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.
229 Comments
- piznut, on 10/10/2007, -3/+207FTFA:
But testimony from another RIAA witness sought to counter that defense. Iowa State University computer forensics specialist Doug Jacobson claimed that speculation over a wireless internet connection used by roving marauders was unfounded.
"There was no wireless router used in this case," he testified.
The Charter IP address identified the night of the downloading was 24.179.199.117, according to testimony from Edgar and Weaver. Had a wireless router been used, the internal private IP address assigned by the router would also have been detected by investigators, he claimed -- likely beginning with 192.168.
--
Wait a ***** second here. Charter is routing untranslated internal network addresses out to the internets, and then their upstream providers are actualling routing them as well? The plaintiff's computer 'expert' doesn't know what the ***** he is talking about. - jgustie, on 10/10/2007, -0/+96head hurts...too much stupidity....
"A potential juror was excused from the pool when she said she had used a peer-to-peer site to download copyrighted music."
She had better watch back, the RIAA goons are going to be all over that... - statik99, on 11/03/2009, -2/+75Wow, so they claim they can see your internal IP, starting with 192.168... hmm, I find that amuzing. Hack the planet? What a bunch of douchebags, I hope the RIAA loses and their strong armed tactics get flushed down the toilet. Makes me want to log onto kazaa and create my own little honey pot just so these ass clowns can download from me and believe they're getting actual music (when all the time it'll just be a bunch of MP3's of farts).
- strictnein, on 10/10/2007, -3/+48yeah, and he is a professor at Iowa State. We're all paying his salary (colleges get federal funds). Yay!
- Pilot85, on 10/10/2007, -1/+35He knew exactly what he was saying, he's just ***** lying. Good to see the RIAA going the extra mile to win.
- zyklon, on 10/10/2007, -2/+34Something tells me their case doesn't hold water. I think there should be a law that says something along the lines of "If you sue a certain amount of times, and the judge throws the case out a certain amount out of that certain amount of times, you cannot sue any longer". The RIAA have been trying this for ages, with their cases getting thrown out.
It's funny though, they spend more ***** money on lawsuits than they do on the artists. Irony, oh how I dislike you sometimes. - TnTBass, on 10/10/2007, -0/+23I was thinking it would be great to be on that Jury as well, but chances are, you (and I) would be dismissed during the jury selection because we would actually know what we're talking about. The RIAA lawyer wouldn't want that...
- ncc74656m, on 10/10/2007, -0/+23Ok, aside from the vaguely creepy interest in fart tracks...
The only way, to my mind, that they could check that is by having records from INSIDE the network. The only way to get that is to have illegal spyware. The first thing that happens when that is revealed is that their entire case gets thrown out because they used illegal techniques to produce critical evidence, bringing into question their entire credibility. - waynemr, on 10/10/2007, -0/+22I know my router can provide whatever MAC address I want. Currently, it is set to mimic the MAC address of the initial computer Charter used to register my modem with. So, as far as any sort of internal modem log is concerned, only one MAC address has ever been connected to my modem. I can assure you, many, many, many more than one computer has been connected to my router over the past few years.
- triver83, on 10/10/2007, -0/+20Becareful they are watching you and your NATless routers.
- xmkatx, on 10/10/2007, -0/+19Maybe she just did it to get out of jury duty. I tried to convince the screeners I was racist but I still got picked for duty.
- psion01, on 10/10/2007, -1/+20Ummm ... just because she has downloaded copyrighted music via P2P, doesn't mean she infringed anyone's copyright. There are plenty of songs that are free, but the artists reserve copyright.
- reedatschool, on 10/10/2007, -1/+18Copyright infringement is not stealing, oh wait I am talking to a complete *****, nevermind
- BlackJackJester, on 10/10/2007, -0/+17Because MAC address are soo hard to spoof.... /sarcasm
- Yoshi39, on 10/10/2007, -0/+16Well according to the arstechnica report "...and that only one MAC address was interfacing with the cable modem during the months before and after the alleged infringement. " From this I am assuming they have access to the logs on the modem and they could perhaps be refering to being able to detect the internal IP from said logs, still I'm not quit sure how that would work because as far as I know there is no way to diffrentiate between a router and a computer based on the IP-adress. For the sake of argument lets say that they in the logs discovered that
a)Only an internet routable address was used this doesn't exclude a router being used as the modem would only detect the wan interface on said router
b)Let's say a none internet routable ip was detected (192.168 for example) This would occur either if the modem was connected to the lan port on a router or a computer an besides he said they did NOT detect such an ip - sexybobo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+16I thought they were supposed to be a jury of your peers that person would be the closest thing to a peer this person has. especially since some of them don't use the internet.
- derek20cali, on 10/10/2007, -9/+24Dugg because submitter is hot.
- sexybobo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+15Like the RIAA paid him to say that?
- shark72, on 10/10/2007, -1/+15It will be sad to see everybody coming up with conspiracy theories to explain that one.
Can't we just acknowledge that she probably DID pirate the songs, but we want her to get off anyway? - technoredneck, on 10/10/2007, -1/+14What did she steal? The person she downloaded the songs from still has them, and I'm nearly certain the copyright holder still has at least one copy of them--unless /they/ chose to rid themselves of the copies, and she obviously has nothing to do with that if it was their choice.
Her downloading the music from another person certainly didn't take those copies away from the copyright holder or the persons who had it before her would have been the ones who 'took' it. Furthermore, the person sharing the music is at blame if her downloading it caused him or her to lose it--the downloader thought she was getting a /copy/, not that she was /taking/ it from the sharer.
Jesus, the MAFIAA brainwashes people. - supercat, on 10/10/2007, -3/+16Damages = $1 per song, that sounds fair, not millions.
- jmkiii, on 10/10/2007, -3/+15Punctuation is your friend.
- XenonofArcticus, on 10/10/2007, -2/+14Unless of course the protocol somehow reports the IP address the client actually is using. Which is possible. I don't know if it's the case, but I'm just saying...
Of course, they would need to demonstrate that in court as evidence, which it doesn't sound like they did, so their expert testimony is pretty lousy either way. - IADTatami, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12You are accused of using incredible technology to whip up a 1990 Honda Civic out of ambient atoms. The Honda Civic you copied was worth $1000. You owe Honda $750,000.
- uptown, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12They tried to find a jury of her peers, but crzygrl88 and lilkitten411 were no longer online....
- elipabst, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10If you have a wireless router doing NAT, how is that going to be different than if you have a single host directly connected to the internet connection? Yes, there are ways to detect that (like ttl), but you aren't going to be able to get that info from an ISP's log. While it's possible for an ISP to use private IP space within their network, it *would not* be routable across the internet and show up on the RIAAs kazaa session that way. They would need to convert it to a routable address at some point before it left their network. I don't care how many buzzwords he puts on his homepage, the guy's a lackey who is in the RIAAs pocket and will say whatever he's told by his keepers.
- mooninite, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10Read your own quote.
"To a system on the Internet, the router itself appears to be the source/destination for this traffic."
There is no "192.168..." IP information sent out on the Internet. It is impossible to tell where the packet came from on an Intranet subnet after it has been routed. There is no room in an IP packet to specify it! *sigh* - crossmr, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10He could be the world's greatest expert, but in this case he's full of crap. A home router actually uses PAT (not NAT as its commonly marketed, you can look up the difference), but it translates 1 or more internal addresses to a single external address and uses source ports to differentiate between who made the connection so it knows who to return the packets too. Higher end routers (like Ciscos) can display current translations, and log them, but I haven't seen an off the shelf router (like the ever popular linksys wrt54G) that can either display these or keep logs of them. Nor does the Linksys router keep logs that long. they typically age out within a few hours.
There is NO possible way that they could have seen the internal IP on Kazaa unless there was some built in spyware reporting it. You might also want to have a look at Ethernet Frame headers and how they work. There is no way to identify the internal IP of a machine without having access to the router (and it having the capability of showing those translations). - yunus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9Lets assume that this is the case. Try to explain that to people who range from Never being on the Internet to Knowing what Itunes is. If I'm not mistaken Senator Ted Stevens is on this jury.
- mtekk, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9Then the defense needs to provide some true experts to present the reality of how networking works instead of the ***** the RIAA hired.
- objectcode, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9thats why he said internal and went on to say "hack the planet"
- BlackJackJester, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9I have no doubt about her guilt...You can't just drive up to her house, plug in, download 1700 songs, snicker to yourself menacingly, then drive off. However, $750/song is stupid. I'm pretty sure if you steal a car you aren't liable for 750x the price of the car.
You are accused of stealing a 1990 honda civic, valued at $1000, you owe Honda $750,000 dollars. - FortyCaliber, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8This is at all assuming that the logs were activated and running.
How about if the suspect IP was a router running a VPN tunnel out to ANOTHER Router with a wireless access point attached. - simplynix, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9'Morality is dead' because everyone's morality lines up with geekee's.
/sarcasm - TheHydrogens, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10This link gets used quite a bit, but damn it, it is relevant! http://xkcd.com/322/
- ganzhimself, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Yeah, but they would just argue that the name of the file infringes on their copyrighted song name. But how awesome would that be to have them play the evidence in court and have it end up being nothing but a bunch of fart noises. CLASSIC.
- Khabi, on 10/10/2007, -4/+11Bah! I accidently dugg you down instead of up.. FAIL.
Consider yourself at +2 diggs over what it says :)
But yes, that is the first thing I noticed when I was reading that article. What a load of crap. I really how they have a router and aren't plugged directly into the modem. It would be great to have that thrown back into the investigaters face. Oh how I wish I was on that jury...
Also, makes me happy I use 10 space for my home network :) (Besides, being easier to type then 192.xxx.xxx.xxx when I want to connect to one of my machines). - strictnein, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Idiot or genius, he's a douchebag either way.
- TotalHalibut, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Yep, the theft analogy is ridiculous when it comes to filesharing. I can't see how they are able to keep running with it.
Judge : 'John Doe, you stand accused of stealing an item with no physical intrinsic value in itself, and not depriving the owner of any property or income that they may or may not have received anyway. How do you plead?'
John : "Confused your honour" - ilikesboobs, on 10/10/2007, -6/+13White men have stolen land from her people, so she will steal music from the white men.
- ncc74656m, on 10/10/2007, -4/+11Of course, the whole thing of this goes largely back to the consensus of people who say "Gee, well, I did that once, and I think it would suck if they sued me like that. So I'm going to support her." That's just not fair. In today's world of *more* reasonably priced music selections, I cannot condone piracy anymore. The RIAA is an ancient dinosaur of overly rich whiny producers and a few dumb artists, but they do have a point. If you don't like their prices, don't buy their products.
I used to pirate music, but have since completely stopped, and do not retain ANY copies of that music anymore. I have bought legal copies of the music I had previously downloaded, as I said I would when music became reasonably priced. Some I still refuse to buy, like Metallica, because a) they're whiny babies, and b) the music is still unreasonably priced! But I just don't even listen to that, and won't again until I decide to own it.
The only issue that I still have with them is "Fair Use" laws and agreements. I don't like, for example, that they would still try to prosecute you with the same vehemence the idea of "Well, you have to buy a new copy every time we put out a new format." Also, the concept that you shouldn't be able to copy from someone you know is a little bit outdated at this point. Not that it's not entirely accurate, but it's not smart in this day and age.
I know people who've downloaded music that they own, or have owned in the past, and sometimes is completely unavailable on CD/MP3 format. That, and they don't feel like ripping their entire 400 CD collection. If the RIAA came knocking on their door though, they'd meet them happily in court, only to watch their lawyers' faces go pale when they bring in their massive collection of CDs, tapes, LPs, and 8 tracks. If they feel like continuing the suit, they will not only lose, but may well get countersued for harrassment. - Neiby, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7For your sake, I hope the submitter wasn't one of the people digging you down.
- PA42, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6statutory damages are in place to deter future infringements. If it were $1/ song she would not be punished. If you were punished by paying the same amount that you would have if you hadn't infringed, then it's not really a punishment nor a deterrent. Keep in mind that judges rarely (if ever) apply the whole statutory damage amount in cases like this.
- gadgetuk, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Of course you can route the private (RFC1918) addresses - but not on the internet. Every ISP in the world has a very simple set of rules that a) strip those address ranges from any routing updates and b) drop any packets claiming to have a private source or destination. Even if they don't for some reason then the upstream carrier certainly will.
However, I think there has been some misunderstanding here - it looks to me like the defendants' ISP has coughed up logs from their home router/modem. I believe this is where the private address and MAC information must have come from. - reedatschool, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6If you don't use the Internet you should be disqualified, not the other way around eh? :)
Considering at least 1 out of ever 10 Americans has "shared" a file, music, movies, etc. the jury should have at least 1 representative. Plus they could add some important insight like it ain't hurting anyone in any sort of tangible way. Instead it promotes freedom and culture which outweighs "copyright infringement" in my book. - BlackJackJester, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6touché
- froman98, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7I think we all need to download at least a few albums tonight in protest.
- sexybobo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6What if the person had 2 NICs and had internet sharing on and had a wireless router on the other side the only mac you would get is from the pc and any one that wanted to could have download/shared the files over the wifi.
- greganalytic, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5"A potential juror was excused from the pool when she said she had used a peer-to-peer site to download copyrighted music"
This bothered me. Why would potential sympathizers be excused? Should past drunk drivers not be on a DUI jury? You're getting rid of the very people that might agree with your actions. -
Show 51 - 100 of 231 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is