What is Digg?63 Comments
- inactive, on 07/09/2008, -5/+42So open up your access point and bittorrent away!
When the cops come, do the old "oh no, the security was disabled on my wireless router! Now we'll NEVER know who downloaded The Dark Knight!" - AsSubtleAsABrik, on 07/10/2008, -1/+32Watching a crappy cam job of a movie like The Dark Knight would be punishment enough anyway.
- ammundsen, on 07/09/2008, -0/+28A sensible ruling. If you can hold the owner of a wifi network responsible why could you not hold all the ISPs involved in the data transfer liable?
And if this was not the case how could businesses risk offering free wifi to customers? - sebby2022, on 07/10/2008, -1/+19Sorry Officer, I just got done microwaving my hard drive!
- QuixoticNoob, on 07/10/2008, -2/+18HOLY *****!!!
Things you didn't do your not responsible for? - Coolmatt49, on 07/10/2008, -1/+16I wish that ruling would apply to the US.
- Soave, on 07/10/2008, -0/+14Too bad Germany != US
:/ - infinitus64, on 07/10/2008, -0/+12they typically only go after the original uploaders and heavy seeds.
- p0ss, on 07/10/2008, -0/+11cept for the whole confiscating and searching your computer part.
- Soave, on 07/10/2008, -0/+5Honest question: what happens if you download illegal torrents on a free Wifi network, like at Panera or something? Can they track you down? Can they see where your computer next connects to the internet? Is an individual computer trace-able even if it goes from one IP to another?
- Carl306, on 07/10/2008, -0/+4If I accidentally leave my car unlocked, someone steals it, and then rear ends somebody whilst speeding away, I guess by the recording industry's logic that means I'm responsible for damages suffered to the injured party.
I realize this was in Germany and the RIAA doesn't have jurisdiction over there, but for the purpose of getting my point across and the obligatory comments in an article of this nature: ***** the RIAA. - MacParrot, on 07/10/2008, -0/+3I agree. If someone steals my car and runs another person down, am I now responsible for their death? EVEN if I left the keys in the car and had a big neon sign saying "Don't steal me", the burden of responsibility is still on the person who stole the car.
- p3ngwin, on 07/10/2008, -0/+3simply TRUECRYPT your whole drive and let's see them ***** try and look for evidence on my drive
- ronaldinho, on 07/10/2008, -1/+3Man this court is doing something right......owner of internet connection not responsible for copyright infringement carried out without their knowledge, parents not responsible for their children's. Kudos to them.
I have long said this: you should not be responsible if someone takes your car and kill someone with it. Yes it's your car, but you yourself didn't commit the crime. Well unless you knowingly lent someone the car for them to kill whoever they want, of course, but that's another story. - Soave, on 07/10/2008, -1/+3I posted this as a reply to another comment, but I want to make sure I get some answers:
Honest question: what happens if you download illegal torrents on a free Wifi network, like at Panera or something? Can they track you down? Can they see where your computer next connects to the internet? Is an individual computer trace-able even if it goes from one IP to another? - bratterscain, on 07/10/2008, -0/+2I'm not speaking of insurance policy, but does it make me a criminal when someone breaks in my house after I forgot to lock the door? This is not far from the burglar actually suing me for enticement? If we're speaking law here, I actually have a right to have some leisure with my own security, whether it's recommended or not.
- StarofTroy, on 07/10/2008, -0/+2I do all my downloading on someone else's wifi, a hotel wifi and a starbucks wifi. But I live in America where the FISA anti-privacy ***** just passed. I wonder how that act will affect users in America. Too bad German logic doesn't translate to fascists US courts =(
- wiredDeath, on 07/10/2008, -0/+2A great reason to start sharing wifi!
- RKnight, on 07/10/2008, -0/+2I'm glad to see that. Because, lets think about it, if you happen to leave your car unlocked, and someone stole it and used it as get away car for, say, a bank robbery and there was proof it wasn't you, then you would not be held liable because your car was unlock. Same thing in this case.
- pentalive, on 07/10/2008, -1/+3Your insurance company will hold you responsible.
- bratterscain, on 07/10/2008, -1/+3So if a thief breaks in my house and I forgot to lock the door, it's my fault? Try again.
- WalkerTXclocker, on 07/10/2008, -0/+2There is no simple answer is the problem. Some people spend their life doing it and still can't give you a yes or no. It depends on how determined and/or skilled the person tracking you is and how good you are at covering your tracks. But suffice it to say all of these things are possible, but there are counter measures you can take.
The answer to any one of these question could easily fill a library and is changing all the time. The best answer I could give you is read up on computer security and protection. - VacantThoughts, on 07/10/2008, -1/+3No Officer I don't have an external hard drive which I quickly hid before I answered the door.
- CrazyChair, on 07/21/2008, -0/+2My car got broken into by someone who only stole the change from my ashtray. I would have preferred to leave the car unlocked so they didn't break my door in the process. It's not like a lock will stop someone from stealing your car.
- solidus636, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1Thanks to SBC for slow DSL.
- bratterscain, on 07/10/2008, -1/+2AFAIK, IP address doesn't mean ***** on a wireless network. The only thing that is static is the MAC address and unless your MAC is registered with that network and assigned to you personally, there's no way to track you unless you were actually visually seen doing it.
- ronaldinho, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1Yeah that's partly so, but I always think if someone just wants to hack onto your router and they have the skills to, you are still screwed. You can leave your car locked, and someone wanting to use your car to kill someone can just break the window and drive the car away heading for their prey. What can you do about that? It's kind of the same thing (although if someone has a better analogy, please throw it out here)
- PainToad, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1No need to unlock it, all wifi can be hack...
- Enigmocracy, on 07/10/2008, -1/+2Duh?
- Vladamir, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1≠
- crossmr, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1as far as you know isn't that much..
because all networks use PAT to get to the internet, all they see is the external address. Unless they have access to the nat translation logs (which aren't accessible on most home routers) they have absolutely no clue which computer was behind the connection.
Your MAC address is assigned by the manufacturer of the network card, be it wireless or wired. It is unique to that device (though there have been occasions where counterfeit ones have been produced all with the same mac address). It is locally significant and is not passed across routers. So someone sitting several hops away will have no information about your MAC address. your ISP will know whatever MAC address your router is spoofing, but that is it. They can't tell what computer made a connection attempt anymore than anyone else can.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_address_translat ...
You might want to also google how an ethernet packet changes as it travels across a network. The IP address always stays the same, but the MAC address is replaced at every layer 3 device. - pyros03, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1In theory, yes. Every NIC has a unique identifier called the MAC address which they could possibly track (if they really wanted to). Although it is easy to spoof another one, if you're paranoid.
- CatsAreGods, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1Actually in many jurisdictions it is technically a crime to leave your car unlocked.
- rowjimmy, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1have fun with your archaic notions of intellectual property and/or go read some Proudhon
- bratterscain, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1crossmr, yes, I forgot a MAC address can be spoofed so yes, you're right.
- MacParrot, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1Not at all. There is an inherent value that is placed on entertainment. If there was no value, we'd call them podcasts (sorry, as a podcaster myself, I call it whistling through the graveyard).
The value we place on conceptual concepts like movies, TV shows, popular music depends greatly upon market forces. If a TV show is deemed of no value (as in no is watching it in great enough numbers to garner sponsors) then it is cancelled. If a movie doesn't gather enough box office receipts, it's off to bargain-bin DVD land so fast it would make Pam Anderson's breast implants spin (which I would find entertaining).
As much as I despise the tactics of the RIAA and MPAA and believe that piracy of copyright materials to not be nearly as prevelant as their lawyers would like us to believe, they are right about one thing. To not pay for something that is deemed valuable by the owner, even something that is easily reproducable as digital media IS theft from the legal copyright owner.
You say you wouldn't have bought it anyway. Fair enough. I feel most modern content like TV, movies, and music is crap (what can I say? I prefer 60s/70s music and other entertainment from that era. My parents hated the Beatles and other than Walter Cronkite, hated most TV as well) and I wouldn't pay for it either. I also don't go to the trouble of using a bit-torrent client to search for it, download it, convert it into a more convienent format and watch it on whatever device I prefer. If you go to that kind of trouble, then yes it has value even to you and it isn't up to you to determine what the price is going to be. If the owner is asking too much, show your displeasure by not purchasing or viewing it.
On the other hand I do use Bit-torrent clients to download movies or music that I legally own in formats not easily reproducable (like VHS tapes or old LP albums) for my own enjoyment. I have purchased them and the copyright owner (whoever it was at the time) has been compensated. I see no moral gray area there. If asked, I can provide proof of ownership. It certainly doesn't make the MPAA or RIAA happy or their lawyers, but they have done enough of a diservice to the US and whatever other countries they've managed to get their greedy little mitts into that I really don't care.
You speak of archaic notions of property, but even in the digital age, bits have value. - MacParrot, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1While I disagree with jerrycurley on many issues, in this he's right and digging him down (or me) won't change that. You have a job? Or a car, an apartment, a computer? Then you won't mind if someone just comes and takes it do you? I mean, how real is it anyway? Arguing that ideas, concepts, or "bits" that make up digital copies of music, movies or other forms of entertainment aren't real since there are unlimited copies with no costs doesn't make it any less real to those who created it and depend on it for their livelihood.
- PainToad, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1And AU
- neil1492, on 07/10/2008, -1/+2I was wondering how that worked. My ISP sent me a nasty note in the mail saying we had copyrighted materials on our computer. We have an open WiFi for anyone to use in our area. It's our way to give back to the community. I would hate to see a good deed get punished.
- nybble41, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1MAC addresses don't get past the router. The MAC address you see on an Ethernet frame is the address of the local system that forwarded the packet to you. MAC addresses are thus entirely unsuitable for tracking someone across a routed network like the Internet.
- EtherGnat, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1I think the counter argument would be that by providing people with a connection you assume responsibility for their actions. I don't think it's a good argument, but there are many parallels outside of cyberspace.
- inactive, on 07/10/2008, -1/+2Yes it is, at that's how your insurance company will see it. Even failing to have good enough locks on your doors is enough to invalidate most policies.
- JudgeMonkey, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1Dammit! That's MY "not responsible for". It isn't locked up but that doesn't mean you can just take it.
- rowjimmy, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1@macparrot - major fail as soon as you equate digital information with physical objects. one can be duplicated again and again at almost no cost (the cost of energy) and one cannot. if I copy your dvd from you and then give you back the dvd, you did not lose anything - nor did the production house if i was never going to buy that dvd in the first place - but if i steal the physical dvd you did. archaic notions of property will not hold in a world of digital information.
- chewy5000, on 07/10/2008, -0/+0what, Germany factorial is equal to us?
- InfiniteNothing, on 07/10/2008, -1/+1Change your mac address and it should not be traceable.
- QuixoticNoob, on 07/10/2008, -2/+2Get peerguardian 2 and BTguard if you are concerned about your security
BTguard will run you 7 USD a month and is overkill, you should be fine with PG 2 - VacantThoughts, on 07/10/2008, -1/+1He is saying if you lock the door and the thief decides to just break the door handle off or pick the lock.
- TeenageDeathBoy, on 07/10/2008, -2/+2You should be held responsible in this case because you are willingly letting others use it for illegal activity. You can't just open your wireless router to the whole neighborhood, let everyone do what they want with it, and say that you're prone to the law because they can't pinpoint who exactly did it. It's just simple logic, and you're stupid if you think otherwise.
I bet somewhere in your contract with your ISP, it says you're not allowed to share your internet access with anyone, and if you do, you're responsible.
Hell, I know that many ISPs that don't condone the use of routers, state how to set them up, ect for this exact reason. They aren't selling internet access to anyone but you. - TeenageDeathBoy, on 07/10/2008, -2/+1Also, I dugg you up so people can actually see your comment. That's one thing about the comment system I think is utterly dumb. You get a bunch of stupid people in here digging up all the worthless analogy comments like they mean something. Then they digg down the stupid ones to a point where no one will want to read them, thus making everyone else just agree with all the other stupid analogy people. It just doesn't make much sense to me and pretty much defeats the purpose of digging someone down.
-
Show 51 - 63 of 63 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is