Remember not to destroy evidence when in a fight with the RIAA or anybody else

[Czar]

Originally posted by: Garet Jax

Originally posted by: Czar
exactly
its like if the RIAA would put a box of CD's with a sign that says free cd's, then sue everyone for theft when they take one

Just because the software to take music is readily available and easy to use doesn't mean that it is OK to use it to steal things with it.

If someone forgot their keys in their car on the front seat with the door unlocked, does it make it any less of a theft when you take their car. You know you didn't pay for it, you know it isn't yours so why is this different?

no one left the car there and meant it to be taken, the RIAA shared the songs meaning for them to be downloaded

 

[Nerva]

i havent downloaded anything in about a month, and all of the sudden i am really concerned.

 

[EyeMWing]

This is why you wipe everything immediately upon recieving notification. Plausible deniability. "Oh, I did that before I recieved notice in the mail, sorry. Was gonna sell those drives."

And they can request my "hard drive" all they want (the phrasing would be something like "All mass storage devices ('hard drives') within your domicile" - I'd take pleasure in walking into court with about a ton of them.

 

[ultimatebob]

Originally posted by: Garet Jax

Originally posted by: Yanagi
Ghost the Win partition. run 7 zero passes, run a couple of random passes. install windows, install a bunch of programs until HDD is completely filled. uninstall the programs, rince and repeat. Evidence gone

And you're still guilty of tampering with evidence.

You probably wouldn't get caught IF you were smart enough to move the system clock back a few months before you reinstalled Windows. Just don't be stupid and install the security patches right away... If they saw Event Viewer showing the latest August 2006 patches being installed in June, you're busted. Likewise, if you had the latest version of, say, iTunes installed before it was released, that would also be a red flag.

Alternatively, you might just want to delete the copyrighted materials and P2P programs, do a few hard drive defrags to overwrite the free space, and then remove the encryption on your wireless router and blame the neighbor's kids for the downloads All they have is your IP address, so they can't prove that you downloaded it.

 

[teddyv]

A good lawyer and you're off the hook

Unfortunately it is not that easy. This is a civil case, the burden of proof is not "beyond a reasonable doubt" - it is "more likely than not."

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
I would think that destroying "evidence" would be the least of the judge's concerns here. What about the illegal gathering of evidence? What gives the RIAA the right or authority to monitor my activity?

There would have to be two logical ways they could have done this:

1. Warrant - not likely to be obtained because the RIAA isn't a law enforcement agency and I would think that the real agencies have a little more pressing issues
2. Setting up their own P2P server and "allowing" users to download from them and then going after the owner via identifying packet info that includes IP - ENTRAPMENT (also, it has been successfully argued before that an IP address isn't a positive ID of the person operating the system at any given time -- If someone is driving my car and they get pulled over for speeding, I sure as shite don't get the ticket for the violation)

Either way, this person's lawyer sucks and should be sued for malpractice for ever letting this get this far.

Wrong, the RIAA was given FBI powers last year.

 

[everman]

Who's to say you weren't experimenting with thermite before you even knew about the lawsuit?

 

[spacejamz]

the sense of self entitlement for those who still illegally download music is sickening...

trying to place the blame on the RIAA is even more laughable...

It's pretty simple people...If you don't like the product or the price, then don't use it.

Stealing it and blaming someone else is weak. Then again, we are now living in the age of self entitlement and not taking responsbility for one's actions so most of the posts in this thread really aren't a big suprise...

 

[homercles337]

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
She's pretty stupid and should have just used a magnet. Prove it, there's nothing left.

150K per song, LOL what the hell is wrong with this statement? What she did was no worse than stealing a bunch of CD's from target. Which is why I'll continue to illegally use allofmp3.com because our legal system (regarding digital music copyright laws) is blantantly egregious equating to unwarranted scare tactics. RIAA can fvcking bite me.

You don't understand what happened, do you ? Using a magnet would be just as illegal as what she did. And it would be very easy to prove that you had tampered with evidence.

Proving that someone wiped files is not horribly difficult, proving what those files were BEFORE they were wiped is profoundly difficult (BTW, you need a VERY VERY powerful magnet to mess with bits on a harddisc). This chic's liar ... er, lawyer is a chump. If the RIAA needed her HD to "prove" their case they have NO way of proving that those wiped files were the ones in question or even music files for that matter.

 

[CravenTacos]

Originally posted by: Yanagi
Ghost the Win partition. run 7 zero passes, run a couple of random passes. install windows, install a bunch of programs until HDD is completely filled. uninstall the programs, rince and repeat. Evidence gone

more or less what i was thinking...although you'd also need some time stamp altering apps to backdate everything. I think a better option would be to make an 'in case of copyright emergency image' right now. Fresh install, no windows patches, get a few trojan backdoors and a rootkit that would add considerable doubt to any evidence, lots of spyware, and install just about every freeware app you can find. If you get a subpeona, wipe your drive securely, restore the proper time stamped image with all the junk. For grins and integrity testing, I'd have a lot of music on the drive that is in the public domain.

 

[homercles337]

Originally posted by: Garet Jax

Originally posted by: Czar
exactly
its like if the RIAA would put a box of CD's with a sign that says free cd's, then sue everyone for theft when they take one

Just because the software to take music is readily available and easy to use doesn't mean that it is OK to use it to steal things with it.

If someone forgot their keys in their car on the front seat with the door unlocked, does it make it any less of a theft when you take their car. You know you didn't pay for it, you know it isn't yours so why is this different?

This is the most common and dumbest response. Distribution of music is different because the original is intact. For your dopey analogy to work the keys would have to create an exact atom-by-atom copy of the car that is "stolen." The original car would still be in the driveway.

 

[mordantmonkey]

So what kind of virus/worm is out there that one could "accidentally" become infected with that would result in a harddrive of completely wiped or replicated garbage?

 

[spacejamz]

Originally posted by: homercles337

Originally posted by: Garet Jax

Originally posted by: Czar
exactly
its like if the RIAA would put a box of CD's with a sign that says free cd's, then sue everyone for theft when they take one

Just because the software to take music is readily available and easy to use doesn't mean that it is OK to use it to steal things with it.

If someone forgot their keys in their car on the front seat with the door unlocked, does it make it any less of a theft when you take their car. You know you didn't pay for it, you know it isn't yours so why is this different?

This is the most common and dumbest response. Distribution of music is different because the original is intact. For your dopey analogy to work the keys would have to create an exact atom-by-atom copy of the car that is "stolen." The original car would still be in the driveway.

what part of taking a 'copyrighted work' that you did not pay for are you not understanding?

The artist and record company provided a product. Either you obtain the product through legal means or you don't. Any excuse that you come up with to use this product that was not gained legally is total BS...Period. End of story...

 

[yowolabi]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
She's pretty stupid and should have just used a magnet. Prove it, there's nothing left.

150K per song, LOL what the hell is wrong with this statement? What she did was no worse than stealing a bunch of CD's from target. Which is why I'll continue to illegally use allofmp3.com because our legal system (regarding digital music copyright laws) is blantantly egregious equating to unwarranted scare tactics. RIAA can fvcking bite me.

her using a magnet would not have helped. she was hit for tampering with evidence. using a magnet would be the same.

yes they could still prove she did. the fact that the drive is ruined is proof enough.

How can they prove she did it? If she had a good alibi (on vacation and her brother did it) then she's fine. She would be held liable for something out of her control? A good lawyer and you're off the hook.

having someone else destroy your drive is the same as you destroying it. now if she did not know he was going to do anything great yeah i guess she could get off hte hook.

now. do you really think that they are not going to go after the brother?

What's to stop her from saying that she was having some trouble with her computer and asked her brother to fix it. Her brother decided the hard drive needed to be formatted.

 

[BurnItDwn]

I only used to trade mp3s via FTP sites. Also, I would only give friends access. Also, I would only access friends sites. That way, it was just friends swapping songs to sample them. I wound up with a big collection several years back, but after I hit about 8K albums, I opted to stop and just buy CDs when I wanted new content.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: ForumMaster
the stupidest thing here is the fine. there is not a single work protected by the RIAA worth $150k. and yet they charge you $150k for each one? the right thing would be to force you to pay maybe 10 times the price as a fine. not $150k.

A person who is sharing files is DISTRIBUTING the copyrighted work, therefore is potentially responsible for an unlimited number of illegal copies, not just one copy of each item.


And the fine is a fine, not reimbursement. It's supposed to be a deterrent.

as soon as a CD is out in the store it is "potentially responsible for an unlimited number of illegal copies".. sue the RIAA for that?

What might happen is not good enough, it has to have happened or the intent of it happening at best.

A store has the right to sell a CD, putting a copyrighted song on a p2p network without permission is not the same thing at all.

And your wrong in your second sentence too. The $150,000 fine is part of a law passed by Congress, and it has not been overturned by any court, so your just wrong. You might think it's unfair, but that doesn't mean it isn't the law.

Lots of people, including me and a majority of Congress, think it is fair.

its not even close to fair, its unjust. it is not at all proportionate or comparable punishment to other punishments for crimes of the same level. just look at the punishment for drunk driving, an activity that puts human lives at risk, close to 150k? i think not.

 

[SampSon]

What would happen if you went out and purchased each and every song/album the RIAA accused you of stealing, while the court case was in progress?
You could present these cd's to the judge and say "I've owned them all along."

 

[ThaGrandCow]

And that, my friends, is why you have a 2nd hard drive for things like that. Want to see my HD? Sure! *removes operating system HD*

 

[Corporate Thug]

must look up Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)

 

[ThaGrandCow]

Originally posted by: SampSon
What would happen if you went out and purchased each and every song/album the RIAA accused you of stealing, while the court case was in progress?
You could present these cd's to the judge and say "I've owned them all along."

They ask for a reciept. Reciepts have dates on them.

 

[manly]

LOL and Frank Quattrone got off the hook just last week.

 

[murphy55d]

I don't really follow any of this, but I have a question. Obviously this person does not have 150k per song to pay, so what happens then? If the RIAA wins their suit, how do they get any of this money? I guess this applies in any kind of case, what happens when the person doesn't have the money to pay? Especially when it's like a 24 year old being forced to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars.

 

[EyeMWing]

Originally posted by: ThaGrandCow
And that, my friends, is why you have a 2nd hard drive for things like that. Want to see my HD? Sure! *removes operating system HD*

Lawyers are dumb - but not THAT dumb.

The phrasing would be something like "all hard drives in your possession", not "your hard drive"

Frankly, music piracy is like speeding. Some people are against it, some people go out of their way to avoid doing it even by accident, some people don't care, and some people are really good at it and are virtually impossible to catch.

You have people with multiple-terabyte collections encompassing virtually every recorded piece of music ever, who haven't been caught and won't be caught because of how they go about building that collection - these are the equivalent to people driving supercars at full tilt down empty highways with no police presence. And it goes down from there.

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: ForumMaster
the stupidest thing here is the fine. there is not a single work protected by the RIAA worth $150k. and yet they charge you $150k for each one? the right thing would be to force you to pay maybe 10 times the price as a fine. not $150k.

A person who is sharing files is DISTRIBUTING the copyrighted work, therefore is potentially responsible for an unlimited number of illegal copies, not just one copy of each item.


And the fine is a fine, not reimbursement. It's supposed to be a deterrent.

So at $150k, you're assuming that the user will distribute 10,000 CDs at $15 a piece worth of files? Most people don't even seed long enough to distribute 1 full copy of a CD. The probability of one person being the indirect or direct source of 10,000 CD copies is almost null. But like you said, it's not supposed to be reimbursement even though the RIAA claims that it is :roll:

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: waggy
while i agree the $150k per song is insane. what kind of idiot destroys evidence? you gotta know they are going to check to see if you wiped the drive or not.

If they were smarter about it they could have gotten away with it.

1) Clone the drive onto DVDs or a separate hard drive
2) Wipe the drive, dban is a good program, just randomly fills it with 0s and 1s
3) Reformat (for fun)
4) Install OS, all programs, fill up the cache, etc. etc. to make the drive look used. Fill the drive with Linux distros, I don't care, just fill the drive with free software and files.

Another solution would be to just give them a different hard drive that has NOT been filled with illegal music. For example, if there are two computers in the household. Give them the hard drive from the other computer, so long as it gets used obviously and frequently.

Also, to those who say that entrapment only applies to law enforcement, retail stores are also included in entrapment laws. Some Target stores were leaving display cases open hoping to catch shoplifters, but the courts ruled that this is not a legal practice and is definitely entrapment. So the same rules should apply to the RIAA, since Target is also not a law enforcement agency.