Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room

US judge orders piracy trial to test IP evidence

<< < (2/3) > >>

TaoPhoenix:
I'm undecided about which exact mechanism this goes through, whether it's "court victory and criminalize open wifi" or if they just do what the conspiracists were saying and "buy the court ruling" in their favor. Not that we've been slavishly adhering to the law lately anyway, but it gets harder to fight a law if it gets nice and crispy than if it's in the "grey zone". So it's like this is the obligatory first step, let's be cynical and say it goes in favor of the plaintiffs, then it gets appealed, which affirms, and the Supreme gang decides "not to hear" and so it becomes law-by-bench, maybe with a helpful law passed by Congress.

TaoPhoenix:
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. ;)
-Renegade (October 10, 2012, 01:08 AM)
--- End quote ---

It does matter, and I asked my question for a reason, because chunks of Americans don't have wifi. So you get a question like "do you have a wifi set up?" and if the answer comes back "no", where does that leave you? I turned OFF my wifi because I do all my computing from my desktop, so why do I need a wifi again if I only live in one room?

Nice Chewbacca attempt though.  :Thmbsup:

So I repeat, if someone has no wifi, is a landline IP address "close enough" to determine a user? Because except publicity "Streisand" problems aside, this isn't very far from saying "you watched a tv clip on youtube, and you had Reasonable Doubt that Cucumber2265 wasn't an authorized source, here's your fine."

Addenda: What I am getting at is that if you make it the *user's* burden to try to source materials, you get a whole lot of trouble reeeeeeeallly quick. And all because we can't separate copyright into "types". Look at the pictures we like to post. Look at the "recommend videos" threads. Basically, look at "Sharing" which is all of Web 2.0. I'm getting chills seeing the conflicting forces here. Going all Grade C Prophet, I remember very little of anything, but I distinctly remember about 1999 and 2000, at the Dot Com boom and crash, Y2K, early 9-11, that "all the tech has been done except minor updates on features." So even skipping the whole Mobile movement, and a couple new drugs, I was right. Once there is no world class innovation left, "we all just sit here staring at each other getting bored" and that's where we are now - "bored" = "IP lawsuits." ((Look at the accidental pun, Internet Protocol address lawsuits to protect Intellectual Property. Or if Apple gets involved, iP. )

Extra Credit: Do you know how *hard* it is to source something? Most men like a little pr0n now and then. It's usually framed to hell and uploaded to 5 sites. Can you imagine trying to find the original creator of that? Or if that makes you squeamish, even the cat pictures are almost impossible to source.

40hz:
^I think it would be fairly obvious that a landline would probably be considered more than "close enough" considering it needs to be installed somewhere. And that location is not much open to debate unless you allow for somebody hacking a central station circuit at a telco.

It's also a moot point for most users since most WAPs (in the US at least) are connected to a physical landline or cable. So a landline is part of the equation in most circumstances.

The only time wireless comes into play is when somebody is arguing anybody can easily (debatable on both points) hack a wireless connection, and therefor the person who is paying for the connection it gives access to, shouldn't be held liable in the same manner they would be if they gave somebody physical access to their home or place of business in order to use their landline/cable directly.

So yeah...if wireless is "close enough" you can count on hardwired connections being seen as "even closer."  :)

TaoPhoenix:
^I think it would be fairly obvious that a landline would probably be considered more than "close enough" considering it needs to be installed somewhere. And that location is not much open to debate unless you allow for somebody hacking a central station circuit at a telco.

It's also a moot point for most users since most WAPs (in the US at least) are connected to a physical landline or cable. So a landline is part of the equation in most circumstances.

The only time wireless comes into play is when somebody is arguing anybody can easily (debatable on both points) hack a wireless connection, and therefor the person who is paying for the connection it gives access to, shouldn't be held liable in the same manner they would be if they gave somebody physical access to their home or place of business in order to use their landline/cable directly.

So yeah...if wireless is "close enough" you can count on hardwired connections being seen as "even closer."  :)
-40hz (October 10, 2012, 09:53 AM)
--- End quote ---

That's why I brought it up, because these guys like "footholds". So if it's "just you" on a landline, I guarantee there's enough victims ... er... users who might one of these years fall into a really nasty law about "it's the user's fault". It's like they need the requisite number of preliminary pieces in place before they use the Trump card to seal the lockdown.

40hz:
That's why I brought it up, because these guys like "footholds". So if it's "just you" on a landline, I guarantee there's enough victims ... er... users who might one of these years fall into a really nasty law about "it's the user's fault". It's like they need the requisite number of preliminary pieces in place before they use the Trump card to seal the lockdown.
-TaoPhoenix (October 10, 2012, 10:06 AM)
--- End quote ---

Yup. Spot on! That's pretty much the way it works from what I've seen.

But IIRC, I think they went after people with wired connections well before the issue of wireless came up. It was only after somebody testified they maintained an unsecured wireless access point, and argued "plausible deniability" in their defense that it became an issue for the IP trolls.

Don't forget, in the absence of a specific law or a 'generally understood and accepted standard or responsibility' (i.e. common law) there can be no legal liability or culpability.  If it's not an actual law, then there's no law to be broken. And in the absence of a violation of law, no enforcement action is possible either. And that remains true no matter how pissed off that may get some people. That's why there's so much effort to clear up legal gray areas like this one.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page