 LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | You own the link; you pay the fine quote:
An individual would download a movie, using bittorrent, and infringe copyright. And that might be our customer, like Bob Smith who owns a Sonic.net account, or it might be their spouse, or it might be their child. Or it might be one of his three roommates in a loft in San Francisco, who Bob is not responsible for, and who rent out their loft on AirBnB and have couch surfers and buddies from college and so on and open Wifi.
If you own the link, it is your responsibility for what happens on it. And Open Wifi is not an option that is acceptable as an excuse. Jasper's little storyline is just more "entitlement" excuses.
In a civil lawsuit, the rules of criminal procedures don't apply. There doesn't have to be a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. |
|
| If you own the link, it is your responsibility for what happens on it. And Open Wifi is not an option that is acceptable as an excuse. Jasper's little storyline is just more "entitlement" excuses. |
|
LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | said by Alex J :Your opinions on this website are an embarrassment to the community.
And what community is that? The community of copyright infringers who think nothing should be paid for and that think they can take what they want, just because they want it? |
|
| A community of people who care about consumer rights and are smart enough to see the problem with wholesale scorched earth legal assaults and the assumption of guilt-by-IP address. |
|
|
|
 camaro92Question everythingPremium
join:2008-04-05
Westfield, MA
 ·Comcast
| Wow Someone who gives a big FU to any government or police on a fishing expedition is OK in my book.
It's funny in here how some champion to keep the government control out of the private sector but it should put aside to "protect the children" and of course the favorite "national security", please.
If this info is so valuable that they want then there should be no problem going through the proper channels to get a warrant. |
|
| reply to Linklist
Re: You own the link; you pay the fine Do you think Mitt ever questioned whether he should get what he wanted? Based on the "preponderance of evidence" his campaign should sue you for misusing his image and sullying his name. |
|
LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | said by Wilsdom: misusing his image and sullying his name.
It is free campaign advertising, which he encourages from his website. |
|
camaro92Question everythingPremium
join:2008-04-05
Westfield, MA | reply to Linklist
I thought we were a bunch of people who like technology and come here for good info and helping other people. Seems that isn't the case anymore. |
|
LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | reply to camaro92
Re: Wow said by camaro92:.
If this info is so valuable that they want then there should be no problem going through the proper channels to get a warrant.
It is a subpoena & not a warrant. And they do go to court to get them. Subpoena's can be disputed as Comcast has proven with a successful court case to block them in certain cases. |
|
 trparkyApple... YUMPremium,MVM
join:2000-05-24
Cleveland, OH
kudos:2
·Time Warner Cable
| This rampant copyright infringement... This rampant copyright infringement needs to stop. People need to realize that when you download the movie or song that you are taking money away from those who made that movie or song.
But... like others here, I have to agree that "guilt by IP" is bullshit. There could be any number of reasons why someone could end up getting hit for things like this. Like the article said, it could be a guest that is using your WiFi, or God forbid your machine got infected with something and your machine was used as a proxy of some sort.
Either way, this rampant copyright infringement needs to stop but "guilt by IP" is bullshit and these rapid-fire lawsuits that are targeting users also needs to stop. It's nothing but an abuse of the court system.
--
Tom
Boycott AT&T uVerse! | Tom's Android Blog | Galaxy Nexus LiquidSmooth by TeamLiquid |
|
| W.A.S.S. We are so screwed if this continued erosion of personal rights to unwarranted seizure and/or disclosure of data continues. An internet address is NOT proof that a "person" committed a crime of copyright infringement. It's a set of numbers associated with an account.
A private citizen should NOT have to have the burden of proof of innocence fall on their shoulders. Last time I recall one is innocent until proven guilty in America.
There is a real and valid need for national security as well as protection of our children
There are a lot of cretins out there who would prey on them but much of the need for protection is generated by adults who do not parent their child with real-time involvement. Too may parents are just too self-absorbed in their own petty lives to be bothered by being a parent.
The need for national security is a valid need but it does not mean that anything and everything the Feds want to do is justified and legal by labeling it as "national security" and that we do not have rights that can be rescinded on a whim. If this is to be the norm for the United States, we are doomed to fail. |
|
amungusPremium
join:2004-11-26
America | reply to camaro92
Re: You own the link; you pay the fine Well, there are still people like that. Here and elsewhere.
There just happen to be others who think that everyone who doesn't agree 100% with them on everything makes them wrong. |
|
camaro92Question everythingPremium
join:2008-04-05
Westfield, MA Reviews:
·Comcast
| reply to Linklist
Re: Wow said by Linklist: Subpoena's can be disputed as Comcast has proven with a successful court case to block them in certain cases.
OK. But a observation over the last couple years it seems an awful lot of money and time has been wasted on frivolous and just plain dumb crap like this clogging up the judicial system when it's already in a pretty bad shape. |
|
| reply to Linklist
Re: You own the link; you pay the fine You do realize that a judge has ruled that an IP Address != A Person right?
quote:
An IP address is not a Social Security number or a fingerprint. It, in the words of Judge Gary Brown of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, “provides only the location at which one of any number of computer devices may be deployed, much like a telephone number can be used for any number of telephones.”
Anyway since you think that the owner is solely responsible for their connection, what if someone broke into your WiFi and downloaded child porn or downloaded some copyrighted works that you were blamed for? I am sure you would be saying, "Well that wasn't me!!"
Besides owners of a connection should be given the benefit of the doubt. That is what our legal system is based on, innocent until proven guilty. We don't blame ISP's when someone on their network downloads something copyrighted even though they own the pipes coming into your neighborhood. Why can't the same be true for someone who has several computers at home and a home LAN. |
|
PaxioPremium
join:2011-02-23
Santa Clara, CA
kudos:1 | Go Dane! We back Dane Jasper and Sonic.net in this fight. Go Dane! |
|
LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | reply to camaro92
Re: You own the link; you pay the fine said by camaro92:I thought we were a bunch of people who like technology and come here for good info and helping other people. Seems that isn't the case anymore.
Liking technology and helping people doesn't mean helping them steal things. |
|
LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | reply to sandman_1
said by sandman_1:Anyway since you think that the owner is solely responsible for their connection, what if someone broke into your WiFi and downloaded child porn or downloaded some copyrighted works that you were blamed for? I am sure you would be saying, "Well that wasn't me!!"
Besides owners of a connection should be given the benefit of the doubt. That is what our legal system is based on, innocent until proven guilty. We don't blame ISP's when someone on their network downloads something copyrighted even though they own the pipes coming into your neighborhood. Why can't the same be true for someone who has several computers at home and a home LAN.
You, as many others do, keep confusing civil and criminal law. In the child porn example, the IP is only used to obtain a CRIMINAL search warrant. Where the police then search for proof of child porn access. The IP addr alone is not sufficient for even charging you with a crime. So owners of the connection are given the benefit of the doubt in CRIMINAL cases.
In CIVIL cases and in copyright law, it is NOT necessary to determine which person has used the IP addr to download copyrighted material. Only a preponderance of the evidence is needed, and the presumption is that the lessee of the internet connection is guilty unless THEY can prove otherwise. |
|
Mr Matt
join:2008-01-29
Eustis, FL
kudos:1 Reviews:
 ·CenturyLink
·Comcast
·Embarq Now Centu..
| reply to Linklist
Do you think an ISP can accurately identify the exact time a customer assigned an IP address. In my case Comcast could not even identify the name of a customer's located at a physical address.
The problem occurred in the late 1980's when my mother was succumbing to cancer. She needed so much skilled nursing care that she had to be placed in a nursing home. I had a telephone line and Cable Television installed in her room. Comcast required that the service be placed in her name. Unfortunately about six weeks later she passed away. I cancelled service and returned the converter to the local Comcast office and received a receipt.
Now comes the bullshit. About three months later I received a demand letter from Comcast for several hundred dollars and return of the converter box. I contacted Comcast customer service and asked the reason for the demand letter. They asked for the account number on the letter, then the address. They asked me if I was Joan Smith. I said I was her son. The representative stated that Comcast wanted payment for service that had been ordered about one week after my mother passed away, in Joan Smiths name. My mother's name was not Joan Smith. Once I got the information I needed I advised the CSR that I in fact was not Joan Smiths son and that she had passed away before the dates stated, and I gave them my mothers real name. The CSR would not accept that the demand letter was in my mothers name and not in Joan Smiths name, the CSR demanded a copy of my receipt for the returned converter and my mothers death certificate. I filed a complaint with the city cable company authority. They got the matter straightened out real fast.
If you think a ISP can accurately identify the exact time a person was assigned an IP address when they cannot even identify the physical address a customer is located at you are having delusions. |
|
| reply to Linklist
So let's extrapolate your argument further. Anyone with internet must be tech savvy or shouldn't enjoy the privilege. So if Bob Smith pays a company to plug in a wireless router, and the router isn't properly secured, Bob Smith should be sued? Here's another more plausible scenario.
Bob Smith has friends over and lets them use his wifi. Is Bob Smith suppose to make everyone sign an agreement not to use his internet to infringe upon copyright? That's not even taking into account that someone (neighbor, the local kid with some good hacking skills, etc) may piggyback his net.
If the person admits to the fact, then fine. Case closed. However, to sue the owner and then be unable to prove if the owner is guilty is nothing short of extortion. Unless you can without a doubt prove the individual has infringed, then you are basically shooting fish in a barrel hoping to catch someone.
I guess you just like big government, huh? Next up, listening to you rant why we need the government to keep us safe from terrorism and every civil liberty should go out the door. |
|
| reply to Linklist
said by Linklist:said by Wilsdom: misusing his image and sullying his name.
It is free campaign advertising, which he encourages from his website. Good Romney avatar. Looks like he has a Hitler mustache. Fits perfectly. |
|
