how-to block ads
|
Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
clubs:
 ·Site5.com
 ·AT&T Midwest
 ·Comcast
| reply to iSEPIC
Re: Bad Article, Poor Advice
said by iSEPIC  : quote:
Its hard to argue when the **AA has your IP address logged, ISP records that it was your IP coming from your modem, and the items you were downloading. Unless, you weren't file sharing in the first place and can prove it.
you see, this *IS* the problem, YOU as being the defendant SHOULD NOT HAVE TO PROVE anything, they should have to prove you did it, and just having an IP address doesn't mean crap, unless you're very new to the technology, and if you are (meaning the judge for instance) you should consult. Well, look at it from this perspective...
They have your IP address.
ISP has your records as to the lease on that IP was yours.
ISP has the bills saying you are paying for the internet connection.
You are responsible for the data being transmitted on that connection.
You as the defendant can counter those claims. This person did by saying her wireless router was wide open, and someone else did it. Well, it worked because the judge let her off. Would it work again? Who knows.
Point is that the defendant can present evidence to the contrary in a civil case. If all the evidence points to the defendant, the defendant SHOULD HAVE TO PROVE they are innocent. They should have a say in the matter, like the person in the article did.
--
My Domain
Nightfall's Hockey and Life Journal | |
PolarBear
The bear formerly known as aaron8301
join:2005-01-03
Riverside, WA
·CableOne
edit:
November 6th, @12:59PM
| I don't think iSEPIC's point was how much evidence they had against you, but that the current civil suit system is simply unfair to the defendant.
You think the defendant SHOULD HAVE TO PROVE they are innocent? Ever been charged with a crime (especially a felony) Nightfall? I'm willing to bet you have NEVER had to defend yourself in a court of law. Do that, then get back to us on defendant's rights.
What if I were to sue you for $1,000,000 for whatever-I-could-come-up-with? Say, you painted your house purple and it lowered the value of mine (this happened in Seattle one time, don't remember the outcome). I had a picture of your newly-painted house, and an old and recent appraisal of my home showing this. Looks like I could surely prove my case.
Oh, but shouldn't you have the right as a US citizen and a homeowner in the US to paint your house as you see fit?
That was rhetorical; don't answer it. I was just trying to make a point. You should not be allowed to sue anyone over any bullshit you want, and if you do, the poor bastard you sue should have some rights.
In our criminal system, there are only certain things the prosecution may charge you with, and even then, they are REQUIRED to give you a lawyer (albeit a lousy one), and THEY must prove you did it beyond a reasonable doubt. And they have to do it all within 90 days unless you agree to a continuance.
Why should a criminal be afforded all those rights, yet John Doe who is a good citizen who minds his own damn business can be subjected to a frivolous lawsuit, and his only rights are to pay for his own defense and spend his own time and money to try and win?
--
"I invented it, Bill made it famous." --David Bradley, the inventor of Ctrl+Alt+Del. | |
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
Albany, NY
| Just to tweak the analogy a bit closer to the RIAA, after you sued Nightfall for painting his house purple, you would quickly contact him and tell him that you were willing to settle for $3,000. Otherwise, he could look forward to a long, drawn out trial, tons of legal expenses, and financial ruin when he finally lost his case. (You might also remind him that you have plenty of time and money to fight this case and that he would likely tire before you.)
Of course, if he signs the settlement, he has to agree that painting his house purple lowered the value of the other houses on the block. And your settlement won't protect him should the other neighbors decide to sue also. | |
Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
clubs:
·Site5.com
·AT&T Midwest
·Comcast
| reply to PolarBear
said by PolarBear :I don't think iSEPIC's point was how much evidence they had against you, but that the current civil suit system is simply unfair to the defendant. You think the defendant SHOULD HAVE TO PROVE they are innocent? Ever been charged with a crime (especially a felony) Nightfall? I'm willing to bet you have NEVER had to defend yourself in a court of law. Do that, then get back to us on defendant's rights. What if I were to sue you for $1,000,000 for whatever-I-could-come-up-with? Say, you painted your house purple and it lowered the value of mine (this happened in Seattle one time, don't remember the outcome). I had a picture of your newly-painted house, and an old and recent appraisal of my home showing this. Looks like I could surely prove my case. Oh, but shouldn't you have the right as a US citizen and a homeowner in the US to paint your house as you see fit? That was rhetorical; don't answer it. I was just trying to make a point. You should not be allowed to sue anyone over any bullshit you want, and if you do, the poor bastard you sue should have some rights. In our criminal system, there are only certain things the prosecution may charge you with, and even then, they are REQUIRED to give you a lawyer (albeit a lousy one), and THEY must prove you did it beyond a reasonable doubt. And they have to do it all within 90 days unless you agree to a continuance. Why should a criminal be afforded all those rights, yet John Doe who is a good citizen who minds his own damn business can be subjected to a frivolous lawsuit, and his only rights are to pay for his own defense and spend his own time and money to try and win? You seem to be taking what I am saying out of context. Do I believe the defendant should have to prove they are innocent in say a murder case? Absolutely not! Civil court is much different that criminal court. If I bring charges against someone in civil court, then the defendant should have a right to prove they are innocent. You are correct, in a criminal court, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff. In a civil court, there is more burden of proof on the defendant.
The problems you describe have to do with the current system of law, which I agree is bloated and sucks. We are talking about a system where OJ Simpson went free and multiple murders can get out of their sentences just by hiring the best lawyer money can buy.
The system is not a good one I will give you that much.
However, that should NOT give everyone a free pass to infringe on copyright, which is the impression I am getting from your post. You seem to think since the RIAA have filed frivolous lawsuits means that everyone who infringe on copyright should be passed by.
You also seem to think that every lawsuit is frivolous, which is not accurate. The digital trail is clear, and those people who are traced should be sued in civil court and they should get penalized in court or settling out of court. I would prefer a neutral governing body do the work on assessing the damage, the evidence, and determining the best course of action. That just hasn't happened, but I hope it will.
The news about the frivolous lawsuits are just like bad customer reviews. You never hear about the good customer reviews because good news never travels so far. However, if someone gives you a bad review, they will tell 100 people about it. Same goes for these lawsuits...
I am a firm believer that a vast majority of these lawsuits are legit. How do I know this? Log into a public torrent site sometime and you can see a list of everyone who is sharing a file when you try to download something. You can see their ISP and IP address. Its kinda hard to deny that there are a ton of people out there sharing. Those people sharing works that aren't theirs are subject to lawsuits, and to be honest, they should be taken to court over it.
--
My Domain
Nightfall's Hockey and Life Journal | |
raythompsontn
join:2001-01-11
Oliver Springs, TN
| reply to Nightfall
said by Nightfall :You are responsible for the data being transmitted on that connection. Why? Where is that a law?
What about the attacks on my system that are unsolicited that are blocked by the router? Am I responsible for that traffic?
There may be such wording in the agreement with the ISP allowing them to terminate your service. But as for being responsible for the data on the connection, there is no such law, civil or criminal. Such laws would make airlines, busses, trains, boats, etc. responsible and liable for any drugs that were smuggled.
There is also no law that requires you to secure your connection. As long as your wireless device does not violate FCC radio transmission rules in regards to power, frequency, and cross talk.
When dealing with theft of copyright material it is necessary to prove the person actually did the deed. That is going to require more than an IP address which is simply attached to a box with no capability to initiate any download music transactions.
Those that have settled know they uploaded music. Those that have not uploaded need to fight with all their resources. When they win they should then sue the **IA for harrassment, defamation of character, and frivilous lawsuit. | |
karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
Nashua, NH
·Fairpoint Communic..
| reply to Nightfall
Better a 1000 copyright infringers get off, than 1 innocent person be convicted. The problem is that the RIAA is only interested in a cash settlement, they have NO interest in justice being served. So, if you believe the RIAA has a right to sue someone, based on a 3rd party claim, then you obviously don't believe in the 'innocent until PROVEN guilty' clause of our constitution. The RIAA is wielding a big stick, to scare people into settling, and that is just plain wrong. The RIAA must PROVE that a person did the said crime. The RIAA must PROVE it wasn't an open hotspot. Unless the RIAA can meet the highest levels of proof, they shouldn't be able to sue someone.
--
Stick it to the MAN. Support your local torrent sites. Proudly providing 10mb of upstream for all your TV, Movie, and MP3 needs. | |
Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
clubs:
·Site5.com
·AT&T Midwest
·Comcast
| reply to raythompsontn
said by raythompsontn :said by Nightfall :You are responsible for the data being transmitted on that connection. Why? Where is that a law? What about the attacks on my system that are unsolicited that are blocked by the router? Am I responsible for that traffic? There may be such wording in the agreement with the ISP allowing them to terminate your service. But as for being responsible for the data on the connection, there is no such law, civil or criminal. Such laws would make airlines, busses, trains, boats, etc. responsible and liable for any drugs that were smuggled. There is also no law that requires you to secure your connection. As long as your wireless device does not violate FCC radio transmission rules in regards to power, frequency, and cross talk. When dealing with theft of copyright material it is necessary to prove the person actually did the deed. That is going to require more than an IP address which is simply attached to a box with no capability to initiate any download music transactions. Those that have settled know they uploaded music. Those that have not uploaded need to fight with all their resources. When they win they should then sue the **IA for harrassment, defamation of character, and frivilous lawsuit. In your example, you are talking about attacks on your system that are unsolicited that are being blocked by the router. Why would you be responsible for that? You are the one getting attacked. I am not sure why you used this example, because it is entirely different.
I don't know if there is a law on this per se, but I can tell you that people have been sued and companies have won a lot from lawsuits. Simple fact of the matter is if you are doleing out copyrighted material, and it is proven to come from your location, then you are responsible. Its the same thing if you picked up your phone and called to threaten the president. It came from your house, therefore, someone in your house must have placed the call. It may have not been you, it may have been someone who broke into your house.
The examples you give are a little extreme, because if you look at it from a ISP standpoint, the airlines and buses wouldn't be responsible for drug trafficking. The ISP isn't responsible in this case, its the account that is doing the deed. Same goes for the airline and buses.
That is also correct on the wireless, which is why this woman won in court. I never disputed anything like that, so I assume you were trying to repeat the point of the article or something.
Here is where it gets sticky...
How are you going to prove a person actually did the deed? The only way would be a computer scanning, which most high level computer people could format and reinstall very quickly leaving no trace of such evidence. The only way to truely catch these people is the way the FBI and other law enforcement agencies catch people today and that is with sting operations where they show up unannounced to arrest the individual and confiscate the systems, router, and so on. You can wait until you get to court to subpoena those things because data can be erased. All traces can be removed.
Hey, I am all about bringing these people to justice, but I am not all about giving up all our rights to privacy.
This problem is not going to go away, however, something must be done to protect the intellectual property rights of everyone involved. Companies who own the rights to this material need to have the right to control how it is distributed. Same goes for individuals. The problem is that the government and law enforcement agencies are powerless for the most part to stop it.
That doesn't mean these people shouldn't be sued.
--
My Domain
Nightfall's Hockey and Life Journal | |
guitarzan
Premium
join:2004-05-04
Skytop, PA
·epix
| reply to Nightfall
said by Nightfall : You seem to think since the RIAA have filed frivolous lawsuits means that everyone who infringe on copyright should be passed by. You also seem to think that every lawsuit is frivolous, which is not accurate. The digital trail is clear, and those people who are traced should be sued in civil court and they should get penalized in court or settling out of court. How did the RIAA "find" the digital trail of deceased persons, or people who have not owned computers?
What ever tactics or methods used to determine the digital trace of deceased people, seriously casts a frivolous shadow on all civil suits they file.
It's hard to believe anything they say as truthful, given' the payola, collusion and non payment of past due royalties to their artists, they somehow "could not find".
--
Bass....the glue of rhythm and harmony...the heartbeat of the band.! Shaking the earth with deep,sonorous vibrations.The dark ominous thunder of an approching storm. | |
raythompsontn
join:2001-01-11
Oliver Springs, TN
| reply to Nightfall
said by Nightfall :I don't know if there is a law on this per se, but I can tell you that people have been sued and companies have won a lot from lawsuits. Simple fact of the matter is if you are doleing out copyrighted material, and it is proven to come from your location, then you are responsible. Its the same thing if you picked up your phone and called to threaten the president. It came from your house, therefore, someone in your house must have placed the call. It may have not been you, it may have been someone who broke into your house. And therein lies the problem. In your example if you could prove that your house was broken into I doubt you would have any consequences. You could also claim that your wireless phone was compromised. The SS would have to prove through voice analysis that it was indeed you. What if someone stole your cell phone and used your phone to make the same call. Same scenario.
There are no laws that require you to lock your house, your car, your boat. You suffer because the object was stolen. But any actions that were taken with your stolen property, property that was used without your permission, is not something for which you can be charged with the crime. Stupidity is not illegal.
Neither is NOT securing your wireless connection illegal. The courts would have to prove that you had the material in question on your computer. Data coming from your connection is sufficient enough to get a conviction when the wireless connection is open to the world.
Problem is the cost of proving you are innocent. You would have to hire a lawyer, pay to have your computer analyzed by an independant group, loose time off from work. Defending yourself would basically cost a fortune.
That is where the **IA gains the upper hand. They could bankrupt many smaller cities. To have an organization sue someone based on sketchy evidence, or in many cases, incorrect evidence, is extortion.
In the days of the protection rackets the mob would have shop owners pay to be left alone. The **IA is doing the same thing. They think you may some of their material, no absolute proof only a thin coincidence, and the **IA offer to leave you alone for a small fortune. Otherwise they will break you and basically make your life worthless.
This is a dangerous precedence that is being set. Imagine if you will that Microsoft decides to sue you because they think you copied software simply because you had a self burnt copy of Windows XP in your possession. I do this with all my software CD's and keep the originals in a secure location. Microsoft could make the case that I am copying and distributing their software. I would have to defend myself at extreme expense. I would be found innocent, but I would also be left with no funds. Microsoft would have broken me.
Having done nothing illegal and you still wind up being destroyed. That is extortion, the process of extracting money simply because you can. Playground bullying at it's finest. | |
|
