A Federal Judge has decided to let the "U.S. Copyright Group" subpoena ISPs over 23,000 alleged downloads of some
Sylvester Stallone movie I have never heard of; subpoenas are expected to go out this week.
I thought that there might be some interest in the list of these addresses :
This is turning into quite a legal racket (get order $ 3000 for sending a threatening letter); I expect to see a lot
more of this until some sense returns to the legal system.
A Federal Judge has decided to let the "U.S. Copyright Group" subpoena ISPs over 23,000 alleged downloads of some
Sylvester Stallone movie I have never heard of; subpoenas are expected to go out this week.
I thought that there might be some interest in the list of these addresses :
It wasn't that good a movie, so I guess they need to squeeze every bit of $ they can out of anyone who saw it. I bought it a a Blockbuster liquidation sale (having not seen it previously).
This is turning into quite a legal racket (get order $ 3000 for sending a threatening letter); I expect to see a lot
more of this until some sense returns to the legal system.
I wonder how things go if you challenge them in court. This is surely a topic for another list, but it seems to me it'd be fairly difficult to prove unless they downloaded part of the movie from your IP and verified that what they got really was a part of the movie. If they're going after any IP that connected to and downloaded from an agent of the studio (and thats what it sounds like) who hosted the file, can they really expect to prosecute people for downloading something they were giving away?
Wouldn't that be like the RIAA making bootleg copies of audio CDs, giving them away, and then prosecuting anyone who accepted one?
A Federal Judge has decided to let the "U.S. Copyright Group"
subpoena ISPs over 23,000 alleged downloads of some
Sylvester Stallone movie I have never heard of;
Good for you : it was one of the worst films I've ever seen. And I've seen Iron Man 2.
subpoenas are
expected to go out this week.
I thought that there might be some interest in the list of these addresses :
This is turning into quite a legal racket (get order $ 3000 for
sending a threatening letter); I expect to see a lot
more of this until some sense returns to the legal system.
And these problems are spreading everywhere in the world.
Maybe they can use the Clinton marijuana-non-inhalation defense - I downloaded the movie but I didn't watch it!
Ron Baklarz CISSP, CISA, CISM, NSA-IAM/IEM
Chief Information Security Officer
National Passenger Railroad Corporation
10 G Street, NE Office 6E606
Washington, DC 20002 BaklarR@Amtrak.com
It depends whether you are suing the subscriber or the downloader (maybe both can be liable in some cases). Also whether the subscriber was running an open Wifi (normally not recommended), which is a matter of evidential fact to be explored in each particular case.
I know of a decent sized global ISP that ran (runs?) a large darknet
that was the equivalent of a few /16's routed to a fbsd host running
'tcpdump' (a tad more complex, but essentially this). BayTSP (one of
the 'make legal threats for the mpaa/riaa' firms) sent ~2k notes to
the ISP about downloaders on these ips.
Looking at netflow data (sample 1:1 on that interface) they had
portscanned (from ip space registered in their name) each address in
the range and sent subpoena-material to all ips that they thought they
got a response from.
Do you have any links to evidence of this? I would love to just be
able to automatically throw BayTSP mails in the garbage, but I can't
just blindly do it if there is any chance of them being legitimate.
sadly I do not have evidence anymore... I do know that the isp
essentially stopped replying to baytsp though. some form of monitoring
netflow on your network + matching baytsp requests against that
pattern would likely be enough I suspect (ask lawyer-cat of course)
Article 6 - Periods of retention
Member States shall ensure that the categories of data specified in Article
5 are retained for periods of not less than six months and not more than two
years from the date of the communication.
Article 5 - Categories of data to be retained
1. Member States shall ensure that the following categories of data are
retained under this Directive:
(a) data necessary to trace and identify the source of a communication:
(...) the name and address of the subscriber or registered user to whom an
Internet Protocol (IP) address, user ID or telephone number was allocated at
the time of the communication;
Each member state creates its own law, according to the directive. In
Portugal, you have to retain the data for one year.
It depends whether you are suing the subscriber or the downloader (maybe both can be liable in some cases). Also whether the subscriber was running an open Wifi (normally not recommended), which is a matter of evidential fact to be explored in each particular case.
And, perhaps most critically, which judge you come before. (It will take a while, and maybe a visit to the Supreme Court, before you can
expect legal consistency here.)
Note also that these generally do not go to trial.
In article <fOTexpPpbUyNFANV@perry.co.uk>, Roland Perry <lists@internetp
olicyagency.com> writes
Attempts a bit like this have come unstuck in the UK. Search for
"Davenport Lyons" and "ACS Law"
And this ruling (and fine) have appeared from the UK's privacy regulator
today (note especially that the fine would have been ~$300k if the
company was still trading):
A Federal Judge has decided to let the "U.S. Copyright Group" subpoena
ISPs over 23,000 alleged downloads of some
Sylvester Stallone movie I have never heard of; subpoenas are expected
to go out this week.
I thought that there might be some interest in the list of these
addresses :
This will stop when a 80+ yr old is taken to court over a download her 8 year old grandkid might have made when visiting for the weekend. The media will make the case that technologists can't.
For examples, see the RIAA's attempts and more recently the criminal investigations of child porn downloads from unsecured access points. From what I understand (or wildly guess) is that ISPs with remote diagnostic capabilities are being asked if their provided access point is secure or unsecure BEFORE they serve their warrants to avoid further embarrassments. [It'll probably take another 6 months and more goofs before they realize that customers are perfectly capable of poorly installing their own access points behind ISP provided gear].
The torrent stuff is fundamentally no different in that a single IP can and is shared by lots of people as common practice and the transient nature of it (e.g. airport access point, starbucks, etc) reasonably makes the lawyer's case much, much harder.
There is a real theft/crime here in many cases, but whether there is actually any value in prosecution of movie downloads will depend... but most likely, the outcome will be iMovies or similar and the movie industry will shrink the way the music industry has.
A Federal Judge has decided to let the "U.S. Copyright Group" subpoena ISPs over 23,000 alleged downloads of some
Sylvester Stallone movie I have never heard of; subpoenas are expected to go out this week.
I thought that there might be some interest in the list of these addresses :
This is turning into quite a legal racket (get order $ 3000 for sending a threatening letter); I expect to see a lot
more of this until some sense returns to the legal system.
There's amazing slime behind some similar efforts -- in another case,
of people charged with downloading "Nude Nuns with Big Guns" (yes, you
read that correctly), there are two different that each claim the rights
to the movie and hence the right to sue (alleged) downloaders: