Would a firewall have protected Jammie Thomas from being sued by the RIAA Safenet

Theoretically, would a wireless router firewall have protected Jammie
Thomas from being sued by the RIAA Safenet

What else do they know about you if you file share songs or movies?

It seems they know whether or not you're using a wireless router and what
the internal IP address is (192.168.m.n) according to this news article.
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/10/riaa-rips-defen.htm l

"The Charter IP address identified the night of the downloading was
24.179.199.117, according to testimony from Edgar and Weaver. Had a
wireless router been used, the internal private IP address assigned by the
router would also have been detected by investigators, he claimed -- likely
beginning with 192.168."

So, they know your
- Name & address you provided to the isp
- IP Address assigned to you by the isp
- Computer IP address assigned by the router
- Songs or movies you share on your computer with limewire or bittorrent
- Songs or movies you download with kazaa or azureus
- ?

What else do they know about you if you file share songs or movies?

Re: Would a firewall have protected Jammie Thomas from being sued by the RIAA Safenet

In article <8dOMi.57413$YL5.28113@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>,
onesolution@sbcglobal.net says...
>
> Theoretically, would a wireless router firewall have protected Jammie
> Thomas from being sued by the RIAA Safenet

NO, not at all.

The fact is that the PUBLIC IP you use can be tracked and is recorded by
the ISP. You run a service that shares files, or you just download them,
the router does not block their ability to see you connect to their
download site and track the number/content that you download.

So, All the RIAA needs is your IP and they can get the rest from the
ISP. They don't need to know your LAN (private) address to find you.

when YOU make a connection, it shows your PUBLIC IP, that's all that's
needed.

--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

Re: Would a firewall have protected Jammie Thomas from being sued by the RIAA Safenet

On Wed, 3 Oct 2007 11:19:42 -0400, Leythos wrote:

> when YOU make a connection, it shows your PUBLIC IP, that's all that's
> needed.

But they have to prove YOU (personally) did it - don't they?

For example, what if there are five people and five computers in the house?

Or if the neighbor hijacked your wireless router connection?

Re: Would a firewall have protected Jammie Thomas from being sued by the RIAA Safenet

In article <9HOMi.57415$YL5.27284@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>,
onesolution@sbcglobal.net says...
> On Wed, 3 Oct 2007 11:19:42 -0400, Leythos wrote:
>
> > when YOU make a connection, it shows your PUBLIC IP, that's all that's
> > needed.
>
> But they have to prove YOU (personally) did it - don't they?
>
> For example, what if there are five people and five computers in the house?
>
> Or if the neighbor hijacked your wireless router connection?

No, the fact that YOUR IP did it is enough to get a search warrant -
from there, since you don't know it's coming they get the computer and
records....

Face it, if you break the law you don't have much to complain about.

The person responsible for the internet connection is first, then the
computer owner, and then you can guess if one person in the 5 will rat
the others out.

--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

Re: Would a firewall have protected Jammie Thomas from being sued by the RIAA Safenet

On Wed, 3 Oct 2007 11:52:58 -0400, Leythos wrote:

> No, the fact that YOUR IP did it is enough to get a search warrant -
> from there, since you don't know it's coming they get the computer and
> records....

"On cross examination, Thomas' attorney, Toder, suggested that perhaps
Thomas owned a wireless router, which a third party might have hijacked
from 'right outside her window.'"
(http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/10/riaa-rips-defen.ht ml

So ... part of the defense is that someone might have done it, but, not
her. ""Did you people actually observe defendant infringing?" defense
attorney Toder asked Jennifer Pariser, Sony BMG's anti-piracy chief, who
took the stand for about 90 minutes."

Also, in the Jammie Thomas case, she replaced her hard drive when they
asked for the computer as evidence. So, there is nothing on her hard drive
for the search warrant to see.

Even simpler than replacing her hard drive, she could have simply wiped her
file sharing folder clean with PGPwipe freeware when they asked for the
computer. Even simpler would have been to mount her file sharing disk
partition with Truecrypt freeware or Sandboxie freeware so even if a raid
occurred unbeknownst to her, all the files would be safe from everyone
anyway.

Would an additional PeerGuardian freeware firewall (in addition to the
wireless router) also have provided basic protection to Jammie from Safenet
eavesdropping?

Re: Would a firewall have protected Jammie Thomas from being sued by the RIAA Safenet

In article ,
onesolution@sbcglobal.net says...
> On Wed, 3 Oct 2007 11:52:58 -0400, Leythos wrote:
>
> > No, the fact that YOUR IP did it is enough to get a search warrant -
> > from there, since you don't know it's coming they get the computer and
> > records....
>
> "On cross examination, Thomas' attorney, Toder, suggested that perhaps
> Thomas owned a wireless router, which a third party might have hijacked
> from 'right outside her window.'"
> (http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/10/riaa-rips-defen.ht ml
>
> So ... part of the defense is that someone might have done it, but, not
> her. ""Did you people actually observe defendant infringing?" defense
> attorney Toder asked Jennifer Pariser, Sony BMG's anti-piracy chief, who
> took the stand for about 90 minutes."
>
> Also, in the Jammie Thomas case, she replaced her hard drive when they
> asked for the computer as evidence. So, there is nothing on her hard drive
> for the search warrant to see.

So, a person that isn't guilty removes the drive because there is
nothing to hide. A person that didn't even know it was happening removed
a hard drive because of something they don't know about.

> Even simpler than replacing her hard drive, she could have simply wiped her
> file sharing folder clean with PGPwipe freeware when they asked for the
> computer. Even simpler would have been to mount her file sharing disk
> partition with Truecrypt freeware or Sandboxie freeware so even if a raid
> occurred unbeknownst to her, all the files would be safe from everyone
> anyway.

So, we're advocating that people the commit crimes should have wipe
functions that trigger in case of a police action?

> Would an additional PeerGuardian freeware firewall (in addition to the
> wireless router) also have provided basic protection to Jammie from Safenet
> eavesdropping?

Fact, all that is needed is to know the public IP, no firewall will
prevent that from being detected/seen by the download site.

--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

Re: Would a firewall have protected Jammie Thomas from being sued by the RIAA Safenet

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Would a firewall have protected Jammie Thomas from being sued by the RIAA Safenet

On Wed, 3 Oct 2007 12:39:46 -0400, Leythos wrote:

> So, we're advocating that people the commit crimes should have wipe
> functions that trigger in case of a police action?

Hi Leythos,
I'm pretty sure she's guilty but that isn't the technical point I'm trying
to get to. Let's assume, for now, that she is guilty. Now let's ask the
question again which is basically what would have protected her?

Whatever would have protected her is the same thing that protects you and
me and everyone else from someone else snooping on our activities. Even
legit activities. You wouldn't question why you lick and seal an envelope,
would you? Or why a phone booth has a privacy door. Or why a voting booth
has a privacy curtain. Or a bathroom door. Or ... well ... you get the
point (I hope). There are legitimate reasons for desiring privacy even from
snooping police.

All I ask is what software or hardware or technique would have protected
her from prying eyes?


> Fact, all that is needed is to know the public IP, no firewall will
> prevent that from being detected/seen by the download site.

I think we've already established that there is a basic right in this
country to be proven guilty which has a burden of proof which is MORE than
just an ISP (otherwise why did the lawyer argue she "could" have had a
wireless router and that mystery router "could" have been hacked)?

Is there a firewall or other solution that would protect our privacy?
Or is Leythos actually correct in that there is no software, hardware, or
technique which gives you any better privacy than that open connection she
apparently used?

Re: Would a firewall have protected Jammie Thomas from being sued by the RIAA Safenet

On Wed, 3 Oct 2007 19:19:56 -0700, OneSolution
wrote:


>
>All I ask is what software or hardware or technique would have protected
>her from prying eyes?

Tor network is perhaps a thing that would keep the RIAA away in the
first place - there would be too much work to trace down the public IP

The P2P sharing itself however reveals a great deal of data so one
must be quite careful and educated to use the anonymity network
without any personal data beeing leaked...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tor_%28anonymity_network%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_P2P


---
rgds,
Paavo Sild
(NB! from address before @ is ROT13 encoded)

Re: Would a firewall have protected Jammie Thomas from being sued by the RIAA Safenet

On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 09:19:57 +0300, Paavo Sild wrote:

> Tor network is perhaps a thing that would keep the RIAA away in the
> first place - there would be too much work to trace down the public IP

I never could get TOR to work. I'll try again but it's darn slow.

Re: Would a firewall have protected

"OneSolution" wrote in message
news:8dOMi.57413$YL5.28113@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
> Theoretically, would a wireless router firewall have protected
>
The same question seems to be regularly asked each month, with similar
answers being given. Check your newsfeed is working.
"NO" is the answer you are looking for.

Re: Would a firewall have protected Jammie Thomas from being sued by the RIAA Safenet

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Would a firewall have protected Jammie Thomas from being sued by the RIAA Safenet

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Would a firewall have protected Jammie Thomas from being sued by the RIAA Safenet

In article <1191537468.980076.55230@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
chilly8@hotmail.com wrote:


> I know this, becuase on the two biggest figure skating bulletin
> boards, where people do "live blogging" from figure skating events,
> many of them DO use such antennas and hijack peoples' unsecured
> wireless access points, to post their reports onto Figure Skating
> Universe and/or GoldenSkate. And what these live-bloggers are doing to
> post to Figure Skating Universe is LEGAL in EVERY country except
> Canada and England. So if you go got Figure Skating Universe, or
> GoldenSkate, you will find at least ONE live blogger, somewhere in the
> arena sending reports back to either site, and usually hijacking
> someone's nearby unsecured wireless access point. And what these
> bloggers are doing is LEGAL in every country except England and
> Canada, as long as they don't break any password, encryption, or other
> security system to do it.


Well I am certainly going to take the word and actions of a live
figure skating blogger when it comes to the law.

>
> So, in short, if she has or had an unsecured wireless access point,
> then it is considered PUBLIC under the computer crime laws of America,
> and if someone DID hijack her wireless router, said person or persons
> are NOT SUBJECT to prosecution, under Federal law, and the laws of 45
> states (there are 49 states in the Union) as long as they did not
> break through and password, encryption, or any other security system
> to gain access to her wirelsss router.

So which state did we kick out and I missed it? Last I heard there
were 50 states. Did those crazies in Vermont actually get the state to
secede?


>

Re: Would a firewall have protected Jammie Thomas from being sued by the RIAA Safenet

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Would a firewall have protected Jammie Thomas from being sued by the RIAA Safenet

X_

On Oct 4, 3:59 pm, Kurt Ullman wrote:
> In article <1191537468.980076.55...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
>
> chil...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > I know this, becuase on the two biggest figure skating bulletin
> > boards, where people do "live blogging" from figure skating events,
> > many of them DO use such antennas and hijack peoples' unsecured
> > wireless access points, to post their reports onto Figure Skating
> > Universe and/or GoldenSkate. And what these live-bloggers are doing to
> > post to Figure Skating Universe is LEGAL in EVERY country except
> > Canada and England. So if you go got Figure Skating Universe, or
> > GoldenSkate, you will find at least ONE live blogger, somewhere in the
> > arena sending reports back to either site, and usually hijacking
> > someone's nearby unsecured wireless access point. And what these
> > bloggers are doing is LEGAL in every country except England and
> > Canada, as long as they don't break any password, encryption, or other
> > security system to do it.
>
> Well I am certainly going to take the word and actions of a live
> figure skating blogger when it comes to the law.

Well, the admins at GoldenSkate and Figure Skating Universe that I
have talked to about this have TOLD me that it is LEGAL for live-
bloggers to hiijack nearby wireless access points, for sending back
reports, as long as they do not crack any password or other security
scheme to connect, and as long as they are not in Canada or England.
They ALLOW users to do this, becuase as far as admins at BOTH sites
are concerned, what the live bloggers are doing is LEGAL. I have been
TOLD that it is LEGAL in most places to do this

>
>
>
> > So, in short, if she has or had an unsecured wireless access point,
> > then it is considered PUBLIC under the computer crime laws of America,
> > and if someone DID hijack her wireless router, said person or persons
> > are NOT SUBJECT to prosecution, under Federal law, and the laws of 45
> > states (there are 49 states in the Union) as long as they did not
> > break through and password, encryption, or any other security system
> > to gain access to her wirelsss router.
>
> So which state did we kick out and I missed it? Last I heard there
> were 50 states. Did those crazies in Vermont actually get the state to
> secede?

I am looking at a road map of North America right now, and I count 49
U.S. states on the landmass of North America. 49 U.S. states, 31
Mexican states and 14 Canadian provinces. So America has 49 states,
Canada has 14 provinces, and Mexico has 31 states. Got it? Good.

Re: Would a firewall have protected Jammie Thomas from being sued by the RIAA Safenet

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Would a firewall have protected Jammie Thomas from being sued by the RIAA Safenet

In article <1191540694.623285.301310@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
chilly8@hotmail.com wrote:


> They ALLOW users to do this, becuase as far as admins at BOTH sites
> are concerned, what the live bloggers are doing is LEGAL. I have been
> TOLD that it is LEGAL in most places to do this
That isn't settled yet either way. Some places in the US have
specific laws. I read a rather interesting paper a couple days that
suggests it is illegal under the laws that regulate interception of
radio communications (which this is in essence). You may (heck probably
are) right, but it isn't all that settled.


>
> >
> >
> >
> > > So, in short, if she has or had an unsecured wireless access point,
> > > then it is considered PUBLIC under the computer crime laws of America,
> > > and if someone DID hijack her wireless router, said person or persons
> > > are NOT SUBJECT to prosecution, under Federal law, and the laws of 45
> > > states (there are 49 states in the Union) as long as they did not
> > > break through and password, encryption, or any other security system
> > > to gain access to her wirelsss router.
> >
> > So which state did we kick out and I missed it? Last I heard there
> > were 50 states. Did those crazies in Vermont actually get the state to
> > secede?
>
> I am looking at a road map of North America right now, and I count 49
> U.S. states on the landmass of North America. 49 U.S. states, 31
> Mexican states and 14 Canadian provinces. So America has 49 states,
> Canada has 14 provinces, and Mexico has 31 states. Got it? Good.
Of course that isn't anywhere near what you said. There are 49
states in the Union with no qualifiers. Also no real reason to cut
Hawaii out of the equation.

Re: Would a firewall have protected Jammie Thomas from being sued by the RIAA Safenet

"OneSolution" wrote in message
news:9HOMi.57415$YL5.27284@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
> On Wed, 3 Oct 2007 11:19:42 -0400, Leythos wrote:
>
>> when YOU make a connection, it shows your PUBLIC IP, that's all that's
>> needed.
>
> But they have to prove YOU (personally) did it - don't they?

http://www.dailytech.com/RIAA+Awarded+222000+in+First+Jury+T rial/article9143.htm

Capitol Records v. Jammie Thomas, as Thomas' loss is more formally known,
was the first lawsuit of its kind to proceed before a jury as well as a
landmark case that set precedent heavily favoring the RIAA in future legal
battles. U.S. District Judge Michael Davis ruled that one could be guilty of
copyright infringement merely by the act of making copyrighted songs
available for download; as a result the RIAA did not need to establish that
Thomas at her computer at the time her was accessed by investigators, nor
did they need to prove that anyone actually downloaded the music she
offered.

>
> For example, what if there are five people and five computers in the
> house?
>
> Or if the neighbor hijacked your wireless router connection?

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/10/riaa-testimony-.htm l

"Trying to raise doubt among jurors, who said during jury selection they
were not computer savvy, Thomas' attorney Brian Tober suggested his client
was the victim of a zombie, a cracker, or a drone. He also suggested
somebody using her wireless connection from outside her Brainerd, Minnesota,
apartment window could have been responsible.
Computer forensics specialist Doug Jacobson, of Iowa State University,
testified that no wireless connection was used the night in question, based
on IP data embedded in the Kazaa traffic. And Thomas never testified that
she owned a wireless router. Tober never asked her."

If you do much reading on this it's clear that she put up a pretty
lame defense. One of her best hopes for an appeal is the ruling that the
RIAA didn't need to prove that anyone actually downloaded music from her.
Unless someone else is paying her legal bills she is well beyond the point
where even if she wins she loses.

TB

Re: Would a firewall have protected Jammie Thomas from being suedby the RIAA Safenet

chilly8@hotmail.com wrote:

> X_
>
> On Oct 4, 3:59 pm, Kurt Ullman wrote:
>
>>In article <1191537468.980076.55...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>> chil...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>I know this, becuase on the two biggest figure skating bulletin
>>>boards, where people do "live blogging" from figure skating events,
>>>many of them DO use such antennas and hijack peoples' unsecured
>>>wireless access points, to post their reports onto Figure Skating
>>>Universe and/or GoldenSkate. And what these live-bloggers are doing to
>>>post to Figure Skating Universe is LEGAL in EVERY country except
>>>Canada and England. So if you go got Figure Skating Universe, or
>>>GoldenSkate, you will find at least ONE live blogger, somewhere in the
>>>arena sending reports back to either site, and usually hijacking
>>>someone's nearby unsecured wireless access point. And what these
>>>bloggers are doing is LEGAL in every country except England and
>>>Canada, as long as they don't break any password, encryption, or other
>>>security system to do it.
>>
>> Well I am certainly going to take the word and actions of a live
>>figure skating blogger when it comes to the law.
>
>
> Well, the admins at GoldenSkate and Figure Skating Universe that I
> have talked to about this have TOLD me that it is LEGAL for live-
> bloggers to hiijack nearby wireless access points, for sending back
> reports, as long as they do not crack any password or other security
> scheme to connect, and as long as they are not in Canada or England.
> They ALLOW users to do this, becuase as far as admins at BOTH sites
> are concerned, what the live bloggers are doing is LEGAL. I have been
> TOLD that it is LEGAL in most places to do this
>
>
>>
>>
>>>So, in short, if she has or had an unsecured wireless access point,
>>>then it is considered PUBLIC under the computer crime laws of America,
>>>and if someone DID hijack her wireless router, said person or persons
>>>are NOT SUBJECT to prosecution, under Federal law, and the laws of 45
>>>states (there are 49 states in the Union) as long as they did not
>>>break through and password, encryption, or any other security system
>>>to gain access to her wirelsss router.
>>
>> So which state did we kick out and I missed it? Last I heard there
>>were 50 states. Did those crazies in Vermont actually get the state to
>>secede?
>
>
> I am looking at a road map of North America right now, and I count 49
> U.S. states on the landmass of North America. 49 U.S. states, 31
> Mexican states and 14 Canadian provinces.

14 Canadian Provinces ?? LMAO ..

> So America has 49 states,
> Canada has 14 provinces, and Mexico has 31 states. Got it? Good.
>

Re: Would a firewall have protected Jammie Thomas from being suedby the RIAA Safenet

chilly8@hotmail.com wrote:

> X_
>
> On Oct 4, 3:59 pm, Kurt Ullman wrote:
>
>>In article <1191537468.980076.55...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>> chil...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>I know this, becuase on the two biggest figure skating bulletin
>>>boards, where people do "live blogging" from figure skating events,
>>>many of them DO use such antennas and hijack peoples' unsecured
>>>wireless access points, to post their reports onto Figure Skating
>>>Universe and/or GoldenSkate. And what these live-bloggers are doing to
>>>post to Figure Skating Universe is LEGAL in EVERY country except
>>>Canada and England. So if you go got Figure Skating Universe, or
>>>GoldenSkate, you will find at least ONE live blogger, somewhere in the
>>>arena sending reports back to either site, and usually hijacking
>>>someone's nearby unsecured wireless access point. And what these
>>>bloggers are doing is LEGAL in every country except England and
>>>Canada, as long as they don't break any password, encryption, or other
>>>security system to do it.
>>
>> Well I am certainly going to take the word and actions of a live
>>figure skating blogger when it comes to the law.
>
>
> Well, the admins at GoldenSkate and Figure Skating Universe that I
> have talked to about this have TOLD me that it is LEGAL for live-
> bloggers to hiijack nearby wireless access points, for sending back
> reports, as long as they do not crack any password or other security
> scheme to connect, and as long as they are not in Canada or England.
> They ALLOW users to do this, becuase as far as admins at BOTH sites
> are concerned, what the live bloggers are doing is LEGAL. I have been
> TOLD that it is LEGAL in most places to do this
>
>
>>
>>
>>>So, in short, if she has or had an unsecured wireless access point,
>>>then it is considered PUBLIC under the computer crime laws of America,
>>>and if someone DID hijack her wireless router, said person or persons
>>>are NOT SUBJECT to prosecution, under Federal law, and the laws of 45
>>>states (there are 49 states in the Union) as long as they did not
>>>break through and password, encryption, or any other security system
>>>to gain access to her wirelsss router.
>>
>> So which state did we kick out and I missed it? Last I heard there
>>were 50 states. Did those crazies in Vermont actually get the state to
>>secede?
>
>
> I am looking at a road map of North America right now, and I count 49
> U.S. states on the landmass of North America. 49 U.S. states, 31
> Mexican states and 14 Canadian provinces.

14 Canadian Provinces ?? LMAO ..
Your a fool son.

> So America has 49 states,
> Canada has 14 provinces, and Mexico has 31 states. Got it? Good.
>

Re: Would a firewall have protected Jammie Thomas from being sued by the RIAA Safenet

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Would a firewall have protected Jammie Thomas from being sued by the RIAA Safenet

chilly8@hotmail.com wrote in
news:1191537468.980076.55230@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com:

[snip]

> I use encryption when going to Australian Customs, becuase one pieve
> of software that I use on my station, for making station IDs, and
> arching my talk show could be considred a "tool" for breaking copy
> protection under far more stricter DMCA-like laws in Australia. Alive
> WMAMP3Recorder could, sooner or later, be declared illegal the new
> Australian laws, becuase it can also be used to cirumvent DRM, which
> has recently become illegal in Australia. To prevent problems with
> Australian authorities, whenever I return to Australia from abroad, I
> keep that softwware encrypted and locked, so Australian Customs will
> not be able to open it or read it. As the saying goes "they cannot
> prosecute what they cannot read".

Carrying a chunk of encrypted data through national borders in todays
paranoid culture - a world where we have to take our shoes off before we
get on a plane - seems to me to be a sub-optimal solution.

Also, it's of doubtful use for the UK where RIPA means they could have
powers to force you to provide decryption keys or face a two year sentence.

Re: Would a firewall have protected Jammie Thomas from being sued by the RIAA Safenet

In article , Brody
wrote:

> 14 Canadian Provinces ?? LMAO ..
> Your a fool son.

I think the OP just looked at the colo(u)rs on the map. Ten provinces,
plus the Yukon, NWT, Nunavit, and hmm ... well, it does say Newfoundland
_and_ Labrador, doesn't it?
--
W. Oates

Re: Would a firewall have protected Jammie Thomas from being sued by the RIAA Safenet

In article <47061b45$0$14926$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>,
Warren Oates wrote:

> In article , Brody
> wrote:
>
> > 14 Canadian Provinces ?? LMAO ..
> > Your a fool son.
>
> I think the OP just looked at the colo(u)rs on the map. Ten provinces,
> plus the Yukon, NWT, Nunavit, and hmm ... well, it does say Newfoundland
> _and_ Labrador, doesn't it?

But you gotta remember that this was the person talking about "all 49
states".. geography (or counting) doesn't appear to be a strong suit.

Re: Would a firewall have protected Jammie Thomas from being sued by the RIAA Safenet

On Oct 4, 5:59 pm, Kurt Ullman wrote:
> In article <1191537468.980076.55...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
> > under Federal law, and the laws of 45
> > states (there are 49 states in the Union) as long as they did not
> > break through and password, encryption, or any other security system
> > to gain access to her wirelsss router.
>
> So which state did we kick out and I missed it? Last I heard there
> were 50 states. Did those crazies in Vermont actually get the state to
> secede?

No, it was Texas...we seceded and formed our own planet.

Re: Would a firewall have protected Jammie Thomas from being sued by the RIAA Safenet

The only way to do it is to go to a pubic wi-fi place to download. You
will be safe then.

Re: Would a firewall have protected Jammie Thomas from being sued by the RIAA Safenet

In article <1191649546.662002.247720@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>,
zcarenow@yahoo.com says...
> The only way to do it is to go to a pubic wi-fi place to download. You
> will be safe then.

Only if they don't keep logs. Since a MAC is unique, if the public WI-FI
spot was to register your MAC before giving you the key, you would be no
safer.

To allow anonymous access is stupid.

--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

Re: Would a firewall have protected Jammie Thomas from being sued by the RIAA Safenet

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Would a firewall have protected Jammie Thomas from being sued by the RIAA Safenet

On Oct 4, 6:31 pm, chil...@hotmail.com wrote:
> I am looking at a road map of North America right now, and I count 49
> U.S. states on the landmass of North America. 49 U.S. states, 31
> Mexican states and 14 Canadian provinces. So America has 49 states,
> Got it? Good.

Your original post was "49 states in the Union", whereas the Union is
the United Sates of America...there are 50 states in the Union

Your road map simply does not show off the states in the Union, only
those on the North American land mass.

Got it? Good.

Re: Would a firewall have protected Jammie Thomas from being sued by the RIAA Safenet

In article <1191540694.623285.301310@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
chilly8@hotmail.com wrote:

>
> I am looking at a road map of North America right now, and I count 49
> U.S. states on the landmass of North America. 49 U.S. states, 31
> Mexican states and 14 Canadian provinces. So America has 49 states,
> Canada has 14 provinces, and Mexico has 31 states. Got it? Good.

You are an idiot. Got it? Good.

PS: Can you list those Canadian provinces for us? And what is that
elusive 49th state that you've found on "the landmass of North America?"

You truly are n idiot. Got it? Good. Bloody foreigners.
--
W. Oates

Re: Would a firewall have protected Jammie Thomas from being sued by the RIAA Safenet

In article <4708cd81$0$14945$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>,
Warren Oates wrote:

> In article <1191540694.623285.301310@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
> chilly8@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >
> > I am looking at a road map of North America right now, and I count 49
> > U.S. states on the landmass of North America. 49 U.S. states, 31
> > Mexican states and 14 Canadian provinces. So America has 49 states,
> > Canada has 14 provinces, and Mexico has 31 states. Got it? Good.
>
> You are an idiot. Got it? Good.
>
> PS: Can you list those Canadian provinces for us? And what is that
> elusive 49th state that you've found on "the landmass of North America?"

The landmass of NA would include Alaska, which is my guess. I thought
it was a rather inelegant backpedal, but there it is.

>
> You truly are n idiot. Got it? Good. Bloody foreigners.
And they say the US struggles with reading maps.

Re: Would a firewall have protected Jammie Thomas from being sued by the RIAA Safenet

On 6 Oct 2007 18:55:21 GMT, Juergen Nieveler wrote:

> The MAC usually can be changed ;-)

Is this the recommended procecedure for "anonymous" public hot spot?

1. Find public hot spot (using http://www.wififreespot.com)
2. Turn off your wireless transmitter & go to that public hotspot
3. Change your MAC address to DEADBEEFCAFE (using MacMakeUp freeware)
4. Change your PC name (My Computer, Properties, Computer Name)
5. Change your login ID (create one for this session only)
6. Set up your (encrypted?) sandbox (sandboxie or truecrypt freeware)
7. ??? anything else ???
8. Start your browser sandboxed or on an encrypted disk
9. When done, turn off your wireless transmitter again.
10. Return all settings back to normal (non hotspot settings)

Are we safe if we follow these ten easy hotspot steps?

Re: Would a firewall have protected Jammie Thomas from being sued by the RIAA Safenet

In article ,
juergen.nieveler.nospam@arcor.de says...
> Leythos wrote:
>
> > Only if they don't keep logs. Since a MAC is unique, if the public WI-FI
> > spot was to register your MAC before giving you the key, you would be no
> > safer.
>
> The MAC usually can be changed ;-)

Yes, it can, but most people don't have a clue.

--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

Re: Would a firewall have protected Jammie Thomas from being sued by the RIAA Safenet

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Would a firewall have protected Jammie Thomas from being sued by the RIAA Safenet

On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 13:45:41 GMT, in alt.internet.wireless , Slacker
wrote:

>
>Are we safe if we follow these ten easy hotspot steps?

Isn't the best way to be safe simply not to do illegal stuff with a
wireless hotspot connection?

--
Mark McIntyre

Re: Would a firewall have protected Jammie Thomas from being sued by the RIAA Safenet

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Would a firewall have protected Jammie Thomas from being suedby the RIAA Safenet

Cheemag wrote:
> Kurt Ullman wrote:
>
>> And they say the US struggles with reading maps.
>
> The US struggles with spelling ...

anthropomorphically speaking

-Craig

Re: Would a firewall have protected Jammie Thomas from being sued by the RIAA Safenet

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Would a firewall have protected Jammie Thomas from being sued by the RIAA Safenet

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Would a firewall have protected Jammie Thomas from being sued by

Why would you even need to change MAC address? It is all unique. How
would they trace it?

On Oct 7, 7:45 am, Slacker wrote:
> On 6 Oct 2007 18:55:21 GMT, Juergen Nieveler wrote:
>
> > The MAC usually can be changed ;-)
>
> Is this the recommended procecedure for "anonymous" public hot spot?
>
> 1. Find public hot spot (usinghttp://www.wififreespot.com)
> 2. Turn off your wireless transmitter & go to that public hotspot
> 3. Change your MAC address to DEADBEEFCAFE (using MacMakeUp freeware)
> 4. Change your PC name (My Computer, Properties, Computer Name)
> 5. Change your login ID (create one for this session only)
> 6. Set up your (encrypted?) sandbox (sandboxie or truecrypt freeware)
> 7. ??? anything else ???
> 8. Start your browser sandboxed or on an encrypted disk
> 9. When done, turn off your wireless transmitter again.
> 10. Return all settings back to normal (non hotspot settings)
>
> Are we safe if we follow these ten easy hotspot steps?

Re: Would a firewall have protected Jammie Thomas from being sued by the RIAA Safenet

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Would a firewall have protected Jammie Thomas from being suedby the RIAA Safenet

Leythos wrote:
> In article <9HOMi.57415$YL5.27284@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>,
> onesolution@sbcglobal.net says...
>> On Wed, 3 Oct 2007 11:19:42 -0400, Leythos wrote:
>>
>>> when YOU make a connection, it shows your PUBLIC IP, that's all that's
>>> needed.
>> But they have to prove YOU (personally) did it - don't they?
>>
>> For example, what if there are five people and five computers in the house?
>>
>> Or if the neighbor hijacked your wireless router connection?
>
> No, the fact that YOUR IP did it is enough to get a search warrant -
> from there, since you don't know it's coming they get the computer and
> records....
>
I don't think that is true. They don't issue search warrant for p2p
copyright infringers in any jurisdiction that I know of.

Can you substatiate your spurious claim?

Re: Would a firewall have protected Jammie Thomas from being sued by the RIAA Safenet

anthonyberet wrote:
> Leythos wrote:
>> In article <9HOMi.57415$YL5.27284@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>,
>> onesolution@sbcglobal.net says...
>>> On Wed, 3 Oct 2007 11:19:42 -0400, Leythos wrote:
>>>
>>>> when YOU make a connection, it shows your PUBLIC IP, that's all
>>>> that's needed.
>>> But they have to prove YOU (personally) did it - don't they?
>>>
>>> For example, what if there are five people and five computers in the
>>> house?
>>>
>>> Or if the neighbor hijacked your wireless router connection?
>>
>> No, the fact that YOUR IP did it is enough to get a search warrant -
>> from there, since you don't know it's coming they get the computer and
>> records....
> I don't think that is true. They don't issue search warrant for p2p
> copyright infringers in any jurisdiction that I know of.
>
> Can you substatiate your spurious claim?

Apologies for the typos. I have fat-finger syndrome today.

Re: Would a firewall have protected Jammie Thomas from being sued by

I understand what you're saying. What if someone sends a virus or
downloads an illegal software, etc from the Wi-Fi spot and then takes
off. He leaves that Wi-Fi spot. They can trace it when that person is
there, but not a 'hit and run' right? I would think someone who was
going to do no good wouldn't stick around at that Wi-Fi spot once he
does his deed quickly.

On Nov 16, 3:49 am, Juergen Nieveler
wrote:
> "zcare...@yahoo.com" wrote:
> > Why would you even need to change MAC address?
>
> Because:
>
> >It is all unique.
>
> Somebody who knows your MAC and has access to the wifi gear at the
> hotspot could trace your whereabouts.
>
> > How would they trace it?
>
> Anybody with access to the WLAN-router can see what devices are
> connected. If you're in a small cybercafe that runs their own
> equipment, that would probably mean it's just the technical staff there
> who can do that.
>
> If, however, the hotspot technology is provided by a large ISP (The
> Cloud, Fon, T-Com, whatever...), they could simply collect every new
> MAC that hooks up to one of their Wifi devices in a huge database which
> would allow them to say "The machine with that MAC was seen in the
> Starbucks in London-Heathrow at X o'clock on the Yth December, and was
> next seen in a deli in New York in January".
>
> Juergen Nieveler
> --
> SENILE.COM found . . . Out Of Memory . . .

Re: Would a firewall have protected Jammie Thomas from being sued by the RIAA Safenet

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Would a firewall have protected Jammie Thomas from being sued by the RIAA Safenet

In article <5q6vlqFub8avU1@mid.individual.net>, nospam@me.invalid
says...
> Leythos wrote:
> > In article <9HOMi.57415$YL5.27284@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>,
> > onesolution@sbcglobal.net says...
> >> On Wed, 3 Oct 2007 11:19:42 -0400, Leythos wrote:
> >>
> >>> when YOU make a connection, it shows your PUBLIC IP, that's all that's
> >>> needed.
> >> But they have to prove YOU (personally) did it - don't they?
> >>
> >> For example, what if there are five people and five computers in the house?
> >>
> >> Or if the neighbor hijacked your wireless router connection?
> >
> > No, the fact that YOUR IP did it is enough to get a search warrant -
> > from there, since you don't know it's coming they get the computer and
> > records....
> >
> I don't think that is true. They don't issue search warrant for p2p
> copyright infringers in any jurisdiction that I know of.
>
> Can you substatiate your spurious claim?

Is it against the law to pirate media?

Is it against the law to provide pirated media?

Can you say no to BOTH of those? If you answer YES to either then you
have reason for a warrant.

--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

Re: Would a firewall have protected Jammie Thomas from being sued by

Sure, i understand. From what one true hacker posted, he would
dedicate one of his old laptops to "experiment" and not for anything
else. He would use this laptop at any Wi-Fi spot to "experiment" on.
He would also format his drive occasionally. His laptop was a 'hot'
one. I suspect he meant not his originally.

> The problem is more a privacy issue - somebody can built up a profile
> of your movements...
>
> For the police to catch a culprit, they'd have to watch the networks of
> multiple ISPs and get notified if the right MAC shows up, then send a
> patrol car to arrest everybody at that location... difficult, but
> doable in an anti-terror background.
>
> Juergen Nieveler
> --
> If the enemy is in range, so are you.

Re: Would a firewall have protected Jammie Thomas from being sued by the RIAA Safenet

Leythos wrote:
> In article <5q6vlqFub8avU1@mid.individual.net>, nospam@me.invalid
> says...
>> Leythos wrote:
>>> In article <9HOMi.57415$YL5.27284@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>,
>>> onesolution@sbcglobal.net says...
>>>> On Wed, 3 Oct 2007 11:19:42 -0400, Leythos wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> when YOU make a connection, it shows your PUBLIC IP, that's all that's
>>>>> needed.
>>>> But they have to prove YOU (personally) did it - don't they?
>>>>
>>>> For example, what if there are five people and five computers in the house?
>>>>
>>>> Or if the neighbor hijacked your wireless router connection?
>>> No, the fact that YOUR IP did it is enough to get a search warrant -
>>> from there, since you don't know it's coming they get the computer and
>>> records....
>>>
>> I don't think that is true. They don't issue search warrant for p2p
>> copyright infringers in any jurisdiction that I know of.
>>
>> Can you substatiate your spurious claim?
>
> Is it against the law to pirate media?
>
No

> Is it against the law to provide pirated media?
>
No

> Can you say no to BOTH of those?

Yes.

If you answer YES to either then you
> have reason for a warrant.
>
Right. Just as long as that is clear.

Re: Would a firewall have protected Jammie Thomas from being sued by the RIAA Safenet

anthonyberet wrote:
> Leythos wrote:
>> Is it against the law to pirate media?
>>
> No

.....if and only if the information contained therein is not copyright or
intellectual property.

>> Is it against the law to provide pirated media?
>>
> No

This is incorrect. Since the definition of pirated media is material
which is obtained in breach of copyright or IP law, you are inevitably
breaking the law if you supply it.

> If you answer YES to either then you
>> have reason for a warrant.
> Right. Just as long as that is clear.

..... hmm....

Re: Would a firewall have protected Jammie Thomas from being sued by the RIAA Safenet

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Would a firewall have protected Jammie Thomas from being sued by the RIAA Safenet

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Would a firewall have protected Jammie Thomas from being sued by

On Nov 22, 5:07 pm, Technomage Hawke
wrote:
> anyway, it isn't that hard to keep an eye on a server to see if the same MAC
> address shows up from on the net (its part of the packet headers that
> define not only the IP, but the machine behind a NAT/firewall. this is why
> they call it a "Media Access Control" header. btw, you can read more about

This is incorrect. MAC addresses are used to address frames inside
ethernet networks. As most LAN are ethernet nowdays you'll find them
there. However, a MAC address is not part of the routed IP packet. In
other words, once you cross the router the MAC address from the
original frame which arrived at the router is not visible anymore.

If your computer wants to send an IP packet into the internet, all it
knows in the beginning is the IP address of the default gateway to use
as the IP address is not part of its own LAN. It finds the MAC address
of this gateway inside your LAN using ARP. Once it knows the MAC
address is puts the IP packet for the internet server into an ethernet
frame addressed to the MAC address of your router (aka default
gateway).

The router receives the ethernet frame, takes out the IP packet and
decides how to route the IP packet. If the router is connected via
ethernet to the next hop it will do exactly the same thing again: it
uses the IP address of the the default gateway on your internet
connection. It finds the MAC address of this next hop with ARP. Now
the router puts the IP packet into an ethernet frame with its own MAC
address as source and the next hop's MAC address as destination.

This continues like this but usually you'll find other protocols in
between, e.g. ATM. The important thing: the MAC address is only valid
and used inside the ethernet network. The MAC address will not be send
out with the IP packet. The MAC addresses will change with every hop.

If the MAC address of a device is somehow exposed to the internet it
is only because it was added somewhere in the IP payload, i.e. into
the contents of the IP packet. But this is application dependent.

Gerald

Re: Would a firewall have protected Jammie Thomas from being sued by the RIAA Safenet

Mark McIntyre wrote:
> anthonyberet wrote:
>> Leythos wrote:
>>> Is it against the law to pirate media?
>>>
>> No
>
> .....if and only if the information contained therein is not copyright
> or intellectual property.
>
>>> Is it against the law to provide pirated media?
>>>
>> No
>
> This is incorrect. Since the definition of pirated media is material
> which is obtained in breach of copyright or IP law, you are inevitably
> breaking the law if you supply it.
>
>> If you answer YES to either then you
>>> have reason for a warrant.
>> Right. Just as long as that is clear.
>
> ..... hmm....


Perhaps you or Leythos could refer me to a case anywhere in the world
where a warrant has been used to enter a person's home and examine their
computer, because they were suspected of infringing copyright on p2p
systems on a non-commercial basis?

I think you will find that copyright infringement is a civil matter, not
a criminal one, pretty much everywhere.

In my country, raids have been made under fraud legislation (the Oink
case, which is unlikely to fly in court), and under trading and tax laws
when companies have been producing or supplying pirate videos, but not
for simple copying without agreement.

In the US, the RIAA has been subpeonaing ISPs to get user details, and
then sending the users letters to demand financial penalties or face
civil court. Some have gone to court, and the courts have ordered the
PCs be examined, but that is hardly the same thing.

Re: Would a firewall have protected Jammie Thomas from being suedby the RIAA Safenet

Technomage Hawke wrote:
> anthonyberet wrote:
>
>> Leythos wrote:
>>> In article <9HOMi.57415$YL5.27284@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>,
>>> onesolution@sbcglobal.net says...
>>>> On Wed, 3 Oct 2007 11:19:42 -0400, Leythos wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> when YOU make a connection, it shows your PUBLIC IP, that's all that's
>>>>> needed.
>>>> But they have to prove YOU (personally) did it - don't they?
>>>>
>>>> For example, what if there are five people and five computers in the
>>>> house?
>>>>
>>>> Or if the neighbor hijacked your wireless router connection?
>>> No, the fact that YOUR IP did it is enough to get a search warrant -
>>> from there, since you don't know it's coming they get the computer and
>>> records....
>>>
>> I don't think that is true. They don't issue search warrant for p2p
>> copyright infringers in any jurisdiction that I know of.
>>
>> Can you substatiate your spurious claim?
>
> I search warrant is not needed except in criminal cases. in civil cases, a
> subpoena is used to "confiscate" the equipment holding the "proscribed
> materials" and its then imaged. now, if a civil case goes against the
> defendant, then information gained from that civil case can be used to
> obtain a warrant for further searches (as well the previously testified
> info presented in the civil case can also be used in the criminal courts).
>
> it rather depends on which court system was used first: civil or criminal.
> if criminal first, then yes, a warrant is required for search and seizure
> of equipment/drives/etc (unless there is sufficient probable cause to go in
> without a warrant first).
>
Yes that sounds more like it. I am not aware of the criminal justice
system having been used in the first instance.

Re: Would a firewall have protected Jammie Thomas from being sued by the RIAA Safenet

"anthonyberet" wrote in message
news:5qrvm5F11j6imU1@mid.individual.net...

> Perhaps you or Leythos could refer me to a case anywhere in the world
> where a warrant has been used to enter a person's home and examine their
> computer, because they were suspected of infringing copyright on p2p
> systems on a non-commercial basis?
>
> I think you will find that copyright infringement is a civil matter, not a
> criminal one, pretty much everywhere.

This is not necessarily true in the United States.

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

"The United States No Electronic Theft Act (NET Act), a federal law passed
in 1997, provides for criminal prosecution of individuals who engage in
copyright infringement, even when there is no monetary profit or commercial
benefit from the infringement. Maximum penalties can be five years in prison
and up to $250,000 in fines. The NET Act also raised statutory damages by
50%.

Prior to the enactment of the NET Act in 1997, copyright infringement for a
noncommercial purpose was apparently not punishable by criminal prosecution,
although noncommercial infringers could be sued in a civil action by the
copyright holder to recover damages. At that time, criminal prosecutions
under the copyright act were possible only when the infringer derived a
commercial benefit from his or her actions. This state of affairs was
underscored by the unsuccessful 1994 prosecution of David LaMacchia, then a
student at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, for allegedly
facilitating massive copyright infringement as a hobby, without any
commercial motive. The court's dismissal of United States vs. LaMacchia
suggested that then-existing criminal law simply did not apply to
noncommercial infringements (a state of affairs which became known as the
"LaMacchia Loophole"). The court suggested that Congress could act to make
some noncommercial infringements a crime, and Congress acted on that
suggestion in the NET Act.

The NET Act amends the definition of "commercial advantage or private
financial gain" to include the exchange of copies of copyrighted works even
if no money changes hands and specifies penalties of up to five years in
prison and up to $250,000 in fines. It also creates a threshold for criminal
liability even where the infringer neither obtained nor expected to obtain
anything of value for the infringement.

The NET Act raised the levels of statutory damages to $750 -- $30,000 per
work (or actual damages or infringer's profits, whichever is greater). In
cases of willful infringement, the act allows individuals to be held civilly
liable for statutory damages of up to $150,000 per work infringed).

The NET Act could be applied to the unauthorized trading of infringing MP3
files, although music file-sharing was not yet widely practiced by 1997. The
infringements of greatest interest to industry at that time were primarily
infringing copies of software."


http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_ 00000506----000-.html

(a) Criminal Infringement.-
(1) In general.- Any person who willfully infringes a copyright shall be
punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, if the infringement was
committed-
(A) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain;
(B) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means,
during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more
copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000; or
(C) by the distribution of a work being prepared for commercial
distribution, by making it available on a computer network accessible to
members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that the
work was intended for commercial distribution.

>
> In my country, raids have been made under fraud legislation (the Oink
> case, which is unlikely to fly in court), and under trading and tax laws
> when companies have been producing or supplying pirate videos, but not for
> simple copying without agreement.
>
> In the US, the RIAA has been subpeonaing ISPs to get user details, and
> then sending the users letters to demand financial penalties or face civil
> court. Some have gone to court, and the courts have ordered the PCs be
> examined, but that is hardly the same thing.

http://www.linuxelectrons.com/news/general/operation-copycat -results-more-indictments

Web LinuxElectronsT

"Operation Copycat Results in more IndictmentsPublished: Thursday, February
02 2006 @ 11:51 AM CST
Contributed by: Tommy

SAN JOSE - The United States Attorney for the Northern District of
California announced that as part of the ongoing prosecution arising out of
Operation Copycat, a federal grand jury in San Jose returned a
thirteen-count indictment last week charging ten additional individuals with
violations of federal copyright laws. Twenty-five persons have been charged
to date as part of the ongoing investigation and prosecution, and ten have
been convicted.

Based on the indictment, the following ten individuals were each charged
with conspiracy to commit criminal copyright infringement, and for violating
the No Electronic Theft Act (known as the "NET Act") for copyright
infringement by electronic means over the Internet:
Matthew Thompson, 22, of Lubbock, Texas
David Siloac, 27, of Clinton Township, Michigan
Johnny Russell, 34, of Spring, Texas
Eric Rolfe, 22, of Columbia, Missouri
Phillip Templeton, 24, of Kingsport, Tennessee
Ali Ghani, 28, of Irvine, California
Matthew Fong, 19, of Miami, Florida
Jose Soler, 30, of Elmburst (Queens), New York
Donovan Kargenian, 31, of El Cajon, California
Gregory Dickman, 25, of Wilmington, North Carolina
Defendant Fong was also charged with two counts of criminal copyright
infringement by distributing a copyrighted work on a computer network, and
aiding and abetting that conduct. These two charges are based on the "Family
Entertainment and Copyright Act of 2005," which was enacted on April 27,
2005, and prohibits the infringement of a work being prepared for commercial
distribution by making it available on a computer network accessible to
members of the public, where the individual knew or should have known the
work was intended for commercial distribution. The indictment also contains
forfeiture allegations to forfeit computer and other equipment used to
violate the criminal copyright laws. The equipment was seized during a
federal search warrant executed on June 29, 2005.

The charges stem from the recent undercover investigation targeting online
"warez" groups illegally distributing newly-released movies, games, software
and music. "Warez groups" are the "first-providers" of copyrighted works to
the warez underground - the so-called "release" groups that operate as the
original sources for a majority of the pirated works distributed and
downloaded via the Internet.

The ten defendants will be arraigned on the indictment on February 22, 2006
at 2:00 p.m. before U.S. Magistrate Judge Richard Seeborg in San Jose.

The maximum penalties for conspiring to violated federal copyright law, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, and for copyright infringement by distributing
a copyrighted work on a computer network, and aiding and abetting, in
violation of 17 U.S.C. § 506(a)(1)(C), 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 2319(d)(2), are five
years in prison and three years of supervised release. The maximum penalties
for violating the NET Act, in violation of 17 U.S.C. § 506(a)(1)(B), and 18
U.S.C. § 2319(c)(1), are three years in prison and two years of supervised
release. A maximum fine of $250,000 applies to each offense, and a mandatory
special assessment of $100 applies for each conviction. However, any
sentence following conviction would be imposed by the court after
consideration of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and the federal statute
governing the imposition of a sentence, 18 U.S.C. § 3553. An indictment only
contains allegations and these defendants, as with all defendants, must be
presumed innocent unless and until convicted.

The other ten convictions in Operation Copycat to date include:
January 9, 2006: Paul Aleman, 25, of Menafee, California, pleaded guilty to
conspiracy to commit criminal copyright infringement by electronic means,
and copyright infringement by electronic means and aiding and abetting.


January 9, 2006: Philip Kang, 22, of Wayne, New Jersey, admitted engaging in
copyright infringement by electronic means.


December 12, 2005: Mark G. Carter, II, 28, of Azusa, California, pleaded
guilty to one count of violating the NET Act, as charged in the Northern
District of California Case, and to one count of conspiracy to commit
offenses against the United States, as charged in the District of
Connecticut.


December 12, 2005: Jonathan Stanley Golenbock, 22, of Ithaca, New York,
pleaded guilty to one count of violating the NET Act.


November 30, 2005: Nathaniel Lovell, 22, of Boulder, Colorado, an equipment
supplier for the warez sites, pleaded guilty to conspiring to commit
criminal copyright infringement and to violating the NET Act.


November 14, 2005: Chirayu Patel, 23, of Fremont, California, and one of the
site operators for the warez site, pleaded guilty to conspiring to commit
criminal copyright infringement and to violating the NET Act.


November 14, 2005: Daniel Van Horn, 32, of Wantagh, NY, pleaded guilty to
violating the NET Act.


October 11, 2005: William Veyna, 34, of Chatworth, California, another site
operator, pleaded guilty to conspiring to commit criminal copyright
infringement and to violating the NET Act.


October 3, 2005: Ryan Zeman, 23, of Rohnert Park, California, admitted
violating the NET Act.


September 26, 2005: Curtis Salisbury, 19, of St. Charles, Missouri, pleaded
guilty to two charges under the recently enacted "Family Entertainment and
Copyright Act of 2005," including the first convictions in the country for
using recording equipment to make copies of movies in movie theaters, and
for making a commercially distributed movie available on a computer network
accessible to members of the public, when the individual knew or should have
known that the work was intended for commercial distribution.
As part of each plea agreement, each defendant also agreed to forfeit
computer and other equipment that was seized during the federal search
warrants executed on June 29, 2005.

These prosecutions are part of a continuing investigation known locally as
Operation Copycat, which involved the execution of more than 40 searches
nationwide on June 29, 2005. Operation Copycat is the local and largest part
of the coordinated international law enforcement action known as Operation
Site Down, which is targeting online piracy. Mark L. Krotoski is the
Assistant U.S. Attorney from the CHIP Unit who is prosecuting the case,
along with the assistance of Legal Assistants Mimi Lam and Lauri Gomez.
Stephanie M. Hinds is the Assistant U.S. Attorney, along with Alicia Chin,
paralegal, assisting with the asset forfeiture matters on the case."

TB

Re: Would a firewall have protected Jammie Thomas from being sued by the RIAA Safenet

Technobarbarian wrote:
> "anthonyberet" wrote in message
> news:5qrvm5F11j6imU1@mid.individual.net...
>
>> Perhaps you or Leythos could refer me to a case anywhere in the world
>> where a warrant has been used to enter a person's home and examine their
>> computer, because they were suspected of infringing copyright on p2p
>> systems on a non-commercial basis?
>>
>> I think you will find that copyright infringement is a civil matter, not a
>> criminal one, pretty much everywhere.
>
> This is not necessarily true in the United States.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NET_Act
>
> "The United States No Electronic Theft Act (NET Act), a federal law passed
> in 1997, provides for criminal prosecution of individuals who engage in
> copyright infringement, even when there is no monetary profit or commercial
> benefit from the infringement. Maximum penalties can be five years in prison
> and up to $250,000 in fines. The NET Act also raised statutory damages by
> 50%.
>
> Prior to the enactment of the NET Act in 1997, copyright infringement for a
> noncommercial purpose was apparently not punishable by criminal prosecution,
> although noncommercial infringers could be sued in a civil action by the
> copyright holder to recover damages. At that time, criminal prosecutions
> under the copyright act were possible only when the infringer derived a
> commercial benefit from his or her actions. This state of affairs was
> underscored by the unsuccessful 1994 prosecution of David LaMacchia, then a
> student at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, for allegedly
> facilitating massive copyright infringement as a hobby, without any
> commercial motive. The court's dismissal of United States vs. LaMacchia
> suggested that then-existing criminal law simply did not apply to
> noncommercial infringements (a state of affairs which became known as the
> "LaMacchia Loophole"). The court suggested that Congress could act to make
> some noncommercial infringements a crime, and Congress acted on that
> suggestion in the NET Act.
>
> The NET Act amends the definition of "commercial advantage or private
> financial gain" to include the exchange of copies of copyrighted works even
> if no money changes hands and specifies penalties of up to five years in
> prison and up to $250,000 in fines. It also creates a threshold for criminal
> liability even where the infringer neither obtained nor expected to obtain
> anything of value for the infringement.
>
> The NET Act raised the levels of statutory damages to $750 -- $30,000 per
> work (or actual damages or infringer's profits, whichever is greater). In
> cases of willful infringement, the act allows individuals to be held civilly
> liable for statutory damages of up to $150,000 per work infringed).
>
> The NET Act could be applied to the unauthorized trading of infringing MP3
> files, although music file-sharing was not yet widely practiced by 1997. The
> infringements of greatest interest to industry at that time were primarily
> infringing copies of software."
>
>
> http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_ 00000506----000-.html
>
> (a) Criminal Infringement.-
> (1) In general.- Any person who willfully infringes a copyright shall be
> punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, if the infringement was
> committed-
> (A) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain;
> (B) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means,
> during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more
> copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000; or
> (C) by the distribution of a work being prepared for commercial
> distribution, by making it available on a computer network accessible to
> members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that the
> work was intended for commercial distribution.
>
>> In my country, raids have been made under fraud legislation (the Oink
>> case, which is unlikely to fly in court), and under trading and tax laws
>> when companies have been producing or supplying pirate videos, but not for
>> simple copying without agreement.
>>
>> In the US, the RIAA has been subpeonaing ISPs to get user details, and
>> then sending the users letters to demand financial penalties or face civil
>> court. Some have gone to court, and the courts have ordered the PCs be
>> examined, but that is hardly the same thing.
>
> http://www.linuxelectrons.com/news/general/operation-copycat -results-more-indictments
>
> Web LinuxElectronsT
>
> "Operation Copycat Results in more IndictmentsPublished: Thursday, February
> 02 2006 @ 11:51 AM CST
> Contributed by: Tommy
>
> SAN JOSE - The United States Attorney for the Northern District of
> California announced that as part of the ongoing prosecution arising out of
> Operation Copycat, a federal grand jury in San Jose returned a
> thirteen-count indictment last week charging ten additional individuals with
> violations of federal copyright laws. Twenty-five persons have been charged
> to date as part of the ongoing investigation and prosecution, and ten have
> been convicted.
>
> Based on the indictment, the following ten individuals were each charged
> with conspiracy to commit criminal copyright infringement, and for violating
> the No Electronic Theft Act (known as the "NET Act") for copyright
> infringement by electronic means over the Internet:
> Matthew Thompson, 22, of Lubbock, Texas
> David Siloac, 27, of Clinton Township, Michigan
> Johnny Russell, 34, of Spring, Texas
> Eric Rolfe, 22, of Columbia, Missouri
> Phillip Templeton, 24, of Kingsport, Tennessee
> Ali Ghani, 28, of Irvine, California
> Matthew Fong, 19, of Miami, Florida
> Jose Soler, 30, of Elmburst (Queens), New York
> Donovan Kargenian, 31, of El Cajon, California
> Gregory Dickman, 25, of Wilmington, North Carolina
> Defendant Fong was also charged with two counts of criminal copyright
> infringement by distributing a copyrighted work on a computer network, and
> aiding and abetting that conduct. These two charges are based on the "Family
> Entertainment and Copyright Act of 2005," which was enacted on April 27,
> 2005, and prohibits the infringement of a work being prepared for commercial
> distribution by making it available on a computer network accessible to
> members of the public, where the individual knew or should have known the
> work was intended for commercial distribution. The indictment also contains
> forfeiture allegations to forfeit computer and other equipment used to
> violate the criminal copyright laws. The equipment was seized during a
> federal search warrant executed on June 29, 2005.
>
> The charges stem from the recent undercover investigation targeting online
> "warez" groups illegally distributing newly-released movies, games, software
> and music. "Warez groups" are the "first-providers" of copyrighted works to
> the warez underground - the so-called "release" groups that operate as the
> original sources for a majority of the pirated works distributed and
> downloaded via the Internet.
>
> The ten defendants will be arraigned on the indictment on February 22, 2006
> at 2:00 p.m. before U.S. Magistrate Judge Richard Seeborg in San Jose.
>
> The maximum penalties for conspiring to violated federal copyright law, in
> violation of 18 U.S.C. ｧ 371, and for copyright infringement by distributing
> a copyrighted work on a computer network, and aiding and abetting, in
> violation of 17 U.S.C. ｧ 506(a)(1)(C), 18 U.S.C. ｧｧ 2, 2319(d)(2), are five
> years in prison and three years of supervised release. The maximum penalties
> for violating the NET Act, in violation of 17 U.S.C. ｧ 506(a)(1)(B), and 18
> U.S.C. ｧ 2319(c)(1), are three years in prison and two years of supervised
> release. A maximum fine of $250,000 applies to each offense, and a mandatory
> special assessment of $100 applies for each conviction. However, any
> sentence following conviction would be imposed by the court after
> consideration of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and the federal statute
> governing the imposition of a sentence, 18 U.S.C. ｧ 3553. An indictment only
> contains allegations and these defendants, as with all defendants, must be
> presumed innocent unless and until convicted.
>
> The other ten convictions in Operation Copycat to date include:
> January 9, 2006: Paul Aleman, 25, of Menafee, California, pleaded guilty to
> conspiracy to commit criminal copyright infringement by electronic means,
> and copyright infringement by electronic means and aiding and abetting.
>
>
> January 9, 2006: Philip Kang, 22, of Wayne, New Jersey, admitted engaging in
> copyright infringement by electronic means.
>
>
> December 12, 2005: Mark G. Carter, II, 28, of Azusa, California, pleaded
> guilty to one count of violating the NET Act, as charged in the Northern
> District of California Case, and to one count of conspiracy to commit
> offenses against the United States, as charged in the District of
> Connecticut.
>
>
> December 12, 2005: Jonathan Stanley Golenbock, 22, of Ithaca, New York,
> pleaded guilty to one count of violating the NET Act.
>
>
> November 30, 2005: Nathaniel Lovell, 22, of Boulder, Colorado, an equipment
> supplier for the warez sites, pleaded guilty to conspiring to commit
> criminal copyright infringement and to violating the NET Act.
>
>
> November 14, 2005: Chirayu Patel, 23, of Fremont, California, and one of the
> site operators for the warez site, pleaded guilty to conspiring to commit
> criminal copyright infringement and to violating the NET Act.
>
>
> November 14, 2005: Daniel Van Horn, 32, of Wantagh, NY, pleaded guilty to
> violating the NET Act.
>
>
> October 11, 2005: William Veyna, 34, of Chatworth, California, another site
> operator, pleaded guilty to conspiring to commit criminal copyright
> infringement and to violating the NET Act.
>
>
> October 3, 2005: Ryan Zeman, 23, of Rohnert Park, California, admitted
> violating the NET Act.
>
>
> September 26, 2005: Curtis Salisbury, 19, of St. Charles, Missouri, pleaded
> guilty to two charges under the recently enacted "Family Entertainment and
> Copyright Act of 2005," including the first convictions in the country for
> using recording equipment to make copies of movies in movie theaters, and
> for making a commercially distributed movie available on a computer network
> accessible to members of the public, when the individual knew or should have
> known that the work was intended for commercial distribution.
> As part of each plea agreement, each defendant also agreed to forfeit
> computer and other equipment that was seized during the federal search
> warrants executed on June 29, 2005.
>
> These prosecutions are part of a continuing investigation known locally as
> Operation Copycat, which involved the execution of more than 40 searches
> nationwide on June 29, 2005. Operation Copycat is the local and largest part
> of the coordinated international law enforcement action known as Operation
> Site Down, which is targeting online piracy. Mark L. Krotoski is the
> Assistant U.S. Attorney from the CHIP Unit who is prosecuting the case,
> along with the assistance of Legal Assistants Mimi Lam and Lauri Gomez.
> Stephanie M. Hinds is the Assistant U.S. Attorney, along with Alicia Chin,
> paralegal, assisting with the asset forfeiture matters on the case."
>
Bollocks!

Re: Would a firewall have protected Jammie Thomas from being sued by the RIAA Safenet

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)