Book publisher files mass BitTorrent lawsuit

[teh603]

Is it even possible to quantify lost sales when the items being pirated are put up for zero price? And do they have proof that the John Does whose IPs they listed were knowingly engaged in it, as opposed to having been the victim of a botnet attack that might have turned their computer into a filesharing server without their knowledge? Can they get proof of it without violating due process of law?

[Apache]

Originally Posted by kennyc

ENORMOUS

Shouldn't that be GINORMOUS?
Apache

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by teh603

Is it even possible to quantify lost sales when the items being pirated are put up for zero price? And do they have proof that the John Does whose IPs they listed were knowingly engaged in it, as opposed to having been the victim of a botnet attack that might have turned their computer into a filesharing server without their knowledge? Can they get proof of it without violating due process of law?

They will probably ask for statutory damages rather than actual damages because it's too hard to prove actual damages.

Wiley doesn't have to disprove all possible defenses (i.e., botnet attack) before starting. If a defendant thinks he was the victim of a botnet attack, the defendant will have to produce some evidence supporting that. (Or that someone stole his wifi, or whatever).

[Barcey]

I think they got the story wrong. It was Acme Lawyers that filed the lawsuit on behalf of Wile E. Coyote.

Beep Beep

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

They will probably ask for statutory damages rather than actual damages because it's too hard to prove actual damages.

Wiley doesn't have to disprove all possible defenses (i.e., botnet attack) before starting. If a defendant thinks he was the victim of a botnet attack, the defendant will have to produce some evidence supporting that. (Or that someone stole his wifi, or whatever).

Of course, there's always the Chewbacca defense

[J. Strnad]

I think the whole "we've lost this much money" argument is so full of holes, it's pointless.

The point is: "Posting a book to a torrent is publishing, and this person does not have the legal right to publish this work." That's it.

Where they go from there, I don't know. But trying to put a monetary value on the act is the wrong way to go.

When you steal a TV set, is that money lost to the manufacturer? No. You weren't going to buy the TV anyway. In fact, it puts money INTO the hands of the manufacturer, because the legal owner has to replace it.

Intellectual property is different, since you're distributing an unauthorized copy. Every original buyer still has his copy. All you have left is the PRINCIPLE...you (the pirate) do not have the legal right to publish the work. That breaks a law that has a monetary penalty, arbitrarily established. Pay the fine or go to jail.

And it's all rather pointless anyway, which is why I sell RISEN with no DRM when I'm allowed to. If it isn't worth the price of a latte at any coffee shop, then what am I losing when someone steals/borrows it?

It all seems to me to be a horrible waste of time, trying to enforce DRM.

[Ken Maltby]

Originally Posted by J. Strnad

I think the whole "we've lost this much money" argument is so full of holes, it's pointless.

The point is: "Posting a book to a torrent is publishing, and this person does not have the legal right to publish this work." That's it.

Where they go from there, I don't know. But trying to put a monetary value on the act is the wrong way to go.

When you steal a TV set, is that money lost to the manufacturer? No. You weren't going to buy the TV anyway. In fact, it puts money INTO the hands of the manufacturer, because the legal owner has to replace it.

Intellectual property is different, since you're distributing an unauthorized copy. Every original buyer still has his copy. All you have left is the PRINCIPLE...you (the pirate) do not have the legal right to publish the work. That breaks a law that has a monetary penalty, arbitrarily established. Pay the fine or go to jail.

And it's all rather pointless anyway, which is why I sell RISEN with no DRM when I'm allowed to. If it isn't worth the price of a latte at any coffee shop, then what am I losing when someone steals/borrows it?

It all seems to me to be a horrible waste of time, trying to enforce DRM.

I agree that it should be treated as a criminal act, but then you have to
establish the severity of the crime is it a misdemeanor, a felony? Normally
this is established by the monetary value of the loss. It is not surprising
that one side would be claiming "enormous" loss. It is even more likely in
a civil suite.

Luck;
Ken

[sabredog]

Originally Posted by carld

The idea that the company lost "enormous" amounts of revenue on the books they say were pirated is ludicrous at best. It's just laughable, and I'm no big fan of piracy.

These are rubbery figures at best.

It is pretty predictable though, the music and entertainment industry have been using such tactics for some time now.

They equate a pirated product to a lost sale on all occasions when the reality is and they know that as well as the consumers and government officials they are trying to fool, that that is not the case at all.

The downloader probably would never had purchased or partaken of the downloaded ebook/song/movie/TV series in the first place.

To quote;

"There are three types of lies - lies, damn lies, and statistics"

This lot are doing exactly that.

[howyoudoin]

IMO courts should require that the plaintiffs substantiate their claims by providing written statements by the 'beneficiaries of the pirated goods' that they would definitely have purchased the goods had they not been made available to them for free. Burden of proof etc etc.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by howyoudoin

IMO courts should require that the plaintiffs substantiate their claims by providing written statements by the 'beneficiaries of the pirated goods' that they would definitely have purchased the goods had they not been made available to them for free. Burden of proof etc etc.

So you think people should just be able to upload with no consequences?

[howyoudoin]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

So you think people should just be able to upload with no consequences?

No, my post was purely in relation to the fixing of the magnitude of monetary losses the companies claim they have suffered as a result of the loss of 'potential sales'. It has no relation to the actual consideration of uploading copyrighted files as a crime.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by teh603

Is it even possible to quantify lost sales when the items being pirated are put up for zero price? And do they have proof that the John Does whose IPs they listed were knowingly engaged in it, as opposed to having been the victim of a botnet attack that might have turned their computer into a filesharing server without their knowledge? Can they get proof of it without violating due process of law?

Don't know about anywhere else, but in the UK we had a new law rushed through without any real discussion that put the burden of proof for online copyright infringement on the accused rather than the accuser. There will also be a fee to pay if you want to attempt to prove your innocense.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

So you think people should just be able to upload with no consequences?

He seems to be talking about downloaders, not uploaders. I'm with Jan, it is the original uploader that is at fault, assuming there is any fault, because they are an unauthorised publisher. Anyone else is just taking advantage of an opportunity given to them and may not even know they are doing anything wrong.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

He seems to be talking about downloaders, not uploaders. I'm with Jan, it is the original uploader that is at fault, assuming there is any fault, because they are an unauthorised publisher. Anyone else is just taking advantage of an opportunity given to them and may not even know they are doing anything wrong.

I strongly disagree with you. Downloading copyrighted material without the permission of the copyright holder is against the law, and ignorance of the law is not an excuse. Certainly the uploader is committing the greater offence, but the downloader is certainly also at fault and should be held to account. Of course, when it comes to torrent users, downloaders are generally also uploaders.

[tubemonkey]

Hey gang! When you guys are all done here, I know this site where we can get free Harry Potter ebooks.