Hacker News Reader

Comment by ChuckMcM | Hacker News Reader

"A new scheme we uncover today allows anyone to setup a honeypot and make hundreds of thousands of dollars from naive file-sharers."

If this was the result then it would be a Good Thing. Whether you agree with the laws or not, file sharing stuff you don't have a right to have a copy of is, in fact, illegal. And if these troll type lawyers create enough noise in the space and scare off (or educate) all of the naive file sharers then it will make the interwebs a better place.

You drive faster on than the speed limit on the freeway you know what's at risk and if you get a ticket you know why you got it. I'm very much in favor of making sure that people know when they are on the wrong side of the current law and where the line is. Then I can talk to them about whether or not they will join me in bringing sanity to where the line is :-)

View on HN

A few points:

- What if the file had been labeled "Britney Spears Nudes.rar?" What about "Ubuntu 12.04 Saucy Serpent.iso?" Does the fact that it was labeled as a work that was not authorized for p2p distribution (by a completely different copyright holder, mind you) change things that significantly?

- If it can be proven that the copyright holders are distributing their works on p2p networks under different names in order to ensnare people into the "do I pay $3k to make this go away or $$$$ to defend myself in court" question, then that should constitute some sort of fraud.

- Applying this logic to other areas also fails the "does this make sense" test. Should you go to jail for downloading child pornography if someone sends you a link to download "Cute Kitten Photos.rar?"

- A person has no idea that they are violating the copyright of copyright holder X when they download the file. They can only verify the file contents once the file is downloaded. Sure they may have intended to commit copyright infringement against copyright holder Y, but so longer as this is not the same person as copyright holder X, I don't see how copyright holder X should have any standing to 'punish' this user on behalf of copyright holder Y.

"A person has no idea that they are violating the copyright of copyright holder X when they download the file."

And this is my whole point.

Everyone knows the correct way to get copyrighted content from the internet. You use iTunes, or Amazon's MP3 service, or NetFlix, or Hulu, or any number of services. Everyone also knows that when you get a legal copy of a copyrighted work there will be a 'payment' or a 'subscription' involved.

Naive people (I choose not to use the pejorative 'stupid' in this case) should know that any downloading of a copyrighted work which doesn't involve a subscription, or a fee, is nearly always illegal. This sort of action might train them with this fact.

Can you share information which is CC licensed or out of copyright or public domain? Absolutely. And I don't believe Titan Media or anyone else would be successful in pursuing someone by 'tricking' them with a filename that would otherwise be legitimate.

They could certainly try to sue you but any lawyer could move for a dismissal based on the clients beleif that the material was what it said it was, and deleted it immediately when they discovered it was not. There is no way to prove any sort of intent to violate copyright that way. Look of the case of Tracy Lords and her underage pornos where the buyer wasn't liable for child porn because she had represented to the production company and the production company had represented to the customer that everyone in the production was of legal age.

So if this educates a few thousand people that trying to get free copies of copyrighted stuff over the Internet is illegal and to stop trying (that would the educating the naive part) then its a good thing.

>Everyone knows the correct way to get copyrighted content from the internet. You use iTunes, or Amazon's MP3 service, or NetFlix, or Hulu, or any number of services. Everyone also knows that when you get a legal copy of a copyrighted work there will be a 'payment' or a 'subscription' involved.

No. No they don't know. And no, no there isn't payment for every legal copy.

You mention Hulu. Lets look at that real quick. What if someone sets up a website that mimics hulu's free video system, with a different brand but just as legit looking and with pirated material, hell, lets say they even run ads. No one would know if the website was legit or not, especially not if there were no news articles about it.

Furthermore, look at youtube. The version of video X uploaded by hulu has no copyright violation, the version uploaded by hulo does violate copyright. Congresspeople upload clips from CSPAN. Are they breaking copyright? Did they get authorization from CSPAN for every single clip? Really? How do I know that?

Don't act like that the user knows. I still find myself explaining to the less technologically inclined that getting songs with whatever p2p software they're using is illegal. Don't even pretend that you can put the burden on the user to determine what websites are kosher.

  >> A person has no idea that they are violating the copyright of copyright
  >> holder X when they download the file."
  >
  > And this is my whole point.

No, it is not your whole point. They are being sued based on the contents of the file when the file with masquerading as something completely different. The fact that they intended to violate copyright in the first place is irrelevant. In this case, the files were masquerading as copyrighted works that this plaintiff does not hold the copyright for. It would be up to the copyright holder to attempt to sue these people, not someone completely different just because it will 'teach people a lesson.' This kind of 'teach people a lesson' bullshit is no different than when the DoJ was trying to say that violating MySpace's Term of Service was tantamount to Computer Hacking/Fraud because there were no other laws to punish that lady that caused the student to commit suicide.

The idea that someone should be punished for something they didn't intend to do, even though their original intent was bad in the first place is an abuse of the legal system, IMO.

It's probably easier to boil it down to this:

The user is being sued for 'violating the copyright of copyright holder X' not for some nebulous 'violating copyright but it doesn't matter what copyright' infraction or else I could sue you for violating someone else's copyright.

Therefore the question should really be, "is it reasonable to have expected the user to know that they would have violated the copyright of copyright holder X when they downloaded/uploaded that file?" You're trying to phrase the question as, "is it reasonable to have expected the user to know that they were violating any copyright when they downloaded/uploaded the file?"

Ask your lawyer about intent [1] some time. It could be educational.

You are claiming that because the copyrighted work they attempted to download contained a different copyrighted work that the owner of the actual work that got downloaded lacks standing [2]. And it may be that the argument supports a summary dismissal, however it can be reasonably argued that the person intended to download a copyrighted work in the first place.

My point (#3 go at this, then I give up) is that educating people who are naive (which is to say don't know any better) that downloading copyrighted material from the web without the express permission of the copyright holder is illegal, and thus if they wanted access to that work they should seek out a legal source for it, is a positive outcome for what is otherwise a pointless and wasteful exercise.

[1] http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/intent

[2] http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/legal+standing

From your link:

  > In tort an individual is considered to intend the consequences of an
  > act—whether or not she or he actually intends those consequences—if the
  > individual is substantially certain that those consequences will result.

IANAL, but in this case I would assume that 'those consequences' would be that copyright holder X was harmed. If that's the case, then there was no way that the user intended to harm copyright holder X by downloading something they thought was by copyright holder Y.

"IANAL, but in this case I would assume that 'those consequences' would be that copyright holder X was harmed. If that's the case, then there was no way that the user intended to harm copyright holder X by downloading something they thought was by copyright holder Y."

You're comment is what a lawyer would use in an argument that the plaintiff lacks standing. And it certainly might prevail in this case (I've not seen a copy of the pleading).

But if you look at this thread (or at least my contributions to it) you'll notice that I've never expressed any opinion one way or another about whether or not Titan Media will prevail in its efforts. I make only three claims;

1) People sued by Titan Media will feel inconvienienced by it and they will associate the suit with their action of downloading "something" from the internet.

2) Those people will associate 'downloading stuff from the internet' with this inconvience.

3) They (and their friends who had to listen to their tale) will stop doing this because the 'risk' has risen above the 'reward.'

I used the short hand of relating this process as 'educating the naive.' I stand by that analysis.

Getting free copies of copyrighted stuff over the Internet is often not illegal. For example, my Debian update does exactly that every single day (and sometimes I download FOSS manually).

If you are going round advising people to the contrary, then you will, in at least some cases, wind up encouraging them to give unnecessary money to charlatans with inferior products (for example the people who burn free software to a CD-ROM and sell it on ebay).

For that reason, I find your behaviour to be unethical, and that's before we start considering the possibility that you are intentionally shilling for such people.

"Whether you agree with the laws or not, file sharing stuff you don't have a right to have a copy of is, in fact, illegal."

But, in fact, you can and often do have that right.

Under the practice of fair use making personal copies is legal in most parts of the world, including countries where bits are heavily considered an intellectual(ly challenged) property. I can legally make a copy of an album from my friend and I can legally own that copy.

The MAFIAA would like you to think that any kind of file sharing is illegal but non-commercial peer-to-peer file sharing is a hugely debatable issue. If it's okay to use the sneakernet to pop at your friend's to make a copy but not okay over the internet, what's the difference besides a technicality?

The MAFIAA do have some sort of track record in winning a number of copyright lawsuits but it seems to me that mostly it's because they have shitloads of money to fight with and, conversely, individual citizens don't.

AFAIK a "personal" copy is usually interpreted to mean a copy used by the same person.

"Whether you agree with the laws or not, file sharing stuff you don't have a right to have a copy of is, in fact, illegal."

The thing is, if the courts allow for the honeypots then people who want to download things that they DO have the right to a copy of can also be fined. There are plenty of freely (free as in both beer and speech) available works that people download via bittorrent. If Titan Media has masqueraded their porn as something that is freely available would you feel the same way?

"If Titan Media has masqueraded their porn as something that is freely available would you feel the same way?"

Of course not. But that isn't what they did, and if they did it wouldn't really be a 'honeypot' is now would it? There are actually laws against creating an 'attractive nuisance.'

And while I know the 'information wants to be free' crowd hates the message I did say stuff you you don't have a right to have a copy of explicitly. And like it or not, going over to a friends house, and ripping one of their CDs which they bought and taking home the MP3s is not a write the distributor/seller of the CD gave you, and its not "fair use" by any definition.

I get that people disagree with copyright law, I disagree too, but I don't subscribe to the theory that one only has to obey laws they agree with. If you want to be civilly disobedient like folks who were fighting for their civil rights then you want to be arrested and charged so that you can bring visibility to your protest, however if you copy a CD or video or game because you think someone is charging to much or is unrealistic in their opinion of its value, then its you, the copyright violator, who is wrong.

Thing is, if Titan Media is the one distributing their porn, whether under the original name or something else, it's rather difficult to see how it can be unauthorized. That would lead to the absurd conclusion that they're not authorized to distribute their own works. Those who download a copy uploaded by the copyright holder should therefore be authorized.

Intent simply isn't an element of copyright infringement as far as I know. That, unfortunately, seems likely to hurt the lady in question. They should be doing discovery and exploring whether or not Titan Media is, in fact, responsible for this upload or not. Admitting to downloading the file probably isn't going to help her.

Even lawyers hire other lawyers to represent themselves. I have a sad feeling that this will turn into yet another case where acting pro se was a bad idea.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com