What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Think Choosing a Gift For A Teen Girl Is Impossible? view!
bestbuy.com - Hello-o-o! No WAY! Email, IM, chat, social networking & streaming audio/video are all on Netbooks.
110 Comments
- Scheissenegger, on 10/11/2007, -6/+177"In terms of evidence, the lawyer Davenport Lyons representing the publisher Zuxxez, demands to see;
1. A copy of the instructions accompanying the router
2. Evidence to prove the use of anti-virus software and firewall
3. Evidence detailing exactly how the computer was compromised.
4. Evidence to prove the victim took adequate measures to prevent the intrusion."
1. Sorry, lost it....
2. Bitdefender has to be somewhere on my 1 TB hard disk....
3. http://www.profit42.com/index.php/2006/08/02/92/ (WEP crack)
http://www.profit42.com/index.php/2006/08/20/cracking-wpa/ (WPA crack)
4. I closed all Windows and installed Linux. - Sanchez, on 10/11/2007, -1/+153Wait, It sounds like they're going to sue people for not using an anti virus and firewall...
That is exactly what it sounds like, dear god. Tell me I'm reading this wrong. - LordSkywalker, on 10/11/2007, -1/+134So if my car gets jacked, would I have to provide evidence on how the guy hotwired it? How the hell should I know?
- Leomarth, on 10/11/2007, -0/+125I'm sorry, I took no measures to secure my router. I'm not legally required to.
- PeaTearGryphon, on 10/11/2007, -18/+97Worst comment to ever make the comments section.
BURIED ASAP - kenvsryu, on 10/11/2007, -1/+74I would bring in an AOL cd and get away scott free.
- dattaway, on 10/11/2007, -0/+70I'm sorry, but my router is in the default security provided by the manufacturer. You may want to ask the manufacturer why the required security settings are not turned on by default.
- JanYpe, on 10/11/2007, -0/+51Ah yes. One of those got me out of a double murder once.
Good times. - DarkDragon, on 10/11/2007, -1/+42My Defense:
1.) Didn't read them threw them away...
2.) Dont use them, but why would this be relevant? They hopped on my wifi not my computer
3.) An 31337 h4x0r tool called "Windows Wireless Zero Configuration"
4.) I didn't do anything to secure myself, thats probably why i got 0wn3d...? - mykos, on 10/11/2007, -2/+34Good analogy!
This line of thinking by the lawyers would open up a whole host of asinine legal questions, like if he killed someone with your stolen car, are you liable for manslaughter? - undetected, on 10/11/2007, -1/+32That second letter (saying "oh *****, diving into this could get expensive") probably came from the client after seeing what his lawyer planned to charge. Well, yeah it's expensive -- there's a lawyer involved. That's why they went after the 500 hacked people vs. the one hacker - more cases, more fees, less technical savvy needed.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -13/+43"If you think it's ok to pirate grow some balls and defend yourself instead of trying to pass the blame."
If you think its ok for major corporations to twist the justice system so they can make big profits off of our back then bend over and take it in the ass instead of trying to do something. - goblindegook, on 10/11/2007, -12/+41"3. http://www.profit42.com/index.php/2006/08/02/92/ (WEP crack)
http://www.profit42.com/index.php/2006/08/20/cracking-wpa/ (WPA crack)
4. I closed all Windows and installed Linux."
Sorry for the derail, but how does that solve your wireless connection being cracked exactly? - calbff, on 10/11/2007, -0/+22Exactly. Last time I checked, I didnt have to lock my house by law.
- gamebittk, on 10/11/2007, -2/+23Or you can get all OJ Simpson up on their asses...
"I didn't do it, but if I did, I would have..." - BESTenemy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+20 Good point. Router manufacturers put on default settings. Only Cisco routers I've come in contact with had encryption enabled by default. It's not that difficult - putting a random WEP key and slapping a sticker onto the packaging, much like they do with MAC addresses. So, the lack of security is, in fact, can be interpreted as negligence on behalf of the hardware manufacturer. If it is legal for them to sell unsecured devices, then it should be legal to use devices in such state.
Car alarms aren't mandatory. Air bags are. Alarms are put in by operator at his own expense. Airbags are factory-installed.
The moment an obligation is presented, it has to be addressed though every section of the producer-consumer chain. That means, if the router did not have the WEP enabled, and if the booklet did not have an instruction obligating the user to enable security as a term of service, then the user has no legal binding to secure the router, or bear responsibility for misuse of his equipment.
In other words, if someone sues you for lack of security, divert the lawsuit and turn it into a case against the router manufacturer. - Xanium4332, on 10/11/2007, -7/+26Every time I refresh I see one more negative digg by your name.
Take a hint.... - adeadwaffle, on 10/11/2007, -0/+18A New Player Has Entered The Arena!
- varmit, on 10/11/2007, -4/+21No, the correct analogy would be to explain why your car was used in a robbery of a bank, but you say you don't know anything about the robbery and didn't take part in it. Because the Car is still in your possession, but it was used to do something illegal, and they have the evidence like a video of your car and license plate being the get away car. Now you have to explain your how this happened.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+17I'd remind them that ip logs are easily faked and as such cannot be used as evidence, then tell them to take my ass to court and prove that i downloaded the crumby game, and that when they lose the case i will be counter suing for libel and end it with a nice "***** off"
- nogami, on 10/11/2007, -1/+18I think it works like this:
1. Create crappy excuse of a game
2. "Leak" a copy onto a P2P service
3. Record IP of anyone who downloads it
4. Sue them
5. $$$ ?
Personally if I got a letter like this, I think my response would be "see you in court" (if they were in my country), or "blow me" if they were in a different country. I imagine they're just hoping lots of people will pay, rather than face "legal issues" (which will likely never happen anyway). - daftman, on 10/11/2007, -1/+18Who seriously still consider buying games from this company after this?
This game company is so dumb they don't realize that the lawyers ***** up every chance they have in the future as a game company as well as sending them a massive legal bill.
"Legally you must take proper steps to secure your netowrk or else you are responsible for what is done on it."
Please illustrate where in the law, you are required to do that. - oddmanout, on 10/11/2007, -1/+16they're suing people for not having anti-virus software? thats horrible, they're basically saying that the true pirates and hackers aren't wrong (otherwise they'd go after them). either that, or they're saying since they'll never figure out who the real pirates are, they'll just sue their fellow victims.... the people who got hacked.
- BESTenemy, on 10/11/2007, -1/+15 Another thought. Let's say, I am a cable TV subscriber. I have a switcher box in my backyard. A neighbor decides to steal some of my service, so he picks the lock and runs his own cable.
Does the cable company have the right to sue me for not putting up electrified fence around my house to restrict access to the cable box? Should I be checking periodically whether the neighbor is stealing the signal by studying wiring to be able to distinguish cable company lines from illegal ones?
Who is the victim in this case? The cable company that sells the TV shows or me, that pays for the service?
Whose responsible for keeping the cable box secure and who should be liable in case of the break-in? Does the cable company have the right to sue me if someone breaks into my cable box to steal the signal?
They do, but only if it is proven that I intend to make profit off illegal re-distribution - that is if I hook up 10 of my neighbors for half price each to the cable.
With software download it is difficult enough to prove whose identity is bound to violation, nevermind the intent. That is why the copyright enforcement agencies are lobbying for new additional clauses that broaden the definition of violation. Before copyright constituted distribution for profit of protected material without owner's permission. Now it's any kind of use. After realizing that much of file sharing was done with no financial gain involved - files were shared and not sold, they had to change the law to make the act of sharing illegal.
As it is difficult to identify the guilty party, part of the strategy is expansion of the definition of involvement as well.
Law's not on the side of the consumer. Loopholes are used against us, so in order to fight back, we have to show our own ingenuity and use same logic that extortionists apply against us.
@rabidjade, I agree with you. My defense is based on deliberate ignorance - the same kind that allows lawyers to put up lawsuits against uninformed public. People don't know their rights and fall victims to self-incrimination. - Brasky, on 10/11/2007, -0/+14I would prepare a letter of a few reasons why their suit is ***** (asking me to prepare evidence for them?, insenuating that I am REQUIRED to protect my connection?) and tell them if they wish to proceed with the suit, then I, as well as the judge, will expect them to PROVE that *I* shared it. I will even bring in all of my computers, oh did I mention that every month I clear the hard disks and reinstall my operating systems. Or they can just proceed to eat my ass.
- HalBSure, on 10/11/2007, -1/+12+digg for the -digg
- Hobophobik, on 10/11/2007, -2/+13Has anyone ever been prosecuted successfully for file sharing in the UK?
- calbff, on 10/11/2007, -2/+12@varmit
Your analogy falls apart when you consider that only one person can use the car at a time, and it's easy to see who is driving it and where it was. It's a lot easier for an average person to say Joe was driving a black sedan at 7pm at a given location than it is for them to say Joe was illegally signed on to their router and using their internet, much less what they were doing on the net and how they hacked into the router. "How the hell should I know?" is a perfectly acceptable argument. - EarlOfLade, on 10/11/2007, -0/+10Cool!
Now Starbucks will have to meet in court then since I used them :)
Seriously. this is *****. So, the moral is that if you want to trade ***** like this, use an open wifi at Starbucks, hotels or what not. - PaulOwen, on 10/11/2007, -0/+101. A copy of the instructions accompanying the router
2. Evidence to prove the use of anti-virus software and firewall
3. Evidence detailing exactly how the computer was compromised.
4. Evidence to prove the victim took adequate measures to prevent the intrusion."
So, they want you to strengthen their case by providing them with reasons why your router wasn't hacked? - helinism, on 10/11/2007, -0/+10They are probably all automated, standardised letters. To see who they can shake up and scare... Anything outside these standard responses requiring actual attention and a personal response. Would no doubt be expensive, thus encouraging compliance through fear is the name of the game.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10-digg for the Ben Folds reference.
- Theipolicy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+9All of this *****...for a PINBALL game. That's completely crazy and insane. Why would they need the router instructions?
- AriaStar, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10Look, just because some people pirate doesn't mean that everyone is pirating.
"Many people wondered how they were caught at all, while others claimed they had no knowledge of such a game and stopped to consider that their router security may have been compromised."
So yes, some were pirating, but it's likely that not all were.
So quit acting like everyone is pirating. Securing a network may be easy to us, but to Grandma and Grandpa, or Mom who only uses the internet to play Pogo or Dad who only accessing manuals he needs to fix forklifts, it may be over their understanding, assuming they even realize the threat of being hacked and know the measures to help prevent it.
Just because a doctor could perform a flawless emergency tracheotomy with a knife, straw, and bottle of alcohol easily and effortlessly doesn't mean you know how to do one, if you even know what one is. - Kinjiru, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8Seems like these morons are trying to take a page out of the RIAA / MPAA 's book.. but are too ***** stupid to realize they don't have a leg to stand on.
- ArmchairEcon, on 10/11/2007, -3/+11These folks should all send hundreds of pages of technical documentation to the lawyers for them to wade through. Lets see who wins the battle of attrition.
- Kinjiru, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7Just to spite em I'm downloading this game right now.... a bug FU to the morons in germany ;)
- Travelsonic, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8Seems like you are missing the point, as you are stuck on a point that nobody made thus far - the whole "promoting piracy" crap. Defending yourself equaling guilt is a completely orwellian way to look at it.
- darkstorm777, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8@fkr3
Piracy? You dumbass, this is one step closer to use needing to be licened to use the Internet, and your lookin to be Mr. Joe American Hero. Think of it the same way the DMV gives you yours right to drive, wake up and give a *****. - spyrochaete, on 10/11/2007, -2/+9Don't bother. The game is really amateurish and crappy. Not worth the bandwidth.
- chriscohoat, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8@duhstupid
you're at a significant disadvantage...we can put him up three diggs with one swoop and you can only go down one at a time. ha! - MikeWanDo, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6@fkr3 - I don't think you're quit getting it. No one can show you an article where the hacker gets sued because the companies are ***** interested in the getting the hacker. They interested in getting the money. That is the gross injustice here. I don't care if 90% of the people were pirating. Shouldn't something be done for the other 10% who were hacked? Should someone go after the hacker.
- crossmr, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7I can't believe you got dugg up Maxpayne.
Yes people have been successfully prosecuted for file sharing in the US. There was a guy in California who was convicted for sharing out some big blockbuster (I think king kong, maybe the hulk) from a screener. He was caught because the company embedded unique watermarks in every copy of it.
Here is something over 2 years old. http://www.eschoolnews.com/news/showstory.cfm?ArticleID=5565
found with a 5 second search. - moocow1452, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6Whatever happened to "Innocent until proven Guilty?" Or "Justice is Blind?" or....
*sacked as a sympathizer to entertainment terrorists* - shinda, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5If I were to tell them I use linux therego never installed an anti virus program because I've never needed one, would that hold up?
- coder316, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5"Windows Wireless Zero Configuration" - was that made by Zer0Cool?
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4No, but if that car was involved in an accident, you WOULD have to prove that it was stolen and not that your loaned it to a friend.
If you load it to a friend, you are the one who will get dued. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4god fkr3 I'm finally going to block your trolling ass. every fing article you post on you just troll.
- Giga, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3"Mike you're missing the point. Just because someone hacked it doesn't mean copyright law stops existing and it's suddenly OK for you to pirate it."
No, you are missing the point. The ones that were hacked WERE NOT PIRATING, the hacker was. It is still illegal for the hacker to pirate the content, but the person whose network was hacked did nothing wrong. - Ibox, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3here's a hint, If you get a letter from a lawyer, demanding anything, give it to your lawyer... they can't demand anything without a warrant. they are not police, and just because they demand something means absolutely *****.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 111 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is