Reply to: Thousands of file-sharers face legal action

[Gonzo]

There are folks in my street who don't even have any encryption enabled on their wifi networks.

Same here. 'tis unbelievable.

They don't seem too bad in my block. From my lounge my laptop can see five wireless networks.

Two are using WPA2 (although one of them is me).
One is using WPA
Two are using WEP

Could point me in the direction of security instructions for these WEP thingies, Dear?

I'm finally considering wireless, but need the appropriate software (and nous) to install the stuff...

It will be among the configuration settings for your Wireless Router when you get one.

Its not too complicated - even I managed to follow what was needed.

[VectraMan]

Do millions use usenet to download copyrighted material?

But if they do, and it can be determined who uploaded it then yes they could be in the frame as well.

(though as has been discussed elsewhere, the laywers are specifically going for P2Pers because many of them are unaware that they are uploading at the same time as they download)

tim

Usenet relies on central servers, so unlike P2P it's relatively easy to target where the material is being distributed from. Back when I was a usenet pirate I'd upload to Easynews, who I had a paid for account with, but they had a policy of not logging anything. But it still has to pass through your ISP, and if they decide to keep an eye on what you do with your connection they can certainly see what you're uploading to usenet even if you don't use their server. You'd have to use a VPN, or other form of encryption if you wanted to get around it, but no encryption is totally secure.

[cojak]

Just checked mine.
11 attempts since 1st august

Could point me in the direction of security instructions for these WEP thingies, Dear?

I'm finally considering wireless, but need the appropriate software (and nous) to install the stuff...

[tim123]

Being non technical, where does Usenet fit into this? Millions use it to download stuff, but it is obviously uploaded by someone at some point. Is this something that the IP's can monitor? Sorry, if my understanding is extremely simplistic. Any info gratefully received.

Do millions use usenet to download copyrighted material?

But if they do, and it can be determined who uploaded it then yes they could be in the frame as well.

(though as has been discussed elsewhere, the laywers are specifically going for P2Pers because many of them are unaware that they are uploading at the same time as they download)

tim

[tim123]

So if the ISPs can get away by saying it's not their responsibility what gets downloaded, why can't users use the same argument - "someone else was logged onto my wireless network"

They can

if it was true

tim

[DaveB]

Was in London yesterday adn out of curiosity left my iPhone on the wireless connection setupt screen while I walked around. Hundreds of WiFi connections, mostly secured but a good number not. Enough to have maintained a connection between Victoria and Kings Cross.

WRT to Usenet, it's not the ISP's who have the headache it's hosting providers for the servers. Admittedly most usenet services are hosted by ISP's but they are not responcible simply by dint of being an ISP.

In most cases the hosting service has an obligation tol remove any copyrighted material from a server once they have been notified of it's existance. However There is no legal requirement for them to go looking for it.

Getting back to the whole P2P file sharing issue, the record labels are going after the people who allow others to download material from their own PC. The big issue is proving that distribution actually took place. Just ebcasue the file was visible via Limewire/Khazaa/BitTorent etc does not automaticaly mean that it was ever downloaded. In the US the RIAA have been persuading Judges that simple "making available" copyright material constitutes infringement.

There is also the issue of actually identifying the individuals responsible. All that it is currently possible for them to do is identify the IP address used then subpeona the name and address of the person who pays for the internet connection that used that IP at that time. If there are multiple PC's sharing the connection or it has an unsecured wireless access point proving who actually made the material available could be very difficult to prove.

There is an active blog run by an American copyright lawyer who is defending some of the cases in the US against the RIAA that gives a lot more info on whats happening and the , frankly strongarm, tactics the record companies are using. You can find it here

[Diver]

Just checked mine.
11 attempts since 1st august

[dezze]

Being non technical, where does Usenet fit into this? Millions use it to download stuff, but it is obviously uploaded by someone at some point. Is this something that the IP's can monitor? Sorry, if my understanding is extremely simplistic. Any info gratefully received.

[Xenophon]

There are folks in my street who don't even have any encryption enabled on their wifi networks.

Same here. 'tis unbelievable.

[scooterscot]

There are folks in my street who don't even have any encryption enabled on their wifi networks.

[voodooflux]

It is. Grab a copy of AirCrack and you're good to go.

Allegedly

[DaveB]

Speaking of which, one of my colleagues has spent the last week cracking everyone in his neighbourhood with wireless, who's got WAP enabled (Can't try, no one near me with it).

Sounds like it's incredibly easy ...

It is. Grab a copy of AirCrack and you're good to go.

[voodooflux]

Usually their financial details

Ssshhh - that's my "Plan B"

[snaw]

WEP

Indeed. Typo.

[basshead]

Speaking of which, one of my colleagues has spent the last week cracking everyone in his neighbourhood with wireless, who's got WAP enabled (Can't try, no one near me with it).

Sounds like it's incredibly easy ...

WEP