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."
This is no "strategy", it's a cop-out. If people are sharing files, and they *really* believe they should be allowed to do so, they should fight on the merits of their position, and live or die on said merits. To cook up a tenuous argument that someone might have framed you, is a tacit admission that the arguments people have mostly been using to justify file-sharing are worthless, and that file-sharing itself is indefensible. Show some backbone, people.
ISPs are required by law to maintain a USERNAME,IP,TIME_USED record for even dynamic IPs.
So if RIAA gives them a IP,TIME_of_infringement, they will have no problem in retrieving a USERNAME and other resulting info to send to the RIAA
There's something that's bothered me about these lawsuits since the beginning: what proof does the RIAA have that a given person shared a file ? They're simply using logs of their software. But how is this being verified ? A log, afterall, is just a textfile; I can make one now that says Lars Ulrich was sharing my copyrighted works.
Not to mention they're also relying on the DHCP logs of the sharer's ISP. These were designed to aid admins, not to be 100% accurate. And, even if we assume that the RIAA's and the ISP's logs are accurate, most people these days have multiple machines on their home networks and often wireless access points. How can could one possibly prove that the internnet account holder did the sharing and not a neighbor sneaking on via wireless or a friend who stopped by with a laptop or a roommate ?
IANAL, but I don't see how any of these cases could possibly stand up in court, with or without security holes.
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.
So it's pretty obvious that you are a troll but you do inadvertently raise a good point about authoritarianism.
Destroying your son's personal property was an immature act. He knows it was a childish thing to do, and it caused him to lose respect for you as an authority figure and role model. You have eroded your ability to make moral judgments that he will respect.
If your child does not respect you, he will not listen to you. Because of the power you wield he will simply give the appearance of respect and obedience, but in reality will go behind your back and do whatever he wants. This is the behavior you are reinforcing. Why would he do any differently?
So in a way you are like the RIAA. The RIAA is destroying any respect the public had for it by suing its own customers for large damages, much like you destroyed your son's iBook. Now even if they had a valid moral position (e.g. sharing music is stealing from artists) people are disinclined to believe it, regardless of its veracity. Music sharing will go on - just behind the RIAA's back.
You and the RIAA both need to act like adults here and build trust by acting maturely. Then maybe you both will get the respect you desire.