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."

Comments

Re:Does it realy make a difference?

[SoIosoft]

Not really. The courts have decided there's legitimate uses for P2P and therefore they actually have to catch you in the act of violating the law to sue you. One concern here, though, is the Gnutella network doesn't, by itself, detect your IP. You can put whatever IP in you want and it'll appear that way to the rest of the network. Often, you'll see people with IPs in the 192.168/16 block on there. I could see how they could get your IP wrong this way and falsely accuse you because someone on the network claimed to have your IP. And this sort of thing scares me away from Gnutella.

Re:A Question

[Kilbasar]

I know for a fact that the MPAA monitors eDonkey. I was caught by them a few months ago, and they told my college to yell at me. Since the RIAA seems to put even more resources than the MPAA into tracking file sharing, I'm positive they're also watching eDonkey.

So many misconceptions . . .

[werdna]

In reviewing the threads in response here, I noted so many misconceptions as to how our legal system works, I thought it might be useful to compile them into a single e-mail rather than answer piecemeal.

1. Jury Trial. Somebody suggested that because this is a civil action, there is no jury trial. This is not the case. The Seventh Amendment assures that a plaintiff or defendant is entitled to a jury trial for an action traditionally at law, which includes actions for Copyright Infringement.
   
2. Preponderance of the Evidence.Because these are civil actions, the plaintiff only needs to prove the elements of his cause of action by a preponderance of the evidence. That is, to produce evidence tending to show that it is more likely than not that the allegation occurred. The theoretical possibilty that it might have happened otherwise doesn't suffice to get you off the hook (as it might in a criminal trial) unless you show not only that it is theoretically possible you aren't guilty, but that it is LIKELY that you aren't guilty.
   
3. Reliability. Most evidence is unreliable -- there are two sides to every tale, and you almost never have a forensic "gotcha" slam-dunk that will actually goes to trial. The standards of authentication are virtually trivial in many cases, and the weight of the evidence is weighed by ordinary people. I guarantee this -- at the end of the day, the jury is not going to listen to forensic experts on both sides contradicting one another as to whether there might have been fuzzy spoofing to frame the defendant -- the jury is going to consider the facts and evidence overall, the credibility of the witnesses and most significantly, the circumstances overall under which they occurred. Case in point: A produces contract supposedly signed by B. B denies signature. Signature experts on both sides quibble about authenticity of signature. This case will be decided not on the scientific evidence, almost never. It will be decided on the circumstances of the case: "Did you speak with A then? yes. Did you discuss the terms of this agreement? yes, but those weren't the terms. Did you get the shipment of widgets shortly thereafter? yes. did you install them? yes. did you see the invoice? i don't remember. did you ever complain about the price on the invoice? i don't remember. how about that first check you sent, how come you used the price set in the agreement then? well, that was a clerical error." The answers won't matter so much, as HOW they are answered. And you will be amazed at how well a jury can smell a liar.
   
4. Not everybody lies. When you are caught, at some point you will be asked the ultimate questions under oath, and then you have a choice: (i) tell the truth, in which case you may be credible enough to prevail; or (ii) lie, in which case you may be credible enough to prevail. The thing about lying, however, is this: you are lying. For many of us, when push comes to shove, personal honor tends to matter more than a few bucks. For others, well, that's how it goes -- they are the lying liars that make this place a sadder one in which to live.
   
5. RIAA has a case. Look, here it is. If the facts are true, if you have copies of unauthorized works on your computer, and they catch you -- you are busted. You did the deed, and it is actionable. You might not like it, but you are responsible under the law for your conduct.