
Police Raid 9-Year-Old Pirate Bay Girl - Sami_Lehtinen
http://torrentfreak.com/police-raid-9-year-old-pirate-bay-girl-confiscate-winnie-the-pooh-laptop-121122/
======
pg
This is the reductio ad absurdum of current law.

We need to work more actively to make this sort of thing stop. There are a
range of solutions. We could try to change the laws. We could develop
technology that would make it harder to catch file-sharers. We could attack
the labels directly by trying to pinch off the sources of their revenue. I'm
not sure which would work the best. My guess is that they're better at
manipulating legislators, and the way to beat them is technology.

So here's a question for everyone: What new technology would harm the labels
most?

~~~
yason
Indirect networking much like Tor or I2P.

Translated to BitTorrent, everyone would be using just one extra hop to keep
the speeds up but passing around encrypted packages for others would create
plausible deniability. You can claim you don't know what the packet that you
routed contained, because you can't know that. You can't be held liable for
routing traffic per se, much like ISPs aren't liable for routing traffic per
se.

Why Tor and I2P don't want to use one-hop connections is that someone with
government-level access could deduce the participants by looking at the
traffic timing patterns. But MAFIAA at least not yet isn't actively hooked to
the major ISPs of the world and can't apply such a traffic analysis. A simple
one-layer indirection would hide who's downloading and uploading what. All you
see is routing nodes.

If you're MAFIAA and seeding your fake movies and music to this torrent
network, you can only see a user's IP address uploading a block to your fake
clients. But since everyone is acting on behalf of others and merely routing
packets, you don't know who sent the packet and you can't possibly prove that
the one who did the last route was guilty. Otherwise merely connecting to the
network would mean the user is guilty. The network would of course transfer
legitimate files as well, and while downloading a Ubuntu 13.04 image users
would also handle these one-hop routing requests of other peers who are
downloading/seeding other files.

Interestingly, you would only need to transfer a certain percentage of
connections over the one-hop tunnel. You could use zero-hop for the rest. The
MAFIAA can't recognize those so it still looks the same as if you acted as the
router and fetched a block for another peer.

This could also be implemented as a global free-to-connect IPv6 VPN network.
If the IP addresses uploading MAFIAA movies are virtual, nobody knows where
they are and who operates them.

~~~
alexkus
Unless, of course, the authorities seed Tor with a whole bunch of nodes that
log everything. No timing attacks required.

Tor relies on the fact that even if there's one or two bad apples among the
bunch logging everything you're probably going to be safe because you'll go
through enough routing nodes that aren't logged for it to be impossible to
trace.

~~~
yason
Logging isn't enough. You would need to be able to prove that the encrypted
blob originated from the potentially infringing IP address and wasn't just
merely passing through it. Because if it was the potentially infringing node
couldn't have had any clue about what the packet contained.

If all you can see is routing you can't know where packets originate or are
destined to. You receive a packet, open your layer of encryption, see where
the packet should be going next, log it, and send it forward. You can't
possibly know whether the sender created the packet or forwarded it, and you
can't possibly know whether the recipient consumed the packet or forwarded it.

You would need to monitor physical network links to determine patterns how the
onion style packets travel around.

~~~
alexkus
But with one-hop communications (as suggested by the post I was replying to)
then the routing nodes (that could be made to log everything) know both the
source and destination addresses as it is the only other hop in a one-hop
path.

------
ashray
Clicked through to the article hoping to see a picture of the laptop. Was not
disappointed! :)

On topic though, this just shows how ridiculous the MAFIAA is getting these
days. Unfortunately, this episode played out negatively on the artist as well
- who probably had nothing to do with the event. So piracy harms the artist,
but in this case the MAFIAA hurt the artist even more by prosecuting someone
for it [1] ? Not sure if that's justice, but it feels quite strange to think
about it.

[1] - The article says that the artist experienced a serious backlash on her
facebook page from enraged fans.

~~~
gingerjoos
I'm wondering if the backlash might actually be a good thing. If this sort of
backlash becomes common, there will be a disincentive for artists to sign up
with records who indulge in such nonsense. Perhaps the system will adapt such
that prosecutions like this would be eliminated.

~~~
billirvine
> there will be a disincentive for artists to sign up with records who indulge
> in such nonsense

Why would a creative person who's primary method of feeding the family are
checks from publishers not want their publisher to diligently protect the
revenue model?

~~~
__david__
Because they understand that "protecting the revenue model" distinctly
different than confiscating 9 year olds' laptops.

------
antidoh
Don't buy music controlled by the RIAA. Just don't. The _only_ way to stop
them is to starve them. They're major campaign contributors, so the law will
never be on our side until they're gone.

And by the way, don't download said music from sharing sites or friends.
Artists need to see that we won't pay them any attention, with wallets or
ears, if they associate with known extortionists.

~~~
bct
A boycott isn't made up out of individuals. Doing this is a waste of your
effort unless it's part of a focussed campaign.

~~~
marshray
Where have you been? Many individuals like me have been actively avoiding RIAA
and MPAA products as much as possible.
[http://www.musicweek.com/news/read/riaa-revenue-reaches-
new-...](http://www.musicweek.com/news/read/riaa-revenue-reaches-new-
low/051450)

------
csense
If I was a billionaire looking for ways to burn money, I'd set up a legal
defense fund for MAFIAA victims.

We wouldn't have go broke defending everyone they sue. All it takes is a few
cases to establish their abusive practices and suddenly courts start looking
at them as "vexatious litigants" who file lawsuits in bad faith; abuse court
procedure by e.g. jurisdiction shopping; using the court's subpoena power to
get names and addresses for the sole purpose of extorting settlements with no
intention of actually going to court; improperly joining hundreds or thousands
of unrelated cases to save on filing fees.

When they realize someone who has the money and willingness to sue them is
looking at these cases very carefully, suddenly the police fall in line and
start going "by the book" and following their own procedures: Only taking
evidence that's actually needed, only keeping it as long as it's needed, and
returning it in good condition. Again, all we have to do is have a few
successful cases and we can prevent thousands from going through what's
happening in this story.

------
DanBC
The age of criminal responsibility in Finland is 15. So I'm at a loss at what
is going to happen to this 9 year old girl. Certainly downloading music
without paying for it is wrong. But there are much better ways of dealing with
this than sending in the police.

And justice needs to be public. (With a few rare exceptions). Forcing people
to sign NDAs is creepy and weird.

I'd be interested to know what would have happened if the father sent
photocopies of the receipts for the music that they bought the next day - I
like to think that would have been enough to call off the lawyers but I
understand that it probably isn't.

~~~
polymatter
IANAL but I expect they will pin it on the father on the basis that he paid
for internet access and therefore responsible.

~~~
c1sc0
at least over here in Germany it has been ruled that the parents can't be
blamed for their children's internet use. If all else fails, blame it on the
kids ;-)

~~~
mylittlepony
Until what age would they be considered children for this ruling?

~~~
aes256
Presumably the legal age of responsibility, at which point they become
responsible for their own actions.

------
belorn
Since when did this became normal and accepted in society? Whats next, police
pulling candy from babies? or are we just going straight back to whip and
flails to handle the _dark and evil crime called copyright infringement!_

This is the definition of insanity. What is wrong with the people that was
part of the chain of events that lead to taking a laptop from the hands of an
9 year old girl?

------
netcan
How do these NDAs work? Can they really demand that you pay them money _and_
not tell anyone?

Seems pretty creepy.

~~~
robryan
You always have the right to refuse though and have the courts sort it out,
should they choose to pursue a case.

~~~
DigitalSea
If you or I tried to do this, we'd be sued into oblivion for blackmail because
that's what this is, blackmail. Pay us money and we won't tell on you. This
world is messed up.

~~~
jrogers65
I believe that this is a side effect of the corporatist political system we
find ourselves in.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism>

Some interesting quotes on the subject -
<http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/corporatism>

------
Zenst
Just as worrying is the level of IT the people who take the laptop and other
IT equipment away actualy have.

They could image the laptop, but no they take it away, leave it in a pile for
months and then return it knowing full well that any data is not biometricaly
tagged with any individual and as such a good lawyer would stamp all over it.
TCP/IP in effect could be deemed entrapment in how it works.

Sad thing is I have music CD's that now over 20-30 years old are rusting a bit
and some are unplayable. I would not moraly have an issue of getting a
replacement via the internet for the cost of my time and internet. Now I know
it is wrong and I should not have to spend my time and internet obtaining what
I already paid for and was misold as a undistructable media at the time, but
I'm a fair chap. But those that enforce there copyrights are not fair.

I have a file on all my computers called do not open without prior permision,
its a realy evil file with compression bomb embeded picture saying "piss off"
after about 50+ layers. If somebody investigates my computers without my
permission or following the instructions to use my computer then that person
will waste alot of there time. OK I now need some illegal mp3's but nobody is
perfect and with that this is yet another case of the system being highlighted
for what it is, messed up and moraly wrong.

~~~
csense
It's probably more the police mentality of "they're suspects, they must be
guilty, we know if we can't prove it in court they'll get off, so let's do
everything in our power to make their lives as crappy as possible."

Including tying up stuff they know the family needs as "evidence" as long as
they think can get away with, returning it in as poor a state as they think
they can get away with...and the guy's already admitted EUR 600 will put him
out of Christmas, they know there's no way he can afford to sue the police,
all his money will be spent on his legal troubles with the MAFIAA...

------
gavanwoolery
I'm not going to lie, this might be the best headline ever.

~~~
barredo
I hope it's not too off-topic to say that I thought someone sent a TheOnion
article to HN.

~~~
xentronium
It made me wonder if there were any theonion articles on hn. It turns out,
there were a couple of them that even received comments and upvotes, but not
much for the last 3 years. My guess is that submissions from theonion are
auto-banned.

[1]
[http://www.hnsearch.com/search#request/submissions&q=the...](http://www.hnsearch.com/search#request/submissions&q=theonion.com&sortby=create_ts+desc&start=0)

~~~
rimantas
That is kinda sad, actually. Many articles on The Onion are more
intellectually stimulating than stuff on HN front page.

------
Nux
This is insane! Using the "law" to get to this unprecedented levels of
harassment against KIDS! I mean, for fuck's sake: THINK OF THE KIDS!

I honestly want to see more and more of this, there's an already growing wave
of anti-MAFIAA and this kind of abuses will only make it bigger and meaner.
The bubble will burst at some point and it won't be pleasant.

------
DiabloD3
I imagine the death throes of this dying industry are going to get worse
before it gets better.

~~~
philbarr
Yes, it's always seemed odd to me, from a moral point of view, that it's
perfectly fine for _them_ to copy music easily (and hence make huge profits)
but it's not ok for _us_ to copy music.

If you look at the history of the music business, musicians used to not make
very much money and only got paid for gigs. If you were good you could ask for
more from your punters per gig, and if you were _REALLY_ good you could hold
concerts and get paid much more. Seems we should go back to that model -
musicians and the music industry get rewarded far beyond what they're worth in
my opinion.

~~~
jeremyjh
That is still how it is for nearly all musicians. Even a platinum record will
not make as much money as the accompanying tour for many bands.

~~~
philbarr
Yes, the problem is not the musicians per-se, it's the music industry that
surrounds them. They make a fortune copying and selling music, and get all
upset about it when other people want to copy music.

I know there's a lot of effort that goes into creating and producing an album,
but that's a pittance compared to how much an album will make. And it's not
like they lose money investing in lots of different bands and only a few are
successful - if they're not 100% sure the album will sell (say it's a new
artist) then they only _lend_ the money to the artists. It's a loan that
carries interest and has to be paid back.

------
Futurebot
What's amazing to me that in the past 10 years, so much has changed with
regard to the music industry (streaming radio, MP3s becoming ubiquitous at
mainstream e-commerce sites, everyone with a music player/smartphone in their
pocket, etc.) and yet how little has changed (lawsuits, the laws themselves,
and the general insanity around the topic.) A glimpse into these same
conversations from the previous era:

<http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2002/6/21/73329/8778>

<http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2001/7/31/205359/166>

<http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/5/16/163447/493>

<http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2002/6/21/215822/505>

------
lelandbatey
I really don't like the sensationalist "pull at the heart strings", vibe in
this title. I it feels a bit misleading and over-dramatized just to cause
controversy. I get what they're trying to say, I but there has to be a better
way to say it.

~~~
chris_wot
I wasn't sad, I was laughing! I mean, come on. Pirates cause organised crime
to flourish and terrorists to be financed, right? What a dastedly 9 year old,
with her Winnie the Pooh laptop!

Incidentally, I'm sort of interested where you can get a Winnie the Pooh
laptop as I have a 5 year old daughter.

~~~
Evbn
<https://www.google.com/search?q=laptop%20decals>

Try not to buy a pirated image.

------
lysol
Yikes, I wouldn't let a 9 year old go to the Pirate Bay on her own. Unless
you're running adblock there are some pretty R-rated banner ads on TPB.

~~~
zxcdw
You really think you can choose which websites your own 9-year-old browses?
Really?

------
shusso
I've thought that in Finland the reason to get a search warrant needs that the
minimum punishment for the crime is 6mo in jail. When did the punishment for
copyright infringement went from fines to jailtime :O Or am I missing here
something..

~~~
potkor
When they last revised the criminal law wrt copyright. It's actually a triply
evil twist. First (1) new law says that only for the criminal form can you get
jail time, and you need to be making a profit to turn it from a minor offense
to a crime. Then (2) they the added in the last paragraph of the relevant
section that if a computer network is involved and there's "significant
damage" to the rightholder, it's also the criminal form. And then (3) the
courts made it the sentencing practice that it's "significant damage" even in
cases like this.

link (finnish):<http://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/ajantasa/1889/18890039001#e-53>
chapter 49 last paragraph

------
stevewillows
The trouble with running an indie label is that you rely heavily on grant
money (usually through the government). The major labels are the only ones who
can execute non-organic marketing strategies (billboards, commercials etc).

Even the deals that people are signing these days aren't in their best
interest. Often a band will sign only to never have anything released by the
label. The kicker is that the label still owns anything that band (even as
individuals) make for a period of time. You're essentially treated like a
movie script.

------
Tenoke
This is pretty disturbing given that she only downloaded one album a year ago
(or at least thats all they seem to be pinning on this family).

------
ommunist
What I have to say. Play your own music. Create it. Educate your kids how to
drum, and what to do with the piano. Never sell your own music, let people
listen. They'll be the most grateful.

------
hayksaakian
Piracy law is getting absurd.

Imagine if this girl simply shoplifted the music, its entirely reasonable that
if she was caught that shed get a slap on the wrist and if anything, no where
near a 600 fine.

------
chris_wot
The original title was much better. Why was it changed?

------
JacksonGariety
Remind anyone else of Terry' Gilliam's Brazil?

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ay0TDQuq7XI>

------
aidos
I'm listening to the album in question now, the artist has definitely come out
of it ok :)

~~~
jeremyjh
I'm not listening to it right now. They are totally screwed.

------
lttlrck
if Anonymous want something useful to do they should start hounding these
lawyers...

------
mannjani
Where the hell is the world going?

------
lrobb
That's some unfortunate grammar.

------
madaxe
They should execute this filthy pirate. She is clearly single-handedly
responsible for all poor music sales in at least the last 15 years.

Wait, no, this is utterly irrational and harms the MAFIAA's cause. I say bring
on more lawsuits against neonates, foeti and octogenarians - they'll scupper
their own cause pretty swiftly as they lampoon themselves.

