Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room

US judge orders piracy trial to test IP evidence

(1/3) > >>

TaoPhoenix:


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19887765

"A landmark case in the US will test whether internet piracy claims made by copyright firms will stand up in court.

Such cases rely on identifying the IP address of machines from which content was illegally downloaded as evidence of wrongdoing."

(Grump: The US needs the BBC to tell us our news. /Grump)

Slashdot was all over the wireless wifi topic, but if I were the defense I'd be worried they didn't split the topic into what happens with boring ordinary landlines. I'll leave that to my betters: can a landline IP address do what the prosecution wants or does that get shifted and bundled too much?

Renegade:
The landline doesn't really matter. The assumption is that most people use wireless Internet at home. Wired landline to the router/modem, then wireless to the computers. If it's not secured, anyone can use the connection. Just drive up to the place within wireless range, connect, and there you go. Kind of like what Google does. ;)

40hz:
There's enough legal precedent under the attractive nuisance doctrine that it could be fairly easily and logically extended to owning and operating an unsecured wireless access point. But that's under tort rather than criminal law. Under criminal law, the charges have to be "proven beyond reasonable doubt," whereas in civil actions, a simple "preponderance of evidence" is sufficient to win a judgment for the plaintiff. The rules for the admissibility of evidence are also stricter in a criminal proceeding than they are in a civil suit. Which is why the media industry is in no rush to pursue criminal charges as opposed to civil actions. They'd be held to much higher standards of both evidence and proof if they did.

In a criminal case, just owning the means used to commit a crime would not necessarily be a criminal act even if you were careless or irresponsible about who had access. (If you have a gun stolen or otherwise taken without your knowledge or consent, you're usually not able to be charged as an accessory if it was used to commit a crime.) As long as the "intent" wasn't there, there's usually no criminal culpability - except in an extreme case of negligence which resulted in bodily injury or death. And even then, it usually ends up in civil court. In the US "criminal negligence" is most often restricted under statute to cases involving deaths or injuries caused while operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

Gonna be fun to see which way this one goes. I'm guessing the court is going to swing toward the defendants' argument this time around. But after this I think you'll see some serious hardening of attitude by the courts that will make it progressively harder for individuals to fight this sort of thing by saying they didn't know. And all it would really take to settle this nonsense once and for all is the passage of a law that legally requires owners to know they need to secure their WAP - or face possible legal consequences.

If you had installed a phone out on your front lawn - and somebody used it to repeatedly make threatening phone calls - after a certain number of times (like maybe 6?) you'd likely get into some sort of legal trouble for not making it difficult for a passerby to just walk up and use it. And few would argue that was an unreasonable requirement of responsibility.

I think, in the end, this is how it's gonna go for WAPs.

Renegade:
If you had installed a phone out on your front lawn - and somebody used it to repeatedly make threatening phone calls - after a certain number of times (like maybe 6?) you'd likely get into some sort of legal trouble for not making it difficult for a passerby to just walk up and use it. And few would argue that was an unreasonable standard of responsibility.
-40hz (October 10, 2012, 08:30 AM)
--- End quote ---

Muahahahaha~! ^o^



You know where this is going!The few. The proud. The RENEGADES~! ;D (Defending anything from whatever!)

How is being generous and opening up your phone for others to use unreasonable? Shouldn't the police be tracking down the real criminals, rather than pursuing those kinds souls that try to reach out and do good by their fellows? It's YOU that's the victim here, and being victimized for your kindness no less! Do we punish people for kindness and generosity?


But, aside from pointing out the obvious and sinister criminality of things like sharing, caring, kindness, growing a garden, etc. etc., I think you right.


I think I need to atone for my sins of happy kindness today. Not sure whether I should strangle a puppy or drown a kitten... :P

Then again, I could probably atone for an entire month by axing one of those vile kindergarten teachers that are always teaching kids to share! :P Wonder if blowing up the Sesame Street set and crew would get me a month's worth of penance... :P And how much would Mr. Rogers be worth?


Mr. Rogers in a spoiler for a reason

Continued...Hmmm... Maybe not so much...

Kids should be learning games like this! ;)


There's enough legal precedent under the attractive nuisance doctrine that it could be fairly easily and logically extended to owning and operating an unsecured wireless access point...

...In a criminal case, just owning the means used to commit a crime would not necessarily be a criminal act even if you were careless or irresponsible about who had access...

...And all it would really take to settle this nonsense once and for all is the passage of a law that legally requires owners to know they need to secure their WAP - or face possible legal consequences...
-40hz (October 10, 2012, 08:30 AM)
--- End quote ---

That sounds well like it could be the beginnings of the criminalization of incompetence.

We don't condone/permit driving by incompetent drivers (or mostly anyways), but just to surf and email? What's next? Licensing people to use the Internet? (Kind of like how TVs are in the UK...)

While that may sound a bit ridiculous now, can anyone see how at some point in the future, it would begin to seem more "realistic". (I hate to use the word "reasonable" there.)

If the MAFIAA is involved, nothing will turn out well.

40hz:

That sounds well like it could be the beginnings of the criminalization of incompetence.

-Renegade (October 10, 2012, 09:06 AM)
--- End quote ---

You say that as if it were a bad thing. :tellme:
The only downside is how you'd ever manage to build enough jails to hold something like 50% of the general population if you did. (kidding....just kidding)



What's next? Licensing people to use the Internet? (Kind of like how TVs are in the UK...)

-Renegade (October 10, 2012, 09:06 AM)
--- End quote ---

It's coming. Not that I agree with it, but I think it's only a matter of time. Seriously. :(

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page