how-to block ads
|
|
Uniqs:
132 |
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
| Where have all the brains gone .... Quote from the article above:
"Once the industry determined a downloaded song file was a
copyright work, they issued subpoenas to Internet access
providers to find out who was behind the account used to
log onto the file-sharing network."
The only problem with that is many times the ISP
has no idea who is actually online. Do remember
that IPs can be easily mascaraded and even hijacked.
There are hundreds if not thousands of virus and trojan
programs that allow you to bounce connections through
other computers completely without the owner even
realizing this is happening.
This doesn't even begin to cover the thousands of
open proxy servers all over the internet.
More skilled users can just manipulate their packet ID
which actually isn't really that difficult.
If any of that isn't enough, remember that many ISPs
do not keep detailed enough log data or do not keep
it for an extended period of time. The reason is
storage capacity. When you've got several thousand
users, tracking all their online activities takes
up a MASSIVE amount of storage space that is multiplied
by the amount of time you keep those logs and the
level of detail of information stored.
In dynamic IP situations, it is often difficult for
an ISP to trace out who was using what IP at what
time.
This is further complicated by the amount of time
taken for research. If it takes you 30 days to
figure out an IP address, go to the courts and
then serve the ISP, there's a pretty good chance
the information will have already been rolled off
leaving the ISP to have to take a guess from bits
and pieces of fragmented log data.
But even then, you come back to the original question ...
Was the IP that you traced ACTUALLY the real IP or was
I led off on a wild goose chase?
Incidentally, this isn't just talking about RIAA and
file trading ... SPAM email messages have the exact
same problem. You will often find that NONE of the IPs
shown in the connection logs or email headers actually
had anything to do with the SPAM message.
This opens up questions like "reasonable doubt" and
further questions about both "security" and also
"personal privacy" and with that constitutional
questions as well.
If you play devil's advocate on the other side and
make the assumption that the IP traced is the actual
real IP then you still have a big problem ...
The owner of the ISP account may have absolutely
nothing to do with the file sharing activity! In
fact, he/she may have no knowledge of it.
On one hand you've got to confirm that the IP
you traced is actually the IP you are looking for
and then you're still left asking the question,
"Who was actually really at the computer?"
Unfortunately we're getting into a time when I don't
think there's any brains left out there. The plantiff
is often too stupid to realize they don't have a case,
the judge is often too stupid to realize they needs to
throw out a case for lack of merit and supporting
evidence, and the defendant's attorney is often
too stupid to realize they have a massively huge
defense that they often completely ignore and thus
fail to provide an adequate defense.
Oh well, the saga continues ....
[text was edited by author 2003-09-24 18:30:24] | |
| this person has a really good point. With all the proxy servers out there the RIAA would have a hard time tracking down the people who are actually doing the sharing. I think users of kazaa should come together and build a proxy server that is at least 100 hops deep. about 10% of the proxy servers should be set on some DHCP with a *true* dynamic address. some setup like that would make it impossible to find out where the files are actually coming from and going to. that will show them. If the RIAA would shut up and lower the price on the cds that costs like 15 cents to make maybe people wouldn't go and download it when they could have the real deal, the RIAA is money hungry whores | |
| reply to Cybertoad
said by Cybertoad:
[snip]Just because you have an IP address is no guarantee
that's where the transmission actually came from and
that possibility blows every last one of RIAA's cases
out of the water due to a concept known here in the
USA as "reasonable doubt".[/snip]
These are civil cases. Reasonable doubt does not apply.
The real problem is if it is actually you who was sharing the files when the RIAA subpoenas the IP number (in other words the matching worked) the RIAA can build a pretty convincing case. And denying you shared files you actually shred may not be such a great idea.
From Findlaw.com:
»writ.news.findlaw.com/hilden/20030916.html
"Another argument that could be made is that the RIAA cannot prove that an accused music lover actually did the downloading and distributing. However, if she actually was the distributor (and I'm assuming, here, that she was), then this argument is a huge mistake; for to even have a chance of prevailing in her defense, she would have to commit perjury by lying under oath at a deposition.
Moreover, this is one perjury case that might actually be brought and if brought, might be provable: With subpoenaed third-party records, an impounded computer, and other evidence, proof beyond a reasonable doubt would be far from impossible.
Finally, unlike in the case of file sharing itself, there's no argument about whether lying under oath is, or should be, illegal: It is. Very illegal." | |
 YowzaaahOurs Go To Eleven
join:2000-12-14
DamnFlat, OH | Perjury is almost NEVER prosecuted. Remember Phillip Morris Execs raising their hands and saying they did not believe cigarettes were addictive and they did not artificially spike nicotine levels? And that was televised and before congress.
Unlike the current RIAA paid for subpoena fest, a criminal prosecution of perjury requires the direct involvement and interest of the federal prosecutor. In the districts where they have brought these cases I'll bet a treasured appendage that no prosecutor wants to be involved with this. Prosecutors are political animals and most have aspirations to either higher positions of public office. Being the guy that sent away lying maryjane rap downloader doesn't help you when running for congress later.
--
Don't suspect your friends...Report Them. Brazil (if you haven't seen it, you should) | | |
|
 NOVA_GuyObamaCare Kills AmericansPremium
join:2002-03-05 | reply to joebear29
said by joebear29:
However, if she actually was the distributor (and I'm assuming, here, that she was), then this argument is a huge mistake; for to even have a chance of prevailing in her defense, she would have to commit perjury by lying under oath at a deposition.
Moreover, this is one perjury case that might actually be brought and if brought, might be provable: With subpoenaed third-party records, an impounded computer, and other evidence, proof beyond a reasonable doubt would be far from impossible.
Finally, unlike in the case of file sharing itself, there's no argument about whether lying under oath is, or should be, illegal: It is. Very illegal."
If one runs into this problem, one might consider following the same avenue as our illustrious former President Clinton...  Now just exactly what does the word "is" mean? 
--
Cox cable: the hallmark questionable business practices and lousy cable service! | |
|
