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.
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?
Maybe don't post as an AC?
I'm not even running an adblocker on this computer and I don't see any adds on /.
Have you ever fallen asleep at the keybhanusdiog?
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.
The continuing American fascination with the polygraph totally mystifies me. If the courts have rejected it as non-evidence, why does everyone else seem to think it's fucking bullet proof? Weird as hell.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Yeah?
"Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;
(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and
(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...
That's the actual law in question.
So, like I said, copy right restricts your right to copy (#1 above), as well as some other things. Distribution (#3), performance (#4, #6).