What is Digg?189 Comments
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+51Generally speaking, you should at least get through the disclosure and discovery phase of the litigation before you even *THINK* about settling.
That said, civil court is a complete and total crap shoot. Its sole purpose in life is to force people into settlements. - inactive, on 11/12/2007, -0/+47STEPS TO SUCCESSFULLY DEALING WITH RIAA:
(If you plan on doing anything but settling with them.)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MAKE ABSOLUTELY NO STATEMENT TO THEM OR THEIR "SETTLEMENT AGENCY". Do not even deny anything. Do not explain anything, thinking you can convince them that you or someone didn't do it. Give them no statements or explanations to work with.
Without your possible explanation of, "Well, I think my grand daughter did this" and such, they don't have anyone else to go after. Actually, they don't have any proof to begin with that YOU did anything, only that it was done with your computer. They need _you_ to help fill in those blanks in order to get a judgement against you. Why help them?
At best, they can say that a download happening from _X_ IP address at _X_ time. They can't say _you_ did anything. They can't, in some cases, even say it was done with your home computers, since it could have happened over your WiFi connection.
If you are confused whatsoever, but are sure to don't want to settle, see rule #1. DON'T SAY A THING. Your lawyer will thank you for not creating problems for you. - T0PS3O, on 10/12/2007, -0/+38FYI Text Only Cache here:
http://postsimple.com/7zjca
(Missing some stats diagrams...) - deepsub, on 10/12/2007, -3/+36Full text
"MPAA Offers To Settle (Again)
by Shawn @ 4:17 pm ยท filed under Movies, Law
There is an "Early Neutral Evaluation Conference" on May 23, 2006 to determine if this matter can be settled. Personally, it seems like an utter waste of time because at this point about the only thing I would settle for is if they dropped the case, paid my attorney fees and then dissolve their whole organization.
They offered me an initial settlement of $2,500 (before they decided to take it to court), which was rejected on the basis of principal. Then today I talked to my attorney and they are offering a settlement of $3,500.
Bahahahahahaaha! So if I refused your $2,500 out of principal, what exactly makes you think I'm going to give you $3,500 now? That's comedy. :)
From everything I've read online, the MPAA (and RIAA) has been pretty much extorting everyone simply because they can't afford to fight it. This certainly will give me something interesting to blog about. I just pray it goes to a full trial, where they will loose and then give everyone else that is being sued a nice lawsuit they lost as a reference for their lawsuit... "MPAA vs. Shawn Hogan" That has a nice ring to it. Maybe this loss will be the start of their demise. (Hmmm... I seem to have quite the aspirations, eh? haha)
From a purely business standpoint, I think all the lawsuits that the MPAA and RIAA are throwing out are only hurting them in the long-run. From everything I've read, it does not curb piracy at ALL. I would even argue it increases it because all of a sudden people that weren't aware you could download music/movies now realize you can (and some will start). Then you are going to compound this by everyone talking about it and reading other's blogs. I'm a perfect example... from talking my attorney and then researching stuff online as a result of that, I now know that if you have the proper software installed, you can download pretty much any movie (or anything else) you want.
Not only that, but you would think they would be wiser about who they choose to extort.
For as big of an organization they are, my website gets roughly 10,000 times more traffic than theirs (then again, I get more traffic than buy.com or adobe.com.. hehe)
So what just happened? Well now a few hundred thousands people per day were just educated about 1. about their general extortion and 2. they also now know that you can download whatever you want. I'm starting to think maybe the MPAA might actually kill the movie industry (which this dude shares my viewpoint). If they were smart, they certainly would choose their racketeering targets a little wiser (like maybe someone without the resources to fight and a captive audience of 80 million people per month that will read my viewpoint). This could turn out to be some good/interesting reading though. Reminds me a bit of the Winn and Sims fiasco.
Wanna see something else funny? Check Google's top 10 results for "MPAA"... It seems I'm not the only one that thinks the MPAA is looney. :)
http://www.google.com/search?q=mpaa
Oh, and just as a side note, they are utter liars... They told me they identified the specific computer that did whatever they claimed and they traced it back to me (of course I knew that was a lie since it never happened). But now they are saying they don't have any such information (MAC address basically). {rolls eyes}" - rockingrhino, on 10/12/2007, -0/+33This guy as stood up to be being screwed over before. See www.winn-and-sims.com. I wish him the best of luck.
- T0PS3O, on 10/12/2007, -0/+28They cleverly picked the guy who ranked first page Google (com) for the word eBay for quite some time. He has the means to get a LOT of publicity if he can be asked to put in the effort. The MPAA have done nothing but getting themselves into deep trouble with this. They can expect a lot of awareness about their scummy operations. This is going to be very funny.
- jambarama, on 10/12/2007, -1/+28IANAL (I am not a lawyer), yet. I am in law school. In my unprofessional opinion he could win this case and it would help defeat the extortion rackets these firms are running.
But if he loses, and they'll fight as hard as they can, it will be a HUGE blow to consumers. Now the MPAA/RIAA has no judicial precedent for these cases, they can just threaten for now. But if this goes to court, there WILL BE a precedent, good or bad.
If he loses it will be much easier to defeat others (even those with better cases in the future). He fights for many of us, sued and not-sued-yet. And with that in mind, I hope he is more careful as to what he publishes on his blog. Calling the MPAA "loony" and "utter liars" (even if it is true) is very dangerous. It just lets them make you look like a pirating lunatic to a judge even if you aren't.
He should talk to the EFF, they can give good counsel even if they can't represent everyone directly - and they may be able to (especially if you are a member). - fahrvergnuugen, on 10/12/2007, -1/+26I hope he sets a precedent.
- Pile, on 10/12/2007, -3/+23This is even more ironic considering the MPAA has been caught pirating themselves:
http://www.bsalert.com/artsearch.php?fn=2&as=1050&dt=1 - fohat, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18You think just because someone gets sued they are auto-guilty??
bah - joshv, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16It's not quite that simple. These are civil cases, and and such, the burden of proof is not "beyond a shadow of a doubt". It is "preponderance of the evidence" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preponderance_of_the_evidence . What this means is that a plaintiff's claim must be merely more likely than not of being true. If it's more than 50% likely (in the mind of the jury) then they can find you guilty. That's a low bar. If I were sitting on a jury, and was presented with ISP logs showing this guy's machine was sharing file, well - that's not absolute proof he did it, but it sure is pretty likely he was responsible for installing the software and actively sharing files.
Another phase which you overlook is "discovery" - in which the plaintiff can compell the defendant to divulge relevant information. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_%28law%29 For example, a dump of the registry - which would show if the defendant's user account had the software installed. So you can refuse to talk to the MPAA all you want before the trial, but if it goes to trial, you will be forced to answer questions, under penalty of imprisonment if you refuse.
You might thinks that a smart cookie would merely wipe his computer before discovery. Nope, if you know of a possible lawsuit, you can find yourself in hot water if you knowingly destroyed evidence that was relevant to the case. One might be able to arrange a coincidental donation of your hardware to charity, but I still think a judge might not look kindly on such an action. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17> I wish him the best of luck.
Oh, I do too! ...just remember that it is very important that you have the means to fight if you're going to fight and that not everyone has this luxury (and the civil court system thrives on that fact).
Personally, I would be interested in seeing a demographic break-down of the settlements that the RIAA does execute... and the compairing them to the demographics of the cases that go to court. I bet there would be some extremely revealing numbers.... (I wonder if the settlement centers could be subject to a class action for economic profiling). - T0PS3O, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15Got it from my cache:
http://postsimple.com/7zjca
Some links now missing, read back later if you want to see the post before this one, leading up to this etc. - T0PS3O, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14Read the rest of the comments, it has been explained. Server is maxing out due to the popularity of his network of sites and tools. New servers are on their way. This Digg will probably make him rush to the blade store in anger and splash that 100K he has planned to spend on new kit.
- Arramol, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14I've known some very intelligent people who were poor spellers, and everyone makes the occasional typo.
- seibed, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13It's pretty obvious that his personal blog is hosted differently than the main site (http://www.digitalpoint.com/) since it's still up and responsive. His priorities are his main site, not a personal blog running wordpress, is that really a bad thing? sound like a sensible practice to me.
- digitalpoint, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13Okay... hopefully I got the servers settled down (WordPress just bites the big one under load). A little Apache trickery to serve up a static page instead seems to be holding it down (for now).
Regarding the lawsuit itself... the suit is for allegedly "downloading a movie", not running a server that lets people do it. Hopefully I'm able to fight it successfully... but when it actually comes down to it, win or loose, I'll just be happy to annoy MPAA at least as much as they have annoyed me. - thotpoizn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12Wish I could Digg this, from the summary it looks like it might be a neat story. You know what would be super? Automatically caching content when a site makes it to the front page, and substituting the cache link for the original...
- databyss, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12"But if it didn't happen, why is he getting sued? I seriously doubt that the MPAA is drawing random names out of a hat and suing them."
Just like the grandmas getting sued who never had a computer. She telepathically downloaded the movie to her brain! - konrad8ha, on 10/12/2007, -7/+19'Settle with us, or else...' - stupid MPAA.
- MrUnderbridge, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11How much do the legal fees for those phases cost? More than $3000?
- T0PS3O, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11No, he's got integrity, no liar. Just a server problem. All his webmaster tools are getting too popular and the pretty beefy server (Cost 20 grand 2 years ago) can't handle it anymore. So he started a fundraiser 2 months ago to raise 100K worth of blades to support this growth. This far he raised 32K+ from his webmaster community.
No liar, just capacity problems which actually proves his point, rather than the opposite you are assuming. - Angostura, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11Perhaps they read the text-only cache mentioned in the second post?
- digitalpoint, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10I want to give them as little info as possible, because I don't want them to drop it. I want them to follow through with the case fully in court.
- sirgad, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9With bad publicity like this, it's almost like the MPAA have Jack Thompson working for them.
- dggeek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Not only that, but the MPAA usually makes a lower offer for you to take before those phases. They tell you if you want to wait you will have to pay more to settle. It's pure extortion.
- warrenfalk, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14@rlutterb
"like [to] READ... BEFORE... digg..."
You must be new here - anonynous2_, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Cache (again):
http://postsimple.com/7zjca - stomicron, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060124-6036.html
- digitalpoint, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Just to clarify, this is a civil (not criminal) case. There definitely is a different standard of proof.
- T0PS3O, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Why? Because the MPAA are well documented crooked basterds. It's statistically a pretty save practice to randomly sue people under 35. Chances are significant enough they once downloaded something not entirely legal. Threaten to sue them, person freaks out and settles.
- positron, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Just a quick reminder, because it seems alot of you never knew or perhaps forgot.
Nobody has ever been busted for downloading. It's the sharing that gets you in trouble. - Saintlink, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6These shotgun style lawsuits need to stop. One of these days a federal judge is going to put to an end these mass suage. Extortion is extortion, no matter how many times you put "IP Protection or copyright infringement" in the title.
- somerandomnerd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Some people use Digg as a bookmarking tool.
- mcaaronice, on 10/12/2007, -7/+13I lose (proper usage!) a little respect for the guy when he says the MPAA will "loose" the trial. That doesn't sound so intimidating. Good luck to him, though.
- evilTak, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6So, if you get sued by the MPAA, go out and buy the DVD(s) they accuse you of infringing? ;-)
- djdole, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6When it comes to these RIAA/MPAA lawsuits. I'm not totally against them.
BUT that is only to say that I believe an artist SHOULD have the right to protect their intellectual property.
What I AM against BIG TIME, is the settlements the RIAA and MPAA are demanding.
Sharing content has never conclusively been shown to result in the loss of the extreme profits that the industry claims. Neither can or should the industry be able to claim damages for any POSSIBLE loss in profits that MAY result from a file being shared. (You can't sue a city because you COULD HAVE been hit by a car while standing on a street corner.)
More likely the 'loss of profits the industry claims they experience from on-line piracy' are in actuality eclipsed by the loss of profits due to the way in which the industry is acting towards consumers. Additionally I'm convinced that much of the decrease in sales of retail CDs, the industry equates to on-line piracy are in actuality due in part to consumers switching to LEGAL on-line sales.
No handful of songs are worth a settlement/lawsuit for THOUSANDS or HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of dollars in irreparable damages as the industry claims.
I'd be perfectly fine with the industry suing people, IF they provided FULL PROOF of the illegal download, and not just circumstantial evidence (a police officer can't arrest a person without probable cause).
AND if the industry's settlements were for the cost of the material downloaded. (ie. 'You downloaded these 12 songs, here's the proof. We won't take you to court if you pay for the on-line market price of the electronic version, or if you purchase the physical CD single of each song.')
That is the scenario I wouldn't have a problem with. It'd be a scare/slap on the wrist for the consumer, the industry would get their profit form the downloaded material and save face, and the industry would still have many other consumers out there that it could 'harvest' it's piddly cash from.
In addition, no lives would be ruined by the industry's lawsuit/settlement due to severe monetary damages. - liquidoc, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9Wait....if he gets more traffic than buy.com and adobe.com and digg shut him down, doesn't that make him.....a liar?
- HiddenForce, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I hope he not only wins the case they wanted to "settle" out-of-court, but he also counter-sues them for harassment, attempted extortion, and anything else for which he can sue them.
- AeroGuy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7"But maybe I'm missing something."
Yeah, the fact that he claims that it didn't happen. (whether you believe him is a different matter.) - recursive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6It depends what you mean by "shot down". If you mean settled, then yes, the vast majority have settled because they were threatened with legal bills that were greater than their settlement if they didn't. Very few, if any, have gone to trial. This is great news.
- digitalpoint, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6No idea where they think I downloaded it from... hasn't even gotten that far (I never bothered to ask when they called me initially because it really didn't have any relevance to me since I didn't download it).
- AeroGuy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Bingo. It only went down a few minutes ago. I guess if you actually read it, it takes a few minutes, then you read the existing posts, which takes a few minutes, so those of us who had it load will get here several minutes at least after those who try to access it right after it goes down and therefore have nothing to read.
- shirashi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Hopefully, his lawyer is better than his ISP.
- digitalpoint, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Was "expecting" it only because of their initial call/threat about it...
http://www.digitalpoint.com/~shawn/2005/11/loeb-and-loeb-mpaa-extortion.html - Boondoggle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Sounds like he was running a popular server.
- funkytaco, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Sorry to burst your all-knowing bubble, but I've been on the Internet since '95 or so, and know very little of torrents and P2P outside of Napster.
- joshv, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Thanks flood6, is it indeed "beyond a reasonable doubt". I should not post in a hurry, but that's no excuse.
A number of people have pointed out that the IP could be spoofed, or perhaps used by a Wi-Fi leecher next door. Sure, these are all possibilities. It is also possible that the guy who pays for the account attached to the IP had file sharing software installed and was sharing movies. The way we weigh these possibilities is with the evidence. The MPAA presents it's evidence, and the defendant presents his evidence. Whoever's story is just a hair over 50% likely, wins.
So, if you want to claim that someone was using your access point, you'd better have some evidence of this fact. The mere possibility of such use isn't going to weigh very heavily against the MPAA's evidence. You will have to show that you have an access point, and that it was open at the time of the alleged file sharing traffic. You'd have to present your own logs as well. If you could show that someone, with a MAC address you do not own, was using your Wi-Fi access point on or around the times the MPAA recorded infringement, well then you might have something there. Someone who is actually guilty is unlikely to have such evidence, unless they run an access point shared by dozens and actively log DHCP requests.
As for the spoofing claim, it would be very difficult to mount a positive defense, short of showing that spoofing is the only likely explanation, as your PC could not *possibly* have been the source of the file sharing traffic. This is certainly doable - you could present backup logs showing what software was installed when, for all of the computers you operate, or perhaps prove you did not have a computer at the time by showing a donation receipt before the alleged infringement, and a purchase receipt for your current computer after. How likely is even an innocent person to have any of this sort of documentation? Not very. - UberNick, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"I'm pretty sure stealing stuff is illegal"
That's a much more loaded and presumptuous statement than you might think. Now even if we assume he did download copyrighted material, that doesn't equate to stealing. Though it doesn't apply in this case, one example is that he might have the rights to movies or music simply because he owns them in another form and wants to keep them in a backup medium. The RIAA is _really_ stretching beyond the legal limits of copyright infringement and the whole copying=stealing argument will lead you into a whole world of contradictions and unrealistic presumptions both legally and philosophically. - JohnboiWaltune, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Turning off WEP/WPA and relying on the "evil and anonymous stranger did it" is dumb. If someone actually does use your WAP to download child porn, the cops aren't going to just go away because you babble something unintelligeble (to them) about "WEP" "WAP" and "MAC"... you're still going to court and paying legal fees out the ass, and you'll suffer loss of reputation just for being accused (sex crime = guilty until proven innocent in most people's minds).
-
Show 51 - 100 of 191 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is