^ that's my understanding as well, and the only thing i'd add to #3 is use something like eraser to DoD erase your drives...i don't think they'd be able to pull a lot off of them after that

10/3/2007 1:56:11 PM

Quote :

"the internal private IP address assigned by the router would also have been detected by investigators, he claimed -- likely beginning with 192.168."

By definition an internal private address is not viewable externally. This defeats the entire purpose of using NAT otherwise. The router utilizing NAT strips away the private IP address of the internal host replacing it with the router's public address. The only remains of the address sent by the internal host is the port number is "overloading" is being used. In actuality though the private and public port number of the internal device can be different. The external source would only be capable of seeing the hosts public address which is derived from the gateway connection unless they were within the host's network which would make them internal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_address_translation

sounds like the RIAA "experts" are making up their own facts in order to confuse and trick the technology retarded jurors

[Edited on October 4, 2007 at 3:48 PM. Reason : l]

[Edited on October 4, 2007 at 3:49 PM. Reason : l]

[Edited on October 4, 2007 at 3:53 PM. Reason : l]

10/4/2007 3:48:09 PM

^ wouldn't that be...illegal? you know, perjory and all?

10/4/2007 3:54:07 PM

They would just claim they got the facts "confused"

10/4/2007 3:58:10 PM

The Virgin vs. Thomas decision just came in. The RIAA prevailed and Thomas got hit for a $220,000 fine. Thomas has good grounds for an appeal however.

http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2007/10/riaa-wins-in-first-ever-jury-trial.html

10/4/2007 6:30:18 PM

I can not in all honestly believe that a jury let the power hungry douchnozzles at the RIAA trample over the avg citizen.

I wonder how much of that money the artists actually see. Probably all that happened was a bunch of cock sucking executives were sitting around a board meeting discussing how to alleviate shitty profits that they been having due to the lack of talent entering the industry over the last decade. Someone had the bright idea lets just find people who download music and sue their asses off.

[Edited on October 4, 2007 at 6:44 PM. Reason : l]

10/4/2007 6:42:45 PM

wow, damn.

10/4/2007 7:21:19 PM

Quote :

"I wonder how much of that money the artists actually see."

The artists in question won't see a dime. Copyright enforcement counts as record company overhead and is not subject to any royalty agreements.

10/4/2007 9:12:38 PM

god that sucks. there's no way she can afford to pay that much

btw, they keep hitting people up on kazaa. are they going after bittorrent people hardcore too?

10/5/2007 7:39:15 AM

i'm thinking it might be thrown out on appeal...or maybe i'm just hoping too hard

10/5/2007 8:28:56 AM

if its against the law its against the law

10/5/2007 8:49:11 AM

^ you don't honestly believe that's how our justice system works, do you?

10/5/2007 8:54:55 AM

Quote :

"if its against the law its against the law"

ahh schuckss i feel SOOOO guilty for downloading the newest Justin Timberland single. The good American thing to do would have been to spend $20 on the new album b.c i would feel so bad if the some douche bag executive in the RIAA making 6-figures did not get his 50K bonus this year.

10/5/2007 12:01:16 PM

^^ how can you dispute that downloading music without paying for a license first is unlawful?

10/5/2007 12:05:15 PM

even if it is "unlawful" ; legality does NOT equal morality.

Driving 70 in a 65 is unlawful also.

I am glad that in this land of democracy the RIAA and music recording business's power outweigh the power of the masses.

[Edited on October 5, 2007 at 12:09 PM. Reason : l]

10/5/2007 12:08:17 PM

haven't heard of any getting nabbed for using bittorrent. and just a very few for using limewire.


mostly its like kazaa and bearshare. adn those two are peices of shit anyway.

10/5/2007 12:21:55 PM

I wish someone could hack up a copy of Azureus to where it didn't upload

[/horrible bittorrent user]

10/5/2007 12:34:55 PM

^

you're the bain of this society.

10/5/2007 12:35:49 PM

^^^^

ALL laws have a moral/ethical basis, else how could you violate them

10/5/2007 12:46:07 PM

^^^ if it bothers you that much, dl utorrent, set upload to 6kbps (minimum for uncapped dl'ing) and then move your downloaded stuff to a different folder once it finishes...that way, your upload traffic is minimal and you're not sharing anything...you douche

[Edited on October 5, 2007 at 12:50 PM. Reason : .]

10/5/2007 12:49:59 PM

i'll go to hell for not uploading, but that's okay, i'm already destined for hell anyways

i set it to 5 or 6 kb/s, but uploading is still uploading in the eyes of the RIAA, regardless if it's 5kb/s or 500kb/s. I just always make sure to delete the torrent as soon as it finishes downloading. i just don't want to upload while it's downloading

10/5/2007 12:54:01 PM

Quote :

"ALL laws have a moral/ethical basis, else how could you violate them"

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA are you that stupid or are you just being sarcastic.

I guess the Jim Crowe laws of the 60's have a moral/ethical basis.
or the law banning US citizens from playing poker for money online (c'mon guys a good morale american doesn't gamble; he should be using his money to buy retail items to support big companies and the gov't through sales tax, or he should buy a bunch of state education lottery tickets)

what a joke

10/5/2007 12:55:23 PM

joe


you're not alone.


so I'll spare you any more patronization.

[Edited on October 5, 2007 at 12:55 PM. Reason : for joe]

10/5/2007 12:55:35 PM

pigkilla was probably a hall monitor in middleschool, did not drink till he was 21, is the douche driving the speedlimit in the left lane on I40, refrains from pre-marital sex b.c its evil, and ratted out his suitemate b.c he smelled pot smoke in the hall of his dorm.

[Edited on October 5, 2007 at 1:29 PM. Reason : l]

10/5/2007 1:28:50 PM

Quote :

"i set it to 5 or 6 kb/s, but uploading is still uploading in the eyes of the RIAA, regardless if it's 5kb/s or 500kb/s. I just always make sure to delete the torrent as soon as it finishes downloading. i just don't want to upload while it's downloading "

you do realize that if you upload for ANY amount of time at all, you are forever etched into that torrent? In other words, the RIAA could look at that torrent file 2 months from now (provided it's still around) and see that you partook.

10/5/2007 1:35:25 PM

^^^^

when you break a law you generally make an unethical or amoral choice, and if this is not the case, then yeah i am definitely stupid

if you break ANY law for whatever reason that is amoral because you as a human with the ability to reason should follow laws

not such a hard concept to grasp

[Edited on October 5, 2007 at 1:38 PM. Reason : asdfa]

10/5/2007 1:37:38 PM

Quote :

"you do realize that if you upload for ANY amount of time at all, you are forever etched into that torrent? In other words, the RIAA could look at that torrent file 2 months from now (provided it's still around) and see that you partook."

yep, but isn't that only if the tracker keeps log files? anyways, that's why I want to disable uploading altogether

10/5/2007 1:44:28 PM

^^^ sure, you may be in that tracker, but i think joe's right in that it only matters if they keep logs...besides, what would be in there? your IP address (which, for most people is dynamic and changes FAIRLY regularly, and if you're behind a router, NAT should keep your pretty anonymous)

additionally, minimizing your upload keeps you much less noticeable (or so i would assume)...after all, what's going to be noticed more - someone uploading at 5kbps or 500kbps? and since they're pretty much only getting people for uploading, reducing what you're sharing (or eliminating it all together) would be another step towards keeping yourself safe

and yes, i realize that if everyone did this, there'd be nothing to download

10/5/2007 2:27:27 PM

Quote :

"if you break ANY law for whatever reason that is amoral because you as a human with the ability to reason should follow laws"

yeah you are right dude. If I grew up in Nazi Germany it would be amoral if I did not report the jew I saw in my neighbor's attic to the proper SS authority.

Quote :

"They believed in law's positivism, that real law is entirely separate from "morality".[81] Kant was also criticised by Friedrich Nietzsche, who believed that law emanates from The Will to Power and cannot be labelled as "moral" or "immoral".[82] Thus, Nietzsche criticised the principle of equality, and believed that law should be committed to freedom to engage in will to power.[83]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law

[Edited on October 5, 2007 at 3:40 PM. Reason : l]

[Edited on October 5, 2007 at 3:40 PM. Reason : l]

10/5/2007 3:37:57 PM

dude you can't be this ignorant, really

10/5/2007 3:42:37 PM

Quote :

"are they going after bittorrent people hardcore too?"

They are. Check out the following site to keeep up on the RIAA's campaign of bullshit.
http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/

10/5/2007 3:43:57 PM

Quote :

"dude you can't be this ignorant, really"

You are the one that is ignorant if you believe we all live in some fantasy land where our politicians our super heros and live at the end of the rainbow sitting around creating laws in order to perfect society by legislating morality throughout our nation.

I am not trying to argue that we should not have laws. All laws, however, are not created with the best interest of every American in mind. Likewise legality does NOT equal morality. I do not understand how as a educated college student you do not understand this. Yes it is immoral and illegal for me to kill someone. If I embezzle $10K from my company this is immoral and illegal. If I play online poker for $100 buy in I am technically breaking the law; but is this action is immoral???

The answer is actually complex. Morality varies from person to person depending on the way someone is raised, their practicing religion, etc. A hard line Christian would claim that a college student having sex with his girlfriend is immoral; but this relative to that person's perspective. With this in mind I do not see how you can apply a blanket statement about the morality of someone's actions eventhough they may break an arbitrary law.

[Edited on October 5, 2007 at 3:53 PM. Reason : l]

[Edited on October 5, 2007 at 3:53 PM. Reason : l]

10/5/2007 3:47:27 PM

eddie, wtf?



do you get off on trolling a thread and then arguing the dumbest fucking points?

10/5/2007 3:48:14 PM

how am i trolling. We were having a discussion about downloading music and seedless and pigkilla start blowing up about how we are immoral b.c we are breaking the law and downloading his music.

I merely try to point out that just b.c something is illegal does not mean its immoral. Seedless then came back with some stupid comment that I merely tried to dispute in my above statement.

10/5/2007 3:55:30 PM

if you knowingly do something that interferes with another human being for a personal gain and you don't care about what they think thats amoral.

10/5/2007 3:57:26 PM

Last time I checked someone downloading a U2 single off of limewire isn't causing Bono to starve, not support his family, or have his electricity turned off.

oh shit I may have cost some RIAA big shot 0.40 cents out of his $50K bonus check since I did not go out and spend $20 on a U2 album instead. oh feel so shitty . With the collective efforts of me and a few friends the executive may have to settle on the 17'' alloy rims instead of the 18'' chrome rims on his new lexus. That is assuming we would even bother buying a U2 album if it was not available through P2P. As someone pointed out 0% of the settlement money even goes to the artists who were "stolen" from.

I might be able to give you the amoral victory if this thread were about stealing CD's from best buy or hacking into ITunes to get MP3's. Otherwise your logic and reasoning skills suck. In no way do I see how someone P2Ping a few songs interferes with a music artists lives. Using your train of thought the government is immoral b.c they interfere with my life by taking federal taxes out of my paycheck to give it to people on welfare and Medicaid.

btw am i being immoral if I set up my VCR and record a movie showing on AMC or any other channel??? I am "stealing" the right to have a recorded copy of the movie by not purchasing the film right??

[Edited on October 5, 2007 at 4:17 PM. Reason : l]

10/5/2007 4:10:43 PM

lets says 0.40 x 10000000

but anyway, your life skills in general are flawed. did you talk to your parents a lot as kid, and have conversations with them about what 'right' and whats 'wrong'?

Quote :

"Using your train of thought the government is immoral b.c they interfere with my life by taking federal taxes out of my paycheck to give it to people on welfare and Medicaid."

thats the law, you can't dispute that, and it is irrelevant here.

the money belongs to the company's that have the RIGHTS to the music. they in turn pay they artists.

[Edited on October 5, 2007 at 4:16 PM. Reason : asdfa]

10/5/2007 4:14:33 PM

Quote :

" but anyway, your life skills in general are flawed. did you talk to your parents a lot as kid, and have conversations with them about what 'right' and whats 'wrong'?"

yeah i guess i was not properly raised if "hypothetically" we had P2P set up with my father burning CD's for me when i was a teen. Not that this really happened b.c then i would be admitting guilt to an unlawful act on the internet.

Everyone who has ever downloaded a song for free better go hit up the local catholic church for confession otherwise they may end up in hell for being immoral.

I am done arguing with you. Obviously your head is stuck in the sand and this tech thread has gotten too soap boxey



[Edited on October 5, 2007 at 4:22 PM. Reason : l]

10/5/2007 4:20:00 PM

you keep making irrelevant points. i quit and you win on a default. so there. hahaha

10/5/2007 4:21:55 PM

Quote :

"Last time I checked someone downloading a U2 single off of limewire isn't causing Bono to starve, not support his family, or have his electricity turned off."

Are you seriously suggesting that because you haven't caused Bono material harm, that makes downloading U2 music without payment OK?

10/5/2007 4:24:58 PM

Look here, Trolls. Take this pissing contest to the SoapBox if all you're going to do is squabble over petty details.

10/5/2007 4:25:01 PM

she's fighting back!

http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=202300917

Quote :

" Woman Hit By File-Sharing Verdict Fights Back Minnesota mom targeted by the RIAA for illegal downloads proclaims that she "will not be bullied." By K.C. Jones InformationWeek October 8, 2007 12:33 PM The Minnesota woman ordered to pay $220,000 after being found guilty of illegally downloading copyrighted music is loudly voicing her own opinion about the case including plans to appeal the decision. Jammie Thomas' attorney announced Monday that he would appeal the decision, which has been viewed as a victory for the Recording Industry Association of America. The single mother's attorney made the announcement during a CNN interview, just days after a jury found her guilty in the first RIAA case to go to trial. Thomas wrote about the announcement on her MySpace blog. "He explained how we're going to take the RIAA's theory of making [files] available and appeal it," she wrote. "He also explained how if we win, this would stop the RIAA dead in their tracks!!! Every single suit they have brought has been based on this making available theory, and if we can win this appeal, they would actually have to prove a file was shared and by someone other than their own licensed agent." Last week, a jury ordered Thomas of Duluth, Minnesota to pay restitution to six separate record companies -- Sony BMG, Arista Records, Interscope Records, UMG Recordings, Capitol Records, and Warner Bros. Records. The amount covers 24 copyrighted songs illegally downloaded on her computer. Thomas' lawyer argued that someone else could have downloaded the songs either in-person or remotely, but the Minnesota jury sided with the recording industry. The verdict has given critics of the RIAA a rallying point and helped them organize efforts to stop legal actions enacted by Thomas' support group. Thomas said she earns $36,000 a year. Her supporters have donated money to help her fight back. Over the weekend, she reported raising nearly $1,000. "I will be a thorn in the sides of the record companies for the rest of my life if that is what it takes," Thomas wrote on another Web site to help draw support. "I will make this situation the worst thing the recording companies could have ever done to anyone. I will also do everything I can to help others who are in the same situation. I will not be bullied!!!" "

10/8/2007 3:47:01 PM

you know, if she wins on appeal, i think the RIAA is properly fucked

10/8/2007 4:02:25 PM

^ I wish her luck. Sadly, the $1000 she raised over the weekend buys like 8 hours of lawyer time.

10/8/2007 4:03:07 PM

Quote :

"The single mother's"

who the fuck cares about her status as a parent, this is fucking irrelevant to a suit with the riaa. fucking journalists make me sick with this shit.

10/8/2007 4:04:15 PM

^ ah, but it plays well with potential jurors

Quote :

"I wish her luck. Sadly, the $1000 she raised over the weekend buys like 8 hours of lawyer time."

do you think he's charging or doing it pro bono to set a record case and attract clients for future cases?

also, has the RIAA had an actual defeat yet? or just dismissals and settlements?

[Edited on October 8, 2007 at 4:06 PM. Reason : .]

10/8/2007 4:05:51 PM

well yeah that would make sense if someone in her defense had wrote that, but i think the journalists are just playing on the fact that she is a non-white single parent.

10/8/2007 4:08:38 PM

^^ Read http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com

The RIAA has had at least 2 cases dismissed were they've been liable for attorney's fees on the order of upper 5 figures.

10/8/2007 4:12:06 PM

I like how the jury will side with corporate America in the case of a woman falsely accused of downloading music via P2P yet they will side against McD's when some dumb cunt doesn't use her brain and question the manager's request to strip down naked and put a broom in her twat.

Even if this woman did have the "illegal" music making her pay $220K is fucking ridiculous. I hope every person who works for the RIAA rots in hell.

10/8/2007 6:14:39 PM

^ They won't rot. They'll be given job offers.

10/8/2007 7:23:26 PM