Message-ID: <002a01c53c2a$434649a0$0200a8c0@box>
Date: Fri Apr  8 12:01:23 2005
From: class101 at hat-squad.com (class101@...-SQUAD.com)
Subject: Re: Case ID 51560370 - Notice
	ofClaimedInfringement

would be nice to done your crap discussion elsewhere, at start, this thread
shouldnt be there , thx mr coombs ..............................



-------------------------------------------------------------
class101
Jr. Researcher
Hat-Squad.com
-------------------------------------------------------------
----- Original Message -----
From: "AJ C" <spook3y3s@...il.com>
To: "Jason" <security@...enik.com>; <full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk>
Sent: Friday, April 08, 2005 4:48 AM
Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] Re: Case ID 51560370 - Notice
ofClaimedInfringement


> Civil vs Criminal cases dude, you're imposing some aspects of criminal
> cases upon civil proceedings and that's not how they work.  In a
> criminal trial it's a dramatized version of reasonable doubt, civil
> proceedings must show 51%+ responsibility on the part of the defendant
> (much, much easier and why the powers that be choose this route).  Not
> to mention it's their content (no harm, no foul on downloading
> something they already own) and MPAA/RIAA/blah have set precedence for
> proactively tracking (either themselves or appointed parties)
> file-sharing events (method of access is not unlawful and cannot be
> brought into contention...is BitTorrent inherently illegal when used
> for legit purposes? -- nope).
>
> If bb knocks on your door then you argue evidentiary process otherwise
> in a civil proceeding you bear more of a burden to show you *didn't*
> do what they're claiming (right or wrong they do have the legal upper
> hand with their records versus essentially a verbal denial at best).
>
> 'Probably just easier to not download the crap and stay off the radar,
$0.02.
>
> On Apr 7, 2005 7:26 PM, Jason <security@...enik.com> wrote:
> > IANAL but it seems this thought process is broken.
> >
> > Jason Coombs wrote:
> > > Come on, people, get a clue.
> > >
> > > The copyright owner has authorized the forensic investigators to
> > > download the infringing material. If it was there, according to a
> > > forensic investigator, then you have to prove it was not.
> >
> > This position does not hold water, there is no way for them to not break
> > the same laws they would be attempting to enforce by performing the
> > investigation from a remote location and without a valid search warrant.
> > You do not have to prove that you did not have the content, you only
> > have to prove that you have content that appears very similar to the
> > remote reviewer.
> >
> > If you were to place a copyrighted work of your own there then would
> > they be forced to download it and break the law in order to prove that
> > it was not the other copyright owners property? If they show in the logs
> > as having attempted a download does this make them guilty?
> >
> > It is as simple as creating a server that will return filenames and
> > hashes found on the network but actually provide /dev/random for the
> > download or your copyrighted content with an engineered hash collision.
> >
> > It only takes one case to prevent the civil suit from being filed. To
> > file the suit would be admitting to having broken the law. You cannot
> > bring suit when the basis of the suit is itself illegal activity.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> > Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
> > Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
> >
>
>
> --
> AJC
> spook3y3s@...il.com
> _______________________________________________
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
> Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists