Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

P2P Litigation Crippled In DC District Court Ruling

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the civil-procedure dept.

The Courts 114

An anonymous reader writes "In a stunning defeat for the US Copyright Group, DC District Court Judge Rosemary Collyer is forcing copyright holders to sue only those over whom the DC court has personal jurisdiction. The USCG has sued in the DC court more than 4,500 people on behalf of a German producer that created the Far Cry movie. But the Judge is having none of that; in her ruling [Friday], Judge Collyer stated that only those who are in the DC court's jurisdiction can be sued — shrinking what could have been a windfall of defendant's cash to perhaps a mere trickle."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

End of the world! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34290794)

A judge said something that made sense!

Re:End of the world! (5, Insightful)

flyneye (84093) | more than 3 years ago | (#34290830)

I want that woman considered for the next Supreme vacancy!

Re:End of the world! (-1, Troll)

juefengge (1939920) | more than 3 years ago | (#34290858)

Rosemary is actually a dude who sits on the bench in drag. She legally changed her name back before Clinton nominated her. Some say she was nominated because of a connection to Vince Foster.

Re:End of the world! (2, Informative)

rrkbogie (161946) | more than 3 years ago | (#34290968)

Rosemary is actually a dude who sits on the bench in drag. She legally changed her name back before Clinton nominated her. Some say she was nominated because of a connection to Vince Foster.

This seems unlikely, given that she graduated from a Catholic University:

http://www.trinitydc.edu/admissions/profiles/mayerscollyer68.html [trinitydc.edu]

Re:End of the world! (2, Interesting)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 3 years ago | (#34291946)

Especially since she was appointed in 2003, which means she was appointed by George W. Bush.

Re:End of the world! (2, Funny)

Paradise Pete (33184) | more than 3 years ago | (#34291208)

I want that woman considered for the next Supreme vacancy!

How do we even know she can sing?

Re:End of the world! (1)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 3 years ago | (#34293922)

Well, we already know she looks lovely in long, black robes. A sequined cocktail dress and heels is not that far away!

Re:End of the world! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34291210)

I agree, but career politicians are not in the business of appointing individuals who harbor crazy notions, such as returning power from the state, to the people.

Re:End of the world! (1)

jhigh (657789) | more than 3 years ago | (#34291426)

I agree, but career politicians are not in the business of appointing individuals who harbor crazy notions, such as returning power from the state, to the people.

Or that their job is not to make law but, rather, to interpret it.

Re:End of the world! (1)

schwit1 (797399) | more than 3 years ago | (#34291538)

No doubt.

Too many judges are of the mindset of "you do what you think is right and let the law catch up."

Re:End of the world! (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 3 years ago | (#34293270)

I agree, but career politicians are not in the business of appointing individuals who harbor crazy notions, such as returning power from the state, to the people.

Or that their job is not to make law but, rather, to interpret it.

I don't want them doing that, necessarily ... a well-written law should require relatively little interpretation, only proper application.

Re:End of the world! (1)

FatdogHaiku (978357) | more than 3 years ago | (#34291608)

Oh come on! We should at least hear her belt out a bit of "Stop! In The Name Of Love" first...
Seriously, going against the wishes of Big Media is going against the wishes of big political contributors... as long as money buys votes it will also influence the make up of SCOTUS.

Hooray, Slashdot! (-1, Troll)

bonch (38532) | more than 3 years ago | (#34292066)

Yay, another victory for pirates! Right, Slashdotters?

When did this place become a pro-piracy advocacy site?

Re:Hooray, Slashdot! (2, Insightful)

Ccomp5950 (1796614) | more than 3 years ago | (#34292130)

The litigation is questionable and is used as a means to threaten thousands of people (some innocent) into simply paying up by settling which most would have done. It's a business model, not trying to right a wrong. The fact that alleged copyright infringers may not see the inside of a court room due to it is secondary.

Re:Hooray, Slashdot! (2, Insightful)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 3 years ago | (#34293330)

The litigation is questionable and is used as a means to threaten thousands of people (some innocent) into simply paying up by settling which most would have done. It's a business model, not trying to right a wrong. The fact that alleged copyright infringers may not see the inside of a court room due to it is secondary.

Yes, it's an abuse of the legal system that was pioneered (so far as I'm aware) by the RIAA, in order to a. make money and b. bypass any semblance of due process. This idea of winning default judgments in venues that are far removed from the alleged infringers was a cornerstone of that practice, in that it would grant the media company lawyers an instant and inexpensive club useful for mass intimidation, while simultaneously making it difficult if not impossible to mount any kind of defense.

This Judge appears to have a clear understanding of the tactic, and she did not like it. She gets points for understanding that this is a business model, a revenue source, not an attempt at legitimate redress and gets bonus points for putting the skids on it. Several judges involved in the RIAA's ongoing rampage wrote similar decisions: I hope this starts to become popular.

Now, to be fair, this "U.S. Copyright Group" was very up front about what they were going to do, and why, and bragged about it as a way for movie makers to "monetize" copyright infringement. Of course, they failed to advertise that it was just as amoral and unethical as the RIAA's similar compaign, and just as destined to hurt innocent people.

Re:Hooray, Slashdot! (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 3 years ago | (#34293280)

Yay, another victory for pirates! Right, Slashdotters?

When did this place become a pro-piracy advocacy site?

Do you have any idea what you're talking about? RIAA and MPAA shills are not appreciated here, just so you know. Alternative perspectives, yes, but shills by definition have no viewpoint worthy of acknowledgement, much less discussion.

Re:Hooray, Slashdot! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34294050)

When did this place become a pro-piracy advocacy site?

Just after you showed up. We all came over just to piss you off.

Conflict of interest (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34290800)

The USCG has sued over 4,500 people on behalf of a German producer that created the Far Cry movie in the DC court.

I don't see how the judge can be impartial if he let them make the movie in his court.

Re:Conflict of interest (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34290886)

Thank you

Re:Conflict of interest (2, Insightful)

ozbird (127571) | more than 3 years ago | (#34291298)

DC District Court Judge Rosemary Collyer is a he?

Re:Conflict of interest (2, Funny)

RoboRay (735839) | more than 3 years ago | (#34292476)

And why is the Coast Guard even involved in this?

Re:Conflict of interest (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34292732)

Mrs. White: He didn't seem to like me very much. He had threatened to kill me in public.
Miss Scarlet: Why would he want to kill you in public?
Wadsworth: I think she means he threatened, in public, to kill her.
Miss Scarlet: Oh.

Now if only they ask for proof. (4, Insightful)

cenobyte40k (831687) | more than 3 years ago | (#34290856)

Good the next step would be for the judge to follow the rule of law and force them to prove that the movie was downloaded, and that the person they are suing is the one that downloaded it. I have yet to see a court case where they proved that well enough for me to ever have said guilty.

Re:Now if only they ask for proof. (5, Informative)

demonlapin (527802) | more than 3 years ago | (#34290950)

Civil, not criminal. Preponderance of evidence - IOW, "more likely than not" - is the standard.

Re:Now if only they ask for proof. (1)

dcavanaugh (248349) | more than 3 years ago | (#34291048)

I understand the standards of proof are lower in civil court, but even those standards are not being met in my opinion. Then again, I know about things like assuming a static IP address on a DHCP network, routers with a tendency to spontaneously reset to factory default that includes open Wifi, etc.

It would be interesting to see what happens to a defendant who drives all over town, downloads 100 files from various open networks, walks into court, and says, "Before you get too excited about the plaintiff's evidence against me, I just downloaded 100 files from other people's networks all over town. How should THEIR cases be handled, and what makes you so sure that such actions are not a factor in THIS case?"

Re:Now if only they ask for proof. (1)

demonlapin (527802) | more than 3 years ago | (#34291230)

routers with a tendency to spontaneously reset to factory default that includes open Wifi

Do you really think that's more likely than the defendant just stealing some music?

It would be interesting to see what happens to a defendant

Not really; he'd get reamed. Judges have nearly unlimited power within their own courtrooms. You'd find that the trial started turning against you, rapidly, if you pulled that kind of stunt.

Re:Now if only they ask for proof. (1)

Ccomp5950 (1796614) | more than 3 years ago | (#34292154)

Do you really think that's more likely than the defendant just stealing some music?

Actually someone coming up and getting on your wifi and downloading music is much more likely than you breaking into a major label's office and making a copy of the source files for the song, deleting them behind you.

Or perhaps you meant to say "More likely than the defendant just committing copyright infringement" Theft has a definition, it is not synonymous with copyright infringement.

Re:Now if only they ask for proof. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34292224)

Theft has a definition, it is not synonymous with copyright infringement.

Theft has a legal and non-legal definition, and neither one is synonymous with 'steal.'

Re:Now if only they ask for proof. (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 3 years ago | (#34293410)

Theft has a definition, it is not synonymous with copyright infringement.

Theft has a legal and non-legal definition, and neither one is synonymous with 'steal.'

Yes, but only the legal definition counts.

Re:Now if only they ask for proof. (1)

Belial6 (794905) | more than 3 years ago | (#34292592)

Well, sure, it is more likely that the defendant has committed a copyright violation. Heck, it is more likely that the Judge, every juror, and all the lawyers have committed copyright violations also. Given that I have never met one single person over the age of 5, and very few over the age of 3 that have not committed copyright violation, the mere fact that this person exists means that there is a preponderance of evidence that the commented a copyright violation.

That is the truth that neither side of the argument wants to talk about. Its like allowing huge civil suits over nose picking. If you could be financially ruined for picking your nose, you would deny it to the bitter end when confronted in a courtroom. You would try to find any loophole that would get you out of it. It wouldn't change the fact, that at some time or another everyone has done it. It also wouldn't change the fact that some people take it overboard. And it wouldn't change the fact that just existing would be enough to be a perponderance of evidence that they had picked their nose.

This facts of this case are just a question of WHICH bugger the defendant pulled out.

Re:Now if only they ask for proof. (1)

The Wild Norseman (1404891) | more than 3 years ago | (#34295392)

Well, sure, it is more likely that the defendant has committed a copyright violation.

No, the point of the trial is to discover if it is more likely that the defendant has committed a copyright violation in this case and in this case only. It is completely irrelevant whether or not the defendant downloads a gig of torrents a day and has done so for the past year. In the instant case brought before the judge, the plaintiffs have to have the preponderance of the evidence that that one specific act occurred.

I agree with your statement otherwise, I just wanted to clarify this point.

Re:Now if only they ask for proof. (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 3 years ago | (#34293394)

I understand the standards of proof are lower in civil court, but even those standards are not being met in my opinion. Then again, I know about things like assuming a static IP address on a DHCP network, routers with a tendency to spontaneously reset to factory default that includes open Wifi, etc.

It would be interesting to see what happens to a defendant who drives all over town, downloads 100 files from various open networks, walks into court, and says, "Before you get too excited about the plaintiff's evidence against me, I just downloaded 100 files from other people's networks all over town. How should THEIR cases be handled, and what makes you so sure that such actions are not a factor in THIS case?"

I think it will be interesting when these little pricks decide to go after a software engineer or a network expert, and then try to pull that "Your Honor, it's a fact that the IP address uniquely identifies the individual infringer" horsehocky and get ripped to shreds. I'm sure that they've already picked up on more than a few such people and, assuming they have any kind of a vetting process at all, wisely chose to leave them alone. These cases are entirely substantiated by utter technological ignorance on the part of the juries, the judges and the lawyers. 95% of the Slashdot population, if put in such a situation, could easily explain to their lawyers just how far off-base these cases really are, and how to mount a very effective defense. 95% of the general public, on the other hand, will have no choice but to believe the claims of "ha, we got you cold, buddy, now pay up."

Re:Now if only they ask for proof. (2, Interesting)

cenobyte40k (831687) | more than 3 years ago | (#34291070)

I understand that civil court does not have the same strict rules about how clear cut the case must be, but I have yet to see a case where the evidence didn't just show that it might be that IP, which might have been used by this address, which is primarily used by X person but likely many others and then is most cases fail to show me that the files in question where actually the data they say it was. (IE just because the file is called meninblack.mkv does not mean it's the movie Men in Black) I admit I am not a lawyer and that i have not read all the cases, but of the ones I have, have yet to see it any real evidence at all (Mostly just very poor understanding of the technology used the the advantage of lawyers to extort money)

Re:Now if only they ask for proof. (1)

demonlapin (527802) | more than 3 years ago | (#34291202)

If meninblack.mkv isn't the movie, then walk into court with your laptop, show them that the file is exactly the same size as the one in the suit, and play your home recording of ninjas. The courts do not care that the evidence does not meet forensic standard. It doesn't have to.

Re:Now if only they ask for proof. (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#34291392)

Actually, that's not a bad idea. One of the problems previously was that they weren't downloading, they were just looking and submitting screenshots. If you did that you should be able to get that evidence tossed or at least greatly reduce the credibility of the "expert" witless that's using it as evidence.

Just as long as your careful in how you do it to not run afoul of the rules of evidence when doing it. But demanding the witness explain how they know that the file is or isn't the one they saw is definitely legitimate.

Re:Now if only they ask for proof. (1)

ngg (193578) | more than 3 years ago | (#34292676)

IANAL and this is not legal advice

I understand that civil court does not have the same strict rules about how clear cut the case must be, but...

I hate to be an ass, but I don't think you do. Civil court is all about perponderance of evidence, not reasonable doubt. If I claim you infringed my copyright because I saw my copyrighted work being uploaded from your router's IP address, you saying, "But it could have been anyone!" doesn't cut it. If I provide evidence (no matter how superficial or circumstantial it might be) that tends to point to your guilt, and you provide nothing, then I win. I don't have to show that the file is the actual movie (although it would help my case to do so). In a criminal case, those might not be terrible defenses, because they introduce reasonable doubt as to whether any law was actually broken and as to whether you were the person who broke it.

To win in your example, you'd probably need (at the very least) to come up with a plausible explanation for how and why someone else was using your IP. Even then, it comes down to which legal theory does the jury find more convincing and/or likely: the plaintiff's (that the defendant infringed copyright) or the defendant's (that s/he didn't--but that the infringement happened with his/her ip--and that some unknown person somehow accessed the defendant's network for the purpose of infringement). All I say is, "good luck with that one."

And just to be clear: I'm not arguing that it should be so easy for the plaintiff to win these civil cases, just that it is.

Re:Now if only they ask for proof. (1)

The Wild Norseman (1404891) | more than 3 years ago | (#34295422)

IANAL and this is not legal advice

I understand that civil court does not have the same strict rules about how clear cut the case must be, but...

I hate to be an ass, but I don't think you do. Civil court is all about perponderance of evidence, not reasonable doubt. If I claim you infringed my copyright because I saw my copyrighted work being uploaded from your router's IP address, you saying, "But it could have been anyone!" doesn't cut it. If I provide evidence (no matter how superficial or circumstantial it might be) that tends to point to your guilt, and you provide nothing, then I win.

Again, I agree with what you're saying, though I would like to just point out that the judge is free to disregard any evidence you put forth. There are still *some* standards after all of what is considered evidence and what is not, even in civil matters, so it's not quite "no matter how superficial or circumstantial it might be."

Re:Now if only they ask for proof. (1)

ultranova (717540) | more than 3 years ago | (#34291222)

Civil, not criminal. Preponderance of evidence - IOW, "more likely than not" - is the standard.

The question is: why? They are accusing you of breaking the law. They are demanding a huge punishment: debt slavery for the rest of your life. Why is this treated similar to a contract dispute? Is there any reason to make this a "civil law" case besides the copyright lobby being able to blackmail you more efficiently?

Oh well. I guess the "rule of law" is a quaint, antiquated notion. I kinda wish they stopped pretending and just admitted that might makes right in a court of law.

Re:Now if only they ask for proof. (1)

demonlapin (527802) | more than 3 years ago | (#34291260)

Protip: If you want to avoid blackmail, avoiding doing overtly illegal things is probably a good place to start. Especially overtly illegal things that have enormous civil penalties.

Re:Now if only they ask for proof. (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#34291402)

Indeed, but in this case it doesn't make much of a difference because the RIAA companies have been filing suits against people, even knowing them to not be the correct party and refusing to investigate cases where the screen name and IP address might belong to somebody else.

Re:Now if only they ask for proof. (2, Insightful)

VortexCortex (1117377) | more than 3 years ago | (#34291976)

Protip: If you want to avoid blackmail, avoiding doing overtly illegal things is probably a good place to start. Especially overtly illegal things that have enormous civil penalties.

Overtly illegal? Like operating a bit-torrent tracker, or downloading from peers connected to said trackers?

MediaDefender mistakenly attacked Revision3's legitimate bit-torrent tracker [arstechnica.com] .

It's not "avoid doing overtly illegal things", but instead, "avoid using technology that big corporations don't like, and the courts and juries don't understand".

You can use the defense: Guns aren't only used to kill people, just because I have a pistol doesn't mean I kill people; It's a much easier defense than: Torrents aren't only used to download content illegally, just because I use torrents doesn't mean I commit copyright infringement.

You can use the defense: The bank-robbers asked me for directions to the bank, they didn't look like bad people to me so I gave them directions. It's not my fault the bank got robbed, I didn't help rob a bank!
A much more difficult defense: We only tell downloaders where the content is, we can't tell by IP if it's illegal for them to download the content, we assume they are innocent unless proven guilty. It's not my fault someone else committed copyright infringement, we don't actually help them copy the data!

Judges and jurors understand guns and maps; They don't understand torrents, trackers, transient IP addresses, etc.

Proof is only valuable to those who understand the nature of the evidence.

Education is the answer. I would like Judges and Jurors to have to take a quick quiz on the basic technology in use in these types of trials. Fail the test, you're not qualified to make a judgment.

Re:Now if only they ask for proof. (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 3 years ago | (#34292572)

Education is the answer. I would like Judges and Jurors to have to take a quick quiz on the basic technology in use in these types of trials. Fail the test, you're not qualified to make a judgment.

That's just moving the problem of ignorance to some other entity.
Chances are the MAFIAA would end the author of the test.

Seems to me the defense is responsible for educating the judge and jury during the trial.

Re:Now if only they ask for proof. (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 3 years ago | (#34293018)

We have repeatedly seen that your advice, while useful, is far from certain to keep you out of court.

Re:Now if only they ask for proof. (1)

Khyber (864651) | more than 3 years ago | (#34292868)

You can ask for a jury trial in a civil matter. I did exactly that versus EA.

Re:Now if only they ask for proof. (1)

ep32g79 (538056) | more than 3 years ago | (#34290986)

and force them to prove that the movie was downloaded,

Well, according to the complaint filed by ACHTE/NEUNTE they allege that "...each Defendant, without the permission or consent of the Plaintiff, has used, and continues to use, an online media distribution system to distribute to the public, including by making available for distribution to others, the Copyrighted Motion Picture." [beckermanlegal.com]

They are not simply complaining that people are downloading their material, but actively distributing it too.

Re:Now if only they ask for proof. (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#34291422)

But the making available theory was set aside years ago as not representing infringement. They would have to prove that not only did the defendants make it available, but that somebody without the authority to download it did. Which they haven't been able to do as their investigators are authorized to download such materials in the process of investigating.

Plus, there's the issue of jurisdiction and joining together John Does that aren't related in any meaningful way other than that they are alleged to have committed the same violation of copyright law.

Re:Now if only they ask for proof. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34291476)

Copyright Infringement is does not make downloading is illegal, it is the act of sharing/distribution without authorization

Except... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34290860)

...all that will happen is they will refile in the other districts where the offenders reside. This isn't news. Way to go Slashdot for another failure.

Re:Except... (2, Interesting)

laughingcoyote (762272) | more than 3 years ago | (#34291138)

...all that will happen is they will refile in the other districts where the offenders reside.

While whoever marked you troll is probably on the money, a lot of people probably might wonder why this would be significant.

It's hard to geolocate many IP addresses with any degree of precision, especially one you got months ago. And even if you can, it's not like they ever make their money back on these cases-even if they win, most of the defendants are going to go bankrupt. They won't make enough money in their life to pay the exorbitant judgment. Filing these in every district in the country, refiling the ones where you "missed", etc., is going to run up the legal bills very quickly. In the meantime, you're going to continue to annoy judges by clogging up their dockets with cases intended to "make an example" of Little Johnny or Grandma. And while an annoyed judge still must follow the law, they can certainly do as this judge did-choose to follow it very strictly indeed.

Re:Except... (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#34291450)

Well he is, but what he's failing to account for is why they chose to try it in the first place. The reason is that it gave them an unfair and illegal advantage. If they had to file each of these separately in a court with actual jurisdiction it would cost them a lot more to prosecute their case and would even things out a bit in terms of fairness of trial.

They don't want that because this is essentially just an extensive extortion scam. Pay us the money because we might have evidence that you violated our copyright or we'll sue you into the poor house.

The reason why the GP was modded troll was because he was so amazingly wrong. Given the way that the courts have been handling things up to this point, it is news whenever the court decides that normal rules apply to the RIAA studios. And this effectively makes it expensive enough that they're likely going to have to drop their suits as it's getting dangerously close to the point of vexatious litigation. [wikipedia.org]

Far Cry? (4, Funny)

Junta (36770) | more than 3 years ago | (#34290896)

If people stole and presumably watch the movie Far Cry, *they* should be suing the studio for emotional distress or something.

*NO ONE* should be subjected to a Uwe Boll film.

Re:Far Cry? (1)

Rockoon (1252108) | more than 3 years ago | (#34290930)

I actually watched that Far Cry movie on netflix cause it kept recommending it to me for months on end...

1 fucking star.

Re:Far Cry? (3, Funny)

uweboll (1944342) | more than 3 years ago | (#34290938)

What exactly don't you like about my films?

Re:Far Cry? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34290992)

What exactly don't you like about my films?

Their existence.

Re:Far Cry? (1)

EddydaSquige (552178) | more than 3 years ago | (#34291912)

Oh man, I just watched the trailer for it. Looks soooooo bad.

In defence of Uwe Boll (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34296422)

Uwe Boll's movies are cheap because he pays for them himself. Last time I checked, he was an independent film maker. Not some film school jerk-off that accidentally got studio backing, but rather someone who decided to start a business making movies, accountable to nobody. If he keeps making movies, it's only because the ones before paid for themselves (or at least for the next project).

Besides, who else is going to make a Far Cry movie? Most people ( that don't read slashdot ), have no clue what Far Cry is, and without some hollywood star in it, aren't going to rent it. The point is, this guy makes movies for you, the geek. I guarantee 60% of the people here saying his movies bad sat through at least two of them. Like me, they were stoned off their asses and had a good giggle. That's the whole point. Citizen Kane, it ain't, but it is solid, wholesome entertainment.

If you still think Uwe Boll is a shit director, watch Rampage. It is a disgusting, fascinating movie that will horrify and scar you, but it is sharply directed. At least the guy's got style, unlike most of the chumps directing endless streams of Hollywood Bollywood pablum idiocy.

Re:Far Cry? (0)

windcask (1795642) | more than 3 years ago | (#34290978)

You haf to shut up because I make ze Alone in Ze Dakk moofie and ze Bloodrayne moofie and otha moofies, and Michael Bay is a fucking retaahd, and you will like ze movies becahse I tell you to like zem, slave. Why, do you want to enter ze boxing match wif me, because getting hit in ze head is ze only way you will like zem? I am ze greatest director of all time.

Re:Far Cry? (2, Informative)

stms (1132653) | more than 3 years ago | (#34291026)

Stop Uwe Boll Now [petitiononline.com] . Don't wait until you or a loved one accidentally sees one of his movies.

Re:Far Cry? (2, Informative)

windcask (1795642) | more than 3 years ago | (#34291040)

He already said that it's been too long since that petition has started, and he wouldn't stop even if they got the signatures now. The fact is, he's just not that popular.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uwe_boll#Petition_to_retire [wikipedia.org]

Re:Far Cry? (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 3 years ago | (#34293420)

Stop Uwe Boll Now [petitiononline.com] . Don't wait until you or a loved one accidentally sees one of his movies.

{sigh} too late. Is there an antidote?

Re:Far Cry? (1)

dadioflex (854298) | more than 3 years ago | (#34291240)

Love the game, liked the movie. It's a three star movie that's a homage to the game, at best. Great lead, small budget, action film. Hey, if people don't like it I understand, but it's no worse than a LOT of other dreck we never hear about. Uwe for Dancing With The Stars in 2012? Huh? Hey, you haters are the ones making him a personality. I'm just a couch potato. Also liked Bloodrayne. In the Name of the King was poor but I watched it through; they could have done so much more with that cast.
There are FAR WORSE film makers out there, but because he messes with film adaptations he's a pariah. Sometimes I feel like I have a million ideas exploding in my head at once. It's disorientating. I think that's how Uwe feels when he gets up. God bless him. We have porn and we have Russ Meyer porn. We have a choice.

Hmmm. I may have declared that Uwe Boll is the Russ Meyer of game franchise movie production. I really hope that catches on.

Uwe, if you're out there... you rock, dude! I've liked more than two thirds of your movies that I've seen and I think you have an accomplished eye for a shot. Seriously, look at his films and deny the way he frames a shot.
Uwe, you crazy diamond, long may you shine.

Re:Far Cry? (1)

windcask (1795642) | more than 3 years ago | (#34291376)

Yeah, I am a hater. That's why I own "House of the Dead," "Alone in the Dark," "Alone in the Dark 2," "Bloodrayne," "Bloodrayne 2," "In the Name of the King," "1968 Tunnel Rats," and "Rampage." I plan on buying "Darfur" and "Perfect Storm" as soon as their prices come down on Amazon.

Just because you like a man's movies doesn't mean you can't make fun of him.

Re:Far Cry? (1)

windcask (1795642) | more than 3 years ago | (#34291384)

Correction: "Final Storm," not "Perfect Storm."

Re:Far Cry? (1)

ultranova (717540) | more than 3 years ago | (#34291246)

If people stole and presumably watch the movie Far Cry, *they* should be suing the studio for emotional distress or something.

Look, if you stab yourself with a meat cleaver, it's not the fault of whoever manufactured it. Or maybe it is, in the USA, since apparently spilling hot coffee on yourself is the fault of whoever brewed it...

*NO ONE* should be subjected to a Uwe Boll film.

Maybe you should replace the death penalty with having to watch Uwe Bolls filmography?

Re:Far Cry? (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | more than 3 years ago | (#34292034)

*NO ONE* should be subjected to a Uwe Boll film.

Maybe you should replace the death penalty with having to watch Uwe Bolls filmography?

Nope, that's unconstitutional. There are people that deserve to die... but forced exposure to a Uwe Bolls film is a form of cruel and unusual punishment.

Re:Far Cry? (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#34291460)

I'd actually recommend his take on Postal. As a film, I've seen far worse, and actually, it's a decent film. As long as you can stomach the things like Dave Foley completely nude, it works pretty well. Plus he spends quite a bit of time making fun of himself which is worth the price of admission.

Re:Far Cry? (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 3 years ago | (#34293416)

If people stole and presumably watch the movie Far Cry, *they* should be suing the studio for emotional distress or something.

*NO ONE* should be subjected to a Uwe Boll film.

I watched "Bloodrayne" without checking any of the credits first, and as I watched it I remember thinking, "Gagh, this is almost worthy of Uwe Boll."

Protection from copyright infringement? (2, Interesting)

Wingsy (761354) | more than 3 years ago | (#34290936)

In the tradition of having at least 1 off-topic post in any discussion, let me ask a question here. If I set my torrent client's upload bandwidth to zero I find that I still get reasonable download speeds but I upload nothing. I know the torrent crowd would like to hang me for that but doesn't that offer me protection from copyright infringement lawsuits?

Re:Protection from copyright infringement? (3, Informative)

demonlapin (527802) | more than 3 years ago | (#34290966)

You'll still be showing as "offering it for download", you just won't be actually allowing the download to take place.If you want to be truly safe, stick to Rapidshare and... the old way. The other thing. That Which We Do Not Mention. Because it's also download-only.

Re:Protection from copyright infringement? (3, Insightful)

windcask (1795642) | more than 3 years ago | (#34291000)

Yeah, according to modern interpretations of copyright laws, even using a service like that is ruled as complicity in the commission of a crime or something to that effect. It's a shame that there's really no other good way to get Linux ISOs or other perfectly legal large files without having to live in fear of getting sued...

Re:Protection from copyright infringement? (5, Insightful)

shentino (1139071) | more than 3 years ago | (#34291042)

The problem then isn't bittorrent.

It's sue-happy companies that honestly do not give a shit if they hit innocent victims.

http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/11/19/1339220/Anti-Piracy-Lawyers-Knew-Letters-Hit-Innocents [slashdot.org]

These fuckers need disbarred for sending frivolous legal notices.

I doubt they will, because that's just how corrupt the system is.

Re:Protection from copyright infringement? (1)

windcask (1795642) | more than 3 years ago | (#34291052)

I know that's how it technically should be, but the reality is that when you have enough lawyers you can bend the law to suit your needs. That was my only point.

Re:Protection from copyright infringement? (3, Interesting)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#34291482)

The making available theory was set aside a few years back. In order for it to be infringement you not only have to make it available, but somebody has to actually download it. And not only that, the party filing the suit has to prove that somebody actually downloaded it without authorization.

Meaning that whomever they've authorized to investigate can't download a copy and use that as evidence that the file was actually downloaded without authorization.

Re:Protection from copyright infringement? (1)

demonlapin (527802) | more than 3 years ago | (#34291568)

IA definitely NAL, YMMV. However, I answered as I did because he wanted to avoid the lawsuit, not just the fine. His policy probably would prevail in court, but it wouldn't be cheap.

Re:Protection from copyright infringement? (1)

misexistentialist (1537887) | more than 3 years ago | (#34295654)

Unless you are the original seeder, I don't see how that can be shown, since the pieces you upload to any individual will probably result in an unplayable file. Of course just having the file on your computer is violating copyright, so they don't really need too much proof.

Re:Protection from copyright infringement? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34292682)

If you want to be truly safe, stick to Rapidshare and... the old way. The other thing. That Which We Do Not Mention. Because it's also download-only.

+5 Informative: Usenet :)

Re:Protection from copyright infringement? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34293798)

Someone is uploading to Usenet, right?So it's not all download-only. Usenet access is being slowly revoked from major ISPs, so what else is there?

Re:Protection from copyright infringement? (1)

demonlapin (527802) | more than 3 years ago | (#34294006)

Buy an account on a real news provider, and don't be the guy uploading?

Re:Protection from copyright infringement? (1)

p0p0 (1841106) | more than 3 years ago | (#34290982)

I'm not sure how the monitoring of use or how the protocol works, but the fact that you are already connected to another peer and that they are uploading to you means they could probably get your IP from the list of leechers.

Re:Protection from copyright infringement? (1)

Wingsy (761354) | more than 3 years ago | (#34291014)

Yeah, I'm sure my IP is out there blinking like a neon sign, but don't they have to show that I was actually sending the stuff to someone?

Re:Protection from copyright infringement? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34291122)

No, generally they just produce a screen shot showing that your machine was offering it. ("your machine" being defined by your ISP saying that the IP address they got the screen shot from was the one you were using at the time which may or may not be accurate). As far as I can tell, they have never even tried to prove that it was distributed to anyone except the investigators themselves (who have downloaded it).

Re:Protection from copyright infringement? (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 3 years ago | (#34293482)

No, just that you were offering the files IIRC. It sounds like what you are looking is is a "Emule leecher mod" which doesn't show jack squat to anyone. Under sharing one just doesn't have anything, so as long as it is set to "nobody" on the shared files tab nobody is gonna see squat. So unless they are doing the sharing and writing down the ones who take the bait's IP (which I don't think you can get them for downloading, just uploading) then you'd be safe. Of course your speed won't be nearly as good as BT, but there you go.

Re:Protection from copyright infringement? (1)

random_ID (1822712) | more than 3 years ago | (#34291510)

No. I once got a DMCA violation warning email from my ISP for downloading the complete Harry Potter series... which I hadn't downloaded. After a little digging I realized that I had connected to a torrent containing 1000+ books for less than 5 min the month before, and Potter was in it.

The publisher hired someone to watchdog torrents and record IP addresses, then sent out warnings to the relevant ISP. No lawsuit was involved, but if there had been I'd be bankrupt from either an out-of-court settlement or from court costs (and probably still would have lost).

Missing tags: uweboll donotwant (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34290988)

Subject says it all. :-)

Captcha: "denounce". :)

Awww (1)

WillyWanker (1502057) | more than 3 years ago | (#34290990)

Awww, extortion is sooo haaaard... poo poo pity. Better luck next time. Wah-waaaahhh, thanks for playing, buh-bye now!

Re:Awww (1)

shentino (1139071) | more than 3 years ago | (#34291046)

Extortion is effective if you can't prove they did it.

Re:Awww (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#34291492)

There's plenty of evidence that the RIAA studios are engaged in extortion. I mean "pay us without our showing you the evidence or we file suit" is pretty much extortion by any reasonable definition assuming that they don't offer to show the evidence or provide it for review by the person's attorney.

In the other news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34290994)

... 4500 People sue Uwe Boll for violation of the geneva convention, they want their two hours back.

Well ... (3, Funny)

thomst (1640045) | more than 3 years ago | (#34291008)

... looks like her verdict was a (ahem) far cry from what Uwe Boll was expecting.

Re:Well ... (1)

Nugoo (1794744) | more than 3 years ago | (#34291264)

Where's a -1: Funny when you need it?

By the way, you forgot the "YEAAAAAAAAAAAAH!"

"Crippled"? "Stunning defeat"? (5, Informative)

Theaetetus (590071) | more than 3 years ago | (#34291110)

Uh, you do know that a 12(b)(2) dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction is not a dismissal with prejudice or on the merits? They can simply refile this elsewhere, without the new judge being bound by this dismissal. 12(b)(2) motions are procedural, and don't reach the actual case.

Re:"Crippled"? "Stunning defeat"? (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34291188)

Uh, you do know that starting your post in such a condescending manner makes your actual message less likely to be received?

Re:"Crippled"? "Stunning defeat"? (4, Interesting)

kennykb (547805) | more than 3 years ago | (#34291368)

Well, it's at least a start. Now instead of having one case against defendants across the whole US, the lawyers have to refile in all 92 district courts, multiplying their expenses considerably. (Particularly since a lawyer who files pro hac vice in many of the districts must retain local counsel.) Moreover, the defendants will be sued in their home districts. They don't need to retain counsel and appear in DC to contest their cases. (If a distant court finds a way to assert personal jurisdiction, you're well advised either to prosecute an interlocutory appeal or settle, because the expense of simply making all the required appearances in the distant state will be ruinous.)

This was also a mandatory first move on the defendants' part. Once you've filed any paperwork with the court without contesting its jurisdiction, you've lost your chance. If you've been sued in the wrong place, you get only one short opportunity to tell that to the judge. After that, you're deemed to have acquiesced on the point. That's unbelievably harsh against pro se defendants, who may not have even been able to find a lawyer (especially since the notice served against them states that they need fo find one in the distant state) by the time they're required to file an answer, but it's the law.

So it's not a major victory, but it would have gone considerably worse for the defendants had the judge asserted personal jurisdiction against them.

"pro hac vice" (1)

KingAlanI (1270538) | more than 3 years ago | (#34295044)

pro hac vice = as Wikipedia says, "for this occasion" - when a lawyer from outside of the area asked to be temporarily allowed to practice in the state for the purposes of that particular case

Re:"Crippled"? "Stunning defeat"? (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#34291506)

Right, however it does greatly increase the cost of their extortion racket. As they then have to start filing in the numerous courts that actually have jurisdiction. And ultimately the attorneys who tried such a blatant abuse of the court ought to be disbarred. You can't just raft a huge number of people together into a single suit without having a plausible theory for their relationship together.

USCG? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34291116)

What does the US Coast Guard have to do with this?

They're the puddle police.

Q - how many Coast Guardsmen does it take to have a burial at sea?
A - Twelve - six to toss the coffin overboard, six to stomp it into the mud!

about time (1)

binaryseraph (955557) | more than 3 years ago | (#34291540)

It was starting to look like the RIAA (I realize this isnt the RIAA, but I'm throwing them into the same category as the RIAA) was making more money off suing pirates than actually gross sales. What a hell of a business model.

What the hell? (1)

0123456 (636235) | more than 3 years ago | (#34291850)

The people who downloaded it should be suing her for allowing Uwe Boll to continue making movies.

IAMALS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34291852)

We've gone over PJ arising from communications through the internet. Good luck finding minimum contacts with D.C. to establish PJ over the vast majority of the P2P sharerers. I'd guess it would shrink the pool by 4400+.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?