I sat down with my kid and ask him what he was doing with his hight power rifle, his M16 and is rocket launcher after reading stuff about the RIAA. He told me that he was just playing with his freinds. I believe him but since then I don’t know where he is nor do I know where his friends are, I wonder. Do you think I should worry? LOL

When I worked for a major ISP (dial up was the thing but high speed was just coming out), we could tell which account used which IP address from the start to the finish of the call. It really should be no different with high speed (cable or dsl) as long as the ISP logs that (and they should for the tracking of abuse issues alone).

Now, with peer to peer clients, all they would need to do is run the client on their end and perform packet captures between Their_IP_Address and the Target_IP_Address and then filtering only on the ports used for the transfer. (Encryption can come into play but even with that, it depends on where the “capture” tool ties into THEIR system (or perhaps the client itself?).

Even with encryption, If they can plug into a point (on their computer - this is an important point not to be confused with performing a network capture of encrypted data) to where the data sent/received is no longer encrypted, it is then simply a matter of matching the capture with the file transferred. (much like your browser decrypted traffic sent to it via an encrypted connection)

While they (RIAA & MediaSentry) may have their own “process” of doing it, the WAYS to do it are fairly public knowledge as long as you know what you are looking for.

A process can be proprietary and you can hide behind that. HOWEVER, they should not be surprised if the case goes against them and more and more people go defenses down that line. At some point they will have to reveal their cards/ways, stop, or find new ways to try their tactics.

The other problem here too is getting judges who understand enough of this to rule intelligently on cases (or at least have access to really good technical people on the matter).

“…but courts have ways of surprising all of us.”
YES they do Sometimes they never cease to amaze me.

its odd that for this case they dont give that, and yet for others they have provided user names and IP addresses and stuff.

very interesting outlook with the shoplifting Hawk. i would actually like to see that scenario played out in a court. i would hope that the individual accused would be let off, but courts have ways of surprising all of us. this case will probably set precedent as to whether or not the RIAA/MS need to show their proof.

In the computer world, lets call it as it is. If you are going to go after someone legally, you SHOULD want to be sure that you have the preponderance of evidence on your side and that you have it all in line.
Logs, packet captures, screen shots, etc are not that hard to collect and store AND ARCHIVE for use in court. AND IT SHOULD BE.

When the case is then presented (since the client is going to fight it), the evidence is then made available.

Why all the cloak and dagger? There are a lot assumptions made on both sides but the bottom line is that the RIAA has just said “SHE (or her kid) DID IT!” and not showing the evidence you should rightly see.

Police have a chain of custody and all that when cases go to court to show that the evidence hasn’t been tampered with so I see no real difference here.

What I do see is this:
In the past the RIAA has gotten away with strong arming people and now that more and more people become educated about their tactics and ways to make them “put up” they are not getting people who just give them “free money” to make the issue go away. Now, they are having to actually prove their case. What is so wrong about that?

Imagine leaving a store and then being stopped outside and being accused of stealing. They search you and find nothing but say “You threw it away when you saw us coming” and then you are arrested books and locked up. When it comes trial time they simply say “We saw him do it” and thats that and off you go to lock up. No tapes. Nothing more than them saying so.

At least in cases like this, there SHOULD BE evidence that can be gone over by “experts” to aleast see if it looks legit or has been tampered with.

Mako: you continue to insist its her child. And it could be. BUT… if it is, then the RIAA should have no complaints about showing logs and sharing with the courts and lawyers as to the evidence is collected.
It is supposed to be a JUSTICE system after all.

never once did i defend the RIAA. i am saying that parents need to be more aware of what goes on with their computers, and what their children do with them. again, i stated that it may not have been this case, but there was one where the username was clearly a son/daughter of the accused. in that instance, it is the child who did it. its obvious. no amount of denying/making excuses (my network was compromised, IP’s dont mean a thing, etc.) will change that fact.

come to think of it, i believe it was the case where the lady came from Hurricane Katrina, or had something to do with Katrina. someone refresh me.

and come on man. your analogy is even more ridiculous than the car one earlier. can you answer this question?

if your son/daughter was sharing files and you got a letter from the RIAA charging you, would you tell them “it wasnt me, it was my child.” ?
if your son/daughter admitted “yeah mom/dad, i was sharing files and i got caught…. what do i do now?” would you deny these charges to the RIAA, or be honest and tell them “yeah it was my child.” ?

and good point tommy, but in the RIAA’s messed up mind, they feel that any shared file is a lost sale. this i do not agree with, as i have downloaded stuff (music, movies and games) that honestly, if it wasnt free, i wouldnt go out and purchase. they try to have their cake and eat it too. they want “lost sales” to stop, and they also want to collect on “potential lost sales”. this of course will never happen. so they resort to means like charging parents, ISP account holders, and even IP addresses. general scare tactics, etc.

all im saying is that in the event that its clearly the account holders son or daughter doing the downloading (perhaps not in this case, but i know there was A case where the username was listed and it made sense that it was a child of the person charged), that the parent needs to show some responsibility and say “yeah, that was my son/daughter, i didnt know what they were doing on the computer”. this whole denying everything approach will not work in that instance. a jury can easily see if your last name is Lindor and your sons name is Woody, and the username who downloaded files was “wlindor” that it was most likely your son who did the downloading.

QUOTE:
Mrs Lindor is a 57-year-old New York health worker who quite literally doesn’t know one end of a computer from the other.

She was, and is, innocent of all allegations and the RIAA bosses have known that since the day they launched their anti-P2P, anti-file sharing lawsuit against her.

But it’s the RIAA’s practice to first go after parents, even though they know there’s no merit to their charges.

Soften them up before the corporate legal teams turn on their real targets who are, in 99 cases out of 100, the younger family members, such as Woody Raymond, Mrs Lindor’s son.
UNQUOTE
Jon pointed it out that they were really getting at her son who did the downloading. Her son is probably too young to be charged, so she takes the punishment for it. This is practiced in other ways than just here.
If you are in an antique store and your 5yr old knocks over an expensive vase, YOU need to pay for it. The child obviously cant, and I highly doubt that the store owner will shrug it off. Same deal here. The RIAA is the store owner, the music is the vase. Anyone disagree?

and you guys dont bother to read posts. you see an opposing view and immediately say “RIAA TROLL”. i didnt say that i was ok with DRM, i said that i have never had any issues with iTunes and the protections they have on their music.

to the guy comparing it to homicide, i think that is a really unfair comparison. but honestly if a parent wasnt watching their 7 year old kid, and that kid took the car and killed someone, i think the parent would be at fault, yes.

as oldschoolpunk says, i have no problem paying for my digital music. i could care less about FLAC or higher than 128-320kbps mp3’s. and i think that what NIN did was a very smart move, and both gives them good publicity as well as more money for their sales.

most of the posters here are very closed minded. if someone doesnt see their way, they are branded as the enemy, or RIAA troll. is there anyone who thinks for themselves and doesnt have the anti RIAA mob mentality who cares to comment?

she 57.

I seriuosly doubt she has kids in her house on a regular enough basis to attract MS or the RIAA’s attention.
Just wanted to point that out.

Anyways, this article is about a different issue: Has RIAA and MediaSentry been defrauding the court? The question at the moment isn’t if P2P is legal or not, but are they allowed to claim evidence and then refuse to show how they came to those evidence and conclusions? We’ve seen people walk out of court because they proved the evidence was inadmissible or biased or tampered. Why can’t the lawyer attempt to do that here?

Also, just because you’re okay with DRM doesn’t mean that it’s morally right.

The botom line is that they can not prove who is sharing what even with non-private p2p application. This is because one computer is not one person. One IP address is not one computer nor is it a suscriber. There is many ways to fake IP addresses. Software that do that are available for free. Also IP address are dynanmic and can change sometime very often particularly if the modem is turn off often. Many people turn off their modem at night. In the morning they have a new IP address and the log does not go that deep. Iti is not surpirsing that they catch so many people that don’t even have the right computer or application running and sometime does not even have a computer!

The pretention by these RIAA parasites that you can identify people on internet by their IP address is a big lie that only technologicaly challenged or worst corrupted judges will accept as evidence.

If you don’t believe that these RIAA/MPAA corporate parasite are evil look at what they are trying to do with Shareaza:

They created a BS company that extorted the Shareaza domain name using th etreat of lawsuit and now they are trying to robe the TM “Shareaza” in violation of the DMCA they imposed on us by corrupting the US governement.

These pigs do not care about the public, they do not care about our countries and they certainly do not car about our laws!

Let’s finish them now!

EXPEND THE BOYCOTT FURTHER! We are not done folks! They are dying but they are not dead yet.

she probably needs to sit down with any kids who used that computer and ask them what they were doing, etc.