Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Wireless Networking Your Rights Online Hardware

Paramount Sues Ohio Man For $100,000 724

ematic writes "A hapless tech-novice finds himself in a US$100,000 lawsuit with Paramount Pictures for allegedly uploading the movie, Coach Carter, to eDonkey. Paramount had the police seize his four computers, but nothing was found. The tech-novice maintains his innocence, and contends that he is a victim of a drive-by upload. According to the ChannelCincinnati story, the victim 'is either a slick film pirate or an unwitting victim of someone who fits that description.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Paramount Sues Ohio Man For $100,000

Comments Filter:
  • Tech Novice? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by BigZaphod ( 12942 ) on Wednesday December 14, 2005 @02:34AM (#14254011) Homepage
    A tech novice with 4 computers? That seems sort of unlikely. I'm not saying he's guilty, but the facts just don't seem to mesh with the description there.
  • Indeed... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Sensible Clod ( 771142 ) on Wednesday December 14, 2005 @02:35AM (#14254017) Homepage
    either a slick film pirate or an unwitting victim of someone who fits that description

    Which is of course why these kinds of tactics don't, and won't, work in the long run. All the unwitting victims just net you bad publicity, while the slick file pirates just sit and laugh.
  • What the... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Tezkah ( 771144 ) on Wednesday December 14, 2005 @02:37AM (#14254029)
    Paramount has looked at all four computers in Lee's home, alleging he had one of them cleaned to erase evidence. The company has filed a federal lawsuit against the Blue Ash man.

    Movie companies have the right to look at all the computers in your house, because you allegedly commited *copyright infringement*.

    Wow.
  • by michaeltoe ( 651785 ) on Wednesday December 14, 2005 @02:37AM (#14254032) Journal
    If he keeps a lot of old machines around it's not that unreasonable.
  • Motive? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by yog ( 19073 ) on Wednesday December 14, 2005 @02:44AM (#14254068) Homepage Journal
    The news article is short on facts. So, what's this guy's motivation for uploading a movie to the internet? Did they even establish that he possesses the movie or a copy of it? Did he admit to such possession? What about his computer that was supposedly "cleaned"--what makes them think so, and how can they prove it? And, one might ask, how can they establish that this alleged uploading cost them $100,000.

    There are a lot of unanswered questions here. This is typical of the big media companies now, just like the Mafia: shake down the little people and get the word out that you should toe the line and pay your protection money, or we'll get you.

    I do agree that circumstantial evidence seems to suggest he's a bit more tech savvy than one might think, but on the other hand, a tech-savvy person can also get their network broken into or their password stolen. Basically, this company doesn't have a leg to stand on. Maybe that's why they're shaking him down for so much money, to make him feel he has no choice but to settle.

  • Re:Tech Novice? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by JanneM ( 7445 ) on Wednesday December 14, 2005 @02:44AM (#14254069) Homepage
    My SO has no interest or talent for computers; she needs them for work and communication, that's all. She has all her older Macs still around, and she has the next-to-newest still connected along with the current machine since she feels more comfortable and secure getting to the data on it directly rather than moving it (and thus having the potential for application and OS version problems, lost or corrupted data and so on). She treats each one as a separate, volatile, black box, and once one is running, she does as little to it as possible.

    Of course, as a result, she does have a lot less issues to deal with than I do with my machines :)

  • 2 things: (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Zunni ( 565203 ) on Wednesday December 14, 2005 @02:45AM (#14254072)
    1) Is anyone else extremely troubled by the following line from the article "A DVD that retails for $21.99 could cost a local man more than $100,000,".
    Seriously? $100,000? Quick math tells me that he would have had to share the movie 4,547 and 1/2 times to have shared enough copies to equal that price tag. I get the idea of a deterent but man. Side note even if the film was compressed to around 700 megs or so (to fit on a CD) that would take 3,183,265 and some change megabyes of bandwidth (3 terabytes if my late nite mind is still working at all) to share that file that many times. Seems a little unlikely the punishment fits the crime.

    2) Isn't there a burden of proof on the prosecution in this case? Don't they have to show he was the one responsible for uploading the file? If someone steals my car then commits a drive by shooting, I can't be held responsible, can I? To me, having an open wireless access point seems perfectly reasonable (if that is your preference) and it would seem to be a tough sell to get a judge to fine this guy when there's no evidence he did anything wrong and he can produce a line of reasonable doubt.

    I'm not up to date on case law in the US, so maybe I'm wrong but seems really shaky at first glance.
  • by Snowspinner ( 627098 ) * <philsand@@@ufl...edu> on Wednesday December 14, 2005 @02:47AM (#14254082) Homepage
    Someone pirated the movie! That explains why it only made $67 million instead of being a hit!
  • Re:Tech Novice? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 14, 2005 @02:49AM (#14254085)
    Family Desktop
    Family Laptop
    Kid's Computer
    Work Laptop

    Family Desktop
    Kid's Computer
    Other Kid's Computer
    Work Laptop

    Family Desktop
    Kid's Desktop
    Work Laptop
    Wife's Work Laptop

    Family Desktop
    Kid's Desktop
    Old Family Desktop Collecting Dust in Storage
    Work Laptop

    etc... etc...
  • Police Priorities? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by LaPoderosa ( 908833 ) on Wednesday December 14, 2005 @02:53AM (#14254107)
    What sickens me here is far more serious offenses than this go ignored if reported by your average citizen. I know countless people who've been the victims of theft or internet fraud, and even with names and addresses of the perps they haven't had any action taken, just another report going in the file bin.
  • by Zunni ( 565203 ) on Wednesday December 14, 2005 @02:54AM (#14254114)
    tbh, it doesn't matter if he's Bill 'freakin' Gates, has multiple fibre-lines running into his house and has server rack upon server rack in his basement. If they can't find the files in question on his machine AND he can produce reasonable doubt , they 'should' have a tough time prosecuting him.

    And don't you know, internet pirates be dangerous people YARR!!! What's a little bit o' perjury for those scurvy devils....
  • "Drive-by"? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mblase ( 200735 ) on Wednesday December 14, 2005 @02:57AM (#14254121)
    The tech-novice maintains his innocence, and contends that he is a victim of a drive-by upload.

    I admit I haven't seen "Coach Carter", and I'm not using hard numbers here, but I estimate that uploading an entire motion picture at any worthwhile quality would take at least six hours, maybe twelve. That's not a drive-by, that's your next-door neighbor using your bandwidth all day long.
  • Re:What the... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 14, 2005 @03:00AM (#14254137)
    I think Bill Gates is ripping off my source code, I'll create some random documents that "support" that notion and I'm on my way to Redmond to have him open up the new Windows Source Code so I can verify my stuff isn't in there.

    You can't afford the legal fees to get you the same rights as the MPAA. You're legally classified as a nobody. Bill Gates, however, is a respected member of the community - respect in the order of several billions I believe. The courts won't even be interested in anything you have to say.
  • Re:What the... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Vengie ( 533896 ) on Wednesday December 14, 2005 @03:04AM (#14254154)
    There are no facts here. Fuentes v Shevin -- you can't just sequester shit without due process. It's not just "you file a rule 26(b)(1) motion and "poof" you can barge in and take his computers...
  • Re:Tech Novice? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by joystickgenie ( 913297 ) <joleske@joystickgenie.com> on Wednesday December 14, 2005 @03:07AM (#14254159) Homepage
    I would have to say that comes from the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing
  • Re:$100,000? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by free space ( 13714 ) on Wednesday December 14, 2005 @03:08AM (#14254162)
    I didn't know what statutory damage was so I looked it up [gigalaw.com], thanks for mentioning the subject.
    For what it's worth, I think it's a bad concept. The punishment should not exceed the 'crime'. And if the damage can't be calculated accurately, it's better to err on the side of the defendants , even it it means some real infringers will walk away.
  • Re:What the... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Otterley ( 29945 ) on Wednesday December 14, 2005 @03:08AM (#14254165)
    Uh, you mean other than the fact that the plaintiffs have an IP address associated with the upload of the movie that are associated with the defendant's use of his Internet service?
  • Re:Tech Novice? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ArcadeNut ( 85398 ) on Wednesday December 14, 2005 @03:11AM (#14254176) Homepage

    I find it bizarre that, just because certain people are not fans of the concept of intellectual property as it applies to movie downloads, they automatically assume that someone who is accused of breaking these laws is innocent.


    I find it bizarre that you would assume he is guilty. What ever happened to "Innocent until proven guilty"? If he is guilty, let the evidence speak to that fact. The burden should be on the prosecution to prove that he in fact did commit the crime.

  • by TheoMurpse ( 729043 ) on Wednesday December 14, 2005 @03:18AM (#14254197) Homepage
    Sounds like you've convicted him already; I thought it was "innocent until proven guilty."
  • Piece of cake ... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Ex-MislTech ( 557759 ) on Wednesday December 14, 2005 @03:18AM (#14254200)
    Sniff for IP addresses active during business hours, but essentially are unavailabe after hours .

    Then figure out that persons MAC address, and spoof it with MAC change on ur router/firewall .

    Upload ur movie, reset, adios .

    Odds are it isn't even that brilliant, the guy with the router prolly picked a MAC address
    assigned to a NIC type that he does not even own, as the list is published .

    He prolly picked the last few hex digits at random .

    Alot of dorm ppl are doing this to ppl that have their computers direct connected ,
    and the Uni is too cheap to replace the hubs at the edge of the network .

    So they don't get fried for doing p2p over their dorm connect .

    If they had managed switches at the edge of their network they could stop this behaviour .

    Not all Uni's have switches at the edge of their network yet, ones where sports is
    more important often neglect the tech/sci to spend multiple millions on chasing sewn
    together animal skin, aka baseball, volleyball, football, basketball .

    Stadiums and Arenas that could house all the US homeless 10 times over are left empty
    more days than they are full, pathetic .

    We wonder why other parts of the world are starting to pass us by .... priorities...

    Rome...Bread and Circuses...

    Ex-MislTech
  • by cottcd ( 615219 ) on Wednesday December 14, 2005 @03:23AM (#14254220)
    ...or maybe he is like my mom. She doesn't waste money but just won't get rid of her old machines, dating back to the first one she bought ten years ago. She's as far from a techie as one can get but has at least three at home.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 14, 2005 @03:34AM (#14254271)
    Willful blindness, such as you suggest, is pretty obvious and does not help people get off the hook.

    Not even remotely true. Are you trying to tell me that the courts expect Joe Sixpack and Jane Boxwine to understand the civil and criminal implications of buying a Linksys router at Best Buy and just plugging it in?

    With halfway-competent defense, no judge or jury on planet Earth would hand down a guilty verdict in a trial where the defendant was using an open access point. Civil, criminal, I don't care.
  • by shawb ( 16347 ) on Wednesday December 14, 2005 @03:56AM (#14254344)
    Someone who doesn't want to get busted for sharing it through their own ISP? Or maybe his neighbor who simply didn't want to pay for high speed?
  • by Barkmullz ( 594479 ) on Wednesday December 14, 2005 @03:58AM (#14254349)
    I have 5 networked computers at home. My WAP's security is a bit shaky. I sometimes "clean" computers. This is not enough information to determine if he did it. I would like to think the prosecutor have more information that we are not privy to.

    This guy I know has a lot of guns. He also makes a lot of his own ammo. Recently, he *gasp* cleaned his pistol. Clearly he is hiding evidence and he is the killer we are looking for.

  • by DeafByBeheading ( 881815 ) on Wednesday December 14, 2005 @04:01AM (#14254355) Journal
    Also, considering some wireless cards have no official Linux support, and the unofficial open-source projects to write drivers don't offer WPA yet, we could use this to push for better official Linux support: "I'm sorry, Your Honor, I couldn't run a secure network because Texas Instruments won't release Linux drivers and the drivers reverse-engineered by volunteers can't quite do WPA yet". Of course, the likely response would be, "Wait, did you just say 'reverse-eningeered'? I'd better pull out the DMCA and pile on some more charges."
  • Seriously (Score:4, Insightful)

    by sieb ( 749103 ) on Wednesday December 14, 2005 @04:06AM (#14254373)
    Why are all of these lawsuits based on false numbers? $100,000 for a movie that sucked which he may/may not have uploaded. "Who cares, take everything he has, someone has to pay!" Its not like Paramount would ever see that money anyway, it all goes to the lawyers. And its not like that guy could just fork over 100grand either. He'd have to file bankruptcy. Aside from ruining the rest of his life financially, they still wouldn't get any money out of him. Sure, you could say "these deter would-be pirates." My ass, just hits home that all any big company cares about is money, even if they have to ruin your life to get it..
  • Re:Tech Novice? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Gravis Zero ( 934156 ) on Wednesday December 14, 2005 @04:23AM (#14254428)
    I would have to say that comes from the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing

    in the current state of the judicial system, it's guilty until proven innocent.
  • Re:Tech Novice? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 14, 2005 @04:28AM (#14254435)

    Knowing the MPAA/RIAA and their tactics, the definition of "four computers" was probably more like:

    • His computer
    • His wireless router
    • His old Commodore 64 stuffed in storage in his garage
    • His PDA

    He should count himself lucky if they didn't take his cell phone and wristwatch.

    What I'm curious about is this: How the hell did Paramount have the police seize four of his computers? IANAL, but last time I checked, that would have required a search warrant obtained by a judge with probable cause that he commited a crime. Even assuming that they went through that trouble, it would be law enforcement officers who would investigate the computers, not Paramount. But TFA specifically says, "Paramount has looked at all four computers in Lee's home..." Hmmm...

    I figure the more likely scenario is that Paramount told the guy, "If you let us have your computers, we won't sue you." The guy, not being a lawyer and thinking that was a good deal, said, "Okay," then erased one of his hard drives, since he was at least smart enough to know that if Paramount found what they were looking for they would have sued him anyway. (Or maybe he's innocent and just didn't want them to see his downloaded porn collection; either way doesn't matter.) Then Paramount, mad, sued him anyway.

    The guy needs to go get a really lawyer pronto. Whether he's innocent or guilty, Paramount is going to do their best to screw him, and personally, even if he's guilty, I hope he comes out of this clean. Not because I think that sharing files illegally is okay, but becuase they (Paramount) are using crooked tactics that are much worse than the crimes this guy may or may not have committed.

  • by laughingcoyote ( 762272 ) <barghesthowl@@@excite...com> on Wednesday December 14, 2005 @04:31AM (#14254451) Journal

    This is a friendly message to let you know that you are stupid.

    "ur", "ppl", and "prolly" are not even -close- to words. Please become literate to a minimum sixth-grade level before inflicting yourself on us.

    Thank you!

  • Re:Tech Novice? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Ihlosi ( 895663 ) on Wednesday December 14, 2005 @04:35AM (#14254462)
    A tech novice with 4 computers?



    You can have four cars and still don't know how an engine actually works ...

  • Re:Tech Novice? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by volfro ( 915297 ) on Wednesday December 14, 2005 @04:38AM (#14254471)
    I work at a computer repair store [thatcomputerchick.com], and you'd be surprised at the number of people who own more than one (Windows) computer which is junked up and crapping out on them, despite having (supposedly) computer literate relatives or they themselves being somewhat literate. We're talking small business owners and families, some of whom own and network many computers, not just three or four. These are people that are technologically savvy enough to install, say, a driver, but not technologically savvy enough to protect themselves with any sort of encryption--let alone PeerGuardian or anything of the sort.

    Ironically, TFA mentions that Paramount is accusing him of the "crime" based on evidence that he wiped his drive recently. At my store, when we get Windows machines on the bench, that's usually the best option--image HD if customer so desires, wipe the HD and reinstall Windows and any programs, and restore legal data. Windows gets so junked up while these people use their computers that antivirus isn't an option, so many drives get wiped every single day.

    So it wouldn't surprise me at all if he actually does own four computers, networks them wirelessly, and has no idea what he's doing. I help people in similar situations all the time.

    I guess he's learned to secure his WiFi. Paramount has no case, and the industry continues its downward, anti-consumer spiral.

  • Re:Motive? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by dosh8er ( 608167 ) <oyamao@NosPam.gmail.com> on Wednesday December 14, 2005 @04:42AM (#14254485) Homepage Journal
    Not to be prudish, but, if you watch ANY major flick, (minus the PIRATED versions) there is an FBI warning before anything else happens, stating 100,000 usd fines and/or jail-time for illegal coping, distribution and the like (IANAL- obviously). Perhaps that is where the 100k figure originates...

    fishy, perhaps. Innocent until proven guilty (at least I hope that's still true...)
  • Re:Tech Novice? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by JWSmythe ( 446288 ) * <jwsmythe@[ ]mythe.com ['jws' in gap]> on Wednesday December 14, 2005 @04:50AM (#14254522) Homepage Journal

        Nope. Don't forget the Patriot Act. You're guilty until trial, which may happen at an undetermined time, without a lawyer, in a closed court of the government's choosing. If the government things you did something against it, you'll find yourself rotting in Southeast Cuba, or any number of non-existant prisons in countries where they'll ignore the happenings of non-existant front companies who happen to own prisons in remote areas.

        [knock][knock]

        Who's at my door?
  • by Rinkhals ( 930763 ) on Wednesday December 14, 2005 @07:01AM (#14254881)
    Yikes!

    As someone living in the third world, I am constantly amazed at how little protection is afforded the average American by their laws. Obviously, I am not refering to O.J.Simpson or Michael Jackson.

    And yet the death penalty has pretty much universal support!

    Not only is it shocking that these Corporations seem to be all-powerful and there seems nothing that ordinary Americans can do against them, but they seem to have sanction from every section of your community.

    Everybody here seems to be saying: "Well, I believe he did it, he should hang". Nobody seems to think how ludicrous it is to pursue ordinary citizens for these kind of punative damages.

    Wow.
  • by phiwum ( 319633 ) <jesse@phiwumbda.org> on Wednesday December 14, 2005 @07:36AM (#14254968) Homepage
    It's possible that you are thinking of the legal system as a mechanism that is not intelligent, and can be gotten around through cleverness. That is not the case.

    Really? I thought that assumption was exactly why lawyers get the big bucks. They have the cleverness (and know-how) to get around the legal system.

    Nah, I'm not really this cynical about law and lawyers, but I could use the ill-gotten karma. Reward me for cheap shots! Please!
  • Re:Tech Novice? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by smchris ( 464899 ) on Wednesday December 14, 2005 @08:24AM (#14255079)
    Trust me. I know a couple guys with a bunch of computers each I wouldn't trust around any of my machines if they were on fire. I figure it is the modern equivalent to having several cars on blocks in front of your trailer home.

    I think the moral here is that the argument/alibi for excusable irresponsibility because the network was unsecured probably isn't working so well.
  • by zakezuke ( 229119 ) on Wednesday December 14, 2005 @09:06AM (#14255250)
    Who the hell wants to 'share' a movie with others of p2p networks so much that they would go war-driving? I have a very strong feeling that this guy is lying. Of-course this will have to be proven in court, but it is just a gut feeling. In the case he actually did this, he deserves what is coming to him.

    From time to time I can see my neighbors wireless connection. If I so desired I imagine I could mount an antenna and use it with with great reliability... granted that would be wrong but the fact of the matter is it's possible. In fact I just had a call last week about a friend setting up a new laptop and boom... instent wireless access... and was asking about the morality. As I couldn't see anything in jiwire on the subject, given the name is something like "linksys" or "dlink" or something generic I had to say it was probally not a free hotspot but some joker that didn't know any better. The moral thing to do would be to inform them of the condition and tell them to call technical support.

    My point is, while I think this sort of think carries with it some bad mojo, and isn't quite ethical.... there are others who'd spy a unsecured connection, or even hack a secured one, for the obvious benifit of tapping someone else's bandwith with pretty much no accountability and very little risk.
  • Re:Motive? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SatanicPuppy ( 611928 ) <Satanicpuppy@OPENBSDgmail.com minus bsd> on Wednesday December 14, 2005 @10:01AM (#14255540) Journal
    The big problem with trying to secure wipe your drive is that it takes hours...Not really the kind of thing that you can do with the feds beating on your door. Even a secure wipe of the slack space (deleted files, swap file, etc) would take a significant amount of time.

    You'd have to be savvy enough to know you need to secure erase, paranoid enough to think you might be nailed at any time, and proactive enough to schedule erasure for every night at 5:00am (Bedtime).

    It's not that I don't think that a person could be those things. I do think, however, that a person who is ALL of those things would be unlikely to be mistaken for a neophyte by anyone.
  • Re:Tech Novice? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 14, 2005 @10:12AM (#14255593)
    Curious really, as you can't haul in the householder for murder because someone in "that house" killed someone... The law demands proof that the specific person did the specific crime. In fact there have been cases that have collapsed because 2 suspects both pointed to each other, and no proof could be found to nail it to one or the other.

    Amazing how the law bends when huge corporations are involved...

    Welcome to the land of the free and the home of the paranoid!
  • by cduffy ( 652 ) <charles+slashdot@dyfis.net> on Wednesday December 14, 2005 @10:17AM (#14255625)
    One of the nifty things that computers make easier is called "editing". Perhaps you've heard of the process? It involves going back over things which have been written out and making improvements. People typically "edit" to improve clarity, accuracy, style, tone and content. It also provides a manner to convert notes jotted down quickly to readable prose intended for 3rd-party consumption.

    Failure to do this last bit indicates contempt for your audience -- and a general lack of class on your own part. Think of /. as a big technical meeting with folks running the gamut from n00bs to accomplished engineers. You wouldn't spit on the engineers in a real-life forum if you wanted them to respect you; likewise, you shouldn't use shorthand in your posts in a technical forum online if you want to be considered anything more than another scum-of-the-earth clueless idiot inherited from AOL.

    I realize that being told that you should go out of your way to change your habits isn't much fun -- but if you don't want to be looked down on by those who might otherwise have cause (even if you think it's bad cause) to consider themselves your betters, you should seriously consider it.
  • Re:Motive? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dwandy ( 907337 ) on Wednesday December 14, 2005 @10:18AM (#14255629) Homepage Journal
    To the best of my knowledge, though, they wouldn't be able to prove that he did it as a result of their arrival. Circumstantial at best. Personally, I could see an innocent man OR a guilty man doing the exact same thing.

    This reminds me of the "you have encryption tools, you must have something to hide" bit from a couple of months ago...
    There is absolutely nothing illegal about having encryption tools, or having wiped your HDD with something stronger than a format.

    Try:
    He is cleaning an axe: he must be an axe murderer.
    She has covered a car: the car underneath must be stolen.
    He paid cash: he must be engaged in tax evasion.

    There are lots of activities that honest people engage in every day for reasons that are their own ... I think the reason we see this is because poeple don't understand technology, and so anything can be considered dangerous, malicious or evidence of illegal activity.

  • by davidsyes ( 765062 ) on Wednesday December 14, 2005 @10:34AM (#14255754) Homepage Journal
    that typically, when the police seize anything--ESPECIALLY computers--- they tend to hold on to the items as evidence that they "did the public duty". Worse, than having your shit seized is having it in THEIR hands for MONTHS because of either their being backlogged (in which case the complainant should pay an expedite fee so that even IF their is their stolen material on it, it should be scraped, tagged, and your original stuff returned PRONTO so you can get back to work or homework), OR the cops LIKE what they see and decide to drag ass on returning it.

    With digital content being wrung harder for profits and with the studios and others hell-bent to make examples of others, and with the police needing to show the public its money is being well spent, it's probably inevitable that more people will be pulled into the hollywood/content provider dragnet.

    The best thing WE can do is to archive ALL our work and make SO many identical copies that it would be PROFOUNDLY egregious (in the eyes of a FAIR judge AND in the eyes of the public) for ANY police or complainant to say "give us ALLLLL of your archives, no matter how redundant they are".

    What the law enforcement agencies need to do or be FORCED to do is this:

    Perform NO search and NO seizure unless the party asking for the warrant provides forensic and archival equipment to protect the accused from suffering work stoppage, psychological damage (hey, I'd go goddam ballistic if my shit were seized, as I PAY for my DVDs and music, even if it costs $15-$30-- I don't even really lament not copying music from amaroK), and to keep unnecessary eyes from prying too deeply and too long at stuff on the seized machines that is NOT their business (business plans, school work, love letters, research...), not of danger value and probably would take them YEARS just to sort out before even reading the multiple versions and revisions of endless stuff.

    Nice police will insist the accusers not run all over the accused. We're supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. With abuse of unsecure (not INsecure) internet access, poorly protected windoze boxes, ignorant users, and a lot of greedy or lazy pirates and "fair-use" abusers, it's just a matter of time before almost ANYone with a computer connected to the Net is a recipient of a boilerplate letter.

    SCARY.
  • by Ogive17 ( 691899 ) on Wednesday December 14, 2005 @10:58AM (#14255924)
    It's a bit hypocritical making fun of this guy's shorthand while "/., IANAL, RTFA" appear in 99% of the topics.

    I'll agree phrases like "ppl" and "ur" make the author sound immature, but we all use shortcuts on a daily basis.
  • by Maestro4k ( 707634 ) on Wednesday December 14, 2005 @11:05AM (#14255992) Journal
    Who the hell wants to 'share' a movie with others of p2p networks so much that they would go war-driving? I have a very strong feeling that this guy is lying. Of-course this will have to be proven in court, but it is just a gut feeling. In the case he actually did this, he deserves what is coming to him.
    So you really think that $100,000 is a reasonable fine for uploading a movie? Personally I do feel he should be punished if he's guilty but I also feel that the punishment here is totally out of line with what this guy supposedly did. We need a bit of sanity right now with copyright infringement and $100k fines aren't part of that.
  • by poot_rootbeer ( 188613 ) on Wednesday December 14, 2005 @11:25AM (#14256146)
    And yet the death penalty has pretty much universal support [in the United States]!

    If you believe this to be true, I recommend you seek out other media sources for your news about American affairs, as we are FAR from unified in our views about the death penalty.
  • Re:Tech Novice? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Reliant-1864 ( 530256 ) <sabarokaresh@@@yahoo...ca> on Wednesday December 14, 2005 @11:40AM (#14256278)
    You're talking about criminal court, where there has to be "beyond a reasonable doubt". This case is in civil court, which is just a "preponderance of the evidence". I think this one will go in favor of the defendant, the only evidence Paramount has is the IP address, which can easily be shown on unsecure wireless to be very unreliable for accuracy. They couldn't find any corroborating evidence on the computers. Paramount should have dropped it, bet you it's just lawyers wanting to get a paycheck for pursuing a case
  • by laffer1 ( 701823 ) <luke AT foolishgames DOT com> on Wednesday December 14, 2005 @12:44PM (#14256863) Homepage Journal
    Many computer science programs do offer network security courses. My university, for example, offers a course on hacking windows and linux machines. The class starts by installing windows and linux desktops and servers. Then 4 teams work on cracking the others using known and unknown exploits. The rule is you can only patch up to a certain level so that its fair for all involved. After so many exploits, you pass the class.

    My wife took the course and it certainly helped her a great deal. My friend stopped attempting to hack us after she demonstrated her knowledge on his server :)

    As for wireless security, rule number 1 is to assume you'll never secure it 100%. I don't care what technology you use, its possible to crack it given enough time. Remember we are talking about a network everyone has "physical" access too. I can sniff my neighbors networks. I know of programs to figure out keys. Watch traffic to find valid mac addresses and spoof one to get past mac address protection. There are ways to get into wireless networks. When i added a wireless router to my network, i put up firewalls on each of my hard wired machines. I'm even considering making a seperate interface in my main router (a freebsd machine) for that traffic to lock it out of my main network using firewall rules there. I'm using WPA2 personal and i don't feel all warm and cozy. Just remember, anything you do on a wireless network should be encrypted if its important with another layer of security. For example, my imap and smtp servers use ssl/tls encryption for logins. My websites have SSL enabled so that i can access them securely while using wireless. I use sftp to transfer files to wireless machines, etc. I also realize that any IM conversation i have can be read by others either on my end or on my friends end. Think about it this way, I can do everything right here, but he could be at a cafe with no encryption on at the other end.

    Finally, buy a copy of 2600 sometime and find out whats possible. It isn't the end all source, but most people with any computer background can get something out of those articles. Its a good read. Best Buy had a lot of wireless problems because they are idiots. :)
  • by crabpeople ( 720852 ) on Wednesday December 14, 2005 @01:17PM (#14257140) Journal
    "Think of /. as a big technical meeting with folks running the gamut from n00bs to accomplished engineers. "

    Yeah um no... Maybe thats what YOU think slashdot is but not everyone is exactly like YOU, now are they?

    To me slashdot is a tech oriented daycare where there are 10 000 people all saying "notice me" or "i have something to contribute" or "in soviet russia..." etc. Most people are generally ignored. People are generally here from 9am to 5pm EST, work in some IT related industry and basically come becuase they dont have enough work to do. The ratio of interesting posts to non interesting usually falls around 1:50 (one out of 50). Critizing someones grammer or spelling is imature in this environment. its not a stuffy academic environment, its not a business environment where we all have to pretend to get along. To me slashdot is where the true flab of the underbelly of the internet occasionally bursts through its seams. If your lucky, you get a small glimpse of reality, like the flab, before the whole thing gets covered with makeup and glitz.

    oh and additionally, i did proof read this post, as i do with all my posts. Perhaps words like 'ppl' arent actually an error, or a product of lazyness. What if they are a natural progression of language? Personally i think that words like 'you' and 'are' shouldn't be shortened. Big words like 'people' should be.

    i did see your user id. it doesnt scare me.

  • Multiculturalism (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Simonetta ( 207550 ) on Wednesday December 14, 2005 @02:24PM (#14257698)
    And you were doing so well. Up to a point.

    "But they aren't Arabs, so instead of blowing people up..."

    Shame on you.


    Multiculturalism is a good thing. But it is basically an illusion because it assumes that all cultures are equal and that people are basically good.
        However, we owe it to the thousands of people who have been randomly murdered by the adherents of a specific culture that there is the possiblity that certain cultures may be disfunctional and therefore be unable to be able to understand and follow the ideals of multiculturalism.
        I deliberately chose to emphasize the fact that since the beginning of the modern age of terrorism, it has been the Arabs that have consistently and deliberately blown up random non-Arabs to bring world attention to their issues. No other people have done this to the extent that the Arabs have. I therefore am compelled in the memory of the people randomly and horribly murdered to call attention to the possiblity that it is the Arab culture that is unable to function within the ideals of multiculturalism. I should be ashamed and would be ashamed to say that this particular culture is disfunctional in the modern world, were it not for all the blood and body parts lying in the street whereever Arabs feel that they have been mistreated or slighted by either history or the modern world.
  • by Drakkenfyre ( 630503 ) on Wednesday December 14, 2005 @03:12PM (#14258072) Journal
    Because in this system, you need money to have your rights enforced. Does a guy who is upset because of lost work for lack of a computer sound like the kind of guy who can hire a lawyer for that sort of thing? No. Instead, he sounds like most of us, who don't have that option.

    Not being argumentative, but unless you or someone on this board can recommend a lawyer admitted to the bar in his state that would take the case on spec, he might be just as out of luck as the rest of us would be.
  • by NFN_NLN ( 633283 ) on Wednesday December 14, 2005 @03:37PM (#14258262)
    How thorough are the searches. I mean, if you had CAT5 running through your walls, and it just so happened that a V-Gear LanDisk was connected into that network and actually dry walled into the wall... would they ever find your data? They'd essentially be hauling away dumb terminals :)
  • by laughingcoyote ( 762272 ) <barghesthowl@@@excite...com> on Wednesday December 14, 2005 @05:05PM (#14259049) Journal

    Well then, since it's so easy, let's have a bit of a challenge here.

    Throw away your ID, birth certificate, social security card, credit cards, and any other documents or identification. You won't be needing them for this challenge-for the homeless, they're long since lost or stolen.

    Throw away any cash you have on hand, your car keys, your checkbook, your ATM card, and any other access to currency. If you want money, you will have to go hold out a sign, perform on the street, or otherwise get hold of it that way.

    Now, you're not quite good and homeless yet. Don't take a shower or change your clothes for a week.

    Now-go find a job. And if you can do it, I'll happily agree with your point.

  • Re:Tech Novice? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by AnotherBlackHat ( 265897 ) on Wednesday December 14, 2005 @05:05PM (#14259056) Homepage

      No it doesn't.


    "begs the question" has more than one meaning.
    Get over it.

  • Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Wednesday December 14, 2005 @07:59PM (#14260271)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

"But what we need to know is, do people want nasally-insertable computers?"

Working...