 
garagerock
Premium
join:2002-06-14
Louisville, KY |  Ignorance of the Law....
Besides, since they can't police themselves, they have to have a legal apparatus to police all of us. | |
|
 | 
oliphant5
Got Identity?
Premium
join:2003-05-24
Corona, CA | Re: Ignorance of the Law.... Like Steve Martin and the IRS...two words that will get you out of any IRS situation.
"I...forgot." | |
|
| str7
join:2003-07-04
canada
| I'm not sure you understand the topic...
It seems that it is easy to hack onto a computer and then put the movie there for grabs, without the computer's owner even knowing that the movie is on his computer. To boot, the hacker puts the movie in directories that use characters that Windows XP can't delete. So even if the computer's owner finds out the movie is there, he won't be able to delete it easily either.
The article poses the question "Is it fair that the computer's owner be prosecuted and face $250,000 if they didn't put the movie on the computer, had no knowledge it was there and had to take special measures to delete it from the computer?" (since saying your computer was hacked doesn't seem to be a valid defense in court)
The question ain't whether you know the law or not... | |
|
| |
garagerock
Premium
join:2002-06-14
Louisville, KY
| Re: Ignorance of the Law.... I'm fairly certain I understand. If ignorance of the law is no excuse for 85 year old grannies who end up getting arrested for being drug mules, why would it not apply to this issue as well?
I'm not saying the penalty is fair; in fact, it is ridiculous. It is a copy of a crappy movie, whoopee! | |
|
| | | 
Kaltes
Premium
join:2002-12-04
Los Angeles, CA
| Re: Ignorance of the Law.... No I'm fairly certain you DON'T understand, this isn't an ignorance of the law issue, is an ignorance of the fact that you ARE IN VIOLATION of the law.
Usually both issues are the same, because for sane, normal laws people are usually only ignorant that they are breaking a law because they are ignorant of the law itself. This is a different case, however.
If you knew anything about the law I could just tell you to look at the difference between factual impossibility and legal impossibility to understand the distinction that you have managed to confuse, but since you don't know the law I will try to dumb it down to an analogy:
It would be VERY EASY for a hacker-type to take a compromised computer, cause that computer to violate the law, then clean up after himself and call in an anonymous tip. Then Joe Blow ignorant AOL user has police bust down his door before he can so much as sign on and hear "you've got mail". Mr. Blow DIDN'T KNOW he was in violation of the law, even though (thanks to MPAA commercials or something) he knew about the law itself. This law is effectively forcing the unwashed computer-illiterate masses to secure their own computers and vigilantly police their computers OR FACE FEDERAL PRISON. Guess what: THEY AREN'T CAPABLE.
Would this scenario be likely? Probably not, but the POTENTIAL FOR ABUSE inherent in this law is significant enough that the whole thing should be scrapped.
Besides, screw hollywood, they havent even proven that these crappy pre-release crappy camcorder rips even harm their business, and they already have corrupt senators lining up to throw Americans into federal prison for it??? | |
|
| | | | 
AthlGrond
Collectivism Breeds Envy
Premium,MVM
join:2002-04-25
Aurora, CO
 ·Comcast
| Re: Ignorance of the Law.... said by Kaltes  :
No I'm fairly certain you DON'T understand, this isn't an ignorance of the law issue, is an ignorance of the fact that you ARE IN VIOLATION of the law.
I'm aware that you are not aware that he is aware that they aren't aware.
Glad I could help clear that up. | |
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | 
TheHelpful1
Premium
join:2002-01-11
Upper Marlboro, MD | Just HAD to do that huh? | |
|
| | | |
TheHelpful1
Premium
join:2002-01-11
Upper Marlboro, MD
 ·EarthLink
| This reminds me of a worm story i read elsewhere. Over in britain i think, this guy and his wife were sitting in another room when the child-daughter comes from the computer room saying theres something weird on the screen.
Father comes in and theres kiddie porn on the monitor. Long story short - wife blames husband, takes daughter away, calls police on husband. Turns out a worm put on his computer through outlook left a backdoor open and someone was using his HDD to store their stuff. In the court case, a thorough review of his PC showed he was telling the truth. But his wife still doesnt believe him and he has to fight to rebuild his life because of a computer worm.
This is good that he was exonorated, but it opens a bad door for real pedophreaks. Same with this law. Illegal to have the file/movie, but what if you didnt put it there or even knew it was on your pc?
Question 1 - how likely is it that the hacker will put the file in the same shared directory that you have for kazaa/etc?
Question 2 - if he put it in another, unshared p2p folder and the media companies still found it - arent they guilty of hacking your network and compromising your secure data?
--
"Not that you would, but you could" | |
|
| | | str7
join:2003-07-04
canada
| The difference is that in this case you can be in the know in regards of the law while not doing a single thing to be in infraction of the law, yet BE in infraction of the law.
Just look at the latest wave of virus and it's not hard to see how computers can get compromised (because of Windows flaws).
This would affect anyone that runs a server. Heck, even a big game company (Valve) got hacked by a mischievous hacker.
If the Nasa can be hacked, so can anyone.
The problem here is that someone can be unaware that an infringing movie sits on his computer. Even if that person knows the law, that person can't act lawfully since they do not know that the file is on their computer.
It got nothing to do with not knowing the law. | |
|
| | | | Desdinova
join:2003-01-26
Gaithersburg, MD
| Re: Ignorance of the Law.... It seems to me that it might be interesting for someone to hide a film or two (maybe 1984 or Brazil) on Valenti's and Ashcroft's computers and then see how everything turns out.
Of course I also wonder if Arlen Spector ever got a speeding ticket and how THAT was handled, but I clearly have too much time on my hands. *grin* | |
|
| |
oliphant5
Got Identity?
Premium
join:2003-05-24
Corona, CA
| If he didn't do it...then he isn't liable. Some hacker would be the one making the file available.
Blaming the computer's owner...well, why not also blame the ISP, or name Microsoft as an accomplice for having the vulnerabilities in the first place? A hacker is using someone else's computer to commit a crime...the computer's owner can't be responsible for the criminal acts of others.
--
Don't get it, demand it! The Anime Network »www.theanimenetwork.com/index.html And something pretty good from the Cooler »elev.ru.orebro.se/ru0369/HAHAHAHA.MPG | |
|
| | |
Kaltes
Premium
join:2002-12-04
Los Angeles, CA
| Re: Ignorance of the Law.... 1st of all we are talking about GUILT here not liability.
the issue here is that you will end up with a criminal defendant sitting there saying "I'm Innocent I tell you!!! INNOCENT!" up against the equivalent of caught-red-handed evidence. The defendant's argument that he was hacked will be viewed as a far-fetched attempt to escape punishment, and the jury will just decide the case based on sympathy:
if they like the defendant, he wins, if they don't like him for any reason, off to federal prison he goes.
Of course if the whole hacking defense is recognized as a valid defense, you will hear it in EVERY CASE, even the ones where the defendant truly intentionally broke the law. Then either the jury will always give the defendant the benefit of the doubt (which will make the law pointless, since EVERYONE can claim to be HaX0R3d and get off) or they will risk throwing innocent people in federal prison.
The whole situation is a stupid mess best avoided by peeing on this law (and heck Feinstein too while we are at it) then burning it and scattering the ashes into the ocean. | |
|
| | | |
oliphant5
Got Identity?
Premium
join:2003-05-24
Corona, CA
| Re: Ignorance of the Law.... Then seeing as it's not a civil tort and rather a criminal case...all this is moot. You will never be able to judge a law as to HOW it will be used, UNTIL it is used.
No DA is going to waste time with a case he/she won't win...especially after the defense loads the jury with mindless AOLers.
--
Don't get it, demand it! The Anime Network »www.theanimenetwork.com/index.html
And something pretty good from the Cooler »elev.ru.orebro.se/ru0369/HAHAHAHA.MPG | |
|
| | | Urzumph
join:2002-11-06
Australia
| said by oliphant5 :
why not also blame the ISP, or name Microsoft as an accomplice for having the vulnerabilities in the first place?
Good idea, then we can hand them in and collect our bounty from them  | |
|
| | DSL Oberst
join:2001-11-29
| I believe I will answer this in a running dialog format, as that works out better than lengthy explanations.
Q: "Is it fair that the computer's owner be prosecuted and face $250,000 if they didn't put the movie on the computer, had no knowledge it was there and had to take special measures to delete it from the computer?"
A: "That depends on whether the owner of the computer is responsible for keeping his computer secure from hackers who attempt to hack it.
If the answer is yes, the owner is responsible, then the owner must take all necessary steps in order to prevent hackers from usurping his machine. If this means that the owner must actually learn how to make his computer secure, so be it. Failure to do so is his responsibility and thus he is liable for all penalties that will occur due to that failure.
If the answer is no, then it must be determined what entity is responsible for keeping the owner's computer secure, and punish them for not doing so. If this means that a regulatory agency needs to be created to ensure such security, so be it.
Either way, someone is responsible for preventing such occurrences. That someone needs to be determined and the burden of responsibility placed on them; the responsible party will then bear the brunt of penalties assessed for failing to keep to the law." | |
|
| | | BosstonesOwn
join:2002-12-15
Everett, MA
clubs:
·Comcast
·Comcast Formerly ..
| Re: Ignorance of the Law.... What your basiclly stating would push 3/4 of the american population back into the stone age of computing when people say the hell with this I can get a 250 k penalty just for leaving my computer on.
Then all those federal machines and goverment machines that have been used to send out these movies will also be at risk. Your hard earned tax dollars going to pay the mpaa's attorneys and put some loot in their pockets.
For god sakes man this is like some one stole your car and committed a bank robery killing 2 people and you getting the sentence for it while the killer/robber gets away free and clear.
You think one way not thinking about the consequences. If your machine is "rooted" and used for this how would you enjoy being a$$raped by a big prisoner named bubba while you scream your not guilty.
If this gets by may god have mercy on any one and every one who owns a computer. As 75% of the us will be going back to the abacus basiclly.
--
This package does not contain a winner... | |
|
| | | |
Kaltes
Premium
join:2002-12-04
Los Angeles, CA
| Re: Ignorance of the Law.... said by BosstonesOwn :
For god sakes man this is like some one stole your car and committed a bank robery killing 2 people and you getting the sentence for it while the killer/robber gets away free and clear.
Very well said. I am glad to see that at least one other forum user here is shocked at how accepting most of the posters here are of saddling grandma and grandpa with the risk of federal prison simply because they aren't computer security experts.
All those same posters are sitting back armchair-quarterback/general style making legal commentary when they have absolutely no clue what they are talking about.
The fact is that we live in a democracy and those are OUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES sitting in Congress deciding this proposed law. We have the right and the responsibility to assert our interests in the form of phone calls, letters, and our vote, etc.
This ACT is nothing more than the MPAA trying to get the US TAXPAYER to foot the bill for securing the MPAA's business model! Don't let them do it! | |
|
| | | | | DSL Oberst
join:2001-11-29
| Re: Ignorance of the Law.... said by Kaltes :
Very well said. I am glad to see that at least one other forum user here is shocked at how accepting most of the posters here are of saddling grandma and grandpa with the risk of federal prison simply because they aren't computer security experts.
All those same posters are sitting back armchair-quarterback/general style making legal commentary when they have absolutely no clue what they are talking about.
See my reply post to BosstonesOwn.
Very well, if the users are not to have responsibility, who should be responsible for the security of a user's machine?
That is truly the question at stake here, as that is the questions this entire bill is based on. | |
|
| | | | | | str7
join:2003-07-04
canada
| Re: Ignorance of the Law.... It's not because you're machine is secure that you won't necessarily get hacked, just like it's not because you're car is "secure" that it will not be broken into (or home or whatever).
As an analogy, say that getting into a car to deposit 1 pound of drugs was easy to do and something that happened every day. Add to that those cars would be put on a list easily available to everyone (who could then call to say you have drugs in your car). In such a context, would a law that says if the police finds 1 pound of drug in your car make you instantly guilty regardless of circumstances of drug dealing, facing a 250000$ penalty and years of jail be well-thought? I don't think so. | |
|
| | | | | |
Kaltes
Premium
join:2002-12-04
Los Angeles, CA
| said by DSL Oberst :
Very well, if the users are not to have responsibility, who should be responsible for the security of a user's machine?
How about making the HACKER the one responsible for the wrongdoing. Can't identify/locate the hacker? Tough. Don't punish the innocent party just because you want to punish SOMEONE.
If someone broke into your garage and stole your car, then used it to rob a bank, how would you like being thrown in jail for bank robbery, simply because you didnt go out of your way to constantly update the security on your garage? | |
|
| | | | |
oliphant5
Got Identity?
Premium
join:2003-05-24
Corona, CA | No one is saddling grandma with prison. So dramatic. You obviously need to get hooked on phonics as you seem incapable of comprehending the written word. | |
|
| | | | | |
Kaltes
Premium
join:2002-12-04
Los Angeles, CA
| Re: Ignorance of the Law.... said by oliphant5 :
No one is saddling grandma with prison. So dramatic. You obviously need to get hooked on phonics as you seem incapable of comprehending the written word.
oliphant you're just stooping to personal attacks because I pointed out your complete and total ignorance of the way the law really works, embarrassing you.
potentially, grandmas and grandpas COULD get nailed by this act if it becomes law, if hackers use their PCs to distribute camcorder movie rips. that is exactly what this news item is about: a draconian law attempting to hold people to account for things beyond their control.
if our democracy was in the hands of you, oliphant, and DSL Oberst, grandpas and grandmas would indeed be going to jail.
Im shocked that any of you can react with anything other than disgust and contempt for this proposed law. the movie industry is effectively bribing politicians into using massive amounts of public law enforcement money (OUR MONEY) to throw people into prison for DARING to endanger movie profits! | |
|
| | | | | | |
oliphant5
Got Identity?
Premium
join:2003-05-24
Corona, CA
| Re: Ignorance of the Law.... You're the fool who thinks there should be complete immunity in a case in which negligence permits your property to be used for criminal action.
Potentially the world could end tomorrow. With your brilliant logic, why do anything today because of "what ifs" tomorrow.
You cry of grandmas going to prison when that's not going to happen. Use your brain. What DA is going to bring up a case against some grandmother? Geez. Such paranoia...I'm surprised you can make it outside.
--
Don't get it, demand it! The Anime Network »www.theanimenetwork.com/index.html
And something pretty good from the Cooler »elev.ru.orebro.se/ru0369/HAHAHAHA.MPG | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | DSL Oberst
join:2001-11-29
| Edited for directly applicable content.
said by BosstonesOwn :
What your basiclly stating would push 3/4 of the american population back into the stone age of computing when people say the hell with this I can get a 250 k penalty just for leaving my computer on.
Basically, you are stating that the user should not be responsible for the computers they own.
Ok, no problem.
Simply point out to me who should be responsible for the security of your computer other than yourself and I will be more than happy to lay that responsibility at that person/entity's feet.
What if that person were myself?
How would you feel if I were responsible for the security of your computer?
If the user does not take responsibility, that responsibility will be given by the government to someone else - along with the authorization to do what they deem necessary to make it secure.
Anyone who thinks about it sees the implications.
The airline safety isn't up to snuff? Give the responsibility and authority to the FAA.
The industries are polluting the environment with waste and won't police it themselves? Give the responsibility and authority to the EPA.
The computer users won't take the responsibility to make their own computers secure? Give that responsibility and authority to...whom? Create a new agency?
Probably not. They'd give it to an already existing one.
Perhaps the Secret Service? Oh yeah, they investigate computer crime with draconian tactics...how would you like them to be responsible for security of your system?
Or the Department of Homeland Security?
I'll take my own responsibility, thank you.
Freedom = responsibility for your actions and property
Denying responsibility for your actions and property = the government giving someone else authority over you
Think on it.
said by BosstonesOwn :
Then all those federal machines and goverment machines that have been used to send out these movies will also be at risk. Your hard earned tax dollars going to pay the mpaa's attorneys and put some loot in their pockets.
No problem, make the federal and state governments responsible for their systems! That's called giving government "accountability".
said by BosstonesOwn :
For god sakes man this is like some one stole your car and committed a bank robery killing 2 people and you getting the sentence for it while the killer/robber gets away free and clear.
Extremely bad analogy.
A better analogy is, I'm driving my car and the bank robber dives into my back seat while I'm stopped at the stoplight. Then, instead of stopping the car and getting out, I go ahead and drive on home with the robber in my backseat, allowing him to make a getaway. Why? Hey - I'm not responsible for what goes on in my car.
said by BosstonesOwn :
You think one way not thinking about the consequences. If your machine is "rooted" and used for this how would you enjoy being a$$raped by a big prisoner named bubba while you scream your not guilty.
Solution: Make it so people can't "root" my machine. By whatever means necessary.
If you don't like my solution, I suggest coming up with your own that is viable.
And all you have to do is figure out who should be responsible.
| |
|
| | | 
2kmaro
Think
Premium,ExMod 1 BC
join:2000-07-11
ColossalCave
clubs: 
| said by DSL Oberst :
A: "That depends on whether the owner of the computer is responsible for keeping his computer secure from hackers who attempt to hack it.
According to my provider, via their Acceptable Use Policy (AUP), I am responsible for said security and all things on it and how they are made accessible (or not). From the Cox HSI AUP:
said by CurrentCox HSI AUP:
9. Security You are solely responsible for the security of any device connected to the Service, including any data stored on that device. Cox recommends that you take appropriate security precautions for any systems connected to the Service.
11. Viruses, Trojan Horses, Worms and Denial of Service Attacks Software or other content downloaded from the Service may contain viruses and it is your sole responsibility to take appropriate precautions to protect your computer from damage to its software, files and data. ...
I strongly suspect that language much like that is in every ISP's AUP or Terms of Service agreement.
My advice: make sure that as part of the jury selection your lawyer asks prospective jurors if they've ever had a virus or trojan on their computer. Those that reply NO for any reason, excuse with cause!
--
"The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding." Supreme Court Justice Brandeis (Olmstead vs US, 1928) | |
|
| | | | DSL Oberst
join:2001-11-29
| Re: Ignorance of the Law.... said by 2kmaro :
My advice: make sure that as part of the jury selection your lawyer asks prospective jurors if they've ever had a virus or trojan on their computer. Those that reply NO for any reason, excuse with cause!
Heh. That's a good idea.
I don't know if you meant it to be humourous, but I certainly find it to be so.
| |
|
|
garagerock
Premium
join:2002-06-14
Louisville, KY
| My point was, and continues to be, that if you are ignorant of "intellectual" property that's someone elses handiwork on your computer, you are liable. Period. You cannot, under the premise of law, state "I didn't know it was there". That bullshit excuse doesn't cut it if you are caught with someone elses drugs, someone elses dirty money, weapons, etc. (Unless you work for government )
Some poor bastard who gets pulled over in his car and the cops find marijuana seeds in the ashtray, even if they weren't his, goes to jail. Why is this any different?
Ignorance of the law is no excuse. If you didn't know it was illegal, you should take safeguards to ensure that this kind of material doesn't end up on your computer. It's that simple. | |
|
| | BosstonesOwn
join:2002-12-15
Everett, MA
clubs:
·Comcast
·Comcast Formerly ..
| Re: Ignorance of the Law.... even if the safe guards are taken there is bugs in software. what happens if they get by your firewall??
go to jail ?? come on. They need to waste money on other things like getting broadband to the masses.
--
This package does not contain a winner... | |
|
| | |
oliphant5
Got Identity?
Premium
join:2003-05-24
Corona, CA
| Re: Ignorance of the Law.... Do you have trouble reading? REASONABLE care. If you have a firewall up or have taken other basic measures then you aren't going to be gone after. You should actually READ the thread before replying to it.
--
Don't get it, demand it! The Anime Network »www.theanimenetwork.com/index.html And something pretty good from the Cooler »elev.ru.orebro.se/ru0369/HAHAHAHA.MPG | |
|
| | | |
See 13 replies to this post |
|
| |
| | |
|
garagerock
Premium
join:2002-06-14
Louisville, KY | sweet! moderation city! | |
|
| BosstonesOwn
join:2002-12-15
Everett, MA
clubs: | ahhh yeah what kaltes says.... damn thats alot of legal stuff.
--
This package does not contain a winner... | |
|
oliphant5
Got Identity?
Premium
join:2003-05-24
Corona, CA
| Same thing when... ...you weren't aware you were speeding.
Busted.
It's great to know out government spends more time protecting foreign workers (seeing as most of these films were made outside the US in Canada, England and the like) than U.S. workers.
BTW...those actors, producers, movie companies sure look like they're hurting...but I guess waiting an extra week to buy that turbo Porsche or that Citation V can be a real hardship.
--
Don't get it, demand it! The Anime Network »www.theanimenetwork.com/index.html And something pretty good from the Cooler »elev.ru.orebro.se/ru0369/HAHAHAHA.MPG | |
|
|
See 22 replies to this post |
|
Brianv5
Low Level Functionary
Premium
join:2001-01-20
Keyser, WV |  Always a way to beat it
--
Anything can be tweaked! | |
|
aliasrlz
Premium
join:2000-09-01
the world
| maybe.. Maybe they should just pass a law that executes anyone for even viewing an unreleased film? (seems to be next on the agenda for the MPAA)...
You would think our government has more important security and domestic issues on their hands, like terrorism, murder, guns, rape laws, corruption in business and government, etc... The damn list goes on forever.
--
If you have to ask what EFNET is, you don't need broadband  | |
|
azinator
CS is the DEVIL
Premium
join:2000-08-12
Alma, AR
| One... ...simple solution....shut the internet down...and the companies and government will be rid of all these so called problems... | |
|
| 
ghostpainter
I Write for the Apocalypse
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-25
Rancho Cucamonga, CA
clubs:
| Re: One... said by azinator :
...simple solution....shut the internet down...and the companies and government will be rid of all these so called problems...
I agree...Lets shut the whole bloody mess down....I think that is what RIAA has in mind anyway....It would only put 55 million people out of work until they could build another RIAA friendly internet....In fact lets start the ball rolling....all those in favor of shutting the internet down say "yes".... | |
|
| | BosstonesOwn
join:2002-12-15
Everett, MA
clubs:
·Comcast
·Comcast Formerly ..
| Re: One... yes.....
why not lets just cave under like the corporations want.
Hell I want them to take my kids and wife and put em in slave labor camps to pay for the song i downloaded off Napster 2 years ago. Man this is absolutely getting ridiculous with these people. Why don't they take better care of their products if they are worth so much.
No millionaire leaves their money on their lawn behind a high wall.
--
This package does not contain a winner... | |
|
|
| 
DenverDialup
join:2003-06-06
Littleton, CO
clubs: | Re: It just shows how far behind the government is Agreed. No law is absolute. Even the most cherished American freedoms, such as the right to free speech, are not without their boundaries -- i.e. you still can't shout "Fire" in a crowded theater. | |
|
|
gruggni
Oxygen Gets You High
join:2003-07-28
Corpus Christi, TX
| broadband users beware The only way you will end up with a movie (hacked) on your computer is if you have broadband and always leave your computer on and connected. Movies are huge in file size, it takes time to upload something that big especially if your upload speeds are slow. If you have dialup, not even a possibility.
This law won't do much good. All they have to search for are large files over 650MB. If you are trading files this big, then you will draw attention. I guess the law will catch the stupid ones. I would notice hard drive space disappearing if someone was putting movies on my hard drive.
--
When I read about the evils of drinking, I gave up reading.
--Henny Youngman | |
|
| RayW
Premium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
clubs:
·XMission
| Re: broadband users beware said by gruggni :
I would notice hard drive space disappearing if someone was putting movies on my hard drive.
A lot of people won't notice, especially if they bought a 120+ GB HD (because the store guy told me it was the best!). And they figure Aunt Ethel's email is taking longer to download due to the time of day.
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. | |
|
ReadyForVengeance
@mindspring.com
| what goes around comes around
Do not get me wrong, I am all for copyright protection. As an avid movie watcher, I want my money to be paid to everyone involved with the film. However, trying to pull money from people by the use of laws is as bad as the pocket thief on the streets. The MPAA should get off their asses and figure out a different means of protection instead of hiding behind laws. Better yet, embrace the technology rather than trying to thwart the inevitability. | |
|
Kip patterson
Premium
join:2000-10-23
Columbus, OH
| The real issue Calm down folks, it's like any other law.
Someone, maybe the MPAA, finds an unreleased movie being shared on the internet. They get a subpoena from a federal court to require the ISP to divulge the name of the holder of the IP. They then go to the FBI or Attorney General and attempt to convince them that a crime has occurred. (At this point the MPAA is out of the loop.) If they agree, then a federal attorney takes the evidence before a grand jury and attempts to get an indictment. If he is successful, then you get arrested or cited into court, and there is a trial (before a jury if you so choose) for which the standard of proof is that you are guilty "beyond any reasonable doubt"
The new law simply adds a presumption that infringement occured when the movie was shared. The government does not have to prove that someone actually downloaded the movie.
In that respect it is similar to narcotics law. Get caught with a pound of Cocaine and the government does not have to prove that you intended to sell it. | |
|
|
See 9 replies to this post |
|
evagilon
join:2003-01-10
Imperial Beach, CA | Honestly Like others have said befor....law just keep honest people honest. The smart and "crooked, evil" file traders will just find another way to not get caught. the spamers did. | |
|
|
BoredofTrade
join:2003-06-29
Wheaton, IL
|  Here's The Fix
| |
|
cyberthugin
join:2002-03-12
Kew Gardens, NY | Ah Oh Time to find those Porno, can't go to jail for that~ | |
|
| AnyOlTech
join:2003-10-30
Oakland, CA | Re: Ah Oh | |
|
the_mule
join:2002-12-28
| High-reward? "Piracy for too long has been high-reward and low-risk," says MPAA spokesman Rich Taylor.
I’m still trying to figure out just what this high-reward is. Are people now buying bootlegged movies from China off the Internet instead of the street corner? | |
|
| CablePower
Tmd
join:2003-08-29
Milton, FL | Re: High-reward? The high reward is free movies, and in most cases, a lot of them. Combine that with the fact that most will get away with their disgusting theft, and you get what Taylor was speaking about. | |
|
| | the_mule
join:2002-12-28
| FBI Warning said by CablePower :
The high reward is free movies, and in most cases, a lot of them. Combine that with the fact that most will get away with their disgusting theft, and you get what Taylor was speaking about.
Right, the reward of watching shitty ripped movies on my computer. The way Taylor put sounded like the problem was with all those people profiting from the crime of piracy, like the Chinese for example. Thanks for clearing that up.
So we need a new law for something that is already illegal? | |
|
| |
Kaltes
Premium
join:2002-12-04
Los Angeles, CA
| Re: High-reward? please explain how THE PERSON DOING THE SHARING derives ANY reward.
the truth is that people sharing these movies do it selflessly and it is the PUBLIC who derives the reward. the people sharing do face the risk of a copyright lawsuit for $150,000 under current laws! yeah that sounds like low risk.
the fact is that sharing crappy camcorder rip movies pre-release has always been a ZERO-reward and HIGH-risk undertaking. the only people who DO profit from selling these movies in VCD format are all safely outside the reach of this proposed law, living in foreign countries. | |
|
| | 
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | Zero or very little reward, then. High effort, very little reward. | |
|
|
Hiroshima
join:2002-03-08
Longview, TX
| Actually... i hate to break it to you but this isn't ignorance of the law. Anyone knows that sharing movies is illegal but if someone is using your computer to share movies w/out you knowing then you can't be held responsible. It would be like saying "well someone used 70 year old bobs computer to hack microsoft without him knowing" bob would not go to jail....this isn't ignorance of the law...this is being taken advantage of. Here's another example, what if someone steals your money and uses it to buy a bomb to blow up the empire state building, correct me if i'm wrong but you would not go to jail because your STOLEN money was being used, just as your stolen bandwidth is being used to trade movies. | |
|
|
Kaltes
Premium
join:2002-12-04
Los Angeles, CA
| Re: Actually... The problem with that, is that you are simply assuming that the TRUTH will come out. Look at it from the jury's perspective: on one hand you have the damning evidence of the defendant's computer upon which the incriminating file is located, while on the other hand you have the defendant's story that supposedly some hacker put it there.
How do you know if the defendant is lying or not? You don't. The jury makes a GUESS as to whether the defendant is a liar or not, and if the jury gets it wrong (and they WILL inevitably), then an innocent man/woman goes to federal prison. | |
|
| the_mule
join:2002-12-28
| FBI Warning? I think the word everyone searching for here is culpability. Or maybe its negligence, but if Microsoft isn’t liable for the very security holes in their OS, I really can’t see us end-users could be. Unless of course you are culpable for running an OS with the known security vulnerabilities that Windows has, but then we’d just be back to blaming to Microsoft.
Again, we already have laws that make this stuff illegal; so maybe what the MPAA really needs to do is spend their time (money) lobbying Congress to appropriate even more money to the FBI, so in between their chasing down terrorists, kidnappers, and civil rights violators they can thoroughly investigate these ‘high-reward and low-risk’ crimes which are already on the books. | |
|
| | BosstonesOwn
join:2002-12-15
Everett, MA
clubs: | Re: FBI Warning? quick run from the black trucks your infringing on the copy right holder of that warning label.
--
This package does not contain a winner... | |
|
Just wondering
@4.7.x.x
| How do they define a "shared drive"? The articles appear to state that the guilt is assumed if the files are placed onto a shared drive. I question their definition of a shared drive.
As most of us know, all drives on Windows NT, 2000, & XP are shared, even if the user doesn't create any of their own. These system shares would probably qualify under this broad definition. This by itself would upgrade the offence to a felony simply by having the file on the computer (hard drive or CD/DVD).
Since it doesn’t appear to matter under this law how the material was obtained, it could be argued that it would then be a felony to simply play an otherwise legal DVD on your computer. Since there is a system share on the DVD, if your PC is connected to the internet while you are watching the movie, the copyrighted files would be located on a “shared drive” as defined.
Since this would be a federal law, the mandatory minimum sentencing provisions would probably apply to this law as well. I guess we will have to start paroling the murders, rapists, and child molesters to make room for the people who watch their DVDs on their computers. | |
|
| dave
Premium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio | Re: How do they define a "shared drive"? Likewise, since "share" and "drive" seem to be Windows jargon, I guess you're safe enough not using Windows. On *nix, your defence is "but those are exported mount points, not shared drives". | |
|
Sarge_0321
join:2002-06-27
San Diego, CA | ISPs So are ISPs going to pass out forms to be signed by every customer to ensure that they know what the hell is going on? | |
|
TexasGuy
49 States And Texas
Premium
join:2002-12-02
Houston, TX
| What if What if the file that you would have on your HD would be under password, like RAR that needs a password so movie would be extracted. I guess it would be hard to prove that person was sharing it because one would also need the password to that file, otherwise it is just some random unusable data. Hard to prove intent if anyone downloading the file would not be able to utilize it (without the pass phrase).
--
Who drank has died, who drinks will die. Is he immortal who is sober? | |
|
|
Forz
@tfb.com
| Re: What if well i think like most other crime's they have to prove it was you that broke the law. so in other words just cause something is on your computer doesnt mean it was you. they have to prove that you did it. even if you werent h4xed if more than one person has access to your puter you could claim that you didnt do it, it was someone else that had access to your pc and when you name those people that have access to your computer all of them can claim the 5th ademdent and what do you know nobody has proved you do anything. just like if you are on a long car trip riding with more than one person and they send you a ticket for speed saying you where caught speeding by aircraft and you get the people that where riding in the car to say they drove throw out the trip and then they take the 5th they cant give you a ticket cause they never proved who was driven. | |
|
|
|
|
·
·