Slashdot Mirror
WiFi Hotspots Elude RIAA Dragnet
mblase writes "A CNET News article discusses a problem the RIAA is having with its copyright enforcement strategy: public wireless hot spots. Normally, the RIAA notifies the ISP when a user is found to be violating their copyrights, but in this case, the ISP is powerless to do anything. Key quote: '...unless the administrator keeps detailed logs of everybody's account use - which is not required by law - she may well not know who was swapping files.' I wonder how long it will be before those detailed logs ARE required by law?"
I'm sure Senator Hollings will pass a bill that bans WiFi access, in order to solve this problem of cataclysmic proportions.
This gives rise to a solution to these and similar lawsuits. Whether or not the ISP's have a choice in turning over the customer information when they have the IP address subpoenaed it does generate a loss because they will have staff or outside lawyers look into it on every case. If this continues and expands then it may be cost prohibitive to the point that the ISP's just stop logging. I think larger ISP's might do this to avoid billable hours and small ISP's will do it as a feature.
Will people be happy to get rid of that static IP for a dynamic one?
"The law requires that you keep written records"
'Look again, the law can't even require that a man be able to read"
-Badly misquoted Heinlein.
All Troll + "offtopic" mods are meta moderated as "Unfair", because you abused the system.
proxying port 80 and logging is a good idea for wifi -- why go to prison for your neighbor's kiddie porn habit?
www.pixelectric.com
I always thought that the true anonymous internet would come when unsecured Wi-Fi was rampant. How are they going to carnivore anyone when they aren't tied to the other end of a line? There is no way to really know who is doing what on Wi-Fi.
The free WiFi hotspots I've used don't require accounts at all. They just serve bandwidth and you connect thru DHCP.
Are they going to log MAC addresses? Good luck. I can use ifconfig on my Orinoco card and set the MAC. 00:00:00:00:00:00 and a prepaid debit card in a pseudonym works nicely on the AT&T Wireless hotspot in the Denver airport.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
' I wonder how long it will be before those detailed logs ARE required by law?"
I foresee something much worse, in fact I have been worrying about it for years. As it has been reported there are those ISPs that seem to want to have their nose up your butt and watch everything you do.
Well I foresee soon that *all* suspected criminal activity will have to be reported, oh and all those pesky logs you have around because you wanna be a hyper nosy jerk? Well you, my friend, have just just blown you plausible deniability plea. Because you are keeping all those logs, and you didn't notify the 'authorities' right away you have blown your safe harbor status cause the RIAA came to you. So guess what? You have just become an accessory after the fact. *oops*
When I tell people this they think im overly paranoid. well you decide.
I was thinking about this in lieu of the RIAA sending subpeonas to ISPs, and why ISPs need to keep logs of what MAC address had what IP at what time. Maybe it would be enough to drop the time, or get really vauge? "Yea, three MACs have had that IP address this week, sorry, cant tell ya which one had it at that time." Not quite sure how that would affect tracking the source of hacker and/or hacking. Vauge engough to keep it out of a court of law, specific enough to combat/detect hacking.
Of course, whats the big deal to set my computer to an empty address in the DHCP pool, and DHCP logs wont detect squat.
The Doormat
If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention.
"I wonder how long it will be before those detailed logs ARE required by law?"
:-)
An interesting point occurs to me. One of the great things about the many 'anti-hacking' laws passed around the world is that most (if not all), have little (if any), requirement for systems operators to take reasonable steps to keep their systems secure.
So if I open up a Wi-Fi shop, and keep detailed logs, of all my paying users, but don't bother to secure the setup?????
'Yes officer, you can have the logs of my customers. Unfortunitly it dosen't cover the several thousand p2p users, who have creaked my system, and you want..... Yes thats correct, removing the howto from the MOTD would reduce this, but I'm under no requirement to do that.'
My Paintball Pics
i wondered about this - if i have an open wifi spot at my home - how can they prove i was the one trading files? K.
The wireless access points were defined as "public access".
So without some authentication method, there is now way of identifying those naughty file sharers (IP's and MAC's are easily spoofed of course).
I am not one to endorse setting up public access hotstpots with no access controls (or internet access) but it might be time to accidently misconfigure that home network.
Q.
Insert Signature Here
About them WiFi Chalkers,
ain't they fun to see?
Goin' all around,
chalkin' them AP!
Them resourceful Chalkers,
what a useful crowd.
Showin' all the world,
where the net's allowed.
Look at all them WiFi Chalkers,
demon drivin' through.
AirPort, D-Link, and LinkSys,
WEP passphrases too!
How to be a WiFi Chalker,
it's fun if you know how.
Gitcha mobile WiFi kit,
and stumble on them now.
A programmer is a machine for converting coffee into code.
Easy configuration? Now you don't even need to be aware that you wanted to share your files. :)
Q.
Insert Signature Here
Again and again, the RIAA is always viewing technology with their patented always-pessimistic blinders. Think about the possibilities of hi-fi wi-fi (Besides being absolutely obfuscated). Borders now have wi-fi hotspots. What if these hotspots could provide customized music to cafe customers - with the option to walk over and buy the album! The argument has been given so many times it almost dead, but worth repeating. Technologies that allow users to mobilize and discover music are a key component in the new music industry. my 2 cents, Scott
Top of post may be sarcasm... bottom of post sounds more likely what would happen with the RIAA, buttt...
Reasons the RIAA shouldn't be interfering in/with anybody else's business, especially wi-fi:
a) Somebody already owns the wi-fi... they're supposed to just sign-on-the-dotted-line with the RIAA? Worked great for artists...
b) Not everyone using the Wi-Fi downloads music. Not everybody with ADSL does either. Geeze... legit users who are just trying to get an indie or pr0n fix are getting pissed off with having to pay for other people's "misuse". Ditto to the existing CD taxes.
c) We don't want to pay the RIAA. They have to shape up or ship out, not take over. While some might argue that these are the "alternate business methods" that we say they lack... mainly we just want a decent product for our buck (no 1-hit-wonder CD's) and the RIAA off our back.
The RIAA has brought suit against the descendents of Guglielmo Marconi for his invention, known as radio.
"Using a special radio receiver, a listener, or 'criminal', can listen to copywrited music for free," said Hilary Rosen, of the RIAA. "Some special units even have the ability record. All without one cent going to us, the true owners of the material."
Rosen added that the recent use of public WiFi radio-based internet to evade prosecution for file sharing was the last straw.
"This Marconi guy's got a lot to answer for. This 'radio' thing clearly has only ilicit uses."
Rosen also complained that her wallet wasn't big enough for all her fifties, and her diamond pants were too tight.
I have a notebook computer with WiFi access. My potential defense is that it would be impossible to determine if my computer was the one doing the d/ling...
The only way to determine would be to subpoena my hard drive... which is not only encrypted, but I would fight tooth and nail against improper search and seisure. Just because I own a publically accessable hotspot does not allow for a "fishing hunt"... the laws regarding improper searches is much better defined than that regarding internet searches... Consider this... If I owned derilict property that was used for illict purposes (illegial photocopying even) does not make me necessarily guilty of the same offense.
So, my hope is that by being a difficult target, I will be ignored for the first few rounds of the RIAA Gestapo raids...
_CMK
Bad spellers of the world untie!
Stop copying other people's stuff.
Take the moral highground.
Then, when the RIAA doesn't have a leg to stand on, push the balance of copyright law back to normal.
Until people stop publishing and redistributing material which they have no claim to (or rights to), the people who produce that material will gang up against them. And that gang typically has bigger pocketbooks.
They didn't care about it before now, because it's only with the rise of fast connections to the Internet that people have had enough bandwidth to make it a real problem. The losses were a blip on the radar.
Self regulate, learn the rules, or the fairness police will come down on you. If you think it's fair to copy someone else's material willy-nilly, then I'm willing to bet that you've never produced anything of any worth.
Coming soon - pyrogyra
From what I know, the RIAA is planning to sue sharers, not downloaders (although often they are one and the same). The idea is, kill the supply, and the demand decreases. (Yeah, because it worked so well with illegal drugs.)
/. readers came to the consensus that I can be held accountable for content my neighbors download with my connection. Does this mean that the RIAA can sue coffee shops who setup their own independant hotspots? (Of course, it doesn't apply to the server businesses who have paired with T-Mobile)
Point is, how many people are likely to run persistant shares over a hotspot? I'd think that those who use hotspots have nothing to fear from the RIAA, yet..
There was a previous discussion about an ISP who was encouraging customers to setup an access point and share the connection with others for a reduced rate.
-Ryan
AUWYHSTOT (Acronyms are Useless When You Have to Spell Them Out Too)
That is absurd. When you have free and unlicensed access to media, you are less likely to buy it, and thus the owner loses money.
You are, in effect, granted permission to the content when you purchase it. Unauthorized use is against the law.
I'm going to steal your next paycheck. You have the same amount of money in the bank, so it's not stealing.
-Ryan
AUWYHSTOT (Acronyms are Useless When You Have to Spell Them Out Too)
MAC addresses must be unique in order for APs to work. So 00.00.00.00 may be a bad idea if somebody else do the same.
Looks like a blatant attempt to make policymakers aware of the impending "anonymity problems" associated with open WiFi. Remember that all propaganda isn't of the RIAA "hit you over the head" variety.
Call (206) 338-5780 COLLECT for information about a genuine BA, BS, MA, MS, MBA, or Ph.D.
If you have the logs, they are business records and can be subject to subpeona. The key is to set up a business policy which purges the logs entirely on a rapid basis, and actually follow it.
If an RIAA lawyer asks you for information about who had what IP address at a particular time last month, and you then delete the logs, you are in a whole lot of trouble.
But, if you only store a week's worth of logs, and regularly delete the logs after they are a week old, you can honestly say "Sorry, that information has been purged in accordance with our document retention policy." There is nothing the RIAA can do about it.
This was what happened at Enron/Arthur Anderson. They had a document retention policy that would have saved their asses, but no one followed it. Only when they realized that they were about to be sued did they shred everything. If they were shredding all along as standard procedure, they would have been fine.
Consider anonymity in the real world. It's almost impossible to do anything really worthwhile completely anonymously. True, you may get along for a while, but sooner or later, you would need a job, a place to live, maybe a phone...the list goes on....and it's pretty much impossible to do any of these without proving your identity. You just cannot get along without remaining completely anonymous, in a fast developing world.
Maybe in lesser developed countries, you would not need an SSN or ID, but you would need alternate means of identification nevertheless, unless ofcourse you prefer to exist illegally under multiple identities.
With the Internet fast becoming part of our lives, and the ever broadening range of stuff that can be done online, it's but natural that some measures to establish identity come into force some time or the other.
People may argue that in the offline world, you are able to perform certain activities anonymously...say relax in a lounge chair in front of the fireplace...but BAM....as soon as you interact with society, anonymity is gone....Poof.
The problem with the Internet, is, that you are *always* interacting with some computer, somewhere, which does not belong to you. This is not true with the real world, if you're sitting lounging on a chair, you're interacting with the chair which belongs to you, thus ensuring anonymity. Anonymity on the Internet, on the other hand, is and will remain to be a very hard thing to achieve.
I guess that's a long enough rant for this time of the night.
An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
This puts a whole new spin on the EULA. It kind of reminds me of some annoying pop up ads that claim I agreed for them to annoy the piss out of me.
More on topic, I believe these hot spots should provide the RIAA with one key thing... They have another way to annoy the public with stupid scare tactics. I think the RIAA has been watching too much of the SciFi network.
There is nothing they can do except try and shutdown ISPs'. And why is there no parallel analogies to the us postal service ? Should we shut them down if somebody is sending copyrighted stuff ?
The next to be hit is the movie industry. The movie selection should improve when higher speeds come around which should be never with Time Warner controlling everything.
True a good portion of current WiFi hotspots don't require accounts - but also the amount of users swapping songs over WiFi is not that high yet.
Should the number increase the RIAA will simply sue them for aiding copyright infringment or whatnot and boom - suddenly logging systems will exist (they may not have them now - but somehow they will make them).
Privacy is good - when it is used correctly, but as soon as it becomes a cover for breaking the law, the courts will rule against it. Refusing to log on a WiFi, should the RIAA get a court order to do so (which is easy - simply show that someone is violating the law through such and such terminal), is like being an accessory to a crime. You cannot broadcast info from a police scanner over a ham radio network - you're allowing local people to get free info (more or less a ready to go crime set).
I dunno, but this won't last... systems that will are ones that have no centralized control. WiFi has admins (which some companies hold responsible) and therefore won't stand around to long. E5 / Freenet - those will be around, anonymous WiFi... I doubt it.
There is always a frontier where there is an open and willing mind
Recording Artists Safety Guide To The Beach
Whenever the offence inspires less horror than the punishment, the rigour of penal law is obliged to give way...
...are people not smart enough to secure their systems. And the more people they bust, the more people will be enticed to secure their systems, thus causing the RIAA's overhead to rise. Frankly, the RIAA is trying to shovel back the ocean with a fork. The only question is how much money they're willing to spend trying. I myself serve almost 500 gigs of stuff (most of it anime, jpop, and the like), and if the RIAA wants to track me they can sure try. I knew the risks when I got into this, and accept them as a cost of doing business. That being said, if the RIAA breaks down the door to get the HDs I keep the stuff on, I have no problems whatsoever with activating the electromagnets sitting on top of 'em and scrambling the whole mess into indecipherable gobbledygook. I got a nice stack of back-up CDs in a safe place ;)
Oh, and for those of you who use Kazaa Lite: The latest ver blocks the IP ranges that the RIAA and their minions/co-conspirators use.
Who says resistance is futile?
Berrik
Current karma: Terrible (due to mods without a sense of humor)
So now all I have to do is setup a Wireless basestation with anonymous acces in my house and I can claim that I don't know who was downloading music from my internet connection.
The ultimate legal shield!
This is just plain over before it started...
The RIAA dragnet is for uploaders because their theory is if they can scare people out of sharing, the non-sharing freeloaders will saturate the remaining uploaders so that the file-sharing network will cease to be useful.
But the coffee shop isn't the idea place to even set up a transient P2P sever. The P2P share would only exist when the laptop user is at the bookstore, which won't be that often to begin with. Any transfer in progress when the laptop user leaves the store will get aborted. Smart coffee shop owners have ADSL behind these shares, because they're expecting browsers not servers, so the upload speed won't be that pretty anyway.
This isn't a technology worth banning, it's not gonna be that useful to file-swappers in the first place!
What you are missing is the level of anonymity.
On the internet, I have the equivalent of a Unique Identifier tatooed on my forehead.
In real life, if someone asks me my name, I can say "Hi, I'm Peter Smith", or perhaps say nothing at all. Online, it's incredibly easy (and regularly done) to automate the process of recording your IP address, and associating it with every action you take online... You can't refuse to give it, you can't shop somewhere else when they ask for it, you don't even get notification that they are doing it...
It's not to say you have true anonymity in public, unless you can change your physical appearance at a whim (to some extent that is possible), but the point is that you DO have some reasonable level of anonymity.
For instance, imagine that the FBI feels like fishing, and decides they want to know the identity of everyone who read about bombs, and politically dissenting material. For digital info, they simply have to ask for those records from each place, and correlate them. In the real world, they would need to track down everyone that was at each place, have them give a description, and then compare the descriptions. That doesn't make you anonymous, but it adds a large barrier to removing your anonymity, which, in reality, is all people really want.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Take this exact same story and substitute "file sharing" with "spamming". Would this story still be posted as a YRO?
(Actually, probably yes, except this time it would be about your right to sue the WiFi operator who allows untraceable spam.)
-a
The IP Log Circle Jerk: .winnuke me"
1) ISP's will be required to keep logs, for legal purposes
2) the common folk, with their (insert firewall here) logs will say "hey, if ISP logs are kept for legal purposes, why not track this sonuvabitch down who tried to
3) The Department of Justice will get involved when they hear of rumors that such and such a ISP has been tampering with their logs, thus costing us more money in them doing their shit.
4) Some random group of people who like to complain will picket the government some more claiming "they are tracking how long i'm on the internet and what i'm doing, invasion of privacy" and that will cost us even more money as they send out the swat teams and the rubber bullets because we all know protesting in any form is pretty much ILLEGAL now.
5) Some Congressman will present a bill to overthrow the IP log law because it's causing conflicts in society (he doesn't want them to catch onto his warez/kiddie porn ring)
6) the law will be discontinued, we'll be right back were we started, a couple billion dollars further in the hole, with nothing more accomplished.
your sins into me, oh my beautiful one.
The United States Constitution may have something to say about North Carolina's policy: the Supremacy Clause. Assuming, just for the sake of this argument, that the defendant's conduct was in fact copyright infringement, and there are no federal defenses, a State probably doesn't have the power to require, directly or indirectly, a compulsory license for which the Congress did not provide.
As our offline world became more digitized, suspicious, and tracked, I for one loved the Internet as a medium where I had some measure of anonymity. I for one would like to keep things that way.
hrm. then again. maybe not.
Try this: Go to your local theatre. Right after the movie starts, ask the owners if there are any empty seats left. If so, ask them if you can go in and watch the movie for free. Tell them your theory that you weren't going to pay to get in anyway, and they aren't losing anything by letting you in. Report the results back here to /.
For even better effect, take a movie camera. Tell them that recording the movie won't cost them a cent.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
All in the name of homeland security - how are we going to harass muslims, er... catch terrorists without it?
This makes me wonder... Wouldn't it be possible to make some sort of data transfer network or "sub-internet" where people communicate using digital channels over internet telephony? It would be pretty hard to trace what people are doing, sharing, etc, because data packets would be coverted to a digital representation of audio being sent out. The digital "soundwaves" could be modulated to any any frequency, so they would in no way look like the digital bits they actually represent. This would probably be fairly slow, but possible.
Any thoughts?
As other posters have pointed out, legislating HotSpot operators to force the retention of access logs is a future possibility, with the result that organisations like the RIAA can treat HotSpot operators in the same manner that they currently treat ISPs.
A flaw in that plan however is peer to peer routing protocols, such as AODV. While still in development (ostensibly for use in wireless networks) AODV enabled devices are capable of routing to one another peer to peer, rather than the star topology currently used by most HotSpots (and wired networks.)
Good luck to the RIAA trying to detect two people wirelessly swapping files as they walk anonymously past one another in the street.
all those pesky logs you have around because you wanna be a hyper nosy jerk? Well you, my friend, have just just blown you plausible deniability plea.
They can prove I have logs, but they can't prove I ever LOOKED at the logs. ANd if I say I never saw the (alleged) filesharing, my deniability is back.
This is a perfect example of why the government needs to take action against this menace against our society. Wi-fi breeds lawlessness in young people. Studies have shown that music piracy functions as a "gateway crime," leading teens to experiment with more serious crimes such as burglary and drug use. Sometimes terrorists even use Wi-fi in support of their unspeakable crimes. We must stop the wi-fi criminals today.
This is offtopic, but I have noticed the increased use of the 'she' pronoun to describe positions that are in all honesty dominated by males. Is this a form of Grammatical Gender Affirmitive Action?
I'm not sure how I feel about it, but it does sound funny to my ears, and distracts from whatever the actual object of the sentence is.
I remember there was a good post on Kuroshin a while back advocating the creation of a gender neutral pronoun. I think they (ha!) promoted the idea of using 'They' which is often used (incorrectly) in place of he/she.
I am in favor of the creation of a new word to avoid the confusion between third person singular and plural.
The word I propose is 'e'. It takes the common portion of 'she' and 'he'.
The possesive pronouns are a bit more difficult as they only have 'h' in common, and as it is a consonant, it is impossible to pronounce.
For the gender neutral possesive pronoun, I suggest 'hiers' which is a nice blending
of 'hers' and 'his'. For 'Her' and 'Him', similarly I suggest 'Hierm'
Thank your for your attention.
I have no pants and I must scream
That said, you're correct and this is one gramatic error that really annoys me. You're one hundred percent correct; "he" is the correct work.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
That is absurd. When you have free and unlicensed access to media, you are less likely to buy it, and thus the owner loses money.
But they don't lose the song. Theres a difference between theft/robbery (where something is taken) and damages which arise from copyright infringement (where nothing is taken, but foggy damages somewhere in a misty future are incurred). Current copyright law greatly overvalues these damages (see the multibillion dollar RIAA lawsuits), resulting in damages that are sometimes far, far more than the infringed item was worth.
Lets look at some numbers. Such as 3 years of jail time (6 for repeat offenders)+$250,000+$150,000 per infringement. If I download a song which I can point to having a "market value" of $1 (see iTunes), how is $400,000 even close to a reasonable punishment for "theft"? And remember, this is per infringement... each song I download would get me another $150,000 charge.
Now, lets take a look at REAL theft. Assuming no criminal history exists, if I steal a $1 candybar, I get AT MOST $4,000 and no more than a year in Jail per incident, and thats if it gets all the way up to a Class C Misdemeanor (thats grabbing a LOT of candybars!) (See This retailer info page for Texas).
So, compare those numbers for a moment and reflect on your "copyright is theft" schtick. Now run back to your RIAA mommy and don't come back until you can explain why this inequality in supposedly "equal" thefts exists.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
I run a public WiFi hot spot and had my internet access cut off for days. The ISP support people couldn't figure out what was wrong. Finally they discovered someone had removed my business network from their routing tables because of a DMCA threat from EMI.
I explained the WiFi hot spot and they put me back online. Then I was forced to put up sophisticated filters to prevent suspect outgoing connections while allowing most good connections through. I then set up a freenet node. I don't offer a lot of bandwidth to anonymous users, so I think someone that walked by just happened to have some p2p application running on their laptop. But a large part of the reason I offer this service is because I believe in anonymous communication especially for whistle-blowers and for people with unpopular ideas. I know someone that got physical threats and had a friend of his killed for expressing his political opinions. The FBI was absolutely no help, their tech person even threatened him when he didn't want them to take his computer to their lab as evidence after it was hacked by one of the wackos. (The FBI would do more to harm his political speech 'helping' him if they took away his computer, since much of it is via the web. He had also been told by another agent they could just image the hard drive so he didn't really trust this guy.)
If somebody creates a law requiring logging, I'll be lining up to practice my duty as a citizen, civil disobedience of immoral laws. I hope it's not just because someone bought some crap from an RIAA label and put it on their computer. I really have no respect for the people that keep those intellectual "property" leeches in business, but I'll do it for that 13 year old girl sharing the latest boy band tripe too.
I'm one of those indie musicians that offers free downloads of my music so more people can get to know it. Please download and enjoy:
-
Geometric Visions
It's a recording of me playing my piano compositions.Request your free CD of my piano music.
These days, many authors of textbooks alternate from chapter to chapter whether they use he or she.
Get over it.
What's your GCNSEQNO?
Actually, 'they' is perfectly acceptable when referring to people of unknown gender in a sentence and doesn't carry the predisposition that the person being talked about is male.
Language is about thought. If you hear 'he', you're far more likely to think that the person being referred to is male, no matter what is technically grammatically correct.
This is the same deal as 'fireman' versus 'firefighter', 'mailman' versus 'mail carrier', etc.
I'm no fanatic about this sort of thing, but I don't object to removing the gender bias in the language where it's not ridiculous. I don't advocate changing 'manhole' to 'personhole', or making sure 'thrust fault' comes out of the language because it's somehow offensive to complete whackos (I bring that up because it's a direct example from a crazy female geologist that I heard in one of my geology courses that thinks that such a term is responsible for driving women away from the field; the truth is it takes special people to stay IN geology and study ROCKS for their whole lives).
In any case, I don't agree with using 'she', either. That's just as bad. The gender neutral terms 'one' and 'they' can always be used in place of 'he' and 'she'.
But buying it is what entitles you to own a copy.
Let's see, right here is a digital copy of a song that costs, say, a dollar to legally download from Apple.
Over there is the same digital copy of the same song on Kazaa. Free for the taking.
Let's say I don't want to buy the one from Apple. Does the fact that "I would not have bought it" entitle me to the free one? Using your logic, wanting to buy it means I should pay for it, but NOT wanting it means I can still get it for free.
So, that means I should not express the desire to buy ANY music in any form whatsoever. That would give me the right to take all the music I want for free.
Thinking about it, I really don't want that new car I was looking at...
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
OH come now... like that will work.. if you had the logs you *must* have known... and so on... :)
The |337 ones, running from Starbucks to Starbucks, desperately trying to download the last 15 minutes of "Legally Blonde 2" ...all so they can save the cost of a medium pizza.
Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
I'd mod you straight up. Thanks for a very good analogy. Now batten down the hatches, and prepare for boarders.... the reactionary little trolls that live on Slashdot are going to come out of the woodwork ripping you as a FUD-spewing tool of the RIAA. Fuck 'em. Keep telling it like it is.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
Think it couldn't happen? Think they wouldn't dare because of the risk of being sued? By whom? To sue, you'd have to admit downloading via a wifi hotspot that you theoretically don't have legal access to...
"Against the law". That's not morally wrong. If you are so naive as to think the law is the same as morality, then you've forfeited democracy.
My next paycheck is direct deposit. If you take it, you would be stealing it, and not only would you be breaking the law, and I would burn your house down.
This is my sig.
Wow, even something as insightful as this could be modded down as a troll. I guess the truth hurts!
Life is not for the lazy.
Say you're at a fufu coffee place and you've downloaded what you wanted. You leave and the RIAA mp3 detector discovers pirated music on your hard drive. You can then be picked up by the massive RIAA Robocop and broken into fucking pieces as a deterrent to the other users.
c e.html
OMFG this is the most awesome thing I have ever heard of. I WANT THIS LAW NOW.
http://www.theonion.com/onion3204/killerrobotpoli
Ok, this argument is: Do something that somebody doesn't like, and, because they might kick my ass, that makes what I'm doing morally wrong.
So, how about this.
Someone doesn't like the color red. You drive a red car, and that person smashes your windows and shoots you in the spine. Now, does that mean that driving a red car is wrong, or that the other guy is a lunatic.
Or, to use the "it's the law" corallary.
Blue paint manufacturers conspire to put a duty on red paint. They hire a Phd to find out reasons why red paint is dangerous. They then create a pseudo organization called "citizens for a safe america", and they create such a popular uproar that a texas chimp trumpets jesus and the virtues of blue paint and wins the presidency. "wow, red is really dangerous". They go and ban red paint and the next thing you know, it is "against the law" to drive a car with red paint.
Moral of the story: "It's against the law", and "someone might kick my ass stories", are the two dumbest supporting evidence arguments ever made.
This is my sig.
Is this a real problem? I mean, most of the people they catch are those running sharing services for a relatively long time, like the people who leave the PC on 24/7. The people who connect to a WiFi for 10 minutes to grab some email aren't the ones risking getting caught. So how many people would the RIAA be really after? Extremely few that their p2p scanners would catch.
So is this a more of a "what if" scenario?
If I, or I mean, my close friend, were ever "busted" but the RIAA for sharing/downloading mp3s off p2p networks, my, his best alibi would be that the songs could have been downloaded/uploaded from anyone as I am the only network administrator in the world too stupid to know how to enable WEP on my AP, and the neighbor did it. Of course a simple search of *his HD would prove otherwise.
Oh well, looks like I'm gonna have to build that big red button on my box that will format my mp3 partition over and over and over upon pressing.
Imagines my cat Kerberos brushing up against the button... Then again, maybe not.
Im dreaming ofa big bndwdth, That can resist the
Probably the best known site for downloading MP3s is of course MP3.com. See especially their genre index. Click the link. You will be quite astounded at how many genres there are.
Unfortunately the website usability of MP3.com is atrocious, and their streaming audio seems to be buggy - I can't get it to work in either Explorer or Mozilla. To get an MP3 file to download to your hard drive, you have to register, which I'm sure will result in merciless spamming. May I suggest registering with a throwaway email address from spamgourmet?
The Open Directory Project has Bands and Artists and Styles indices. Not all the artists offer downloads, but the site says they list 48,000 artists and I imagine many of them offer downloads.
Better sites for hosting MP3's than MP3.com are Epitonic.com and insound.
If you prefer the higher quality, patent-free Ogg Vorbis files you can find several download sites here. Ogg Vorbis players are available for many platforms - WinAmp will play them on Windows, and I understand iTunes on Mac OS X supports Ogg now. There are open source Linux ogg players and encoders, even an open source fixed-point decoders for embedded applications where the CPU doesn't have floating point hardware.
There are also peer-to-peer applications for distributing legal music. See Furthur Network and konspire[2b].
I'm sure if more people availed themselves of the wide variety of music available for free download, we will make short work of both the RIAA and ClearChannel. Our lives would also be richer for it.
Request your free CD of my piano music.
Why should the government interfere in protecting the jobs of artists and record company executives?
They are simply obsolete, just as American programmers getting sent to India are, just as American welders are, or guys that used to grow corn with a horse and plow, rather than a tractor.
Propping up the record companies and recording artists with legislation is no different than a farm subsidy.
Come on you capitalist. Let the market do its work without government interference, that's what we're saying. DMCA is anti-free market.
This is my sig.
What if i were just a n00b who knew nothing, bought a linksys 802.11b router, followed the "Quickstart Guide" (which does not enable wep), and was unknowingly sharing my connection with others. Surely the RIAA wouldn't sue my ass, would they? This is not the case for me, but it is for my parents and several colleagues...
geeks are cats who dig a certain kind of cool
Film at 11.
-
Is This the America I Love?
-
Impeach Bush
- DeCSS - Content Scrambling System Decryption
I have another at Kuro5hin but the server doesn't seem to be working right now. Check the Op-Ed section for "Reflections on Independence Day" where I discuss how the Bush administration is getting ready to murder the P.O.W.'s at Guantanamo Bay.I'm getting ready to move to Canada by the way. I can do that because my wife is a Canadian citizen. When I get there, I'm going to make it a priority to move somewhere I can get broadband - it's much more widely available there than in the U.S. When I do, I'm going to set up a FreeNet node and give it a 80 gig hard drive or so.
And sometime soon I should be mirroring my essays at a server physically located in Holland. Or Sealand if I can find someone who will host a small site - I can't afford their charge for a colo.
Request your free CD of my piano music.
I realize there is little I can do to stop someone from cheating, but I expect that as long as I'm providing the downloads, most people will respect my wishes.
I feel it is important to maintain the proprietary copyright and proprietary licensing to my music because it is something that I feel to be a deep expression of who I am. I don't think it's the same as software at all, and in fact I do try to contribute to Free Software when I can, for example by writing about how to create better Free Software as well as by contributing to Free Software projects.
If, say, RedHat were to come out with a copylefted music download service, and lots of people started providing altered versions of my music, I would feel personally violated. It's not simply that I want to keep all the money my music might ever generate.
However, there are people who do as you request, who write, record and distribute Free-as-in-Freedom music. I have read about them online, but I'm afraid I don't know where to find any. Perhaps someone who does can post a link in response.
Request your free CD of my piano music.
We had the control, we have the control, WE ARE THE CONTROL!!!
WTF is the problem with us? Can we *not* get behind a single cause to do something then other than bomb the shit out of people who don't agree with us?!?
Troll me, Mod me but, do something fer (insertHigherPowerOrSelfHere) sake!!!
I am Botunda
I like the woman
If you're running a WiFI connecion and happen to get a letter from the RIAA, what's to stop you from claiming that the sharing was done by someone remotely using your connection? Perhaps a neighbor. We've all heard the statistics about the percentage of WEP-disabled access points.
> you don't even get notification that they are doing it...
...Ah, but you do. I get these warnings "Your computer is broadcasting an IP address" warnings all the time when I surf the web...
Disclaimer: Not really. Using Firebird.
I gave up sigs almost a year ago.
Just a pet peeve of mine: Marconi did not invent radio. Nikola Tesla did.
Cheers,
Ehttp://eugeneciurana.com | http://ciurana.eu
I wasn't trying to suggest the morality or rightousness of the RIAA, nor did I ever even mention what i suggest punishments for the theft should be. I merely rubuked the parent for implying there is nothing damaging about pirating music.
I suggest you get off your high-horse anti-RIAA zealotism and post something meaningful.
-Ryan
AUWYHSTOT (Acronyms are Useless When You Have to Spell Them Out Too)
Really??? You are surfing the web with a database?
You are using the Phoenix to browse the web?
Maybe you are browsing the web in your car?
Oh! I am a poor, terribly confused consumer!!!
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
It used to be that "on the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog".
Now, not only does everybody know you're a dog, they know what kind of dog you are, what kind of french poodles you like to look at, what kind of dog food you eat, where you like to play fetch.
The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
Some programmers also view their software as a deep expression of who they are. Lets face it, some software represents decades of a person's life and design is a very individual thing. Even then they 'set it free'. I don't think software and music are as far apart as you think. There is non-artistic software and music (production line pop). There is also artistic software and music.
It's a thing I've battled with and it does take a certain form of 'courage' to release something that is 'Free' and trust the rest of the world. Ultimately, I think it comes back to the fact that someone extending your work does not diminish your original work. Maybe with music the difficulty is the greater difficulty in tracing lineage and so preserving credit for your original work? Perhaps a 'changelog' for music is the way to go? I think the creative commons it taking some tentative steps in this area.
Anyway, as you are the author, I respect your choice of license. Best of luck with the music.
However, this has caused friction with the Debian community, because they feel that the fact that the GNU Free Documentation License provides for Invariant Sections and mandatory Cover Texts makes it non-free. They're working on a policy statement to this effect, and getting ready to move all the GFDL'ed documentation from main to non-free. You can find out more about that in Why You Shouldn't Use the GNU FDL.
I observed some of the debate between the Debian developers and RMS on the debian-legal list, and while there are other significant issues, the main sticking point seemed to come down to whether or not political activism had any place in technical documentation. You can imagine Stallman's position on that. I come from way before "Open Source" was ever heard of, so I personally share Stallman's position.
It's an issue for me because I have some articles which use the GFDL, so I discussed the issue at some length in Which License for Free Documentation? The followup discussion has been very helpful.
Now why is this relevant to music?
The issue of whether it is moral (from Stallman's perspective) to forbid alteration of a work I believe comes down to whether the work is primarily functional in nature, or expressive of a personal opinion. The obvious utility of software, and the ability to combine code from different packages into new programs tips the balance heavily towards the side that says one must allow software to be altered. But that's not so clear with writing, which may be either unexpressive technical documentation, or impassioned political expression.
Music is much more like writing than software. Someone who is not a musician might not see it this way, but I feel that my music is an expression of my opinion. I can well see that there is other music that could not possibly be considered that way, and so I would support Stallman's position that not only copying but modification of such music must be permitted.
However, I don't think Stallman has completely thought this through when considering music explicitly. Have a look at his piece Regarding Gnutella.
Request your free CD of my piano music.
Logging public wireless networks at a level of detail required to catch infractors would be a huge undertaking. Most products that could do it would cost a lot and would add a huge burden to those administering those networks.
I've heard good things about Addamark, they claim to have a log capture/query tool at a good price/performance point. Does anyone have experience with large log data volumes and this tool?
That does not change the fact that anyone who seeks power is unfit to wield it.
Keeping logs of all activities, means to register the header of the packets, and who-where-to that packet gone...
That is impossible unless someone invents quantic hard disks with loads of space! (and they must work real fast also)...
Ever hear of anonymous proxy servers?
Tech Public Policy stuff
This is where you get the ol' dot matrix, with the tractor feed, and print out a day's worth of logs.
Then when they say, "But you have the logs, you *must* have known", you simply present your day's log as evidence on the desk in the courtroom...
**thump**
"Think I read these logs daily? Think again."
You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
There is a lot of hype here.
One point that has not been discussed here is the correctness of the ISP's IP logs...
How Do they ensure that?
I mean... my ISP could easily fake the log (or could be forced to fake it by some men in black suits...) and then I would have a BIG problem... couldn't they?
actauly its not the same. If you could do that then many people who would have paid to see the movie wouldn't and would just wait to get the empty seats. ALSO more poeple = less enjoyment for the poeple who paid. So the manager has reasons not to let you in for free aside from the fact its for free. Now if you were friends/enployee/realative chances are he'd be like "yea sure, go right on in!".
Downlaoding a song that you were never going to buy doesn't do either. It only effects you in that now you get some music to enjoy, thou in a manner that artist doesn't want. And i can in the end have a positive effect.
And when our not someone who wasn't ever going to buy a CD, you were someone who always buys CDs and you were sampleing to see if you liked it (its the only way except for the top 40 they play on the radio over and over), Or someone who sometimes buys CDs and were seeing if it was worthwhile CD to buy. I never, and i mean NEVER baught CDs r even listen to non classical music untill p2p (i had tapes!), now i own quite a few CDs, but once RIAA starting being ignorent fucks i stopped buying them (well except for 1 that was on sale for 5$ cnd), maybe if they stop being such fools i'll start buying CDs again.
Nice try with the theater one thou, its one of the best i've heard yet. The only thing you can do in real life that can comepare to p2p is recording something off the radio or a concert and passing the tapes around. That didn't hurt the RIAA one bit so i don't think P2P is going to in any way. They are like petty children that are mad about the fasct they no longer have complete and total control.
---------------
Together, we will drive the rats from the tundra.
Business policy ?
/dev/ram0" >> /etc/rc.sysinit /dev/ram0 /var/log" >> /etc/rc.sysinit.
echo "mkefs -m 0
echo "mount -t ext2
When the feds show up, reboot the machine and say
"You can have all the logs that are there".
Done.
"Semper in excretum set alta variant"
It's not as though WiFi is anything new, like it just started yesterday. Anyone who regularly visits Slashdot has seen WiFi in use for over a year, as well as being talked about on other sites. Obviously, this is nothing new, especially to those of us on top of technology; then again, we are probably the same people who first used Napster and saw its potential. Once again, the RIAA is behind the times, retroactively playing catch-up.
This makes me think about earlier predictions of Bluetooth and the goals of MS (among others) to have every home device Internet capable (with the help of IPv6). This means (potentially) every device will act as a mini-router for other devices around it, interconnecting everything in the world. Let's suppose, for a minute, that this is valid and MAY actually happen -- perhaps even in the near future -- where do ISPs fall in the scheme of things? Ideally, they'd be defunct; realistically, they'd probably provide more of a continental and WAN service between cities, countries, and across oceans. However, with devices talking to one another using <insert favorite wireless technology here> within the immediate vicinity, there would be no traffic regulation in a city/densely populated environment. This means illegal file sharing and copyright infringement will still be around (as always), but now be ultimately impossible for the RIAA to track because there would be no central repository trafficking data (i.e. ISPs).
Ever since the attack on Napster, I saw the RIAA's tactics as those of greed and ignorance. Instead of fostering technology, most companies see it as a threat and look to control it. Of course, this is a case of cause and effect and so people find better ways against being tracked and, ultimately, caught. I applaud the RIAA for what they are doing because 1) it is their right to defend what they own (although I may not agree with their tactics) and 2) technology and software have made extreme advances since 1999 to combat the oppressive techniques of copyright holders.
I notice that the esteemed Howard Berman, Democratic Congressman (and industry schill), wants to jail people who swap a mere one music file: http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/31800.html Can you Yanks do the world a favour and vote him out of office as quickly as possible and banish him to well-deserved obscurity? Thank you. P.
I use a router to share my DSL among housemates. Does this mean that because my particular computer may not be the one doing the file sharing they can't sue me? Cool. Especially considering I don't actually do any file sharing, but my housemates may.
main(O){10<putchar((O--,102-((O&4)*16| (31&60>>5*(O&3)))))&&main(2+ O);}
LN2 is cool!
The problem is that solution would only last until regulations got passed stipulating a longer period of document retintion. For example, Govenment passes a bill concerning business practices. This bill has a list of policies a company must enforce, one being retention of documents for a minimum of one year. This would definately get support, not only from it dealing with the RIAA issues, but issues relating to Enron and other big companies.
...comes at a price. To ensure the security we
have to allow data in the file system to be accidently overwritten.
Accidentally overwritten data? So what's the difference again between Linux/StegFS and Windows/FAT32?
All your base are belong to us!
Just to point out that the RIAA et. al. seem to be serious about this "antipiracy" stuff...
After an earlier story about Kazaa Lite making use of a database of Evil(tm) netblocks to attempt to hide the identity of file sharers from the content Gestapo, I decided to do a little experiment.
I went here and obtained and converted a list for use with iptables - so that traffic from these hostile networks would be logged and blocked. I run a very active but 100% legal Mutella node. /var/log/messages damn near filled up the disk with connection attempts coming from the hostile networks.
I suppose there's more to this than tinfoil hat paranoia.
Like, for example, publication of the "Federalist Papers"? All the US got out of that was a Constitution.
ha ha.
Generally the filesystem keeps more than one copy of each inode so that even if one gets overwritten, it's not the end of the world.
Also check out rubberhose - another "plausible denial" filesystem.
tom-george.comBecause geeks rate higher t
Could you explain? I am unfamiliar...
Uh, "fine" as in they wouldn't have been legally accountable to the thousands of people they defrauded. Good point, bad example.
"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face, it's just a goddamned piece of paper!" - George W. Bush Nov. 2005
My downloading is for historical reference.
I'm providing future mankind a vital service by recording the pop-culture traded on the effemeral internet for posterity.
And who knows, maybe in 1000 years the coimbination of songs traded today will be found to be the key to mankind's survival (i.e. Mars Attacks) and backup copies will be vital tools protecting human life.
PAY FOR OUR SONGS OR DIE! *Menioacial RIAA laughter*
Your going to take this seriously?....Seriously!
...GWARdriving
*groan*
Didn't the patriot act do something to force ISP's to log all account usage?
Or is that only if the HSD/FBI/CIA/ETC stop in one afternoon and demand it to start beacuse they are in a bad mood......
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Does this mean I have to start restricting access ( and start monitoring ) for my friendly neighbors or *I* go to jail?
Seriously, if I give away 'bandwidth' since I'm a nice guy, am I legally liable?
Before you draw an analogy, this isn't the same as if I'm loaning out my gun and they go on a killing spree. Its giving out something that you don't have to be licensed, or even 18 to use legally..
I'm not charging, so there is no contract..
I don't want to talk about the AUP from my cable company.. this is only about the *legal* liability I may incur.
Also what if I *DON'T* permit my neighbors to access, but they hack in anyway ( which is hard to prove being wireless ).... am I libel then too, so I have to start logging my router when its SHOULD be just me and my family?
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Actually, 'they' is perfectly acceptable when referring to people of unknown gender in a sentence and doesn't carry the predisposition that the person being talked about is male.
I can see you've never taken an English course. "They" is plural and is only acceptable when referring to multiple unknown people:
"We met some Eskimos. They were very friendly."
It is NOT appropriate when referring to one person:
"I heard a story about an Eskimo. Apparently, they purchased a number of sled dogs."
Using "he" is the only correct method here.
-Ryan, with the unoriginal sig
Alas, you're incorrect. From the Mirriam Webster dictionary:
usage: They used as an indefinite subject (sense 2) is sometimes objected to on the grounds that it does not have an antecedent. Not every pronoun requires an antecedent, however. The indefinite they is used in all varieties of contexts and is standard.
usage: They, their, them, themselves: English lacks a common-gender third person singular pronoun that can be used to refer to indefinite pronouns (as everyone, anyone, someone). Writers and speakers have supplied this lack by using the plural pronouns . The plural pronouns have also been put to use as pronouns of indefinite number to refer to singular nouns that stand for many persons . The use of they, their, them, and themselves as pronouns of indefinite gender and indefinite number is well established in speech and writing, even in literary and formal contexts. This gives you the option of using the plural pronouns where you think they sound best, and of using the singular pronouns (as he, she, he or she, and their inflected forms) where you think they sound best.
Apparently, it doesn't matter that my last English course was when I started University.
So, no. 'He' is NOT the only correct method here. Even if someone comes along and points out by the strictest rules of grammar that this is incorrect, common vernacular is clearly in opposition to this, and even William Shakespeare's writing uses this construct. You can try arguing with me, but arguing with Shakespeare about correct usage seems pretty hopeless.
Hmm. I'll post that again. Despite me trying to post in plain text, the presense of something that looked like an italic tag screwed it up.
Alas, you're incorrect. From the Mirriam Webster dictionary:
usage: They used as an indefinite subject (sense 2) is sometimes objected to on the grounds that it does not have an antecedent. Not every pronoun requires an antecedent, however. The indefinite they is used in all varieties of contexts and is standard.
usage: They, their, them, themselves: English lacks a common-gender third person singular pronoun that can be used to refer to indefinite pronouns (as everyone, anyone, someone). Writers and speakers have supplied this lack by using the plural pronouns [and every one to rest themselves betake -- Shakespeare] [I would have everybody marry if they can do it properly -- Jane Austen] [it is too hideous for anyone in their senses to buy -- W. H. Auden]. The plural pronouns have also been put to use as pronouns of indefinite number to refer to singular nouns that stand for many persons ['tis meet that some more audience than a mother, since nature makes them partial, should o'erhear the speech -- Shakespeare] [a person can't help their birth -- W. M. Thackeray] [no man goes to battle to be killed. -- But they do get killed -- G. B. Shaw]. The use of they, their, them, and themselves as pronouns of indefinite gender and indefinite number is well established in speech and writing, even in literary and formal contexts. This gives you the option of using the plural pronouns where you think they sound best, and of using the singular pronouns (as he, she, he or she, and their inflected forms) where you think they sound best.
Apparently, it doesn't matter that my last English course was when I started University.
So, no. 'He' is NOT the only correct method here. Even if someone comes along and points out by the strictest rules of grammar that this is incorrect, common vernacular is clearly in opposition to this, and even William Shakespeare's writing uses this construct. You can try arguing with me, but arguing with Shakespeare about correct usage seems pretty hopeless.
You proved my point for me. Noteworthy:
The plural pronouns have also been put to use as pronouns of indefinite number to refer to singular nouns that stand for many persons
And:
The use of they, their, them, and themselves as pronouns of indefinite gender and indefinite number is well established in speech and writing
Note "singular nouns that stand for many persons" and "pronouns of indefinite gender and indefinite number". Not one. Many and indefinite. In other words, if you're talking about multiple people, "they" is acceptable. It isn't acceptable when you're referencing a single individual.
To use the term in the context we're discussing is completely wrong:
"...unless the administrator keeps detailed logs of everybody's account use - which is not required by law - they may well not know who was swapping files."
The word "they" would only be appropriate if we were discussing multiple people, as in this modified quote:
"...unless the administration keeps detailed logs of everybody's account use - which is not required by law - they may well not know who was swapping files."
You can try arguing with me, but arguing with Shakespeare about correct usage seems pretty hopeless.
Nowhere did Shakespeare use a plural to reference a single. In fact, only one of the quotes above did so:
"and every one to rest themselves betake" - every one = multiple people
"I would have everybody marry if they can do it properly" - everybody = multiple people
"it is too hideous for anyone in their senses to buy" - anyone refers to any number of people
"'tis meet that some more audience than a mother, since nature makes them partial, should o'erhear the speech" - some = multiple people
"a person can't help their birth" - This one is borderline, if not totally incorrect. "A person" is obviously a single person, so this should have been "can't help his birth."
"no man goes to battle to be killed. -- But they do get killed" - this could seem borderline, but Shaw obviously was referring to multiples. "No man goes to battle to be killed. But they (men) do get killed."
-Ryan, with the unoriginal sig
You're making unreasonable assertions. Indefinite numbers are just that, indefinite. Not necessarily numerous, just unknown. An indefinite number is one that you don't know, not one that you know is merely larger than one.
Clearly you didn't read the definition very well. Let me give you the relevant section:
--
usage They, their, them, themselves: English lacks a common-gender third person singular pronoun that can be used to refer to indefinite pronouns (as everyone, anyone, someone). Writers and speakers have supplied this lack by using the plural pronouns
--
Note that it lacks a common-gender third person SINGULAR pronoun. Note as well that writers and speakers have supplied this lack by using the plural pronouns.
In each of the cases that you cited, the intent was to either indicate a single person or an indefinite number of people somewhere between one nd infinity.
Personally, I find your first modification completely satisfactory. If you like, I can check this with a friend of mine who has a Masters degree in English.
In any case, here's some more problems with your argument:
Anyone doesn't refer to any number of people, it refers to any ONE person. See how that works? 'Any' + 'One' = 'Anyone'.
"a person can't help their birth" is correct, as I've been pointing out.
Lastly, Shaw was making reference to any one person in many. No man is clearly singular. Using 'they' agrees in number, as long as you accept that it's common usage, or grammatically correct.
"No man goes to battle to be killed -- But they (that man that went into battle) do get killed."
if the files are encrypted, can the logs tell anyone anything useful? what would it take to enable all the swapping users to agree on solid, safe, secure, and trusted schemes and passwords to get this going?
i should give the kids in the neighborhood a prize for the first one to hack an OnStar system and connect a 12VDC powered home LAN wireless router to it. then, i wonder how long it takes one of his buds to set his up the same, using the OnStar system just to transmit, not to Onstar, but to each other when cruisin or ronin... you know, these kids live in their cars and what better to do that swap while driving. one of them plays his CD collection, broadcasts it thru the OnStar connected mini wireless router, and his friends catch it and burn it to their systems on the road. now that is sweet!
Umm, last I checked, I *WAS* thinking like an American - only perhaps my definition of American is more traditional than you'd like.
Yes, we do live in an era of litigation (much of it *frivolous* litigation!) - but as they say, "fight fire with fire". If you're starting an ISP, have an attorney write you up a good, solid "Terms of Service" agreement that absolves you from liability over such B.S. as disconnecting users from Usenet services. Make everyone sign an agreement and mail it back to you before you turn on their service, if need be! But don't get caught up in silly lawsuits in the first place!
There is no Constitutional right to Internet access. If you're providing a user with a net connection, and you decide you'd like to discontinue their service for *any* reason, you should be well within your legal rights to do so. I see no need to log details of exactly what every user does on your Usenet server, just to protect against the possibility of lawsuit over disconnecting them from said service!
(Now, granted, there's a need to be reasonable. Just as a landlord has to give notice before evicting a tenant, I think a respectable ISP needs to give customers enough time to line up a new ISP and let people know of pending email address changes.)
If you're concerned with shutting down spammers, I guess I still don't see the need to log quite so much detail on where users go when web-surfing or reading/posting to Usenet? Logging IPs and "raw" information about Kb sent/received should alert you to abuse anyway. (EG. If a supposed "home user" suddenly starts blasting hundreds of megs. per hour of email traffic to your mail server, it's plenty of reason to suspect spamming, and start specifically logging details of what that *one* user does.
It doesn't require blanket logging of everyone, all the time.