Are copyright holders seeding files?
p2pnet news view Freedom | P2P:- If you`re in Europe, “you`ve probably already heard of Digiprotect,” said p2pnet in February, quoting the BBC as saying, Thousands of internet users have been told they`ll be taken to court unless they pay hundreds of pounds for illegally downloading and sharing hardcore porn movies.
And, “in the middle of it all is the infamous UK lawfirm of Davenport Lyons, beloved by ‘protection’ companies in Europe, and DigiProtect`s legal representatives in Britain,” said out story, going on,The company was recently fired by Atari after making a gross mistake by targeting an innocent UK husband-and-wife.
British consumer rights lobby Which? also filed an official complaint against Davenport Lyons for its, “illegal filesharing” letter campaign.
Now, “Last year, we talked about some language in a contract being used by a company that was supposedly trying to help copyright holders track down content being shared online, for the purpose of sending out threatening ‘pre-settlement’ letters,” says Mike Masnick in TechDirt, continuing »»»
The contract appeared to indicate that the copyright holders were giving the tracking company permission to put their works on file sharing programs, for the sake of “catching” people downloading the content:
To achieve the purpose outlined in clause 1, LICENSOR grants DIGIPROTECT the exclusive right to make the movies listed in Appendix 1 worldwide available to the public via remote computer networks, so-called peer-2-peer and internet file sharing networks such as e-Donkey, Kazaa, Bitorrent, etc. for the duration of this agreement
This seemed highly questionable. Considering that this was in association with a law firm that had been known to send out a large number of these pre-settlement demand letters, but never filed a lawsuit, one could make an argument that the companies had worked out quite a system: purposely put your own content online, watch who downloads it, then send threatening letter demanding payment. Of course, there were denials all around, and people insisted that this sort of language was really only necessary so the tracking company could download the content themselves.
And yet… Michael Scott points us to a lawsuit in Germany that indicates someone may be using this very trick. It’s unclear from the writeup if this is the same company (probably not), but a guy who’s been accused not just of copyright infringement, but a criminal charge of distributing pornography, is claiming this is what happened to him. His explanation is rather compelling.
He claims that he was using a modded version of file sharing software that did not allow upload capability. In doing so, it means that he never distributed anything (which might make the “distribution” charge pretty hard to prove). But, of course, if he never shared anything, then how would his IP address get flagged?
The only real option is that whoever he downloaded it from provided the IP address back to the copyright holder — or was the copyright holder itself.
Of course… if that’s the case, one could make a pretty strong argument that the content itself was also authorized, since it was put up on the file sharing network by the copyright holder.
And, on top of all this, Mike adds, “the guy claims that the files he downloaded had misleading titles, and he didn’t intend to download pornography. Whether or not you believe any of that (or his intentions), it certainly suggests that at least some content owners may be putting their own content up in order to catch downloaders and hit them with lawsuits or settlement letters.
“It’s difficult to see how that’s legal.”
p2pnet - DigiProtect `RIAA-style tactics` in the US, January 9, 2009
BBC – Cash demand over ‘porn downloads’, December 5, 2008
infamous UK lawfirm – UK attack lawyers Davenport Lyons sued, December 10, 2008
TechDirt – Are Copyright Holders Seeding Own Files To Find, Sue Downloaders?, August 27, 2009
August, 2009
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It`s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.
August 27th, 2009 at 6:32 pm
According to them in their US court cases, just having the file visible, downloaded or not IMPLIES CONSENT.
So, by their own reasoning, which has been held up in one court, placing their own works would also
IMPLY CONSENT for those works to be distributed.
In one case ( can’t remember which one ) someone tried to get the testimony of a DJ who got his
copies FROM KAZAA at the behest of the label. You bet your ass this guy was never allowed to
sit in that courtroom.
By their own logic they have given permission.
Do as they say not as they do.
August 27th, 2009 at 7:40 pm
Sounds like a legal version of the pirate bay. Fu**ing retards, now I know why nobody gives a fu** about downloading anymore.
August 27th, 2009 at 10:56 pm
I did downloaded a porn content few year ago while trying to download something else. It was at a time during which TBP were not cleaning yet fake and mislabeled torrents. I do believe that some of these crapy porn companies mislabeled and still do mislabel torrent on purpose for various reasons. Talk about a bunch of anti-socials! Many of these porn companies are members of the MPAA by the way.
Why Am I not surprised?
August 28th, 2009 at 11:39 am
1. Get a 3rd party server
2. Use a good firewall + IP filter
3. Live happily ever after
Stop P2Ping from your home IP’s people. They can’t hit what they can’t see
August 28th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
IP filter ? dont make me laugh
August 28th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
” IP filter ? dont make me laugh ”
So then, obviously you have a much better idea then ?
Care to contribute ?
Please, share your ‘better’ idea.
or are you just going to collect your RIAA label member paycheck now ?
August 28th, 2009 at 4:18 pm
I hate mislabeled files! It sucks when I try to download my porn and I get some crappy movie instead!
August 28th, 2009 at 5:43 pm
@D7sre22
that ‘laugable’ iP filter has helped to keep me safe for a dedcade now so I don’t see your point but please go ahead with your own methods and if that involves using your own iP during your P2P/UN or whatever activities then I wish you the best of luck. Unless you’re super 1337 and have 0Day FTP access, which most don’t, you need to use an iP filter….period.
August 28th, 2009 at 9:37 pm
D7sre22:
Y’know what? Elitist “Scenester” jabbering pisses me off.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: pretentious little “underground” cliques are totally pussy, because they’re based on HIDING from the corporate media oligarchy, instead of challenging them (much less the bought and paid for ‘legal’ structure that allows them to do this shit.)
Personally, I’ll take ten million “lusers” using Frostwire on a daily basis against any of you pathetic snots who think they’re so 3l33t, because Y’know what? It’s the Frostwire people, the PUBLIC bit-torrent users, the Pirate party members, the free-culture advocates, and the Creative-commons license users who actually make a difference — not some pussy clique that only exists so you can keep getting “zero-day” releases and brag rights against other groups.
So pony up, dawg: do something CONSTRUCTIVE — like educating folks as to the relative merits of IP filtering as opposed to, say whatever pussy little invitation-only clique you represent.
Otherwise, do everybody a favor and fuck off.
August 29th, 2009 at 8:30 pm
@Henry:
Why don’tcha just open up and tell the guy what you REALLY feel?!
August 31st, 2009 at 9:16 pm
Oh, come on, when the police send an undercover agent to distribute drugs and see who gets them, does it also imply the consent????
I don’t believe that anyone who got caught is as innocent as they claim to be.
Whatver they say they did not do, it is all one big LIE.
August 31st, 2009 at 11:45 pm
@The last Reader’s Write:
There’s a big difference between being guilty of a major felony and civil infringement.
Ironically, the drug dealers don’t get a $2,000,000 fine when they’re convicted, and they don’t get convicted without solid PROOF they’ve committed the crime.
September 1st, 2009 at 11:36 am
” I donât believe that anyone who got caught is as innocent as they claim to be.
Whatver they say they did not do, it is all one big LIE. ”
I hope the printer the RIAA sued rots in prison, that’ll teach it.
I hope the dead guy they sued also rots in … Oh, he’s been there and done that I guess.
Point is, someone who is not engaged in file sharing of any kind can get ‘caught’ since IP’s
can never RELIABLY point to the same computer.
It’s also real easy to convict someone if you don’t have to prove anything.
” Oh, come on, when the police send an undercover agent to distribute drugs and see who gets them, does it also imply the consent???? ”
So that’s the side your arguing on ?
. The RIAA says it does. Therefore, if it does, like the RIAA says it does, imply consent,
The RIAA has been fighting tooth and nail to make sure that the judge believes that it DOES, in fact, imply consent.
You don’t read much do you
like the RIAA says it does, then RIAA members seeding RIAA member content are, in fact, implying consent, in the
way the RIAA lawyers argue in court.
By their OWN RULES, they are implying consent.
So, if in fact you do not believe it implies consent, like the RIAA says it does, than you support the defendents in these
cases that DISAGREE with the RIAA and say that merely being able to see a file on a list does NOT IMPLY CONSENT,
( the position you support ), that ACTUAL DISTRIBUTION TO AN UNAUTHORIZED PARTY MUST TAKE PLACE,
something the RIAA so far has not been required to prove.
I’m happy you agree with the rest of us on that bullshit ‘implies consent’ crap the RIAA slings.
Thank you for your support.
September 1st, 2009 at 12:14 pm
@EPiH0N3: “that âlaugableâ iP filter has helped to keep me safe for a dedcade now”
And just how did you go about ascertaining that little gem? Don’t tell me, it’s like the magic rock that keeps polar bears away, right?
Well now, I have never used an IP filter in (close to) a decade and have also never been accused of illegal downloading… but I do keep a rabbit’s foot in the draw upstairs. So then…. what other spurious BS are you going to try and use as pretend evidence?
The very notion that somebody could track individual IP’s across the globe and keep up to date lists of them is completely and totally laughable. I thought people on here would know better than this. Seriously… I’m surprised the simple logic is not completely evident to you…. and because it isn’t, then it’s pretty obvious why you believe your little magic charm has kept you safe all this time.
September 1st, 2009 at 3:10 pm
” The very notion that somebody could track individual IPâs across the globe and keep up to date lists of them is completely and totally laughable. I thought people on here would know better than this. ”
We do.
Unfortunately, Judges around the world don’t seem to understand this, and continue to allow the RIAA to
use IP’s as ‘evidence’
” Well now, I have never used an IP filter in (close to) a decade and have also never been accused of illegal downloading ”
Not surprising, since the chances of getting sued are about the same as winning the lottery.
This doesn’t mean it can’t happen to you, even if you never downloaded an RIAA work in
your entire life.
“Iâm surprised the simple logic is not completely evident to you”
See my other comment about Judges around the world.
That said,
Instead of just namecalling, why don’t you tell us just how YOU stay safe ?
Befuddle us with your brilliance.
Us dumfuks would like to benefit from your genius.
September 2nd, 2009 at 9:35 am
“We do.”
You do? Well, gee, Dreddsnik just how the hell do you keep them “up to date” exactly? Do the RIAA/MPAA and their cohorts call you up every night to let you know which ones they are using? Where do you get your so-called filter from? Do you build and tweak it yourself constantly 24/7, constantly scanning and looking up? Ah, no, we’re really talking PG or equivalent here aren’t we? Lol, don’t make me laugh, please. Unless you’ve got something better up your sleeve the debate ends here and you lost mate. No, I won’t bother explaining… since if you BELIEVE and RELY ON that software then you’ve already made the fanatical leap of faith and no amount of reason and logic can touch that little fantasy world. Besides, the (quite obvious and logical) flaws of that software have been explained and pointed out many times, and have never been disproved (how could they be, they are FACT)
“Instead of just namecalling, why donât you tell us just how YOU stay safe ?
Befuddle us with your brilliance. Us dumfuks would like to benefit from your genius.”
Namecalling? Where? Stop inventing shit and putting words into my mouth. It makes you look pathetic.
Bottom line: Show how your super brilliant little system can tell who is behind every individual IP address in the world, every second of the day. Show how you know every MPAA/RIAA/Mediasentry/whatever address and person so that you can constantly avoid them.
I’ll stake my claim again: You can’t and you won’t because the very idea that you can do so is pure bs.
September 2nd, 2009 at 10:54 am
Hey Dredds, if your super-brilliant bs system can tell so much, then since this is a work machine, maybe you can tell everyone here what my home IP address is eh? I can use 2 machines with different IPs to read on here. Want me to make a post from home somewhere on here? Or is that making it too easy for you?
Shouldn’t be a problem for your one-and-only-ground-breaking-super-brilliant-revolutionary system eh?
Come on, let’s see this thing for real instead of spouting bs. Here’s your big chance to shut me up and lay this endless debate to rest ONCE AND FOR ALL !!!!
lmfao.
September 2nd, 2009 at 11:21 am
” You do? Well, gee, Dreddsnik just how the hell do you keep them âup to dateâ exactly? Do the RIAA/MPAA and their cohorts call you up every night to let you know which ones they are using? ”
Umm, what are you talking about ?
Since comprehension isn’t your strong point, let’s look at the conversation that the “we do” quote came from …
” â The very notion that somebody could track individual IPâs across the globe and keep up to date lists of them is completely and totally laughable. I thought people on here would know better than this. â
We do. ”
Since you have trouble understanding,
” We Do” means that we are aware that the notion that someone can track individual IP’s is, in fact ridiculous, and the
fact that the RIAA continues to win cases because someone thinks they CAN track individual IP’s is sad.
The rest of your rant seems to be aimed at ip blockers, which for some reason you have a real problem with.
In fact, if you actually read the post that you refer to you might notice that my general opinion tends to agree
with yours that blocklists aren’t why some aren’t getting sued, it’s basically dumb luck that ANYONE gets
sued.
If you actually understood what I wrote, you will see that I feel that the largest dose of stupid has been
taken by Judges around the world, who believe whatever the RIAA pays them to believe.
” No, I wonât bother explaining⦠”
Of course you won’t.
That’s because you actually have nothing to explain.
” Namecalling? Where? ”
” Iâm surprised the simple logic is not completely evident to youâ¦. and because it isnât, then itâs pretty obvious why you believe your little magic charm has kept you safe all this time. ”
Of course you can, and will argue that there was no direct name calling, but the end result is still the same.
Ad-hominem attack and no substance.
” Bottom line: Show how your super brilliant little system can tell who is behind every individual IP address in the world, every second of the day. ”
Once again, you fail to comprehend ..
I AGREE WITH YOU, YOU CAN’T IDENTIFY ANYONE RELIABLY BY IP ADDRESS.
” Show how you know every MPAA/RIAA/Mediasentry/whatever address and person so that you can constantly avoid them. ”
Please show me the complete quote where I say ” I know every MPAA/RIAA/Mediasentry/whatever address and person so
I can constantly avoid them” Talk about putting words in my mouth.
” Iâll stake my claim again: You canât and you wonât because the very idea that you can do so is pure bs ”
What claim ?
You haven’t stated anything of substance to compare or debate, so far all you’ve done is say that blocklists are
‘laughable’ without mentioning what you find to be a better idea. There are plenty of regulars that are quite
technical and would easily grasp whatever reasonable concept you could bring to the table …
As for me, I staked no ‘claim’ , I asked a question that should be easy to answer
My ENTIRE premise can be summed up very briefly.
DS says .. ” IP filter ? dont make me laugh ”
I say … ” So then, obviously you have a much better idea then ?
Care to contribute ? ”
That’s it
Simple.
I never said anything else that you attribute to me about the wonders of IP Blocking, I asked
what you do that is better.
You still haven’t answered … and you won’t.
This entire ‘debate is simply a way to distract from the main topic, that Copyright holders are in fact
seeding files on the same P2P networks they sue people over.
If the RIAA members get caught doing that their entire case goes out the window because it relies on
a theory of ‘Implied Consent’, which if upheld in court would mean that the RIAA members also imply
consent to distribute.
That’s the topic.
But, you haven’t brought anything to the table but your elbows.
September 2nd, 2009 at 11:46 am
” Do the RIAA/MPAA and their cohorts call you up every night to let you know which ones they are using? â
the riaa members aren’t all that smart. A simple Whois that shows riaa or label ownership is pretty obvious.
September 9th, 2009 at 11:35 am
” Hereâs your big chance to shut me up and lay this endless debate to rest ONCE AND FOR ALL !!!! ”
Looks Like I shut you up, once and for all.
Wasn’t really all that hard.