> Well, I find it rather interesting that a MOVIE company would > complain about a file they actually do not hold the rights on. The > file in question appears to be an AUDIOBOOK, yet they are > claiming its one of their works (A MOVIE).
It's not theirs? Why worry, then? After all, as everyone knows, multinational corporations only have interests in *1* particular product, don't they? Yes.
> I also sent a question off to Paramount pictures asking them > why they are harrassing a blind person over an audiobook.
They probably think it's funny.
> Sounds to me like these guys are trolling all the nets looking > for anything that even looks like its theirs, even when it isn't.
Realisation dawns.
> besides, it isn't illegal to share a list of files, is it? it is, after all, > a list (and no actual files may exist, even if the list says otherwise).
Do not - I repeat NOT - defend *yourself* in court. That would be silly.
> I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, > debriefed, or numbered!
I think a rewrite of your sig is in order, TakeNoJam.
This isn't much of a surprise, actually. Groups such as Bookshare and the National Library Service for the Blind must seek permission from the publisher to make audio books available to blind. And in the case of a private corperation, such as Simon and Schuster, making audio books, they have to seek the same blessing from the publisher. And in the case of a movie Paramount may have made, this isn't any different, since any publisher making a book out of a movie must get permission from the movie maker before they they can publish the book.
Its unfortunate because most commercially available audio books are abridged, therefore aren't really worth the money you'd pay for them, and copying NLS-produced audio books that aren't abridged isn't particularly easy, since special tape machines are required. In other words, blind people are pretty much screwed when it comes to putting books on their shelf compared to sighted people. Alternately, braile isn't a real solution to this inequity since it's such a bulky medium, highly expensive, not readily available, and far too easily destroyed compared to standard print books. Catch 22!
"Technomage Hawke" <technomage-ha...@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
> Well, I find it rather interesting that a MOVIE company would complain about > a file they actually do not hold the rights on. The file in question > appears to be an AUDIOBOOK, yet they are claiming its one of their works (A > MOVIE).
> now. I did send a response back to my ISP regarding this. so far, all I have > gotten has been a "canned" response. I also sent a question off to > Paramount pictures asking them why they are harrassing a blind person over > an audiobook. I thought they dealt with movies.
> oh well...
> Sounds to me like these guys are trolling all the nets looking for anything > that even looks like its theirs, even when it isn't.
> go figure.
> besides, it isn't illegal to share a list of files, is it? it is, after all, > a list (and no actual files may exist, even if the list says otherwise).
> We are writing on behalf of <munged> to advise you that we have received a > notification that you are using your <munged> service to post or transmit > material that infringes the copyrights of a complainant's members. We have > included a copy of the complaint letter. Pursuant to the provisions of the > Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA"), which is codified at 17 U.S.C. § > 512, upon receiving such notification, <munged> is required to "act > expeditiously to remove, or disable access to" the infringing material in > order to avoid liability for any alleged copyright infringement. > Accordingly, <munged> will suspend your account and disable your connection > to the Internet within 24 hours of your receipt of this email if the > offending material is not removed.
> Please be aware that the DMCA also provides procedures by which a subscriber > accused of copyright violation can respond to the allegations of > infringement and, under certain circumstances, cause his or her account to > be reinstated. To do so, however, the response must meet certain criteria. > Pursuant to section (g) of the DMCA (17 U.S.C. § 512(g)), you have the > right to submit to <munged> a counter-notification which, to be effective, > must include the following elements:
> (a) a physical or electronic signature of the subscriber; > (b) identification of the material that has been removed or to which access > has been disabled and the location at which the material appeared before it > was removed or disabled; > (c) a statement under penalty of perjury that the subscriber has a good > faith belief that the material was removed or disabled as a result of > mistake or misidentification of the material to be removed or disabled; > (d) the subscriber’s name, address, and telephone number and a statement > that the subscriber consents to the jurisdiction of the Federal District > Court for the judicial district in which the address is located.
> In the event that you submit to <munged> a counter-notification that > includes these elements, <munged> will forward your counter notification to > the complainant and advise them that <munged> will cease disabling access > to the allegedly infringing material in ten (10) business days. Unless the > complainant notifies us that it has filed an action seeking a court order > to restrain you from engaging in the allegedly infringing activity prior to > the expiration of those ten (10) business days, <munged> will reactivate > your account.
> For answers to frequently asked questions, please follow the link below:
> BayTSP, Inc. ("BayTSP") swears under penalty of perjury that Paramount > Pictures Corporation ("Paramount") has authorized BayTSP to act as its > non-exclusive agent for copyright infringement notification. BayTSP's > search of the protocol listed below has detected infringements of > Paramount's copyright interests on your IP addresses as detailed in the > attached report.
> BayTSP has reasonable good faith belief that use of the material in the > manner complained of in the attached report is not authorized by Paramount, > its agents, or the law. The information provided herein is accurate to the > best of our knowledge. Therefore, this letter is an official notification > to effect removal of the detected infringement listed in the attached > report. The attached documentation specifies the exact location of the > infringement.
> We hereby request that you immediately remove or block access to the > infringing material, as specified in the copyright laws, and insure the > user refrains from using or sharing with others Paramount's materials in > the future (see, 17 U.S.C. §512).
> Further, we believe that the entire Internet community benefits when these > matters are resolved cooperatively. We urge you to take immediate action to > stop this infringing activity and inform us of the results of your actions. > We appreciate your efforts toward this common goal.
> Please responed indicating the actions you have taken to resolve this > matter. The provided link has been assigned to this matter <munged>. For > email correspondence, please reference the above Notice ID in the subject > line mailto:paramo...@copyright-compliance.com?subject=<munged>.
> Nothing in this letter shall serve as a waiver of any rights or remedies of > Paramount with respect to the alleged infringement, all of which are > expressly reserved. Should you need to contact me, I may be reached at the > following address:
> Mark Ishikawa > Chief Executive Officer > BayTSP, Inc. > PO Box 1314 > Los Gatos, CA 95031
> *pgp public key is available on the key server at ldap://keyserver.pgp.com
> Note: The information transmitted in this Notice is intended only for the > person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential > and/or privileged material. Any review, reproduction, retransmission, > dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, > this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient > is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender > and delete the material from all computers.
> This infringement notice contains an XML tag that can be used to automate > the processing of this data. If you would like more information on how to > use this tag please contact BayTSP. > Evidentiary Information: > Notice ID: 3376090 > Recent Infringement Timestamp: 15 Sep 2005 09:29:01 GMT > Infringed Work: Timeline > Infringing FileName: (AB) - Michael Crichton - Timeline.rar > Infringing FileSize: 190983098 > Protocol: OpenNap > Infringing URL: > Infringers IP Address: <munged> > Infringer's DNS Name: <munged> > Infringer's User Name: technomage > Initial Infringement Timestamp: 15 Sep 2005 09:29:01 GMT
> -- > I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or > numbered! > My life is my own - No. 6
requirement to copy audio books 1 stereo tape player
turn balance fully to left channel, play side a, play side b turn balance fully to right channel, play side a, play side b
audio books are recorded in monaural on the channel tracks of a regular stereo tape audiobook players have buttons that select left/right forward/reverse in combination to play the '4' sides of the tape in order.
I was blind for a while after a bike accident, When vision returned,used to drive along in my car listening to audio books on the tape player.
> This isn't much of a surprise, actually. Groups such as Bookshare and the > National Library Service for the Blind must seek permission from the > publisher to make audio books available to blind. And in the case of a > private corperation, such as Simon and Schuster, making audio books, they > have to seek the same blessing from the publisher. And in the case of a > movie Paramount may have made, this isn't any different, since any publisher > making a book out of a movie must get permission from the movie maker before > they they can publish the book.
> Its unfortunate because most commercially available audio books are > abridged, therefore aren't really worth the money you'd pay for them, and > copying NLS-produced audio books that aren't abridged isn't particularly > easy, since special tape machines are required. In other words, blind people > are pretty much screwed when it comes to putting books on their shelf > compared to sighted people. Alternately, braile isn't a real solution to > this inequity since it's such a bulky medium, highly expensive, not readily > available, and far too easily destroyed compared to standard print books. > Catch 22! > "Technomage Hawke" <technomage-ha...@127.0.0.1> wrote in message > news:KU9Xe.15118$mH.12378@fed1read07... > > Well, I find it rather interesting that a MOVIE company would complain > about > > a file they actually do not hold the rights on. The file in question > > appears to be an AUDIOBOOK, yet they are claiming its one of their works > (A > > MOVIE).
> > now. I did send a response back to my ISP regarding this. so far, all I > have > > gotten has been a "canned" response. I also sent a question off to > > Paramount pictures asking them why they are harrassing a blind person over > > an audiobook. I thought they dealt with movies.
> > oh well...
> > Sounds to me like these guys are trolling all the nets looking for > anything > > that even looks like its theirs, even when it isn't.
> > go figure.
> > besides, it isn't illegal to share a list of files, is it? it is, after > all, > > a list (and no actual files may exist, even if the list says otherwise).
> > We are writing on behalf of <munged> to advise you that we have received a > > notification that you are using your <munged> service to post or transmit > > material that infringes the copyrights of a complainant's members. We > have > > included a copy of the complaint letter. Pursuant to the provisions of > the > > Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA"), which is codified at 17 U.S.C. > § > > 512, upon receiving such notification, <munged> is required to "act > > expeditiously to remove, or disable access to" the infringing material in > > order to avoid liability for any alleged copyright infringement. > > Accordingly, <munged> will suspend your account and disable your > connection > > to the Internet within 24 hours of your receipt of this email if the > > offending material is not removed.
> > Please be aware that the DMCA also provides procedures by which a > subscriber > > accused of copyright violation can respond to the allegations of > > infringement and, under certain circumstances, cause his or her account to > > be reinstated. To do so, however, the response must meet certain > criteria. > > Pursuant to section (g) of the DMCA (17 U.S.C. § 512(g)), you have the > > right to submit to <munged> a counter-notification which, to be effective, > > must include the following elements:
> > (a) a physical or electronic signature of the subscriber; > > (b) identification of the material that has been removed or to which > access > > has been disabled and the location at which the material appeared before > it > > was removed or disabled; > > (c) a statement under penalty of perjury that the subscriber has a > good > > faith belief that the material was removed or disabled as a result of > > mistake or misidentification of the material to be removed or disabled; > > (d) the subscriber's name, address, and telephone number and a > statement > > that the subscriber consents to the jurisdiction of the Federal District > > Court for the judicial district in which the address is located.
> > In the event that you submit to <munged> a counter-notification that > > includes these elements, <munged> will forward your counter notification > to > > the complainant and advise them that <munged> will cease disabling access > > to the allegedly infringing material in ten (10) business days. Unless > the > > complainant notifies us that it has filed an action seeking a court order > > to restrain you from engaging in the allegedly infringing activity prior > to > > the expiration of those ten (10) business days, <munged> will reactivate > > your account.
> > For answers to frequently asked questions, please follow the link below:
> > Sincerely,
> > <munged> Customer Security
> > --- Original Message ---
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > Hash: SHA1
> > BayTSP, Inc. ("BayTSP") swears under penalty of perjury that Paramount > > Pictures Corporation ("Paramount") has authorized BayTSP to act as its > > non-exclusive agent for copyright infringement notification. BayTSP's > > search of the protocol listed below has detected infringements of > > Paramount's copyright interests on your IP addresses as detailed in the > > attached report.
> > BayTSP has reasonable good faith belief that use of the material in the > > manner complained of in the attached report is not authorized by > Paramount, > > its agents, or the law. The information provided herein is accurate to the > > best of our knowledge. Therefore, this letter is an official notification > > to effect removal of the detected infringement listed in the attached > > report. The attached documentation specifies the exact location of the > > infringement.
> > We hereby request that you immediately remove or block access to the > > infringing material, as specified in the copyright laws, and insure the > > user refrains from using or sharing with others Paramount's materials in > > the future (see, 17 U.S.C. §512).
> > Further, we believe that the entire Internet community benefits when these > > matters are resolved cooperatively. We urge you to take immediate action > to > > stop this infringing activity and inform us of the results of your > actions. > > We appreciate your efforts toward this common goal.
> > Please responed indicating the actions you have taken to resolve this > > matter. The provided link has been assigned to this matter <munged>. For > > email correspondence, please reference the above Notice ID in the subject > > line mailto:paramo...@copyright-compliance.com?subject=<munged>.
> > Nothing in this letter shall serve as a waiver of any rights or remedies > of > > Paramount with respect to the alleged infringement, all of which are > > expressly reserved. Should you need to contact me, I may be reached at the > > following address:
> > Mark Ishikawa > > Chief Executive Officer > > BayTSP, Inc. > > PO Box 1314 > > Los Gatos, CA 95031
> > Note: The information transmitted in this Notice is intended only for the > > person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential > > and/or privileged material. Any review, reproduction, retransmission, > > dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, > > this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient > > is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender > > and delete the material from all computers.
> > This infringement notice contains an XML tag that can be used to automate > > the processing of this data. If you would like more information on how to > > use this tag please contact BayTSP. > > Evidentiary Information: > > Notice ID: 3376090 > > Recent Infringement Timestamp: 15 Sep 2005 09:29:01 GMT > > Infringed Work: Timeline > > Infringing FileName: (AB) - Michael Crichton - Timeline.rar > > Infringing FileSize: 190983098 > > Protocol: OpenNap > > Infringing URL: > > Infringers IP Address: <munged> > > Infringer's DNS Name: <munged> > > Infringer's User Name: technomage > > Initial Infringement Timestamp: 15 Sep 2005 09:29:01 GMT
> > -- > > I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or > > numbered! > > My life is my own - No. 6
>> Do not - I repeat NOT - defend *yourself* in court. That would be >> silly.
> is that a legal opinion? are you a lawyer? if not, better put a hold > on > those opinions then. they could get you in hot water with the legal > system.
Not taking sides here, but I will say that it is just good common sense advice, (hmm, interesting concept. . .) that even judges dole out to those whom choose to do so. But not in so many words. . .
> requirement to copy audio books 1 stereo tape player
> turn balance fully to left channel, play side a, play side b > turn balance fully to right channel, play side a, play side b
> audio books are recorded in monaural on the channel tracks of a regular > stereo tape > audiobook players have buttons that select left/right forward/reverse in > combination to play the '4' sides of the tape in order.
> I was blind for a while after a bike accident, When vision returned,used to > drive along in my car listening to audio books on the tape player.
> -- > like fu_ a porcupine > 1000 pri_ against one > "Jason" <president...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:dgjs0j$93$1@news.netins.net... > > This isn't much of a surprise, actually. Groups such as Bookshare and the > > National Library Service for the Blind must seek permission from the > > publisher to make audio books available to blind. And in the case of a > > private corperation, such as Simon and Schuster, making audio books, they > > have to seek the same blessing from the publisher. And in the case of a > > movie Paramount may have made, this isn't any different, since any > publisher > > making a book out of a movie must get permission from the movie maker > before > > they they can publish the book.
> > Its unfortunate because most commercially available audio books are > > abridged, therefore aren't really worth the money you'd pay for them, and > > copying NLS-produced audio books that aren't abridged isn't particularly > > easy, since special tape machines are required. In other words, blind > people > > are pretty much screwed when it comes to putting books on their shelf > > compared to sighted people. Alternately, braile isn't a real solution to > > this inequity since it's such a bulky medium, highly expensive, not > readily > > available, and far too easily destroyed compared to standard print books. > > Catch 22! > > "Technomage Hawke" <technomage-ha...@127.0.0.1> wrote in message > > news:KU9Xe.15118$mH.12378@fed1read07... > > > Well, I find it rather interesting that a MOVIE company would complain > > about > > > a file they actually do not hold the rights on. The file in question > > > appears to be an AUDIOBOOK, yet they are claiming its one of their works > > (A > > > MOVIE).
> > > now. I did send a response back to my ISP regarding this. so far, all I > > have > > > gotten has been a "canned" response. I also sent a question off to > > > Paramount pictures asking them why they are harrassing a blind person > over > > > an audiobook. I thought they dealt with movies.
> > > oh well...
> > > Sounds to me like these guys are trolling all the nets looking for > > anything > > > that even looks like its theirs, even when it isn't.
> > > go figure.
> > > besides, it isn't illegal to share a list of files, is it? it is, after > > all, > > > a list (and no actual files may exist, even if the list says otherwise).
> > > We are writing on behalf of <munged> to advise you that we have received > a > > > notification that you are using your <munged> service to post or > transmit > > > material that infringes the copyrights of a complainant's members. We > > have > > > included a copy of the complaint letter. Pursuant to the provisions of > > the > > > Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA"), which is codified at 17 > U.S.C. > > § > > > 512, upon receiving such notification, <munged> is required to "act > > > expeditiously to remove, or disable access to" the infringing material > in > > > order to avoid liability for any alleged copyright infringement. > > > Accordingly, <munged> will suspend your account and disable your > > connection > > > to the Internet within 24 hours of your receipt of this email if the > > > offending material is not removed.
> > > Please be aware that the DMCA also provides procedures by which a > > subscriber > > > accused of copyright violation can respond to the allegations of > > > infringement and, under certain circumstances, cause his or her account > to > > > be reinstated. To do so, however, the response must meet certain > > criteria. > > > Pursuant to section (g) of the DMCA (17 U.S.C. § 512(g)), you have the > > > right to submit to <munged> a counter-notification which, to be > effective, > > > must include the following elements:
> > > (a) a physical or electronic signature of the subscriber; > > > (b) identification of the material that has been removed or to which > > access > > > has been disabled and the location at which the material appeared before > > it > > > was removed or disabled; > > > (c) a statement under penalty of perjury that the subscriber has a > > good > > > faith belief that the material was removed or disabled as a result of > > > mistake or misidentification of the material to be removed or disabled; > > > (d) the subscriber's name, address, and telephone number and a > > statement > > > that the subscriber consents to the jurisdiction of the Federal District > > > Court for the judicial district in which the address is located.
> > > In the event that you submit to <munged> a counter-notification that > > > includes these elements, <munged> will forward your counter notification > > to > > > the complainant and advise them that <munged> will cease disabling > access > > > to the allegedly infringing material in ten (10) business days. Unless > > the > > > complainant notifies us that it has filed an action seeking a court > order > > > to restrain you from engaging in the allegedly infringing activity prior > > to > > > the expiration of those ten (10) business days, <munged> will reactivate > > > your account.
> > > For answers to frequently asked questions, please follow the link below:
> > > BayTSP, Inc. ("BayTSP") swears under penalty of perjury that Paramount > > > Pictures Corporation ("Paramount") has authorized BayTSP to act as its > > > non-exclusive agent for copyright infringement notification. BayTSP's > > > search of the protocol listed below has detected infringements of > > > Paramount's copyright interests on your IP addresses as detailed in the > > > attached report.
> > > BayTSP has reasonable good faith belief that use of the material in the > > > manner complained of in the attached report is not authorized by > > Paramount, > > > its agents, or the law. The information provided herein is accurate to > the > > > best of our knowledge. Therefore, this letter is an official > notification > > > to effect removal of the detected infringement listed in the attached > > > report. The attached documentation specifies the exact location of the > > > infringement.
> > > We hereby request that you immediately remove or block access to the > > > infringing material, as specified in the copyright laws, and insure the > > > user refrains from using or sharing with others Paramount's materials in > > > the future (see, 17 U.S.C. §512).
> > > Further, we believe that the entire Internet community benefits when > these > > > matters are resolved cooperatively. We urge you to take immediate action > > to > > > stop this infringing activity and inform us of the results of your > > actions. > > > We appreciate your efforts toward this common goal.
> > > Please responed indicating the actions you have taken to resolve this > > > matter. The provided link has been assigned to this matter <munged>. For > > > email correspondence, please reference the above Notice ID in the > subject > > > line mailto:paramo...@copyright-compliance.com?subject=<munged>.
> > > Nothing in this letter shall serve as a waiver of any rights or remedies > > of > > > Paramount with respect to the alleged infringement, all of which are > > > expressly reserved. Should you need to contact me, I may be reached at > the > > > following address:
> > > Mark Ishikawa > > > Chief Executive Officer > > > BayTSP, Inc. > > > PO Box 1314 > > > Los Gatos, CA 95031
> > > *pgp public key is available on the key server at > ldap://keyserver.pgp.com
> > > Note: The information transmitted in this Notice is intended only for > the > > > person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential > > > and/or privileged material. Any review, reproduction, retransmission, > > > dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, > > > this information by persons or entities other than the intended > recipient > > > is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender > > > and delete the material from all computers.
> > > This infringement notice contains an XML tag that can be used to > automate > > > the processing of this data. If you would like more information on how > to > > > use this tag please contact BayTSP. > > > Evidentiary Information: > > > Notice ID: 3376090 > > > Recent Infringement Timestamp: 15 Sep 2005 09:29:01 GMT > > > Infringed Work: Timeline > > > Infringing FileName: (AB) - Michael Crichton - Timeline.rar > > > Infringing FileSize: 190983098 > > > Protocol: OpenNap > > > Infringing URL: > > > Infringers IP Address:
Technomage Hawke wrote: > I wonder, if I get sued by paramount pictures, can I counter sue based on > malicious prosecution and filing a frivolous lawsuit?
Why should this lawsuit be considered less frivolous than any of the others filed by industry groups? That said, it's unlikely they'd seriously pursue the case once they were sure you really were blind.
> > Do not - I repeat NOT - defend *yourself* in court. > > That would be silly.
> is that a legal opinion? are you a lawyer? if not, better put a hold on > those opinions then. they could get you in hot water with the legal system.
Given that you've just said, in a reply to 'Jason', below . . . . "I wonder, if I get sued by paramount pictures, can I counter sue based on malicious prosecution and filing a frivolous lawsuit?", it's obvious that you're an idiot. Again.
> Technomage Hawke wrote: > > I wonder, if I get sued by paramount pictures, can I counter sue based on > > malicious prosecution and filing a frivolous lawsuit?
> Why should this lawsuit be considered less frivolous than any of the > others filed by industry groups? That said, it's unlikely they'd > seriously pursue the case once they were sure you really were blind.
===========
You seem to imply that lawyers have a heart and that someone's disability could keep them away from their loot... When did hell freeze over and why wasn't I notified?
The whole idea that the MPAA and related goons just want to inject fear in to people that are suppose to be their customers makes me so angry! I myself am totally blind, and the internet has opened many doors for me, and that's not just because I have an interest in the internet and related technologies either. Back in June 2000, I was introduced to the original Napster. I instantly realized what an awesome promotional tool the internet could become, not to mention the ultimate distribution tool as well. I found music and other forms of audio I hadn't heard in years, and to this day still have many of those original files first downloaded from the good original Napster. Now with the good version of Napster gone, and the RIAA/MPAA not willing to give consumers what they first got with Napster, we as blind consumers face an even bigger challenge. The record label approved services such as the new Napster and Itunes among others, for the most part can not be used by blind users as the programs used to access such services are horribly inaccessible! Not only that, but just as with regular consumers, we can not back up our purchased content. So in my case I have winMX, direct connect, and gnutella as my p2p apps, and I have Napster as my sole record label approved service. Now I find it quite interesting I can use with no problem all 3 peer to peer apps I have, yet I'm barely able to use the Napster program enough to even try and purchase a track. I would rather be able to have content on my system that I can freely transfer to another computer and/or device if I so choose, and I'd prefer to obtain the content via a program that is accessible to me as a blind user. As such, most if not all of the services I can not use. The fact that the MPAA has tried to go after the poster of this thread for sharing something that itself isn't even theirs just based on it's name is totally rediculous! These greedy money hungry corporations need to make the best of new technologies, let consumers make personal copies of content, and so long as no money is changing hands, leave us alone! They're so quick to claim we're stealing their content, but last I checked they still had the content, and oh let's see here I have an album here by the artist Maire Brennan, which I purchased after I heard a few tracks off it via gasp gasp, p2p file sharing networks! Consumers, especially blind consumers do not want DRM content that can not be backed up to other computers/devices. So we can at present get content which happens to be for free that we can do what we choose with it, or pay and get a DRM restricted file that we can't even back up should we have a system failure and have to reload our computer! Not to mention the program used to access the payed files we can hardly use! the internet has opened many doors for us as blind consumers, so until the greedy labels give us what the old Napster provided at good fast speeds, including the blind user friendly program, I say we need to somehow do what we can to show these greedy corporations how we feel! So if possible I'd take on the labels you bet! In their mind, if it's not severely DRM'd, it must've been pirated. well hey if that's what I gotta do to ensure I can back it up, then so be it! I'm tired of the MPAA/rIAA telling us how we can use technology or in what way we can use it! And if the content in question here was not a movie and they went after this thread's poster based on the name, then that I believe is also wrong! Maybe I should start naming all my files to the latest and greatest hits and let the bastards come after me. It's getting really old really quick, and I'm sick of it all!
> > Technomage Hawke wrote: > > > I wonder, if I get sued by paramount pictures, can I counter sue based on > > > malicious prosecution and filing a frivolous lawsuit?
> > Why should this lawsuit be considered less frivolous than any of the > > others filed by industry groups? That said, it's unlikely they'd > > seriously pursue the case once they were sure you really were blind.
> ===========
> You seem to imply that lawyers have a heart and that someone's disability could keep them > away from their loot... When did hell freeze over and why wasn't I notified?
No, I said that nobody wants to be seen in the media beating up on the disabled. On the subject of lawyers and hearts, if you want to make lawyers out to be the bad guys, there's not really much anybody can do about that.
> > > Technomage Hawke wrote: > > > > I wonder, if I get sued by paramount pictures, can I counter sue based on > > > > malicious prosecution and filing a frivolous lawsuit?
> > > Why should this lawsuit be considered less frivolous than any of the > > > others filed by industry groups? That said, it's unlikely they'd > > > seriously pursue the case once they were sure you really were blind.
> > You seem to imply that lawyers have a heart and that someone's disability could keep them > > away from their loot... When did hell freeze over and why wasn't I notified?
> No, I said that nobody wants to be seen in the media beating up on the > disabled.
==========
They've sued the young, the old and the dead so far. What better example to set than "not even the blind is exempt if you engage in illegal downloading [sic]"? They would love to indirectly intimidate as many people as possible.
> On the subject of lawyers and hearts, if you want to make > lawyers out to be the bad guys, there's not really much anybody can do > about that.
-----
Lawyers do fine without any help from me, thank you.
----- {A Dublin lawyer died in poverty and many barristers of the city subscribed to a fund for his funeral. The Lord Chief Justice of Orbury was asked to donate a shilling. "Only a shilling?" said the Justice, "Only a shilling to bury an attorney? Here's a guinea; go and bury 20 more of them." }
Q: How can you tell when a lawyer is lying? A: His lips are moving.
Q. What's the difference between a lawyer and a gigolo? A. A gigolo only screws one person at a time.
>>And if the content in question here was not a movie and they went after >>this thread's poster based on the name, then that I believe is also >>wrong! Maybe I should start naming all my files to the latest and >>greatest hits and let the bastards come after me. It's getting really old >>really quick, and I'm sick of it all!
> actually, that isn't such a bad idea.
> I am looking at the "fake files" bit with the idea that if they do try and > sue me (or have my service terminated), I can counter sue claiming that the > data in question isn't what they represented. anyway, thats a proposal in a > nutshell, and I do not want to get sued (I don't have the necessary funding > to even hire a lawyer). Still, it is an interesting exercise pertaining to > the law.
This is something I have been thinking about. Supposing on a browse of a user, you didn't get just their collection but those of everyone on that primary? (this is similar to the 'ghost-files' bug). Then the **IA couldn't get a definitive list of a user's shares without downloading them. In order to combat that threat, what if a small number (say 10%) of transfers would be proxied via another peer on the primary? - In that case, there would always be doubt about whether the IP address recorded was actually the source of the files.
> > > > Technomage Hawke wrote: > > > > > I wonder, if I get sued by paramount pictures, can I counter sue based on > > > > > malicious prosecution and filing a frivolous lawsuit?
> > > > Why should this lawsuit be considered less frivolous than any of the > > > > others filed by industry groups? That said, it's unlikely they'd > > > > seriously pursue the case once they were sure you really were blind.
> > > You seem to imply that lawyers have a heart and that someone's disability could keep > them > > > away from their loot... When did hell freeze over and why wasn't I notified?
> > No, I said that nobody wants to be seen in the media beating up on the > > disabled. > ==========
> They've sued the young, the old and the dead so far. What better example to set than "not > even the blind is exempt if you engage in illegal downloading [sic]"? They would love to > indirectly intimidate as many people as possible.
The young and the dead aren't much of a problem; with the dead, you're suing an estate - it really happens all the time. As for kids, that's also a red herring - everybody knows that the parents are going to pay. When you think of those stories of young children in on-line chatrooms, an RIAA lawsuit is remarkably cheap.
> > On the subject of lawyers and hearts, if you want to make > > lawyers out to be the bad guys, there's not really much anybody can do > > about that.
> -----
> Lawyers do fine without any help from me, thank you.
> > > > > Technomage Hawke wrote: > > > > > > I wonder, if I get sued by paramount pictures, can I counter sue based on > > > > > > malicious prosecution and filing a frivolous lawsuit?
> > > > > Why should this lawsuit be considered less frivolous than any of the > > > > > others filed by industry groups? That said, it's unlikely they'd > > > > > seriously pursue the case once they were sure you really were blind.
> > > > You seem to imply that lawyers have a heart and that someone's disability could keep them > > > > away from their loot... When did hell freeze over and why wasn't I notified?
> > > No, I said that nobody wants to be seen in the media beating up on the disabled.
> > They've sued the young, the old and the dead so far. What better example to set than "not > > even the blind is exempt if you engage in illegal downloading [sic]"? They would love to > > indirectly intimidate as many people as possible.
> The young and the dead aren't much of a problem; with the dead, you're > suing an estate - it really happens all the time. As for kids, that's
=============
They've accused a person who was long dead, of copyright infringement. There were no grounds for suing that person's estate. The horror stories people read in the news about other common people being sued are designed to scare them into not sharing. I really think "suing the blind" would convince many sharers they are not safe from being sued. IMHO, of course.
> also a red herring - everybody knows that the parents are going to pay. > When you think of those stories of young children in on-line > chatrooms, an RIAA lawsuit is remarkably cheap.
There's no such thing as a starving lawyer, is there, so I guess US$7500 sounds cheap to some, but what do you consider "remarkably cheap"? AFAIK, suing parents for copyright infringement doesn't necessarily prevent their kids from using chatrooms; they can go in without any copyrighted material, can they not? Otherwise, why not file preemptive lawsuits against parents of young kids?
> > > > > > Technomage Hawke wrote: > > > > > > > I wonder, if I get sued by paramount pictures, can I counter sue based on > > > > > > > malicious prosecution and filing a frivolous lawsuit?
> > > > > > Why should this lawsuit be considered less frivolous than any of the > > > > > > others filed by industry groups? That said, it's unlikely they'd > > > > > > seriously pursue the case once they were sure you really were blind.
> > > > > You seem to imply that lawyers have a heart and that someone's disability could > keep them > > > > > away from their loot... When did hell freeze over and why wasn't I notified?
> > > > No, I said that nobody wants to be seen in the media beating up on the disabled.
> > > They've sued the young, the old and the dead so far. What better example to set than > "not > > > even the blind is exempt if you engage in illegal downloading [sic]"? They would love > to > > > indirectly intimidate as many people as possible.
> > The young and the dead aren't much of a problem; with the dead, you're > > suing an estate - it really happens all the time. As for kids, that's > =============
> They've accused a person who was long dead, of copyright infringement. There were no > grounds for suing that person's estate.
Hard to say, you've just given me a blurb of an anecdote of what may be a real case. Apparently somebody thought there were grounds - and should have realized that the administrators of an estate may have more energy to defend the case than an old or infirm defendant.
> The horror stories people read in the news about other common people being sued are > designed to scare them into not sharing.
How much of the horror is just that - a story?
> I really think "suing the blind" would convince > many sharers they are not safe from being sued. IMHO, of course.
We all know that in theory, nobody is safe from being sued. Of course nobody wants to spark the public outcry that might lead to politically-imposed limits on liability.
> > also a red herring - everybody knows that the parents are going to pay. > > When you think of those stories of young children in on-line > > chatrooms, an RIAA lawsuit is remarkably cheap.
> There's no such thing as a starving lawyer, is there, so I guess US$7500 sounds cheap to > some, but what do you consider "remarkably cheap"?
A myth - it's hardly LA Law for most lawyers. Why do you think they're chasing after those ambulances left and right. The world is full of starving lawyers.
> AFAIK, suing parents for copyright infringement doesn't necessarily prevent their kids > from using chatrooms;
AFAIK, parents realize that there's money at stake, and are encouraged to take a more proactive role in their children's on-line activities.
> they can go in without any copyrighted material, can they not?
Sure, there's no copywright on the explicit or suggestive language that children can read or write on these chat-rooms. It's the parental oversight that becomes the issue.
> Otherwise, why not file preemptive lawsuits against parents of young kids?
Because you can only sue for damages after the fact. You can enjoin children from pirating music, but tha would be unnecessary to the extent that laws on the books already bar that behavior.
> . . . it's hardly LA Law for most lawyers. > Why do you think they're chasing after > those ambulances left and right.
If I had to guess, Fats, I'd say it's because ambulances tend to be filled with delirious, morphined-up and/or unconscious people whose wallets can be rifled (and arses fondled) in perfect safety by the lawyers.
> The world is full of starving lawyers.
Brought a tear to my eye, that did, Fats. I think someone should set up some sort of soup-kitchen project to help them out a bit. Too few people understand the plight of starving lawyers. Especially their cocaine dealers. Yes.
There are many times I've tried to download off WinMX files that have multiple sources or so winMX claims yet when I start downloading, there's no sources, those are obviously false results of files that don't really exist. Obviously the goons just look at a list of files, and just based on the name assume it's an illegal item! We should not be told how we can use content we've payed for. We never in the past were told we could only play content in certain devices, so why start now! I'll share whatever I choose when I choose, I'm not making any money nor is that my intention, so why are they the greedy corporations not grasping how awesome the internet as a distribution and marketing tool is? Will the consumer ever gain a victory over these greedy bastards?
kd6...@gmail.com wrote: > There are many times I've tried to download off WinMX files that have > multiple sources or so winMX claims yet when I start downloading, > there's no sources, those are obviously false results of files that > don't really exist.
There are many users who try to DL fakes, or DL genuine files but are held back by their lack of knowledge of how WinMX works, and their unwillingness to learn.
> Obviously the goons just look at a list of files, > and just based on the name assume it's an illegal item!
U2_Vertigo(Great_Version).mp3 is always being confused for this popular (and I'm guessing copywright-protected) song by this Irish band. It's obviously a big misunderstanding.
> We should not be told how we can use content we've payed for.
Paid? Who did you pay, and for what?
> We never in the past were told we could only play content in certain > devices, so why start now!
What are you talking about? Whoi's told you what? And what does this have to do with sharing files on WinMX?
> I'll share whatever I choose when I choose, I'm not making any > money nor is that my intention, so why are they the greedy corporations > not grasping how awesome the internet as a distribution and marketing > tool is?
Because they're not making any money either and, being corporations, profit is sort of high on their list of priorities. As for what you're ending up on the deal - you're not making money, and it's not your intention, but your sharing of files is hardly selfless, given that your sharing makes you less likely to be tagged as a leech. Not getting money doesn't equate with "I'm just giving it away".
> Will the consumer ever gain a victory over these greedy bastards?
>>This is something I have been thinking about. >>Supposing on a browse of a user, you didn't get just their collection >>but those of everyone on that primary? (this is similar to the >>'ghost-files' bug).
> seen that many a time. its one of the reasons I just don't use WinMX. as for > KazaA, I wouldn't trust the sharman networks to do anything right without > backdooring my machines (hence, they aren't trusted either)..
>>Then the **IA couldn't get a definitive list of a user's shares without >>downloading them.
> you'd be surprised at what can be done. getting a definitive list is one > thing, getting the actual files, thats another. an accusation of sharing > without actual evidence of sharing is nothing more than an accusation. > unfortunately, the MMIA (Multi Media Association of America <yeah, its > corny, but accurate>) is of the "legal opinion" that if you list it, you > must be guilty by intent to share (even if no real files are present)
Yes, the RIAA stated in court recently that they generally don't download files before issuing subpeonas.
>>In order to combat that threat, what if a small number (say 10%) of >>transfers would be proxied via another peer on the primary? >>- In that case, there would always be doubt about whether the IP address >>recorded was actually the source of the files.
> unfortunately, the winmx network isn't decentralized enough to do this. > you're better of getting a TOR server running and routing stuff via an > encrypted domain.
- Sure it could do i t- would take a bit of work though.
|
