Have you received a letter from Davenport Lyons or ACS? - Page 6

Toto · 31-08-2008, 13:18

Having read the linked articles, it got me thinking about the defence that the wireless router may not have been secure at the time, and whether its a reasonable defence. I thought of it this way.

What if, being very stupid I didn't lock my car door, and left my keys in the ignition. The car got stolen and was used in connection with a crime. Would that make me an accessory to that crime?

No, I don't think it does. It just makes me look stupid, and voids my car insurance.

---------- Post added at 13:18 ---------- Previous post was at 13:16 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by moaningmags

You can. 2 customers have the same NIC MAC on the same ubr.
If both trying to connect at the same time, only one gets on. Say this is the one that illegally downloads games, movies, whatever. They then go offline, the other customer reboots and gets the IP address the other guy had. He then surfs the web, checks his mail and a while later gets a letter and hasn't a clue what it's about.

It can and does happen and lately more and more often.

Two customer NICs on the same uBR yes, but for each to get service at the same time they would still have to have different modem MAC addresses, and therefore each customer would have a different IP address.

moaningmags · 31-08-2008, 13:21

Even with different modem MACs, the ubr only accepts 1 NIC MAC. So both won't get on at the same time.
Isn't the ip address assigned according to the NIC MAC and not the modem MAC?

Kymmy · 31-08-2008, 13:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Having read the linked articles, it got me thinking about the defence that the wireless router may not have been secure at the time, and whether its a reasonable defence. I thought of it this way.

What if, being very stupid I didn't lock my car door, and left my keys in the ignition. The car got stolen and was used in connection with a crime. Would that make me an accessory to that crime?

No, I don't think it does. It just makes me look stupid, and voids my car insurance.

---------- Post added at 13:18 ---------- Previous post was at 13:16 ----------

The same with wireless, you're responsible for the connection and any legal action that might come from it (the same as the car analogy with the cancellation of the insurance, you pay for the damage to the car unless you claim it back from the thief), The thief whether it be wireless theft or car is basically breaking the theft laws only...

In this country though that breaks down as theft has be that the person will steal with no intent of giving back it's one of the reasosn as to why TWOK became the normal offence...

In the end the simple facts are if you don;t secure something then you will be responsible for it to some extent...

Two customer NICs on the same uBR yes, but for each to get service at the same time they would still have to have different modem MAC addresses, and therefore each customer would have a different IP address.

---------- Post added at 13:23 ---------- Previous post was at 13:21 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by moaningmags

Even with different modem MACs, the ubr only accepts 1 NIC MAC. So both won't get on at the same time.
Isn't the ip address assigned according to the NIC MAC and not the modem MAC?

The rDNS of the IP would show that the cloned modem is in a different area...

Toto · 31-08-2008, 13:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kymmy

In the end the simple facts are if you don;t secure something then you will be responsible for it to some extent...

Oh I fully agree, its the "to some extent" that seems to be the key according to som interested parties in those articles.

I'm behind the law here in that trying to secure a conviction for copyright theft is the right thing to do, but playing devils advocate that on an unsecured wireless network there could be very reasonable doubt really makes me think.

---------- Post added at 13:32 ---------- Previous post was at 13:31 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by moaningmags

Even with different modem MACs, the ubr only accepts 1 NIC MAC. So both won't get on at the same time.
Isn't the ip address assigned according to the NIC MAC and not the modem MAC?

It's assigned to both in concert, that is why you can have matching client MACS but not matching modem MACS.

Kymmy · 31-08-2008, 13:33

"To some extent" normally means that a judge could go either way... If he took into account VM's own T&C's then he would err on the side that you were responsible..

Charlie_Bubble · 31-08-2008, 13:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Having read the linked articles, it got me thinking about the defence that the wireless router may not have been secure at the time, and whether its a reasonable defence. I thought of it this way.

What if, being very stupid I didn't lock my car door, and left my keys in the ignition. The car got stolen and was used in connection with a crime. Would that make me an accessory to that crime?

No, I don't think it does. It just makes me look stupid, and voids my car insurance.

Your analogy is slightly flawed. It would be more accurate to say that your car is stolen, crime committed and then the criminals put your car back in the same position without your knowledge that it has ever gone. Later the police trace your car and charge you as the owner of the car, which was witnessed at the scene. Your defence would be that someone cloned your plates, or you can prove you were elsewhere. Some of these people have no such defence.

To be honest, I find it very amusing that people come on saying how it's a scam, they'll fight it etc. in one breath, while in the other actually admitting to the crime and trying to argue either the evidence, or that their mate says it's legal for them to download as long as only they use it. Complete balls and how they think they can justify it by picking at technicalities, such as the letter isn't signed, or the date is a little out... If you don't remove the torrent from your client, it will continue to be seeded to others way beyond the date you think that you last shared it. Some people are asking to be caught by clearly having no understanding of the technology they are using to break the law.

Toto · 31-08-2008, 13:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlie_Bubble

Your analogy is slightly flawed. It would be more accurate to say that your car is stolen, crime committed and then the criminals put your car back in the same position without your knowledge that it has ever gone. Later the police trace your car and charge you as the owner of the car, which was witnessed at the scene. Your defence would be that someone cloned your plates, or you can prove you were elsewhere. Some of these people have no such defence.

To be honest, I find it very amusing that people come on saying how it's a scam, they'll fight it etc. in one breath, while in the other actually admitting to the crime and trying to argue either the evidence, or that their mate says it's legal for them to download as long as only they use it. Complete balls and how they think they can justify it by picking at technicalities, such as the letter isn't signed, or the date is a little out... If you don't remove the torrent from your client, it will continue to be seeded to others way beyond the date you think that you last shared it. Some people are asking to be caught by clearly having no understanding of the technology they are using to break the law.

It was purely devils advocate, and just to set the record straight, I have never said this was a scam, so I am assuming you are pointing that comment at others.

Kymmy · 31-08-2008, 13:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlie_Bubble

To be honest, I find it very amusing that people come on saying how it's a scam, they'll fight it etc. in one breath, while in the other actually admitting to the crime and trying to argue either the evidence, or that their mate says it's legal for them to download as long as only they use it.

We get the same on the motorcycle forums, they scream and shout as to how a speed camera is there for revenue, they moan that they've got a NIP for breaking the speed limit and then they admit to doing 100+ down a motorway to see if the bike can do it....

Simple fact is if they didn't speed then they'd have no reason to moan. Same as if you download then accept the possible consequences...

Toto · 31-08-2008, 13:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kymmy

"To some extent" normally means that a judge could go either way... If he took into account VM's own T&C's then he would err on the side that you were responsible..

Surely that should be he "may" err on the side that I were responsible?

I don't think this point has been fully tested in court yet, and I am still not convinced that because the customer may have had an insecure wireless network it automatically makes them the culprit in law. It could do, but until its fully tested.....I'm going to reserve judgement on that, like my judgement means a jot.

Again, let me stress I am not on the side of anyone who flouts copyright law for their own selfish pleasure, any one familiar with my comments on another thread will know that only too well.

Charlie_Bubble · 31-08-2008, 13:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

It was purely devils advocate, and just to set the record straight, I have never said this was a scam, so I am assuming you are pointing that comment at others.

Yes, the first part of my post was to extend your argument, the second part was aimed at others!

Kymmy · 31-08-2008, 13:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Surely that should be he "may" err on the side that I were responsible?

You having a go at my grammar??

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I don't think this point has been fully tested in court yet, and I am still not convinced that because the customer may have had an insecure wireless network it automatically makes them the culprit in law. It could do, but until its fully tested.....I'm going to reserve judgement on that, like my judgement means a jot.

There has been cases of people found guilty of theft of services via wireless and also as this thread is about people defaulting on a copyright/file sharing judgement..

But YES it will be very interesting when someone actually defends themselves and whether they use the insecure wireless defence...

Charlie_Bubble · 31-08-2008, 13:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kymmy

We get the same on the motorcycle forums, they scream and shout as to how a speed camera is there for revenue, they moan that they've got a NIP for breaking the speed limit and then they admit to doing 100+ down a motorway to see if the bike can do it....

Simple fact is if they didn't speed then they'd have no reason to moan. Same as if you download then accept the possible consequences...

Let's face it, NTL's DHCP servers keep logs of who they give out IPs to. The companies working for the people who own the copyright to the material being download keep logs of which IPs connect to them to download and when they do it. They just marry the two together and get people's names. Notice how none of the people who have leters have been completely innocent of ever downloading the material, they've just argued that they were either, only downloading, or downloaded it at another point in time.

Toto · 31-08-2008, 13:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kymmy

You having a go at my grammar??

Grammar no, just the verb used.

**Hugh** · 31-08-2008, 13:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Grammar no, just the verb used.

err was the verb, may/would the modifier

Toto · 31-08-2008, 14:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by foreverwar

err was the verb, may/would the modifier

I was merely pointing out that that until a judge makes a decision, we could not say that he "would" err on the side of VM, but that he "may".