Nearly 100,000 P2P Users Sued In the Past Year 254
An anonymous reader writes "The avalanche of copyright infringement lawsuits in the United States, mainly against BitTorrent users, are about to hit a dubious milestone. In total 99,924 defendants have been sued in the last 12 months, and new cases are being filed at a rapid rate. Adult companies in particular have embraced the profitable pay-up-or-else scheme where tens of millions of dollars are at stake."
Though, as other readers point out, both judges and cable companies are getting tired of the endless subpoenas in P2P porn cases.
problem solved (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Proxies are seriously slow unless you configure your own in some way, or know someone with a nice low-user high-speed setup in an anonymous location.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, but they are. Well, maybe not seeding, but certainly with logging P2P clients which log your IP when you share with them.
The only way to be really protected is using a proxy/VPN.
See http://bitaudit.com/ [bitaudit.com] for example.
Re: (Score:2)
given that all of these lawsuits are over uploads, not downloads, couldn't you just...not upload?
I mean really, how hard is that?
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How about the rest of the relevant statistics? (Score:5, Insightful)
Speaking of statistic, 100,000 is starting to be a big group of.....voters. Especially if you include the families of those affected.
Big enough to make the difference in some marginal seats.
Perhaps it's time to start asking questions of which politicians do and don't support these legal actions.
Politiians are whores for your votes - perhaps it's time to start using that fact.
Re:How about the rest of the relevant statistics? (Score:4, Insightful)
> Perhaps it's time to start asking questions of which politicians do and don't support these legal actions.
And when they promise not to support this but then do?
And then you look for somebody else for the next election, and then they also promise not to but then do?
The fundamental problem here is: you cant punish politicians for outright lying other than not voting for them the next time. But because there always pass several years between the elections, the electorate simply forgets who broke what promise years ago. They tend to trust their guts and weight recent believeable promises way more than on long forgotten lies. Knowing that, in order to get elected you merely have to make believeable promises. After being elected you then can base your decisions on what to actually _do_ solely on who pays the most.
If we had a system like in Switzerland, where any law the public does not agree with can be invalidated with a successful referendum, the politicians could be trained to not to introduce laws which with a high probability would be invalidated anyway _and_ would damage their party's chances to get reelected next time. Also Switzerland has a real and more dynamical multi party system with more than merely two (identical) choices, but thats a another story.
Three-fourths of the states (Score:4, Informative)
If we had a system like in Switzerland, where any law the public does not agree with can be invalidated with a successful referendum
Then we'd have three-fourths of the states being able to pass federal laws right over the Congress's head. Such an amendment process already exists if 34 state legislatures call a convention to propose an amendment to the Constitution and 38 state legislatures ratify the amendment.
Re: (Score:2)
you've said "state legislatures", GP said "where the public does not agree". Your solution just brings the same problem to the different people, you cannot trust that state legislatures will do what voters wish for.
Passing a law (Score:2)
the states would be able to undo laws being passed, not necessarily pass laws themselves.
A supermajority of states can amend the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, trumping even the United States Code. How does amending the Constitution not count as passing a law?
Re: (Score:2)
That's not a "fix", it's a "workaround".
Depends if it's a bug or a feature . . .
Re:How about the rest of the relevant statistics? (Score:4, Interesting)
We do have a system like that here in California. It is not working extremely well as the people just keep voting in spending increases while voting down tax increases.
Re:How about the rest of the relevant statistics? (Score:4, Interesting)
It could be worse. They could be voting for both spending increases and tax increases.
Taxes never balance the budget in a situation like you've apparently got, because when an "acceptable deficit level" is found, all that increasing taxes does is mask the cost of the spending and make it appear that even even more increases are possible...
Re: (Score:2)
It could be worse. They could be voting for both spending increases and tax increases.
Taxes never balance the budget in a situation like you've apparently got, because when an "acceptable deficit level" is found, all that increasing taxes does is mask the cost of the spending and make it appear that even even more increases are possible...
How exactly would the people demonstrating a willingness to pay for what they want their government to provide be "worse"? Wouldn't that be the definition of "fiscal responsibility"?
Re: (Score:3)
And when they promise not to support this but then do?
Well, some may view it as extreme for breaking one promise, but the official could always be recalled [wikipedia.org]. Remember Gray Davis? A big stink was made about how he essentially was kicked out of office by the people. Massive media circus.
If someone blatantly balks on their promises to a large degree, the people always have the option to initiate the recall vote. I'm personally note sure if it's an option in all states or just a few; it really should be available everywhere.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh and what that guy earlier said about ha
MPAA studios own TV news (Score:5, Insightful)
Politiians are whores for your votes
Major copyright owners can provide more votes than concerned members of the public because major copyright owners control the major U.S. television news media. This lets major copyright owners manipulate voters' awareness of both issues and candidates [pineight.com].
Policitians are not whores for votes (Score:2)
Politicians are whores for corporate money. They then become johns, where they use that money to pay for advertising, rallies, and such. We are the scabies who follow around the whores and the johns. When it's all over, for some reason, the politician with the most scabies declares themselves the winner.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How about the rest of the relevant statistics? Ie. how many of those actually went to court, and in how many of those did the judge actually rule in benefit of the porn company? Just saying that 100,000 people got sued doesn't really tell enough.
I'm not too good with spreadsheets and I can't see such information in the article itself.
The fact this number of people in the U.S. were sued is sufficient enough reason for me to avoid file sharing completely. No disposition of case is easier than not having been sued at all. Regardless of my beliefs on the ethics of file sharing or the dubious length of copyright holder rights, there are far many other causes of greater concern than for me to waste my time or risk significant legal exposure to prove I'm right on a point that could be argued correctly ad infinitum on either side of the coin, e
So what's a "victim" to do? (Score:5, Interesting)
So you get an extortion note. Then what? Do you settle? If not, do you hire a lawyer? Do you do nothing and wait to see if an actual trial happens?
Who's to say that someone isn't being naughty and spoofing your address? Or perhaps someone has sniffed enough of your wireless AP traffic to divine the password and go to town downloading crap?
Re: (Score:2)
This is prohibition 2.0
Smiting the random, in an attempt to hold back the tide.
Re:So what's a "victim" to do? (Score:5, Informative)
I don't think "theft" means what you think it does. http://memset.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/piracy-vs-theft.jpg [wordpress.com]
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Almost all wifi routers set up by cable companies are using WEP. A billion years ago the FBI had a news conference about WEP security which is anything but secure, and demonstrated it can be broken in 2 minutes. That was well after anyone with a remote interest in network knew how bad it was.
Most people can use applications they download, most people have no idea about different security protocols. A secure icon and entering a password has every indication they are secure. My entire neighborhood believes th
Re: (Score:2)
A billion years ago the FBI had a news conference about WEP security which is anything but secure, and demonstrated it can be broken in 2 minutes
.
Well in practice, it's more like 10 to 30 minutes, once you are used to doing it.
First you need to find a WEP AP, and where I live, they are few and far between. Everything is WPA or WPA2.
Then it has to be not too far away so that you have a good signal.
Then you need a supported network card. USB wifis are cheap, but you may have to try several until you find one that actually works for injectionj.
Then you need various software (or a Backtrack VM) and know how to use it.
Once you have the right wifi card an
Re:So what's a "victim" to do? (Score:5, Interesting)
Seriously, if you want the content then pay for it
Mod parent up.
It's time to face facts - Torrenting copywritten videos and audio files is eventually going to get you bitten - And you can make all the academic arguements you want about 'data wanting to be free' and blah blah blah but the fact remains that as things sit today the law isn't on your side. Do I rip my DVDs and put them on my iPod? Absolutely. Do I share those rips online? No damn way.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously, if you want the content then pay for it
Mod parent up.
It's time to face facts - Torrenting copywritten videos and audio files is eventually going to get you bitten - And you can make all the academic arguements you want about 'data wanting to be free' and blah blah blah but the fact remains that as things sit today the law isn't on your side. Do I rip my DVDs and put them on my iPod? Absolutely. Do I share those rips online? No damn way.
Go away mom.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I simply can't pay for the content I want, because nobody wants to sell it so me because of the country I live in. See my longer reply to the grandparent.
Services like iTunes and Amazon carry the stuff I'm interested in, but will not sell to IP addresses or credit-card holders in my geographical location.
And it's not some weird backwater that I live in. It's basically Amsterdam in the Netherlands.
But as soon as you live outside the main target market, you can often only obtain certain content illegally. How
Re: (Score:3)
Do I rip my DVDs and put them on my iPod? Absolutely.
And you do realize that ripping your own encrypted DVD and putting it on your own iPod is 100% illegal because you circumnavigated the DRM of the disc, right? By doing that, you are as guilty of breaking the law as anyone downloading the same disc. That is, unless all you own are $2 Laurel and Hardy DVDs where the company didn't bother to encrypt the disc at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Netflix.
They will mail you discs, if you rip them no one would ever know. You should never do that though, it would make you almost as bad a person as the MPAA executives.
Re: (Score:2)
See, you keep this cycle of being fed crap. You keep this cycle of DRM going, and you keep this cycle of corps crying over non existance loss in profits going.
You're missing my point- You can get on whatever rightous high horse you want, but the fact remains that if you keep torrenting Dexter or Star Trek or whatever then sooner or later you are going to get bitten, and it's going to cost you a lot of money. You can spend thousands and go all the way to the courts, and you'll lose. If you don't want to g
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Most signs point to the mass lawsuits not holding up, and on an individual level it's completely unprofitable.
TFA indicates that 100K people were sued last year alone, with the average defendant settling out of court for $1000, as $1K is considerably cheaper than the cost of going to court. Doesn't sound to me like it's not working...
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't want to get bitten, go on Rotten Tomatoes to see what's good, then order it from Netflix.
There is a slight problem with this solution. The series I am most interested in getting and seeing again was never released on VHS or DVD as far as I know. I haven't checked any torrent sites yet, so I don't know if there are any episodes floating around out there, but I would otherwise be willing to fork over some hard earned $$ to HB (or whoever controls the rights) if they would go ahead and put out a DVD boxed set of what was one of my top favorite cartoons back in the early 70s: Sinbad Jr. and His [youtube.com]
Re:So what's a "victim" to do? (Score:5, Insightful)
So, in your twisted little world, you consider it perfectly allright for someone to sue a kid, a college student, or someone who might not have top not security skills for millions of dollars for a movie that might cost $15 to watch at a theater.
You are the type of person which causes a lot of people here in the US a lot of misery because you condone extreme penalties for relatively small infractions. No wonder why our jails are packed with nonviolent inmates. But, I'm sure you have Corrections Company of America stock, so every person in jail is more cash in your pocket.
Realistically, each violation should be something like $50 to $100 or something like that. Condoning far greater amounts just means you condone tyranny.
Re:So what's a "victim" to do? (Score:4, Interesting)
It just doesn't matter. You are expected to secure your wifi and not doing so isn't a blanket excuse. If it were then everyone would leave their wifi open and there would be no suits.
Of course it matters, as it inserts 'reasonable doubt' into the equation. There are also viruses, etc that factor into this.
Just beacuse they THINK i did something wrong does not make it true, and they need to prove it was *me*. I am speaking from expirence to the extent that years ago my Linux based router ( back in the dialup days, not recently ) was hacked into and was turned into a Russian porn IRC bot for a day ( it was quickly discovered and remedied, and I notified the next guy in the chain as a good citizen ). But who knows what could have happens for those 8 hours or so. Major corporations are hit to, it really can happen to the best of us.
The only thing i'm guilty of if i get hacked is violating my AUP with my ISP. Its not much different than if someone steals my locked car and uses it in a crime. I didn't commit a crime.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
>'reasonable doubt'
Kids are so civically illiterate these days. It's a civil suit; all the jury needs is "preponderance of the evidence" to nail you, a much, much lower bar.
Re: (Score:2)
But you forget that the media giants are buying laws so its considered criminal. ( so that tax dollars are used instead of their own )
It already is if they trump up the dollar amounts.
Re:So what's a "victim" to do? (Score:4, Informative)
"Of course it matters, as it inserts 'reasonable doubt' into the equation."
Instead of using my mod points in this thread, I'm going to reply, because this is kinda important that people understand this.
The standard of proof in civil suits is not the same as in criminal accusations. It's "preponderance of the evidence" which is fuzzy to define and varies from state to state, sometimes reducing lawsuits to a crapshoot, which is why many people and companies sue for the sake of suing as if it's a lottery.
"Reasonable doubt" is not enough to defend yourself in a civil suit.
For a definition, see:
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Preponderance+of+Evidence [thefreedictionary.com]
--
BMO
Re:So what's a "victim" to do? (Score:4, Insightful)
Ah, sorry, I consider supporting antidemocratic forces with money unethical. I'd rather pay for proxies and VPN tunnels.
<i>not having it probably won't hurt you much.</i>
Certainly not. But someone else might want it, in which case I can help them by sharing.
<i>In short, they are slowly tightening this noose</i>
Hardly. With nextgen f2f and darknets it'll slip permanently out of reach.
<i>Can we start to agree to stop playing this sick game with the content creators</i>
You misspelled content controllers. The content creators are on the sidelines as they, as a general rule, are already getting screwed out of any money by the industry.
This is not a game. The economic burden of IPR is unmaintainable in a free market economy and will become ever less bearable as production costs in the rest of the economy fall and the monopoly effects of IPR render the affected economies uncompetitive. The control burden is incompatible with free speech and freedom in general. The political burden of having private taxation rights like IPR automatically lead to corruption and alienation from voters.
Re: (Score:2)
It just doesn't matter. You are expected to secure your wifi and not doing so isn't a blanket excuse. If it were then everyone would leave their wifi open and there would be no suits.
There is no law, legal requirement, or precedent (AFAIK) that one must secure your router.
Adding to that, there is no law saying the owner of the router is to be punished for unauthorized but illegal use of their network.
Otherwise, people who pirate on coffee shop networks would therefore get the coffee shop in trouble.
BTW, if
Re: (Score:2)
I'd pay for it if I could.
That's my main argument for TV shows.
I suppose I could technically wait for months until the shows air here in Sweden (because the producers of the content don't want to upset the swedish TV channels by allowing online distribution through the iTunes store or similar venues) but then there's the issue of me not having a TV.
I am willing to pay for TV shows but I can't unless you count "wait for months and then watch a version with commercials at a predetermined time on a device I do
Re: (Score:2)
Most stuff I'm interested in doesn't even get picked up by any of the local radio/TV. I live in the Netherlands but happen to have very international tastes.
There are two separate issues:
- Regional availability
- Format
Neither should be a problem in the Internet Age, but they are.
Re:So what's a "victim" to do? (Score:5, Insightful)
...
Personally I think it is time to just stop with the torrents. They expose people to too much risk. Even if they aren't exposing you to risk then you are exposing your neighbor by using their wireless. And if you are using TOR you're slowing that down for everyone and stop it.
Seriously, if you want the content then pay for it. if you can't afford it then don't watch/listen. I can almost guarantee that losing the latest stuff that the porn industry has turned out will in no way impair your enjoyment of life. If it isn't available in your country then it isn't. The same caveat applies...not having it probably won't hurt you much. ...
We can vote with our dollars here. I personally gave up torrents probably two years ago and I really don't miss it. There are a few legal avenues that work and are not too expensive. For the stuff that is too hard to get I ignore it. It will either eventually be legal to buy cheaply or I'll just simply never see it. Can we start to agree to stop playing this sick game with the content creators where they try to make us pay and we try not to?
First off, I'd like to say, fuck you.
It don't matter if I use torrent to get copy right material or not. In fact, even if torrents ceased to exist the Corps would still use piracy as an excuse.
You don't understand. Piracy is just an excuse to Corporation to apply crappy drm and laws to try to maximize their profit. That is all. They are still making money, they are just crying because in stead of getting $3 billion, they are getting $1 or $2 Billion in profit.
I don't buy most stuff. Music, Movies, TV Shows, most games (I do buy some games), I download. Guess what? I wouldn't buy most that shit anyways. Movies? I can go without. TV Shows? I can, well, watch on TV. Games? Most the ones I play, I purchase, ones I don't purchase are usually crappy shit I wouldn't give to me enemies.
And guess what? Most the peeps doing what I do, are just like me. And we aren't effecting the fucking bottom line of this out of control corporation. They are crying wolf, and you are buying it.
So, next time, before you spout "Let's get rid of torrents" learn exactly what you are saying, and maybe figure out if it would be effective.
Here's a little history.
Before Torrents there was:
Copy parties (where you'd meet in person and copy software)
BBS (Bulletion Board Systems) People would call up using their modems and download software.
Internet Age: FTP, FSP, then IRC, the P2P programs (Naspter, limewire, etc), then fucking finally Torrents.
So get fucking rid of torrents, and something new will pop up.
So, your solution, won't do shit for anyone.
And I do vote with my dollars. I don't spend it on crap, and I know the stuff is crap because I scope it out, for free, before hand. See, the corps can't put out something hoping I will be an unaware consumer and buy it up. I am a smart shopper. I can get stuff for free, so if you want me to fucking pay for it, it needs to be worth it. That is what really scares the corporations, is people like me.
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, if you want the content then pay for it. if you can't afford it then don't watch/listen. I can almost guarantee that losing the latest stuff that the porn industry has turned out will in no way impair your enjoyment of life. If it isn't available in your country then it isn't. The same caveat applies...not having it probably won't hurt you much.
I would like to pay for it. But nobody is selling it.
I'm not talking about porn. But products like movies and TV series and books.
A lot of what is produced in a certain country will never be available outside it. This certainly holds true for stuff made in Japan, India or France, but even a lot of stuff that gets made in the USA never gets outside Region 1. If you happen to be an expat, or just interested in a culture that's not your own, you often have very little legal options.
The second problem is format
Re: (Score:2)
All else being equal, most people would much rather go to court and create a public record of the dispute over whether or not they downloaded $OSCAR_NOMINEE than whether or not they downloaded "Weapons of Ass Destruction, Vol. 14"...
Re: (Score:3)
So you get an extortion note.
An offer to settle a claim out of court is not extortion.
The problem is not going to go away. Save your rants for someone who isn't billing you by the hour.
Who's to say that someone isn't being naughty and spoofing your address? Or perhaps someone has sniffed enough of your wireless AP traffic to divine the password and go to town downloading crap?
"Who's to say?"
You are.
It's your defense.
But look at what your argument implies about the taste in media, the range of the signal and the technical knowledge, persistence, and resources of your neighbors.
In a civil case, the simpler explanation almost always wins.
Re: (Score:2)
99.9999% = all but 1 in 1,000,000. So are you really claiming that less than one of the people sued in the last year wasn't guilty?
Unfortunately, these are civil issues, not criminal issues, so the ideas of "innocent until proven guilty", "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt", "you are entitled to an attorney, and if you can not afford one, one will be appointed to you" and even "you have the right to remain silent" do not apply. In particular, "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" is replaced by a "preponderan
Re: (Score:2)
Re:So what's a "victim" to do? (Score:4, Insightful)
... how about you suck it up, acknowledge you got caught, and pay the fine?
99.9999% of these people are guilty of an illegal act. Pretending otherwise is ridiculous and deliberately trying to avoid that point.
Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.
Hmm... made-up statistics, presumption of guilt. The new American justice.
Re:So what's a "victim" to do? (Score:5, Informative)
So, if I decide a TV program is out of the question for some reason (either because I can't receive it at all, or because I won't be there at broadcast time), then it is still a genuine crime that should be punishable by destroying my life with insane charges? Even though that TV content is available over free-to-air broadcast as well as freely accessible places like Hulu? Even though I am one of those who doesn't respond to commercials? Thankfully that hasn't happened to me, as I choose not to download if only to avoid the assholes out there who can't see the damage they're doing to their own brands.
The "crime": Downloading a copyrighted work.
The "fine": A demand for remittance to a private company, who claims to act on behalf of the copyright holder of the work in question, initially for an amount that is often thousands of times the fair market value of that work, and which is issued in such a manner as to bypass the courts and ignore due process entirely. If it goes to the courts, it can become a civil judgment reaching into the millions-of-dollars range (see Capitol v. Thomas, the defendant lost to the tune of $1.5M). At no point does it become a criminal charge.
The "time": Anywhere from a serious financial headache if you pay off the initial demand, to just plain bankruptcy if you lose in court. To most people, the latter may as well be life in prison.
Sorry, your argument doesn't fly here.
No free lunch. (Score:4, Interesting)
So, if I decide a TV program is out of the question for some reason (either because I can't receive it at all, or because I won't be there at broadcast time), then it is still a genuine crime that should be punishable by destroying my life with insane charges?
At no point does it become a criminal charge
In the US it can become a federal criminal charge - and it can escalate to a felony charge.
That has been the law since the NET (No Electronic Theft) Act of 1997.
P2P is all about "file sharing." The unlicensed wholesale re-distribution of protected works through P2P networks.
That is why statutory damages apply - and it is why the geek would be the first to scream bloody murder if his uploaded shares could be successfully watermarked and traced back to him.
Even though I am one of those who doesn't respond to commercials?
The geek is the gift of god in cross-examination.
His self-regard, and boundless sense of entitlement to a free media fix is the one message you want the jury to take away from his testimony.
It really doesn't get any better than this.
Worst part - it doesn't even work (Score:5, Informative)
100,000 P2P users means that if you illegally download something you have approximately a %0.25 chance of being sued. If you're trying to deter people from a behavior, you have to increase the chance that there will be negative consequences for that behavior.
And of course it doesn't help that many of those 100,000 may well be guilty of nothing. Being sued doesn't necessarily make somebody actually liable, but the RIAA's tactics are all about making the cost of defending yourself higher than the cost of settling, as NewYorkCountryLawyer has made very clear for a while now.
Re:Worst part - it doesn't even work (Score:4, Insightful)
FTFY.
... the fact that no one in power has even attempted to change it is evidence that it's intentional.
I wish this problem were limited to the RIAA. That'd be an improvement. Fact is there are two sets of law. If you are wealthy you can afford to throw lawyers at any legal challenge and tie it up in court for years even if you truly are liable. If you are an average person a lawsuit esp from a corporation is an immense threat to your livelihood even if you have broken no law.
This has been so well-known for so many years
Re:Worst part - it doesn't even work (Score:4, Insightful)
That is why the damages and fees in the cases can reach the insane. It is to make piracy not worth it.
I can make up fairy tale reasons for things too. The earth goes around the sun because banana!
The reason damages are so high is because the laws were originally written with large-scale commercial copyright infringement in mind. That used to be the only kind of copyright infringement that was feasible. The penalties have simply never been adjusted because the *AA likes it the way it is.
Out of print, now what's the value? (Score:2)
So let's say this case the movie is a $30 value
What's the market value of a copyrighted work whose copyright owner has declined to offer copies for sale to the public? Case in point: Disney's Song of the South, and Nintendo's Mother and Mother 3 outside Japan.
Re: (Score:2)
It should be 0. Refusal to sell should be an immediate loss of copyright protection. Copyright exists to entice creators to produce works for society, if you are not going to share them with society you have no right to such protection.
Re: (Score:2)
Therefore, on average the pirate loses about $720.
Yes, and the average person has one testicle, half a uterus and less that two legs.
Re: (Score:3)
It turns out the penalty for being caught doesn't make much difference. One thing criminologists generally agree on is that it's the chance of getting caught that matters much more than the consequences when you do get caught. Part of it is that our monkey brains don't do a good job calculating the situations with a really small chance of something bad happening but really nasty consequences if it happens.
Title is misleading (Score:2, Insightful)
FTFY
Re:Title is misleading (Score:5, Informative)
You know, using P2P is not illegal, and has many non-copyright infringing uses...
What if all 100,000 turned on the companies? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
They'd just drop the weakest suits, and nail the others for millions. Remember, they can walk away from the suit pretty much whenever they want.
Re: (Score:2)
So pull the leverage to your side. If you sue them for lost wages in dealing with their frivolous harassment, then they don't have the option of dropping that suit. If you sue for harassment in general, they don't get to say "Nevermind, we weren't harassing you...suit dropped".
It may be an expense they expect, but the time suck will make it completely worthless for them to continue with that tactic.
I2P (Score:2, Interesting)
This is why I now only use I2P Postman (anonymous bittorrent) for movies and games. Demonoid for books.
I2P usually takes a few days to download a 1080p movie, but it is worth the wait with the security and anonymity.
Re: (Score:3)
I can't quite figure out, with all the free porn out there, why anyone would want to actual pirate any of it. I mean, fucking is fucking, right?
Re: (Score:3)
Anonymity is essentially non-existant on the internet. You can make it difficult for people, but you'll never be 100% anonymous.
Re:I2P (Score:4, Interesting)
Great. Clog up the exit nodes of I2P and TOR so that users with a real political need can't access the web.
At least get a VPN that terminates in Scandinavia.
Re: (Score:2)
From their website:
Many applications are available that interface with I2P, including mail, peer-peer, IRC chat, and others.
They also have the sections "I2P BitTorrent", "I2Phex" and "iMule". I'm pretty sure they don't discourage it.
Tor is different, and yes, you should keep P2P out of it.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Demonoid? Here, a little tip for you, "private tracker" doesn't mean a damn thing. Your actions aren't private.
Your actions are as public as any other tracker.
The term private tracker should be erased from existence since it gives people a false sense of security with the word private.
If you managed to get in to an invite-only tracker, you can bet your ass that media companies got in long before you did.
They have people dedicated to searching sites and chats for new information on trackers, invites and ge
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting, the website says $55 a year and up for specials. I'm guessing regulars are even more expensive?
Re: (Score:2)
Which is fine until StrongVPN get subponaed. See for example hushmail.
Re: (Score:2)
If you use a VPN from a different country it should be mostly fine. I doubt they'll spend the time and money to ask a different country's legal system to subpoena the company and get the logs back - even if it's legal.
Good! (Score:2)
Remember saying "Napster is just a search engine, sue the users who are actually committing copyright infringement"? It's good to see the recording industry is doing that. Those who are guilty deserve to be convicted and fined. They should be fined around the $1-$10 per item cost of the materiel they're warezing, but that's a different matter.
Re: (Score:3)
Copyrighting information (Score:4, Funny)
The U.S: government should just copyright all it's confidential documents. Then any newspaper publishing the diplomatic cables given to Wikileaks would be liable for copyright infringement. So would the thousands who download any other leaked document. And so would Wikileaks for received the documents and not destroying them right away.
Copyright law sure is awesome.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Whether or not you or I agree with those access restrictions is an entirely different matter,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The Federal Government cannot own copyrights by law.
profitable, you say? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
halp (Score:2)
I'm one of the guys who received one of these letters over a porn torrent. It instructs me to log into their website (I haven't) to find out how much they want, offer's off the table March something yada yada. My ISP guy suggests I just lie low and ignore the thing.
What do?
Re: (Score:2)
Call a lawyer.
Off-topic, but actually on-topic (Score:5, Insightful)
Settle-or-else cases need to be made illegal.
Last year I was driving in Glasgow city centre for the first time, and I drove along an unmarked bus lane. (Signs in the wrong place, no markings on the road, etc.) Two police officers stopped me and although they knew the lane was inadequately marked, they had been told to give everyone a ticket so that's what they did. They said it would never go to court and, even if it did, I was sure to win. They were really nice about it, or so I thought at the time.
Months later I received notice of court action, with an offer to avoid court action by paying a £60 fine. That's when I spoke to a lawyer for advice. His advice with to just pay it, because the system is stacked against you.
Here's what would happen if I didn't pay:
1. I'd have to go to court TWICE in a city hundreds of miles away. Let's say £40 fuel each time. If I had to stay overnight then let's say another £40 for a hotel each time. So that's £160.
2. Courts are known for ignoring the law on bus lanes. Legally the lane must be marked in certain ways, but courts don't take that in to account. If the lane is registered with the council as bus-only then you've broken the law.
3. In the very unlikely event that you win, you can't claim back your fuel / hotel costs, or any kind of compensation.
This has been going on for decades.
All the record / movie companies are doing now is exactly what the police have been doing for a very long time. They give people two choices:
1. Pay a relatively small fee to avoid court action, or
2. Prove yourself innocent and pay more.
As much as I can see the bad side of what I'm about to say, I believe the law needs to change so that settlement offers are outlawed. Police, councils, individuals, copyright holders, or whoever, must either take you to court or leave you alone. Intimidation, which is the intent of settlement offers, should be a criminal offence.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm going to guess that you paid the "small fee to avoid court action."
Regardless, if this happens in the future I urge you and anyone else, to opt for the court option. It's the fact that everyone basically takes option (1) that they can get away with that kind of shenanigans.
Re: (Score:2)
I would have gone to court, even if it would have cost me more in the end, purely on principle.
Causation (Score:2)
And anonymous coward blathers ... (Score:3)
An anonymous reader writes "The avalanche of copyright infringement lawsuits in the United States, mainly against BitTorrent users, are about to hit a dubious milestone. In total 99,924 defendants have been sued in the last 12 months, and new cases are being filed at a rapid rate. Adult companies in particular have embraced the profitable pay-up-or-else scheme where tens of millions of dollars are at stake."
What utter bullshit.
Judges are throwing aggregated lawsuits out as fast as they're being filed. Both in Britain and the U.S., they've consistently ruled that individual downloaders must be sued individually - and the D.C. judge here in the States told the pr0n asshats that they had to sue individuals in their home jurisdictions for good measure. These cases may have been filed, but NONE of them has come to trial.
And none of them will, because it simply doesn't pencil out for the law firms involved. Some shysters here and in Olde Blighty thought they saw an angle to shoot - and they've gotten shot down themselves. These weasels are no credible threat to anyone. DON'T pay their extortion demands - respond with a promise to counter-sue them for defamation of character, instead. I'll bet you a shiny, new, Ohio quarter you won't hear another peep out of them.
Different thought and experience. (Score:2, Interesting)
QWEST communications shut off my internet service because they received a series of complaints regarding illegal file sharing from my address. QWEST did not notify me in advance. At about 1 PM on Monday my internet was shut off while I was watching a Youtube video. I called QWEST up to ask why; at that time I was told illegal file sharing. I was also told that I would have to file a DMCA dispute. When I asked how without a carrier, QWEST turned the line back on. At that time QWEST emailed me the DMCA compla
spankwire, etc? (Score:4, Informative)
Sounds like a business opportunity... (Score:2)
For "Lawsuit Insurance". If you worry about getting nuisance suits, which is what these are, pay a small fee and be covered for them (either hiring a lawyer, or getting reimbursed for paying the demanded amount, whichever you choose). Since the odds are small that you will be sued, the fee will be small too. The insurer has an incentive to work out the best response letters, legal tactics, etc, and supply them to their customers.
Hey, porn industry. (Score:2)
Are VPN user's being sued? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:400 million to go (Score:4, Interesting)
Rapists and murders don't effect the media giant's revenue stream. In fact they enhance it due to 'made for TV movies' and pseudo 'news commentatry' shows that come out of the drawn out court cases.
Re: (Score:2)