how-to block ads
|
|
Uniqs:
294 |
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
 stetVolitar Prime
join:2002-03-08
Warren, MI
1 edit | If she's telling the truth... If she's telling the truth then there are 3 possible scenarios.
1) One of her kids or kids' friends did it and she is unaware. In this case she would be responsible.
2) Someone is tapping into her open wireless access point, if she has one. In this case she should also be responsible because she failed to secure her wireless access point. But that's a touchy issue around here these days...
3) It's yet another case of mistaken identity. In this case, I blame the ISP for providing the wrong information. The RIAA sues an IP address, it's up to the ISP to match that IP to a person. When they screw up, the RIAA ends up going after the wrong person. If this is the case, it will probably be discovered before an actual court case, and the suit dropped.
--
I am of the stars.
I am called "Forever".
Eternity courses through my veins. | |
 scrummie02BentleyPremium
join:2004-04-16
Arlington, VA
 ·Comcast
| Well said. In all reality it is hard for the RIAA to make a case.
The I.P. address was leased to her, but the ISP is responsible for ensuring it was leased to her during said "downloading of illegal files". I am sure the ISP may have something, but that means keeping a record of DHCP leases for a period of months. Do they have records of every logical address leased to every physical address within their network? If not, is it possible that someone else could have had that I.P address and downloaded music? What is the lease time on the I.P.?
Spoofing I.P.s isn't hard, and neither is hacking into someones computer and "owning" it. This mother no doubt has not applied security patches or installed a firewall on her computer (if she does it's probably something easily bypassed). There isn't a way to tell if she actually did the downloading or if it was perpetrated from some other source. It is quite possible that someone couldn't have turned her computer into a music downloading zombie and come back later for the files...it could happen.
Really there is a lot of variables here, to many to go through. What if the files aren't on her computer (she downloaded false copies that aren't the files at all, but something else). She then doesn't really have any copyrighted material does she? Can one be sued to trying to obtain something copyrighted but doesn't actually have it? I don't know. Also, other than supposed network connectivity, what other proof does the RIAA have she has these files in her possession? Have they looked on her computer and actually seen that's where the files reside. If so, that is a hacking attempted and against the law that specifically forbids unauthorized people from gaining access to computer resource they aren't supposed to. In effect this would make the RIAA no better than the kids they lock up in jail for breaking into computers. Unless of course they are allowed to do that, which will set an entirely new precedence in future laws which will allow corporations and the government rights to access your files any time they choose to "protect" themselves.
It is a shady case, and a decision one way or another will certainly change the way things are looked at in these types of cases in the future. What this woman needs is a lawyer, and a highly technical person who can verify what actually happened and of course ask the right questions to which the RIAA would have to prove. I find have a big problems when either these types of cases, or just government policy towards technology as a whole is decided by people who have no clue on how the technology works or what it does. Having an 80 year old man who can barely use e-mail decide the outcome of a technical case or create policy is disgusting in my opinion and needs to stop. | |
stetVolitar Prime
join:2002-03-08
Warren, MI
1 edit | said by scrummie02:Really there is a lot of variables here, to many to go through. What if the files aren't on her computer (she downloaded false copies that aren't the files at all, but something else). She then doesn't really have any copyrighted material does she? Can one be sued to trying to obtain something copyrighted but doesn't actually have it? I don't know. Also, other than supposed network connectivity, what other proof does the RIAA have she has these files in her possession? Have they looked on her computer and actually seen that's where the files reside. If so, that is a hacking attempted and against the law that specifically forbids unauthorized people from gaining access to computer resource they aren't supposed to. In effect this would make the RIAA no better than the kids they lock up in jail for breaking into computers. Unless of course they are allowed to do that, which will set an entirely new precedence in future laws which will allow corporations and the government rights to access your files any time they choose to "protect" themselves. The thing is that they are suing her for uploading (sharing), not downloading. They were able to view a list of songs that she* was openly offering, and perhaps even downloaded them as they, being the copyright holder, have the legal right to do. This would allow them to verify that she* was sharing the real songs, not just dummy files with the song's names. No hacking is involved.
* By "she" I mean her IP address.
--
I am of the stars.
I am called "Forever".
Eternity courses through my veins. | |
 keith2468Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-03
Winnipeg, MB | reply to stet
As long as people quietly do what the RIAA asks, the RIAA doesn't need to prove anything in court. | |
scrummie02BentleyPremium
join:2004-04-16
Arlington, VA Reviews:
·Comcast
| reply to stet
can you do that with kazaa. I thought you just loooked stuff up and it shows if it's there, not where it's coming from. Point is if they have an I.P they were downloading from, how do they know it was from her computer? Anyone could have been leased (or spoofed) that I.P.
The burden is on the RIAA to provide proof. If I was a juror I wouldn't go their way until they had proof. They have to prove to me beyond an reasonable doubt that they obtained the files from her computer. An I.P isn't good enough...like I said before, anyone could have had it. ISP records have been known to be wrong, or could have been pencil whipped because they were under pressure. Was there a network monitoring tool on that network segment sniffing traffic and showing upload traffic via Kazaa to her MAC address? How do they know for sure what's in her shared folder and what's not? How are they going to prove she setup a username, logged on and downloaded music?
I need proof such as that to be convinced, not some simple "we have her I.P. address that she might have had so we know she was downloading stuff illegally." Unless they have proof those files where in her Kazaa shared folder and coming from her box to theirs via the network ports Kaaza uses, I don't see where they have a case.
Just my humble thoughts..... | |
| said by scrummie02:can you do that with kazaa. I thought you just loooked stuff up and it shows if it's there, not where it's coming from. Point is if they have an I.P they were downloading from, how do they know it was from her computer? Anyone could have been leased (or spoofed) that I.P. The burden is on the RIAA to provide proof. If I was a juror I wouldn't go their way until they had proof. They have to prove to me beyond an reasonable doubt that they obtained the files from her computer. An I.P isn't good enough...like I said before, anyone could have had it. ISP records have been known to be wrong, or could have been pencil whipped because they were under pressure. Was there a network monitoring tool on that network segment sniffing traffic and showing upload traffic via Kazaa to her MAC address? How do they know for sure what's in her shared folder and what's not? How are they going to prove she setup a username, logged on and downloaded music? I need proof such as that to be convinced, not some simple "we have her I.P. address that she might have had so we know she was downloading stuff illegally." Unless they have proof those files where in her Kazaa shared folder and coming from her box to theirs via the network ports Kaaza uses, I don't see where they have a case. Just my humble thoughts..... Your kidding right? The RIAA did Kazaa serch for a ceratin file. That file was available on her hard drive because she was offering it. The RIAA initiated a file transfer from her computer to the RIAA computer. Now I'm sure you realize that computers use all sorts or identifying information to make file transfers (although your post would indicate otherwise). Since there was a file transfer the RIAA has the originating IP address, the time/date stamp, the folder name, the file name, the file itself, and sometimes even more than that. BTW, Internet providers actually do have records of who is assigned IPs within their network. Do you really think that the RIAA doesn't have a ton of proof? Do you think the courts would allow tens of thousands of lawsuits to be filed if they didn't meet a certain evidential criteria. The reason no one has gone to court is because the RIAA lays out all the evidence pretrial and when any (sane) lawyer sees it they know to settle because they will lose.
Since this is a commmon misconception (and mentioned in your post) I would like to hear how you can spoof an IP in a two way communication. | |
|
