how-to block ads
|
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| reply to Boogeyman
Re: That's her defence?
Listen, there is enough evidence to bring the case before a court. She admitted that a music software program was placed on her PC didn't she? She said that someone or a friend has placed it on her machine. Someone associated with the RIAA did a download and it came from an IP address which was looked up and found to be assigned to her internet account at the time of the download.
I am not "assuming" anything. Her statement of "I didn't do it" may be her statement and may her defense, but then again, everyone has a defense in a trial. Who goes into court and says "Yup! I did it!"... those cases don't go to court, they settle out of court. There is enough evidence presented to the court in the complaint that says she did was she is being accused of. I don't care what's right or wrong, rather, my statement is purely based on the legal system as we have it in this country.
And for the record, the owner of the ISP account is responsible for ALL TRAFFIC ON THE ACCOUNT. Another reason to SECURE wireless APs, right? Not that this argument hasn't been made before right?
Now, that I have responded to you, please tell us what exactly was "sleazy" of the RIAA? Was it the fact that they did a sting to see which IP addresses were sharing music? Or was it sleazy that they found an IP address and is in fact bringing it before a court of law to protect their rights? Or do you have something else to bring to the table on this? | |
Boogeyman
Drive it like you stole it
Premium
join:2002-12-17
Huntsville, AL
1 edit | What is sleazy is that they assume everyone is guilty whether they are or not. And that instead of filing each lawsuit seperately, they pervert the system by filing them in bulk and wait for the court system to sort through them. Just because someone has a p2p app installed doesnt mean they use it for copyright infringement, hell, some pc's come (or used to) pre-installed with a p2p app. And then you have people who like to backdoor someones pc and use it to share files.
And for the record, the owner of the ip is NOT responsible for all traffic on the account, if they were, then all of these computers used in DDoS attacks would get shut down as thier owners were arrested.
Like I said, I'm not saying shes innocent, I just dont like to see the whole "innocent untill proven guilty" concept thrown out the window by big business.
*EDIT - It went from innocent untill proven guilty to "guilty unless you have a massive amount of time and rescources to contradict us" | |
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| #1 - Yes, you are responsible for all traffic on your ISP account. Read your agreement. You take full ownership of the traffic that comes from your home. Otherwise, your ISP would be on the hook.
A virus is not 100% your fault. I am thinking that sooner or later, there will be presure placed on the PC owner to ensure that they have made good effort to protect themself from attacks. (ie: not having virus protection installed at all may be looked upon as neglegence.. it could happen someday)
Moving on, it's nice that you may an argument based on a small play of words, but yes, if you have an account with an ISP and someone comes over and uses your computer to commit a crime, they are coming after you first bud...
#2 - If you followed my thread, I was defending the rights of an entity to bring a complaint before another person where there is reason to beleive that they have been done wrong. That's the premise of our legal system. The worse that that can happen is that you loose. However, I ado agree that it sucks because some people are toast once the suit it launched simply because they must either a) hire an attorney for lots of money, or b) must settle and give in.
The system does have flaws, but don't look for the system to be fixed anytime soon. It's a fact of life that a suit brought against you, right or wrong, can screw up the lives of many people.
Bottom line, if the evidence proves that this activity DID come from here line, anyone (law abiding) still going to defend her? or still say that they had no right to bring a complaint before her?
On a side note... Even if the software was preinstalled on the PC, didn't music have to be placed in the "share" folder for it to be shared in the first place?? If the system, on it's own, found music and simply made it available to others, THEN maybe the manufacture should be on the hook here. Sounds to me that this whole thing was a little more meditaded and acted on by someone for it to happen.
I can't wait for the results of the case. | |
Boogeyman
Drive it like you stole it
Premium
join:2002-12-17
Huntsville, AL
| Just because it states so in the agreement, doesnt make it ironclad in a court of law. Its like your car, if you let someone borrow it (or it gets stolen) and is used to commit a crime, if you can prove you didnt have it at the time, they cant prosecute you for the crime. Say you are at work, but have a babysitter at home using your connection, if you can prove you were not there at the time and that that person was using the pc, they cant prosecute you.
Anyway, I dont think her babysitter or whatever did it, I was just using that as a basis for my argument.
Unless you go into the options and change it, most p2p apps I've used use your my documents folder and the windows default media folders for sharing. Most media apps I have used also defualt to using the my music folder when ripping music from your own collection. So unless they went in and changed it, whatever they had on there was shared by default.
The big problem here is that 80% of the people using the technology dont understand enough about to protect themselves from situations like this one.
--
"There's no such thing as a soul. It's just something they made up to scare kids, like the Boogeyman or Michael Jackson." - Bart Simpson | |
|
