U.S. P2P Lawsuit Shows Signs of a ?Pirate Honeypot?

[gideongallery]

Starting last year U.S. courts have been bombarded with lawsuits against tens of thousands of file-sharers. Among the copyright holders claiming damages are a few well-known names, but the vast majority of the cases concern more obscure content. As time passes by more and more copyright trolls join in, and in some cases copyright holders are now suing people for files that were deliberately mislabeled, lulling unsuspecting individuals in.

Since 2010 more than 175,000 people have been sued for online copyright related offenses in the U.S. All of these defendants are accused of sharing films on P2P networks without the consent of copyright holders.

so a person actually uses p2p to say get his favorite tv show (using torrents like a vcr) or his favorite album (using torrents like a mp3 ripper) and get sued because copyright holder fraudlently mislabeled the file to snag false downloads.

[ThatOtherGuy - BANNED FOR LIFE]

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by ThatOtherGuy

exactly

i download timeshift game of thrones and i get some gay crap i have no desire to ever see.

[kane]

Because law enforcement types have never misled those who are breaking laws in order to catch them. How is this different than dressing a female officer up like a hooker and having her walk the streets then busting guys who offer to pay her for sex or how is this different than an undercover cop selling drugs to someone then busting them for it?

If a person has a legitimate reason to be downloading these files they should have nothing to worry about.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by kane

Because law enforcement types have never misled those who are breaking laws in order to catch them. How is this different than dressing a female officer up like a hooker and having her walk the streets then busting guys who offer to pay her for sex or how is this different than an undercover cop selling drugs to someone then busting them for it?

If a person has a legitimate reason to be downloading these files they should have nothing to worry about.

seriously do you have a reading and comprehension problem

what your describing is the exact opposite of what is going on here

a copy pretending to sell SEX to somene looking to buy SEX would be the equal to these lawyers

pretending to give the VIDEO to people looking for the VIDEO (ie naming the video butfuck brotha but putting a you are guilty of copyright infringement we have your ip pay us or we will sue video in it place)


What they are doing is suing people who were looking for another piece of content because they successfully tricked them into violating the copyright.


if i download a tv show i paid for i am not breaking the law (because of fair use)

it only because of this mislabelled name that i might mistakenly download content i don't have a fair use right to download

[12clicks]

gideongallery, I suggest you stop breaking the law. Then there's no need to worry.

[iamtam]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

if i download a tv show i paid for i am not breaking the law (because of fair use)

it only because of this mislabelled name that i might mistakenly download content i don't have a fair use right to download

you need to learn what the fair use rulings say. you have not right to download anything from a third party, you can only download copies you made for backup. i would also like to see your receipts for the tv shows you paid for.

[L-Pink]

Originally Posted by 12clicks

gideongallery, I suggest you stop breaking the law. Then there's no need to worry.

[Klen]

I dont see problem with planting fake files,after all FBI doing same to catch pedophiles.

[TheDoc]

Originally Posted by iamtam

you need to learn what the fair use rulings say. you have not right to download anything from a third party, you can only download copies you made for backup. i would also like to see your receipts for the tv shows you paid for.

You don't pay for free air tv... it's free - don't need a receipt. You can record/copy that already, watch it whenever you want, years later if you want. It makes no difference how you get it, what I watch it on, when I watch it.. it's all legal.

[nation-x]

If I buy or sell tide laundry detergent under the guise that it is cocaine I am still guilty of the crime of delivery of a controlled substance... did you know that?

[Redrob]

Content uploaders should be prosecuted if the privately-owned content is made available to the public. This is not time-shifting.....this is piracy.

[TheDoc]

Originally Posted by Redrob

Content uploaders should be prosecuted if the privately-owned content is made available to the public. This is not time-shifting.....this is piracy.

The person sharing actual copyrighted material is the one guilty of copyright infringement. Time shifting has to do with your rights to download content already released to the public.

[12clicks]

Originally Posted by TheDoc

You don't pay for free air tv... it's free - don't need a receipt. You can record/copy that already, watch it whenever you want, years later if you want. It makes no difference how you get it, what I watch it on, when I watch it.. it's all legal.

Incorrect.
your payment is having to sit thru advertising.

[Redrob]

Time shifting has to do with storing a program so that an individual can view the program later when it is more convenient.

It has nothing to do with whether the subject matter is in the public domain or not. If the privately-owned content is made available to the public, it is not time shifting.

Time Shifting Definition on Wikipedia

Privately-owned content that has been placed in a publicly accessible tube site or P2P is not time-shifting, it is piracy.

[adultzone]

Ok I will turn off all my torrent now!

[Dirty Dane]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

i download timeshift game of thrones and i get some gay crap i have no desire to ever see.

Here is some timeshift for you:

A. HBO upload gay porn, mislabel the titles, then sue everyone downloading.

B. You got spammed.

[TheDoc]

Originally Posted by 12clicks

Incorrect.
your payment is having to sit thru advertising.

I can legally record it without the commercials, it's even built into the technology.... Oh Snap!

[TheDoc]

Originally Posted by Redrob

Time shifting has to do with storing a program so that an individual can view the program later when it is more convenient.

It has nothing to do with whether the subject matter is in the public domain or not. If the privately-owned content is made available to the public, it is not time shifting.

Time Shifting Definition on Wikipedia

Privately-owned content that has been placed in a publicly accessible tube site or P2P is not time-shifting, it is piracy.

You just stated what I did... Read what I wrote again.

And it does have to do with material already released to the pubic, ie: free air tv is public released - which is what the wiki says.

What the wiki doesn't say is anything about privately owned content, because that wouldn't be piracy, it would be stealing.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by Redrob

Time shifting has to do with storing a program so that an individual can view the program later when it is more convenient.

It has nothing to do with whether the subject matter is in the public domain or not. If the privately-owned content is made available to the public, it is not time shifting.

Time Shifting Definition on Wikipedia

Privately-owned content that has been placed in a publicly accessible tube site or P2P is not time-shifting, it is piracy.

wow cluelessly making an arguement based on a page that only references the 24 year old case


you might want to read up on the most recent supreme court decision regarding timeshifting in a cloud (a cloud which as it was designed included the public internet too)

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/08/victory-dvrs-cloud

considering a swarm is just another form of cloud this ruling is a game changer to your outdated oppinion on how fair use works

[Redrob]

I wouldn't bet the ranch on your decisions standing up over time.

As I said earlier, the thieves are trying to redefine our copyright laws.....

[TheDoc]

Originally Posted by Redrob

I wouldn't bet the ranch on your decisions standing up over time.

As I said earlier, the thieves are trying to redefine our copyright laws.....

Several court cases later and 60% of our GDP made up of intellectual property based on the current system and most countries are even more laid back than America on these laws, I have an odd feeling, the decisions will stand without problem.

Ever owned a VCR/dvd recorder or dvr and recorded anything, or recorded a song to tape, made a backup copy and then lost the org? Sure would suck to not have this technology around... I don't really consider myself a thief, I consider myself lucky that the courts haven't stopped on my rights or allowed me to be sued to death for my own personal copies.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by KlenTelaris

I dont see problem with planting fake files,after all FBI doing same to catch pedophiles.

again re-read my post to kane

that an example of putting non cp content under the cp TERMS

the person getting caught is looking for CP that the point

that a huge difference between putting CP under name of TV shows which the FBI would never do (which is what your trying to defend with your analogy)

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by Redrob

I wouldn't bet the ranch on your decisions standing up over time.

As I said earlier, the thieves are trying to redefine our copyright laws.....

idiot i linked to appeals court decision because it the link only link i could find that gave you access to all the briefs

the supreme court has already upheld it

it done
it law of the land since august of last year
get used to it.

[Redrob]

As you probably know, when a new case that details slightly different circumstances that address a nuanced disagreement in existing laws or differing decisions rendered by two different Appeals Courts, the courts will readdress the issues at play and may render a very different verdict.

This may well occur when intellectual property laws clash with the unexpected results of prior decisions. I'm sure lawyers are looking for the right case to bring forward.

[kane]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

seriously do you have a reading and comprehension problem

what your describing is the exact opposite of what is going on here

a copy pretending to sell SEX to somene looking to buy SEX would be the equal to these lawyers

pretending to give the VIDEO to people looking for the VIDEO (ie naming the video butfuck brotha but putting a you are guilty of copyright infringement we have your ip pay us or we will sue video in it place)


What they are doing is suing people who were looking for another piece of content because they successfully tricked them into violating the copyright.


if i download a tv show i paid for i am not breaking the law (because of fair use)

it only because of this mislabelled name that i might mistakenly download content i don't have a fair use right to download

So what your saying is something like the following is happening (this is just an example):

A guy goes to download the most recent episode of a TV show. Say for this example he is trying to download the most recent episode of Law and Order. What he gets is a file labeled Law and Order, but is actually an episode of Game of Thrones. Correct? Again I'm just using the titles here as an example.

If that is what you are claiming can you post to any case where this has successfully worked? It seems to me if you thought you were getting Law and Order and you have the right to download Law and Order then an obviously mislabeled filed is not your fault and would never hold up.

[ottopottomouse]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

So what % have been tricked into stealing a lexus when they only wanted a ford?

[kane]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

wow cluelessly making an arguement based on a page that only references the 24 year old case


you might want to read up on the most recent supreme court decision regarding timeshifting in a cloud (a cloud which as it was designed included the public internet too)

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/08/victory-dvrs-cloud

considering a swarm is just another form of cloud this ruling is a game changer to your outdated oppinion on how fair use works

That a swarm of users and a cloud of servers are the same thing is just your opinion, it is not the opinion of that court ruling.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by kane

So what your saying is something like the following is happening (this is just an example):

A guy goes to download the most recent episode of a TV show. Say for this example he is trying to download the most recent episode of Law and Order. What he gets is a file labeled Law and Order, but is actually an episode of Game of Thrones. Correct? Again I'm just using the titles here as an example.

If that is what you are claiming can you post to any case where this has successfully worked? It seems to me if you thought you were getting Law and Order and you have the right to download Law and Order then an obviously mislabeled filed is not your fault and would never hold up.

it hasn't successfully worked yet that the point this is the scumbag move this law firm is try

the point is this person is now going to have to spend money on a lawyer/time and effort to defend themselves in court.

personally i hope these MF get bitch slapped into next week for this shit.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by kane

That a swarm of users and a cloud of servers are the same thing is just your opinion, it is not the opinion of that court ruling.

no the concept of a cloud is a generic computer term

Cloud computing is a model for enabling convenient, on-demand network access to a shared pool of configurable computing resources (e.g., networks, servers, storage, applications, and services) that can be rapidly provisioned and released with minimal management effort or service provider interaction.

Cloud computing provides computation, software, data access, and storage services that do not require end-user knowledge of the physical location and configuration of the system that delivers the services.

that the definition which was recognized by the courts

any "shared pool of configurable computing resources that can be rapidly provisions and released with minimal mangement effor or service provider interaction' quualifies period.

[kane]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

it hasn't successfully worked yet that the point this is the scumbag move this law firm is try

the point is this person is now going to have to spend money on a lawyer/time and effort to defend themselves in court.

personally i hope these MF get bitch slapped into next week for this shit.

I hate to break it to you, but that is life. At any moment I want I could file a lawsuit against anyone I want. Sure, the suit could have absolutely no legitimacy and I could get bitch slapped by the court, but the person I sue would have to get a lawyer and at least defend themselves to the point that they proved my suit was bogus.

It sucks that this might be happening to some people out there, but that is how it goes. Downloading is a controversial subject and if you are going to wade into the water where thieves and criminals operate even if you yourself have done nothing wrong you can't be too surprised if you ended up having a little of the shit fly onto you.

Still, I do agree with you that the people who are knowingly trying to disguise their content and getting the wrong people to download it so they can sue them should be slapped by the court.

[kane]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

no the concept of a cloud is a generic computer term




that the definition which was recognized by the courts

any "shared pool of configurable computing resources that can be rapidly provisions and released with minimal mangement effor or service provider interaction' quualifies period.

I still think a swarm of users is different than a cloud of servers. If you read that article you link to above that covers the ruling one of the defenses they successfully made was that when a users pushes record on their remote one copy of the program they are recording is made on the server. If 1000 people record that show 1000 copies are made and each person plays back their person saved copy.

With a swarm (which I assume you mean torrent) you are actually distributing the work out to dozens, if not hundreds or thousands of people. Sure you are only giving each person a small piece, but to me that is still distribution. If you are downloading, but not uploading to the swarm then essentially you are taking a small bit from many users. To use the articles example you would be taking a small piece from the 1000's of saved copies, not just from the one you created.

There is a difference.

[camperjohn64]

Originally Posted by nation-x

If I buy or sell tide laundry detergent under the guise that it is cocaine I am still guilty of the crime of delivery of a controlled substance... did you know that?

I understand something different.

People are trying to download Laundry, but end up getting a zip file full of Cocaine and are busted for possession.

I understand copyright holders are putting copywritten Music or Video files and labeling them "Free - Barney Goes Bananas" and then suing the downloader when for downloading a copywritten file.

[Redrob]

I don't think studios are going after people for downloading products labelled as "Free." It wouldn't make any sense as you have provided the accused with their own defense.

[bronco67]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

What they are doing is suing people who were looking for another piece of content because they successfully tricked them into violating the copyright.


if i download a tv show i paid for i am not breaking the law (because of fair use)

it only because of this mislabelled name that i might mistakenly download content i don't have a fair use right to download

You don't really seem to know the definition of fair use. You should look it up. It has nothing to do with downloading stuff you've bought.

[L-Pink]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

it hasn't successfully worked yet that the point this is the scumbag move this law firm is try

the point is this person is now going to have to spend money on a lawyer/time and effort to defend themselves in court.

personally i hope these MF get bitch slapped into next week for this shit.

Good, I hope it costs him a small fortune.

[Ayla_SquareTurtle]

It's Io/Titan doing this, apparently.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201...ar-works.shtml

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by kane

I still think a swarm of users is different than a cloud of servers. If you read that article you link to above that covers the ruling one of the defenses they successfully made was that when a users pushes record on their remote one copy of the program they are recording is made on the server. If 1000 people record that show 1000 copies are made and each person plays back their person saved copy.

With a swarm (which I assume you mean torrent) you are actually distributing the work out to dozens, if not hundreds or thousands of people. Sure you are only giving each person a small piece, but to me that is still distribution. If you are downloading, but not uploading to the swarm then essentially you are taking a small bit from many users. To use the articles example you would be taking a small piece from the 1000's of saved copies, not just from the one you created.

There is a difference.

one you need to read all of the case briefs

the internet is used for parts of the distribution of the content in the case example

and if you know anything about tcp/ip packets you know that by the very nature of the protocol it broken into pieces to handle the transmission


2. if you want to argue that giving away a piece of something is just the same as giving away the entire copy for the purpose of distribution you going to wipe out the internet (see tcp/ip above)

3. if you apply the rule to digital material your going to have to apply it to physical content which means doing things like shredding documents and putting them in the garbage is going to copyright infringement if someone dumpster dives and puts those pieces together.


4. which means this type of setup case is going to happen a lot, better get ready to spend 20 k on a military grade shredder that turns the document into a fine powder or you going to lose your house the next time you shred a document.

[DBS.US]

Use a fake name for your internet, problem solved

[kane]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

one you need to read all of the case briefs

the internet is used for parts of the distribution of the content in the case example

and if you know anything about tcp/ip packets you know that by the very nature of the protocol it broken into pieces to handle the transmission


2. if you want to argue that giving away a piece of something is just the same as giving away the entire copy for the purpose of distribution you going to wipe out the internet (see tcp/ip above)

3. if you apply the rule to digital material your going to have to apply it to physical content which means doing things like shredding documents and putting them in the garbage is going to copyright infringement if someone dumpster dives and puts those pieces together.




4. which means this type of setup case is going to happen a lot, better get ready to spend 20 k on a military grade shredder that turns the document into a fine powder or you going to lose your house the next time you shred a document.

I'm not arguing that that giving away a piece is the same as giving away the whole thing. I am simply saying that a cloud of servers managed by a company that people use to record their TV shows/movies on as a DVR service is different than a swarm of torrent users who are downloading and seeding those shows/movies to other users.

Your example of physical content holds no water. If I shred something and someone takes it out of my garbage and puts it back together it is out of my hands and I had nothing to do with it. If I download a file and then actively seed it so other's can download it then I am taking an active role in the possible infringement. Also, if I shred something and throw it away likely I no longer have it so it would be no different than giving it to someone as a gift. Where the infringement comes in is if I copy it then give the original away and keep a copy for myself.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by kane

I'm not arguing that that giving away a piece is the same as giving away the whole thing. I am simply saying that a cloud of servers managed by a company that people use to record their TV shows/movies on as a DVR service is different than a swarm of torrent users who are downloading and seeding those shows/movies to other users.

seriously you need to read the ruling
your adding conditions which were not defined in the ruling.

there is no hard line between the persons home and those serves the cloud defines a lot of public middle steps.

the other machines in the swarm between the original seeder and the ultimate leecher are those middle steps.

it just so happens it a mesh relationship vs a client server relationship

that all.

it like when you tried to demand that accept commercials in the official timeshifting choice.

offical with commercials you could fast forward over vs torrented with no commercials.

Your example of physical content holds no water. If I shred something and someone takes it out of my garbage and puts it back together it is out of my hands and I had nothing to do with it. If I download a file and then actively seed it so other's can download it then I am taking an active role in the possible infringement.

seeding is not an active process it a passive/responsive process, it making available and only making available.


if anything putting all the pieces in a single self contained container (garbage bag) is more actively making available because your grouping it all together in one place.

that actually the opposite of how seeding works.

the fact is until the pieces are put together IN THE RIGHT ORDER you never have a working copy of the file

until that point it nothing more than a transient cache of data.

Also, if I shred something and throw it away likely I no longer have it so it would be no different than giving it to someone as a gift. Where the infringement comes in is if I copy it then give the original away and keep a copy for myself.

except if people made copies of those pieces and put those pieces together

remember fair use is the only authorized non licienced way to get around the monopoly granted to the copyright holder

disposing of copyright material is not a protected fair use

it may seem stupid but bad shredding is more of a copyright infringement since it both not fair use or licienced.

[Redrob]

Thieving is thieving no matter how anyone tries to rationalize it.

[SmokeyTheBear]

Originally Posted by 12clicks

Incorrect.
your payment is having to sit thru advertising.

so tivo is illegal..?

what if i run to the bathroom during commercials ? will i get sued ?

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by Redrob

Thieving is thieving no matter how anyone tries to rationalize it.

interesting how your making this statement to justify going after people who didn't take any of the copyright holders shit

http://torrentfreak.com/anti-piracy-...onduct-110610/

i hope john steele gets an ass raping at least equal to his UK counter parts

[DamianJ]

Originally Posted by SmokeyTheBear

so tivo is illegal..?

what if i run to the bathroom during commercials ? will i get sued ?

What if you use the SKIP ADS function built into the software? Maybe the feds will kick your door in. Be scared.

[Due]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

if i download a tv show i paid for i am not breaking the law (because of fair use)

The problem is usually that when you download it you share it hence you serve it to people who may not have paid for this tv show.

That's distribution of copyrighted material. Buying a TV show doesn't give you the right to share it.

With that said, I haven't checked the actual lawsuits so I can't say what they're suing for. I think it's a great way to get things under control and it will help serve as a warning

If you can make some money misleading a couple of thieves then why not ? The market wouldn't exist without them so it will regulate itself as things get cleaned up

[Allison]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

interesting how your making this statement to justify going after people who didn't take any of the copyright holders shit

http://torrentfreak.com/anti-piracy-...onduct-110610/

i hope john steele gets an ass raping at least equal to his UK counter parts

My first comment is that I find it frustrating in general that in most of your posts your sources are always TorrentFreak which only publishes a portion of a complaint, judgement or whatever in support of their clearly biased stance.

We have not done end-user litigation, but to comment on some of the these articles, I have to make the analogy to every other crime where some times innocent people are investigated & become suspects. This is why there is due process in the legal system. I'm sure the vast majority of those who end up in end-user litigation aren't "innocent", but of course Torrent Freak probably won't be doing an article about the vast majority that knowingly and purposely infringed on copyrighted content in order to avoid paying for it.

[blackmonsters]

Surfers who join pay sites never get sued or arrested.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by Due

The problem is usually that when you download it you share it hence you serve it to people who may not have paid for this tv show.

That's distribution of copyrighted material. Buying a TV show doesn't give you the right to share it.

With that said, I haven't checked the actual lawsuits so I can't say what they're suing for. I think it's a great way to get things under control and it will help serve as a warning

If you can make some money misleading a couple of thieves then why not ? The market wouldn't exist without them so it will regulate itself as things get cleaned up

except with torrents i am never giving anyone a complete working copy of the show

no one gets anything but a transient cache from me

in fact until they put those pieces in the right order no working copy exists

that the fair use of cacheing

if you want to change the law to invalidate that you can kiss the internet good bye because that how tcp/ip works too.

[Due]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

except with torrents i am never giving anyone a complete working copy of the show

no one gets anything but a transient cache from me

in fact until they put those pieces in the right order no working copy exists

that the fair use of cacheing

if you want to change the law to invalidate that you can kiss the internet good bye because that how tcp/ip works too.

No
1)
You are working together with multiple individuals to provide a full working copy, you do not have to know them.
That can be purused through one or more of the following items:
conspiracy to commit piracy.
Statutory conspiracy
conspiracy to defraud copyright holders

That can lead to conspiracy to defraud the US tax attorney (no sales tax collected here)

2)
An Individual may download the full copies from you directly.

That's just plain illegal distribution of copyrighted data and easy to fight

The fun part is that if you fight the IRS you'll loose even when you are right.

Personally I'd try and hit people as hard as I can if I was fighting copyright, conspiracy to.... is an awesome tool that can be used and misused in dozens of ways

You can't fight piracy by going after each and every person, you have to set out examples of the people you do go after.