Slashdot Mirror
Innocent File-Sharers Could Appear Guilty?
daveo0331 writes " New Scientist has an article about what could be a promising defense strategy for people targeted by the RIAA. Basically, anyone on the Gnutella network can frame other users by making it look like someone is hosting RIAA music, even though they're not. Therefore, the RIAA's "evidence" against file sharers is theoretically unreliable and wouldn't stand as good a chance of holding up in court. No mention of whether this has anything to do with the RIAA's eagerness to settle the lawsuits out of court. The article is based on a research paper (PDF link, HTML version) posted anonymously to a web hosting service in Australia."
can you say those 2 words in the same sentence?
Je t'aime Stéphanie
This case alone is the ultimate mistake the RIAA could have made. A easy-to-deny false alligation against an "adorable grandmother" character... way to lose a "hearts and mind" campaign.
Just leave America. I'm so lucky that I don't have to. The Recording Industry Association where I live doesn't scare me in the slightest!
That's either the most depressing or most hilarious thing I've ever seen... Wonder how long it'll take someone to type format c:
Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
But I am also very much against anything that perverts justice, obfusciates the truth, and in general destroys respect for the law.
This one is ridiculous, because 99% of the people who say "no, it wasn't me, someone set me up" based upon this will be perjuring themselves.
Quite honestly, isn't that the claim that most criminals make?
I, for one, if set up, would have a different answer: "I never installed Kazaa or other P2P software, nor did I pay the Kazaa fee." Come to think of it, that would be my defense if accused of stealing cable channels too: "I never bought one of those cable-selection-hiding filters; indeed, I never bought cable TV."
Come off it, people. Stop trying to make a case for yourself why maybe it perhaps isn't so bad, and perverting your consciences.
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
The RIAA has an amazing similarity to OJ Simpson. Still in search of 'The Real Filesharers'
How many people are going to stand up and say in court that they hold the copyright to a child porn clip, and demand that they be compensated for loss of profit. Also, I doubt if they would be members of the RIAA, though it wouldn't surprise me that much.
stuff
I'm not sure how this works, but if your son bought the laptop then it belongs to him, so your destroying it without his consent may well have been illegal. Illegal !
I think you'd better hand over your laptop/PC to him along with a hammer or other suitable destructive device so that he can teach you a lesson.
What, you're all just playing? Yeah, right...
"Downloading mp3 of music that you do not own is illegal. I taught my son a lesson by destroying his iBook. The lesson is that if you work hard and save your money to buy something, once you break the law with it, it will be taken away. By the time he saves enough to buy another laptop (which will be around two years based on his after school pay check) he will have learned that he was doing something bad and wont do it again."
Oh wow. I had no idea Dr. Laura visited Slashdot!
Darl McBride
You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
That's OK. Neither does your cable company.
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
No shit. They've sure scared me straight! Now that I understand the penalties for downloading copyrighted music I've turned to shoplifting CDs - the penalties for shoplifting are orders of magnitude lower, and usually you just get community service.
If all this should have a reason, we would be the last to know.