Print 62 comment(s) - last by CrystalBay.. on Nov 15 at 9:25 PM

The town of Coshocton, OH (home of Roscoe Village, a historic site, located downtown, shown here) became the latest victim of the MPAA's legal crusade, when the organization demanded its free municipal Wi-Fi service be killed over an illegal download.  (Source: Cleveland Blog)

An MPAA spokeswoman says municipal Wi-Fi networks are havens for piracy. She suggests customers pursue legal alternatives like Netflix instead.  (Source: Gotokon)
Network enjoyed by police and citizens alike is no longer available

The MPAA turned its quest against filesharing from suing individual citizens to taking down a municipal Wi-Fi service.  Municipal Wi-Fi services, community maintained telecommunications services, have become a popular trend across the country, as they bring free service or lower prices -- as well as faster connections, sometimes.  However they are unpopular among telecoms whose have long enjoyed the benefits of exclusivity to justify expensive service plans and copyright protection organizations that feel municipal Wi-Fi networks create a haven for piracy.

Coshocton, OH had a thriving free municipal Wi-Fi program.  Then one user made the mistake of downloading a movie illegally off a torrent site, which Sony Picture's MPAA copyright enforcement team caught wind of.  The county’s Internet Service Provider — OneCommunity — was subsequently notified, and Information Technology Department was then notified by OneCommunity that the offender needed to be found or the service would need to be ended.

Elizabeth Kaltman, vice president of corporate communications with the Motion Picture Association of America says municipal Wi-Fi are spreading the evils of piracy across America.  She states, "[Piracy on municipal Wi-Fi networks is] a very, very common occurrence all across the U.S., in towns big or small.  [Citizens are] used to instant access and instant gratification.  They have the philosophy ‘if it’s there, I can take it.’"

She suggests that law-abiding citizens use on-demand services from sources like Netflix and Blockbuster, Disney Video, Fox on Demand, Cartoon Network.  She also suggests citizens check out the MPAA website for a full list of legal options.

She says citizens should remember the MPAA will aggressively pursue cases of piracy and that fines can be as high as $150,000 or more.  She states, "We target piracy at its source.  We really focus on keeping the product out of the market in the first place."

For Coshocton's resident's, though, the MPAA is no friend.  The community is now without its Wi-Fi that approximately 100 residents at any given time were relying on.  Police no longer can make incident reports as seamlessly, and vendors can't verify customers' credit cards as easy, without an affordable wireless solution.

Mike Lavigne, the city's IT director says that they would love to implement a solution to block piracy, but it would be prohibitively expensive given the program's scant budget.  He estimates that the costs would be approximately $2,900 to implement, $2,000 for equipment and then $900 annually for the filtering program.  While the MPAA's legal bill for killing the service surely eclipsed this, they appear more content to kill the service rather than fund such protections.

The city is investigating the incident and trying to find out who downloaded the movie, in a last ditch effort to save their now-shuttered network.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Incorrect Story
By GreenEnvt on 11/13/2009 2:25:05 PM , Rating: 5
While I dislike the MPAA as much as most on here, this article is misleading.
The MPAA sent one of their normal "we caught someone pirating" letters to the ISP because they detected someone on the network pirating.

The town decided to just pull the plug rather than worry about finding out who is doing it.
So the town shut down their municiple wifi after getting notification someone used it for pirating.

RE: Incorrect Story
By roostitup on 11/13/2009 2:30:47 PM , Rating: 5
Thanks for clarifying, these DailyTech journalists piss me off sometimes with their overly dramatic shoddy reporting.

RE: Incorrect Story
By chrnochime on 11/13/09, Rating: -1
RE: Incorrect Story
By roostitup on 11/13/2009 2:36:57 PM , Rating: 5
Why, when I could help here and point out where things could be improved? What's wrong with trying to improve a site that you enjoy? huh?

RE: Incorrect Story
By bissimo on 11/13/2009 2:55:40 PM , Rating: 3
It seems like once a month or so this same thread starts up. Everyone should take these stories with a grain of salt. DailyTech is more of a conglomeration of a few guys' blogs than a news site. I enjoy it, but I don't really trust what I've read unless I confirm it with a fact-checked news outlet.

RE: Incorrect Story
By roostitup on 11/13/2009 3:02:57 PM , Rating: 2
That's usually what I do when I read an article on here that I really find interesting. If it's not on a legit news site than it probably is just something heard through the grapevine. The site really is entertaining, but if it were more legit I think it would really go further.

RE: Incorrect Story
By RW on 11/15/2009 3:21:03 AM , Rating: 2
The MPAA and RIAA problem is how to sell something to someone who don't wanna buy it ?

Don't they get it that people are searching for FREE STUFF, but that FREE STUFF doesn't have to be music or movies, it just needs to be FREE whatever it is.

I can tell by now what will be the FREE STUFF of the FUTURE that it will be shared with others, people will have tiny head mounted cameras that will record all their daily basis activities basically recording their life and they will share their life experience with others.

RE: Incorrect Story
By BruceLeet on 11/14/09, Rating: -1
RE: Incorrect Story
By roostitup on 11/14/2009 3:34:49 PM , Rating: 4
I clearly didn't flip flop. I voiced my opinion about this article and it's author because I believe that he is bringing down the site in which I want to help improve the creditability of. You sir, are an idiot and need to pay attention and think through things before you post. Get with it.

RE: Incorrect Story
By sieistganzfett on 11/15/2009 12:12:24 AM , Rating: 2
four more years! four more years!

RE: Incorrect Story
By roostitup on 11/15/2009 2:10:06 AM , Rating: 2
On second thought, did you even read and try to understand what I was saying?! Obviously not because your argument makes no sense.

I can hate some "journalists" way of writing on occasion and still enjoy the site as a whole. I simply feel that the site would be better and more creditable without "journalists" like this being biased and not accurately reporting the facts. This is not "flip flopping".

FYI, Politicians are the same everywhere, get real.

Comon, explain to me how this is flip flopping. Oh ya, That's right, you can't because it's not. Posting quotes and claiming I flip flopped and hurling assumptions proves nothing except you know how to /quote. U Learnz to HTMLz, YAYZ!

RE: Incorrect Story
By PrinceGaz on 11/13/2009 7:44:36 PM , Rating: 2
The reason I use DailyTech is because after reading the quality articles on AnandTech, it makes sense to read the general tech news. Admittedly it would be better if the quality of the posts on DT as it arguably drags down the whole AT image, but DT is better than nothing (provided you read everything on DT with a rather large barrel of salt, as certain reporters tend to introuduce personal bias into their reports, whilst most of the others blindly copy and paste sections of it in a manner which reduces the accuracy of the article).

Perhaps I should stop reading DT; if everyone did the same, Anand would have to find a better way of posting reliable daily tech news if he wanted it linked from the AT homepage.

RE: Incorrect Story
By Fanon on 11/13/2009 3:31:28 PM , Rating: 5
It's a Jason Mick "article". What do you expect? He rarely, if ever, fact checks before his emotions and/or personal agenda take over.

RE: Incorrect Story
By Flunk on 11/14/2009 6:09:45 PM , Rating: 3
I think that all article headings on the front page should be followed by the author. That way we don't have to read any more poorly researched articles.

RE: Incorrect Story
By scrapsma54 on 11/13/2009 3:40:15 PM , Rating: 5
I point the finger at at Jason Suck.

RE: Incorrect Story
By roostitup on 11/13/2009 2:34:31 PM , Rating: 1
So, why did he get rated down so within the first minute of his post?! He said nothing to deserve it except to help make the article more accurate. Let me guess, DailyTech staff?

RE: Incorrect Story
By JasonMick on 11/13/2009 2:50:55 PM , Rating: 5
While its true that the town decided to pull the plug it was indeed because of the MPAA's legal threats. Refer to the Coshocton Tribune link, if you don't believe me.

The town IS trying to catch who did it. According to the original source:

Because it’s a single address used by many people, it’s difficult to tell who made the illegal download, although the county plans to investigate the matter .

Each of the 270 to 300 computers in the regular county system have password protected secure log-ins, and so could be readily identified if illegal activity had taken place at one of those locations. Its firewall also prevents access to illegal sites, said Commissioner Dane Shryock.

Until they can find that out, though, the service will remain shut down because they don't want to risk fines or a lawsuit.

I don't see anything wrong with the piece. The MPAA sent a legal threat to the ISP, the ISP passed it on to the municipal effort and the service was shut down, precisely as the article states.

Please refer to the original source and feel free to suggest any improvements.

RE: Incorrect Story
By roostitup on 11/13/2009 2:57:49 PM , Rating: 5
The MPAA did not personally kill the WIFI like the title states, the town itself decided to. The town was not forced to take down it's WIFI and the town is not getting sued like the article makes it sound. The article is misleading and makes it sound like the MPAA is fighting a lot more than it actually is to kill this specific WIFI. Come on man, this is bad reporting.

RE: Incorrect Story
By lewislink on 11/13/2009 2:57:31 PM , Rating: 1
I don't condone or agree with any illegal shenanigans but one has to wonder if this isn't a business deal behind the scenes to remove free WiFi so some company can establish pay WiFi. This shit happens all the time. Philadelphia, I believe it was, was in the news being hounded by local payed service providers to shut down the free city-wide service.

RE: Incorrect Story
By someguy123 on 11/13/2009 3:02:39 PM , Rating: 3
Well the article implies that the MPAA directly "killed" the internet. A more accurate title would be "Town pulls plug on Wi-Fi to avoid MPAA fines". Your article states that "the offender needed to be found or the service would need to be ended.", but I don't see anything regarding this in the source article.

Essentially the article describes the event as the MPAA strong arming a small county into disabling their WiFi, when apparently all they did was send their regular antipiracy letter and the town decided to shut down the WiFi during investigation.

RE: Incorrect Story
By JasonMick on 11/13/2009 3:44:32 PM , Rating: 3
Alright, I took what you said into consideration and reworded the title slightly. I feel the new title leaves no room for confusion that the MPAA had sued the town or something.

Like I said in the piece, the town made the decision to act, but it was compelled to do so by the MPAA (according to the Coshocton Tribune). Feel free to add any other comments and thanks for the suggestions!

RE: Incorrect Story
By GreenEnvt on 11/13/2009 4:33:10 PM , Rating: 2
The new title is much more accurate, thanks :)

RE: Incorrect Story
By roostitup on 11/14/2009 2:53:40 AM , Rating: 2
"While the MPAA's legal bill for killing the service surely eclipsed this, they appear more content to kill the service rather than fund such protections."

There was no legal bill, so how could something that doesn't exist be eclipsed? This makes it sound like the MPAA is currently taking legal action when it is not. A letter informing them someone downloaded copyrighted material is not a bill.

RE: Incorrect Story
By mindless1 on 11/14/2009 12:20:29 PM , Rating: 3
The better title would be "OH town is a bunch of idiots".

You don't have to find the person who pirated the movie. The town is not liable for the actions of that individual and should have told the MPAA to go fork themselves. Look at it another way, if you get your purse stolen at the mall can you expect to win, or even keep from being laughed out of court, if you try to sue the mall because nobody knows who stole your purse?

Madness is spreading world-wide, the human race is in very bad shape compared to where it was a couple decades ago. Are PCs to blame? Have they made us vegetables with graphical interface skills?

RE: Incorrect Story
By Lerianis on 11/14/2009 6:53:56 PM , Rating: 4
Right in one. They are a COMMON CARRIER under the law, just like Comcast, AT&T, etc..... therefore, they do not have to find this person.

All they have to do is say "Sorry, we have no idea who did this, our system is not set up to find them because it would be MUCH too expensive to do so, therefore....... leave us alone, unless you are going to pay for the massive costs for things that would allow us to find the people who did this!"

Just a case of a city being TERRORIZED by the MPAA and actually buckling under their outrageous demands.

RE: Incorrect Story
By mindless1 on 11/15/2009 12:38:03 PM , Rating: 2
I would have to disagree with the part about "unless you are going to pay for the massive costs for things that would allow us to find the people who did this!"

We should never offer anyone to become a police state if they are willing to pay for it. The answer is simplier, ignore their request. Considering it is the MPAA who aren't quite maintaining good public relations with stunts like this, the town wouldn't have had a problem finding a few lawyers to help them.

The internet is a good way to get attention.

RE: Incorrect Story
By tastyratz on 11/13/2009 3:03:46 PM , Rating: 2
While the article does not explicitly state it was shut down BY the mpaa, I believe it is misleading to most readers in that respect. The situation appears that they actually just temporarily shut down the service during their investigation. after reading this article you might think the residents of this town were going to lose their food and water supply next.

The headline directly implies otherwise (mpaa kills is direct, town kills as a result of mpaa is not. 2 very different definitions)
and this blurb right here:
While the MPAA's legal bill for killing the service surely eclipsed this

RE: Incorrect Story
By mmntech on 11/13/2009 3:05:10 PM , Rating: 2
CNET said it was RIAA, not the MPAA. I suppose it doesn't matter though as they're both six and half a dozen of each other.

It's a rather sad state to see just how powerful the entertainment lobby has become. This is a classic case of two wrongs not making a right. One person file shares, the industry then extorts the ISP, and everyone in town looses their internet as a result.

Obviously the litigious nature of the RIAA/MPAA has done nothing to stop piracy. They're just going to have to see it as a cost of doing business; as opposed to threatning the small frys and clogging the courts. Focus on developing and aggressively marketing the legal model of music downloading.

Remember that file sharing exploded simply because the industry did not embrace the internet when they had the chance. P2P was the only option until iTunes came along. The writing was one the wall when the first MP3 players came out, and RIAA sued to get them banned instead of opening a legal store. Then Napster arrived to fill in the void and the rest is history.

RE: Incorrect Story
By tastyratz on 11/13/2009 2:54:29 PM , Rating: 2
why rate him down? its the truth.
The mpaa did not shut down the service - the people running it decided to shut it down as a cost/benefit decision. While I agree the MPAA is certainly evil, propaganda is unnecessary as the beast beneath is evil enough.

RE: Incorrect Story
By SavagePotato on 11/13/2009 4:46:51 PM , Rating: 3
When I hear the words town, municipal and wi-fi, it conjures up images in my head of someone duct taping a bunch of old di-524's to the light posts and calling it a day.

Maybe that's just what I would expect them to do in my town.

RE: Incorrect Story
By Jeffk464 on 11/13/2009 6:07:16 PM , Rating: 1
WHAT! one complaint and they just folded. I don't think they would have lost in a court case. How can they be responsible for everything that goes on on the network. They probably just got threatened by how much the lawsuit would cost to fight. Thats the problem with our legal system, corporations don't have to be right, they just have to make it to expensive to fight them in court. Ive heard of internet providers shutting down these municipal systems in areas they don't even provide service, just so they squash the whole movement. Someone needs to send Obama a letter on this one, it seems to be one of his pet projects.

RE: Incorrect Story
By NesuD on 11/15/2009 1:05:05 AM , Rating: 2
He estimates that the costs would be approximately $2,900 to implement, $2,000 for equipment and then $900 annually for the filtering program.

Wow! A sonicwall 2040 pro costs less than that and can easily be configured to stop all the usual P2P and torrents. The first years licensing is included as well as a free upgrade to the enhanced OS. I find it amazing they had nothing like this in place to begin with. Wonder what amateur designed their network.

By bradmshannon on 11/13/2009 2:13:24 PM , Rating: 5
I'm sorry, but that's just dumb. By this reasoning, we should close all retail stores because some dumbass stole some candy.

RE: Stupid
By geddarkstorm on 11/13/2009 2:23:20 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah... I'm really, really getting tired of these people.

If they were more reasonable instead of reactionary, and actually worked with the municipality to deal with and mitigate such issues and the like, then they'd be fully in their rights. But the MPAA seems to get more outlandish and insane by the day.

RE: Stupid
By Golgatha on 11/13/2009 2:45:36 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I'm not sure what part of this process the MPAA doesn't understand.

1) Log IP and submit a complaint to the municipal WiFi operator.

2) Get a warrant from the court to get the user's information disclosed that's related to said IP address.

3) File a civil case against the infringer.

4) If the municipal WiFi operator cooperates throughout the entire process, you leave them alone because of safe harbor laws. You also don't get to gripe if the municipal WiFi operator is less than cooperative until you have a warrant in hand.

RE: Stupid
By Lord 666 on 11/13/2009 2:48:43 PM , Rating: 2
Its because the IT Director is clueless and isn't running a "clean" shop. Probably got some grant to purchase the equipment to make it technically possible, but didn't think it all the way through on access policies, ip logging, and content filtering.

So instead, their knee jerk reaction was to shut it down.

RE: Stupid
By marvdmartian on 11/14/2009 9:40:37 AM , Rating: 2
Might have something to do with the general laziness of the MPAA/RIAA law teams too, since they didn't do the legwork required to identify the culprit. Instead, they figure that by throwing up the copyright infringement flag, they'll scare the offender into stopping the majority of the time. Add to that the fact that they weren't dealing with a major internet service provider (who would have a healthy legal team themselves), but rather a small town with limited resources, which made their job that much easier.

The funny thing is that the MPAA in this instance talked about people using Netflix to legally obtain the material at a minimal cost. Yeah, like all the people out there that have Netflix, get the dvd's in the mail, copy them, and send them back the next day, then watch at their leisure (if they haven't already).

Gee, I wonder how long it'll be before the MPAA goes after Netflix because one person was dumb enough to get caught doing that?? [eyeroll]

RE: Stupid
By mindless1 on 11/14/2009 3:11:53 PM , Rating: 1
You are the clueless one. This is open access wifi, there is no policy, no point in IP logging, and how exactly are you supposed to make it viable if you simply set up filtering rules that people can get around anyway? While you could just try to stop all P2P activity, there will always be those that dream up, maybe even actually use P2P for legit file transfers.

It was most probably shut down by order of the city council because nobody knows much about anything regarding that including the retained lawyers. Small towns in the midwest, particularly during a supposed recession, don't have the funds to do much including defend themselves.

RE: Stupid
By Lord 666 on 11/14/2009 10:11:52 PM , Rating: 2
Just because something is free doesn't mean it isn't monitored, logged, and controlled. These are areas that are planned and outlined prior to an implementation.

Lack of foresight, policy, and experiance that created this situation. You obviously do not have any experience in operational policy.

RE: Stupid
By mindless1 on 11/15/2009 12:46:35 PM , Rating: 1
I didn't write, nor was it described as "free". Certainly the citizens were paying through taxes but it was open access.

Do you understand that concept? Same as going to an internet cafe/etc. The whole point is anyone, any device can get online.

There was no lack of foresight, policy, etc, you simply don't appreciate what their goal was, the whole point of it.

It was never meant to be a closed corporate style access model, that defeats the purpose.

RE: Stupid
By Jeffk464 on 11/13/2009 6:14:01 PM , Rating: 4
I stopped supporting the industry for this reason. After they started suing everyone I decided never to by any music until they stop it. The last CD i baught was Califonication if that gives you any idea on how long it been. People need to vote with their wallet, I am tickled pink to see these bastards get slammed in the marketplace. I Tunes became the new music distributer and the recording industry has almost become irrelevant. :)

RE: Stupid
By Lerianis on 11/14/2009 6:57:56 PM , Rating: 2
Or, in their estimation.... we should have dye-packs like are in banks that can "BOOM!" and catch the criminals!

Basically, there comes a time when you have to realize that people are 'pirating' your things because you are trying to charge too much for them.... too much money that these people cannot pay, and since there are OTHER ways to get these things because they are DIGITAL and EPHEMERAL...... you either lower your prices or you go out of business.

Suing isn't going to help. It's just going to make you go out of business faster by pissing off your other customers who see you attacking Grandma, teenage kids, even YOUNGER kids... and don't like that, unless of course they are 'law and order over everything else' nutcases.

By Veerappan on 11/13/2009 3:20:10 PM , Rating: 4
We target piracy at its source. We really focus on keeping the product out of the market in the first place

That'd be the perfect solution to piracy. Don't actually release any products. Then we can stop hearing about their whining/misinformation, and they can be happy that they've solved the piracy problem.

In the meantime, the amateur/independent artist gets to make a comeback.

Why so many MPAA defenders? All lobbyists?
By Jalek on 11/13/2009 4:01:58 PM , Rating: 2
"municipal Wi-Fi is spreading the evils of piracy across America"

I think that says it all about the official MPAA view of these public access networks.

That, and of course the advice to use your cable and satellite providers to buy more.
Who needs the internet anyway?

By JediJeb on 11/13/2009 5:53:06 PM , Rating: 2
In essence the MPAA is saying " we don't want the internet to be free, we want you to buy it from our buddies so we get the kickbacks" The word "Free" frightens so many corporate people.

MPAA propaganda?
By Director on 11/13/2009 4:57:43 PM , Rating: 2
"She states, "We target piracy at its source. We really focus on keeping the product out of the market in the first place."

...except for all the copies we seed in order to catch people downloading them. ;)

RE: MPAA propaganda?
By Lerianis on 11/14/2009 7:01:11 PM , Rating: 2
Right, and that is actually illegal in itself. One illegal action cannot be done to catch another person doing an illegal action..... UNLESS you are the bleeping police!
The courts have said this MANY TIMES, even in civil cases, and these corporate bastards just don't get the message.... maybe a whopping million dollar fine will get message through!

By Lord Nelson on 11/14/2009 4:02:56 PM , Rating: 2
So, using the same standard to solve a problem, if someone drowned someone else, the solution would be to get rid of the water for everyone?

If someone killed someone else with a car, ban all cars?

If someone electrocuted someone on purpose, get rid of all electricity?


RE: madness
By Lerianis on 11/14/2009 7:05:46 PM , Rating: 2
Some of these people actually think that... and that is why they are dangerous.

Someone shoots someone with a gun... ban all guns.
Someone stabs someone with a knife.... ban all knives.
Someone dismembers someone with a chainsaw... ban all chainsaws!

They are idiots of the first order.... no, idiots is being too kind to them..... insane people who should be in the nearest asylum is the right terms for them.

They are such idiots that they don't realize that some laws are not good. That some laws cause crime. And, that some things that are sold... are poop and anyone with a brain is not going to buy them.
They are going to 'try before buy' and when they find out that something is horrible... they aren't going to buy it.

That is what the MPAA is REALLY trying to get rid of.... the 'try before buy' world where you try something for free for say..... 15 days, and if you don't like it..... you return it/delete it.

Fire that IT Director
By Lord 666 on 11/13/2009 2:45:42 PM , Rating: 2
Seriously, what lame excuses when there is other ways of blocking/rate limiting the traffic including Dansguardian, etc.

Additionally, those costs they cited are nothing versus the bad publicity and other lawsuits that can occur due to unfiltered public Internet.

Bet in his shop there are a ton of other violations and lack of proper logging/documentation.

RE: Fire that IT Director
By mindless1 on 11/14/2009 3:14:20 PM , Rating: 1
You obviously know nothing about open access wifi. It's quite different than having a corporate setup and client list, and believe it or not in American people don't like blocking/censorship/etc, and rate limiting is a really lame idea for such things as well because the rate is never very good on a shoestring budget wifi implementation.

By ctodd on 11/13/2009 3:49:45 PM , Rating: 2
Then one user made the mistake of downloading a movie illegally off a torrent site, which Sony Picture's MPAA copyright enforcement team caught wind of.

I doubt it. A mistake is when you marry the wrong person, or you have a kid that is just like you. This isn't a mistake.

RE: Mistake?
By mindless1 on 11/14/2009 12:33:39 PM , Rating: 1
Yes it is, or if you prefer error in judgement, or being unable to guess that an entire town was ignorant enough to comply with a ludicrous request by the MPAA...

Put simply, you cannot attack innocent people for the illegal actions of one. You cannot legally "group punish" those who have not committed a crime.

This needs to be taken all the way to the supreme court and nipped in the bud. Think about what it means if the MPAA can effectively shut down EVERYONE'S ISP because they can't find one person per ISP that copied a video. The city was the ISP for these people, it is the same thing.

Come get me
By scrapsma54 on 11/13/2009 2:23:05 PM , Rating: 2
I dare the mpaa, find me.
This isn't justice and it certainly doesn't fit the crime.
Thats real smart to lock up your customers.

By roostitup on 11/13/2009 2:28:48 PM , Rating: 2
MPAA = Fearmongers

They act like they are going to catch any/everyone who pirates copyrighted material...I call BS. They are just trying to assert their control, which they really don't have.

I LIKE this
By amanojaku on 11/13/2009 2:36:57 PM , Rating: 2
Most people use the service legitimately, the MPAA doesn't care. One person steals a movie, the whole community suffers.

By the same logic:

One producer makes a good movie, I don't care. One producer makes a crap ass movie, all of Hollywood suffers. Which means the American public as a whole deserves a few decades' worth of refunds for movies like "The Hottie and the Nottie", "Gigli" and "White Chicks". The MPAA can make my check out to...

By CrystalBay on 11/15/2009 9:25:14 PM , Rating: 2
I like your stories , keep em coming Mickey !

By The0ne on 11/13/2009 2:16:35 PM , Rating: 1
So one person downloaded and got caught and everyone else suffers along with him/her. Seems ultimately fair to me *sarcasm*. So why don't they do this to everyone else across the whole country? It's not hard to see who's downloading illegal movies and music, especially those users who insist they are smart and need no sort of protection, whether that be scanners, proxies or what have you :)


Wouldn't it make more sense...
By Beenthere on 11/14/09, Rating: -1
RE: Wouldn't it make more sense...
By mindless1 on 11/14/2009 12:29:49 PM , Rating: 1
That is not an "obligation", doing it for the sake of having it so you are still obligated to do it is quite circular reasoning and seldom quite true. In fact, there is always a limit on reasonable means and it is beyond reasonable to pursue an unknown person by attacking an entire town.

Further, you don't seem to grasp what open wifi is, the whole point is that it isn't "secure".

RE: Wouldn't it make more sense...
By Beenthere on 11/14/2009 7:25:16 PM , Rating: 1
Okay then so you don't mind if hackers obtain your personal info. from the "unsecured wi-fi network" and use that info. to steal money from you bank acct., credit card, etc. when they access records used by the police dept. ??? That's the kind of logic I'd expect from someone who doesn't know what they are talking about. No wonder so many people's identity and bank accts. get stolen everyday.

RE: Wouldn't it make more sense...
By mindless1 on 11/15/2009 12:42:52 PM , Rating: 2
How can you possibly make up nonsense that I wouldn't mind if hackers obtain personal info?

Hint: This is the same situation as any open hotspot, internet cafe, etc. If you choose to connect to it, you should think about security (as always). Leaving default workgroup, shared files & folders in windows, no firewall... of course that's a pretty dumb thing to do.

Otherwise, THINK ABOUT IT. You are suggesting the alternative is we don't take the needed security measures and instead wait for someone to obtain the data because later we can track them. Remember hackers can easily exploit wifi, acess restrictions in place or not.

Again, you simply don't understand the whole point of open wifi. It is a great thing to have and not our problem if you can't secure your own system to the point where you feel the factors mentioned should be a reason to do away with open wifi.

"We basically took a look at this situation and said, this is bullshit." -- Newegg Chief Legal Officer Lee Cheng's take on patent troll Soverain

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki