dslreports logo
 story category
Dodge the RIAA: Turn Off Wi-Fi Security
Not such a good idea, suggests legal mag...
When sued by the RIAA for broadband file trading, Tammie Marson of Palm Desert, California, argued that her wireless router was not secure and that the music sharing was the fault of a devious and anonymous passerby. The defense worked, and the RIAA dropped the case. A writer for OutLaw warns that those rushing to remove password protection and encryption from their routers shouldn't try to duplicate Marson's success.
view:
topics flat nest 

hopeflicker
Capitalism breeds greed
Premium Member
join:2003-04-03
Long Beach, CA

hopeflicker

Premium Member

Give it time and...

the **AA will be lobbying to have unsecured connections illegal to have.

PolarBear03
The bear formerly known as aaron8301
Premium Member
join:2005-01-03

PolarBear03

Premium Member

Re: Give it time and...

I believe that!

envoid
join:2002-12-21
Duluth, GA

envoid

Member

Re: Give it time and...

Didn't the city of White Plains, NY, already sorta do this??

Midak
Doctors suck
Premium Member
join:2002-02-26
Stormville, NY

Midak

Premium Member

Re: Give it time and...

Can you back that up?

totamak
And they call me nuts?
join:2000-10-24
Los Angeles, CA

totamak

Member

Re: Give it time and...

»news.com.com/Unsecured+W ··· 194.html
fiberguy2
My views are my own.
Premium Member
join:2005-05-20

fiberguy2 to hopeflicker

Premium Member

to hopeflicker
said by hopeflicker:

the **AA will be lobbying to have unsecured connections illegal to have.
That will never happen... I know you should never say never, but in this case I will... it will NEVER happen where it will be illegal to have an unsecure connection.

mouseferatu
Too many cats, Too many mice
MVM
join:2004-03-16
Im not sure

mouseferatu

MVM

Re: Give it time and...

said by fiberguy2:
said by hopeflicker:

the **AA will be lobbying to have unsecured connections illegal to have.
That will never happen... I know you should never say never, but in this case I will... it will NEVER happen where it will be illegal to have an unsecure connection.
I would note the exception of New Hampshire, where one must legally secure your connection.

House Bill 495, effective 1/2004, defines an operator's failure to secure a wireless network as a form of negligence, and puts the burden of securing WiFi networks on the corporate or home user.

Joyriders, war-drivers, and whackers have legal loopholes here, and the WiFi equipment owner can be held liable in court for any activity that a connection is used for if they do not exercise due care in securing it, and due diligence in maintaining it as secure.

»www.newsfactor.com/perl/ ··· 529.html
B04
Premium Member
join:2000-10-28

1 edit

1 recommendation

B04

Premium Member

Bad Article, Poor Advice

My gosh what a poorly written article, and this from the EDITOR of the publication.

The "advice" is simply "pedophiles might use your WiFi and you could get in trouble".

Well, yeah, that's the whole point of a wide open access point; you can't control who gets to use it.

Does she seriously think people who are going to use this dodgy technique (opening up their routers to avoid liability) are going to leave the sucker open all the time, when it takes two clicks to disable the security and there are no logs, anywhere, of how long encryption was enabled or not?

Stupid. (As are people who would knowingly leave their AP open and NOT protect their internal systems.)

-- B

Grail Knight

Premium Member
join:2003-05-31
Valhalla

1 edit

Grail Knight

Premium Member

Re: Bad Article, Poor Advice

I do not she think she is seriously advocating turning off security features to defeat the RIAA. More like how one persons creativity/being clueless can make the RIAA step back and think if the case is worth pursuing knowing they would have to present hard facts for a change to win instead of scare tactics.

Edit* Cleaned up sentence.

PolarBear03
The bear formerly known as aaron8301
Premium Member
join:2005-01-03

PolarBear03

Premium Member

Re: Bad Article, Poor Advice

ALL of the **AA lawsuits are simply scare tactics. Like a mean dog or a school bully; show them you aren't scared, and they start backing down really quick!

Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI

1 edit

Nightfall

MVM

Re: Bad Article, Poor Advice

said by PolarBear03:

ALL of the **AA lawsuits are simply scare tactics. Like a mean dog or a school bully; show them you aren't scared, and they start backing down really quick!
I don't mean to laugh at your statement, but I have to. All of the lawsuits are scare tactics? Its hard to argue when the **AA has your IP address logged, ISP records that it was your IP coming from your modem, and the items you were downloading. Unless, you weren't file sharing in the first place and can prove it. Seems that most of the people I know that have been served with warning letters and lawsuits (yes, I know a couple) were indeed file sharing. Its the dollar figure that the **AA is seeking that is insane.

I have had my work used without my consent and distributed using methods I would not consent to either. I put a reasonable dollar figure on my work and there wasn't even a need to file a civil suit in any of my situations.

We need some independent governing body to step in and actually put a price on these civil suits. If someone is caught sharing 5 music files, that should be $50, not $3,000.

I am all about limiting the **AA frivolous lawsuits, but I think people who commit copyright infringement should be punished in some way. Just make the punishment fit the crime. These $10,000 civil suits for 10 songs is outrageous.

PolarBear03
The bear formerly known as aaron8301
Premium Member
join:2005-01-03

1 edit

PolarBear03

Premium Member

Re: Bad Article, Poor Advice

Your statement clarified my point exactly, Nightfall. A $10k suit for sharing 10 songs is nothing more than a scare tactic, because the **AA can't honestly think that even if they do win a suit against Average P2P User, that Mr. User will ever be able to come up with the $10k. They throw a large $$ lawsuit at Mr. User hoping it will scare him into settling for MUCH less, KNOWING full well he could NEVER pay $10k.

Hell, they could sue me for $1,000,000,000 if they wanted to, and I'd LET them win for the fun of it, 'cause I know they'd never see a penny of the money.

Edit: I do agree with your theory of a reasonable dollar amount put on these things, however. That is my theory behind why people choose P2P over legal download services: you don't get a reasonable product for your $. If download services were REASONABLE, people would P2P much less, and PURCHASE much more.

TechyDad
Premium Member
join:2001-07-13
USA

TechyDad

Premium Member

Re: Bad Article, Poor Advice

said by PolarBear03:

Hell, they could sue me for $1,000,000,000 if they wanted to, and I'd LET them win for the fun of it, 'cause I know they'd never see a penny of the money.
They might not, but you would be forced into bankruptcy, might have to sell off a lot of your possessions, might lose your house (if you have one), and would suffer with bad credit for awhile. All because the RIAA said you had shared a dozen songs on a P2P network.

PolarBear03
The bear formerly known as aaron8301
Premium Member
join:2005-01-03

PolarBear03

Premium Member

Re: Bad Article, Poor Advice

The only thing I own is a Ford Explorer. I already have bad credit. Not much else they could do.

Grail Knight

Premium Member
join:2003-05-31
Valhalla

Grail Knight

Premium Member

Re: Bad Article, Poor Advice

Pay the fine at $5 bucks a month in pennies.

Restitution can be very slow.

PolarBear03
The bear formerly known as aaron8301
Premium Member
join:2005-01-03

PolarBear03

Premium Member

Re: Bad Article, Poor Advice

YES!

hayabusa3303
Over 200 mph
Premium Member
join:2005-06-29
Florence, SC

hayabusa3303

Premium Member

Re: Bad Article, Poor Advice

Better yet give them just a dollar a month.
lesopp
join:2001-06-27
Land O Lakes, FL

lesopp

Member

Re: Bad Article, Poor Advice

A dollar a month sounds good, but wipe with it first, or let it soak in the litter box over night, just to pass along your new found respect for them...

tc1uscg
join:2005-03-09
Gulfport, MS

tc1uscg to hayabusa3303

Member

to hayabusa3303
said by hayabusa3303:

Better yet give them just a dollar a month.
In pennies

Midak
Doctors suck
Premium Member
join:2002-02-26
Stormville, NY

Midak

Premium Member

Re: Bad Article, Poor Advice

said by tc1uscg:

said by hayabusa3303:

Better yet give them just a dollar a month.
In pennies
Not sure why but too many people think this will get them over. Just because you pay them something, does not mean they will consider it acceptable and it most certainly does not mean your wages, bank and real estate can not be hit. Either both parties agree to a payment plan or the judge, in some cases, will set one.

hayabusa3303
Over 200 mph
Premium Member
join:2005-06-29
Florence, SC

hayabusa3303

Premium Member

Re: Bad Article, Poor Advice

In some states like this one if they refuse a payment you can take them to court and have the bill dropped.

Midak
Doctors suck
Premium Member
join:2002-02-26
Stormville, NY

Midak

Premium Member

Re: Bad Article, Poor Advice

said by hayabusa3303:

In some states like this one if they refuse a payment you can take them to court and have the bill dropped.
Could you clarify this statement? I know for a fact that SC is a consumer/debtor friendly state, difficult to collect on post judgment but getting a judgment was not such an issue.

hayabusa3303
Over 200 mph
Premium Member
join:2005-06-29
Florence, SC

hayabusa3303

Premium Member

Re: Bad Article, Poor Advice

Say you owe XXX amount to a bill. If they refuse a payment you can take them to court and the judgement will be in your favor(they didnt take the money). For the back that is OWED you dont pay it and its there LOSS.

Midak
Doctors suck
Premium Member
join:2002-02-26
Stormville, NY

Midak

Premium Member

Re: Bad Article, Poor Advice

Ok, now I understand. There is a big difference though between not accepting a payment and not considering a certain amount to be enough to satisfy the terms of repayment. That said, no, you can not just pay $1 a month and consider yourself safe. Yes, they do have to take the $1 and put it toward your balance but they can still do any other post judgment remedies they see fit to collect the full balance up to and including seizure of property (state laws allowing.) SC is one of those states where you would have to bribe a judge to get anything more than voluntary arrangements.

hayabusa3303
Over 200 mph
Premium Member
join:2005-06-29
Florence, SC

hayabusa3303

Premium Member

Re: Bad Article, Poor Advice

With the way our uneployment is here its not too hard..lol

tc1uscg
join:2005-03-09
Gulfport, MS

tc1uscg to Midak

Member

to Midak
It doesn't get them over. But it does send a statement and if anything, provides a little enjoyment to the payer, not the payee. Now, if most people keep up on the laws in the state which they reside, they may find some states do not allow taking ones property which is not in said person name who is listed in the lawsuit.

Midak
Doctors suck
Premium Member
join:2002-02-26
Stormville, NY

Midak

Premium Member

Re: Bad Article, Poor Advice

If it's not in your name, it's not your property. Also, some states will not allow taking of property if the property is in an additional persons name, not party to the suit. Now, if you think you can do this after you get sued (change title on property) think again. Most states will recognize what's known as fraudulent conveyance, which basically states you changed title on property to avoid paying the judgment. If the judge believes the plaintiff, the property may then be executed upon. As mentioned, check your state laws for specifics.

One example would be CT. Even though there may be a second owner on the property, not party to the suit, a judgment lien could be used to sell 50% of the property, that which is owned by the defendant. This leaves the other party (usually a spouse) now partnered with an unknown third party who just happened to be the highest bidder. Now, if you added your spouse during the suit, fraudulent conveyance could be affirmed by the plaintiff giving them the possibility of selling the home outright.

None of the above can happen without a judgment and that is why you need to fight it. This is why I suggest counter suing no matter what. Make them provide all evidence, including the person they claim downloaded from you, along with the computer that person used. Make them spend the money to go to court against you. Just because the have deep pockets, does not mean they are looking to empty them.

tc1uscg
join:2005-03-09
Gulfport, MS

tc1uscg

Member

agreed. Might as well keep one person righteous in the family and keep property in "their" name..
fiberguy2
My views are my own.
Premium Member
join:2005-05-20

fiberguy2 to TechyDad

Premium Member

to TechyDad
Then you don't know much about Bankruptcy.. The scenerio you just described would not happen. Not to mention, a judge allowing a million dollar judgement would be doing it so, and as a favor to the defendant so that it would never be collected on. (Satisfies both parties.. the plaintiff gets their judgement, worthless as it is, and the defendant would not have to pay it.. no court would allow for insolvantcy for a case like this with an amount way beyond the means of the defendant)

By the way.. getting a judgement and actually enforcing them are two different things.

Once the judgement is obtained, they have to do a discovery of your ability to pay and assets. When they find out that there are no assets, there is a very slim chance they would ever collect or persue.

The legal system is not as cut and dry as some people like to believe it is.
russotto
join:2000-10-05
West Orange, NJ

russotto

Member

Re: Bad Article, Poor Advice

The legal system is fine if you're rich and have the money to use it. And it's fine if you're poor and they can't collect. However, if you're somewhere in the middle, you can't effectively defend yourself and they'll take everything and garnishee you into slavery for the rest of your life (now that you can't get a Chap 7 bankruptcy as long as you have income).

Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI

Nightfall to PolarBear03

MVM

to PolarBear03
said by PolarBear03:

Your statement clarified my point exactly, Nightfall. A $10k suit for sharing 10 songs is nothing more than a scare tactic, because the **AA can't honestly think that even if they do win a suit against Average P2P User, that Mr. User will ever be able to come up with the $10k. They throw a large $$ lawsuit at Mr. User hoping it will scare him into settling for MUCH less, KNOWING full well he could NEVER pay $10k.

Hell, they could sue me for $1,000,000,000 if they wanted to, and I'd LET them win for the fun of it, 'cause I know they'd never see a penny of the money.

Edit: I do agree with your theory of a reasonable dollar amount put on these things, however. That is my theory behind why people choose P2P over legal download services: you don't get a reasonable product for your $. If download services were REASONABLE, people would P2P much less, and PURCHASE much more.
I agree, the **AA shot themselves in the foot on the download services being reasonable. Imagine how successful they would have been if they launched an allofmp3 like system? If they would have added more features to the CD to make it more price friendly, it would have been a win/win. As it is, they didn't do that so these things exist.

No matter what the price of these things will be, there will always be people who will use P2P to get them or share them. Imagine if software makers dropped the price across the board by 50% if you downloaded instead of bought in the stores. The stores could drop their price by 25% for those who wanted the hard copy. There would still be people who pirate. Same goes for music and movies. Even music as cheap as allofmp3 would get distributed illegally. People will do anything to save a buck, including pirate.

These people must be punished at some level. If someone is so cheap to not pay .25 cents a song, they should be hit with a $10 per song shared bill. People who fight it in court better be expected to pay court costs if they lose. Nothing is anonymous on the internet, so people who are dumb enough to get caught sharing should get nailed. I am glad we agree on the cost being inflated at least.

In short, there has to be a way to protect the intellectual property of others. I am a published writer and photographer, and I have caught other websites and news organizations using my work without my permission and without paying me. These people, when confronted, paid up because they knew they were in the wrong and I didn't put a outlandish $3000 per article or picture on it either. Its amazing how, when the price is reasonable, there is no arguement if one party knows they were in the wrong.

Glad we at least agreed on some things.

TechyDad
Premium Member
join:2001-07-13
USA

1 recommendation

TechyDad

Premium Member

Re: Bad Article, Poor Advice

said by Nightfall:

I agree, the **AA shot themselves in the foot on the download services being reasonable. Imagine how successful they would have been if they launched an allofmp3 like system? If they would have added more features to the CD to make it more price friendly, it would have been a win/win. As it is, they didn't do that so these things exist.
Back during the heyday of Napster, I thought the recording industry should team up with Napster and build an online music store. The idea would be to limit the bitrate of the "free, shared" music. Say 96kbps tops. Then they would sell higher bitrate (and more reliably produced) versions for differing prices. The higher the bitrate, the more it would cost. (Of course, all of the songs would be reasonably priced. It would just cost more for more quality.)

They could have thought of the free, low bitrate songs like radio copies. Free publicity. Sure, some people wouldn't buy the higher bitrate copies, but some people are content to listen to music on the radio and never buy the CDs. Many more people would be likely to hear the low quality version and decide to buy a higher quality version to keep.

Instead, they decided to stomp Napster out of existence and in doing so provided the climate for the P2P apps to develop. Finally, after many years of fighting music online, they finally figured that they could benefit from online music, but even now they seem to regard online music as a bastard child. Something that should be dealt with with a wary eye and kept as hidden away as possible lest some embarrassing questions be asked.

Pirate515
Premium Member
join:2001-01-22
Brooklyn, NY

1 edit

Pirate515 to PolarBear03

Premium Member

to PolarBear03
said by PolarBear03:

Hell, they could sue me for $1,000,000,000 if they wanted to, and I'd LET them win for the fun of it, 'cause I know they'd never see a penny of the money.
You obviously don't know how our legal system works. If a court orders you to pay a certain amount to someone and you are unable to do so willingly, the courts have the authority to find and dip into your bank accounts, confiscate your property and garnish your wages and other official income.

So suppose that you do lose $1 billion to RIAA. While most likely you'll never be able to pay them back in full, you'll be constantly "sharing" a part of what you make with them for the rest of your life. There are, of course, ways around it. You can flee the country, but you'd have to move to a third-world one because in a civilized one you will eventually be caught and extradited back to the US. You can move your money off-shore to a country that doesn't cooperate with the US. Or you can work off the books, but you won't make much and risk going down for tax evasion.

The purpose of these ridiculous fines it to scare the sh*t out of people. RIAA/MPAA are showing that they are big and powerful, but most of all capable of destroying people's lives and are more than willing to do so when they catch someone who messes with them.

••••••••••••••••

TechyDad
Premium Member
join:2001-07-13
USA

TechyDad to Nightfall

Premium Member

to Nightfall
I've long been a fan of having two separate penalty systems for copyright violations. Call them "Professional" and "Casual."

Professional Copyright Violators would be anyone who violates copyright for profit. And example would be those folks that get one CD, burn a hundred copies, and sell them on the street corner for $1 each. The penalties for Professional Copyright Violators would be the same as the current scheme calls for.

Casual Copyright Violators would be anyone who violates copyright without seeking profit. (If you violate copyright with profit in mind, but are unsuccessful at it, you still get classified as a Professional.) An example of this would be someone who shares out copyrighted music on a P2P network without the copyright holder's permission. The penalties for this would be much less. Let's say about three times the cost that buying the item would typically incur.

Using this system, a person caught sharing 1,000 songs on a P2P network would need to pay three times $0.99 (iTunes cost) for each song, or $2,970. (Ironically, I picked that number out of the blue and it wound up very close to the RIAA settlement figure. It wasn't intentional!) At that amount, the guilty will still feel a financial hit ($3K is a big amount for most people) but the innocent won't feel so threatened that they just automatically roll over because it is easier and cheaper.
PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR

PDXPLT

Member

Re: Bad Article, Poor Advice

said by TechyDad:

Professional Copyright Violators would be anyone who violates copyright for profit. And example would be those folks that get one CD, burn a hundred copies, and sell them on the street corner for $1 each....

Casual Copyright Violators would be anyone who violates copyright without seeking profit. ... An example of this would be someone who shares out copyrighted music on a P2P network without the copyright holder's permission. The penalties for this would be much less.
Why should the penalties be much less? The potential damages to the copyright owner are far, far greater.

In your examples, the copyright owner, in the case of the "professional violator", only loses the potential revenue from 100 customers. In the case of the "casual violator", the violator has published the copyright owner's property for free, unlimited, worldwide distribution, via the internet, which means that the owner potentially loses his entire customer base. That's why the fines for this type of infringement are so high, and can even include criminal penalties now, in certain circumstances.

TechyDad
Premium Member
join:2001-07-13
USA

TechyDad

Premium Member

Re: Bad Article, Poor Advice

The penalties are worse because the professional violator is looking to get a quick buck off of someone else's copyrighted item (without the appropriate permission). My example cited 100 customers, but the professional violator likely wouldn't stop there. They would press thousands of copies and sell them on the street corner. These "lost sales" (I tend to hate that term) are sales of the entire CD. So even with my limited example, the 100 customers means a loss of $1,500 (given $15 per CD usually). (This ignores the fact that some of those $1 buyers wouldn't have bought the $15 legitimate version, but let's ignore that for now.)

Meanwhile, the casual violator might be someone made a thousand songs onto a P2P network, but it is hard to prove just how many people downloaded from them. Across those 1,000 songs, they might have had a single download or a dozen, or a hundred thousand. So absent any ability to determine how many songs were downloaded, I would err on the side of caution. Assume that each song was downloaded once (the one time that the RIAA downloaded the file to confirm that it was the right file) and assign penalties from there.

With P2P shared music, the competition isn't really the CD, but digital sales (iTunes, Napster, etc) which tend to run $0.99 each. Given that, and given the one share = one download assumption, the "lost sales" amount to $990. Therefore, it really isn't fair to charge $750 - $150,000 per violation, or $750,000 - $150,000,000 total. Tripling the "lost sales" figure provides an amount that will act as a disincentive to uploaders while not bankrupting ordinary people who don't understand the particulars of copyright law. (And there are a lot of those people out there.)
iSEPIC
join:2001-04-17
Las Vegas, NV

iSEPIC to Nightfall

Member

to Nightfall
quote:
Its hard to argue when the **AA has your IP address logged, ISP records that it was your IP coming from your modem, and the items you were downloading. Unless, you weren't file sharing in the first place and can prove it.

you see, this *IS* the problem, YOU as being the defendant SHOULD NOT HAVE TO PROVE anything, they should have to prove you did it, and just having an IP address doesn't mean crap, unless you're very new to the technology, and if you are (meaning the judge for instance) you should consult.

••••••••••••••

Thaler
Premium Member
join:2004-02-02
Los Angeles, CA

Thaler to Nightfall

Premium Member

to Nightfall
said by Nightfall:

Its hard to argue when the **AA has your IP address logged, ISP records that it was your IP coming from your modem, and the items you were downloading. Unless, you weren't file sharing in the first place and can prove it.
...and then there were the cases of RIAA coming down upon the deceased grandmother who never owned a PC, and various other cases. Their lawsuits are historically far from flawless. Just because they claim they have "evidence" doesn't mean it's not just another botched claim and/or lawsuit fishing expedition.

If it was another company, maybe. However, RIAA has a track record of suing first, and verifying their evidence later. I wouldn't be surprised if many in their lawsuit files were yet more fudged data.

Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI

Nightfall

MVM

Re: Bad Article, Poor Advice

said by Thaler:
said by Nightfall:

Its hard to argue when the **AA has your IP address logged, ISP records that it was your IP coming from your modem, and the items you were downloading. Unless, you weren't file sharing in the first place and can prove it.
...and then there were the cases of RIAA coming down upon the deceased grandmother who never owned a PC, and various other cases. Their lawsuits are historically far from flawless. Just because they claim they have "evidence" doesn't mean it's not just another botched claim and/or lawsuit fishing expedition.

If it was another company, maybe. However, RIAA has a track record of suing first, and verifying their evidence later. I wouldn't be surprised if many in their lawsuit files were yet more fudged data.
All the more reason to have that evidence available to you to defend yourself. That is the crappy thing about civil court cases. Thankfully, I have only had to file a civil court case once, and never had to go in any of my copyright infringement cases. You can show all the evidence you have, and even if it is iffy or too technical, they will just approve it. Which is why there needs to be some kind of governing body to overlook this process, especially with digital media rights.

That said, just because mistakes were made doesn't make copyright infringement a lesser crime. There has to be some kind of repercussions for this. Just because a company has screwed up doesn't mean those laws should be just thrown out the window. It just means that these lawsuits should be analyzed and dealt out by a group that is a little more neutral and can analyze those claims.
ctggzg
Premium Member
join:2005-02-11
USA

ctggzg to Nightfall

Premium Member

to Nightfall
said by Nightfall:

I am all about limiting the **AA frivolous lawsuits, but I think people who commit copyright infringement should be punished in some way.
Watch out, you'll be called a troll for having morals.

Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI

Nightfall

MVM

Re: Bad Article, Poor Advice

said by ctggzg:
said by Nightfall:

I am all about limiting the **AA frivolous lawsuits, but I think people who commit copyright infringement should be punished in some way.
Watch out, you'll be called a troll for having morals.
I have been called much worse.

Kilroy
MVM
join:2002-11-21
Saint Paul, MN

Kilroy to Nightfall

MVM

to Nightfall
said by Nightfall:
said by PolarBear03:

ALL of the **AA lawsuits are simply scare tactics. Like a mean dog or a school bully; show them you aren't scared, and they start backing down really quick!
I don't mean to laugh at your statement, but I have to.
How many lawsuits have the **IA won? NONE. Do you know why none of these cases have been resolved in court? Because if the **IA loses, even one, a precedent is set and this tactic will no longer work.

Grail Knight

Premium Member
join:2003-05-31
Valhalla

Grail Knight to PolarBear03

Premium Member

to PolarBear03
Exactly and the consumers for the most part fall for it or do not have the denarius to fight them.

The corrupt/clueless court officials and lawmakers allow big business to set the tone in the US so the behavior of the RIAA & MPAA will continue unabated for awhile.

Speedy8
Premium Member
join:2002-08-22
Alliance, OH

Speedy8 to B04

Premium Member

to B04
Yeah really. There's no way for your ISP or the RIAA to know if your router had the security on or off. For all intents and purposes someone could just leave the security on until they got a subpoena then turn it off and say they never had it on.
bigjimc
join:2003-04-21
Middleboro, MA

bigjimc

Member

Re: Bad Article, Poor Advice

God Bless the RESET button

swhx7
Premium Member
join:2006-07-23
Elbonia

swhx7 to B04

Premium Member

to B04
If you're trying to get away with something, it would make more sense to free-ride on a neighbor's or business's wireless connection.

Iridium3
Premium Member
join:2003-04-02
Los Angeles, CA

Iridium3

Premium Member

Re: Bad Article, Poor Advice

said by swhx7:

If you're trying to get away with something, it would make more sense to free-ride on a neighbor's or business's wireless connection.
This is what I do. I never do it at home, just anyhwere I can get on the net anonymously.

theelviscerator
join:2000-11-16
Elkhart, IN

theelviscerator to B04

Member

to B04
except when they check your hd there wont be any pictures there however.

thisisdumb1
@cox.net

thisisdumb1

Anon

Never Turn off your security

God...imagine someone downlods something of lets say under age material or goes on myspace and picks up little kids...its all attached to your ip address! DONT DO IT!

ftthz
If love can kill hate can also save
join:2005-10-17

ftthz

Member

...

so the best defense isn't ignorance of wifi setting?

•••
kd6cae
P2p Shouldn't Be A Crime
join:2001-08-27
Bakersfield, CA

kd6cae

Member

make prices reasonable

I agree with every poster here who's said make the prices reasonable. And I'm saying this as a p2p user. If I'm going to download content, I want to do it at good fast speeds. I also don't want to be told on what devices I can play content I've purchased! I can play CD's on any CD player, I can play cassettes in any tape deck, so digital files should be no different. If I want to play a file on my Ipod or Iriver or my windows and linux computers, then I shouldn't be told I can't!
The **AA's have the money to invest in high end servers and networks to allow for just what I described, high speed downloads at a resonable price. Heck as I see it, everybody would win in that case. So why aren't the **AA's willing to even attempt such an idea, and how can we show them it could work?

odinb
join:2001-11-26
Frisco, TX

odinb

Member

Re: make prices reasonable

AllofMP3.com!!!!!

You do not have to show them it works, proof already exist. Why do you think they want to shut down allofmp3.com?

This is the proof that it actually works. This site also charges more for better quality, like stated earlier as a wish. So, it is already here, but RIAA claims that they are not paying their fees, and allofmp3 claims that RIAA refuses to accept the fees from ROMS......

All I can say is greed.....
wilburyan
join:2002-08-01

wilburyan

Member

Users with WEP could also make the same case

WEP 64 or 128 bit security can be very easily cracked... as simple as following some instructions.

One could easily say they were a victim of a cracker who gained access to there wep key in order to use their network.
B04
Premium Member
join:2000-10-28

B04

Premium Member

Re: Users with WEP could also make the same case

That's a good point -- at least with WEP enabled you still retain a modicum of protection against casual infringers.

-- B
bronxlcsw
join:2005-09-21
Bronx, NY

bronxlcsw

Member

What if there was a massive and legal P2P Network?

The idea goes like this: What if the RIAA and MPAA got together with one of the major P2P or even established internet gateway web site. I would be willing to subscribe to a all you can download plan for up to say 30 dollars or even more per month. Everyone makes money but greed is what will prevent this from taking place.

Doctor Four
My other vehicle is a TARDIS
Premium Member
join:2000-09-05
Dallas, TX

Doctor Four

Premium Member

Re: What if there was a massive and legal P2P Network?

The key word in your post is GREED. The **AA's will
never do something like this as long as their so-called
Old Guard of CEO's with pre-digital era thinking
continue to call the shots.

They would rather charge 0.99 or more per song with
DRM that locks you into one brand of portable player,
etc.
bronxlcsw
join:2005-09-21
Bronx, NY

bronxlcsw

Member

Re: What if there was a massive and legal P2P Network?

I agree. Thats why some people subscribe to lets say yahoo or napster unlimited and then convert the songs to unprotected mp3 files using a program like Tunebite.

Juvenal
@rr.com

Juvenal

Anon

Wireless argument

Funny - I posted this exact argument last week about the mom fighting the RIAA. That's what I'd say - I have a wireless connection and have no idea what this is about.
53059959 (banned)
Temp banned from BBR more then anyone
join:2002-10-02
PwnZone

53059959 (banned)

Member

wheres taylor

wheres taylor troll?
I miss his motivational speeches
he's the sole reason I stopped pirating full albums

guitarzan
Premium Member
join:2004-05-04
Skytop, PA

guitarzan

Premium Member

Re: wheres taylor

said by 53059959:

wheres taylor troll?
I miss his motivational speeches
he's the sole reason I stopped pirating full albums
Living in a van down by the river.

Your post reminded me of the Chris Farley SNL skit of a motivational speaker.
mach_six
join:2002-05-09
Nutley, NJ

mach_six

Member

IP isn't enough

Wasn't there a case where the judge dismiss the case cause the IP address wasn't alone to implicate you. You still need an eyewitness to see you doing it...

Midak
Doctors suck
Premium Member
join:2002-02-26
Stormville, NY

Midak

Premium Member

Re: IP isn't enough

Some judges will pull that one out, regardless of the evidence, if your witness (plaintiff's) did not actually witness you in the act, so to speak.
WoodyLI
join:2003-04-10

WoodyLI

Member

Re: IP isn't enough

Without getting involved in the resulting discussion on moral implications there is plenty of anonymous peer to peer technology out there that would be sufficient to thwart the RIAA. The RIAA knows they can't catch a significant percentage of illegal downloaders so they will naturally go after the easiest targets.

I used to record songs off the radio and play them in my car on cassette tapes. I also used to lend and borrow CDs from friends to make personal mixes to play in my car or at home. It never occurred to me that this was inherently wrong until peer to peer technology developed.

It seems to me that people who download songs occasionally in addition to occasionally buying CDs, legal online music, and listening to the radio are not criminals. People who download thousands of songs they will never listen to are simply compulsive, overly obsessed, and probably need group therapy but are unlikely to bankrupt the record industry.