Court quashes subpoena for names of users who talked torrenting in 2011 thread.
Reddit beats film industry, won’t have to identify users who admitted torrenting::Court quashes subpoena for names of users who talked torrenting in 2011 thread.
I've never torrented anything, not even once. I always pay for things legitimately...no matter how hard it is to keep track of everything you're paying for or how expensive it gets to pay the same movies again and again when the billion dollar corporations randomly decide I don't own something I paid for all of a sudden. I never pirate anything.
You should only use good VPNs that are lying about their no-logs policies like Nord, Express, Private internet access and surfshark. Never TorGuard or Mullvad. TorGuard and Mullvad actually had to prove in court that they don't record their users. So they're bad and immoral for not being cucks for the establishment.
Definitely don't get torguard's proxy service to go with torguard. And definitely don't use torguard's proxy service inside of your torrenting client.
Like I said I've never pirated anything in my entire life and I never will.
Everything I ever wrote about me pirating anything was also a lie to get upvotes! A higher Karma score on reddit means a higher standing. Which is why I always lied about having pirated things.
Now here comes the truth. I've never pirated anything, that would be wrong and immoral!
I don't get the hate. I enjoy shitting on reddit as much as the next guy, but defending their user's right to remain anonymous in court has been one thing they've got a pretty solid record on.
Imagine how hard (impossible )it would be for them to actually moderate every interaction on their site? Standing up for users makes sense because they're next in the firing line.
Nothing on Reddit can be proved to have come from a "user", and it's been that way since the "Great Spezzing of 2016", where 'spez' admitted to falsification and alteration of 'user' content.
I mean even IRL, people talk so much crap who knows what’s actually true. Imagine if we locked up everyone for what they say. The “film industry” is insulting for even trying to push people into guilt by nothing more than what they type on a website.
Some people in the UK have been locked up for making offensive jokes.
I'm in favor of free speech for everyone, even the shitty right-wingers I hate. The solution to bad speech is good speech, not censorship. Not corporate censorship, not government censorship, not corporate censorship on the order of government censorship.
Everything can be proved if you're using INTERNET. Normies/Regulars dont understand how internet work. Google/ Facebook/Reddit is not internet.
Source: I am a computer science engineer
It seems like YOU don't know how the internet works.
Logging of information is an active task, it doesn't just come with the internet as a concept. Your ISP doesn't know what you posted on Reddit and reddit doesn't know who you are behind your natted ip.
Reddit might have logs and your ISP might have other logs, and they may be able to work together with other organizations to deduce information, but that is not a given.
It is entirely possible for a website to not log ANY information about it's users. I have an occasionally online website like this, I don't even know the amount of bandwidth being used unless I actively monitor the connection. Additionally, a proper tls connection means your ISP doesn't know what data you send to a website, so if the website doesn't take logs and the ISP can't sniff traffic, how can you prove what was done?
Fundamentally, the internet is just a connection between a bunch of computers, there are no intrinsic properties of the internet that leave a trail of evidence. The computer you are connecting to may choose to log your connection and activity, but it isn't required for the internet to function.
Your statement is a conflation of what can happen and what does happen.
I could open sockets between two computers and send encrypted bytes directly between them with keys shared beforehand in person if I wanted, the only thing that can be proved is that the connection was established (and when). This method is still using the internet. Short of cracking the encryption (which would be world wide news) the contents of that communication would be not be able to be ascertained by an eavesdropping third party without express consent from a member of the conversation.
Tl:Dr, a website with tls, no logging, and no DNS, would have very limited information abailable to 3rd parties (effectively limited to ISPs only being able to deduce when and how often you access the site) and 3rd parties would not have the ability to prove any specific activity occured on the page. The internet, as a concept (interconnection, IP, tcp), is not even aware of the idea of 'proving' something, any effort done to contrary is performed on a layer of abstraction above these protocols.
People communicate in untraceable ways on the internet every single day.
In the article, not one comment mentioned "piracy". They only mention "torrenting" which is not illegal and has absolutely nothing to do with these movie companies. They are grasping at straws here
While I do not think they were in the right to have the users “unmasked”, my understanding is that the users in question were talking about how the Austin internet provider, Grande, was good for torrenting, so the attempt to unmask the users wasn’t meant to get the users in trouble but to show that Grande benefitted financially from a lax policy towards pirating, so them not mentioning piracy in their comments wasn’t necessarily the end of the conversation, if they were willing to say now that it was in reference to piracy. I do think it sounds like grasping at straws, but I imagine the potential value they were hoping to get from Grande was worth that grasping to them
How the FUCK is piracy supposed to be the ISP's problem? That's like going after a florist because someone bought their flowers and then illegally planted them around the neighborhood.
Spez may still be a corporate sellout but at least in this instance he did the right thing, probably because he determined ratting out users who pirated wouldn't make him money
He didn't do it for you, he didn't do it for us. He did it for himself.
If news got out that Reddit violated anonymity, the site would be dead before the end of the week. This was a move to protect his shareholders, nothing more.
Serious question: Is admitting that you did something illegal in a conversation enough to be convicted of a crime? For example, if I say "I bought a small amount of weed from another kid at school and smoked it last year", is my statement alone enough to convict me of a crime? To clarify, they don't know a date, they don't know a place, they don't know who I bought it from, they don't know how much I bought, or how much I smoked. They really don't even know if it actually happened (sometimes people say things happened that didn't actually happen, gasp).
No. You could claim to have murdered someone, and they may detain you for this for some time, but without evidence of a crime I don't think they can charge you and definitely can't convict you.
Jesus, your reply reminds me of an old Reddit/4chan post (can't remember which, probably 4Chan) I read about on Reddit years ago about a guy who admitted to killing his wife. He posted images and described how he did it and where. I believe he ended up getting arrested the next day. There were people who were in the hometown it happened at, posting news articles and links to videos where they had seen it on the news.
This is most likely civil law, not criminal. Criminal copyright infringement is harder to prove and generally has to be on a larger scale and for profit, depending on laws in your country.
Is admitting to breaking a license agreement enough for a conviction if you say exactly which license, then probably, depending on circumstances and specific local laws. Is it enough if you just say you did it, no. The licenser needs to at least prove they were the ones you "harmed" or they have no standing to sue. But if they already have logs from your ISP, then it might still be useful evidence.
You always need corroborating evidence to convict based solely on a confession. Does not have to be much, but uiu need some extra fact tying the person to the crime.
No but depending on the crime and the context it can be enough to get a search warrant but for your weed hypothetical no by the time they acted on it any other evidence would be gone so there's no point in investigating unless you admitted to something bigger like growing or dealing
Convicted? No, but it might be enough to open an investigation or get a warrant.
Though even then, depending on the crime and circumstances (severity/time passed/likeliness of the crime having ocurred) they might not even bother.
If a confession of crime was all it took to convict then any crazy person could walk into a police station and confess to any number of things, but it obviously wouldnt be right to just take them on their word and lock them up.
Well they can get your IP and spy on you so they can probably grab the where. Even the house hold you live in.
Although they don’t even need your IP these days.all these capitalists are selling your information to everyone on a silver platter. So they already know exactly who you are. That part wasn’t the hard part.
Maybe if they have a list of buyer suspects they can guess who is the seller in that region . As far as how much you bought, or how much you smoked, it really doesn’t matter. If it’s illegal, any amount is considered illegal.
If you do lie it’s a really dumb lie that got you watched now. it’s also common that if someone guilty does something stupid like admit to something, they quickly say they were lying.
Doubt it. Most Lemmy instances are run by one guy on a spare PC. They're not set up to deal with legal requests, versus the police just barging in and taking the PC, while all the neighbours look on and assume you're a paedo.
While there doesn't seem to be an IP address field in the Lemmy schema, they could always get it out of the logs. There is an email address field, but I think that's only used for initial signup, verification and resetting your password, so if you used a temporary one they'd have nothing to give.
I don't know what the film industry would even do with the info if Reddit gave it to them. Likely just more bluster to deter casual pirates into thinking there are consequences to downloading the odd movie.
"I wanted them to think I was one of them so that they would admit their piracy to me and I could turn them in."
"Yes, I admit it, I pirated (name of public domain movie)!"
Or just don't take the stand and let your lawyer figure it out. Unless they have another file filled with evidence that an IP you owned was used for piracy and they were just looking for some kind of evidence it was you using it, I don't think they have much of a case.
Edit: apparently Lemmy removes rather than escapes angled brackets, so replaced them with regular brackets.
Does your local small to medium instance user have enough money to not get hamstrung by a big film industry's legal team?
Edit... not that I agree with the result but I think the question I am answering with rhetorically answers the original question, unfortunately.
Edit 2: If all this crypto stuff worked as well as it was described, it would be cool if there was a DAO or basically a mutually voted funds account that could store and send crypto funds to a lemmy instance owner to fund lawyers, should a legal case against a major lemmy instance come under legal fire.
I know that in France Both from HADOPI era to now ARCOM, you can be trialed for downloading copyrighted material, if your IP gets captured by Record Labels. the lightest punishement would be the suspension of your internet subscription, but could also result in ahefty fine (thousands of people were forced to pay such a fine) still no one went to prison for this.
The official app didn’t exist in 2011 so they likely don’t have that information unless the user kept their account and used the official app at one point
To anyone who ever says they don't care when a political party they don't care about goes after people they don't care about, remember: this one particular court could have gone the other way, and people going after you can try as many times as they (or you) can afford to fight.
They don't want to prosecute the Reddit user, they want to make them to testify as a witness in a case against an ISP. If they repeat what they said in their comment in court it would count as evidence that said ISP was lax on piracy or something. The reason they're doing this is because you're right, they can't use it as evidence without getting ahold of the actual person.
I imagine them getting the actual person and that person, whose best interest is the continuity of pirate-friendly ISP service, just goes and testifies literally against them for wasting their time.
"The community in which I made those comments is a joke community where you mostly state the exact opposite of your mind, no different from how /r/trees is actually about joking about drug use." "I have no further comment"
The film companies seeking Reddit users' identities include After II Movie LLC, Bodyguard Productions, Hitman 2 Productions, Millennium Funding, Nikola Productions, Rambo V Productions, and Dallas Buyers Club LLC.