What is Digg?174 Comments
- CoachZed, on 10/12/2007, -18/+199Entrapment? "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
- spikes, on 10/12/2007, -16/+187How can you track down and send DMCA notices to your peers when your seed material is fake in the first place?
I smell a lawsuit. Entrapment bigtime here. - roosterjm2k2, on 10/12/2007, -17/+114"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
Dig+ for Princess Bride Reference that will go over most heads here.
And entrapment only works against law enforcement. - Craga89, on 10/12/2007, -8/+96I can see the headlines now!
"MPAA sues bitjunkie administrator for $100 Billion for finding evidence of entrapment" - coheedcollapse, on 10/12/2007, -2/+45Can you really get in trouble for downloading these fake files? You're not really downloading the file at all. It'd be like being convicted of drug possession because you bought oregano that you thought was pot from a DEA agent.
- mrmatchgame, on 10/12/2007, -5/+47***** YOU MPAA!!!
- spyrochaete, on 10/12/2007, -0/+41Acquittal in 6 easy words:
"I thought it was the trailer." - dooms13, on 10/12/2007, -2/+34Unfortunately it isn't entrapment, legally:
"ENTRAPMENT - A person is 'entrapped' when he is induced or persuaded by law enforcement officers or their agents to commit a crime that he had no previous intent to commit; and the law as a matter of policy forbids conviction in such a case.
However, there is no entrapment where a person is ready and willing to break the law and the Government agents merely provide what appears to be a favorable opportunity for the person to commit the crime. For example, it is not entrapment for a Government agent to pretend to be someone else and to offer, either directly or through an informer or other decoy, to engage in an unlawful transaction with the person. So, a person would not be a victim of entrapment if the person was ready, willing and able to commit the crime charged in the indictment whenever opportunity was afforded, and that Government officers or their agents did no more than offer an opportunity." - Source (http://www.lectlaw.com/def/e024.htm)
It seems they will say that the person downloaded the file thus they were ready and willing to break the law. Thats my opinion but I am no lawyer. - Portwineboy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+35I worked for a "mini-major" movie studio as the lead PC support guy for about 7 years. The first time they tried to do "interdiction" in-house they f*d it up badly. They were attempting to use Kazaa and had put the fake files in the wrong directory. Instead of seeding (or whatever you would call it with Kazaa) the fakes of our films, they were seeding the actual bootlegs they had downloaded earlier, as well as all of the other bootlegged material they had downloaded as part of their "investigation" into Kazaa and file sharing.
Our T1 line was swamped with incoming connections and it brought down the network for the entire floor of their building. - Afreyt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+23@tralalaa
"... I renamed goatse to the name of a Justin Timberlake..."
Wait... so the content of the file is being renamed ... to the same thing? - shredswithpiks, on 10/12/2007, -0/+21"*****, could you imagine the calamity if they could just try to pin you for a file name alone? o.O"
except that's exactly what they do. - erikpemberton, on 10/12/2007, -2/+22This is referred to as "interdiction" and there are plenty of companies that are trying to do this. Some work for the MPAA, some freelance for individual studios, etc. The anti-piracy industry is split between interdiction, tracking and making high-profile busts as the 3 main tools they use to deter people from downloading stuff. As you can see, this method of interdiction is very ineffective. Tracking just leads to lawsuits and software like PeerGuardian. The busts scare people for a few months and then it's business as usual. It's just a never-ending cycle. Dugg for the story, but really... this is old news.
http://www.google.com/search?q=interdiction+piracy - becominglumberg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+19The argument, however, is that they are not downloading the illegal file. You could substantiate intent, but there is no copyright in this case to enforce, unless they copyrighted the file which you are downloading. In that case, you could actually argue defense over downloading their copyrighted file by mistake, since you were trying to download another file. Its all complicated, but it does greatly erode the **AA's position.
- klawz, on 10/12/2007, -3/+20@bonchx
let me guess, you never bought a DVD, had it scratch the day after, and not be able to get a refund have you?
or better yet, have a CD go just beyond the 30 day return policy, and you can't return it, after paying good money because it has some ***** DRM on it, or you get a scratch on it, or you got it as a gift and didn't open it to find it defective 30+ days later - did you? no I don't think so. Copying stuff that you bought previously is not theft, I don't care how you mix is. There is plenty of good honest reasons for downloading content - just because the laws were warped by greedy corporations doesn't' mean that breaking those laws are unethical or ripping anyone off. Now go back to your MPAA/RIAA sponsored and paid for cubical. - SuckMyDigg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17This begs the question, can you really be arrested for intent? Regardless of what act you committed, if you were intending to do something illegal, is that enough for arrest under the Constitution? No.
We don't go by the Constitution anymore, so I guess its a moot point. - UberNick, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17@bonchx
How is anyone being ripped off? I can't stand when people equate using free resources to "stealing intellectual property". No artists with shared files are being ripped off any more than authors whose books are read in a library. Sorry but copyrights DON'T reserve your right to profit. - 2gunnZ, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15MPAA: Our chief weapon is surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... Our two weapons are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency.... Our *three* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.... Our *four*...no... *Amongst* our weapons.... Amongst our weaponry...are such elements as fear, surprise....
- spudnic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14Pre-crime? Where's Tom Cruise when you need him
- azsupra, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16tralalaa:
trust me, it happens. My roommate downloaded a file disguised as the Star Wars: Empire at War game and it turned out to be junk data. A few days later however, my Internet account was suspended and when I called my ISP (Cox) they said they were served a copyright infringement notice which cited that specific file. It doesn't matter if the file is real or if the case could ever hold up in court, to the ISP the simple fact of receiving one of those letters is more than they want to deal wtih and they will gladly drop a customer's internet account in a heartbeat to not have to deal with even the remote possibility of a lawsuit. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+19Remember, always use PeerGuardian and private trackers if you can.
- cpirate, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16Like getting arrested for attempted rape of a minor when talking to a 45 year old FBI agent.
- jmholloway, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14I really hate the MPAA. this is just like when the RIAA had that voluntary confession program but then sold the names of the people who confessed to the other movie / record industry and had them sue them instead. bastards.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+16"How can you track down and send DMCA notices to your peers when your seed material is fake in the first place?"
Uh, you can't. They're just trying to discourage people from downloading it, but if one person realize it's fake then all they gotta do is say, "Fake torrent, don't download."
Let's say I renamed goatse to the name of a Justin Timberlake song with the MP3 extension, that alone is not enough to get a notice or get into a lawsuit.
They have to show proof that what you were downloading was actually the real file.
*****, could you imagine the calamity if they could just try to pin you for a file name alone? o.O - vypergts, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10You all need to go and learn the distinction between being charged with a crime (i.e. stealing, possession of illegal substances, solicitation of prostitution, etc.) and being sued (i.e. facilitating copyright infringement, child custody, medical malpractice, etc.) before you posting ignorant and inaccurate analogies.
MPAA uploading fake torrents != buying drugs from a UC officer - BionicAntboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9To bonchx:
When I get an email from Showtime (forwarded by my ISP which refused to reveal my name) that chastizes me for downloading 2 episodes of Dead Like Me I say "Yeah, ***** 'em."
I taped (yeah on a VCR I'm so 80's) two episodes while we were away, but the beast ate the tape.
So I went onto Isohunt and downloaded them to watch through XBMC. With a big fat 100Mb pipe at home, it only took 40 min for the two episdoes.
1) I pay for the premium channel (TMN in Canada), so Show got their money.
2) It's originally aired as commercial free, so I'm not denying valuable 'eyeballs' from advertising revenue.
How exactly did I deny them any money?
PS: I don't give a crap if others use torrents for in theatre movies or whatnot. That's THEIR moral line to cross but I'm not gonna judge them. So far the copyright holders still manage to keep on driving Lincoln Navigators and snorting coke off of hookers' asses. :)
Back in the 300 baud days, I drooled when I made a connection to my fave BBS, and watched Doodle or BeachHead start chunking away on my C64 floppy - though I DID buy BeachHead II. :) - spudnic, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10I can type in caps too.
COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENET IS NOT THEFT - spyrochaete, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9??AA gives us little option but to steal their merchandise. DRM and copy protection and automatic installation of proprietary players have made me lose all trust in the music and movie industries. I'm sick of DRM and I'm sick of being bombarded by advertisements before a movie begins (for 25 minutes) in a theatre or (for 10 minutes) on a DVD. The only formats I can stand are pirated copies because they simply do what I expect them to. Retail movies and music used to JUST WORK, but now I have to suffer through unskippable nonsense that I don't care about before I can access the product I paid for.
If I'm going to be bombarded by ads I expect to get the material for free. If they're going to double dip me with inflated prices and advertisements and prevent me from making backups then why should I purchase those formats? If they're going to force DRM and spyware on me without even telling me then why should I ever trust them again? If the government does nothing to stop these companies from policing their own industries then why should I obey the law?
??AA owns the American government, who in turn owns other governments, e.g. Sweden with their illegal Pirate Bay raid and Russia with their repeated inquiries into the legality of AllOfMP3. Don't petition your government. Don't complain to these companies. The only way to communicate dissatisfaction with the way our culture is distributed is by putting the ball in our own court. That court is the unregulated internet.
Share movies and music. Every day. With everyone. - kazuhima, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8i think its the intention to do something illegal.
if you accidentally do something, i dont think anything happens. (well except for man-slaughter and stuff) - owenadam, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11I think its really funny how we use words like 'Caught' and 'Incriminate' to insinuate that what the MPAA is doing is wrong. Sure, I will agree with anyone that frivilous lawsuits and unsubstantiated legal threats are not the best way to make friends, but lets cut the BS and get off our high horses here. Flat out, we're not paying for movies or music that we download. Unless those downloads spur you on to go to the store and purchase what you just downloaded (which I will admit does happen sometimes) My point is we have to stop cannonizing ourselves for fighting some sort of holy way against to MPAA. I use torrent sites sure, but im not going around claming my innocence in the face of the 'Evil' corporations. Man up and admit that not paying for music or movies isnt your way of fighting international capitalism, or your way of rejecting cultural medeocrity, or any other BS you use to cleanse your moral slate. You're cheap. Im cheap, at least Im being honest.
The MPAA is trying to save some dollars, just like we are when we download stuff instead of paying for it. We might be fundamentaly opposed, but dont turn it into some ideological battle between good and evil. Its just all about the Benjamins - 0siris, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8This is however a civil not a criminal case. Solicitation of a prostitute, or attempt to purchase is legitimate in criminal cases. Attempt to commit a civil offense is not illegal. For example if i drive very close to your car and almost hit it, you cant sue me for almost scratching it.
- n8r0n, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Ok, well, time for a new P2P protocol...
- Frankie4Fingers, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Private trackers only work if they are not hosted by a RIAA group... :)
- caldaean, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7"The actus reus of theft is usually defined as an unauthorised taking, keeping or using of another's property which must be accompanied by a mens rea of dishonesty and/or the intent to permanently deprive the owner or the person with rightful possession of that property or its use.
For example, if X goes to a restaurant and, by mistake, takes Y's scarf instead of her own, she has physically deprived Y of the use of the property (which is the actus reus) but the mistake prevents X from forming the mens rea (i.e. because she believes that she is the owner, she is not dishonest and does not intend to deprive the "owner" of it) so no crime has been committed at this point. But if she realises the mistake when she gets home and could return the scarf to Y, she will steal the scarf if she dishonestly keeps it. Note that there may be civil liability for the torts of trespass to chattels or conversion in either eventuality."
Hence, since the owner or the person with rightful possession of the copyrighted material isn't deprived the property or it's use, it isn't theft. If you have a car standing on the parking lot, I make an exakt copy of it and take of, have I then stolen your car?
Copyright infringment on the other hand, that is a totaly different matter. In my opinion it's absolutely ridiculous to be able to patent/protect ideas and thoughts. After all, that is what music and film is. Give it enough time, and all that will be left is lawsuits, agreements and generic contents. I can just imagine the music/movie industry go at like electronic/software companies (Eg: Cisco/Apple). - becominglumberg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7He's working on it, thank Xenu.
- kingpin2k, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7"Just curious...how is it not theft? Is the technical term "theft" not applicable? Because it seems that...if you break the law and take something that doesn't belong to you...that's theft."
Because it's not taking anything. Making a copy of something is not the same as taking it. If I steal your car, you no longer have it. If I build an identical one in my driveway, you've still got yours.
The law can say whatever it wants...politicians are good at that, and the content industry has deep pockets...the word theft does not depend on what the law says. - bolero421, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6@jcounterman
People who equate copyright infringement with stealing are either:
1) Ignorant of the meaning of the words and their implications in the judicial, social, and economic arenas (falling for RIAA / MPAA propaganda)
2) Intentionally misusing the words so as to further establish this misconception (knowingly spreading RIAA / MPAA propaganda)
In any case, those who are simply ignorant or who deliberately spread falsehoods have no place in a discussion such as this. - spyrochaete, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7I much prefer the SafePeer plugin for Azureus. I used to use PeerGuardian but it's too much protection. It blocks a huge list of IP addresses at all times which impeded me from browsing many websites. A BitTorrent plugin makes much more sense because that's probably the application you want to limit your connections with.
SafePeer updates itself and now updates in the background instead of forcing you to watch the Azureus loading screen. - Natfly, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10But you dont have to actually have sex with a prostitute to get busted for solicitation of prostitution. The same can probably be said for copyright infringement.
- mariowario, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Good work by the admins..keep it up. Almost tops the RIAA toilet paper.
- nateabel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4You know that is not how it works.
- Raingwc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4 Scary thing is I've happened upon one or two of those that stalls at about 90%, although living in Sweden, im not THAT overly concerned.
*looks out of the window like a paranoid spy* - bmartin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@jcounterman
theft - the act of stealing; the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another; larceny
You can't tangibly "take" intellectual property, so it's not quite the same. 1's and 0's are not "the RIAA/MPAA's property." Likewise, when you "buy" a software product, the copy is "licensed, not sold." In a sense, you're buying permission to use the product. It has potential to be unlawful usage, but it's in the gray area as far as theft is concerned. I've replaced many CD's that have been scratched into oblivion using "illegally downloaded" MP3s. Does that make me a thief? - r00tus3r, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Crass22, they don't. They just pay someone to do it for them.
- kingpin2k, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Even placing it in all caps does not place copyright infringement in the same class of action as stealing. Even if politicians write a law that says "Definition of stealing = copyright infringement", it does not become so.
- spudnic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4This is the example I always use to explain it.
If I could, from my house, make an exact and perfect replica of a car, without altering, damaging or changing the original in any way, have I stolen that car? Of course I haven't. It's still illegal, but calling it theft is misleading and only done to make the crime seem much worse than it is.
Edit: Oh well, someone used the exact same example before me, nevermind - bolero421, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5If all this fuss is happening over simply the sharing and copying of music, movie, and program files, think of what will happen when those desktop 3D fabricators (printers) become more sophisticated and widespread. Digital files are one thing, but physical objects? How will society respond to something like that?
- becominglumberg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Yes yes yes! Thank you that someone is NOT calling this entrapment and actually understands the difference.
- mikeyj10, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The proper legal defense would be based on factual impossibility, because you did not actually share content illegally. An entrapment defense is saved for when you know your ass is going to be found guilty in a court of law and sent to jail.
- ScottMaximus1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3NNTP does not exist, Piracy is a myth created by nerds and the government...
- LiveFastDieOld, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3You can indeed be arrested for criminal intent, as in "intent to sell narcotics." As far as I know, there's nothing unconstitutional about that (not saying I support it -- just responding to your point).
-
Show 51 - 100 of 171 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is