Juicio Masivo a 23000 personas por descargar ilegalmente pelicula de Stallone

Discusión cerrada
Ir a 12 ÚltimaÚltima
  1. #1
    WTF Avatar de Kaverna
    Registración
    Nov 2000
    Mensajes
    6,544

    Juicio Masivo a 23000 personas por descargar ilegalmente pelicula de Stallone

    De Wired

    Biggest BitTorrent Downloading Case in U.S. History Targets 23,000 Defendants

    By David Kravets Email Author
    May 9, 2011 |

    At least 23,000 file sharers soon will likely get notified they are being sued for downloading the Expendables in what has become the single largest illegal-BitTorrent-downloading case in U.S. history.

    A federal judge in the case has agreed to allow the U.S. Copyright Group to subpoena internet service providers to find out the identity of everybody who had illegally downloaded (.pdf) the 2010 Sylvester Stallone flick — meaning the number of defendants is likely to dramatically increase as new purloiners are discovered. Once an ISP gets the subpoena, it usually notifies the account holder that his or her subscriber information is being turned over to the Copyright Group, which last year pioneered the practice of suing BitTorrent downloaders in the United States.

    Subpoenas are expected to go out this week.

    All told, more than 140,000 BitTorrent downloaders are being targeted in dozens of lawsuits across the country, many of them for downloading B-rated movies and porn.

    Many lawyers are mimicking the Copyright Group’s legal strategy, which includes offering online settlement payments, in hopes of making quick cash. The litigation can be so lucrative — with settlements around $3,000 per infringement — that two companies are both claiming ownership to a low-budget movie called Nude Nuns with Big Guns, and both firms are suing the same downloaders.

    Not all federal judges, are agreeing to allow a massive number of subpoenas in a single case, but many are. The U.S. Copyright Act allows damages of up to $150,000 per infringement, and the cases all demand the maximum.

    “It is well beyond time that the courts take control of these automated enterprises being run at great taxpayer expense with the active assistance of the federal court system,” said Lory Lybeck, a Washington state attorney defending about 100 BitTorrent defendants.

    The IP addresses of the alleged copyright scofflaws are easily discoverable. Film companies pay snoops to troll BitTorrent sites, dip into active torrents and capture the IP addresses of the peers who are downloading and uploading pieces of the files.

    The closest single lawsuit in size to the Expendables case targets 15,551 BitTorrent users for downloading a handful of porn flicks with titles such as Big Dick Glory Holes and Spin on My Cock. A judge has not decided whether to authorize subpoenas in that case.

    Thomas Dunlap, who heads the Copyright Group in Washington, D.C., did not return phone messages. He informed the court Wednesday that, so far, he’s obtained 23,322 IP addresses (.pdf) that have allegedly infringed the Expendables, up from 6,500 when he initially filed the District of Columbia federal court case in February.
    Fuente: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/201...ttorrent-case/

    Como estamos con el tema piaratería
    • Me gusta
    Me gusta
    nunca poco logro mucho
     

  2. Compartí este Tema:
    • Vistas: 1720
    • Mensajes: 21
    Seguí este Tema: Suscribite
  3. #2
    WTF Avatar de Kaverna
    Registración
    Nov 2000
    Mensajes
    6,544

    Re: Jucio Masivo a 23000 personas por descargar ilegalmente pelicula de Stallone

    Otro (aunque de p2p) ... Lime Wire

    May 9, 2011 2:24 PM PDT
    Lime Wire founder on copyright law: 'I was wrong'
    by Greg Sandoval


    Lime Wire founder Mark Gorton took the stand in U.S. federal court in New York today.
    (Credit: Greg Sandoval/CNET)

    NEW YORK--Lawyers representing the four largest music labels tried to convey a message in court here today: Lime Wire founder Mark Gorton was so determined to help people pirate songs that he disregarded copyright law, artists' rights, and even the Supreme Court.

    And eventually, Gorton conceded.

    The best that he could offer for an excuse was that he misread the law. "I was wrong," Gorton told the court. "I didn't think our behavior was inducing [copyright infringement]. I understand that a court has found otherwise."

    In numerous exchanges with Glenn Pomerantz, the labels' lead attorney, Gorton acknowledged knowing that LimeWire was being used to swap songs without paying for them by a "large percentage" of users. Despite being aware of the piracy, Gorton said he refused to shut down the service.
    "I was wrong. I didn't think our behavior was inducing (copyright infringement). I understand that a court has found otherwise."
    --Mark Gorton

    The copyright case brought in 2006 against Lime Wire and Gorton by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA)--the record companies' trade group--is in the final stages. A year ago, U.S. District Judge Kimba Wood found Gorton liable for inducing mass copyright infringement. Last October, Wood ordered that Lime Wire's peer-to-peer service, LimeWire, which Gorton today acknowledged was used by millions of people to pirate perhaps billions of songs, be shut down.

    It was the court that determined Gorton would pay but a jury is now tasked with deciding the amount, which can be anywhere between $7 million and $1.4 billion. Not only could a damages award mean a big payday for the labels, but it will also serve to make an example of Gorton.

    With Gorton, 44, having already been found liable, the record labels are operating with a big advantage, sort of the courtroom equivalent of a penalty kick in soccer or free throws in basketball. There's no question of whether Gorton infringed the labels' copyrights. Lawyers for the record companies can now home in on just making it look like he acted with bad intentions. And in court today, Gorton's past comments and e-mails provided the labels with plenty of assistance.

    Pomerantz showed a pie chart created by Lime Wire to show how Gorton and his managers classified users into four groups. "Hardcore pirates" made up 25 percent of the service's users. "Morally persuadable" users equaled another 25 percent. "Legally unaware" users were said to be 20 percent of LimeWire's users, and those that "sampled" music were 30 percent.

    Lime Wire's managers reported to Gorton that of these groups, the company could expect to convince only 20 percent to pay for music, Pomerantz told the jury.

    Pomerantz and the labels don't believe Gorton misread the law. They argued that he knew exactly what he was doing when he refused to cease operations. He told potential investors in 2001 that the service faced significant legal risks and could be sued by the RIAA. And then came the June 2005 Supreme Court ruling in the Grokster case. Grokster was one of the leading file-sharing services and the highest court in the land found in a unanimous decision that Grokster was "unmistakably unlawful."

    That sent a message to most of Grokster's competitors. Gorton acknowledged most of his important file-sharing competitors closed down or tried to legalize their operations following the Supreme Court's decision. Gorton predicted prior to the ruling, in a New York Times interview that: "If the Supreme Court says it is illegal to produce this software, LimeWire will cease to exist."

    A Supreme Court decision, which Gorton said he read, wasn't the only signal Gorton received that LimeWire was illegal.

    Pomerantz showed a letter that was written to Gorton on behalf of the top labels--Universal Music Group, Sony Music Entertainment, Warner Music Group, and EMI Music--soon after the Grokster decision. The record companies spelled out the ways the Grokster decision applied to LimeWire and notified Gorton that they would sue him personally if he didn't "cease and desist."

    Nonetheless, Gorton acknowledged, Lime Wire operated as before.

    Gorton didn't take them at their word. He said he thought that the labels just wanted him to start trying to convert users to some kind of paying service.

    Pomerantz told the jury there were filtering systems and other technologies available that could have helped Gorton and his managers stop some of the file sharing. "There were technologies that you didn't use that would have stopped some of the sharing, but you didn't use those?" Pomerantz asked Gorton.

    "No," Gorton replied.

    When it came to receiving questions from users about whether LimeWire was legal, Gorton acknowledged ordering employees not to respond such inquiries. He said he didn't want them giving legal advice.

    Pomerantz showed the jury some of the e-mails from users.

    • "I found my child downloading music and films from your site," wrote one parent on Christmas day in 2005. "Is this legal for my child to do so?"

    • "Is LimeWire different from Napster?" wrote another user. "I'm a little afraid people will accuse me of copyright infringement."

    Pomerantz summarized the situation this way: "People were trying to do the right thing and LimeWire didn't have an answer."

    Notes: RIAA lawyers called Gorton to the stand to start the day and are scheduled to resume questioning of him tomorrow...In the court's gallery were executives for some of the major labels including Thomas Hesse, president of Sony Music Entertainment...Edgar Bronfman Jr., the chairman of Warner Music, is expected to testify on Wednesday...Gorton's lawyers indicated he will soon testify about the money he began putting away into family trusts following the Grokster decision. The RIAA has alleged that this was an attempt by Gorton to hide money in case he was sued. Gorton is expected to testify that he was only interested in managing his estate.

    Read more: http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-20...#ixzz1M2xhMmw4

    Fuente: http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-20061209-261.html
    • Me gusta
    Me gusta
    nunca poco logro mucho
     

  4. #3
    Splash is inbound ... Avatar de A. Skywalker
    Registración
    Jun 2010
    Mensajes
    7,741
    Ubicación
    La Plata, Buenos Aires, Argentina

    Re: Juicio Masivo a 23000 personas por descargar ilegalmente pelicula de Stallone

    Uhh yo hubiese caido seguro...
    • Me gusta
    Me gusta
    "Ríe y el mundo reirá contigo; llora y llorarás solo"
     

  5. #4
    Avatar de Enogeneb
    Registración
    Jan 2010
    Mensajes
    2,235

    Re: Juicio Masivo a 23000 personas por descargar ilegalmente pelicula de Stallone

    A comerlaaa....

    Ahora, te puede hacer quilombo tambien si miras una pelicula en "P. ID" o "P Y" ???
    • Me gusta
    Me gusta
     

  6. #5
    NEC
    Avatar de NEC
    Registración
    Oct 2001
    Mensajes
    2,015

    Re: Juicio Masivo a 23000 personas por descargar ilegalmente pelicula de Stallone

    Que suerte que no vivo en EEUU ni bajo ese tipo de cosas (pelis de Stallone, claro :P)
    • Me gusta
    Me gusta
    GX Adm
     

  7. #6
    Sexy Avatar de Merle_Dixon
    Registración
    Jan 2011
    Mensajes
    526
    Ubicación
    Argentina

    Re: Juicio Masivo a 23000 personas por descargar ilegalmente pelicula de Stallone

    compartir no es ROBAR chicos no se olviden!
    • Me gusta
    Me gusta
     

  8. #7
    WTF Avatar de Kaverna
    Registración
    Nov 2000
    Mensajes
    6,544

    Re: Juicio Masivo a 23000 personas por descargar ilegalmente pelicula de Stallone

    Si compartis lo de otro no aplica mucho tu pensamiento hippie
    • Me gusta
    Me gusta
    nunca poco logro mucho
     

  9. #8
    Gil Trabajador Avatar de Kittler
    Registración
    Dec 2008
    Mensajes
    10,149
    Ubicación
    Argentina

    Re: Juicio Masivo a 23000 personas por descargar ilegalmente pelicula de Stallone

    Si me lo compro, lo ripeo y lo comparto, ahí si?
    • Me gusta
    Me gusta
    Citar Mensaje original enviado por durielvs Ver Mensaje
    "me gustaría ser nazi, para darte gas toda la noche"
     

  10. #9
    Avatar de Indiana
    Registración
    Jun 2006
    Mensajes
    7,544

    Re: Juicio Masivo a 23000 personas por descargar ilegalmente pelicula de Stallone

    Citar Mensaje original enviado por -YaPeL- Ver Mensaje
    Si me lo compro, lo ripeo y lo comparto, ahí si?
    No, tampoco.
    • Me gusta
    Me gusta
    En el thread del TV show "Caprica":

    Citar Mensaje original enviado por Puchenko Ver Mensaje
    que onda esto?
    el orden seria caprica - battlestar galactica - star gate ?
    Lame...
     

  11. #10
    Gil Trabajador Avatar de Kittler
    Registración
    Dec 2008
    Mensajes
    10,149
    Ubicación
    Argentina

    Re: Juicio Masivo a 23000 personas por descargar ilegalmente pelicula de Stallone

    Por que no? si es mio! tampoco lo puedo re-vender?
    • Me gusta
    Me gusta
    Citar Mensaje original enviado por durielvs Ver Mensaje
    "me gustaría ser nazi, para darte gas toda la noche"
     

  12. #11
    Do the evolution Avatar de Survivorman.
    Registración
    Jan 2005
    Mensajes
    3,979
    Ubicación
    Puede ser Uruguay, puede ser Chivilcoy

    Re: Juicio Masivo a 23000 personas por descargar ilegalmente pelicula de Stallone

    Si no lucras no es delito loco no rompan las pelotas con eso.
    • Me gusta
    Me gusta
     

  13. #12
    Avatar de Strokeado
    Registración
    Dec 2005
    Mensajes
    3,844
    Ubicación
    Argentina

    Re: Juicio Masivo a 23000 personas por descargar ilegalmente pelicula de Stallone

    Citar Mensaje original enviado por Survivorman. Ver Mensaje
    Si no lucras no es delito loco no rompan las pelotas con eso.
    ¿?

    El autor lo hace con fines de lucro. Porque vos tendrías que anular ese fin del dueño? Que te hace pensar que sos dueño de la pelicula? (y no me refiero al dvd)
    • Me gusta
    Me gusta
     

  14. #13
    ¿Y como puedes cam... Avatar de Soul Hunter
    Registración
    Jan 2005
    Mensajes
    14,497
    Ubicación
    San Carlos de Bariloche, Rio Negro, Argentina

    Re: Juicio Masivo a 23000 personas por descargar ilegalmente pelicula de Stallone

    Eh pero no es aca eso, es en USA que tiene otras leyes, lo que aca no es ilegal puede serlo alla.
    • Me gusta
    Me gusta
     

  15. #14
    Gil Trabajador Avatar de Kittler
    Registración
    Dec 2008
    Mensajes
    10,149
    Ubicación
    Argentina

    Re: Juicio Masivo a 23000 personas por descargar ilegalmente pelicula de Stallone

    que compartir sea delito en usa, no lo hace robar (incluso allá) en todo caso, es violación a los derechos de autor.
    • Me gusta
    Me gusta
    Citar Mensaje original enviado por durielvs Ver Mensaje
    "me gustaría ser nazi, para darte gas toda la noche"
     

  16. #15
    ¿Y como puedes cam... Avatar de Soul Hunter
    Registración
    Jan 2005
    Mensajes
    14,497
    Ubicación
    San Carlos de Bariloche, Rio Negro, Argentina

    Re: Juicio Masivo a 23000 personas por descargar ilegalmente pelicula de Stallone

    Depende como lo mires, desde la ley puede ser robar.
    De todas formas prefiero guiarme por el uso normal, una ley puede cambiar si algo es legal o no, pero mi forma de hablar no va a cambiar :P
    • Me gusta
    Me gusta
     

  17. Compartí este Tema:
    • Vistas: 1720
    • Mensajes: 21
    Seguí este Tema: Suscribite
Discusión cerrada
Ir a 12 ÚltimaÚltima