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.
95 Comments
- adml_shake, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7"Well we think he shot the guy, he OWNs a gun, he knows how to USE a gun, and he reads and watches things about GUNs. So obvious he is guilty..."
- oepapel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4All they have is a filename and an IP address. The filename is not proof of content and the IP address is not proof of identity. They really have nothing. However, if the MPAA decides to go after him, he'll probably settle before it goes to court. The courts work for those that can afford it the most.
- SilentBobSC, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"A guy has 4 computers in his house and he doesn't know how to secure his wireless? I smell BS."
Gee, that's not elitist in the least...
My father has 5 computers and a wireless network and guess who gets called when he can't remember his AOL password... that's right! ME!
Better get used to hearing about homeowners with extensive networks and no clue how to troubleshoot them. I worked for many years pre-wiring homes with coax, cat6, and fiber so that the owners were as "future proof" as we could make them. Now I'm called out to make those connections work to distribute their DSL, setup WAPs in the house and hook every gizmo their millionaire minds can come up with (most the homes I wired were in the $3+mil range) and while these people are astoundingly astute when it comes to business and finance, they have no technical chops whatsoever. - liber8ed, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2He doesn't have to have the movie on any of his computers. The RIAA has some sort of evidence that someone at his IP uploaded the movie.
The man claims it was not him, could have been someone using his open wireless...
This case is important because it will set a precedent about whether or not the "owner" of the IP can be held liable for infringement even if it can not be proved that the individual was the one doing the infringing. - riskable, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I would just like to point out that the ability for a 3rd party to access his unsecured wireless network is just ONE WAY his connection could have been used for piracy without his knowledge.
How many of you have ever scanned a Windows machine with a spyware removal tool and actually found software the owner didn't know about? Going further, how much of that software is well-known to communicate over the Internet without the owner's knowledge or consent?
Beyond this, how many of you have ever known someone who has been infected with a virus but just kept on using their PC? Either they didn't know they had a virus, or they just didn't care. Hell, how many trojans are out there on people's PCs without their knowledge?
There's literally THOUSANDS of ways this guy's PC or connection could have been used without his knowledge--even if he spent the time to secure his PC and his wireless network! I'm a security professional and I can tell you from experience that even if you have the best damn protections in the world, someone will always get in eventually (especially if you're not vigilant with patches and updates of *all* your software).
If enormous multi-billion dollar companies that pay millions to protect themselves from people breaking into their networks still *always* have their Windows machines infected from time to time, how is Joe Clueless going to protect his home PCs?
...and I'm not even getting into the zillions of ways his IP could have been spoofed or the possibility that his ISP made an error (what has happened in several cases already!)!
What it comes down to is that the burden of proof lies in the hands of the accuser. If they can't find the files in question, they have no case. Even if they did find the files in question there is really no way to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he put them there. I've seen many PCs in my work that are loaded with all sorts of illegal/questionable crap and the user had no idea!
If the machine in question is found to be free of malicious software, free of remote administration tools, free of any evidence whatsoever of tampering, and has the files in question on it... Only then would I say, "Yeah, he's probably guilty" but even then I'd be skeptical. There's no way to be certain.
-Riskable
http://www.riskable.com
"I have a license to kill -9" - Abx0r, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1ok...I need to buy a wireless router just for this situation... Lol
- digitarius, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Note to all MP/RIAA bashers: And remember when the PS3 comes out that Sony is a major player in the MPAA!
Just my two cents. - shakin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Why do I find it unlikely that someone who owns four computers can't secure a wireless router?
In any case, ISP logs shouldn't be enough evidence for the court to order this guy to pay the MPAA. Those logs never show who's doing what. It's unfortunate that ISP logs have in the past been enough evidence, so I think this guy is going to have to pay. - edrift101, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It's very possible that one of his neighbors tapped into his unsecured wifi network. Pretty easy to do, as any 14 year old will tell you. If you run a wireless network...either spend the time to secure it properly or pay someone to do it for you.
BTW, What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty? - kualla, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"His story is dubious, at best. If anyone has ever used the edonkey network, they know that a single download can actually take quite a while. It's good for downloading tiny bits of a lot of different files. So who exactly would park their car outside his house just to download Coach Carter, why wouldn't he notice it? "
I actually know of someone who is pretty big into war driving and can get many many wireless connections by using a parabolic dish with a amplifier. All this he can put in his vehicle and travel to any city and get multiple wireless connections. - allthewhile, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1His story is dubious, at best. If anyone has ever used the edonkey network, they know that a single download can actually take quite a while. It's good for downloading tiny bits of a lot of different files. So who exactly would park their car outside his house just to download Coach Carter, why wouldn't he notice it?
- drjones, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yeah this is not particularly important for the MPAA ***** angle. But if it is accepted law that you have no responsibility to secure your network then if say your neighbor was a real criminal, stealing identities, credit card fraud, selling child porn etc over your wi-fi then there is no way to target them at all.
On the other hand if the MPAA prevails then if your granny gets her wireless dsl modem out of the box from the phone company and turns on wireless by accident she will be facing many many years in prison for the above crimes and possibly racketeering/conspiracy to boot. It's a problem with the wireless model that will come up in the courts eventually for better or worse.
And if you do secure it but are hacked are your liable? What if you only kinda tried to secure it but not much? Who decides?
Personally in my residental neighborhood without any boosting antenna I see 3-4 open wifi nodes and several closed ones that may not be using secure methods. If I was looking to pull off something nasty I would not think twice about using their connection.
-drjones - Reddog_x2000, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I don't know what this guy did or didn't do. But, I would like to see innocent people who are wrongly sued by these ASSociations get counter-sued.
- UncleToxie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1'A guy has 4 computers in his house and he doesn't know how to secure his wireless? I smell BS.'
I can't even begin to tell you how many people that I know who have multiple computers and can't use them. I have a client right now who has five computers and can't even update her anti-virus without me.
I have two cars and can't fix one if my life depended on it. Just because you own more that one of something does not indicate expertise. - bmatherlyjr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1When probable cause is obtained a court order can be obtained to confiscate equipment suspected in a crime, this brings me to the point of this response. If evidence was removed off the computer, when are people going to realize that simply deleting files off a computer isn't as effective as a Gutmann wipe of the hard drive. Someone send this man a link to the "eraser" program please.
- Combathangar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The real issue is that millions of routers sold over years are 100% inseccure no matter what you do short of hiring adam curry (or whatever his name is) to be your personal packet sniffer.
Right now, from my den, I can, without any extra antenna pick up 3 wifi signals, with a cantenna, I get 12-15, and I can assure you that at least half are WEP or NOTHING because over half are 802.11b
IP means nothing, and the days of getting a warrent based solely on an IP should be numbered...have you called written and otherwise harrassed your senetor and congressman yet? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I thought everyone should see this:
'Darik's Boot and Nuke' ("DBAN") is a self-contained boot floppy that securely wipes the hard disks of most computers. DBAN will automatically and completely delete the contents of any hard disk that it can detect, which makes it an appropriate utility for bulk or emergency data destruction.'
Very powerful, runs on linux, boots from a floppy
dban.sourceforge.net - TKDWILSON, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0""""
First off, "Eric" NEVER post your full name (or real name) somewhere that is talking about copyright infringement (unless you are trying to get someone else in trouble by pretending to be them). Even if they haven't "REALLY" caught you they could send you a letter claiming they did (by assumption) and blackmail you into paying them money."""""
Not worried about that. Search for Eric Wilson and see how many results you get. There were like 3 in my old highschool. Besides, they have no idea on any specifics. But seriously though, are there any cases built on simple torrent users?
Eric ******(just for you) ;-) - Greenline, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Hey Blue Ash, Cincinnati is a town next to mine . . . .AND I just happen to be looking for an illegal copy of Coach Carter!!!!! Looks like I'll be doing some park-n-downloadin' this Holiday. haha
- erikpemberton, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0
null - enduro, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0
The guy was smart saying his wireless was unprotected. About the harddrive, he probably just backed it up on DVD's and threw it in the trash when he got the letter/notice from the MPAA. - wookiebush, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0INAL
The problem is that this is going to be a CIVIL case. In a civil case, all the Plaintiff has to prove is a preponderance of guilt, NOT lack of reasonable doubt. So Plaintiff only has to show circumstantial evidence to 51% of guilt to either the judge or jury. Depending on the statues used by plaintiff, the defendant will have NO recourse to pursue a counter-suit. Depending on the judge, the plaintiff could have been stopped from examining the drives without better evidence. The flimsy "IP address" evidence should not be used as it is not reliable.
The plaintiff is probably hoping that by scaring the defendant with a potential large settlement, the defendant will cave in and pay a smaller sum just to get the suit to go away. Probably to the tune of 5 to 20 grand. The defendant is forced into a situation where the cost to defend this is greater than the potential out of court settlement. These large corps count on this, as a way to send a letter and rake in 5 grand for a form letter.
I know what your thinking, that's extortion... but it has been going on for years. The RIAA/MPAA are just now getting into the act. If you think this is something new, a major satellite provider has been doing this for years. This company sent out 175,000 letters trying to "extort" $3500, most from its own subscribers. Basically with no real evidence other than purchase of legal item, This company said in these letters that it will cost you 10s of thousands to fight this, but for $3500 bucks, we "MIGHT" not sue you. Do the research, google "directv litigation" only 160,000 hits.
Wb - tidejwe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0As Cowboy5995 said. . . you need to use a "CLEAN" NEW harddrive that has NEVER had anything illegal/copyrighted on it before because it's impossible to EVER fully delete data once it's been on the harddrive. That's why military computers/harddrives are never sold and never allowed on the internet even if they've been reformatted and even if all data has gone through the Government erase processes. It makes it harder, but it can never be truly deleted (sure it costs $500-$1,000 to retrieve ancient data, but they'd be willing to do it for a $20,000 lawsuit). Use a new harddrive, and don't just think deleting files works!!!)
- b0b0, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Guilty or not, there is no evidence which indicates copyright infringement. ISP logs prove nothing. On top of that, I wonder why the MPAA has the right to examine his hard drive. They are not a law enforcement body and therefore cannot conduct a search of the hard drive without the guy's permission.
- tidejwe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Wookie Bush, I love your idea, at least to use for a laptop (which is harder to replace than traditional desktop computer harddrives). Personally, I'd still rather use the "harddrive swap" method for a desktop because if they were desperate they could prob find a way to crack it somehow.
b0b0 I don't think the MPAA had the "right" to inspect his harddrive. I think he offered to let them search his computers to "prove" he had nothing to hide and that it wasn't him. Several people have offered this same thing to the RIAA, but they refuse to search the computer. Looks like the MPAA actually took someone up on it though. - brickbat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"I've blocked all P2P apps through my router. I'm running 128bit WEP with a shared key. They've not only deterred me from downloading anything (for now) they have also deterred me from giving them another dime by purchasing anything from them. Nice job, shoot yourselves in the foot!"
WEP is insecure and if he is encrypting using Azureus and using a nonstandard port, you cannot block it. - tidejwe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Anyone know of any cases of bittorrent users getting sued? Actual users who aren't hosting the stuff for days or even uploading a full copy of the software? I haven't heard of anyone yet, so I was wondering if it was happening with them.
Eric Wilson"
First off, "Eric" NEVER post your full name (or real name) somewhere that is talking about copyright infringement (unless you are trying to get someone else in trouble by pretending to be them). Even if they haven't "REALLY" caught you they could send you a letter claiming they did (by assumption) and blackmail you into paying them money. - digitarius, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0People talk about physically removing second hard drives and such, but I think it would be very easy to make the data impossible to recover given daily use and without destroying a drive... get new drives (or repeatedly gutmann your current ones) to start fresh, then secure the entire volume with TrueCrypt (think Lifehacker had a tutorial on that..) to make it secure on one level. Then create a file volume thats however big you need, using a keyfile for authentication. Load up a client that is pretty clean and doesn't write anything to your registry or cache in the volume. Then just create a "panic" script that you can easily trigger to gutmann wipe the keyfile (making it impossible for them to coerce you for the key, if they somehow suspect the file volume) and a simple, faster wipe on the actual volume. Viola! They'd never be able to recover anything meaningful from all that mess.
- TKDWILSON, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Anyone know of any cases of bittorrent users getting sued? Actual users who aren't hosting the stuff for days or even uploading a full copy of the software? I haven't heard of anyone yet, so I was wondering if it was happening with them.
Eric Wilson - FuManchu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0The purpose of bringing all these lawsuits is not necessarily to win most of them. Oh, I'm sure they're happy when they do actually win a legal judgment. But it's really using the legal system to terrorize the on-line computer-using public.
Every time a story like this hits the news, it creates fear in a substantial number of minds. With repeated exposure, the fear becomes reinforced enough to make some people quit file-swapping via p2p.
Think of it as a "negative advertising campaign." - Kjelstad, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I have 5 desktops in my house and wireless set up for my laptops. It is not secure. I could give a damn if anyone "steals" my bandwidth. It's like going out for all you can eat and someone saying "hey, man, can I get a bite of that?" and you say "no way man! I could get another but you are stealing from me!" I really don't care.
- gheide, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0an IP address IS NOT a person... Just because a computer downloads or distributes something, doesn't mean the person that "owns" it did it... I had a 2000 server at a colo and it got rootkitted (before rootkits were big) and I found a crapload of stuff being shared from it. As faster internet connections and more MicroShaft vulnerabilities are found, the more innocent (or less techie) people are going to get blamed. We have several open wifi hotspots here and the MPAA and RIAA would have a field day with the traffic that goes across them...
- tidejwe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0As for this man who claims he never dl'd anything. . . it has given me a GREAT IDEA!!! EVERYONE should have a spare Harddrive loaded with an OS on it (that you use a few times a month just to show usage statistics). Then if you ever get caught, take out the harddrive that actually had the downloads on it (destroy it), and insert the "other" one. Claim your network was not secure and offer to let the MPAA/RIAA search for any copyright infringements. They won't ever find any. No evidence. . . you're clean (well...dirty, but FREE!)!
They can NEVER "PROVE" otherwise...you wouldn't even need to pay for a good defense lawyer. Open wireless network, nothing on the harddrive = no evidence = no fine = you win = RIAA/MPAA gets screwed and wastes money attacking you! HAHA!!! Too bad I am too lazy to do this myself, and I never DL music anyway, so who cares...hope the rest of you do this though! This man is smart! - HavokTG1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I've blocked all P2P apps through my router. I'm running 128bit WEP with a shared key. They've not only deterred me from downloading anything (for now) they have also deterred me from giving them another dime by purchasing anything from them. Nice job, shoot yourselves in the foot!
Best bet is to copy or rip it from someone you know who has it, and extend the same courtesy to them. At least there aren't any log files for that. - HavokTG1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I can see three open networks from my house alone, could probably see more with a little exploring or something more than a turtle antenna.
I could use a P2P client on any of these, but I dont. That doesn't mean someone else wont.
Any of these could have been set up by "little Timmy" for grandma so she can use her computer from the living room or upstairs bedroom.
As we have seen before, grandma is not exempt from lawsuit.
Also the Edonkey client uploads in small chunks, not the whole file start to finish. Its possible the downloader only uploaded a few megabytes in chunks out of the whole movie downloaded. - MadEnvoy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Probably had a Sony Root kit installed...
- Matt2k, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Oh well. He got caught. Dumbass.
And these tactics most certainly DO work. At one point in my life, I might have downloaded a copy of some software or music over P2P. Not any more. If I really want that song bad enough, I'll go spring for the $1 on iTunes. I'm not going to risk hefty fines over a goddamn song. What kind of ***** idiot still does this?
Piracy is supposed to be UNDERGROUND. You know, like the old days, where you had to call long distance, by invitation only, at 9600bps to get your copy of Doom 1. This kind of crap where everyone is having a big piracy party on their rooftops while waving bright red flags is just insane. Get a grip. - brickbat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"A guy has 4 computers in his house and he doesn't know how to secure his wireless? I smell BS."
I just realised that I have 4 computers in my house and I don't know how to secure my wireless. I sort of think I know but I'm not sure.
1 laptop, 1 media pc, 1 asterisk server and 1 general purpose desktop. - Matt2k, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0> ...and I'm not even getting into the zillions of ways his IP could have been spoofed
You can't spoof IP addresses in a bi-directional protocol - JimXugle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0>> "Well we think he shot the guy, he OWNs a gun, he knows how to USE a gun, and he reads and watches things about GUNs. So obvious he is guilty..."
Haha. Seems guilty to me too.
When will these guys stop Sueing Dead people, people who don't own computers, and those with Dial-up (honestly... can you stay conncted to a dial up connection long enough to upload an entire movie?)
-jx - schrags, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0***** MPAA. This guy lives quite close to me. There is no reason that he should have to pay a 100,000 dollar fine. And to the person saying he should be sued for having an open wifi network, your a dumbass. So everyone running a tor exit node should be sued also? Maybe he left his wifi network open so other people can use it. Still, if they can't find the movie on his pc, they should just ***** off.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0It is certainly possible that someone else used his unsecured wireless network. I do it all the time, when I'm traveling. There are tons of unsecured network out there. Many popular files doesn't take very long to download. My edonkey is often downloading at 300KB/sec.
- motorbikematt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Why does the MPAA have access to his hard drives?
Subpeona, sure...but does that grant them permission to do invasive and likely destructive testing on his hardware?
Screw the MPAA, but you'd think all the guy would have to do is go out and buy the damn DVD. Fair use. - ElbinoBunny, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I want to hack the PS3 and share all the games and movies before they come out.
Anyone have any plans for a time machine? - rmendis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0liber8ed posted: "This case is important because it will set a precedent about whether or not the "owner" of the IP can be held liable for infringement even if it can not be proved that the individual was the one doing the infringing. "
By that argument, the ISP is liable. - denied, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0See, this is why I use my neighbor's wireless for downloading all my movies. Keeps me out of trouble!
(j/k, of course, Mr. Wilson) - dixonr315, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I dunno how I feel about this, I have a hard time beliving someone drove up and downloaded a whole movie over wireless, must be a super fast connection for that to occur. I don't know who is right or wrong, but this is just another of many cases for this sort of thing.
- fabiomazzarino, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Although there are no proofs, I can bet that the man will be claimed guilty.
That's how America works. No money, no lawyers, you are f*ckd - zbeast, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0MPAA dont be a douch. It's not working for the RIAA and it's not
going to work for you. I'm all for you going after Burning Operations but trying to raid peoples homes and searching fokes computers it out of line. -
Show 51 - 96 of 96 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is