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

patch

Fighting Irish wrote:

Just do what i do and don't upload ,

TBH man, your downloading heaps and still uploading a bit.
If someone decides they want to prosecute you they can.

Tech Pete

patch wrote:

TBH man, your downloading heaps and still uploading a bit.
If someone decides they want to prosecute you they can.

Im sure he is well aware of this.

CuLT

I'd like to know how they differentiate between a 6MB file with the name of a song, and an actual song.

A list of filenames is about as damning as me writing "YOU ARE GUILTY" on an A4 sheet of paper and entering as evidence in court.

nadir

ambro25 wrote:

I believe that you are missing the point.

There is nothing to "agree or disagree with the concept of Intellectual property". Intellectual Property only exists because of the Statutes (the "Law") which say that it does, under its various forms.

Those Statutes apply to you like anyone else, like it or not - just like speed limits or the interdiction to kill another fellow human being are ensconsed in Statutes, so are the rights of the creators/owners of Intellectual Property (which could be you): as a matter of fact, you yourself, nadir, own the copyright in any idea that you express (this last bit is important: there's no IP in 'ideas' (as in: in your head), there's only IP once they've left your head and are recorded in some form or another).

I understand what you say, we are all bound by the law, but what if the law can't be enforced. If it's simply impossible to implement due to technological advances. If too many people break the law, for example if we were to give criminal records to everyone who has bought/smoked cannabis, a quarter of the population would be criminals? The law is slow to adapt, how can we ensure the law represents the peoples interest and not large companies. If the law is prosecuting people for infringing Intellectual Property rights simply to aid the greed of large companies, what's the good in that. Surely law like this should be here to protect people and not send them large bills in the post.
I understand fully your point, but I think we are at cross purposes..

ambro25 wrote:

I wouldn't be so categorical. I believe Justices are tech-savvy enough when the time calls for it, and fully aware of the ins-and-outs. The matter of import is more how to read the relevant Statutes onto the tech, and claims based on same, and then apply the law. Where disclosing BB customers' details is concerned, I don't think IP law has anything to do with the matter, and Contract Law or Privacy Law is more relevant, tbh.

yeah, true I guess, from a law perspective anyway.

Just though, I ugess what Cult has said

Cult wrote:

I'd like to know how they differentiate between a 6MB file with the name of a song, and an actual song.

A list of filenames is about as damning as me writing "YOU ARE GUILTY" on an A4 sheet of paper and entering as evidence in court.

I find it's too easy to spin these arguments to a court, the companies have the money, they can afford the good lawers, it's the same old storry. We need a law that's fair, perhaps these matters need to be brought to a criminal court, if civil ones can't allow both sides to contest properly, problem is then you up the stakes, an individual also is not likely to have the funds to battle through the judicial system.

Also whats the law on encryped file systems for example. Can they get you if you refuse to give them the key, or do you have privacy rights?

If for example you get hacked, and somone is routing information through you, are you to blame?
if there is no trace of the hacker? In todays world, this is a real possibility, how does the law come to terms with cases like this?

jor el

CuLT wrote:

I'd like to know how they differentiate between a 6MB file with the name of a song, and an actual song.

A list of filenames is about as damning as me writing "YOU ARE GUILTY" on an A4 sheet of paper and entering as evidence in court.

I've been wondering about this one too. In civil court the burden of evidence isn't as strict as in criminal court, though they still have to present their case. What if you claimed that all the songs in your shared folder are actually recording done by yourself, of you singing these songs. Since the 'evidence gatherer' couldn't have possibly downloaded all the songs in their entirety, would they be able to prove otherwise? You could also claim that "U2 - Rattle & Hum.mp3" was actually a zip file, incorrectly named, that contains the lyrics of the songs and perhaps pictures of Bono. All of which are in the public domain. You could even produce these in court if you liked to back up your claim.

The trouble is most if not all the cases won't go to court as people know they've been caught and don't want to face even bigger fines if they loose. If you had deep pockets and a good solicitor, I'm sure you could get out of it as there really isn't any evidence.

axer

jor el wrote:

I've been wondering about this one too. In civil court the burden of evidence isn't as strict as in criminal court, though they still have to present their case. What if you claimed that all the songs in your shared folder are actually recording done by yourself, of you singing these songs. Since the 'evidence gatherer' couldn't have possibly downloaded all the songs in their entirety, would they be able to prove otherwise? You could also claim that "U2 - Rattle & Hum.mp3" was actually a zip file, incorrectly named, that contains the lyrics of the songs and perhaps pictures of Bono. All of which are in the public domain. You could even produce these in court if you liked to back up your claim.

Exactly - the only way this can be proved is by siezing the harddrive but I think it would have to be considered a criminal matter in order to get a warrent to sieze it in the first place (anyone know this for sure?).
* Firstly - If it becomes a criminal case then it would be thrown out as the person probably wasn't selling the music - I can't imagine a judge would be bothered with the cases if the person was using the music etc for personal use only.
* Secondly the evidence would have to be alot stronger to convict the music etc sharer.
* Thirdly in the worst case scenario (unless the person was previously convicted) he/she would probably just get probation and a 300 euro fine.

ambro25

nadir wrote:

I understand what you say, we are all bound by the law, but what if the law can't be enforced.If it's simply impossible to implement due to technological advances.(...)

But it can - witness the ongoing cases :rolleyes:

I'm not saying it's wrong or it's right morally, I'm saying that your argument falls apart from the onset, precisely when you adopt a "one law for us filesharers, one law for them greedy corps" approach: the Law is the same for everyone!

nadir wrote:

If too many people break the law, for example if we were to give criminal records to everyone who has bought/smoked cannabis, a quarter of the population would be criminals?

Yes. Where's the problem?

nadir wrote:

The law is slow to adapt, how can we ensure the law represents the peoples interest and not large companies. If the law is prosecuting people for infringing Intellectual Property rights simply to aid the greed of large companies, what's the good in that. Surely law like this should be here to protect people and not send them large bills in the post.
I understand fully your point, but I think we are at cross purposes..

See above - the Law will protect you just the same as a large company, where IP is concerned. The Law is not 'for prosecuting people for infringing Intellectual Property rights simply to aid the greed of large companies': the Law is for ensuring that if you have created IP ('you' as in the street sweeper or M$), you retain the rights to do with it as you please and no-one can grab it from you unduly, for whatever purposes.

Whether you enforce those rights (such as companies who only exist and make $ by virtue of the IP they own and sell), or you don't (such as someone coding freeware for the greater good of mankind), the Law 'protects' you just the same.

And note there are such exceptions to copyright infringement as fair uses (which are not exactly called that in the Copyrights Act, but they're there alright), by which people are 'protected' from overzealous IP enforcers. However, P2P of copyrighted material (understood as 'made available for use only in exchange of a sale by the owner) doesn't fall into fair use whichever way you look at it. Just so we're clear.

nadir wrote:

I find it's too easy to spin these arguments to a court (...)

And you would have first-hand experrience of that, to support your point, would you?

axer wrote:

Exactly - the only way this can be proved is by siezing the harddrive but I think it would have to be considered a criminal matter in order to get a warrent to sieze it in the first place (anyone know this for sure?).

Not necessarily. In matters of IP, there is the (remote but still...) possibility of obtaining an "Anton Piller" injunction, under which you may enter the premises of the alleged infringer and gather evidence of infringement (under very strict rules). Pretty hard to obtain and I doubt very much one would ever be issued for a mere "P2P filesharer" case. Probably more likely if we were discussing something à la allofmp3 russian affair, but based in IE... and even then!

nadir

ambro25 wrote:

But it can - witness the ongoing cases :rolleyes:

I'm not saying it's wrong or it's right morally, I'm saying that your argument falls apart from the onset, precisely when you adopt a "one law for us filesharers, one law for them greedy corps" approach: the Law is the same for everyone!

First of all, there are many many filesharers in this country the law will never catch, because their IP's are unknown or are proxying connections through countries where the law protects the privacy of the user.
Im not saying companies are directly exempt from the law, but since they have large financial backing they can spin the law more favourbly in their direction.

nadir wrote:

Originally Posted by nadir
If too many people break the law, for example if we were to give criminal records to everyone who has bought/smoked cannabis, a quarter of the population would be criminals?

ambro25 wrote:

Yes. Where's the problem?

I dont think it's good that the law should disagree with such a large portion of society, i know that example is out of context but i think it's still valid. I guess my argument is a moral one, I'm trying to make a connection between the law and morality. The law is there to serve the people, if it doesn't do that, I think it needs to be changed.

ambro25 wrote:

See above - the Law will protect you just the same as a large company, where IP is concerned. The Law is not 'for prosecuting people for infringing Intellectual Property rights simply to aid the greed of large companies': the Law is for ensuring that if you have created IP ('you' as in the street sweeper or M$), you retain the rights to do with it as you please and no-one can grab it from you unduly, for whatever purposes.

Im not saying the law isn't impartial, I mean the law governing Intellectual Property does not benefit the people, it is designed to allow anyone to reap the rewards of their ideas, however this is not how the world works, to quote Richard Stallman (from http://www.ariel.com.au/a/rms-unsw.html)

quote: RMS
A clever engineer pours his blood sweat and tears into creating an amazing new type of safety pin. He gets a patent, sets up a business to produce the safety pins and gets deservingly rich. Without the patent, Giant Pin Corp would have simply copied his design and put him out of business with their superior economies of scale.


Thus, the patent is seen to protect the little backyard inventors. [And who cannot sympathise with them. Just as most of us imagine we have a great novel in us, so we imagine we probably have a great invention in us as well, and the last thing we'd want is those bastards from Giant Pin Corp dudding us out of it. In reality great works pretty much always require lots and lots and lots of mediocre and even poor works to precede them - just like a great piano performance. Writing and Inventing merely look easy - in fact they're as hard or harder than most other jobs].

Stallman painted a picture very different from the fantasy above. In part:


quote: RMS
The inventor invents his new pin and sets up a business to produce it. The most likely outcome is that the business fails. This is because most new businesses fail and is compounded by the fact that people who are good engineers are not likely to be also good at the completely different set of skills required to run a business successfully.

But let's imagine he is a good businessman and is successful. Giant Pin Corp sees his pin and decides to copy it. So he knocks on their door and says "Hey, I've got this patent!". Giant Pin Corp then says "Yes, but we have patents covering 'curly springs', 'bendy clips', and 'the sharpening of a single end of a contorted wire to enhance its fabric piercing ability', all of which you've infringed with your invention. So here's what we'll do - we'll cross-license our technologies to each other, so that we both may continue to build and sell these new pins, or we'll put you out of business."

ambro25 wrote:

Whether you enforce those rights (such as companies who only exist and make $ by virtue of the IP they own and sell), or you don't (such as someone coding freeware for the greater good of mankind), the Law 'protects' you just the same.

again the example above. not when it comes to software patents like in the US. Especially allowing people to patent silly things, that seem complex but are really frivolous. A perfect example of the law not being able to keep up with technology.

ambro25 wrote:

And note there are such exceptions to copyright infringement as fair uses (which are not exactly called that in the Copyrights Act, but they're there alright), by which people are 'protected' from overzealous IP enforcers. However, P2P of copyrighted material (understood as 'made available for use only in exchange of a sale by the owner) doesn't fall into fair use whichever way you look at it. Just so we're clear.

fair enough

ambro25 wrote:

And you would have first-hand experrience of that, to support your point, would you?

no,i just think if you got more moeny, you are likely to be able to get a better legal team.

Charlie

axer wrote:

Exactly - the only way this can be proved is by siezing the harddrive but I think it would have to be considered a criminal matter in order to get a warrent to sieze it in the first place (anyone know this for sure?).
* Firstly - If it becomes a criminal case then it would be thrown out as the person probably wasn't selling the music - I can't imagine a judge would be bothered with the cases if the person was using the music etc for personal use only.
* Secondly the evidence would have to be alot stronger to convict the music etc sharer.
* Thirdly in the worst case scenario (unless the person was previously convicted) he/she would probably just get probation and a 300 euro fine.

Wrong. In a civil case the plaintiff can seek an anton pillar order to search someones house or property.

Fighting Irish

patch wrote:

TBH man, your downloading heaps and still uploading a bit.
If someone decides they want to prosecute you they can.

I only upload general stuff nothing illegal

ambro25

nadir wrote:

First of all, there are many many filesharers in this country the law will never catch, because their IP's are unknown or are proxying connections through countries where the law protects the privacy of the user.
Im not saying companies are directly exempt from the law, but since they have large financial backing they can spin the law more favourbly in their direction.

Where have I said companies or users were exempt from the Law? I've spent three or four big posts thrying to get across to you that the Law applies to everyone, from the poorest street-sweeper to the biggest MegaCorp!

Money can buy you Law (a little bit of it, a 'sway in it' if you want), but it takes €millions (at least) and years (more than, actually). But that's digressing vastly from the OP and the purpose of this thread.

nadir wrote:

I dont think it's good that the law should disagree with such a large portion of society, i know that example is out of context but i think it's still valid. I guess my argument is a moral one, I'm trying to make a connection between the law and morality. The law is there to serve the people, if it doesn't do that, I think it needs to be changed.

Well, put it that way - so there's a lot of people doing drugs in Ireland. There must be a lot of dealers in Ireland as well, then? So, by your logic, should we make drug retailing legal? :rolleyes:

nadir wrote:

Im not saying the law isn't impartial, I mean the law governing Intellectual Property does not benefit the people, it is designed to allow anyone to reap the rewards of their ideas.

Explain this one thing to me: how on earth is a Law designed to allow anyone to reap the rewards of their ideas (your words) not benefitting the people?

nadir wrote:

however this is not how the world works, to quote Richard Stallman (etc.)

Don't start on Patents with me (or software ones, for that matter). Rather than go at a total tangent to the thread, do a Boards.ie search on 'software patents' threads, have a read of my posts, get to understand all the issues before spouting Stallman, and then reply in those threads.

Patent Law differs vastly between Ireland/Europe and the US, and Patent Law in Europe is perfectly in tune with software technological developments and more importantly business requirements of softcos.

But I fail to see what software patents have to do with Filesharers on Eircom, BT or IBB, and the whole copyright v P2P debate.

charlie mchugh wrote:

Wrong. In a civil case the plaintiff can seek an anton pillar order to search someones house or property.

Beat ya to it

PS - it's Piller, btw

Peanut

ambro25 wrote:

Well, put it that way - so there's a lot of people doing drugs in Ireland. There must be a lot of dealers in Ireland as well, then? So, by your logic, should we make drug retailing legal? :rolleyes:

offtopic, but there are good arguments for doing that, in a certain way, IMHO.
We do have pubs don't we -> legal recreational drug retailers.

mayhem#

FTP is yer only man!

E.