Offsetx800
@hes-cres.charterpipe | reply to maartena
Re: IRC trading
Wrong. It's not a "crime", its a tort. It's civil litigation and most countries don't give a shit about other country's civil law. |
|
grjones
join:2001-12-01
Seattle, WA
|  reply to anomus
["Only an off shore buisness location out of the reach of world law hostile to fileshareing can get away with proxy serving for the time being."]
Which is why I know people who use a n offshore opeation called EarthStation5, which I have looked at and the provide an intersting alternative that appears to be able to thwart the RIAA using DMCA to crack donw on their users. |
|
russotto
join:2000-10-05
Collegeville, PA
| reply to maartena
said by maartena  :
No matter how many proxies one uses, if there is a file on YOUR harddrive, and it is being copied in ANY WAY to the Internet, you are violating the DCMA.
Actually, not.
quote:
If ANY bytes of a moviefile on your computer LEAVE your computer to the Internet - you are conducting a crime.
Also not true.
quote:
Owners of proxy servers will be able to track down which IP address was connected at what time.
Only if they actually have that information. |
|
Xtract
join:2003-04-25
Etheria
| reply to anomus
ISP's weren't held responsible for the data that went through them, but legislation made them responsible for turning over the information regarding the customer that was.
What if they didn't have that information? That barrier hasn't seemed to be crossed yet. The ISP would only legally be responsible for REFUSING to give information.
You can't subpoena for something that doesn't exist. I can completely understand where you're coming from. I really can, but perhaps its just my curiosity that is causing me to wonder otherwise. |
|
anomus
@mindspring.com
| reply to Xtract
You seem to have missed the point. Right this very minute, the **aa's are indeed holding the ISPs accountable for the P2P traffic that is infringing. That is why the ISPs send the users those violation leters that are poping up all over threatening disconection. In doing so, the ISPs are then released from legal liability from the activity there system perpetuates. If a private user sets up a proxy service and is caught ferrying illegal material, they are compelled to threaten disconnection and divulge idetification or face legal penalties. Only an off shore buisness location out of the reach of world law hostile to fileshareing can get away with proxy serving for the time being. |
|
Xtract
join:2003-04-25
Etheria
| reply to maartena
said by maartena :
But if crime is involved, even the anonymouse proxies give up their information.
I'm sure by now, people already understand the crime involved. People obviously do not care. But what if the anonymous proxies intentionally do not keep logs? You can't get them for destruction of evidence, since technically, the data never existed before the subpoena. |
|
maartena
Stacked.
Premium
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to Xtract
No matter how many proxies one uses, if there is a file on YOUR harddrive, and it is being copied in ANY WAY to the Internet, you are violating the DCMA.
If ANY bytes of a moviefile on your computer LEAVE your computer to the Internet - you are conducting a crime. Owners of proxy servers will be able to track down which IP address was connected at what time. Since proxy owners will simply be presented with a "give us the IP addresses or we will sue YOU for copyright violations" you can be sure that a proxyserver host will gladly give the list up.
Private surfing is one thing. But if crime is involved, even the anonymouse proxies give up their information.
--
»www.deanforamerica.com - You have the power to make a change! Support Howard Dean 2004 |
|
Xtract
join:2003-04-25
Etheria
| reply to dave
But if a person uses multiple proxies, how could you hold the person accountable? They're not sharing the file, but rather just directing traffic to a desired host. Regardless of the layer, even routers can be programmed to filter for certain content (port blocking).
The charges brought against these users are for sharing files that are stored on their own computer. It would take a whole new set of legislation to try a case like this and win. |
|
dave
Premium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio
 ·Verizon Online DSL
 ·Verizon FIOS
| reply to Xtract
said by Xtract :
If they did, then they could hold ISP's who own routers responsible.
Oh, I'm no lawyer, but I'd guess it's fairly easy to make a case that a proxy operating on top of layer 4 is content-aware in a way that a router operating at layer 3 cannot possibly be aware. |
|
Xtract
join:2003-04-25
Etheria
| reply to kaisa
There are two solutions left that can render a user "still safe".
Multiple privatized networks, or distributed proxying. The RIAA can not hold someone liable for being a proxy for the content that transfers through their machine, but is never stored. If they did, then they could hold ISP's who own routers responsible.
If you're a member of a few privatized networks, you could share your content on those networks. You can choose which "networks" to be a part of, and the network owner can establish a login for you on that network. If a file you want is not on your network, the peers on your network will ask the people on their networks if that file is available, and then proxy the information to you. Kind of complex, but other then compromised IRC hosts, thats really the only way to stay safe. |
|
