Slashdot Mirror
How To Frame a Printer For Copyright Infringement
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."
....it might change things. Legislators in the US and EU, for example.
Yes, but will this sort of study ever make it to trial in any shape or form that is likely to put the kibosh on the MAFIAAs strongarm tactics?
Unless the little guys can pony up the cash to get these guys as expert witnesses, the MAFIAA will simply commission their own, contradictory study in order to discredit this one.
I hope at some point (and some point SOON) we get a critical mass of people and evidence against the big industry players so that they'll stop this crap. I don't think it'll happen though--there's just too many dollars at stake for them to give up.
The other favored method these days seems to be sending out non-sensical Cease and Desist Letters claiming all sorts of things, including copyright infringement, and CRIMINAL charges because someone has a domain that you want.
Caton Commercial engages in this, and seems to find this practice acceptable.
1. Download movies 2. Pin it on RIAA's website IP address (76.74.24.143) 3. Let the cops arrest RIAA 4. Peace and Quiet 5. Profit! But seriously... if you can spoof using any IP address (Printer, Website, etc), then everyone can claim it was not them downloading anything and there is not sure way to prove it. Just food for Thought.
NO! NO! Please don't mod me, I'm too young to die a troll. *click* Oh the pain, the pain...
Yes, anyone in IT understands these issues. But the fact remains that no one in IT is being listened to when they are calling this same information proof of infringement. This study is to show that their "proof" which is being used in these same cases is as worthless as all the IT people have said it was from the beginning, and that the checks the **AA investigators are using to confirm that they are not accusing the wrong people are as worthless as well in terms of verifying/screening false positives. This study shows for a FACT that false positives are occurring and occurring ALL THE TIME.
We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
I have not read about this - has anyone heard any anecdotes on this subject?
I'm curious if the 'industry monitoring groups' have ever sent a C/D letter to a clueful sysadmin? we know that most laymen will simply cave in when they receive the 'fact' that their IP address was somehow connected to 'bad traffic'; but I wonder if anyone who knows networking ever called their bluff and really had a court case where he asked for MORE info than simply IP addrs. it would seem that if you can defend yourself in IP networking theory that they really have no firm case on you, especially if you run an 'open wireless AP' and that, itself, could create enough doubt as to who the real 'infringer' really is. they might be able to say its your network but they can't prove its YOU. it could be spyware that somehow got installed on your system. spyware does do 'strange things' as well all know and its not outside the realm of possibility that some virus is connecting to trackers while sitting inside your network. is that really your fault? should you be called 'an infringer' for that?
so I'm really curious if there are any examples of a tech-strong defendant really calling their bluff and demaning fine-grained specific evidence while at court or at some plea bargaining procedure.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Apparently since a DDOS is a legal move in this game (if you'll recall the MediaDefender fiasco recently), maybe we could use this technique and flood P2P space with false positives.
I'll bet once every single judge in the USA gets a "Cease and Desist" letter they'll eventually see that the RIAA's tactics aren't valid.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
British Nuclear Fuels Limited used to do that all the time, during lawsuits over dangerous levels of contamination in the environment.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
How difficult would it be to coordinate a spoofing system like this that is gradually directed at every used IP across the internet? If it's shown that the *entire* internet is somehow participating in acts of copyright infringement from every IP address across the board, maybe someone might actually begin questioning the current system used to identify those illegally download copyrighted material.
Think of it... the most respected and powerful people in every community simultaneously getting bogus cease and desist letters. (Lawyers, judges, politicians, etc...) I'd be inclined to think *something* just might happen after that.
8==8 Bones 8==8