Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
MPAA Sues Man Over Movies It Can't Find
channelcincinnati.com — Defendant Argues Someone Else Tapped Into Wireless Network...Paramount has looked at all four computers in Lee's home, alleging he had one of them cleaned to erase evidence.
1gunit- 1256 diggs
- digg it
- Dash-2, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0MPAA = douche bags
- BishopAzrael, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2I get paid $70 an hour to install wireless networks here in Portland Oregon. The comment I get the most is... thats too expensive.
Sure doesn't seem that way now, does it?
But still, I feel bad for the man. Dugg to expose the evil empire that is the MPAA - ernesto99, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1No evidence, no case...
- h0dg3s, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2DUPE
- en3r0, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0They better lose this case...
__________
-en3r0
http://virtenu.com - mrkoje, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0I wish I could find a job that would pay me $70 an hour to install wifi networks... how easy is that!
- adml_shake, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7"Well we think he shot the guy, he OWNs a gun, he knows how to USE a gun, and he reads and watches things about GUNs. So obvious he is guilty..."
- SupaDawg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1H0dg3s.... thanks for your wonderful insight into the topic at hand.
On topic... this is the same old RIAA/MPAA *****. I'd love to see them make this stick if they cant come up with any physical evidence. I'm so sick of lawsuits being used as a profit model... when the hell does it end? - stimpack, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1If the MPAA win this one they have insane power and the courts are corrupt.
Destroy the 4th Reich MPAA+RIAA. - BenStockwell, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0"I didn't do it."
lmao, now I believe him. - allthewhile, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1His story is dubious, at best. If anyone has ever used the edonkey network, they know that a single download can actually take quite a while. It's good for downloading tiny bits of a lot of different files. So who exactly would park their car outside his house just to download Coach Carter, why wouldn't he notice it?
- shakin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Why do I find it unlikely that someone who owns four computers can't secure a wireless router?
In any case, ISP logs shouldn't be enough evidence for the court to order this guy to pay the MPAA. Those logs never show who's doing what. It's unfortunate that ISP logs have in the past been enough evidence, so I think this guy is going to have to pay. - xenorg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0How does the MPAA 'view' a persons hard drive. Are they hacking and scanning all drives? Or is it only the share folder within the P2P program? Are they getting a court order to physically acquire the computers?
- adml_shake, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"So who exactly would park their car outside his house just to download Coach Carter, why wouldn't he notice it?"
Your giving people to much credit. Whats to stop me from sitting in a parking lot or infront of some other area acting like i'm on my cell and just moving around for a bit. If I have a long range antenna hooked up I can be a fair distance away. Of what about a neighbor? hell I can pick up a wifi connection seven houses down from where i'm at when i have my cantenna hooked up.... - rmendis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0WTF? Where is the evidence?
What if someone else used his computer at the time? Like a visiting guest?
This is getting out of control.
I hope the judge throws this out, and fines the MPAA. - SupaDawg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0It's the share folder. They, like the RIAA, are sueing for distribution... not downloading. If you share it thats what they take notice of.
- 1ivewire, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0He should be fined for running an unsecured wireless network anyways. If it's not him, it's probably one of his neighbors if they had enough time to download and share a copy of Coach Carter. Otherwise there would have to be a car parked outside his house for a pretty long time.
- bmatherlyjr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1When probable cause is obtained a court order can be obtained to confiscate equipment suspected in a crime, this brings me to the point of this response. If evidence was removed off the computer, when are people going to realize that simply deleting files off a computer isn't as effective as a Gutmann wipe of the hard drive. Someone send this man a link to the "eraser" program please.
- Muddle, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0"I wish I could find a job that would pay me $70 an hour to install wifi networks... how easy is that!”
Actually it's not that easy depending on what type of wifi networking equipment your installing. In rain, sleet, snow, or baking heat you may be on rooftops, crawling through attics. Antenna's, guy wires, masts, cable from the roof to the router etc. Many of these wifi networks hire people as independent contractors so they don't have to pay insurance. Unless your fairly well self insured, when you fall and can't work you'll starve before Social Security or Medicaid pay a dime. - CorpT, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0A guy has 4 computers in his house and he doesn't know how to secure his wireless? I smell BS.
- digitarius, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0There are a million ways you could tap into someones connection for file sharing like that... from Cantennas to actually hiding a laptop with a wifi card and battery extender there, coming back for it later. POssible but I don't think it's very likely...
Since They ARE pissed about distribution, I doubt whoever would be tapping that line would be actively sharing. Unless it IS a neighbor with a cantenna or misconfigured wifi setup (I've heard plenty of stories like that, people not even REALIZING they are hooked up to the neighbors instead of their own.) - digitarius, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I hope he wins this one, now that I think about it. That would mean all us nerds just have to set up a big Truecrypt volume to do our file sharing. Unmount it and just delete/securely erase it, and wish them good luck recovering then decrypting the thing.
- striker1211, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0I don't believe him. It's so easy to remove a hard drive. Although i have wondered when someone was gonna use the wardriving excuse. It seems if he KNEW people could get into his wireless network he would have enabled encryption.
- jasqwerty, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Chooo-Chooo. Here comes the liability train.
MPAA w/ IP:
Tier 1 Internet trunk? No, here's the info on the ISP that came from
User ISP? No, here's the info on the client that came from
Client? Um, I didn't do it, I swear, believe me damn it..
Guess where the liability train stops? - KyleKaplan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@ 1ivewire
sense when is it illegal to run an unsecured wireless network? if it is please let me know, because i didn't know that it was
@ article
so i could surmise that if i leave my access point open that if/when the Devil(RIAA/MPAA) come to my house i could just say that my access point was open so some1 else must have done it? I guess by that reasoning i should also but a very high powerful broadcast antenna so that my laptop can work lets say 2000 or 3000 feet away, and of course i'd need a very powerful antenna for my laptop, so in that case i'd just get on some1 else's wifi and pirate from their connection, theoretically of course!
~Just my thoughts~ - adml_shake, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0What the hell is wrong with you people?! Just because WE know how to do all the stuff the MPAA thinks he might of done YOU think he does too? None of you can tell me you don't know any dumbasses with multiple computers and wifi networks! I have family member with MORE than 4 and they just set up a wifi and it's WIDE open!
- jonathanex, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Well, I'm all for the MPAA getting a loss on this case. If there's no movies, what are they suing him for? THINKING he has them?
- digitarius, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Note to all MP/RIAA bashers: And remember when the PS3 comes out that Sony is a major player in the MPAA!
Just my two cents. - Abx0r, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1ok...I need to buy a wireless router just for this situation... Lol
- liber8ed, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2He doesn't have to have the movie on any of his computers. The RIAA has some sort of evidence that someone at his IP uploaded the movie.
The man claims it was not him, could have been someone using his open wireless...
This case is important because it will set a precedent about whether or not the "owner" of the IP can be held liable for infringement even if it can not be proved that the individual was the one doing the infringing. - oepapel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4All they have is a filename and an IP address. The filename is not proof of content and the IP address is not proof of identity. They really have nothing. However, if the MPAA decides to go after him, he'll probably settle before it goes to court. The courts work for those that can afford it the most.
- Braamer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0If ol' 4-puter Russel here is nailed to the cross as an example to all us theives, will it stop anyone from stealing movies?
Ohio is one of the thirty eight states still routinely killing people as an example to all that being evil is unacceptable.
The same may be done with ol' 4-puter Russel.
Let the fire-spitting commence - SniperGX1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0What is that they keep talking in CJ classes? I seem to remember something about evidence, but i'm not sure. He will probably settle, or go crazy and kill everyone that works there. My vote is for the latter.
- drjones, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yeah this is not particularly important for the MPAA ***** angle. But if it is accepted law that you have no responsibility to secure your network then if say your neighbor was a real criminal, stealing identities, credit card fraud, selling child porn etc over your wi-fi then there is no way to target them at all.
On the other hand if the MPAA prevails then if your granny gets her wireless dsl modem out of the box from the phone company and turns on wireless by accident she will be facing many many years in prison for the above crimes and possibly racketeering/conspiracy to boot. It's a problem with the wireless model that will come up in the courts eventually for better or worse.
And if you do secure it but are hacked are your liable? What if you only kinda tried to secure it but not much? Who decides?
Personally in my residental neighborhood without any boosting antenna I see 3-4 open wifi nodes and several closed ones that may not be using secure methods. If I was looking to pull off something nasty I would not think twice about using their connection.
-drjones - rnelsonee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Although I personally believe the case should get thrown out (hell, states don't even try to procecute murder suspects if they don't a body), remember that this is a civil suit, so everything's a little different. There's no "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard here. All the judge has to find is that based on "the proponderance of evidence", the MPAA lost revenue due to this guys acts.
Again, it should be thrown out, but the standards are much lower in this case. - MattyLite, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0If somebody is using a proxy, can't it just LOOK like it's coming from somebody else's IP?
- mattconn24, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0This case is crap. They have no proof well real proof anyways. If they only have the IP then that leaves way to much doubt for him to be convicted. Like it has been said above someone else could have used his connection in any number of ways. Haveing an open network is not a crime.
- edrift101, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It's very possible that one of his neighbors tapped into his unsecured wifi network. Pretty easy to do, as any 14 year old will tell you. If you run a wireless network...either spend the time to secure it properly or pay someone to do it for you.
BTW, What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty? - oepapel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"What is that they keep talking in CJ classes? I seem to remember something about evidence, but i'm not sure."
The MPAA and others keep talking about theft but if it WAS theft then it would be a criminal matter and they would need to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the theft actually took place. Instead, they are suing for copyright infringement in a civil matter where they only need to show that it is more likely than not that the act took place. There is no jail time in a civil matter. It is just a money grab. There is no attempt at justice.
For once, I'd like to see them actually TRY and sue someone for theft! Then the issue would be settled once and for all. - bitz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0If the mpaa win this case, well it throws out the theoretical open wifi defense and sets other bad things in motion.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, there are just no standards to the evidence. Yes there should be and yes it is in the public's best interest to have them, but no there just aren't there, yet (if ever).
Anyone that does filesharing these days in the US and europe shouldn't be doing it through standard old p2p like bittorrent, gnutella, edonkey2000. If they have to go for something safer like i2phex or nonstandard and complicated like encrypted split email attachments, using multiple anonymous email accounts accessed via proxies.
Even if you just intend to share content which is legal, these days it doesn't matter you cannot afford to even have your ip address associated in any way with such old p2p networks and clients.
Of course many people will just outright dismiss my advise like they always do and continue on in ignorant bliss sharing away until they get busted (and sooner or later they will, certainly if the riaa, mpaa and others have anything to say about it and they do).
Seems the recent media campain against piracy can have a couple results, either it will scare users away from filesharing (which would mean a victory for the riaa, mpaa and others), or it will wake filesharers up and they will move to something safe like i2phex (which would be a major defeat for the riaa, mpaa and others).
So this case is sort of like the mpaa saying sorry filesharers no open wifi defense for you!
How will you respond?
Keep filesharing as you have (go ahead let the mpaa, riaa and others win).
Stop filesharing (which is also letting the mpaa, riaa and others win).
Move to safe filesharing (they lose and we all win). - joeyjojo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0A $100,000 fine is the BS part of this whole situation.
"All the judge has to find is that based on "the proponderance of evidence", the MPAA lost revenue due to this guys acts."
I can only hope that a judge would be sane enough to figure out that the lost revenue is nil to none in these situation. - EricBoyers, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Listen peeps, I don't for a minute believe this guy didn't d/l the movie, but I coundn't prove it and neither can the MPAA. The case should be thrown out.
- GiggleStick, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0What about spyware/trojans. Maybe his machine is a zombie proxy that someone is tunneling P2P through. That seems more likely. Also, about download times, It can be fast for popular files, right? Isn't that part of the rational I've heard for P2p, is that the more people that want it, the faster it downlaods, or something.
- yakk0dotorg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I wonder at what point he can countersue for harassment. If I didn't do something and they got to search my stuff and couldn't find what they were looking for and still continued to go after me I'd think I had a case.
- Riotblade, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Russell Lee.. where have I heard that name before?
Oh I know! It's the photographer for the colored photo Digg!
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/boundforglory/glory-exhibit.html
Well that just seemed ironic to me. - vypergts, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I can't believe they went after him for just one movie. I tried the same argument at my college when they got a letter for something i uploaded on edonkey and they didnt seem to give a crap about open APs (there are about 80 of them around here). Lukily I wasn't being sued. But this is totally ridiculous, I've been to Blue Ash...I'm sure there is more to this story and he either uploaded a bunch or was used. The point is he got busted for UPLOADING when he should have been using PeerGuardian :)
- orangetiki, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Does the guy even have a static IP? I have cable, and my IP changes. Also you can still look into a hard drive, and see what was in there in bits and pieces even if it was erased.
- UncleToxie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1'A guy has 4 computers in his house and he doesn't know how to secure his wireless? I smell BS.'
I can't even begin to tell you how many people that I know who have multiple computers and can't use them. I have a client right now who has five computers and can't even update her anti-virus without me.
I have two cars and can't fix one if my life depended on it. Just because you own more that one of something does not indicate expertise. - CritterNYC, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Is it just me... or does the MAFIAA appear to be grasping at straws in more and more of these cases?
http://mafiaa.org/ - webquacks, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Just uninstalled my p2p.
I'm confident an giant ongoing IP list exists & they will get to everyone of us until statute of limitations expires.
A $100,000 grand per user ? More profits than any movies sales itself.
Rest assured RIAA/MPAA are hiring more lawyers than they can get there hands on.
Save your money or get a passport, the ugliness has just begun.
They won. -
Show 51 - 96 of 96 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by