News - Game Pirates check your post! UK publishers sending out 25,000 letters demandi

[dangel]

The problem is that wireless is so prevalent these days, just about EVERY ISP offers a free wireless router.

I am no hacker, it's something I have never bothered with but with a £40 PCMCIA card, my laptop, goggle and 24 hours I was able to connect to - and use - 6 networks in reach of my front room. 5 of which were protected (a mac network was unprotected, 3 BT homehubs were dead easy to hack and the other 2 were Sky boxes that took the vast majority of the time).

So, with absolutely no prior knowledge of hacking I was able to join 5 secured networks. That leaves me in very little doubt that wireless is extremely unsecure. If these letters keep going out, we might have to see an end to wireless.

You can download linux distros that do all the work for you - i've tried it (on my own network) and hacking something like WEP is almost trivial for example. I have several networks in range of my home that are WEP encryted. Your average punter doesn't understand how to set up ADSL, let alone wireless (i'm always helping people with the both).

[TheBloodyNine]

I'm a little concerned as to where they companies involved got the evidence to go to the High Courts with in the first place.

It would have to be pretty compelling to convince the High Courts to force the release of the names and addresses, but to get such evidence would they not need warrants similar to those allowing phone tapping operations? As far as I'm aware warrants for phone tapping are pretty difficult to get hold of and you need compelling evidence to support the action.

I'm not to concerned about receiving a letter however I am concerned that from the outside at least it appears they could be using tactics of dubious morality to get the information they need.

[aidanjt]

And more easy, and more casually done by people without a second thought, and therefore has more effect on the market.

Yes, it's easy and casual, that doesn't mean however, that it's ballooned out of proportion. The market is just convulting due to the obviousness of it now. The whole 'rampent piracy' and 'destroying the market' thing is an exaggeration.

[Saracen]

I'm a little concerned as to where they companies involved got the evidence to go to the High Courts with in the first place.

It would have to be pretty compelling to convince the High Courts to force the release of the names and addresses, but to get such evidence would they not need warrants similar to those allowing phone tapping operations? As far as I'm aware warrants for phone tapping are pretty difficult to get hold of and you need compelling evidence to support the action.

I'm not to concerned about receiving a letter however I am concerned that from the outside at least it appears they could be using tactics of dubious morality to get the information they need.

As I understand it, from a Swiss-based anti-piracy firm of computer forensic investigators.

Exactly how, I don't know. But suppose they add a machine to the Bit-torrent network and then search for and find property where the IP is owned by their clients, who have (as part of the investigation) authorised Logistep to make copies. Logistep then d/l that material, and wait to track the IPs of people that d/l from them.

I'm sure it's a lot more sophisticated than that, certainly in terms of logging and audit trail, but it'll be that kind of principle, I'd expect. And, of course, no warrants required and they aren't doing anything wrong in making the copies because they have permission. People d/l'ing from them, however, don't.

In other words, it's a 21st Century high-tech form of honey-trap. You bait the trap, lay out the lure and wait for someone to bite. Then you yank hard. An in case anyone suggests it's entrapment, no, it isn't. If they actively encouraged people to d/l, if they promoted the 'service' or told people how to do it, then t=yeah, maybe, even probably, it would be. But if you lay the bait and passively wait for nibbles, it isn't.

[Saracen]

Yes, it's easy and casual, that doesn't mean however, that it's ballooned out of proportion. The market is just convulting due to the obviousness of it now. The whole 'rampent piracy' and 'destroying the market' thing is an exaggeration.

How do you know if, or how much, of an exaggeration it is?

I mean, if it was possible to get detailed, hard evidence of the exact extent of piracy, those losing large sums would have done so already.

So, surely by saying it's all exaggerated, you're doing exactly what you accuse the industry of .... i.e. making assumptions.

I see a wide variety of claims. Some maybe are exaggerated, but since we don't know the extent of the problem, we don't know. It may be that it's even under-estimated.

But I think one thing is obvious, given the proliferation on the web and even, as someone pointed out, the ease of availability of cracked software and pirated music and videos in the local market, that whatever the actual size of the market, it's pretty damn huge.

[aidanjt]

Exactly how, I don't know. But suppose they add a machine to the Bit-torrent network and then search for and find property where the IP is owned by their clients, who have (as part of the investigation) authorised Logistep to make copies. Logistep then d/l that material, and wait to track the IPs of people that d/l from them.

I'm sure it's a lot more sophisticated than that, certainly in terms of logging and audit trail, but it'll be that kind of principle, I'd expect. And, of course, no warrants required and they aren't doing anything wrong in making the copies because they have permission. People d/l'ing from them, however, don't.

In other words, it's a 21st Century high-tech form of honey-trap. You bait the trap, lay out the lure and wait for someone to bite. Then you yank hard. An in case anyone suggests it's entrapment, no, it isn't. If they actively encouraged people to d/l, if they promoted the 'service' or told people how to do it, then t=yeah, maybe, even probably, it would be. But if you lay the bait and passively wait for nibbles, it isn't.

Actually that's entrapment, as well as distributing the copyright material by proxy in the public domain. They couldn't, for example, print a few thousand discs and start handing them out to passers-by and then run to the cops showing they have 'illegal' copies of the protected media. In order for them to do this on the level they'd have to search through trackers, identify torrents of protected material, connect to the swarm and start logging IPs.

[shaithis]

You could argue that the fact they are broadcasting to a tracker what they have to download, is in fact promoting the software to download.

Its a very grey area, unfortunately I fear that courts will lean heavily towards the corps because they don't understand and/or want to play it safe. The possible ramifications of this is that courts may start to get quite loose with finding in favor of the corps, which could end up setting precedents that reach far further then the courts imagined.

[aidanjt]

I mean, if it was possible to get detailed, hard evidence of the exact extent of piracy, those losing large sums would have done so already.

So, surely by saying it's all exaggerated, you're doing exactly what you accuse the industry of .... i.e. making assumptions.

I see a wide variety of claims. Some maybe are exaggerated, but since we don't know the extent of the problem, we don't know. It may be that it's even under-estimated.

But I think one thing is obvious, given the proliferation on the web and even, as someone pointed out, the ease of availability of cracked software and pirated music and videos in the local market, that whatever the actual size of the market, it's pretty damn huge.

Yes, this is of course, all true, but again, piracy is nothing new. It's just always been fairy big. Just look at China, well over 90% of media sales there are pirated copies of discs, and it's done in the wide open streets. The internet has only offered another distribution method.

[Saracen]

Actually that's entrapment, as well as distributing the copyright material by proxy in the public domain. They couldn't, for example, print a few thousand discs and start handing them out to passers-by and then run to the cops showing they have 'illegal' copies of the protected media. In order for them to do this on the level they'd have to search through trackers, identify torrents of protected material, connect to the swarm and start logging IPs.

Sorry Aidan, but you're wrong. It isn't entrapment. First of all, it's not the authorities inducing someone to commit a crime. Secondly, even if it were the authorities, making the material available and waiting to see what happens is NOT entrapment.

I'll give you some examples. A police officer goes into an off-licence (or licensed premises) and attempts to buy alcohol outside the licensing hours. All the licensee has to do is follow his licence and decline. Trading Standards send a 14-year-old into an off-licence to buy booze. If he licensee sells it, he's committing an offence. This "test purchase" principle is well-established, used constantly and is well within legal guidelines on entrapment.

There is a line as to how far authorities can go, and it has been crossed. Customs and Excise blew it big time a few years back by going over the line. But the line is quite a long way from just making material available and waiting to see what happens.

Consider .... you leave your lounge window open. If a burglar climbs through it, is it entrapment? No, of course not.

Entrapment is, like much of the law I suppose, a fairly complex area, but the basic principles are whether the acts alleged to be entrapment are of a sufficiently serious nature as to bring the administration of the law into disrepute. If they are, then it's most likely that that would be reason to exclude some evidence, and it would be more likely to have an impact on the sentencing phase than to invalidate the prosecution in its entirety.

But one of the fundamental principles is whether the offence would have been committed without the "entrapment". Did the accused have the predisposition to commit the offence and merely did so when given an opportunity? If so, it is certainly not entrapment. If, on the other hand, the actions of the state are such as to encourage or entice someone to commit an offence that they otherwise would not have committed, then it's likely to be entrapment.

If LogiStep had come up to someone and said "I'll pay you £50 to go to this site and download this game for me", it'd be entrapment. But merely making it available for people to download when the only way they'll find it is if they're already looking is clear evidence that the intent already exists.



For a bit more of guidance on this, read Regina v Loosely

That's a Law Lord's decision in the house of Lords, and it's pretty much the current defining legal opinion on the nature of entrapment.

Like I said, it's not entrapment.

[Saracen]

You could argue that the fact they are broadcasting to a tracker what they have to download, is in fact promoting the software to download.

Its a very grey area, unfortunately I fear that courts will lean heavily towards the corps because they don't understand and/or want to play it safe. The possible ramifications of this is that courts may start to get quite loose with finding in favor of the corps, which could end up setting precedents that reach far further then the courts imagined.

You can argue it, but read the link in my last post and tell me if you still think it fits the definitions. Even if it's broadcasting to a tracker that it's available, it isn't inducing someone to commit any offence. It might change where they commit it. I can't see the tracker aspect making a blind bit of difference.

That link, by the way, doesn't just explain what the law says, but the principles that determine why it says what it does, and why the line is where it is.

[TheBloodyNine]

Actually that's entrapment, as well as distributing the copyright material by proxy in the public domain. They couldn't, for example, print a few thousand discs and start handing them out to passers-by and then run to the cops showing they have 'illegal' copies of the protected media. In order for them to do this on the level they'd have to search through trackers, identify torrents of protected material, connect to the swarm and start logging IPs.

Its not entrapment as no one has asked you to download anything. Deffined as "Entrapment is the act of a law enforcement agent in inducing a person to commit an offence which the person would not have, or was unlikely to have, otherwise committed"

The fact you are downloading from their torrent confirms that the person was in the process of commiting the crime anyway.

However I'm pretty sure that the actions of the companies is verging onn the edges of what is legal. It is deffinatly moraly dubious, as is piracy, so I guess it is almost justifiable.

[aidanjt]

Consider .... you leave your lounge window open. If a burglar climbs through it, is it entrapment? No, of course not.

No, but a better anaology to seeding your own copyright material would be to leaving all your doors and windows wide open with a sign post in your front garden saying "Please enter my home and help yourself to any of my stuff that interests you", then removing the sign post and reporting a burglary. That would be entrapment.

[aidanjt]

Its not entrapment as no one has asked you to download anything.

Does Microsoft ask you to download their trial/beta software?.. No, they leave it in the public domain, they've implicitly offered a free download. The same applies when seeding torrents. That's how the technology works.

[TheBloodyNine]

Does Microsoft ask you to download their trial/beta software?.. No, they leave it in the public domain, they've implicitly offered a free download. The same applies when seeding torrents. That's how the technology works.

However you can only download from a seed by actually telling your computer to find and download said files.

Its not like they are placing the illegal software on a server and seeing what happens, you have to have actualy downloaded a torrent file and run it with the intention of obtaining an illegal copy of what ever it is you are after.

[Jay]

I think it all comes down to "how strong is the evidence?"

If its IP address and MAC addresses from packets then it has to be seen as very very weak indeed.

There needs to be a better way of doing this and they only 100% fool proof way I can see is to have a device physically attached to the suspects line (like a phone tap)

[TheBloodyNine]

I think it all comes down to "how strong is the evidence?"

If its IP address and MAC addresses from packets then it has to be seen as very very weak indeed.

There needs to be a better way of doing this and they only 100% fool proof way I can see is to have a device physically attached to the suspects line (like a phone tap)

It sounds to me like this is a case of circumsantial evidence being presented as fact to a Judge who may not know exactly what he is looking at.