What is Digg?67 Comments
- mhlester, on 10/12/2007, -1/+53"If I wanted to steal music, I'd have no problem stealing internet either"
- Technopundit, on 10/12/2007, -1/+43DAMN!!! Will I EVER live down the day my daddy named me 192.168.0.2 ?????
- AKBryant54, on 10/12/2007, -0/+39so does that mean that if i get an unsecured wireless network, i can pirate what i want and say someone else did it? neat!
- anasazi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+32there is a guy in one of my classes who used the open wireless network defense against an MPAA lawsuit and they dropped it.
it works
the bonus was that he actually wasn't the one downloading, it was someone else on his network. - anasazi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+31@UncommonSense
your refering to criminal offenses, which legally they can get a search warrant and just take your equipment to see if it was you or not. - bebop717, on 10/12/2007, -2/+32It's quite simple you ask the RIAA two questions%u2026
1) What did I download?
2) When did I download those items?
3) Can you show me proof that it was I that downloaded these items? Was I physically controlling my computer to download these files?
Open and shut case. - shelby1076, on 10/12/2007, -3/+31This is why I use my neighbor's open wlans to do my downloads.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+28if i owned a knife and my friend killed a dude with that knife, am i responsible?
- nazadus, on 10/12/2007, -6/+25Is my math different than your math?
Two questions?
I see three.
OHHH, my bad. For extremely large values of two.
Sorry bud.
/just picking - delinka, on 10/12/2007, -0/+19If the defendant were being charged with a Crime, then the local District Attorney would be prosecuting the case. As these cases stand, they're being brought by the RIAA as civil cases (i.e. they are not criminal cases).
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+19So i guess my neighbour should be sued because a hacker turned her comp into a zombie and used it to take down websites.
Yeah your right starts a whole new argument on resposibility. - foodbar, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18You're all ignoring the fact that most lawyers are technology-illiterate.
- anasazi, on 10/12/2007, -4/+21by that logic your ISP is liable because they are providing the means for you to download
and lets not forget about the internets tubes, the owners of those tubes are providing the pathway for that kind of activity, so they're liable too. lets file lawsuits against everyone!
so no, you shouldn't be responsible for what someone else does on your network. - ZigZags, on 10/12/2007, -0/+164 question marks = 2 or 3 questions? Good times.
- UncommonSense, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17Interesting argument, but if the "IP address doesn't equate IP user" argument holds up in a court of law, then couldn't that potentially open up a can of worms for other internet criminals (online predators, scammers, etc.)?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+17my wireless is unsecure ALL the time.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10@AKBryant54
Yes, sort of the whole basis for America.
If the courts don't understand open wifi, just tell them about how the tubes don't stop at your house, but they go to your neighbors as well who have obviously been downloading the internets illegally on to their computers. - delinka, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9And I forgot to add:
Civil cases are not held to the same standards as criminal cases (e.g. warrants are not issued for civil cases). Simply an accusation will suffice to file civil claims against someone. It then becomes the defendant's responsibility to put up a defense, request discovery (or the "evidence" that the prosecution claims to have), and refute the claims. No defense usually means judgement in favor of the plaintiff. - bebop717, on 10/12/2007, -11/+19Phone rang and I missed the chance to edit it.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Also you have to prove on that date(the date you downloaded whatever) that you had a wireless network operating insecurely.
fortunately the neos haven't been in control of America for it to come to that... it isn't up to the defendant to prove his wireless was insecure at that specific time. It is up to the prosecution to prove it wasn't.
This article is less about how to get around being sue and more about point out the lack of evidence the RIAA uses. They are saying without reasonable doubt, we know it was you, and that isnt true. - Phlag, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I imagine this article ending with a scene like this:
"Get on the wire to every person around the country and tell them how to bring these sons of bitches down!"
And then some guy frantically starts tapping away in Morse code on a telegraph. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8No you don't the burden of proof is on them, not you.. Besides WEP can be cracked into quite easily, so the whole nature of "how your network is set up" based a defence is just plane dumb.
- mastercontrol, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6The RIAA and MPAA's civil suits are scare tactics, nothing more. Unfortunately the masses are easily spooked. But the problem with scare tactics is that not everyone is easily scared. Some actually cry ***** and fight back. Once the average Joe sees someone standing up against this kind of nonsense, they gain the courage to do the same.
I don't believe the RIAA and MPAA's current policy of litigation, against dead people, 12 yr. olds and people without computer can last much longer. To the best of my knowledge, and someone please correct me if I'm wrong, they're no longer able to go after the P2P networks. So how do they protect their intellectual property?
*I* think the artists should grow some some balls and tell those who supposedly speak on their behalf "I get next to nothing on CD sales, and digital downloads. My money comes from live shows and sponsorships. Stop suing people on my behalf, and stop alienating my fans."
I realize that logic may be flawed, but that's just my $0.02. - EdLesMann, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5"Unless you invited them onto the driveway they can not sue you because they are entering private property uninvited."
unfortunatly thats not the case...heck, every couple of weeks on digg a story is posted about a thief who sues the victim (here is an example http://www.shinesforall.com/archives/2006/06/robber_sues_vic.html ), or a burgler that falls down the stairs and injures his leg...
Its the US Justice System! If you dont first succeed, litigate!
note: I completly agree that its bullsh** but it still happens :-( - DiamondIce, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5"How to Win Against the RIAA in Court"
Show up. The RIAA does not want to take you to court, they want you to settle out of court, because court fees cut into their profits that they make from sueing you. - Aiwanei, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5That would mean that someone in the RIAA was stealing the files because 192 IP's are reserved and not out in the public...
- Inverno, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5So when Google gives us all free wifi for viewing their ads constantly, what will the RIAA use to track us down? Our MACs? Will there be some WiFi NIC registry that we'll have to submit to?
I imagine 95% of illegal downloads will occur on a free, open network (assuming the connection isn't super-laggy) when it becomes avalible. I can't think of any way to keep users honest about their identies... - dpk87, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"Also you have to prove on that date(the date you downloaded whatever) that you had a wireless network operating insecurely."
Innocent before proven guilty. Wouldn't they have to prove that it wasn't open to sue you? - BlackCow, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3If they catch you and you get a letter in the mail you can just back up all your songs to a DVD, burry that DVD so they cant find it, wipe your hard drive (or maby just delet the songs you downloaded, I dunno if they can trace it after its been deleted) and say "someone must have gotten on my wireless network, search my hardrive, I have no music" Brilliant. This could be bad though if people try this for serious internet crimes. But I kind of like the idea of being totaly annonomys online.
- Flynnz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3well just be happy that you were named after an internal IP that the RIAA cant see ;)
- Kaioshin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3There. I just created an open wireless network.
Mwa ha haa!
But on an equally serious note, seeing how easy it is to spoof anything... - Niffer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Yes, it's been my interpretation for awhile now that if you pirate, you must have a wireless router. Merely having one is enough to dismiss the case.
- joemawlma, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3From Techdirt comments:
"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."
brilliant. - DaffyDuck, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2That's the great thing about this. They have no way of knowing whether your network was secure or not at the time. And even if it is secure, they cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone had not broken through that security to use your IP address to download music/movies. I live in an apartment complex with 7 or 8 wireless signals in reach...lots of potential for break-ins.
- Dracker, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3If you owned a driveway and didn't shovel it, and your neighbor slipped on it ... your neighbor was trespassing!
- Murdats, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I can, make users want to buy your product, not charge half a fortune for a pile of crap.
If your business model wont survive the new world, maybe you should change how your business works, not the world - colol, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It's a better defense than you'd initially think when you're aware that some ISPs *cough* Qwest *cough* don't even keep accurate logs of their DHCP leases. So, really, there's no way to prove the RIAA has customer information matching up to who held the IP at the time they logged the nefarious trade of illicit bits and bytes.
- fredkreuger, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1lol, dugg for nefarious.
Made me laugh at work.
*shrug* - decay, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1THe thing is, I have set up a router to provide wireless internet access to a motel where customers come and go...
GL to them catching me :)
Wait, not like i do anything illegal! :) - stewpac, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3"If I owned a driveway and I didn't shovel it and my neighbor slipped on it. I could be sued easily"
Unless you invited them onto the driveway they can not sue you because they are entering private property uninvited. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1People are just now using this defense? I've said I would do this years ago if I ever got slapped with a lawsuit.
- CuisinartBlade, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3i love Canada... it's legal to download here, just illegal to upload...
- jinexile, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Not if you're leeching (the OPs point...)
- DaffyDuck, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1By the way, this reminds me of how the evil aliens were driven away at the end of the movie signs. The MAFIAA of course being the evil aliens and the wireless router defense being the water that scared away the aliens.
OK, it's not a perfect analogy but still fun to think about the RIAA as evil aliens that are scared of water. - Apodyopsis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"If I owned a driveway and I didn't shovel it and my neighbor slipped on it. I could be sued easily" - this is what i mean. the riaa could very well take that tatic
its one thing if someone is completly taken advantage of, but its another if they held the responsibility of knowing better.
its a big debate, but in the end you cant hold or shed all responsibility
the systm is br0ken - wishmeluck, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3@Apodyopsis
I'll go down with you man. There are tools that users have at their disposal to combat the usage of their network for illegal purposes. Hell, my cheap ass intellinet wireless router has firmware that puts the owner in total control of the network. The responsibility is on the connection's subscriber to manage the network. And remember everyone "ignorance is not a defense". - twiztedambience, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1why does my comment about owning a driveway get modded down when I started the driveway debate thing?
I think people don't want to hear the truth here and instead be happy in their minds that they have a simple little defense to the RIAA. The truth is: you know mailpersons or meterpeople may come to your house. You have a doorbell for other reasons - therefore, you acknowledge people come to your property - so you must make sure they are safe. The only way to get around this is if you put a buzzer at the street, fence in your yard and then put tresspassing signs up, and no soliciting signs. Sounds pretty similar to just encrypting your wi-fi doesn't it?
I'm not saying I'm for the RIAA, but I'm more for intelligent defenses from the RIAA's bully tactics. Unless you have money to burn on a lawyer, I suggest you have another defense lined up for after the suggested ones here fail.
By the way, I live in Wisconsin, and I've come across at least three lawsuits that succeeded against people who did not salt their driveways in winter and salespeople or visitors slipped on the ice. One involved a Walgreens drug store, but the other two were private residences with no signs saying soliciting was not allowed. - gheide, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Lke I always said - an IP address is not a person... Better way to get around it - set up broadband with open wifi at your "summer home" and vnc into it from your "winter home" (out of state) and keep your shopping receipts while you download/share all you want remotely... Then use fileshare or ishare to transfer the files to you securely - and don't save any logs. RIAACKMA
- dontpassthefenc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Its EVEN easier if your ISP gives you a dynamic IP... then you can just say, 'Hey, my Internet Service Provider provides me with a DYNAMIC internet protocol address, and the IP shown here *point* could have been ANYONE at ANYTIME that uses the same internet connection as I do.'
BAM, You win.
I loved this article, the internet needs more people like this :D The RIAA can not be allowed to continue to force their Facism ***** upon the internet. - dave9999, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Wait stop. They have to prove this or that...Open and shut case...
You do realize that this is a civil case and those cases have an entirely different burden of proof than a criminal case. All the MPAA has to do is get more than half of the jury to believe that you were the person sharing files. You don't even get a "beyond a reasonable doubt.
Sad but true. Why do think hardly anyone fights. -
Show 51 - 66 of 66 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is