would be nice to done your crap discussion elsewhere, at start, this thread shouldnt be there , thx mr coombs ..............................
------------------------------------------------------------- class101 Jr. Researcher Hat-Squad.com ------------------------------------------------------------- ----- Original Message ----- From: "AJ C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Jason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, April 08, 2005 4:48 AM Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] Re: Case ID 51560370 - Notice ofClaimedInfringement > Civil vs Criminal cases dude, you're imposing some aspects of criminal > cases upon civil proceedings and that's not how they work. In a > criminal trial it's a dramatized version of reasonable doubt, civil > proceedings must show 51%+ responsibility on the part of the defendant > (much, much easier and why the powers that be choose this route). Not > to mention it's their content (no harm, no foul on downloading > something they already own) and MPAA/RIAA/blah have set precedence for > proactively tracking (either themselves or appointed parties) > file-sharing events (method of access is not unlawful and cannot be > brought into contention...is BitTorrent inherently illegal when used > for legit purposes? -- nope). > > If bb knocks on your door then you argue evidentiary process otherwise > in a civil proceeding you bear more of a burden to show you *didn't* > do what they're claiming (right or wrong they do have the legal upper > hand with their records versus essentially a verbal denial at best). > > 'Probably just easier to not download the crap and stay off the radar, $0.02. > > On Apr 7, 2005 7:26 PM, Jason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > IANAL but it seems this thought process is broken. > > > > Jason Coombs wrote: > > > Come on, people, get a clue. > > > > > > The copyright owner has authorized the forensic investigators to > > > download the infringing material. If it was there, according to a > > > forensic investigator, then you have to prove it was not. > > > > This position does not hold water, there is no way for them to not break > > the same laws they would be attempting to enforce by performing the > > investigation from a remote location and without a valid search warrant. > > You do not have to prove that you did not have the content, you only > > have to prove that you have content that appears very similar to the > > remote reviewer. > > > > If you were to place a copyrighted work of your own there then would > > they be forced to download it and break the law in order to prove that > > it was not the other copyright owners property? If they show in the logs > > as having attempted a download does this make them guilty? > > > > It is as simple as creating a server that will return filenames and > > hashes found on the network but actually provide /dev/random for the > > download or your copyrighted content with an engineered hash collision. > > > > It only takes one case to prevent the civil suit from being filed. To > > file the suit would be admitting to having broken the law. You cannot > > bring suit when the basis of the suit is itself illegal activity. > > _______________________________________________ > > Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. > > Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html > > Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/ > > > > > -- > AJC > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > _______________________________________________ > Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. > Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html > Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/ _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
