Reviews:
 ·Comcast
 ·voip.ms
 ·America Online
 ·Dish Network
1 edit | IP target The problem about this and it has happen in the past.... X company learns that IP xxx.x.xx.x is downloading or uploading "YZ" .... The IP is either a dynamic IP (always changing) or is some how shared, but not monitored independently or correctly (be it shared or dynamic). As no one wants to be the target of a law suite, the last man/women holding the bag is asked to pay the dues.
I do not support piracy, but I also do not support random number generated law suites either.
--
I often find it complexing that people feel that you've reached a level of maturity and responsibility if you can accept being riped off or taken advantage of for someone else's gain or enjoyment
Independent TV |
|
 RobIn Deo speramus, God Bless the USAPremium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
kudos:2 | said by OldschoolDSL:The problem about this and it has happen in the past.... X company learns that IP xxx.x.xx.x is downloading or uploading "YZ" .... The IP is either a dynamic IP (always changing) or is some how shared, but not monitored independently or correctly (be it shared or dynamic). As no one wants to be the target of a law suite, the last man/women holding the bag is asked to pay the dues. I do not support piracy, but I also do not support random number generated law suites either. A competent ISP maintains logs of which user was assigned which IP during which period of time.
--
CheckSite.us | YourIP.us | Reverseip.us |
|
 thegeekPremium
join:2008-02-21
united state
kudos:1
·Suddenlink
·NPG Cable
1 edit | Yes they do, but what about the old lady who unknowingly has her wireless setup without security and the neighbor is using it for their BitTorrent activities?
This doesn't excuse the fact that everyone should secure their wireless networks, but in this case the wrong person would be sued.
And the last two times I have moved I have had a different ISP. Both ISPs provided a modem with a built in wireless router. Both times the tech doing the install left the wireless turned on and with absolutely no security in place. And neither time was I informed by the ISP that I should change the settings. You and I know better, but the vast majority of people have no clue. |
|
|
|
RobIn Deo speramus, God Bless the USAPremium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
kudos:2 | said by thegeek:This doesn't excuse the fact that everyone should secure their wireless networks, but in this case the wrong person would be sued. It depends on how you look at it. To me, the right person is being sued - the owner of the Internet account.
--
CheckSite.us | YourIP.us | Reverseip.us |
|
thegeekPremium
join:2008-02-21
united state
kudos:1 | How is the account owner in this hypothetical situation the right person? They did not pirate copyrighted material, they were just ignorant to the fact that someone was piggybacking on their connection. |
|
 FBGuyyippee ki yayPremium
join:2005-03-19 | ignorance is not a defense. i know, it never works for me. 
--
sbcglobal.net speedtest result 11/11/09 - 5256kbps |
|
| reply to Rob
said by Rob:said by thegeek:This doesn't excuse the fact that everyone should secure their wireless networks, but in this case the wrong person would be sued. It depends on how you look at it. To me, the right person is being sued - the owner of the Internet account. God forbid someone steal your car and use it commit a crime. |
|
thegeekPremium
join:2008-02-21
united state
kudos:1 Reviews:
·Suddenlink
·NPG Cable
| reply to FBGuy
I wasn't saying ignorance would be a good defense. I was just pointing out that the wrong person is being sued. The current method of determining who is pirating is flawed and needs fixing. ISP records of who had what IP at any given time should not be enough to prove guilt. |
|
FBGuyyippee ki yayPremium
join:2005-03-19 Reviews:
·Comcast
 ·T-Mobile US
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| said by thegeek:ISP records of who had what IP at any given time should not be enough to prove guilt. I can agree with this.
--
sbcglobal.net speedtest result 11/11/09 - 5256kbps |
|
| reply to Rob
said by Rob:A competent ISP maintains logs of which user was assigned which IP during which period of time. And then trashes those logs after a few days when they are no longer required. |
|
| reply to imanogre
said by imanogre:said by Rob:said by thegeek:This doesn't excuse the fact that everyone should secure their wireless networks, but in this case the wrong person would be sued. It depends on how you look at it. To me, the right person is being sued - the owner of the Internet account. God forbid someone steal your car and use it commit a crime. Ok, we understand that the wrong person can be sued at times. What really interests me is how they would find the correct person. What are we telling them would be feasible? Are we letting them get to the point of manually searching each of our computers to determine if anything unlawful is going on? What other way to see "who" downloads what could there be? Our freedoms are eroding, and the general public is blind. I pirate games and movies, but if I enjoy them, I BUY THEM. I pirated 9 computer games over the last 12 months, I now own (at least the right to use) those 9 games. It's bad to pirate. Is there really any other way to think about it? If you personally, made something unique, how would you react to someone stealing it? It IS stealing, regardless of how you justify it in your heads. You don't go "borrow" someone's car and never return it, do you? What's the difference? |
|
| reply to FBGuy
Have an unsecured WiFi is not against the law.
Ignorance or not wanting WEP or WPA, still does not make the person liable for another's actions. |
|
Reviews:
·Comcast
·voip.ms
·America Online
·Dish Network
| reply to travelguy
said by travelguy:said by Rob:A competent ISP maintains logs of which user was assigned which IP during which period of time. And then trashes those logs after a few days when they are no longer required. This is my point and also I'll add that if you had IP xxx.x.xx.x today and it changed mid-day and I got your IP... The log sometimes only says the day, not the time. It may also not count one of us for that day. (seen it myself, first hand).
--
I often find it complexing that people feel that you've reached a level of maturity and responsibility if you can accept being riped off or taken advantage of for someone else's gain or enjoyment
Independent TV |
|
FBGuyyippee ki yayPremium
join:2005-03-19 Reviews:
·Comcast
·T-Mobile US
·AT&T U-Verse
| reply to Skippy25
said by Skippy25:Have an unsecured WiFi is not against the law. Ignorance or not wanting WEP or WPA, still does not make the person liable for another's actions. I am sure some city out there has it against the law to have unsecured wifi.
--
sbcglobal.net speedtest result 11/11/09 - 5256kbps |
|
jp10558Premium
join:2005-06-24
Willseyville, NY | reply to OldschoolDSL
And, finally, even if it's a static, public IP (like this computer has), it in no way specifies who was sitting at the computer. Just like how red light cameras had to start getting more than the license plate to prove WHO ran the light with the car, not just whose car was used.
And viruses like zbot are getting way more common again and could be used as a private sort of proxy for botnet owners... especially when you can rent a botnet for cheap if you know how...
--
Opera 10(Build 1750); Windows XP Pro SP3;Intel C2Q6600; 3GB DDR2 1066; 1M/128k DSL; Antivir Personal; Comodo Internet Security 3.10;Proxomitron 4.5j Sidki 2009-06-06,GPG ID:0x0A1C6EE3 |
|
