×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Oklahoma Security Expert Attacks RIAA Claims

kdawson posted more than 6 years ago | from the resting-on-shifting-sands dept.

The Courts 280

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "A group of Oklahoma University students has made a motion to vacate the ex parte order the RIAA had obtained compelling the university to turn over their names and addresses. In support of their motion was the expert witness declaration (PDF) of a computer security and forensics expert who essentially attacked the entire premise of the RIAA's lawsuit, characterizing the declaration upon which the RIAA based its motion as 'factually erroneous' and 'misleading.' Among other things he pointed out that 'An individual cannot be uniquely identified by an IP address,' and that 'Many computers can be connected to the Internet with identical IP addresses as long as they remain behind control points.' The students are represented by the same Oklahoma lawyer who recently obtained a award for $68,000-plus in attorneys fees against the RIAA in Capitol v. Foster."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

280 comments

Commie Alert !! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20150591)

Commie Alert !!

Heard in an RIAA conference room ... (5, Funny)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 6 years ago | (#20150597)

"Oh SHIT ... not this guy again."

Re:Heard in an RIAA conference room ... (1)

ookabooka (731013) | more than 6 years ago | (#20150685)

/me listens to the hubub as the RIAA tries to drop the suit, but gets locked in because a counter-suit was filed. . .oh snap.

Re:Heard in an RIAA conference room ... (4, Funny)

Wavicle (181176) | more than 6 years ago | (#20150815)

Other thing heard in an RIAA conference room...

"Hey, didn't the whole slashdot community say the exact same thing [slashdot.org] last month?"

We could have at least gotten credit for it.

Re:Heard in an RIAA conference room ... (4, Interesting)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 6 years ago | (#20150999)

Other thing heard in an RIAA conference room... "Hey, didn't the whole slashdot community say the exact same thing [slashdot.org] last month?" We could have at least gotten credit for it.
Indeed it has. And on more than one occasion.

And I got news for you, that was heard in an RIAA conference room.

Only thing, they're not good listeners, as you may have noticed already.

Re:Heard in an RIAA conference room ... (5, Funny)

RTofPA (984422) | more than 6 years ago | (#20151447)

Only thing, they're not good listeners, as you may have noticed already.
Kinda ironic, considering they represent the music industry (supposedly). Or, maybe not, considering they (supposedly) represent the music industry, and anyone who willingly does that can't have good hearing.

Re:Heard in an RIAA conference room ... (1)

Tolkien (664315) | more than 6 years ago | (#20152583)

This is a legalese issue, the word you're thinking of is allegedly.

Re:Heard in an RIAA conference room ... (5, Insightful)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 6 years ago | (#20151295)

And it's not just us, there have been many experts who've said the same. I think it's about time that someone with like this guy offer expert testimony to those who have been victimized by the MAFIAA.

I don't hold out any hopes that the MAFIAA will listen or even care. The aim here is to establish legal precedent in a court of law that says the MAFIAA, when they use spurious technical evidence to try to extort thousands of dollars from people, doesn't have a legal leg to stand on. It doesn't matter whether they agree or not. All that matters is that judges know the truth and that truth gets added to the patchwork quilt of established law that is legal precedence.

Re:Heard in an RIAA conference room ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20152385)

Umm... why was that modded insightful? The MAFIAA was an april fool's joke. This poster is either extremely gullible, or trying to be funny, but this is not insightful...

Sad thing is... (4, Insightful)

Hsensei (1055922) | more than 6 years ago | (#20150613)

No matter who comes out on top only the lawyers win. :/

Re:Sad thing is... (4, Insightful)

couchslug (175151) | more than 6 years ago | (#20150855)

It is to be hoped that some of those students are going to BE lawyers one day, and all this lawyer hatin' conveniently ignores that many lawyers are idealists and work pro bono for good causes.

I delight in seeing young people use the system to fight for their freedoms.

Re:Sad thing is... (0)

Actually, I do RTFA (1058596) | more than 6 years ago | (#20150865)

  1. Bitch about the RIAA's lawsuits, claim to be willing to collect money for a defense, wish there was a lawyer who would stand up to it
  2. Lawyer appears who figures out how to make the RIAA pay for his service
  3. ?
  4. Profit

Re:Sad thing is... (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 6 years ago | (#20151063)

Thats beacuse they now effectively run this country. ( and are in the process of running it into the ground, for a profit )

Re:Sad thing is... (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 6 years ago | (#20151117)

Makes me wish I was a lawyer, but law school would be too long and expensive for me :/

Re:Sad thing is... (1)

pokerdad (1124121) | more than 6 years ago | (#20151269)

Makes me wish I was a lawyer, but law school would be too long and expensive for me :/

For some reason your comment reminds me of something I read awhile back, how some doctors and lawyers who aren't so happy with their career paths feel trapped because they have invested so much time and money to get in that they feel they can't afford to leave.

Re:Sad thing is... (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20151911)

No matter who comes out on top only the lawyers win. :/


Mmm.. I doubt it. I'd be surprised if most of the lawyers defending RIAA "victims" (for lack of a better word) are charging their full rates, considering they're mostly defending poor college students.

On the other hand RIAA lawyers aren't paid by the hour, and whether they win or lose their salary is the same (you think they're working for a percentage of a $10,000 settlement?)

They've created a climate of fear, which is all this has been about from the beginning. If they win a case the reward is a pittance to them, if they lose, well, they can afford it. Either way, considering the press it's still generating a lawsuit costs much less and is much more effective than a prime time television ad campaign. Unless there's some way to assign a penalty that really hurts or put a stop to their abuse of the legal system altogether they will continue to sue even if they lose almost every case.

Or DID They Do It? (1)

eboluuuh (1139173) | more than 6 years ago | (#20150651)

Many computers can be connected to the Internet with identical IP addresses as long as they remain behind control points.
Good to know in case of ever getting caught for something I did online.

fucking thieves (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20150701)

man, you guys aren't happy unless you can get it for free? i hope someone robs your cheap nigger asses someday and see how it feels to get fucked for no good reason. i hope you lose everything.

Oh come on (4, Insightful)

Token_Internet_Girl (1131287) | more than 6 years ago | (#20150705)

"Many computers can be connected to the Internet with identical IP addresses as long as they remain behind control points" Did the MAFIAA really think someone would overlook this point? Anyone with a class in Internet 101 knows that routers assign one IP address to represent whatever computers are attached to it. I'm glad their having their asanine package of BS handed right back to them.

Re:Oh come on (2, Insightful)

jfclavette (961511) | more than 6 years ago | (#20150877)

Maybe you should retake that Internet 101 class then. There are a few routers out there that assign different IP adresses to different 'computers.' In fact, that was pretty much the whole point of routers before NAT showed its ugly face.

Re:Oh come on (3, Funny)

russ1337 (938915) | more than 6 years ago | (#20151085)

>>> There are a few routers out there that assign different IP adresses to different 'computers.'

I guess I'm only safe when my local Starbucks has had 4,294,967,296 unique wi-fi visitors and has to start over...

Re:Oh come on (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20151161)

So, next Tuesday then?

Re:Oh come on (2)

guruevi (827432) | more than 6 years ago | (#20152567)

You really think that there is any appliance that keeps a database of all IP's it has passed out through the days/months/years?

Just to give you the (raw) calculation: you would need
  (IP + MAC + newspace + (2* blank space)) * available hosts in the subnet to get it in any readable format

(12+ 16 + 1 + 2) * 65534 bytes (the average subnet) would cost you 2MB of raw space.

It is possible and probable for a full-fledged server system for an ISP (and even they don't keep track of it longer than a number of days) but not for a low-power appliance with an ARM processor 512k of space and 128k RAM not to mention the time and power it costs to search and write to that database.

The way it is done, the DHCP server gets a request, they get their lease (stored in-memory) and when the lease expires without a renewal they get another IP and the lease gets deleted. The simplest way to see if a certain IP is available is just to take the last one that was dealt out and add 1 to it. In a controlled environment you should be able to see that sometimes the counter goes way back (to the beginning) if all leases are available again.

That's one of the reasons a lot of SoHo appliances has only a limited number of connections and DHCP requests and you'll also notice that most of them work better without DHCP. This is because of power and memory constraints.

Re:Oh come on (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20151521)

"Routers" don't assign IP addresses to anything. They merely act as the path by which packets can travel from one subnet to another.
Maybe the box that contains a router may also contain a DHCP server, but that doesn't mean that routers give out IP addresses.

Re:Oh come on (1)

Anarke_Incarnate (733529) | more than 6 years ago | (#20152139)

The box that contains a router.......sold as......the router. Don't be a pedantic douche. Just because a drill has a flashlight built into the handle so you can see better doesn't make it NOT part of the drill. You can argue that the motor of the drill and the chuck have nothing to do with the flashlight, but it is still part of that drill.

Re:Oh come on (1)

untaken_name (660789) | more than 6 years ago | (#20152281)

Let us examine your analogy: Can you buy a drill without a built-in flashlight?

It's hard to buy a router without a dhcp server in it. I think the OP would have been better served saying that the router can, assuiming it has an internal dhcp server, assignes the addresses. Of course, I doubt the OP expected the responses to focus more on the content of the post rather than the word choice. Must be new here.

Re:Oh come on (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20152347)

The idea of a "router" as an all in one network connectivity device is very new.

A router is a big black box that moves packets from one subnet to another. There is _nothing_ about the term "Router" that implies DHCP.

Re:Oh come on (4, Interesting)

fredklein (532096) | more than 6 years ago | (#20150959)

I think the RIAAs point is that whoever runs that router (and, presumably, the network connection) is responsible for the traffic it passes.

Like a Red-light camera: they send the ticket to the owner of the car, not necessarily the driver. (Of course, in that case, the owner can simply prove it was not them, and provide the name of the driver, and the ticket will be re-assigned.)

I don't necessarily agree with this, but most ISP's have similar clauses in their TOS: You are responsible for whatever your equipment puts out/takes in over the network connection. I'm not sure what makes Starbucks (for instance) not liable if a wifi customer downloads kiddy porn, but a person who owns an open WAP gets their PCs confiscated by the cops. But I wish the 'immunity' applied to anyone.

Re:Oh come on (3, Interesting)

proverbialcow (177020) | more than 6 years ago | (#20151385)

Like a Red-light camera: they send the ticket to the owner of the car, not necessarily the driver. (Of course, in that case, the owner can simply prove it was not them, and provide the name of the driver, and the ticket will be re-assigned.)

Or, as in the case of Minneapolis' red-light cameras, the entire process is deemed unconstitutional because it presumes guilt rather than innocence.

Re:Oh come on (1, Offtopic)

fredklein (532096) | more than 6 years ago | (#20151557)

I don't know about that- a PICTURE of a car running a red light is pretty good evidence that the crime actually took place. Which means someone is guilty of comitting that crime. Since they cannot I.D. the driver (Facial recognition's not that good. Yet.), but they CAN I.D. the car (thru the plates), they send the notification to the registered owner of the car. Since the drive should know who was driving their car*, the driver can then tell the court who is actually guilty.

*unless it was stolen.

Re:Oh come on (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20151725)

"a PICTURE of a car running a red light is pretty good evidence that the crime actually took place. "

But the electronics have started an irreversible process of measuring the speed, taking a picture, and mailing a ticket, all before the picture is taken. It has presumed you guilty at a time before it has any evidence.

Re:Oh come on (1)

fredklein (532096) | more than 6 years ago | (#20152007)

Um, no.

If the sensors in the road determine that a car has entered the intersection during a red light, it takes a picture. Then that picture is looked at, and obvious exceptions (Police cars, ambulances, fire engines, etc) are thrown out. Then the license plates are captured off the remaining photos, and the address of the car owner looked up. The ticket is printed, and mailed to that address.

Re:Oh come on (2, Informative)

Buran (150348) | more than 6 years ago | (#20152397)

Wow, did you miss the point. You yourself admitted that the driver (the guilty party) can't be identified. You can't accuse anyone of doing something illegal and prosecute them unless you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the individual is guilty. And the accused has a right to face their accuser in court.

Re:Oh come on (1)

fredklein (532096) | more than 6 years ago | (#20152581)

the driver (the guilty party) can't be identified,/i>

It's reasonable to assume that, since it's YOUR car, YOU are the driver.

Just like, if YOUR specially autographed baseball bat was used to beat someone to death, it's reasonable for the cops to assume YOU did it. It's YOUR bat.

If you have evidence to the contrary (like you know who was really driving the car, or you lent your bat to a friend), then you can present it.

You can't accuse anyone of doing something illegal and prosecute them unless you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the individual is guilty.

Firstly, YES, you can. The whole point of 'prosecuting' some one is to have the trial to DETERMINE if they are guilty or not. There are plenty of people who are prosecuted and found 'Not Guilty'.

Secondly, Traffic Fines (speeding, running red lights) are not treated as 'crimes' per se. They are often counted as 'Administrative fees' and such, in order to get around legal loopholes, such as "the accused has a right to face their accuser in court".

Do I agree with this? No. But that's the way it is.

Re:Oh come on (1)

Maxo-Texas (864189) | more than 6 years ago | (#20152507)

Oh I wasn't in it.

I think my daughter was driving it.

But I'm not sure. It may have been my son.

Or one of their friends.

They were moving that night and lots of different people used the car.

Car Person.

Lots of different people drive the same car in some circles.

If wishes were horses (3, Interesting)

Kaseijin (766041) | more than 6 years ago | (#20152173)

I think the RIAAs point is that whoever runs that router (and, presumably, the network connection) is responsible for the traffic it passes.
That's their theory. To the best of my knowledge, no court has ever bought it.

...I don't necessarily agree with this, but most ISP's have similar clauses in their TOS: You are responsible for whatever your equipment puts out/takes in over the network connection.
That's a contract between the ISP, the customer, and no one else.

I'm not sure what makes Starbucks (for instance) not liable if a wifi customer downloads kiddy porn, but a person who owns an open WAP gets their PCs confiscated by the cops.
The person is, reasonably, a suspect.

Re:If wishes were horses (1)

fredklein (532096) | more than 6 years ago | (#20152301)

I think the RIAAs point is that whoever runs that router (and, presumably, the network connection) is responsible for the traffic it passes.
That's their theory. To the best of my knowledge, no court has ever bought it.


I'm curious who YOU would hold responsible for the traffic coming out of YOUR router, which is hooked to YOUR broadband line in YOUR house. The Tooth Fairy?

I'm not sure what makes Starbucks (for instance) not liable if a wifi customer downloads kiddy porn, but a person who owns an open WAP gets their PCs confiscated by the cops.
The person is, reasonably, a suspect.


Why is the manager of the Starbucks not a suspect? Or the employees?? They have physical control over the network- they can plug/unplug the equipment, just like I can plug/unplug MY Access Point.
Why not an employee at the ISP that provides their WiFi? They have 'logical' control over the equipment- they can re-configure it, change settings, just like I can with mine.

I have a WAP. They have a WAP.
I let people connect to my WAP. They let people connect to their WAP.
If something illegal happens over my network connection, *I* get arrested. If something illegal happens over their network connection, they don't.

What I'm getting at is: Why?

Re:If wishes were horses (1)

tftp (111690) | more than 6 years ago | (#20152523)

I let people connect to my WAP. They let people connect to their WAP. If something illegal happens over my network connection, *I* get arrested. If something illegal happens over their network connection, they don't.

First of all, it's not a fact yet that anyone will be arrested. However a hired employee who is not even directly tasked with management of WiFi for thousands of visitors is a less likely suspect than you, who exercises full control over your WiFi that you personally purchased. Besides, it's easy to see what the manager (or any employee) is doing during work ours than to check what you are doing when you are near your WiFi.

It is still possible, of course, that an employee of a coffee shop is guilty of doing something online, and if it comes to that all employees will be investigated, just as you would be. But as I said the employees are far more exposed during their work hours, and most of them do not have the necessary access to the hardware to do what it takes to install Kazaa or other software illegal use of which is alleged.

Also, at the coffee shop the possible suspects are just the manager, three employees and about 1,000 visitors. At your home the suspects are you and your cat. The choice of suspects is far more narrow in your case.

Re:Oh come on (4, Interesting)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 6 years ago | (#20150963)

The problem seems to be growing the awareness of these basic facts among the judiciary: cases like this can only help in that regard, I'd think. Those of the legal mind are fond of informing laymen that the law is complex and ever-changing and that only one who is properly trained could possibly comprehend its intricacies. I personally believe that the law is often more complex than it needs to be (and that is certainly no accident) but, okay, I'll buy that argument. As an engineer I cheerfully admit that the law is an arcane mystery, and I would certainly never set foot in court without proper representation.

However, the truth is that the global network and the technologies behind it are pretty goddamn complex as well, and change more often than the average trial lawyer changes his boxers. Gross oversimplifications and prevarifications regarding network technology, such as those pulled out of thin air by the RIAA's so-called "expert witness", have so far resulted in several severe miscarriages of justice. Unfortunately, while it is a necessity to have legal representation in a technical case, there seems to be no corresponding requirement that the legal beagles involved have a clue about technological underpinnings of said case. Given how successful the RIAA has been with the testimony of Mr. Linares, it's apparent that expert witnesses are of no help when the people making the legal decisions don't have the mental knowledge base to tell the wheat from the chaff.

Re:Oh come on (5, Informative)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 6 years ago | (#20151097)

The problem seems to be growing the awareness of these basic facts among the judiciary: cases like this can only help in that regard, I'd think. Those of the legal mind are fond of informing laymen that the law is complex and ever-changing and that only one who is properly trained could possibly comprehend its intricacies. I personally believe that the law is often more complex than it needs to be (and that is certainly no accident) but, okay, I'll buy that argument. As an engineer I cheerfully admit that the law is an arcane mystery, and I would certainly never set foot in court without proper representation. However, the truth is that the global network and the technologies behind it are pretty goddamn complex as well, and change more often than the average trial lawyer changes his boxers. Gross oversimplifications and prevarifications regarding network technology, such as those pulled out of thin air by the RIAA's so-called "expert witness", have so far resulted in several severe miscarriages of justice. Unfortunately, while it is a necessity to have legal representation in a technical case, there seems to be no corresponding requirement that the legal beagles involved have a clue about technological underpinnings of said case. Given how successful the RIAA has been with the testimony of Mr. Linares, it's apparent that expert witnesses are of no help when the people making the legal decisions don't have the mental knowledge base to tell the wheat from the chaff.
The Linares dribble -- like the Whitehead dribble which preceded it -- "succeeded" only because it was used only in ex parte cases, where there was no opposition. Now that opposition is starting to form, and now that judges are starting to reject [blogspot.com] even the ex parte motions [slashdot.org] , awareness may be growing among members of the judiciary.

Re:Oh come on (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20152009)

Dribble is a good word. So is drivel. Although they are both good words they are not interchangable.

Re:Oh come on (1)

LarsG (31008) | more than 6 years ago | (#20151735)

You might want to retake Internet 101. Routers don't assign IPs.

Re:Oh come on (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20152319)

Uh, mine does. I'm looking at the front of it and it reads "Cisco Systems Wireless-G Broadband ROUTER". I have 5 machines in my house that are online through this router, and it ASSIGNED each one of them an internal IP address.

I smell a Broadway musical! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20150715)

I smell a Broadway musical!

What's taken so long? (5, Informative)

willow (19698) | more than 6 years ago | (#20150735)

I'm wondering why it's taken other lawyers so long to realize the RIAA is ripe for fleecing with their undefendable suits. Surely the lawyer vs. lawyer guys would have figured out by now that the RIAA, with so much $$$, is ripe for plucking...

I'm actually ashamed of this, BTW :)

Re:What's taken so long? (1)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 6 years ago | (#20152359)

Lawyers who make their living with that type of litigation never want to be the first, they tend to wait for someone else to show that it can be done. I'm betting the flood-gate will soon open, and this type of RIAA tactic will fade. But you can bet that the RIAA will try a different approach.

OSU, not OU (3, Informative)

epmos (468595) | more than 6 years ago | (#20150745)

Nitpick:
TFA says the 11 students are at Oklahoma State University (OSU), not that Other University to the south (OU).

[ Yes, I am an alumni of OSU. ]

Re:OSU, not OU (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20151355)

What, you mean Otago University?

Re:OSU, not OU (1)

MostAwesomeDude (980382) | more than 6 years ago | (#20152399)

Please do not abbreviate Oklahoma State University; it is commonly confused with Oregon State University, noteworthy on Slashdot because it hosts the biggest open-source data repository in the Americas, the OSUOSL, and because Linus lives nearby.

Re:OSU, not OU (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20152427)

Hey, I'm an Okie (but not from Muskogee). OSU IS Oklahoma State University. There is no other as far as we're concerned. Oregon? Ohio? Feh...

Re:OSU, not OU (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20152557)

Please do not abbreviate Oklahoma State University; it is commonly confused with Oregon State University

Normally true, but in this case he was kind enough to demonstrate that despite being a college graduate he doesn't understand the word alumni, so we figured it was probably Oklahoma State.

Many computers, one IP address. (2, Informative)

Farfnagel (898722) | more than 6 years ago | (#20150755)

I can have as many as 40 computers running on my very basic home network. They will each and every one have the same IP address.

As usual, the RIAA is full of shit.

Re:Many computers, one IP address. (0)

westlake (615356) | more than 6 years ago | (#20152029)

I can have as many as 40 computers running on my very basic home network. They will each and every one have the same IP address.

Which proves what, exactly? 40 PCs. One network. One owner.

there's some confusion here (0, Offtopic)

chillax137 (612431) | more than 6 years ago | (#20150779)

I think this is cool...I really do. It's neat that some Oklahoma students are standing up to this. But under no circumstances do I wish the state's flagship university (University of Oklahoma) to be confused with Oklahoma State University. Not even with regards to wrestling...it just isn't worth it.

heh (1)

japhar81 (640163) | more than 6 years ago | (#20150791)

One can only hope that if they get hit upside the head with a proverbial baseball bat often enough, perhaps they'll learn? After all, even the dumbest dog learns after a while, right? Nah, probably won't happen..

As a matter of curiousity... (4, Interesting)

PhysicsPhil (880677) | more than 6 years ago | (#20150795)

...how big is the school in question? I've been wondering recently whether the RIAA has ever gone after schools with big legal programs. Have they been avoiding a fight with students who might have a large number of friends training to be lawyers? I have visions of some professor who gets sufficiently aggravated that he assigns his entire class to bury the RIAA in legal briefs.

Re:As a matter of curiousity... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20150847)

Oklahoma has more lawyers than it knows what to do with, many more than are needed and many simply lack work. Trying to sue any college here is a bad idea since taking part in something like this is a good way to get your name out.

Re:As a matter of curiousity... (1)

mdenham (747985) | more than 6 years ago | (#20151007)

...how big is the school in question? I've been wondering recently whether the RIAA has ever gone after schools with big legal programs. Have they been avoiding a fight with students who might have a large number of friends training to be lawyers? I have visions of some professor who gets sufficiently aggravated that he assigns his entire class to bury the RIAA in legal briefs.
You missed the one a week or two ago where they were about to start going after Harvard - and Harvard's response was, in effect, "get bent"?

Re:As a matter of curiousity... (4, Informative)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 6 years ago | (#20151165)

You missed the one a week or two ago where they were about to start going after Harvard - and Harvard's response was, in effect, "get bent"?
Not so. They've never gone after Harvard and probably never will.

That's because it's not in the RIAA's playbook to pick on someone who can fight back.

The articles you're thinking of, by Harvard Law School profs, "Universities to RIAA: Take a Hike" [blogspot.com] and "Protect Harvard from the RIAA" [blogspot.com] , urged Harvard and other universities to fight back if the RIAA were to come knocking.... but so far it hasn't come knocking at Harvard.

And don't hold your breath waiting for it to do so.

Re:As a matter of curiousity... (4, Interesting)

BalanceOfJudgement (962905) | more than 6 years ago | (#20151433)

Not so. They've never gone after Harvard and probably never will.

That's because it's not in the RIAA's playbook to pick on someone who can fight back.


Not to be pedantic but some of those 'good ol boys' probably went to Harvard as well, and so aren't inclined to embroil their Alma Mater in legal battles when there are so many other available targets.

Re:As a matter of curiousity... (1)

ROMRIX (912502) | more than 6 years ago | (#20152545)

That's because it's not in the RIAA's playbook to pick on someone who can fight back.

Well they fucked up picking on OSU. Oklahoma doesn't have a Pro Football, Pro Basketball, (Go Hornets!) or Pro anything else. That being said, Oklahoma has an extremely large number of sports fans with ass loads of cash being spent in support of it's Universities. It wouldn't surprise me a bit to have some local tycoon pick up the tab for the lawyers fees.
Oklahomans have a spirit like none other. You fuck with an Okie, you're gonna get more than you bargained for in return. Okies may not be able to tell the difference between a default Apache web page (misconfigured server) and a terrorist hackers attempt to deface a website [slashdot.org] , but they can damn sure hire someone who can.

Re:As a matter of curiousity... (2, Informative)

i)ave (716746) | more than 6 years ago | (#20151925)

As some have pointed out, this legal attack involves students from Oklahoma State University, about 15,000-20,000 students. For the record, OSU does not have a school of law. The University of Oklahoma has a school of law, as does the University of Tulsa, and Oklahoma City Univesity. One wonders if the RIAA is focusing its efforts on big universities and the publicity they generate, but avoiding those universities that have a school of law (and the professors of law that accompany them) to avoid the scenario you mention.

--Dave

Winning argument in a Minnesota court? (0, Offtopic)

smchris (464899) | more than 6 years ago | (#20150827)

Personally, pedestrian rights in particular, I like traffic signal cameras. But a suit against the cameras was successful based on Minnesota law that they photograph the license plate but do not identify the driver. Same difference I would think.

Re:Winning argument in a Minnesota court? (1)

vux984 (928602) | more than 6 years ago | (#20151175)

Same difference I would think.

When I lived at home with my parents, at its peak there were 6 licensed drivers, and 3 cars. My parents borrowed eachothers cars regularly, and us 'kids' borrowed their cars all the time too. While WE could probably deduce who was driving on a given day at a given time provided we received TIMELY notice:

1) Photo Enforcement Tickets were typically NOT timely.

2) It is not our responsibility to rat out our own family on violations that are frequently little more than thinly veiled tax revenue. (How long before I'm expected to turn in my sister for riding a bike without a helmet?)

3) Holding the registered owner of the vehicle responsible for traffic infractions is efficient tax collection, but fundamentally unjust.

Re:Winning argument in a Minnesota court? (1)

fredklein (532096) | more than 6 years ago | (#20151773)

Don't they include the picture taken by the 'Red light cam'?? Can't you ID your own family members from a picture?

Holding the registered owner of the vehicle responsible for traffic infractions is efficient tax collection, but fundamentally unjust.

That's why, everywhere I've heard of, if you can show it was not you driving, they will go after the actual driver, and leave you alone.

Re:Winning argument in a Minnesota court? (1)

vux984 (928602) | more than 6 years ago | (#20152211)

Don't they include the picture taken by the 'Red light cam'?? Can't you ID your own family members from a picture?

Yes, a photo or two of the back of the vehicle. We don't actually have the ridiculous magical CSI tech that can reconstruct the drivers face by compositing the partial reflections in one side mirror with a partial reflection in the sunglasses of a nearby pedestrian. And god forbid you have tinted windows, or be driving at night...

That's why, everywhere I've heard of, if you can show it was not you driving, they will go after the actual driver, and leave you alone.

The only acceptable way to 'show it was not you driving' is to identify the driver for them. (Which given the vantage point and quality of the photos is a dubious proposition.) First and foremost its not even something you should have to do if you don't want to. And secondly it amounts to a system of "guilty by default", where YOU get nailed unless YOU can find the real crook. What kind of justice system is that?

Re:Winning argument in a Minnesota court? (1)

fredklein (532096) | more than 6 years ago | (#20152455)

Yes, a photo or two of the back of the vehicle.

http://www.pedestrians.org/episodes/details31to60/ episode31.htm [pedestrians.org]

http://www.mrtraffic.com/lacieneg.jpg [mrtraffic.com]

Those don't look like the backs of cars to me.

Okay, to be honest, most of the pix I found did indeed show the back of the vehicles. And in those cases, I agree with you. They should have to have a clear view of the driver to be admissible.

The only acceptable way to 'show it was not you driving' is to identify the driver for them.

Have you ever tried a sworn affidavit saying you were NOT the driver?

(Which given the vantage point and quality of the photos is a dubious proposition.)

You should know who was driving your car on the given day and time. If not, think of the ticket as a penalty for being dumb.

And secondly it amounts to a system of "guilty by default", where YOU get nailed unless YOU can find the real crook.

You don't have to "find" anybody. Just tell the cops who borrowed your car that day.

Look at it this way- if a gun registered in your name was used to kill someone, don't you think the cops would arrest you? They have evidence you were involved. If you can prove you sold the gun to someone else, they'll let you go and arrest that person instead. Same thing: it's your car, it's reasonable to assume you are driving it. If you were not driving it, it's reasonable to assume you know who was.

Re:Winning argument in a Minnesota court? (1, Insightful)

digitalchinky (650880) | more than 6 years ago | (#20151819)

Are you so thick headed you cannot comprehend the greater purpose behind the humble red light camera - or how they work? Do you not understand the basic logic that if people stopped running red lights, then there would be no fines handed out, fewer accidents, thus no money in the guise of 'thinly veiled tax revenue'? I expect you would respond with all the fringe situations in which you think you have no choice but to run a red light - police are people too - explain your valid reason and you might even find they retract the fine, or suck it up and pay because you broke a law for the common good of society.

Red light cameras are not just slapped at any and every intersection, generally they are only in areas that are more accident prone, or places with very high traffic flow. They are neither free to own or operate, over their lifetime very few will pay for themselves in the fines they are able to inflict.

It is ludicrous to think these things are revenue generators. They exist to keep people, apparently like you, in line so that others can be safe.

Now what would you say if your 'helmetless' sister died from preventable head injuries suffered because some moron ran a red light and legged it, never to be found? Morbid, yes, but it's all just revenue until it's too late right.

Re:Winning argument in a Minnesota court? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20152051)

Their purpose is to make money, pure and simple. When these vigilantes start forgoing their fees, I'll start believing they're doing it for the good of the public. Right now, they're performing this "service" for the good of their bank accounts.

Re:Winning argument in a Minnesota court? (2, Interesting)

Jaime2 (824950) | more than 6 years ago | (#20152153)

I hope this is a troll.....

Red light cameras increase the accident rate as often as they decrease it. Also, the real dangerous drivers that actually run the middle of the red light and T-bone innocent drivers, aren't paying attention. Before red light cameras they weren't paying attention in a situation where their life was at stake, now they aren't paying attention in a situation where their life plus a $100 ticket is at stake. It isn't a deterrent to the real problem.

The people who actually get tickets are the ones that don't even see the red light. If it changes while you are in the intersection, you are running it. When traffic is heavy, sometimes you get caught in it. The alternative is to wait back at the line for a huge clearing and go if the light hasn't turned yellow yet. I know of many intersections where there is no left turn signal and at rush hour, the only time to turn left is at the yellow when oncoming traffic stops. If people were to obey the letter of the law, it would take an hour to turn left.

There are also plenty of cases where the yellow duration is set at less than the legal minimum for an intersection of the type it is installed at. Sometimes, conveniently, they fix the timing three months after the camera is installed and claim that the reduction in fines is from the camera itself, while it is really from the adjustment of the timing.

In summary, red light cameras mostly ticket people who are not a threat to anyone and they unfairly target those who have one on their drive to work. Some people are scrutinized 500 times a year and not allowed to make a single mistake while others never get a look from a camera because of where they live.

I live near Buffalo, NY. Buffalo is considering putting red light cameras downtown and desyncronizing the lights on Delaware Avenue. They want people to hit more red lights. Buffalo doesn't like to raise property taxes because it is politically unpopular and nearly 50% of downtown land is tax-free. Buffalo loves "alternative revenue streams", our sales tax is around 9% (due to several recent hikes), we recently started charging sales tax for airport parking, the residents are still mad about a bunch of fees that have been newly assessed like a "garbage user fee" that used to be paid for with tax money. The Mayor even admits that revenue is part of the reason they are being considered.

They are neither free to own or operate, over their lifetime very few will pay for themselves in the fines they are able to inflict.

This is untrue. There are companies that will install the cameras for free, operate them for free, and only ask for a cut of the ticket money. There is zero chance that the city will lose money and I'm sure the chance that the operating company will lose money is also slim. In California, many red light cameras are operated by Lockheed Martin. In 2001, they were sued for camera placement in San Diego and had to refund a bunch of tickets after it was discovered that they had the cameras installed primarily in intersections where the yellow was too short or there was some other design flaw increasing the liklihood of someone running the red. No cameras were installed in the top 10 most dangerous intersections. Also, if you go to court to fight a citation, a CHP officer stands in to "represent the policies of the vendor". You never get to question your actual accuser.

A little oversimplified... (5, Interesting)

edashofy (265252) | more than 6 years ago | (#20150905)

"Many computers can be connected to the Internet with identical IP addresses as long as they remain behind control points."

Yes, we all know this is true from a technical perspective. However, the RIAA is not as dumb as to ignore it. From the depositions in the Lindor case (posted earlier by NewYorkCountryLawyer) they are also relying on the fact that Kazaa (and workalikes) apparently include the local IP in the protocol. So if I'm behind my router, and my IP is 192.168.1.1, but my router's IP is 123.45.6.78, then the RIAA will see BOTH addresses and know whether there's some NATting going on with a pretty high degree of certainty. However, if Kazaa reports the local IP as 123.45.6.78 as well, then it's highly unlikely any more than a single computer is behind that IP.

Reading the report, the "expert" here appears to be completely ignorant of this fact.

Also, some of this is really atrocious. Early in the report it cites an example of someone downloading child pornography sitting in a car by "hacking" a wi-fi network. Only at the end of the report does it admit that the network was unsecured. If you connect to 'linksys' are you "hacking" that network? Would you use that term No. No "hacking" (in any reasonable sense) is going on.

Is the "expert" a native English speaker? "Botnet, Trojan, and Back Door are example of malicious codes..." Aside from the grammatical atrocities, I have never heard of my fellow software engineers referring to software programs as "codes." A back-door is not a "code" or a program, nor are botnets. Bots are, Trojan (Horses) are, and they can open back doors. Precision, please?

Do look at the expert's biography page [f0rb1dd3n.com] on the site shilling his book. Plenty of asserted qualifications and certifications, although I don't see any formal degrees listed anywhere. It also asserts that "One final note Jayson was chosen as one of Time's persons of the year for 2006." (hint: so were you). The grammar in the bio is even worse than in the expert brief. Do a search for his name and you'll find precious little at all.

I'm not saying that the RIAA is doing due diligence; the Lindor briefs leave a lot in question (although less than most slashdotters would like). However, fighting back with equally specious and unresearched information doesn't seem to be a much better strategy.

Re:A little oversimplified... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20151105)

Most large internal private networks work off of DHCP, and that means the IP usually changes for each user after they shutdown their computer (depending on the DHCP lease of course, it could be shorter or longer). The next time the user logs back on to the network or resolves DHCP they will more then likely have a new IP.

**For the RIAA to have sufficent evidence the internal IP would have to be accompianined by the actual MAC Address of the physical computers NIC (this would also be the same for the external address and MAC). Other wise the RIAA claims are useless and they have no legal foot to stand on. Simple as that...

lets not get started with MAC cloning... lol

Re:A little oversimplified... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20151439)

Damn! You beat me to it!

1. DHCP
2. ifconfig eth1 hw ether HA:HA:HA:HA:HA:HA
2 1/2. clone router mac (more HA HA)

(don't rip me over the HA:HA...etc, I know!)

Signed,

The Cowardly Lion

Re:A little oversimplified... (4, Informative)

tftp (111690) | more than 6 years ago | (#20151115)

Indeed, I read his deposition and basically all he does is state that you are anonymous behind a NAT. I am sure the logs do not indicate that 192.168.1.250 is the offender. There must be something more tangible. The expert probably just refuted literal RIAA's statements, ignoring the context (I haven't seen the logs so can't say for sure.)

One thing, though, he could have mentioned - various IP spoofing methods. Imagine you are on a DHCP network (on campus, for example.) You ask for an IP and you will get it, and this will be logged: "00:f0:3e:45:33:66, authorized as belonging to John Doe, asked for an IP and got 10.0.15.213 for 6 hours". Nice. However what if you want to misrepresent yourself? An enterprising student can use ping and arp (if not some better tools) to find out what IP and MAC addresses are online, and once some of those computers go to class (or to sleep, for example,) take over the MAC address and ask for a new DHCP lease ... done, and you have a new shiny IP address, perfectly logged as belonging to John Doe whereas you are someone else entirely.

This would clearly demonstrate that the DHCP has no authentication beyond the MAC address, and that can be easily changed [nthelp.com] on many cards. Any judge, however technically illiterate, can understand that if you can get any identity by just asking then it's pointless to hold the identity owner responsible.

This text, as seen here [windowsecurity.com] , would be relevant in the expert's refutation:

Unfortunately it's the very simplicity of DHCP that's actually the problem as far as security goes. No authentication or authorization takes place during an exchange between a DHCP server and DCHP client, so the server has no way of knowing if the client requesting the address is a legitimate client on the network, and the client has no way of knowing if the server that assigned the address is a legitimate DHCP server. The possibility of rogue clients and servers on your network can create all kinds of problems.

Re:A little oversimplified... (4, Insightful)

langelgjm (860756) | more than 6 years ago | (#20151197)

Did you read the same brief I did? Because your quotes don't match with what is in the PDF file.

Also, some of this is really atrocious. Early in the report it cites an example of someone downloading child pornography sitting in a car by "hacking" a wi-fi network. Only at the end of the report does it admit that the network was unsecured. If you connect to 'linksys' are you "hacking" that network? Would you use that term No. No "hacking" (in any reasonable sense) is going on.

Here's what I see in the PDF: "An example of the dangers of open networks is the case of Walter Nowakoski. Nowakoski connected to unsecured home networks and used the bandwidth via unencrypted wireless networks to download child pornography. This is an example of criminals using networks of others to commit crimes so that the innocent are victims twice - once for the theft of their own network resource and then when they are wrongly accused for the illegal activity."

Is the "expert" a native English speaker? "Botnet, Trojan, and Back Door are example of malicious codes..." Aside from the grammatical atrocities, I have never heard of my fellow software engineers referring to software programs as "codes."

Not to be picky, but if you're going to comment on the man's grammar, at least have the courtesy to quote him correctly. He conjugates the verb correctly, saying "... are examples of malicious codes..."

Re:A little oversimplified... (1)

edashofy (265252) | more than 6 years ago | (#20151287)

Page 7:

"Exhibit 6: Sci-Tech November 23, 2003 article from CTA News Staff reporting a driver of a motor vehicle engaged in internet child pornography utilizing a laptop computer and Wi-Fi (wireless fidelity) card to crack into a computer in a nearby home."

The text you cite is, as I explained, separate at the end of the article.

You're correct, 'example' was my typo. My bad.

Re:A little oversimplified... (1)

langelgjm (860756) | more than 6 years ago | (#20151387)

Ok, fair enough, though that of 'cracking' could simply be taken from the "article" he is talking about... It sure doesn't help that the text isn't searchable/selectable.

Re:A little oversimplified... (1)

Maxmin (921568) | more than 6 years ago | (#20152453)

Not to be pick either, but "example" is a noun [yahoo.com] .

Sorry, couldn't resist. Ah agree wit yore intents, however.

Re:A little oversimplified... (3, Informative)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 6 years ago | (#20151345)

Early in the report it cites an example of someone downloading child pornography sitting in a car by "hacking" a wi-fi network. Only at the end of the report does it admit that the network was unsecured.

      Ok, now tell me how hard it is to hack a WEP-enabled wireless network? It takes all of what, 90 seconds?

Re:A little oversimplified... (1)

fishbowl (7759) | more than 6 years ago | (#20151409)


> Ok, now tell me how hard it is to hack a WEP-enabled wireless network? It takes all of what, 90 seconds?

I have never been able to do it successfully. Recently I really, really *wished* I could do it. I was in a hotel (B&B, actually) which had Wi-Fi access but, even though it was included with the hotel, it was password protected and I did not have the password.

Now, supposedly it just takes a few seconds. But is there a cookbook example, preferably for OSX, to routinely log into a WEP-enabled wireless network? Can it be done in a chicken-and-egg situation where it's impossible to download software? Where there's only a single machine available? Is it possible to do with no traffic on the wireless network?

It occurred to me that in this situation, it was completely legal, completely ethical, and completely necessary for me to crack a WEP-enabled wireless network, and I didn't know how to do it. Would have really appreciated a button on the Airport preferences that simply logs into the WEP network. Why can't we just have THAT if it's so damned trivial?

Re:A little oversimplified... (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 6 years ago | (#20151865)

google is your friend. I don't know about OSX, but you could give Knoppix a try.

Re:A little oversimplified... (1)

EveLibertine (847955) | more than 6 years ago | (#20151915)

It occurred to me that in this situation, it was completely legal, completely ethical, and completely necessary
I think you mean:
Possibly not illegal
Not completely unethical
Probably not "necessary"

Breaking WEP is trivial for someone who wants to break into it, knows how, and has the proper equipment, which is what makes it useless from a security standpoint when it's the only method you are using to secure your wireless network. Further complication is added by the fact that not all wireless cards allow you the appropriate level of hardware access to initiate packet injection, which is the primary step in breaking into a WEP network speedily and with any decent probability of success without having to retry in between possible rekeying. WEP is possible to break without packet injection, and with only one computer, but the standard (super speedy) setup involves two machines; one for injection and one for listening to the response.

Here's an article to get started:
http://www.securityfocus.com/infocus/1824/ [securityfocus.com]

Re:A little oversimplified... (0, Offtopic)

digitalchinky (650880) | more than 6 years ago | (#20151951)

It takes all of 90 seconds with two wifi cards working on the problem at the same time - it often works better if two separate machines are used, one for the attacking, the other in a passive role to recover the pass phrase. Most cards are singular, so it would more commonly take days, weeks, or months on an averagely loaded system. That is why it is not so trivial to add a button to do it automatically. The parent makes this seem like a simple task, it is far from it. The current set of tools mostly require a far deeper understanding of what they do than just the info provided in documents supplied with those tools. A good understanding of networking, and WiFi in general, is also handy if one is a complete novice with little computing experience.

Re:A little oversimplified... (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 6 years ago | (#20152131)

Back to the topic: However if it's POSSIBLE to do it, a good lawyer can use that in a case. A determined person who knows what they are doing can easily go through someone's wireless net. In fact, if you're going to do something illegal it becomes desirable to do exactly that. Prove that MY client is guilty, Mr. plaintiff. IP is not necessarily irrefutable proof.

Re:A little oversimplified... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20152185)

I see you have no idea what you're talking about, yet have taken the stance that cluelessness won't stop you from replying.

Cracking WEP is completely trivial that anybody can do with one card (two???) in a few minutes if given the proper cookie-cutter (ish) instructions and the right tool(s). WPA on the other hand, is a lot harder (ie based off luck more than anything -- weak passwords) and probably won't be cracked for a while yet.

Seriously though, where in the heck did you get this two wifi cards thing, do you have any clue about security at all?

Re:A little oversimplified... (1)

compro01 (777531) | more than 6 years ago | (#20152199)

1. i personally like i like backtrack 2 [linux.com] , though i'm not sure if it will work with mac hardware.

2. you'd need the disc on hand already (i keep a copy of it in my laptop bag for such occasions)

3/4. yes. there was a guide somewhere on doing this (packet injection and IV collection on the same laptop using backtrack 2), but google is failing me at the moment.

Re:A little oversimplified... (1)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 6 years ago | (#20152383)

Even supposing that the local IP was included there's two major problems:

1) They only way that can be gotten is by the computer itself reporting it. What makes you think a computer couldn't just have changed that? I've never seen a cheap NAT-router that has ANY sort of enforcement on IPs, much less seen a user that'd turn it on.

2) Show me the consumer router that keeps logs after power off (if it keeps logs at all). I've again never seen it. Unless someone went out of their way to keep any sort of logs, the router is going to have jack and shit that is useful. People don't care, thus there's just no logging on these kinds of devices.

Add to that the WiFi issue and I'd say probably 90% or more of people have no knowledge or control of who's on their network. Hell, when my parents first got a cable modem and got WiFi setup I discovered my dad was connecting to the neighbours, not his WiFi. Both were unsecured, same default SSID, and he got a better signal from theirs in his study. Just this summer when I visited them we drove across BC and when we stopped to stay in a town, we just pulled in to a hotel parking lot, I pulled out my laptop, found 6 unsecured wireless points in range (including the hotel's), and did a quick Google for some places to stay.

Really, an IP address isn't a way to identify a computer in this day and age, especially for home connections. Maybe you get really luck and it is a one computer household with no router, but in most cases people have routers, many of those routers have wireless, it is generally enabled even if they don't need it, and it is almost never secured. If they live at all in close proximity to others, it is entirely possible their WiFi gets used not even maliciously, but simply by clueless neighbours that don't know any better, or by cheap college kids that don't want to buy their own net access.

Re:A little oversimplified... (1)

balloonhead (589759) | more than 6 years ago | (#20152515)

He does qualify the person of the year statement by saying it is a joke, and linking to the time.com website.

If you look about half way down the page, there is a small light blue line that looks like part of the background. It is a hyperlink to a photo of him (I presume) (I think it's titled 'spot the geek'). Just from glancing at the rig he's got there, he looks like a pretty dedicated nerd!

Lawyers and technology don't mix well.. (1)

d_jedi (773213) | more than 6 years ago | (#20151729)

Everything that the security expert says in his submission to the court is, of course, true. But in the same way as the RIAA's submission doesn't tell the whole story, neither does this.

Universities have large IP blocks, and - for the most part - are in no danger of running out of IP addresses (negating the need - but not necessarily the use) of NAT technologies to get around this.

So while all of the assertions are true - there is still a reasonable (if not completely deterministic) chance that the IP address of the P2P user can be tied to a person (or, at least, network account).

So.. while there is no guarantee that they'll be able to identify the correct person.. there certainly are reasonable grounds for further investigation.. and so, IMO, the judge should side with the RIAA on this one.

Re:Lawyers and technology don't mix well.. (3, Insightful)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 6 years ago | (#20152471)

Ummm few things:

1) Where did you get the idea all universities have tons of IPs? Some do, some don't. Also, a class B might seem like a lot, but if you've got 50,000 students, 20,000 departmental computers and servers, and you dole the IPs out in subnets to different departments (so they aren't 100% utilized) you start feeling the crunch more than you might think. Where I work we've got two class Bs (as we were in on the Internet game fairly early) and network operations has already begun working on renumbering the network to try and reclaim unused IPs. We haven't had to implement NAT on any campus level (though there are tons of little ones that random people run) but it is not something out of the question. Take a larger university with less IP space, you'd have little choice.

2) NAT has other uses such as cloaking the activities of individual computers. You'll see places use NAT just for that, they don't want individual activity being traced based on IP. So they get a many-to-many NAT set up. You have say a couple hundred routable IPs with a couple thousand non-routable IPs behind them. The router picks out which public IP you get randomly, or round-robin, or whatever. Thus it ends up being impossible to figure out what is happening.

3) Who says the university runs the NAT? You telling me you don't think students stick routers in their dorms? You telling me that you don't think they do that, and turn on unsecured WiFi (especially since many universities have extremely poor or non existent WiFi)? I know for a fact they do, because we always have problems with this on our campus.

I hope he attacked his claims... (1)

Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) | more than 6 years ago | (#20151771)

I hope he attacked his claims with a chain saw... Christ! Enough RIAA. We get it, dont illegal trade your terrible music. We get it, but we dont give a shit.

Reminds me of dolphins and sharks (1)

phorm (591458) | more than 6 years ago | (#20152307)

The RIAA are like sharks, seeking out a lone victims and quickly eviscerating them, particularly the weak or the slow, and those already leaving a tempting blood-trail in the water.

By contrast, the defendents are starting to behave like dolphins, which individually will easily fall prey to sharks, but as a group may band together to rapidly ram the sharks in the gills or other sensitive organs until they break off, or eventually, due.

Give 'em another jab in the gills boys, and we'll see if the sharks will learn to stay away.

why hasn't a judge censured the RIAA for this? (3, Insightful)

DragonTHC (208439) | more than 6 years ago | (#20152361)

why aren't judges protecting the people?

The law is not really in the RIAA's favor here.

The RIAA has shown a history of fradulent law suits.

Why aren't people countersuing for malicious prosecution?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...