Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

How To Frame a Printer For Copyright Infringement

Posted by timothy on Thu Jun 05, 2008 01:34 PM
from the point-the-finger-point-it-well dept.
The Internet Government The Courts News
An anonymous reader writes "Have you ever wondered what it takes to get 'caught' for copyright infringement on the Internet? Surprisingly, actual infringement is not required. The New York Times reports that researchers from the computer science department at the University of Washington have just released a study that examines how enforcement agencies monitor P2P networks and what it takes to receive a complaint today. Without downloading or sharing a single file, their study attracted more than 400 copyright infringement complaints. Even more disturbing is their discovery that illegal P2P participation can be easily spoofed; the researchers managed to frame innocent desktop machines and even several university printers, all of which received bogus complaints."
+ -
story

Related Stories

Submission: How to frame a printer for copyright infringement by Anonymous Coward
[+] News: Fair Use Must Be Considered In DMCA Notices 189 comments
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "US District Judge Jeremy Fogel has ruled that an 'allegation that a copyright owner acted in bad faith by issuing a takedown notice without proper consideration of the fair use doctrine thus is sufficient to state a misrepresentation claim,' which paves the way for a lawsuit against Universal Music over a ridiculous DMCA Takedown notice they filed. One can only hope that this ruling will some day be used against those who file misguided copyright complaints against computer printers. Those lawyers who rely upon buggy infringement detection programs to do their thinking for them — programs which are incapable of making subjective considerations like fair use — might want to think again before rubber stamping computer-generated DMCA Takedown notices."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

How To Frame a Printer For Copyright Infringement 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • While entirely laughable, I'm glad this story is in the New York Times. Getting the Spanish Inquisition-esque ways of the these enforcement agencies out into the media is going to be one of the few ways to make it stop. Hopefully people (meaning the general public, and not just us here on /.) will soon realize just how ludicrous these methods are.

  • PC LOAD MUSIC (Score:4, Funny)

    by GigaHurtsMyRobot (1143329) on Thursday June 05 2008, @01:37PM (#23671847) Journal
    Maybe now my employer will have to take down that LaserJet IIIp and upgrade to a newer model.

  • Sweet! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Hankapobe (1290722) on Thursday June 05 2008, @01:40PM (#23671903)
    An inanimate object could also get the blame. The researchers rigged the software agents to implicate three laserjet printers, which were then accused in takedown letters by the M.P.A.A. of downloading copies of âoeIron Manâ and the latest Indiana Jones film.

    1. Download movies and sell them
    2. pin it on cop's printer
    3. in the meantime while they're arresting the printer
    4. Profit!

    • Re:Sweet! (Score:5, Interesting)

      by McFly69 (603543) on Thursday June 05 2008, @02:14PM (#23672353) Homepage
      1. Download movies 2. Pin it on RIAA's website IP address (76.74.24.143) 3. Let the cops arrest RIAA 4. Peace and Quiet 5. Profit! But seriously... if you can spoof using any IP address (Printer, Website, etc), then everyone can claim it was not them downloading anything and there is not sure way to prove it. Just food for Thought.

      • You're on to something there (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Weaselmancer (533834) on Thursday June 05 2008, @03:02PM (#23673171)

        Apparently since a DDOS is a legal move in this game (if you'll recall the MediaDefender fiasco recently), [slashdot.org] maybe we could use this technique and flood P2P space with false positives.

        I'll bet once every single judge in the USA gets a "Cease and Desist" letter they'll eventually see that the RIAA's tactics aren't valid.

            • Re:Sweet! (Score:5, Informative)

              by mysidia (191772) on Thursday June 05 2008, @07:37PM (#23676801)

              Sorry, I have to debunk the theory that it is only technically possible to spoof a source address on your local subnet, it's just not true.

              First of all, you can send people in your local subnet messages with any fake outside source IP you want, and there are various techniques to convince your local subnet's router to send _you_ the response traffic instead of the rightful recipient, so you can have full socket connectivity in both directions.

              (I.E. ICMP redirect packets sent to the default gateway, static routes, etc)

              Also, there are methods to spoof source IPs outside your subnet, even when sending to destinations outside your subnet, unless your provider is specifically using techniques to block spoofed traffic (which possibly, some are now).

              If you can guess the right sequence numbers and port numbers (very hard), then you can even inject data into someone else's live TCP connection, or just force that connection to close (by sending a RST)

              Use of technologies such as SSL or TLS protect against sending unauthorized commands or allowing corrupt data to be transmitted, but don't protect against a third party forcibly closing the connection.

              Spoofing outside the subnet is just extremely difficult, and fairly improbable for targets utilizing modern TCP stacks -- but theoretically possible; IRC networks used to have problems with script kiddies generating spoofed clone floods.

              (This tactic was thwarted by taking advantage of the fact that spoofed users could effectively SEND spoofed traffic but not RECEIVE messages, so a CAPTCHA-style feature called "nospoof" was introduced into the connection process.)

              Receiving traffic in both directions over a spoofed connection is also possible, but hard, I.E. requires hijacking the legitimate equipment's IP, and fooling network equipment into sending traffic to the wrong place (the spoofer's computer).

              I'm not saying it's easy, safe, invisible, non-destructive, or you won't easily get caught, but I must say that such spoofing is 100% possible.

  • Wow .... (Score:5, Funny)

    by gstoddart (321705) on Thursday June 05 2008, @01:43PM (#23671959) Homepage
    So, will we have a variant on the Chewbacca defense?

    "Why would a printer, an inanimate object with no reproductive organs, be downloading pornography? It doesn't fit ... if the toner cartridge won't fit, you must acquit."

    Seriously though, it's good to see some credible research demonstrating that the methods that are used to identify file-sharers are completely arbitrary and can't be demonstrated to be valid.

    It would be nice to finally have enough evidence that Judges could basically say "Well, this methodology has been dis-credited, you need actual evidence."

    Now, if you excuse me, I'm going to try to devise a way to make it look like our printer has been downloading Will Farrel movies and films with Natalie Portman. :-P

    Cheers

  • Sweet! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Layer 3 Ninja (862455) on Thursday June 05 2008, @01:45PM (#23671993) Journal
    Time to exact my revenge on that stupid Lexmark E240 of the 5th floor.

  • If the right people get framed... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by the_womble (580291) on Thursday June 05 2008, @01:52PM (#23672059) Homepage Journal
    ....it might change things. Legislators in the US and EU, for example.

  • Clippy helps me steal (Score:5, Funny)

    by DeadDecoy (877617) on Thursday June 05 2008, @01:54PM (#23672113)
    Clippy: Looks like you're making a letter. Would you like help?
    Clippy: Looks like your letter is finished. Would you like me to print it?
    Clippy: Looks like you're infringing on a copyright. Would you like me to call you a lawyer?
    * Throws computer out window *

  • Ridiculous! (Score:5, Funny)

    by saterdaies (842986) on Thursday June 05 2008, @01:57PM (#23672145)
    This is completely ridiculous and I'm sure any judge would see a printer downloading copyrighted songs as completely silly.

    So, anyone wanna help me get NetBSD on my Epson?

  • Too flimsy (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Endo13 (1000782) on Thursday June 05 2008, @01:59PM (#23672169)
    While I'm all for anything and everything that helps bring down the MAFIAA, sadly the case in this article is very weak. It only points out two things, both of which are already commonly known by almost everyone in IT.

    1. IP addresses can be spoofed.
    2. IP addresses assigned by DHCP will not always be assigned to the same MAC address.

    Then there's a lot of hand-waving and implications that there's also all kind of other likely flaws in the methods used to find out who's participating in file-sharing.

    The worst part of it though is how they throw in the whole thing of "we weren't actually downloading or sharing anything". No, they were just connecting to the tracker. And of course, everyone knows "pirates" commonly connect to torrent trackers to do nothing.

    This bothers because if anyone were to point out how weak this case is in main-stream media, it could end up doing more harm than good.

    We need some heavy ammo to shut them down, and I'm afraid this is not it.

    • Re:Too flimsy (Score:5, Insightful)

      by gstoddart (321705) on Thursday June 05 2008, @02:11PM (#23672285) Homepage

      The worst part of it though is how they throw in the whole thing of "we weren't actually downloading or sharing anything". No, they were just connecting to the tracker. And of course, everyone knows "pirates" commonly connect to torrent trackers to do nothing.

      Well, it does two things.

      First, it shows that you can get a subpoena for not actually doing anything illegal. Presumably, connecting to a tracker isn't illegal.

      Second, it begins to dispel the myths that the content holders have perpetuated about how they actually gather their evidence and if the collection methodology is valid.

      I think actual University research which is covered by the NYT might be an awful good start. It's by no means everything that needs to happen, but starting to establish that their data collection is faulty is better than nothing.

      Cheers

    • Re:Too flimsy (Score:5, Insightful)

      by link-error (143838) on Thursday June 05 2008, @02:11PM (#23672301)

      The worst part of it though is how they throw in the whole thing of "we weren't actually downloading or sharing anything". No, they were just connecting to the tracker. And of course, everyone knows "pirates" commonly connect to torrent trackers to do nothing.
      Actually, that is the worst part.. they are sending out take-down notices/suing people that didn't download anything..
          Remember, innocent until proven guilty. They aren't even trying to actually determine this.

    • Re:Too flimsy (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Bryansix (761547) on Thursday June 05 2008, @02:12PM (#23672311) Homepage
      Maybe you missed the part where they framed the printer? The point is they just connected to a tracker but in real life what is more likely is that the guy in the dorm next to me is actually downloading the film that he didn't pay for but he pins it on me who wasn't involved in doing any copyright infringing at all. THAT IS THE POINT. Too many cases get brought up that are accusing the WRONG PERSON of doing the infringing.

    • Re:Too flimsy (Score:5, Insightful)

      by s.bots (1099921) on Thursday June 05 2008, @02:13PM (#23672329)

      It only points out two things, both of which are already commonly known by almost everyone in IT.
      And that's why this is relevant. Because it is not common knowledge outside the IT field, and it makes an appearance in the New York Times. The article could be more in-depth, or provide more conclusive evidence I agree, but getting the facts out there to the average (NYT reading) Joe is a good first step.

      The worst part of it though is how they throw in the whole thing of "we weren't actually downloading or sharing anything". No, they were just connecting to the tracker. And of course, everyone knows "pirates" commonly connect to torrent trackers to do nothing.
      True, pirates don't connect to a tracker to observe, but the point being made is that an entity that was only observing (not doing anything illegal or warranting a takedown notice) is being pinned as a pirate.

    • Re:Too flimsy...not really (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Fallen Kell (165468) on Thursday June 05 2008, @02:17PM (#23672397)
      Yes, anyone in IT understands these issues. But the fact remains that no one in IT is being listened to when they are calling this same information proof of infringement. This study is to show that their "proof" which is being used in these same cases is as worthless as all the IT people have said it was from the beginning, and that the checks the **AA investigators are using to confirm that they are not accusing the wrong people are as worthless as well in terms of verifying/screening false positives. This study shows for a FACT that false positives are occurring and occurring ALL THE TIME.

  • has the mafiaa ever fought an IT guy? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by TheGratefulNet (143330) on Thursday June 05 2008, @02:26PM (#23672563)
    I have not read about this - has anyone heard any anecdotes on this subject?

    I'm curious if the 'industry monitoring groups' have ever sent a C/D letter to a clueful sysadmin? we know that most laymen will simply cave in when they receive the 'fact' that their IP address was somehow connected to 'bad traffic'; but I wonder if anyone who knows networking ever called their bluff and really had a court case where he asked for MORE info than simply IP addrs. it would seem that if you can defend yourself in IP networking theory that they really have no firm case on you, especially if you run an 'open wireless AP' and that, itself, could create enough doubt as to who the real 'infringer' really is. they might be able to say its your network but they can't prove its YOU. it could be spyware that somehow got installed on your system. spyware does do 'strange things' as well all know and its not outside the realm of possibility that some virus is connecting to trackers while sitting inside your network. is that really your fault? should you be called 'an infringer' for that?

    so I'm really curious if there are any examples of a tech-strong defendant really calling their bluff and demaning fine-grained specific evidence while at court or at some plea bargaining procedure.

    • Re:Big surprise! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by d34thm0nk3y (653414) on Thursday June 05 2008, @02:34PM (#23672689)
      If I go outside every night wearing overalls covered in blood stains, dig holes in my front yard, and bury body sized bundles wrapped in garbage bags every night for a couple of weeks, I'll probably be investigated for murder.

      You would be investigated, but if the only evidence presented at the case was the odd behavior you would be found not-guilty. The MPAA/RIAA use the odd behavior as not only the probable cause to investigate but also as the evidence to prosecute.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.