Many federal courts have been reluctant to allow Malibu Media or other plaintiffs to serve subpoenas on ISPs early in the litigation process, and have expressed skepticism of the use of IP addresses to identify file sharing defendants in cases involving pornographic films.
Some trial-level courts have held that an IP address alone is insufficient to establish the identity of a defendant that can properly be sued. Courts have expressed concern that, when a copyright holder obtains the identity of the IP address account holder from an ISP, the copyright holder could threaten the IP account subscriber with being publicly named in a case alleging that the subscriber illegally downloaded pornographic material, unless the subscriber makes a substantial monetary settlement payment.
One federal judge in New York stated, in a published opinion:. The relatively small group of lawyers who police copyright infringement on BitTorrent have customized the concept of extracting quick settlements without any intention of taking the case to trial…. Particularly troubling for courts is the high probability of misidentified Doe defendants who may be the bill-payer for the IP address but not the actual infringer settling a case for fear of the disclosure of the allegations against them or of the high costs of litigation.
Of the over , cases filed against John Doe defendants in the United States, only a small handful have resulted in final judgements. John Doe lawsuits almost always end with voluntary dismissal by the plaintiff. There is no way to know, from public court records, how many of the dismissed lawsuits were dismissed by Malibu Media after receipt of a settlement payment from the John Doe defendant, and how many were dismissed by Malibu Media because it decided not to further pursue the particular defendant for reasons other than a monetary settlement.
Malibu Media has stated, in filed court papers, that it expects that about one-third of its lawsuits will be voluntarily dismissed after it receives the John Doe identity from the ISP. Clair county. This blog is getting pounded with Does who are looking for news, views and representation regarding this matter.
Please feel free to drop by and comment. Is it safe to wait it out, or to take action? In general, receiving a cease and desist letter is an important event, so you should retain an attorney to advise you on your legal rights and options. Going off what Andrew mentioned before, I also received a message from mark telling me I owe a certain amount also, and I in no way distributed anything.
Same advice to consult my attorney on this matter? Thank you. Failure to respond could result in serious legal consequences, so I do recommend you consult with an attorney. Hi, I just was sent an email from Mark Borghese. I am not going to deny that I had the material up for access through a filesharing program that allows access to members that you allow access to and which was set to access more folders that I should have had it set for, but I am not in a position where I can afford that kind of money since I do not have a job right now.
What should I do? As you know, like any legal violation, you should not ignore it. I did have roommates at the time. Also I have proof that I was not present at my house when this occurred. What can I do? The following article was on CNN today. I received a notice on an instance of copyright infringement by my ISP, so I went to check it out only to find there were 5 notices 4 of them were for the same title.
I did download both titles, but never distributed or made any copies of the material. Settlement options have been given to me, and I am considering them. What advice can you give pertaining to the 4 four notices for the same title? Not only have I never downloaded any movie, the IP address stated is not mine. I do have a wireless router with only my wife and I living at our home.
Does the non-matching IP address suggest that I should just wait and see if they sue? Generally, the holder of the protected material will file a suit against hundreds, or even thousands, of defendants at once.
This process, although controversial, has found support by some within the legal community. Since you have already received warning letters, we would suggest you contact an experienced internet copyright attorney immediately. They claim that I subscribed to an internet service that provides access codes to electronically enable a satellite receiver to receive their copyrighted TV channels. In order for Dishnet to prevail at court, do they have to show proof that I owned a satellite receiver and actually used the access codes for their intended purpose?
Can anyone give an update on a Borghese case? I recieves a comast letter from Voltage Pictures, Inc. What are the negatives of this move? And if the matter lies in being sued! How bad will the sue be?
I leave my wifi access totally unsecured. Same goes for my car, I leave the keys in it while it is parked in the front of my residence.
I am at liberty to live how i wish. Why should I allow myself this paranoid view of the world e. Or, that my residence is a prison cell and should be locked down. That includes files available by torrent or otherwise. And also while there more than likely are trolls on these sites, could entrapment be used as a good defense as well? I suppose downloading the material through torrent download would still be illegal? Can they search my computer looking for something illegal? Has this ever happened?
My router was not secure and anyone in the area could have used my connection as a hot spot for downloading. I appreciate your site with the information, just wanted to help out a little. Is posting songs of your favorite artists on the internet, i.
Myspace, considered copyright infringement? How about mashups or tweeking an artists song with your own music not selling, distributing or reproducing it? I have a VHS copy of a movie that I like to watch. If I copy a digital copy to see on my ipad, I fail to see how this is copyright infringement… or is it? When a person buys a copy of a movie, they do not own the movie, but instead the right to view the movie: a license. Would the license I have purchased be valid on whatever medium I need to view it?
Getting mad at me for seeing a DVD when I have the movie on a VHS seems like a violation of my license agreement with the movie production company… likewise if I download a copy to see on my ipad is the same case since I can not insert the VHS tape into the ipad.. Stan, the short answer is you cannot make a copy nothing whatsoever without permission.
Many licenses permit some copying. What if you pay a fee for three years unlimited, I had the receipt and everything, now I am being monitored on my cell phone and my parents internet…. My friend next door is being threatened with a lawsuit for they said various downloads of music, but he has not got a computer; all he has is a tablet and he knows nothing about Utorrent or any other torrent site.
He is only on his fb or emails yet he is being threatened, I personally went through his tablet myself and there has been no torrents or torrent programs downloaded on to his device; however I know my internet was hacked a couple of years ago by someone calling themselves FBIVAN1 and I come to find out later they called themselves that so people would be afraid to kick them off. Since then I do not own a computer it is not safe to, I use my phone to get on my fb because I feel safer; my son has a tablet but I will not allow a computer in my home.
I have one the church gave me in my car right now, but it is gonna sit and rot because I wont let it in my home; and now that my friend is being falsly accused I probably never will allow one in my home.
I believe the copyright people should go after the torrent places instead of the normal everyday citizens they lure into their web, but apparently they cant beat them at all; so they try and beat them another way which is to try and get the average person. My friend is disabled and scared to death right now and the government says thats fine, so today I wage my own war on the torrent companys and I dont do legal battles I wage my war on social media. And then I am gonna do some research myself and find out who used his internet to do this, because whomever did this knows he is in a battle right now with someone filing taxes in his name three times; and probably figured he was a safe victim and did not count on the backlash coming from me.
Is there a specific value that a copyright infringement case is tied to? In tort law, usually damages are limited to treble damages, no?
Further, it seems absurd that a court could tie an individual IP address might be linked to a computer that might have uploaded a portion of a copyrighted work to damages that high. Rather, it seems that the plaintiffs are calculating that settlement is cheaper than defense, and that people will pay up. Fair Use serves to balance the owner's rights versus public interest.
A typical example of copyright infringement is the use of music in your videos. If you have not obtained the permission to use a song as background music for your home movies, business presentations, or your own creative work, then you could be liable for copyright infringement.
Video-sharing sites like YouTube and Facebook actively flag down or mute songs and music for copyright violation. Some creators put their work online to be downloaded for a fee. But it is a copyright violation to download a movie, TV show, music, software or e-book from a website that is not owned by the creator. Usually, these non-authorized sites also automatically prompt you to share the same material to others.
So, you are redistributing copyrighted content against the owner's wishes with or without your knowledge. You're reasonably allowed to record a TV show at home if you intend to watch it later. But it becomes a copyright infringement if you pass your recorded copy to other people, or you reproduce a bunch of copies to sell and profit from it, or you broadcast and post the video online. You're infringing on the copyright of a creator's photograph, graphics or artwork if you use these without permission in posters, flyers, brochures or your own website.
You also can't use these IP for your marketing campaigns unless you buy the photograph or artwork or pay the creators a certain fee. You cannot also copy someone's creative work to claim as your own, even if it's a "derivative" or "inspired" work. This is called plagiarism in the publishing or music industry.
But copyright infringement can be subject to a lot of conditions. Courts have to look at all possible factors to determine if there was indeed a violation. Universal Studios wanted to develop a space saga and sci-fi production after the commercial success of the first "Star Wars" in But "Star Wars" producer 20th Century Fox claimed that "Battlestar Galactica" had at least 34 similarities to their own space saga. So, the studio filed a lawsuit for copyright infringement against Universal. But 20th Century Fox appealed the case at the Ninth Circuit.
This time, the appeals court found reasonable grounds to proceed with a trial, citing that there were, in fact, similarities to "Star Wars" and "Battlestar Galactica. However, the studios settled the case before the trial started. In , Napster launched as a peer-to-peer P2P file sharing platform. It featured a pioneering technology that allowed people to share their audio format mp3 files on the internet.
But when Metallica learned that one of their demos, titled "I Disappear," was being distributed on the platform before its official release, the band sued Napster for copyright infringement. Soon, other artists and recording companies under the Recording Industry Association of America RIAA filed similar lawsuits after Napster refused to take down their original creations. However, it lost the appeal as well as the Ninth Circuit upheld the original decision that Napster was liable for copyright infringement.
The company didn't have any safeguards for keeping track of the materials distributed on its website. It also didn't restrict access to the sharing and distribution of copyrighted materials. After its developers and operators filed for bankruptcy in , new management acquired the company. Today, Napster is an online music store for independent artists.
Steven Jan Vander Ark, a "Harry Potter" fanatic and a school librarian, labored for seven years to create a "Harry Potter" dictionary or lexicon that served as a guidebook for J. Rowling's famous literary series. But Rowling and Warner Bros. Rowling wanted Vander Ark to cease publishing his guidebook because it was much too similar to the original literature.
It was also hampering on Rowling's creativity as she had plans to come up with a companion book or an encyclopedia to guide "Harry Potter" readers. The court sided with Rowling because it found that while Vander Ark intended his lexicon to be reference material, the fan copied the author's work too far.
Vander Ark didn't abide by Fair Use and had no original commentary to go with his guide book.
0コメント