8 ms·

Anti-Piracy Lawyers Find Cheaper Way To Identify BitTorrent Users

26 points by Garbage 15y ago

Derbasti 15y ago
So many people are filesharing (or have been at some point). It is like making alcohol illegal...
- jrockway 15y ago
  More like making drugs illegal, which has made many people very rich.
  - muuh-gnu 15y ago
    Subverting the legal system and making common things illegal is just one way of artificially skewing a natural balance in order to make a profit purely out of arbitrage. There is a reason why drugs and copyright have basically no democratical backing and are routinely decided by "experts" behind closed doors. The crazy copyright reality just shows that there is a deep, underlying problem with the whole system, which makes it possible for a few to have enough power to simply not allow a widely perceived skewness to be democratically corrected by the populace. We have to obey minority-made laws which a majority of our peers doesnt support. Certain things are simply not allowed to be voted on, and at the moment this is no more apparent than on the issues of drugs and copyright.
- corin_ 15y ago
  Without wanting to get into a debate on filesharing itself, the fact that many people do something doesn't mean the law should follow them. The majority of people used to be racist. The majority used to be homophobic. The majority used to be sexist. Three quick examples to outline that public opinion isn't automatically the correct opinion. Thanks to journalists adopting the term "vox populi" to mean that public opinion is all-important, it's worth remembering the actual quote it is taken from, which translates to: "And those people should not be listened to who keep saying the voice of the people is the voice of God, since the riotousness of the crowd is always very close to madness.
  - Goladus 15y ago
    Even though a majority of people "used to be racist" (I'd say the majority still are) the vast majority of racist behavior is NOT outlawed. Specific behaviors are outlawed and laws are not allowed to be discriminatory based on race. Besides, the whole idea with anti-discrimination law is that you identify a politically disadvantaged group and ensure they aren't unjustly exploited by a system they have no hope of changing. It's very clear that anti-discrimination laws are designed as an exception to the rule of democracy. In the case of copyright holders, especially large companies, they are usually the least politically disadvantaged of anyone.
    - corin_ 15y ago
      What laws there are isn't relevant, my point is simply that what the majority thinks or does, isn't always the right thing to think or do. Obviously laws regarding discrimination can't be identical to laws regarding piracy, but the point is simply that, just because a huge number of people download content for free, that in itself doesn't make it the right thing to do (nor does it make it the wrong thing to do - all it does is make it the thing that lots of people do).
      - Derbasti 15y ago
        Is that so? You see, I thought, democracy was about what what the majority thinks or does. Commercialism however is only concerned with what the powerful and wealthy want.
        corin_ 15y ago
        There's more than one form of democracy, and the one in the US (and over here in the UK) isn't about what the majority wants. It's about what politicians who the majority elected decide. And as many flaws as that system has, and as much corruption as there can be, I'm still bloody glad there is, because frankly I'm scared to think of how much less we might have developed societally.
        roel_v 15y ago
jrockway 15y ago
So, is it even clear yet that filesharing is illegal in the US? What about when the upload ratio is < 1? What about when it's 0? Also, has anyone been sued for sharing TV shows, or is it just movies?
- jeffool 15y ago
  I can personally confirm that DMCA notices are sent to cable Internet providers, and passed along to users, over TV shows. I do not know if there have been actual lawsuits filed. Remember, set your DVRs. On the legality, I've heard people day that if you don't upload, it's not illegal. I don't know if that's true. I suspect it's more a case of "if you don't upload, they can't catch you."
acabal 15y ago
The article suggests that easier discovery might lead to smaller settlements, but what will probably happen is the settlement amount will stay the same and the cartels will just take the money to the bank. While our justice system is ostensibly set up to allow a small guy to win against a big guy, this next generation of nearly automated litigation against anyone, regardless of a shred of plausible guilt, is a tragedy. The big guy can automate the process of suing any number of small guys and force them to pay up, even if they're innocent.
flipbrad 15y ago
they've been doing this regularly, I believe, in the UK, where the civil order sought (for disclosure by a third party) is either a Norwich Pharmacal Order or a CPR Part 37 (http://www.justice.gov.uk/guidance/courts-and-tribunals/courts/procedure-rules/civil/contents/parts/part31.htm#IDAWKTIC http://www.justice.gov.uk/guidance/courts-and-tribunals/cour...) depending on the stage of litigation.
Derbasti 15y ago
All this makes me sick. Building a business out of sueing people with the explicit goal of settling out of court is clearly subverting the legal system for the courts are only used for extortion but not for making just decisions. This is not a legal battle any more. This is blackmail.
- muuh-gnu 15y ago
  It is a legal battle as long as the legal system allows it, intentionally or unintentionally. The fact is, the blackmailers only have a case at all because the law criminalizes private file sharing. Instead of trying to work out how to protect illegal filesharers from being identified and blackmailed with out of scale "damage" threats, we should rather talk about fixing the overreaching copyright, which is imho the root of all those problems.
mukyu 15y ago
Every first year law student knows that copyright related court cases are exclusively a matter of federal law. You can’t bring a copyright suit in state court, period. Sound recordings made before 1972 are under state copyright, not federal.
eloisius 15y ago
I'm sure this has probably been discussed before but I can't find any relevant threads. Could an ongoing reverse sting a la Barry Cooper [1] be staged to produce a lot of false positives? I imagine few hundred lawsuits against individuals confident of their own innocence could start to curb their profits a little. [1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHmP_KtmcB4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHmP_KtmcB4

26 points by Garbage 15y ago

Derbasti 15y ago

So many people are filesharing (or have been at some point). It is like making alcohol illegal...

jrockway 15y ago
More like making drugs illegal, which has made many people very rich.
- muuh-gnu 15y ago
  Subverting the legal system and making common things illegal is just one way of artificially skewing a natural balance in order to make a profit purely out of arbitrage. There is a reason why drugs and copyright have basically no democratical backing and are routinely decided by "experts" behind closed doors. The crazy copyright reality just shows that there is a deep, underlying problem with the whole system, which makes it possible for a few to have enough power to simply not allow a widely perceived skewness to be democratically corrected by the populace. We have to obey minority-made laws which a majority of our peers doesnt support. Certain things are simply not allowed to be voted on, and at the moment this is no more apparent than on the issues of drugs and copyright.
corin_ 15y ago
Without wanting to get into a debate on filesharing itself, the fact that many people do something doesn't mean the law should follow them. The majority of people used to be racist. The majority used to be homophobic. The majority used to be sexist. Three quick examples to outline that public opinion isn't automatically the correct opinion. Thanks to journalists adopting the term "vox populi" to mean that public opinion is all-important, it's worth remembering the actual quote it is taken from, which translates to: "And those people should not be listened to who keep saying the voice of the people is the voice of God, since the riotousness of the crowd is always very close to madness.
- Goladus 15y ago
  Even though a majority of people "used to be racist" (I'd say the majority still are) the vast majority of racist behavior is NOT outlawed. Specific behaviors are outlawed and laws are not allowed to be discriminatory based on race. Besides, the whole idea with anti-discrimination law is that you identify a politically disadvantaged group and ensure they aren't unjustly exploited by a system they have no hope of changing. It's very clear that anti-discrimination laws are designed as an exception to the rule of democracy. In the case of copyright holders, especially large companies, they are usually the least politically disadvantaged of anyone.
  - corin_ 15y ago
    What laws there are isn't relevant, my point is simply that what the majority thinks or does, isn't always the right thing to think or do. Obviously laws regarding discrimination can't be identical to laws regarding piracy, but the point is simply that, just because a huge number of people download content for free, that in itself doesn't make it the right thing to do (nor does it make it the wrong thing to do - all it does is make it the thing that lots of people do).
    - Derbasti 15y ago
      Is that so? You see, I thought, democracy was about what what the majority thinks or does. Commercialism however is only concerned with what the powerful and wealthy want.
      - corin_ 15y ago
        There's more than one form of democracy, and the one in the US (and over here in the UK) isn't about what the majority wants. It's about what politicians who the majority elected decide. And as many flaws as that system has, and as much corruption as there can be, I'm still bloody glad there is, because frankly I'm scared to think of how much less we might have developed societally.
      - roel_v 15y ago

jrockway 15y ago

So, is it even clear yet that filesharing is illegal in the US? What about when the upload ratio is < 1? What about when it's 0? Also, has anyone been sued for sharing TV shows, or is it just movies?

jeffool 15y ago
I can personally confirm that DMCA notices are sent to cable Internet providers, and passed along to users, over TV shows. I do not know if there have been actual lawsuits filed. Remember, set your DVRs. On the legality, I've heard people day that if you don't upload, it's not illegal. I don't know if that's true. I suspect it's more a case of "if you don't upload, they can't catch you."

acabal 15y ago

The article suggests that easier discovery might lead to smaller settlements, but what will probably happen is the settlement amount will stay the same and the cartels will just take the money to the bank. While our justice system is ostensibly set up to allow a small guy to win against a big guy, this next generation of nearly automated litigation against anyone, regardless of a shred of plausible guilt, is a tragedy. The big guy can automate the process of suing any number of small guys and force them to pay up, even if they're innocent.

flipbrad 15y ago

they've been doing this regularly, I believe, in the UK, where the civil order sought (for disclosure by a third party) is either a Norwich Pharmacal Order or a CPR Part 37 (http://www.justice.gov.uk/guidance/courts-and-tribunals/courts/procedure-rules/civil/contents/parts/part31.htm#IDAWKTIC http://www.justice.gov.uk/guidance/courts-and-tribunals/cour...) depending on the stage of litigation.

Derbasti 15y ago

All this makes me sick. Building a business out of sueing people with the explicit goal of settling out of court is clearly subverting the legal system for the courts are only used for extortion but not for making just decisions. This is not a legal battle any more. This is blackmail.

muuh-gnu 15y ago
It is a legal battle as long as the legal system allows it, intentionally or unintentionally. The fact is, the blackmailers only have a case at all because the law criminalizes private file sharing. Instead of trying to work out how to protect illegal filesharers from being identified and blackmailed with out of scale "damage" threats, we should rather talk about fixing the overreaching copyright, which is imho the root of all those problems.

mukyu 15y ago

Every first year law student knows that copyright related court cases are exclusively a matter of federal law. You can’t bring a copyright suit in state court, period. Sound recordings made before 1972 are under state copyright, not federal.

eloisius 15y ago

I'm sure this has probably been discussed before but I can't find any relevant threads. Could an ongoing reverse sting a la Barry Cooper [1] be staged to produce a lot of false positives? I imagine few hundred lawsuits against individuals confident of their own innocence could start to curb their profits a little. [1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHmP_KtmcB4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHmP_KtmcB4