Re: Re: Case ID 51560370 - Notice of ClaimedInfringement

[Jason <security () brvenik com>]

I think you are missing my point.

AJ C wrote:
> Civil vs Criminal cases dude, you're imposing some aspects of criminal
> cases upon civil proceedings and that's not how they work.  In a
> criminal trial it's a dramatized version of reasonable doubt, civil
> proceedings must show 51%+ responsibility on the part of the defendant
> (much, much easier and why the powers that be choose this route).  Not
> to mention it's their content (no harm, no foul on downloading
> something they already own) 

My point is that all you have to do is provide content they do not own 
but do download or attempt to download for this test to fail. Simply the 
existence of content with an advertised hash and name that is the same 
as other content does not prove they own the content or that it is even 
there. The act of downloading the content they think they own but in 
fact do not is a violation of the same law they are attempting to get 
you with.

There is no combination of the civil and criminal here. I am saying that 
the accuser having committed a crime prevents them from bringing civil 
suit based on the laws they themselves have violated. If they do bring 
suit they are ultimately going to fail while providing all of the 
information you need to be successful in a civil case and likely a 
criminal case.

> and MPAA/RIAA/blah have set precedence for
> proactively tracking (either themselves or appointed parties)
> file-sharing events (method of access is not unlawful and cannot be
> brought into contention...is BitTorrent inherently illegal when used
> for legit purposes? -- nope).

Correct, you providing your copyrighted content to authorized users is a 
fully valid use of the technology. The RIAA downloading that content to 
ensure it is not their copyrighted content is a violation of the law. 
The case is closed.

> If bb knocks on your door then you argue evidentiary process otherwise
> in a civil proceeding you bear more of a burden to show you *didn't*
> do what they're claiming (right or wrong they do have the legal upper
> hand with their records versus essentially a verbal denial at best).

I have the proof in the situation I presented. I have the actual logs 
showing that they did in fact download content that was not theirs and 
that the information they are presenting to justify the case is in fact 
a false representation.

> 'Probably just easier to not download the crap and stay off the radar, $0.02.

I don't download the crap, not because it is illegal but because I 
believe people should be paid for the work they do. If I do not believe 
the work is not worth the price I don't buy it.

I would not be opposed to creating a service that simply advertised 
filenames and hashes to the network but did not provide the actual 
content just to prove that the approach is both flawed and ultimately 
just as illegal.
_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/