Hollywood (ang mo dua kee) goes after illegal downloaders in S'pore

[virus]

Re: 500+ sinkies tua kee liao Land of the Free do not allow Freedom to download

what happens if it is auto downloaded by virus. My computer has a lot of auto downloaded and auto installed shits and rubbish :eek

i never auto download... pls dont accuse me, your computer got shit ever since you met eastindie. the rubbish comes from JohnTan, zeroo, stuffycunt and Agrodunnowhatfark... all FAP Ibs

 

[sense]

Re: 500+ sinkies tua kee liao Land of the Free do not allow Freedom to download

Why It's Getting Harder to Sue Illegal Movie Downloaders
Some federal judges are becoming skeptical of the methods copyright holders use to identify culprits.
Mon Feb. 17, 2014 7:00 AM EST

The company behind the Oscar-nominated film Dallas Buyers Club sued 31 people in a federal district court in Texas this month for allegedly using the legal file-sharing service BitTorrent to download the movie illegally. The lawsuit is one of thousands that have been brought by companies against BitTorrent users in recent years, in an effort to crack down on Americans who are stealing movies, music, porn, books, and software. But it could have a tough time. Recently, several federal judges have ruled that key information—computer internet protocol (IP) addresses—used by film studios and others to target supposed thefts is insufficient proof to proceed with the lawsuits. And copyright experts say that even though companies are still winning lots of settlements, these firms are going after fewer plaintiffs at once than they were a few years ago. This suggests that their ability to pursue large piracy cases has been hampered.

"I think the trend is towards judges looking at [piracy] cases more carefully than they used to, requiring more upfront investigation," says Mitch Stoltz, a staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). "There may always be some judges who will simply rubber-stamp these cases…but there are fewer of those judges than before."

When companies bring copyright lawsuits, they often don't know the identities of the alleged pirates. (This was true in the Dallas Buyers Club case.) Instead, they use IP addresses, unique numbers assigned to each device on an internet network, to track the computers that have been used for illegal downloading. Then they ask a judge to issue a subpoena to the internet service providers, so they can obtain the name of the person associated with that IP address. If the judge approves this request, plaintiffs can make additional demands, such as seeking a copy of the person's hard drive. Armed with this information, the plaintiff then typically forces the defendants to settle. The average settlement ranges from $2,000 to $5,000, says Jeffrey Antonelli, a Chicago attorney who has represented numerous people accused of illegal BitTorrent use.

But this strategy isn't perfect. "IP addresses are continuing to be less and less of an indicator of the identity of a particular person or computer on the net," says R. Polk Wagner, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania who specializes in intellectual-property law. The name connected to an IP address usually identifies who is the paying the internet bill, not who is doing the downloading. Ten years ago, most people didn't use wireless routers at home, but now, more than 60 percent of people do. And all the computers using a single wireless router have the same IP address. So if your tech-savvy neighbor is piggybacking off your wireless internet—and illegally downloading Mean Girls—you could take the heat. And Stoltz, from the Electronic Frontier Foundation, points out that when people receive settlement letters, they are often scared into paying up—"even when they didn't download illegally, or had valid defenses."

Here's an example of how imprecise IP addresses can be in pinpointing a specific computer: In 2012, law enforcement tried to catch a person making online threats to local police in Indiana by tracing the person's IP address to a specific house. After a SWAT team broke down the door and tossed a couple of flashbangs into the entryway, they realized they'd gotten the wrong place. The home had an open wifi router. The threats were coming from down the street.

Recently, some judges have become more wary about granting subpoenas to companies who come to them with only IP addresses. Last month, a judge in the US District Court for the Western District of Washington at Seattle dismissed a case brought by the studio that produced Elf-Man—a direct-to-video Christmas movie—against 152 anonymous defendants. According to the judge, "simply identifying the account holder associated with an IP address tells us very little about who actually downloaded Elf-Man." In May 2013, a federal judge in California came down hard and issued a $81,320 fine against copyright holders that were "porno trolling" or going after people accused of downloading porn illegally. According to the judge, the plaintiff, Ingenuity 13 LLC, relied too heavily on IP addresses and did not do an adequate enough investigation to bring claims. And in May 2012, a federal district judge in New York reached a similar conclusion about IP addresses, as did a federal judge in Illinois the year before. Wagner notes, "Judges are increasingly realizing that [IP addresses] don't have a high degree of reliability, and they're not an accurate representation of who has control of the computer."

Antonelli, the Chicago attorney, takes a different position. "Sure, we've seen a sprinkling of courts that have taken this position," he says, "but in my opinion, it's not enough, especially when you look at just how many lawsuits are being filed. I don't see a trend yet." He notes, however, that studios are no longer going after tens of thousands of plaintiffs at once, like they were doing from 2011 to late 2012. In 2011, for example, the producers for Hurt Locker sued almost 25,000 BitTorrent users—and almost all the claims were voluntarily dismissed by the studio, because it was taking too long to track down all of the defendants via their IP addresses. "That's certainly changed. Typically we see no more than 100 defendants…I think that was a smart move on the plaintiffs. Courts were losing patience," says Antonelli. Wanger adds, "It's possible companies think that if they sue fewer people who are doing more significant activities, that's a more defensible public relations approach." (The Motion Picture Association of America and the Recording Industry Association of America didn't provide comment to Mother Jones as to whether studios are now going after fewer plaintiffs.)

For now, whether or not the Dallas Buyers Club producers will be able to successfully subpoena the alleged downloaders remains to be seen. (An attorney representing the producers did not return multiple requests for comment.) "It really depends on the judge assigned to the case," says Stoltz. He says movies studios should be able to bring claims that are plausible, based on the facts they gather before suing.

The founder of the website Die Troll Die, who goes by the name John Doe, says that he started his website to fight alleged copyright trolls after being sued for copyright infringement—something he claims he didn't do. He says he's happy to see that the tide is turning against companies using IP addresses to bring lawsuits. He told Mother Jones via email, "I can say first-hand that being threatened with a lawsuit because someone else used your internet connection is a horrible experience."

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/02/bittorrent-illegal-downloads-ip-address-lawsuit

 

[krafty]

Dallas Buyers Club case: Uphill task to sue users, say lawyers

By Irene Tham Technology Correspondent

The copyright owner of Oscar-winning film Dallas Buyers Club may have an uphill task suing consumers here for having allegedly downloaded the movie illegally online, say lawyers.
The biggest challenge is to identify the actual people who had infringed the film's copyright. Another reason cited is the high cost of a civil suit.
A company of Hollywood producer Voltage Pictures, which owns the film rights, identified more than 500 Singapore Internet protocol (IP) addresses, from subscribers of the three major Internet service providers (ISPs) - Singtel, StarHub and M1 - where the movie was downloaded illegally.
Voltage's company Dallas Buyers Club LLC has obtained a Singapore High Court order to compel all three ISPs to release the details of subscribers linked to the IP addresses in question.
"But the rights holder also needs to establish a link between an impugned IP address to a person," said lawyer Bryan Tan, a technology partner at Pinsent Masons MPillay.
Establishing the link is tough because families share the same Wi-Fi connection, and as such, have the same IP address. Some Wi-Fi connections are also not secured and are freely accessed by anyone. "It is unclear whether the law will presume liability for the Internet account holder," said Mr Tan.
Starting a class action suit is also a costly affair, to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars, for rights owners.
"The cost is dependent largely on how many people are defending and the defence raised," said intellectual property lawyer Cyril Chua of ATMD Bird & Bird.
Dallas Buyers Club, whose parent company Voltage has been on a global anti-piracy rampage, is represented by local law firm Samuel Seow Law Corporation here.
In October last year, Singtel received a letter from Dallas Buyers Club's lawyers, alleging that some of Singtel's subscribers had illegally downloaded the film. It asked for the identities of some 150 subscribers.
Singtel said it refused to provide the information to protect customers' confidential information. Even in court, Singtel said its lawyers questioned if the evidence provided by Dallas Buyers Club was "sufficiently detailed and clear" to support its claims of infringement.
Dallas Buyers Club also made similar "pre-action discovery" applications at the High Court to force StarHub and M1 to release customer details.
The film company succeeded in its application against all three ISPs.
Over the weekend, Samuel Seow Law Corporation sent out its first batch of letters to Internet users here asking for a written offer of damages and costs within three days of receiving the letter. It is not known how many have responded to the letter.
"Most cases of this nature are settled without commencing a court action or prior to a court assessment of damages," said Mr Lau Kok Keng, intellectual property lawyer at Rajah & Tann Singapore.
Court proceedings are usually not pursued in cases of small-scale downloads as the real value of the infringement is only the price of a licensed movie download or a DVD, plus legal fees and investigation costs, he added.
Alternatively, copyright holders can claim statutory damages, which can go up to $10,000 per title per person, under Singapore's Copyright Act.
"It is awarded in circumstances where the rights owners cannot prove actual losses," said Mr Chua of ATMD Bird & Bird. But these damages have not been awarded against consumers so far, he added.
A civil suit, if pursued by Dallas Buyers Club, could set the precedent for more of such lawsuits. But the consumer backlash may deter many from taking this route, said digital media lawyer Matt Pollins at Olswang.
"Piracy is an emotive issue and if a large portion of the Internet community takes exception to you suing consumers, then that can be quite damaging for your brand," Mr Pollins said.
"It is for this reason that the Recording Industry Association of America announced in 2008 that it would stop suing consumers directly."
[email protected]
Copyright © 2015 Singapore Press Holdings. All rights reserved.

 

[zookeeper]

Re: Dallas Buyers Club case: Uphill task to sue users, say lawyers

What if it was the 12 year old kid in the house that downloaded the movie?

 

[Narong Wongwan]

Re: Dallas Buyers Club case: Uphill task to sue users, say lawyers

Dun have illusions the local govt linked ISPs will protect their customers confidentiality.....
Soon they will roll over and comply diligently.....
Happened before and Singtel was the first to crack then....StarHub at least put up a small fight then

 

[Sinkie]

Re: Dallas Buyers Club case: Uphill task to sue users, say lawyers

Nonsense.....especially the telcos......do not even know the laws, how to fight for its subscribers?

honeypot traps cannot be used to catch downloaders, etc, etc, etc. Want to claim, copyright owners can only claim against
the website that provides the downloads, and not from the downloaders, for no one knows if anything that one downloads is protected by copyrights or not, if the website says it is free and public domain or that it had got the rights to distribute the movie free, then the onus lies with the webswite, not the downloaders. KNN, simple case also don't know how to defend, these stoopig telcos!

Useless piece of shit, these telcos!

 

[JHolmesJr]

Re: Dallas Buyers Club case: Uphill task to sue users, say lawyers

auto download….sounds a bit like the auto talk-shit mode that 99% of the morons here are on.

 

[Sideswipe]

the necessity of hard evidence ? the police have to raid the homes of the child porn downloaders or the illegal online gambling operators to get the hard evidence. they don't arrest and charge them solely because of an IP address, that is only circumstantial evidence, not good hard evidence in court. intellectual property, different law ?

 

[Sideswipe]

Re: 500+ sinkies tua kee liao Land of the Free do not allow Freedom to download

i never auto download... pls dont accuse me, your computer got shit ever since you met eastindie. the rubbish comes from JohnTan, zeroo, stuffycunt and Agrodunnowhatfark... all FAP Ibs

yeah, must be those FAP IBs whom stole the IP addresses and downloaded that shit movie. the company lawyers should make a request to the police to raid their homes and get the hard evidence.

 

[PaulStanley]

Disclaimer : No software installation. Try it at your own risk. You have an option not to try it. If u are feeling insecure, set your (Windoze) OS to system restore before installation and scan with your anti virus but like i've said there's no software to install.

https://torguard.net/checkmytorrentipaddress.php

 

[xebay11]

Re: Dallas Buyers Club case: Uphill task to sue users, say lawyers

Dun have illusions the local govt linked ISPs will protect their customers confidentiality.....
Soon they will roll over and comply diligently.....
Happened before and Singtel was the first to crack then....StarHub at least put up a small fight then

So much talk about Personal Data Protection these days, cannot anyhow reveal information right?

 

[flagster]

Re: Dallas Buyers Club case: Uphill task to sue users, say lawyers

Better switch to ViewQuest or MyRepublic?

 

[sense]

Re: Dallas Buyers Club case: Uphill task to sue users, say lawyers

Having reviewed DBC evidence based on the published lawsuits that they have filed in the USA, I am certain that the DBC evidence against the bittorrent users/defendents is not credible.

I am unable to explicitly expose the unsoundness of DBC evidence as this is an open forum.

However, for those affected and have legal representation, ask your legal counsel to review the DBC actual evidence against the bittorrent users and your legal counsel (together with his IT expert) should be able to come to the same conclusion as mine.

Take care there.

 

[Leongsam]

Re: Dallas Buyers Club case: Uphill task to sue users, say lawyers

if the website says it is free and public domain or that it had got the rights to distribute the movie free, then the onus lies with the webswite, not the downloaders. KNN, simple case also don't know how to defend, these stoopig telcos!

Useless piece of shit, these telcos!

There are no websites involved in torrents.

 

[PaulStanley]

Re: Dallas Buyers Club case: Uphill task to sue users, say lawyers

Better switch to ViewQuest or MyRepublic?

MyRepublic are goods friends of MDA

 

[Untouchables]

Dallas Buyers Club case: Uphill task to sue users, say lawyers

Hurdles include identifying actual offender, costly suits

Published on Apr 9, 2015 8:11 AM

A cinema still from the movie Dallas Buyers Club starring Jared Leto (left) and Matthew McConaughey. -- PHOTO: SHAW

By Irene Tham Technology Correspondent

The copyright owner of Oscar-winning film Dallas Buyers Club may have an uphill task suing consumers here for having allegedly downloaded the movie illegally online, say lawyers.

The biggest challenge is to identify the actual people who had infringed the film's copyright. Another reason cited is the high cost of a civil suit.

A company of Hollywood producer Voltage Pictures, which owns the film rights, identified more than 500 Singapore Internet protocol (IP) addresses, from subscribers of the three major Internet service providers (ISPs) - Singtel, StarHub and M1 - where the movie was downloaded illegally.

Voltage's company Dallas Buyers Club LLC has obtained a Singapore High Court order to compel all three ISPs to release the details of subscribers linked to the IP addresses in question.

"But the rights holder also needs to establish a link between an impugned IP address to a person," said lawyer Bryan Tan, a technology partner at Pinsent Masons MPillay.

Establishing the link is tough because families share the same Wi-Fi connection, and as such, have the same IP address. Some Wi-Fi connections are also not secured and are freely accessed by anyone. "It is unclear whether the law will presume liability for the Internet account holder," said Mr Tan.

Starting a class action suit is also a costly affair, to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars, for rights owners.

"The cost is dependent largely on how many people are defending and the defence raised," said intellectual property lawyer Cyril Chua of ATMD Bird & Bird.

Dallas Buyers Club, whose parent company Voltage has been on a global anti-piracy rampage, is represented by local law firm Samuel Seow Law Corporation here.

In October last year, Singtel received a letter from Dallas Buyers Club's lawyers, alleging that some of Singtel's subscribers had illegally downloaded the film. It asked for the identities of some 150 subscribers.

Singtel said it refused to provide the information to protect customers' confidential information. Even in court, Singtel said its lawyers questioned if the evidence provided by Dallas Buyers Club was "sufficiently detailed and clear" to support its claims of infringement.

Dallas Buyers Club also made similar "pre-action discovery" applications at the High Court to force StarHub and M1 to release customer details.

The film company succeeded in its application against all three ISPs.

Over the weekend, Samuel Seow Law Corporation sent out its first batch of letters to Internet users here asking for a written offer of damages and costs within three days of receiving the letter. It is not known how many have responded to the letter.

"Most cases of this nature are settled without commencing a court action or prior to a court assessment of damages," said Mr Lau Kok Keng, intellectual property lawyer at Rajah & Tann Singapore.

Court proceedings are usually not pursued in cases of small-scale downloads as the real value of the infringement is only the price of a licensed movie download or a DVD, plus legal fees and investigation costs, he added.

Alternatively, copyright holders can claim statutory damages, which can go up to $10,000 per title per person, under Singapore's Copyright Act.

"It is awarded in circumstances where the rights owners cannot prove actual losses," said Mr Chua of ATMD Bird & Bird. But these damages have not been awarded against consumers so far, he added.

A civil suit, if pursued by Dallas Buyers Club, could set the precedent for more of such lawsuits. But the consumer backlash may deter many from taking this route, said digital media lawyer Matt Pollins at Olswang.

"Piracy is an emotive issue and if a large portion of the Internet community takes exception to you suing consumers, then that can be quite damaging for your brand," Mr Pollins said.

"It is for this reason that the Recording Industry Association of America announced in 2008 that it would stop suing consumers directly."

[email protected]

 

[da dick]

Re: Dallas Buyers Club case: Uphill task to sue users, say lawyers

MyRepublic are goods friends of MDA

MR are just ex-employees of starhub, they just as no-balls no-brain. too bad pacnet went full-corporate and told all their home users to sign up singtel, their biggest enemy.

 

[Sinkie]

Re: Dallas Buyers Club case: Uphill task to sue users, say lawyers

There are no websites involved in torrents.

Sorry, what you mean no websites involved in torrents?

In any case, the court needs to read and understand copyright laws. Copyright laws pertain to the distribution, reproducing and essentially copying the works of the copyright owners......for the public. This automatically excludes any downloaders who took the content from the copyright infringer, which is the website or if it is in dvd or cd format, the one who infringes, and not the downloaders or the buyer or the viewer. Copyright laws are different from patent laws.

Let me give you a simple example. For example, a kopitiam streams a copyrighted content and makes it public viewing for its patrons. Public here is actually private, since it is happening in the premise of operation. Patrons who get into the kopitiam will buy a cup of kopi-o and watch the contents shown. Is the viewers liable for having infringe the copyrights? Hell no, of course not.

Now to make it a bit more complicated than this. Supposed the kopitiam has a website and allows the contents to be streamed on its website and it is not a paid website (does not matter paid or not paid anyway). Any internet user can google for this website and stream the contents. Now, is google liable for publishing the website in its search findings, as in is google complicit? Is the internet user liable for infringement for going to this website and viewing? How about offline viewing, whereby the contents are downloaded offline to be viewed at the user's convenience? Of course not. To say that the downloader has infringed copyrights laws, the copyright owner has to satisfy the court that copyrights laws have been infringed and is not solely that someone has downloaded some contents. But mostly, most judges are corporate asslickers themselves and dumbfucks themselves to fully comprehend this moot point.

 

[Leongsam]

Re: Dallas Buyers Club case: Uphill task to sue users, say lawyers

Sorry, what you mean no websites involved in torrents?

In any case, the court needs to read and understand copyright laws. Copyright laws pertain to the distribution, reproducing and essentially copying the works of the copyright owners......for the public. This automatically excludes any downloaders who took the content from the copyright infringer, which is the website or if it is in dvd or cd format, the one who infringes, and not the downloaders or the buyer or the viewer. Copyright laws are different from patent laws.

Torrent users download stuff from each other not from a website. There is no central distributor.

When you enable seeding, you're distributing the content as it downloads and forever after as long as the file still sits in the designated folder.

 

[Hasbro]

Download Dallas Buyers Club illegally? Filmmaker launches unprecedented crackdown on pirates

PUBLISHED : Monday, 13 April, 2015, 6:17pm
UPDATED : Monday, 13 April, 2015, 9:55pm

Reuters in Singapore

Matthew McConaughey in Dallas Buyers Club. People who download the film illegally are now being targeted. Photo: SCMP Pictures

Academy Award-winning movie Dallas Buyers Club is earning fame in Asia, not for its cinematic merits, but as a cautionary tale for thousands of people who could face legal action for illegally sharing the 2013 film.

The film’s co-producer Voltage Pictures has obtained court orders in Singapore and Australia, forcing Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to reveal the names of hundreds of suspected offenders who downloaded and shared the film illegally.

The scale of the crackdown has been unprecedented, identifying more than 500,000 unlawful distributors worldwide, according to Voltage Pictures.

The film’s co-producer Voltage Pictures has obtained court orders in Singapore and Australia, forcing Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to reveal the names of suspected offenders. Photo: SCMP Pictures

“We can only pursue a small proportion, but the hope is that that will be sufficient to raise awareness of this massive problem,” said Michael Wickstrom, vice-president of Royalties and Music Administration at Voltage Pictures, said. in an email.

The film, for which Matthew McConaughey won an Oscar for best actor, is about a homophobic, rodeo-loving Texan who contracts AIDS and becomes an unlikely saviour for gay patients and drug addicts desperate for treatment.

The legal case has sent shivers down the spine of illegal downloaders globally.

“Everyone is now warning each other not to download illegally online,” said a 24-year-old Singaporean studying in the United States, who wished to be known only as Clement.

Voltage Pictures has not demanded specific damages, but alleged infringers are being invited to make a settlement offer. Failure to comply will result in legal action, said Samuel Seow Law Corporation, legal representative for Voltage Pictures in Singapore.

But Wendy Low, a lawyer from Rajah & Tann who has been contacted by some alleged infringers for legal advice, said court proceedings were usually not pursued in cases of small-scale downloads because of the legal costs.

“The damages recoverable may be pegged to the price of a licensed movie download or a DVD, and this may outweigh the legal fees and investigation costs involved,” she said.