The obvious thing to do is to sue the persons hosting the copyright infringing content.




.

it bit torrent

that no one given the way the technology is designed

or everyone if your trying to make the arguement johnny boy was making

luckly for those who believe in due process johnny boy just got bitch slapped by the judge.

Start with Google, and YouTube.

Make sure you report back on how successful that goes.

/sarcasm

:2 cents:

I know that Rochard, my point was you will initially bear the brunt of the investigation because it was your property that played a role in the crime.

.

leaving your front door open with a big come on in sign is accepting responsiblity for what happens.

And if the police don't accept your answers?

Telling the police after you've been identified for any crime that "It wasn't me because" is the dumbest defense. You seem to think it's fine.

Yes officer I know it was my gun and has my finger prints on, but it was stolen. Honest!!!!

Learn some common sense. Logic you can learn after you have that mastered.

Yes BF, it goes to court and the court decides. The accused is just an accused. Guilty or innocent, is then decided by the court. You're lucky, only a real clown will download clips from C4S and upload them as Torrents. Those with real sites have something to worry about.

Fortunately, the judge disagreed with you.

That's funny.

Considering I have shot over 110 models, and 1500+ scenes in just under 10 years.

Most (not all) of this industry does not have 1500 unique scenes on a single site they run/own. Let alone in their entire NETWORK of sites from 1999 or 2001 (as they have not updated in years). While there are some BROgrams with a ton of content, and even more than I've ever shot, they are the exception.... and most likely one of the few still making money.

That said, I am going to agree with Warchild's previous remarks about you recently. Normally I give your idiotic remarks at least a second or two of thought. But the more I see these asinine remarks lately, it really reinforces just how little you know about the current state of the adult industry.

Maybe you like playing devil's advocate. Maybe you like trolling industry boards you are not longer a part of. I honestly do not have a clue what your motivations are. But with each post it really starts reinforcing that technology has left you behind, and apparently you are either mad about it, or have way too much free time on your hands.

:2 cents:

Each time you bite, he lols some more.

https://img.skitch.com/20110503-x42a...rht9muxdtu.jpg

My parents would have to call Chris if they wanted to lock down their Wifi, they have no clue.

(Setting JFK up for the 50th post)

50.0.0.1 :thumbsup

So if this is allowed to stand as a valid undeniable defense

cyber crime becomes the perfect crime - only the very stupid will ever get arrested -any criminal (or operation) just needs to have an obvious wi-fi router by the door (fully operational) and when the cops come knockin' they just point at it and say "have a good day officer" and close the door.

really giddyboy?

you really want that??

I'm not saying that it needs to be the only reason that the cops / court needs

I do think that it needs to be INSTANT justification for an investigation, including search warrants, wire taps, other surveilance - whatever is necessary and equal to the alleged crime.

otherwise the cp guys can never be caught - just do their thing on a wireless and there you go - instant defense (because any evidence found after that is inadmissable)

the credit card frauders need only use the neighbours wireless and they are instantly scott-free

forget the nigerian spammers/scammers - just wait til the American wannabe's are given a free pass via the "i didn't do it' defense

and on and on and on

everything you spout in every thread, points to a 'everything is 'free' on the internet simply to keep the 'traffic' up so the scammers have a huge flock of sheep to shear and are untouchable because of the 'I have an unsecured wireless' defense.



I say fuck that - there has to be a stop-point for the law to step in.


or maybe you are just an anarchist - in that case I have truely wasted a LOT of time debating with you

.

did you even read the article

even in the CP case they ultimately found the next door neighbour who was actually downloading the CP.

the same techniques they used after they realized their mistake could have been used BEFORE they broke down the door

that all we are talking about

rather than violating the principle of being innocent until proven guilty

actually get the proof first.

Really? Not one of the judge's reasons would become invalid with IPv6.

My IPv6 point had nothing to do with the judge or this case.

Read up on IPv6 and the differences in the current system and the new. Specifically in regards to tracking and security. Once you have a firm understanding, THEN we'll talk.

Thanks champ.
:pimp

Yeah... IPv6 will solve the problem if other people in the house, visitors etc using the connection...

bF he is right once an IPv6 address is NATed all the private address behind the firewall will simply look like the one IPv6 address that is publically assigned to the gateway.

unless they legislate IPv6 to MAC bind and even then you would still have to spend the money to track down the MAC address via valid investigation techniques before you could get the identity of the people in question.