What is Digg?68 Comments
- bioskope, on 10/12/2007, -0/+64RIAA needs an enema
- Revadarth, on 10/12/2007, -1/+51***** the RIAA.
- farther, on 10/12/2007, -0/+41A molten lead enema would suit them fine, methinks. Their lawyers should get the same.
- LiquidPenguin, on 10/12/2007, -2/+43This is interesting. While this looks like a good sign. The complexity arises from finding a neutral forensics expert that is agreable to both parties. Who's to say that Sony won't create a list of, "acceptable," forensics experts that will search in their favor?
- seventoes, on 10/12/2007, -1/+41They apparently think they are every single recording artist ever.
- knightblade2oo4, on 10/12/2007, -1/+29just because they aren't supposed to doesn't mean they wont, it just means the system will slap them on the wrist before they ream you for $10 million.
- geminitojanus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+29"Who's to say that Sony won't create a list of, "acceptable," forensics experts that will search in their favor?"
The Judge.
A neutral party examining the hard disks is to be chosen _by the court_ to remove any such bias. This is actually how all searches are supposed to happen, by an agency neutral to both the prosecutor and the defendant (most of the time, it's the Police, but there are plenty of different forensic agencies besides the police to rely on). If Sony et al wants to disagree with the expert's findings, that's tough. They can submit a request to have it searched again by a different agency, but they're only burning their own money at that point. - dmadzak, on 10/12/2007, -0/+24Are you kidding this is a huge ruling. Before the RIAA could take the computer for however long they deemed necessary to search for missing files/install spy ware and could also potentially find other "skeletons in a person's closet" and use the threat or exposure before the search to force a settlement (not everyone knows all their rights you know. This would be very effective to a person who doesn't know better.).
Even better is that it forces the process open and gives insight to what the RIAA is looking for and what types of detection methods they use depending on how they search the computer.
Even if they didn't find anything your computer is as good as gone anyways. Want to synch your IPod, sorry no computer. Same with paying bills, surfing the web, getting your email. Not only are you out lawyer fees, you need to buy a new computer as well. Most people don't have 10 computers lying around like us nerds to hold the time over.
It also makes the case less of a slam dunk, extending trial times and thus the rate of lawsuit filings. All in all a step in the right direction. Nice to know that while Democrats and Republicans are for sale there are some judges that still follow the law. - macbookpromat, on 10/12/2007, -2/+25Suck on that you ***** bastards. God I hate the RIAA!
- Zalien, on 10/12/2007, -1/+19Apparently you aren't familiar with the idea of fabricated evidence.
- stephenwq, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enema
- masamunecyrus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17@marix:
These are the same people that charge people for piracy that have never even owned a computer in their life. At the very least, this means that the RIAA will have to hire a neutral party to examine the evidence, making the "piracy" lawsuits (read: capital generation) less profitable. And at its best, it means that the RIAA will not create fraudulent evidence.
Let me ask you this. If you were charged baselessly for terrorism by the FBI, would you want an FBI agent to "examine" your computer for "terrorist propaganda and programs," or would you want a neutral third-party to do it? The FBI would count things like a pirated version of WinRAR as terrorist activity, because you didn't pay for it, whereas the third-party would actually look for real evidence of terrorist propaganda (albeit, you might be charged with piracy later, but it beats terrorism!). That's why this is a good ruling. - farther, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12Long live the freedom! Short live the RIAA!
- seventoes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10And who exactly thinks this is going to stop them? It wont.
- LiquidPenguin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10@dmadzak
Just a thought.
"Even if they didn't find anything your computer is as good as gone anyways. Want to synch your IPod, sorry no computer.... Most people don't have 10 computers lying around like us nerds to hold the time over."
Wouldn't the RIAA try and grab everything with a hard drive or storage medium? Including your iPod and ten computers? - dmadzak, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10@LiquidPenguin
Good point. I made a bad assumption thinking the RIAA would be rational and reasonable in the seizure. What a fool you made me out to be. - Eleo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9So what can they do?
I read in another article that if you have a insecure wireless network, you can claim so and they will drop the charges; obviously in that case anyone could have used your connection. Even a secured wireless network could be claimed to have been hacked or its key brute forced. And even then, one could logically argue they never downloaded or uploaded anything, and rather their computer was being used by a friend or family member without their knowledge. Now that they can't examine your hard drive (if they ever could), what could they possibly use as evidence against you? Unless it's illegal to unknowingly let other people use your computer, or it's illegal to not know how to secure your wireless network, then anyone could play dumb and get away with it. - seuaniu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8If thats the truth, i'm gonna disable wpa and start seeding as many torrents as my drive will fit and then blame it on my ***** neighbors :)
Ok, just kidding. I think the real solution to the problem is for people to grow a spine and stop listening to RIAA bands and stop sharing their music. I haven't bought a single RIAA-member CD since they shut down napster back in '00, and I never will again. I don't miss it one bit. There's lots of good indie music out there that can fill the gap, and I feel better supporting those bands anyway.
Hopefully, mainstream artists will figure out that they're record company masters are pissing off their fans, and move to an indie label.
Should you be infringing copyright? no, probably not. Should you be paying $18 for a crappy CD with 2 good songs on it? Definitely not. - Ahnteis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6You can only fit so much in a headline, and the summary is quite clear.
- kodek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6"and use the threat or exposure before the search to force a settlement (not everyone knows all their rights you know."
Isn't that called blackmailing? Hmm - imyayo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7If only everyone thought and realised that.
- andergriff, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5These people are amazingly arrogant. They aren't even slowing down the file-sharing juggernaut. In fact, my guess is they are continually stoking it with their greedy antics.
- FinishdLawSkool, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Lost cause for who? Someone must be getting the money that the RIAA is stealing from people through the courts and such...
The RIAA is dead? We all wish it was but considering the continued lawsuits I would say it is very much alive, unfortunately... - RatTrap, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5DOWN WITH THE RIAA!!!!
- MagicBobert, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5That's kind of a misleading title. Sure the RIAA can't examine your hard drive, but a neutral forensics expert can.
- dmadzak, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I think the RIAA has to cough of the fees initially which is the big reason they don't like this. No guarantee on their ROI. Its different when you have someone on the payroll, no additional cost of being wrong.
Kind of ironic that people can't defend these lawsuits because of the high costs. Makes you feel sad that there might be less lawsuits because of the costs to the RIAA for an independent forensics expert. - HoldenDapen0r, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3i think there was a case where a judge said if the RIAA wanted to search the defendants hard drive, they would have to pay for the independent data forensics because the defendant is innocent till proven guilty or something like that. I believe the case was dropped.
- iainc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I'm one of the few mugs who pays to download music from emusic and, on occasion, Apple iTMS. If I were to 'steal' music, I'd just do what I do now with my legit collection and store it on a easily unscrewed and removed volume and restore my music folder setting to the old folder. What could they do about that -- pull out my fingernails until I croak the location of the missing drive?
I don't steal music; the very thought of doing so makes me uncomfortable. However, I think the entertainment industry mobsters and their enforcers (RIAA/MPAA) are marginally worse--morally speaking--than the pirates, simply because they resort to intimidation to protect their 'racket'. Screw 'em. I'd go out of my way to ***** with them. Most of them probably started out as criminals themselves. - macewan, on 10/12/2007, -9/+11well no ***** - who the hell do they think they are
- curtvdh, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2No - it won't. But there is such a thing as 'death by a thousand cuts'. Each setback for the RIAA, no matter how small it may seems, adds a little more to the cost of their lawsuits. There will eventually come a point where the fees recovered will no longer cover their costs.
- kestrel55, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2funny, when the mafia does this it's called extortion but when the riaa does it it's call business. go figure!
- mrmatchgame, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Dear RIAA Man,
LMAO
In Closing,
mrmatchgame
P.S. LMAO * Infinity - antonio97b, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I'll steal music as long as I don't have to spend 14.99 on a CD for that one good song. Instead of having to worry about DRM's and such.
- omnithought, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Hmmm....with all the advance notice of having a court date set and all that....how hard would it be to buy and install a new hard drive and hide or even destroy the old one?
- grumpyrain, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I don't see why the defendent should need to be without hard disk for a considerable length of time. There is no technical reason the hard disk could not be ghosted by the independent forensic investigator onto a new hard drive of equivalent spec, and the defendent taking home the ghosted drive (the new one, the independent investigator retaining the original drive for forensic investigation).
One of the problems with the RIAA approach is that it has not been even close to innocent until proven guilty. Those people suspected of piracy are still entitled to the presumption of innocence, which means that they should not be inconvenienced beyond what is necessary to complete the investigation to see if charges should be layed.
I am very surprised that the RIAA did not jump on the opportunity to have an independent investigation into the cases if they think they have a good case. Independent analysis will hold up in court (and in the court of public opinion) much better than any trumped up investigation by people on the RIAA payroll. - WarMace, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1RIAA CAN examine a image of your hard drive if it is presented as evidence, so long as a certified digital forensic examiner completes the acquisition with documentation.
Its kind of like when both legal teams are allowed access to the bank records after a laundering case.
But most of the time digital forensic examiners are in such short supply, than usually only one has the time to check the data, and its usually the one who did the acquisition. - Atomic1fire, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1state security reasons
company or personal data like banking ect that you dont want people getting access to without your knowlege
almost like a digital bank vault - Brennan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I don't see how this will change anything. If they RIAA catches you, you're still going to get cought regardless of who is looking at the data.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1What if your data is heavily encrypted? They can take all my hard drives, but they can't take the passwords in my head.
- nipuL, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Sure they can examine it, but it's all useless to them if you use deniable encryption.
- jcharrell, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2It might be whomever loses the case has to pay for the court fees, and other costs. But I would hope the RIAA would have pay for this kind of stuff if they want to "prove" their case.
- wookiekiller, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Score one for file sharers!
- Apocalyptk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1/begin German accent/
They have ways of making you talk!
/ends German accent/ - ldavid, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yeh but the problem is...basically everyone who knows how to use a computer (and even some of those people who don't) would have at some time or another, accepted a "stolen" peice of media or downloaded an illegal media file...
Everyone has done it. Everyone will continue to do it. There's no stopping it. RIAA are a lost cause. They will never beat the world of population against them. Although their morals may be right...they still wont win. This is the future...maybe they should be embracing this, and trying to extract from positive out of all the negative they witness. - jellygraph, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1hurrah! justice, finally
- quado, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1AWESOME
- Spikito, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Dear RIAA,
Pirates > RIAA
PWNT
Sincerely,
Spikito - SleepParalysis, on 02/13/2009, -0/+1Pick up some ideas on thwarting any computer forensics investigation done on your hard drives. Use full disk encryption and other methods to make it difficult and confusing for examiners.
http://www.anti-forensics.com/?p=3 -
Show 51 - 64 of 64 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