If the RIAA sues you for downloading mp3 files - How do they prove that your machine wasn't hacked and the files were downloaded onto your machine by a third party ?
Point blank answer, as so far all cases have been settled out of court, nothing has been established in my opinion as proof either way. That said it will take someone with the guts, and the money thats willing to actually challenge them in court to see how the legal presentations are made, and also what the courts accept as proof.
Grow old along with me, the best is yet to be.
This can be real hard for them to prove especialy with the rollout of wifi and and wireless networks that arent passworded. Even if they are passworded someone could always crack or hack a password and tap into a person system and use their IP addy for whatever. If you ask me this constitues resonable doubt.
Another argument could be with progams such as PC anywhere a hacker can hack into you system and take complete control. Even microsoft admits that your computer if not up to date with their updates is comprimised to such an attack. Literly someone can use your computer/ip to download mp3 files then download the files to themselves directly from your machine to cover their tracks and even throw in a virus to wipe out your hard drive when they are done so that you never even know what happened.
If these circumstances don't constitute resonable doubt then everyone that has IP address and a broadband connection is in jeopardy of being sued by the RIAA.
Are you a glue sniffer?
Who the hell is going to wifi in to your pc or laptop and distribute copywrited materials over a period of time? And even IF there was some freakin P2P fairy that magically uploaded your Britney Spears collection to you, their IP address would also be recorded.
Lets try to constitute reasonable common sense first ok?If these circumstances don't constitute resonable doubt
" but your honor, bad evil pirate hackers broke in to my pc and riddled it with pop music and all that software thet errr "they" installed on my system . . I wasnt even aware of it . ."
Bawwwwahahahahhhahaha
.
Untill a case goes through the courts we do not know what the courts will consider reasonable doubt.
As to the possibility of a person hacking your pc, that again has never been tested in court as a defence. It may be that it would be considered that it is the responsibility of the owner of the pc to prevent hacking of your computer. Hence making you responsible for the protection of your system, and all of the files on it.
Grow old along with me, the best is yet to be.
Dang it Krell i was trying to make a truly lucid post, and you are also getting a PM shortly.
Grow old along with me, the best is yet to be.
LMFAO at Krell.
I was just merly trying to conjure up a defense for these poor internet users that are currently being sued but I guess i'll just leave that up to the masterminds like you ;-)
Owwwwwwe yah that WAS juicy gossip!!
I love it when people discover what we already know . . . .
Oh, and that was a truly lucid post Hunter, really !
.
so lucid that the meaning got lost.. I dunno, but with all the pm's going around.. its worth to just have it full all the time so you dont get no more.. =)
I just want to know what there are 2 days left till?
-NEVER ARGUE WITH A FOOL; HE WILL SOON BEAT YOU WITH EXPERIENCE
-EAT AND SLEEP. YOU MIGHT THINK THAT'S A GIVEN BUT NO-IT'S NOT. EAT AND SLEEP. IDIOT.
there's got to be better arguments then that...
nothing to see here
The Hunter and Krell are right... You'd be lucky to find a lawyer who'd agree to argue for you like that. The doctrine of reasonable doubt is just that. There is no reasonable doubt that somebody else did it... There'd be no motive for anyone to do that... especially over time when they see you've got files from all over.
With Kazaa's hash they also know regardless of what the file is named what it actaully is - as long as it's not unique, which most of your stuff probably isn't.
How about:
If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit!
You are personally responsible for anything that gets transmitted over your connection anyways(or more accurately the person on the bill is) so it doesn't really matter.
Originally Posted by Krell
Being a retired member of the law enforcement community let me say this. The first two things that are excluded form any court case are, the truth and common sense. In today's legal system anything and everything are fair game. Who would have thought 10 years ago that any one could sue a company for several $100,000, because they put a hot cup of coffee in their crotch while driving their car and it spilled and scolded them. Krell, hands down you know your shit when it comes to P2P. However when it comes to case law I have to give you an "F".
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks