[Mikes]

*edit
it seems to me that you and mikes are mad at the record company for having enough money to settle the issue and move on with life. Please, correct me if im wrong, but thats the way the two of you are coming across. Otherwise, you're completely missing the fact that they got busted and sued just like all the other folks that have been caught.

You are missing the larger picture.

Record companies are rarely if ever sued. If they are sued... it's still more profitable for them to continue breaking the law. No one stops them.
Their lobby is the whole reason we got such harsh penalties on piracy (which are completely out of line with other, even more serious crimes)... while they themselves pirate happily away.

Check my earlier post to see how they deal with legal issues. Also check how many Ex-RIAA lawyers are sitting in DOJ right now.

The point is that laws/punishment against piracy has very little to do with justice, but rather very much with corporate greed and lobbyism.

As pointed out in that article you linked yourself earlier, with the current mess of legal framework, where they don't even need to supply any proof beyond that someone on your IP shared files: If someone hacks your network and uses your ISP for filesharing you are just as guilty before the law as that woman was. Kinda funny that thought... would you not appeal if you were convinced you were innocent? Would you just roll over and pay?

[Ghostavo]

This discussion reminds me the absurdity of the RIAA lawsuits.

[Vertigo 7]

*edit
it seems to me that you and mikes are mad at the record company for having enough money to settle the issue and move on with life. Please, correct me if im wrong, but thats the way the two of you are coming across. Otherwise, you're completely missing the fact that they got busted and sued just like all the other folks that have been caught.

You are missing the larger picture.

Record companies are rarely if ever sued. If they are sued... it's still more profitable for them to continue breaking the law. No one stops them.
Their lobby is the whole reason we got such harsh penalties on piracy (which are completely out of line with other, even more serious crimes)... while they themselves pirate happily away.

Check my earlier post to see how they deal with legal issues. Also check how many Ex-RIAA lawyers are sitting in DOJ right now.

The point is that laws/punishment against piracy has very little to do with justice, but rather very much with corporate greed and lobbyism.

If they're doing illegal stuffs, they should be punished just like everyone else. I've never stated anything contrary to that. So basically what you're saying is they're making themselves untouchable like a mob boss... okay, but i should also point out that if 1 case can make it to court, so can others. They are not invincible.

As pointed out in that article you linked yourself earlier, with the current mess of legal framework, where they don't even need to supply any proof beyond that someone on your IP shared files: If someone hacks your network and uses your ISP for filesharing you are just as guilty before the law as that woman was. Kinda funny that thought... would you not appeal if you were convinced you were innocent? Would you just roll over and pay?

as pointed out in that article, the womans lawyer speculated that she could have been hacked or whatever... but amazingly presented no evidence to support that claim, on the other hand, evidence was presented that showed she was hosting music. In fact, by testimony in court, she trashed the HDD the RIAA investigators discovered the files on in the first place. While this is speculatory, its pretty obvious she was trying to hide her dirty deeds. I can easily see how that conclusion could be reached. Actually, reading that article over and over, i don't see anywhere in it that the court ruled that she or anyone would be liable for being hacked. You're trying too hard to make up something that isn't there bud.

2ndly, IF that were to happen to me(which again is about as likely as me building a rocket and taking a weekend trip to the moon), I would have firewall and event logs to prove my innocense, not to mention that any of my PC's wouldn't have a shred of incriminating evidence on them. I find that arguement to be overly silly. she was found liable by 2 different jurys. We can play what if games alllllll day long, but the fact remains she comitted a crime and got slammed. It wasn't a hypothetical situation she got busted for. it was a for real, caught red handed criminal activity that she got busted for.

[Mikes]

This discussion reminds me the absurdity of the RIAA lawsuits.

They actually sued against a 12 year old girl who downloaded 1 song and made her parents pay 2000 $...  wow...

(Background article to the snippet from above's article: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/09/09/the_riaa_sees_the_face/ )

If they're doing illegal stuffs, they should be punished just like everyone else. I've never stated anything contrary to that. So basically what you're saying is they're making themselves untouchable like a mob boss... okay, but i should also point out that if 1 case can make it to court, so can others. They are not invincible.

Vertigo meet Reality. Reality, this is Vertigo, please enlighten him.

as pointed out in that article, the womans lawyer speculated that she could have been hacked or whatever... but amazingly presented no evidence to support that claim, on the other hand, evidence was presented that showed she was hosting music. In fact, by testimony in court, she trashed the HDD the RIAA investigators discovered the files on in the first place. While this is speculatory, its pretty obvious she was trying to hide her dirty deeds. I can easily see how that conclusion could be reached. Actually, reading that article over and over, i don't see anywhere in it that the court ruled that she or anyone would be liable for being hacked. You're trying too hard to make up something that isn't there bud.

2ndly, IF that were to happen to me(which again is about as likely as me building a rocket and taking a weekend trip to the moon), I would have firewall and event logs to prove my innocense, not to mention that any of my PC's would have a shred of incriminating evidence on them. I find that arguement to be overly silly. she was found liable by 2 different jurys. We can play what if games alllllll day long, but the fact remains she comitted a crime and got slammed. It wasn't a hypothetical situation she got busted for. it was a for real, caught red handed criminal activity that she got busted for.

As pointed out earlier: It doesn't matter what happened in this specific case. Fact is, as outlined in the article you linked yourself: They did not need to provide any solid proof other than the ISP being used for filesharing. It was irrelevant that they did not find a filesharing program on her PC. It was irrelevant that they could not even supply the harddisc in question. It was irrelevant that they could not without doubt link her to the username in question, et cetera. That's a huge precedent.

Law does not work like that for other crimes... lol. Remember... innocent until proven guilty?

It frakking does not matter one bit what someone propably did - especially not when you want to hold them liable for 1,9 million LOL. Forget that nonsense. That's the realm of police states and totalitarian regimes.

[NGTM-1R]

Reasonable doubt. Do you understand it?

[Vertigo 7]

This discussion reminds me the absurdity of the RIAA lawsuits.

They actually sued against a 12 year old girl who downloaded 1 song and made her parents pay 2000 $...  wow...

(Background article to the snippet from above's article: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/09/09/the_riaa_sees_the_face/ )

If they're doing illegal stuffs, they should be punished just like everyone else. I've never stated anything contrary to that. So basically what you're saying is they're making themselves untouchable like a mob boss... okay, but i should also point out that if 1 case can make it to court, so can others. They are not invincible.

Vertigo meet Reality. Reality, this is Vertigo, please enlighten him.

wtf are you babbeling about? Comments like this are neither constructive or relevant to the discussion.

as pointed out in that article, the womans lawyer speculated that she could have been hacked or whatever... but amazingly presented no evidence to support that claim, on the other hand, evidence was presented that showed she was hosting music. In fact, by testimony in court, she trashed the HDD the RIAA investigators discovered the files on in the first place. While this is speculatory, its pretty obvious she was trying to hide her dirty deeds. I can easily see how that conclusion could be reached. Actually, reading that article over and over, i don't see anywhere in it that the court ruled that she or anyone would be liable for being hacked. You're trying too hard to make up something that isn't there bud.

2ndly, IF that were to happen to me(which again is about as likely as me building a rocket and taking a weekend trip to the moon), I would have firewall and event logs to prove my innocense, not to mention that any of my PC's would have a shred of incriminating evidence on them. I find that arguement to be overly silly. she was found liable by 2 different jurys. We can play what if games alllllll day long, but the fact remains she comitted a crime and got slammed. It wasn't a hypothetical situation she got busted for. it was a for real, caught red handed criminal activity that she got busted for.

As pointed out earlier: It doesn't matter what happened in this specific case. Fact is, as outlined in the article you linked yourself: They did not need to provide any solid proof other than the ISP being used for filesharing. That's a huge precedent.

lets look at that again, shall we

The jury found her liable after receiving evidence her internet protocol address and cable modem identifier were used to share some 1,700 files. The hard drive linked to Kazaa on Feb. 21, 2005 — the evening in question — did not become evidence in the case.

that proved the traffic came from her residence at the time. There was no evidence to support any claims of hacking or someone breaking into her house, sitting at her computer and doing this. Sure... ok its possible someone can get hacked, but again, there will be evidence to support that claim. I dunno how knowledgeable you are with PC's and networks, but generally speaking its pretty easy to prove where something originated from, even through proxy servers.

[Vertigo 7]

my god you do love editing your posts.

Her trashing the HDD probbably bit her in the ass more than anything, IF, and i stress the word IF, she was innocent. Murderers have been convicted with out having the murder weapon.

[Mikes]

that proved the traffic came from her residence at the time. There was no evidence to support any claims of hacking or someone breaking into her house, sitting at her computer and doing this. Sure... ok its possible someone can get hacked, but again, there will be evidence to support that claim. I dunno how knowledgeable you are with PC's and networks, but generally speaking its pretty easy to prove where something originated from, even through proxy servers.

So basically if you have a wireless network you are screwed the moment someone else breaks in?
Sometimes you even still see unsecured networks.
Then there is also that Googlestreetview debacle where they *accidentially* recorded all wireless network locations while mapping the cities.

Don't tell me it's impossible.

While that woman propably/certainly did share these files... the punishment is still ridiculous for what she did for one and, more importantly, it's not out of the question that someone else will get convicted while being innocent, with this case as a precedent.

"Well grandpa... you shouldn't have run that Wireless Network without a secure password!"
"But I'm innocent!"
"Oh an appeal?"

If they take actions against 12 year old girls... it's bound to happen lol.


In my eyes, they don't really care if someone is guilty or not, they want to set examples as a deterrent.

[Vertigo 7]

that proved the traffic came from her residence at the time. There was no evidence to support any claims of hacking or someone breaking into her house, sitting at her computer and doing this. Sure... ok its possible someone can get hacked, but again, there will be evidence to support that claim. I dunno how knowledgeable you are with PC's and networks, but generally speaking its pretty easy to prove where something originated from, even through proxy servers.

So basically if you have a wireless network you are screwed the moment someone else breaks in?
Sometimes you even still see unsecured networks.
Then there is also that Googlestreetview debacle where they *accidentially* recorded all wireless network locations while mapping the cities.

Don't tell me it's impossible.

While that woman propably/certainly did share these files... the punishment is still ridiculous for what she did for one and, more importantly, it's not out of the question that someone else will get convicted while being innocent, with this case as a precedent.

"Well grandpa... you shouldn't have run that Wireless Network without a secure password!"
"But I'm innocent!"
"Oh an appeal?"

If they take actions against 12 year old girls... it's bound to happen lol.

No one said that innocent people havent been or will be wrongly accused of a crime. Mistakes happen, fact of life. Thats why there exists a court system. Is it perfect? no, of course not, but until someone comes up with something better, its what we got.

Now look, on the issue of WiFi... every WiFi AP i've ever seen records the MAC addy of any device that attaches, and some times attempts to attach, itself to the network. Thats pretty damn easy to prove weither or not the device was yours. MAC addys are unique. Sure, they can be spoofed, but the likely hood of someone spoofing a MAC addy of a device that you own is even more slim than me building a rocket and heading off to the moon. Anyway this arguement is pointless... a million and 1 different things COULD happen... theres always potential for disaster and success. So what do you suggest? we all run and bury our heads in the sand until its all over? Maybe we should just drop the interwebs all together, then theres no way you could be falsely accused of piracy.

[Mikes]

Similar stuff happening over here in Europe where some developers ordered lawyers to mail "shotgun blasts" of letters to "potential filesharers" offering the "pay a fine now or go to trial" deal.
There was a huge scandal about that but the practice is still ongoing. Some lawfirms even specialize in it.

Basically if you are not insured you are rather screwed if you happen to get such a letter. Easier to pay than to get a good lawyer... without financial backup. (Who may even just advise you to pay if the fee isn't outrageously high, instead of risking the cost, effort and unsure outcome of a trial.) If you are guilty or innocent doesn't really matter all that much at that point.

The point is... the current status quo is hardly where it stops. They (i.e. lobby) are not really interested in finding out if someone is guilty or not. They are interested in a) making money and b) setting examples, the harsher the better.

See, i completely agree with you that pirating is illegal and that it should be punished. What I disagree on is the ridiculous penalties (compared to other crimes), the double standards/hypocrisy (companies who lobby for harsher anti-piracy laws actually pirating themselves and selling the songs for profit) and the slippery slope that the legal system appears to be going down with the DOJ being dominated by Ex-RIAA lawyers.

Now look, on the issue of WiFi... every WiFi AP i've ever seen records the MAC addy of any device that attaches, and some times attempts to attach, itself to the network. Thats pretty damn easy to prove weither or not the device was yours. MAC addys are unique. Sure, they can be spoofed, but the likely hood of someone spoofing a MAC addy of a device that you own is even more slim than me building a rocket and heading off to the moon. Anyway this arguement is pointless... a million and 1 different things COULD happen... theres always potential for disaster and success.

Playing devils advocate: If they don't need the harddisc in that case why would they require the device that logged into your Wifi? You never owned one? Well maybe you trashed it because you were worried you got caught!

So what do you suggest? we all run and bury our heads in the sand until its all over? Maybe we should just drop the interwebs all together, then theres no way you could be falsely accused of piracy.

Not that it will happen... but the RIAA would certainly be cheering if the Internet would suddenly die off. Kidding aside... what I would suggest is, for starters, to think very hard on whether you really want to agree with/support the people who are lobbying for harsher and harsher anti-piracy laws (and commit piracy themselves as part of their usual business.)

No one said that innocent people havent been or will be wrongly accused of a crime. Mistakes happen, fact of life. Thats why there exists a court system. Is it perfect? no, of course not, but until someone comes up with something better, its what we got.

The purpose of a legal system in a state of law is not to convict criminals (That would be a police state/totalitarian regime, but not a state of law). It's main purpose is to protect innocent citizens/legal entities from crime.

That includes protecting innocent citizens/legal entities from having their property stolen. It does not include treating certain citizens/entities differently because they have more money and/or putting their interests above anyone elses,... but that is basically what is happening.

[Vertigo 7]

Similar stuff happening over here in Europe where some developers ordered lawyers to mail "shotgun blasts" of letters to "potential filesharers" offering the "pay a fine now or go to trial" deal.
There was a huge scandal about that but the practice is still ongoing. Some lawfirms even specialize in it.

Basically if you are not insured you are rather screwed if you happen to get such a letter. Easier to pay than to get a good lawyer... without financial backup. (Who may even just advise you to pay if the fee isn't outrageously high, instead of risking the cost, effort and unsure outcome of a trial.) If you are guilty or innocent doesn't really matter all that much at that point.

The point is... the current status quo is hardly where it stops. They are not really interested in finding out if someone is guilty or not. They are interested in a) making money and b) setting examples, the harsher the better.

See, i completely agree with you that pirating is illegal and that it should be punished. What I disagree on is the ridiculous penalties (compared to other crimes), the double standards/hypocrisy (companies who lobby for harsher anti-piracy laws actually pirating themselves and selling the songs for profit) and the slippery slope that the legal system appears to be going down with the DOJ being dominated by Ex-RIAA lawyers.

Here's the thing... most of people getting caught by the MPAA/RIAA/<insert group name here> are setteling out of court, and while this is speculatory, theres a good chance its cuz they knew they did it. But really... setteling for 3-5k is a pretty sweet deal considering the potential damages if you force it to trial. There's an area around here where a fine for littering is $15,000. I personally don't know of anyone that's been hit by it, never seen anyone ever get charged with littering... im sure it happens. Cops could be a dick and charge someone with littering for tossing a cigarette butt out their window if they wanted to.

record labels pirating themselves is as you pointed out hypocritical. Yes, they need to be penalized for it just like everyone else. But that also at the same time shouldn't mean other folks should be allowed to continue to do it. 2 wrongs don't make a right.

Really, i don't think they want to go to court (on the prosecuting side, i mean). They want it stopped, can't say that i blame them. Right now, this is what they have to try to stop it.

Are the penalties steep? Honestly, i can't say one way or another, and i really don't care, this won't ever effect me. But as ive said many pages ago, if you disagree with a law, take it up with the law makers. Write a petition, write letters, pick up a phone. Thinking its wrong is one thing, trying to do something about it is another.

[karajorma]

You've missed the point that it's cheaper for innocent people to settle than it is to fight the case.


Let's say you got one of those letters. Settle now for $1000 dollars or pay a lawyer, fight the case in court and if you lose you'd have to pay $220,000. And even if you win, you may still have to pay the lawyer's fees which will probably be more than $1000. What exactly would you do in that situation?

You keep assuming that this will never happen to you but that's a silly defence if innocent people are getting hit by this.

[Mikes]

Here's the thing... most of people getting caught by the MPAA/RIAA/<insert group name here> are setteling out of court, and while this is speculatory, theres a good chance its cuz they knew they did it. But really... setteling for 3-5k is a pretty sweet deal considering the potential damages if you force it to trial. There's an area around here where a fine for littering is $15,000. I personally don't know of anyone that's been hit by it, never seen anyone ever get charged with littering... im sure it happens. Cops could be a dick and charge someone with littering for tossing a cigarette butt out their window if they wanted to.

Pretty sweet deal... even if you are innocent? It's pretty much extortion. Pay a huge fine right now or risk a trial that you could lose even while innocent, if you have a bad lawyer (which you likely will have, if you are not filthy rich). Add to that... how little evidence is required (again, thanks to lobbying, no doubt) to convict someone of piracy and it becomes ridiculous.

record labels pirating themselves is as you pointed out hypocritical. Yes, they need to be penalized for it just like everyone else. But that also at the same time shouldn't mean other folks should be allowed to continue to do it. 2 wrongs don't make a right.

Again, the only reason why there are such harsh penalties is because these same people lobby so hard for them... while they commit the crime themselves.
As also pointed out in earlier posts, they are virtually untouchable by any legal system that is bound by national borders.

Really, i don't think they want to go to court (on the prosecuting side, i mean). They want it stopped, can't say that i blame them. Right now, this is what they have to try to stop it.

First and foremost, they want to make money. The law firms too you know.

Collecting these out of court settlements is profitable business. As said above, law firms even specialice in it. The more afraid people are of going to court the better. People paying even when they are innocent, because they are outright scared from all the horror stories? Perfect = Pure Profit. Also as said above... we already see law firms that hardly care if innocents get caught up in their schemes. They target whole IP ranges. Why? Again, because it's profitable.

Now imagine what happens when a family with 2-3 children gets that letter mh? Can you really be sure that no one downloaded a song? Little Timmy? Really? Are you not lying to us? What about you honey? Are you sure our daughter didn't? Did you maybe...  maybe by accident? right. Drop a letter like that into any healthy family and I tell ya it doesn't matter one bit if all of them are innocent. They will pay. And they will likely be a wreck afterwards.

Are the penalties steep? Honestly, i can't say one way or another, and i really don't care, this won't ever effect me. But as ive said many pages ago, if you disagree with a law, take it up with the law makers. Write a petition, write letters, pick up a phone. Thinking its wrong is one thing, trying to do something about it is another.

Thinking is always the first step for everything - or at least it should be. And this place is a place to discuss and exchange ideas and opinions, right?
Also mind your history... just because something does not affect you or you think it will not affect you personally does not mean it is not relevant.


This should be required reading in any school:

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

[Kosh]

You've missed the point that it's cheaper for innocent people to settle than it is to fight the case.


Let's say you got one of those letters. Settle now for $1000 dollars or pay a lawyer, fight the case in court and if you lose you'd have to pay $220,000. And even if you win, you may still have to pay the lawyer's fees which will probably be more than $1000. What exactly would you do in that situation?

You keep assuming that this will never happen to you but that's a silly defence if innocent people are getting hit by this.

Which is basically a protection racket.

http://news.slashdot.org/story/08/11/21/1644213/RICO-Class-Action-Against-RIAA-In-Missouri

[IronBeer]

From the linked Slashdot article (comments section):

I sort of got a bit of a bad rap for a post I made yesterday calling for extreme disrespect and outright harassment against lawyers and executives involved in these law suits. Let me restate my position with a little more of my thinking so my point is a little more clear.

These organizations are performing acts of terror. They aren't using bombs, they are using the courts.

They bribe (oops, "lobby") politicians to pass outrageous laws that defy common sense.

They use the immense power and legal shielding of multi-billion dollar multi-national corporations to bully innocent people who have no hope of defending themselves. Destroying lives with no conscience what so ever.

Because of the legal liability shield of the corporation, they get to do this to people with complete impunity.

Why do we let F*&^*ckers like this do that? If a bully picks a fight with you, do you fight him on his home turf? No, you move the fight where you can better defend yourself. In our case, that's the street.

Ruin their lives, make them pay for what they do. Do you think the courts will? Do you think the politicians will?

These people are worse than any mugger. They are worse than any street thug. They walk around in expensive suits and ruin the lives of helpless people they accuse without credible evidence merely to create fear.

It isn't until it is clear that unethical behavior will not be tolerated by society and that there is a price to pay for it, will we ever regain the freedoms we have lost to corporations like this. They can buy the politicians, but they can't buy the good will of society that human beings need to survive. Reject them everywhere. Shun them. It is the *only* way we will ever rid ourselves of these parasites.

Interesting perspective. Undecided whether I agree with that sentiment, but interesting perspective to be sure.

[Klaustrophobia]

i'm not going to dig through the thread to quote the specific post, but you damn sure CAN be pegged for someone other than yourself who uses your network.  two seperate ISPs have flat out told me that.  the circumstances don't matter.  if the traffic came from an IP address registered to me, i'm held responsible.  and yes, it DID happen to me.  i don't even think they broke into my network.  i'm guessing an IP spoofer picked mine.  the worst thing about it was that the file in question WASN'T EVEN COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL.  i supposedly pirated a copy of one of the harry potter books.  the file was "harry potter (whatever).EXE" and was a whopping 17 kb in size.  they threatened to sue me (or my ISP rather) because somehow my IP address got attached to someone downloading one of those viruses that names itself to whatever you searched for.  these ****ers aren't protecting copyright owners, they are taking anyone's money they can. 

[Mikes]

Interesting perspective. Undecided whether I agree with that sentiment, but interesting perspective to be sure.

Just as bad if not worse. Physically attacking random people because... they are rich and/or wear a suit? How is that better than extortion against random people? lol

I have no sympathy for anyone proposing random violent crimes/vigilantism. These guys very much deserve to go to jail if they actually follow through with the nonsense they spout.

[Luis Dias]

No Mikes, I don't think the proposition is to beat people for being rich, what a ****ing silly strawman there.

I'd be even more specific. Get the names of these people. Get an assassin. Kill them all. Problem solved.

[IronBeer]

Just as bad if not worse. Physically attacking random people because... they are rich and/or wear a suit? How is that better than extortion against random people? lol

I have no sympathy for anyone proposing random violent crimes/vigilantism. These guys very much deserve to go to jail if they actually follow through with the nonsense they spout.

That's not what he was advocating. I interpreted his statement to be endorsing social weapons against corrupt lawyers and record company execs. As in, if you happen to have a relationship of some sort with them, you are to ostracize and isolate the people in question in response, essentially, to their evil behavior.

[Mikes]

No Mikes, I don't think the proposition is to beat people for being rich, what a ****ing silly strawman there.

Read that original post carefully...

He generalizes through the use of "they"... i.e. the people who belong to such organisations (does that include a lowly clerk? The family dad in accounting?).
He is not very specific but definitely does mention that "they" walk around in expensive suits...

That's quite some sweeping generalisation and in my eyes; hate talk against a not really specified group of people.
There is some very ambiguous wording in there for sure, i.e. taking it to the street, making them pay for it, et cetera.

Frankly... I would like nothing more than to see the people responsible for deliberate extortion (as discussed earlier) spend the rest of their lives in jail.
I would not want to see anyone physically hurt. Talk like this guy spouts... often results in the later.

Just as bad if not worse. Physically attacking random people because... they are rich and/or wear a suit? How is that better than extortion against random people? lol

I have no sympathy for anyone proposing random violent crimes/vigilantism. These guys very much deserve to go to jail if they actually follow through with the nonsense they spout.

That's not what he was advocating. I interpreted his statement to be endorsing social weapons against corrupt lawyers and record company execs. As in, if you happen to have a relationship of some sort with them, you are to ostracize and isolate the people in question in response, essentially, to their evil behavior.

(Also to Luis Dias): I guess that piece can be read in different ways. I see that now.

Call me a cynic for reading between the lines.