Debbie Does BitTorrent: 113 Sued For Sharing Classic Porn Movie

from the porn-porn-everywhere dept

We've pointed out recently that porn producers seem to be rapidly jumping on the mass automated "pre-settlement" bandwagon, and it seems that's only increasing. More and more porn producers are filing mass lawsuits, demanding people accused of sharing all sorts of porn pay up or go to court. One of the latest targeted is the porn "classic," Debbie Does Dallas, for which 113 John Does have now been sued. Apparently, the lawyer involved is the same one who filed a bunch of these types of lawsuits a few months ago, Evan Stone. So apparently he's joined the ranks of lawyers who are pitching this kind of "service." Over in the UK, various politicians have been condemning these kinds of lawsuits, even calling them a scam. With thousands of these lawsuits being filed in the US now, will any US politician speak up and do something about this clear abuse of copyright law?


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    icon
    nasch (profile), Sep 3rd, 2010 @ 1:48pm

    Coincidence?

    Lawyer Evan Stone prosecuting a porn lawsuit... what a coincidence.

    Evan Stone

    Another Evan Stone

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    icon
    interval (profile), Sep 3rd, 2010 @ 2:01pm

    Mistake?

    That anyone would lay claim to "Debbie Does Dallas" is in itself interesting. I always wondered what became of the one "actress" who had incredibly bad cesarean section scars.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    identicon
    BruceLD, Sep 3rd, 2010 @ 2:14pm

    Subject

    For reasons only known to the corporations, instead of creating a new business model that adapts to technology of the new century--they create and help pass laws that try to keep their archaic and obsolete business model alive. They also make a few lawsuit bucks targeting anyone including those that may be completely innocent and unable to afford to defend themselves.

    That's right folks, this is what the corporations and lawyers wanted. This is what people that you voted for in to government got suckered in to supporting and passing in to law.

    Welcome to the ACTUAL reason for the DMCA; not to protect jobs, not to protect artists, but to make executives and lawyers the wealthiest people around. Wealthier and greedier they are becoming. While most normal people would be happy with a $1M in the bank and to live off the interest for the rest of their lives, these greedy lawyers and executives aren't content with their mega millions and sometimes even billions of dollars in their personal fortune sitting in their banks--and even having all of that is not enough.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    icon
    Dark Helmet (profile), Sep 3rd, 2010 @ 2:19pm

    Re: Subject

    Hmm, a lawyerly aristocracy built through the tenets of democracy coupled with an apathetic public....I like where you're going with this....

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    icon
    Atkray (profile), Sep 3rd, 2010 @ 2:34pm

    Re: Re: Subject

    I don't like it at all. It means I have to stop being apathetic.

    * writes another email to Orrin Hatch*

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    identicon
    RD, Sep 3rd, 2010 @ 2:41pm

    The Rich

    In an interview Mr. Rockefeller was asked how many more dollars until your satisfied. He then answered, "Just one more dollar".

    This is what is wrong with this country (America), and the world today. No matter how much wealth or power they accumulate, its never enough, they always, ALWAYS, want more.

    Greed will doom this country, possibly very soon.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 3rd, 2010 @ 2:45pm

    Re: The Rich

    People sitting on their computers, realizing a mere fraction of how much they're being fucked over, and organizing no protests, no civil disobedience, no assemblies, nothing; that's what's going to doom the country. Quitcherbitchin

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), Sep 3rd, 2010 @ 2:59pm

    With thousands of these lawsuits being filed in the US now, will any US politician speak up and do something about this clear abuse of copyright law?

    Don't hold your breath. I doubt any politicians have it backwards like you do. By definition, the people who infringe on other people's rights under copyright laws are the abusers of the law. Only in some silly alternate universe are the victims the abusers.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 3rd, 2010 @ 3:02pm

    Lawyers.... Is it any wonder?

    Anyone else notice the number of commercials on television that basically say

    "If you've ever taken > and you've been diagnosed with >, then you may be elligible for compensation."

    Lawyers are chasing more ambulances, filing more law suits, and convincing more people and businesses of 'entitlement'. Why? Because they need money. The market is flooded with lawyers who've spent their entire lives following the Law industry, and they don't know anything else.

    Is the sheer number of those being sued any wonder??? I wonder in how many cases where it's actually the people rather than their lawyers having a strong influence on them to get "sue happy"...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    icon
    The Groove Tiger (profile), Sep 3rd, 2010 @ 3:13pm

    Re:

    That black woman, abusing law by not sitting in the back of the bus.

    She was so abusive!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 3rd, 2010 @ 3:18pm

    I'm going to have to download and view this movie.

    For...you know, research purposes.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    identicon
    DCX2, Sep 3rd, 2010 @ 3:20pm

    Re: Mistake?

    And that was before HD and 3D! Imagine that cesarean scar now!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Sep 3rd, 2010 @ 3:28pm

    Re:

    Don't hold your breath. I doubt any politicians have it backwards like you do.

    Heh. Funny then that UK politicians seem to recognize that this is a clear abuse of the law, far beyond what the intended purpose of copyright law is.

    I don't have it backwards, kiddo. At the very least, why not admit your bias? You are in law school, studying how to use copyright law to your advantage. So you want this sort of abusive situation to continue such that you can profit from it.

    I have no actual dog in this fight. I don't have it backwards. I see it clearly.

    By definition, the people who infringe on other people's rights under copyright laws are the abusers of the law.

    You honestly don't think there's anything wrong with the incentive structure here? You don't think there's anything wrong with scooping up innocent folks in the process?

    Really?

    Sickening. Seriously. I can take a lot, but people like you who gleefully abuse a system for profit disgust me.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), Sep 3rd, 2010 @ 3:42pm

    Re: Re:

    Who cares what people in the UK think? I don't know what the laws are there. Let's talk about this country.

    I wear my bias on my sleeve. Not sure what you want me to "admit."

    Do you or do you not agree that the rights holder of the movie in question is a victim when people illegally download the movie?

    Do you or do you not agree that a person who breaks copyright laws by illegally downloading movies is by definition an abuser of copyright law?

    And how am I abusing a system for profit? What have I done? Are you seriously just making stuff up about me now? You must be really desperate, Mike.

    What innocent people are you talking about? What case? What are their names? What are the facts?

    I can't really answer your questions without more. Unlike you, I don't jump to conclusions.

    You have the worst case of confirmation bias I've ever seen. Sad really.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), Sep 3rd, 2010 @ 3:44pm

    Re: Re:

    So a person who illegally downloads a movie on the internet is just like Rosa Parks? Please.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    identicon
    Pixelation, Sep 3rd, 2010 @ 3:44pm

    Re:

    "Only in some silly alternate universe are the victims the abusers."

    When those "victims" sue innocent people, they are by definition abusers and victims usually become abusers.

    But what the hell, sue away. Fuck the "casualties of war".

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Sep 3rd, 2010 @ 4:00pm

    Re: Re: Mistake?

    Meh, whatever. The movie was made in a time before rampant plastic surgery and obsessions with physical "perfection" (not a good thing - I personally don't like woman with exposed bones, stretched faces and balloons attached to their chests). It's a historical record at this point of attitudes toward that kind of thing (women have physical imperfections and hair beneath their waists?).

    More interesting to me is the fact that despite the fact that this movie is so well known and viewed, it should be under the public domain now, at least if the copyright laws hadn't been hijacked. Imagine getting free, non-amateur porn legally, even if it is over 30 years old...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    icon
    interval (profile), Sep 3rd, 2010 @ 4:05pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    You've jumped to one conclusion; that copyright law makes any kind of sense.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 3rd, 2010 @ 4:35pm

    Re:

    Only because you want it to be, it can be argued the other way too. People do have rights to share whatever they want independent of commercial interests and that public knowledge is far more important that any economic factor, because it is the thing that feeds that economic growth.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 3rd, 2010 @ 4:47pm

    Re: Coincidence?

    Lawyer Evan Stone filing mass lawsuits for downloading "Debbie Does Dallas", which happens to be included on the "Debbie Does Dallas... Again" 2007 DVD release, which happens to star actor Evan Stone, who was born in Dallas, Texas, which happens to be 35 miles from lawyer Evan Stones business address...

    Coincidences are funny :)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    icon
    Karl (profile), Sep 3rd, 2010 @ 5:08pm

    Re:

    "I read it for the articles" doesn't work with your girlfriend, so I doubt it will work with a judge, either.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    identicon
    abc gum, Sep 3rd, 2010 @ 5:59pm

    Re:

    There you go again, assuming guilt before the accused is given their day in court.

    This type of rights enforcement is not going to end well. If you think the car warranty telemarketing scam was big, just wait for the upcoming you infringed scams. There will be huge collateral damage and the retort by apologists like yourself will be - too bad, so sad. The rights holders will not care about the results of their indiscretions because they are getting their rightful millions which they are owed.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    icon
    techflaws.org (profile), Sep 4th, 2010 @ 3:57am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Do you or do you not agree that the rights holder of the movie in question is a victim when people illegally download the movie?

    Do or do you not agree that the rights holder can not quantify the supposed harm he is suffering from illegal downloads?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), Sep 4th, 2010 @ 6:19am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I don't know if they can or not. Statutory exist so they don't have to.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25.  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), Sep 4th, 2010 @ 6:21am

    Re: Re:

    There is no evidence that I know of in this case that any of the people accused are innocent. There is evidence that they are not, hence the lawsuit.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26.  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), Sep 4th, 2010 @ 6:23am

    Re: Re:

    You might believe that people should have the right to share whatever they want, but legally speaking, they do not.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27.  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), Sep 4th, 2010 @ 6:25am

    Re: Re:

    I do not assume they are "guilty." I've never said any such thing. I believe that the complaint alleges sufficient reasons to bring a suit against the defendants. Two different things.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  28.  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), Sep 4th, 2010 @ 6:27am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I agree that the law isn't perfect. For example, I think excessive statutory damages are crazy and that the term given to rights holders is too long. On the whole though, I think that copyright makes sense.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  29.  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), Sep 4th, 2010 @ 6:29am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Oops. Meant to say, "Statutory damages exist so they don't have to."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  30.  
    icon
    techflaws.org (profile), Sep 4th, 2010 @ 7:07am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    They do if they want to claim they're victims.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  31.  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), Sep 4th, 2010 @ 7:18am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Not legally speaking. All they must show is that they own the copyrights and that those rights were infringed.

    If somebody infringes on your rights, you are a victim whether you can show actual damages or not.

    Would you like it if people infringed on your rights? I wouldn't.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  32.  
    icon
    Jay (profile), Sep 4th, 2010 @ 7:41am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Yeah, sue people for excessive damages for naturally copying data in a digital era. It makes a whole lot of sense.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  33.  
    icon
    techflaws.org (profile), Sep 4th, 2010 @ 9:05am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Apparently it comes with the territory if you produce something for others rather than yourself in your lonely bedroom. If you can't stand the heat stay out of the kitchen.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  34.  
    identicon
    Pixelation, Sep 4th, 2010 @ 9:19am

    Re: Re: Re:

    "There is no evidence that I know of in this case"

    There, fixed that for you.

    My question to you is...If you discover that someone you are suing is innocent, will you pay all of their legal fees?

    Didn't think so.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  35.  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), Sep 4th, 2010 @ 9:52am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I'm not a party in this case, so I wouldn't be paying anything.

    Now, if the defendants can prove they are innocent, they can ask the court to award them attorneys' fees.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  36.  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), Sep 4th, 2010 @ 9:53am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    So you get to judge who can enforce their rights and who can't? That doesn't seem fair to me.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  37.  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), Sep 4th, 2010 @ 9:59am

    Re: Re:

    Seriously. I can take a lot, but people like you who gleefully abuse a system for profit disgust me.

    Please explain exactly how I "gleefully abuse a system for profit." What have I done? Seriously, Mike.

    Are you really assuming that in the future I'm going to do something you find despicable, and then holding it against me now? That seems really, really desperate. Don't you think?

    I'm waiting, Mike. Explain it to me and to everyone exactly how I "gleefully abuse" the system.

    You know that I don't. You're so desperate to take me down that you have to invent things to hold against me.

    It's one of the saddest things I've ever seen. I know you're desperate, Mike, but this takes the sadness cake.

    Shame on you.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  38.  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), Sep 4th, 2010 @ 10:09am

    Re: Re:

    And while you're there, Mike, please answer these two questions that I asked you above:

    Do you or do you not agree that the rights holder of the movie in question is a victim when people illegally download the movie?

    Do you or do you not agree that a person who breaks copyright laws by illegally downloading movies is by definition an abuser of copyright law?

    I seriously would like to hear your answers.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  39.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 4th, 2010 @ 2:11pm

    Re: Re: Re: Mistake?

    Are you referring to leg hair? I hate it when girls shave their legs too. Oh wait, you were referring to a modern cultural shift in grooming, and you'd probably be ready to dispose of armpit and leg hair.

    What I grew up with is normal and morally right!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  40.  
    icon
    Karl (profile), Sep 4th, 2010 @ 5:38pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    I'm not Mike, but heck, I'll add my two cents. I've got work to avoid.

    Do you or do you not agree that the rights holder of the movie in question is a victim when people illegally download the movie?

    You'd be hard pressed to find any group of people who deserve to be called "victims" less than these guys. If they are "victims" in any way, it's because they were denied the ability to make money through infringement, and this is not true. Infringement doesn't deny anyone the right or the ability to charge for content - as evidenced by the tons of publishers (e.g. Criterion or Dover) that make money from public domain material.

    Even if they do lose money, they'd be "victims" only if they couldn't avoid losing money when infringement occurs. There are tons of ways they could avoid this. Many of them are talked about here.

    If they are victims of anything, they're victims of their own financial mismanagement.

    On the other hand, the defendents of these lawsuits are definitely victims. Even if guilty, then ethically speaking, they did nothing worse than sneak into a movie theater. Or, if you buy the wrong-headed "stealing" analogy, nothing worse than shoplift a DVD. Yet the lawsuits they face are far, far worse than the punishments for either of these things.

    Do you or do you not agree that a person who breaks copyright laws by illegally downloading movies is by definition an abuser of copyright law?

    Copyright law was written to protect publishers from other publishers. The intent of the law is that the rights holders are the only ones allowed to make money off of the sale of their works.

    So, no, I don't believe that users who share movies are "abusers" of copyright laws. Those laws should never have applied to them in the first place.

    Now, under current laws, they are infringing. But that's not "abusing" the law. You abuse the law when you work within the letter of the law, but against the intent or spirit of the law, for your own self-interest. That seems to describe the USCG pretty well, in my opinion.

    They're not as bad as Righthaven, but still.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  41.  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), Sep 4th, 2010 @ 7:56pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Here are the definitions from Black's Law Dictionary:

    victim, n. A person harmed by a crime, tort, or other wrong.

    abuse, n. 1. A departure from legal or reasonable use; misuse.

    Legally speaking, the rights holder is a victim when someone infringes on his rights. And a person who breaks copyright laws is by definition an abuser.

    I was just wondering if Mike could admit either one of these things. I doubt it. I imagine if he speaks the words he will melt away like the Wicked Witch after Dorothy throws water on her.

    This is the same Mike who holds my future acts against me. I think he's been watching "Minority Report" and thinks he's a pre-cog. Must be working for the pre-crime police.

    Watch him never, ever admit it's wrong to blame me for things I haven't done. Who assumes someone is going to do something and then blames them for it? I'm still waiting for an explanation or an apology...

    It's OK to admit you were wrong, Mike. I won't let Dorothy douse you.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  42.  
    icon
    Karl (profile), Sep 4th, 2010 @ 10:39pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Legally speaking, the rights holder is a victim when someone infringes on his rights. And a person who breaks copyright laws is by definition an abuser.

    No, a person who breaks copyright laws is a lawbreaker. A person who "misuses" the law is an abuser. For (an intentionally trite) example, someone who jaywalks is a lawbreaker; a cop who only writes you a jaywalking ticket if you're wearing white after Labor Day, is abusing the law.

    And a "victim" is someone who is harmed when his or her rights are infringed upon. If there is no actual harm, it's not appropriate to call them a "victim," since that's a weasel word.

    It all comes down to whether these lawsuits are a "misuse" of the law, and whether the rights holders were actually harmed when their (statutory) rights were infringed upon.

    Naturally, the answers to these questions are somewhat in the realm of opinion. But to the degree that there is empirical or historical evidence, it's on Mike's side.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  43.  
    icon
    techflaws.org (profile), Sep 5th, 2010 @ 2:50am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Neither is the abuse of copyright law or excessive damages handed to you when you can't even (or don't even have to) prove your losses.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  44.  
    icon
    herodotus (profile), Sep 5th, 2010 @ 4:28am

    "Are you really assuming that in the future I'm going to do something you find despicable, and then holding it against me now? That seems really, really desperate. Don't you think?"

    Well you do spend an awful lot of time defending despicable practices. It's not really a huge cognitive leap to assume that you might engage in such practices in the future.

    You see, you might be completely right about how the law works. The problem is that many people think that the law in these and many other cases does more harm than good. That the legal system generally has been distorted into something that serves the best interests, not of the public, but of lawyers and law enforcement.

    The law is distorted all of the time. Just read some Radley Balko articles over at Reason.com to see how cops abuse the law with knock and announce drug raids executed at 4 AM. Every single one of the raids he discusses involve harmless low level drug offenders whose houses are broken into by SWAT teams, whose dogs are shot on sight, whose children our terrorized, all to get half an ounce of marijuana.

    Now you will find many citizens who are outraged by these raids, but if you ask many police officers, they will tell you that this is how the war on drugs has to be fought, and that if people don't want to be terrorized by police then they shouldn't buy marijuana (which is, after all, illegal). They will also tell you that these raids are standard operating procedure.

    Now here's the deal: you kind of come off like one of these cops.

    Sorry if that hurts your feelings, but it's true. If you want to avoid this, you might want to look at the way you write things and try to add a bit more balance to them.

    But of course, you think that your views are balanced, don't you?


    Sigh....

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  45.  
    icon
    vivaelamor (profile), Sep 5th, 2010 @ 4:37am

    Re: Re: Re:

    "Who cares what people in the UK think? I don't know what the laws are there. Let's talk about this country."

    What purpose would that serve? Are you suggesting that only the USA matters? This website has a global audience and covers global issues.

    "Do you or do you not agree that the rights holder of the movie in question is a victim when people illegally download the movie?"

    Technically you're not a victim if you have no loss. If you accept the premise that there is a direct relationship between downloading something and losing an actual sale rather than a potential sale, then yes you could argue that they are victims. I don't accept that premise because it reminds me of the pork futures warehouse in Discworld.

    "Do you or do you not agree that a person who breaks copyright laws by illegally downloading movies is by definition an abuser of copyright law?"

    No, that would make a murderer an abuser of the laws against murder. It just isn't what the word means. The very function of law is to deal with being broken, something functioning as intended is not abuse. You could argue that unauthorised copying is an abuse in itself, but not that unauthorised copying abuses copyright law.

    "And how am I abusing a system for profit? What have I done? Are you seriously just making stuff up about me now? You must be really desperate, Mike."

    You seemed to be defending the use of the copyright system for extortion. The article is about pre settlement letters, no cases of infringement are necessarily involved because no proof is provided. You made the assumption that everyone who received a pre settlement letter was guilty.

    "I can't really answer your questions without more. Unlike you, I don't jump to conclusions."

    Let me put it to you as you would to him: where is all the proof? How are all the people receiving pre settlement letters known to be guilty? What are the facts?

    "You have the worst case of confirmation bias I've ever seen. Sad really."

    This from the person who dismisses the opinions of everyone outside their own country.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  46.  
    icon
    vivaelamor (profile), Sep 5th, 2010 @ 4:39am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "No, a person who breaks copyright laws is a lawbreaker. A person who "misuses" the law is an abuser. For (an intentionally trite) example, someone who jaywalks is a lawbreaker; a cop who only writes you a jaywalking ticket if you're wearing white after Labor Day, is abusing the law."

    You said it better than I did. I worry when a law student can't grasp that simple distinction.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  47.  
    icon
    vivaelamor (profile), Sep 5th, 2010 @ 4:41am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "Legally speaking, the rights holder is a victim when someone infringes on his rights. And a person who breaks copyright laws is by definition an abuser."

    How does that work when they are sending pre settlement letters without proof? You'll dismiss the evidence because it's from the UK, but the fact is that not everyone receiving a letter has been guilty.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  48.  
    icon
    vivaelamor (profile), Sep 5th, 2010 @ 4:43am

    Re: Re: Re:

    "There is evidence that they are not, hence the lawsuit."

    Where? Show us the facts! The cases in the UK seemed to consist of a list of IP addresses and we all know how well that works. I wouldn't be surprised if they sued a network printer again.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  49.  
    icon
    vivaelamor (profile), Sep 5th, 2010 @ 4:46am

    Re: Re: Re:

    "I do not assume they are "guilty." I've never said any such thing. I believe that the complaint alleges sufficient reasons to bring a suit against the defendants. Two different things."

    You said: "By definition, the people who infringe on other people's rights under copyright laws are the abusers of the law. Only in some silly alternate universe are the victims the abusers."

    If that isn't an assumption then I might assume we're in the silly alternate universe anyway.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  50.  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), Sep 5th, 2010 @ 5:18am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Like I said, a person who breaks a law abuses that law. No court would ever hold otherwise. And who says there isn't any actual harm to the victim of infringement? Just because it's difficult to prove doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I don't think a defendant could ever convince a court that their infringement didn't hurt the plaintiff, even if just slightly.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  51.  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), Sep 5th, 2010 @ 5:19am

    Re:

    You haven't hurt my feelings. Thanks for sharing your opinions. To each his own.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  52.  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), Sep 5th, 2010 @ 5:38am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Mike was saying that UK politicians were against infringement suits, and he was saying that US politicians should do the same. My thought is that the laws there are different, so it's most likely not analogous. Like I said, I don't know what the laws are there. Maybe it is analogous, maybe it isn't, I don't know.

    I remember our last "debate" and honestly, it wasn't very fruitful. As I recall you were questioning my choice of words. For example, you told me my use of "appropriate" was incorrect. Obviously you haven't read a lot of U.S. IP jurisprudence, because if you had, you'd know that "appropriate" and "misappropriate" are used all the time. You were incorrect to point out my misuse of the word.

    Someone who murders is an abuser of murder laws, you're right. I'd rather not waste any more time arguing choice of words with you. Surely you have something better to talk about.

    And you are wrong that there's no proof in these infringement cases. There is prima facie evidence. Read the complaints.

    You are also wrong that I assume all of the defendants are guilty. I never said that, nor have I ever thought it. I do think there's a prima facie case against them, as the sworn statements in the complaints indicate.

    And again, I don't dismiss opinions of everyone outside my own country. It's the comparison of U.S. law to foreign law that I don't think is apples and oranges.

    I don't find any of this particularly interesting or compelling...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  53.  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), Sep 5th, 2010 @ 5:46am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    A person who breaks a law is both a lawbreaker and an abuser of that law. Means the same thing. I posted the definition above.

    This isn't a very interesting thing to debate.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  54.  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), Sep 5th, 2010 @ 5:48am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    There is prima facie evidence in these cases. This evidence is enough to initiate a suit.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  55.  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), Sep 5th, 2010 @ 5:50am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I don't really follow you here. Nor do I really care. I don't find you compelling, vivaelamor.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  56.  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), Sep 5th, 2010 @ 5:52am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Read the complaint in any of these cases. Believe it or not, the plaintiffs lay out their case in the complaint. People can then read these complaints and see what the plaintiff is alleging. Amazing!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  57.  
    identicon
    vicarious infringer, Sep 5th, 2010 @ 6:57am

    i agree with Mike

    I agree with Mike, this twit 'average_joe' is confusing legal and infringing in all of his posts, obviously he does not know the difference. Nor does he understand innocent until proven guilty, just because some retarded greedy lawyer group 'says' you infringed, your guilty? Besides, proof of infringement is for DISTRIBUTION, not downloading. Assuming because someone downloaded a copyrighted item that they automatically uploaded it to someone else is just flat out reality distortion by money blinded corporations/executives/copyright holders. You are also confusing my constitutional rights that are suspended for copyright PRIVILEGE, a government based monopoly. Copyright has no privilege to suspend my right to knowledge, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

    Culture IS more important than copyright, and don't go and spew your garbage about how copyright created culture. That is about as truthful as one download = one lost sale.

    I see this kind of trolling on all the boards concerning copyright, seems the **AA hire 'tards like joe here to debunk reality intended to steer the sheeple back to buying plastic discs using totalitarian fear of justice.

    'If a substantial amount of people break a particular law, then there is something wrong with the law'
    - Abraham Lincoln

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  58.  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), Sep 5th, 2010 @ 7:07am

    Re: i agree with Mike

    I'm a twit and a tard? Grow up, little child. Of course I understand the difference between "legal and infringing." Give me a break. Of course I understand "innocent until proven guilty." Find one post where I confuse the two. You can't because you're wrong. You do not have a constitutional right to infringe on other people's copyrights. They have a constitutional right to not have their rights infringed. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

    How much IP jurisprudence have you read? I'm guessing you have read absolutely none. Do some homework and come back when you're ready to debate like a big boy. Run off, little child.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  59.  
    identicon
    vicarious infringer, Sep 5th, 2010 @ 7:22am

    well..

    well, mr 'I gotta have proof'. In every other one of your posts, you interchange infringing and illegal, and obvious job of misdirection, similar to your moniker. I have been profiling ppl on the internet for 15 years genius, and it only took reading 4 of your posts to come to a conclusion. Even your quick retort was an obvious interdiction to countermand any potential harm I might cause by posting truth, about your agenda and motives. Mike has to be nice about it, because it is his board, however, I do not have that constraint. As for being little, or a child. Of course that would be your assumption, according to you, no one is as smart.

    Jurisprudence, did you have to spell check that one?

    Here, just to feed your internal fire.. I happen to be a double doctorate, late 40s, and currently work as a software architect for a major corporation. And I have been infringing on copyright for 15 years now, and love it.

    I have been following this issue for the entire time, consider that my homework.

    Spew some more, this is fun :)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  60.  
    identicon
    vicarious infringer, Sep 5th, 2010 @ 7:28am

    I noticed you did not touch on the distribution angle in my post. I wonder why...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  61.  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), Sep 5th, 2010 @ 7:32am

    Re:

    It doesn't matter if the defendant allegedly downloaded, i.e., reproduced, or uploaded, i.e., distributed, the copyrighted work. It's an infringement either way. I'm not sure what you're point is.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  62.  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), Sep 5th, 2010 @ 7:33am

    Re: well..

    Jurisprudence is a word I read and use frequently. Got anything substantive to talk about?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  63.  
    identicon
    vicarious infringer, Sep 5th, 2010 @ 7:37am

    no

    no, you are wrong. Proof. Proof is required alleging infringement, which of course is a civil infraction, and thereby NOTHING illegal about it. Albeit the proof bar is much lower in civil proceedings than in criminal matters, however, there still is the requirement of proof. And allegedly doing anything is not a violation of copyright, proof of that allegation is. My point is that you do not even understand the definition of infringement, according to your post.

    Did I spell it out like a good little child this time for you?

    So, what about my distribution topic? Don't want to address this one?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  64.  
    identicon
    vicarious infringer, Sep 5th, 2010 @ 7:44am

    guh

    I know, I know, your retort will be something like 'memorizing the image by looking at something copyrighted, or singing a copyrighted song in the shower is infringement'.

    Right?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  65.  
    identicon
    vicarious infringer, Sep 5th, 2010 @ 7:48am

    salud

    I have to go infringe now, but we can play another day, shall we?

    I love winding up trolls, I dedicate a very small portion of my week towards debunking rocket scientists like yourself.

    Have a great weekend Joe, go see your kids, get out and breath uncopyrighted air.

    stw

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  66.  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), Sep 5th, 2010 @ 8:01am

    Re: no

    Infringement is a tort. Infringement is illegal. Infringement is a civil wrong. Not sure what your point is.

    In these infringement suits, there is prima facie evidence that the defendant in question infringed on the copyright of the plaintiff. Read a complaint in any of the cases for an explanation of what proof the plaintiff is alleging.

    I completely understand the definition of infringement. I'm not sure why you think I don't.

    I answered your distribution question already. See my response above. If I didn't answer your question, then explain to me what it is you're asking. I'm happy to address any of your questions.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  67.  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), Sep 5th, 2010 @ 8:03am

    Re: guh

    Huh? When did I ever say anything like that? For an educated person, you make very little sense to me.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  68.  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), Sep 5th, 2010 @ 8:06am

    Re: salud

    OK, I guess you don't have anything compelling or substantive to say. Have a good one, internet troll.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  69.  
    icon
    herodotus (profile), Sep 5th, 2010 @ 8:26am

    "A person who breaks a law is both a lawbreaker and an abuser of that law. Means the same thing. I posted the definition above."

    OK, but there is a problem here, in that the phrase 'abuse of the law' is meant by people around here to be something distinct from 'breaking the law'.

    Karl's example was pretty good, actually, but let's use another one. A black person who buys cocaine is a lawbreaker. A white person who sells cocaine is a lawbreaker. A policeman who apprehends these people in the middle of a transaction, but who 'throws the book' at the black person while letting the white person off with a warning is abusing the law.

    What the cop does in this example is, perhaps, legal. But it is clearly an example of racism practiced by someone who is supposed to act with strict regard to the letter of the law. This is the sort of thing that people are calling 'abuse' of the law. And it can really only apply in this sense to someone, either an officer of the law, or an officer of the court, who has some kind of legal authority.

    Is there some term of art that you have acquired in your legal education that has the sense that 'abuse' does in this example? If there is, you would do the community a service by telling us what it is.

    If there is no such term, could you suggest one other than 'abuse'?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  70.  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), Sep 5th, 2010 @ 8:34am

    Re:

    I quoted the Black's Legal Dictionary definition of "abuse" above. In the strict meaning of the word, one who breaks a law abuses it. Yes, it has another meaning as you have indicated. I don't find these "debates" over the meaning of a single word very interesting. Let's talk about something with some meat on it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  71.  
    identicon
    alternatives(), Sep 5th, 2010 @ 8:59am

    Re: Re: Re:

    I have a better idea.

    Don't consume the copywritten material. At all.
    And make sure all of your media is strongly encrypted just in case you screwed up and have something that was stored that is under an abusive copyright license.

    Starve the bastards out. Ignore what they are doing, feed the people who are making content we ALL can use.

    >breaks copyright laws

    Would this be the 'law' as originally written or the one where every few years the 'law' gets changed yet again?

    If I had not taken the position of 'stop consuming' - I'd be looking into tools to help people follow the original law as a way of civil disobedience and nullification.

    You, as a lawyer wanna-be DO understand nullification, right?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  72.  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), Sep 5th, 2010 @ 9:06am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Are you asking me? If so, then yes, I understand the concept of nullification. Knock yourself out.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  73.  
    identicon
    alternatives(), Sep 5th, 2010 @ 9:08am

    Re: Re: Re:

    >There is no evidence that I know of in this case that any of the people accused are innocent.

    Such a low bar. What you know. And what is known about a case that hasn't had its 1st trial.

    Too bad that other cases HAVE shown various accused as being innocent.

    Too bad for your position that one is supposed to be innocent until PROVEN guilty.

    I wonder if Mike can be compelled to turn over your identifying info so that if you ever did apply for the job as a judge your lack of understanding of the idea of 'innocence until PROVEN guilty'. I wonder how that discovery would have to be phrased?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  74.  
    identicon
    alternatives(), Sep 5th, 2010 @ 9:18am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    And the rest of you reading the comments - note how Average_joe doesn't actually touch the ignore 'em and stop consuming what is produced by 'em. position.

    Its the Achilles heel - if you stop consuming what they produce - they can't get money from you. No money from you means no money for the lawmakers OR lawyers.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  75.  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), Sep 5th, 2010 @ 9:21am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    The complaints in these cases lay out prima facie evidence that the defendants infringed on the plaintiff's copyright. This prima facie evidence is enough to initiate a lawsuit. That's what we know.

    What cases are you talking about where a defendant has been shown to be innocent? What are the facts?

    More importantly, what does that have to do with this case? Have any of the defendants here been shown to be innocent? I don't see how since we're not at that point in the proceedings yet.

    People are innocent until proven guilty. Nothing about these cases says otherwise. Prima facie evidence is just one side of things. We haven't heard the other side yet. Maybe they are innocent, or maybe they're not. We don't know yet.

    I do understand innocent until proven guilty. I'm not sure you do.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  76.  
    identicon
    alternatives(), Sep 5th, 2010 @ 9:29am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    > What cases are you talking about where a defendant has been shown to be innocent? What are the facts?

    So you want a list and case history?
    Hrmmmm. Lets see if providing you that would "matter"?

    >More importantly, what does that have to do with this case?

    Oh. So you admit that you don't actually CARE about what you just asked for.

    Again folks - if you want the likes of Average_joe to be un-employable as a copyright attorney - stop consuming copywritten material under oppressive licenses. No money, no problems. Kill copyright by choking off the money.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  77.  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), Sep 5th, 2010 @ 9:32am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    What do you want me to say? If you want to stop consuming something, knock yourself out. If you want to encourage others to do the same, good for you. what do I care? I don't. I'm not sure why you think I would.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  78.  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), Sep 5th, 2010 @ 9:40am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I don't really need a list. Of course people sometimes are able to prove their innocence, and sometimes they cannot. After plaintiffs present their case-in-chief, defendants get to present their defense. That's how it works.

    My point was that in this specific case, there has only been the complaint filed. No one has mounted a defense. You cannot say innocent people were accused in this case since no one has defended themselves yet.

    Stop consuming all you want. Get everyone who reads your words to follow along. I couldn't care less.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  79.  
    icon
    herodotus (profile), Sep 5th, 2010 @ 9:56am

    "I quoted the Black's Legal Dictionary definition of "abuse" above. In the strict meaning of the word, one who breaks a law abuses it. Yes, it has another meaning as you have indicated. I don't find these "debates" over the meaning of a single word very interesting. Let's talk about something with some meat on it."

    If you look at what I wrote above, you will find that I was asking a question, not debating.

    You keep talking around this point, so I will put it in the plainest terms possible: sometimes cops and lawyers do bad things and get away with them. They get away with them because their positions as cops and lawyers give them authority and expertise that allow them to game the system in their favor. In my last few posts here I have given you numerous examples of exactly what I am talking about.

    I don't care whether you call it "abuse" or "puddin tain" or "that's why I am going to law school dumass", just so long as you acknowledge the fact that this stuff happens.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  80.  
    identicon
    alternatives(), Sep 5th, 2010 @ 10:04am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    You cannot say innocent people were accused in this case since no one has defended themselves yet.

    And yet in
    http://www.techdirt.com/article.php?sid=20100902/11385710880#c909
    People are innocent until proven guilty

    If your statement 'People are innocent until proven guilty' is true one has to say 'innocent people were accused in this case since no one has defended themselves yet.'

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  81.  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), Sep 5th, 2010 @ 10:09am

    Re:

    Of course there are bad people who are cops and lawyers, as there are with any other profession. Bad stuff happens. Good stuff happens too. Lots of good cops and lawyers. Lots of good people in other professions as well.

    Is that what you wanted me to acknowledge? Seems rather obvious to me.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  82.  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), Sep 5th, 2010 @ 10:20am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    There is a prima facie case against the defendants. If they put up no defense, then default judgment will be entered against them. The burden shifts to them to prove their innocence. Prima facie evidence has shifted the burden.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  83.  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), Sep 5th, 2010 @ 10:27am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Some of the confusion is because sometimes I'm talking about innocent as a matter of fact, and sometimes I mean it as a matter of law. I'll try to point out which context I'm using in the future to avoid this confusion. Thanks.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  84.  
    identicon
    alternatives(), Sep 5th, 2010 @ 10:36am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    So now your position is that facts don't matter when it comes to the law?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  85.  
    identicon
    alternatives(), Sep 5th, 2010 @ 10:38am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I don't really need a list.

    Then why did you ask for one?

    Why ask for something you did not need or would consider if provided?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  86.  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), Sep 5th, 2010 @ 10:46am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Huh? I don't understand how you got that out of my post.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  87.  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), Sep 5th, 2010 @ 10:47am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    My point was that what may have been true in another case isn't necessarily true in this case. Got it?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  88.  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), Sep 5th, 2010 @ 10:48am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    This "debate" has gone way past the point of diminishing returns, don't you think?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  89.  
    icon
    herodotus (profile), Sep 5th, 2010 @ 11:01am

    "Is that what you wanted me to acknowledge? Seems rather obvious to me."

    sigh....

    Is there a whole section of legal pedagogy called 'obfuscation and prevarication'? Because you are really great at doing these exact things.

    What you left out was: they get away with doing these bad things because "their positions as cops and lawyers give them authority and expertise that allow them to game the system in their favor".

    Other bad people don't have this advantage.


    And so, when you write:

    "There is a prima facie case against the defendants. If they put up no defense, then default judgment will be entered against them. The burden shifts to them to prove their innocence. Prima facie evidence has shifted the burden."

    You are ignoring the fact that proving their innocence could cost them a lot of money, and that it might easily cost them less to settle.

    It is really easy to believe that the people issuing these lawsuits know exactly this, and are counting on it as part of their business model. And if one does believe this, than it is a pretty clear case of the abuse (or puddintain, or whatever you want to call it) of the legal system by people who know how to game the system in their favor.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  90.  
    identicon
    alternatives(), Sep 5th, 2010 @ 11:02am

    Re: average_joe won't admit she/he's wrong:

    Seems to be a habit of yours - when you are on the loosing side of the argument you claim you do not understand or claim it doesn't matter.

    I asked you a specific question as to your behavior. You can choose to answer it or not.

    You might wish to grow a backbone and answer the question to show the others who read the posts that you are an honest human being.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  91.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 5th, 2010 @ 11:06am

    Re: Average_joe shown to fail the 8th grade education standard:

    You might want to try answering the original question. Not answering it makes you look like you have a reading comprehension problem.

    My question to you is...If you discover that someone you are suing is innocent, will you pay all of their legal fees?

    That question had nothing to do with your answer of:
    I'm not a party in this case,

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  92.  
    icon
    Modplan (profile), Sep 5th, 2010 @ 11:11am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    In other words, an IP address that is not reasonably indicative of an individual for multiple technical reasons.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  93.  
    identicon
    alternatives(), Sep 5th, 2010 @ 11:14am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    This evidence is enough to initiate a suit.

    What Average_joe DOESN'T point out is anyone can sue anyone for anything at anytime for any amount.

    So to claim 'there is a lawsuit, ergo there is prima facie evidence' is incorrect.

    But its Average_Joe's Labor on this day to show herself/himself to be wrong.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  94.  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), Sep 5th, 2010 @ 11:24am

    Re:

    OK, then. Some people in this world are bad people. Some of those bad people are cops and lawyers. Some of those bad cops and lawyers get away with it. Some of these bad cops and lawyers get away with it because they know how to game the system.

    Feel better?

    I'm not ignoring that settling can be cheaper than proving one's innocence. In fact, I've repeatedly said that settling might be the best alternative because of that fact. Of course, a defendant who's been proven innocent can ask the court to make the plaintiff pay their legal fees, so maybe it doesn't cost them a thing monetarily. Maybe not though.

    It's also possible that people are filing these suits because they honestly think the defendants infringed on their rights, and they have proof to that effect. Enough proof to file a suit anyway. In fact, that's what these plaintiffs swear to in their complaints, under penalty of law.

    "puddintain"?? That's awesome! ;)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  95.  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), Sep 5th, 2010 @ 11:27am

    Re: Re: average_joe won't admit she/he's wrong:

    Just yesterday, I fully admitted that I was wrong in the "Hurt Locker" thread and I thanked the person who pointed out my error. I am obsessed with getting things right, and I welcome it when people point out my flaws. I can't imagine being any other way.

    What specific question would you like me to answer? I will answer it gladly. If my answer proves to be wrong, I will gladly admit it is so.

    Not sure why you think I'm so nefarious...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  96.  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), Sep 5th, 2010 @ 11:30am

    Re: Re: Average_joe shown to fail the 8th grade education standard:

    I said that I will not pay someone's legal fees because I am not a party to that case. How is that avoiding the question? Why would I pay the legal fees in a case to which I am not a party? You're not making sense to me. Explain it to me like I'm a little child, and I shall endeavor to answer it to your satisfaction. ;)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  97.  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), Sep 5th, 2010 @ 11:34am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    An IP address is part of the evidence that gives rise to a reasonable inference that the subscriber is an infringer. It's such a reasonable inference that if not rebutted, it will lead to a finding that the defendant-subscriber is liable.

    You're thinking of defenses. I'm talking about what happens before the defenses are raised.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  98.  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), Sep 5th, 2010 @ 11:36am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Of course anyone can sue anyone for anything. I'm talking about a situation where there is prima facie evidence to support a suit, i.e., the suit won't be dismissed for failure to state a claim. In these suits there is prima facie evidence. Read the complaints. The evidence is presented therein.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  99.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 5th, 2010 @ 11:55am

    Re: Re: Re: Average_joe shown to fail the 8th grade education standard:

    I said that I will not pay someone's legal fees because I am not a party to that case.

    Which is a non-substantive answer to the question you were asked.

    That question was:
    My question to you is...If you discover that someone you are suing is innocent, will you pay all of their legal fees?

    Explain it to me like I'm a little child,

    Oh well in that case:

    Quiet. Little children are to be seen and not heard.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  100.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 5th, 2010 @ 11:58am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    In these suits there is prima facie evidence.

    No, you are CLAIMING there is such a situation based on the existence of the filing of a lawsuit.

    You've repeated over and over 'read the lawsuit'. You've offered up no other source of knowledge than the lawsuit.

    If you have other knowledge, do post it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  101.  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), Sep 5th, 2010 @ 12:06pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Average_joe shown to fail the 8th grade education standard:

    Oh, I see. I'm the one doing the suing.

    Did I have good reason initially to think they weren't innocent? Why did I sue them in the first place? How did I later find out that they were innocent?

    I'd need to know more to answer your question.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  102.  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), Sep 5th, 2010 @ 12:08pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Tell me which case we're talking about, and then we can talk about the specifics in that case. In every complaint I've read, and I've read a bunch of them, there is alleged prima facie evidence that the defendants infringed on the plaintiff's copyright. It wouldn't be a very good complaint if it didn't allege this, since it would be dismissed very quickly. I can hardly imagine a complaint that doesn't do so.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  103.  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), Sep 5th, 2010 @ 1:11pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    The complaint in the "Debbie Does Dallas" case is here if you're interested: http://www.slyck.com/misc/Debbie_dallas.pdf

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  104.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 5th, 2010 @ 4:04pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I'm afraid you aren't going to make a very good lawyer. Avoiding the issues and questions with childish displays such as this will just annoy the judges you go before.

    Copyright infringement is never an automatic abuse. Abuse must be proven in court. There are exceptions written into the law that you must be aware of.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  105.  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), Sep 5th, 2010 @ 4:42pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    What questions am I avoiding? Bring it on.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  106.  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), Sep 5th, 2010 @ 5:25pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Still waiting to hear what question I didn't answer... I've been answering questions on techdirt all day long. I can't imagine why you're complaining. Why not discuss any of what I have said today? Not up for a debate, Anonymous Coward? Grow a backbone and get back to me.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  107.  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), Sep 6th, 2010 @ 6:10am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Still nothing... What's the matter, AC, you can't back up your statements? That's OK, we all know you have nothing to offer.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  108.  
    icon
    The Groove Tiger (profile), Sep 6th, 2010 @ 7:35am

    Re: Re: Re:

    So, a person who illegally downloads a movie is just like someone who murders or robs a bank? Please.

    Irrelevant. You said "By definition, the people who infringe on other people's rights under copyright laws are the abusers of the law". The same definition should apply to all laws. Or do they teach you in law school that copyright laws are all-important while other laws are OK to break?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  109.  
    icon
    The Groove Tiger (profile), Sep 6th, 2010 @ 7:38am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    See, average joe literally wants you to punch yourself out cold. Sounds like abuse to me!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  110.  
    icon
    The Groove Tiger (profile), Sep 6th, 2010 @ 7:40am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Stop abusing the submit button!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  111.  
    icon
    The Groove Tiger (profile), Sep 6th, 2010 @ 7:42am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Average_joe shown to fail the 8th grade education standard:

    More weaseling, I see. It is a straight question.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  112.  
    icon
    The Groove Tiger (profile), Sep 6th, 2010 @ 7:45am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Let me dig it out for you.

    "My question to you is...If you discover that someone you are suing is innocent, will you pay all of their legal fees?"

    Here's a hint, there's a key in your keyboard, it says "page up".

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  113.  
    icon
    The Groove Tiger (profile), Sep 6th, 2010 @ 7:46am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    No reply yet? A full minute has passed since my reply! What a coward!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  114.  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), Sep 6th, 2010 @ 7:47am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    As usual, I don't get your point. Yes, in general, a person who breaks a law abuses that law. I can't even begin to imagine why you would ask, "Or do they teach you in law school that copyright laws are all-important while other laws are OK to break?" I have no idea what you mean. Try making more sense next time.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  115.  
    icon
    The Groove Tiger (profile), Sep 6th, 2010 @ 7:48am

    Re: Re: i agree with Mike

    Well, in his defense, you are kind of a twit.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  116.  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), Sep 6th, 2010 @ 7:49am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    You apparently aren't familiar with the phrase, "Knock yourself out." I'll add that to the list of things you don't know, which is a huge list.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  117.  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), Sep 6th, 2010 @ 7:51am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    That hypothetical question really makes no sense to me. Am I the plaintiff or the plaintiff's attorney? What are the facts? I would try to answer it if only the person asking it would give me more information.

    Don't you have anything intelligent to say, Groove Tiger? I guess not...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  118.  
    icon
    The Groove Tiger (profile), Sep 6th, 2010 @ 7:51am

    Re: Re:

    So you agree that's what's happening there? Or do you still claim that because the book says it's legal and not technically "abuse", it's all hunky-dory?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  119.  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), Sep 6th, 2010 @ 7:52am

    Re: Re: Re: i agree with Mike

    And you have nothing substantive to say. Sad really.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  120.  
    icon
    The Groove Tiger (profile), Sep 6th, 2010 @ 7:52am

    Re: Re:

    Weasel word alert!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  121.  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), Sep 6th, 2010 @ 7:53am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    A coward? Hardly. I've tried to respond to every question posed to me. I've explained myself as best I can. How is that acting like a coward. You are the one adding nothing to the debate. Grow up.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  122.  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), Sep 6th, 2010 @ 7:55am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Average_joe shown to fail the 8th grade education standard:

    Weaseling? What have you added to the debate? Nothing of substance, that much is perfectly clear.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  123.  
    icon
    The Groove Tiger (profile), Sep 6th, 2010 @ 7:56am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Prince Charming: You! You can't lie! So tell me puppet... where... is... he?
    Pinocchio: Uh. Hmm, well, uh, I don't know where he's not
    Prince Charming: You're telling me you don't know where he is?
    Pinocchio: It wouldn't be inaccurate to assume that I couldn't exactly not say that it is or isn't almost partially incorrect.
    Prince Charming: So you do know where he is!
    Pinocchio: On the contrary. I'm possibly more or less not definitely rejecting the idea that in no way with any amount of uncertainty that I undeniably
    Prince Charming: Stop it!
    Pinocchio: ...do or do not know where he shouldn't probably be, if that indeed wasn't where he isn't. Even if he wasn't at where I knew he was
    Pinocchio: That'd mean I'd really have to know where he wasn't.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  124.  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), Sep 6th, 2010 @ 7:56am

    Re: Re: Re:

    I guess you have nothing to add to this thread. Why don't you have anything intelligent to say?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  125.  
    icon
    The Groove Tiger (profile), Sep 6th, 2010 @ 7:57am

    Do you?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  126.  
    icon
    The Groove Tiger (profile), Sep 6th, 2010 @ 7:58am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Well, that doesn't seem to be stopping you.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  127.  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), Sep 6th, 2010 @ 7:59am

    Re: Re: Re:

    I clearly was speaking in generalities. That much was obvious from my statement.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  128.  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), Sep 6th, 2010 @ 8:00am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Some many posts, yet nothing of substance to say. Sad, sad, sad. You've got nothing to offer? Sad.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  129.  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), Sep 6th, 2010 @ 8:02am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Bye bye, little child. I've got better things to do than read your asinine posts. Grow up, little baby. When you want to debate like a big boy, let me know. You are vapid.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  130.  
    icon
    The Groove Tiger (profile), Sep 6th, 2010 @ 8:02am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Says the pot to the kettle. Let's count all your irrelevance-filled weaselly-lawyery-worded posts in this thread, shall we?

    Didn't think so.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  131.  
    icon
    The Groove Tiger (profile), Sep 6th, 2010 @ 8:04am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    If you don't count all the ones you've dated.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  132.  
    icon
    The Groove Tiger (profile), Sep 6th, 2010 @ 8:07am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Good weaseling out of it. That's what they teach you at law school?

    Do your masters pay you for each time you click the refresh button in your browser, or is it a flat hourly rate?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  133.  
    identicon
    alternatives(), Sep 6th, 2010 @ 8:23am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Yes, I did notice that is what his words said. Backs the position that he's not able to grok English.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  134.  
    identicon
    alternatives(), Sep 6th, 2010 @ 8:26am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I'm guessing its some kind of sexual fetish thing. So don't ask anymore about his button fingering - he might choose to share and you just can't unread that!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  135.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 6th, 2010 @ 8:29am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Let's count .... shall we? Didn't think so.

    Understandable. Once the fingers and toes run out, how else will he keep count?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  136.  
    icon
    vivaelamor (profile), Sep 6th, 2010 @ 10:27am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "I don't really follow you here."

    I'll simplify it then. You implied that those sued are guilty of infringement. On the safe presumption that you have no evidence of this, we can conclude that you assumed they are guilty.

    "I don't find you compelling, vivaelamor."

    I am very grateful that you would publicly state this.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  137.  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), Sep 6th, 2010 @ 10:33am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I implied no such thing. There is prima facie evidence that those being sued are infringers of the work in question. Read the complaint to see this evidence. You might want to do some homework on what constitutes prima facie evidence of infringement while you're there, so you know what to look for in the complaint. Whether or not they in fact infringed remains to be seen.

    I perfectly well understand the difference. Got anything that's actually interesting to debate about?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  138.  
    icon
    vivaelamor (profile), Sep 6th, 2010 @ 11:27am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "Mike was saying that UK politicians were against infringement suits, and he was saying that US politicians should do the same. My thought is that the laws there are different, so it's most likely not analogous. Like I said, I don't know what the laws are there. Maybe it is analogous, maybe it isn't, I don't know."

    If you don't believe Mike's analogy is correct then you should admit ignorance and move on (I doubt anyone would mind you not wanting to read about the UK cases), or read them and tell him why they are not analogous. Instead you claimed that no one's opinion from the UK mattered for the reason that you are ignorant of UK law. At best you insulted a whole country.

    "I remember our last "debate" and honestly, it wasn't very fruitful. As I recall you were questioning my choice of words. For example, you told me my use of "appropriate" was incorrect. Obviously you haven't read a lot of U.S. IP jurisprudence, because if you had, you'd know that "appropriate" and "misappropriate" are used all the time. You were incorrect to point out my misuse of the word."

    Putting that next to your assertion that someone who murders is an abuser of murder laws can only help convince people of whatever my previous argument was. While I appreciate that lawyers have their own lingo, I find it a stretch to believe that you've distorted the English language quite so badly. It would lend credence to the theory that the law is poorly written just to keep lawyers in work.

    "And you are wrong that there's no proof in these infringement cases. There is prima facie evidence. Read the complaints."

    Stoke my verisimilitude! A law student who believes prima facie evidence constitutes proof. Not requiring proof is not the same as having proof.

    "You are also wrong that I assume all of the defendants are guilty. I never said that, nor have I ever thought it. I do think there's a prima facie case against them, as the sworn statements in the complaints indicate."

    I address this in another comment.

    "And again, I don't dismiss opinions of everyone outside my own country. It's the comparison of U.S. law to foreign law that I don't think is apples and oranges."

    I'm pretty sure you mean 'I think is apples and oranges'. If he were comparing the laws then I would agree.

    "I don't find any of this particularly interesting or compelling..."

    I sincerely hope that no one is forcing you to post. If it helps, I included a six syllable word to lighten the mood.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  139.  
    icon
    vivaelamor (profile), Sep 6th, 2010 @ 11:30am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "This isn't a very interesting thing to debate."

    I'm sorry I bore you. No, that wasn't sincerely.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  140.  
    icon
    vivaelamor (profile), Sep 6th, 2010 @ 11:45am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "abuse, n. 1. A departure from legal or reasonable use; misuse."

    As explained in another comment, a crime can be an abuse; however, the fact that a crime is abuse does not make a crime an abuse of the law. No one is contesting that infringement may not be considered abuse in law, but that it is not an abuse of law.

    Feel free to dismiss my comment as pedantic or boring or whatever it is you're trying to paint me as. I don't mind being any of those as much as you appear to mind being wrong.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  141.  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), Sep 6th, 2010 @ 12:38pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Like I said, I don't know if the laws in the UK are analogous. Maybe they are or maybe they aren't. I don't presume to know, nor do I presume they are. Snore.

    I recall you were upset by my saying "cite to authority." You tried to correct me. Guess what, "cite to authority" is a phrase I'm familiar with. Perhaps you are not. Who cares? Don't you have anything substantive to debate rather than my choice of phrase? People use phrases and terms you aren't familiar with. ZZZzzzzzz.

    Prima facie evidence is just that--evidence. If not rebutted, it is accepted by the court at face value. Boring.

    You are less compelling than you were before. Find somebody else to play with. So desperate to find even the slightest flaw in my posts. Yawn.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  142.  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), Sep 6th, 2010 @ 12:40pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    You are truly a bore. Insincere apology noted.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  143.  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), Sep 6th, 2010 @ 12:41pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I dismiss your comment as pedantic and boring.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  144.  
    icon
    vivaelamor (profile), Sep 6th, 2010 @ 1:43pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "The complaint in the "Debbie Does Dallas" case is here if you're interested: http://www.slyck.com/misc/Debbie_dallas.pdf"

    Thank you, but I have already been through the complaint to check what evidence they were providing.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  145.  
    icon
    vivaelamor (profile), Sep 6th, 2010 @ 1:44pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Sorry, hit refresh and didn't realise the thread had shifted so much. Didn't realise this wasn't a reply to me.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  146.  
    icon
    vivaelamor (profile), Sep 6th, 2010 @ 2:10pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "Like I said, I don't know if the laws in the UK are analogous. Maybe they are or maybe they aren't. I don't presume to know, nor do I presume they are. Snore."

    The laws don't have to be analogous because he was not drawing an analogy between the laws, but between the cases. If you fall asleep this easily in your law lectures then it might explain a lot.

    'I recall you were upset by my saying "cite to authority." You tried to correct me. Guess what, "cite to authority" is a phrase I'm familiar with. Perhaps you are not. Who cares? Don't you have anything substantive to debate rather than my choice of phrase? People use phrases and terms you aren't familiar with. ZZZzzzzzz.'

    I am unsure as to what you refer to? I am afraid I do not have a very good memory and cannot make sense of your reference without some context.

    "Prima facie evidence is just that--evidence. If not rebutted, it is accepted by the court at face value. Boring."

    You claimed that I was wrong that there is no proof because there is prima facie evidence, which implied that the prima facie evidence constitutes proof, which is wrong. Is there a reason that I should not have taken your words literally? I cannot imagine that you meant them as some sort of idiom. Your inability to communicate your point is only furthered by your refusal to admit that you did not mean what you said. If you wish to avoid all the boring semantics then just say 'no, I didn't mean that' instead of ignoring what you previously said altogether.

    "You are less compelling than you were before. Find somebody else to play with. So desperate to find even the slightest flaw in my posts. Yawn."

    Play with? I guess you don't care that people find your arguments lacking if you're just doing it for some sort of game. On the plus side, I appear to be winning whether this is a game or a genuine attempt to communicate.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  147.  
    icon
    vivaelamor (profile), Sep 6th, 2010 @ 2:11pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "I dismiss your comment as pedantic and boring."

    But not wrong, I note.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  148.  
    icon
    vivaelamor (profile), Sep 6th, 2010 @ 2:16pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "Read the complaint in any of these cases. Believe it or not, the plaintiffs lay out their case in the complaint. People can then read these complaints and see what the plaintiff is alleging. Amazing!"

    Yes, as I suspected the evidence is a list of IP addresses. Why that is considered prima facie evidence is anyone's guess. If that is evidence then this IOU I just typed is evidence that someone owes me money.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  149.  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), Sep 6th, 2010 @ 2:22pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Here you go again, arguing about the meaning of a single word.

    Evidence is proof.

    From Black's:

    proof, n. 1. The establishment or refutation of an alleged fact by evidence.

    Snore.

    The rest of your points are equally as boring to me.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  150.  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), Sep 6th, 2010 @ 2:27pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    OK... Wrong too.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  151.  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), Sep 6th, 2010 @ 2:35pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Nope. Wrong again. It's not anyone's guess what is considered prima facie evidence. Case law spells it out clearly. The complaint alleges prima facie evidence, and that is sufficient at this point of the proceedings.

    Read a bunch of case law and then we'll talk more. Until then, you have no idea what you're talking about. I've read 7 cases about copyright infringement just today for pleasure reading. I read case law every day. I read case law for class. I read case law for work. And in my spare time, guess what, I read case law. Maybe that's why I'm at the top of my class.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  152.  
    icon
    vivaelamor (profile), Sep 6th, 2010 @ 2:41pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "I implied no such thing. There is prima facie evidence that those being sued are infringers of the work in question. Read the complaint to see this evidence. You might want to do some homework on what constitutes prima facie evidence of infringement while you're there, so you know what to look for in the complaint. Whether or not they in fact infringed remains to be seen."

    Yes, you implied that they are guilty when you referred to them as infringers. When I said evidence I meant proof. Now I'm mixing the two up, glad I'm not a lawyer. If you didn't mean to imply that then fair enough, but again you keep acting as if what you said means something completely different to how the rest of the English speaking world might interpret it. The fact that they are presenting their evidence as prima facie doesn't give you cause to imply that the accused are infringers. I hope you're not a defence lawyer if you don't get the whole innocent until proven guilty premise.

    "I perfectly well understand the difference. Got anything that's actually interesting to debate about?"

    I'm patiently waiting for you to get past the language barrier so that we can progress.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  153.  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), Sep 6th, 2010 @ 2:47pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Life's too short to go back and read what I posted just to make you happy. If I called them infringers when I should have said alleged infringers, then I apologize. You may have found a flaw in one of my posts. Good for you.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  154.  
    icon
    vivaelamor (profile), Sep 6th, 2010 @ 2:57pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "Nope. Wrong again. It's not anyone's guess what is considered prima facie evidence. Case law spells it out clearly. The complaint alleges prima facie evidence, and that is sufficient at this point of the proceedings."

    Just because it is alleged does not make it so. Having said that, I hold little hope that the court will throw this out like it should. I am not contesting the fact that they can do this, I am saying that they should not do this, ideally because the court would spank them for wasting time (wishful thinking, I know).

    "Read a bunch of case law and then we'll talk more. Until then, you have no idea what you're talking about."

    Honestly, I wouldn't claim to know more about law than you. Pretty much everything I've brought up here is based on you saying stuff that just doesn't make sense with a basic knowledge of English. That you appear to have some odd ideas about certain legal concepts is possibly also your communications skills at fault.

    "I've read 7 cases about copyright infringement just today for pleasure reading. I read case law every day. I read case law for class. I read case law for work. And in my spare time, guess what, I read case law. Maybe that's why I'm at the top of my class."

    I am glad that you appear to enjoy your work so much. Few people enjoy their work enough to be able to stand it in their spare time. Personally I prefer martial arts as a hobby, it makes a nice contrast to sitting at a desk trying to help people all day.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  155.  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), Sep 6th, 2010 @ 3:06pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    If I've miscommunicated something, I apologize. I'm also sorry if I'm short with you. People jump on everything I say, and usually without any knowledge of what they're talking about. It gets old.

    I do love what I do very much. I'm researching the legality of reverse engineering software at the moment--got a presentation to make at school tomorrow. Interesting stuff.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  156.  
    icon
    vivaelamor (profile), Sep 6th, 2010 @ 3:11pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "Here you go again, arguing about the meaning of a single word."

    Does this mean that you'd rather I argued the meaning of several? What a silly statement.

    "Evidence is proof."

    It isn't. If it were then we wouldn't need two words. Evidence may constitute proof, but that is not necessarily so. Evidence is pretty much anything presented in support of an assertion. Proof is evidence that supports an assertion to some degree of certainty. For an example of the distinction, you can have false evidence but you cannot have false proof, because that would be a contradiction in terms.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  157.  
    icon
    vivaelamor (profile), Sep 6th, 2010 @ 3:15pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "Life's too short to go back and read what I posted just to make you happy. If I called them infringers when I should have said alleged infringers, then I apologize. You may have found a flaw in one of my posts. Good for you."

    This from the guy who brought up something I said days or weeks ago? Still, your contrition moves me.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  158.  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), Sep 6th, 2010 @ 3:19pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I really have no desire to hash out nuanced arguments with you. I've got better things to do.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  159.  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), Sep 6th, 2010 @ 3:21pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    You did say it weeks ago, and I remember it distinctly. Oh, the perils of having a great memory.

    Go ahead and get the last word. I'm done with our little chat.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  160.  
    icon
    vivaelamor (profile), Sep 6th, 2010 @ 3:57pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "If I've miscommunicated something, I apologize. I'm also sorry if I'm short with you. People jump on everything I say, and usually without any knowledge of what they're talking about. It gets old."

    I'm short with people all the time, though I try to make sure that I'm only reflecting the attitude of those I'm talking to. Being 100% polite when others are taking the piss is a sure way to get them to ignore you.

    I tend to focus on how people are communicating because that is a universal constant and often seems to me the biggest barrier to two sides of an argument reaching a consensus (even if it is a disagreement). The great thing about language skills (or reasoning skills) is being able to butt in on subjects that you don't necessarily know anything about. Most of my time on here is spent not trying to convince people that they are wrong, but that what they said isn't what they meant. I don't mind disagreeing with people, I'd just like them to know why I disagree with them as that tends to be the first step towards them changing their own minds.

    "I do love what I do very much. I'm researching the legality of reverse engineering software at the moment--got a presentation to make at school tomorrow. Interesting stuff."

    Presentations are one of the reasons that I'm glad I dropped out of school. I find it easier to write than talk.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  161.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 6th, 2010 @ 4:10pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Maybe that's why I'm at the top of my class.

    Is that the 100 level classes on being a jackass or the post-doc jackass class?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  162.  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), Sep 6th, 2010 @ 4:21pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Doctorate level. :)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  163.  
    identicon
    Michael, Sep 7th, 2010 @ 5:24am

    Re: Re: Re:

    So why don't you pay up for sharing this movie via bit torrent? You should write this guy a check.

    That's what is happening (assuming you didn't actually share this file). The system is set up to give this guy incentive to sue innocent people and force them to pay up even if they did not share the files in question. It is cheaper to pay up than it is to wage the most basic fight to prove your innocence.

    So, if you think this practice is ok, you should simply be paying up every time one of these guys claims their works have been pirated. Since you are as guilty as the innocent people caught in the extra-wide net being cast, I think it is your responsibility to pay each of these guys that wants money.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  164.  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), Sep 7th, 2010 @ 6:39am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    How are plaintiffs supposed to know which defendants infringed on their works, and which defendants, for example, had their wireless hijacked by someone else who used it to infringe on their works? I can't think of any way to determine this before filing a suit. Keep in mind that before the plaintiffs file a suit they don't even know the identities of the subscribers behind the IP address, so they simply cannot investigate further until a suit is filed.

    I'm also wondering how much responsibility a person who has an unsecured wireless should have in these types of cases. I really don't know the answer. When I get some spare time I'll research the caselaw to see how this fact pattern is handled by the courts.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  165.  
    icon
    Hephaestus (profile), Sep 7th, 2010 @ 6:42am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "Now, if the defendants can prove they are innocent, they can ask the court to award them attorneys' fees."

    You can't prove innocence only guilt.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  166.  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), Sep 7th, 2010 @ 6:50am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I don't really follow you. Either the defendant is found liable or they are found not liable.

    If the defendant is found liable, the plaintiff can ask the court to award them attorney's fees. If the defendant is found not liable, the defendant can ask the court to award them attorney's fees.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  167.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 7th, 2010 @ 8:29am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "I'm also wondering how much responsibility a person who has an unsecured wireless should have in these types of cases. I really don't know the answer. When I get some spare time I'll research the caselaw to see how this fact pattern is handled by the courts."

    The courts are not competent to judge that, they lack the knowledge to do it.

    The right people to ask about that is tech people.

    And it would send shrills down the spine of any administrator to be have found guilty of things out of their control, but somehow some people may think it is ok to force layman people to become versed on tech, law and whatever they want. Its just ludicrous.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  168.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 7th, 2010 @ 8:31am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    They are not supposed to, this is not commercial infringement this is a social occurrence do to underlying social norms that are the basis for society.

    In this case the law is wrong and should be repudiated and until that day comes, is the duty of every citizen under the sun to continue to fight for their own rights.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  169.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 7th, 2010 @ 8:35am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    You forget that the burden of proof needs to be weighted and that it counts.

    Many people wouldn't be able to prove anything, they are not business, they don't have legal departments, they don't maintain logs and would be just overwhelmed by the courts, even business complain about that and they do have more resources then normal people so justice it is not being served by the system right now.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  170.  
    icon
    Marcel de Jong (profile), Sep 7th, 2010 @ 8:37am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Innocent, until proven guilty?
    Or Guilty, until proven innocent?

    It's up to the plaintiff to prove the defendant's guilt (beyond a shadow of a doubt), not the defendants task to prove their innocence.

    But admittedly, this is from my understand of the law of the land, and years of watching crime documentaries and dramatizations. IANAL and all that.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  171.  
    icon
    duffmeister (profile), Sep 7th, 2010 @ 1:24pm

    dear average joe

    This was to be posted on the other thread, I am putting it here where you were "wronged."

    Only a lawyer could quibble over such a statement being a lie. It is obviously an expression of emotion.

    I am also disgusted by those that use a system that is highly broken to make a profit. I say anyone considering this as a viable option is just a profit monger that has no respect for the purpose of law or the rights and property of others. You have demonstrated already you have no respect for others so it seems I am not that far from the mark.

    I try to make others aware of issues in IP law in my job as a computer professional, consultant and contractor. I am also active politically to help educate everyone on the harms these laws and loop holes have created for us all. I am trying to make the world better for us all, even you. This is where the disgust stems from, as you exploit the problems rather than see a problem and try to fix it. It speaks of a weak character that you would deem short term personal gain of more importance than cultural gain for society.

    Look at stories in the public domain such as "Alice in Wonderland." Money can be made quite readily and easily from this based on the merit of what you add, and how you interpret the work, not in what you can squeeze out of the public.

    We are living in a time when our own culture is locked up and not available to us. When has this ever happened in history?

    This story is a case where not one person was harmed in any way at all. In fact I imagine that the file sharing actually increased the exposure this work had. A smart business person might try to sell to this audience rather than litigate. This does prove there is still a demand for the work.

    Part of the issue is that "the long tail" of economics is less true on the internet than the old school brick and mortar mentality. You can make a successful business operating on what other deem "unworthy" to offer in their store. this is made possible by the open nature of the internet, the ease of file sharing, and the cheapness of storage relative to the value of the commodity.

    I'd think a better business model than to sue others for infringement would be to try and license "abandoned" yet still protected content and sell it to provide some money to both your interests and those that produced the works.

    I am not against people making profit, I am quite for it, but it needs to also respect the rights of the public. Abusing a system for personal gain should be reviled when there are legitimate and effective means to make a profit. Why not try to help everyone, and at the same time make a profit, rather than exploit what you know is broken.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  172.  
    icon
    Marcel de Jong (profile), Sep 8th, 2010 @ 12:01am

    If movie makers can sue these alleged copyright infringement on potential loss of sales, why can't I sue the movie makers for stealing money out of my pocket by making awful movies?
    If I pay 10-15 bucks for a cinema ticket for a (at max) 3 hours, I expect to be entertained, if instead I get bored to tears with inane dialog or sub-par acting or bad story-telling, where do I go with my complaints?
    The cinema? Hardly, it's not their fault the movie was crap, and they barely make any money anyway, besides the food from the concession stand (which is generally overpriced but still decent food, level quality, you know what to expect)
    No, I want to be able to sue the movie maker for wasting my time and for costing me my hard-earned money.
    But those lawsuits would get thrown out of court for their frivolity they are.

    But movie studios, music labels and book publishers can sue people based on a POTENTIAL loss of income, with a list of numbers (IP-addresses are just that, numbers), which according to them infringed on their copyright. A law which was supposed to work to protect distributors from other distributors.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  173.  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), Sep 9th, 2010 @ 11:22am

    Re: Re:

    Oh well, I guess Mike isn't even man enough to admit that he was intentionally being hyperbolic in mislabeling me as one who abuses a system for profit.

    He tried to squirm his way out of it:

    As for the comment, I did not lie. You have said that you are planning a career in copyright litigation and that you support these types of actions that are a clear abuse of the law for profit. The "gleeful" part is an opinion based on the way you discuss these lawsuits as if they're some game. I find that sickening.

    http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100904/23124610907.shtml

    Um, no, Mike. Not good enough. Being interested in IP litigation does not mean that I now currently abuse a system for profit. Nor does it mean that I am going to abuse a system for profit sometime down the road. I don't know what I'm going to end up doing and you don't either.

    Why can't you just man up and admit that your statement was false or at the very least misleading? Why can't you admit that you were mistaken?

    Every assumption you've made about me has been wrong. Every time you state what you think to be my position you are wrong. Why can't you ever get it right when you're talking about me? Is your debating strategy really to just misstate the other side's position? That's really sad.

    C'mon, Mike. Be a man and admit that I do not abuse a system for profit. You know that I do not.

    I can take a lot, Mike, but people like you who have to lie when stating other people's positions make me sick.

    What is wrong with you, Mike? Seriously.

    Are you going to threaten to ban me for calling you out on your lie? Am I just supposed to let you intentionally spread lies about me? Am I not allowed to point out your mistake?

    Go ahead and censor me if that's how you have to deal with people who point out your lies about them.

    I'm still waiting for you to explain yourself. Your sad attempt at saying I "support" such people doesn't cut it. Explain exactly how I abuse a system for profit, or admit that I do not.

    We both know that I don't. And we both know that you don't know what I'm going to end up doing.

    Why are you trying to blame me for things I haven't even done? Are you really that desperate to get me?

    Sad, Mike. Really sad.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This