Got caught downloading movies illegally
 

I got a call today from my ISP. They said that Paramount had sent them an e-mail saying I downloaded a movie illegally and that they wanted my internet service shut off. Has anyone else been in this situation? Is turning off my internet the end of it or should I still be worried they'll come take my computer and any DVD-R in sight.

Posting here was probably a mistake as it eliminates plausible denyability. I'd make sure you don't have any pirated materials on your computers (use secure delete methods). You may be lucky or you might be screwed.

eh, don't worry about it. Paramount did the same shit to me years ago over some random angelina jolie move. I forget the name.

internet got shut off, we called the isp and they were like "tee hee, be careful what you download" and turned it back on, because they don't give a shit, you're a customer of theirs and if some jackass company tells them to turn off service to a customer because they're legally required to comply then fine, but it's not cuz they want to.

just tell them you're sorry and that there must have been a mistake and that you'll be more careful what you click on in the future.

*shrug*

if you get letters directly from paramount, then you could worry.

Always remember, and never forget...
That's basically it. I am so glad I stopped downloading stuff. But some tips:

• http://filehippo.com/img/ex/129__truecrypt.gif 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.
• http://filehippo.com/img/ex/427__peerGuardian2Icon.gif 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.

It's a good thing that you've had an open wireless network for a long time, thus providing an impossible burden of proof on Paramount. Obviously you can't be held responsible for what some dishonest person using your internet is doing, therefore you're innocent.

I'm sure it will be a simple matter calling up your ISP and explaining that you use an open wireless network and have no idea how often people get on.

Leave it to willravel - always thinking - and always giving great suggestions... I am sure many thanks are in order. :)

this is why i don't bother to d/l anything the price to pay is too great, even if it is as simple as losing internet service for 1-2 days.

good luck and hopefully you don't lose anything.

Wait a second Cynthetiq, is that why you keep asking me to download stuff :eek:

You should've made it expressly clear that you not only know nothing of what they're speaking of as you don't download pirated media - you also aren't in any way authorizing them to release your information to the RIAA/MPAA.

You're never really "caught" until your ISP gives you up - I'd be sure that they didn't just turn your service back on and sell you down the river at the same time.

I used to download religiously and then I came to the conclusion that it just isn't worth the risk of doing it stupidly just to have whichever movies came out last week. There simply isn't any way to do it safely.

Don't download new movies, use private trackers and use Peer Guardian.

yes and no. you're d/l stuff anyways so my request isn't any real bearing.

BUT can you imagine Skogafoss all pissed off because she can't get into play WoW and it's my fault? Not good for wife faction all because I wanted to see "Meet the Spartans" without paying for it.

re: 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.

Can someone recommend a decent Hard Drive eraser?

Wife faction? Hilarious.

I'm not allowed to download unless everyone is already in bed or gone because of the WoW latency issue.

I think will has given the best advice here, though be advised that your ISP will most likely chew you out for not securing your network. ;)

I think this defense has been shot down in court. I believe the judge said something along the lines that leaving the network unsecured is negligent making the owner responsible for any and all traffic on the network.

The MPAA and RIAA have tried to shoot it down since early 2007, but not once have they succeeded.

The crime is the breaking of copyright. If you didn't steal, you're not guilty of the theft. It'd be like someone shooting someone in your store and you being found guilty of murder... it doesn't work.

Dban 'nuff said.

http://dban.sourceforge.net/

You know what works really well too...


Renting the movie first. If you don't like it, you don't have to buy it.

I'm sure there is something in the TOS about leaving a network unsecured?

From one ISP in my area
You're responsible for your account.

"...not to permit.."? That's not clear wording. Do you have a link?

Edit: to clarify, what is "b" prefixed with? Is it "you are required" or something?

Not to permit= will not allow, beknownst or unbeknownst, seems pretty clear.

TOS is here http://www.nrtco.net/nrtc_terms_of_service.pdf

Paragraph 5 Section A and D

You can always go into a Warez irc channel and go "How do I get rid of this virus on my computer?"

Within a minute, you'll have a least 10 kids trying to take over your system. Maybe one succeeds.

Oh look, someone has commandeered my computer. Look, they're using it to perform illegal activities. It wasn't me!

It's not clear in legaleese.
Ha, found you a loophole (besides Halx's, which is really good).

You're agreeing to not specifically permit (in other words give permission to) someone regarding the use of your account. It says nothing about someone using your account where your permission never has been given or denied. That's a clear loophole that even a layman could use.

Legal definition of permit
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/permit

Where was that loophole again?

Hal's excuse isn't good either, you're responsible for your account, doesn't matter if you 'say' some kid got into your account, you're responsible.

Then why is the RIAA not going after ISP's with lawsuits?

Indemnity clause at the link I posted Paragraph 8 Section A.

Do you work for the RIAA?

Not that I'm aware of. Just a Canadian who likes to download his shows and movies, no RIAA for me, got to watch out for the fuckin CRIA.

Yes, wife aggro is a terrible thing

Allowing by silence still suggests knowledge. If someone goes on my open wifi, I have no idea.

It doesn't really matter how we interpret silence, it's how a judge would interpret silence.

If someone goes on your wifi, you may not have knowledge, but you were still silent, therefore your silence permitted them to use your wifi.

Because ISPs can afford lawyers and won't just roll over and pay settlements.

This is the (MAF)IAA's business model these days: make money by suing customers.

You know that silence means that you know they're going on but you don't try to stop them, right? You're silent when you should be protesting. That's what it means. It has nothing to do with knowledge of the act. That's a separate issue.

And so you have violated the terms of your agreement with your service provider (at least as outlined in the TOS you cited). It does not necessarily follow that you are legally responsible for the downloading of the copyrighted content.

If you've violated the TOS then you're responsible for the material, it was done on your account, which you are responsible for, doesn't matter if you downloaded the material or not, if it was done on your account, it's your responsibility.

Silence in this situation may mean that, depending on the persons interpretation of silence, you have your way, I'm sure a judge has a different way.

I disagree. It does suggest that the provider may not be responsible, but it does not necessarily establish that the individual who agreed to the terms of service is legally responsible (and accountable to the RIAA or MPAA).

If wifi is the excuse does he have a router with logs showing a separate mac address connecting that isn't him on that day?

ISP can prove their side of things can he?

QED

Not how it works. Innocent until proven guilty.

I was only speaking to the violation of the Terms of Service as evidence of copyright infringement. The civil agreement with your service provider (your TOS) seems separate from the arguments of whether or not he violated copyright law.

I agree with you that the wifi excuse seems weak. It seems like supplementing the argument with router logs would strengthen it.

(I'm no lawyer. that's why I keep saying "seems").

Me either, just throwing out ideas.

Seems if he agreed to the TOS, then he's responsible for the activity on the account, if the violation is copyright infringement, then he would be responsible because downloading copyrighted materials is covered in the TOS. That's my interpretation anyways, we need a lawyer on the forum to help us out here lol.

you're not required by law to put any sort of passkey/WEP/WPA whatever on your router

TOS with an ISP isn't a law, it's a service agreement between you and the ISP to use the internet responsibly.

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.

Thanks Gucci. It's finally time to shred my 8year old win98 laptop. :thumbsup:

This is a simple criminal charge at worst, intelligence agencies will not be trying to recover the hard drive. Writing over every bit with a 0 is fine, do a pass of 0s and one of random data if you're really paranoid.

I read this last night and checked my TOS with AT&T, who's my internet provider at home. Low and behold, I am responsible for securing any network.

I think that an unsecured wireless network could qualify as an attractive nuisance. That concept is why homeowners have to fence their pools with locking gates and contractors have to secure their jobsites at night to keep people out (in part - obviously theft is an issue too). If an univited guest is hurt on your unsecured attractive nuisance, you are potentially liable.

willravel, your advice bothers me and it's so unlike you that I don't think you've thought it through to it's logical conclusion. You've advised the OP to commit fraud and potentially perjury. If there is no unsecured wireless network in place, then telling his ISP that there is can only be a lie. If the provider pursues this, should the OP run out and buy the right equipment? Thanks for the brainy/grammar compliment, but I think that you need to give this a little more thought, especially since this is something that has a greater-than-minimal chance of ending up in court.

I am of the opinion if they can crack my encryption or find my deleted data after the 7 random passes, then bless 'em, I deserve whatever they can prove to charge me for.

That's what I've been trying to say, if Will would just read his TOS he'd most likely see the same thing.

Going out and buying the right equipment now won't help either as the OP has no logs to show another connection to his account.

.. jeesus .. I write a reply and it is shamefully moderated

looks like the good 'ol boys club strikes again

Simply writing 0's one time to the drive will not erase it. It is magnetic storage meaning past writes can be retrieved by looking at the lower frequencies. You need to write zeros many more times than once. Also a girl got in major trouble for doing this because it was easy to prove she had done this and the judge used that as 51% guilt and the case went to the RIAA.

I was motivated to look at my TOS since Xazy asked me if I secured my network, and also after reading Jazz's response.

Time Warner Cable TOS http://help.twcable.com/html/twc_sub_agreement.html

this section says you are required to secure your network.
The below states that TWC isn't liable if you do not secure your network and that you are..

//sigh// This is why you use secure deletion which writes random data. Even after that data can be recovered after one pass since alignment of the magnetic domains is never one hundred percent accurate (I believe this term is called magnetic hysteresis, mechanical engineers know of elastic hysteresis). This is why multiple passes is a good idea.

CCleaner does [multiple] passes of psuedo-random data too, with your choice of 1, 3, 7, or 35 passes!

Oh yeah and Eraser rocks my world too. http://www.heidi.ie/eraser/

And there is this wonderful log here at TFP which can't help the OP's case. Where was that picture of the snake?

Seems pretty clear, I'd like Will to post what is said in his TOS, I bet it's the same thing I've been saying for the past 3 pages that he's been trying to say doesn't apply.

My guess is that all TOS are going to be basically the same, the ISP is not responsible, you are, is the compressed version. I think one thing was made obvious in this thread, more people need to fully read their TOS with their ISP before they set up a home wireless network, because ignorance isn't an excuse.
Yep Will jumped the gun with that picture.

Large companies, especially ones that provide a service a double sided as the internet, will have legal agreements that won't leave them (the large internet companies) hanging in the wind when media companies come around asking tough questions.

Oh and I just checked out DBan, and am reminded that we just call that the "Nuke Disc" on campus. There was a small group of us that jacked our computers around and felt it best to wipe the drives before they went back to the university for replacement and analysis.

DBAN is another program that rocks my socks off.

I guess I wasn't clear. My post was more like added information onto the cautionary tale in the OP. It wasn't advice to perjure himself. It was supposed to have a sarcastic tone and be somewhat admonishing, like "Had you done your homework, you could have had a decent defense." Everything since then has been defending my assertion that open wifi is a decent defense.

Try rereading it in a sarcastic tone. If it helps, I can edit and put the ":rolleyes:" smiley at the end to clarify.

Which it isn't, which has been proven by the TOS I posted as well as Cyn and The_Jazz TOS they posted.

It probably wouldn't help. I have Comcast. You know, the company that's been illegally slowing down bit torrent for people and that will probably be fined a ton of money for it? They're not likely to have model terms of service.

Besides, I have open wifi, Peerguardian, and I don't download illegally so for me it's a non-issue. I've got like 400 DVDs, just ask Ch'i.
It was an attempt to diffuse growing hostilities. I think it worked.

Yeah it was good at doing that Will, you posted it for the same reason I posted my ALF pic.

400 DVD's jesus that's a fuck load of movies.

I'm neither encouraging nor discouraging you from editing your post, but rereading your advice from page 1, it still looks like you're feeding him a lie, regardless of sarcasm. To save you the hassle of reviewing it, here it is as it currently is:

The OP never stated that he's using a wireless connection or not. He would have already had to have had an unsecured network to take your advice and been able to use that as his excuse. If he didn't have such a thing, then claiming it could have been fraudulent. Again, this is unlike you, so I'm surprised at it. I actually spent several hours wondering whether or not to post and decided to do so hoping that the OP would actually read what I said and understand the potential problem.

You're still not getting what I'm saying. I'll try to make it more clear:

Imagine the most sarcastic guy from high school, the guy who was smart, but didn't apply himself and talked back to teachers, saying, "It's a good thing that you've had an open wireless network for a long time, thus providing an impossible burden of proof on Paramount" followed by him mockingly calling the guy "Einstein".

Is that more clear?

And I don't know how I'd be lying. It's pretty clear that the RIAA/MPAA have had serious trouble with this defense in the past, as I made clear in my posted articles above. In one case they actually had to pay the attorney's fees. Does that sound like something that could easily be disproved by laymen like us?

While comcast may not be the "model" , as you put it, you can read their TOS and see that they have the same security requirement. Just because you don't like what it says doesn't mean you aren't going to be held liable for it.

Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

By that I also include having to defend your position or "innocence" from utilizing such "grey" area softwares like p2p and bittorrents.

http://www.comcast.net/terms/use.jsp?cookieattempt=1


400 DVDs, nice collection, I have about 600+ need another new cabinet but will wait until we move into the HD marketplace.

I don't do the crime, but I do use p2p services from time to time, LEGALLY (yes, it's possible). I stopped doing the whole Napster thing when I got my first decent job, for the most part.
I just use one of those portable cases. It's bound in pleather so it isn't obtrusive on a bookshelf.

I'm not going to start switching to higher def until BlueRay wins (or HDDVD, which I suppose isn't impossible). I've already spent a lot on DVDs and having to re-buy HD simply because the format died isn't a worthy investment.

I had a friend do that to, he boxed up the keepcases. When he moved, the son somehow lost the portable cases, so he had 300+ empty keep cases.
/threadjack