Torrents

[sam_001]

an old thread but nonetheless

http://www.finlandtimes.fi/culture/2016 ... ing-movies

Not sure if he was dowloanding english movies or finnish ones

[Beep_Boop]

http://www.finlandtimes.fi/culture/2016 ... ing-movies

He was downloading a movie and an American TV show. He's one of the unlucky ones. The chances of this happening to anybody is close to 0%, but it's still not 0%. My general recommendation is still the same: Don't download materials you don't legally own. I don't do it and I don't recommend anybody to do it.

I think I'll modify my recommendations and add that if you decided to do this, then make sure you're using full disk encryption (Google for appropriate settings and solutions for your operating system). If authorities decide to investigate you, they'll need evidence that you have the illegally downloaded material from your PC. If your disks are fully encrypted, you just refuse to give the password.

The poor soul probably had his computer unecrypted. Police probably quickly went through it and found evidence he downloaded.

Edit: Ooops.. It's not even that. The guy admitted guilt on an online forum (Mu­ro­pa­ket­ti) http://markkinaoikeus.fi/fi/index/paato ... 78764.html

[sam_001]

It mentions a lot of points but what do you think turned out to be the biggest factors going against him? admitting online, being a regular downloader, keeping the movies on desk or not proving that the wifi was open at the time?

[Beep_Boop]

It mentions a lot of points but what do you think turned out to be the biggest factors going against him? admitting online, being a regular downloader, keeping the movies on desk or not proving that the wifi was open at the time?

There's no mention of any evidence collected from the man's machine. This means that keeping the movies on disk, removing them, encrypting them, all wouldn't have made a difference.

It seems that the the case is based on two things:
1. His IP address collected from the swarm by Ex­ci­pio.
2. Him admitting guilt on Muropaketti and Yli­lau­ta.

Second one could have been avoided by not being an idiot.

First can be avoided by one of several technical solutions available online. These solutions are good not necessarily for these purposes, but for overall privacy purposes.

[sam_001]

Just to make things clear here..I have never been invlolved with pirating but it is for my own information so that in future i dont regret my actions

Is the IP address really a good proof? I mean people can easily hack into wap security or if someone is not expert enough, his wifi security might be pretty weak so other people can also download using the same IP address

Will the court still indict the person who owns the wifi?

[betelgeuse]

Is the IP address really a good proof? I mean people can easily hack into wap security or if someone is not expert enough, his wifi security might be pretty weak so other people can also download using the same IP address

Will the court still indict the person who owns the wifi?

Indict is a term related to criminal process. The court case mentioned is a civil case. Even if we were talking about criminal proceedings, charges would be brought by the prosecutor or asianomistaja (hard to find a good English term for it but injured party could be close).

Any way owning a wifi does not make you liable for copyright violations. The person sharing the works needs to be identified. I don't have the expertise to elaborate on what level of proof is enough.

[Beep_Boop]

IP address still doesn't mean a person's identity. You can sue a person but not an IP address.

If you read the case, you can see that the plaintiff has tried his best to make it seem that IP == identity in this case. They did it by trying to rule out the possibility of other people using the network.
However, I don't believe he succeeded. It's just not possible with the resources a law firm (and/or their partners) has.

I think the guy went down mainly because of the forum posts. Although the situation could have been avoided by having an IP address that links to your household in the first place.

[Piet]

IP address still doesn't mean a person's identity. You can sue a person but not an IP address.

If you read the case, you can see that the plaintiff has tried his best to make it seem that IP == identity in this case. They did it by trying to rule out the possibility of other people using the network.
However, I don't believe he succeeded. It's just not possible with the resources a law firm (and/or their partners) has.

I think the guy went down mainly because of the forum posts. Although the situation could have been avoided by having an IP address that links to your household in the first place.

I must agree on that, I remember a Finnish women (widow?) of over 60 to be sued because she supposedly shared or used a sharing network (Direct Connect) for 10 minutes. She successfully defended herself in this case by proving that her open network could have been accessed by any of her 100+ guests at that time. So if you are accused of downloading or sharing anything that you shouldn't (and haven't), make sure you can prove you network was accessible by others. Of course a virus or trojan in your PC might give the same problems as well as being (unknowingly) part of a botnet. To prevent being framed that way, make use of a trusted VPN connection, then at least no one (f.e. entertainment company) will get to your account IP address in any case.

I also remember the Finnish Pirate Party Leader being sued or getting a settlement / extortion letter from Hustler, saying he downloaded their porn. The defense here was that the guy runs a TOR exit node so it could have been anyone in the world.

So basically, yes you can be sued in Finland, but the fee for a TV episode is 50€ and a movie is 100€ (plus legal expenses). An IP address is not a person by definition so not enough evidence for a conviction alone. The use of a VPN connection can shield you from this kind of harassment.


my 3 cents.