7 ms·
200,000 BitTorrent Users Sued In The United States
- yread 15y agoThe fact that the evidence hasn't been tested in court while ~60.000 people had to pay damages is a clear argument for "loser pays" court system.
- nextparadigms 15y agoI surprised you don't have that system. It makes perfect sense to me that the loser should pay. What is the counter argument? That people will be less likely to sue? So you prefer to encourage lawsuits then?
- mhb 15y agohttp://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2693604 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2693604
- losvedir 15y agoWhile I agree that's a good system, I'm not sure how much that would help here. I imagine the larger deterrent is not the court fees, but the possibility of a $150,000 fine.
- hugh3 15y agoI don't get it. If I'm being sued by a big record company, then unless I'm absolutely 100% sure I'm going to win, wouldn't a loser-pays system be an even bigger disincentive to fight it in court? I'm sure their lawyers cost much more than mine do. In fact, doesn't loser-pays in general make it even easier for big players to intimidate small players? "I'm suing you for actual damages of twenty dollars. My legal team costs one million dollars a day. Want to settle?"
- ScottBurson 15y agoMy understanding is that in loser-pays as it is actually practiced in Europe, the courts limit the fees paid by the loser to reasonable and customary levels, and don't look kindly on parties that inflate their legal costs. Still, I think you're right, if one is not fairly confident of winning, loser-pays provides additional incentive to settle. I don't see this as a bad thing, personally.
- rue 15y agoThis is correct; more precisely, you can pay all you want, but reimbursement is for a reasonable cost.
- jules 15y agoHow come loser pays works well in the rest of the world? Because that's not how loser pays works :) You don't pay a million dollars a day, you pay a reasonable price instead; they pay the rest. Also, loser pays is not decided on the whole case, but on specific subcases. So the suing party is less likely to use the shotgun approach where they throw every claim and the kitchen sink in, in the hope that they at least win something. Also, if you claim $1M damages, and the judge awards you $1k, that counts as a (partial) loss. So it also ends ridiculously high claims. > Nearly every Western democracy, other than the United States, follows the "English rule," which requires the loser of a civil suit to compensate the winner for his or her attorney's fees. -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_rule http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_rule There is much much more suing going on in the US than in Europe and the prime reason is that Europe has a loser pays system.
- monochromatic 15y ago> There is much much more suing going on in the US than in Europe This will be an unpopular opinion, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. How many wronged plaintiffs in Europe end up never having their day in court because of the threat of paying the other party's attorneys fees?
- 15y ago
- rdtsc 15y agoYou are assuming that somehow people will have faith in the fairness of the court system and fight it out till the end. People don't have faith and they are offered a plea bargain where they plead guilty so they end up being the losers. This is basically a game of chicken between an individual with $50K worth of assets and a large behemoth with $50B worth of assets avialable. The longer the fight the higher the stakes. Eventually individuals cannot take any more risk and cannot afford to pay any more fees. It also not just a financial cost but time (i.e. opportunity cost). One's lifetime is limited but a corporation can just keep hiring warm bodies as long as the sue-and-threaten model keeps being profitable.
- lemming 15y agoAnd they say the movie industry resists new business models.
- glimcat 15y agoAbusing contract law is a very old business model for the movie and music industries. There just wasn't the opportunity to scale like this before the internet.
- corin_ 15y agoCan that really be right? One out of every 1535 people in America?
- chopsueyar 15y agoNone of these 200,000 actually went to court. It is fairly inexpensive to mail a letter.
- bricestacey 15y agoThat is the claim, since 2010. Now, modify the number to account for average household size.
- pitdesi 15y agoOne out of every 1200 Internet users (source: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=number+of+internet+users+in+USA http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=number+of+internet+user...) The real question is why do you think that can't be right? It's too high? I'm surprised it hasn't happened to one of my friends. Looking at the spreadsheet (https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B8oEqWOAwM3SM2Y1Y2NmNWMtY2M0Yy00MGExLWJkMjctMGFmMjg3OWZjY2U4&hl=en_US https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B8oEqWOAwM3SM2Y1Y2NmNWMtY2M...) It seems that it is mostly people who download porn. And Hurt Locker, Cry, and Expendables
- benatkin 15y ago> The real question is why do you think that can't be right? It's too high? I'm surprised it hasn't happened to one of my friends. Exactly my initial thought. But now that I think about it, at 1 in 1200, I'm not surprised that it hasn't happened to one of my friends, but I wouldn't be surprised if it happened to one of my friends.
- dangrossman 15y agoI believe it. Just two months ago I received one of these letters alleging I downloaded a game over BitTorrent, showing an IP address and how many bytes of the file I supposedly seeded. Problem was it wasn't my IP and I had never heard of the game. I had to fax Comcast's "Security" department to verify that the IP address in question had never been assigned to a modem on my account... Yet Comcast told the copyright holder I was their John Doe.
- hugh3 15y agoIf this is really the case, why is anyone still crazy enough to use BitTorrent?
- conductor 15y agoI use BitTorrent to download, for example, Linux distributions, or movies from VODO - http://vodo.net http://vodo.net And don't think all these 200,000 ISP users/contract owners have downloaded copyrighted materials. It is not proofable. It could be a computer virus, a guest, a hacker who has hacked into thier Wi-Fi. How are they going to proof?
- dkokelley 15y agoSo far, the lower courts have set the precedence that IPs are not people. If I catch an IP doing something wrong, I can't yet say to the ISP account holder "Your IP did this, therefor YOU are guilty," for the very same reason red light cameras need to identify the driver of a car running the light instead of only the license plate.
- dclowd9901 15y agoIf you have a locked wi-fi and are sharing files via torrent, in civil proceedings (which these are), the companies have plenty of evidence saying that you are probably the one sharing the files. Remember, it's civil: "beyond a reasonable doubt" isn't required.
- Wilduck 15y agoYep, just "preponderance of evidence" [1]. Seems like this could fit. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_burden_of_proof#Preponderance_of_the_evidence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_burden_of_proof#Preponder...
- mgurlitz 15y agoAnd if you fail to protect your wi-fi they could claim negligence. "I have heard other lawyers compare leaving your wifi open to leaving a loaded gun lying around." (http://torrentfreak.com/are-you-guilty-if-pirates-use-your-internet-lawyer-says-yes-110806/ http://torrentfreak.com/are-you-guilty-if-pirates-use-your-i...). I think it would ironic if WEP became popular again because it could protect negligence and is trivially hacked.
- jonknee 15y agoWith that many cases, it's remarkable that they haven't accidentally threatened someone who either happens to be of means or is a shark of an attorney. If I had the money/ability, I would love to take one of these things to court.
- chc 15y agoIt's been done, and it doesn't always end well: http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-20021735-93.html http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-20021735-93.html
- Groxx 15y agoDoesn't always end that poorly, either: >But earlier this year, the judge found [$1.92 million] to be "monstrous and shocking" and reduced the amount to $54,000. Following that, the RIAA informed Thomas-Rasset that it would accept $25,000--less than half of the court-reduced award--if she agreed to ask the judge to "vacate" his decision, which means removing his decision from the record. Thomas-Rasset rejected that offer almost immediately. At least she's principled. I wonder if she has a means of accepting donations...
- chc 15y agoShe still lost, and she really got lucky that the judge was both sensible and not in the RIAA's pocket.
- Groxx 15y agoyes, but I'd imagine part of the reason people would want to fight against such claims is to help set precedent and prevent others from having to pay ridiculous amounts. If nobody fights, everyone loses.
- pavel_lishin 15y agoI would imagine that those people may want to avoid media coverage, and would thus settle (in their favor, or the alleged copyright holders') quickly and without much fanfare. I'm personally wondering if they've ever attempted to sue an organized crime figure, or relative. I wonder how many of these suits get quietly dropped after someone stops by their family's house for a "friendly chat".
- jswank 15y agoFrom the linked document, it looks like the bulk of the alleged content is for various adult titles. Who wants to go to go to court for allegedly sharing "Don’t Tell My Wife I A$$ed The Babysitter" (1257 users)? Given the choice of an publicly embarrassing allegation vs. paying "damages", it is no surprise that so many are settling rather than going to court.
- guelo 15y agoWhy do the ISPs keep the DHCP logs?
- lhnn 15y agoThey're about to be told to by the US government via the "Protecting blah blah child pornography act of 2011" if it's not stopped. Look it up.
- cookiecaper 15y agoThe US government already requires that ISPs retain logs of leased IP addresses for at least ninety days. As lnhh indicates, there is a bill making its way through Congress now that extends this to something like 18 months iirc.
- Estragon 15y agoIt would be handy if the spreadsheet came with the IP addresses.
- DrHankPym 15y agoHow do they figure out who participated in a torrent or not? If they joined the swarm, isn't that entrapment?
- mtogo 15y agoEntrapment is only entrapment if the person doesn't reasonably have a choice. Example 1: Cop walks up to person on the street and offers him cocaine. Person accepts, that's not entrapment since the person could have declined. Example 2: Cop walks up to person on the street and forces that person to snort cocaine at gunpoint. Entrapment, since no reasonable person could have declined.
- lutorm 15y agoIs it possible to request "reverse class-action status" for this so all these people can pool resources into one case?