acs:law get raked over the coals in court let the backpeddling begin
 

http://torrentfreak.com/acslaw-try-t...-court-110117/

it seems that ACS:law was denied their motion to dismiss
they tried to drop their case to avoid paying the court costs of the defendants

this is going to get nasty.

and they are already starting to backpeddle to avoid the huge liablity for what seems like the inevitable judgement against them.

got a qustion for those sue the downloaders crowd of copyright holders

what are you doing that so different

Article makes it sound like they tried dropping the cases after the judge had decided they had done something iffy. Not surprised they can't pull out really.

I cannot wait till those cunts get their comeuppance.

the process these guys were following has been iffy from the begining

their arguement was that if your ip address was being used, that automatically ment you were aware and authorized the transaction so that it would qualify for "wilful" infringement.

the problem is steve /robbie etc are basically copying this bogus process to do their sue the downloaders stuff too

robbie and steve's time is numbered on this despicable behaviour too:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/n...ight-troll.ars

thank you eff

i donate to these guys every year i am so glad they are defending the right of individuals against they abuses of the law

The IP argument is valid in "most" cases... it's not in "some" cases. The IP is powerful enough to subpoena ISP's for login, usage info, etc... that often and easily provides more than enough proof (even with open wifi) that someone in the house did the illegal uploading.

It's the IP "ONLY" blanketing/threats that's the issue, not dong it in the proper regions, etc.... but if they did get sued in that area, they would lose. It's the 1% that didn't do it, that makes IT ALL an issue.. The other 99% that choose to fight it, will lose.

Edit: Just like in this article/case... The judge kept one, the IP is a valid way to fight this ALL AROUND - It's not valid if you try to sue out of your region, the court can't touch those people... but that doesn't mean the case isn't valid though.

citation needed

Thanks for the link/read foo.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh adapt or die
why do you think they call it the long arm of the law?
http://torrentfreak.com/no-ads-or-wh...-rules-110118/
can you dig it? i knew that you couldn't;)

Well done! You've unlocked today's "My post has absolutely nothing to do with the OP" badge.

Almost every court case that has come up related to this has had subpoena records from the ISP based on the IP. You can't sue an IP - you can only sue a person - to do that, you need the information.

Same can be done with hosting companies, users on tubes (ie youtube), facebook, twitter, all have given it info on nothing more than IP and sometimes just a login/user to get the IP and a court order of course. Has happened 1000's of times.

P.S. It can all be done without the user ever knowing about it too.

Sorry, I meant specifically the part where you said:

subpoena ISP's for login, usage info, etc... that often and easily provides more than enough proof

I don't recall an ISP giving up log ins or usage information that has "often and easily" provided proof of copyright infringement. I wondered if you had a citation.

How do you think they sued the person? The ISP gave up the info. Once it's in court, come on... they'll get your ISP, credit report and make you pull your bank statement if they want.

.... Can't remember the case. The one chick argued her ex husband did the downloading/uploading, while she was sleeping. They used her ISP records to prove the case.

Usually the "suing" is done from solely a public listing of an IP on a tracker.

I see, I've just not seen a court giving up 'usage' that 'easily' proves a case. What would they give up? Low level packet analysis that "proves" a file that reports to be an infringing file went through her router? Or physically prove the file is on her HDD? And that the file is what it claims it is?

Just curious as to what is "proof".

Well... Like most normal people, not in law - I don't keep proof, citations or records of shit that doesn't directly mean anything to me. I just read the articles and move on...

Anyway... they sent letters to the people directly, they got the address from the ISP. IP's don't have a home address and they can't be sued... Once court proceeds on, getting more information is VERY normal.

I've never read an IP case that didn't get various details through various subpoenas, most based on users & ip's, all of which was used in the case.

Think of how basic this is.... how does anyone get the Home Address to send a letter to, just based on an IP address? They CLEARLY ask someone...

They ISP tells them WHEN the IP was used, and by WHO. They 'could' give up a lot more details, if asked.

Without this very basic, very needed info... NOBODY would be getting sued. Even if the person sued the IP's first, the court is just going to make the ISP's give up the info so they know who to sue, so they can be served.

I don't see how guilt by IP is any different then city cameras capturing license plate numbers and sending tickets in the mail. They are not ticketing the car but the owner of car... same thing right?

Oh I understand how they get an IP, I just wondered if you had any citation for any case at all where any 'proof' at all was given up by an ISP and concerned data usage and what that actual proof was. Logs of packets?

That's because you're a really obvious troll.

HTH

Love

Damian.

All the court cases that make it to court where the person fights it... either side, the ONLY proof they have is the ISP logs vs. the IP/times of the infringement.

You make it sound like I said data usage was the only proof used... it's just more proof. Data usage shows a pattern of active use, not what it was being used on.

Well what you said was this:

subpoena ISP's for login, usage info, etc... that often and easily provides more than enough proof

And it was just that I was questioning as I don't recall seeing any case where the proof of infringement was reliant on evidence from the ISP. As you claim it often and easily provides more than enough proof I wanted to read up on those cases. Not suggesting for a split second it didn't happen, just curious about what this 'proof' would actually look like. Usage patterns on an IP address aren't proof of an individual infringing copyright, obviously. It's a record of someone using that IP address (or spoofing it).

It's the proof aspect you mentioned I am interested in.

Anyhoo, that's not really the point. The point is Andrew is fucked. And this pleases me no end. The disgusting cunt.

I did say, login and etc... which is more than just usage data. I would also recommend not reading articles on the subject, as they don't cover anything but opinions.

Their is no other way to argue these cases without "proving" the person was infringing. You can't "claim" an IP did anything, you have to PROVE it. You can't even claim a person had an IP, you have to prove that first, then prove the other crap.

This is just logical... it's IMPOSSIBLE to do it any other way.

I just wondered what this proof was/is. I wasn't denying its existence.

Google isn't helping me find anything about ISPs giving up data that proves infringement that any case I can see rested on.

Damian, dont hold anything back now, tell us how you really feel ! :Graucho

Here in America, it's written into our Laws.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/11042...wnloaders.html

"A U.S. federal judge has again sided with the recording industry in its efforts to subpoena the names of music downloaders, upholding a portion of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act that requires Internet service providers to turn over names of alleged copyright infringers. Critics said the law provides a cheap and easy way for music companies, or anyone else, to find out the names of anonymous Internet users."

I am not sure how you are reading me saying "what is the actual proof the ISPs give up" as "ISPs will never give up the name and address of someone after they get asked to by a court".

You seem to keep arguing that courts will give out a name and address. We all know that. No one is suggesting they won't. I am asking what proof of copyright infringement they give up. Is it a log of packets or what?

Sorry I was unclear.

I took part in a panel at interNEXT on suing end users and didn't say cunt once!!!

I was all polite. I did say despicable and unethical a few times though.

... you can ask for anything you want in a Subpoena, only a few things aren't allowed - like an ISP can't give up your emails through Subpoena only. But during the case, if your emails hold evidence for or against you, they can be requested - just like all other evidence.

You ask for more info, login dates, times.... that's how they build the case and that's how you defend yourself.

Otherwise it's not a court case, it's two people pointing fingers without a single bit of evidence.

what self control, what restraint, I'm proud of you :thumbsup

http://www.fubarwebmasters.com/galle...519/z06161.jpg

hey and congrats to you for having your head so far up your ass you fail to see the inevitable conclusions to all of your whining and pirate ass kissing!:thumbsup

on edit: and btw it has everything to do with this thread because as you and people like gideongallery continue to post meaningless crap about how you think cases against pirates are not working, the reality is that the BIGGER cases are working like gangbusters.

you may continue to play cheerleader all you want for piracy but in the end you will only experience butthurt.

Practicing law in the US might get you sanctioned :1orglaugh

Hillarious picture. Damian is standing next to Sean Holland whose company, New Sensations, is also suing bit-torrent users. I see NS listed here as a customer of Damian's.

http://www.adultmarketing.co.uk
"My Clients Past and Present
New Sensations"

Does that make him a cunt as well Damian? Sean is a great guy and always has my respect in the biz.

it like going after you guys for selling porn to minors when little ohnny steals his fathers credit card and uses it to signup for the site.

would you support extending the law to that extreme

how about whenn your perfectly legal porn is superimposed on the picture of a preteen to make virtual kiddie porn, should you be held liable for assisting


the copyright laws require a "wilful" aspect for the liability
and the copyright act has this thing called fair use that turns what would otherwise be illegal into perfectly legal actions.

you can't get away with extending the law in that way without stomping all over those rights.

the point is those types of fishing expeditions have been eliminated, because they invade peoples privacy rights.

we don't know if your guilty so we will route around in your private lives is going to cut it anymore

you need to collect proof of guilt before you invade a persons privacy.

Shhhh, you don't know what you're talking about, again...

It's called a Doe Subpoena. From wiki "A Doe subpoena is a subpoena that seeks the identity of an unknown defendant to a lawsuit. Most jurisdictions permit a plaintiff who does not yet know a defendant's identity to file suit against John Doe and then use the tools of the discovery process to seek the defendant's true name.[1] A Doe subpoena is often served on an online service provider or ISP for the purpose of identifying the author of an anonymous post."


It's not a privacy issue, AT ALL - it's written into the laws!

did you even read what i said

i never said that they couldn't get the identity, i said the fishing expeditions have now been denied.



there is a huge difference between getting the identity of a person who you know did something wrong anonymously (ie someone posting slanderous statements under a fake nick) and going on a fishing expedition thru logs to get the proof that they are guilty of a crime.

just because they can get a persons name, doesn't give them a right to route thru a person private surfing history hunting for proof of a POTENTIAL crime. That what the judges are now saying.


the point is for a john doe subpoena to be valid the lawsuit arguement of culpability must be valid
and judge birss just ruled that it wasn't

the bar has been set much higher, you need to prove that the infringment was "authorise" now.

now all we have to do is wait for the US courts to get their head out of their asses and do the samme thing across the pond.

its sad really, rather like watching a dinosaur who has been fatally shot yet is still stumbling along unaware of it's dire predicament.

Yes, I read it... You said it invades peoples privacy, and it doesn't.

In relation to the Doe Subpoena, what you stated exactly what previous court cases have stated, well before any IP cases happened. All you did was repeat what the law says....in your own half twisted way.


No the point of the John Doe is so you can sue and use the court to force people you couldn't otherwise ask, to give up the needed information.

The bar hasn't changed... The Judges have said, they CAN sue, just do it in the right district. Another words, blanket attacks wont get you far, but if you want to blanket the attack per state, and you have a lawyer in that state, have at it.