| Welcome to The Ban Clan. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| An IP Address Isn't A Person; RIAA don't like this one bit! | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jul 28 2006, 03:52 PM (154 Views) | |
| Zybch | Jul 28 2006, 03:52 PM Post #1 |
![]()
RULER!!!
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
RIAA Will Drop Cases If You Point Out That An IP Address Isn't A Person from the and-so-it-goes dept For years, the RIAA has claimed that having the IP address of a computer that has shared unauthorized files is the equivalent of having the evidence of who was actually sharing files. That, of course, is false. The IP address simply can help you know who paid for the internet access, but not who was using what computer on a network. In fact, this even had some people suggesting that, if you want to win a lawsuit from the RIAA, you're best off opening up your WiFi network to neighbors. It seems like this strategy might actually be working. Earlier this month the inability to prove who actually did the file sharing caused the RIAA to drop a case in Oklahoma and now it looks like the same defense has worked in a California case as well. In both cases, though, as soon as the RIAA realized the person was using this defense, they dropped the case, rather than lose it and set a precedent showing they really don't have the unequivocal evidence they claim they do. The RIAA certainly has the legal right to go after people, even if it simply ends up pissing off their best fans and driving people to spend their money on other forms of entertainment -- but, if they want to do so, they should at least have legitimate evidence. It's good to see that some are finally pointing out how flimsy the evidence really is. |
![]() |
|
| cheeseman | Jul 31 2006, 01:05 PM Post #2 |
|
Ultimate Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
well duh
|
![]() |
|
| Super Yob | Aug 1 2006, 02:16 AM Post #3 |
![]()
The Baddest of Yobs
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Well, I guess if I ever get fingered I will just open my wireless connection. Good point actually. You can't sue someone for not having a secure network. I love it. :lol: |
![]() |
|
| Zybch | Aug 1 2006, 08:54 AM Post #4 |
![]()
RULER!!!
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The point though, is that you can't sue an IP address, only a person, and the entirety of the RIAA's heavy handed sue-monkey efforts to prove that copyright infringement has ocurred is the linking of an illegal download to an IP address, not an actual person. Even of you don't have wireless, it would pay to just buy a cheapo wireless router and switch it into your network if you ever got served one of these "RIAA-wants-your-money-coz-they-can't-run-their-main-business-properly" letters. |
![]() |
|
| Johnny Fist | Aug 1 2006, 10:34 AM Post #5 |
|
Ultimate Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
It won't work because the owner of the wireless device is ultimately responsible for securing it. So if you own a wireless router and someone shares a shit ton of mp3s then you're the one thats held responsible. As far as an IP address goes, the RIAA obtains billing information from the accussed IP address. This whole thread is bullshit. |
![]() |
|
| Zybch | Aug 1 2006, 10:58 AM Post #6 |
![]()
RULER!!!
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
It IS working! The RIAA have dropped several suits because people have used exactly this defence. They dropped the suites because they know damn well that you can't sue an address and that if they tried it would be thrown out of court and could then be used as a precident and pretty much anyone else could get out of similar lawsuits. As for securing a router, most people don't secure their equipment, most of those that do use WEP (which can be hacked in under 10 minutes with a single piece of easily available software). If people don't want to secure their wifi who the hell should be telling them otherwise? I have a dual system, my private network stuff is all WPA-PSK encrypted, but I like to leave regular internet access unencrypted so that anyone who wants to can use the net (I have a fast connection and unlimited downloads so why shouldn't I share it?). Lastly, what about the wifi hotspots in airports and places like starbucks that have open access? Should they be sued because one of their customers downloaded a shitty quality MP3 of a group the RIAA represents*? * - By represents I mean screws |
![]() |
|
| « Previous Topic · Go Get Banned · Next Topic » |






![]](http://z4.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)




11:30 AM Jul 11