B
Premium,MVM
join:2000-10-28
1 edit | Bad Article, Poor Advice
My gosh what a poorly written article, and this from the EDITOR of the publication.
The "advice" is simply "pedophiles might use your WiFi and you could get in trouble".
Well, yeah, that's the whole point of a wide open access point; you can't control who gets to use it.
Does she seriously think people who are going to use this dodgy technique (opening up their routers to avoid liability) are going to leave the sucker open all the time, when it takes two clicks to disable the security and there are no logs, anywhere, of how long encryption was enabled or not?
Stupid. (As are people who would knowingly leave their AP open and NOT protect their internal systems.)
-- B
--
In a realm outside causality and function |
|
Grail Knight
Who Dares Wins
Premium
join:2003-05-31
 ·Verizon Online DSL
1 edit | I do not she think she is seriously advocating turning off security features to defeat the RIAA. More like how one persons creativity/being clueless can make the RIAA step back and think if the case is worth pursuing knowing they would have to present hard facts for a change to win instead of scare tactics.
Edit* Cleaned up sentence.
--
"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something". - Plato |
|
Speedy8
Premium
join:2002-08-22
Alliance, OH
clubs: | reply to B
Yeah really. There's no way for your ISP or the RIAA to know if your router had the security on or off. For all intents and purposes someone could just leave the security on until they got a subpoena then turn it off and say they never had it on. |
|
PolarBear
The bear formerly known as aaron8301
Premium
join:2005-01-03
 ·CableOne
| reply to Grail Knight
ALL of the **AA lawsuits are simply scare tactics. Like a mean dog or a school bully; show them you aren't scared, and they start backing down really quick!
--
"I invented it, Bill made it famous." --David Bradley, the inventor of Ctrl+Alt+Del. |
|
Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
·AT&T Midwest
 ·Site5.com
·Comcast
1 edit | said by PolarBear  :ALL of the **AA lawsuits are simply scare tactics. Like a mean dog or a school bully; show them you aren't scared, and they start backing down really quick! I don't mean to laugh at your statement, but I have to. All of the lawsuits are scare tactics? Its hard to argue when the **AA has your IP address logged, ISP records that it was your IP coming from your modem, and the items you were downloading. Unless, you weren't file sharing in the first place and can prove it. Seems that most of the people I know that have been served with warning letters and lawsuits (yes, I know a couple) were indeed file sharing. Its the dollar figure that the **AA is seeking that is insane.
I have had my work used without my consent and distributed using methods I would not consent to either. I put a reasonable dollar figure on my work and there wasn't even a need to file a civil suit in any of my situations.
We need some independent governing body to step in and actually put a price on these civil suits. If someone is caught sharing 5 music files, that should be $50, not $3,000.
I am all about limiting the **AA frivolous lawsuits, but I think people who commit copyright infringement should be punished in some way. Just make the punishment fit the crime. These $10,000 civil suits for 10 songs is outrageous.
--
My Domain
Nightfall's Hockey and Life Journal |
|
PolarBear
The bear formerly known as aaron8301
Premium
join:2005-01-03
·CableOne
1 edit | Your statement clarified my point exactly, Nightfall. A $10k suit for sharing 10 songs is nothing more than a scare tactic, because the **AA can't honestly think that even if they do win a suit against Average P2P User, that Mr. User will ever be able to come up with the $10k. They throw a large $$ lawsuit at Mr. User hoping it will scare him into settling for MUCH less, KNOWING full well he could NEVER pay $10k.
Hell, they could sue me for $1,000,000,000 if they wanted to, and I'd LET them win for the fun of it, 'cause I know they'd never see a penny of the money.
Edit: I do agree with your theory of a reasonable dollar amount put on these things, however. That is my theory behind why people choose P2P over legal download services: you don't get a reasonable product for your $. If download services were REASONABLE, people would P2P much less, and PURCHASE much more.
--
"I invented it, Bill made it famous." --David Bradley, the inventor of Ctrl+Alt+Del. |
|
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA
| said by PolarBear :Hell, they could sue me for $1,000,000,000 if they wanted to, and I'd LET them win for the fun of it, 'cause I know they'd never see a penny of the money. They might not, but you would be forced into bankruptcy, might have to sell off a lot of your possessions, might lose your house (if you have one), and would suffer with bad credit for awhile. All because the RIAA said you had shared a dozen songs on a P2P network. |
|
Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
·AT&T Midwest
·Site5.com
·Comcast
| reply to PolarBear
said by PolarBear :Your statement clarified my point exactly, Nightfall. A $10k suit for sharing 10 songs is nothing more than a scare tactic, because the **AA can't honestly think that even if they do win a suit against Average P2P User, that Mr. User will ever be able to come up with the $10k. They throw a large $$ lawsuit at Mr. User hoping it will scare him into settling for MUCH less, KNOWING full well he could NEVER pay $10k. Hell, they could sue me for $1,000,000,000 if they wanted to, and I'd LET them win for the fun of it, 'cause I know they'd never see a penny of the money. Edit: I do agree with your theory of a reasonable dollar amount put on these things, however. That is my theory behind why people choose P2P over legal download services: you don't get a reasonable product for your $. If download services were REASONABLE, people would P2P much less, and PURCHASE much more. I agree, the **AA shot themselves in the foot on the download services being reasonable. Imagine how successful they would have been if they launched an allofmp3 like system? If they would have added more features to the CD to make it more price friendly, it would have been a win/win. As it is, they didn't do that so these things exist.
No matter what the price of these things will be, there will always be people who will use P2P to get them or share them. Imagine if software makers dropped the price across the board by 50% if you downloaded instead of bought in the stores. The stores could drop their price by 25% for those who wanted the hard copy. There would still be people who pirate. Same goes for music and movies. Even music as cheap as allofmp3 would get distributed illegally. People will do anything to save a buck, including pirate.
These people must be punished at some level. If someone is so cheap to not pay .25 cents a song, they should be hit with a $10 per song shared bill. People who fight it in court better be expected to pay court costs if they lose. Nothing is anonymous on the internet, so people who are dumb enough to get caught sharing should get nailed. I am glad we agree on the cost being inflated at least.
In short, there has to be a way to protect the intellectual property of others. I am a published writer and photographer, and I have caught other websites and news organizations using my work without my permission and without paying me. These people, when confronted, paid up because they knew they were in the wrong and I didn't put a outlandish $3000 per article or picture on it either. Its amazing how, when the price is reasonable, there is no arguement if one party knows they were in the wrong.
Glad we at least agreed on some things. 
--
My Domain
Nightfall's Hockey and Life Journal |
|
PolarBear
The bear formerly known as aaron8301
Premium
join:2005-01-03 | reply to Jason Levine
The only thing I own is a Ford Explorer. I already have bad credit. Not much else they could do.
--
"I invented it, Bill made it famous." --David Bradley, the inventor of Ctrl+Alt+Del. |
|
Grail Knight
Who Dares Wins
Premium
join:2003-05-31
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to PolarBear
Exactly and the consumers for the most part fall for it or do not have the denarius to fight them.
The corrupt/clueless court officials and lawmakers allow big business to set the tone in the US so the behavior of the RIAA & MPAA will continue unabated for awhile.
--
"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something". - Plato |
|
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA
| reply to Nightfall
I've long been a fan of having two separate penalty systems for copyright violations. Call them "Professional" and "Casual."
Professional Copyright Violators would be anyone who violates copyright for profit. And example would be those folks that get one CD, burn a hundred copies, and sell them on the street corner for $1 each. The penalties for Professional Copyright Violators would be the same as the current scheme calls for.
Casual Copyright Violators would be anyone who violates copyright without seeking profit. (If you violate copyright with profit in mind, but are unsuccessful at it, you still get classified as a Professional.) An example of this would be someone who shares out copyrighted music on a P2P network without the copyright holder's permission. The penalties for this would be much less. Let's say about three times the cost that buying the item would typically incur.
Using this system, a person caught sharing 1,000 songs on a P2P network would need to pay three times $0.99 (iTunes cost) for each song, or $2,970. (Ironically, I picked that number out of the blue and it wound up very close to the RIAA settlement figure.  It wasn't intentional!) At that amount, the guilty will still feel a financial hit ($3K is a big amount for most people) but the innocent won't feel so threatened that they just automatically roll over because it is easier and cheaper. |
|
Grail Knight
Who Dares Wins
Premium
join:2003-05-31 | reply to PolarBear
Pay the fine at $5 bucks a month in pennies.
Restitution can be very slow. |
|
iSEPIC
join:2001-04-17
Las Vegas, NV
| reply to Nightfall
quote:
Its hard to argue when the **AA has your IP address logged, ISP records that it was your IP coming from your modem, and the items you were downloading. Unless, you weren't file sharing in the first place and can prove it.
you see, this *IS* the problem, YOU as being the defendant SHOULD NOT HAVE TO PROVE anything, they should have to prove you did it, and just having an IP address doesn't mean crap, unless you're very new to the technology, and if you are (meaning the judge for instance) you should consult. |
|
Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
·AT&T Midwest
·Site5.com
·Comcast
| said by iSEPIC : quote:
Its hard to argue when the **AA has your IP address logged, ISP records that it was your IP coming from your modem, and the items you were downloading. Unless, you weren't file sharing in the first place and can prove it.
you see, this *IS* the problem, YOU as being the defendant SHOULD NOT HAVE TO PROVE anything, they should have to prove you did it, and just having an IP address doesn't mean crap, unless you're very new to the technology, and if you are (meaning the judge for instance) you should consult. Well, look at it from this perspective...
They have your IP address.
ISP has your records as to the lease on that IP was yours.
ISP has the bills saying you are paying for the internet connection.
You are responsible for the data being transmitted on that connection.
You as the defendant can counter those claims. This person did by saying her wireless router was wide open, and someone else did it. Well, it worked because the judge let her off. Would it work again? Who knows.
Point is that the defendant can present evidence to the contrary in a civil case. If all the evidence points to the defendant, the defendant SHOULD HAVE TO PROVE they are innocent. They should have a say in the matter, like the person in the article did.
--
My Domain
Nightfall's Hockey and Life Journal |
|
PolarBear
The bear formerly known as aaron8301
Premium
join:2005-01-03
·CableOne
| reply to iSEPIC
iSEPIC, I agree wholly.
An excerpt from another post of mine in a different forum:
The plaintiff in a civil suit should be required to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt in front of a jury of at least 6 peers, similar to a criminal case. The idea of "whoever's case sounds slightly better wins," sucks ass, especially since, unlike a criminal charge, you can sue someone for ANYTHING!
Also, the plaintiff (and his lawyer) should be required to show the court what the plaintiff has spent on his legal "offense," and pay the same amount to the defendant for his defense before the proceeding may commence. Or something similar to that. My point to this is, a large corporation with a multi-million dollar team of attorneys should not be able to sue Jane Doe and her kids who can barely afford her Kia Payment and the Mac and Cheese on the dinner table. If Major Corp. sues Jane Doe, Jane has the right to be equally defended at no cost to her, since she didn't start the lawsuit in the first place (just like in the criminal court system; they'll give you a lawyer if you can't afford to hire one).
--
"I invented it, Bill made it famous." --David Bradley, the inventor of Ctrl+Alt+Del. |
|
PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR
| reply to Jason Levine
said by Jason Levine :Professional Copyright Violators would be anyone who violates copyright for profit. And example would be those folks that get one CD, burn a hundred copies, and sell them on the street corner for $1 each.... Casual Copyright Violators would be anyone who violates copyright without seeking profit. ... An example of this would be someone who shares out copyrighted music on a P2P network without the copyright holder's permission. The penalties for this would be much less. Why should the penalties be much less? The potential damages to the copyright owner are far, far greater.
In your examples, the copyright owner, in the case of the "professional violator", only loses the potential revenue from 100 customers. In the case of the "casual violator", the violator has published the copyright owner's property for free, unlimited, worldwide distribution, via the internet, which means that the owner potentially loses his entire customer base. That's why the fines for this type of infringement are so high, and can even include criminal penalties now, in certain circumstances. |
|
PolarBear
The bear formerly known as aaron8301
Premium
join:2005-01-03 | reply to Grail Knight
YES! |
|
hayabusa3303
Over 200 mph
Premium
join:2005-06-29
clubs: | Better yet give them just a dollar a month.  |
|
bigjimc
join:2003-04-21
Middleboro, MA
| reply to PolarBear
If the **AA wanted to prove a point why don't they file criminal actions against the alleged persons?
They would then have to prove it (not just attempt to extort $3k and drop the case).
--
Just my 2 cents...Flame Lightly... |
|
bigjimc
join:2003-04-21
Middleboro, MA | reply to Speedy8
God Bless the RESET button |
|
