UK court to unmask 'file-sharers'

Dazzy_G · 31 Jan 2006 at 22:35

Spyhop · 31 Jan 2006 at 22:36

Only a fool shares files at all, or any more than the minimum forced by the likes of bit torrent. Screw honour among internet thieves.

I dunno, unless they instantly bag up your PC, I reckon you could do a good job in claiming some random dude must have been using your unsecured wireless network.

benjo plz. · 31 Jan 2006 at 22:37

Here's a question, what about files like Family Guy, Lost, OC etc, we've had Music and Software, what about video?

oldbag · 31 Jan 2006 at 22:38

That's why in student areas and whatnot you have a tight f/w policy to stop the outgoing traffic to the popular programs...

HaX · 31 Jan 2006 at 22:39

Phnom_Penh said:
Here's a question, what about files like Family Guy, Lost, OC etc, we've had Music and Software, what about video?

As far as I know - exactly the sam. There have already been cases in the UK of people being sued for distributing TV Programmes and films.

oldbag · 31 Jan 2006 at 22:41

The p2p world as we know it will probably end, something else will take its place. Filesharing will never dissappear totally as people who don't consider it to be a risk/or care, will still use it.

Dazzy_G · 31 Jan 2006 at 22:42

Hmm what if you pay a TV license and download programs shown on the bbc? or download programs from other channels but leave the ads in?

Dazzy_G · 31 Jan 2006 at 22:51

Pho said:
Microsoft have got semi-wise to that, our uni has an Acaemic MSDN thing, we get things like XP Pro, Visual Studio etc free. No office though. They know for a fact that 0.001% of students will buy the software .

MSDAA - we have that at Kent, only for the Computer Science students obviously, its quite good, also recently found out that Kent have a source code licence for windows i think :S somthing like that.
if any of the software i download from that got shared though its directly tracable back to me, as the iso gets made when it downloads adding in the CD Key automatically i think, somthing like that

The Uni doesnt allow external fileshareing programs to run

Phil99 · 31 Jan 2006 at 23:15

Dazzy_G said:
Hmm what if you pay a TV license and download programs shown on the bbc? or download programs from other channels but leave the ads in?

Still illegal.

Take a look at the BBC iMP trials though. I can download pretty much any BBC produced TV programme to view up to a week after broadcasting. It doesn't cover everything and is still in the early stages, but it's a step in the right direction

Unconditional · 2 Feb 2006 at 15:21

wush said:
I dunno, unless they instantly bag up your PC, I reckon you could do a good job in claiming some random dude must have been using your unsecured wireless network.

Yes but its YOUR connection and therefore YOUR responsibility to secure it.

bam0 · 2 Feb 2006 at 15:34

Unconditional said:
Yes but its YOUR connection and therefore YOUR responsibility to secure it.

If I leave my car around unlocked and with the keys in the ignition I am not liable if someone steals it and runs someone down.
Even if you had WEP on your access point it's easily crackable and the person who does so and uses your system is the one who breaks the law.
Alongside the analogy of speeding fines people have gotten off when they have been genuinely unable to identify the driver.

FeFiDoh · 2 Feb 2006 at 15:58

What bout IRC, surely thats quite hard to track? Plus many channels have disclaimers as well saying they accept no responsibility does that actually hold up in courts?

Vonhelmet · 2 Feb 2006 at 16:02

Jagen said:
If I leave my car around unlocked and with the keys in the ignition I am not liable if someone steals it and runs someone down.
Even if you had WEP on your access point it's easily crackable and the person who does so and uses your system is the one who breaks the law.
Alongside the analogy of speeding fines people have gotten off when they have been genuinely unable to identify the driver.

Yes, but if the TOS say that it is your responsibility to secure the connection, then you're looking at simple breach of contract.

MNuTz · 2 Feb 2006 at 16:08

Im suprised that they havent released their own sharing program that spys on you.

You could download it, install it and then send records of your file sharing to the official bodies involved. They could then do one huge nation wide bust on them.

Im aware there would be issues with privacy but if it was all planned out properly and had something in the licence that the user agreed (after all, who reads them?) with then they could do it.

bam0 · 2 Feb 2006 at 16:10

vonhelmet said:
Yes, but if the TOS say that it is your responsibility to secure the connection, then you're looking at simple breach of contract.

The TOS covers the agreement between you and your service provider, I don't see how it can infer legal liability onto you in this situation.
Consider that in some situations now the court order has been granted the data on who was leasing the IP in question may have been deleted, and the ISP can not identify and end user, FAST are not going to sue the ISP for something that happened on their network but was not under their direct control, how different is that from the end user whose connection was hijacked (either being open or cracked) and used to download software, and whose router does not log sufficient information to allow them to try and identify the machine responsible?

Vonhelmet · 2 Feb 2006 at 16:32

Jagen said:
The TOS covers the agreement between you and your service provider, I don't see how it can infer legal liability onto you in this situation.

Yes, but once they have you on breach of contract they can get you for all manner of other things. As I said earlier (or perhaps in another thread) Al Capone was originally arrested because his taxes didn't work out right. You think that was all they got him for, once they had him in custody?

They only need you for long enough to find some reason to impound your PC, and then you could be shafted.

bam0 · 2 Feb 2006 at 16:38

vonhelmet said:
Yes, but once they have you on breach of contract they can get you for all manner of other things.

Breach of contract is a civil affair between yourself and the service provider, no one else.

geeza · 2 Feb 2006 at 16:40

'BPI chairman Peter Jamieson said illegal music-swappers were "stealing the future of artists and the people who invest in them". '

Maybe they should watch cribs then!

Visage · 2 Feb 2006 at 16:42

HaX said:
I do however think that if software wasn't so expensive, people would be more disposed towards purchasing it legitimately.

Isnt that akin to me robbing a jewellers because i cant afford a Rolex?

Hardly justification.

derfderfley · 2 Feb 2006 at 16:48

R5Rich said:
What bout IRC, surely thats quite hard to track? Plus many channels have disclaimers as well saying they accept no responsibility does that actually hold up in courts?

IRC servers log your IP (with a timestamp) when you connect, your IP address is also available to other users on the same IRC channel. At the worst they just take the server operator to court for the logs, and get the information that way. IRC is not safe.

Jagen said:
The TOS covers the agreement between you and your service provider, I don't see how it can infer legal liability onto you in this situation.
Consider that in some situations now the court order has been granted the data on who was leasing the IP in question may have been deleted, and the ISP can not identify and end user, FAST are not going to sue the ISP for something that happened on their network but was not under their direct control, how different is that from the end user whose connection was hijacked (either being open or cracked) and used to download software, and whose router does not log sufficient information to allow them to try and identify the machine responsible?

The ISP will give them the data on the account holder, most ISP's are already keeping radius logs for 6 months. And once they are notified of impending legal action they aren't really going to delete that data and stick their own heads in the noose now are they?

I really doubt the 'I didn't know what was happening because I had a unsecured wireless connection' would stand up well in court. As a end user would heave real trouble trying that tack as a defence.
As has already been said, you are responsible for what happens on your network.
I wouldn't be surprised if someone tries it as a defence (and they will need a good solicitor), but we'll see how it pans out over the next few months.

As I said earlier in this thread lives will be ruined needlessly