Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Courts Piracy The Internet Your Rights Online

Nearly 100,000 P2P Users Sued In the Past Year 254

Posted by Soulskill
from the cholesterol-for-the-courts dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Nearly 100,000 P2P Users Sued In the Past Year

Comments Filter:
  • by dkleinsc (563838) on Saturday February 05, 2011 @12:10PM (#35111948) Homepage

    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.

  • by Smauler (915644) on Saturday February 05, 2011 @12:26PM (#35112040)

    You know, using P2P is not illegal, and has many non-copyright infringing uses...

  • Re:I2P (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 05, 2011 @12:59PM (#35112220)

    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 general banter to see what to do.
    At least, the terribly greedy ones.

  • by calmofthestorm (1344385) on Saturday February 05, 2011 @01:40PM (#35112508)

    I don't think "theft" means what you think it does. http://memset.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/piracy-vs-theft.jpg [wordpress.com]

  • by tepples (727027) <tepples@[ ]il.com ['gma' in gap]> on Saturday February 05, 2011 @01:46PM (#35112560) Homepage Journal

    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.

  • by VanessaE (970834) on Saturday February 05, 2011 @01:49PM (#35112576) Homepage

    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.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 05, 2011 @04:11PM (#35113504)

    >'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.

  • spankwire, etc? (Score:4, Informative)

    by markass530 (870112) <(markass530) (at) (gmail.com)> on Saturday February 05, 2011 @04:35PM (#35113678) Homepage
    not that I've ever used any of these sits, but what about the likes of tubestack, xxhamster, and youporn, etc?? All these are straight up websites, With an infinite amount of porn, and I don't think any of it is "Public Domain Porn"
  • by bmo (77928) on Saturday February 05, 2011 @06:33PM (#35114454)

    "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

Every successful person has had failures but repeated failure is no guarantee of eventual success.

Working...