As an example, with the machine that I am typing this response, I have a wireless NIC card internal to the machine (laptop). If I want to change the MAC address of the card, all I have to do is go to the control panel “Network Conections” icon, right-click on the appropriate wireless network card and select “properties”, select “configure” next to the hardware adapter box at the top of the window, go to the “advanced” tab, select the “network address” property, and change the MAC address to whatever I want.
On my linux machines, all I have to do is issue an ‘ifconfig’ command with the ‘-hw’ flag followed by the hardware address that I want. For example:
I don’t believe that all cards offer the ability to change the MAC address… but a vast majority of them do (I have 8 machines with a number of different wired/wireless cards) all of which I can change the MAC address. It’s irrelevant though, the fact that any card allows this is key in this situation.
BTW, the ability to spoof MAC addresses actually has a number of legitimate uses, including High Availability scenarios for servers and routers.
I don’t think that word means what you think it means.
While you are away for a day or two is the best time to do some P2P since it is pretty network and processor intensive (i.e. your computer is slow while doing it.) You just queue up a list of 400 songs you want and leave the computer running. Computers don’t get bored, so it’ll just keep chugging away until all 400 files finish or you get back home.
(1) The RIAA has people monitor the P2P networks, and they record IP addresses of people who offer music to be downloaded.
(2) Then they go to the ISP and request the subscriber’s information.
(3) Then they file suit against the person.
My question is, on step (2), do they need a subpoena to compel the ISP to give up subscriber information? And in the case of colleges, did the RIAA have a subpoena to get the students’ names, or do the colleges just give them up willingly?
What if someone has wireless internet, and their neighbor, or just a random stranger who parks in front of their house and borrows their signal, uses their connection to upload/download music? If the RIAA came after them, how can the RIAA prove that the subscriber is guilty? Can they seize the person’s computer to look for music? If I was on a jury in one of these cases, it would be hard to convince me that someone was liable unless you show me that this music is on their machine or in their possession. But how can the RIAA take possession of someone’s computer like that? It’s not a criminal case, so could they do that?
Actually, for these pre-suit letters, they do not have any information except the IP address. They send these to the school, explaining that they will give the students 20 days to pay a lesser amount and avoid being sued. The school will then probably find out who the holder of that IP address was at the time the data was obtained and hand the letter to them. Not all schools cooperate. If the RIAA then actually sues the alleged holder of the IP address and a subpeona is issued the school will give out the students name and address. Right now the RIAA has no idea who got their letters, unless they settled.
Interesting point on wireless access. There is a school of thought out there in IP law that believes that soon a major case will be decided which establishes precedent that those too stupid (or too lazy, or just unwilling) to turn on even the most basic levels of encryption for their wireless access may be liable for acts committed over their open network. And somehow, they will not benefit from the ISP protections granted to, well, real ISPs.
On a somewhat related note to this - and I stress “somewhat” - see this interesting case, where an open Wifi network was not allowed as a good defense in a child porn case.
Well, there’s no law that says that you are required to encrypt your wireless signal, or that you can’t share it with your neighbors, is there? I can’t imagine that it would stand up to legal scrutiny if one could be held liable for another’s actions over their connection…
Some other questionable scenarios could be, for instance, if multiple people lived in a house (roommates, family, etc.) and all used the same internet connection. This would count for the majority of people, I would think. For example, my boyfriend and I live together and we have multiple computers, and are both usually online at the same time, in different rooms. So if he is downloading music, what stops the RIAA from coming after me if my name is on the internet bill?
Also, what would the RIAA do if someone is using a wi-fi hotspot? These are everywhere nowadays. Also, what about hotels that offer free wireless? When we drove cross-county last year, we could sit in various hotel parking lots and use their wireless to check e-mail, get directions, etc.
I should point out that simply being able to come up with an explanation does not mean that the the RIAA or whoever will simply say “oh…ok then…well played” and go away. It has been my observation (as somewhat of an expert in technology and litigation as it applies to corporations) that proving your case can be as or more expensive as actually being found guilty. That’s why they have settlements.
The RIAA lawyer has all day long to deal with each case and he/she gets paid for it. You, OTOH, have to take off from work, hire an attorney, possibly hire someone like me (who gets paid like a lawyer) as an expert witness on your behalf to explain things like IP addresses and P2P file transfers (although networks aren’t my speciality so you wouldn’t hire me for that). And at the end of the day, you might get found guilty and have to pay thousands anyway. If I were an asshole lawyer, or even just an ambivalent one, I would
And truth be told, your daughter probably is as guilty as the rest of us. So really your defense is that the jury or judge is ignorant enough regarding the technology to find in your favor.
They can submit a discovery request asking you to turn over any relevent materials.
I don’t know all the laws of the United States. But that’s not my point. The point was what happens if someone uses another’s Wifi access, and what possible problems that could cause - and I gave a cite of how the “someone else was using my wifi access, doode” defense did not work, and said that I have interviewed folks who opine that in the future anyone not encrypting their signal, or at least trying to make it hard to be abused, might open themselves up to all the problems of ISPs without any of the protections.
Absolutely nothing. It will, sadly, be your burden in court to try to offer that as a defense.
IIRC because they are providing net access to a certain specific clientel, they are provided some protections under the law like an ISP (DMCA Title II?). However, I’d have to ask my attorney to get an actual cite, or verify that I’m not barking up the wrong tree. Of course, if you had Wifi access at home and declared yourself an ISP, you might get some protections too. However, you almost certainly would be in violation of the ToS of your existing ISP…in which case, your claim of being a sub-ISP wouldn’t hold.
But then, I’m not a lawyer, just repeating conversations I had with one.
As people have mentioned they are catching the uploaders not downloaders. So by having a song open for other people to download, it could have been accessed 1000 times. Thats where the $3000 comes in.
Now if only there was a way to empty ones shared folders! Could save a lot of fines :smack:
Yes, but it’s a pretty good defense. I agree that the RIAA makes a prima facie case against the registered owner of the internet account, but if that owner can come back and show that other adults were permitted to use the account, that he had no knowledge of any infringement activities or participation in them, then I’d say he’s legally clear. These are, of course, questions of fact for a jury to resolve, but the Copyright Act doesn’t make anyone vicariously liable for infringement by a third party. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios v. Grokster, 545 US 913 (2005). The RIAA’s vicarious liability theory seems to derive from common law, which creates vicarious liability for contributory copyright only when there is direct infirngement by a third party, knowledge of that infringement by the defendant of that infringement, and substantial participation of the defendant in infringing activities. See, for example, A&M Records v. Napster, 239 F.3d 1004, 1013 (9th Cir 2001). Also see Newborn v. Yahoo!, 391 F.Supp.2d 181, 186 (D. DC 2005) for reasoning.
The details there are a bit different IMHO. The source of the tipoff was a yahoo IM, a passworded service. Someone had to log in and send that message, it is far less likely that someone pulling some free bandwidth off of you is actually running under your IM account than just using the free access, could be done, yes, but you would have to have network shares opened up that many people don’t even understand how to turn on or a far more skilled individual doing the bandwidth theft.
Olnick Raymond was her husband. Now, her denial in this context is wise – she should make her opponent prove every material item – but in fact, she owned the computer. If the computer were somehow discovered to contain the cure for cancer, I believe she’d be wasting no time asserting her ownership of the computer.
And in any event, the claim was “The RIAA has sued people without computers.” Clearly, she was not “without” a computer - she was using her late husband’s computer.