In article <email@example.com>, Robert Bonomi
> In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
> charsand <email@example.com> wrote:
>> firstname.lastname@example.org (Bob Smythe) wrote in message
>>> The thing is, it is illegal to download or upload copyrighted works,
>>> the concept of file sharing and actual file sharing is not illegal. I
>>> do not condone illegal file sharing, but am just trying to clarify a
>>> few things.
>>> The MPAA (and RIAA) have not and will not target individual
>>> downloaders. There is no real way to get them. They are not a law
>>> enforcement agency. They cannot entrap individual users. If you
>>> download from them, and they are the rightful owners, then there is no
>>> law broken, even if it is widely know that the service being used is
>>> to illegally obtain files. Plus having downloaded one file will not be
>>> worthwhile anyway in court.
> Statutory copyright infringement penalty, $30,000 per occurrence. Each
> making of a copy is a separate violation.
> Don't _bet_ on it not being worthwhile in court.
> You can't afford to be _right_, let alone wrong.
> (A _successful_ infringement defense typically runs into six figures
> left of the decimal point.)
> Particularly, an 'association' is _not_ looking to 'make money' from
> the lawsuit -- their primary aim is the 'chilling effect', as it were,
> of the successful prosecution. The _smaller_ the perp that is
> successfully prosecuted, the stronger the message that is 'sent',
> regarding the 'risk' of such actions.
> [[., munch ..]]
>> I heard somewhere that those caught could receive not only fines, but
>> jail time-is this true?
>> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It would not suprise me at all. Nor
>> does it surprise me that they just toss out lawsuits all over the
>> place without even having the *name* or *any identity* of the persons
>> they intend to sue. I can see where 'John Doe' might be a valid way
>> to sue someone you had caught when you could not otherwise get his
>> name, but lawsuits at random against John Does 1 through 9999 (fill
>> in the names, addresses and particulars when you find the person)
>> seems to me to be a gross abuse of the legal system. But they seem to
>> be setting out the lawsuits, then finding the person later on and
>> already having the suit set up. Not a good faith thing, IMO. PAT]
> Not surprisingly, our esteemed moderator doesn't understand the
> They've _already_ got the IP address, and timestamp, data, and all the
> 'downloading' evidence to support the suit. But they don't know _who_
> was using that IP address at that time. And the ISP's will -not-
> divulge *that* information except by court order.
> Hence the John Doe filing. followed by a subpoena to the ISP.
> Followed by an 'amended' filing to insert the actual perpetrators
> name. Then, and *ONLY*THEN* can you 'serve' the perp with the summons
> for the lawsuit.
> Any _given_ "John Doe" is alleged to have committed _specific_ acts --
> e.g., "at this specific date/time, did download thus-and-such movie
> from IP address aa.bb.cc.dd to xx.yy.zz.ww"
> You can't file the suit, -then- go find some *other* violations, and
> change the allegations in pre-existing suit to match.
> As to the prior poster's question regarding jail time -- the answer is
> "yes". The "Digital Millennium Copyright Act" _did_ introduce
> *criminal* prosecution and penalties for certain kinds of copyright
> infringement. In general, the criminal provisions deal with those who
> _distribute_, for money or otherwise, infringing copies.
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But many IP addresses are not static,
> but dynamic. What do they do then to find the person who 'stole' the
> movie or the piece of music? PAT]
*READ* what I wrote, above. They have the IP address _and_ the timestamp.
The subpoena the ISP to *find*out* _who_ was using *that* IP address *at*
*that*time*. The _ISP_ *does* have that information, from authentication
logs, etc. _Now_ they have the person's name, to replace the "John Doe"
on the lawsuit.
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But as someone else noted in a message,
not all ISPs keep that information around very long. Once they have
had a chance to do what they need with it, the information is dumped.
And if someone called in on a dialup line and hacked a real user's
name and password then they would have nothing to go on would they?