Printable View
A subponea list is located here (provided by eff)
http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/riaasubpoenas/
How to *not* get sued by the RIAA (also by eff)
http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/howto-notgetsued.php
If you *have* been subponead go here:
http://www.subpoenadefense.org/
just some interesting links i thought you might like.
Here's a few tips to prevent getting nabbed by the RIAA:
1. Do not download and share files you do not legally own
2. Do not install or use programs/music/files that you do not legally own
3. Do not use OS's (operating systems) that you do not legally own
Simple, yet effective tactics.
http://www.antionline.com/showthread...hreadid=249999
I like his defense.
quote:catch
Peer GuardianQuote:
An important issue here is that downloading music is NOT illegal. Sharing the music is the illegal aspect.
If you get sued, merely claim that you are too stupid to secure your system in order to prevent remote users from having access to your files.
Additionally since many file sharing clients automatically include file sharing as well, if the RIAA accesses your shared files you could in theory counter sue for their accessing your system i a manner "outside of normal use" much like how accessing a system that is infected with a trojan is illegal.
The counter suit would be a bit of a struggle and would actually fall under criminal charges, so good luck with that, but I see it as highly unlikely that the RIAA can prove in court that you are required to be a computer security expert in order to own digital music.
catch
PS. It was ruled a few years back that user requirement site disclaimers and agreements are not binding. However "outside of normal use" is a very real issue and is used for things like prosecuting people for running port/vulnerability scans as well as violating simple to exploit systems like the asp. issue.
Wow, I feel really bad for the RIAA lawyers:
They have ran out of effort and have decided to start sueing nothing.Quote:
Doe #36 MISSING PAGE
.
.
.
Doe #066 MISSING PAGE
.
.
.
Doe #132 MISSING PAGE
.
.
.
Doe #201 MISSING PAGE
Stuff here:
http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/riaasubpoe...ll_doe_ips.txt
I agree with a bit that rust quoted, but not all of it.
Ignorance does not play any part in the Judicial system, and allow me an example.Quote:
If you get sued, merely claim that you are too stupid to secure your system in order to prevent remote users from having access to your files.
Defendant is being charged with man slaughter for shooting someone in the chest with a 9mm. The weapon was licensed and registered, and every legal action was taken for the gun to have been permitted for it to be legal. However, the gun went off by accident due to whatever reason and the deceased person was killed unintentionally.
The defendant can not use the defence of "I didn't know how to work the saftey" in his case. I take that back, he can, but it will be thrown out of court. The reason why is because the upon using something or something you are claiming the responcibility of that item. If you do not know how to use a gun properly, you are responcible (not set in law, but civic duty) to not use a gun because of the danger it imposes to yourself or others. This same thing would apply to the person who uses P2P to try and say "but I didn't know how to secure the program so it wouldn't allow others to connect to me"
Because the judge would respond: "If you didn't know how to use the program properly and legally, and to make sure you were legally using it in the first place, why did you continue to use it?"
pooh,
Your partially right here. Ignorance is not a defense in breaking the law when it comes to criminal matters. But we are talking about civil matters. The RIAA is suing in civil court, not criminal. Let me explain. Cousin comes over, downloads music, rips a cd, and disappears. RIAA sues you. You can play ignorant in this case, saying you did not know what was going, you where not home at the time, you allowed them to use your computer only for writing papers, etc.....Quote:
Ignorance does not play any part in the Judicial system
Anyways I would just use the Twinkie defense.
I don't know about the US judicial system, but in the UK there are some cases where ignorance is a defence. Ignorance of the law is never a defence (i.e. "I didn't know it was illegal to do 40mph in a 30mph zone" will not wash with the judges) but ignorance of the facts can be. For example, if someone appears to be attacking someone else and you step in to help, applying some force at the time then you can escape liability (criminal and civil) if it turns out that you were wrong, so long as you honestly believed that the person was being attacked.Quote:
Originally posted here by pooh sun tzu
Ignorance does not play any part in the Judicial system, and allow me an example.
So you couldn't say "I didn't know filesharing was illegal" but you *might* get away with "I didn't know my firewall wasn't configured to prevent people from downloading my music".
I've also heard that the record companies are mainly going after the uploaders, if you download a few files now and then they aren't likely to pay much attention, but if you decide to share the latest DVD then you will probably find them knocking at your door relatively quickly. I know someone who this happened to on the university network - no-one complained about him downloading a DVD, but he left it in his shared folder (since he automatically shared any files he downloaded) and *that's* when he got caught and cut-off.
Edit: BTW, I haven't been subpeoned by the RIAA, probably because it would cost a fortune as UK law usually allows civil cases to take part in the defendant's home town (assuming they aren't going to a higher court) so they'd have to come all the way over here just to start proceedings which would cost them a great deal of money.
I see both of your points, and agree with both as well. I assume that each instance would be on a case by case basis (in terms of letting ignorance be okay (I mean come on, letting your cousin download illegal files from your computer??), and thus thank the courts for being the ones to do that :)
On a side note, I still point to my first post. If you do not download things you do not own to begin with, there isn't any question in any courts mind.
Never said ignorance is OK, just that you can get away with it. :D
Have to finish downloading now.
Am I one of the few people here that does not pirate a single OS, Game, software, or music? From the sound of the forums and the IRC channels, a plethora of AO members pirate like there is no tomorrow. What happened to ethics people?Quote:
Have to finish downloading now.
I can honestly say that I have never pirated a single game (which is probably the easiest software to get hold of) and the only music I have downloaded consists of singles that I can no longer find in the shops. If the iTunes music store was available in the UK or the record companies didn't charge so much, I'd quite happily buy those songs legitimately too. However, at the moment WinMX is the only way I can get hold of them. Seeing as the record companies don't sell these singles any more (or at best make them damn difficult to find, or offer them in the US only and forget about the rest of the world), they're not losing any money by me downloading them so I don't see what their problem is.Quote:
Originally posted here by pooh sun tzu
Am I one of the few people here that does not pirate a single OS, Game, software, or music? From the sound of the forums and the IRC channels, a plethora of AO members pirate like there is no tomorrow. What happened to ethics people?
As for ethics, they are on an individual basis. You might think it's unethical to pirate software, other people obviously don't.
I understand and applaud your strength. I agree with your reasonings on the unavaliable songs as well.
Theft to me is wrong. In any shape, form, word, or ideal, is wrong. If one does not own it, then honor that and do not steal it. Then again, that is my opinion and we are each entitled to our own so do not think I would force my belief system upon others, but I can not honor those who break such basic-human standards, and if I can not honor them I can not trust them with that which I own as well, lest they steal from me too. I guess this was a mini-rant + surprise to see merely that many people here do that.Quote:
other people obviously don't.
Ah well.
Hey Hey,
To play devil's advocate, I don't think I know a single person who hasn't pirated some form of software. I have a lot of legal software (XP, Visual Studio, Visio, MS Office). If you have 1 copy of XP and install it on your two home computers... you've just pirated it.... very few people can say they haven't doen that... Just last week, I went and downloaded a Windows 98 ISO... but the question is do you consider it pirating? We went to install Win98 on an old machine we picked up and grabbed our CD case.... the case was empty, so we grabbed an ISO off the net and installed it....Is that pirating? I illegally downloaded an ISO that isn't freely available, yet I do have a license for the software.
As far as music... I do have a lot of music, however if I like a band... I will buy their CD to support them, if they are an up and coming band I will also buy their CD... However if my gf wants 1 song of the new Christina or Britney album, there's no way in hell I'm going to pay $20+ for that single song...
As far as games, the majority of my games are legit... I either play on my PS2 (which isn't modded, so all the games are legal) or I play NFSU; SOF; Motocross Mania (Cheap knockoff of the real one); Halflife; Duke 3D; Counterstrike... All legit games... However I do have a few pirated games... but they are older games, that you can't find on the shelves of stores.. If i find them in a bargain bin somewhre, then I buy them... however a lot of the time they are difficult to find.
What it comes down to is not ethics, but common sense and reason. I consider myself to be a fairly reasonable person. However my definition of reason doesn't include paying $100+ for a piece of software; or $15+ for a music CD. If you market your product under those price ranges, I will buy it.... if you choose to be greedy.. I say F@#$ You! If many large pieces of software can be developed for free, then you can at least decently price your software....
I think my 1st sem. programming prof put it best. We had to get software and he said, "Go out and "buy" it. We all know no one in this room will really pay for this software, I didn't when I was a student. If the company doesn't offer a student pricing scheme, then pirate the software. You're a lowly student who can't afford that kind of money, yet requires the software... however when you stop being a student, that's when you should go buy the software" It's sound advice and it's words I live by.... We require VMWare for school, the school attempted to buy a site license to cover all the students, and they refused to sell us one (it's not something they do).... They want full price for each person, so that we can use it in a learning environment. I don't know a single student who has gone out and purchased VMWare legally. We purchased enough copies for the laptops we issue, and luckily as an issuer of the laptops, I got a copy for myself.. because it's great software and I didn't want to pirate it.
The fact is they make regular software too expensive for the average person to afford. When they smarten up and realize this and make their prices more reasonable... The pirating will drop by massive amounts.
Peace,
HT
You can't blame theivery on prices being too high.
If something is too expensive for you, don't purchase it. No matter the excuse behind why you stole something, you still stole it. CD's too expensive? Buy indi. Software too expensive? Go opensource. Don't blame coorporations and pricey items on your actions when alternatives exist.
You can blame it on high prices. It's like the man who steals a loaf of bread to feed his starving family because he can't afford to buy it. He still stole because of high prices... his motives may be slightly better, but he still stole.Quote:
Originally posted here by pooh sun tzu
You can't blame theivery on prices being too high.
If something is too expensive for you, don't purchase it. No matter the excuse behind why you stole something, you still stole it. CD's too expensive? Buy indi. Software too expensive? Go opensource. Don't blame coorporations and pricey items on your actions when alternatives exist.
I'll always blame corporations and pricy items for my actions, because they are those prices are the reason for my actions. If the software was lower priced, I'd be happy to buy it. However $400; $700; $1000 is never justified for a bunch of 1's and 0's. Take away their programmers gourmet chef's, their health spas; their gyms; their big screen TVs. Other professions don't get that, so why should programmers. A Network Admin will work their ass off all day and maybe get a thank you; a programmer will spend their day in the gym and maybe code two lines and get a "you are good.. have more money".... It's all supply and demand. The market is saturated with programmers... half the programming graduates end up in call centers. I say remove the benefits that they get and if they have a problem with it fire them... You'll find an abundance of eager people willing to take over the job. I could see offering perks when there was a shortage of programmers, however now it's just ridiculous. If the company wants to waste money, let them... but don't make up for it by taking more money out of my pocket because I'll just continue to pirate your software and not give you anything.
Like I said, when I graduate I'll stop taking software... but until that happens, if they don't want to give special favours to students, I'll steal their software.
Peace,
HT
Have we forgotten about the SODDI (some other dude did it) defense? Very straightforward. You get a subpoena from the RIAA. Quickly download a trojan and install it on your own machine and mock up the logs to make it look like other people (from random IPs you pick, preferably to anonymous proxies or something) accessed your computer and downloaded those files without your knowledge or consent. Now nobody can actually verify whether or not YOU downloaded those files.
This has happened in several recent cases I believe. If I find some, I'll link to them.
That's depressing to read... so utterly depressing.Quote:
Like I said, when I graduate I'll stop taking software..
Ever hear of the phrase "Do without"? And don't tell me that what you do CAN'T be done with other things. Then is an open source alternative to just about anything out there.
I mean, come on, you are admitting openly that you are a thief. That you steal, and that you blame it on companies rather than your ability to bite the bullet and do without. How low is that? Forget that question, don't answer it. I'm sure the answer will only be more depressing to read.
edit: You know what, I'm done. I'm not here to change people's way of life, nor do I have any authority to question why people do what they do. I apologize if I came off rude, overbearing, or anything else and will drop it right here and now. But know that I will not respect someone who steals anything for any reason. When the times comes and software begins to get monitored, I will sit comfortably behind legalities.
Here's a possible solution:
1. Dont use/accept and or share pirated or illegal items. Make sure you have a legal right over it.
2. Dont use pirated O.S. It is the end-users responsibility to make sure that the OS is certified and that it comes from an authorized source.
3. Always have time for news regarding new laws that concerns e-commerce and the internet.
Remember the old saying that prevention is better than cure.
I hope it helps... regards to all of you..
I agree with your sentiments pooh, and I personally don't have anything pirated. I haven't bought an OS since Win98SE (Well, I bought RH 6.2 in the box, but that was paying for packaging and such), nor have I used a non-free OS since at home. I don't have any pirated media, I buy everything or do without.
An interesting tidbit, recently a Canadian supreme court judge ruled that ISPs would not have to violate their privacy promises and hand over the names of 79 alleged pirates He took the stance that since the CRIA (Canadian arm of the RIAA basically) could not provide the court with satisfactory non-hearsay evidence as to whom was purportedly committing the crimes, they could not violate the privacy of the individual. The idea here being that you have to prove a crime was committed, and by whom, and since they cannot provide satisfactory evidence to which hosts committed these crimes, they couldn't reliably override the privacy considerations. Interesting ruling, and I have a feeling nothing changed since then. All it really means is that they are going to have to come up with better evidence, although the judge did seem rather critical of the other stuff that was presented. You can read about it at: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...ational/Canada
Yes I have pirated software in the past in order to help me with my school work in the past and you know what? I couldn't give a damn about all these "Holyer than thou" people who say "Piracy is wrong no matter what" Well I'm sorry but at the time the way I saw it, It was that or I fail my school work.
The idea that open source software could have been used as an alturnative is garbage. Again at the time I was to young and didn't have a clue what OSS was, and I wouldn't have bothered to take the time to relearn how to do something I already knew how to do, what with deadlines and all, nor would I have been bothered to waste my time fixing problems that might arise from compatibity.
Ok, pedantic hat on here... ;)Quote:
S1 of the Theft Act 1968 defines theft as "dishonestly appropriaing property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it". If you went into a store and took a copy of Windows XP without paying, that would be theft because you would be depriving the store owner of a tangiable asset. However, by taking a copy of software without paying for it you are in no way depriving the owner of the original property and therefore cannot be accused of theft.
Of course this is all UK-based law, but I'm fairly sure the situation is similar in the US. Theft is not sufficient to cover software piracy.
Well,
I can say that I have never knowingly deprived anyone of their rightful income. Sure I have "broken a few rules" and "cut a few corners" but anything that went into permanent use was paid for.
I do wonder about stuff that is no longer available?............in the software field this is sometimes called "abandonware"................no one sells it any more? no one supports it? but I guess that someone still technically owns it.
I go with Pooh on the moral front..............but I guess that I have always been able to afford morality, so I would not judge others..........it would be wrong for ME because I can afford it?
Just a thought