bit-tech.net— Despite the success in the Kazzaa case earlier this week for the RIAA it seems they have actually suffered a massive set back in their quest to stifle the internet's illegal download community.
Aug 1, 2006View in Crawl 4
For the logs issue. I hard reset my router every month or so. Not to mention I choose a router with very limited logging features and logging space.As for detecting that the network went from secure to unsecure. How are they going to do that? War Driving?Besides, even with WEP & Mac Filtering, it only takes on average of 3 days to monitor network traffic and crack the wep & clone the MAC.
One of these days the RIAA/MPAA will truly sue the wrong person, someone with severe mental illness, etc. That person will suffer extreme damage to his life or take his life. Then they will truly get the public and monetary beating they've deserved for so long.Reminds me of a case in Southern California. A drunk driver hit a Jehovah's Witness who later died of complications related to her and her family's refusal of blood a transfusion. What was the moral of this story? If you drink and drive, someday you may hit the wrong person. This is a lesson for the RIAA/MPAA people to learn. If you sue your customer base, someday you just might sue the wrong one. Even though I believe it's stupid to die instead of accepting a transfusion, it's a knowable risk you have to accept if you're going to be stupid enough to get behind the wheel after a night of drinking. They know what they're doing is wrong, they've accepted the risks. And it's not the only risk. As with one recent case, they may just sue someone with deep enough pockets to effectively bury them legally.Someone downloading something they never would have purchased anyway isn't destroying anyone's lives, let alone their livelihood. These people need to stop being litigious and get going with tracking download numbers to monetize them instead of ignoring the statistical goldmine sitting right in front of them. They need to accept that the world has changed and make the best of it instead of casting stones at shadows.
I've seen this exact story on digg about ten times now. It even has the same comment that states your best defense is to open up your router to your neighbors. I'm burying this as a duplicate.
This is the second time this week a story has posted on digg that shows you may be better off with less security. Yesterday an article showed that buying a car that has an advanced electronically encrypted key could cause insurance companies to investigate for months and even deny responsibility if they want. The moral was that it would be less trouble getting them to pay if you drive a car with a normal mechanical key, which is less secure.Today they tell us that you have a better chance of not getting screwed by the RIAA if you open up your wireless network.
Actually, the riaa will most likely be made to pay the legal fee of the defendant in this case. the people vs the riaa website (don't have the link off hand) has more info on this.
From the article: "Despite the pyrrhic victory of having Kazzaa legitimised earlier in the week Ray Beckerman, leading RIAA attorney, made this comment regarding the recent landmark case:"Ray Beckerman is not a leading RIAA attorney. He doesn't work for the RIAA. He is actually the most vocal of the defendants attorneys.
Being an expert can actually help you out. They identify the person behind the IP based on ISP DHCP logs. Make them prove that someone else didn't staticly assign the IP into their network stack, bypassing the DHCP process, or that the IP was not spoofed in some other way.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------quote above by drosinvery interesting drosin, i was wondering could you go into more details on how someone could staticly assign your ip into thier network stack or how this process could bypass the DHCP process or some examples of how someone could spoof your ip address?
dagr8timAug 2, 2006
For the logs issue. I hard reset my router every month or so. Not to mention I choose a router with very limited logging features and logging space.As for detecting that the network went from secure to unsecure. How are they going to do that? War Driving?Besides, even with WEP & Mac Filtering, it only takes on average of 3 days to monitor network traffic and crack the wep & clone the MAC.
kindrobotAug 2, 2006
One of these days the RIAA/MPAA will truly sue the wrong person, someone with severe mental illness, etc. That person will suffer extreme damage to his life or take his life. Then they will truly get the public and monetary beating they've deserved for so long.Reminds me of a case in Southern California. A drunk driver hit a Jehovah's Witness who later died of complications related to her and her family's refusal of blood a transfusion. What was the moral of this story? If you drink and drive, someday you may hit the wrong person. This is a lesson for the RIAA/MPAA people to learn. If you sue your customer base, someday you just might sue the wrong one. Even though I believe it's stupid to die instead of accepting a transfusion, it's a knowable risk you have to accept if you're going to be stupid enough to get behind the wheel after a night of drinking. They know what they're doing is wrong, they've accepted the risks. And it's not the only risk. As with one recent case, they may just sue someone with deep enough pockets to effectively bury them legally.Someone downloading something they never would have purchased anyway isn't destroying anyone's lives, let alone their livelihood. These people need to stop being litigious and get going with tracking download numbers to monetize them instead of ignoring the statistical goldmine sitting right in front of them. They need to accept that the world has changed and make the best of it instead of casting stones at shadows.
dragntyrAug 2, 2006
I've seen this exact story on digg about ten times now. It even has the same comment that states your best defense is to open up your router to your neighbors. I'm burying this as a duplicate.
riaancAug 2, 2006
This is the second time this week a story has posted on digg that shows you may be better off with less security. Yesterday an article showed that buying a car that has an advanced electronically encrypted key could cause insurance companies to investigate for months and even deny responsibility if they want. The moral was that it would be less trouble getting them to pay if you drive a car with a normal mechanical key, which is less secure.Today they tell us that you have a better chance of not getting screwed by the RIAA if you open up your wireless network.
kertapAug 2, 2006
Actually, the riaa will most likely be made to pay the legal fee of the defendant in this case. the people vs the riaa website (don't have the link off hand) has more info on this.
kertapAug 2, 2006
From the article: "Despite the pyrrhic victory of having Kazzaa legitimised earlier in the week Ray Beckerman, leading RIAA attorney, made this comment regarding the recent landmark case:"Ray Beckerman is not a leading RIAA attorney. He doesn't work for the RIAA. He is actually the most vocal of the defendants attorneys.
mistressroninsAug 9, 2006
boycott-riaa.com
n4loverAug 14, 2006
Being an expert can actually help you out. They identify the person behind the IP based on ISP DHCP logs. Make them prove that someone else didn't staticly assign the IP into their network stack, bypassing the DHCP process, or that the IP was not spoofed in some other way.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------quote above by drosinvery interesting drosin, i was wondering could you go into more details on how someone could staticly assign your ip into thier network stack or how this process could bypass the DHCP process or some examples of how someone could spoof your ip address?