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."
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.
Maybe now my employer will have to take down that LaserJet IIIp and upgrade to a newer model.
What the hell does that mean?
So, will we have a variant on the Chewbacca defense?
... if the toner cartridge won't fit, you must acquit."
:-P
"Why would a printer, an inanimate object with no reproductive organs, be downloading pornography? It doesn't fit
Seriously though, it's good to see some credible research demonstrating that the methods that are used to identify file-sharers are completely arbitrary and can't be demonstrated to be valid.
It would be nice to finally have enough evidence that Judges could basically say "Well, this methodology has been dis-credited, you need actual evidence."
Now, if you excuse me, I'm going to try to devise a way to make it look like our printer has been downloading Will Farrel movies and films with Natalie Portman.
Cheers
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Time to exact my revenge on that stupid Lexmark E240 of the 5th floor.
Power corrupts. Absolute power...is even more fun.
....it might change things. Legislators in the US and EU, for example.
I don't see how what you wear while speculating is relevant.
Clippy: Looks like you're making a letter. Would you like help?
Clippy: Looks like your letter is finished. Would you like me to print it?
Clippy: Looks like you're infringing on a copyright. Would you like me to call you a lawyer?
* Throws computer out window *
This is completely ridiculous and I'm sure any judge would see a printer downloading copyrighted songs as completely silly.
So, anyone wanna help me get NetBSD on my Epson?
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.
More important, do they have to be defended by lawyers, or can the fax machine do the job?
I'm not sure, but I hear the PBX is looking to consolidate things into a Class Action.
This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Just the fax, ma'am. Just the fax.
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."
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.
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.
but where will we get a jury of their peers? the local area network?
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
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.
Networked printer needs paper, badly.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
I used to work as a sysadmin in academia and we used to get such false infringement notices on a regular basis. Here is a typical story. Some professor, let's call him Smith, puts some tar and zip files on this webpage or on his ftp site, which naturally has a URL like ftp:somehost.edu/pub/users/smith/bundle.zip
Eventually we get emails some trade association: "We are asking you in good faith to remove the material that infringes on out IP rights. The site in question is such and such and it contains a copy of a Nintendo game "Mr. Smith's Day Out"" or some other non-sense like that. I found those amusing.
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.
"You saved 1968." - Ms. Valerie Pringle to the crew of Apollo 8
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)
An interested party could figure out a judge's address. And when you've got that then you'd know who their potential local providers are. And once you know those you know the range of possible IP addresses. And once you've got that - brute force. Ping everyone. Any return ping gets a spoofed false positive. Or if you're of the 'nuke it from orbit' mindset, false positive the whole subnet.
Piece of cake. If someone were so inclined, that is. Not that I'd advocate anyone ever doing this, of course. Oh heavens, no.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
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