Got caught downloading movies illegally - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Willravel · 02-05-2008, 11:57 AM

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.

silent_jay · 02-05-2008, 12:08 PM

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.

Willravel · 02-05-2008, 12:14 PM

Peer Guardian seems to work just fine, btw.

Edit: And it works on Mac or PC.

silent_jay · 02-05-2008, 12:17 PM

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.

sapiens · 02-05-2008, 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Peer Guardian seems to work just fine, btw.

How can you tell?

Willravel · 02-05-2008, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sapiens

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.

silent_jay · 02-05-2008, 12:23 PM

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.

blahblah454 · 02-05-2008, 04:59 PM

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.

ASU2003 · 02-05-2008, 06:42 PM

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).

JamesB · 02-06-2008, 07:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Obviously you can't be held responsible for what some dishonest person using your internet is doing, therefore you're innocent.

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".

Willravel · 02-06-2008, 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JamesB

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.

Sion · 02-06-2008, 10:12 AM

usenet people, usenet

Shauk · 02-06-2008, 12:11 PM

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.

Infinite_Loser · 02-06-2008, 02:00 PM

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.

silent_jay · 02-06-2008, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

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.

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?

Willravel · 02-06-2008, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by silent_jay

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.

silent_jay · 02-06-2008, 02:29 PM

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

Cynthetiq · 02-06-2008, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by silent_jay

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.

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.

Punk.of.Ages · 02-06-2008, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

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.

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

Shauk · 02-06-2008, 03:08 PM

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.

Hain · 02-06-2008, 06:06 PM

Ok Where To Begin?

Can this not count towards my posts?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manic_Skafe

... use Peer Guardian.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

peer guardian, as a previous IT employee for Viacom, the IT dept was well aware of things like peer guardian. Since PG uses a block list, Viacom's knwon IPs are naturally blocked. Viacom doesn't do their own investigations, but contracts other companies who do so and are also aware of block lists. They examine the lists and use unlisted or public IPs. This obviously works for a short period of time until the IP is discovered and the list is updated.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Peer Guardian seems to work just fine, btw... Edit: And it works on Mac or PC.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Augi

TrueCrypt (****) - "TrueCrypt is a software system for establishing and maintaining an on-the-fly-encrypted drive." Makes my private data private. Good when using external drives.
PeerGuardian (*)- "IP blocker for Windows. PeerGuardian 2 integrates support for multiple lists, list editing, automatic updates, and blocking all of IPv4 (TCP, UDP, ICMP, etc), making it the safest and easiest way to protect your privacy on P2P." I don't even file share, but I have it to block my school when they start trying to access my computers in the school network.
And finally get some sort of hard drive eraser that will perform multiple passes. Once is never enough. Three passes is DOD standard. Seven passes is NSA standard. Eight passes is good. Thirty-five, the Gutmann standard is overkill but for sure.

Once you erase your hard drive I recommend you encrypt it and put all data you want secure safely in there.

UPDATE: I'll be damned, CCleaner supports the Gutmann standard.

I included a picture guys, come on!

Quote:

Originally Posted by World's King

You know what works really well too... Renting the movie first. If you don't like it, you don't have to buy it.

And then you click my two cents.

Quote:

Originally Posted by silent_jay

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?

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fresnelly

Can someone recommend a decent Hard Drive eraser?

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

JamesB · 02-06-2008, 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

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.

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 ...

Willravel · 02-06-2008, 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JamesB

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.

JamesB · 02-06-2008, 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

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?

silent_jay · 02-06-2008, 06:32 PM

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.

Willravel · 02-06-2008, 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JamesB

.. 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?

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".

Hain · 02-06-2008, 06:42 PM

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.

silent_jay · 02-06-2008, 06:54 PM

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.

JamesB · 02-06-2008, 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

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".

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"

Rekna · 02-06-2008, 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Not how it works. Innocent until proven guilty.

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

Willravel · 02-06-2008, 08:37 PM

Quote:

Scoop: Label Must Pay P2P Defendent's Legal Fees
By Eliot Van Buskirk February 06, 2007 | 11:23:27 PMCategories: Digital Music News
Debbie Foster, the RIAA file sharing defendent who notoriously took on the organization after it went after her for copyright infringement, has won some amount of the legal fees [see update below] she seeks from the RIAA after having their case against her dismissed last summer.
This is a significant development; the landmark case could have dramatic repercussions for the RIAA's legal campaign against file sharers, since a precedent now exists for the RIAA to compensate wrongfully-sued defendants for their legal costs. (Capitol Records' mistake was to claim Debbie Foster was liable for any infringement occuring on her internet account, regardless of who actually downloaded and subsequently shared the files.)
Listening Post has obtained a copy of Judge Lee R. West's Order, issued today, in which the judge grants Foster an award of "reasonable attorney fees in this action under § 505 of the Copyright Act," but denies her "attorneys' fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1927."
I'm going to leave the full legal analysis for Listening Post's legal expert Stewart Rutledge, but wanted to post the news right away that Capitol will owe Foster some percentage of her legal fees, which totaled approximately $50,000 [see update below].
What a bad day for major labels... first Steve Jobs tells them he's had it with DRM, and now a judge says they're going to have to pay up if they sue people for sharing files, but then can't prove that the infringement happened. Stay tuned for exclusive analysis of the Order.
Update: I just spoke with Marilyn Barringer Thomson, Debbie Foster's attorney, who told me that she and her client are "pleased with the outcome," and explained that the judge granting attorneys' fees under the specific Copyright Act was preferable to him granting the fees under the more general 1927 statute (essentially, Thomson's main legal theory triumphed, and her back-up/alternate was denied). Finally, Thomson said that the label will likely owe Foster more than $50,000, since today's Order allows her to supplement the attorneys' fees total to include additional time spent on the case.

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

Quote:

RIAA Drops Open WiFi Case - Virgin v. Mars

In an earlier post I had noted that an open WiFi connection could act as an affirmative defense against the RIAA's IP-centric lawsuit tactics because anyone could have been using a defendant's open (ie: non-encrypted) WiFi connection to download P2P content. It appears the RIAA dropped a case on that exact basis back on January 24, 2006.

Dale's Update [Aug 4, 2006): The original reports about this case mentioned that Ms. Marson had an open WiFi and that was the basis of the dismissal. The later reports, see for instance the ars technica report, are now saying that Ms. Marson a cheerleader teacher that had hundreds of girls come to her house, anyone of which could have used her computer to download music. Some reports (eg: the register) say both defenses were used. The net result, however, still seems to be the same. When you can show evidence that someone other than the IP address owner/user had access to Internet connectivity through that IP address, that may very well be an affirmative defense - as would be the case with a computer with open WiFi. While ars technica is quite right that no judgment has yet turned on this point, it seems to me evidence of an open WiFi would be at least as compelling a defense. And who knows, the RIAA may already have dropped open-WiFi defense cases without disclosing this to the public.

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

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

Rekna · 02-06-2008, 08:40 PM

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

Quote:

Child porn case shows that an open WiFi network is no defense

By Eric Bangeman | Published: April 22, 2007 - 11:30PM CT

The merits of leaving your wireless access point (WAP) open have been discussed and debated at length, especially when it comes to law enforcement. There is a growing belief that file sharers can protect themselves against lawsuits by keeping their wireless access points open. The problem is, it won't necessarily.
Related Stories

* SCO chair behind Utah WiFi age verification proposal
* Spammer kills coffee shop's connection
* 802.11n Draft 2.0 gets thumbs up from Working Group
* New attack cracks WEP in record time

A Texas man who was convicted of possessing child pornography tried to use his open WiFi network as a defense, saying that someone else could have used the same network to traffic in pornographic images. The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit didn't buy his argument and upheld the conviction.

Here's the story: "famclpe," a Yahoo member using an IP address assigned to Javier Perez in Austin, TX, sent an instant message to a New York woman. Sent over Yahoo's network, the IM contained a sexually explicit picture of a minor. The wheels of justice began turning, and after a subpoena was issued, the FBI fingered Perez as the owner of the account in question.

The FBI says it found CDs with child porn in Perez's room, the only one it searched. An open-and-shut case? No, because there's a twist: the Yahoo account used to send the message belonged to a Mr. Rob Ram, according to Yahoo's records. Perez had a roommate named Robert Ramos and an open WiFi connection, but that was not enough to convince a federal judge to keep the seized CDs from being used in his prosecution. Perez entered a conditional guilty plea to the charges and received a sentence of four years and nine months.

During his appeal, Perez focused on his open WAP. Given the fact that anyone within a couple of hundred feet could have been accessing it, it's impossible to say that the original IM originated from him. As a result, the search warrant was issued in error, Perez argued, and his conviction should be thrown out.
Open WAP could equal probable cause

A District Court, and now the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, disagreed. In the Appeals Court's opinion, the judges wrote that the evidence seized in the raid should not have been suppressed. In particular, they didn't buy Perez's arguments that a "mere association between an IP address and a physical address is insufficient to establish probable cause" and that the officers' discovering that he had roommates should have led them to extend their search to cover them.

"In this case it is clear that there was a substantial basis to conclude that evidence of criminal activity would be found at 7608 Scenic Brook Drive," wrote the Court. "[T]hough it was possible that the transmissions originated outside of the residence to which the IP address was assigned, it remained likely that the source of the transmissions was inside that residence."

And the big stack of CDs with child pornography on them kind of sealed the deal.
Keeping an open WAP won't always keep you off the hook

Open WiFi networks represent a potential maelstrom of scum and villainy, according to some people. SCO chairman Ralph Yarro recently told the Utah legislature that the state should regulate WiFi networks, even to the point of banning free and unintentionally open networks. (He's also the guy who proposed moving porn off of port 80.) In cases where people have been arrested for leeching off of an open network, one of the justifications given is the possibility that their freeloader could have been using the free access point for illegal activities.

The "my WiFi network was open" defense has even been raised in the context of filesharing. If I have an open WAP, the reasoning goes, then no one can pin the file-sharing on me. That's a risky strategy, due in no small part to the recording industry's reliance on IP addresses to identify its targets. You may be able to demonstrate down the line that it actually was someone else downloading The Carpenters' Greatest Hits over your open network, but doing so may prove to be a very expensive proposition.

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%).

Willravel · 02-06-2008, 08:52 PM

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?

JamesB · 02-06-2008, 09:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

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?

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Unless the prosecution can establish misappropriation they're SOL. It has nothing to do with negligence.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

This is insane. I can't believe I have to explain this.

So then just STFU?

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

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?

No. Just smarter than you

PS: pwned

silent_jay · 02-06-2008, 09:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

I want to lighten the mood.....

Willravel · 02-06-2008, 09:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JamesB

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.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JamesB

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.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JamesB

So then just STFU?

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JamesB

No. Just smarter than you

PS: pwned

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by silent_jay

Can I post pictures for no reason to...lol.

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

silent_jay · 02-06-2008, 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

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.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

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

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

Fly · 02-06-2008, 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fresnelly

Can someone recommend a decent Hard Drive eraser?

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

......and start again.

Willravel · 02-06-2008, 09:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by silent_jay

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.

IMHO, that's just one of many ways in which it's easier to be a Canadian.

Quote:

Originally Posted by silent_jay

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

ratbastid · 02-07-2008, 04:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by silent_jay

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.

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

02-05-2008, 12:08 PM	#42 (permalink)
silent_jay Her Jay Location: Ontario for now....	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. __________________ Absence makes the heart grow fonder

02-05-2008, 12:14 PM	#43 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Peer Guardian seems to work just fine, btw. Edit: And it works on Mac or PC. Last edited by Willravel; 02-05-2008 at 12:18 PM..

02-05-2008, 12:17 PM	#44 (permalink)
silent_jay Her Jay Location: Ontario for now....	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. __________________ Absence makes the heart grow fonder

02-05-2008, 12:23 PM	#47 (permalink)
silent_jay Her Jay Location: Ontario for now....	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. __________________ Absence makes the heart grow fonder

02-06-2008, 10:12 AM	#52 (permalink)
Sion Dumb all over...a little ugly on the side Location: In the room where the giant fire puffer works, and the torture never stops.	usenet people, usenet __________________ He's the best, of course, of all the worst. Some wrong been done, he done it first. -fz I jus' want ta thank you...falettinme...be mice elf...agin...

02-05-2008, 11:57 AM	#41 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	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.

02-05-2008, 04:59 PM	#48 (permalink)
blahblah454 Let's put a smile on that face Location: On the road...	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.

02-05-2008, 06:42 PM	#49 (permalink)
ASU2003 immoral minority Location: Back in Ohio	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).

02-06-2008, 12:11 PM	#53 (permalink)
Shauk Confused Adult Location: Spokane, WA	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.

02-06-2008, 02:00 PM	#54 (permalink)
Infinite_Loser Junkie Location: Lake Mary, FL	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. __________________ I believe in equality; Everyone is equally inferior to me.

02-06-2008, 02:29 PM	#57 (permalink)
silent_jay Her Jay Location: Ontario for now....	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 __________________ Absence makes the heart grow fonder Last edited by silent_jay; 02-06-2008 at 02:34 PM..

02-06-2008, 03:08 PM	#60 (permalink)
Shauk Confused Adult Location: Spokane, WA	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.

02-06-2008, 06:32 PM	#65 (permalink)
silent_jay Her Jay Location: Ontario for now....	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. __________________ Absence makes the heart grow fonder

02-06-2008, 06:42 PM	#67 (permalink)
Hain has a plan Location: middle of Whywouldanyonebethere	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. __________________ ////\\// IRONSKY.NET \\//\\\\

02-06-2008, 06:54 PM	#68 (permalink)
silent_jay Her Jay Location: Ontario for now....	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. __________________ Absence makes the heart grow fonder

02-06-2008, 08:52 PM	#73 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	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?