Ask Slashdot: P2P Liability On a Shared Connection?

An anonymous reader writes "I have a roommate that insists on using BitTorrent without taking any kind of precautions. He has an affinity for downloading material that is extremely popular and high-risk. He's received a warning from a well-known media giant in the past about his file sharing, but hasn't been sued. We've recently begun living in an apartment together (with one other person) and share our Internet connection and IP address. If his p2p activity leads to someone attempting to take legal action, could I be held liable? How would our accusers differentiate between our computers if we all share the same IP address? Would they just sue the lot of us?" Some lawyers would certainly like to get a look at everything on the other side of the connection. Has anyone out there faced legal problems as a result of someone else's use of your connection?

Comments

I agree

[Anonymous Coward]

We are all guilty on their internets.

Re:I agree

[AliasMarlowe]

We are all guilty on their internets.

Thank you for that confession on behalf of all Anonymous Cowards. I'll use your confession in my own defense against every kind of accusation, should it ever become necessary:
Me: "Your honor, that AC already admitted his guilt, so there is no case for me to answer..."

Re:I agree

[Anonymous Coward]

We are all guilty on their internets.

Thank you for that confession on behalf of all Anonymous Cowards. I'll use your confession in my own defense against every kind of accusation, should it ever become necessary: Me: "Your honor, that AC already admitted his guilt, so there is no case for me to answer..."

With your hypersensitive outburst you just admitted you are the "anonymous reader" who is asking this question. Thanks. I was wondering who it was.

Throw as much mud as they can

[Mike Mentalist]

Presumably they would just try and sue whoever they can. Chuck a couple of letters out to whoever lives there and see who caves or settles first.

If you are renting would the landlord be targetted?

Re:Throw as much mud as they can

[dougmc]

If you are renting would the landlord be targetted?

If the plaintiffs thought they had a chance of prevailing ... absolutely. Similarly, if they thought it would work, they'd also sue your ISP, computer manufacturer, parents, doctor and fifth grade teacher.

(Do they have a chance? Got me.)

Re:Throw as much mud as they can

[MagusSlurpy]

Presumably they would just try and sue whoever they can. Chuck a couple of letters out to whoever lives there and see who caves or settles first.

If you are renting would the landlord be targetted?

No, because the landlord's name isn't on the cable bill. You expect the MAFIAA to research their case? It's whomever set up the account with the ISP that's fucked.

Re:Throw as much mud as they can

[shentino]

Depends on who made the agreement with the ISP.

Of course, intimidating a plaintiff into settling usually works pretty well too.

Re:Throw as much mud as they can

[wisnoskij]

I agree, from my experience in my own legal disputes and hearing about others basically when you are suing about something you sue everyone involved and let the courts and evidence shown in them decide who actually gets to foot the bill.

Re:Throw as much mud as they can

[Anonymous Coward]

If you are renting would the landlord be targetted?

Don't know if they would get targeted, but are you kidding? Landlords aren't held liable for anything. They just make risk-free money from rent.

Re:Throw as much mud as they can

[KingAlanI]

Yes, at my complex at least, the individual tenants deal with the cable co / ISP / phone company if they want such services

Re:Throw as much mud as they can

[rjch]

If you are renting would the landlord be targetted?

Don't know if they would get targeted, but are you kidding? Landlords aren't held liable for anything. They just make risk-free money from rent.

Are you kidding? Unless the landlord is operating a dump he intends to fill with people who have no other options, a landlord is taking a huge risk that a tenant may:-
* Not pay the rent. (not all landlords own the property outright and many have a fairly hefty mortgage on it)
* Cause significant damage to the property and (in the case of multiple occupancy dwellings) others that the landlord *will* be left holding the bag on if the tenants disappear ...not to mention the costs associated with maintaining a property, paying rates, insurances, agents fees and so on. IANAL, and I'm only barely a landlord (as of 2 days ago when I moved out of the house I'd been occupying for 7 years into an apartment) but being a landlord isn't the easy ride many/most think it is.

Re:Throw as much mud as they can

[Anonymous Coward]

Here in British Columbia, Canada, a big risk to renters is having some one come in and start a marijuana grow operation.

In Ontario, Canada, if you have shit tenants who don't pay you aren't allowed to kick them out in winter.

Re:Throw as much mud as they can

[Runaway1956]

If it were "risk free", then one or more corporations would have bought up all the rent building in America, and started renting them out. You have merely shown your ignorance with this post.

I have land, and a vacant building which COULD be rented out. It's not high value, but the couple hundred dollars per month would be nice. I do not rent, however. It isn't WORTH the risk!

Re:Throw as much mud as they can

[Anonymus]

Risk-free money my ass. I have a house I'm renting out that I will gladly give you for no more than just taking over the mortgage payment. The furnace has already been replaced twice this year, and the tree in the front yard has already fallen on someone's uninsured car during a bad storm, so the only thing you need to worry about now is the air conditioner and the roof that needs to be replaced.

Re:Throw as much mud as they can

[Grishnakh]

This really doesn't seem like it'd be a problem for the question asker. If he gets served by the bastards, all he has to do is rat out the roommate. As long as the roommate's computer is full of the material downloaded, and the asker's isn't, it should be pretty easy to get them to focus on the roommate.

Re:Throw as much mud as they can

[Grishnakh]

You're a complete moron. The idea that business owners have no risk is just plain stupid (unless you're talking about giant banks, but that's another issue; some guy who owns a few rental houses doesn't have enough money to pay off Congresscritters to give him a giant no-strings bail-out).

You sound like a a brain-dead liberal who hates anyone who owns a business. You seem to equate anyone who owns a business, no matter how dinky or unprofitable, with the largest corporations. Here's a clue: starting a business requires a huge amount of risk, and some amount of money, plus a whole lot of time (you don't get a business off the ground working only 40 hours a week). That's why business owners make more money: it's payoff for the risk they took, especially since the majority of businesses fail early on.

Re:Throw as much mud as they can

[Anonymous Coward]

They might have a shot, especially if they can convince the jury that they were basically an accessory to the infringement.

Honestly, I would tell him to knock it the hell off or get smart. There's to reason to risk taking one for the team.

Whose name is the account under?

[Anonymous Coward]

Make sure it is his.

Re:Whose name is the account under?

[burni2]

Right !

And make sure you have a full hard disk encryption ! -> http://www.truecrypt.org/
And make sure you have your tier1 data some where else and also encrypted (SDHC 32GB or 1,8" SSD sounds good or ?).

I prefer saving my data encrypted on a datasette .. ;)

Re:Whose name is the account under?

[dougmc]

What good would full hard disk encryption do against a copyright lawsuit? The judge would order you to decrypt the data, and you'd be obligated to oblige or be found in contempt of court and put in jail (the right to not incriminate yourself is only for criminal cases and this would be a civil case.)

Re:Whose name is the account under?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well a psychologist will tell you that we remember things better when familiar cues are present. Our memory also fails under stress.
I have no problem remembering my long and complex encryption key by heart when I'm at my desk, relaxed, and typing it casually like I always do when I turn on my computer.
If I had to give that key anywhere else but at my desk, at home, or with people around me, or under any form of threat, I would most likely have trouble remembering the key. And any psychologist will testify that yes, I am most likely telling the truth when I say my memory is failing me due to stress or due to not having my familiar cues present when I attempt to recall the key - I even know people who can't remember an 8 character password made only of letters and numbers unless they're typing it on whatever website they're used to entering it (happens to me too actually).

And I'm not saying I will lie should I be asked to give my key. I'm just using my knowledge of psychology to make a (fairly obvious) prediction about events beyond my control.

Re:Whose name is the account under?

[TheTurtlesMoves]

I have this really bad habit of forgetting my passwords.....

Re:Whose name is the account under?

[North Korea]

The judge would order you to decrypt the data, and you'd be obligated to oblige or be found in contempt of court and put in jail (the right to not incriminate yourself is only for criminal cases and this would be a civil case.)

According to what country's laws? Nowhere in the summary it says they're talking about US.

Re:Whose name is the account under?

[John Bresnahan]

Hope you enjoy being the girlfriend of the inmate with the most cigarettes!

Re:Whose name is the account under?

[Jane Q. Public]

"What good would full hard disk encryption do against a copyright lawsuit? The judge would order you to decrypt the data... "

No. The judge would not, because he has no legal power to do so. They can only do that when they ALREADY KNOW, beyond reasonable doubt, that there is illegal material in the encrypted data. They cannot force you to give up passwords or decrypt data for a mere fishing expedition or discovery.

Standard disclaimer: IANAL. But I do know something about this particular legal topic.

The only exception I am aware of so far in the US is one of a man who was going through customs while coming back into the United States. Note that customs inspections at the border are an exception to most search laws: they can do things they could not normally do to a citizen just going about his business elsewhere.

So, this man's computer was turned on but in a sleep condition. His encryption software was running, making an encrypted part of his disk accessible. When a customs agent checked the computer, he woke it up, looked at some files in the encrypted directory (which he is legally authorized to do... it was right there in the open), and found some child pornography. He showed his partner.

The man somehow gained physical control of the computer and turned it off, which of course also shut down the encryption software. When the computer was restarted, the encrypted area was not accessible without a password.

In this case -- and ONLY this case -- the judge ruled that the man had to turn over his password, because they already knew, beyond reasonable doubt, that there was illegal material in his encrypted data.

This parallels a situation in which, say, you have things in a strong, secure safe at home. Let's say, hypothetically, you are suspected of trading guns illegally with drug dealers in Mexico. The police come in with a warrant authorizing them to look for illegal guns. They find the safe and suspect that you have money, profits from your illegal gun trade, in that safe. But the safe is far too small to hold the kind of guns you are accused of dealing in.

The police do not have legal authority to force you to open that safe, nor does a judge have the legal authority to force you to give them the combination. It might, I suppose, be legal for them to guess the combination or to non-destructively open the safe some other way, but they cannot force you to give up the combination because that is a violation of the 5th Amendment, which states that you cannot be compelled to testify against yourself. And that is the difference.

You see, in the first case, the man could not be said to be incriminating himself for committing a crime... he had ALREADY been incriminated. In the second case, the man would be incriminating himself by giving up the combination to the safe... which the 5th Amendment says he cannot be compelled to do.

So, to summarize: unless they already have proof that you have illegal material in your encrypted data, even the courts cannot force you to decrypt it, or surrender your password.

Re:Whose name is the account under?

[Jane Q. Public]

I should clarify my earlier statement.

"... the right to not incriminate yourself is only for criminal cases and this would be a civil case..."

Actually, this is not true (see the Wikipedia entry on 5th Amendment).

You still have the absolute right to remain silent, and to not implicate yourself. HOWEVER, there are 2 important things to remember about this: (1) some civil cases are treated like criminal cases in regard to the 5th Amendment, and (2) in those that don't while you can still plead the 5th, it can be considered to be evidence against you.

On the other hand, presumed evidence is generally not as strong as actual physical evidence, so if you are guilty, you are probably still better off pleading the 5th.

Re:Whose name is the account under?

[rtfa-troll]

I think you are absolutely right. In a Civil case negative inferences can be drawn from the fact that you refuse to decrypt the partition. Still, it's probably a good idea in any case. a) You may have a chance to negotiate the access to data on your computer so that it protects your privacy other than for the case in court; if the data is unencrypted that will probably happen too late. b) If your computer is swept up during searching for your friend's data but you aren't included in the case then you may not have to answer about what is there.

The encryption is unlikely to help you if you are included as a defendant in a copyright case (though if you have done something else that might be "misunderstood" then you might still decide that losing such a case is better than showing what's on your hard disk) but there are many other situations where it may help.

Re:Whose name is the account under?

[darkpixel2k]

If I had to give that key anywhere else but at my desk, at home, or with people around me, or under any form of threat, I would most likely have trouble remembering the key.

Hence the 'Anonymous Coward' posting on Slashdot.

Re:Whose name is the account under?

[shentino]

Doesn't work that way.

You are NEVER obliged to self incriminate, during any trial civil or criminal. They can interpret your silence however they want, but they cannot force you to speak up. You can ALWAYS plead the 5th, and if you do so, any testimony you give can't be used against you in a criminal trial. The issue is whether what you say can be used against you criminally.

As for the hard drive, it's not a 5th amendment issue anyway because self incrimination only applies to your person, not to property.

It's a 4th amendment issue where they need to get a warrant for your hard drive by showing probable cause, after which if you fail to cough up the keys you can be held for obstruction.

Re:Whose name is the account under?

[shentino]

The standard for searches of property for criminal cases is found in the 4th amendment and is based upon probable cause.

Beyond a reasonable doubt is for conviction. Warrants have a lesser standard.

Re:Whose name is the account under?

[KingAlanI]

If I recall correctly from other Slashdot stories, UK law does think this way about encryption

Re:Whose name is the account under?

[JWSmythe]

    You do realize that it wouldn't happen like on TV, right?

    (as a side note, I am ignoring the differences between criminal and civil here. Most of it applies to both sides.)

    If they've seized your computer, there will be a subpoena compelling you to provide the correct password. It's not like you'll be held in an interrogation with a cop saying "give me the password or else [blah, blah, blah]". It'll be a long, drawn out process. You'll learn the wonderful world of the legal process. Subpoenas, depositions, countless hearings, motions, and eventually you'll actually end up in the court room to testify about stuff.

    "I'm stressed, I can't remember it" might (but probably) won't work on day one. By the time you end up in front of a judge, claiming that you can't remember the same password that you had to type every day to unlock your computer, he'll laugh at you, and then you can learn about "contempt of court".

    The only thing you should say is "I have nothing to say without my attorney present". When asked questions that are irrelevant or argumentative, your attorney will say so and advise you not to answer. All in all, the more you say is bad. Refusing to do something, like give a password, is bad. Saying "I can't remember" is bad. Asking your attorney "should I answer?" is good. You have legal counsel, because you are not an attorney. Even if you are, you are directly and emotionally involved. Your attorney doesn't really care, except he/she is paid to protect your interests.

Re:Whose name is the account under?

[Jane Q. Public]

Look up the court cases. There was another one just recently.

You cannot be forced to give up a password, or combination, or decrypt encrypted information in order for the authorities to conduct a search. Doing so would be forcing you to testify against yourself. The courts have upheld this principle again, and again, and again. There is ample precedent and the rulings have been very consistent.

Searches, in general, are covered by the 4th amendment and probable cause. But a court still cannot force someone to violate the 5th amendment, in order to allow them to conduct a search. And that is the situation I was describing.

The guy at customs was the rare case in which a judge ordered someone to give up their password. But that was not even really an exception to the rule. Because they already knew that it contained illegal material, he could not be said to be incriminating himself.

Re:Whose name is the account under?

[Jane Q. Public]

By the way: you can look up some of the court cases on the EFF website, because they have followed a number of those cases.

Re:Whose name is the account under?

[JWSmythe]

The encryption is unlikely to help you if you are included as a defendant in a copyright case (though if you have done something else that might be "misunderstood" then you might still decide that losing such a case is better than showing what's on your hard disk) but there are many other situations where it may help.

Kind of like all the remote access software, IT security audit tools, and hacker tools that one may have on his/her computer.

Them: "He has hacker tools!"

Me: [after check with my legal counsel if I should respond] "Yes, I do network security work."

Sometimes it's advantageous to STFU. They may not find out until discovery that you do work in network security, so anything that they have on you is completely worthless.

Re:Whose name is the account under?

[Jane Q. Public]

Let me try to clarify, in order to avoid confusion over my use of "beyond reasonable doubt".

The 5th Amendment proscription against forcing people to testify against themselves applies even if the authorities have probable cause to search. Because probable cause might be grounds to search, but you need more than mere probably cause to override someone's clear Constitutional right protecting them from self-incrimination.

Therefore, a more stringent standard must be applied than mere probable cause. Very strong, actual evidence, such as the testimony of those two customs agents -- not just probable cause -- is required in those cases. (And in a case like this, unlike lots of other situations, their testimony can be called strong evidence because once the archive was opened up it was trivially easy to verify whether the agents were telling the truth.)

Re:Whose name is the account under?

[mrchaotica]

How is a safe combination different than a key? You can be compelled to unlock the door to your house if the police have a search warrant, can't you?

Re:Whose name is the account under?

[Dan541]

So do I and the contents of my inbox prove it. (filled with password reset emails)

Re:Whose name is the account under?

[Dan541]

How is a safe combination different than a key? You can be compelled to unlock the door to your house if the police have a search warrant, can't you?

No, but the police can force entry if you don't.

Re:Whose name is the account under?

[Dan541]

By the time you end up in front of a judge, claiming that you can't remember the same password that you had to type every day to unlock your computer, he'll laugh at you, and then you can learn about "contempt of court".

Everyday?

I only type mine when the computer needs to be booted.
It only needs to be booted after a power failure such as being unplugged for seizure.

Re:Whose name is the account under?

[simcop2387]

IANAL, etc.

I do not believe in most states that you are required to cooperate with the police during execution of a search warrant. In fact I know in some cases they will refuse to allow you to cooperate in them in case they are looking for something they feel you could otherwise interfere with the search.

That being said however, if you do not cooperate in the execution to whatever extent might be reasonable (say unlocking the door), they would be allowed to break the door, lock, door frame, whatever it takes to execute the warrant and you may be better off cooperating in that case just because of the damage they would be allowed to perform.

Re:Whose name is the account under?

[Runaway1956]

I haven't explored TrueCrypt fully - but as I understand it, you can have multiple hidden volumes on it, right? So - you decrypt the least incriminating volume. If the judge doesn't know about the three additional volumes, he can't even try to compel you to decrypt them.

Re:Whose name is the account under?

[Eivind Eklund]

    You do realize that it wouldn't happen like on TV, right?

    (as a side note, I am ignoring the differences between criminal and civil here. Most of it applies to both sides.)

    If they've seized your computer, there will be a subpoena compelling you to provide the correct password. It's not like you'll be held in an interrogation with a cop saying "give me the password or else [blah, blah, blah]". It'll be a long, drawn out process. You'll learn the wonderful world of the legal process. Subpoenas, depositions, countless hearings, motions, and eventually you'll actually end up in the court room to testify about stuff.

    "I'm stressed, I can't remember it" might (but probably) won't work on day one. By the time you end up in front of a judge, claiming that you can't remember the same password that you had to type every day to unlock your computer, he'll laugh at you, and then you can learn about "contempt of court".

I have been in a situation where I then would have to be found in contempt of court. I had the same password for a year, typing it many times per day. After I stopped using it for a couple of months, I was unable to remember it when I went back to get data out of that computer (with the important ones being miscellaneous changes to FreeBSD that I'd not submitted yet).

If I'd been accused of having pirated something, I'd have been just as incapable of remembering the password as I was when I just tried to get open source software I'd written out of the computer.

And if anybody should need me to testify to that, I'm perfectly willing to.

Eivind.

Re:Whose name is the account under?

[Grishnakh]

If you really think that line of defense is going to work (regardless of how true it may be) when you're up against a bunch of high-paid corporate lawyers who want to make an example out of you, and who are also golf buddies with the Judge (or perhaps the Judge is good buddies with the CEO of the corporation suing you, or perhaps he got some nice gifts from them), you have another thing coming.

Re:Whose name is the account under?

[Grishnakh]

Well you're lucky you weren't being required to divulge your password then. The truthfulness of your statement that you really forgot the password is irrelevant. If the judge thinks you should know it, then you better cough it up, or else he can put you in jail indefinitely, until you do.

If you're thinking this resembles the Medieval days when the authorities "knew" that some guy had done something, and used torture to extract a confession (even if he really was innocent), and sometimes the accused even died from the torture without being convicted of the crime, confessing, or having any corroborating evidence, then you're right. Our justice system really isn't very far advanced from what it was 500 years ago when anyone the King didn't like was tortured and made to confess to all sorts of ridiculous charges.

Re:Whose name is the account under?

[Anonymous Coward]

> If they've seized your computer, there will be a subpoena compelling you to provide the correct password.

There is a simple solution to this: Do not have access or knowledge of the password. Have your attorney sole access to boot your computer via full disk encryption.

Software updates? reboots? Schedule a quarterly meeting with your solicitor and time updates for those meets.

That way you can legitimately under oath claim that you do not know the password, have the password protected by attorney client privilege and in a worst case scenario force the solicitor to be actively involved in the recovery of the password.

Re:Whose name is the account under?

[JWSmythe]

    There is attorney client privilege. Attorneys are also officers of the court. And by putting your attorney into this position, he may no longer be your attorney, he may be a witness for the prosecution.

Re:Whose name is the account under?

[RoFLKOPTr]

How is a safe combination different than a key? You can be compelled to unlock the door to your house if the police have a search warrant, can't you?

They can't force you to open the door. But they CAN force the door open.

Re:Whose name is the account under?

[RoFLKOPTr]

Doesn't work that way.

You are NEVER obliged to self incriminate, during any trial civil or criminal. They can interpret your silence however they want, but they cannot force you to speak up. You can ALWAYS plead the 5th, and if you do so, any testimony you give can't be used against you in a criminal trial. The issue is whether what you say can be used against you criminally.

As for the hard drive, it's not a 5th amendment issue anyway because self incrimination only applies to your person, not to property.

It's a 4th amendment issue where they need to get a warrant for your hard drive by showing probable cause, after which if you fail to cough up the keys you can be held for obstruction.

Partially right. They can't interpret your silence however they want. If you have the legal right to remain silent, then silence cannot be used as evidence of anything.

You cannot give a testimony and then plead the Fifth to undo it. "Pleading the Fifth" isn't even really a thing... it's simply the refusal to make a testimony that could incriminate yourself... anything you say before refusing to say anything can be used against you.

The hard drive IS a Fifth Amendment issue because to provide such access to your property would incriminate your person. Under the Fourth Amendment, law enforcement needs a warrant to search your hard drive, but you are protected by the Fifth Amendment from being forced to hand over passwords.

Re:Whose name is the account under?

[tehcyder]

I'm sure no one has ever tried that as a defece before.

Re:Whose name is the account under?

[tehcyder]

Most people don't leave their computers running 24/7, especially if they're laptops. We're talking about some blokes sharing a flat, not someone running a server centre.

Re:Whose name is the account under?

[tehcyder]

If I recall correctly from other Slashdot stories, UK law does think this way about encryption

Yes, if you are going to encrypt a disk here, you'd better have a good way of remembering or reconstructing the password. "I forgot" will get you a prison sentence.

Re:Whose name is the account under?

[tehcyder]

So, to summarize: unless they already have proof that you have illegal material in your encrypted data, even the courts cannot force you to decrypt it, or surrender your password.

Wouldn't the MAFIAA say that ISP records of copyrighted materials going to your IP address was sufficien proof that you had illegally downloaded material on your (encrupted) disk drive?

Re:Whose name is the account under?

[tehcyder]

How is a safe combination different than a key? You can be compelled to unlock the door to your house if the police have a search warrant, can't you?

They can't force you to open the door. But they CAN force the door open.

So why can't they force your safe open?

Re:Whose name is the account under?

[tehcyder]

If you have the legal right to remain silent, then silence cannot be used as evidence of anything.

If I was on a jury and someone refused to testify on their own behalf (unless it was clearly done as some sort of poliical protest), I would think it very odd and almost certainly indicative of guilt. This is a psychological, not a legal opinion..

Re:Whose name is the account under?

[tehcyder]

I haven't explored TrueCrypt fully - but as I understand it, you can have multiple hidden volumes on it, right? So - you decrypt the least incriminating volume. If the judge doesn't know about the three additional volumes, he can't even try to compel you to decrypt them.

Duh, what they do is weigh the hard drive and realise there are parts of it hidden because the amount you admit to doesn't equal the weight of the whole disk. I'd have thought the so-called "techies" on here would find this obvious.

Re:Whose name is the account under?

[RoFLKOPTr]

That's why there's a jury selection process. Also, jurors can't declare someone guilty just because they refused to talk... There would have to be substantial evidence besides that, and perhaps the refusal to talk would be the proverbial icing on the giant guilty murder cake.

Re:Whose name is the account under?

[Anonymous Coward]

So why can't they force your safe open?

They can. They can also (try) to force your encryption open. Good luck with that one; math is stronger than the strongest steel.

Re:Whose name is the account under?

[Anonymous Coward]

You and me both. Since most costumer service calls are "recorded for quality assurance and training purposes" It's quite possible that evidence of this exists in sufficient quantity.

Re:Whose name is the account under?

[slackbheep]

It seems the argument he is making would be more akin to being forced to unlock your toolbox so that authorities could double check you aren't hiding those six missing people inside.

My experience in this situation

[Anonymous Coward]

Christ, I love Greek! Women just don't seem to understand that a man can find just as much pleasure in the warm confines of a well- muscled ass as they can in the satin embrace of a well-wetted cunt. Maybe we men have conditioned them too well to ignoring one hole for the other: nonetheless, every man I've talked to about it loves Greek and every woman who I've talked to about it has been less than enthusiastic. So imagine my surprise last weekend when Kathleen treated me to the joys of anal sex in what must be the first time in five or six years.

The night started our strangely. Kathleen had just finished re- arranging her large library and was exhausted. As suits my biological clock, I was just coming awake at 10 PM when she was turning in. She invited me to bed and I politely declined: I was horny as usual and told her I'd keep her awake. After a couple of more requests from her, I stripped and crawled in beside her. Kathleen loves to snuggle and wasted no time in curling her small body up next to mine. I turned and kissed her. She was oddly responsive for her tired state, and teased me with a hint of tongue in her kisses. I reached down to feel her muff and found it just beginning to rev as her right hand slipped down her belly to her clit.

I took up what has become my customary position between her legs - kneeling and using my cock as a sex toy to tickle her lower labia and the entrance to her cunt. But this time I let my aim wander lower to the wonderful curve where ass, crotch, and leg meet. I rubbed my cock against this soft crescent and expanded the stroke to brush against the entrance to her ass. I noticed that every time that my prick touched her rosebud, her strokes on her clit quickened. It wasn't long before I was pressing the tip of my cock against her asshole.

Surprise! My cock slipped easily into her ass until the entire head was buried inside, and just as I was about to pull out and apoligize, she handed me a bottle of sex lubricant and said "What the fuck? Why not?". I pulled back and poured the lubricant on my hard cock and noticed her pussy was swollen and very wet. I worked my cock back into its previous nest. It was so easy. I could feel her ass muscles relaxing and opening for me. I eased ever so slowly deeper. Such heaven! Like a warm, wet hand gripping all around my prick - so much tighter than pussy, and delightful in an entirely different way. I could feel her hips grind against me as I worked the last of my seven-plus inches into her back door. Realizing where I was and how long it had been since I'd known this pleasure, I had to fight to pull the reigns in on my orgasm.

It seemed like forever - my slow rocking pulling my cock almost full-length out of her ass before easing it back in until my balls rested against her firm buns. Her right hand furiously massaged her clit and her left hand played at the entrance of her cunt, pressing on the full length of her labia. And all the while my cock was enveloped in a firm net of gripping muscles that wrestled to bring the cum from me. "It's so weird," she said as she searched for the grip on her own orgasm. Suddenly, it was upon her. I felt her ass open up like a mouth that was just to blow up a ballon. "Are you close?" she hissed. "No," I grunted. She was close, tho'. Too close to stop. I felt her stiffen and lurch under me. "Uuhhhh! Come on you bastard! Fill my ass!" she yelled as she dug her nails into my back. Amazing what a little dirty talk will do - from that special nowhere where good men hide their orgasms until their lovers are ready, my load bolted from my crotch to my brain and back to my flushed balls. I gripped the pillow with my teeth and jerked my neck back and forth and tried not to deafen Kathleen when my cum blasted out of my cock like water from a firehose. The rush of jism racing up my tube seemed to la

Re:My experience in this situation

[Anonymous Coward]

Since I have a little anal experience myself, I knew the sudden discomfort of having something in your ass after you've orgasmed.

Perhaps the only nugget of truth in the entire post.

Whos name is the internet account in?

[Kenja]

Since you cant share ownership of an internet account, someone has to have their name on the paper work. If its you, then its your account and you are liable but also in a position to dictate change. If its him, then its his problem.

Re:Whos name is the internet account in?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually it's not uncommon to share ownership on utilities.

My take on this is: it's fine, don't worry about it. Also, you don't need to find legal advice from a professional when you can just ask for free on the internet while making yourself look like a fool.

Re:Whos name is the internet account in?

[Jane Q. Public]

Who says "you are liable"??? IANAL, but it's pretty obvious you aren't, either.

The idea that the owner of a piece of equipment is liable for someone else's unauthorized use of it, simply won't fly. Some states have done that exclusively in the case of automobiles, but their legal authority to do even that is on pretty thin grounds.

If somebody, without my permission, uses my internet connection to do something illegitimate, there is no law making me liable or responsible for their actions.

Re:Whos name is the internet account in?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not quite that simple. Your agreement to be liable for all traffic on the account is to cover any cost that the ISP could face and to allow them to cut you off for someone else's actions. The agreement does not extend to third parties and cover that sort of liability. They could get you for aiding and abetting. Personally, I would have him sign something where he indemnifies you for any liability that is the result of his action.

Re:Whos name is the internet account in?

[Xelios]

You may be right. Do you feel like spending tens of thousands of dollars and going through 5 years of constant stress to test your assumption? In the end you might be lucky enough to have them drop their case against you, leaving nothing decided so they're free to go after the next person. Such is justice when you're up against a multi-million dollar law firm backed by media conglomerates.

Re:Whos name is the internet account in?

[dosware]

It's your car I'm driving (it's registered in your name) and I'm drunk and run over the neighbor kid and do a hit and run. Someone see's the license plate. But Woo Hoo!...I'm off the hook. Your sorry a$$ is going to the big house for life!

Re:Whos name is the internet account in?

[mellon]

I think "liable" does not mean what you think it means. It doesn't mean you did it. It means you can plausibly be blamed for it. If you are aware that your roommate is engaging in infringing activities using your Internet connection, and you don't do anything to stop it, then it is just naive to think that you won't be found liable. If you want to be protected from this, move, and do not let your "friend" bring computers to your new apartment.

Re:Whos name is the internet account in?

[Jane Q. Public]

That kind of attitude is EXACTLY what lets them get away with this intimidation and harassment bullshit.

If you don't want to stand up for your own rights, at least get the hell out of the way and let other people do it.

Re:Whos name is the internet account in?

[Billly Gates]

"Who says "you are liable"??? IANAL, but it's pretty obvious you aren't, either"

I am no lawyer, but I do remember from a few law classes that there are 2 things that determine if you are liable:

1. Duty of care. Do you have a duty to protect those who are injured, phyiscally, emotionally, or financially?
2. Foreseeable: Was it foreseeable that this action could cause it?

It is reasonable that the owner of the internet connection had a duty of care to protect others from financial harm by his connection. Since he had a letter already by the MPAA, he told his roomate to stop sharing, and to top it off he asked slashdot and now has a record on it. Therefore, it is 100% foreseeable.

So is he liable? My answer would be 100% yes.

Solution: Jave his roomate pay for the connection and switch the service in his name or if the other guy owns the place kick him out.

Re:Whos name is the internet account in?

[Jane Q. Public]

No, "liable" means you can be HELD responsible and accountable, no matter who did it. It has nothing to do with blame. Look it up.

Re:Whos name is the internet account in?

[Anonymous Coward]

If somebody, without my permission, uses my internet connection to do something illegitimate, there is no law making me liable or responsible for their actions.

Except for when there is. One such avenue is accomplice liability (another reply to this outlined another, similar theory). Examples of accomplice liability:

Someone steals your car and then robs a bank: not liable. Someone borrows your car and you know they are doing so to rob the bank: liable. You sell someone a shovel used to kill someone: not liable. You sell someone a shovel used to kill someone and charged them 500% more because he told you what it was for: liable.

Re:Whos name is the internet account in?

[Jane Q. Public]

You glaringly left out: authorized use.

If someone breaks into my house and steals a gun from me, I am not liable for their subsequent use of that gun. If they murder somebody with it, it's their problem, not mine.

Otherwise, it's blaming the victim for the crime... which is 100% against the legal principles of this country.

Re:Whos name is the internet account in?

[Jane Q. Public]

"It is reasonable that the owner of the internet connection had a duty of care to protect others from financial harm by his connection."

I think you have a pretty funny definition of "reasonable". How much difficulty should one have to go through, for example, to prevent someone from stealing your car and running over his ex-wife? If you leave the keys in the car, are you liable? How about an alarm with a combination lock? Would you count that as reasonable?

But wait... many people could not afford to have those put on their old cars, or know how to do it themselves. So is it actually reasonable?

But you are saying that somebody should be compelled to use advanced encryption technology in order to block the remote possibility that a neighbor would "borrow" the equipment, and cause the loss of A FEW PENNIES of profit to some company in a far-off state???

"Reasonable", my lily white ass.

Re:Whos name is the internet account in?

[Jane Q. Public]

And that's only THEORETICAL loss, by the way. There is no proof that there would ever have been a sale, so even that is entirely speculative.

Re:Whos name is the internet account in?

[Surt]

But you're describing a different case. He's clearly sharing the connection intentionally, which authorizes the usage. His response needs to be to cut off his roommate if the connection is in his name.

Re:Whos name is the internet account in?

[phantomfive]

Generally, if you want to 'dictate change,' you need to be willing to take on the full cost of the internet connection if the other guy refuses. Otherwise your threats are just empty words, and you look like an idiot.

That's assuming they are already splitting the internet bill. If not, then throw a password on that thing and be happy.

Re:Whos name is the internet account in?

[Jane Q. Public]

That's what I said! Some (most?) states have declared that the owner of an automobile is liable for its use, IF the actual perpetrator cannot be found.

But that applies ONLY to automobiles, and as I said before, that concept is on pretty shaky legal grounds.

Re:Whos name is the internet account in?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's pretty bold talk for someone with no dog in the fight.
 
The questioner is certainly at risk, given the shared nature of the connection. It's quite likely that members of a jury would find a reasonable assumption that he was sharing in the activity given that he was living with the active downloader, and that's enough for civil litigation. He'd have to come up with a pretty airtight presentation that none of his equipment contained any pirated material, and that he didn't use it.
 
The actual response from the poster should be to demand his roommate stop putting him at risk with his illegal activity, or to move out. If the roommate won't do either, then this guy should move out.
 
Myself, I don't associate very closely with lawbreakers.
 
If you're actually committed to your high-minded principles of freedom, then feel free to help pay the poster's future legal bills, in addition to flapping your lips (or tapping your fingertips) in righteous judgment at people who suggest a prudent course.

Re:Whos name is the internet account in?

[microbee]

Yeah? How much would YOU like to donate to the legal fees?

Re:Whos name is the internet account in?

[dosware]

Wow- I was unaware of that...and that is scary. Thanks for the heads up....no more lending the car to friends.

Re:Whos name is the internet account in?

[Billly Gates]

Well he gave permission for his roomate to use it. Therefore he is authorized.

Re:Whos name is the internet account in?

[John Bresnahan]

The idea that the owner of a piece of equipment is liable for someone else's unauthorized use of it, simply won't fly.

They are sharing the connection. By definition, that makes the other person an authorized user.

If the OP were to lock down the router, and refuse to give his roommate the password, then maybe he wouldn't have a problem. Of course, then they wouldn't be sharing the connection any more.

Re:Whos name is the internet account in?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you take insufficient precautions to secure a deadly weapon, you are most assuredly guilty of negligence, and should pay a penalty for that. Not the resulting murder, but you'd have to live with that stain on your conscience the rest of your life.
 
But you digress... the facts in THIS case of the poster living with the moronic pirate include evidence that he knew of the illegal activity (he posted it, for fuck's sake). He's either skating on thin ice, or he's already treading water; he needs to sever connections with the 'tard lawbreaker, or live with the possibilty of legal sanctions that will destroy him financially.
 
You may say we shouldn't live with this system, but I didn't see you mention anything you're doing to change it. A quixotic "fuck you" to the realities of our society is very satisfying, until you get served with the civil suit papers. But don't let that stop you from faulting people for protecting their own interests.

Re:Whos name is the internet account in?

[Anonymous Coward]

The actual response from the poster should be to demand his roommate sign a statement accepting all responsibility for any illegal downloads made using his connection, or get kicked out. Then he should kick the guy out.

TFTFY.

Re:Whos name is the internet account in?

[turbidostato]

"there is no law makingÂ*me*Âliable or responsible for their actions"

Yes, there is. Due diligence they call it

Re:Whos name is the internet account in?

[Billly Gates]

True it is theoretical.

I hate lawyers. Do not get me wrong, I think the majority do more harm than good for society. However, it is best to know how they operate so hopefully neither of us will ever have to face one in court. If you own a business or conduct business knowing these and setitng up policies can save your ass. For the example of the room mate it sounds like a definetly liability risk as theoretical as it sounds. The two conditions that I mentioned stem from a 100 year old surpreme court case. Someone was injuried and tried to sue but it was so unforseeable how it happened that they were let go. It was business law 101 and important to know if you get sued.

The letters from the MPAA were sent so they can turn to the judge and say "See it is foreseeable! Look I sent them a letter! " bla. Always protect yourself because there are evil bastards in this world who will take advantage of others.

Re:Whos name is the internet account in?

[cfulmer]

The non-infringing account owner shouldn't be liable in that situation, but is the one who's likely to be named in the lawsuit. And that's not a fun position to be in, even if you can then convince the content owner that they have the wrong person.

Re:Whos name is the internet account in?

[Billly Gates]

IN the cases above they are not foreseeable. That is the difference.

Yes you have a reasonable duty of care not to harm others with your internet connection. The ISP does not because they can not control your actions in this situation.

Do you have a duty of care to protect others from stealing your car to harm others. Yes, but since it does not satisfy #2 you are off the hook. If you lent the keys to a friend who is a known alcholic then you are deep trouble as it would satisfy #1 and #2.

Re:Whos name is the internet account in?

[Anonymous Coward]

You are giving the same definition as mellon but acting like you are contradicting him. Your issue is with the word "blame," which is basically how the layman views things. If a child drives his parents' car and wrecks it, the parents can be held liable; in essence, they are "blamed" for letting the child drive or get access to the car. This situation is analogous - if the connection is in the questioner's name and (s)he does nothing to stop copyright infringement by his/her room mate, (s)he could be held liable, essentially blamed for the room mate's misdeeds.

Re:Whos name is the internet account in?

[Jane Q. Public]

"You are giving the same definition as mellon but acting like you are contradicting him."

No, mellon was trying to contradict ME, when mellon was in fact wrong about my understanding of the word "liable". And to be honest, I am not sure mellon truly understands what it means, or he would not have used the word "blame", which is completely irrelevant to liability.

Re:Whos name is the internet account in?

[__aajgon4133]

I'm not aware of any legal theory that supports this position. Regardless of who has the contract with the ISP, the liability lies with the party that actually infringed on the copyright(s) in question. It is true that the suit would originally be filed against the account holder, since they have to start somewhere, but if they can't show the defendant was the person who actually infringed their copyright, they will not prevail. The MAFIAA have attempted to spread all sorts of FUD about account holders being responsible for the activities of all users, but it's a bunch of nonsense. They would have you believe that Starbucks is responsible for everything that happens on their open WIFI, too. How many suits have you heard of against Starbucks for this sort of thing? Zilch, right? They'll never file suit because it would only establish a solid precedent that account holders do have have liability for the actions of other users.

Keep in mind, though, the burden of proof is a preponderance of the evidence (>50%) and many judges/juries are not especially well technologically educated. Personally, I would unplug or cut his ethernet cord if he insisted on doing this crap without taking precautions, but if you're nicer than me at least make sure that your computer is completely separate from his. You may need to testify at some point that you never use his computer and he's not allowed to touch yours. I'd also at least password protect your computer (ideally encrypt that shit) so he doesn't go "borrowing" it. Your computer's hard drive should be pristine. If he does attract a lawsuit, you better believe it's going to be searched.

Re:Whos name is the internet account in?

[MagusSlurpy]

Myself, I don't associate very closely with lawbreakers.

You must be unemployed.

Re:Whos name is the internet account in?

[Jane Q. Public]

"Principles" are not necessarily related to actuality at any given time. Principles get violated all the time... that doesn't mean that they don't exist.

Re:Whos name is the internet account in?

[Jane Q. Public]

"IN the cases above they are not foreseeable."

I disagree. It is very much foreseeable that if you leave your keys in your car, it could be stolen. And courts have, in fact, ruled at times that people who left their keys in the car could have foreseen the outcome and shared liability for the consequences.

The problem here is in the word "reasonable". What is a "reasonable" duty of care?

If it isn't "reasonable" to demand that people have at least combination-lock security on their cars to prevent the remote possibility of unnecessary DEATHS, then it isn't reasonable to expect people to use advanced encryption technology to prevent the remote possibility of a few cents' loss of theoretical profit to some strange company you never even knew existed.

Re:Whos name is the internet account in?

[Jane Q. Public]

I agree. I have a tendency to discuss the generalities, but this is a specific case being discussed, and in this case this guy should tell his roommate to get his own internet connection, or stop the illicit activities, or both.

And setting policies is very good advice, for any commercial -- or even private -- shared arrangement.

Re:Whos name is the internet account in?

[Jane Q. Public]

Yes, I have already been scolded over this point. I was referring to the general case, not this specific one. Which made my comments somewhat out of context. But still applicable to many situations.

Re:Whos name is the internet account in?

[Anonymous Coward]

Generally, there is a way to deal with this in a technological fashion:

Use a smart router and block all P2P sites. Let the people whom are doing the illegal file exchanging know that the sites are blocked... but VPNs are not, and point them to a P2P friendly VPS.

Problem solved -- These days, people should be using encrypting proxies for anything and everything they don't want to be personally accountable for anyway.

Re:Whos name is the internet account in?

[Anonymous Coward]

Only sort of in Germany, apparently:

In a ruling of 12 May 2010, the First Civil Chamber of the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) decided that cease and desist action can be taken against private persons, but no claims for damages can be made against them, if their inadequately secured WLAN connections are used by unauthorised third parties to commit copyright violations on the Internet via the connection.

The claimant, the owner of the rights to a music title, had learned that this title had been offered for download on an on-line exchange service from the respondent’s Internet connection. It filed legal action to cease and desist, combined with a claim for damages and the reimbursement of the warning costs. The respondent defended himself by saying that at the time of the violation he had been away on holiday, that his computer had been in a locked office, so he had no liability.

The action was partly successful. The Federal Court of Justice clarified that the respondent was not himself a perpetrator or collaborator of a copyright violation committed by the unauthorised use of his WLAN connection, but on the basis of the legal principles of “liability as a co-liable party” he can be liable for cease-and-desist action and the reimbursement of the costs of the warning. The court stated that the owner of a WLAN connection is obliged to protect it from misuse. If this obligation is not sufficiently fulfilled, the owner of the connection is liable according to the above principles, even if the connection is misused by unauthorised third parties.

Re:Whos name is the internet account in?

[shentino]

The TOS can require you to indemnify the ISP if *they* get sued.

Re:Whos name is the internet account in?

[shentino]

I dunno, but I'd donate a lot more if loser-pays could make sure I got my money back if my beneficiary is innocent.

Re:Whos name is the internet account in?

[mattack2]

I guess you don't actually watch "The Simpsons". It has clever/sophisticated humor along with a lot of dumb humor.

Re:Whos name is the internet account in?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, responsible and accountable...to the provider (i.e. you have to pay the bills).

If you are paying the bill, you have control of the account, then you are "allowing" your roommate to use the connection.

Since posting here indicates you know that he is doing illegal activities, then you could be considered an complacent accomplice. So you could have accessorial liability for any crimes he commits using the connection.

Re:Whos name is the internet account in?

[AmiMoJo]

No. If your parter gets a speeding ticket while driving your car then they are responsible, not you. They have to pay the fine, go on the re-education course, lose their license.

Re:Whos name is the internet account in?

[Anonymous Coward]

You still don't understand what liable means, however.

Re:Whos name is the internet account in?

[Damarkus13]

If it isn't "reasonable" to demand that people have at least combination-lock security on their cars to prevent the remote possibility of unnecessary DEATHS, then it isn't reasonable to expect people to use advanced encryption technology to prevent the remote possibility of a few cents' loss of theoretical profit to some strange company you never even knew existed.

The problem with car analogies is that they so rarely equate. Enabling encryption in a wireless network is as simple as enabling a feature that is already present on both your router and your wireless devices. However, adding a combination lock to an automobile is a complicated and expensive process.

Not to mention that a keyed door lock is already fairly secure. While an unencrypted wireless access point, broadcasting it's id, is completely insecure.

Re:Whos name is the internet account in?

[Anonymous Coward]

If somebody, without my permission, uses my internet connection to do something illegitimate, there is no law making me liable or responsible for their actions.

Except for when there is. One such avenue is accomplice liability (another reply to this outlined another, similar theory). Examples of accomplice liability:

Someone steals your car and then robs a bank: not liable. Someone borrows your car and you know they are doing so to rob the bank: liable. You sell someone a shovel used to kill someone: not liable. You sell someone a shovel used to kill someone and charged them 500% more because he told you what it was for: liable.

You might be liable if you run an insecure/no_password/noWPA/no_WEP wireless access point on your Internet router and someone in the next house or open yard uses it to commit illegal acts. The facts here are pretty clear so expect to be sued.

You probably are not liable if you run only a WIRED network within your house and someone has to break into your house to use your Internet connection to commit an illegal act. The facts here are pretty clear so any lawsuit is on very weak grounds from the start.

A GREY area comes when you operate a wireless access point on your Internet router in a reasonably secure manner and someone breaks/hacks into your wireless connection so they can use your Internet connection to commit an illegal act. The facts here would/should be presented in court to be sorted out.

As for the case originally proposed here, if you share your Internet connection, then you could be held liable for criminal charges and/or civil lawsuit. The fact you are sharing it implies but does not confirm that you control the ISP account. If you DO CONTROL the ISP account, terminate the bad acting bugger's access and have him sign some policies, provided those policies don't contradict the ISP T&C for the account, before you even think about letting the bugger have access again.

As for the second IP address defense, probably weak in court. That gets into a lot of technical testimony that could lose the judge or jurors. The fact it does not prevent physical access is the issue. If that IP address can be locked down to a specific MAC address that is not controlled within the house, that is a stronger defense. If the ISP programs the IP-to-MAC table within the access device, it is a stronger defense but the defense would/could have to prove they never asked the ISP to juggle/manipulate MAC addresses at any time. That would definitely pin the bad acting to the bad acting bugger, but I doubt it clears the others int he house. Remember, "physical access"? How do the others inside the house prove they did not commit that illegal act?

Last, I like the idea of get rid of the roommate or get out yourself. Yeah it is a radical course of action but definitely distances you from the bad acting bugger, and distancing yourself from the bugger can held your own defense if you get drawn into this mess.

Re:Whos name is the internet account in?

[Sorthum]

I used to believe in loser-pays, but here's where it falls down.

Giant movie studio sues you. You're completely in the right, but perhaps due to a technicality, an idiot jury, or "the winds of fate," the decision goes against you.

Your legal fees were 5-10K or so. The movie studio points to its team of 85 lawyers all billing at $1K an hour for the last six months.

Kinda makes you long for simple student loan debt...

Re:Whos name is the internet account in?

[Anonymous Coward]

And who is "liable" is absolutely irrelevant if the person being sued is you, regardless of blame, by a corporation with billions of dollars and far better lawyers than you can afford. The law may be black and white, but the process of applying it isn't.

I'm reminded of the guy who walks out in a zebra crossing while fully aware two drag racing idiots are coming towards it from the next block. As he lies dying he says "I had right of way!"

Re:Whos name is the internet account in?

[Jane Q. Public]

Is it? Again, I disagree. In surveys, a majority of router owners had no idea how to turn on encryption. I think that is changing, but slowly.

In contrast, everybody knows how to work a combination lock on a car.

And I don't see a darned thing wrong with the car analogy. Or rather, not analogy, but comparison. Because before you can judge what is "reasonable" or not, you also have to take into account the relative damage that might be done.

A stolen car can cause injury and death. A usurped wifi connection might cost some company (IF they lose any profit at all), maybe a dollar on any given day.

Also, I used to work as a locksmith. If you think off-the shelf (or in the case of a car) factory locks are "secure", then you don't know a damned thing about locks. Most of them are ridiculously easy to either pick or circumvent.

If you want to get a keyed lock for your front door that has some kind of actual "security" to it, you will have to spend upwards of $100-$150. Far different from the $30 locks you get at the hardware store, which can be bypassed in seconds.

Re:Whos name is the internet account in?

[Jane Q. Public]

"And who is "liable" is absolutely irrelevant if the person being sued is you, regardless of blame, by a corporation with billions of dollars and far better lawyers than you can afford."

No, you are still confusing the two. The person who is "liable" is the person who ends up getting held responsible... the person who has to pay the fine, go to jail, or whatever. Being sued does not make you "liable". A judgment against you, however, does.

Re:Whos name is the internet account in?

[Jane Q. Public]

Yeah, it's true. If somebody stole a gun from you, in most cases you could not be held liable if they killed somebody with it later.

But most states how have explicit laws that say if something happens involving an automobile, and the actual driver of the car cannot be found, then the owner can be held liable.

It's a bogus legal concept, and doesn't apply in almost any other circumstances... but they made an exception for automobiles. Their theory is that otherwise, it is too difficult to catch people who commit crimes with automobiles. But the canonical legal principle in the US is that difficulty of enforcing the law is not a valid justification for passing otherwise unjustified laws.

But states did it anyway. Sigh. It figures.

Re:Whos name is the internet account in?

[JazzLad]

Not if it is a traffic camera. You get the fine, refuse to pay & it is you that they can sue (civilly)

Re:Whos name is the internet account in?

[shentino]

Perhaps, but with the incentive to file bullshit lawsuits gone, a lot of the load in the legal system would drop out.

This would free up dockets, and take pressure off of judges and juries who could then take their time and think things through before they decide on verdicts.

I think that an enhancement to "loser pays" wherein one party offers a settlement that is rejected and litigation fails to be more favorable to the rejecting party than the settlement should be spared a portion of the winner's legal bills.

And as it is, you are already at present being forced into a legal budget wrestling match where who wins depends on who has bigger lawyers. And even here, the risk of "fate in the courtroom" doesn't go away because it still plays a role in the incentives on fighting vs settling, so I consider it a moot point since it would be the same with or without loser pays.

The basic premise is that being right should be free. It should only cost you money to be wrong.

Re:Whos name is the internet account in?

[shentino]

I also ask you to weigh the risk of losing a good trial vs the cost of constantly being forced to settle just to make the money grubbing lawyers go away.

Re:Whos name is the internet account in?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you loan you car to someone who has a poor driving history, it's your judgment and responsibility no matter what the law says. Ever heard of personal responsibility? If I was sharing someone else's connection I would not abuse the privelidge. If you don't want them to torrent illegal material, then tell them, and if it continues, tell them to get their own connection. Just don't expect them to let you watch or listen to what they download 8)

Re:Whos name is the internet account in?

[Maxo-Texas]

Typically once you are aware of a hazard and take no action, you are now liable.

Whether it is a swimming pool with an unlocked gate or an internet connection you know is being abused.

The correct solution is to get your own independent internet solution and not share with the reckless neighbor.

Re:Whos name is the internet account in?

[Antisyzygy]

"Harm others", its not a well-posed problem to identify how much you "harmed" a copyright holder. Not to mention the penalties for doing so pretty much violate the 8th and 4th amendment. If 10 people downloaded a copyrighted item from you, and you obtained it illegally, you only directly caused the copyright holder damages of 11x in dollar damage, where x is the cost of the item if you purchased it. Slap on some penalties and it still shouldn't be 150,000 dollars or more. Damages are disproportionate to the crime in copyright law.

Re:Whos name is the internet account in?

[mysidia]

Since you cant share ownership of an internet account, someone has to have their name on the paper work. If its you, then its your account and you are liable but also in a position to dictate change. If its him, then its his problem. --

What if you formed a corporation and opened the account in the corporation's name? :)

Re:Whos name is the internet account in?

[tftp]

in this case this guy should tell his roommate to get his own internet connection, or stop the illicit activities, or both.

In this case the owner of the connection can't verify that the illegal activities stopped. His only recourse is to cancel the Internet sharing.

Re:Whos name is the internet account in?

[mysidia]

The non-infringing account owner shouldn't be liable in that situation, but is the one who's likely to be named in the lawsuit.

The non-infringing account owner might claim to be protected under the 512(a) DMCA safe harbour, for Transitory digital network communications, due to merely routing packets for the offender.

The 512(a) safe harbour has the great benefit that the 512(c) DMCA letter takedown provision does not apply -- that is there is no kind of DMCA letter to to force a 'service provider' or 'router operator' to block packets, disconnect a user, or provide information, if infringement is reported -- that is, ISPs can ignore DMCA letters, because the 512(a) safe harbour does not have the 512(c) DMCA letters provision like the 512(b) and 512(d) safe harbours do..

Re:Whos name is the internet account in?

[AmiMoJo]

Actually the law clearly states that on receipt of a "Notice of Intended Prosecution" (NIP) you must take reasonable steps to identify the driver at the time. If you can't for some reason then there is nothing they can do, other than try to argue otherwise in court and hope the judge sides with them. Since the burden of proof is on the accuser there is little chance of them winning.

Re:Whos name is the internet account in?

[DaveV1.0]

Who says "you are liable"???

Try reading the agreement with the internet service provider. In almost every case, the contract or terms of service say whoever is signing up for the service accepts all legal responsibility for use of the service. This absolves the carrier of legal responsibility and gives both the carrier and the police someone to blame. Whomever's name is on the account has probably legally accepted responsibility for all actions using the account.

But, in a case like this, what most-likely will happen is they will show up with a warrant for ALL the computers, hard drives, etc.; examine the contents of ALL the computers; and then file charges as appropriate. The fun part will be when they search and find a bag of pot or some pills, or if they look at one of the computers or hard drives and they find pics of the 17yo girlfriend or hookup.

Re:Whos name is the internet account in?

[Bill_the_Engineer]

The idea that the owner of a piece of equipment is liable for someone else's unauthorized use of it, simply won't fly.

The fact that the submitter admits that his roommate downloads copyrighted material, allows him to continue using the shared internet connection, and then uses "Ask Slashdot" to ask about liability pretty much means that the owner IS authorizing his roommate to use his ISP in this manner. He's just looking for a way to cover his ass when his roommate gets caught.

If the roommate uses something of yours in a manner that YOU aren't comfortable with then the roommate needs to get his own thing to use as he likes. It's bad enough he is leeching off of the copyright owners, why allow him to leech off you and leave you holding the bag? Looking at his current behavior do you really think he cares about YOUR legal liability? Do you think he will pay your legal fees to contest your liability?

Tell you roommate to pay for his own internet or fuck off. It may be cheaper for you in the end. This is regardless of the prevailing opinion about file sharing on Slashdot.

Re:Whos name is the internet account in?

[bzipitidoo]

We all have dogs in this fight. We can't hide from the risks of being accused of piracy. Even not owning a computer or lacking an Internet connection is no guarantee of safety.

If you receive a letter from your ISP about supposed piracy on your connection, change your ISP if you can. They're spying on you. Not much difference between that and being watched by a Peeping Tom neighbor.

The long term answer is to get this "illegal activity" decriminalized. The activity should not be illegal. But how are we going to get the law changed if we're too scared to fight it? I don't mean running around filing countersuits or writing letters to our representatives, though that might help too. I mean passive aggression. Everyone should keep right on downloading. We have numbers on our side. Let them continue to make idiots of themselves by accusing entire nations of piracy.

Re:Whos name is the internet account in?

[nahdude812]

If you receive a letter from your ISP about supposed piracy on your connection, change your ISP if you can. They're spying on you.

Not necessarily. If the letter is, "We got a report of XYZ activity from your IP address from the following complainant," they're just forwarding on the information as they are required to do.

Re:Whos name is the internet account in?

[WNight]

Track and pool expenses then split them by total revenue, and then by the unreasonableness of the case. The individual makes maybe $75k, the studio perhaps $7.5B so weight the costs accordingly.

Re:Whos name is the internet account in?

[bn-7bc]

Hmm, I'm uncertin about US law. but here in Norway you are required to have a gun locker to house all your weapons (and IIRC a separate locker for your ammo) , if you don't and your stolen gun gets used in a homosidfe I seem to remember a case where the gun owner got convicted of negligent homicide (soor don'tnremember all the details)) How are the rules on gun storage in the US?

Re:Whos name is the internet account in?

[niftymitch]

Does he write you a check for part of the
shared utilities (internet included)? If so
there is a paper record that you are not
the only person using the link.

Re:Whos name is the internet account in?

[osgeek]

This isn't like a drive-by misuse of the connection, though. The roommate is building up a lot of evidence that illegal filesharing was the norm with that line to the Internet.

When shit goes wrong, don't be surprised when the roommate who never wants to pay for any media brings everyone down with him by claiming that everyone knew about the way the connection was used.

Re:Whos name is the internet account in?

[tehcyder]

The long term answer is to get this "illegal activity" decriminalized. The activity should not be illegal. But how are we going to get the law changed if we're too scared to fight it? I don't mean running around filing countersuits or writing letters to our representatives, though that might help too. I mean passive aggression. Everyone should keep right on downloading. We have numbers on our side. Let them continue to make idiots of themselves by accusing entire nations of piracy.

Having numbers on your side only really matters when it comes to protesting, and then only really if enough people are prrepared to protest violently. A steady stream of people being convicted and fined for downloading isn't going to change anything.

Re:Whos name is the internet account in?

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm... how is this unauthorised use? He knows this person is using his network and he knows he is using BitTorrent on it to download copyright material. He has allowed him to continue to do so thus authorising use of the network for that purpose. In the eyes of the law he is knowingly permitting copyright infringement on his network.

Re:Whos name is the internet account in?

[frig.neutron]

Yeah! And American Idol has some genuinely talented singers!

Re:Whos name is the internet account in?

[mattack2]

It actually does. Also, I can't believe I didn't pick on the horrible grammar in the title of this subthread. ("Whose" is the correct word to start it.)

yes. they wouldnt. yes.

[Anonymous Coward]

this is not legal advice and i may be a lawyer in your state but am not your lawyer and do not represent you.
1. If they take legal action you could be sued and held liable. the burden of proof is 1% - i.e. if you are found even 1% liable you could be held liable, even if it was for a trifling amount. its preponderance of the evidence in a civil matter i.e if they show it is more than 51% likely that you were responsible for the 1% liability you are liable.
2. your accusers would ask for discovery and depending on the judge and state you would have to give up your computers for them to poke around or use a 3rd party lab to poke around for signs of infringement.
3. Yes they would likely sue everyone in the household who owned a computer.

Re:yes. they wouldnt. yes.

[Lexx Greatrex]

Riddle me this: Suppose the person in question forms a contract with her roommate equivalent in all respects to and in accordance with the contract she has with her ISP?

Re:yes. they wouldnt. yes.

[sixsixtysix]

i guess it would depend on the ISP's terms of service. i'm sure there is something in there about not "subletting" your connection, so to speak. if that were the case, a dummy subletter (anonymous, of course, that pays with a pre-paid card through paypal or somesuch) would surely make anyone non-liable. maybe we're on to something...

Re:yes. they wouldnt. yes.

[Anonymous Coward]

"this is not legal advice and i may be a lawyer in your state but am not your lawyer and do not represent you."

Spoken like a true lawyer, even one posting as AC.

Re:yes. they wouldnt. yes.

[Anonymous Coward]

this is not legal advice and i may be a lawyer in your state but am not your lawyer and do not represent you.

Thanks for that disclaimer, otherwise he would look up your AC IP address, contact your ISP and then sue you for answering an internet post. Seriously, if you're a lawyer then you can't be a very good one if you live in such a paranoid fantasy about everyone taking your advice. Calm down.

Re:yes. they wouldnt. yes.

[jamesh]

Wouldn't the fact that the owner of the account is fully aware of the goings on count for something? (with evidence of awareness posted to slashdot)

Re:yes. they wouldnt. yes.

[spartacus_prime]

As to your first point, it may depend on if the plaintiff is negligent in this case. Depending on how negligent the plaintiff is and what sort of jurisdiction you live in, you may be able to escape liability altogether.

But get a real attorney.

Re:yes. they wouldnt. yes.

[crutchy]

you're apparently not familiar with the US legal system... in which there is much to be paranoid about (whether you're a lawyer or not)

Re:yes. they wouldnt. yes.

[Anonymous Coward]

Gee, with odds such as you present, everyone will soon be in everyone else's court.. in one court a defendant and in the other a plaintiff.
That's what I like about the us constitution: it gives no human rights, allows few privileges, promises not to kill you until first the government
holds a trial, but it generates from "thin air" awesome monopolistic powers which it bestows to the benefit of commercial and corporate
ownership in the form of copyright, patents and extractions from the public commons for license.

Not only, does the constitution ""favor"" commercial interest, it demands government use its awesome powers to enforce against the humanity it governs the monopolies it creates, such that monopoly owners become his majesties: the "feudal corporate lords".

The invisible energy that powers the "commercial monopoly machine" is called "THE RULE OF LAW".

The civil rights amendment XIV, Section 1, finally recited [1868] the words on which the principle of the Declaration of Independence was
created, "life, liberty or pursuit of happiness"; but those words were not meant to trap the federal government into honoring them. The
amendment placed a duty on the states to exercise due process before alienating "human rights" The Constitution never granted
human rights : " No state ...[shall] deprive any person of "life, liberty or pursuit of happiness", without due process", is not the same as
saying the federal government will not alienate or allow others to alienate the basic human rights: life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

Does it really matter?

[Derekloffin]

Even if you assume you are 100% legally in the clear, they can still sue you, get your ISP to cut you off, and make your life generally miserable. Sadly being in the right doesn't mean someone else can't accuse you of being in the legal wrong and thus forcing you to prove otherwise.

Re:Does it really matter?

[Jane Q. Public]

Actually, and technically, that's not correct. That is harassment, attempted coercion, interference with a legal contract, and a groundless, malicious suit, which are illegal in many if not most states. (It is even possible it falls under the category of a SLAPP suit, but that might be reaching a bit.)

I'm not saying that they don't sometimes get away with it, but what they are actually doing in those situations is ILLEGAL.

Re:Does it really matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yea- and you could get killed while on the road. The chances are so tiny it isn't worth worrying about. How many convictions have actually been obtained from p2p infringement? That is what I thought. Nothing to see here. Move along. I've actually received notices from running Tor. It isn't a big deal. You are not liable. Chances of them actually getting you into a court room are so slim that I'd just write them a letter saying I committed copyright infringement and to please bring me to court. I bet they still wouldn't take action despite having admitted it in a letter.

Re:Does it really matter?

[icebraining]

Of course, they can do that even without anyone using Bittorrent.

Re:Does it really matter?

[nephorm]

Actually, and technically, that's not correct. That is harassment, attempted coercion, interference with a legal contract, and a groundless, malicious suit, which are illegal in many if not most states. (It is even possible it falls under the category of a SLAPP suit, but that might be reaching a bit.)
I'm not saying that they don't sometimes get away with it, but what they are actually doing in those situations is ILLEGAL.

If they have evidence that their products were shared illegally using a connection with your name on it, none of your breathless characterizations is accurate. Being "100% legally in the clear" does not innoculate you from being legitimately sued. It is only a determination that is made after the suit has been brought. Your argument is like saying that every criminal defendant found not-guilty was maliciously prosecuted.

Re:Does it really matter?

[SuperTechnoNerd]

Yes that's all fine. But how much money and FUD do you have to wade through to get such a judgement. The thing is, if your right or wrong, (I, we, you - the little guy) does not matter, once they got their hooks into you, your wallet will take a big hit as the drag you through the mud.. Justice costs $$$ my friend and they got alot more than you or I.

Re:Does it really matter?

[Em Adespoton]

huh?
The guy's saying that a repeat offender is using the same IP as him. As such, his ISP would most definitely be in the right to cut him off, and the authorities would be in the right to take all his electronics for investigation.

Now, if this were done without any evidence of infringement by that account, it'd be a different story....

Re:Does it really matter?

[zill]

The RIAA/MPAA racketeering is illegal in many if not most states, yet it continues to happen on a daily basis.

Tax evasion is illegal in many if not most states, yet it continues to happen on a daily basis.

What's your point?

Just because something is illegal doesn't mean it won't happen. If reality really worked that way then Earth becomes a crime-free paradise instantly.

Re:Does it really matter?

[jtownatpunk.net]

Pretty much. Doesn't matter if you're legally right or ethically right. Cut off the roommate and make him get his own internet connection. Problem solved.

Re:Does it really matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

Illegal? Samir, this is America!

Re:Does it really matter?

[Jane Q. Public]

It depends on what you mean by having "your name on it". As courts have increasingly been ruling, an IP address is not enough probable cause for either a search or a lawsuit.

Of course, if they actually have evidence that YOU did it, they may have grounds to sue. I thought it was pretty clear GP was saying they could do all those things based on mere suspicion.

Re:Does it really matter?

[Jane Q. Public]

GP was talking about a different situation. In the particular case this is all about, sure, the guy should be liable if he knows about it and lets it happen. But that's not what the post I was replying to said.

Re:Does it really matter?

[nephorm]

Maybe not "just an IP address," which is why content owners subpoena ISP records to show that the IP address was assigned to a particular person's account and modem/router. And I disagree with your reading of the GP's post. His post must be taken in context with the original question - which presupposes that infringement has occurred and is traceable to the OP's home.

I really think you should refrain from giving out legal advice. Someone is going to follow it and be ruined as a result.

Re:Does it really matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

I really think you should refrain from giving out legal advice. Someone is going to follow it and be ruined as a result.

Dude, someone is going to hire a lawyer, follow their advice and be ruined as result; either by the court imposed fees, or just having to pay their own lawyer after they 'win'.

And no matter what the outcome, the lawyer will walk away without any actionable resulting liability.

Re:Does it really matter?

[osgeek]

I'm not sure where you get your legal information from, but it doesn't jibe with my own experiences and observations. At a minimum, their computer equipment will disappear and be treated with a great deal of ungentleness. Even if the Internet doesn't get cut off, good luck using it while your computer equipment is in evidence for a year.

This kind of legal action happens all the time in all sorts of similar contexts. It's extraordinarily rare that any sort of harassment countersuit is made to stick from the deep pockets pursuing its "legal interests" a bit overzealously. Even if you can get the legal attack declared groundless or harassment, it involves the expenditure of a great deal of legal defense resources with a great deal of risk that those resources will never be recovered. Certainly, your time is gone forever.

Consider yourself lucky

[Anonymous Coward]

Just be thankful that you aren't the account holder, and you don't live in New Zealand.

With our new law the account holder is liable for all traffic on a connection, so unsecured WiFi and other people aren't defences.

I will be SO pissed if any of my flatmates torrent/get caught...

Self Defense

[Anonymous Coward]

1. I would gather proof of the piracy (screen shots, etc...) of the room mate's computer (get consent first!). That way if there is legal action, you can rest assured that you have evidence of his infringement and not your own.

2. Also ask that he sign a letter stating his use of bit torrent.

3.Make sure the internet connection is registered to all your names. Regardless of the way you have arranged the payments, make sure the ISP knows its a multi-dwelling home. They should be able to at least in the account notes or in some fashion on their end identify all of you as the "co-owners" of the connection, sharing responsibility.

4. Lastly, talk to the room mate about legitimate sources of material, or using VPN-type connection for his pirating activities.

Best of luck - Sam

Re:Self Defense

[Anonymous Coward]

Wouldn't this evidence prove that because you willingly did not try to stop the violation, particularly because your collecting the evidence shows that you knew that it was wrong, means that you're participating in a conspiracy to violate the law?

Warning!

[NunyoBidnez]

If his illegal activity draws any heat, they will seize every computer in the house while they try to figure out whodunnit. Do you have anything on your computer that could incriminate you in any way? Are you sure? If not, and you do manage to avoid federal prosecution, you still might not ever get your stuff back.

Re:Warning!

[gnasher719]

If his illegal activity draws any heat, they will seize every computer in the house while they try to figure out whodunnit. Do you have anything on your computer that could incriminate you in any way? Are you sure? If not, and you do manage to avoid federal prosecution, you still might not ever get your stuff back.

You can prevent your computers from being seized by ratting on your roommate in this situation. And since he insisted, against your wishes, to keep downloading stuff illegally, you have no obligations towards him. (Of course he can try to claim it was you, but that would get him into very serious trouble when yours and his computers are examined. In England it would be called "perverting the course of justice" and is considerably worse than the copyright infringement. )

Re:Warning!

[Billly Gates]

Not in America

Tell your roommate

[gnasher719]

that if you receive any letters from any lawyers you will answer them truthfully. So if you get accused of illegal downloads, you would truthfully reply that you didn't do it, but your roommate.

It seems your roommate insists, against your objections, to do things that are illegal, and bound to get you into expensive trouble, without taking any precautions. If the shit hits the fan, you have no obligation at all to support him in any way; your only responsibility is to get out of trouble yourself as cheaply as possible.

Re:Tell your roommate

[Anonymous Coward]

that if you receive any letters from any lawyers you will answer them truthfully. So if you get accused of illegal downloads, you would truthfully reply that you didn't do it, but your roommate.

The OP never said that he doesn't download illegal things himself, but suggested that he wouldn't do so without protection.

Re:Tell your roommate

[Anonymous Coward]

That's like not being gay because you wear a condom when your boyfriend bare backs your asshole.

Re:Tell your roommate

[RobinEggs]

And in most cases it's a damn fool who thinks he's "protected".

Do people really think blacklists and whitelists and other stupid filtering protocols are going to save them? As if the AA associations can't buy or borrow a billion IP addresses outside their corporate blocks?

Only extreme measures like a VPN through a foreign country give you *any* trustworthy protection, and never forget that absolutely nothing will *ever* protect you absolutely.

Re:Tell your roommate

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't recall what protections he use - though if it is THOSE specific measures, then it is not really enough compared to say having THAT, PLUS encryption, or some means of obfuscation.

Re:Tell your roommate

[Billly Gates]

Kicking him out would be responsible. I do assume he owns the apartment and if not then leave and get a new place.

Re:Tell your roommate

[Solandri]

Given the roommate's behavior, it's likely that should OP do as you suggest, his roommate will simply deny downloading anything. And I believe the wording on most ISP contracts makes the account owner liable for all activity on the account (with a possible exception for being hacked).

Re:Tell your roommate

[Surt]

Liable to the ISP, not 3rd parties. So if the ISP gets sued, they can in turn come after you.

Re:Tell your roommate

[Xeroxis]

sharing network is certanly not against the law so each network user is responsible for themselves, but person that sues need to prove u did it anyway (if u didnt they cant anyway)

Re:Tell your roommate

[inglorion_on_the_net]

The OP never said that he doesn't download illegal things himself, but suggested that he wouldn't do so without protection.

I.e. using his roommate's computer as a proxy.

Re:Tell your roommate

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod parent down. Volunteering information to lawyers is just as stupid as sharing this person's IP to begin with.

Re:Tell your roommate

[Anonymous Coward]

that if you receive any letters from any lawyers you will answer them truthfully. So if you get accused of illegal downloads, you would truthfully reply that you didn't do it, but your roommate.

There's no point in complying. If it comes down to your word against his, the lawyers won't believe either you or him. You're still as fucked as before, but now you also look like a fool.

Re:Tell your roommate

[Osgeld]

ya and the dog ate his homework too, about the only thing that would do is make him slightly less fucked IF he fully cooperated

Re:Tell your roommate

[osgeek]

that if you receive any letters from any lawyers you will answer them truthfully. So if you get accused of illegal downloads, you would truthfully reply that you didn't do it, but your roommate.

We're not talking about a morally upstanding individual here. The torrenting roommate will just attempt to drag the other one down with him.

I would go my separate ways from a roommate that was carelessly putting me in danger of losing all my computer equipment and paying tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees or worse in fines.

Simple...

[penguinbrat]

Put the connection in his name, the warning goes to him - the law suit goes to him...

Re:Simple...

[Ichijo]

Or make him use a VPN that's in his name.

Re:Simple...

[ColdWetDog]

Standard Legal Advice

[ And now for the standard disclaimer: Legal advice is given by an attorney duly admitted to practice law after confidentially and candidly hearing your version of the facts and applying a specialized analysis of the facts and relevant law. This, however, is a silly post on the Internet, and not legal advice. No attorney-client privilege is created with anyone as a result of this post. Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball. If legal advice is what you want, go hire a competent lawyer. Don't ask slashdot.

From Capt. Kangorooski

Re:Simple...

[Billly Gates]

Still if the injured party feels that this is beyond a civil act and is a criminal one, the MPAA can get the FBI to confiscate your computers in the name of obtaining evidence of course.

They could even seize the apartment which would scare the shit out of the landlord. For example, if you someone smoked a join in a rented home, the police take the home away agaisnt your will and sell it for their own financial gain. If you own the home and have a mortgage you are SOL. Pretty scary and I am shocked it is illegal but true. The police love seizures as it is a great way to raise money.

Massive crimes are scary and you need to take responsibility. Kick the roomate out and tell the landlord how he will be liable or leave yourself. Of course if you own the place and need a roomate for some extra cash then kick his ass out and cancel the internet subscription and use a competitor. Remember, even after he leaves you still could be hunted down.

Re:Simple...

[Anonymous Coward]

Please, for the love of god, close your "[" with a "]", my programmer mind rebels at your thoughtless syntax.

Re:Simple...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm outside of the world (you call it ye old world), do i have to give a rat's ass...?

Re:Simple...

[Billly Gates]

"Or make him use a VPN [vpnuk.net] that's in his name."

Congrats. You are not an accessor to a crime and can share in both criminal and liability charges since you helped set him up.

Re:Simple...

[Anonymous Coward]

]

HTH, HAND

Plausable deniability.

[mrquagmire]

Run a Tor exit node and open up a guest wireless connection that anyone can use.

Re:Plausable deniability.

[Anonymous Coward]

So, that it won't be a civil suit about copyright infringement, but a criminal for child porn access?
Sound plan, where can I sign up to your newsletter?

Re:Plausable deniability.

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to mention wasting bandwidth.

Re:Plausable deniability.

[Anonymous Coward]

And then their lawyer asks:

So, did you know, or have reason to know, that you were operating an open, unsecured, wireless connection? This "tor" software, did you download it yourself, and did you configure it to act as a relay?

And if you deny it, the judge, or the jury knows you're a liar.

Re:Plausable deniability.

[westlake]

Run a Tor exit node and open up a guest wireless connection that anyone can use.

"Plausible deniability" doesn't have the same meaning to the middle aged, middle class, judge or juror as it does to the eternerally adolescent P2P geek.

Often it translates simply as "Who does that jerk think he is kidding?"

I live west of a state park that closes at sunset. To the east more greenspace. If late night downloads to this IP address are time-stamped the culprit almost certainly has to be me.

Re:Plausable deniability.

[Cow Jones]

Run a Tor exit node [...]

Great advice, man. An acquaintance of mine did that: she ran an exit node, and after only a few months she had all the electronic equipment in her appartment confiscated. Including the laptop of an unrelated person who was only visiting for a few days. It took several weeks to get the boxes back, and that was only because she agreed to give up the encryption password. Another friend of mine was hired to administer two Tor exit nodes for a non-profit organization. He averaged about two complaints a week from foreign investigators and police; eventually the servers had to be shut down.

Lesson learned: if you want to stay out of trouble (see TFS), do NOT run Tor exit nodes. If you're an activist with time to spare, or a large organization, things may look different.

CJ

Re:Plausable deniability.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's just about the worst suggestion ever, because then instead of one person increasing your risk of lawsuits due to copyright infringement you have an unknown number of people putting you at risk of being accused of god-knows what.

Tell this guy to get his own connection. You will have to pay a few more dollars a month for internet access but you won't be worried about being sued or worse.

Re:Plausable deniability.

[wdsci]

That's not a universal experience, though. I've run a Tor exit node for a few years with an exit policy that only allows about a dozen commonly used ports, and I haven't gotten a single complaint. I'd be very surprised if I'm the only one with this kind of experience. So I wouldn't say "if you want to stay out of trouble, do NOT run Tor exit nodes;" I think my experience shows that you can drastically cut down on your chances of getting in trouble by putting some thought into the configuration, without shutting the node down entirely. (FWIW, I run it on a VPS, not on my own equipment) That being said, the idea of running a Tor node as an excuse to cover illegal downloading that you know the source of seems sketchy. Personally, I wouldn't do it in the OP's case. I just wanted to make the case that running a Tor node is not 100% guaranteed to bring the wrath of the *AA down on you.

Re:Plausable deniability.

[Anonymous Coward]

Enjoy your child pornography charges.

One strike...

[mmullings]

A few years ago (circa MS Flight Sim X) my unprotected wireless was used to download and share the aforementioned software through a torrent. MS contacted my ISP (Cox) and I got a letter from MS's IP dept. I had to go through quite a bit of paperwork and finally talk to someone at MS. I explained that I didn't realize my neighbors had access to my wireless (honestly didn't think it would reach). Basically I was told this was my one and only chance, don't let it happen again and secure my router.

Re:One strike...

[Jane Q. Public]

That's still nothing but intimidation. They can't legally make you secure your router! Nor can they try to hold you responsible if there is reason to believe someone else did it... unsecured router or not!

They were bullying you. Nothing more. Nothing less. And you fell for it.

Re:One strike...

[SuperTechnoNerd]

That's not actually true. READ YOUR TOS that you agreed to.

Re:One strike...

[Glendale2x]

But next time they can say "oh, this guy again" and jump straight to the part where he gets sued. Even if someone else did it it's going to take time, effort, money and lawyers to sort it out.

Re:One strike...

[Anonymous Coward]

Because TOS agreements are so reasonable and all of them are enforced by the law...

Someone says they're blaming me for what someone else did? My response: shut the fuck up.

Re:One strike...

[Travelsonic]

That TOS - ror rather, the clauses, have to be legal - the fact that it is an agreement that these terms are written into mean jack shit if they violate the law.

Re:One strike...

[Jane Q. Public]

Also, a TOS from a major cable company is a "contract of adhesion"... you can't definitively say that somebody "agreed" to it, because it was an all-or-nothing proposition, and you (one of the interested parties), never had any say about the terms. Which makes it a weak sort of contract, and in some cases judges have ruled that they are not a proper contract at all.

Re:One strike...

[Anonymous Coward]

They actually can, they will take the router and anything that was used in the act of the crime, such as the modem as well, they have every legal right to do so.

Here's what you do

[Anonymous Coward]

"Here's what you do. You tell him that you're his friend and that you're gonna help him and that everyone's gonna be all right. And then you put a wire on him and you find out who's selling him drugs and then you get that guy and you flip up, turn him into a snitch. You follow that guy to the people who's really really bad." -Michael Scott

Log NAT translations

[Anonymous Coward]

Granted it's a lot of logs - but if you put in a linux+iptables or bsd+pf box as your router, you could log every connection to file - at least text zips well. store them for 6 months, only log connections which become fully established (since if you log half-open connections you'll likely be logging orders of magnitude more). It probably wouldn't take up a huge volume of space if you compress them, and you could also probably not log outgoing connections terminating on port 80 or 443 (though undoubtedly peer clients try and use those from time to time, it'd help you shave your logs if you hedge your bets that someone looking to sue your roomate isn't using 80/443 for their endpoint).

This in addition to truthfully answering lawyers' questions should cover your ass plenty sufficiently.

Re:Log NAT Translations

[Anonymous Coward]

Given how tech-savvy judges are, would this really work ?
How do you demonstrate that the logs haven't been tampered with ?

In a recent /. discussion about fax machines, several posters pointed out that they're still used because they're considered reliable, secure tech by courts ; more so than email. Do you think a custom log on an OS they never heard of running on a piece of hardware they know nothing about is going to pass muster ?

Re:Log NAT Translations

[nzac]

If you are going to go that route you may as well try to block all egress traffic you don't need.

From my experience torrents can't automatically work of just TPC 80. Unfortuatly they still get though to http:///anounce but generally all other connections are blocked. If he is unwilling to use some form of anonymity he probably cant be bothered getting torrents working when the outbound 30000:59999 are blocked.

YMMV for blocking something other than rtorrent.

Re:Log NAT Translations

[FliesLikeABrick]

Right, blocking is a whole 'nother thing as compared to logging. In this case I don't think it'd go over so well with his roommate if he tried to block the torrent traffic, since the question was about protecting himself legally, not preventing the roommate from torrenting.

Re:Log NAT Translations

[junglebeast]

Anybody could keep a log of their downloads and then simply delete the infringing files from the log before presenting it into evidence. This does not prove or even give credence to your defense, but the fact that you kept such meticulous logs shows that you had a reasonable suspicion that you might be brought into court for something...which makes you look even more guilty than before.

Re:Log NAT Translations

[nzac]

It would encourage the roommate to use a proxy/server and make everyone happy.

If you note the above comments he can still be liable if he is found to be 1 percent responsible. Knowing that he would torrent and logging it yet still providing a connection would potentially involve himself in the copy write impingement. The logs are not rock solid proof that it was all the roommates fault.

Log NAT Translations

[FliesLikeABrick]

Granted it's a lot of logs - but if you put in a linux+iptables or bsd+pf box as your router, you could log every connection to file - at least text zips well. store them for 6 months, only log connections which become fully established (since if you log half-open connections you'll likely be logging orders of magnitude more). It probably wouldn't take up a huge volume of space if you compress them, and you could also probably not log outgoing connections terminating on port 80 or 443 (though undoubtedly peer clients try and use those from time to time, it'd help you shave your logs if you hedge your bets that someone looking to sue your roomate isn't using 80/443 for their endpoint).

This in addition to truthfully answering lawyers' questions should cover your ass plenty sufficiently.

Problem solved

[Anonymous Coward]

Snitch on your roommate and collect a reward, especially if he pirates software. BSA pays good money for this.

Get a new roommate.

[rjh]

Let's rephrase the question.

Dear Slashdot:

My roommate insists on doing things that might create expensive legal nightmares for me. I've asked him to stop, but he won't. What should I do?

The answer is, "Get a new roommate. Your current one is not respecting you, as evidenced by his disregard for your wishes and the way he's exposing you to potentially massive legal fees. You need to be able to trust your roommate, and you apparently can't trust your current one. Finding a new roommate might be hard, but it's necessary. Good luck!"

With respect to the legal question you've raised, the only answer here is "talk to a real lawyer." Trusting Slashdot to give you legal counsel is, TBH, just flat-out crazy.

Re:Get a new roommate.

[tomhudson]

Absolutely. Or cut off their physical access (wired access only, tied to mac address and port number, with the switch in a locked area, authentication required to connect so if he unplugs your cable into his machine and spoofs your address, he still can't use it.

And while you're at it, make sure you don't download anything questionable either. The time you're wasting watching that "must-watch" show/move could be used doing something more interesting.

Re:Get a new roommate.

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously. You are a prick. I wouldn't want to live with an uptight ass hole who is clearly paranoid (and really is- not just overstating here) about law enforcement. Unless this person you are living with is downloading criminal (not just infringing material) I wouldn't be one bit concerned. What are they going to get from you? If you are living with a room mate there is likely nothing for them to get.

Re:Get a new roommate.

[BitterOak]

Let's rephrase the question.

Dear Slashdot:

My roommate insists on doing things that might create expensive legal nightmares for me. I've asked him to stop, but he won't. What should I do?

The answer is, "Get a new roommate. Your current one is not respecting you, as evidenced by his disregard for your wishes and the way he's exposing you to potentially massive legal fees. You need to be able to trust your roommate, and you apparently can't trust your current one. Finding a new roommate might be hard, but it's necessary. Good luck!"

With respect to the legal question you've raised, the only answer here is "talk to a real lawyer." Trusting Slashdot to give you legal counsel is, TBH, just flat-out crazy.

Exactly. What if your roommate were running a meth lab or had a child pornography studio set up in his room? Yes, these are more serious crimes, but the principle is the same. If you are aware that your roommate is engaging in illegal activity that could get you into trouble, it would be prudent to either stop the activity or get a new roommate. You wouldn't give it a second thought if it were one of the more serious crimes listed above.

Re:Get a new roommate.

[Anonymous Coward]

What are they going to get from you? If you are living with a room mate there is likely nothing for them to get.

I'd like to introduce you to a possibility which many 15-year-olds don't think about, but exists nonetheless.

It's what happens when someone is able to take more away from you than you actually have, which really can and often does occur as the result of a lawsuit, even if you win.

It's known as "Spending the next 20 years paying off horrendous legal bills".

Enjoy!

Re:Get a new roommate.

[cheekyjohnson]

I think you're underestimating the importance of a potential loss of potential profit. We must go to any means to identify the true perpetrator (even if that means busting into someone's house and confiscating every single computer)! It's so worth it, don't you think?

Re:Get a new roommate.

[Billly Gates]

"Exactly. What if your roommate were running a meth lab or had a child pornography studio set up in his room? Yes, these are more serious crimes, but the principle is the same. If you are aware that your roommate is engaging in illegal activity that could get you into trouble, it would be prudent to either stop the activity or get a new roommate. You wouldn't give it a second thought if it were one of the more serious crimes listed above."

Worse, in the cases cited above the landlord is now in hot water too with financial damages and others. So guess who he is going to go after? YOU. The connection is in your name right? You can be sued twice over by the MPAA and the landlord to pay his damages and legal costs too.

If you setup a chid porn ring or meth lab the police can sieze the whole house away from the landlord. Pretty scary stuff for property owners.

An ultimatium is for sure and tell him these are the rules. Follow them or I will tell the landlord and request for you to leave. Choice is up to you. If both are morons then you leave.

Re:Get a new roommate.

[ThatsMyNick]

. Follow them or I will call 911 and have you sent to federal prison.

FTFY

Re:Get a new roommate.

[BitterOak]

. Follow them or I will call 911 and have you sent to federal prison.

FTFY

Firstly, 911 is for emergencies. Although I don't share the liberal views on copyright that many Slashdotters hold, I do not consider copyright violation to be an emergency.

Secondly, although you could technically spend time in federal prison for copyright violation, I don't think that would be a likely outcome for non-commercial infringement. A lawsuit by a copyright holder is much more probable.

Re:Get a new roommate.

[jamesh]

With respect to the legal question you've raised, the only answer here is "talk to a real lawyer." Trusting Slashdot to give you legal counsel is, TBH, just flat-out crazy.

This is true, but Slashdot might be a better place to go to seek advice on obnoxious flatmates...

Re:Get a new roommate.

[ThatsMyNick]

Er, I though you were talking about Child Porn and Meth labs. Why would the landlord care about copyright infringement?

Re:Get a new roommate.

[Anonymous Coward]

i believe that you can change your MAC address by using ifconfig it will only last one session however. so he could simply spoof your MAC address to gain access to your network session and it would look like you were guilty.

Re:Get a new roommate.

[tomhudson]

Only one problem with that - he would have to know your MAC address first ...

well.....

[Anonymous Coward]

Does the agreement you signed say you share any liability for any damage/problems? I'd hope not but its worth checking.
Also, see if it says anything about not reporting something you see the others do.

Other than that I'd say you're safe. In fact I'd say you have a fairly good 'you cant prove it was actually me' legal defence
if you did some p2p yourself (if you take basic precautions).

VPN

[Anonymous Coward]

Tell him that if he wants to torrent he has to use a VPN account that's in his name. You could even configure it so that the router he connects to is acting as a VPN bridge.

Two possible solutions...

[garyok]

Technical: Block the standard ports for bittorrent at your router and tell him it's your ISP doing it. Change the password to the router and say the ISP did that remotely because of new T&Cs too. If he's such a low-watt bulb that he doesn't know to download and use PeerBlock or Blocklist Manager, it'd be a stretch to think he'd be able to unravel that cunningly crafted web of deceit.

Manly: Cut him loose. He couldn't give two shits about how his behaviour affects you. You could be a pussy about it and hope you find a conveniently non-confrontational legal loophole so you never have to take any form of stand against his irresponsibility. Or you could relocate your balls and tell him to take a hike because you're not going to be liable for his douchebaggery.

Your choice.

Re:Two possible solutions...

[gront]

Not legal advice, but why not get your roomie to sign a piece of paper, an agreement between you and him that you have no knowledge of his Internet activities and he is soley responsible for them, and he is paying you because you are the account holder for billing purposes but in all other ways it is his responsibility for his access? Just imagine if he was looking a kiddie porn... Having that agreement in place ahead of time would really be a Good Thing.

Re:Two possible solutions...

[Great Big Bird]

You are making two mistaken assumptions here. 1. There are no standard ports for bittorrent anymore as evidenced by the randomize port button being checked by default in many clients. 2. You are then assuming that the roommate is technically less than competent. Presumably both are paying for it. Which indicates to me, that either have the rights to the router it is connected to. One possible solution is to see if there is a WiMAX internet provider around, and a new internet connection can be done.

Re:Two possible solutions...

[Anonymous Coward]

I would simply block all ports except for web and ssl for his computer. Sorry, but I don't put up with nonsense like that, and neither should you, especially if the connection is in your name.

If he doesn't want to put up with this, then tell him to buy his own connection.

Re:Two possible solutions...

[burni2]

No, it wouldn't be. It clearly state that you knew off a felony ( accessory ), and thus brings you in REAL legal trouble too, under any circumstances.

So that would be a bad advice.

Re:Two possible solutions...

[Anonymous Coward]

Even with the agreement, you're still in hot water. Signing an agreement won't stop the potential lawsuit. The Media Company will subpoena your ISP, and your ISP will provide the details of whoever signed up for service. Then the Media Company will sue the subscriber. If you're the subscriber, parsing out the details of some piece of paper (that you drafted) later is not a position you want to be in--particularly if you're not a lawyer.

Re:Two possible solutions...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep, that means that when the shit hits his fan, he can in turn sue his evil roomie. Can't see how that really helps a lot, unless said roomie stands still, bends over and says "do it baby". Fact is, the guy is responsible for the connection, and he is the guy who'll get sued.

Re:Two possible solutions...

[garyok]

I wasn't making an assumption regarding his competence, I inferred he's less than technically competent given the two facts stated - he's already had a nastygram and he's still doing nothing to mask his activity. As to the ports, AC below has the right idea - just block all outbound connections but web and SSL from his MAC address. Heck, block every site but iTunes to this dick.

Re:Two possible solutions...

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot the Ladylike option: Hold him in your arms. He might give a little pee about how his behavior affects you feelings.You could be a penislike about it and hope you find a conveniently non-confrontational legal loophole so you never have to take any form of stand against his irresponsibility and obvious lack of self esteem. Or you could relocate your balls and tell him to have a picnic because you would appreciate him to consider how his anal cleansing device bag is causing emotional stress for you.

Re:Two possible solutions...

[ScentCone]

an agreement between you and him that you have no knowledge of his Internet activities

Which, of course, is not true, since he clearly does. Solving the problem by lying won't solve the problem.

Having that agreement in place ahead of time would really be a Good Thing

And also won't for a moment prevent the OP from needing a lawyer if a lawsuit comes knocking. Even if he has to pay a lawyer to present that piece of paper in an attempt to fend off the demand for a settlement/trial.

Make the reckless roomate get his own damn broadband connection, and carry the consequences himself.

Re:Two possible solutions...

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, do not do this. Having a signed document saying 'I don't know about this' makes it pretty clear you do know about it. The signed paper is the evidence that you do.

Re:Two possible solutions...

[allo]

possible felony, you just let him sign it to be sure. That should be okay.

Re:Two possible solutions...

[Anonymous Coward]

You think it's manly to fuck over your friend? How about, MANLY: Stick up for your buddy, help him hide his crime (which in this case you might morally agree with[and yes I certainly hope you care more for your roommate than some far off executives]). I do agree with you that you should confront him about it if you're really paranoid about the thing.

You're on the side of caution he's on the side of likelihood, neither is wrong.

If you can't beat them, join them

[Anonymous Coward]

I suggest you start downloading as much copyrighted material as you can, to make sure that the total value of pirated material will be greater than any future fine. That way, you can still win, even if you get caught. And then blame it all on your roommate anyway.

Is it worth worrying about?

[mmcuh]

Really, is the risk of getting the attention of the copyright/lawsuit industry significantly higher than the risk of, say, him going crazy and murdering you in your sleep or you getting hit by lightning while crossing the street? How many other people are sharing those same extremely popular files as your mate, and how many of them are getting caught?

In short, is it worth worrying about at all?

Re:Is it worth worrying about?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're from the RIAA aren't you :)

Re:Is it worth worrying about?

[misexistentialist]

Starting soon ISPs will be throttling and terminating connections at the request of copyright enforcement firms. This will probably affect internet users on a scale not seen before. While a lawsuit is higher stakes, most people should begin implementing evasive procedures now.

Re:Is it worth worrying about?

[mmcuh]

And the minute that starts happening on a large scale, anonymous filesharing is finally going to take off among the larger internet populace. It will be interesting to see whether it will be Freenet, OneSwarm, one of those secret Japanese protocols, or something else.

Re:Is it worth worrying about?

[Anonymous Coward]

Please provide working URL(s) to support your claim. Otherwise you are just "fear mongering", like shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre.

Re:Don't sweat it

[Anonymous Coward]

I read anon. cowards like you are too retarded to understand an argument and actually respond to it.

Kick ass.

[westlake]

He has an affinity for downloading material that is extremely popular and high-risk.

Who owns the primary Internet account? Who holds the lease on the apartment? Who is the head of household? The responsible adult here?

If the answer to any of those questions is you, you have a problem, but you also - quite literally - hold the key to the solution. You can tell your roomate to stop and you can make it stick.

"High risk" suggests many possibilities. If your roomate is trading in hard core porn over your shared connection, a raid by the ICE or FBI is not out of the question.

You do not want to be caught up in anything like that, even as the presumptively innocent bystander.

how to stop his torrenting without any anonymizers

[Anonymous Coward]

better option , if he refuses to take any sort of precautions (peerblock is simple and easy to use) then change the password on your router and turn of upnp which will end his ability to make socket connections for torrents

Easy, tell them not to ...

[MacTO]

... and block P2P traffic.

My roommate blew up when I did that.

Then he noticed that our uselessly slow Internet connection was actually amazingly fast when it wasn't being hammered by improperly configured P2P clients.

Then peace returned.

The main gist of your problems

[UnknowingFool]

The main problem I see is that you know about the illegal activity. You could might have gotten off legally if you didn't know even if the ISP account was in your name. But that doesn't stop the *AA from suing you and you spending a lot of money to clear yourself. Remember they have sued people for years before that had no knowledge that their ISP accounts were being used to download copyrighted software. This unfortunately is losing situation for you. If you get sued by the *AA then you are at risk of getting your computer seized even if (1) the ISP account is in his name or (2) you get separate ISP accounts. Normally the *AA will go after everyone in the household, search and seize first, and ask questions later. Either he stops what he's doing or you find a new roommate.

Re:The main gist of your problems

[Bieeanda]

What? No. "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" is a truism for a reason.

The main gist of this guy's problem is that he's moved in with an asshole with no concern for his roommates.

Re:The main gist of your problems

[UnknowingFool]

"Ignorance of the law" only applies to him. He isn't doing anything; those are the actions of his roommate. If he did not know what his roommate was doing, he would have had more of defense; but since he does know, his liability is greater.

decent roommates are scarse

[Anonymous Coward]

A decent roommate can be hard to find, so are probably drawbacks to dropping the current roommate. He's probably already put a lot of thought into selection of roommate. I would put the question as: "How do I shift legal responsibility to my roommate?".

With regards to lawyers, spend a significant amount of time thinking, and asking around (guess that includes slashdot), to write down an exact set of questions, and exact answers. At the lawyer's office, talk to the lowest ranking person possible about the billing and stuff. Then, when you talk to the expensive lawyer, stick to business, fire off the exact, written questions, leave, and then write down the lawyer's reponse.

Put infringers name on ISP contract/account

[drnb]

That kind of attitude is EXACTLY what lets them get away with this intimidation and harassment bullshit. If you don't want to stand up for your own rights, at least get the hell out of the way and let other people do it.

Absolutely. Take your name off the ISP contract/account and let the copyright infringer put their name on the ISP contract/account. That is what you are advocating isn't it?

Not a Technical or Legal Question

[pz]

This is not a technical or legal question. It is a question about relationships. I'll take a stab, but, seriously, it does not belong on Slashdot. It belongs on some advice column.

As I understand it, you have a roommate who partakes in risky behavior that you have requested he stop. He does not agree to your request. It seems therefore that you need a new roommate since you do not wish to expose yourself to any potential risk and -- this is the important part -- you and he do not have sufficiently compatible lifestyles. You need a new living situation, whether that be by leaving and finding a new apartment on your own, or kicking this fellow out.

Any other discussions about relative liability or that include technological solutions, while potentially fascinating, are completely and utterly missing the point. This is not a technical or legal problem: it is a problem about relationships.

Re:Not a Technical or Legal Question

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree. I consider your post to be insightful, but am too much of a coward to give any points for it.

Re:Not a Technical or Legal Question

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you are thinking the roomate is of the same sex of the poster. Maybe you are not considering the sex^M^M^M whole picture.

Re:Not a Technical or Legal Question

[cmholm]

@pz's post is spot on. It doesn't matter if the two of them are boinking or not. Ultimately, the original post is trying to avoid hassle. What s/he may not (yet) realize is that if anyone in the apartment is party to a file sharing legal action, everyone in the unit is. So, this person needs to weigh the hassle of physically removing one or the other person from the domicile (and, potentially, a relationship) v. the hassle of participating in a legal action.

Were it me, there would have to be a significant, decade long emotional investment in the other person for me to not cut them loose, given the current scenario.

Re:Not a Technical or Legal Question

[Trubacca]

In this specific situation you are correct. This individual needs to stand up and establish boundaries and consequences. However, the deeper question is worth discussing: how screwed is a person if a housemate draws legal fire on their collective heads? Not every household is as aware of the internet habits of each computer in the house. Not every house has a decent network admin. In fact, the offending party might BE the network admin working under the assumption that their actions won't affect their housemates! The real question does lay at the crux of the legal and technical world, and just because the question is phrased in a context that implies deeper conflict doesn't mean that it is not worth discussing. I for one am glad that this question came up because I had similar questions. My situation is not the same, but I am glad that I read some of these responses in case a similar situation ever arises! In fact, the lawsuit intimidation scare-tactics is based on the ignorance of the defendants.. I don't see how more discussion on the topic isn't worthwhile. At least, that is how I see it.

Re:Not a Technical or Legal Question

[CentTW]

I've seen this position taken on the internet quite often. Basically, the argument is that if you have a relationship with someone (romantic or otherwise) and that person isn't perfect for you in some way, you should just give up on the relationship.

In the real world, no relationship is perfect. In order to manage relationships, you need to compromise, work to resolve problems, and weigh how much crap you're willing to put up with before it's not worth maintaining the relationship anymore.

If I found a roommate who was a good match in every way except for our personal opinions on piracy, there's no way I'd move out over it. I might try a technical solution that documents where which packets are going, or just buy separate internet connections, but that alone wouldn't be a deal-breaker for me.

In my current situation, I'd just buy a separate internet connection. I have the extra money for it and I'm working on a project that requires me to keep encrypted drives around. If I had less money, less privacy requirements, and more time (ie if I were in college), I'd probably try to document which computer the offending packets were going.

That is, unless the roommate in question has other major problems, then I'd consider whether this is the "last straw".

Re:Not a Technical or Legal Question

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree this not something that belongs on /. It's more like some relationship problem. Maybe Go to Dr. Phil, or (for quasi legal solution) Judge Judy.

Re:Not a Technical or Legal Question

[greatica]

Ask your roommate "YOU WOULDN'T STEAL A CAR WOULD YOU?!!!" He will then see the error of his ways and stop downloading.

Re:Not a Technical or Legal Question

[penguinbrat]

In reality I would agree with you, in the USA with these civil law suits at a federal level - no where near :-/

This is a financial situation, not justice...

Re:Not a Technical or Legal Question

[Anonymous Coward]

Adding to the parent post: it sounds like the original poster and his roommate are young men who are either in college or recently out of college. Like many periods in life, there are challenges associated with this period and a certain number of people (potentially your roommate) fail to meet them and are either slowed or stopped in their life progression. (He might not realize that he's in a 'life progression', but he is!)

The major challenge at this point is that mistakes start to matter - really matter. Get a bad grade in a college course? You can come back from that. Have a misdemeanor offense for graffiti? You were a kid.

Have $70,000 extra in debt from legal expenses and fines as a young man starting your career? That's harder to come back from. Your search for a wife is going to be damaged - Grade A women will prefer men with more money and more common sense. Your search for a job is going to be damaged - Grade A employers are going to find out about the legal action in a background check and they are going to want to hire someone who shows better judgement.

The original poster seems to be aware of this challenge and his roommate does not. The poster, however, has a different challenge that a lot of young successful people face: what to do with friends who are losers? It doesn't feel right to cut a friend you like who's a loser, but too many loser friends will pull you down.

Re:Not a Technical or Legal Question

[luk3Z]

It is not steal - it's downloading a copy. Theft, the illegal taking of another person's property without that person's freely-given consent http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steal so you can ask your roommate "YOU WOULDN'T COPY A CAR WOULD YOU?!!!" He will not then see the error of his ways and keep downloading.

Re:Not a Technical or Legal Question

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not true. It is both a relationship and technical problem. You're obliquely glancing at a wide problem in technical circles: the conflation of social with technical problems and the (implicit) technical solutions to these problems.

As IT workers know there are many workplace problems: many of them can be solved by "good" management - clear communication of policies, clear indication of consequences, the consistent and systematic application of those consequences. But since some behavior problems in a technical realm can be blocked or modified by technical means the technical administration of behavior becomes the dominant - if not exclusive - focus of corrective action. So a weak password problem becomes 'how to technically force strong passwords' instead of 'how do we get management to encourage and enforce strong passwords'.

A recent court case in the US suggested that IP addresses aren't sufficient to warrant liability. That said IANAL, etc.

There are certainly technical ways to fuck with room mate connections - iptables/pf, port blocking, etc - and there are relationship oriented ways to deal with it - communication, consequences, etc. This is a technical and legal issue, but ALSO a relationship one. The question is how it is to be dealt with.

Re:Not a Technical or Legal Question

[Anonymous Coward]

I think he's saying their lifestyles are compatible as long as there is no potential risk to him. So you really have to answer the legal question. Sorry nice try.

Re:Not a Technical or Legal Question

[RogerWilco]

This is not a technical or legal question. It is a question about relationships. I'll take a stab, but, seriously, it does not belong on Slashdot. It belongs on some advice column.

I thought Slashdot was an advice column. It certainly isn't one to ask legal advice. You might get a technical question answered here...

Re:Not a Technical or Legal Question

[hammeraxe]

True, this is about relationships, but there is a reason why this belongs on Slashdot.

The poster most likely is a nerd. Hence, his roommate is quite possibly his only friend.

Authorized in some de facto sense?

[drnb]

You glaringly left out: authorized use.

Given that the owner of the account is aware of the copyright infringement and not doing anything to stop it there probably is a legal argument that he is authorizing that conduct in some de facto sense.

Re:Authorized in some de facto sense?

[Jane Q. Public]

Yes, that's true. I was speaking of generalities but in the particular case described, the owner would have some liability because it can be said the use was authorized.

Re:Authorized in some de facto sense?

[Anonymous Coward]

So I let you borrow my car. You hold up the bank and use it as a getaway car... I go to jail? No. That's not how it works.

Re:Authorized in some de facto sense?

[Anonymous Coward]

Given that the owner of the account is aware of the copyright infringement and not doing anything to stop it there probably is a legal argument that he is authorizing that conduct in some de facto sense.

So I let you borrow my car. You hold up the bank and use it as a getaway car... I go to jail? No. That's not how it works.

Does "is aware of the copyright infringement" confuse you?

In your car analogy the owner would know the car was to be used as a getaway car, so yes, he is a part of the crime. That is how things work.

Re:Authorized in some de facto sense?

[pionzypher]

Better car analogy... If I let you borrow my car with the knowledge that you habitually hit parked cars and ran..

I don't know that I'd bet on being safe when an owner sued.

Re:Authorized in some de facto sense?

[pdabbadabba]

If you know what he's doing with it? Damn right you go to jail. You're an accessory.

Separate Internet connection

[jroysdon]

I don't know what agreements you have in place, but if the Internet connection is in your name, then I would not allow anyone else to connect that you cannot trust.

If the Internet connection is in your troublesome roommate's name, I would get your own Internet connection. This may be difficult, but most places have at least 2-3 ISP options (DSL, Cable, Clear, etc.). It's too bad you probably can't get two public IPs for your connection and each have your own router for your devices behind it.

I think paying for your own Internet (or not having your roommate chip in or having to give them a discount for their share of the Internet you are not going to share) is more than worth it.

When (not if, it will happen eventually unless the laws are changed) your roommate ends up in court and should you somehow get named, your defense will be easy. You never connected to his Internet and have your own. Produce your bills as proof, and that's the end of the story for you.

I think the advice that someone else gave about keeping logs of where the connection went is a good idea at first thought - and I'm not lawyer - but that sounds kinda shady - you kept logs to prove it wasn't you? How do you prove there wasn't any editing or that you only ever used that one IP? Just sounds like you could have audit problems proving things since you would have access to the logging system. To have it be bulletproof, you need to have some third-party setting up that system without you having access to it.

Re:Separate Internet connection

[couchslug]

Cable modems authenticate by MAC address hanging two off a coax splitter would be quite practical

Re:Separate Internet connection

[jroysdon]

True, but not sure if and how the cable company would bill two modems at the same address. Unfortunately the address is probably always tied to the account and cannot allow for two accounts at the same address. Wouldn't hurt to look into it.

stop it/get out

[Anonymous Coward]

a lot of people are taking the view that "hey it's his problem".

have you considered the possibility that when the shit hits the fan, this roommate will turn around and say it is YOU who did it? can you prove it isn't you? because i guarantee you the other side won't care - as long as they get their pound of flesh. and even if you CAN prove it, it's gonna be a lot of pain and hassle. you'd better start documenting how/what/why it is that it's NOT you who's downloading it now, because you're gonna get caught in the trawler and trawling is damn well what the other side is doing, it's not precision strikes.

Re:stop it/get out

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't matter. Copyright claims are civil matters, so preponderance of the evidence rules. In this situation, you have: your name on the account, a lot of bittorrent logs showing the infractions. Preponderance sez...YOU did it. You can present all the claims that it was your roommate, but unless he's going to stand up and take the fall (hah!), you're on the hook.

Get a second IP from your ISP for him

[linuxwebadmin]

Most service providers I've had over the years will give you a second IP address on your connection. Put a switch behind your Cable/DSL Modem and give him his own IP. If they come looking for the offender, you might be able to say that IP was for his system.

Your are liable

[Anonymous Coward]

Depending on where you are, the media company will probably go after the account holder. If that's you then it is your job to make sure the account isn't used for illegal activity. If it's him, then he's going to be hit.
HOWEVER
In some areas the media company may go after any and all adults in the place, in which case you and your room mate will end up dealing with the lawsuit. As an added bonus, since you know your roommate is doing illegal things it means you are responsible for not reporting him. In other words, you're nearly as guilty as he is, even if you don't do any file sharing yourself.

You should tell your new roomie to clean up his act and, if he doesn't, weigh the cost of moving out vs. dealing with a lawsuit.

Mod Parent Up: Most sensible idea yet

[Rinnon]

I agree with the parent completely. There are a lot of things you can do which MIGHT help you in a court of law, but I don't see anyone being certain. If you are genuinely concerned that this is going to turn into a problem (The fact he's gotten warning letters is a good sign) then get your own Internet Account, or make him get his own. Yeah, it'll cost you like 50 bucks a month or something like that, but that's not really a very large amount compared to dealing with a law suit.

Re:Mod Parent Up: Most sensible idea yet

[Anonymous Coward]

The most sensible ideas I have seen so far is 'new roommate'. If he was selling coke it wouldnt even be on here. He would going around trying to find a new roommate.

Show him how to use I2P with the Postman tracker

[bd580slashdot]

Show him how to use I2P and Postman. Slower downloads but way more secure. For those who don't know I2P is a end to end encrypted onion routing darknet. Search for the terms if you need to know more

In Denmark & Sweden you'd get busted

[MindPrison]

In Denmark & Sweden you'd get busted as this has happened before, and they've set an example in order to get people to really secure their WiFi routers in their homes.

Say, you have an open network, the old excuse...but...It wasn't me - officer, simply won't hold up in court, you're liable for anything that goes trough your router, your cable, your network.

What's even worse, is that some politicians in Denmark are these days discussing to forbid anonymous surfing.

Re:In Denmark & Sweden you'd get busted

[RobinEggs]

Funny how all nations have absurd policies on private behavior if you look hard enough. We're always hearing that Nordic countries are basically the pinnacle of human rights and an educated populace, yet when you read something like this you realize there's no true paradise.

Re:In Denmark & Sweden you'd get busted

[MindPrison]

Absolutely,

Something totally OT, but relevant to the subject of paradise & freedom, I used to live in Denmark where there is/was some kind of degree of freedom, at least when it comes to free speech, then I moved to Sweden, and guess what - certain drawn porn can get you arrested and thrown in jail for 2 years over here in Sweden.

We just had a case-example on TV, a young MANGA interpreter that converts Japanese text to Swedish, just got arrested and fined for child porn as some of the Japanese manga series cartoon magazines were interpreted as CP over here, yay for Sweden.

Re:In Denmark & Sweden you'd get busted

[Anonymous Coward]

In Denmark & Sweden you'd get busted as this has happened before, and they've set an example in order to get people to really secure their WiFi routers in their homes.

Say, you have an open network, the old excuse...but...It wasn't me - officer, simply won't hold up in court, you're liable for anything that goes trough your router, your cable, your network.

What's even worse, is that some politicians in Denmark are these days discussing to forbid anonymous surfing.

You sir, are utterly wrong. I cannot speak for the Danish, but in Sweden, you cannot get charget AT ALL for piracy, unless you're stupid as hell. An open WiFi, a ToR endpoint, a VPN-endpoint on your connection and you're in the clear.

Also, in Sweden, no ISP is gonna hang you out, no matter what the IPRED-law says. All ISPs have the requirement that they need a warrant before they give out IPs. To get a warrent in sweden, the suspected crime must yeild atleast 4 years in prison, which currently, filesharing does not. Since this is the case, the ONLY time they can get you is if you're stupid enough to pleading guilty, or too technically illeterate to defend yourself, in which case, you get what you deserve for pirating.

Stop spreading nonsene please.

law vs tos

[shentino]

You are only responsible for his activities if it's criminal liability and you somehow aided and abetted in his actions, either through lending actual assistance, covering him up, or failing to report if you have a duty to do so.

The bar for civil liability is even higher since often you don't have a duty to police your connection from misuse by others.

That said, however, the TOS from your service provider might have a joint and several liability clause that you are forced to agree to in the event that one of the users of your connection does something that gets your provider sued, and such a TOS may also permit your access to be terminated at the sole and final discretion of the provider, including but not limited to cases where a guest, authorized or otherwise, uses your connection in a way that violates the TOS.

So...you probably won't go to jail, you almost certaionly won't get sued, but you probably stand a good chance of kissing your internet goodbye.

Linux + PeerBlock

[Anonymous Coward]

put up an internet filter! create a home router that blocks connections to known RIAA & MPAA affiliates. download the hell out of everything!

Get a seedbox

[burningcpu]

The best thing your room mate can do (besides not torrenting at all) would be to get a seedbox in another country and use private trackers exclusively. This way, your IP address is never exposed to the swarm. You can download all the files from your seedbox to your house computer using encrypted FTP. You can rent a seedbox, which is just a rented virtual server that is already setup for torrenting, using prepaid credit cards and false personal information. You can get seedboxes in countries with more lax IP laws such as The Netherlands. It's still best to avoid public trackers as an extra layer of protection. I know several people that have used this route for years and they haven't had any trouble.

Re:Get a seedbox

[allo]

and you are recommending illegal things under your account name. seeding and downloading may be legal there, renting something with a false name is not.

shared Internet from landlord

[Anonymous Coward]

interesting as I keep a computer located at a friend's home who accesses Internet from shared Internet provided by his landlord. I do this because his Internet has no quotas - I can download 2 gigs or 2 terabytes and the provider does not care or track usage in any way. My home Internet has quotas and I cannot download more than 80 gigs in a month without paying extra fees. Seeing as it is not my friend's name on the agreement for the service he should not be held responsible and even if he were told that a problem exists my computer would be pulled out of the residence shortly afterward. His computer would hold no evidence of downloads and no reason exists to subpoena or seize my computer which would no longer be at the residence. He does not even know the computer exists in his apartment either so has plausible deniability. It runs Linux and also has an encrypted filesystem so even if it were discovered and seized I don't think it would be of much use.

Tell him to get a cheap proxy / VPN service

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Change the password on the router so that only you know it.

2. Tell the router to lockout the MAC address of your roomates computer, so he can't get on.

3. Tell your roomate that you'll re-enable his connection when he gets a cheap proxy account to do all his Torrenting through (thereby hiding your IP address from MPAA snoops). Relakks (Google it) is a cheap and easy to use proxy to do Torrenting through. It works well. There are other VPN services as well which are not too expensive.

Think about your friendship.

[MarkvW]

Consider this scenario. Your friend illegally downloads copyrighted material--and you have full knowledge. Your friend is sued.

You are subpoenaed.

Are you going to lie for his ass?
Are you going to tell the truth and burn your friendship?

Add a complicator: You are sued also (but you are innocent).

Ask the two questions again. Further ask yourself: How are you going to defend yourself without fucking your friend over?

Present this scenario to your friend. Maybe it will wake his selfish sorry ass up.

Re:Think about your friendship.

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you going to lie for his ass?
Are you going to tell the truth and burn your friendship?

There is a middle way. Turn him in for a reward on condition they don't tell him it was you. Everyone wins. Well, except for him obviously.

Re:Think about your friendship.

[Anonymous Coward]

I now live in an apartment on my own, but I had a roommate in my previous apartment that liked to do illegal things with P2P. I asked him multiple times to stop, but he never did. I presented a scenario to him like the one above. He adamantly believed that he would never be caught or sued. We even got a notice from our ISP once telling us they could see we were doing illegal P2P stuff and told us to stop, but he disregarded it. Luckily for both of us, our ISP didn't cut us off and neither of us ever got sued.

He was a P2P-aholic. He would become enraged and very defensive if I brought up the topic of P2P. He was in extreme denial that anything bad could ever happen to him or I, even after the notice from our ISP. Getting his P2P fix was all that mattered.

Re:Think about your friendship.

[Anonymous Coward]

The friend obviously doesn't believe there is a risk, so in consideration of this scenario, it is not likely to modify his behavior at all.

The solution is to block bittorrent. Don't do it through the web front, though, telnet or ssh into the router and configure it that way, in case the roommate is tech savvy enough to use the router's web front end, this protocol blocking will be obscured. Now Hopefully "shared internet" isn't in some kind of lease or roommate agreement papers, because then the owner of the account and router has made himself responsible to provide the internet. Otherwise, just say "hey get your own line out, I paid for this one - my internet, my rules!"

Has your roommate contributed any funds to the internet? can this be documented? i.e. a check where the amount figures in a portion of the internet? Cos then you're also screwed out of lording the router - he now can establish a divided interest in the net account, and therefore administration of it.

Having had this happen to me, I say don't wait for them to come knocking on your door. Take care of the situation now, and you will relieve your consternation and your roommate will get over it.

auto tor

[Anonymous Coward]

if your going to go to all that trouble you might as well set it up so it will route anything not terminating at well known ports (https, ftp, ssh, etc) through tor..

Get multiple IP addresses

[ThreePhones]

In many cases, it's there is only one physical line to a location, so having all users get their own service isn't an option. Cellular isn't a good alternative due to high costs and data caps. An ISP is a shared utility for everyone living under the same roof. Perhaps the answer is to pay extra for multiple static IP addresses so that all the roommate's usage is logged to his own IP address, but I don't know if that will save you in court.

who owns the connection?

[nurb432]

They are first in line to be sued.

Also, the actions of your roommate could bring down the man on ALL of you, and you get all your stuff confiscated and have to defend yourself in court.

Not much different if he had drugs mailed to the house, you are all in trouble when the postal service finds out..

Prepare to Respond Aggressively

[Anonymous Coward]

To respond aggressively to whoever might take a "shot in the dark" at your whole household for an independent member's action.
1. Provide a signed paper communication to all roomates declaring yourself not responsible for actions by them (this kind of declaration should be part of any roomate agrement).
2. Make a back-up of your own computer(s) hard-drive(s).
3. Set your computer up to doDiff backups (only what is chaged) daily.
4. If you know a roomate sometimes does, or may, engage in risky behavior, provide a signed paper letter to that roomate stating simply that you are "have reason to believe" and you disapprove the behavior you "have reason to believe" he or she may be engaging in ("have reason to believe" escapes you from being made a witness, because you "don't know for sure", so your testimony would be hearsay).
5. If you receive an accusatory letter, respond on paper, signing and sending certified, that you, yourself, are not engaging in any illegal activity, and that if any actions are taken that incovenience you, interrupt your life and activities you will expect compensation, and if they hurt, harm or damage you, you will take legal action to recover damages, including punitive damages, if warranted. Note: NEVER VOLUNTEER ANY INFORMATION. Do not rat on your roomate, suggest suspicions or write, or say anything except "I did not do anything illegal".
6. If your apartment is raided, FIRST, before anything else, inform those raiding that you are innocent of any wrongdoing and that you WILL be taking action for any wrongdoing on their parts. A good idea is to print up paper copies of a generic statement to this effect, that you keep on hand, on a shelf, in a drawer, to pull out, sign in copies and demand they sign witnessing their receipts of copies. Best is to set up an older computer and cam, that you do not use, for a 'Security System', on a shelf set up to, when turned on, record and video what is occuring in the room. Turn this system on and to export its raw data to somewhere else, on the web or through the web.
7. If ANY declaration of intent to seize is made, or any seizure action is begun, DEMAND ALL ACTIVITY STOP UNTIL LAWYERS FOR YOURSELF AND YOUR ROOMATES ARE PRESENT. If lawyers can't be present, obtain other representative (recruited to observe officially, not just as friends) witnesses. Have these witnesses write notes of proceedings on paper as the raid goes forward. If the raiders refuse, call police to restrain them (they will be engaged in civil procedure, for a civil matter, and are not excused from criminal liability: They do not have right to infringe your Constitutional and common law rights, including seizure of effects [even if they are police, e.g., sheriffs, engaged to serve in a civil matter]).
8. If seizure is to be undertaken, DEMAND and SUPERVISE a COMPLETE inventory of EVERYTHING seized, including everything in every folder, envelope, box etc., and EVERYTHING in EVERY computer storage device, partition, folder, file, program, etc. Take your time and require printed printouts of the inventory. Order (you have the authority) all of this done in your and your representatives' presence, and all copies to be signed and initialled by all present at the inventory making. In the process of inventorying computer drive contents look for folders and files you do not recognize, and where you find any state and note in writing that you do not recognize the folder or file. If any of these reasonable and legitimate demands is refused, demand a paper written statement of the refusal, with the refusers' signature.
9. Be pleasant, don't be hurried, attend to details, enjoy yourself, recognize, and communicate, that you don't mind helping because you intend to receive compensation for any extensive interruption of your life, with additional for damages, should you be damaged, and further additional for punitive purpose if they engage in any illegal actions.
10. Advise they leave your working files and your computer so you can work on, or copies of those

strip it right back to basics

[gsslay]

The responses to this are a whole lot of hot air and legal advice from non-lawyers. The issue is far, far simpler if we just strip it right back to basics.

Q/ My roommate pulls shit is going to cause both of us hassle someday. I've asked him to stop, but he's a being a dick about it. What should I do?
A/ Get a new roommate.

Depends on what country you live in

[Anonymous Coward]

If you live in the United States, you are probably screwed. The US system requires deep pockets to buy any form of 'justice'. The judicial system there seems to have pretty much been hijacked by monetary interests. I suggest keeping logs from a decent router. Any democratic country with a sensible judicial system will likely have judges that are competent enough to realise that _evidence_ that points to a specific individual is required, and not just the testimony of a paid 'expert', and the 'say so' of some slimy record/movie company turds. The problem may be that you could end up having to pay legal fees to defend a case against a criminal mafia of record or movie company interests, who are quite happy to criminally extort money from an innocent individual. Personally, if I were sued by these individuals, I would be furious enough to pursue legal action against the scum that sued me to recover my costs, regardless of the ultimate outcome. I would make a _very_ public example of them.
If prices for movies/music, and copyright terms were reasonable, 'piracy' wouldn't exist at all. Personally, I don't really care for commercially produced music/movies, but woe betide any lying scum media company that ever decides to confront me. I will rain down on you with a rage and fury that you will definitely live to regret, and I will persist until you are either destroyed, or you make a very public, and very expensive settlement in my favour.

You knew about it already: you're an accomplice

[Anonymous Coward]

IF he get sued, you're still an accomplice. You knew he was doing something ilegal with your connection, and let him keep on doing it. There's still lots of legal responsability there. You have no deniability, since you've posted you knew about what he was doing on slashdot :)

really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Come on. Nobody ACTUALLY gets sued for this stuff. No more than you will get sued by your neighbor for loud music or whatever.

The chances of it actually happening are next to nil.

I've been using the internet and downloading all sorts of shit for 15 years at least. So has everybody I know. Nobody has ever so much as received a letter, let alone a law suit. I've never heard of anybody even remotely connected to me having any sort of trouble, EVER.

Quit being a baby. If it worries you so much, have him get his own internet. Problem solved. Or block bittorrent. Whatever. Just quit whining about your crazy out of control roomie.

Its like worrying you will go to prison for him smoking weed. Give me a break. Fucking goodie two shoe nerds.

You are 10 times more likely to have legal troubles for people drinking at your home. And even then, not likely.

save yourself

[Anonymous Coward]

if your mate is caught and you knew he was doing it, then you are as guilty as he is for not doing anything about it; its called being an accessory. if he downloads something illegally and tells you (or you find out some other way) and you don't do anything about it, you are an accessory after the fact/illegal activity. the penalty may not be as high as for the actual purpetrator, but you don't want to be held as an accessory either i guess.

answer: grow up and take some responsibility

Proof

[w0mprat]

Have detailed firewall logs showing who's downloading what.

Get out.

[Anonymous Coward]

Here is the sad truth:

It costs a gazillion dollars to defend yourself in one of these lawsuits.

It costs a gazillion dollars if you lose.

You're probably going to end up paying everything you own to either your lawyers or the MAFIAA or both and declaring bankruptcy.

Pretty much the only way to keep that from happening is to move out and find another roommate. Yes, breaking the lease might be expensive. But probably not as expensive as losing a suit.

Then again, if you're just starting out and you don't have many assets and you don't mind declaring bankruptcy and having to pay cash, not credit, for the next 10 years or so, and you wanna make a political statement...stick around. Who knows, the EFF might decide to take your case.

Accomplice?

[Anonymous Coward]

So -

let me get this straight:
- your friend and roommate is actively committing crimes
- you know about it
- you have not reported it
- you are also facillitating said crime by paying bills by his base of operations

why *wouldn't* you also be liable?

substitute 'pirating movies' with 'running a brothel', 'selling cocaine', 'blackmailing people'
and see how the scenario sounds - and then ask yourself what is different?

you will

[renegade600]

since you are roommates, your computer will most likely get searched too to make sure none of the downloads were ever on your computer. So if he downloaded and you watched from your computer, then you are in trouble too.

Inconsiderate roommate

[Tacoboy]

Your roommate is just going to get you in trouble, maybe you should move, get away from him. Ask him to move. My guess is you will be the one held responsible for what he is doing. Better just to disconnect him from your Internet service. Call up your ISP, tell them to send a warning letter addressed to your roommate about illegal downloads.

The Real Shit

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't really read too much of the comments, but as I work for a large ISP I think I can offer some insight.

We've recently begun living in an apartment together (with one other person) and share our Internet connection and IP address. If his p2p activity leads to someone attempting to take legal action, could I be held liable? How would our accusers differentiate between our computers if we all share the same IP address?

Short answer- if it's your name on the paperwork, it's your ass on the line. You might be able to reduce it to a major PITA if you prove it was him doing it, but that won't avoid searches, seizures, court time and attorneys. And bad blood with the douche you're living with.

Long asnwer-
OK So first of all you signed this thing called a "Subscriber Agreement" or maybe just a "Terms of Service" etc. Whatever. It's a somewhat legally binding document which probably says that whoever signed for it bears all liability for securing the connection and ensuring no illegal activity goes over it. IANAL but that's the usual gist of what all that legal crap really says.

So.... What happens is they see an IP on a swarm, and do a whois lookup, and see our name as the owner of that IP space. So they send us a notice, with date, time, file, copyrighted work, etc. On very rare occasions they might have more identifying info such as a MAC address, possibly user names, etc. but we rarely see it even if they have it... and we don't really care.
What we do is pull up our DHCP logs, and see which customer account was holding that lease at that time. Then we send them a letter saying "Yo, bitches got pwned. Stop that shit, Dawg, or at least get some game."

Now, if you're sitting behind a router, then all we see is one IP and the router holds it... but we don't care what gear has the IP on your side. It's something of yours, and beyond that is a matter for courts, cops, lawyers, and other vermin of their ilk.
Hook up a switch, put your gear off one port and his off another. This way you'll each have different IP's, and that might provide a very small level of proof to help you out in court. It won't help the rest of the PITA, however.

The best thing you can do is convince him to put the connection in his name, or find a new roomy.

Advantages / Disadvantages

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, I'm no expert on legal issues regarding p2p \ file sharing, but having been an internet junkie for 16+ years, I think I could quite comfortably say that the chances of getting wrangled up in a legal battle through your room mates downloading activities using ANY file sharing application is highly unlikely.
Basically, as it's been pointed out in other posts, and has also made headlines in the file sharing community quite recently is that it seems that there is too many complications to get past (legal barriers) for those looking to prosecute individuals purely by providing the accused individuals IP Address and download activity logs as evidence in court. My thinking on the main reason for this, is that most people who are tech savvy, will use VPN's or IP Spoofing software that hides the real IP addresses of those that wish to hide their tracks in instances such as downloading appz, music, movies etc.

That in itself is somewhat of a security blanket for you, if this is how your Room Mate has set themselves up with.

Then you have the fact that there are 3 individuals using 1 PC, so even if this PC does not use IP Spoofing Software or VPN's to cover their tracks whilst downloading \ sharing files illegally, the courts will have to determine which 2 of the 3 users, are not liable to be prosecuted when faced with your argument in which you would deny any involvement in illegally downloading material.

Also, I presume that if there are 3 of you using the same PC, you will at least have your own personal user account to log into on the Windows Welcome Screen. If this is the case, then it would probably be in your best interests to use the Administrator account and make restrictions to the user accounts that you do not wish to be associated with anything related to the downloading activities of your room mate.
Things to restrict would be things such as disallowing content downloaded by your room mate to show up in your user accounts, and this would also mean that any cracked software that is installed by your room mate, does not actually get installed to your user account.

That may all seem a bit extreme, but if your genuinely concerned or paranoid about the possibility of being dragged into it all if ever it does come to it, then at least you can provide the courts with the measures you put in place to disassociate yourself with any type of illegal file sharing \ downloading activity.

Finally, if your not looking to point fingers if all of you get called into court, you don't really have to say anything apart from defend yourselves. The chances are, if they cannot identify the sole culprit out of the 3 of you, then they will either chuck the case out of court, or possibly decide in opting to fine the individual who signed up with the ISP for the Internet Connection, which is the person who's name appears on your monthly internet bill. However, the latter probably would not happen either as the bill payer would just need to play stupid, and deny having any knowledge of what the internet connection was being used for.

Like I say, I'm no Legal Expert on the subject, so there may be something I mentioned that may not be totally correct, but a lot also depends on which country and or state you live in, as laws on this matter differ from country to country.

VPN

[m1ndcrash]

or you could chip in for a VPN service...

My advice (not legal)

[drolli]

make sure you computer is 100% clean, no cracked soft etc.

You ARE guilty

[SoftwareArtist]

IANAL, but really, this is one of those basic principles of law: if you know someone is committing a crime, and you don't report them, then you are guilty. Maybe not of precisely the same crime they are committing (it depends where you live, what they're doing, etc.), but you are almost certainly guilty of something.

My advice: get out of there. You really don't want to be connected to this person.

Re:You ARE guilty

[Anonymous Coward]

For crimes, what you say is true. For torts, it's not so clear-cut.

And, despire certain infamous car-theft analogies, casual file-sharing is rarely criminal -- basically only knowingly distributing prerelease rips.

slashdot subject to discovery?

[Anonymous Coward]

Since possible defendent admits possible link to illegal activity?

Same Situation Kinda

[Anonymous Coward]

I have 9 room mates and the internet connection is under my name. I have closed all p2p ports and firewalled as much as I can but you CANNOT block torrents/p2p completely. I have made it a rule that I will block the MAC address of any computers that the router shows trying to make torrent connections. I am sure that the people throwing out lawsuits for copyright violation don't give a F*** who they are suing. They will get your name, they don't care if your cat download the MP3's. I have still gotten about 7 copyright warning letters in 4 years, none were serious enough to actually cause a lawsuit.

Block P2P, or risk fines / jail.

[sammcj]

Hello from New Zealand. As of a recent law change here, the account holder is the person fully responsable for all traffic on the connection. My girlfriend's name is on the telco accout here and she would be fined a substantial amount of money and risk going to jail (eventually) if I or any of the other flatmates were to download from P2P. I run a pfsense firewall / router and have blocked all P2P traffic, we all use downloadnow (multi access to rapidshare, hotfile, megashares etc...) which you cannot be fined for using and is much harder to track you unless you are already been monitored. This may not be the case elseware, but I'd say it's not worth the risk.

Your "friend" needs to learn to hide is tracks

[Nyder]

Okay, first off your "friend" (note, we know it's not a friend, it's you or your butt/cunt buddy) needs to learn the interwebs better.

It's easy to avoid detection of "high risk" downloads. It's just not cool because it makes you a leech.

When you finish the "popular" movie/music/gay porn, then you need to stop seeding it right away.

Unless the laws changed, they can get you for seeding a fully down torrent after 24 hours.

I used to have comcast and i used to get noticed every now and then, and I kept telling them, show me the proof, which they never did.

I also switch to DSL, and i've never had a problem with DSL. Sure, my download speed is lower then comcast, but my ISP isn't owned by a big ass Media corporation either. So thus, my ISP doesn't need to bother with checking what i'm doing, because it's a waste of their money.

Here's some options, sure, they cost a little extra, but your buying piece of mind, right?

USENET

encrypted connection, boom, faster then P2P, doesn't have to worry about sharing, gets stuff fast.

Proxy server.

have all your P2P go thru a proxy server, so it's not your IP number on the torrents.

Or switch your ISP to one that isn't owned, or sleeping with a Media Corporation.

Use a VPN

[izomiac]

Best solution: if you care and he won't comply, stop being roommates

Realistically, have him use a VPN. They aren't expensive (under $40/year), and there are a few good reasons to use them. For you, the VPN would be in his name and your ISP is none the wiser (aside from bandwidth usage) so you can sleep easy. For him, there's a layer of protection (NOT ABSOLUTE), and the compression tends to help your download speed a bit and upload speed quite a bit. (For me on JPEGs: 20 Mbs down / 1.5 Mbs up to 25 / 4 at the cost of +40 ms worst case latency.)

Trouble convincing him? Use a packet sniffer and start teasing him about his interests in porn or something. Probably a better idea (albeit less comical) is to block bittorrent and his favorite websites at the router, thus forcing him to use your suggestion, and granting you a massive credibility boost if he does get sued.

vpn.ipredator.se

[Anonymous Coward]

he's happy; you're happy, the NSA is, uh, wait a minute...

just make sure

[Anonymous Coward]

both you guys use condoms

Get Them

[glorybe]

Live in hope that you will be falsely accused. It may be your road to riches. Take pics of people using your PC. Leave a wide open Wifi connection. Then make sure that each and every person who you know has access to your PC is trained to keep their mouths shut. An accuser must prove that it is actually your actions that resulted in the loss. That can be next to impossible unless you are dumb enough to make admissions. And whatever sum the accuser seeks just may be the sum you receive plus legal bills, court costs etc.. Live in hope that you will be accused. There are two pillars of real interest in civil suits. Do you have much to lose? Does the other guy have a lot of cash? And as to the opinion of lawyers keep in mind that there are two facing each other in a hearing and usually both think their point is the right one. Or you might say that lawyers are wrong about 50% of the time.

Not sure if trolling, or just stupid.

[Anonymous Coward]

No court will care about your uptime. Trust me: you are terribly ignorant about how this all works, and you should seek legal representation should you ever find yourself in these cirumstances.

Re:Not sure if trolling, or just stupid.

[JWSmythe]

    You're right. And he's demonstrated that he *can* remember the password, as he uses it every time there is a power loss.

    Your mention of legal representation is absolutely correct. I tell people to watch this video, so they will understand why saying anything is a bad thing, until your legal counsel is there to assist you.

    Even a question as simple as this is dangerous to answer.

    Them: [pointing to a computer on a table] "Is that your computer?"
    You: [looking at the computer and realizing it looks like yours] "yes".

    My computer is pretty unique. It has a stylized case, a better heatsink visible through the side, etc. Is that *my* computer? I can't answer that. It could be my computer. It could be my computer that someone replaced the hard drive in. It could be another computer that looks just like it picked up while busting a pedophile and child pornographer, and accidentally swapped in the evidence locker. I'm not going to prison for what someone else did, based on the evidence that I affirmed it to be my computer. In another room of my house, I have enough pieces to build an almost identical computer. I also have hard drives from various sources. One company was throwing out a box full of drives. I took them, tested them, and half were still working. Those particular drives were then formatted, and the working ones sold on eBay. There are others floating around my house, from computers I upgraded for people. Do I believe the people who I've upgraded their equipment wouldn't do bad things? Probably. Do I know 100% positively? No. Could they have assumed I dismantled a computer I was doing bad things with, so they "reassembled" it, and found the bad things? Possibly.

    The burden of proof is on the state (police, states attorney, etc). Is it my computer? Prove that it is or isn't. Prove that the data on the drive is mine. Prove that it hasn't been tampered with since I last had control over it. Prove that I put whatever they found on it, and that *I* had knowledge of it. Maybe anything they found was placed by malware. Demanding that proof isn't my responsibility. My attorney will use those and more to prove my innocence. Providing them with *any* evidence can ruin you, regardless if you are innocent or guilty. You can be compelled to provide evidence. Your attorney will advise you when to open your mouth.

    If the cops raided your house, and you had 10 kilos of heroin on the table in front of you, the right answer is still "I have nothing to say without my attorney present.", and when he's there, he will tell you to STFU. It's the difference between "We found 10 kilos of heroin in his residence" and "he confessed to possessing 10 kilos of heroin". ... and for those wondering, no I don't have illegal drugs, data, or anything else that would make me an interesting target for a raid. The only thing interesting are my phone calls, and it's only because most of my phone conversations end up sounding like a strange mix of George Carlin, Jon Stewart, and Penn Jillette.

Re:Not sure if trolling, or just stupid.

[Dan541]

And he's demonstrated that he *can* remember the password, as he uses it every time there is a power loss.

So once every 15-20 yes I might be forced to reboot?
I have two computers here that have been running non-stop since setup, they haven't needed to be rebooted. In the event that the house needs electrical works there is always the UPS. Seriously this is the 21st century power loss doesn't just happen anymore (at least not regularly) , unless someone physically unplugs the system.

Re:Not sure if trolling, or just stupid.

[JWSmythe]

    So, you have battery backups, automatic backup generator, and an unlimited fuel supply? Gosh, it must be nice in your world. Well, that and perfect hardware that never has a fault, and never a need to move anything.

    But when that day comes, you've used such an obscure password that you won't remember it when you do have to shutdown or reboot. That is brilliant disaster planning. Set the password once, and have no way to recover from something as simple as a reboot.

    In the last year, I had a motherboard fault, which induced multiple reboots until I changed it. I upgraded the video card twice, memory once, CPU once, and three times needed to clean the CPU, power supply, and exhaust fans.

    But in your ideal world, reboots don't happen, right? You don't upgrade. You don't make changes. And you never have disaster planning provisions. That's brilliant. I wish you and your data the best, as you will loose it all soon enough.

    I already know your answer. "But I have backups". And for some reason you think a subpoena or warrant won't demand that? Nah, you're the smartest guy in the world, and you don't keep backups. That's fine though, even if your secrets are never given up, and there is probable cause to believe you have done something bad, you'll be on vacation in prison for a while. Lets not forget, it's rather hard to keep a job if you're in jail. By the time you come out, you won't have a house, a job, or a life. Welcome yourself back to the real world, starting back in the real world for nothing.

Re:Not sure if trolling, or just stupid.

[nugatory78]

I guess you don't live in Houston. I'm astounded how often we loose power here. I get a small power interruption at least once per week, but those are handled by my UPS. Maybe once a month they go longer than my UPS's can supply power. I think its time I just invested in my own power plant in my back yard...

Re:Not sure if trolling, or just stupid.

[JWSmythe]

    I think that was his implication. He has his UPS. Since none of us can afford an infinitely sized UPS (unless you happpen to have a ZPM), then he'd have N+1 whole-house generators with sufficiently sized fuel tank so you could always get refueled regardless of what happens.

    I did some work at a datacenter with a beautiful setup. It didn't look like they could ever go down for power related reasons. DC room, N+1 generators, huge fuel supply. They were telling me about an incident a few years before. A nasty blizzard came through. No fuel was brought in to anywhere in the area for weeks. Gas stations weren't supplied, but that didn't matter much since no one could drive anywhere. Their 100,000 gallon fuel supply was almost depleted, so they contracted with a company a few hundred miles away to truck it in, and keep it coming in every 5 days until the utility power was restored. I believe that left them with a 2-3 day window in case there was a problem with a truck. I don't think most of us have the resources for that.

    Even the best systems can be defeated by human stupidity. A friend of mine lost power because the power company disconnected her home for nonpayment. The thing was, she had paid. They were suppose to disconnect the neighbors house. They ran her around in circles for about an hour, and finally realized their mistake. So 12 hours without power. After 2 hours, she decided they weren't bringing the power back up any time soon. 10 hours on generator power. She had to refuel the generator once (it's a standard 5kw generator, 5 hr nominal runtime).

Was your roommate assigned?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you selected your roommate -- conspiracy for sure!
If your roommate was assigned you may be home free
before the semester is done.

The legal woes of "persons of interest" are astounding
and often expensive.

YOU should use a VPN... exclusively.

sana katlyorum

[mantolama]

çok haklisin sana katiliyorum http://www.yurdanyapi.com/

Keep an offsite backup.

[sakti]

Seems to me that the jury is still out on how liable you would be found as the law is still somewhat murky.

Either way though they will come and confiscate every piece of computing equipment in the place if they decide your IP/residence is of interest. So you will definitely want to keep an offsite backup of your data. That way if they take everything you can get another computer and get back to work right away.

Just block his access to your internet

[Anonymous Coward]

don't screw around with it - just block him.

When he sees what a pain in the ass it would be if your ISP turned off your service, then maybe he won't be so upset when you tell him you have blocked the protocols on the LAN.

Untagle is pretty nice. So are many ddwrt or tomato routers.

Or toss his crap out in the street - either way.

Help Him Pirate

[Anonymous Coward]

Grow a back bone. You should both be pirating, its the right thing to do, the system is broken.

And if you get caught defend to your dying breath the right for both of you to do it. The right thing to do is rarely the easiest.

Get out...

[Anonymous Coward]

You probably wouldn't be asking this question if your friend was doing other illegal things, like drugs...

It's being treated the same way now. Ask yourself if you'd stay there if the roomie was leaving crack all over the place...

Watch out

[Anonymous Coward]

First: IANAL. But I have some familiarity with the topic. That familiarity is pertinent only to my local area, however.

That's my main point: Much depends on where you live-- what country, what state or region. The fine print of your ISP subscription agreement might also be worth reviewing.

Fundamentally, your position is no different from your ISP's or that of a hotel or coffee-shop which offers a hotspot: You offer connectivity to your "customers." If Joe Torrentlover downloads copyrighted material on a hotel's network, would the hotel be sued? Probably not, if they had fig-leafed themselves by executing an appropriate agreement with Joe and thereby washed their hands of liability. The agreement needs to be suitable for the locality, and local laws might necessitate reasonable efforts to prevent, detect or log abusive usage. Depending on the circumstances, a simple landing page or click-through might suffice. Blocking of common torrent ports might be another requirement.

In principle, you could do the same. But you're an individual, not a business likely to have the hygiene requisite of the region in-place. So all your efforts to indemnify yourself might be entirely legally correct, and you might fully expect complete exoneration in court, but none of that ensures that you'll stay out of court. You can paper the walls with impressive legal argle-bargle and still get sued, your computers confiscated for forensic examination, etc., again depending on the laws and practices in your area.

So in your case, you have two obvious options:

1) Block your abusive roommate from the risky online behavior he "insists" on performing. And I mean really block it, as in prevent it from ever occurring again. This approach has the benefit of avoiding both liability and lawsuits.

2) Consult with a legal expert in your local area on how to provide connectivity without liability. This might guard against judgments, but you can still be sued.

There's a third option: put the ISP subscription in your roommate's name. But your computers might still be seized for inspection, depending on your locality, if you use the same pipe.

The best approach would be for your roommate to have their own ISP connection which you never touch. Or invite this roommate who "insists" on putting you at risk to move elsewhere.

Keep in mind that ALL of these will only address future risks-- you don't know what pending actions might already be heading your way like a sub-launched torpedo. Have a nice day.

Oh, and another thing: Your roommate might apologize on bended knee and never, ever download anything ever again, but as long as he has his torrent client running on his machine, your IP address will remain in the crosshairs.

Simple solution

[Vrtigo1]

Put the ISP account in his name, that way any infringement notices will go to him. Or get your own ISP that you pay for and share with no one and let the others work it out amongst themselves. That way you don't have to worry about it.

The bigger problem..

[Vrtigo1]

...is that folks still continue to download illegal stuff using connections in their name even after being told what can happen to them. Most folks that don't read slashdot or other tech blogs (read: 95% of the population) don't believe that this could ever happen to them. I've been down this path before, but it wasn't with a roommate, it was with a partner in a small business. He would download crap from our office which was in the company's name, and he and I were the two officers of the company, so we would probably both be screwed. In the end, I realized there was nothing I could really do since he wasn't interested in stopping, and I couldn't force him to stop. I just came to grips with the fact that if they ever came knocking, I could let them sift through my PC which had various code and other uninteresting and totally legal stuff on it, and then point them to his (personally owned) PC which was full of illegal crap and let them decide who did the downloading.