panaroma

Simple solution, make copyright infringement a straight criminal matter and sentence in line with other property offences. I'd happily support guarantees of no restriction on internet access, guaranteed and clear fair use rights and a ban on DRM to coincide with it.
 
Dolph said:
Simple solution, make copyright infringement a straight criminal matter and sentence in line with other property offences.
Click to expand...

Simple solution? I think not.

Half the issue with copyright infringement is the burden of proof, and how hard it is to gain reliable proof. This is the same if it's civil or criminal.
 
Burnsy2023 said:
Simple solution? I think not.

Half the issue with copyright infringement is the burden of proof, and how hard it is to gain reliable proof. This is the same if it's civil or criminal.
Click to expand...

It is somewhat easier for the state to gather information than for companies, not least because the state has their monopoly of force to use if necessary. Following up IP identification with a search warrant and requirement for the bill payer to identify the issue or be charged (as exists with driving offences) would be much better than the systems used now of dodgy tagged downloads and the like.
 
Dolph said:
It is somewhat easier for the state to gather information than for companies, not least because the state has their monopoly of force to use if necessary. Following up IP identification with a search warrant and requirement for the bill payer to identify the issue or be charged (as exists with driving offences) would be much better than the systems used now of dodgy tagged downloads and the like.
Click to expand...

Personally, I'd rather see the Digital Economy bill be passed than what you are suggesting.
 
Maybe slightly OT, but this sort of thing that many posters are picking up on in terms of the facts and info / arguments presented in the programme isn't anything new. EVERY ONE of these programs does it, newspapers and all the rest. The only reason you are noticing it is because you, yourself have a high level of knowledge on the subject.

When there's a program about teachers, 1000's of teachers are shouting at the TV saying 'rubbish, etc' and 95% of the rest of the population say 'wow that was a nice informative program' or 'wow i didn't know about all these evil illegal file sharers who must be hunted down ' etc etc
 
Burnsy2023 said:
Personally, I'd rather see the Digital Economy bill be passed than what you are suggesting.
Click to expand...

The most common criticism of the digital economy bill is a lack of due process. I suggest following the same process as every other crime and for some reason that's not acceptable either.

May I ask why you'd prefer the digital economy bill be passed? It seems far more draconian than my suggestion....
 
Whats the situation with streaming movies. i.e. uhh watching any movie you like but you dont download it to your pc at all.

Also with regards to torrents....i dont really think the record/movie companies are after someone who downloads a few movies and watches it - they are after the dudes who download and share sheer terrabytes of stuff....its a numbers game.

All things in moderation....(Aristotle) ehh
 
Dolph said:
http://www.forensicinnovations.com/blog/?p=7
Click to expand...

What this tool does is detect whether a file/volume is encrypted or not. Clearly a 1gb file of random data is encrypted, you don't get files like that normally, what matters is proving it in a court of law, does a piece of software with a 10% false positive rate do that? It's also a defence to have forgotten the key, which would happen when you create many decoy files and don't record the password for them.

However with hidden volumes you admit the data is encrypted and provide a "false" key appearing compliant and as though you have nothing to hide, so the above is irrelevant, you do not wish to hide the fact the volume is encrypted.
 
Last edited:
Being a Usenet/Rapidshare/Torrent hound means you're commendably subverting the powers that be.

On the other hand, it means there's a fair chance you have an insatiable ADD appetite for gulping down American TV shows and pirated games, which is hardly anything to be proud of.
 
Burnsy2023 said:
I'm not sure that's a price point that the media industry would be happy with. Personally I think micropayments is the way forward.
Click to expand...

Problem is that you are a grown up chap with disposable income, no matter how little/much.

For teenages, lots simply don't have the £1 you were suggesting for episodes of house, especially when you can get it for free and keep it. :/

To be quite honest in my opinion the ball is in the media corporations park. It is far to easy and hassle free to download stuff. The latest games are often on the internet before the preorder arrives.

And the sheer money that is saved. £30 for a pc game? £15 for a blu-ray? Saves thousands, no difference in quality.
 
I'm confused, how did the 'Computer Forensic Officer' access the routers admin page? To my knowledge you need to first enter the password for the wireless access point before you can even attempt to access the router admin page. If the wireless access point is unsecured why bother snooping in the admin page?
 
Last edited:
Meatball said:
I'm confused, how did the 'Computer Forensic Officer' access the routers admin page? To my knowledge you need to first enter the password for the wireless access point before you can even attempt to access the router admin page. If the wireless access point is unsecured why bother snooping in the admin page?
Click to expand...

Showing off, imho. The AP was definitely unsecured (the Wifi dialogue said so), so he had no reason to access the router config page/web UI, nor to change the admin login and password. He made out like he HAD to do that to get online, as though the router had DHCP/NAT disabled or something.

If you're about to piggyback a connection, do you sit there quietly using a DHCP LAN IP to surf undetected, or you change the root login and password for the router, locking out the real customer who then rings their ISP asking why their interwebs gone done broke? Cue factory reset of the router, and WPA2-PSK at the ISP's behest if you choose the latter.

I know which option sensible WiFi thieves would take. :p
 
Energize said:
What this tool does is detect whether a file/volume is encrypted or not. Clearly a 1gb file of random data is encrypted, you don't get files like that normally, what matters is proving it in a court of law, does a piece of software with a 10% false positive rate do that? It's also a defence to have forgotten the key, which would happen when you create many decoy files and don't record the password for them.

However with hidden volumes you admit the data is encrypted and provide a "false" key appearing compliant and as though you have nothing to hide, so the above is irrelevant, you do not wish to hide the fact the volume is encrypted.
Click to expand...

You can change your posts as many times as you want. If an investigating officer asks to see encrypted data then you have to be able to give them access to it. Otherwise you're very probably going to go to jail.
 
Cybermyk said:
You can change your posts as many times as you want. If an investigating officer asks to see encrypted data then you have to be able to give them access to it. Otherwise you're very probably going to go to jail.
Click to expand...

Read the link I posted, you clearly do not understand the concept of hidden volumes. You provide a key to the police which decrypts the data, but not to the plaintext you are hiding.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom