RIAA Will Drop Cases If You Point Out That An IP Address Isn't A Person
from the and-so-it-goes dept
For years, the RIAA has claimed that having the IP address of a computer that has shared unauthorized files is the equivalent of having the evidence of who was actually sharing files. That, of course, is false. The IP address simply can help you know who paid for the internet access, but not who was using what computer on a network. In fact, this even had some people suggesting that, if you want to win a lawsuit from the RIAA, you're best off opening up your WiFi network to neighbors. It seems like this strategy might actually be working. Earlier this month the inability to prove who actually did the file sharing caused the RIAA to drop a case in Oklahoma and now it looks like the same defense has worked in a California case as well. In both cases, though, as soon as the RIAA realized the person was using this defense, they dropped the case, rather than lose it and set a precedent showing they really don't have the unequivocal evidence they claim they do. The RIAA certainly has the legal right to go after people, even if it simply ends up pissing off their best fans and driving people to spend their money on other forms of entertainment -- but, if they want to do so, they should at least have legitimate evidence. It's good to see that some are finally pointing out how flimsy the evidence really is.
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
Is the tide turning? by Gabriel Tane on Jul 27th, 2006 @ 11:42am
Is this a glimpse of things to come?
Damn, I hope so.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Ah! I see. by Anonymous of Course on Jul 27th, 2006 @ 11:42am
So an IP is like the name of the place the
tube leads to but you can't really know who's
waiting at the other end sopping up all the
internets.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
tubes by s on Jul 27th, 2006 @ 11:49am
Yeah, if the RIAA really wants to stop people from downloading illegal mp3s, why don't they just hire people to walk around in the internet tubes with a net and instruct them to catch any songs rolling on by.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Haha by Sean on Jul 27th, 2006 @ 11:52am
I love the fact that they think an IP address automatically means that the person paying for the Internet is the guilty one. When they first started suing people my dad got right up paranoid (cause he was paying for my internet at the time) and told me never to download again from a P2P network. Then when the Judge from Canada(I love my country
What's even better is I downloaded 100 songs and sent a list of those files to the RIAA myself and said "So sue me, oh wait. I AM CANADIAN!"
Anyways, back on topic. I'm glad people are doing this, and hopefuly it will just make the RIAA FUCK OFF That's my two cents.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
First Metallica, now the RIAA... by Lucas on Jul 27th, 2006 @ 12:09pm
Wow, the RIAA dropping cases. And I thought nothing would shock me more than Metallica deciding they were going to participate in having their music sold online. Personally, I can't really stand buying music any more. In any form. If you want listen to something at home, I'll usually just listen to internet radio. As I mentioned today in something I posted about Metallica's decision: if you like free, ad-free music that you may have never heard before, check out SomaFM.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Anonymous Coward on Jul 27th, 2006 @ 12:16pm
OK, so the answer is that to avoid lawsuits, open everything up? Wonder if that works with the FBI when they see kiddy porn being downloaded also.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
WiFi by Seaborn on Jul 27th, 2006 @ 12:21pm
check this !
global WiFi coverage, you can open yours for free or for fee
http://en.fon.com/
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Avoid them finding the IP in the first place by Yet another Anonymous Coward on Jul 27th, 2006 @ 12:34pm
Use an IP address obfuscator for your downloads. Then, you can't be found.
I just wonder about the demographics of those found by the RIAA - are most AOL users that bought their PC at Wal-Mart?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
So that's what that was by BTx0r on Jul 27th, 2006 @ 12:40pm
So the RIAA sued me and now I've figured it out... for a while I was wondering why there was another cable connected to my router that ran out my window and into a neighbor's three houses down... think it'll hold up in court?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Avoid them finding the IP in the first place by yeah right on Jul 27th, 2006 @ 12:48pm
What? There is no true way to not show the real IP. There are ways of making it harder to find thats about it.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
See it does not take a rocket scientist to be a la by Deputy Dave on Jul 27th, 2006 @ 12:49pm
See it does not take a rocket scientist to be a lawyer, that has been my argument from the begining, prove it was me, don't just roll over and feed them...............
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
demographics by Anonymous Bum on Jul 27th, 2006 @ 12:54pm
No they probably got em at Best Buy. Chumps(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Screwed my neighbors by Rush on Jul 27th, 2006 @ 12:59pm
I hope the RIAA doesn't seize my neighbors router and somehow access an old MAC table to identify me as the person who has been leeching thier bandwidth.
EL OH EL
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Still on the hook by Mikester on Jul 27th, 2006 @ 1:02pm
Opening up your WIFI may get you off the hook with the RIAA but it's most likely still against your ISP's terms of service.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Screwed my neighbors by BTx0r on Jul 27th, 2006 @ 1:05pm
so are you the one with that cable running in through my window ;P
roflcopters and such :P
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Anonymous Coward on Jul 27th, 2006 @ 1:05pm
what if you don't share your wireless network, but there are 5 adults living in your house. You can use the same argument...prove who was the 1 that did it, especially if eveone uses the network
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
RE:Still on the hook by MeOfCourse77 on Jul 27th, 2006 @ 1:13pm
I asked if I could hook a router on mine. They said "no problem". I don't think I would have a ISP that would not let me link my computers wirelessly.
FYI: If you want to use this as a defence, install a wifi, but make sure you have at least 2 computers in your house that access it. Otherwise it looks like you are using wifi to "get you off the hook".
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
RE:Still on the hook by MeOfCourse77 on Jul 27th, 2006 @ 1:13pm
I asked if I could hook a router on mine. They said "no problem". I don't think I would have a ISP that would not let me link my computers wirelessly.
FYI: If you want to use this as a defence, install a wifi, but make sure you have at least 2 computers in your house that access it. Otherwise it looks like you are using wifi to "get you off the hook".
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
omgkebabs by s on Jul 27th, 2006 @ 1:13pm
the internets do nothings
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
why by MeOfCourse77 on Jul 27th, 2006 @ 1:15pm
Why did that post twice? duh
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: why by BTx0r on Jul 27th, 2006 @ 1:16pm
hyperactive index finger?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Sweet by Anonymous Coward on Jul 27th, 2006 @ 1:24pm
Most of my neighbors would know what to do with an open network, and my router currently bites enough that they'd get higher speeds using their own network. I already use it for my laptop and for when buds come over. Reasonable doubt is a beautiful thing. Especially when all my buds are pirating fools themselves; Hey, they left uTorrent running while at my LAN! I swear! No wonder we were lagging!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: RE:Still on the hook by Anonymous Coward on Jul 27th, 2006 @ 1:25pm
have u heard abt the thing called laptop. I have only a laptop as my computer and have wireless so that i access the net from anywhere in my house.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
wish I had held out by sucks for me on Jul 27th, 2006 @ 1:29pm
I opted to settle my case figuring it would cost more than the settlement amount to hire a decent lawyer. Its the equivalent of paying $2 for every song you were sharing :-(
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
wish I had held out by sucks for me on Jul 27th, 2006 @ 1:30pm
I opted to settle my case figuring it would cost more than the settlement amount to hire a decent lawyer. Its the equivalent of paying $2 for every song you were sharing :-(
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Anonymous Coward on Jul 27th, 2006 @ 1:36pm
Just use some proxy in like china...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: RE:Still on the hook by Mikester on Jul 27th, 2006 @ 1:38pm
I guess I should have been more specific. Obviously most ISP's won't have a problem if you have a wireless network.
What I was trying to say that if you leave your wireless router open and unsecure so your neighbours or anyone crusing by can access it, that would most likely be against the terms of service.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: by Anonymous Coward on Jul 27th, 2006 @ 1:42pm
can they even prove that your computer wasnt hacked and used for piracy?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Could this risk worse by FishNChipPapers on Jul 27th, 2006 @ 1:59pm
Whilst it is comforting to know that the lack of evidence is preventing the RIAA from progressing illegitimate cases (as the majority of them are irrespective of whether the IP address is tied to an individual) is there any risk that this could lead to increased demand for IP-based surveillance through ISPs: as we are seeing with VoIP (which, incidentally, the UK police is now pressuring for
http://fishnchippapers.typepad.com/tomorrow_fish_n_chip_pape/2006/07/oh_dear_the_thi.html
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: by Ben on Jul 27th, 2006 @ 2:05pm
Sorry, but unlike the RIAA, the FBI actually DOES get evidence of the crime being commited, as apposed to just saying they do.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
tubes by s by Super Freak, Esq. on Jul 27th, 2006 @ 2:17pm
Hello, MP3s are not illegal, copyrighted audio compressed to MP3 isn't illegal either.
How come no one uses this defence?
Say I compress the hell out of a movie and it comes out as "1kb MPEG10" (shutup, it's theoretical).
Tthat's NOT going to look like the original friends!
Trading in original formats should be illegal,
Prosecuting people for trading deformed lower quality bootlegs of the original? why is that illegal for crissakes.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Sweet by Anonymous Coward on Jul 27th, 2006 @ 2:36pm
lololololol
utorrent at a lan
they cant catch u useing torrents anyways
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Just Joe on Jul 27th, 2006 @ 2:42pm
Every wireless router I have ever set up comes unsecured right out of the box.
Just think how many routers would get returned as broken if they came wep enabled with a default key and forced the average computer user to learn how to configure and use it.
As a matter of fact, I used to have Verizon DSL and the wireless router/modem combo they sent me came with encryption disabled, so I don't see how it can be against their TOS...
Even if it were, I would rather get a slap on the wrist from my ISP for violationg the TOS, than a lawsuit from the RIAA without any loopholes to wriggle through...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Responsibility.. by Johnny on Jul 27th, 2006 @ 2:44pm
Don't get me wrong. I'm totally against what the RIAA is doing, and how they're doing it. However, believe it or not, YOU are responsible for the ip address you're paying for. Open WiFi, multiple computers, friends over, whatever. YOUI
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: RE:Still on the hook by Nabbine on Jul 27th, 2006 @ 2:46pm
Cox in Oklahoma doesn't mind if you use unsecured wireless. I lived in an apartment for a while and they told me I could share my wireless connection with a friend downstairs if I wanted to. I would just be the responsible party if someone broke the terms of service.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Steve on Jul 27th, 2006 @ 2:49pm
I have been saying this for the longest time. Just because the RIAA is filing a civill suit, there cases is not a slam dunk. The RIAA still has to have poof that a particular person is doing it. Even under the DMCA you still need proof. The RIAA basically turned the rule of law upside down.
Even with people fighting back and winning the RIAA still won't give up suing people. The RIAA figures there are enough dumb people out there who will give in rather than fight back.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
WTH?? by Johnny on Jul 27th, 2006 @ 2:49pm
The tab key submits?? Anyway back to my rant.
You, the person paying for the broadband access, are and should be legally responsible for what happens over that connection. Just as you're responsible for what you children do. Just as you're responsible for what your dog does if he gets out of the yard. Just as you're responsible for the mail carrier if he/she slips on a patch of ice on your sidewalk. Just because the RIAA's using lowdown tactic's to sue, does not mean you are no longer responsible.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Anonymous Coward on Jul 27th, 2006 @ 3:13pm
I think if the RIAA drops cases they should be held responsible for paying any and all legal fees for the people they sued - at the very least.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Responsibility.. by Anonymous Coward on Jul 27th, 2006 @ 3:15pm
Is that your opinion, or the opinion of a legal court?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Bob on Jul 27th, 2006 @ 3:20pm
First of all pay for your damn music and you dont have to worry about lawsuits. Second of all if you're so stupid you dont know how to secure your network you deserve to get sued. You are responsible for that IP address as per terms of service and letting someone else use it makes you responsible. If you dont know how to use every feature of an item you buy you shouldnt buy it.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Responsibility.. by Lay Person on Jul 27th, 2006 @ 3:24pm
Whatever...
If you invite someone over to your house for a party and that person kills another partygoer at your house without you knowledge, who is the guilty party?
I'm not an attorney, but I believe most jurors believe the actual person that commited the murder is the guilty party.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
The aren't sueing for the money by William Williams on Jul 27th, 2006 @ 3:37pm
The RIAA is most likely losing money on every case they file due to the high cost of lawyers. There sole purpose to try and force consumers to stop downloading and start buying there clients music. And I think they are succeeding, the music industry would be dead right now if it weren't for the RIAA.
You should bear in mind that the only reason for the RIAA's existance is to encourage people not to break the law. And I tend to agree with Johnny you are responsible for what goes on on your internet connection.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
What have I Learned? by Yo Mamma on Jul 27th, 2006 @ 3:49pm
So here's what I've learned from these little tid-bits of info:
Don't let anyone leach your connection or you'll get smacked with a suit when they P2P. Lock down your wireless... okay, check.
When I want to download music... or other goodies, fake my MAC, then leach from some dumb user's wireless... okay, check and check.
Consider using some international proxy to aid in protecting that dumb user so I can keep on leaching and not have to choose another dumb user later (although there seems to always be at least a handful.)
Sounds good to me... anything I'm missing?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Just wait until by IronWhiskers on Jul 27th, 2006 @ 3:52pm
the RIAA decides to sue everyone that used the wireless connection!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: The aren't sueing for the money by Mark Kitchen on Jul 27th, 2006 @ 3:53pm
It doesn't cost much to draw up and file a lawsuit. But yes, I agree - to get most americans to listen, hit them in the pocket.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Don't Buy It? by IG_Chris on Jul 27th, 2006 @ 3:54pm
"If you dont know how to use every feature of an item you buy you shouldnt buy it." WTF? Unless I am taking this terribly out of context, that is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard. When I bought my motherboard, did I know how to use every feature of the BIOS already? No, and well I could have figured it out, it would have been a hassle to look up online what BIOS the board had and what features that BIOS had. I did know how to use certain features of it, i.e. overclocking, using gigabit ethernet, etc. and that is why I got it. To not get something just because you don't know how to use every feature of it? That is ridiculous.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Responsibility.. by Hmmm on Jul 27th, 2006 @ 4:00pm
True... but if you leave a knife or gun, etc. easily accessible knowing that a visitor is likely to use them in an illegal way, you become an accessory.
Likewise, your computer, router, cables, etc. that you own or use which are processing the data of a stolen music file (or whatever) places you in possession of stolen property.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Phillip on Jul 27th, 2006 @ 4:06pm
I am suprised nobody came up with this sooner..
lets look at history, DirectTV sued thousands of people who bought hardware that could be used in Sat signal descrambling. Well they sent out lawsuit paperwork to each person who appeared as a customer for the company they raided. Every single one of the suits (except the people who gave up to easily and settled) was dropped right away. DirectTV couldn't prove that you actually used the equipment for stealign signals, its like charging someone with murder if they just buy a gun. Yes it can be used for that but prove that I did it. Just because my IP was seen downloading music doesn't mean that it was me, prove it was.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: by Anonymous Coward on Jul 27th, 2006 @ 4:16pm
Just think how many routers would get returned as broken if they came wep enabled with a default key and forced the average computer user to learn how to configure and use it.
I'd say too bad for them then. People don't just hand some the keys to a car or plane and say go for a drive or fly anytime the want, or hand someone a gun and let them out on the firing range -without making sure they know how to properly use those deivces. You don't hand someone a pair of fins and toss them in the water without making sure they know how to swim. If people don't know how to use computer equiptment properly, they don't need to be using it. Plain and simple
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
This can't be true by Frink on Jul 27th, 2006 @ 4:53pm
"The RIAA still has to have poof"
The RIAA lost their poof?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: The aren't sueing for the money by RIAA on Jul 27th, 2006 @ 5:28pm
William, you need to stop spreading our propaganda here, we can't let them know you work for us or our lame position will be blown along with your POS cover.
BTW, can you go "service" Metallica on your way back to headquarters?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: by Simon on Jul 27th, 2006 @ 6:25pm
As you RIAA apologists like to try and equate the digital world with the real world (while conveniently forgetting the difference between copyright infringement and theft) let’s compare your Internet connection to your car. If someone steals your car and then runs down some pedestrian, I guess it’s your fault as you didn’t secure the car satisfactorily enough?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Sweet by Anton on Jul 27th, 2006 @ 7:08pm
They can indeed catch you using torrents.
The RIAA Just cruises the torrent sites looking for infringing sounding names, starts downloading them and log every IP they peer with.
They may not catch all of the people on that torrent but in time they can get a significant number of them.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Responsibility.. by Booo! on Jul 27th, 2006 @ 8:09pm
Not in the UK at least.
How do they prove that you KNOW your visitor will use it?
Any sane 'normal' person wouldn't, and most people would assume their visitors are sane and 'normal' before inviting them to a party.
They would have to prove there was prior knowledge of a real danger at which point:
a) you aren't an accessory, you are irresponsible and
b) it becomes a local health authority issue cos people who like knives shouldn't be free to attend parties or any other situation where they might be able to get dangers weapons.
On the other hand, if you took Joe from the local nut house specifically for your party knowing that he had tried to kill bob before, then you have a problem.
And besides, in the UK at least, if your car gets a speeding ticket and you ask for the photo evidence to try and identify the driver, if the photo is crap they will drop charges.
If the photo clearly identifies the driver then you get done for not identifying the driver. Seperate issue covered by UK law. They will not 'normally' press charges if their photo is crap as their evidence should have been better and it isn't sensible to make someone log all use of their car, ever.
I am guessing there is no UK statute that covers identifying the users of your ip. As such they have no fallback if they can't prove you were the computer user (which they can't). This should even work with non-wifi as you just say you let friends/family use your computer whenever they like.
This might prove false, but I would love to see them contest a case in court where someone with a "straight out of the box" router said I don't know who was using my ip, I used the hardware as it came and have very little computer knowledge.
Do you think a judge or jury would convict someone of not being a techie? Shouldn't the hardware vendor and ISP take some responsibility for making sure the user of the products are aware of the risks? Don't shops that sell alcohol to people underage get into trouble? (And it is actually illegal to sell alcohol to underage customers, big shiny letters in some law book. Not so with IT stuff).
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: First Metallica, now the RIAA... by Mark on Jul 27th, 2006 @ 9:49pm
Yes, SOMA is a fantastic station, you could tune into Afterhoursdjs.org for all live DJs - All the time. Yes, shameless promotion - I understand
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Sweet by madueno2000 on Jul 27th, 2006 @ 10:16pm
Yes they can, and I have the court papers to prove it.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Spend their money on some other form? by Charles Jillian on Jul 27th, 2006 @ 10:42pm
No you mean spend their money on some other record label. Contrary to popular belief, the companies that make up the RIAA do not own music in its totality. Just corporate just want to get rich music.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Clair on Jul 27th, 2006 @ 10:59pm
I partly agree with the need to be responsible. If you invite friends over and they leech off your internet access, hence your IP add is pointed out as a culprit and all that. You really would like you were encouraging it if you know it was their intention.
In any case, there are legally downloadable material off the Internet. Until you find more legal downloads that suit your taste, just try to keep away from activities that could imply you were doing something that RIAA could sue you for.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Avoid them finding the IP in the first pla by Maximus on Jul 27th, 2006 @ 11:04pm
I am told that with a little knowledge and a 150$ piece of routing gear you can preform a "Border Gateway Attack" and temp. duplicate any IP on the internet. So IP _never_ equals ID. The speculation was that this would soon augment phishing attacks.
I forget the link, sorry. Can anyone else factcheck that?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: First Metallica, now the RIAA... by Somafan on Jul 27th, 2006 @ 11:57pm
SomaFM ftw
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Responsibility.. by Yarrrr on Jul 28th, 2006 @ 12:07am
Leaving the internet open is NOT like leaving a gun around. It is like inviting someone to your house... They can watch TV, get something from the fridge, have a sleep, play some games... OR take the gun out of your cuboard and shoot you...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: by claire rand on Jul 28th, 2006 @ 1:40am
got mine from good 'ol BT, by default its visible globally (within range anyway), but a secured connection is the default, the key is on a sticker on the bottom of the machine, you can change it if you want (and can figure out how). a nice 'reset' button is provided to get back the defaults when you forget it.
so anyone can see it, but without the key they can't access it. traffic isn't encrypted by default, but you can if you want.
my cheap little wifi dongle for the desktop found three other networks in range, all secured. dunno if its a uk thing but i reckon over here people are either
a, clued up
or
b, its a default setting.
I know where my money is since i've got a parents wifi to configure ina few days...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Ah! I see. by Anonymous Coward on Jul 28th, 2006 @ 2:39am
hey! the internet is not a dump truck!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
UK not clued up. by RunPCRun on Jul 28th, 2006 @ 3:03am
@ claire rand, I afraid your data sample is a little small for your conclusion.
Encrypted networks aren't default with many UK ISP's and there aren't any more clued up people in the UK IMHO.
I've walked up and down two streets near me a couple of weeks ago in Central London and seen 46 (yes forty six, not a typo) unsecured networks with my PDA scanner. Granted I didn't test them for MAC filtering or if they have an Internet gateway, but that's still a big number.
Unfortunately, you can't expect users to know how to setup their wi-fi router properly, and really ALL routers should come with the default of needing a key.Unfortunately even this simply gives the illusion of security as WEP is an easily breakable encryption standard these days. So unless you are an uber-geek with a penchant for security, implementing filtering, VPN's and multiple layers of encryption then _no-one's_ Wi-fi point is secure anyway.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Not so typical by Ray Beckerman on Jul 28th, 2006 @ 4:52am
What happened in California case is not so typical. I have never before heard of them dropping a case just because they had no evidence.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: RIAA Dropping by What_theDuck on Jul 28th, 2006 @ 5:15am
No, just means that every computer that might have been able to download off that ISP gets searched. And even if they find all you did was visit a certain site and then deleted all files from it, you can still get jail time.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
ummmm by bob on Jul 28th, 2006 @ 5:57am
they might as well just sue the ISP since they own the IP address block.
maybe it was an ISP employee who used your IP address when you weren't looking and then switched the information back to look like it was you!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
riaa by dave on Jul 28th, 2006 @ 6:38am
Just go to allofmp3.com and you can buy mp3's for $.02 per mb. Its a russian site and its awesome.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Anonymous Coward on Jul 28th, 2006 @ 7:02am
Better yet, use your neighbor's wireless access point, especially if they have a cablemodem with high download bandwidth. Then you're not even the defendant.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Unforseen Consequences by Bob on Jul 28th, 2006 @ 7:10am
Just wait - soon we will all have to log on with a personal user identity or perhaps even a thumbprint, to use the internet.
That way, they'll be able to say that an IP address _IS_ a person.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Is the tide turning? by Anonymous Coward on Jul 28th, 2006 @ 7:13am
I got a "settlement agreement" for $3800 regrading downloading/uploading, and in the paperwork, it said that "ignorance is not an option", and the IP info was used to find out who I am. I have since stopped messing around with filesharing and downloads of any kind : (
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Still on the hook by Pootie on Jul 28th, 2006 @ 7:41am
My ISP (vzn) came and installed an open WIFi gateway free as part of the service!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: by Anonymous Coward on Jul 28th, 2006 @ 8:57am
Your argument's weak. Nobody's going to require parents to undergo "Content Filtering for the Home" classes before handing them the remote to their kid's new Mickey Mouse TV... (Too bad, 'cause pr0n looks so weird between those big round ears...)
There's no competence test before purchasing a blender or lawnmower, and both things are potentially dangerous. Hell, when I bought my house, nobody told me how to safely repair a gutter, unclog a garbage disposal, ignite a pilot light, or not fall out of upstairs windows. Those bastards! Or maybe I shouldn't be allowed to live among civilized society?
So let's go over the list:Driving a car? Privelege. Test required.
Flying a kite? A Right. No test.
Watching TV? A Right. Again, no training required.
Climbing a mountain? No test required, but possibly foolish.
Owning/Operating a computer? HOLY CRAP SEND IN l33t g33k p0L1c3! (AOL users are obviously exempt from this policy)
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by farkersenior on Jul 28th, 2006 @ 9:20am
What? There is no true way to not show the real IP. There are ways of making it harder to find thats about it.
o really. proxy server that runs specialized software you control remotely, it downloads shit, and then sends the files to you? Or just a proxy server configured to change your ip address in any packet it transmits (except if they're returning to you).
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by farkersenior on Jul 28th, 2006 @ 9:23am
No, just means that every computer that might have been able to download off that ISP gets searched. And even if they find all you did was visit a certain site and then deleted all files from it, you can still get jail time.
haha haha. so they check any laptop that might have been able to wirelessly log on to your connection? they'll knock on your neighbor's door a mile away (because its possible there was some signal funneling going on to carry the waves through the invisible tubes in the air)
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Obfuscator != protection by Dan on Jul 28th, 2006 @ 10:36am
> Use an IP address obfuscator for your downloads. Then, you can't be found
Don't be niave. Any information that is routed can be traced. The more resources the tracer has, the less you can count on remaining undetected.
On the Internet, everyone knows you are a dog and that you are neutered.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Responsibility.. by Bruce on Jul 28th, 2006 @ 10:40am
I am not required to lock my front door, why should I be required to secure my wireless router? I have a reasonable right to presume that I can trust my neighbors.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Getting around Proof by Don on Jul 28th, 2006 @ 11:49am
You want to make sure the RIAA cant prove you pirated something? Keep your case open and a .45 pistol on your desk. They knock on the door you put a bullet in the drive. If you had open wireless and someone on it pirated something youll be fine because they have NO proof. This is similar to why Sys Admins can't be held responsible for DOS attacks from cracked machines. Of course it will look bad that you discharged a firearm within city limits but thats potentially a smaller fine (for those with 20 gigs of MP3s Anyways).
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Responsability by Jason on Jul 28th, 2006 @ 11:59am
If someone is at my house at an open invitation party and uses my phone without my express permission to call someone and give a death threat, can I be held responsible? No, because although it is possible for that to happen, it isn't probable.
If I leave my WiFi open, it is probable that people may use it to check email and surf the web, it is possible that they are going to make terroristic threats or download kiddy p0rn over my connection.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
CashCrate by CashCrate on Jul 28th, 2006 @ 12:12pm
Get a REAL check in the mail every month
http://urlcut.com/.-cxc-
You get money for filling out surveys, usually $1 each, but they add up. There are also free trials for more than $10 each. The surveys are really easy and only take a couple minutes. Each month they send u a real check in the mail for your earnings. This site is 100% legit. You can check the forums for proof of payment. Its just a good way to make some extra cash.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Unsecured WIFI and ISP's by oLD isp jUNKIE on Jul 28th, 2006 @ 2:37pm
I used to work as a level 2 tech with Road Runner (TimeWarner.) well while it is policy to "ensure that your connection is secure" how really could a company check other than going to your house and testing ...Well, you getting sued, using the Unsecure WIFI defence, and then the ISP finding out. possibly terminating your service.. Oohh scary I gots my Tubes Tied.
ok .. now isn't the week or so you'll spend looking for a new ISP worth it to not get sued?
/ rince repeat, wipe hands on pants.
// Just Legally compressed Spaceballs: the Movie..
///Ohh YEAH! SLASHIES!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Open Wifi by the guy down the street using your wifi on Jul 28th, 2006 @ 5:06pm
i told this exact thing to the lawyers in los angeles that are trying to serve me; now they don't want to talk to me anymore.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
All your Internets belong to the RIAA by Inebrious Cowherder on Jul 28th, 2006 @ 5:40pm
Just you wait until the RIAA's lobbyist convinces famed Alaska net aficionado Sen. Ted Stevens to introduce a bill making it a felony to "leave your Internets unlocked."
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
new idea by Anonymous Coward on Jul 28th, 2006 @ 7:44pm
hey, lets just share our music by burning cds for each other and using flash drives. you can give each to your friend, and then it continues down the chain... its fun and easy!
if you have a cd collection, all you have to do is lend them all out to your friends! no internet needed, which means no data transferred where the riaa can find it!
...well, unless you give a cd to one of THEM...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Sweet by joe on Jul 28th, 2006 @ 8:36pm
that's not true. i got a letter from MPAA for downloading syriana as a torrent. you can see every ip that is downloading from you and sharing to you. it's even easier.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Dr Doobious on Jul 29th, 2006 @ 5:43am
excuse me for not reading every single dam post but i really am lazy, so if someone's already asked this.....
whats the deal then, if for say, like me, your account does not have a permanent fixed IP, but rather is assigned a free one upon connection?
Does the ISP have a log of what IPs were assigned to which accounts at whatever times and dates??
cuz if not.... well..... aint a problem is there?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by handy on Jul 29th, 2006 @ 5:49am
FUCK RIAA AND MPAA!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
It's not that easy by Ray Beckerman on Jul 29th, 2006 @ 6:39am
I can assure you that it's not that easy. These are rare instances. In 2 of the 3 instances of which I am aware, the RIAA had to be 'inspired' by a motion for summary judgment and attorneys fees.
Usually the RIAA will not drop its case even though they know the defendant did not do anything.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
What's this "MY IP" stuff? by SLayne on Jul 30th, 2006 @ 1:51pm
What happened to DHCP? Most people don't keep the same IP address all the time. My ISP charges for that privilege. Even with cable-modem, my IP address changes every time I connect. I don't see a way to track an IP address to an individual, computer, or even address. Only an ISP.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: What's this "MY IP" stuff? by C on Jul 30th, 2006 @ 4:21pm
The RIAA subpoeanas the ISP to provide the identity of whose account was using the IP at a particular time. I guess they depend on ISPs keeping track of that info.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
how do I find out if someone had a will by amanda on Jul 30th, 2006 @ 8:35pm
I think my grandfather had a will and I want to find out how to get ahold of that information
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
bobhasabush by lambofgod on Jul 31st, 2006 @ 7:45am
bob wrote "First of all pay for your damn music and you dont have to worry about lawsuits. Second of all if you're so stupid you dont know how to secure your network you deserve to get sued. You are responsible for that IP address as per terms of service and letting someone else use it makes you responsible. If you dont know how to use every feature of an item you buy you shouldnt buy it"
Deserve to get sued you should be a cop. SHut your COCK GARAGE BOB! and fuk paying for music its just as bad as paying for gas.. The riaa and oil companys should join forces to create a super douche team.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Hilarious by HermitCrab on Jul 31st, 2006 @ 11:28am
If people don't know how to use computer equiptment properly, they don't need to be using it.
If you can't spell, you don't need to be posting comments. But bad spelling is rampant. Go figure.
The RIAA will call you a thief if you listen to their tunes. They'll sue you if you share them. They'll install spyware if you buy them.
Listen to something else. Download at will. Share if you want because the RIAA members are the only ones suing people. Problem solved.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
WEP by Sora on Jul 31st, 2006 @ 12:39pm
I love the comment where the guy says "Second of all if you're so stupid you dont know how to secure your network you deserve to get sued."
This is such a stupid statement. When I purchase hardware I own it. I can do with it what I want. Imagine if you purchased a television and were forced to input an encryption key to operate it. No one would do it. If I choose not to secure my wireless it is my business. I am no more responsible for the person using my wifi than I would be if someone used my telephone to arrange illegal drug shipments. So stupid.
The real problem is that people are sick of the RIAA and their heavy handed tactics. In Canada it is legal to download MP3's. There is a $25 tax on MP3 players that goes to the artists.
Note in Canada we also have the right to backup or copy protected media (CD's/DVD's etc). We can legally crack the copy protection to make backups of media we legally purchased! So.. exactly where is the "Land of the Free"?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
WEP by sora on Jul 31st, 2006 @ 12:58pm
One addition to my previous statement...
Just want to point out that my last statement is not meant as a negative slant on the US. It is meant quite strongly as a negative slam on the RIAA and the DMCA! The US, until recently, has always been the most "free" country there is. These last few years your rights have been slowly stripped away. It is very sad. You've got a great country which is slowly being poisoned by big business.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: by jimmy on Aug 1st, 2006 @ 10:01am
your roommates will love you, now what about that baggy over on the coffee table. :)
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: WEP by Coinspinner on Aug 1st, 2006 @ 10:21am
Yes, the US is the most "free" country in the world.
Except for all the others.
That's why we have the most laws and most prisoners of all countries.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Sweet by Anonymous Coward on Aug 2nd, 2006 @ 9:35am
uhhh yeah they can. my school fined me last year because some software agency caught me downloading stuff on bittorrent.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Pimp T on Aug 2nd, 2006 @ 10:31am
What is the best program to use in spoofing your MAC address. FUCK THE RIAA
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Rophuine on Aug 2nd, 2006 @ 5:55pm
Too many comments along the lines of "What about when the RIAA turn up to search your computers? Will they search your neighbour's computer too? Have a gun ready to kill your HDD so they have no proof."
When was the last time a court issued a search warrant against a P2P downloader? Since when were the RIAA the police?
If you download kiddie porn, chances are the police will raid you to try to find proof. Downloading kiddie porn is a serious crime. If you P2P MP3s, the police don't care. It's not a criminal matter, it's a civil matter between you and the RIAA. No search warrants, no raids.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: What's this "MY IP" stuff? by Anonymous Coward on Aug 2nd, 2006 @ 6:46pm
My cable connection always gets the same IP even when I turn off the Power to the PC and cable modem at the UPS. While I am getting the IP through DHCP I always get the same one. It has my favorite number in it (69).
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: WEP by Anonymous Coward on Aug 2nd, 2006 @ 9:30pm
Since when is being treated as a criminal a sign of freedom? The fact that you are taxed $25 to buy an iPod means that the government assumes you are guilty. Someone who owns hundreds of CDs is assumed to be a pirate, and must pay the same $25 tax. In my opinion this is far more restrictive than what the RIAA is doing in this country. Here the RIAA has to prove you broke the law before they get money. Sure they can get people to settle with them, but you still have the right to make them prove it.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Hooray by sad monkey on Aug 3rd, 2006 @ 12:09am
while this sounds wonderful for the P2P liberation front, it sadly creates precedence for child pornographers.
It won't be long before the guys that fiddle your kids start using it as a defence also.
What a great step forward.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
duh? by xdotx on Aug 3rd, 2006 @ 12:10am
this concept was pointed out years ago, just after the napster age. how is this news?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: duh? by Mike on Aug 3rd, 2006 @ 12:30am
this concept was pointed out years ago, just after the napster age. how is this news?
Yes, this concept was pointed out years ago... but the point is that it's actually WORKING in court. That's news.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Anonymous User on Aug 3rd, 2006 @ 12:32am
Interesting comments on both sides of the issue.
Question: Do You think that the R.I.A.A. would have started this Cyber-Digital Witch Hunt trying to sniff out practitioners of transidental downloading of coveted Mp3s if Metallica-Sonny had not have stretched his A** hole over top of his head and got everyone stirred up about file-sharing?
The internet is based on file sharing. When Tim Burners-Lee came up with the idea that documents on one computer could contain links that could access documents on another computer, the internet was born! See http://endnear.com/ca472/ca472lecnotes18.html
If file sharing is illegal then by the same token, the internet is also illegal.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Hooray by Mike on Aug 3rd, 2006 @ 12:33am
while this sounds wonderful for the P2P liberation front, it sadly creates precedence for child pornographers.
Um. No it doesn't. You wouldn't be able to convict a child pornographer on the level of evidence the RIAA uses anyway. So, no, it doesn't impact those types of cases at all. In those cases, the police are likely to have a lot more proof than just an IP address.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Getting around Proof by Anonymous Coward on Aug 3rd, 2006 @ 7:57am
A bullet in the drive doesn't destroy the data on any parts but that which the bullet penetrated. It is still possible (albeit very expensive and slow) to use a scanning electron microscope to read off the individual bits from the remaining sections of the drive. And those files you deleted? You can still read them, as only the file names were deleted. The data still exists on your drive until those sectors were overwritten, and even then its possible to read the old data off the platter. How can we be certain that the magnetic head wrote that bit in the exact same place every time? For more secure data erasure, use a program called Eraser - it overwrites the sectors on the drive with enough random crap (and bit-compliment pairs) after deletion that its damn-near (but not quite) impossible to recover.
The most secure means of destroying the data is a complete destruction of the drive, however. The best way to accomplish this is through melting it, as it not only deforms the platters into an unrecognizable, unreadable mass, but the extreme heat also causes the platters to lose all magnetic resonance. Thermite is one fast way to do it, although messy and dangerous. Unless you can encase your drive bay in some thick cerramics, this is probably out of the question, although its still the best "Oh shit, they're here!" method available, and its fairly cheap to set up. If you have the time, drop your drive into a forge.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
What the RIAA has to prove vs. What the FBI has to by Anonymous Lawyer Coward on Aug 3rd, 2006 @ 8:17am
RIAA sues people under civil law, so they only have to prove that you're the guy downloading songs by a proponderance of the evidence (more than 50% chance).
Law enforcement indcits people under criminal law, so in court they have to prove that you're the guy with the kiddie pron beyond a reasonable doubt. However, police and the FBI only need "probable cause" to believe that you might have pron in your home in order to get a search warrant. In other words, they only need a hint that you might have pron in order to bust down your door and take all your hard disks, CDs, USB keys, etc. If they discover anything on them that's bad, they easily can show your possession beyond a reasonable doubt.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
lofl by ozi on Aug 3rd, 2006 @ 10:43pm
Land of the free, home of the brave......
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Home of the free by Jammer on Aug 4th, 2006 @ 7:39pm
More like the "Land of the imprisoned and home of the weak."
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
RIAA suits by John W. Gibson, Esq. on Aug 8th, 2006 @ 9:32am
This morning I looked at a suit that had been filed by RIAA (actually it is the record labels that are named as plaintiffs such as Arista Records and Motown) on PACER (Public Access to Court Electronic Records). The Complaint was well drafted and I think these are going to be difficult cases to defend. A major problem with these cases is that the copyright act provides for a three year statute of limitations. The act does state within three years of the date the claim accrued so there is an argument that the companies have to file suit within three years of the actual distribution of the music files but with the way the federal courts have been interpreting the statute of limitations in DIrectv's end user cases I'm not sure if that helps.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Fil on Aug 10th, 2006 @ 5:33am
John,
The issue is about the fact that the RIAA and record labels have been unsuccessful in going after people who simply claim another user used ther connection.
If you do more careful reading you would see this has nothing to do with the statue of limitations.
Seems to be an extremely effective defense that the RIAA is afraid to test.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: by Lou on Aug 14th, 2006 @ 1:07pm
" If people don't know how to use computer equiptment properly, they don't need to be using it. Plain and simple."
That's such an ignorant statement I can't believe anyone actually typed it.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
hmmm...what about the $500 software I'm downloadin by Ignorance is Bliss on Aug 25th, 2006 @ 1:10am
Okay, so I shouldn't be allowed to use my computer equip, whatever, though I had a WEP key...anyway, so a question for the experts here: got rid of Earthlink which used my phone company (Qwest's) DSL lines, and switched to Qwest DSL. They tell me after many calls that my phone lines can't use DSL. I told them I had DSL for over a year here. They said I couldn't have. I said I did...they said, maybe, but it wasn't very good, I said no, not really...anyway so right now I'm using my neighbor's wireless, there are 2 unsecured available...can they find out who I am? How can they track what I do?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Sweet by EXrider on Aug 25th, 2006 @ 8:11am
Actually #33, they can theoretically find who's participating in a torrent. Unless you're encrypting all your torrents, and refusing "classic bittorrent connections".
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by HaroldBalzaccio on Sep 8th, 2006 @ 10:57pm
if you leave a knife or gun, etc. easily accessible knowing that a visitor is likely to use them in an illegal way, you become an accessory. You really are a special form of stupid, aren't you? It's possible that a person could be held liable for failing to secure the weapons, but not as an accessory to murder. In the case of an unsecured network, that's not exactly going to equate to being the person who benefitted from the "crime" of downloading a few MP3's. It's impossible to assign a monetary value to each song which passed through some schmuck's router without his knowledge, and the RIAA can't prove that the network owner actually knew that anything illegal was going on. If they can't make any money (and the legal fees are pretty damned high in a civil case vs. a criminal case, which the state would pay for), they aren't going to waste time.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Sweet by Dr Dave on Sep 11th, 2006 @ 10:20am
Ok, so how do they catch the people downloading?
They would have to provide torrents of their copyrighted works with the intent of distributing them to people who wanted them... So how is it illegal to obtain copyrighted material direct form the copyright owner?
Downloading music is not now, nor has it ever been illegal.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by ME on Sep 15th, 2006 @ 9:45am
Ive just spent 10 mins of my life reading this stuff (i know im sad) althogh ive read some intresting things the amount of shit that is said on forums still amazes me lol
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Ah! I see. by hi on Sep 28th, 2006 @ 12:08pm
Yes... and no.
An ip adress can also be dynamic, meaning that whenever you log on to the internet a server passes your computer or router a new ip. Meaning that you never have the same adress. I'm pretty sure isp's can find out which computer actually had the ip adress in question, at any given time though.
I guess one could also compare it to a license plate, but you get a new one every time you start your car. And you really can't be held responsible if someone steals your car and uses it for something illegal.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Yay by Pir8 on Oct 5th, 2006 @ 4:19am
Another victory for fans. I don't think i should be required to pay for a song if I download it once and I listen to it once, and delete it. I don't think I should have to pay for a movie if I watch it only once, especially if it sucked ass.
Why does the WHOLE United Sates have to be run by rich and greedy bastards? It all trickles down to the RIAA/MPAA/BSA wants money. They make alot more suing you for the money than they would if you would have paid for it legally. Piracy isn't costing them money-it's making them money from lawsuits. DMCA should be burned. As far as I knew, recording or recopying of a certain document was legal as long as it was for private and/or non-profit use. Then along comes the DMCA. :- Money make-a da world go roun.
I know an IP Address doesn't link to a certain computer. IP addresses can be spoofed, MAC Addresses can be spoofed, Referrer URLs can be spoofed, basically anything on the internet can be faked. Hard evidence- like DNA or a knife- hold up alot better in court than electronic, substantial evidence-like an IP Address.
http://forums.phoenixlabs.org/t12171-riaa-will-drop-cases-if-you-point-out-that-an-ip-ad dress-isnt-a-person.html
That's from a person who is involved in real copyright infringement cases. If you point out that you had a WiFi open, and you can prove you didn't know what you were doing, i.e. it came open, and you could convince them you don't have the computer know-how to figure out how to encrypt your wireless, which many people probably don't, then you'll probably get the case against you dropped. Too bad my roter came Encrypted.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
hey by Tiffany on Oct 25th, 2006 @ 12:27pm
yall suck ass
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: hey by phuqtup1 on Oct 27th, 2006 @ 11:55pm
By all means correct me if i'm wrong.The simplist way to stop illegal downloading of music is for the record company to spend the extra 3 cents per cd to make it harder to rip. Has anyone here ever bought a cd and after listening to it,found one song you like.It's bullshit.They're cryin about the 3 cents it cost them to make a cd. Here's an idea put out better products and don't charge so damn much for them. Oh one last thing if you use your VCR to tape a program why arent you sued for that?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: hey by rrrr on Oct 29th, 2006 @ 4:50pm
What I do is let a recorder program run on an internet radio station. If I hear something I like, I go back later and make a file with TotalRecorder (freeware) No DRM, no RIAA. It's takes a little time, but gets around these greedy a'holes and thier lawsuits.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by media burner on Oct 29th, 2006 @ 6:08pm
If the RIAA/MPAA want to stop piracy then why don't the just make there own uber encripted hardware and supply custom uber encripted media!
Oh this won't work... They want the public to pay for their DRM hw and sw development...
These guys are jackasses
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by media burner on Oct 29th, 2006 @ 6:08pm
If the RIAA/MPAA want to stop piracy then why don't the just make there own uber encripted hardware and supply custom uber encripted media!
Oh this won't work... They want the public to pay for their DRM hw and sw development...
These guys are jackasses
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Fuck The RIAA by yapyapyayp on Dec 2nd, 2006 @ 9:35am
Yeah I agree! Fuck all the copyright laws!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Anonymous Coward on Dec 4th, 2006 @ 11:48am
Re: hey by phuqtup1 oh one last thing if you use your VCR to tape a program why arent you sued for that?
As far as i know it is illegal to record off television with a VCR.... at least in australia it is lol lame
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
i/p by annette on Jan 15th, 2007 @ 3:54am
how do i stop people seeing my i/p address
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Criminal vs. Civil by scott on Jan 31st, 2007 @ 9:16am
It is worth remembering that there is a difference in the burden of proof between civil and criminal cases. While in criminal cases, one has to proof guilt 'beyond a reasonable doubt,' civil cases only require 'preponderance of the evidence' (i.e. guilt is more likely than innocence). With this in mind, remember that the RIAA does not necessarily need to conclusively prove who in your family or network downloaded the music, they only need to show that it was more likely than not that you did it.
Also, there is legal precedent in both criminal and legal matters for prosecuting, in this case, every user of the network in question (supposing the number is small) if it is certain that the network is responsible but uncertain who was responsible. In my state (Texas), this precedent is often used to bust everyone in car if drugs are found and no one is willing to rat out his or her companions.
Like it or not, (and I don't) while their tactics suck, the RIAA has a point. Artists should, under US law, be able to control and profit from the distribution of their own music. In the end, the online community and the RIAA will probably have to compromise on an iTunes-like solution.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
You're responsible? by Windo on Jan 31st, 2007 @ 10:31pm
I googled this subject because I think it may have happened to me, no RIAA involvement though.
I have to sit down and read the entire thread but one thing that caught my eye was the person saying YOU are responsible for everything that happens through your IP address; there was discussiong about guns and knives and perhaps I'm reiterating something that was already said but if you own a gun and someone steals it, you are not responsible for it...
I would think that if it is the internet subscriber's responsibility for everything that happens through his/her IP address then it would not be illegal for people to use the network without the subscriber's knowledge... Perhaps it isn't illegal, I'm just starting to research it.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
heres 1 for phreakers by Anonymous Coward on Feb 9th, 2007 @ 7:43pm
66.68.156.332, heres an ip addy to use
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Responsibility.. by joy on Feb 14th, 2007 @ 5:29pm
Yep. That is why they send you a letter FIRST to warn you that you are having some maybe illegal activity and they want you to CHECK and make sure that no body is using your junk to get some illegal files. They give you a chance to fix things.
I have a friend that downloaded some real old gameboy pokemon emulated game and got a letter from their isp... bla bla
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Responsibility.. by TJ on Feb 16th, 2007 @ 9:41am
That may be, but it still has no bearing on the issue at hand. If someone hijacks your wi-fi connection and uses it to illegally download files, you can't be held legally responsible, any more than you'd be held legally responsible for someone breaking into your home, stealing one of your registered firearms, and shooting a person with it afterwards.
Basically, they can scream that a crime was committed using YOUR connection, but can't prove YOU had any involvement in the crime yourself.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
I think im cool but im just a fool by alister james stewart on Feb 27th, 2007 @ 5:07pm
I can hack people
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Necromizer on Mar 4th, 2007 @ 5:07pm
I liek your mom
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
hmmmmm by necrogayzer on Mar 4th, 2007 @ 5:10pm
I dont know what your all talking about but I.P means Important Person.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Good idea... but wont work. by wellllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll on Mar 7th, 2007 @ 9:28pm
This idea of yours that an IP address is not a person is good, but if you argue this i would say there is a good chance they will use your computer as evidence, and believe me it is almost impossible to completely get information completely deleted off your computer. And they will find it if its anywhere on there, so you would be screwed.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
MAC ADDRESS by wellllllllllllll continued on Mar 7th, 2007 @ 9:40pm
also i forgot to mention something called a mac address... this is encrypted into every NIC and they're all unique. If the RIAA knows ur mac address then they know exactly what computer the illegally obtained information is on.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
your wrong by Necrogayzer on Mar 13th, 2007 @ 7:18pm
you can actually format your computer or buy a new hard drive and change your ip address through a cloak/masking system and get a new isp and from that your computers information can actually be wiped off and they have no idea of finding out it is you. durr brain
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Sweet by Anonymous Coward on Mar 13th, 2007 @ 10:58pm
lmfao
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by necrogayzer on Mar 14th, 2007 @ 3:49pm
whats so funny prick? I'll hack your ass
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by shut it on Mar 16th, 2007 @ 5:32pm
i'll hack your mom
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Necrogazer on Mar 18th, 2007 @ 7:56pm
Least i have one prick, urs died last night
(reply to this comment) (