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.

Comments

Subject made me think of sex move "Angry Pirate"

[Anonymous Coward]

You'll have to google it, but LOL!

No scapegoats for you!

[RogueWarrior65]

Busted. So busted.

Smart pirate

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:Smart pirate

[TheCarp]

Honestly, the only reason I would EVER agree to a polygraph is if the entire session could be recorded, and I get to walk out with a copy of the tape.... so I can truely cherish telling him to turn his worthless prop on so he can start scamming his pay.

Re:Smart pirate

[MightyMartian]

You notice, by and large, it's the overpromoted crap films that seem to be the ones studios and producers pick to go after alleged file sharers for. I wonder whether the whole thing is a publicity stunt. "This movie is so good evil filesharing pirates want it! So buy it for legal for $9.99 and own your very own copy of Matthew Mconaughey being all thin and stuff..."

Re:Smart pirate

[Killall -9 Bash]

I've not heard of the movie, but it won 3 awards, so at the very least, it exists. Probably.

Re:Smart pirate

[Solandri]

Alternate possibility: Defendant doesn't know anything about polygraphs, really didn't pirate the movie, so jumped on the offer as a way to "prove" his innocence. And since he "knew" the test was going to prove him innocent, he stipulated that the prosecution would have to pay his expenses so they couldn't do anything slimy like drop the case and leave him stuck with the bill.

Re:Smart pirate

[tlhIngan]

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.

Polygraphs work. They're just graphing multiple biological signals (heart rate, skin conductivity, breathing, etc), hence the name, "poly" and "graph".

The real leap in logic is that a polygraph can be used to detect truthfulness (to which there is no causal link - while stress can be caused by lying, in general the exam itself overrides any possible stress indicators). The only real way they work is the interrogator catches the suspect in a contradiction (which is also non causal since the suspect may simply be tired or just wants to get it over).

There are lie detectors that DO work quite effectively (fMRIs, for example, are very effective since different areas of the brain are activated and easily detectable). They are, however, expensive to administer and fidgety since you need the suspect to stay relatively still.

Re:Smart pirate

[anegg]

I think your succinct dismissal of polygraphs is too hasty. Polygraphs work quite well in many circumstances. However, the misconception that they are a "lie detector" confuses a lot of people. They are an interrogation tool, not a lie detection tool. The tool "works" if the objectives of the interrogator are met.

Re:Smart pirate

[nbauman]

As a bit of background, polygraphs don't work.

Polygraph tests have one ability. If suspects can be interrogated without a lawyer present, they could be subject to questions that a lawyer would never permit. They can ask, "Have you ever stolen anything from an employer?" They can ask, "Have you ever watched pirated movies?" They can use the Reid Technique https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... to get a false confession.

Re:Smart pirate

[nbauman]

I liked it because I can use it as an example of how investigational drugs touted as miracle cures don't work, and how the conspiracy theories of the FDA/pharmaceutical industry suppressing useful drugs are all wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:Smart pirate

[bigfinger76]

Jennifer Lawrence was not in The Dallas Buyers Club. Jennifer Garner, however, was.
In addition, it was an excellent film. That said, I'm not sure I understand this particular witch hunt, as it is now 3 years old.

Re:Smart pirate

[ooloorie]

There are lie detectors that DO work quite effectively (fMRIs, for example, are very effective since different areas of the brain are activated and easily detectable).

fMRI has not been proven to work as a lie detector.

Re:Smart pirate

[SvnLyrBrto]

It seems like only two kinds of movies are made these days: "Blockbusters", which are fairly mindless, but usually fun, movies designed to make hundred of millions of dollars, but that the old farts who vote in the academy don't and never will like; and "oscar bait", movies which will get a limited release, have a low budget and may even still actually lose money, but are made specifically to cater to the academy members' pretentious tastes and sense of self-importance.

Every so often something like the LOTR Trilogy is so astoundingly popular AND well-done that they feel like they can't get away without acknowledging it. But they give oscars to those only grudgingly, and usually only for the last entry in the series. (I still maintain that Fellowship was a better movie than either TTT or ROTK. But ROTK was awarded the oscars.)

Re:Smart pirate

[laurencetux]

im sure the group can come up with a bunch of ways to defeat a Polygraph "test"

1 being enough of a Nutbar that you can lie and not twitch
2 having a chronic pain condition
3 being Just That Zen
4 having a serious injury
5 having somebody in your "Family" talk to the tech beforehand

what else??

Re:Smart pirate

[BitterOak]

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."

Technically, they didn't retract the offer, having never offered to pay the defendant's costs in the first place. The plaintiff asked the defendant to take a polygraph test. The defendant counter-offered that they would if the plaintiff would cover costs in the event of a negative result. The plaintiff refused the counter-offer. No polygraph test was taken. Nobody "retracted" any offer or backed off on their position.

Re:Smart pirate

[bigfinger76]

People liked the film. It won awards.
But if you say it's irrelevant, then it must be so.

Re: Smart pirate

[Anonymous Coward]

Taking Prozac before the test.

Re:Smart pirate

[dwywit]

This was the film behind the Australian "fishing" letters case. IIRC, the owners wanted the courts to allow a subpoena of ISP subscribers so they could send letters out to people they suspected/accused of pirating the film, and the court said "show us the letters first". When the judge saw what they were going to put in the letter (along the lines of "you're guilty, you owe us $bignum"), the judge said "no". I think they dropped the case - it didn't proceed, anyway.

Re:Smart pirate

[sjames]

If the plaintiffs REALLY believed that the polygraph had the ability to discern truth and lie and they REALLY believed the defendant was guilty, why wouldn't they jump on the offer?

Re:Smart pirate

[Cajun Hell]

Sure, and a Ouija board works just as well.

Don't you see his point? He's saying a Ouija board can work, if the person being interrogated thinks it works. We are talking about tools that an interrogator uses to (figuratively) give someone a wise, piercing look while saying "you're lying." It's not the the tool tells you a truth; it tells the person being interrogated that their lie is about to be exposed, so maybe they'll confess or improvise dumber lies to cover the original lie, or whatever.

It's a bluffing prop.

The tool is a lie, and lies sometimes work to manipulate.

Re:Smart pirate

[whoever57]

Watch the "Bullshit" episode where they discuss polygraph use. Basically, the methodology is that, irrespective of what the machines "says", the subject will be told that the machine said he was lying (being "deceptive") and will be invited to confess what the person administering the test already "knows".

Lots of people confess. That's how the machine works.

Re:Smart pirate

[whoever57]

6. Being a psychopath for whom truth and falsehood have no meaning.

Re:Slashdot in twenty sixteen

[wkwilley2]

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 /.

Re:What's%20with%20spelling?

[110010001000]

Those are special characters. We can only handle ASCII characters. We are planning full UTF8 support in 2032.

Re:Slashdot in twenty sixteen

[Culture20]

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.

I stopped reading slashdot on my phone when the "ad-removal checkbox for good karma" went away. At least my desktop browsers still have script-blockers, adblockers, and cross-site blockers. It's reduced my slashdot reading by about 80% though. Probably more in the future. Ad networks are malware spewing traps for your readers. Way to drive a site into the ground. Posting non-anonymously partly to lend eyes to the parent (not that I witnessed it, but I believe it).

Translation

[Opportunist]

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.

Re:Translation

[Maritz]

Now go do... that voodoo... that YOU do... SO WEEEELLLLLLLL

Re:Translation

[Registered Coward v2]

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.

Exactly. I'd bet the plaintiff's attorney, when the defendant took them up on it, said to their client "Don't do it" while pointing out the plaintiff would be on the hook for costs, including conceivably the defendant's own expert witness who would ensure the results were interpreted in the defendant's best interests. Now, the defendant can use their retraction against them; showing why the adage "never bluff unless you are willing to risk having your bluff called" is good advice.

Re:Translation

[JeffOwl]

The defendant may have cause for a claim of Abuse of Process.

Re:Translation

[Applehu Akbar]

The defendant may have cause for a claim of Abuse of Process.

But has any defendant in this type of case successfully won a case by claiming Abuse of Process, since abusive process is a standard technique in civil trials?

Re:Translation

[Darinbob]

Of course I couldn't contact the spirits of the dead, there was an unbeliever nearby.

Re:Slashdot in twenty sixteen

[Opportunist]

Works as well even if you're logged in. With excellent Karma, no less.

Re:Slashdot in twenty sixteen

[SuiteSisterMary]

Oh hey, the ad-removal checkbox for good karma went away. I didn't notice, because it hasn't worked for years. If it ever did.

Polygraphs are easy to cheat on

[subanark]

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.

Re:Polygraphs are easy to cheat on

[geek]

And their results cannot be used as evidence in court.

Criminal court. This is a civil case not a criminal one. It's very admissible.

Re:Polygraphs are easy to cheat on

[Opportunist]

Exactly. Seriously, if you want me to take a poly test, plug me in! I have a hunch that I'll be the one demanding it to be permitted as evidence...

Voodoo only works if the person you want to curse believes in it. It can backfire badly if you have a lot of people standing around who believe in it but the one you want to convict doesn't. Because if the curse doesn't work on your victim, he must be innocent, at least in the eyes of the bystanders who believe in it.

Re:Polygraphs are easy to cheat on

[Maritz]

I daresay people who drink the polygraph kool-aid are sometimes also the same people that don't think things through.

Re: Slashdot in twenty sixteen

[halivar]

The comments suck, too.

Self-fulfilling prophecy?

American Psychological Association Says

[Anonymous Coward]

"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)

Re:American Psychological Association Says

[SuiteSisterMary]

And what they really mean is 'the most practical advice is to dismiss outright any conclusion wrung from a polygraph.'

Re:American Psychological Association Says

[MightyMartian]

That's a rather mild rejection. I've seen other psychologists out and out call it pseudoscience, with absolutely no basis in fact.

Re:American Psychological Association Says

[Maritz]

the most practical advice is to remain skeptical about any conclusion wrung from a polygraph."

Gives polygraphs way too much credit. They're about as credible as e-meters. "Oh look, the needle moved. That means you need to give us money."

Re:American Psychological Association Says

[Salgak1]

And then there are the numerous .us Law Enforcement and Intelligence Agencies that utterly believe polygraph exams.

Makes you wonder about their analysis of other things. . .

Re:Slashdot in twenty sixteen

[TangoMargarine]

So let me get this straight, you're semi-boycotting Slashdot because they removed a feature that didn't work, that you don't need anyway?

The accused pirate, Michael Amhari,

[FudRucker]

he should counter sue for harassment and any other thing attorneys can dig up

I can see the headline now.

[nimbius]

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.

Lawyer sense tingling

[flopsquad]

TFS paints an intriguing picture, and hooray fighting against copyright trolls and all that.

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.)

Re:Lawyer sense tingling

[flopsquad]

Are you a doctor?

No, but I play one on TV.

Re:Lawyer sense tingling

[penix1]

Or you can get a default judgment of $100K if you file suit and defendant does something inadvisable like completely ignore it.

There are many ways to get a default judgement one of them being the venue shopping these people do looking for a court that will not only be very favorable to them but that is likely out of the jurisdiction where the defendant lives. If the defendant wasn't served a subpoena, there is no possible way they could have answered it in a timely fashion. And like you say, the story doesn't say why he got the default judgement.

Re:Lawyer sense tingling

[cdrudge]

If you read the defense's legal filing, it sounds as if the plaintiff was negotiating with the defense's lawyer for the polygraphy, the defense asked for 14 days and only got 7. When the defense agreed to the polygraph on the condition the plantiff pays for it, plaintiff immediately files for entry of default judgement.

Plaintiff also is accused of making bad faith verbal promises that they reneged on that they would dismiss the case if he tool the polygraph. That is why further filings weren't made initially as timely as they could have been.

If you read the whole thing, previous case law would seem like the defendant likely will get the default judgement set aside. Courts rather get things right and hear a case rather than just give the case to one side without good cause.

Re:Lawyer sense tingling

[flopsquad]

Thanks for the additional detail, that definitely does connect some of the dots here.

Re: Slashdot in twenty sixteen

[Anonymous Coward]

Islam is not a race.

Some Comfort

[Tokolosh]

Apart from everything else, it seems the realization is slowly taking hold among the general public that IP =| ID. This is heartening.

Re:Slashdot in twenty sixteen

[Culture20]

I don't have ad-block plugins for my phone's browser. Also, the ad removal checkbox did work, occasional glitching or "forgetting" that I had it checked notwithstanding. Now there are ugly ads, and soon there will be malware ads (slashdot doesn't control the ad network, so I'm sure it will happen).

Re:Slashdot in twenty sixteen

[RobotRunAmok]

The only ads I see are the ones made to appear as stories. And these are the most grating and tedious of any I see anywhere on the internet...

download vs. upload

[Unordained]

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?

Re:download vs. upload

[SecurityGuy]

As I recall, copyright protects against redistribution without permission, which would apply to the uploaders but not the downloaders, no?

No, copyright restricts your rights to copy, as well as some other things, which include distribution, performance, etc. A lot of people get this wrong.

When did downloading a file become a copyright violation?

The relevant law in the US was enacted in 1947, so downloading a copyrighted file without the copyright holder granting the right would have been a copyright violation as soon as downloading was invented.

Re:download vs. upload

[Jason Levine]

IANAL, but in my understanding downloading *is* a copyright violation - it's just nearly impossible to prosecute. You'd have to sue individuals for one download at a time instead of suing one person for sharing a thousand files. Even if you somehow got the evidence, it becomes much harder to threaten the person into settling if they are facing a few thousand dollar fine versus a few million dollar fine. About the only time you'd actually be sued for "downloading" would be if your Bittorrent client automatically shared out what you were downloading - and thus you actually got nabbed for uploading.

All this being said, the media often switches the terms and will proclaim "pirate sued for downloading a thousand films" when what they really mean is "pirate sued for UPLOADING/SHARING a thousand films."

Re:download vs. upload

[ledow]

So if you wanted a copy of a book, so long as it wasn't YOU that photocopied it, but you just took a photocopy of the entire book from a pile (whether you pay or not complicates matters, let's assume not but with the permission of the person who photocopied), would you expect to not get into trouble?

What about if someone copied an artwork without permission and you just happened to buy a copy? Under the law, it's all the same. In art we call it a forgery. Even if you're not the forger, and even though it's not illegal to own in some circumstances, it's still illegal to get the copy KNOWING that you're not paying the artists or doing it with their permission.

In music and movies, it's called piracy. In literature, it's plagiarism at best, and unauthorised reproduction. It's all pretty much the same thing. Nobody is "taking" the book from someone who owns it, but they are making unauthorised copies of the works under copyright. That's the actual offence. Not redistribution. Unauthorised copies.

Photocopy a musical score and the songwriter will be on your back looking for a) royalties b) damages if you passed it on without permission or you did it en masse or deliberately.

As such, downloading a file - WHETHER OR NOT YOU WERE THE SOURCE OF THAT FILE - that you know is a copy of copyright material that's been made without the permission of the copyright holder, is an offence. Proving that a) you knew, or should have suspected, b) that it was unauthorised, c) that was your intention - that's the difficult part if you're only the downloader. The uploader is, by definition of the act they perform, breaking the law. The downloader is, unless they genuinely didn't realise or suspect infringement, also breaking the law but it's harder to prove.

Submit a forgery to the Chagall Institute. It will be destroyed: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/ente...

Fake Nike's are confiscated and destroyed.
Fake cigarettes are burned.

And fake books, movies, music, etc. (i.e. copies of existing works, even if perfect, but made without the permission of the original creator) will be confiscated, destroyed and legislated against.

Re:download vs. upload

[AthanasiusKircher]

When did downloading a file become a copyright violation?

The relevant law in the US was enacted in 1947, so downloading a copyrighted file without the copyright holder granting the right would have been a copyright violation as soon as downloading was invented.

Well, that's somewhat misleading. In practice, before the internet, it was very rare for corporations (or individual artists/authors/creators) to attempt a copyright lawsuit unless there was proof that the infringer had monetary gain, usually through commercial distribution or something like that.

Keep in mind that this was only subject to a civil action before 1997, so you'd have to hire a lawyer. And then you'd also have to convince a court that downloading a file (which, by your own argument, was "just invented") was significantly different from things like time-shifting, which SCOTUS had ruled was legal in 1984. (That is, you can't be sued for copyright infringement for videotaping a TV broadcast on your VCR for personal use.) It's not readily apparent at the outset that downloading a file is not analogous to something like taping a TV show or movie for later use. In fact, there's a string of litigation in the 1990s that dealt with just these kinds of distinctions, until the "space-shifting" argument was ultimately rejected in court rulings around 2000.

Even if you could convince a court in the 1980s or early 1990s that downloading a file was "making an unauthorized copy," the actual damages for non-commercial infringement would be near zero. So, someone suing would have to go with statutory damages, and given the ambiguity of the situation in the early days, they'd probably only get the minimum in statutory damages... and be lucky to get away with a couple hundred dollars, maybe not even enough to cover court costs.

So, while it may have been a "copyright violation" to download "as soon as downloading was invented," it wouldn't have been pursued unless there was commercial gain involved or some other egregious copyright violation.

Also, while it was perhaps subject to civil penalties, downloading was NOT a criminal violation of copyright until 1997 with the NET Act. Before that, the LaMacchia loophole did not allow prosecution for downloading -- or even filesharing (which would include distribution) -- with no commercial gain. (Note that the "LaMacchia loophole" depended on a distinction between "theft" or "fraud" involving electronic transactions and stealing physical items, again bringing up problems in naively applying previous copyright law to the new electronic landscape.)

Re:download vs. upload

[SecurityGuy]

You're gonna need some citations, since you're wrong and all.

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).

Re:download vs. upload

[SecurityGuy]

No, it's not misleading at all. You're answering a different question. You're answering "What kind of trouble are you likely to get in for downloading a file?" Sure, that's complicated, and definitively outside my area of expertise, so I'm not going there. I'm answering "is downloading a file (without permission) a copyright violation?" Yes. And unless I misread, you agree.

I remember seeing a sign when I grew up warning people of a $1,000 fine for littering. That road often had lots of litter. This is much the same. If you throw some trash on the ground, what's going to happen to you? Probably nothing. Almost certainly nothing. Nevertheless, is it against the law? Yes.

Re:download vs. upload

[JesseMcDonald]

So if you wanted a copy of a book, so long as it wasn't YOU that photocopied it, but you just took a photocopy of the entire book from a pile (whether you pay or not complicates matters, let's assume not but with the permission of the person who photocopied), would you expect to not get into trouble?

One can "get in trouble" for just about anything, much of it perfectly legal, but what could they possible charge you with? You didn't do anything to violate anyone's copyright. The one in serious trouble would be whoever who made the copies.

(If you disagree, please point out the precise U.S. law which would be violated merely by possessing an unauthorized copy.)

Nobody is "taking" the book from someone who owns it, but they are making unauthorised copies of the works under copyright. That's the actual offence.

Exactly. Making the copies is the offense, not possessing them.

As such, downloading a file - WHETHER OR NOT YOU WERE THE SOURCE OF THAT FILE - that you know is a copy of copyright material that's been made without the permission of the copyright holder, is an offence.

This does not follow from your argument. The uploader made the copy. That is the part that requires permission. The downloader did nothing, in the act of downloading the file, which would violate anyone's copyright.

fake books, movies, music, etc.

There is no such thing, at least not in the sense you're using the term. A perfect copy of a digital work is no more "fake" than the original, whether or not the copy was authorized. A fake work of art is an item marketed as having been produced by a particular notable artist, when it was actually produced by someone else. There will be observable differences; it's not just a matter of who authorized the production of the copy.

For that matter, a work of art produced by anyone else would be just as fake if the nominal artist had authorized its production and sale under his or her own name. That is an offense which occurs with depressing regularity, and a far more serious crime than any amount of copyright infringement. The harm from this is trivial to demonstrate: would the buyer have been interested in this item if they had known that 90% of the content was contributed by a no-name subcontractor and the primary input of the well-known author was in allowing the use of their name on the cover? If the answer is no, then the price the buyer payed for the book is directly attributable to fraud.

Re:download vs. upload

[caseih]

I disagree with you on a few points. Yes fake Nikes and fake cigarettes are destroyed by customs. But this is aimed at profiteering from the import of these counterfeit goods. However if I go on holiday and buy a fake watch, fake Nike shoes, and counterfeit CDs on the street and bring them back with me, customs generally don't seize the goods.

If someone hands me a photocopied book, whoever made the copy violated the copyright, not me. I have no problem taking the copy and reading it, and even letting a friend read it too. I would, however, not be okay with making more copies and selling them (and I probably wouldn't give them away either).

I think the Chagall institute (or the French law) is completely out of line when it comes to counterfeit paintings. That's nothing like copyright infringement. Misrepresenting the work of art that's a copy of the original is wrong, but the fact that it exists is not.

Re:download vs. upload

[thegarbz]

So if you wanted a copy of a book, so long as it wasn't YOU that photocopied it, but you just took a photocopy of the entire book from a pile (whether you pay or not complicates matters, let's assume not but with the permission of the person who photocopied), would you expect to not get into trouble?

Yes. Exactly. That is precisely how the legal definition of copyright infringement works. Thanks for putting it so simply for the rest of us.

Incidentally this is also why the courts have gone after people who UPLOAD content.

Re:download vs. upload

[thegarbz]

s/courts/copyright\ trolls

Re:download vs. upload

[whoever57]

When did downloading a file become a copyright violation?

When they say "downloading", they really mean "uploading". They find IP addresses that are part of a bittorrent swarm and then go after the uploader, but describe it as a downloader.

Re:download vs. upload

[whoever57]

And fake books, movies, music, etc. (i.e. copies of existing works, even if perfect, but made without the permission of the original creator) will be confiscated, destroyed and legislated against.

That's trademark law, not copyright. But what you have failed to show is that mere possession of the object that was made or imported in violation of trademark law opens you up to liability to the trademark owner. Yes, your "copy" may be destroyed, but only the importer, manufacturer might have to pay damages to the trademark owner.

Re:download vs. upload

[AthanasiusKircher]

Actually, you're not answering "Is downloading a file a copyright violation?" Obviously the current answer to that question is yes. But you're trying to answer that question historically as a matter of law when downloading copyrighted materials first started. And as I noted, copyright law has had to evolve to deal with new technology, and in some cases (eg VCR taping of TV broadcasts), it was determined NOT to be a copyright violation. The matter about downloading was unsettled law until the late 1990s at least (and some of that actually required new legislation, as I noted). There are concepts of "fair use" and allowable notions of copying... Perhaps it seems obvious to you now that downloading is more like physically copying a book and less like making a personal copy of a TV broadcast on a VCR, but it took courts a couple decades to sort out that question. So, no, we do NOT agree. (And yes, I also added that you were unlikely to be sued for personal copying because it's relevant for why it took so long for this question to be litigated and determined.)

Re:Slashdot in twenty sixteen

[TangoMargarine]

I don't have ad-block plugins for my phone's browser

Because...? Don't Firefox and Chrome both have adblockers you can install in mobile versions?

So let me get this straight, you're semi-boycotting Slashdot because they removed a redundant feature, that you could easily have but are too lazy to install?

FT

Re:What's%20with%20spelling?

[RoknrolZombie]

I hope we're just planning on Beta Testing it in 2032...with my experience in IT you don't want to rush out major changes like that without some robust testing first.

Re: Slashdot in twenty sixteen

[MightyMartian]

But it is a group, and while perhaps "racism" is not the right term, "bigotry" is the right term. Beyond even that, I suspect many of the Muslim haters around aren't thinking of a white guy praying in a mosque when they think "I really hate Muslims", so I think there's still some justification to the accusation of racism.

Re:Slashdot in twenty sixteen

[stealth_finger]

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 /.

I see ads, but they're small, unobtrusive and sit nicely out of the way so you barely even notice them unless you look. They way it should be.

Re:Nothing but an IP address?

[MightyMartian]

I'm not even clear why a polygraph is even in the mix here. Frankly, I think the things should be outright outlawed, and it should lead to prison sentences for any officer of the court to try to use one. It's pseudo-scientific quackery whose only purpose is to bully the uninformed.

Leave the e-meters to the $cientologists.

Re:It's not exculpatory evidence...

[Opportunist]

Jesus told you to download it? So... with the Catholic Church being his legal successor... *watches lawyers drool*.

Re:'The Hurt Locker' all over again...

[MightyMartian]

Perhaps they should have picked a cheaper actor than Matthew Mcconaughey. For a second tier film like this one, I don't think you can justify his paycheck in extra tickets sold.

But in reality, most of second tier films are little more than Producers-like ways of fleecing money from arrogant but naive people who want a "producer" credit for helping finance this thing. And that's likely where this comes from. The big blockbuster films that make a gazillion dollars are usually funded entirely by the studios, but you'll notice the lower the budget of the film, the more "producers" there are.

Re:Nothing but an IP address?

[Maritz]

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.

Re:What's%20with%20spelling?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know what you all are talking about. I see everything perfectly fine.

--
Slashdot GOLD user. Subscribe now for great features like Unicode support!

Re:Nothing but an IP address?

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, officers of the court don't use them. The results are inadmissible. The police use them. The results have never been allowed as evidence in a court room

submission theatre

[epine]

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?

Surprised they withdrew

[timrod]

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.

There is a trick to beat them

[Joe_Dragon]

http://watchcartoonsonline.eu/...

Re:What's%20with%20spelling?

[Chelloveck]

Those are special characters. We can only handle ASCII characters. We are planning full UTF8 support in 2032.

Oh, good! That means we'll have six years to enjoy commenting with emoji before the whole site falls over due to the 32-bit time_t rollover!

Re:Slashdot in twenty sixteen

[GlennC]

Firefox for Android supports extensions, and the top 3 extensions are privacy related:

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/android/

Chrome for Android does NOT support extensions.

Does Chrome for Android support apps and extensions?
        Chrome apps and extensions are currently not supported on Chrome for Android. We have no plans to announce at this time.

https://developer.chrome.com/multidevice/faq

Re:Nothing but an IP address?

[MightyMartian]

They should just be plain outlawed for any investigative purposes. If I was in charge, right about now every polygraph in the possession of the state would be piled up and firebombed.

Re:It's not exculpatory evidence...

[Salgak1]

No, no, no. . . I'm talking about Jesus, the guy who does my lawn work . . . (grin)

Re:It's not exculpatory evidence...

[sysrammer]

rimshot

Re:Slashdot in twenty sixteen

[wjcofkc]

Say what? You either have some nasty malware or need to formally join the community with an account.

Why I still bother to go read yesterday's stories on Slashot when plenty of alternatives are much more convenient & faster is beyond me.

Then shut up and go somewhere else.

Why I still bother to waste the opportunity to moderate in favor of replying to ACs who are not contributing anything...

Re: Slashdot in twenty sixteen

[MightyMartian]

Just because other people are bigots doesn't really give other people permission to be bigots.

Re:Slashdot in twenty sixteen

[Culture20]

"phone" does not mean Android for all people.

Re: Slashdot in twenty sixteen

[MightyMartian]

Translation: I want to have the right to be an insufferable rude prick, but I don't want anyone to have the right to point it out to me.

You want to be a fucking asshole, go to town. But you won't ever stop me from calling you what you are.

Re:Slashdot in twenty sixteen

[TangoMargarine]

google "alternate web browsers on ios"

The very first link: http://www.macworld.co.uk/feat...

7 best iPhone web browser apps
        - Dolphin
        - Chrome
        - Opera Mini
        - Opera Coast
        - Ghostery
        - Atomic Browser

None of those have adblockers? Not even Opera?

Additionally, surely you're not implying that Apple doesn't know what's best for you in your walled garden? ;)

Re:What's%20with%20spelling?

[michelcolman]

Those are special characters. We can only handle ASCII characters. We are planning full UTF8 support in 2032.

That's 2032 in hexadecimal

Re:Slashdot in twenty sixteen

[thegarbz]

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 /.

Ok one thing at a time. Firstly Slashdot most definitely has ads. 1 on the top and 2 on the right. My adblocker itself currently says 8 elements are blocked, 3 of them have adbanner in the name, the rest scripts to ad tracking companies and one to a script to cycle the ads.

Secondly just because you can't see something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I've seen this happen too but it only occurs during an auto-refresh, though not a full refresh. When content is added to the page it seems to add under the top ad banner. The ad itself then scales to cover the content. I've seen this even with some adblockers turned on which only hide the graphics not the banner itself. The slashdot story then appeard with a yellow box over it and an X on the right of it. Clicking the cross closed the invisible ad I couldn't see and then gave access to the story again.

By the way my computer has never crashed so everyone else must be doing something wrong.

Re:Slashdot in twenty sixteen

[wkwilley2]

More than likely, it's my work's proxy server filtering out the ads I'm not seeing on my end.

Even uBlock doesn't do this good of a job.

Re:It's not exculpatory evidence...

[Opportunist]

Yeah, those fuckin' bible thumpers... not only do they blame the poor immigrants for the shit they do, they can't even be assed to learn how to properly pronounce his name.

Re:Nothing but an IP address?

[Maow]

I'm not even clear why a polygraph is even in the mix here. Frankly, I think the things should be outright outlawed, and it should lead to prison sentences for any officer of the court to try to use one. It's pseudo-scientific quackery whose only purpose is to bully the uninformed.

Leave the e-meters to the $cientologists.

I had a discussion with an ex cop who ran polygraphs for the police (VPD) and asked him what good they were for since they couldn't be used in court.

My opinion of them is / was roughly in line with yours.

He made some really good points though.

For one thing, there are two "persons of interest" but they're having a hard time knowing which to focus on (works better for larger pools of suspects). After polygraphs, one stands out has having lied. Sure this isn't 100% accurate, and isn't evidence in court (thankfully), however it can help police determine where to focus their investigation.

Not foolproof, but better than nothing nine times out of ten, plus or minus 3%, etc. with the usual disclaimers.

Another point was that he sometimes was able to built a rapport with the person being polygraphed and that could get the suspect talking - answering questions outside of what was asked under polygraph, where simple questioning hadn't worked.

Finally, most suspects weren't very sophisticated and thought the machines infallible, so if he told them they "failed" the polygraph, and "Come on, you failed badly, we both know you did it - why don't you just tell me what happened?" sometimes worked and got confessions from, amongst others, a serial rapist. The confession came with verifiable claims that did lead to proof beyond a reasonable doubt and conviction(s).

So I wouldn't want to outlaw the things, and I'm still very uncomfortable with them being used by employers (because they don't have to meet a burden of "beyond a reasonable doubt" using evidence collected elsewhere, making them ripe for abuse).

Re:Nothing but an IP address?

[MightyMartian]

As to your first point, it isn't reliable nine times out of ten. It's likely no more accurate than a placebo (i.e. having the suspect give testimony into a microphone hooked up to a computer and claiming the computer can determine whether he is lying or not).

As to the second point, it's just a prop.

As to the third point, yes, it has a psychological effect providing the suspect believes it is effective. But relying on the ignorance of suspects seems a pretty piss poor way to guarantee you're getting useful testimony.

The American Psychology Psychological Association has a pretty good writeup on it:
http://www.apa.org/research/ac...

In particular:

The accuracy (i.e., validity) of polygraph testing has long been controversial. An underlying problem is theoretical: There is no evidence that any pattern of physiological reactions is unique to deception. An honest person may be nervous when answering truthfully and a dishonest person may be non-anxious. Also, there are few good studies that validate the ability of polygraph procedures to detect deception. As Dr. Saxe and Israeli psychologist Gershon Ben-Shahar (1999) note, "it may, in fact, be impossible to conduct a proper validity study." In real-world situations, it's very difficult to know what the truth is.

So we have is a machine built on a faulty set of assumptions about behavior that it is probably could never be verified, which utterly undermines your first point. It simply does not detect lies. Full stop.

Re:Nothing but an IP address?

[dacullen]

In this case the shyster IP lawyers were trying to use it as a tool to intimidate their target. These scum are only interested in one thing, $$$$$. Protection of rights is just any excuse to extort the less powerful. Wehn he agreed, they understood that he intended to fight their extortion scheme and had to take a new tact.

Re:What's%20with%20spelling?

[WallyL]

Whew, for a moment, I thought it was in binary!

Judging murder with an MRI

[NewYork]

Judging murder with an MRI
http://www.wired.co.uk/magazin...

Re:Judging murder with an MRI

[ooloorie]

That article seems to describe the use of fMRI as a familiarity detector, not a lie detector. Furthermore, the fact that an Indian court accepts something as evidence doesn't mean it's scientifically valid. As the SciAm article points out, there are charlatans trying to sell fMRI for all sorts of legal and business purposes, and that is a bad thing.

Using an fMRI as evidence in court out to require very large scale studies and very high statistical confidence. That kind of proof simply doesn't exist for any fMRI studies, let alone lie detection by fMRI.

Re: Slashdot in twenty sixteen

[Spottywot]

With good enough Karma you don't get ads here, frankly the ads on Slashdot are OK, targeted at the audience and not offensive. A model for online ads if you ask me.

Re: Slashdot in twenty sixteen

[thegarbz]

With good enough Karma you don't get ads here

Of course you do. Just because they are small and unobtrusive and disguised as "announcements" (the actual title of the div block) doesn't make it any less of an advert.

I do agree though, as far as ads go these don't worry me. But bug, feature, or whatever it is that causes new articles to appear under the ad banner and cause the ad banner to expand to cover it requiring you to close it before you have access to the article doesn't seem to be a good model.