German warning scheme goes to the USA

[Floddr]

Thousands More BitTorrent Users To Be Sued In The U.S.

The troubles for U.S. based BitTorrent users who share movies without permission is far from over. The United States Copyright Group (USCG) has called in the help of 15 law firms to file lawsuits against BitTorrent users who refuse to settle. For those who are willing to pay, the USCG has set up a portal where alleged file-sharers can conveniently pay their settlements online.

In March the U.S. Copyright Group imported the mass litigation “pay up or else” scheme to the United States. The initial targets were relatively unknown indie films, but this changed when the makers of the Oscar-winning Hurt Locker joined the lucrative scheme, suing 5,000 alleged file-sharers all at once.

Through legal action the copyright holders hope to compensate for the losses they claim piracy is causing. For the lawyers involved, the quest for settlements is also a profitable one as they get to keep 70% of the recouped money.

The USCG is coordinating the scheme and has been preparing for the huge amounts of settlements they expect to come in. They’ve now set up a payment portal where ‘victims’ can conveniently pay off their debts online. All the defendants have to do is enter their Record ID and they are ready to settle.

To ensure that the defendants pay up quickly instead of considering a court case, the USCG uses a variety of threats and persuasion tactics.

In the Far Cry case the alleged downloaders were offered an initial settlement amount of ‘just’ $1,500. However, this would increase to $2,500 if they failed to pay up within three weeks. A classic persuasion tactic, which was followed by a threat that going to court could lead to a fine of up to $150,000.

Up until now around 15,000 BitTorrent users have been sued as ‘John Does’. Several of the defendants have already received settlement requests after their ISPs were ordered by the Court to give up their information. However, not all alleged file-sharers have been willing to settle immediately.

To deal with these defiant defendants, the USCG has now called in the help of 15 law firms across the United States that will act as local counsel and pursue those who refuse to pay.

The Hollywood Reporter claims that this will result in an “explosion of lawsuits around the nation” starting in August. Although it’s not impossible, we have reason to doubt that there will indeed be thousands of cases against individuals.

For one, the cost of this operation would be huge, and without doing a trial case it might turn into a financial disaster for the lawyers if their evidence doesn’t hold up. If anything, we believe that USCG is more likely to go after a handful of select individuals with poor defenses first, in order to set an example and to make clear where they stand.

Perhaps the announcement should just be seen as a threat to those who are thinking about not settling their case?

More news about the new round of lawsuits is expected to follow in the weeks to come, apparently.

src: torrentfreak.com

 

[BugsyB]

they cant sue an ip addy...well, not yet anyway

 

[XMan101]

If you take this to the nth degree they'd have to track every e-mail that had an mp3 or video attachment

Impossible to sue each downloader, shutting off their source is likely to be the main attack, and that'll be almost as difficult in the long run.

Governments have been looking for a perfect excuse to crack down on the net, and here's one they can claim is legitimate.

Who knows, if you like conspiracy theories, maybe they helped encourage the sharing culture just for this reason

 

[tomba]

IntegritasO...I think I'm right in saying Eircom started the ball roliing in Europe by sending out letters to known file sharers across Ireland. I think that was in response to a court case by copyright holders/media companies which pushed the telco into action.

Here in England (you'll never get me to say Britain I'm afraid) our regulator, Ofcom, is trying to get ISPs to follow suit. But they're kicking up more of a fuss. I think that probably came as a shock to our Westminster shitheads, sorry, I mean politicians.

The easiest option appears not one of pursuing court proceedings against individuals (that would bankrupt some media companies) but pressuring ISPs into compliance. Throttling upload and download speeds or denying broadband services altogether to known file sharers who will not stop even after being threatened with further action.

It's a variation on copyright protection games which have been going on for decades by media companies which cannot or will not adapt to new technologies and, sometimes, more challenging ways of making money.

A pox on them all.

 

[ritsuka]

Knowing how much debt a great percentage of americans already face (massive student loans, credit cards, bad mortgages...) it seems far more than predatory and sick to attempt to make people pay these "settlements." If you have no money, how can they make you pay?

 

[gramison]

In very few countries do media companies have any legal way to "pressure ISPs into compliance." ISP's are not liable for the traffic they carry, just as phone companies are not liable for whatever illegal conversations they may play host to. This applies to most of the file-sharing software too: a specific use of it is illegal, not the technology itself. However, file-sharers certainly do use more bandwidth than the average subscriber. *This* is why file-sharers tend to get throttled. Volume of traffic, not the contents of it.

I must admit, I'm surprised that nobody has yet taken an opposing side to this. It's not like these are evil companies exploiting loopholes in obsolete and antiquated legal code. It is simply the application of modern-day copyright law.

I would hazard a guess that nobody (or very few) who file-shares has any illusion that it's actually legal. The shock for many of these people is more that *they* were the ones who got caught and prosecuted, not that they find out they were accidentally performing an illegal activity.

 

[Tom]

GUYS!!,, come on now!!

Let's look at a few things.
Our ( American Government ) can't fix health care.
Can't fix unemployment.
Can't fix an oil leak.
Can't take care of our OWN!! people when there is a national disaster.
We are in wars where we are not wanted, and can't fix the issues or get out.
Banks, insurance companies, and pharmaceutical companies run this country.
I'm not going to worry to much about the government suing people or blocking sites, because in the grand scheme of things there is so much more to fix and worry about.

Who knows, maybe it's all a bunch of propaganda to scare everyone. That I would believe.

 

[lhardwick69]

there are ip hiding programs as well as programs that will change your ip so they cant track you---so if someone uses a program changes ip to another one then they show up at that persons address to arrest them or whatever they need to prove it is in that house before arresting or the law can be sued for falsely arresting them

 

[Cute Prince101]

Hi Everyone i saw today's news about what the U.S. Authorities Shut Down 73000 Blogs ?
i said to myself now the Govement's wan't to crack down on private blogs Well there are some blogs that do have illegal content that shouldn't be there but shutting down the entire blog site server thats sad there are peoples private memories of family out there and now they cannot access there accounts.

Well What has just happened Today i can say " I see a dark future arrising coming"

 

[LuiM]

This sounds almost similar to what Russian police did to iFolder.ru three months ago. It have raided iFolder.ru's datacenter. Although staff offered 100% co-operation, the police cut the power and sealed the servers in the datacenter, putting iFolder completely out of operation.

 

[Floddr]

Can't fix an oil leak.

"Yes, we can!"

 

[LuiM]

Oh well... at least my new sig pic will cheer you guys up!

So true! :thumbs up:

 

[ritsuka]

GUYS!!,, come on now!!

Let's look at a few things.
Our ( American Government ) can't fix health care.
Can't fix unemployment.
Can't fix an oil leak.
Can't take care of our OWN!! people when there is a national disaster.
We are in wars where we are not wanted, and can't fix the issues or get out.
Banks, insurance companies, and pharmaceutical companies run this country.
I'm not going to worry to much about the government suing people or blocking sites, because in the grand scheme of things there is so much more to fix and worry about.

Who knows, maybe it's all a bunch of propaganda to scare everyone. That I would believe.

Is the U.S. Copyright Group, mentioned in the above article, a part of the U.S. government? I thought it was a corporate outlay representing the RIAA, big holywood movie studios, etc. It is true that the U.S. government can't do a thing for it's own citizens, but it has made U.S. corporations a great deal of money by acting on their behalf.

 

[gramison]

This thread reeks of government paranoia, seeking to pit the innocent filesharer against the insurmountable might of a government bent on destroying the working man. It seems to be conveniently forgotten or ignored that piracy is *against* the law, a ban which in my opinion makes sense, despite how inconvenient it is for me.

I would be interested to hear somebody defend or give an argument for the morality/legality of sharing copyrighted material.

Thanks.

 

[gramison]

Each of these are isolated quotes on the issue. I want arguments and rationalizations behind them, not just claims. Also, I'd rather hear the arguments and opinions of actual people on this board, not the first google result for "arguments for file sharing".

But, if we must...

MP3s are not a physical thing, so no actual value is lost by "stealing" a song.

The lack of a loss of value does not negate or invalidate the loss of profit.

Intellectual property should not follow the same rules as physical property.

Fine. Then I will also claim that tennis-related property should not follow the same rules as bed-related property. Furthermore, this hardly states that there should not be rules concerning intellectual property.

"...the misused notion of intellectual property as a form of tangible property." Lemley [quick-link]

The fact that we should treat the two types of property as different hardly implies that we should disregard one. Perhaps elucidation on this point would best be given by the full quote from that article. "I consider whether we would be better served by another metaphor than the misused notion of intellectual property as a form of tangible property. "

"Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property." Jefferson [quick-link]

The next sentence in that article starts "Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility,..."

"...making intellectual property decisions by analogy to physical object property, or even to older intellectual property policies, is a mistake." Stallman [quick-link]

Fine, but again, this certainly does not preclude the possibility to make intellectual property decisions. As a random funny side note, Stallman is the revered but radical leader and visionary of the FSF and GNU project, which I have contributed to.

If taping off the radio is okay, then why not trading MP3s?

Taping off the radio for personal use is protected under fair use laws.

If sharing with one friend is ok, then why is sharing with everybody wrong?

Ummm, neither is considered allowed?

The Internet is global, and the RIAA is forcing American laws on the world.

Most countries honor trade laws for goods produced in other countries. Also, please demonstrate a moral or legal violation here.

The international community may abide by the Berne Convention, but the United States' DMCA goes beyond what the World Intellectual Property Organization required in the 1996 WIPO Copyright Treaty. EFF-2 [quick-link]"

The fact that DMCA goes beyond requirements hardly serves as a reason to declare it invalid.
The UN requires that I give a bare minimum of $0 to charity, but I certainly may give more if I choose.

 

[newage]

Each of these are isolated quotes on the issue. I want arguments and rationalizations behind them, not just claims. Also, I'd rather hear the arguments and opinions of actual people on this board, not the first google result for "arguments for file sharing".

But, if we must...
The lack of a loss of value does not negate or invalidate the loss of profit.


Fine. Then I will also claim that tennis-related property should not follow the same rules as bed-related property. Furthermore, this hardly states that there should not be rules concerning intellectual property.


The fact that we should treat the two types of property as different hardly implies that we should disregard one. Perhaps elucidation on this point would best be given by the full quote from that article. "I consider whether we would be better served by another metaphor than the misused notion of intellectual property as a form of tangible property. "


The next sentence in that article starts "Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility,..."


Fine, but again, this certainly does not preclude the possibility to make intellectual property decisions. As a random funny side note, Stallman is the revered but radical leader and visionary of the FSF and GNU project, which I have contributed to.


Taping off the radio for personal use is protected under fair use laws.


Ummm, neither is considered allowed?


Most countries honor trade laws for goods produced in other countries. Also, please demonstrate a moral or legal violation here.


The fact that DMCA goes beyond requirements hardly serves as a reason to declare it invalid.
The UN requires that I give a bare minimum of $0 to charity, but I certainly may give more if I choose.

i was reading all this and i thought ..well that sort of made sense.....then i reach your last argument and go WTF????

The DMCA going beyond requirements IS justifiable reason to declare it invalid. And to compare that to the requirements of giving money to charity is nonsensical at best.

That said, i am not the least bit worried about all these crack downs. I am not avid an downloader. And in my experience people wouldn't pay for most of the stuff they download anyway. If all this pans out and the DMCA gets the internet in gridlock it will most likely cause more problems than solutions. I know i can watch any movie online for free, but they ones i actually care about i pay for. Regardless of the pirating that goes on, the quality is just not on par. Therefore many of those aforementioned loses don't exist and probably never will. There are industries suffering, but its not the big dogs...its the small ones. The worst case scenario i see is that the internet dies, and people go back to playing outside and maybe the obesity level will drop significantly. I hope this is not the case because then i may be forced to miss out on the many foreign shows i have grown addicted to but is not available in my area .

 

[gramison]

i was reading all this and i thought ..well that sort of made sense.....then i reach your last argument and go WTF????

The DMCA going beyond requirements IS justifiable reason to declare it invalid. And to compare that to the requirements of giving money to charity is nonsensical at best.

Why is it so reprehensible to you that US law is more stringent than international guidelines? Especially guidelines which were created in 1996, before the age of napster, morpheus, kazaa, and bittorrent.

What is the RIAA doing that you disapprove of? What part of the law do you find to be unconstitutional?

Also, forgive me for not being able to answer to you satisfaction all of the arguments that were copy and pasted. All of my responses are based on my own opinions, and were written after reading the full articles which the quotes were taken from.

 

[newage]

Why is it so reprehensible to you that US law is more stringent than international guidelines? Especially guidelines which were created in 1996, before the age of napster, morpheus, kazaa, and bittorrent.

What is the RIAA doing that you disapprove of? What part of the law do you find to be unconstitutional?

Also, forgive me for not being able to answer to you satisfaction all of the arguments that were copy and pasted. All of my responses are based on my own opinions, and were written after reading the full articles which the quotes were taken from.

Clearly you didn't understand my post i don't want to get into the finer details of laws of DMCA. i just thought your last argument in my post was nonsensical at best. And funny enough you didn't actually address it appropriately. Instead you question me further....

 

[gramison]

Clearly you didn't understand my post i don't want to get into the finer details of laws of DMCA. i just thought your last argument in my post was nonsensical at best. And funny enough you didn't actually address it appropriately.

I guess indeed I didn't understand your post. I attempted to expound on the "nonsensical" analogy that I had made. What I was trying to point out in my failed analogy is that don't see what the problem is. Why should I feel violated because US law is stricter than 1996 UN guidelines?

Instead you question me further....

I'm questioning you further in attempt to understand your opinion. You state: "The DMCA going beyond requirements IS justifiable reason to declare it invalid." I ask: Why is this such an evil thing? What principle of yours does this violate? If my local government decides to enforce stricter driving regulations than the federal government mandates, I don't view this as malicious.

As a summary, replace my original sentence about charity with the following: "I fail to see what is wrong when a government decides to enforce stricter copyright law than the required minimum in 1996."

 

[LuiM]

Time to de-borify the thread, with a nice pic!

Interesting method!
But does it de-borifiy the thread?
Or does it borify the pic?

)