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. |
|
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 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. |
|
