RIAA will drop suit if you

[Thorny]

Originally posted by: pontifex

Originally posted by: Thorny

Originally posted by: pontifex

Originally posted by: MangoTBG
You dont need to unlock your wifi. If they get your IP, that's just it. They have your IP. They don't know if it's one computer or a router with dozens of computers. That's the point.

yeah but if you have a bunch of mp3s on your pc and you don't have the cds or receipts that you bought them, isn't that enough proof that its most likely you who is doing it?

I have music on my pc that I don't have the disk for, but I still bought them. Do I have to erase the music on my pc just because the disk breaks or I lose it?? Besides, people are getting sued for SHARING thier music, not downloading it. If they ever had a case for suing dl'ers they would have been doing it long ago.

but how can i be stealing if i'm sharing the music? isn't that the whole basis of the lawsuit? wouldn't the person that is downloading it be stealing it?
and why isn't that person the one they are going after? but wait, they are aren't they? aren't people getting notices telling them to stop downloading copyrighted material? if they don't, action will be taken against them.

the whole thing doesn't make sense to me.

I never said I thought there was merit in the RIAA lawsuits I've never heard of people getting notices for DL'ing music, just uploading. It would be difficult for them to pursue downloaders because they have no way of knowing or finding out if the person has a legit right to the music. I DL stuff all the time if I bought it on CD, and I feel I'm in my rights to do so, even if I had had lost the original CD.

If they sent me a notice to stop downloading I would just laugh. Are they going to sue me for DL'ing stuff I already own

 

[waitman]

Originally posted by: pontifex

Originally posted by: MangoTBG
You dont need to unlock your wifi. If they get your IP, that's just it. They have your IP. They don't know if it's one computer or a router with dozens of computers. That's the point.

yeah but if you have a bunch of mp3s on your pc and you don't have the cds or receipts that you bought them, isn't that enough proof that its most likely you who is doing it?

But, how are they going to prove whether or not somone has a bunch of mp3's on said pc?
I would like to see proof, link, that a pc has been confiscated to prove a case for the riaa/mpaa.
Not trying to argue, I just thought this was an interesting read.

 

[pontifex]

Originally posted by: Thorny

Originally posted by: pontifex

Originally posted by: Thorny

Originally posted by: pontifex

Originally posted by: MangoTBG
You dont need to unlock your wifi. If they get your IP, that's just it. They have your IP. They don't know if it's one computer or a router with dozens of computers. That's the point.

yeah but if you have a bunch of mp3s on your pc and you don't have the cds or receipts that you bought them, isn't that enough proof that its most likely you who is doing it?

I have music on my pc that I don't have the disk for, but I still bought them. Do I have to erase the music on my pc just because the disk breaks or I lose it?? Besides, people are getting sued for SHARING thier music, not downloading it. If they ever had a case for suing dl'ers they would have been doing it long ago.

but how can i be stealing if i'm sharing the music? isn't that the whole basis of the lawsuit? wouldn't the person that is downloading it be stealing it?
and why isn't that person the one they are going after? but wait, they are aren't they? aren't people getting notices telling them to stop downloading copyrighted material? if they don't, action will be taken against them.

the whole thing doesn't make sense to me.

I never said I thought there was merit in the RIAA lawsuits I've never heard of people getting notices for DL'ing music, just uploading. It would be difficult for them to pursue downloaders because they have no way of knowing or finding out if the person has a legit right to the music. I DL stuff all the time if I bought it on CD, and I feel I'm in my rights to do so, even if I had had lost the original CD.

If they sent me a notice to stop downloading I would just laugh. Are they going to sue me for DL'ing stuff I already own

but if you lost the cd, you technically don't own it anymore.

 

[pontifex]

Originally posted by: waitman

Originally posted by: pontifex

Originally posted by: MangoTBG
You dont need to unlock your wifi. If they get your IP, that's just it. They have your IP. They don't know if it's one computer or a router with dozens of computers. That's the point.

yeah but if you have a bunch of mp3s on your pc and you don't have the cds or receipts that you bought them, isn't that enough proof that its most likely you who is doing it?

But, how are they going to prove whether or not somone has a bunch of mp3's on said pc?
I would like to see proof, link, that a pc has been confiscated to prove a case for the riaa/mpaa.
Not trying to argue, I just thought this was an interesting read.

i'm not saying that they have done this, i'm asking whats stopping them from doing it? if they have reason to believe you are doing this, all they would have to do is look at your pc.

 

[NaOH]

I generally buy the cd if I like it after giving it a try. I buy a good amount of CDs too. But I am not about to go buy a cd that has only 1 or 2 good songs. VERY RARELY do I ever go out on a whim and buy a CD without trying it first. Sometimes it works out, sometimes it works out horribly. Fact of the matter is, some of these artists are just money machines who market ONE single to sell their whole album. Why am I going to waste my money when I can find out which CDs are good (sampling the discs on amazon isn't enough either)? Also, iTunes is a ripoff since you are paying more for compressed songs.


They made more money off of me in this way. I believe compressed music to their advantage, rather than try and fight change.

 

[Garet Jax]

Originally posted by: HermDogg
I always thought that this was an interesting defense, but I thought the position was that since it's your name on the account and your account doing it, you are liable (at least that's what the RIAA was arguing).

It's interesting because it's the same difference between being the driver of a car and the registered owner of it. If you are given a ticket by a police officer for speeding, then you are liable for the fine and the points.

If however, you are given a speeding ticket by a camera, then they cannot hit you for points only the fine since they can't prove you were speeding.

 

[Garet Jax]

Originally posted by: HomeAppraiser
When I shut my Qwest DSL off for an hour or so, I have a different IP address when I turn it back on!

So it changes with every blackout or vacation.

True, but Quest probably keeps records of the MAC address who was using an IP address for a specific time. The MAC address uniquely points back to you short of spoofing it.

 

[Thorny]

Originally posted by: pontifex

Originally posted by: Thorny

Originally posted by: pontifex

Originally posted by: Thorny

Originally posted by: pontifex

Originally posted by: MangoTBG
You dont need to unlock your wifi. If they get your IP, that's just it. They have your IP. They don't know if it's one computer or a router with dozens of computers. That's the point.

yeah but if you have a bunch of mp3s on your pc and you don't have the cds or receipts that you bought them, isn't that enough proof that its most likely you who is doing it?

I have music on my pc that I don't have the disk for, but I still bought them. Do I have to erase the music on my pc just because the disk breaks or I lose it?? Besides, people are getting sued for SHARING thier music, not downloading it. If they ever had a case for suing dl'ers they would have been doing it long ago.

but how can i be stealing if i'm sharing the music? isn't that the whole basis of the lawsuit? wouldn't the person that is downloading it be stealing it?
and why isn't that person the one they are going after? but wait, they are aren't they? aren't people getting notices telling them to stop downloading copyrighted material? if they don't, action will be taken against them.

the whole thing doesn't make sense to me.

I never said I thought there was merit in the RIAA lawsuits I've never heard of people getting notices for DL'ing music, just uploading. It would be difficult for them to pursue downloaders because they have no way of knowing or finding out if the person has a legit right to the music. I DL stuff all the time if I bought it on CD, and I feel I'm in my rights to do so, even if I had had lost the original CD.

If they sent me a notice to stop downloading I would just laugh. Are they going to sue me for DL'ing stuff I already own

but if you lost the cd, you technically don't own it anymore.

Its within your legal rights to make backups, which means you're entitled to the content although you do not have the original cd.

 

[palindrome]

Instead of enabling WEP and bogging down your router, why dont you just use MAC address filtering?

 

[mzkhadir]

Originally posted by: palindrome
Instead of enabling WEP and bogging down your router, why dont you just use MAC address filtering?

its easy to spoof

 

[BDawg]

Aren't most suits for distributing and not downloading?

 

[DaiShan]

Originally posted by: JackBurton

Originally posted by: DaiShan

Originally posted by: JackBurton

Originally posted by: DLeRium

Originally posted by: HomeAppraiser

Originally posted by: EarthwormJim

Originally posted by: HomeAppraiser
When I shut my Qwest DSL off for an hour or so, I have a different IP address when I turn it back on!

So it changes with every blackout or vacation.

If they have time and dates though, they can probably find out who had such and such IP address from your ISP.

Damn, ah neighbor?s kid hacked my wifi. Yea, that?s the ticket.

Your ISP logs such activity down. They know when you had which IP address, so you're pretty much hopeless.

Your ISP can't see behind your router. You can have 100 people connecting to your wifi router and your ISP only sees one IP (the IP address they assigned to the person that requested the broadband service). For instance, if someone connects to their neighbor's AP, the ISP records will only show traffic from the IP they assigned to the router, that's it. They have no idea if there are 1 or 100 people behind that router. So yeah, what is hopeless is the RIAA method of tracking down offenders.

Please don't confuse using a router with eliminating the evidence. There are still MANY ways that can prove or disprove your involvement in illegal file-sharing.

Sure they can. :roll: Let me tell you, if someone hits an open wifi hot spot with a spoofed mac address, the evidence is DAMN tough to find when the client's machine disconnects from the AP. Why? Because you'll have a hard time finding the client. So please quit with the scare tactics.

/edit this has already been resolved higher in the thread.

 

[ahurtt]

I wonder if this defense can hold up against red light traffic cameras that get only the picture of the car and the license plate number but the driver is not identifiable? It's the same exact logic in my opinion but every case I've ever heard where people tried to argue that they shouldn't get the ticket because it was "a friend" driving the car, the judge says "tough luck buddy. Be more careful who you lend your car to." Interesting double standard. Because a license plate is not a person any more than an IP address is a person.