SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
| reply to taar
Re: Iunno
Now I see where you're coming from. Sorry about that. I'm not sure what P2P programs allow uploading of a file being downloaded besides Bit Torrents. I'm guessing your chances of getting caught would be rare in these instances since the window of exposure is only as long as it takes to download the file. |
|
taar
join:2000-11-21
 ·Charter Pipeline
| reply to SRFireside
said by SRFireside  :Not if you move the files you just downloaded off that folder. If they are not in that folder they are not automatically shared. Ok. I am not trying to argue or prove you wrong. I am just trying to understand this thing better. You cant move the currently downloading file while its downloading. Therefore, you have no choice but to upload and share. |
|
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX | reply to taar
Not if you move the files you just downloaded off that folder. If they are not in that folder they are not automatically shared. |
|
taar
join:2000-11-21
·Charter Pipeline
| reply to SRFireside
said by SRFireside :You can stop uploading by moving the files from the default download folder of the program into something else. Most P2P programs give you the option of picking which drives, folders, files you want shared to the world. The program also creates its own folder to store the files you downloaded. While you can tell the program not to share any of your own files or folders it will always share what you download. So all you need to do is move the files from that download folder. It's a little chore, but if you want to just download and not share anything that's the way to do it. So technically i am correct. No matter what files you move around, you have no choice but to, at the very least, share what you are currently downloading. Therefore, since all downloaders are also temporary uploaders, RIAA could sue everyone. |
|
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
| reply to taar
You can stop uploading by moving the files from the default download folder of the program into something else. Most P2P programs give you the option of picking which drives, folders, files you want shared to the world. The program also creates its own folder to store the files you downloaded. While you can tell the program not to share any of your own files or folders it will always share what you download. So all you need to do is move the files from that download folder.
It's a little chore, but if you want to just download and not share anything that's the way to do it. |
|
taar
join:2000-11-21
·Charter Pipeline
| reply to Just The Facts
said by Just The Facts:
The RIAA and MPAA have NEVER, EVER, EVER, EVER FILED A CASE OVER DOWNLOADING music or movies. They are filing against people offering/serving/allowing downloads. They have all the evidence neccessary to prove the transaction. It is the RIAA that is downloading the copyrighted material. They have the IP of the account serving the material, a time/date stamp of the transfer (to the RIAA), and the complete file. The only thing they can't prove is the actual person who allowed the serving. They do have the account owner and they are legally responsible for want is on/served from their computer so it is usually a slam dunk.
But if i remember correctly, there is no way to completely stop sharing with these file sharing programs. You can limit your upload to 1K with readily available software but there is still a trickle from your computer going out. Therefore, potentially, everyone can be sued because uploads cannot be stopped. Someone correct me if i am wrong. |
|
mjcrocket
Mjc
join:2000-12-02
Abingdon, MD
| reply to jwsmiths4
said by jwsmiths4 : I still thought that the RIAA had a lot more to prove in that they must show that they have direct evidence that the defendants had in fact downloaded the files they are being charged with downloading. In civil court, the burden of proof is on the Defendant; not the prosecution! The Defendant has to prove that they did NOT do or cause what they are being accused of. The RIAA or any other person or agency doesn't really have to prove anything. In Civil Court the standards of evidence are very much different from Criminal Court.
While it is a little blunt; but in Civil Court it is basically GUILTY until proved NOT GUILTY. |
|
Just The Facts
@bls.com
| reply to Cyron
said by Cyron :While they may have the complete file, they didn't download any of the file from the person being sued. They're matching the hash from a verified source and then just look to see if you have a file with the same hash. For P2P networks that don't hash files, they're just looking at the name of the file being shared. Not any more. They actually download the file as proof. She probably settled because she was going to lose that argument. |
|
Cyron
join:2002-09-24
Charlotte, NC
| reply to Just The Facts
While they may have the complete file, they didn't download any of the file from the person being sued. They're matching the hash from a verified source and then just look to see if you have a file with the same hash.
For P2P networks that don't hash files, they're just looking at the name of the file being shared.
This came up last year when a woman in California tried to argue that since they didn't download the file from her, she technically was not distributing copyright material (only offering to distribute). I never heard what happened with that case, so she must have settled. |
|
IT Guy
Ow, My Balls
Premium
join:2004-07-29
Las Cruces, NM
clubs:
·Comcast
| reply to jwsmiths4
RIAA still has to prove, in some fashion, that the person they are accusing are in fact responsible. Where the difference occurs between criminal and civil burden of proof is how the evidence is weighed. With criminal cases, the State must prove guilt 100% for a conviction (decided by jury for the most part). With civil, the plaintiff only needs to persuade the judge by 51% for a conviction (judgement against the defendant would be more appropriate). The burden is still on the plaintiff, but the rules are more relaxed as far as evidence is concerned.
As far as fiberguy's observation of debt collectors, if the debtor has filed for bankruptcy and upon notification of filing of any creditor or collection agency, any attempt to contact the debtor will result in a fine of ~ $500. (in my state anyway).
--
My time is a piece of wax, falling on a termite, that's choking on a splinter. --Beck |
|
Just The Facts
@bls.com
| reply to jwsmiths4
The RIAA and MPAA have NEVER, EVER, EVER, EVER FILED A CASE OVER DOWNLOADING music or movies. They are filing against people offering/serving/allowing downloads. They have all the evidence neccessary to prove the transaction. It is the RIAA that is downloading the copyrighted material. They have the IP of the account serving the material, a time/date stamp of the transfer (to the RIAA), and the complete file. The only thing they can't prove is the actual person who allowed the serving. They do have the account owner and they are legally responsible for want is on/served from their computer so it is usually a slam dunk.
|
|
stet
Volitar Prime
join:2002-03-08
Warren, MI
| reply to jwsmiths4
She's not being sued for downloading, she is being sued for uploading (sharing). They have a list of songs that were shared from the IP that her ISP claims she was using at the time. That is their direct evidence.
--
I am of the stars.
I am called "Forever".
Eternity courses through my veins. |
|
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| reply to jwsmiths4
Yes, in a civil case, the curden is on the claimant. The defendant still has to answer the complaint, but in a case like this, I doubt much will need to be done by the defendant.
I have a feeling, in this case, the "my wireless access point" was the culprit. This does break away from my normal feeling that you should secure your AP, however, the case is against the person for the action of the downloads.
One other thing, though the courts are there to hear cases, judges and some court districts get pissy about certain cases. If they start to see a bunch of these RIAA cases entering their courts, judges and magestrates are probably likely to start ruling against the RIAA or force people into arbitration as a message to these yo-yos to knock off the petty cases and/or take it to congress, or even other routes. I say this in example of another area I am familiar with. Abusive debt collectors. There was a time where these cases flew through court rooms and debt collectors were pounded and paid alot of money to debtors because of their abusive actions. However, because there were so many, you are now seeing courts changing their ways and they are now no longer giving out big judgements. They are still ruling in favor of the debtor, but the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow isn't there any more. This is to try and curb the suites and have this type of case handled outside the courts. I think judges will get tired of hearing these cases, if they start making it to court, and make it so that it's not favorable for the suites to be filed.
Just my opinion. |
|
jwsmiths4
Part Man, Part Mac
Premium
join:2003-10-25
Savannah, GA
| reply to IT Guy
No these aren't criminal cases (yet, thank God). I still thought that the RIAA had a lot more to prove in that they must show that they have direct evidence that the defendants had in fact downloaded the files they are being charged with downloading. I mean it would be easy for the RIAA to just list everyone in the world as being guilty of using file-sharing networks at one time or another, but in these cases I think they have to show that such and such person downloaded this file and we can prove that by.... type of reasoning.
Sorry I'm probably way off but regardless the RIAA still sucks for the way in which they treat this. I mean sure its wrong to illegally download music and I don't do that anymore. But if you want to stop the younger people from doing it you need to make affordable legal online music selection available. Why should I have to buy the whole Trapt CD when I only want 3 songs off it. iTunes is a great start but now they're under pressure to raise their song prices and we still can't get every song label to allow distribution via iTunes so its still not the perfect solution.
WAKE UP RIAA/MPAA
--
My fiancé calls me the high-priest of Macdom. Wish Apple would open an Apple Store in Savannah so I'd have somewhere cool to work before Med-School. |
|
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX | reply to Goldman
What will actually happen is the RIAA will drop the case and it will be swept under the rug like the other 9,000 suits we haven't heard from. Remember folks this sort of story is happening all the time. It's just we never hear about the outcome. |
|
IT Guy
Ow, My Balls
Premium
join:2004-07-29
Las Cruces, NM
clubs:
·Comcast
| reply to jwsmiths4
I thought these lawsuits were civil. If that's true then the burden of proof is far less restricting. All RIAA would need to show for proof is by a preponderance of the evidence and not beyond a reasonable doubt, which would make it more difficult for a defendant to succeed. I highly doubt she's been charged criminally.
--
My time is a piece of wax, falling on a termite, that's choking on a splinter. --Beck |
|
jwsmiths4
Part Man, Part Mac
Premium
join:2003-10-25
Savannah, GA
| reply to Pirate515
True, I was thinking though that the RIAA still has to accuse them of stealing specific information so it really is just a matter of making the RIAAs claims seem weaker than they already are. It isn't a crime to use KaZaa (legally at least) so it still becomes a matter of just down-playing their evidence.
--
My fiancé calls me the high-priest of Macdom. Wish Apple would open an Apple Store in Savannah so I'd have somewhere cool to work before Med-School. |
|
Pirate515
Premium
join:2001-01-22
Brooklyn, NY
|  reply to jwsmiths4
said by jwsmiths4 :I don't think that for her case to be successful she'll have to prove that no one in her household ever engaged in online file-sharing. Really all she has to prove is that their "evidence" is not sound enough to prove that she was engaged in it, beyond a reasonable doubt. I think you have it confused with a criminal case. If this was a criminal case, then indeed she would presumed innocent until RIAA can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she is guilty. However, this is a civil case, and it's all a matter of whose evidence looks better to a judge or jury. So you are not off the hook that easy in civil court, if you are going to take on RIAA, you better come prepared.
On the other hand, if I happen to be on a jury on RIAA vs. someone case, my vote goes against RIAA no matter what evidence they present.
--
Ask me no questions, and I'll tell you no lies...
A MESSAGE to the RIAA and the MPAA: You shouldn't wound what you can't kill... |
|
n2jtx
join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY
·Optimum Online
| reply to Kearnstd
said by Kearnstd :]suburban white plains, ny=too much money to know what to do with it all. shes most likely loaded and can afford one of them fancy lawyers.
Depends on what part of White Plains you are talking about. No information is given as to exactly where in White Plains she is but there are areas I wouldn't walk around in, even in the daytime. Now if by "Suburban White Plains" they mean a place like Harrison or Rye Brook, then that would be a different story. --
I support the right to keep and arm bears. |
|
Goldman
join:2002-06-21
Maumelle, AR | reply to primal98
They'll make an example out of her and try to crucify her for fighting back. Hopefully she will get some help and win, but I think she will end up paying a massive amount in the long run. |
|
