By that I mean: Who got the infringement notice from HBO for downloading Entourage, Deadwood, etc..... I got one two weeks ago from my ISP (COX)....hope they don't give HBO my info!!!
Printable View
By that I mean: Who got the infringement notice from HBO for downloading Entourage, Deadwood, etc..... I got one two weeks ago from my ISP (COX)....hope they don't give HBO my info!!!
I live in Canada so I dont have to worry about any of that! Since its illegal for any of our isp's to give any info about us unless they have a warrent ;) Most of the time those notices are just sent to you because "HBO" in this example sent your isp a notice and your isp is passing it on to cover there ass... I'm sure you have nothing to worry about :)
I'm interested if any readers have experience with being sued by the MPAA or RIAA. Tell me your story....I'm all ears...errr...eyes....
i have a friend that did... they told him either he deletes everything or pays for it of course... or they were gonna take him to court. He deleted everything and then like six weeks later got another letter with a court date and so this big thing went on. but he got out ok....
You don't get sued for downloading.
You get sued for distribution of copywrited material, sharing.
Where are you downloading the trackers from?Quote:
Originally Posted by coppercox
Post a copy of the infrigment letter here since most of the time it tells you what tracker you were using to grab the file when they caught you and give everyone a heads up. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by coppercox
i got that letter twice from HBO, once last year for Rome, once this year for entourage. Both times I d/led from either isohunt or torrentspy or mininova. Nothing ever came of it. I was even using peerguardian this latest time. Stick to the private trackers and you'll be fine. Though torrenting makes me nervous becuase once you're in the swarm, you can see all the ip addresses of everyone d/ling and u/ling.
.....you're playing with words: downloading copyrighted material will get ya sued....downloading a picture of your cat will not....most readers of this post know what is meantQuote:
Originally Posted by Broken
got them from a public tracker(mininova).....my understanding is that any public tracker is fair game for the RIAA and MPAA's web crawler which checks for copyrighted material automatically and then records downloaders and uploaders ip addressesQuote:
Where are you downloading the trackers from?
The letter is a bit long so i took just the pertinent details out to post here:Quote:
Post a copy of the infrigment letter here since most of the time it tells you what tracker you were using to grab the file when they caught you and give everyone a heads up. ;)
Infringement Detail:
Tracker IP: 208.65.60.159
Tracker Port: 80
Tracker URL: http://tracker2.bt-chat.com/announce?info_hash=
Infringing Work: Deadwood - Season 3 Episode 9
Filepath: +-mininova.org-+ Deadwood.S03E09.HDTV.XviD-LOL.[eztv].torrent
Filename: Deadwood.S03E09.HDTV.XviD-LOL.avi First Found: xxxx 2006 xxxx EDT ) Last Found: xxxxx 2006 xxxxx EDT ()
Filesize: 358,468k
IP Address: xxxxxxxxx
IP Port: xxxxx
Network: BTPeers
Protocol: BitTorrent
Quote:
Originally Posted by coppercox.....you're playing with words: downloading copyrighted material will get ya sued....downloading a picture of your cat will not....most readers of this post know what is meantQuote:
Originally Posted by Broken
No, it ment what I wrote.
The DMCA of 98', the laws that are used to sue p2p users was originally written to address content hosted of websites. You have to remember that back then p2p wasn't a major concern to anyone. It only mentions 'distribution' of copywrited material, not the actual 'downloading'.
Downloading copywrited material off the internet is a legal grey area. No law says you can't, but then again it could be claimed that it is a natural extention of existing laws.
The one thing I can say with absolute certainty is that no one has ever been sued for downloading. Every law suit ever filed by 'the copywrite holders' has be aimed at the distrubtion side of the law. No one wants to step into the grey area and lose a big case and set a new legal precedent.
Whoa, time out. Isohunt, mininova, torrentspy , PB etc. are not trackers. They are just torrent indexing sites, and the torrent you get from them tells your client where the tracker is that will connect you to the swarm. You can determine the tracker by opening the torrent, or looking at the tracker identification in your bt client.
Anyone can get the same torrent as you and then connect to a public tracker. As you commented, your ip is visible if they connect to the same swarm as the one you are in. By participating in the swarm you are uploading, and it is the uploading (distributing) of copyrighted material that is a violation.
wrongQuote:
Originally Posted by truetejas
mininova and thepiratebay are not indexing sites. they both have their own trackers. isohunt and torrentspy are indexing sites though.
[QUOTE=j0hn;1425036]I shouldn't have included PB because nobody mentioned it in the thread, but the point is that the origin of the torrent has nothing to do with your ip being discovered if the system is not closed, and an open index site can send you to any tracker for the file.Quote:
Originally Posted by truetejas
BTW, all files indexed on mininova are not on their tracker; they index torrents for other trackers. You can end up anywhere with one of their torrents.
I cannot believe that.... am I just not correctly reading the stories in the media about people downloading songs and getting sued? Or is it that they are also "distributing" the songs once downloaded that is getting them sued? My understanding of what you wrote is as follows: As long as I only download a copyrighted song, movie, etc. and don't upload (distribute) it then I have nothing to worry about??? I cannot fathom this to be true.... I am not convinced so help me understand this further.Quote:
The one thing I can say with absolute certainty is that no one has ever been sued for downloading. Every law suit ever filed by 'the copywrite holders' has be aimed at the distrubtion side of the law. No one wants to step into the grey area and lose a big case and set a new legal precedent.
Hmmm... i seem to remember using Edonkey for a movie download several months ago and receiving an infringement notice for it. I am positive that I was not sharing or uploading it to anyone else.
Did some reading on the RIAA's website for what is prohibited concerning copyrighted material. Here is what I read: On the federal level, titles 17 and 18 of the U.S. Code protect copyright owners from the unauthorized reproduction, adaptation or distribution of sound recordings, as well as certain digital performances to the public.
I think downloading copyrighted material qualifies as reproduction (the downloaded file is being reproduced on another computer).
I was tagged twice by HBO. Once when using a public tracker and once when using a private tracker. It doesn't matter which a bittorrent user uses.
Any employee of HBO can go to their own home, use their own PC, join a site and utilize its' "private" trackers for gathering IPs of users distributing copyrighted material. I believe it's impossible for all nefarious IPs to be blocked by the various software utilities available.
Just put the foot on the other shoe. I know, as a net-savvy user, I could easily join many different sites that offer private bittorrent trackers.
It's naive to think that any of you know more about downloading, bittorrent, and the available sites then the people that do this sort of thing for a living.
Face the facts, at this point it's mainly a cat-and-mouse game between users and the industry.
And did you notice the word I used above? "distributing"
It's illegal to distribute copyrighted material.
There is certainly a gray area about the term "downloading" I believe.
In fact, my letters from HBO always demanded that the user at IP xxx.xxx.xxx
was uploading/distributing their copyrighted material and made no mention about downloading.
Oddly enough, the last time I was tagged, using bittorrent, I stopped my client purposely when finished downloading and only had a share ratio of around .352. I hadn't even uploaded the complete file!
Anyways, I'm getting my HBO content from IRC in the mean time.
my .02¢
What content would be included in the HBO section.Quote:
Anyways, I'm getting my HBO content from IRC in the mean time.
my .02¢
I read my email again and found that it did avoid using the word download....the only instance was: offer for download (distribute?)....maybe it is easier to get around the fair rights clause in the DMCA....since you may (if i understand this correctly) make a copy legally in certain instances.Quote:
And did you notice the word I used above? "distributing"
It's illegal to distribute copyrighted material.
There is certainly a gray area about the term "downloading" I believe.
In fact, my letters from HBO always demanded that the user at IP xxx.xxx.xxx
was uploading/distributing their copyrighted material and made no mention about downloading.
Naive? Not I...Paranoid..yes! For every action p2p users make there is a reaction by the people who sue....Their budget is huge and they can hire the best programmers, hackers, techs to find what they need....I am not naive to even believe i2p, waste, ants, or any other so-called anonymous networks are safe...the reaction to those just hasn't come around yet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by coppercox
The law in this area is grey because no reprocutions are mentioned in the DMCA for downloading. Only fines and penalties are mentioned for the distribution of the material. The target at it's composition was websites, back in a better time before the common user was 'the enemy'.
What is legal reproduction?
This issue has been in court since the latter 70's starting with the Sony Betamax Case. Believe it or not the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is in court right now arguing with the music industry about whither or not you have the right to copy your music collection to your IPod.
The "copywrite holders" would like it to be illegal, but currently it's not.
So... downloading material off the internet. The law only has punishments set up for those doing the giving, distributing. No law suit has ever been filed for downloading, and it is very unlikely that there will be one in the near future.
As pointed out, notices are very carefully worded. I've never heard of one that said we caught you downloading this - they say we caught you sharing, distributing, this.
And yes, there are ways to get without giving.
isn't the law great?
i agree mate
Well, I definitely don't want to be their "test" case for downloading.....so I will continue to be vigilant and try to avoid their radar....Quote:
So... downloading material off the internet. The law only has punishments set up for those doing the giving, distributing. No law suit has ever been filed for downloading, and it is very unlikely that there will be one in the near future.
Just curious but how do you intend to be vigilant?Quote:
Originally Posted by coppercox
As far as I'm aware there is no sure fire way of avoiding a lawsuit except not downloading/sharing copyrighted content. Using a darknet is prob the best way but as far as publicly available networks are concerned newsgroups seem to have a good rap though I don't use them. Lucky for me I live in Australia and as far as I know no bt users have been sued though a number of trackers and IP providers have tasted the wrath of the federal police.
I love Canada lol the laws work for me, at least at the momment they do... I don't know what i'd do if they changed. No one will ever be safe from groups like the riaa and mpaa although newsgroups are the safest right now.
Well, nothing is 100% but i have a better understanding of what they look for and how. I avoid the public trackers now and only use private and newsgroups... and reading as much as i can about how the Riaa and Mpaa do things (web crawlers according to their website)...in the war on piracy their first front is public bittorrents....they will open a second front (if they haven't already) using people to infiltrate the private trackers....once they slow the flood of piracy through bittorrent to a trickle i can see them moving to other fronts if they begin sensing another large threat: newsgroups, freenet, darknet, and whatever new file sharing protocol yet to be invented....Quote:
Originally Posted by searJust curious but how do you intend to be vigilant?Quote:
Originally Posted by coppercox
As far as I'm aware there is no sure fire way of avoiding a lawsuit except not downloading/sharing copyrighted content. Using a darknet is prob the best way but as far as publicly available networks are concerned newsgroups seem to have a good rap though I don't use them. Lucky for me I live in Australia and as far as I know no bt users have been sued though a number of trackers and IP providers have tasted the wrath of the federal police.
"Where there is Hunger, Law is not regarded; and where Law is not regarded, there will be Hunger." - Benjamin Franklin
Newsgroups have been around since the early 80's, even before thier was 'the internet'. It is the cockroach of the filesharing world. Even after all other filesharing methods are dead, there will still be Usenet. It is also the fastest most secure method there is.
Old School rulz.
It seems many of you have done you homework on this issue!! I for one am still learing about the this stuff.
(my .02$)
for everyone still using P2P programs like limewire, edonkey and kazaa. your dumb!! P2P is an old way of sharing and in my opinion is filled with indistry eyes(more than torrenting). at least DL and UL using private sites as far as torrents you can turn off the DHT setting. thats going to help you with safty a little when on private trackers. also uploading to public trackers are stupid(you don't think the owners of those sites will rat you out to save their ass) Im not saying private sites will not rat you but I think it is less likely.
Also, when disableing the DHT setting will make you only invisible to the genaral population not those who you are sharing the file with. thats why in private site they ask you to tun of this setting.
Thats all I have to say about that!!
I was unaware of the DHT setting. I am glad you contributed. Wonder if that was my problem in the first place - doh!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by gish
I was unaware of the DHT setting. I am glad you contributed. Wonder if that was my problem in the first place - doh!!![/QUOTE]
I read somewhere that if DHT is disabled it is more secure. How exactly does it ensure security?:(
That is what I want to know. I have also read in several places that you are secured if DHT is disabled, but how are we secured though by disabling it! :unsure:Quote:
Originally Posted by gamer4eva
I am no good at explaining this so I will just give a link to wikipidea and a write up of what DHT is.
LInk-> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_hash_table
And having DHT enable makes you less secure and most private ask that it be turned off because of this.
*A DHT enabled scenrio*
I wouldnt want to be downloading a file at a private site were you have to keep a ratio and then having the DHT enabled client allow a public tracker to hook up and join the the swarm and basically be taking some of the upload ratio that was meant to be for the private site were ratios mean something and the actual file was gotten from. ;)
*A DHT disabled scenrio*
you have DHT disabled and you go to private site A and grab a file and now you dont have to worry about other people who are not members getting your info and there lies the "being more safe" factor since only the actuals member of the private site are allowed to connect to you which is what private sites are about right. :D
Thats two reasons why disabling DHT is safer imho.
Well said!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by DKre8ive1