Torrent users sue US Copyright Group for fraud and extortion

Im gonna jump on board the LOL train with this, copyright, seriously, its like lets makes games easy as hell to hack, movies to download, then allow the peoplel to put movies from a dvd onto there computer, yeah, lets sell blue-ray burners, its not the people taking the product, its the retards that made the product to easy to take...... KIINND of like we can profit MORE for suing someone for stealing, then we can for selling a single copy, if you catch my drift, if you ask me its the companies, knowingly basicly giving there products away for a little extra cash, think how hard it is to shop lift, then think how hard it is to download a movie........ bells not ringing?

Come on guys, you can't ban someone simply for their opinions. No matter how blind or misguided they are. I don't agree with the guy, but he's done nothing to violate techspot rules.

Back to the subject, I wonder if the courts would have overlooked this extortion if someone else hadn't pointed it out...I bet "yes" (isn't it sad when you have no faith in your justice system? lol)

umm if im correct copy right or not if you really wanted to get by this use the "fair use" act of 1976 i believe this states that all material being used copy writen or not, if you are not profiting from that of anothers product its fair game maybe im wrong... but idk, also these lawyer's had no grounds or no ability to know of the pirating... other than hacking, and that invasion of privacy... (dont get me wrong hacking is fun)

Amen brother

Pfft.. Texas has some of the most IP "friendly" judges in the country. Many companies file lawsuits in the eastern district of Texas specifically because of this: http://www.innovators-network.org/2010/02/01/eastern-district-of-texas-preferred-venue-for-ip-lawsuit-plaintiffs/

Hey smart guy, they are being prosecuted in civil court for monetary damages, not criminal court.

You sir are the classic example of someone with a little knowledge being very dangerous. But the danger is only to the rest of us, you are one of the many who follow along blindly believeing anything you are told.

There is no proof of guilt in any of these cases. It's like me telling the cops I saw my neighbor steal something from me. They will ask f I have any proof, I will say well I saw it. My neighbor will deny it, the cops will go, ok work this out unless you have any actual proof that he stole it.

They said these people were downloading the files. Were they actually able to get on the persons computer and verify that the file exists? Or did they see a link with the name of a file that happened to be of the same name. Did they also download this file to verify that it was an illegal file? If so then they are also guilty of sharing out that file, unless they turned off uploading, but I would guess they were not that savy.

The burden of proof is on the prosecution and an IP is not necessarily enough. There is no way they can prove that the person did not mistakenly download the file and delete it when they found it was not the one they were looking for. So this is blackmail and a threat.

There is no proof that other than they believe they saw someone downloading a file which was copyrighted. And how did they do this? By checking IP addresses, any tech worth their dollars will tell you that it is quite possible to spoof your ip address. In fact they could make it look like the ip being used is actually your IP Tom, which would mean you are guilty of downloading that file, based solely on your ip address.

If you don't believe this, go and do some research on the IP stack in linux and windows. ButI have a feeling you will ignore this because you need to go get your daily fix of opinions you can share as your own from CNN. Good luck

Actually, it is extortion. It violates the Fair Debt act which makes it a crime to claim you are going to sue somebody to collect money when in fact you have no intention of actually doing so, as appears to be the case here. The people downloading aren't the only ones breaking the law.

The act of downloading copyrighted content is NOT illegal! It is the act of uploading content, or distributing content. Your naivety on this subject invalidates your entire argument.

Is no one innocent until proven guilty any more?

Assuming a file to have been present on an HD because it can't be found is ludicrous. The absence of evidence is not proof of guilt, except in a corrupt court. Such an instruction is no different than a forced confession, or forcing one to testify against themselves.

That it would happen in America today is of little surprise, considering how corrupt both ALL three branches of our government are. We have the best government money can buy, voted for by citizens whose main interest are self-entitlements, i.e., government handouts. We have arrived at the old Russian proverb: "There is no truth in the news and no news in the truth", and, "we pretend to work and they pretend to pay us."

matrix86> Send them down here to Texas and we'll make sure that happens, lol.

Texas?!?! Some of the worst judges in the US for favoring copyright abuse over consumer rights are in Texas. One of the best things for this problem would be to remove Texas from the union all together! Let the lone star state be a lone star again. Don't just build a wall between Texas and Mexico, wall off the whole thing!

{quote]Fact remains that the downloaders committed copyright infringement. {/quote]

That "fact" does NOT remain. Accusations by a lawyer do NOT constitute fact. Of the EVIDENCE presented (not the lack thereof) the jury is the trier of what is fact and what is false, and how those facts are applied to the Law the judge instructed the jurors to use. The judge cannot tell the jurors how to apply those facts or dictate what ruling the jury should return.

Did you do some research to form your opinion on Russians, or are you just a stereotyping ignorant ***?

It's not "Theft".

It is "Copyright Infringement".

They are different laws. With different statutes. And different penalties.

These people are allegedly guilty of Copyright Infringement. Not theft.

If someone shoots you in the head, we do not say "He stole your life! He is guilty of theft!" we say "He killed you! He is guilty of Murder!" (or manslaughter...)

If someone parks at a meter with out plugging a quarter in, we don't say "He's steeling that parking spot!" we say "He's violating the city ordinance!".

These are different laws. They mean different things. Stop trying to treat them the same.

-Rick

Well, its so refreshing to see how few spelling errors were in your post. .. Its just that usually racists struggle with spelling. Its also apparent you didn't take time to read the article, but looking at your post on the whole facts would only have gotten in your way.. No need for that then.

In the words of NBA Jam..."Boom-shaka-laka!"

<quote>umm if im correct copy right or not if you really wanted to get by this use the "fair use" act of 1976 i believe this states that all material being used copy writen or not, if you are not profiting from that of anothers product its fair game maybe im wrong... but idk, also these lawyer's had no grounds or no ability to know of the pirating... other than hacking, and that invasion of privacy... (dont get me wrong hacking is fun) </quote>

You are incorrect. The Fair Use Act does not permit wanton non-profit copying. You must have a legitimate use of the copy that is considered to be fair (it's incredibly vague, but that's to allow flexibility). Copying something in its entirety for personal use has never, ever, been considered a fair use of the copyrighted material.

There are a few definite things you can do: You can copy excerpts for commentary (if the work is small enough, or the commentary large enough, the whole thing may be copied), you can parody (nearly exact copy with slight changes for obvious comedic or commentary value), and you can copy for the purpose of preserving your own legal copy of the material (this has wrinkles now due to the DMCA).

There are some gray areas, like time shifting and the like, and there are gray areas within the fair use exemptions, but everything not covered by the fair use exemptions is copyright infringement. The only difference between for-profit copyright infringement and not for-profit is whether it is a criminal case of copyright infringement (for-profit) or a civil case of infringement (not for-profit).

For those saying downloading is OK, it's distribution that is illegal - well, Jammie Thomas-Rasset has been fined (after three trials, no less) $1.5 million, and all that was ever proven was that she downloaded 24 songs. Distribution was implied, and that was good enough for a civil case. Those of you who use bittorrent cannot even rely on that, as distribution is mandatory for bittorrent downloads.

There are two distinct and different issues involved here that have been mangled together

1. Is the movie download piracy illegal?
2. Is the lawyer’s response to illegal downloads "reasonable" or is it “extortion”?

1. Are public downloads of copyrighted material illegal?

It’s blatantly illegal. And you all know it’s illegal. Do you really think “It was right there on the internet. Therefore I copied” is a legal defense??? LOL
> Do you also claim downloading pirated software is equally OK?? Why should it be any different?

While it’s correct to say it’s technically not “theft”, copyright infringement and electronic piracy is STILL a crime and a punishable offense

Also, the "fair use" act of 1976 hardly applies.

Pirating material for personal use and enjoyment (let alone if even for resale!) is NOT “fair use”

2. So next question is: Was the legal response "reasonable" or "extortion"?

I think the real underlying question is whether the lawyers did “due diligence” in confirming and tracking IP addresses to the owner.

If they “recklessly” simply mailed out settlement letters to people without doing due diligence, there might be legitimate case of improper use of the legal process. But assuming that they took time to trace IP addresses through ISPs back to their owners at the time of the piracy

• Then it’s a legitimate settlement offer. Settlement offers are perfectly legal and made all the time
• And if your IP address was hacked? then welcome to the real-world!
  > You don’t think you’ll have to pay thousands to prove your innocence? You think if illegal porn or electronic theft was traced to your IP you wouldn’t find yourself under suspicion? Subject to search warrants? And having to hire your own legal team even if you’re a victim of a hack??
  > You'll have the same legal problem whether you're truly guilty or just hacked. That's life

Ain't you a wise guy. These people live in a radically different economy to US, if i'm not mistaken we're talking 600usd for a good job in a good city(coming from ex soviet country myself). The 27usd you see for dvd is usually priced higher in non us countries and around 100 usd as a new release. Add to it the economic circumstance and then Please dare to brag about how bad these people are again.

So then you're of the opinion that the deceased people accused by the RIAA did in fact illegally download copy righted material and so they should be dug up and put on trial. I mean, if they didn't actually do it then they wouldn't be accused. That is what you wrote isn't it?