Slashdot Mirror
Filmmakers Ask 'Pirate' to Take Polygraph, Backtrack When He Agrees (torrentfreak.com)
The makers of Dallas Buyers Club (a 2014 movie, which won three Academy awards) are going to great lengths to crackdown on BitTorrent pirates. According to a report on piracy news blog TorrentFreak, the filmmakers challenged an accused pirate to submit a polygraph test to prove that he didn't download a copyright infringing copy of their movie. The accused pirate, California resident Michael Amhari, insists that he did not download any pirated copy of the Dallas Buyers Club and agreed to take the polygraph test. Upon hearing this, the filmmakers, who had imposed a $100,000 fine on Amhari, retracted the offer. "When plaintiff's counsel then agreed to take such a test with the proviso that defense costs and attorney fees be covered, plaintiff then refused to pay costs and revoked his offer to conduct a polygraph," said Amhari's counsel Clay Renick. TorrentFreak reports: "After receiving exculpatory evidence and the sworn declaration of defendant, Mr. Davis then refused to file a dismissal and proceeded to demand that defendant appear in the action or he would file a default." The defendant's counsel added: âoeThis behavior is galling and it should not be permitted by the court.â Because of these dubious tactics the court should set aside the default that was entered earlier this month. According to Renick, Dallas Buyer's Club has nothing more than an IP-address to back up their infringement claims, which is not enough to prove guilt.
You'll have to google it, but LOL!
Busted. So busted.
There was an ad covering this article when I looked at the frontpage, I had to go click on a red X to close it even with my adblocker.
Why I still bother to go read yesterday's stories on Slashot when plenty of alternatives are much more convenient & faster is beyond me.
Holy shit. I somehow guessed the film must be pretty bad. But just an IP address? Must be pretty boring!
I'd prefer that one with the drying paint, honestly.
As a bit of background, polygraphs don't work. They are glorified stress detectors so in some circumstances, they can detect the subject's fear of being caught in a lie. Much more often, they detect the stress of the interrogation with spikes every time the subject is pressed to answer immediately.
Knowing this, the prosecution thought to use the public misconception that polygraphs are actual "lie detectors" to bully the defendant into reacting in a way that they can use to support their case (probably "if he had nothing to hide, why did he refuse a lie detector?"). Not being a great fool, the defendant chose to accept the offer of a polygraph if the prosecution had something at risk as well. Knowing that the tech is worthless, that their intimidation tactic failed, and faced with the prospect of having to cover the defendant's legal fees, the prosecution retracted the "offer."
Teal Deer: defendant calls RIAA bluff.
Supplemental: Has anyone actually heard of this movie?
â%20and%20âoe?
Filmmaker wanted to scare accused person with Voodoo, accused knows it's bullshit and calls bluff, Filmmaker realizes that someone who calls his Voodoo bluff will not be affected by the curse and rather folds than have the Voodoo fizzle because too many people believe in the Voodoo and would consider the person innocent.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
And their results cannot be used as evidence in court. The defendant didn't have much to lose by taking one. The plaintiff should have thought through his fear tactic before using it.
"For now, although the idea of a lie detector may be comforting, the most practical advice is to remain skeptical about any conclusion wrung from a polygraph."
Source: The Truth About Lie Detectors (aka Polygraph Tests)
Sure must be nice when you have a lawyer in a briefcase... I can hardly wait until we can make them more portable and you can buy credit at the Kwik-E-Mart...
I don't care if these are "civil" cases. They are using the state for the proceedings and to enforce the rulings. We should demand that public defenders be made available.
he should counter sue for harassment and any other thing attorneys can dig up
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
fishing expedition ruined by faithless crusaiders armed only with snake oil machine. 32,768 children end up permanently addicted to jihad marijuana abortion terrorisms due to pirates. Film at 11.
Good people go to bed earlier.
...any more than a story about how Jesus told me to download it. Magical thinking and faux-scientific fraud is not evidence.
But.
Because of these dubious tactics the court should set aside the default that was entered earlier this month.
If the court has entered a default judgement you have already fucked up big time. Usually by failing to do something the court requires of you (like respond to plaintiff's complaint) in a timely manner.
And there is no legal mechanism I'm aware of by which a copyright holder can unilaterally "impose a $100,000 fine." They can offer to settle for $100K or threaten litigation. That'd be surprising, as the copyright shakedown MO is to offer settlement for 1-3 orders of magnitude less, in order to induce quick and quiet resolution. Or you can get a default judgment of $100K if you file suit and defendant does something inadvisable like completely ignore it.
I'm not saying that's what happened here, TFA doesn't give any details on how we got to where we are. We do know that he has an attorney now. And because of how much trouble you can get in for letting your client's case default (your inattention and subsequent harm to your client is actionable malpractice), I would be pretty surprised if he'd had an attorney this entire time and had been otherwise fighting this legal battle by the book, only now to be unfairly blindsided by a default judgment.
(This is all speculation, I'm not your attorney, this is not legal advice, refer to sig, if you experience an erection lasting more than four hours call your doctor, etc etc you get the point.)
Nothing posted to
Apart from everything else, it seems the realization is slowly taking hold among the general public that IP =| ID. This is heartening.
Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
When did downloading a file become a copyright violation? As I recall, copyright protects against redistribution without permission, which would apply to the uploaders but not the downloaders, no?
I just don't get it. This is exactly like what happened with 'The Hurt Locker'. Both are films that won awards but were not 'Blockbuster' movies. If I'm being honest I'd categorize both as 'movies I'm supposed to want to watch but I don't. (or perhaps movies I'd sit through in order to get laid?) W, T and F?! Any given Marvel or DC movie probably has more copies pirated than 'Dallas Buyer's Club' sold legitimately. Yet you don't see them stomping on individual pirates. Why? Perhaps because the larger studios understand that -
1. Piracy is hard to track/prove. The person pirating software is rarely the person paying the ISP. So the likelihood of going after the wrong person based upon just an IP is high.
2. Piracy is often aspirational. The same people who pirate your stuff buy your stuff once they get can. So it's a good idea not to alienate them.
3. Aggressive prosecution is bad PR. A Multi-million dollar corporation pulling teenagers and senior citizens into court makes them look like bullies regardless of the merits of their case.
At the end of the day, the larger studios have for the most part wisely made the decision to go after the larger infringers, chalking up small-scale piracy as a hidden advertising expense. But not every film maker understands or agrees with this strategy. For some reason I imagine these filmmakers sitting in a dark room somewhere all night with only an LCD screen to light their face. Oscars dimly reflecting the glint behind them as they stare at their Bittorrent client waiting just waiting for someone, anyone to download their movie... They are convinced that their sagging sales are due to piracy, ever blinded to the simple fact that escapism outsells reality.
If there was a procedure to determine guilt in which the defendant was required to stand for an hour in a busy, public place with his or her genitals exposed to see whether his or her naughty bits turned bright purple—which incriminates but never exculpates—do you think prosecutors would rush to drop the tactic just because everyone knows the test will demonstrate nothing?
It's no small feature of the polygraph test that it forces the person being tested to endure a submissive stress position. Ever heard of a polygraph procedure in which the subject is permitted to make eye contact with the asshole asking the questions?
Do not underestimate. Half of the population cracks under the persistent provocation of a teenaged forum troll.
The polygraph is worse. I've hardly gone an hour in my adult life deprived of "what a stupid question" when the glove fits (I'm usually fine with the socially acceptable ways to put this idea across when permitted to speak at reasonable length).
If I had to go through lent giving up one of the three biggies of yes/no/what a stupid question, it sure wouldn't be the third option. The Japanese make do with one handy syllable covering all three, so I'm sure I could somehow manage my affairs well enough minus either "yes" or "no".
Between parking "what a stupid question" for an hour while being grilled on intimate matters by some smug asshole, or standing outside with my nut sack exposed, I'd have to give the matter genuine consideration.
Seriously, which humiliation is less defensible?
I'm legitimately suprised that the studio withdrew its offer on the polygraph test, given that polygraphs are a pseudoscience and that if they hired the right examiner they could easily get a result that the person is lying on every possible count.
http://watchcartoonsonline.eu/...
On the relation to lie detectors, everyone of any reasonable knowledge knows they are bullshit.
However, even some of them can fail to handle the stress caused by the situation these agencies put them in, specifically to induce stress.
Uncomfortable seats, strict interrogation, treatment as if they were a child, forcing narrow answering (more a simplicity thing, but it still causes stress and annoyance indirectly), etc.
But what I wonder, how will the world take to these new neural scanners out there that can see the formation of a lie before it even bubbles up to the conscious layer.
Seemingly they can't even be defeated by people trying to believe a lie as best as they can.
Will be interesting to see if they reach courtroom-use in the near future.
Definitely going to need more testing. There is no such thing as a Human Average, there are some people with brains that seemingly defy all known facets of human biology. (like people born without a core brain, seemingly all functional brain matter on the outer areas of the inside of the skull in the area where grey matter usually is, but they still have a perfectly functional brain and are even fairly intelligent as well)
But getting people to willingly test a Neural Lie Detector will be a tough one.
the fucking summary, you fucking twat!
Who do?
You do!
VPN -> engage!
Spelling matters.
There I go repeating myself...
Your verse underscores your unprofessional reporting style.
Pirates commit crimes such as kidnapping and murder on the high seas. Your use of the word "Pirate" frames the argument in a light that the media industry and the prosecution desires. You are also depriving the defendant of due process in your declaration.
Instead, refer to the defendant an "Alleged Copyright Infringer". Note that the use of the word alleged indicates that this person has not lost a lawsuit or has been convicted of the act that the prosecution claims. This also protects you from a libel suit.
However, the law does not properly and correctly define who is making the copy. So, though the one downloading is requesting the copy and causing it to be made, therefore the copy right infringer, the law insists that it is the one who is making it available and uploading it is making the copy.
Despite, indeed, the fact that I may already HAVE a license to view it, therefore not be infringing on the copyrights.
Remember, these things, as we are continually reminded, are LICENSED *NOT* SOLD.
And you're not downloading the license, so therefore there is nothing lost that is being sold.
Judging murder with an MRI
http://www.wired.co.uk/magazin...
Casteism