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

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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: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

[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.

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.

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

[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."

The accused pirate, Michael Amhari,

[FudRucker]

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

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

[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.

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

[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

[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: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

[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:'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: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: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.