As much as I hate to sound like a paranoid freak, these "John Doe" lawsuits have me worried. Since hearing about them a few days ago, I've been paralyzed with fear, and I've been (mostly unsuccessfully) trying to reassure myself. But today, I started to retrace my steps, as it were, and for a number of reasons, which I won't bother repeating, I think I'm probably in the clear. Still, I wanted to ask about filehosting sites: In any of these cases, have these studios gone after people downloading from sites such as Megaupload, Rapidshare, and Fileserve? Or have they focused on people downloading from BitTorrent? Although I may be wrong, I would expect they focus on the latter because then they can simply get an IP address from the swarm, and file a subpoena to the ISP, ordering them give up your personal information, whereas in the case of the former, they would (if I'm not mistaken) have to file a subpoena to the site to get your IP address, as they wouldn't be able to view it like they would with BitTorrent, and then after they've done that, file a second subpoena to your ISP, ordering them to give up your personal information. (By the way, do these sites even keep logs of every IP that accesses every file? You'd think they wouldn't because almost everyone who uses their sites uses them for piracy, and they wouldn't want to lose business by scaring people off.) Instead, I would imagine that when they find a file on any of these filehosting sites, they simply have it taken down. Am I wrong?
From my understanding, you are completely correct. I'm not some one you should trust implicitly though. One thing is for sure, you know your shit far more than the average person does. We had some one in here asking if changing their wireless network name would protect them.
Thanks. It's a relief to know that I'm not a total moron.Originally Posted by Signa
By the way, I just realized something. Megaupload is based in Hong Kong. Can a US studio even subpoena a Chinese company? Although I know nothing about law, I find it strange that they would be able to do so. Presumably they're subject to copyright law, and have to take down copyrighted materials, but if they can't be subpoenaed, they wouldn't have any reason to give up anyone's IP address, right?
As far as I know you would not even be legally liable if you downloaded from these services, the only person who could would be the original uploader and the hosting service itself. You did not commit copyright infringement because you were not the one duplicating the work, it was the uploader and the hosting service that did. So even if they could subpoena a Chinese company, which would be a legal nightmare and expensive, it would not affect you. They could get all the I.P. addresses of all the downloaders, as long as the material you downloaded is legal to be viewed in your country they can not pursue any charges.
Anyone upset or offended by my post please follow the link and let your opinions be known.
http://www.zeropaid.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=55492
As far as I can tell, they are currently going after BT users since, as you said GregorSamsa, it would require two subpoenas of different companies. Even now, the latest verdict in West Virginia court ruled that they can't lump everyone together and they need to file individual lawsuits (which will cost them more money to do), and only to those in West Virginia.
Anyways, I was curious about what you said mountain_rage. Can you elaborate a little more on why you wouldn't be legally liable for it? I would think it's similar to stealing something without reselling it, no? I know you aren't sharing the way BT users are and therefore aren't duplicating it but I didn't quite understand what you were talking about. Thanks!
That's good to know:car:, and it makes perfect sense:thumb:
I am in no way a lawyer, but the way I understand copyright law, and the only way it would be even remotely fair socially, is if the law views copyrights in the following way. File sharing is not theft, its copyright infringement, a civil matter where you break an all encompassing contract set by the government. Copyright simply sets the rules for duplication, not acquisition of a work. You are only required to get authority to duplicate a work, not purchase or consume it. When you download from torrents you are both downloading and uploading the content, so you become a distributor. But with megaupload you are only downloading, so you are only a consumer of the work. The only people duplicating the work are the original uploader and Megaupload. Since there are laws protecting service providers, the only person, as long as megaupload removes the material upon request, is the uploader. So whoever duplicates a work is expected to acquire and validate their rights to duplicate it. If you do not validate that authority, distribute the file and later find the person who gave it to you did not have authority to pass on the right to copy, you are guilty of copyright infringement.
This is different from stealing something in many ways. During theft there is a physical good removed, and the party has lost the ability to make a profit from that object stolen. So to the dismay of the copyright industry, there is a distinction made between copyright infringement and theft. Its with good reason too, when you take something from a store its quite clear that it is theft, as rarely can something be expected to be free. In that view, filesharing is more like taking something from someones garbage, you assume the person is giving it away. But even that is not really accurate. The best way to look at it is that you assume people have the right to send you the file, and you have no need to concern yourself with that because if they are sending it to you, they are telling you they have the right to copy the file and you have the right to download it. If this was not the law it would be impossible to live without infringing copyright. You would have to check the source of the image used on a billboard before viewing it, because if it was infringing copyright you would also be liable. Another example would be a website, all websites have intellectual property, you do not have to verify the content for the authority to be on the site, you just read it.
Anyone upset or offended by my post please follow the link and let your opinions be known.
http://www.zeropaid.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=55492
hi, newest member here.. i just want to share that, yes.. there have been cases of lawsuit from downloading shared files... scary but ithink they will have hard tiime tracing the source.
Would you like to link to some of these cases, because I've never heard of them and have been following filesharing stories for a long time now. You can only be sued for uploading. Most filesharing programs force you to upload. File lockers dont.
Anyone upset or offended by my post please follow the link and let your opinions be known.
http://www.zeropaid.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=55492
I dont think studios sue you right away. Warner Bros and Viz media sent me warnings via mail, when i downloaded their movies. They were torrents and out of all of the torrents Ive downloaded I got the two warnings from downloading the movies from a site called Demonoid.com. Ive never had this of problem downloading torrents from other sites or fileserve or megaupload. But im still paranoid about this whole thing too.
Don't worry. Everything is ok. Just feel easy.
Three words "multiple occupancy home"
I was sent several legal later for download movies some of which i did, but other i did not.
After a week of research, i learnt the term "multiple occupancy home".
The legal company wanted me identify all my housemates, but i refused saying the original letter was addressed to me only. I learnt, the legal company would not proceed due to cost and time associated with bringing charges against an entire househouse individually.
Handly tip...
The key seems to be: you don't have to be able to win in court... you only need to make it financially infeasible for the copyright owners to come after you.
I use a private proxy for all downloading that supposedly does not keep any records of traffic. At the bare minimum, this proxies adds one more subpoena they would have to get to come after me.
I prefer to download on newsgroup. It's more secure and files are not corrupted or deleted
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks