Originally posted by: HJB417
Originally posted by: digitalsm
Originally posted by: ReiAyanami
Here's the question: if a multi-person household shares an internet connection, how can the RIAA prove which person actually commited the terrorist activity of file-sharing? suppose there are 4 ppl in a house, then each has 1/4th of a chance of being guilty, and 3/4ths of being innocent, which is well beyond a reasonable doubt.
The owner of the computer is liable in that case. This isnt criminal court, civil court doesnt require to be quilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
what if you maintain a (wireless )router? How will the RIAA know which IP it came from if its NATed
noes!! it's teh necrophilliacksicOriginally posted by: Eli
That is just asinine.
Originally posted by: CrazyDe1
Originally posted by: digitalsm
Originally posted by: CrazyDe1
Originally posted by: ReiAyanami
Here's the question: if a multi-person household shares an internet connection, how can the RIAA prove which person actually commited the terrorist activity of file-sharing? suppose there are 4 ppl in a house, then each has 1/4th of a chance of being guilty, and 3/4ths of being innocent, which is well beyond a reasonable doubt.
They can't...in this case they'd prosecute the person with the ISP account...which again, could completely be innocent. This is like photo radar...I've gotten 3 or 4 photo radar ticekts but since my car is not registered under my name, they alwys get thrown out.
This is slightly different. This is a civil case, its not ticket court, or criminal court. All they have to prove is the person is liable, which would be fairly simple to do. Now if we are talking about the proposed law in congress, that doesnt have the support to pass. The Senate is investigating the RIAA at the current time.
How are you liable if they can't prove there's any files on your computer? The only thing they can prove is that someone using your ISP account downloaded the material. Aren't liability cases, like the cigarette cases and mcey d's coffee cases always jury based? I still don't know any reasonable person who would find someone liable of doing something based on evidence like that....
Originally posted by: Tret
Why is the riaa suing sharers? Why not sue Kazaa or anyother sharing company they're the one who are letting us connect to eachother and download.
Originally posted by: Twista
Originally posted by: baclips6
riaa website down?
http://www.riaa.com/ works
http://www.riaa.com/ doesnt work with peer guard. on.
You need to add in the ips to the firewall. Not peergaurdian it doesnt work.
Originally posted by: digitalsm
Originally posted by: Tret
Why is the riaa suing sharers? Why not sue Kazaa or anyother sharing company they're the one who are letting us connect to eachother and download.
They have brought cases against KaZaa as well as other filing sharing software companies.
Originally posted by: digitalsm
Originally posted by: CrazyDe1
Originally posted by: digitalsm
Originally posted by: CrazyDe1
Originally posted by: ReiAyanami
Here's the question: if a multi-person household shares an internet connection, how can the RIAA prove which person actually commited the terrorist activity of file-sharing? suppose there are 4 ppl in a house, then each has 1/4th of a chance of being guilty, and 3/4ths of being innocent, which is well beyond a reasonable doubt.
They can't...in this case they'd prosecute the person with the ISP account...which again, could completely be innocent. This is like photo radar...I've gotten 3 or 4 photo radar ticekts but since my car is not registered under my name, they alwys get thrown out.
This is slightly different. This is a civil case, its not ticket court, or criminal court. All they have to prove is the person is liable, which would be fairly simple to do. Now if we are talking about the proposed law in congress, that doesnt have the support to pass. The Senate is investigating the RIAA at the current time.
How are you liable if they can't prove there's any files on your computer? The only thing they can prove is that someone using your ISP account downloaded the material. Aren't liability cases, like the cigarette cases and mcey d's coffee cases always jury based? I still don't know any reasonable person who would find someone liable of doing something based on evidence like that....
So basically anything that is electronically transmitted cant be a crime? I dont have any idea what you are thinking but that just isnt the case. I mean how can they convict hackers or virus writers? Online fraud? etc.
Originally posted by: Tret
Originally posted by: digitalsm
Originally posted by: Tret
Why is the riaa suing sharers? Why not sue Kazaa or anyother sharing company they're the one who are letting us connect to eachother and download.
They have brought cases against KaZaa as well as other filing sharing software companies.
Then why are they suing us?
Originally posted by: CrazyDe1
Originally posted by: digitalsm
Originally posted by: CrazyDe1
Originally posted by: digitalsm
Originally posted by: CrazyDe1
Originally posted by: ReiAyanami
Here's the question: if a multi-person household shares an internet connection, how can the RIAA prove which person actually commited the terrorist activity of file-sharing? suppose there are 4 ppl in a house, then each has 1/4th of a chance of being guilty, and 3/4ths of being innocent, which is well beyond a reasonable doubt.
They can't...in this case they'd prosecute the person with the ISP account...which again, could completely be innocent. This is like photo radar...I've gotten 3 or 4 photo radar ticekts but since my car is not registered under my name, they alwys get thrown out.
This is slightly different. This is a civil case, its not ticket court, or criminal court. All they have to prove is the person is liable, which would be fairly simple to do. Now if we are talking about the proposed law in congress, that doesnt have the support to pass. The Senate is investigating the RIAA at the current time.
How are you liable if they can't prove there's any files on your computer? The only thing they can prove is that someone using your ISP account downloaded the material. Aren't liability cases, like the cigarette cases and mcey d's coffee cases always jury based? I still don't know any reasonable person who would find someone liable of doing something based on evidence like that....
So basically anything that is electronically transmitted cant be a crime? I dont have any idea what you are thinking but that just isnt the case. I mean how can they convict hackers or virus writers? Online fraud? etc.
They seize equipment or catch you in the act. If for example they seize a computer and match the mac address to that of your network card or modem, they have you. If you get rid of that mac address and there's no trace of hacking anywhere and they don't walk in on you doing it then you can't convict these people. There's other proof besides just an IP address usually. For example with fraud, there's other evidence, bank accounts, actual physical items. By the way, hackers, virus writers, online fraud, this is usually a criminal case, not a liability case.
Originally posted by: digitalsm
Originally posted by: CrazyDe1
Originally posted by: digitalsm
Originally posted by: CrazyDe1
Originally posted by: digitalsm
Originally posted by: CrazyDe1
Originally posted by: ReiAyanami
Here's the question: if a multi-person household shares an internet connection, how can the RIAA prove which person actually commited the terrorist activity of file-sharing? suppose there are 4 ppl in a house, then each has 1/4th of a chance of being guilty, and 3/4ths of being innocent, which is well beyond a reasonable doubt.
They can't...in this case they'd prosecute the person with the ISP account...which again, could completely be innocent. This is like photo radar...I've gotten 3 or 4 photo radar ticekts but since my car is not registered under my name, they alwys get thrown out.
This is slightly different. This is a civil case, its not ticket court, or criminal court. All they have to prove is the person is liable, which would be fairly simple to do. Now if we are talking about the proposed law in congress, that doesnt have the support to pass. The Senate is investigating the RIAA at the current time.
How are you liable if they can't prove there's any files on your computer? The only thing they can prove is that someone using your ISP account downloaded the material. Aren't liability cases, like the cigarette cases and mcey d's coffee cases always jury based? I still don't know any reasonable person who would find someone liable of doing something based on evidence like that....
So basically anything that is electronically transmitted cant be a crime? I dont have any idea what you are thinking but that just isnt the case. I mean how can they convict hackers or virus writers? Online fraud? etc.
They seize equipment or catch you in the act. If for example they seize a computer and match the mac address to that of your network card or modem, they have you. If you get rid of that mac address and there's no trace of hacking anywhere and they don't walk in on you doing it then you can't convict these people. There's other proof besides just an IP address usually. For example with fraud, there's other evidence, bank accounts, actual physical items. By the way, hackers, virus writers, online fraud, this is usually a criminal case, not a liability case.
Im sorry to tell you but you can collect enough information, without needing pyshcial proof to convict someone. The FBI has some neat tools that they use, the RIAA does too. I mentioned those cases because they are much harder to convict than someone trying to prove liability in a civil case. And its funny, all the cases where people spoke out, are virtually SLAM DUNK cases, theyve admitted they or their computers were used to share/download music.
Also I might add, there are people convicted of murder, without any phsycial evidence or eye witness.
Originally posted by: CrazyDe1
Originally posted by: digitalsm
Originally posted by: CrazyDe1
Originally posted by: digitalsm
Originally posted by: CrazyDe1
Originally posted by: digitalsm
Originally posted by: CrazyDe1
Originally posted by: ReiAyanami
Here's the question: if a multi-person household shares an internet connection, how can the RIAA prove which person actually commited the terrorist activity of file-sharing? suppose there are 4 ppl in a house, then each has 1/4th of a chance of being guilty, and 3/4ths of being innocent, which is well beyond a reasonable doubt.
They can't...in this case they'd prosecute the person with the ISP account...which again, could completely be innocent. This is like photo radar...I've gotten 3 or 4 photo radar ticekts but since my car is not registered under my name, they alwys get thrown out.
This is slightly different. This is a civil case, its not ticket court, or criminal court. All they have to prove is the person is liable, which would be fairly simple to do. Now if we are talking about the proposed law in congress, that doesnt have the support to pass. The Senate is investigating the RIAA at the current time.
How are you liable if they can't prove there's any files on your computer? The only thing they can prove is that someone using your ISP account downloaded the material. Aren't liability cases, like the cigarette cases and mcey d's coffee cases always jury based? I still don't know any reasonable person who would find someone liable of doing something based on evidence like that....
So basically anything that is electronically transmitted cant be a crime? I dont have any idea what you are thinking but that just isnt the case. I mean how can they convict hackers or virus writers? Online fraud? etc.
They seize equipment or catch you in the act. If for example they seize a computer and match the mac address to that of your network card or modem, they have you. If you get rid of that mac address and there's no trace of hacking anywhere and they don't walk in on you doing it then you can't convict these people. There's other proof besides just an IP address usually. For example with fraud, there's other evidence, bank accounts, actual physical items. By the way, hackers, virus writers, online fraud, this is usually a criminal case, not a liability case.
Im sorry to tell you but you can collect enough information, without needing pyshcial proof to convict someone. The FBI has some neat tools that they use, the RIAA does too. I mentioned those cases because they are much harder to convict than someone trying to prove liability in a civil case. And its funny, all the cases where people spoke out, are virtually SLAM DUNK cases, theyve admitted they or their computers were used to share/download music.
Also I might add, there are people convicted of murder, without any phsycial evidence or eye witness.
The RIAA is going off straight ISP subpoenas and IP addresses. The FBI has other tools they can use. Obviously if the FBI is your accuser or prosecuting you you have little chance of getting off because FBI cases are solid. They will have extra evidence including having your computer seized. The RIAA names names with nothing more than ISP subpoenas which is why it's possible to get off in this case. Of course people are going to admit it....most people that can get out of crimes admit guilt when they nkow they've been caught without thinking about ways to get out. Most people freak out and which is why in cases where 2 people would get off in none talked 1 ends up talking to get a little lighter sentence and the other gets screwed.
There's also people who get off of murder with tons of evidence. What's your point?
Right, the P2P's aren't liable -- they decentralized so they wouldn't be.Originally posted by: digitalsm
Originally posted by: TretThen why are they suing us?
Because the downloader and file sharer are just as liable as KaZaa. Although is KaZaa really liable? I mean its similar to VCRs, KaZaa has other legit uses, both VCRs(DVD/CD Burners) and KaZaa have legit uses, but they also allow piracy. However, everyone that shares IS liable, everyone that downloads is ALSO liable, KaZaa is really iffy.
Originally posted by: digitalsm
Originally posted by: CrazyDe1
Originally posted by: digitalsm
Originally posted by: CrazyDe1
Originally posted by: digitalsm
Originally posted by: CrazyDe1
Originally posted by: digitalsm
Originally posted by: CrazyDe1
Originally posted by: ReiAyanami
Here's the question: if a multi-person household shares an internet connection, how can the RIAA prove which person actually commited the terrorist activity of file-sharing? suppose there are 4 ppl in a house, then each has 1/4th of a chance of being guilty, and 3/4ths of being innocent, which is well beyond a reasonable doubt.
They can't...in this case they'd prosecute the person with the ISP account...which again, could completely be innocent. This is like photo radar...I've gotten 3 or 4 photo radar ticekts but since my car is not registered under my name, they alwys get thrown out.
This is slightly different. This is a civil case, its not ticket court, or criminal court. All they have to prove is the person is liable, which would be fairly simple to do. Now if we are talking about the proposed law in congress, that doesnt have the support to pass. The Senate is investigating the RIAA at the current time.
How are you liable if they can't prove there's any files on your computer? The only thing they can prove is that someone using your ISP account downloaded the material. Aren't liability cases, like the cigarette cases and mcey d's coffee cases always jury based? I still don't know any reasonable person who would find someone liable of doing something based on evidence like that....
So basically anything that is electronically transmitted cant be a crime? I dont have any idea what you are thinking but that just isnt the case. I mean how can they convict hackers or virus writers? Online fraud? etc.
They seize equipment or catch you in the act. If for example they seize a computer and match the mac address to that of your network card or modem, they have you. If you get rid of that mac address and there's no trace of hacking anywhere and they don't walk in on you doing it then you can't convict these people. There's other proof besides just an IP address usually. For example with fraud, there's other evidence, bank accounts, actual physical items. By the way, hackers, virus writers, online fraud, this is usually a criminal case, not a liability case.
Im sorry to tell you but you can collect enough information, without needing pyshcial proof to convict someone. The FBI has some neat tools that they use, the RIAA does too. I mentioned those cases because they are much harder to convict than someone trying to prove liability in a civil case. And its funny, all the cases where people spoke out, are virtually SLAM DUNK cases, theyve admitted they or their computers were used to share/download music.
Also I might add, there are people convicted of murder, without any phsycial evidence or eye witness.
The RIAA is going off straight ISP subpoenas and IP addresses. The FBI has other tools they can use. Obviously if the FBI is your accuser or prosecuting you you have little chance of getting off because FBI cases are solid. They will have extra evidence including having your computer seized. The RIAA names names with nothing more than ISP subpoenas which is why it's possible to get off in this case. Of course people are going to admit it....most people that can get out of crimes admit guilt when they nkow they've been caught without thinking about ways to get out. Most people freak out and which is why in cases where 2 people would get off in none talked 1 ends up talking to get a little lighter sentence and the other gets screwed.
There's also people who get off of murder with tons of evidence. What's your point?
Theres slightly more to it than that. The RIAA is only going after filesharers, they would have a song or songs from the person, they would have their IPs, and the information from their ISPs FYI the information from the ISP is likely more than you think it is. Having all three things, its fairly simple to put everything together and link it to a persons computer, whithout have the computer.
I mean put it this way, they have the IP, the have the ISP information, the have the bandwidth logs, they have all the ip address that the person computer connected to and all the connections that connected to the person computer, they have the time of downloads, they also have other information. Thats enough "evidence" to prove liability. My whole point about people being convicted of murder with no real evidence or eye witness, its infinitly easier to prove a civil case.
Originally posted by: RaiseUp
they were going after UPLOADERS? That article isnt clear if she was sharing the files??
Originally posted by: MacBaine
Maybe it's because you sued 30% of your customers.The group blames computer users such as Brianna, who use software programs to trade music with others on the Internet, for a 30% drop in music sales.
Originally posted by: CrazyDe1
Originally posted by: RaiseUp
they were going after UPLOADERS? That article isnt clear if she was sharing the files??
Usually the RIAA only goes after uploaders...but it seems as though they're going after downloaders from the article...and it's impossible, in my eyes, to prove that you were downloading if they name you out in a lawsuit before seizing your computer.
Considering that she paid for Kazaa, I would say that's a pretty safe betOriginally posted by: digitalsm
Well see the article doesnt make it clear, but I can say without a doubt, they busted her for uploading. Simply because most computer users are to stupid to understand the concept of the downloaded files going into your shared directory.