Filehsharers on eircom, BT or Irish Broadband - Get ready for court

mikeruurds

RE*AC*TOR wrote:

Newsgroups all the way...

I second that motion!
Newsgroups + Securetunnel

HelterSkelter

Duiske_Lad wrote:

This has been brewing for a few months. One thing that may be an issue in these cases is Privacy. Apparently, investigators download an mp3 from you, check the ip address, then search for other files you have available (ie, in your "shared" folder). You can then be brought to court for making the files available. Is there any privacy law that would cover folders on a personnel computor ?. I mean, if you went to the shop and left your front door open, does that legally entitle people to enter your house and snoop around ?? Even if it was a passing Garda, and he went in to check everything was ok, anything incriminating he found would be inadmissible in a court, would it not ?
I know this analogy is a bit simplistic, but .......

On the other hand, IF you were using a program such as Bearshare on the Gnutella network, you could always just turn file sharing off.......

Interesting point. I think the difference though is that by having a shared directory you are effectively giving people permission to take what they want from it. However in doing so the people downloading are also breaking the law. So the investigators have broken the law by downloading copyright material from you. Though I'm sure they will argue that it is their material they downloaded so they cannot be guilty of copyright theft for downloading from you.

Takeshi_Kovacs

And what would the story with using 'certain' forums on the web, where one can get direct http download links (hosted on sites such as rapidshare, sendspace, e.t.c.), although usually the direct link will not contain the name of what you are downloading (avoid attracting 'attention' to unwelcome entities ..).

Also i like the idea of using newsgroups and securetunnell, although i do not have a fast enough connection, and not reallysure how newgroups work, must check them out though..

Slippin Jimmy

Can you be done for downloading music. Sure it is only a matter of time before they stop thinking about music and go on to something else.

boardsdotie

I have been on the website and the Gold service looks perfect for me.

Does anybody have experience using this.

Are speeds affected ?

Is peerguardian enough protection ?

pjproby

would it be a good line of defence if you were using a wireless network at home-unprotected of course-to claim that the next door neighbour was responsible. presumably they would need to check your computer then.

spurious

If I was on a jury and there were four people in a house (let's say 3 teenage boys and their mother), and the mother was the account holder, I would not find her guilty of uploading Thrash metal CDs, sorry.

I can't see how in a multi-person household they could get a safe conviction.

Dooom

Uh..forgive my ignorance in this matter.
But doesn't that Digital Privacy Act (the one where companies aren't allowed give out personal details) or whatever it's called come into play here, or is it overridden by the courts?
Suppose they'd just need a warrant of some sorts.

/Edit: Scratch that, just saw it.

boardsdotie

pjproby wrote:

would it be a good line of defence if you were using a wireless network at home-unprotected of course-to claim that the next door neighbour was responsible. presumably they would need to check your computer then.

I believe it is the owner of the bb connection who is liable.

A lot of the cases last time were actually caused by children using their parents BB account. The parents were liable in these cases.

pjproby

i know when i installed my own network here at home initially i could log on to someone's network and the most likely one is a house about 100 feet away from mine. if i was downloading music from his account-he might suspect his kids or his next door neighbour i doubt if he would even consider it likely that it could be me.

Charlie

In relation to these questions that concern parents and their children. It would be very hard to bring criminal proceedings againstnthe parent becuase for a person to be guilty of a criminal offence it must be proven that they had the "mens rea" for that offence. That is, that they actually intended themselves to upload the music or were reckless to it happening. However it is civil proceedins that the record companies are pursuing at the moment which would allow parents to be held liable as it is not necessary to prove a mens rea in such cases.

thehomeofDob

I haven't been able to upload crap since I got my line up graded... so I think I'm in the green.

jimmycrackcorm

If I got a court summons from Irma, I'd simply wipe all my mp3's and write back that my wireless network was wide open and they are welcome to prove that it was actually me who was uploading. Anyone for reasonable doubt?

sturgo

jor el wrote:

Sooo, as long as only share pr0n you'll be OK then

Good point, how about films, games and apps? A quick look at a well known parrot / jolly roger, bandit sailor, torrent site shows that music files account for only a small percentage of "illegal" material on offer.

sturgo

I'll probably get banned now.

jimmycrackcorm

ban comes into effect once someone p's you to get the site address. wait in anticipation....

Nephew

i just read about it in the indo

to the guy who asked about peerguardian, i'd compare it to wearing a bottle of sun cream on the sun.

i cant remember the last time i downloaded a song and its not in my nature to upload needlessly. i could never understand what someone gets out of ripping a cd then uploading the album and seeding it for 2 weeks.

do you think the isps will fight this? it wouldn't be great publicity for any of them if some of their customers were sued, surely that would just kick start a spate of cases being brought to court and people would be less likely to take up broadband.

TheDoc

Its uplaoding files that gets you caught.........dont upload, your fine...

TheDoc

and id love to see someone take me to court, being underage, and that anythin downloaded is for personal use, im not re selling.

Its so hypocritical, you hear musicians questioned aobut it and they go " i jsut want my music heard" when you know they are at their labels to get out their and sue.........

If prices weret so ridiculous then they wouldnt have a problem either, im sorry but 25 euro for albums, which mainly have bout 2 good song son them these dyas =/

Peteee

[DM]-TheDOC- wrote:

If prices weret so ridiculous then they wouldnt have a problem either, im sorry but 25 euro for albums, which mainly have bout 2 good song son them these dyas =/

Thats like saying 'But it's okay to steal the ferrari, I couldnt afford it anyway/never intended buying it'

What music do you listen to that only has 2 good songs on it? I listen to good msuic

dermot_sheehan

Duiske_Lad wrote:

This has been brewing for a few months. One thing that may be an issue in these cases is Privacy. Apparently, investigators download an mp3 from you, check the ip address, then search for other files you have available (ie, in your "shared" folder). You can then be brought to court for making the files available. Is there any privacy law that would cover folders on a personnel computor ?. I mean, if you went to the shop and left your front door open, does that legally entitle people to enter your house and snoop around ?? Even if it was a passing Garda, and he went in to check everything was ok, anything incriminating he found would be inadmissible in a court, would it not ?
I know this analogy is a bit simplistic, but .......

You're asking if evidence acquired from trespassing is admissable. If someone walked into your house (without warrant) and gathered evidence they then used to sue/prosecute you, it would be inadmissable as acquired from a civil wrong. For a shop it would be trickier as in a shop during opening hours you are inviting all the world to enter, so they would be invitees (though they would be accepting the invitation under false pretenses, case before, don't have name to hand, guards went into pub without warrant, observed operation of unlicensed gaming machines, pub owner prosecuted, evidence from guards held inadmissable since the invitation was to come into the pub was to buy a drink, guards entered for other reason and were therefore trespassers, publican acquitted).

What this has to do with your computer is whether this applies to trespass to chattles.

To the best of my knowledge I haven't heard of a case whether wrongful access of a computer was held to be trespass to chattles in respect of the computer. IRMA would argue that there was an invitation to all the world to access the computer by having an upload directory, a defendent could counter that the invitation specifically excluded those who would seek to prosecute/and or sue the defendent.

Similary it could be argued that IRMA's interaction with the defendent's computers violated s. 5 of the Criminal Damage Act 1991 was therefore illegal, and the evidence should be excluded.


I'd be interested to see this defence raised. You could also argue that the torts of fraud and deceit were committed when IRMA accessed your computer.

dermot_sheehan

[DM]-TheDOC- wrote:

and id love to see someone take me to court, being underage, and that anythin downloaded is for personal use, im not re selling.

If you're above the age of criminal responsibility (14 I think not sure if relevent portion of children's act brought into force yet) you can be held criminally responsible.

For a tort there's not hard set rule, it depends on whether the child was of sufficient age and maturity to know what they were doing. Even if they weren't their parents could be held vicariously liable for not supervising them properly .

dermot_sheehan

jimmycrackcorm wrote:

If I got a court summons from Irma, I'd simply wipe all my mp3's and write back that my wireless network was wide open and they are welcome to prove that it was actually me who was uploading. Anyone for reasonable doubt?

Reasonable doubt only applies to criminal trials, for civil it's balance of probabilities.

On the balance of probabilities in such a scenario did you make them available? Was it more probable that someone was constantly outside your house uploading with their laptop with you not noticing loss of bandwidth, or is it more probable you were uploading?

dermot_sheehan

spurious wrote:

If I was on a jury and there were four people in a house (let's say 3 teenage boys and their mother), and the mother was the account holder, I would not find her guilty of uploading Thrash metal CDs, sorry.

I can't see how in a multi-person household they could get a safe conviction.

Say it's not a criminal trial but a civil one. In which case no jury and no reasonable doubt. I suppose they would get anton piller orders and seize all the computers and see which ones on them had evidence of the infringing materials.

happy_acid_face

Zynks wrote:

I've been thinking about these lawsuits. From what I understand, the hardware (the CD itself) is not the object of sale. The record companies claim we are buying the right to listen to the music on the CD, you cannot copy or backup the content, and it should not be possible to play the content in more than one location at the same time.

If you are buying the right to listen from that CD only, wouldn't it be reasonable to expect the record company to replace the CD at cost (say €0.50) if it becomes scratched? After all, you have acquired the right to listen already....

Has anybody heard of a similar approach in the courts so far?

Dont know if someone already replied to this cause i was lazy and didnt read all of the thread....

What you said is true. When you buy anything on disc etc. you buy the rights to what is on it. As far as i know, i think it is okay for you to copy music from a C.D you bought onto a blank C.D as long as it is for your own personal use. As it stands, you bought the right to listen to the song and the disc is, i suppose, just part of the packaging....

Also what you said about if your C.D gets scratched should they not give you a new one, well ii've got good news, they do! Or at least they should do. It should apply to music C.Ds the same way as it does to games. I know you can send a scratched playstation,comp, etc game back and they give you a new one because you bought the rights to play that game. I dont see why it wouldn't apply to music too....

As for downloading music, lopholes in irish law prevent ISP giving out customer details because they downloaded music/films etc. but if you upload i think it falls under the bracket of "stolen goods" or something. You may not have stolen it yourself but as soon as you give it to someone else for free it becomes a stolen item. You become the dealer. You get done.

Lastly though, i dont think fixed IP addresses have yet come in with Eircom or BT yet, they are coming this year though, so im sure if you reset your modem enough and jump between IP addresses ISP's would find it hard enough to track you.... They aren't going to be quick to rat there customers up straight away anyway. They'd give themselves a bad name. They'd wait till they had big pressure on them first and would probably target the big shots (guys who have dedicated servers uploading music and films constantly) first.
IBB though is fixed so be extra careful with that....

happy_acid_face

jimmycrackcorm wrote:

If I got a court summons from Irma, I'd simply wipe all my mp3's and write back that my wireless network was wide open and they are welcome to prove that it was actually me who was uploading. Anyone for reasonable doubt?

your comp would probably get confiscated. I dont think its just a letter with a court summons. ..

happy_acid_face

spurious wrote:

If I was on a jury and there were four people in a house (let's say 3 teenage boys and their mother), and the mother was the account holder, I would not find her guilty of uploading Thrash metal CDs, sorry.

I can't see how in a multi-person household they could get a safe conviction.

Its not a judge and jury kind of case. You would know about the case coming up and you would have time to appeal it but when the date arrived what would probably happen would be you would be marched into court, evidence would be put forward, the judge hands down a sentance or fine. I doubt you would even get to say much at all in court.

And in referance to the quote, there was a case in America where two 12 or 13 year old kids used there grandparents computer to download and upload music which lead to the grandparents being brought to court where the judge handed down a hefty fine and given a criminal record.
That example is a bit extreme though because the judge actually said he was making an example of them. But it does show that it does happen and is quite possible!

Nick_oliveri

happy_acid_face wrote:

I doubt you would even get to say much at all in court.!

Htf are you supposed to defend yourself then? It wouldnt really be a "sit there and take it" situation for me, but then again i stray away from all that uploading lark because it throttles my connection.

I doubt that you could have no defence. If you wished make your case before the judgement is given, you have the right to do so.

Heres my case.

Im a student recieving a petty grant of 300 eur per month,
I dont sell or distribute copyrighted material,
I dont pay the bills, me parents do :v:,
Artists dont make squat, the suits do.
I like cake.

ghost26ie

Nick_oliveri wrote:

Htf are you supposed to defend yourself then? It wouldnt really be a "sit there and take it" situation for me, but then again i stray away from all that uploading lark because it throttles my connection.

I doubt that you could have no defence. If you wished make your case before the judgement is given, you have the right to do so.

Heres my case.

Im a student recieving a petty grant of 300 eur per month,
I dont sell or distribute copyrighted material,
I dont pay the bills, me parents do :v:,
Artists dont make squat, the suits do.
I like cake.

i agree with the last bit, artists do make squat from online downloads of their songs. saw in a news report a month or so ago that they get something like 5 cents everytime a song of theirs is downloaded.

Linoge

Stekelly wrote:

Thats why the law doesnt accept ignorance as an excuse (for everything not just this)

jimmycrackcorm wrote:

If I got a court summons from Irma, I'd simply wipe all my mp3's and write back that my wireless network was wide open and they are welcome to prove that it was actually me who was uploading. Anyone for reasonable doubt?

A hypothetical situation:

What if you had an unsecured wireless network? (There is no law to say that you can't have one!) Other people in your building use your connection to upload/download music and movies and you are totally unaware.

Who is responsible and could you end up in court?

(AFAIK, you are only facilitating a crime if you are aware that there is a crime being committed)