3 ms·

I'm confused. I'm anti-pornography, so I have no love for these guys. However, the law is clear that downloading videos you do not have license to is illegal. S

I'm confused. I'm anti-pornography, so I have no love for these guys. However, the law is clear that downloading videos you do not have license to is illegal. Shouldn't the focus be on fighting the crime. Using courts to enforce sanctions against monetary losses due to illegal activity ought to be encouraged. The government ought to take more action to prevent theft as well. That's what the law says. I fail to see why he should be painted as a bad guy for 'shaming' people for stealing.

KingMob 3y ago
As a judge in the article says, the nature of the accusation is such that misidentified defendants may pay nuisance money just to avoid being publicly accused, even if innocent. The plaintiff might be deliberately exploiting that, too. It's all in the article.
dragonwriter 3y ago
> However, the law is clear that downloading videos you do not have license to is illegal. Shouldn't the focus be on fighting the crime. This is tort, not crime. > Using courts to enforce sanctions against monetary losses due to illegal activity ought to be encouraged. Using unreliable means which target the innocent and a strategy based on reputational harm irrespective of truth to coerce settlement isn’t addressing monetary losses due to illegal activity. It is a practice which by deisgn avoids isn't directed well at actual illegal activity and avoids any consideration of whether there are actual monetary losses. > The government ought to take more action to prevent theft as well. This isn't about theft at all. > That's what the law says. It would be irrelevant if it were, but its also literally not what the law says. > I fail to see why he should be painted as a bad guy for 'shaming' people for stealing. The issue isn't stealing, and it as a major hughlighted aspect of this thr method by which the targets are identified does not, even approximately, reliably identify the person tesponsible for targeted activity.
stronglikedan 3y ago
> the law is clear that downloading videos you do not have license to is illegal. Is the law clear? I thought it was only illegal to upload. Don't people get in trouble with torrents only because BT clients upload while they download? Has something changed over the years?
6gvONxR4sf7o 3y ago
As far as I'm concerned, the main issue in the article is indiscriminate use of IP-to-person mapping. If your roommate watches something that gets you sued, with the threat of making the top google result for your name being some porn lawsuit, then he's shaming you for something someone else stole. Yeah, that's being a bad guy.
mcphage 3y ago
Because the purposes of these cases aren't to stop people from stealing. They want people stealing, so they can sue them, and get paid to go away. Strike 3 isn't looking for justice, they're just looking to use the court system as a revenue stream. If people stopped settling, or the settlement amounts dropped significantly, then Strike 3 wouldn't even bother. They want the easy settlement money. And if people stopped the stealing, Strike 3 would probably be pretty unhappy.

KingMob 3y ago

As a judge in the article says, the nature of the accusation is such that misidentified defendants may pay nuisance money just to avoid being publicly accused, even if innocent. The plaintiff might be deliberately exploiting that, too. It's all in the article.

dragonwriter 3y ago

> However, the law is clear that downloading videos you do not have license to is illegal. Shouldn't the focus be on fighting the crime. This is tort, not crime. > Using courts to enforce sanctions against monetary losses due to illegal activity ought to be encouraged. Using unreliable means which target the innocent and a strategy based on reputational harm irrespective of truth to coerce settlement isn’t addressing monetary losses due to illegal activity. It is a practice which by deisgn avoids isn't directed well at actual illegal activity and avoids any consideration of whether there are actual monetary losses. > The government ought to take more action to prevent theft as well. This isn't about theft at all. > That's what the law says. It would be irrelevant if it were, but its also literally not what the law says. > I fail to see why he should be painted as a bad guy for 'shaming' people for stealing. The issue isn't stealing, and it as a major hughlighted aspect of this thr method by which the targets are identified does not, even approximately, reliably identify the person tesponsible for targeted activity.

stronglikedan 3y ago

> the law is clear that downloading videos you do not have license to is illegal. Is the law clear? I thought it was only illegal to upload. Don't people get in trouble with torrents only because BT clients upload while they download? Has something changed over the years?

6gvONxR4sf7o 3y ago

As far as I'm concerned, the main issue in the article is indiscriminate use of IP-to-person mapping. If your roommate watches something that gets you sued, with the threat of making the top google result for your name being some porn lawsuit, then he's shaming you for something someone else stole. Yeah, that's being a bad guy.

mcphage 3y ago

Because the purposes of these cases aren't to stop people from stealing. They want people stealing, so they can sue them, and get paid to go away. Strike 3 isn't looking for justice, they're just looking to use the court system as a revenue stream. If people stopped settling, or the settlement amounts dropped significantly, then Strike 3 wouldn't even bother. They want the easy settlement money. And if people stopped the stealing, Strike 3 would probably be pretty unhappy.