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)
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?
What if all 100,000 turned on the companies? (Score:5, Interesting)
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: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: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: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: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: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.
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.
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 complaints. After reviewing the complaints, I noticed one thing that stood out: There were multiple complaints for the same file from Media Sentry, their subsequent company Peer Media, and Warner Brothers. This was not numerous instances of file sharing, but rather a single instance complained about numerous times to inflate the number of complaints. (I caught the file later that evening and shut the node down.)
In conversations with QWEST Tech. Support escalation team, QWEST told me that their system could not be infiltrated when I mentioned that all of the local email was being used to send spam. I began to dig, as a result I found reports coming from Australia, Mexico, and Chile, as well as CERT and Security Focus warnings for the modem that the CMS carrier used to update the modems was being used to hack into customer networks. This fit in with my speculations and observations. I shut off QWEST's remote management and put Wireshark on the line. There was still unexplained communication on the line. I eventually tracked the communications to the QWEST CMS carrier. After even longer, I located the URL and IP address and firewalled them. I then pulled the software off the modem, reverse engineered part of it and prohibited communication with the QUEST update server, and then reflashed the modem. After monitoring the line for a few hours, there were no more unexplained communications from the modem. There is also no more spam being sent from the local email addresses.
After this was done (20 hours later), I filed a two page DMCA dispute using, without specificity, every defense in the DMCA. Should the mafiAA's try to come after me, I did leave out that my home network had been penetrated, but I also documented every bit of the work and calls to secure my network.
What I recommend to any that are accused, or sent notice of illegal file sharing, is to file a DMCA dispute with your carrier before any negative action is taken by the carrier, if you are notified.
Part of this story is to notify others that while QWEST asserts that they do not take action against subscribers other than to send the notice, that QWEST, along with may other carriers does in fact disable service, but that they do it without notifying you at all. Also be forewarned that the IP vice president/attorney for QWEST serves on the Board of Directors for a few IP interests.
Has anyone thought of what happens when your network is compromised by an exploit that the telco's say does not exist, but of which there are CERT advisories for, and that person is then a victim of one of these frivolous lawsuits? How many others may have the skill to stop an exploit in its tracks, esp endusers? How ethical is it for a telco to place exploitable back doors, or back doors period, in modems that they have sold you? How important is carrier privacy? How ethical is it for a carrier not to inform you as soon as they receive notice of an alleged DMCA violation?
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...