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

Innocent? Filesharing?

[SpanishInquisition]

can you say those 2 words in the same sentence?

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.

What about the obvious DHCP issue?

[Shawn Parr]

When using a modem, or even Cable/DSL one is typically dynamically assigned an address. Many times these can change. It was stated in numerous articles that the RIAA found IP addresses for people, then subpoenaed ISPs for the users using those addresses.

Either due to ISP incomprehension, or RIAA non-specific requests, they most likely received a lot of information based on who was using that address after subpoena, not during copyright infringement.

Re:What about the obvious DHCP issue?

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Where is the principal in all this ?

[tmark]

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.

Even worse (or better?)

[Anonymous Coward]

Furthermore, a worm/trojan could be released that secretly installs a Gnutella client and ACTUALLY downloads some tunes. Would ignorance be an excuse, when suddenly every computer in the world is filesharing? Tell you what, if I did fileshare copyrighted material, I would put up a fight.

Re:This may have happened already

[krymsin01]

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.

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.

Even without these holes, where's the proof ?

[dewdrops]

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.

Re:mp3 music is illegal

[idiot900]

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.

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.