What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
111 Comments
- venir, on 10/12/2007, -1/+81The problem I see is that there is a HUGE number of technologically inept people who have unsecured wireless routers giving away access to whomever is in range. Should these people be subject to the frivolous lawsuits by the RIAA/MPAA because they don't know enough to secure their net connection? I don't see how these people should be held responsible if someone leeches their connection and downloads illegally.
- Anpheus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+47Local governments are not held responsible when somebody commits a crime using the roadways that they built, why should a citizen be held responsible for similar activities? It's like the RIAA suing your ISP for your actions. It doesn't make sense. The RIAA can no more sue the provider of your bandwidth for your actions using it than you can be sued when you provide your bandwidth to someone else.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+35they don't "sue and win" they go after people with little money and put a gun of "legal" threats to their head (which would cost more money) and then they say "if you don't pay we pull the trigger".
its a common technique used in the middle ages of elementary schools between the knights of the sand box and the bully-dragons - Ascendant, on 10/12/2007, -3/+34The headline is misleading- the courts have yet to clearly state whether IP address is legal evidence in this sense or not.
- JimXugle, on 10/12/2007, -3/+18@venir
Maybe a warning pamphlet in every WiFi Router box... (not mandated by the government... just a light suggestion by the government XD)
"warning: leaving your router unsecured can leave you at risk for third party access to your internet connection. This can allow the third party to illigally download copyrighted material through your network, leving you at risk for legal action by the MPAA/RIAA/MAFIAA. " - JimXugle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15I know I am!
EDIT: oh *****. - sketchstudios, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16yea but my analogy has a charred vaporized corpse...
- kajoob, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14"de facto precedent" ??
Dear god I hope you're not an attorney. - shrewduser, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15i use tor, so if someone's downloading pirate content with my IP address it aint me.
- sketchstudios, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15I agree, the IP address is not sufficient enough to sue someone. Its like, if someone steals my car and gets into a high speed pursuit, then smashes my car into a crowded market, and the entire car and everything is blown up and charred to bits including the person who stole my car (even his bones and eyeballs and DNA is charred -- [just go along with me on this one] -- basically the guy vaporizes) and all the police have is the license plate left with my digits on there, they come and sue me because the car is owned by me. that's the same logic that the RIAA has for the crime that is committed. even though it could be a totally different person doing it.
anyway, sorry for the graphic details, but yea. - dclowd9901, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12I think the law surrounding responsibility for illegal activities online is still very fuzzy at this point. There haven't been that many cases that have gone through to the end that cover these points. For instance, forums have been around forever, but we've only recently put into effect laws that remove responsibility from the server holder as far as posted content goes.
- Kourgin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12@Jim
Dont worry, the most they can get off Digg is your IP! :P :) - talman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10How long till people who let (or don't know any better) their machines get zombied get prosecuted as Hackers?
- dacheetah, on 10/12/2007, -0/+92TB? Damn that's alot of music. I have about 40GB of music and that's enough to play music non-stop, no repeats for over 20 days, and given that I don't listen my music 24 hours a day, probably not more than 8 hours a day, that makes it enough music for no repeats for 2 months, and I can easily cope if I hear a song once every 2 months. With 2TB of music, it would be once every 8½ years. (Assuming a bitrate of 192kbps, and listening to 8 hours a day)
- beni, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13I smell *****... people don't go to jail for civil offenses.
- oGMo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9"the 150,000 fines per song were written for illegal factories and not for these lossy files"
While I agree it's wrong for them to use it this way, I do think it's naive to believe it was written for any other purpose than cracking down on individuals as hard as possible. That's what the DMCA was about. Big factories don't need to crack encryption to press bootleg copies; the only people who need to do that are you and me for watching it in Linux, making backups, or making copies for friends. - i440, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10I bet many people right now are feeling very relieved, yes? :D
- glafira, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8now see I think this is obvious because, someone could be using a proxy.
- Brett, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Where do you stop? Technically the ISP owns the IP address and is leasing it to the account holder. But, the RIAA can't sue ISPs.
-Brett - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9It simply isn't right for the RIAA to use the DMCA for internet downloads. the 150,000 fines per song were written for illegal factories and not for these lossy files.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8you can appeal such tickets on the grounds it wasn't you driving the car.
the problem with the riaa is the means of defending yourself as so expensive that most can only fold and pay the extortion money - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6what i'd love to see is a p2p network which purposely hides the ip's of sharers and downloaders behind a list of spoofed ip's of known riaa and government address spaces.
- kajoob, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Most states with red light cameras have statutes that hold the owner of the car liable for anyone who goes through a red light with the owner's car. There are no statutes that I know of that give liablity of any kind to the 'owner' of an ip address So, the "red light example" has nothing to do with whether or not an ip address should be admitted into evidence in a civil trial.
IP Addresses will be allowed in as circumstantial evidence that a person did download the song or what have you. (Rightly so, I might add) There is an old legal maxim that says, "A brick is not a wall", meaning that although an ip address won't be dispositive (most evidence is not), courts will allow in evidence if it's relevant it if it show that it's more or less probable that the defendant "did it". Here, an ip address would most certainly be relevant and although the ip address in and of itself may not rise to level of a jury finding liability, but it would certainly enable the jury to find it more probable than not that the person who uses that account might have been the one to download the song/movie. - mlmcgoo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5An important warning stated at the bottom of the article for those considering this a right of passage to start going download crazy in wireless networks:
"There are some cautions in all this that need to be considered.
The RIAA members are contract experts and legal wranglers. Don't be suprised to see the organization move to attempt to require some ISPs ( those which offer online music services or use RIAA member products) to change their TOS/User Agreements to allow spying or specifically make account holders liable to the RIAA or it's members.
All I can say is watch closely for any changes to account agreements.
You can bet that the RIAA is working very hard to eliminate this obstacle. There is no effective nationwide presedence until a Federal Court rules on the IP issue. This has not happened yet!!!" - cbeckett, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6When a camera mounted at an intersection photographs your car running a red light and you get a ticket in the mail, how does the government know YOU were driving the car? They don't - you still get the ticket, and just try fighting it in court. It is not unlikely that eventually the government sides with the RIAA that as the ISP account holder you have responsability for whoever uses your internet connection. The only reason it has not happened so far is that the government isn't the one trying to harrass and squeeze money out of you.
- scb0825, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5You know what. ***** the RIAA, and the MPAA. If they changed their business models, and actually produced products that the masses would purchase they would not need to sue everyone, and their mothers. Until they change the way they do business, they will always point the finger at technology as the reason why they are "losing profits". It's sad, because change is good.
- wistar, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Bingo!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7I'm not. But they've made it clear, all you need to do to get off is let it slip that you plan on using this defence and poof no more lawsuit
- nox327, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5i watched Pimp my ride (I know, stupid show, but whatever) and the guy put in a 4 external HDD in making it 2TB, he sad you can listen to it for 40 years without hearing the same song twice.
- Murphys, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6To use your example. If someone stole my car and ran a red light, do think I would still have to pay the ticket? No. It is the same with the IP. If I didn't give my permission to use my bandwidth, I can't be held responsible. Even if I left the "keys in the car".
- Brasky, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Ok, I'm sure as hell not a lawyer, but why does it have to be a big copyright case that sets precedent over resposibility of the use of an internet connection? Couldn't a one guy sue his friend for say...$1000 and set it themselves?
- jasqwerty, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Too bad it's not only a civil offense then, isn't it?
- Technopundit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4The entertainment industry seems to produce content aimed at people too stupid to download it. Who can blame them?
- BlackNute, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Thats exactly what I interprteted the title to mean, and is the more important matter at this point.
- cbiz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Your Honor, That 400 gigs of music, movies and tv shows on my hard drive was downloaded by my neighbor leeching off my wireless network. When I found out I asked him to give the content to me so I would have it as evidence in case the RIAA or MPAA came after me.
- cypher35, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5@stryker2you
I think in a perfect world, everyone should be responsible for their isp account and ip address... people would be briefed on their responsibilities before signing up and they would sign an agreement to that end.
But it's not a perfect world, and not only do most people not know jack ***** about their responsibility to secure their own connection to the internet, but the damn ISP technicians who set up their wireless networks for those who are computer illiterate often leave it unsecured anyway. - knightnet, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Not if they get the ISP logs and can tie your IP address to your router/modem
- gotamd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Even though this definitely hasn't been decided in the courts, I'll still digg the story because it's true.
- swaxhog, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2You get a ticket but you do not get any "points" deductions or other traffic citations. The fine goes to you and if someone else was driving your car you probably know who and can have them pay you.
- r3zonance, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@Murphys
Actually I think all ISPs have in their terms and conditions of use that the payer of the bill is responsible for the security/use of the home network (at the payers end). - glafira, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Very interesting, The Vaporizing I meen.
- jasqwerty, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2No, you're wrong. ISPs are protected for certain reasons, none of which applies to you and your wifi connection, or whatever other ***** you try and pass off as legal advice.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Internet law almost doesnt exist, and if we had lawyers that knew enough about the internet to even try it, the judges and court would be dumb as a box of rox and never get it anyway. The judge is usually an old white man, that just listens to what ever the DA has to say, or maybe your lawyer, depending on if they are gold buddies or not.
- doomgoat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Recording industry soon to implant microcameras below the eyelid of every citizen, to make sure you arent downloading 6 pop hits. If you are caught commiting this unspeakable act known as "piracy" small explosives pre-embedded in your skull will detonate. No questions asked.
- ronjohnson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Just like the guy from the WHO (peter townshead). Didn't he have to download kiddie porn to prove it was out there, but he was Innocent. yeah right.
- mookieXL, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2That's impossible. IP spoofing doesn't allow two-way communication necessary for p2p (If you request file with spoofed return address recipient just don't know who to reply)
But there are already some p2p's that hide your IP using another peer as proxy. This way RIAA can't know if you share or just forward someone else's file.
Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_P2P - harpdog, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Given that most isp issued routers often have unsecured wifi enabled right out of the box then most users already have a wide open network that could be exploited. there are at least 5 open networks in range of my house that are not only wideopen but have left the routers using the default passwords. So anyone could be leeching of their connections.
- standsolid, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I don't need someone with a blog/website to tell me that my IP is not legal evidence to I.D. me,
*****I need someone with a government-issued gavel and a preferably a "Supreme Court Justice" title to say this*****
Hell, I'd even settle for someone with a law degree to get my ears perked up. - zadadka, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Bummer if you are on a static IP....home-free on DHCP :)
- JzLosman, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5buying a subscription service from an ISP and then allowing (whether on purpose or not) someone to use it for illegal activities is your problem, why do you think its not?
Thats not comparable to the state gov't building a roadway in which a crime is committed. Thats more like someone buying a car, letting someone else get in the driver seat, run someone over, then the person getting back in the driver seat when the cops come. While it may not be always right or fair, you can't really expect the RIAA to not use the info they have to get whoever they can.
There is absolutely no reason to ever have an unsecure wireless network in your home, security is SO easy to setup, just give it a shot. If someone pirates music (besides me) on my network and I let it happen, guess what, my name is on the account, thus partially my responsibility. WHy do you think you are free from the responsibility of securing your network.
Personally, I would like whoever got me in trouble to die and I wish the RIAA would back off and understand people are going to pirate regardless of what they do. We pirate cause we dont want to pay, it doesnt matter what you do, there is always a work around.
But still, take responsibility for your account or don't have one. -
Show 51 - 100 of 111 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is