Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

How To Frame a Printer For Copyright Infringement

Posted by timothy on from the point-the-finger-point-it-well dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Have you ever wondered what it takes to get 'caught' for copyright infringement on the Internet? Surprisingly, actual infringement is not required. The New York Times reports that researchers from the computer science department at the University of Washington have just released a study that examines how enforcement agencies monitor P2P networks and what it takes to receive a complaint today. Without downloading or sharing a single file, their study attracted more than 400 copyright infringement complaints. Even more disturbing is their discovery that illegal P2P participation can be easily spoofed; the researchers managed to frame innocent desktop machines and even several university printers, all of which received bogus complaints."

12 of 325 comments (clear)

  1. Glad it's in a reputable media source by pwnies · · Score: 5, Insightful

    While entirely laughable, I'm glad this story is in the New York Times. Getting the Spanish Inquisition-esque ways of the these enforcement agencies out into the media is going to be one of the few ways to make it stop. Hopefully people (meaning the general public, and not just us here on /.) will soon realize just how ludicrous these methods are.

    1. Re:Glad it's in a reputable media source by liegeofmelkor · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think there is another reason to be glad that is more important than being in the media, IMHO. An NSF grant-backed publication from a large research institution will carry some weight in court.

      IP address spoofing has been invoked by the defense in previous lawsuits to attack the prosecution's investigation methods, however, this assertion has always had to be provided by an expert witness. A scholarly publication backed by the U of W and the NSF will bolster this point. It might even stick with a jury (who knows). Anyway, this will come in handy in the courtroom, I think.

  2. Too flimsy by Endo13 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    While I'm all for anything and everything that helps bring down the MAFIAA, sadly the case in this article is very weak. It only points out two things, both of which are already commonly known by almost everyone in IT.

    1. IP addresses can be spoofed.
    2. IP addresses assigned by DHCP will not always be assigned to the same MAC address.

    Then there's a lot of hand-waving and implications that there's also all kind of other likely flaws in the methods used to find out who's participating in file-sharing.

    The worst part of it though is how they throw in the whole thing of "we weren't actually downloading or sharing anything". No, they were just connecting to the tracker. And of course, everyone knows "pirates" commonly connect to torrent trackers to do nothing.

    This bothers because if anyone were to point out how weak this case is in main-stream media, it could end up doing more harm than good.

    We need some heavy ammo to shut them down, and I'm afraid this is not it.

    --
    There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
    1. Re:Too flimsy by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The worst part of it though is how they throw in the whole thing of "we weren't actually downloading or sharing anything". No, they were just connecting to the tracker. And of course, everyone knows "pirates" commonly connect to torrent trackers to do nothing.

      Well, it does two things.

      First, it shows that you can get a subpoena for not actually doing anything illegal. Presumably, connecting to a tracker isn't illegal.

      Second, it begins to dispel the myths that the content holders have perpetuated about how they actually gather their evidence and if the collection methodology is valid.

      I think actual University research which is covered by the NYT might be an awful good start. It's by no means everything that needs to happen, but starting to establish that their data collection is faulty is better than nothing.

      Cheers
      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    2. Re:Too flimsy by link-error · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The worst part of it though is how they throw in the whole thing of "we weren't actually downloading or sharing anything". No, they were just connecting to the tracker. And of course, everyone knows "pirates" commonly connect to torrent trackers to do nothing. Actually, that is the worst part.. they are sending out take-down notices/suing people that didn't download anything..
          Remember, innocent until proven guilty. They aren't even trying to actually determine this.
      --
      -Unresolved symbol? Byte me!
    3. Re:Too flimsy by Bryansix · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Maybe you missed the part where they framed the printer? The point is they just connected to a tracker but in real life what is more likely is that the guy in the dorm next to me is actually downloading the film that he didn't pay for but he pins it on me who wasn't involved in doing any copyright infringing at all. THAT IS THE POINT. Too many cases get brought up that are accusing the WRONG PERSON of doing the infringing.

    4. Re:Too flimsy by s.bots · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It only points out two things, both of which are already commonly known by almost everyone in IT. And that's why this is relevant. Because it is not common knowledge outside the IT field, and it makes an appearance in the New York Times. The article could be more in-depth, or provide more conclusive evidence I agree, but getting the facts out there to the average (NYT reading) Joe is a good first step.

      The worst part of it though is how they throw in the whole thing of "we weren't actually downloading or sharing anything". No, they were just connecting to the tracker. And of course, everyone knows "pirates" commonly connect to torrent trackers to do nothing. True, pirates don't connect to a tracker to observe, but the point being made is that an entity that was only observing (not doing anything illegal or warranting a takedown notice) is being pinned as a pirate.
  3. Re:PC LOAD MUSIC by omeomi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    whoosh!

    --
    ZuluPad, the wiki notepad on crack
  4. Re:Big surprise! by d34thm0nk3y · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If I go outside every night wearing overalls covered in blood stains, dig holes in my front yard, and bury body sized bundles wrapped in garbage bags every night for a couple of weeks, I'll probably be investigated for murder.

    You would be investigated, but if the only evidence presented at the case was the odd behavior you would be found not-guilty. The MPAA/RIAA use the odd behavior as not only the probable cause to investigate but also as the evidence to prosecute.

  5. Re:Is this safe? by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What's to prevent the RIAA from having fake "experts" volunteer to do this, only to offer easily-refuted arguments in court?

    What? Conspire to subvert the legal system, and come close to perjury? I say, bring it on and let the jail terms fly.

    Presumably, the EFF would vet their people, but I should think intentionally doing what you suggest might get you some kind of sanctions.

    Then again, your cynicism might not be completely unfounded. Which, is a depressing thought.

    Cheers
    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  6. Re:Ridiculous! by myxiplx · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is slashdot... home of geeks... think outside the box a little, then re-read the parent post.

  7. Easier Way to Frame someone by Thergrim · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A much easier way to frame someone for infringement. You will need; -the IP address of the target -a copy of what an infringement letter looks like (find them on the Internet) -software to alter or create a fake infringement letter Using the target's IP address, look up their ISP's snailmail address. Fake up your Infringement letter. Mail it to the ISP. Do this 3 to 5 times and your target will get booted from their ISP. ISP's do not check the validity of these letters.