What To Do When Notified Of Possible Online Copyright Infringement?

After listening to the PA Bellwether trial audio, I thought it might be beneficial to go over some important steps to take when you are notified about an alleged copyright infringement incident happening on your network.  Each case and situation is different, but the following recommendations are a good starting point.  Even if you find out that an authorized user of your network did this, it is better to be well aware of what actually happened and not take the Copyright Trolls claims at face value.  Once you have this information, then you can make an informed decision of what to do.

Notification Via ISP Or DMCA Notice

For most of us alleged pirates, this happens when we first receive that large envelope from your Internet Service Provider (ISP) stating that due to a Federal civil law suit, they (ISP) will be releasing your subscriber information to a Copyright Troll (my opinion).  Note: If a Plaintiff/Attorney doesn’t like this term they are more than welcome to change their business model.  For this article I will assume the nature of the alleged copyright infringement was done via BitTorrent and the content is an adult pornographic movie(s); but other types of media and content are also relevant.

Another possible way to receive a notification of alleged copyright infringement would be via a Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) take-down notice.  The DMCA take-down notice is usually just an email sent to the ISP and then forwarded to you.  The DMCA take-down notice usually doesn’t mean you are/will be sued, just that some content owner wants you to stop the alleged infringing activity coming from your public IP address.  Note: CEG-TEK uses these types of notices as a way to try to generate low-dollar settlements without the cost or risk from a law suit.  Most of the big Copyright Trolls do not send DMCA notices to the ISP or subscribers.  I believe this is indicative of the Plaintiff/Troll wishing to maintain the business model of Copyright Trolling – repeatable generation of settlements.  Even for DMCA take-down notices, I would still suggest taking these actions, as if someone is using your Internet connection to do this, they may eventually download/share content from an owner who is more serious about taking legal action (i.e. Malibu Media).  Once the confusion and shock wears off, here is a list of things to do that could help you out in the long run.

Take Good Notes

Get pen and paper and get ready to take good notes.  Don’t rush to make changes to the network, as this could remove information you may want to record.  Now I will caution you that if a case goes to a deposition or even a trial, the notes and screenshots you take could be used by the Troll to try to implicate you.

Internet Connection

E3200_1For majority of the people, this is going to be the WiFi Firewall/Router (WFR), such as a Linksys E3200.   It connects to your modem and allows multiple devices (computers, smart phone, etc.) to access your network/Internet connection (wired and wireless).   Network Diagram

Take notes and get screenshots of the settings for all sections/pages of the WFR, such as make, model, firmware version, security settings, logging, remote administrative ability, DHCP client list, etc.  Refer to your WFR manual for details on how to access the various settings of the WFR.

Security Settings On The WFR

Is your WiFi Internet connection “open” or secured with a password?  If it is password protected, note security protocol (WEP, WPA, WPA2, etc.) being used, as well as the password (yes, write it down).  WEP is a joke of a security protocol and I don’t know why it is still available on these devices.  Note: many people may use WPA2 (a fairly secure protocol), but if your password is weak (i.e. “password” or “letmein”), the security of your network is decreased.  Note: most WFRs have a very simple default password (“admin”) and run “open” (no password or security protocol enabled) by default (out-of-the-box).  This makes it easier for the novice to get up and running on the Internet.  The default settings can also be an issue if you have to reset your WFR because of an error or because you forgot the password.

Does you device use WiFi Protected Set-up (WPS) and was this feature enabled on the WFR?  WPS has some vulnerabilities and I’m unsure if the manufactures have corrected this.  US-Cert Article

Who Is Using Your Network/Internet Connection?

This can be found in the DHCP Host Page/Client Table of the WFR.  DHCP_1 It will show all the computers that are currently connected to the network, their systems names (i.e. “Bills CPU”), the MAC address of the system, the internal network IP address, and the time IP address lease will expire.  These records are not kept very long, so looking at these as soon as possible is a good idea.  If you don’t find any suspicious or unusual systems on your network, do not think all is lost.  Make a note of when the alleged infringement took place (date/time).  You will likely find the activity allegedly took place weeks or months previously.  As the Copyright Troll chose not to send out a DMCA take-down notice in a timely manner, there is little chance you will find a record of a system associated with the date/time of infringement.  If you find unknown/unusual systems, even weeks after the infringement, that shows someone is using your network and could have been using it during the period of infringement.  After you take notes and screenshots, then you can secure the network.

Any Logs?

Was logging enable on your WFR?  Some WFR have logging enabled by default – others are the opposite.  Turn the logging on.  Examine any possible logs to see what systems have used the network, as well as incoming and outgoing communication records.  Take note of any unusual systems and/or communication in the logs.  As many people do not understand what these logs mean, please ask one of your geeky friends to assist.

Secure The Internet Connection

Doing this shows you are not ignoring the allegations (taking it seriously) and taking steps to prevent it from occurring in the future.  You may not like the fact that you feel like the “Internet Police,” but I think it may be the lesser of two evils when compared to a Troll pointing out your did nothing when advised you were the subject of a Federal law suit.  If you cannot for some reason password protect the WFR, please consider MAC filtering (see below) and/or preventing the commonly used BitTorrent protocols ports from using your network.  It is not 100% effective, but it is better than nothing.

Password Complexity

I would ensure that WPA2 security protocol is being used with a complex password (i.e. “@SSh@tTroll3597#!”).  Do not reconnect your systems using the new password until you examine each system to determine if it contained the movie(s) alleged to be infringed upon.   Document the examination of the systems.

MAC Filtering

This security setting will allow you to limit what systems can connect to your Internet connection.  It can be set to either prevent or allow a connection based on the MAC address of the network adapter on various devices (computers, cell phones, game systems, DVD Players, etc.).  Note: This is not perfect and a determined individual can easily spoof a MAC address to get around this security feature.

Block Certain Protocols And/Or Ports

Some WFRs have the ability to prevent the use of various protocols, such as BitTorent, mostly by preventing communication over certain ports.  Not 100% effective, but it can show that you have taken steps after the notification.

System Examinations

This is where you look at each system to see if the movies(s) alleged are located on the systems.  As well as the movie(s), you need to look for the BitTorrent software.  Note: As stated by many (to include Colette of Malibu Media LLC at the Bellwether trial), having/using the BitTorrent software/client is NOT a crime.  It is HOW the BitTorrent client is used that is the issue.  If you do have BitTorrent on your system, the Troll is going to try to use it as proof that you “could” have been the infringer.  The Troll will really like it if he can show that you have the same BitTorrent client (i.e. µTorrent)  on your system that his technical personnel recorded during monitoring.  For those of you who have BitTorrent on your systems, document what titles/files you are sharing.  Note: The Troll will likely just claim you removed all the evidence.  It will be your job to show you are not using it to infringe upon Plaintiff or other content owners.

Keep all the notes and screenshots in a safe place just-in-case.  I hope you will not need to pull them out for a defense attorney, but better safe than sorry.  If you have any suggestions of additional actions, please post or email me.

DieTrollDie 🙂

About DieTrollDie

I'm one of the many 'John Does' (200,000+ & growing in the US) who Copyright Trolls have threatened with a civil law suit unless they are paid off. What is a Copyright Troll? Check out the Electronic Frontier Foundation link - http://www.eff.org/issues/copyright-trolls
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

43 Responses to What To Do When Notified Of Possible Online Copyright Infringement?

  1. WDS says:

    With the cost of hard drives being what they are these days (Cheap) I would remove the hard drive from my machine, and then rebuild the machine fresh from my backup. (You do have a backup don’t you). Add to the documentation the time you replaced them, and then seal the originals in the box the new ones came in, sign on the seal and get a witness to sign on the seal, and put them in a safe place. Note: This is not to try to cover-up anything but preserve the evidence in it’s best possible state. It also give you an excuse to buy that new solid state drive you have wanted

    • WDS says:

      Yes replying to my own comment. I would also file a motion to quash and include a declaration with the motion stating the acts I had taken to document and preserve evidence.

      If you happen to have one of the new Apple Laptops where the hard drive is not user replaceable, I would at least investigate the cost of getting a forensic copy made of the disk.

    • Krono says:

      The problem with that is that most people are not tech-savvy enough to:

      1) have backups of their single drive, prebuilt home system
      2) be able to remove and replace the old drive and restore from a back up.

      Good advice if you can follow it though.

      • DieTrollDie says:

        I will agree with you on that. These cases will force people to either learn or pay someone else to do it. Hopefully even the non-tech savvy people will at least try to do something.

        DTD 🙂

      • WDS says:

        Okay, but many people have a tech savvy friend, or they can take it to the local Geek Squad and have it done for a lot less money than even the “don’t go to trial” settlement. Having the tech seal and sign the box along with an invoice saying “customer requested replacement and cloning of working hard drive to preserve evidence for a possible lawsuit”, could only help you if the hard drive evidence show innocence.

    • DieTrollDie says:

      Thanks for the additional ideas; many options out there. Taking some action is key here, as it makes it harder for the Troll to claim you did nothing. Reducing the preponderance of evidence is your goal.

      DTD 🙂

  2. InnocentBystander says:

    One of the the critical things not mentioned is to talk to all the family members who had access to your wifi. I think, in spite of the “possiblility” of misidentification,that in all likelihood the plaintiff can,with a high degree of accuracy, identify the IP address from which their content was being downloaded. The most likely reason an innocent person is being sued is because a family member is the guilty party. One of the Does in the Bellwether case was there because a child had done the downloading without his/her knowledge or permission. He was innocent, so he pursued the case only to find out his child had done the downloading. They ended up paying $10,000. Honestly, while wifi hacking does occur (it has happened to me, although I was never sued), I think children or a family member doing the downloading and denying it, is the most common reason an innocent person gets sued. I am not sure if the parent is legal liable if a child downloads. IANAL and I’ve seen contradictory statements on the internet. I think most judges would be very sympathetic to a parent in this situation, so the Troll would be looking at a minimum judgement at best. Likewise, I wonder (IANAL) if it would be possible to file a countersuit that they were distributing pornography to children. This would be based on the claim the porn company was complicit in the torrenting of their product. Malibu Media, for example zealously files DMCA takedown notices from “tube” sites but not for torrents. They’ve failed to take actions such as watermarking that would seriously decrease their vulnerability to torrentors. They monitor torrents for months to extract Does, without any effort to disable them. It could be argued that it is their intent to “sell” (monetize) their product through torrent distribution. By doing so, they are encouraging the sale to minors. At the least, suing a child for downloading their pornography would be very bad publicity.

    • DieTrollDie says:

      True. I had to do that when it happened on my network. The liability of a parent for what a minor child does would be interesting to point to hear from some of our lawyer friends. I don’t think you would have a good chance of success going after the Plaintiff for distributing porn to a minor, but I think it would reduce any damages a court imposes if the owner did not take simple and reasonable steps like sending out DMCA take-dwon notices to the ISPs & subscribers. The issue of not watermarking (digitally IDing the original downloader from the owner’s site) the movies has yet to be explored in-depth in a court. Hopefully soon, as if they do not go after “their” subscriber, they are helping the infringement to continue (my opinion).

      DTD 🙂

      • “As far as WiFi hacking, it does happen. More likely it isn’t “hacking,” but someone using an “open” WiFi (unauthorized use).”

        That is a very good point, but why would ANYONE leave their WiFi open in this day and age? People can, and often do, use open WiFi to download stuff like child pornography, which is what happened here:

        http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/04/fbi-child-porn-raid-a-strong-argument-for-locking-down-wifi-networks/

        A potential raid from the feds should deter anyone from open WiFi.

      • DieTrollDie says:

        From what I have seen and experienced, using an open WiFi is because some connection issue with a computer/device and the ease of management of the network. Until I became involved in this mess, all I figure would happen is a neighbor would connect to my network. As long as they didn’t slow my network down, it wasn’t a concern. I don’t think most people are thinking that a neighbor is going to download child porn or use BT over it. The article you referenced did have an interesting bit – “… Wi-Fi Alliance published a survey saying that 32 percent of Internet users have tried to connect to a WiFi network that wasn’t theirs.” It doesn’t mean they were successful in connecting, but I sure some were.

        I’m of the opinion that the Trolls don’t really care who did it if someone will pay the settlement for whatever reason. At best this is a recovery of lost revenue business model, not a stopping piracy/protecting the content owner. It is a shotgun approach that the troll knows will affect some non-offending people. They may not actually take a true non-offender to trial, but they are going to make them expend time and money trying to defend against it. A Pro Se Doe is going to have a hard time getting anything awarded – while a represented Doe might be able to recover fees and costs – hopefully. Based on past activity, the Trolls don’t want to examine computers from people who offer up them up without some sort of non-disclosure agreement. It would look bad if such a system did not have an indication of BT download/sharing activity or spoliation. They would of course just say the Doe could have removed the offending system from the network (Lipscomb’s words at the Bellwether).

        I don’t think the people should download/share the owners content, but I don’t think the settlement amounts are right either. Until the law is changed, the abuse of it as a business model will continue.

        DTD 🙂

      • InnocentBystander says:

        JR asks “Why would anyone leave their WiFi open in this day and age?” Hubris, Ignorance and Entropy. The simple answer is they are unaware of; or undervalue, the risks that you as an IP attorney see on a regular basis. “A potential raid from the feds should deter anyone from open WiFi.” Yes, but do you honesty think that most people with open WiFi actually think they are at risk for a raid?” People have unlocked water spigots on the outside of their house. Someone could attach a hose and steal their water. They don’t fear this happening. People have had open gas caps. They never feared having their gas siphoned. Do you honestly think most people who have WiFi have any idea how it works, let alone what the potential risks are? I kept open WiFi for years without even thinking about it. It wasn’t until I moved next door to a school that any problems occurred. Once I encountered a problem, my awareness became heightened, I reassessed my vulnerabilities, and I changed my behavior.

    • “The most likely reason an innocent person is being sued is because a family member is the guilty party”

      I agree. I get so many calls that go like this:

      “I have no idea what this is about!”
      “Do you have kids?”
      “Yeah. One is 21, the other is 19.”
      “Do they have bittorrent on their computers?”
      “I don’t know. I don’t know what they do online.”
      “Go talk to them. Ask them if they use bittorrent.”

      …an hour later…

      “Jordan?”
      “Yeah?”
      “I am going to strangle them… little punks. See what I get for letting them live at home?”

      WiFi hacking can occur. But it rarely does. I mean, in theory someone could break into your house, download a bunch of stuff to their laptop, eat all your crackerjacks and leave, too. I’ve yet to see it happen, though.

      The tracking technology has been accurate in every case I have seen.

      • DieTrollDie says:

        Jordan, you make a great point concerning adult children in the residence. I bet that if the ISP subscriber told the Plaintiff this they still tried to get the parent to pay up under the threat of messing with the child’s life. Why??? Because the parent is more likely to have to money to pay than the child. As this business model is designed to make profits, the only reason to actually go after the true offender (in this type scenario) is to mess with the parent because they will not/cannot pay the “settlement.” Malibu Media LLC is a real content producer, but they earn the title of Copyright Troll by their use of Lipscomb to make money. If they are truly interested in stopping piracy of their content, they can go after the initial seeder. Watermark each download by the subscriber and you will know who started/seeded it. Added fact: That doesn’t stop them from going after the downloaders.

        As far as WiFi hacking, it does happen. More likely it isn’t “hacking,” but someone using an “open” WiFi (unauthorized use). It isn’t even close to someone breaking into your house, downloading movies, eating crackerjacks, and departing unseen. The use of an open WiFi is very hard to detect unless you monitor the the connection. A vast majority of people do not monitor this.

        DTD 🙂

      • InnocentBystander says:

        The question is do the plaintiffs have a responsibility to make sure they are suing the proper person before they file the suit and destroy somebody’s career or reputation? I have no problem with a plaintiff protecting their copyright, but it seems they take a “shoot everybody and let God sort them out approach” to their lawsuits. The cases I find most egregious are when common sense tells you that the defendant is obviously innocent (When the defendant is blind or elderly for example) but the plaintiff doesn’t want to investigate to find the guilty party. If they sued you for stealing their video, the most they could recover is about $150. For copying their video, they can get $150,000 plus attorney fees. There is enough potential reward to justify the expense to assure accuracy. My biggest issue with the new MM lawsuits is that they are immediately suing the account holder. In the old days, they claimed they needed the account holders name to investigate to determine who the infringer was. Now, they are claiming from the outset that the account holder is the infringer.

      • I don’t think that’s right. MM does not just sue the subscriber in my experience. They sue “John Doe” instead of the subscriber, then they depose the account holder. They filed 16 suits here in EDPA against “John Doe” just last month.

        I haven’t seen anyone named where there wasn’t a basis for it since Liuxia Wong. By the time a defendant is actually named and served, they have usually done an investigation sufficient to meet Rule 11.

        I could be wrong, or it might vary in other states. But here in PA it looks like they go after “Doe” and then depose the subscriber.

      • InnocentBystander says:

        Jordan, When looking at the majority of recent Malibu cases on RFC express They are formatted Malibu Media,LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address xx.xxx.xxx.xxx. IANAL, but I interpreted that to mean they are immediately suing the subscriber, they just don’t have the name yet. Perhaps I am misinterpreting legalese, but it sure looks to a layman like they are suing the subscriber from the very get go.

      • You are misunderstanding the legalese. The rules of pleading are liberal – all they need to say is “Someone, but we don’t know who, is shared my content from this IP address.”

    • InnocentBystander says:

      Jordan, Thanks for the clarification. Its funny how clear it appears to mean the opposite in Standard English. I guess it is just more evidence of how difficult it is for a pro se defendant to navigate the legal morass. Glad I am just following these cases as a hobby. (It is a great way to learn about the legal system)

  3. InnocentBystander says:

    I’d also like to point out that technology is passing the home computer by. Don’t forget that it is possible to torrent on tablets, Cell phones, and game consoles. Indeed, when I had my wifi open almost all of the hackers on my wifi were cell phones.

  4. Krono says:

    “WEP is a joke of a security protocol and I don’t know why it is still available on these devices.”

    Newer routers still support WEP for reasons of backwards compatibility. While WPA and WPA2 have been around for a while, there are still plenty of network enabled devices that do not support them. For example, the Nintendo DS and DS lite do not support WPA/WPA2, only open or WEP. Even though the DSi and 3DS support WPA, older games themselves do not support WPA and will need WEP if you wish to use online features of those games.

    http://www.nintendo.com/consumer/wfc/en_na/ds/wrWEPkeyHelp.jsp

    Likewise the Playstation PSP does not support WPA2, it only supports up through various WPA versions. Older models might not even support WPA, they use the 802.11b standard which was pre-WPA.

    Basically any network device dated prior to 2004 is unlikely to support WPA2, and anything dated prior to about 2006 will not be guaranteed to support WPA2.

    A possible measure you missed is turning your wireless router’s SSID broadcast setting to off and changing the name to something non-default. The SSID broadcast is your wireless access point announcing itself and it’s name to make it easier for people to connect to. Turning it off prevents people from casually discovering and connecting to your network with standard wifi discovery.

    That said turning it off can cause problems as the standard calls for it to be on, and there are some strong arguments that neither disabling the broadcast, nor MAC address filtering provide genuine security increases:

    http://blogs.technet.com/b/steriley/archive/2007/10/16/myth-vs-reality-wireless-ssids.aspx

    Blocking ports is essentially useless. Bittorrent can operate on pretty much any port. I haven’t investigated the effectiveness of protocol blocking for home routers, but keep in mind stuff like Blizzard updater uses bittorrent protocols, so that may cause some issues.

    • DieTrollDie says:

      Sometime ago I had a device that would not connect under any security protocol, so I set the network to open and warned everyone about using non-secure communications and their personal data. Eventually I replaced the network adapter and switched back to a security protocol. Good information. Something else to document in your notes as to why you ran your network a certain way. If you don’t do this, I could see a Troll claiming you ran it open so you would have “plausible deniability” and then removed the offending system OR erased the evidence.

      MAC Filtering, Port/Protocol Blocking, and turning off the SSID are good options, but they can be circumvented. By taking them you are at least showing that you are doing something to prevent it and not ignoring it.

      Thanks for the input.

      DTD 🙂

  5. WDS says:

    I just bought a new 802.11ac router that has the “Guest” network feature as do many of the newer routers (i.e. it has two networks that won’t talk to each other but both have internet access). The suggested setup by the manufacturer for the Guest Network was to either leave it unsecured or use an easy to remember simple password. That makes sense for everything but protecting yourself from one of these suits.

    • Krono says:

      That it makes sense for everything but protecting yourself from one of these suits being filed against you is a pretty sad state of affairs. An open, or easily accessible wireless network has it’s merits, they’re just usually outweighed by security concerns and the hassle of setting up two separate wireless networks. A router like your new one gives you the best of both world, a secure network for your private, common use, an unsecured, or lightly secured one for the convenience of your guests, devices that don’t support proper security, etc.

      Though that’s not to say it would not help you during a lawsuit. Some Lipscomb wannabe gets up in front of the judge or jury and tries to argue that the only reason someone with a brain would leave their network unsecured is if they were trying to avoid any responsibility for what happens on their internet account. You then pull out the manual for the route as proof that unlike some lawyers, router manufacturers understand that there are perfectly normal reasons to have an open network, and thus have begun making provisions for people to have both. Then use that as a launch point to explain some of the reasons like we’ve given.

  6. that anonymous coward says:

    Ohai DTD!
    Very informative. If I might, and you know I will anyways, I’d like to take a moment to speak on 6 Strikes. Someone might get one of these notices and be confused.

    6 Strikes are not a legal document, it is part of a private arrangement that your ISP has entered into. You more than likely ignore the email where the Terms of Service and Acceptable Use Policy of your connection was updated. Given that many of these ISP’s have a monopoly on connections in vast areas of the country it is not like you could show your displeasure by seeking other access providers.
    A single 6 Strikes notice could be a fluke, but taking steps to make sure that your family and guests know that violating copyright is a serious issue as well as making sure your access point is secured should be taken.

    Some “trolls” have requested in seeking names in their “business model” any records of 6 Strikes notices being sent. While this “evidence” has never been tested in court, it creates the appearance of more likely than not. Being able to show that upon getting a notice you checked your access point and searched the family computers would be a good thing to have.

    Theoretically after getting 6 Strikes under this system you could be sued by one of the members of the RIAA or MPAA. (Other creative types might be allowed to join this system at some point but it is primarily just the **AA’s).

    While I think 6 Strikes is a joke*, some courts might disagree with my assessment. So taking steps to document efforts made to correct any issue would be wise.

    Hugs,
    TAC

    * – The company providing the tracking for 6 Strikes has a “checkered” past.
    In Australia, for a lawsuit, they seeded files to collect IP addresses. They created the filesharing to help prove that filesharing was bad. o_O
    They have sent out DMCA notices on behalf of corporate clients demanding that pages on HBO.com be delisted for having pirated content from HBO. o_O
    When holding an informational meeting for Congress screenshots of their system showed them to be using the Vuze BT client. The terms to use Vuze specifically state you can not use it to gather IP addresses and spy on other users on the network, the company is violating those terms. o_O

    Remember it is important you follow the terms of the agreement with your ISP, but if your a corporation you can ignore them at will.

  7. Commenting Commenter says:

    The DHCP table is not a complete listing of devices on the network. It only shows you what IP addresses have been recently assigned by the router to devices that requested to be assigned one. The listing can have duplicate entries for devices that reconnect often, and it will be missing entries for IPs that haven’t been used in a while.

    More importantly, there could be any number of additional network users who are not using DHCP-assigned addresses, and who instead just set their device to use an IP address that’s likely to work (192.168.1.x) but not likely to conflict with any others (x > 110). That’s what I used to do when I borrowed people’s home WiFi when I was traveling and wanted to check email without attracting attention.

  8. Randy says:

    “. . . they (ISP) will be releasing your subscriber information to a Copyright Troll (my opinion).”

    You will find that most reputable ISPs will require a subpoena before they release any customer information to anyone. We really don’t care what you do with your connection as long as it works. Our job is just to forward the complaint on to the one responsible for the IP address. Most subpoenas that I have received have a gag order in them so that I am not permitted to let the customer know that their information has been requested.

    • DieTrollDie says:

      True, most ISPs will not release such personal data without a subpoena or or legal paperwork that will protect them from any legal action resulting from the release.

      I think most people understand that the ISPs don’t really care what the user does as long as it doesn’t get the ISP in trouble and/or doesn’t affect the ISP’s network in a negative way. For the ISPs, this is strictly business. This is extremely clear when many of the ISPs will forward the DMCA take-down notices/settlement demand emails from CEG-TEK (Ira Siegel) to the subscribers. These letters are clearly designed to generate settlements and not act as a mechanism to stop infringement. The ISPs know this but still forward them to the subscriber. Why??? They forward CEG’s letters because it protects them (maintains DMCA safe harbor status) from any liability from the content owner.

      DTD 🙂

  9. Hello all. I don’t know if my isp could see this and use it in a trial against my family/mother so everything I say further is hypothetical. Let’s imagine I was a guilty party who downloaded multiple files through some torrenting software such as bittorrent and some website such as pirate bay. If the subscriber to an ISP such as Charter that I am living with recieved an email to cease and desist the sharing of one file and It was indeed stopped then she received multiple more in succession on one day and I was unable to stop these in time as they were coming in is my best option to pay the settlement that is spoken of in the emails? How long would I have to pay this settlement if i was unable to discern a time limit from the emails? What would happen if the emails were ignored?

    Any help by a knowledgable person on the matter would be greatly appreciated. Please don’t hate me because I was ignorant of the consequences of torrenting.
    Thank You.

    • DieTrollDie says:

      If you are talking about CEG TEK, then I would only stop torrenting and not contact the Troll. If this is a more serious Troll, I would not simply ignore this. Either way if the torrenting of copyright protected media continues, more serious trouble may happen.

      DTD 🙂

      • joker122 says:

        So how likely is it that CEG TEK will follow up with a lawsuit? Is the best course of action to pay so it will just go away? Also, what do you mean by “more serious Troll”?

      • DieTrollDie says:

        I believe it is extremely UNLIKELY CEG-TEK will follow-up with any law suits. Their business model is not set-up to do this. For the little amount (now $250) they are seeking, they are not paying the monitoring people to record the full details of a packet-capture (PCAP) between the IP address and the monitoring company, as well as electronic evidence storage, etc. They get the public IP address, ISP info, movie/SHA-1 hash #, and other minimal details they need to send out their DMCA-Notice-Settlement-Email.

        I personally would not pay to make it go away. IMO you are only paying for them to stop emailing you via the ISP.

        What I mean by a “more serious Troll,” is the ones who actually are filing real federal copyright infringement cases. If someone in your residence did this or an unknown person used you WiFi Internet connection, I would make sure the activity stops before you are involved in a more serious situation. If someone can use your Internet connection to download/share a movie/client that CEG-TEK represents, it is possible they could download/share a movie owned by Malibu Media.

        DTD 🙂

  10. acuriousonlooker says:

    Hi everyone,
    I was just wondering what other ways does MM monitor the downloads of its content. I’m assuming it’s mostly from torrents but do they check other methods of downloading? Thank you!

  11. doedoe says:

    So I’m in same boat too. Except ceg tek gave me 3 different feb deadlines. ( I have not paid). I’m just worried about the studio suing me, since they use ceg tek. There has been no p2p uploading. The email I got made sure to check all my pc’s. How likely is it that they will go after information of my isp address to sue me if i don’t. They don’t really have a phone number to contact me. I did a stupid thing and clicked the web link for the case numbers and the balance for one x rated movie over 4 days. 250 each day. Same movie from Zero tolerance entertainment. I’m stressing over this. I have been told to ignore it but I’m afraid they will go after my isp and sue me but I don’t live in CA where they are located. I have seen the studio sue but not since 2012. I’m pretty much borderline homeless. I don’t make even 10k or 8k for that matter a year. I have bills and a place to rent. Please respond asap. They just have one name and the case numbers am i SOL?

  12. PiratesLife4Me says:

    My advice is to not pay. You’ve not been to court and found guilty of anything. Plausible deniability is all you need.

  13. fgreg says:

    I have a question. This is a hypothetical syllogism. So the logic is what if a person receives a email from my ISP via HBO. They threatened infringement violations. Now this person pays for all the premium channels i.e. HBO Starz Show and the other one is free. The violation is for HBO, but said person emails back to the ISP, explaining no need to download because they have a very large hard drive for their DVR and already pay for the service and if they are missing an episode and the ISP doesn’t provide HBO GO, then wouldn’t they legally be able to download a lost episode. What is the difference between copying content that you legally have no question your right and copying it from another source, please don’t say that the place is not legal, it is not the place, it is the content that is at question.

    • DieTrollDie says:

      Hypothetical response: Your are right about “the content is at question”; BUT it also depends on what YOU are doing with the content. I assume the HBO infringement notice alleged that your IP address had illegally downloaded AND Shared the episode in question via BitTorrent – please correct me. Even if you are a paid subscriber for HBO, that would ONLY cover the personal download of the episode. The standard setting for BitTorrent is to upload while your are downloading – others receiving the content may not have been authorized. Also, if the torrent was left active after you successfully downloaded a copy, you were then seeding the content to others; many who were most likely not authorized to have it.

      DTD 🙂

  14. anonynonon says:

    I got one of ceg’s emails today forwarded to me through COX Cable. The interesting thing is that in the email it specifically states not to contact COX cable regarding the email and to only contact CEG. So, of course I called Cox to confirm it was even them sending me the email and not some spam. I told them that I wasn’t downloading or uploading anything since I don’t use any filesharing software which was the claim in the email and the time it supposedly took place, I wasn’t even home.

    All COX told me was that I should change my wifi password and increase my firewall settings. I specifically asked them if I needed to do anything else or if I needed to contact CEG. They told me I didn’t have to do anything else except to make sure that I take the necessary steps to prevent any further filesharing/copyright infringement from continuing on my account.

    Oh ya, and when I told the Tier 2 support for COX Cable that the email specifically stated not to call them and to only contact CEG, the rep told me that that was “very strange” because the emails that they normally send out specifically tell their customers to call COX directly to resolve any issues that may be happening with the service.

  15. questiondoe says:

    Hey anonynonon,

    questions for you. Did you receive anymore complaints through COX from CEG after this? Did you contact them at all? Did you get any letters as of yet in the mail?

  16. Person says:

    Ok I’m scared, just got this and all I was doing was browsing. I didn’t open anything, I didn’t play anything then all the sudden I get a bunch of pop up ads. So I’m like whatever and then try to go back to the website then bam instead of backing out of the ads it gives me a copyright notice. Threatening 5-11 years in prison. And I don’t understand. Was the only one using the wifi and I didn’t download anything.

  17. LloydIrving99 says:

    I’ve got a hypothetical situation to ask about. A friend of mine is with an ISP by the name of Charter (M-Cast). They received a DMCA from a CEG on behalf of Zero Tolerance and New Sensations. They found that one of their devices was hacked. They cleaned the device and stopped using it for a couple of weeks. What do you suggest happen next?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s