How can they just peek into your computer … that’s like breaking and entering which is a crime … :s
And also, here is where they lose the logic
Is the music industry going to sue you when you shoplift a CD?
People download things and don’t read the agreement first. Many of these things give companies the right to do things like this.
No one can access your computer without a search warrant … it’s illegal
Of course they do, their lawyer is bigger than yours 
Wow, amazing story. You forgot to post a link, so here it is:
msnbc.msn.com/id/10603398/
Anyway, I was wondering what was meant by them snooping around on her computer when she was out. Turns out, becasue she lacked a firewall they were able to access her computer and discover the files she had on it.
[quote]Her travail started when the record companies used an investigator to go online and search for copyrighted recordings being made available by individuals. The investigator allegedly found hundreds on her computer on April 11, 2004. Months later, there was a phone call from the industry
Erm… isn’t the point of programs like this to let people see what’s on your computer and let them download them ? It’s hardly hacking, or breaking and entering if you invite them in.
How did she know exactly when they peeped ?
This particular case occurred in New York. There are federal computer crime laws that prohibit unauthorized access to a computers. In addition, most states have comparable laws, such as these from NY.
[quote]Section 156.05. Unauthorized use of a computer
A person is guilty of unauthorized use of a computer when he knowingly uses or causes to be used a computer or computer service without authorization and the computer utilized is equipped or programmed with any device or coding system, a function of which is to prevent the unauthorized use of said computer or computer system.
Unauthorized use of a computer is a class A misdemeanor.
Section 156.10. Computer trespass
A person is guilty of computer trespass when he knowingly uses or caused to be used a computer or computer service without authorization and:
-
he does so with an intent to commit or attempt to commit or further the commission of any felony; or
-
he thereby knowingly gains access to computer material.
Computer trespass is a class E felony.
Section 156.20. Computer tampering in the second degree
A person is guilty of computer tampering in the second degree when he uses or causes to be used a computer or computer service and having no right to do so he intentionally alters in any manner or destroys computer data or a computer program of another person.
Computer tampering in the second degree is a class A misdemeanor.[/quote]
davismccownlaw.com/articles/ny-law.htm
Unfortunately, the article says she can’t afford a lawyer and is representing herself, so . . .
[quote]A person is guilty of computer trespass when he knowingly uses or caused to be used a computer or computer service without authorization[/quote]Wouldn’t having Kazaa installed (even by someone else) constitute authorization to look in your Shared Warez folder using said software ?
I’m not condoning what they did. They’re not getting much sympathy that way. Just saying it’s not breaking and entering, like that lady who… er… knows nothing about computers claims.
Oh, good point. I wouldn’t know about such things. 
Still, I believe it’s a good defense that she has no idea how the files got there. As far as I know it’s not illegal to own a computer taht someone else uses for illegal purposes without your knowlege or consent.
[quote=“Mother Theresa”]Still, I believe it’s a good defense that she has no idea how the files got there. As far as I know it’s not illegal to own a computer taht someone else uses for illegal purposes without your knowlege or consent.[/quote]Is it ? That wouldn’t work for child porn. But then again, just possesion of child porn is enough to send Gary Glitter down. I assume possesion of copyrighted material is not illegal, just the copying of it ? Can they say she was responsible for what others did with her computer ?
The other cases in the past, how did they prove that the defendee (I know legal jargon) is who that what did it ?
It should work there too. One doesn’t hear of it as a defense, one only hears that Pete Townsend, or Gary Glitter, or a ring of pedophiles was arrested after child porn was found downloaded on their computers. But I can’t imagine that it wouldn’t be a valid defense if one has plausible facts to back it up. The crime is the illegal downloading, not the possession of a computer on which such downloading occurred, right? So, the owner of an internet cafe shouldn’t be liable for what someone did without his knowledge or consent. Same for the mother who had no idea what her 5 kids and their friends were doing on the computer in her absence. Perhaps for someone who lives alone with a PC that no one else has access to the defense is less plausible, but still I would think they should have the opportunity to make that argument and in the case of criminal prosecutions the DA should be required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt taht the defendant did the downloading, not someone else.
Exactly, it’s not the possession that’s illegal as far as I know (and it damn well shouldn’t be); it’s the act of downloading it.
I don’t know. Maybe they use circumstantial evidence of various kinds, but still the burden of proof in criminal cases is high. In civil cases one only needs to show it is more likely than not; in criminal cases they must prove beyond a reasonable doubt, which is usually a difficult challenge. Perhaps most of these defendants don’t actually go to trial – they don’t want to spend the time, energy and atty fees, don’t want to face the publicity and take the risk of losing at trial (particularly in child porn cases), so they cave in and settle with the prosecutor prior to trial.
I don’t understand Kaza or similar programs, but if someone from the “outside” can read what’s on your PC, can’t they also save their files (illegal copied music) to the same computer - more like getting infectec by spyware.
If that is the case, then the number of possible perpetrators is increasing dramaticly - everyone with the skills to enter another PC from internet.
Well considering a warrant is no longer required for wire tapping this action doesnt surprise me.
The music industry is just pissed off it didnt get its act together earlier in order to capture the online market. They missed the boat, others made it happen and ow, in the face of declining sales, the music industry is seeking ‘revenge’.
I’m not sure what Kazaa’s user agreement says, but I’d expect it only allows people also using Kazaa to use Kazaa itself to look into your computer. I don’t think it opens you up to anyone using any software to peak into your computer, obtain your IP, etc.
It’s possible the guy used the P2P software on her computer to find what files she had, got the IP information from some other source, and then traced it back to her through legitimate channels. But if he used some other means to get into her computer system remotely then he would be invading her privacy, and at the very least such evidence should not be able to be used against her.
The other issue is whether a person should be responsible for everything done on their computer by someone else. For me, one of the biggest problems is that people can get online anonymously. Only the computer can be identified, not the user. You can even hack another person’s computer and then use their computer to launch attacks on others. I think until there is relatively fool-proof way to know exactly who is using a computer that such cases should be handled with extreme care and that the burden of proving that the owner of the computer was the one commiting the crimes should be on the proesecution.
Should you be responsible for crimes commited with your computer which you had no idea about? Should it be a crime to not be computer savvy enough to know what your children or friends are doing with your computer, or should people who don’t know much about computers should refuse access to the computer to their children/friends or be held liable for what occurs on that computer?
I don’t believe that is reasonable.
Maybe we should sue them for changing formats so often; LPs, 8-track, cassettes, CDs and now digital? :fume: 