how-to block ads
|
|
Uniqs:
778 |
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
Eek2121Lovin Verizon FIOS
join:2002-10-12
Newton, NJ Reviews:
 ·Service Electric..
| Landlord being sued by NBC Universal? I just received a phone call from my land lord who says she recieved a notice from her ISP regarding copyrighted material. The problem is she has never heard of the movie in question (Water World) nor have i downloaded it (I use her open wireless). I generally don't download much in the way of movies, i have access to them on the cheap by working at a retail store and receiving a discount off.
If this turns into a lawsuite things should be very interesting, since it seems that the MPAA is now suing individuals for copyright infringement, and one of their first targets is a false positive. I plan on helping my landlord out with this (after all, I HAVE been using her wireless, thats why she asked me about it.)
I hope to stop things before they start. The MPAA/RIAA have infuriated me to no end and I hope to return the favor. I plan on putting a blog up about this.
--
Need Web Hosting? Try ConnectiveX! | |
| I do not think it matter if she heard of the movie or not. The point is that someone is snooping something and has determined a 'copy' of said material was detected on her network. Now, maybe she is completely innocent, but that doesn't mean sh!t if someone on her network has conducted activity that infringes on someone else's copyright.
Curious, is it the position that no one on her network has made a copy of any movie, let alone Waterworld? | |
| You dolt! It is illegal to "enter into, and snoop," on anyone's computer without their permission, and even more so if done via a illegal hack of a person's very private LAN by device not on it. Any evidence gained thereby would be tainted, and inadmissible. If they are snooping Bit Torrent traffic nodes they are still on questionable ground.
Additionally, the prospect of the MPAA proving anything but their own incompetence would be improbable, and narrowing any purported "proof" they allege to have in this case to a specific individual, even more so. | |
 81399672Premium
join:2006-05-17
Los Angeles, CA
kudos:2 | reply to Eek2121
She got wireless, perfect. Her defence should be that nbc universal can't establish that it was her who downloaded the movie. RIAA has recently lost this type of case, good luck to your landloard
--
i am not a lawyer but I do play one on tv | | |
|
| reply to ross
What exactly makes you think they snooped onto her computer? There has been technology to snoop TCP packets in the transmission as it goes through the ISP's network. And let's not forget that law enforcement agencies don't have to be bound by such snooping rules. | |
| said by GhostDoggy:What exactly makes you think they snooped onto her computer? There has been technology to snoop TCP packets in the transmission as it goes through the ISP's network. And let's not forget that law enforcement agencies don't have to be bound by such snooping rules. What horse shit! Since when has the RIAA/MPAA gone to the trouble of obtaining warrants which would be required to sniff packets traveling through a particular ISP, or ISP customer's LAN? On what information would they base their application for a warrant to do so? Nope, RIAA/MPAA rely on scare tactics, threats, and economic extortion to intimidate torrent users. Their use of hired black-hat hackers"consultants", who snoop Bit Torrent traffic to reference to an IP address, is questionable at best. They rarely have evidence sufficient to obtain a warrant, so they have lobbied for, and obtained, legislation to allow them to circumvent the requirements necessary for issuance of warrants, and warrants altogether. Still, they have no idea what, and more importantly, WHO, was actually using the IP address at the time of any alleged infringement, especially in the case of a wireless connection point.
Law enforcement only wants to hear about substantial COMMERCIAL copyright infringement where perpetrators are actually causing harm to copyright holders, and their distributors, by the counterfeiting and selling of large quantities of copy-protected works/media. In the event such an illegal operation comes to their attention, they obtain WARRANTS in furtherance of their evidence gathering activity, before making arrests and bringing charges against people. Even then, the accused must be convicted before the state may fine or imprison them.
These RIAA/MPAA racketeers ought to be arrested for their shakedown and extortion of consumers, who may, or may not, be sharing music and video without commercial gain. Explaining the concepts of "First Sale", or "Fair Use", to the avaricious entertainment moguls is an exercise in futility, like trying to explain concepts like civil rights to people like y o u. Oh yeah, the law as currently perverted by the DMCA is wrong, and ought to be changed and/or repealed. There, I think that about covers the subject. | |
|
