That's true. Even if Silent_Jay i right, the router thing is still a good case against the RIAA/MPAA/ETC. It's just not a strong case against his internet provider.

I doubt anything will happen anyways. I got an email from my ISP a couple of years ago when I lived in Ottawa, they said they had a complaint that I downloaded the new Star wars movie, showed the logs, program I used and everything, in the end nothing happened, never had my internet shut off for any length of time, and never heard from them again about the matter, then again I do live in Canada, I'm not to osure how things in the US work.

Peer Guardian seems to work just fine, btw.

Edit: And it works on Mac or PC.

I picked that up shortly after I got the email, worked great ever since. I guess it's still not too bad to download things in Canada, never really hear of any big things done. Other than the CIRA complaining about Demonoid and them blocking Canadian traffic, but that didn't really slow anything or anyone down.

How can you tell?

I've never been contacted, and neither has anyone else I know of who uses it. It's not proof, rather deductive reasoning. If not causation, there is a correlation.

Pretty much, I didn't use it, they contacted me, used it ever since, never had contact from any of my ISP's, seems to work.

I got an email once and it doesn't matter at all. Your service provider wants your business and I am sure they don't care what you do on the internet for the most part.

I wonder if my neighbor knows he downloaded 3 HD movies in the past two weeks (24 Gb)... I would have bought them on HD-DVD, but they aren't out on either format and it has been 4 years since they were in theaters.

But I think I am done downloading stuff after this. I need to work on organizing what I have (and actually watching what I have downloaded).

The ISPs are lucky that they have only had to deal with software P2P programs so far. Just wait until someone like me makes a hardware P2P network. Here is the concept. You take a bunch of wi-fi routers, modify them to talk and pass data encrypted between each other in a Tor style mesh network. Everyone's network would be open for the passing of data through it (75% public / 25% local user), but you couldn't get to the computer behind the network. A decentralized mesh network is what the internet was supposed to be, but now it is far from it. Individual users shouldn't be identifible, traffic (of any content) couldn't be traced, there would be no monthly fees (just keep your wifi router plugged in), and there wouldn't need to be ISPs anymore (at least not for people who wanted to transfer files).

This doesn't fly - sadly. It is -your- responsibility to ensure that your network is secure. Any open access-points are still your legal liability as the connection between the AP and the ISP is your responsibility.

This is akin to "no excuse for ignorance".

Link? Source? Coming on and saying "this doesn't fly" without evidence, in fact, doesn't fly.

In addition to this, the agreement made with your ISP does no extend to a movie studio. The TOS agreement above is not with Paramount and as such even if it is legitimate, and I'm not saying it is, the supposed responsibility named in the agreement is not transferable to Paramount.

usenet people, usenet

man, look at all the canadians in this thread, seems to be a different climate mentally in Canada than the US posters, I'm sensing a theme.

I haven't read the entire thread so I'll probably just repeat what's been said but... Clear your hard drive and deny having downloaded the movie in question.

Too late for that, he already made a thread admitting to downloading it.

It may not be with the movie studio but it is with the company providing you with your internet, and in the little TOS it says they are not responsible for it, but you are the one responsible for it. Therefore you are the one responsible for what is downloaded through your connection. Is this really that hard to understand?

Apparently it is. Said agreement does not extend to Paramount. Paramount's only contract is the FBI warning about copyright law. That's what matters when it comes to the RIAA/MPAA suing.

I give up, read the TOS, it's self explanatory, you're responsible for what's downloaded over your connection, if the ISP gets contacted by a studio, it's on you not them, that's what the Indemnity clause is in the TOS for, so they don't get raped by the studio because you were an asshat and got caught downloading copyrighted material. Simple enough to understand now?

All this wordplay doesn't change the fact that the OP did it, it's a little late now to try and think of excuses to get out of it, after he started a thread on a forum admitting he downloaded said material. When in doubt, don't admit to fuck all.

Not that it matter to me being Canadian and all, we may leave small tips according to some, but no MPAA\RIAA for us haha

This is the very same reason that many companies changed their leasing laws in some states because the "OWNER" of the vehicle was liable of damages done by drivers. It is also not different than if your car gets a parking ticket you are responsible for it even if someone else borrowed your car and parked it illegally.

This could encompass banks, and other companies which lead to them changing the laws.

We try to assuage ourselves into believing that what we are doing it "okay". But the real test is the judge who ultimately decides.

But, if somebody steals your car and gets a parking ticket, you are not liable.

the thing is there are 3 different entities at work here.

You have party

A) The copyright holder/aggressor seeking proof that you're a dirty no good.
B) The ISP who uses passwords or circuit ID's for the first device on a private network to authenticate with.
C) The owner of the hardware behind that access point, could be just a computer, could be 15 computers and several access points, could be a fucking WAN for all you know. Who's to say you DON'T have a WEP key on your wireless point and that it wasn't WEPcrack/aircrack'd by a 3rd party anyway?

the point being, it doesn't matter if it's protected or not, ENTITY A does not care. The law makes no distinction there, you think they'll just be like "oh well golly gee, we're sorry someone hacked your WEP key, we'll drop all charges"

anyways, what I'm getting at, is either way, it's up to the owner of the hardware if they want to put a passkey on it or not. You will be just as brutalized and bullied by these big arsehole money grabbing corporations if you dl'd it on purpose, was leeching it via wepcracks, or took advantage of the unsecured access.

Bottom line is, it's a TOS issue, not a law issue.

The ISP can bitch, or even refuse to give you service if you say you don't plan on adhering to thier request to secure your network even a little bit, but in the end, the law has to prosecute the actual person with evidence of wrong doing. So in this case, if you've admitted fault, then it's you, but in a hypothetical situation *which this thread has derailed into* the argument breaks down to this: 2 people came in to your house, one commited an act of piracy (plundered their sweet booty right under your nose) to the other, and left the building, now the cops are going to charge you for not locking your front door? is this a simple analogy? are homeowners required to keep the front door locked?


same premise.

Ok Where To Begin?
I included a picture guys, come on!



And then you click my two cents. :eek:



Unfortunately Will, he's right (last time I checked). It isn't as simple as someone got shot in your store and you are charged with murder.




CCleaner. If not that... Google it and you will fond one on you your Im feeling lucky.

Oh and because TrueCrypt just got that much more bad ass - http://www.truecrypt.org/docs/?s=system-encryption

Lol. Ok, since you pulled that card - you provide the link / references that support your argument. Once you manage that, I will gladly point out all of the literature that will cite "ignorantia Juris non excusat" ;)

... puhlease ...

Summarization: I don't understand the burden of proof.

.. all that has to be "proven" is that SOMEONE downloaded the movie via the accused's internet connection.

.. do we really have to argue such menial points? I mean, do you honestly not see my aforementioned point? Or is this just to try to win an argument without actually making a logical argument?

So simple to understand yet so many think ignorance is an excuse to breaK the TOS, read your TOS before you agree to it if you think it's on the ISP if you download copyrighted material.

Burden of proof? The proof is the logs the ISP has saying he downloaded the movie, show me the logs for this 'someone jacked my wireless' excuse.

You like apples?

I'm sure Junchbailey would appreciate accurate information. The open wifi argument has stood up several times in court and even has resulted in the RIAA paying $50,000 attorney's fees for someone they've pursued regarding illegal downloads.

How about them apples? Trash talking about logic, jesus christ. It's amazing how people misuse the word "logic".

OK Will, the RIAA is inept for sure. They walked into plenty of cases without a single shred of proof to support some of their cases! This leads to them being laughed out of their own courts AND this supports the rumors that the RIAA is an organization of extortionist losers.

STILL! If you own a wireless internet system that is broadcasting into the public domain, it is up to the owner of said wireless network to secure it to the best of their abilities/knowledge. Usually internet companies will set such things up for you. Unfortunately, if you set one up yourself and do not secure it (wink wink), that means you were negligent of your capabilities. And negligence is not smiled upon in the law, especially if we relate it back to that "someone was shot during a robbery in your store" analogy- not entirely applicable, but it still allows for the ISP to slap your pecker in the door if they get called out for assisting theft of COPYRIGHTED property.

With that I'm gone, it's apparent the only 'accurate' information and 'logic' is coming from Will, so yeah I'll let the OP try this 'someone jacked my wireless' excuse, with no logs or anything to back it up, we'll see how well that goes. Enjoy your 'accurate information' and 'logic' from Will, he seems to have all the answers.

I've posted proof to back my statements up, yet nothing seems to be coming from the other side, guess they're right without any proof posted.

Happy downloading.

You like oranges?

Go ahead and hedge your bet on being let-off for being ignorant. If you leave your front door to your house open and a burglar enters and injures them self, any guesses who is still liable? That's right kids - unless you made a reasonable attempt to prevent unlawful access -you- are liable. Wireless networks are NO different.

Orange you glad I can't actually brow-beat you in person?

So will, you obviously like to portray yourself as an expert on everything - care to define "logic" for me? I am sure I have lots to learn that my many philosophy courses (all symbolic logic / critical thinking based might I add) obviously failed to help me with.

Tell you what. I'll save you Googling / Wikipedia-whoring all your arguments from here out, and just concede. will, you are totally right, ignorance and lack of effort to secure your property (physical or otherwise) is a completely valid excuse. so is being a moron.

PS: still waiting on your "references" ;)

You only need to be 51% guilty though it is a civil case not a criminal.

http://blog.wired.com/music/2007/02/...label_mus.html

http://daledietrich.com/imedia/2006/...rgin-v-marson/

Oops! Time for some humble pie, because it looks like this "moron" is absolutely right.

http://www.slapyo.com/wp-content/owned030.jpg

Also you are forgetting the negligence argument. If someone gets killed because you are negligent you are guilty of homicide.

Open Wifi defense:

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...o-defense.html

This is with a criminal trial where they need proof beyond a reasonable doubt. In a civil suit all they need is preponderance of guilt (51%).

So what you're saying is that you think murder and copyright infringement are treated the same by the courts. Do you even know what copyright law is? Unless the prosecution can establish misappropriation they're SOL. It has nothing to do with negligence. This is insane. I can't believe I have to explain this.

Here's a nutty question: the RIAA has very well educated lawyers who got their asses handed to them. Do you all think you're smarter than their legal team?

Well, actually .. liability is still liability. As Rekna posted, the open WiFi defense has been defeated multiple times. Your weak examples are based on extraneous circumstances.

It has everything to do with negligence. You are responsible to secure your connection to the internet. If you believe otherwise, offer up your address to some sexual deviants and let them use your connection for their immoral activities and then quote your "I'm too dumb to secure my WiFi" argument.

So then just STFU?

No. Just smarter than you ;)

PS: pwned :thumbsup:

I want to lighten the mood.....
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v6...d-is-gay-1.jpg

I'm glad you demonstrated this with so many links, you know otherwise I would have just thought to myself JamesB still doesn't know what he's talking about. And thanks for explaining in detail how the links I posted included "extraneous" circumstances instead of just stating it as unsupported fact.
I'm glad I mentioned apples and you mentioned oranges because that's the case you're presenting. After reading the following:
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html
I've found no language pertaining to negligence in Copyright Law.
How could I educate those in need with my vast well of knowledge if I remained silent? No. I want to share my great gift with the world.
There are plenty of people on TFP smarter than I. RoachBoy, Host, The_Jazz (at grammar), MSD... probably Charalatan, Ratbastid, Cynth, and a few others... but you're not on the list yet and this thread is really damaging your standing.

Be glad I didn't show the "owned" picture of the crucifixion of jesus christ. :expressionless:

I never made the list Will, now I'm bitter haha. Just playin man, with all this MPAA\RIAA shit it sure makes me glad I'm Canadian and don't have to deal with those assholes.

Please post that Will, please, just give me a warning, I don't want coffee on my keyboard.

dude.........start a fire,toss her in.


......and start again.:thumbsup:

IMHO, that's just one of many ways in which it's easier to be a Canadian.
http://www.undergroundnews.com/album.../owned_109.jpg

I dunno, man... from what Cory Doctorow tells me, your Copyright Assholes sound as bad or worse than our Copyright Assholes.