my ISP on behalf of Starz, for downloading Torchwood - Miracle day. Apart from a 'we are watching you closely now' warning, that was the end of it.

  46. I had a friend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I had a friend whom RIAA fucked with. All I have to say is that his experience makes me want to (turn a blind eye to those who) fuck with RIAA.

  47. Only a C&D by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My roommate downloaded a lot of movies on Bittorrent. I told him to cut that shit out and use usenet or rapidshare/megadownload/et al, though mostly because his upstream was sapping our limited bandwidth. We go a C&D after a few months, it scared the hell out of him, which was pretty fun. I'm in Canada though, as far as I know actual lawsuits over this stuff are exceedingly rare here.

    1. Re:Only a C&D by infurnus · · Score: 1

      I'm in Canada though, as far as I know actual lawsuits over this stuff are exceedingly rare here.

      Ah yes, the "Canadian" excuse!

  48. Shawn Hogan by Eponymous+Coward · · Score: 1

    This was a few years ago, but Shawn Hogan was sued by the MPAA for downloading "Meet the Fockers". He was prepared to fight it in court, but the MPAA settled with him eventually.

  49. Re:Game Over by psych0sis · · Score: 1

    Dag nabbit

  50. Re:i was by Skarecrow77 · · Score: 2

    Every private site/tracker I've ever gone to the trouble of getting access to has so little content as to be pointless. They've got a few hundred torrents listed and they're all crap. every last one one of em. even if one of them were good, you've got like 5 people seeding anything. if you're lucky.

    Perhaps I'm just not leet enough to get access to the super secret mega underground pirate bay equivalent.

  51. For downloading? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was under the impression that copyright covered the distribution of a property, not where you get it from. A holder can decide who gets to distribute the product, but they have no real say in how I get it right? Outside of something like buying actual physical stolen CDs which is already covered by existing stolen property laws.

    I always figured the worst they could do was pull strings with the ISPs to get someone's service shut off. The only stories I remember reading about were against filesharers who actually distributed (parts of) songs. I think if they had a legal path to sue the so-called pirates that download music it would be a bigger deal than it is.

    Digital law in America is stupid.

  52. Not the RIAA directly by Internetuser1248 · · Score: 1

    I have a friend who received a letter from lawyers claiming to represent the german copyright agency. He settled for over a thousand euros. It may have been one of those scam groups that just hope you don't challenge them. No way to tell now.

  53. Where are the pirates? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where are the people posting, "No, I haven't been sued, but my neighbor who runs an open AP has, muahaha!"?

  54. Re:I have to wonder if any non AC's will respond.. by causality · · Score: 2

    Why would one spend thousands in legal fees? I mean, if somebody is willing to pay somebody to keep their mouth shut about something, then they are already clearly at a disadvantaged point anyways. I mean, if you don't have any proof of what you're supposed to keep quite about, then there's not any sense in them offering you a payout anyways, since it would be your word against theirs. And as long as you had such proof, you could trivially present it in court yourself... no legal fees involved whatsoever.

    If you think American courtrooms are a place where everyone is truly equal in the eyes of impartial law, honest guys always win, where you have nothing to fear if you've done nothing wrong, and having the facts on your side means you will certainly prevail without tremendous cost and heartache to yourself ... well ... perhaps one day in a more enlightened future we'll have something like that, but we definitely don't have it now.

    And the thing about having someone at a disadvantage is to understand it is rarely absolute. Sun Tzu talks about never allowing your forces to completely surround a disadvantaged enemy and cut off all possible avenues of escape because desperate men will fight very hard, causing you grave losses (and making them that desperate is not something you need to do to have victory, just something you might do for your own short-sighted gratification). It's just a metaphor for the value of wisely used restraint.

    You may have the advantage over a company of an embarassing incident that would make them look bad for about a week or two until the next scandal at the next company. They may pay you to go away and keep it to yourself because the bad PR and expense of playing hardball isn't worth their while. But if you want to press the matter, you'll find yourself against an immortal nonhuman organization with very deep pockets that can tie up years of your life and many thousands of your dollars. Oh, and you still might lose.

    The settlement system works because most people are simply not that dedicated and rarely feel like they have a good reason to be. It's quite enticing to them when they receive an offer to take a decent sum of money they can have right now.

    --
    It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
  55. Re:I have to wonder if any non AC's will respond.. by maxwells_deamon · · Score: 1

    nonsense

    the cases are almost always a range of greys. even if you are asleep and a car breaks through your bedroom wall and injures you the courts can have a field day with you. Did you light your yard well enough? did you have substandard walls. can I collect a jury that does not like your kind of people (whatever kind you might happen to be). Was the car defective... even open and shut cases if they know they are going after a non lawyer they will likely try to shaft you in ways you do not expect.

    Also the judge is not likely to be impartial when he finds out that you were offered a settement and refused it and refused to pay a member of his former profession that will require more work from him.

     

  56. I was named in a slander lawsuit... by fearofcarpet · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I ran a TOR exit node on my laptop at work (at a university laboratory). After only about two weeks, the IT guy came downstairs with an official looking letter saying that my IP address had been named in a slander lawsuit. Apparently some business guy was trying to tarnish the name of some other business guy, and he was using TOR to do it. He had written a bunch of nasty stuff to blogs and send some angry emails or something. Anyway, the letter insisted that I appear in court in Los Angeles (I lived in Boston), but we sorted it out by explaining how TOR works--lucky for me, too, because there allegations of CP in the lawsuit.

    --
    Actually, I wrote my thesis on life experience.
  57. Re:I sometimes wonder if I'll get a takedown notic by madenglishbloke · · Score: 1

    I worked with a band here in the UK a few years ago who shared a name with the biggest album from a group who were big in the 80's (thats not where they got the name from, it was just a massive coincidence.) They were making next to nothing, but trying to raise their profile, and the cheapest way of doing this was by distributing music over t'interwebnets - and as hosting on this side of the pond was expensive, they took the cheapest route and went for an American host. Can anyone see where this is leading? Suffice to say, they bit the bullet, canned their American host, and got one here in the UK.

  58. I was the ISP by samjam · · Score: 1

    As an ISP (bigwig.net) I had a letter informing me that a user was hosting infringing links and asking me to remove all infringing links.

    As well as pointing out that I wasn't hosting any copyright files, I pointed out they were in a better position than I was to know which links were infringing and which were not, as I had no way to know whether or not anyone had received permission from the copyright holder. I asked them to identify all of the infringing links.

    I never heard back.

  59. My friend got sued on i2hub by Ingenium13 · · Score: 1

    I had a friend who was sued while we were both freshman at the University of Pittsburgh in 2004. I forget how many thousands of dollars she had to pay. I only found out about it several years later, but I'm pretty sure she was one of the people sued when the RIAA got on i2hub (internet2 only DC++ server)

  60. I'm being sued... by RubberMallet · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm in the middle of a lawsuit now.

    I received a letter from a scummy law firm in another city. They blitzed the city I live in... more than 10,000 letter sent out apparently. They had "proof" in the form of an IP address that was apparently assigned to my account at my ISP and a P2P log showing that someone at that IP apparently downloaded a movie made by the production company they were representing. I've never heard of the movie. I go look it up on IMDB... it appears to be some terrible low quality, low budget SciFi that no one watched... ever. I certainly had never heard of it, and I never downloaded it.

    The law firm was demanding money. If I didn't pay up the "I'm guilty" fee, then they said I'd be taken to court and sued for 10's of thousands. I called a lawyer who is well known for defending this sort of crap. He looked at the letter I received, immediately recognized it, and said.. IU know these guys, let me add you to the big pile of people I'm representing on this same threat and I'll make it go away. That was over 2 years ago...

    I have had two letters from him informing me what's going on. Basically he said that this rogue law firm was full of crap, that there was now a Class Action suit open against them and they had a fixed period to reply... the law firm never said a word, so now the second letter said that it's going to court with more than 1000 people being represented... but it could take years for it to reach an end. Basically he said.. don't worry about it, it'll be tied up in the courts for years and it's not cost me a cent.

    1. Re:I'm being sued... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what is the name of the company that is getting sued?? for those that might have been scammed...

    2. Re:I'm being sued... by bsane · · Score: 1

      Who is paying your attorney?

    3. Re:I'm being sued... by RubberMallet · · Score: 1

      I assume he'll take a cut of any judgments in favor of the Class Action lawsuit. The paperwork I signed with him so he would take my case says that I will owe him a fixed fee (which is quite low) the case is lost... and loosing.. who knows. It seems unlikely given the reputation of the shady law firm trying to extort money, and how far the case appears to have progressed so far.

  61. For those who have downloaded tv shows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and received cease and desist orders for downloading them, where you downloading recordings, like from a dvr or rips from dvd's?

    I ask because I've always wondered if the MPAA really went after people downloading tv shows considering you can legally make recordings of them and watch them for free.

    1. Re:For those who have downloaded tv shows by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      It's basically impossible to differentiate the two so I can't see how it's relevant.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    2. Re:For those who have downloaded tv shows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just received a letter forwarded by my ISP for downloading one of the network shows that is broadcast over the air for free, as well as being available on the network's website for free.

  62. libraries lend for free ... was (Re:well, if you w by kholburn · · Score: 2

    My local public library has CDs, DVDs, audio books, ebooks and of course dead tree books and magazines all available to borrow for free.

    I often borrow books and read them for free, borrow DVDs and watch them for free.

    Libraries have always been pirate havens.

  63. Friend got a letter re: a Wii game iso torrented by dredwerker · · Score: 1

    He got one of those pop-up lawyers that have now been hounded. He paid up £600 (if memory serves), he has a house though and was worried about losing thousands. I have nothing so it would have been interesting for them to try to sue me - although I have a wife so hmmm :)

    --
    On a long enough timeline. The survival rate for everyone drops to zero. Chuck Palahniuk, Fight Club, 1996
  64. Haven't been sued, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I do have a plan if I ever do. Step one is to request a letter stating which movies/music/games I have been accused of downloading. Then I will go out and purchase those titles. This might be expensive, but will certainly be cheaper than paying a settlement. When I am asked why I would download the file of the internet if I own it I will site fair use and state that I was aquiring digital backups of my media.

    I haven't tried this of course, but as I understand it fair use is an untested defense and may be a viable means of preventing a huge lawsuit. Even if it wouldn't hold water in court it may be solid enough to have a RIAA/MPAA lawyer looking for a softer target.

    1. Re:Haven't been sued, but... by Tastecicles · · Score: 1

      ah, the format-shift defense. It's been legal to format-shift in the UK since the year Tet.

      --
      Operation Guillotine is in effect.
    2. Re:Haven't been sued, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're going to chew you up and spit you out. You don't have the understanding it takes to bring this to bench with any amount of tact. First proof of this is that you obviously have little to no concept that what you're describing isn't part of Fair Use at all.

    3. Re:Haven't been sued, but... by Megane · · Score: 1

      I doubt that's going to help if they claim you were uploading files. (Such as torrent chunks, for instance.)

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
  65. Dude please by shiftless · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I took offense at the fact that it was modded to +5 Informative,

    Please get a life

  66. must be riaa&court to be annoying and wrong? by umghhh · · Score: 1
    The answer to your question is No and No but living in Germany we have some other examples of copyright protection racket I know a lawyer whose main occupation is providing legal services to people that got letters demanding to pay a fine or face court proceedings. The crime is in the case always the same - theft and copyright violations. The fine is usually not very high: 1kE or 1.5kE sometimes more, depending on what was 'found' to be 'distributed' illegally according to their 'investigations'. What this lawyer told me is that you hardly stand a chance of fighting it. Not because you actually did something but mainly because your enemy has the right to chose any court in the whole country so they chose one where the judge is friendly and if that is possible the court room is far away from your residence. This makes the whole thing skewed against you in number different ways. There were funny cases in Germany we get to know too. It seems that the whole process of finding out where & (very important) when copyright violation took place is seriously flowed and yet copyright friendly courts decide against you. It seems that in case of copyright violations there is no assumption of innocence. On top of that the whole process of accusing people of violations is automated and run on base of address books not recorded violations i.e. whole streets receive letters from lawyers demanding fines to be paid etc.

    None of this involves directly RIAA and majority does not involve court proceedings.

  67. Re:i was by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

    I can assure you that one does exist, at least, as I'm on it... but it's one of those 'first rule of fight club' things, and even if I told you registration has been closed for a long time now.

  68. I've been sued twice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I received two cease and desist letters for two different movies I allegedly obtained via peer to peer networks. Downloading is frowned upon; uploading is how they get you.

    In Germany one exaggerates their problems by ignoring legal notices. The courts often rule against the defendant for their lack of due diligence. The process looked like the following for me.

    1. Legal firm sends a cease and desist letter with affidavit they represent appropriate rights holder. The letter lists IP address, file downloaded with hash. It demands you to sign a statement that admits guilt and circa 1000 Euros in damages. The deadline is absurd, usually a week, then damages increase.

    2. I send my lawyer the original paperwork via courier plus a signed power of attorney form.

    3. My lawyer revises the original statement so no guilt is admitted but I have taken proper steps to secure my network connection.

    4. I pay my 300 Euro bill lawyer fee.

    5. Two weeks later my lawyer gets a letter stating that I still owe damages. My lawyer writes me to ignore this as there is no legal justification for said damage amount. The courts ruled that 100 Euros is the cap on first time infringement, but that does not stop people demanding more.

    6. I have not heard anything from either case since, but I’m out 600 Euros.

    Multiple articles like the following have been published highlighting the racketeering going on in these cases but the courts do little to change things. http://www.heise.de/ct/artikel/Schwierige-Gegenwehr-1069835.html

    There is little legal defense for such infringements in Germany, at least not for the general public. Evidence may be destroyed due to data retention policies. For example, my second letter arrived eight months after the supposed infringement; my ISP deleted those logs long ago so data verification is not plausible. This continues even though officials recognize that the error rate in matched IP address is high.

    There is no open Wifi defense or even a community household defense. Courts will adjust damages if your child uploaded something against your wishes, but that’s about all. There was once a case where the family proved they were out of the country at the time, had no Wifi, and won.

    In short, there is little recourse for someone in Germany if they get sued. Both sides can negotiate the damages and culpability but good luck getting a court to throw out the case or side with the defendant.

  69. Re:i was by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Private trackers sometimes have files for special tastes; they seem to keep rare, cult-followed material longer than the more popular ones do. It's hard to find great movies like El Topo or music by, say, Ellen McIlwain or Jackie and Roy anymore with bandwidth and storage going to 15000 seeders for the latest screamer instead.

  70. Re:I sometimes wonder if I'll get a takedown notic by Tastecicles · · Score: 2

    show me a non-iPod media player that plays Quicktime??

    Epic fail.

    --
    Operation Guillotine is in effect.
  71. Re:I sometimes wonder if I'll get a takedown notic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Liars then, the majority of money ends up in ASCAP management and lawyers. Being a member of ASCAP is not only stupid as it is counter-productive.

  72. Re:i was by flyneye · · Score: 1

    They mean money not morals...

    --
    *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
  73. How to tell you're getting old... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When no one wants to sue you for the stuff you share online! If it wasn't done in the past year or two, the RIAA/MPAA/etc don't seem to care about it.

  74. Not sued by the IFPI, but threatened. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Years ago, the technical contact for the company that hosted my personal website received a letter by the IFPI (international analog of the RIAA) where they informed him that *I* was in breach of the law, since I had an MP3 that belonged to them (a whole copy of George Harrison's song Beware of Darkness, if you must know) and that steps had to be taken to remedy the situation.

    I immediately removed the file (I *was* in breach, there really isn't any question about that) and the tech contact wrote them back telling the situation had been corrected and the user (me) apologized for the inconvenience. We never heard back, so it's safe to assume that the IFPI felt satisfied with this.

    (posting as anonymous coward for obvious reasons)

  75. C&D by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Several years ago when my Tivo fried, I downloaded the TV shows that were on it that I lost. One day I got a letter from my ISP saying that my IP address had been monitored while downloading "24 s02e05 xvid axxo.avi" or something like that. The letter said it was illegal to do so, and that I should delete the offending file immediately. There was no threat of what would happen if I did not do so, nor what would happen to me if I did so again. Ironically, I had been downloading nearly that entire season of 24 at the time, and that was the only episode that I was flagged for.

  76. Not everyone lives in the US by Serif · · Score: 1

    I work for one of the smaller ISPs in the UK serving mainly business customers. From time to time we've had emails from various sources purporting to represent the rights of copyright holders. These have all appeared to originate in the US and quote US legislation, an allegedly offending IP and the time at which they state the incident occurred. A few of the IP addresses have even fallen within our address ranges. Where this is the case I've always replied back asking for more information and pointing out that the legislation they are quoting is not relevant to UK law and asking for the UK equivalent under which they propose to press their claims. I've never heard back from any of them.

  77. Hope to get sued by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hope to get a nasty little threat from the RIAA or MPAA or the like. I am so looking forward to a nice 20 year long battle where I in turn go after THEIR assets, THEIR senior partners, THEIR personal properties.

    I will keep them in a courtroom just out of spite, and frankly, I don't care if the final results are legal or not.

  78. I got one by hellop2 · · Score: 1

    My neighbor, whose wireless I steal (TimeWarner Cable) had all his HTTP requests redirected to a copyright notice one day... or something like that. He had to click a checkbox that said, "I am aware of the copyright infringement."

    The page he was directed to said,
    1. Please see the following list of infringing material.
    2. For any questions, call this number and reference the following reference number.

    However, there was no list of infringing material, and there was no reference number.

    --
    How many more years will slashdot have an off-by-one error on your Score in your profile?
  79. Re:I have to wonder if any non AC's will respond.. by mark-t · · Score: 1

    Perhaps you misunderstand...

    I was suggesting that one *NOT* take the payout.... and if they felt it was a worthy enough cause, to simply disclose the knowledge that they have.

    I'm pretty sure that in American court systems, you cannot actually win a case against somebody who has simply embarrassed you by telling the truth without divulging any information they already received payment to not disclose (confidential information or stuff under NDA, for example), no matter how good your lawyers are. If you know of a specific precedent that indicates otherwise, share it.

    Again, however... If they felt they had a case to sue you in the event that you disclosed it (after not accepting the payout), then why would they offer you a payout at all?

  80. Not legal advice by Theaetetus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    he shouldn't have settled. his son would've been liable only for shown damages(extremely hard to show).

    When giving legal advice that is utterly, 100% incorrect and potentially harmful to the recipient, it's usually a good idea to include a disclaimer about how one is not a lawyer.

    Disclaimer: I am a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. This is not legal advice, but is for [my own] amusement only.

    1. Re:Not legal advice by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Disclaimer: I am a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. This is not legal advice, but is for [my own] amusement only.

      If I find this post amusing too, am I infringing on your intellectual property rights? Can you claim prior art to finding your post amusing?

      Any reply given will be taken as opinion only, will not construe legal advice, and will not be subject to attorney-client privilege ;)

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    2. Re:Not legal advice by JD-1027 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      When getting your legal advice from Slashdot comments, it is usually a good idea to not get your legal advice from Slashdot comments.

    3. Re:Not legal advice by Casca1 · · Score: 0

      First time I ever wanted a like button.

  81. 150k, not 250k by Theaetetus · · Score: 1

    I know of someone who was sued by the RIAA, the fines are on the order of the following

    1. pay 5k through an automated settlement system 2. try to fight, and get offered a settlement where you pay 125k (this effectively happens the moment you force one of their lawyers to be on the phone for more than 5 minutes) 3. continue to fight and see them try to charge you with the full 250k per infringement that they're allowed to hit you with.

    The person I knew had a good case to fight it with, but had no conceivable way of coping with a 125k settlement. (they actually hadn't downloaded any of the songs )

    Statutory damages are "up to $150,000 per work infringed" (17 USC 503(c)), not $250k.

  82. csb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I work somewhere alot of record people come to eat.

    So.... it all works out in the end.

  83. Re:i was by X0563511 · · Score: 1

    Yep, there is better. But it's invitation only, and you are responsible for the behavior of those you invite.

    Send your buddy one, and your buddy breaks the rules? You're both banned.

    I've sucked a (fairly obscure) 25gb torrent down in about 1.5 hours.

    --
    For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
  84. legal threats... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've been sent two scare letters due to file sharing, one legit (Monty Python) one not (Drive?!). I've received plenty of other legal threats over my websites, and my response is either to ignore them or to publicly mock the threatener.

  85. My brother-in law was by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My brother in-law was sued as a college student. Settled out of court for mid five figures. He still 'pirates' music and other media.

  86. turned off my internet.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My ISP (Suddenlink) turned off my internet because I downloaded a movie. I had to call them up, check off on some papers (online) and promise I would never do it again. The guy I talked to asked me if I had wireless, I do, and told me to re-check the security settings. He said it was'nt a big deal. It was sorta a pain in the ass because I had to issue new certificates for my servers (they rebooted my cable modem with a new IP address). Yeah, I know, boohoo...

  87. Re:I sometimes wonder if I'll get a takedown notic by oldmac31310 · · Score: 1

    I have been wondering the same thing about my own music, a lot of which is freely available on my (admittedly horribly designed) website. So far no false accusations of 'making available' other people's music. But I half expect to hear something, some time.

    --
    http://www.acetonestudio.com
  88. Re:I sometimes wonder if I'll get a takedown notic by oldmac31310 · · Score: 1

    Just a guess, but maybe the person they had handling the file compression was a pre-OS X sound guy who was stuck in his ways and just compressed the files the way he always did. Were they .aif? Maybe the band just didn't know any better, or perhaps were not directly involved in the process.

    --
    http://www.acetonestudio.com
  89. Re:I sometimes wonder if I'll get a takedown notic by oldmac31310 · · Score: 1

    Come on, what was the name of the band?

    --
    http://www.acetonestudio.com
  90. Re:Friend got a letter re: a Wii game iso torrente by oldmac31310 · · Score: 1

    They will take your wife and sell her into slavery. But you knew that, right?

    --
    http://www.acetonestudio.com
  91. Never pay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you do know it's basically an IQ test, i'm sorry but if i got threatened and my option was 5k, 125K,250K and i hadn't downloaded the file, i'd tell them to piss off, and you know what would happen nothing, these guys are not that smart. There is not much difference between this and Nigerian Royal family email's.

  92. I worked at an ISP... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I worked for a ISP for six months and about a week before they fired me they had me try and figure out what IP's were associated with which accounts when the automated tool they used failed to produce results. This was with zero training on how to do this. It was for a law enforcement request.

    To me it demonstrates that they don't know 100% of the time who has what IP. They probably have a good idea most of the time, but it's not 100% unless you have a static IP.

    Further, in the instance, they knew the didn't really know, gave the job to someone who they knew wouldn't find the answer and got rid of me to help cover it up.

    An IP address is just one piece of evidence but it does not 100% correlate to an individual account holder but the courts don't seem to quite get this yet. It's not like a phone number which has to be correlated to the subscriber for you to get incoming calls.

    1. Re:I worked at an ISP... by tsalaroth · · Score: 1

      If the ISP is cable or DSL, you can most-assuredly capture who had what IP and then capture when the lease was released / renewed -- IF you have your DHCP services setup correctly and are logging which customer has which leased device (or their own purchased device) activated on the network. You then correlate the MAC / device ID to the DHCP logs and you DO at least know which device (router, whatever) had that IP at that time. Still doesn't identify the specific person, but it's enough to send a letter.

  93. Re:I have to wonder if any non AC's will respond.. by mark-t · · Score: 1

    Why would the judge be less likely to be impartial to me if I had refused to accept money to keep my mouth shut?

    Bearing in mind that we're not really talking about being sued by the RIAA here anymore. An above poster brought up being offered a payoff in certain fields to keep quiet about some stuff.

  94. Re:Correction by b4dc0d3r · · Score: 2

    They were pissed about the downloading, but all they could make stick legally was the uploading (you do not have the right to make copies if you were not granted that right).

    I used to have a reference to a decision which explicitly said downloading is illegal, but I can't find it now to see if it has been overturned or the law updated to say that explicitly. A lot of people think only the uploading is illegal, but that is no longer the case (take with a grain of salt as I lost my citation). As Skarecrow77 said, uploading is far easier to prosecute so they will go that route if possible.

    The "making available" theory is nuanced. You can leave files open on an FTP server, and no crime has been committed. If your stash is discovered and a transfer takes place (usually to someone like MediaSentry which validates the content and records the IP address), you have uploaded a copy without authorization. "Making available" has generally been tossed out, but you can bet that if it is discovered by someone who does not want you to make it available, they will initiate a transfer and you're hosed. In legal theory, you're safe. In reality, assume you are not. Advertising it makes no difference, just makes it easier to find.

    And as for your CDs, you have a license to listen to the physical copy. When someone takes them from you, even if you left them on the street corner, you lose both the license and the physical item. You are not making a copy, and you are not making an unauthorized distribution. Unauthorized by you, but the copyright holder does not care so no violation. Please do not confuse digital goods with tangible objects, there is very little overlap legally between them. The legal system is still arguing about whether digital goods can actually be stolen. Occasionally, a story like that pops up, but it is usually settled on a case by case basis, I'm not aware of any solid decision or law about virtual goods.

    That is why we have the "copyright violation isn't stealing" argument pop up. While you are taking something without paying for it, the entire collection of IP laws were specifically set aside for instances where copying is involved. If copyright were the same as stealing, you could be accused of both at the same time. A very simple argument made by the simplest of lawyers would get one or the other charge thrown out, because they are mutually exclusive. There is no correlation between physical objects and copyright. (Unless you want to be pedantic and say that you are giving away or selling physical books or discs that you copied from an original, which is very clearly not stealing except in the moral sense, and very clearly copyright infringement).

  95. Re:Friend got a letter re: a Wii game iso torrente by dredwerker · · Score: 2

    They will take your wife and sell her into slavery. But you knew that, right?

    I sold her already. You do know we are in a recession.

    --
    On a long enough timeline. The survival rate for everyone drops to zero. Chuck Palahniuk, Fight Club, 1996
  96. DeCSS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Back in the day (was this around 2001, maybe?) I received a threatening letter about DeCSS. It's been a while, so I can't remember all of the details. If I recall correctly, I'm not even sure if was even hosting it -- I think maybe I was just hosting a set of links, as this was when someone was trying to make the case that merely linking to certain material was illegal.

    The letter was sent from the MPAA to my ISP, and they just forwarded it on to me, without any particular comments or threats. Keep in mind that this was back when there were plenty of small, independent ISPs to choose from, and they generally weren't asshats and had some modicum of respect for your privacy and wouldn't just bend over to idle threats from corporations.

    I responded with a somewhat strongly and carefully worded, yet polite, letter; informing them that I was not breaking any law, that I was not going to comply with their threats/demands whatsoever, and if they wanted any action on my part that they should obtain a court order.

    I never heard anything more about this.

    1. Re:DeCSS by tsalaroth · · Score: 1

      I still have the "Freedom Flag" on my blog from when all that went down. Never heard a word from anyone.

  97. OpenNap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Back when Napster was big, around the year 2000, I ran a fairly large public server on the OpenNap network from my college dorm room. It was accessible from anywhere on the internet, not just the university. I had permission to run the server from my school's IT department (thinking back on it, who would give such permission now?) The school received many cease and desist notices and forwarded them to me, but never asked me to take the server down, and I never did until the end of my freshman year. I just ignored the notices and nothing ever became of it. I went home for the summer, and took the server down as I didn't have any bandwidth at home to host it on. The following year, I didn't bring the server back up, as things with Napster were falling apart at that time. I know that millions and millions of songs were transferred through the server, which only acted as a "tracker" -- no song data was actually transferred through it.

  98. Re:Friend got a letter re: a Wii game iso torrente by oldmac31310 · · Score: 1

    Bravo sir! A sensible recourse in these straitened times.

    --
    http://www.acetonestudio.com
  99. ISP perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I saw thousands of takedown notices issued to users of an vpn network I supported at a previous job. I'm not aware of a single case with movie/music downloads where legal authorities got involved involved or any money changed hands. We simply forwarded the complaints to the end users.

  100. Re:i was by poetmatt · · Score: 1

    They opened it a few times, although I wish I had been in it beforehand because of how great aforementioned $secretsite is.

    Also, the ratios of people that use said site (whose name has not been mentioned, hahaha) are quite impressive. I'm at around 3.0 and plenty of people are in the 20.0 and above (and we're talking PB's of data as opposed to my TB's). They definitely don't carry everything, though.

  101. being sued by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A friend I know got sent a notice for downloading apple osx. I believe he used demonoid. I have seen the mpaa send notices out when kazaa was popular. They would upload movies that belong to warner brothers and wait for people to use aol to download them. At that time aol was owned by warner.

  102. Re:i was by poetmatt · · Score: 1

    Yeah, I never thought I'd max my downstream until I found that stuff. At that point with those speeds, I have no incentive to try to act like I should somehow accept DRM for just about any product.

    Movies to pay for? Only independant documentaries.
    Games to pay for? Only if it's a subscription that's worth it.
    Music to pay for? Isn't it funny how techno artists are one of the few types who are smart enough to give their music away for free and thus it's worth it to support them/buy the albums.
    Ebooks? hahaha.

    Man I can't wait until "content owners" (as they are content shares) wake up to all this.

  103. This thread is utterly useless by rullywowr · · Score: 1

    Asking people if they have done x or y or z on an public internet forum, especially one that allows one to post as "anonymous coward" is simply absurd. It's no more than an unverifiable pissing contest. What's next on slashdot, a thread titled "Have you ever browsed for free porn?" Come on!

  104. Re:i was by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

    The site I'm not naming is a tracker, so you can't browse others - it sounds like you are discussing something like a secret dc++ hub. There must be a great many secret services like that.

  105. Peerblock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A friend of mine got a nasty letter about a pr0n movie. After that I started using Peerblock to protect myself. http://www.peerblock.com/

  106. Someone on o k c u p i d by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This guy on o k c u p i d says he was sued
    h a d a 6 0 3

    Spaces for privacy.

  107. Re:I have to wonder if any non AC's will respond.. by Wain13001 · · Score: 1

    You seem to have lost part of the causal chain. I see what you're saying but you've missed a piece somewhere.

    In the point that was brought up, the RIAA was suing someone...the NDA was part of a settlement offer...sure you can *not* take the offer, but then you're still stuck with them suing you...extensive legal fees, yadda, yadda.

    They also can try to insist on an NDA being part of what they win if they win the lawsuit.

  108. Re:I have to wonder if any non AC's will respond.. by mark-t · · Score: 1
    While I realize that the general subject at hand is the issue with the RIAA, and keeping quiet about settlements with them, an ancestor to to my post said the following:

    Happens all the time, especially in the medical field. You get a payout and are barred from saying anything to anyone.

    It is such an issue that I was addressing... *THEY* are offering to pay *YOU* to keep quiet... I had confronted that post with the notion of just not accepting the payout, wondering what they would do... which, in turn, spawned this subthread.

  109. Re:I sometimes wonder if I'll get a takedown notic by pecosdave · · Score: 1

    I sent email to the web developer and never got a reply. My guess is that's who was responsible.

    --
    The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
  110. Re:i was by rockout · · Score: 1

    you're part right - it's not about being "leet" but there's 2 trackers for music that I'm a "member" of that have pretty much everything you could ever ask for.

    Checking the stats on the front page just now, the better of the two has 1.3 million torrents on it - 611K unique releases. The numbers are different because many releases are available in multiple formats (FLAC, 320k mp3, 256k mp3, etc)

    You do need an invite, and that can be problematic if you don't know anyone personally that is already a member. But like Trent Reznor once said about the precursor to these sites that was rudely taken down by the UK (USA?) gov't, "I’ll admit I had an account there and frequented it quite often. At the end of the day, what made **** a great place was that it was like the world’s greatest record store. Pretty much anything you could ever imagine, it was there, and it was there in the format you wanted. If **** cost anything, I would certainly have paid, but there isn’t the equivalent of that in the retail space right now. "

    So it's well worth it to put in a little effort to find an invite. if you're into that kind of thing, and worried about getting a nasty RIAA letter.

    --
    I've learned that they're worthless, so I don't read AC comments anymore.
  111. Abuse complaints by WankerWeasel · · Score: 1

    Years ago I use to take over for our local abuse coordinator at Time Warner when he was out of town. On average I'd say we'd see a couple subpoenas for customer information a week. I can't say that these all lead to lawsuits but some of them did. Normally to get to this point, customers would have been warned a couple times about file sharing and continued to do so. Generally the RIAA, MPAA, or other copyright holder would send a complain to the cable company who would then contact the customer associated with the IP address letting them know that they were caught downloading copyrighted content and to please stop doing so immediately. They generally would get a couple of these notices before you'd see further action where they copyright holder would get a court order to acquire the customer information and doing with it whatever they would (be it filing a lawsuit or otherwise). At that point it was really out of our hands as we couldn't refuse to turn over the customer info when it was court ordered for us to do so. Either way, they had multiple chances and were obviously being stupid by continuing to use public torrents. These companies go after the low hanging fruit and torrent users are ripe for the picking. Never saw a single complaint where someone was using usenet, IRC, etc. It was always torrents.

  112. Not me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    nothing to see here - keep moving.

    I don't know anyone who has been sued either. Even people with kids - not even a warning letter.

  113. Phynd at RPI by Anguirel · · Score: 1

    I knew one of the maintainers of Phynd when I was at RPI. It was a simple indexing program that would crawl the public shares on the campus network and create a searchable dB with a simple web interface. Worked quite nicely, all thing considered, but since it also picked up any illegally shared items it was hit by RIAA during the initial anti-share crackdown. They were probably legally ok (index service, not a repository), but the suit was settled since that was the easier (and likely less expensive, given lawyer costs) option.

    --
    ~Anguirel (lit. Living Star-Iron)
    QA: The art of telling someone that their baby is ugly without getting punched.
  114. Re:i was by poetmatt · · Score: 1

    I'm talking about torrents/magnets as well. I don't trust DC++ hubs - not for reasons of legal concerns but more because it's a bit harder to get feedback on if a file is legitimate and that actually the speeds are lower than what you can achieve with private trackers.

  115. ISP Nastygram by anyGould · · Score: 1

    My parents got a nastygram from Telus a few years back. Nothing official ever came out of it.

    Unofficially, from the movie title they found out that their boarder was using the 'Net to torrent All The Movies (as in, his hard drive was full of stuff he never watched and never intended to watch), and was sucking up all the bandwidth to do it. Said boarder was told to knock it off, and everyone's life improved.

  116. I received an email from someone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I live in Canada. My ISP passed a message on to me from someone claiming that I was sharing their movie online. The ISP did not disclose my info to the company complaining and just asked me to "stop it". I wasnt sharing the movie they claimed, but I was sharing my internet connection with some friends and neighbours to use. So I switched the password to be safe. I then went out and rented the movie they claimed I was sharing. It was a piece with Nicole Kidman. And I tell u it was the biggest piece of crap I ever watched. What a boring and stupid movie.... I would never share that to anyone except maybe as a joke to waste their time. Anyhow, Im glad I live in Canada where the ISP is not required to disclose my personal contact information to those who claim I am doing them harm. To be honest sharing this movie to the public is probably the only way to get them to watch it. Complete Junk... good thing I didnt get sued over that sh@t.

    I dont watch movies from hollywood anymore and I dont buy music from big distributors. I only listen to radio and watch free TV for that and record from there legally. I use the airwaves and dont pay for a cable line. The good stuff comes over the air and if it doesnt, it should be available free online if it expects to survive. The movies from 3 years ago available free on TV has the same small percentage of good to bad movies. I download all my music from http://jamendo.com where the music is free and legal to take and share. I wish more people would just give up on trying to steal stuff from an industry that spends so much money trying to make you want this crap in the first place. If you think about it... most of what you get from them is complete garabage anyways.

  117. Not the RIAA, but by s0nicfreak · · Score: 1

    I was sued by the MPAA for running a tracker that someone happened to upload a couple of movies onto.

    By that point, I wasn't even really involved in the tracker anymore, though it bore my name. I fought, said I didn't pirate their stuff and I didn't monitor what users uploaded, that I didn't keep any IP logs. They won, I paid them a few thousand dollars.

    (Internet rumor has it that I fled to Mexico because of this, but truth was I had real life bullshit going on at the time that caused me to move; The MPAA thing was done before I moved.)

  118. I was, by the MPAA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Posting AC, because of the settlement. I was sued in the very first round of 'John Doe' lawsuits brought in MN by the MPAA. This was in the early days of torrents, when everyone was more innocent and didn't know about PeerBlock/PeerGuardian. Ended up settling for $3500.

    Honestly, the biggest impact? I don't download movies much at all. Out of the last couple terabytes of stuff I've grabbed through bittorrent, I've gotten maybe 4 movies. I was "scared straight". Netflix helps out a lot with this too. If I'm gonna sit down and watch a movie, I'll just find something streaming. /Mostly gets games and TV shows

    1. Re:I was, by the MPAA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, I should mention, I've gotten a couple ISP warnings from Comcast since this time, but I've ignored them. (Seriously, a warning for downloading Community? A public broadcast TV show? Good luck proving that one in court.)

  119. not two weeks ago by KingBenny · · Score: 1

    The story of a guy who got tracked down for uploading an unreleased kaiser chiefs album was all over the news here, pretty and very real ... sued by the local version of the mafiaa and some publishing houses. The cops, who dont have time to solve all cases, did have a lot of time to shift throught ip-lists to track this guy down. Result : the judge (who i suppose thought as well this was a total over-reaction) fined the man 500 euros, but the damages went up to 65k, something the average joe here makes in about four years. So if he doesnt eat or pay other bills that cd will be paid back four years from now. The guy is ruined for life. Very real indeed, totally out of balance compared to what you get for other 'offenses', its better to be caught dealing heroin or kicking someone into the hospital than it is to upload a cd, that's the only message i could make from it (apart from the fact that copyright organizations are nothing but extortionists hiding behind laws)

    --
    Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?