US House Of Representatives... Is A Rogue Site?
from the wouldn't-you-know-it? dept
As the US House of Representatives continues to push for SOPA to help go after foreign "pirates," it appears that some folks at home were doing their own "research," in a way. TorrentFreak, using the YouHaveDownloaded.com tool, have matched up the IP addresses owned by the US House of Representatives, and noticed that they're downloading plenty of material that's likely to be infringing. There are a lot of books, but also software like Microsoft Windows, and even some porn.So when do we get to see the House of Representatives get listed as a "rogue site"?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: congress, house of representatives, infringement, sopa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Have you ever thought of doing some real research, rather than simply spinning anything and everything that might help the pirate cause?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
You don't say? We should inform your buddies at the MAFIAA about this startling discovery of yours.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[citation needed]
(especially coming from an AC criticizing a less-anonymous entity)
"it told me that I lived in a town in another county, an hour away, and that I downloaded something I would never in a million years subject myself to listening to"
and a little bird told me that you simply made this whole thing up ...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Your anecdotal "evidence" that YouHaveDownloaded.com is "proven to be bogus" easily falls within the reasonable explanation that it logged a computer using the IP you have now in the location specified downloading the content specified.
Unless you've got some proof that your computer has had that IP address during the time specified then your argument comes off pretty weak. Can you back up your claim of "proven to be bogus" with solid data or citations of others with solid data?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Its not like I cant guess the IP address.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
What makes YouHaveDownloaded.com so different from what the RIAA/MPAA/ et al have been using?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
An IP address is only the first step in IDing someone.
Plus, Masnick himself admits that the address was also for free wi-fi; why even write such a blatantly intellectually dishonest and slimy headline when that is the case?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Guilt by IP?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Wow. You are dense aren't you?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
HAHA, you just proved his point. The thousands and thousands of people who have been charged based on IPs are saying the same thing...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
You know...
Don't forget; it's a license, not a sale!(TM)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: You know...
That's why I download them, I have the license to listen to them, I just can't prove it cuz they didn't come with a license key...
Actually, I've done this - but I do keep the destroyed DVDs and CDs to prove it :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Heh - certainly you jest.
Two sets of rules, high court/low court, whatever you want to call it. Those who make the rules are exempt from them.
These same people wag their fingers at the rest of the world.
wtf
[ link to this | view in thread ]
How about "investigating" online piracy?
How about "hacked computer"?
Come on tweedledum, if you are going to give everyone else in the universe all the outs, why pin them on it?
Are you that much of a vengeful fucker?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Troll fail.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: You know...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Yeah, do as I say not as I do ... what's wrong with being a hypocrite anyways ... business as usual for the dicktatorz of policy. amirite?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Add in the lobbyists, execs for the entertainment and oil industries, and all the financial institutions that got big handouts for wrecking the economy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Busted.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
You realise that various people who've been dragged into litigation did try these defences, right? If you won't accept it from them, why accept it from the House?
We're not the "vengeful fucker"s. The MAFIAA's the one who thinks that each download is a lost sale and in return, they must demand a pound of flesh. Who's the vengeful one now, eh?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Dec 27th, 2011 @ 6:17pm
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Guilty by Default
Say if this evidence wax only 60% accurate then the other 40% means you cannot accuse them. It does however make you suspect the House is full of infringers. They are bound to check.
They would of course reply "we did not do it" which is the same as many other people said. The only difference was their defence was ignored and they got the large fine.
Governments using 3-strike laws do like to say that being hacked is not an excuse when a person is responsible for securing their own system. An expert hacker outranking a computer newbie is ignored and this is why hackers like to point out the hypercritical nature of this belief by hacking this Government scheme. Hadopi was compromised three times so far and one of those wax serious.
So it is a fair story. Their number came up and they are guilty with all the flaws ignored. Their denial is then laughable in an ironic... yes we knew that as well.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Guilty by Default
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: You know...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
FTFY
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Your IP address was used to down load the following files.
Necro bestiality 4
Gay and straight men sex 5
Men Dressed as French Maids With Feather Dusters 2
Please note each one of these faces fines of $150,000 USD. We are seeking payment of $2,000 USD per infringement per film.
-----------------------------------
The question is would they pay to prevent a court trial? Or would they attempt to outlaws this practice?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
so...
[ link to this | view in thread ]