[j800]

fox88, on 15 February 2014 - 10:17 AM, said:

Whatever developers might say, it would not prove that you had no intentions to spread bad contents.
At best, it might prove that it was possibly unintentional because of lack of your knowledge.

Ok, lets try again:

In order to have an absolution, one has to set a doubt in the trial, the doubt will serve to prove that I probably am not guilty of what I am being accused of, hence the judges will choose to absolve me since they cant condemn someone that they are not 100% sure his guilty/criminal.

As far as I am aware, that is how it works, in every country with a traditional law system, in all the world. Correct me if I am wrong.

Whatever the developers might say can totally help set the doubt on my favour against the charges they accuse me of, mainly because of the origin of the source, and for it would also greatly help counter the tipically wrong and even absurd technical facts the prosecutors bring up, which otherwise would be totally believed by the technically ignorant judges.

Some Support, on 15 February 2014 - 12:11 PM, said:

Depending on the circumstances (and as described above) that doesn't has to be true (and also not the accused has to prove his innocence before the law but the other way around).

What??
I, through my lawyer who represents me, must prove me innocent. The prosecutor will do anything to get me to jail and “win”, the judges won't do anything for me, thats not their job, other than evaluating my evidence and the prosecutors.

Some Support, on 15 February 2014 - 12:11 PM, said:

But no one here knows what excactly the case is nor does our oppinion on this really matters (as we are no judges).

So far all have judged me with their opinion, a good point that you raise here.

Some Support, on 15 February 2014 - 12:11 PM, said:

So let's stay on topic from now on: And regarding the document, you have already been given your answer above.

I dont get which is exactly the answer, so far I have only seen negative biased opinions from people I dont know who they are. I have not seen a single real core developer come unbiasedly opine about this.

[Some Support]

j800, on 16 February 2014 - 12:32 AM, said:

I, through my lawyer who represents me, must prove me innocent. The prosecutor will do anything to get me to jail and “win”, the judges won't do anything for me, thats not their job, other than evaluating my evidence and the prosecutors.

No, the prosecutor must prove that you are guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Obviously the job of your lawyer is to defend you against those accustion and offer arguments which show that such doubts exist.

Quote

I dont get which is exactly the answer, so far I have only seen negative biased opinions from people I dont know who they are. I have not seen a single real core developer come unbiasedly opine about this.

Here was your answer. Also I don't see why devs are supposed to be unbiased, we have our own oppinions too after all.

[j800]

Some Support, on 16 February 2014 - 04:42 AM, said:

j800, on 16 February 2014 - 12:32 AM, said:

I, through my lawyer who represents me, must prove me innocent. The prosecutor will do anything to get me to jail and “win”, the judges won't do anything for me, thats not their job, other than evaluating my evidence and the prosecutors.

No, the prosecutor must prove that you are guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Obviously the job of your lawyer is to defend you against those accustion and offer arguments which show that such doubts exist.

Did I say it works differently?

Some Support, on 16 February 2014 - 04:42 AM, said:

Quote

I dont get which is exactly the answer, so far I have only seen negative biased opinions from people I dont know who they are. I have not seen a single real core developer come unbiasedly opine about this.

Here was your answer. Also I don't see why devs are supposed to be unbiased, we have our own oppinions too after all.

If you are a core dev and you think you speak for all then I imagine I cant expect much of this, seriously.
Why not wait for other devs to opine instead of a single reply of someone who thinks represents all?

[Some Support]

j800, on 16 February 2014 - 04:03 PM, said:

Why not wait for other devs to opine instead of a single reply of someone who thinks represents all?

Sure. Let's wait then.

[xilolee]

[Unknown1]

Can I wait with you guys? I'm a little lonely.

[j800]

I never imagined the level of arrogance and stupidity of the emule “staff” would come this far.

[Some Support]

Unknown1, on 27 March 2014 - 12:41 AM, said:

Can I wait with you guys? I'm a little lonely.

Hey there. Long time no see. How is it going?

j800, on 27 March 2014 - 06:04 PM, said:

I never imagined the level of arrogance and stupidity of the emule “staff” would come this far.

Your imagination is fairly limited then.

[Unknown1]

j800, on 27 March 2014 - 01:04 PM, said:

I never imagined the level of arrogance and stupidity of the emule “staff” would come this far.

Disclaimer: The views expressed by me are solely those of me in my private capacity and do not in any way represent the views of eMule, or any other entity of eMule. It should be quite obvious that the "Staff" has not approved, endorsed, embraced, friended, liked, tweeted or authorized my post.

Disclaimer to the Disclaimer. My disclaimer is based on another disclaimer as I had no idea what disclaimer I should use. If the original disclaimer author feels that my disclaimer is to similar to his/her disclaimer, I'm sorry.

[Unknown1]

Some Support, on 27 March 2014 - 03:24 PM, said:

Unknown1, on 27 March 2014 - 12:41 AM, said:

Can I wait with you guys? I'm a little lonely.

Hey there. Long time no see. How is it going?

Work, work, and more work.

I stalk the site every once in a while.

Love to see there is still some activity as I really do miss this stuff.
Hope things are going well your direction.

[ElChele]

Quote

Work, work, and more work

and a bit of baseball from time to time, I hope so.

[P2PResearcher]

I am conducting research into P2P use and the possibility of how easy it might be for an "innocent" user to unknowingly download peadophile material. Could J800 answer the following?:

You say,

"The reason why I passed through all this was because of massively downloading clips and music, where a certain number of the downloads happened to be illegal content, pederast contents specifically, that I had pulled because of my massive downloads."

What reasons could you give for "bulk downloading" surely you choose the files to download, even if done in bulk (many at a time). So how could you deny your intention of downloading a file with a name suggestive of unlawful material?

and

"But the number of people facing these problems is relatively high and increasing as the popularity and availability of shared files increases in the emule network.Currently, a high number of users have been arrested for the same reasons.Innocent people passing through prison and some even convicted only by downloading a illegal file with a misleading title or just by pulling the wrong one in a bulk download."

How do you know that large numbers of people who had no intention to download illegal stuff are being arrested?


Did any of the files for which you were charged have names suggestive of peadophile material, and if so, how do you explain their presence?

[tHeWiZaRdOfDoS]

The main problem is that the file NAME does not have to do ANYTHING with the file CONTENT.
You can download a copy of "Ubuntu-Linux.iso" and it could turn out to be "Unlawful-Material.xxx" instead. The more you download, the higher the chance to download something illegal (unknowingly).
PPL should know about that issue and check the filenames (or the client should do that for them) so they can prevent downloading potentially illegal stuff.

[j800]

P2PResearcher, on 29 June 2014 - 10:20 AM, said:

I am conducting research into P2P use and the possibility of how easy it might be for an "innocent" user to unknowingly download peadophile material. Could J800 answer the following?:

Finally someone coming here to not pedantically make fun of the case!

P2PResearcher, on 29 June 2014 - 10:20 AM, said:

You say,

"The reason why I passed through all this was because of massively downloading clips and music, where a certain number of the downloads happened to be illegal content, pederast contents specifically, that I had pulled because of my massive downloads."

What reasons could you give for "bulk downloading" surely you choose the files to download, even if done in bulk (many at a time). So how could you deny your intention of downloading a file with a name suggestive of unlawful material?

Normally a bulk download involves marking all the results without even reading their name and download them so I can check what they are once I have the time to do so.
And even if I read the name, the name of the file rarely is suggestive of unlawful material, they normally are fake titles, nonsense titles or terminology that is known to people that share that kind of content, not for the rest of the people.

P2PResearcher, on 29 June 2014 - 10:20 AM, said:

"But the number of people facing these problems is relatively high and increasing as the popularity and availability of shared files increases in the emule network.Currently, a high number of users have been arrested for the same reasons.Innocent people passing through prison and some even convicted only by downloading a illegal file with a misleading title or just by pulling the wrong one in a bulk download."

How do you know that large numbers of people who had no intention to download illegal stuff are being arrested?

For cases in spain and around the world you can consult http://lawp2p.com
In my country, the cases for this kind of “crime” are increasing and increasing, you can see it in the tv. When I request the verdicts from the website of the judiciary, the cases are always about IP address detected for downloading illegal files that the police share. The cases always end in shortened trials, because the victims of the police are normally people from a socioeconomic stratum where they cannot afford a defense for an actual trial.

P2PResearcher, on 29 June 2014 - 10:20 AM, said:

Did any of the files for which you were charged have names suggestive of peadophile material, and if so, how do you explain their presence?

Actually no one was suggestive. However, if there was any, I explain their alleged presence because when I bulk download, the files.. eh, download?

tHeWiZaRdOfDoS, on 29 June 2014 - 01:14 PM, said:

The main problem is that the file NAME does not have to do ANYTHING with the file CONTENT.
You can download a copy of "Ubuntu-Linux.iso" and it could turn out to be "Unlawful-Material.xxx" instead. The more you download, the higher the chance to download something illegal (unknowingly).
PPL should know about that issue and check the filenames (or the client should do that for them) so they can prevent downloading potentially illegal stuff.

This supports my first reply, however, I would add the the police know this and they should not arrest mere p2p users, but it seems the police is corrupted in this regard so they don't care and instead chose to misinform.

[tHeWiZaRdOfDoS]

The police doesn't care, I guess
As we say in Germany: "Unwissenheit schützt vor Strafe nicht", i.e. "Ignorance is no excuse".
If you downloaded such a file on purpose or unintentionally: you did something illegal and they will track your deeds.

[j800]

tHeWiZaRdOfDoS, on 29 June 2014 - 03:23 PM, said:

The police doesn't care, I guess
As we say in Germany: "Unwissenheit schützt vor Strafe nicht", i.e. "Ignorance is no excuse".
If you downloaded such a file on purpose or unintentionally: you did something illegal and they will track your deeds.

The thing is, what's the difference between illegal and a crime?
Law literature is clear: in order for a crime to exist, there must be an intention.

About the police, they just want to look like they are doing a job, they promote the idea that by seeing an IP address “transferring” (they don't even explain that clearly) it demonstrates a criminal intention and remotely diagnoses a paraphilia.

In spain for example, judges have declared people guilty because those users deleted the illegal files as soon as they checked their contents (they assume that because no illegal files were found), so it means that they are “hiding evidence”, go figure that.

This post has been edited by j800: 29 June 2014 - 06:38 PM

[tHeWiZaRdOfDoS]

j800, on 29 June 2014 - 07:27 PM, said:

The thing is, what's the difference between illegal and a crime?
Law literature is clear: in order for a crime to exist, there must be an intention.

Maybe, but you can punish illegal things, too.
BTW I'd like to see a proper quote of law literature about your claim. Oh and remember that different countries also have different laws.

Quote

About the police, they just want to look like they are doing a job, they promote the idea that by seeing an IP address “transferring” (they don't even explain that clearly) it demonstrates a criminal intention and remotely diagnoses a paraphilia.

I honestly doubt that. Police usually doesn't do anything, it's special anti-piracy institutions that massively track such deeds and want to punish them in the name of the music/movie/... industry.

Quote

In spain for example, judges have declared people guilty because those users deleted the illegal files as soon as they checked their contents (they assume that because no illegal files were found), so it means that they are “hiding evidence”, go figure that.

That is really... insane

[P2PResearcher]

It is not possible to legally conduct tests to establish how likely it is to obtain unlawful files (unlawful porn) because to do so one would be committing an offence. The only research I know that has been done is by the US Govt back in 2003

http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-351

This shows that back then pornography, including unlawful child porn was available on P2P networks and the report is about concern about its being readily available to children even when innocuous search terms were used. So, that does seem to show that it is indeed possible to accidentally obtain unlawful files. I would also suggest that even if one uses only adult porn related search terms the chance of getting some illegal stuff is very high indeed,

You say that “I did a bulk porn download.” Just one was it?

There are a number of issues that you need to consider. It depends on what jurisdiction you are in but in UK there is an onus on the defence to prove the defence. Files can only be downloaded by emule by user action. Once it has been established that unlawful material has indeed been obtained it is up to the defence to prove it was “unsolicited.” In your case you say you did a Bulk download. If that is the case then dates and times may confirm that was the case. Normally, you would expect a bulk download to result in a series of files with the same (or very close) file creation date. If each date/time is unique to each file it suggests that the files were selected individually (generally speaking)

However, even if those dates indicated a series of different (bulk) downloads, each containing unlawful material and if there was evidence the user was aware of this possibility by viewing or suggestive file names then it might be argued that having made the mistake once, or twice, he continued with the same behaviour, bulk downloading, knowing by experience that unlawful material would be included, but he did nothing to modify his use of the P2P to avoid this.

If one continually does something that he learns by experience results in unlawful material it may be that the “intent” required is proved.

You say in your case none of the files had suggestive names. If there were suggestive names some courts have also decided that a file with a name suggestive of unlawful material that is selected by a user is sufficient, even if it does not, in fact contain what it describes. The argument is that the suggestive file name provides sufficient indication of what a user is likely to expect it contains. Theoretically, that could be an “attempt.” Courts do not seem to be convinced by the argument that suggestive file names “may not be what they describe.” So, you may have say 100 suggestive file names and only 40% actual unlawful, but if a significant proportion of the collection are suggestive has satisfied some courts of the required intent of the user. The accused may seek to show, by dates and times, that it was an “accidental” bulk download. But, as they say, “once” is unfortunate “twice” seems like carelessness and more times gets close to intentional.

I am still not sure why you did a bulk download. You have described how you did it but not why. Given the above, bulk downloads using P2P are very likely to result in your situation. Only the hard facts of the case can establish the behaviour pattern and intention of the user.

I am not a lawyer but it seems to me that the issue is not whether you "wanted" the unlawful material but whether you could reasonably have foreseen that your user behaviour would result in the obtaining and sharing of unlawful files.

This post has been edited by P2PResearcher: 01 July 2014 - 07:20 PM