UK court to unmask 150 'file-sharers'

[grubbymitts]

Originally Posted by mcmanic

Do you really think the major players in the scene use P2P to release their goods - i think not. All this will do is stop average Joe Blogs sharing "X" software ect,ect for about 2 weeks whilst the coverage in the media is ongoing. They would have to close down the internet to put a real dent in file sharing of any kind.

The real "scene" is all FTP trading. But there are many high profile busts at that level too. P2P is just an easy way for Joe Bloggs, as you say, to get the goods - it also is one of the most insecure ways too.

Anyway. Piracy is bad. nuff said.

[Wicked_and_Crazy]

Originally Posted by ian@huth

The usual way of finding copyright infringers is to search the p2p networks for specific files and note the IP's of users that they can download the file from. They know from the IP which ISP is being used and get a court order which makes the ISP reveal details of the customer being leased that IP address at the time.

thats true, however, case goes to court, hmm sorry me lord, but i had a wireless router that was unprotected Now who downloaded by stealing my bandwidth

[driver_problems]

Originally Posted by mcmanic

It'll' never be stopped, we are only human after all and everybody has abit of Del Boy inside them always looking for the cheaper alternative.

totally agree If the artists are that into the intrinsic merits of their own work that much then they should let it stand on its own two feet so to speak. And, I was thinking, there's always email now - a yahoo email could carry two or three songs no problem. Plus they are always going on about keeping music live etc - so where does it end, getting prosecuted for humming a song in the street or having emails intercepted to see what, if any, copyright content you are mailing in them

also a thought occured to me when I was looking at all the talk of upload and download limits with ISPs etc of what exactly is being uploaded and downloaded legally on such an evidently furious basis

[Ignition]

My heart bleeds.

They nicked things they shouldn't have, they then shared them with others and got caught doing it.

Diddums.

Just to point out those of you trying to justify this by whinging about music this was FAST the Federation Against Software Theft and regardless of what it was and how many people do it it's still illegal, it's still theft and if you get caught doing it you can go to jail.

150 people in 1 year suggests these weren't exactly people who downloaded the odd game here and there to get targeted like this.

They were naughty, they got caught, Torrents and all P2P is insecure crap, get over it

[andygrif]

I think that pretty much sums it up! Spot on Ignition.

Originally Posted by Ignition

My heart bleeds.

They nicked things they shouldn't have, they then shared them with others and got caught doing it.

Diddums.

Just to point out those of you trying to justify this by whinging about music this was FAST the Federation Against Software Theft and regardless of what it was and how many people do it it's still illegal, it's still theft and if you get caught doing it you can go to jail.

150 people in 1 year suggests these weren't exactly people who downloaded the odd game here and there to get targeted like this.

They were naughty, they got caught, Torrents and all P2P is insecure crap, get over it

And what if the person is innocent they just didn't have the wireless network secure because there less than useless on computers (alot about) or some idiots cloned the mac address

[Chris]

Originally Posted by STOP

And what if the person is innocent they just didn't have the wireless network secure because there less than useless on computers (alot about) or some idiots cloned the mac address

Then there would be evidence of another machine listed in the router's DHCP hosts list (in the case of an insecure network), or a complete lack of evidence of any warezed files on the accused's hard drive (in the case of a cloned MAC). Either of these facts, presented in court, would thoroughly undermine a prosecution case that has, after all, to be proven beyond all reasonable doubt.

Although I have to say I think it unlikely that someone would be willing or able to hack a domestic network for long enough to download the quantity of warez that makes a prosecution worthwhile.

Anyone know how long it takes to acquire large quantities of knock-off software or MP3s over Bit Torrent?

Originally Posted by Chris T

Then there would be evidence of another machine listed in the router's DHCP hosts list (in the case of an insecure network), or a complete lack of evidence of any warezed files on the accused's hard drive (in the case of a cloned MAC). Either of these facts, presented in court, would thoroughly undermine a prosecution case that has, after all, to be proven beyond all reasonable doubt.

Although I have to say I think it unlikely that someone would be willing or able to hack a domestic network for long enough to download the quantity of warez that makes a prosecution worthwhile.

Anyone know how long it takes to acquire large quantities of knock-off software or MP3s over Bit Torrent?

Would you know if your modem had been cloned ?. Would be hard to prove and expect a court to believe I would have thought

[Chris]

Originally Posted by STOP

Would you know if your modem had been cloned ?. Would be hard to prove and expect a court to believe I would have thought

No, I would have no idea until the boys in blue turned up on my doorstep and asked me to explain why I had downloaded the entire Eminem back catalogue. However, aside from pointing out that I don't like Eminem, I would be able to invite them to take away my HDD for examination, whereupon they would find not a single Eminem track anywhere.

If they are accusing me of downloading stuff, I'm entitled to expect them to produce the stuff (or evidence of how I got rid of it). And as innocent until proven guilty, in the absence of any evidence of the files themselves, I think it would be up to the prosecution to show that MAC cloning is not a viable explanation. It's always for the prosecution to prove guilt, not for the defence to prove innocence.

Before we drift away from the central subject though, are you saying that no file-sharers should be prosecuted, because of the possibility that someone innocent might be prosecuted?

Yes if something like that was to happen we'd have to just hope the law wasn't an ass (which it has been in the past)

[Bifta]

Originally Posted by STOP

And what if the person is innocent they just didn't have the wireless network secure because there less than useless on computers (alot about) or some idiots cloned the mac address

I'd refer you to your ISP's terms of use again, YOU are responsible for your internet connection and anyone uses it.

Originally Posted by Bifta

I'd refer you to your ISP's terms of use again, YOU are responsible for your internet connection and anyone uses it.

I agree who's responsible if our macs have been cloned in the NTL network though ?

[Derek S]

Originally Posted by STOP

I agree who's responsible if our macs have been cloned in the NTL network though ?

They would be able to tell what UBR the modem was running off at the time. Two modems can't share a MAC on the same hub so if you are in London and the modem doing the downloading was in Manchester you should easily be able to prove it wasn't you.

[Bifta]

Originally Posted by STOP

I agree who's responsible if our macs have been cloned in the NTL network though ?

The person who cloned the MAC address (obviously)

Originally Posted by Bifta

The person who cloned the MAC address (obviously)

So if the police knocked we'd just have to hope they believe us and dont suggest we have another computer connected which they never found. If I was a policeman I wouldn't go for the excuse that it must be cloned or something after all. Ltes hope you and Chris haven't been clone

---------- Post added at 11:27 ---------- Previous post was at 11:25 ----------

Originally Posted by dezzo

They would be able to tell what UBR the modem was running off at the time. Two modems can't share a MAC on the same hub so if you are in London and the modem doing the downloading was in Manchester you should easily be able to prove it wasn't you.

Why can't NTL do anything then perhaps you should work for them you know so much about the subject