MPAA Goes After Its Customers

EyesWideOpen writes "The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) is issuing 'takedown' notices to ISP's to alert them that customers are using their internet service to transmit or post copyrighted movies. The ISP's in turn send a letter to the customers threatening to disable their internet connection unless the offending material is removed. The MPAA is using software that 'cruises file-swapping networks like Gnutella to find copyrighted materials, hunts down the IP address of the poster, then discovers which Internet service provider is being used.'"

Comments

False Positives

[ghostlibrary]

My first reaction is "so? Sounds fair". I mean, it's going at the source of pirating and illegal sharing, not a problem.

The article raised the issue of false positives. It had this chilling bit on it:

"Of all the letters we have sent out, we only had 2 other people who corresponded back who said we were mistaken," Jacobsen said. "And we didn't think we were."

Oh, wait-- the folks doing the automated search get to decide whether its infringement. This is kinda backwards.

I mean, someone thinks you stole a coke from 7-11, the cops come and listen and maybe a judge makes a verdict-- not the 7-11 clerk.

But here, the person making the allegation gets to decide if it's true or not-- and when has any person ever been really psyched to say "Oh, wait, sorry, I was totally wrong, wasted your time, and opened myself up to legal risk by making a false accusation."

So, neat idea, but the implementation needs some better due process.

Re:False Positives

[jdhutchins]

I really don't know if they plan to go after people in court. It would be a tough case, because you could say
-It wasn't my computer
-You didn't listen to the song, it wasn't copyrighted...
and I'm sure your lawyer could come up with plenty of other excuses. They're just hoping that a letter from your ISP, or them, will be enough to scare you into stopping it. I doubt that their robots will be able to tell if it's you a second time, because your IP will probably be different.

Re:False Positives

[RatFink100]

All systems have false positives. Cops arrest the wrong person. Innocent people get convicted.

The important thing is where are the checks and balances. The right of appeal for instance.

I don't have a problem with the process in principle but I think 24 hours is too short a time to be able to challenge the information.

They should also have the right to have access to the ISP's logs on their connection.

Re:False Positives

[blase]

2 people=BS

I have received one of these threats through my crappy ISP. It was about a movie file I had never touched on a P2P network I had never used and noted an IP address I had never had. Plus it's not just a case of them getting the details wrong, I don't download or share such files.

I never received a response to my reply to their threat.

Re:False Positives

[rblancarte]

Actually this would be like you stealing from 7-11 and then them not allowing you to shop there (or any other 7-11) until you pay for your merchandise or return what you took.

Overall, I think this is a good thing, if people get threatening leters, take down the falsely identified material, and then fight your case. Personally, this is 100 Times better than them taking down Gnutella and the like.

RonB

Re:False Positives

[Anonymous Coward]

There is nothing positive about the MPAA going after Internet Service Providers. The MPAA is very much like a lot of commercial software companies. With ISP's in their pockets consumers will be the next to suffer. What we have is a shift towards something that will resemble the way Microsoft has released their XP products; consumers will be accountable for everything and our names will be associated with whatever we purchase or use.

While some people will have no problem having their name attached to software/movies/music, it's time for a reality check. Take Microsoft for example. Microsoft would not have such a strong grip on the software industry if their software was not pirated. How many people have been truly altruistic and never copied any non-free software? Very few. Yes, company X might buy all their software. But is it installed only on machine X as perscribed by the restrictive licensing agreement? Chances are the answer is no. What the means, however, is that more people are exposed to the software. They in turn go out and purchase the software for their home machine. I'm not advocating software piracy, but pointing out that piracy has helped spread the popularity of some (not all) software. I can hear the moans now, but let's move on to the music industry example:

Consumer X downloads one of Bif Nakked's songs from GNUtella. There is something wrong with the encoding - half the song is missing, or the song is encoded for radio instead of CD. Consumer X likes what they hear and goes out and buys the CD, to rip it for themselves. Or consumer X doesn't like the song and decides not to buy the CD. Chances are that the song will be deleted to make space for something else, new music, a game, etc.

Video encoding is even worse than music encoding. Why store a pixalated movie when you can buy a high quality DVD? Those who download movies and archive them are not likely to have bought a DVD or VHS tape in the first place. But many people do download movies, watch part of the movie, and end up buying a copy. They then tell friends about the movie (just as they would with good software) and the friend ends up doing the same thing or going out and buying the movie.

What the real issue is, is that the MPAA wants to entrench their position as monopoly over all movie distribution. They want to be able, just as the RIAA wanted with Napster, to overthrow all free trading, and make money on those spotty, poor quality movies that get traded over GNUtella and other networks. In the process, they are doing the equivalent of a police officer coming up to your home and conducting an illegal search of your house (without a warrant) in order to gain proof of some impropriety.

Cheers,

Charles,

Re:False Positives

[Mhtsos]

Can IP adresses be faked? I think it can (i'm no expert, correct me if I'm wrong). So simply because RIAA has an IP address that matches mine that's not proof it was me. It is a bit of a strech now, but if RIAA presses the issue... presto! p2p client complete with built in ip spoofer!

Re:False Positives

[Shads]

at the isp i worked for we logged who had what ip for a year and then archived those logs to dvd... was really for spam prevention but at times we had to access the logs to catch someone who was doing something illegal (we required a court order and ignored stuff like this.)

Re:False Positives

[anthony_dipierro]

It's very easy to eliminate false positives. You do a search on the P2P network for songs whose copyright you own. Then you download that song, and check that it is "yours". Whatever IP address you made the TCP connection to is breaking the law.

As an efficiency step, you can save the checksums of the verified songs which are yours.

Re:False Positives

[Beliskner]

ISP looks you up, I doubt they could get you. They don't log who was using what IP address in the past do they?

They usually log it, yes.

I do beleive that there would be a way around it, and its called buying yourself a T1 line

No, you are allocated an IP address range with a T1 line, an upstream provider can look up who you are, plus with a T1 you're usually supposed to have your own nameservers with valid contact information. Try hiding from Neotrace.

I do have a question of my own, though. Is this type of action extending into Canada? Will RIAA sue or even send letters to ISPs in Canada?

They probably have the right to, royalties are paid on CDRs and if applicable on your hard drive, not for passive redistribution on Kazaa or other P2P. Faking your IP address is a good idea for DDoS but source routing and stuff sends warnings if you do this wrong. Doing anything useful with a false IP address doesn't really happen.

Re:False Positives

[Sir Homer]

That's because Muslims are too busy destroying things.

Re:False Positives

[HanzoSan]

When you steal from 711, 711 loses money.

Thats stealing. When you share, no ones losing any money. So you cant compare it to stealing.

Dumbasses like you always say stealing and sharing at the same thing, as if its morally wrong to share?

Stealing is morally wrong, stealing is when you download music from gnutella or a movie and then sell it on the blackmarket, thats wrong.

Sharing is not wrong because no one would have paid for it to begin with. No one loses anything when you share, and alot of people gain.

Re:False Positives

[jafuser]

That's all and good except your ISP has already cut you off because it's easier for them to cut off one customer than being the middleman in a legal battle.

Re:False Positives

[Beliskner]

But you can use someone else's computer as a proxy address, especially if they leave their computer on all night connected with broadband

You mean hack into a business' net and tunnel your traffic through it. OK NASA here I come, I'll install an IRC server and uhhhh, yeah. That's never been done before, oh wait..

Re:False Positives

[famazza]

As we all know RIAA polices, they will won't worry about false positives, and sue every single user that they can ever suppose to be sharing files.

...Until judges say: "THAT'S ENOUGH!"

IMHO RIAA is just speeding the process, they can't stop a moving train immediatally, and they can't just stop the information revolution. They should be thinking a way to adapt to the environment, not the opposite.

Re:False Positives

[IronChef]

Proof isn't required. This isn't an action of a court, this is Special Interest Group A asking Big Company B to do them a favor and lean on a customer. Not that it doesn't smell like legal action, and it could lead there, but that's not what it is to begin with.

In a few years I expect the MPAA/RIAA will be IDing pirates and asking all kinds of businesses to cooperate in making their lives hell. Imagine gas stations refusing to serve you because they have a list of license plates that they have been asked (or paid) to check for... or your credit cards being refused at "participating merchants."

It's a brave new world. I think things will get a lot worse before they get better.

Re:False Positives

[RatFink100]

The person being accused should have the right to see their ISP logs to their own activity online in order to defend themselves.

Uh, those customers are same as shoplifters...

[Shivetya]

that title is really stupid. Sorry, but if you went into Blockbuster and "lifted" titles you too would be being chased.

Your no longer a customer if your not paying for the content.

Re:Uh, those customers are same as shoplifters...

[the eric conspiracy]

Poor analogy. No physical item is being stolen..therefore it is not comprable to shoplifting.

So if I hack your bank account or steal your credit card number it's ok with you?

Re:Uh, those customers are same as shoplifters...

[91degrees]

I can't speak for the other person, but I'd have no problem with it as long as you didn't use the credit card number, and was 100% cerain that you wouldn't. Then it would be stealing since I hadn't lost anything.

I don't think that piracy and theft should really be considered the same crime. I agree that piracy (or unauthorised sharing of copyrighted materials as the EFF would like to call it) is wrong, but the crime is different since the victim still has their original.

Re:Uh, those customers are same as shoplifters...

[the eric conspiracy]

but the crime is different since the victim still has their original.

Suppose I don't use your credit card number, but I sell the number to somebody else. Still happy?

Oh, you still have your original credit card number.

The crime is NOT different. By copying the movie rather than buying it, you are depriving the copyright owner of income. This is exactly the same as hacking his bank account or stealing his credit card number.

Re:Uh, those customers are same as shoplifters...

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

By copying the movie rather than buying it, you are depriving the copyright owner of income.

Thankfully, "denial of income" is not a bona fide crime. If I review a movie and pan it, convincing some people not to see it, am I guilty of "denial of income"? Copyright law is not overly concerned with income -- that's why the usual "I was only copying for non-profit use" defense is bogus.

Infringement is a crime. It is not theft, as it does not deny use of the item in question to the legitimate holder of copyright.

Re:Uh, those customers are same as shoplifters...

[the eric conspiracy]

Thankfully, "denial of income" is not a bona fide crime.

Denial of income is the end result of the action here. Our society makes many actions that result in denial of income illegal. Some of them are:

Copyright, Trademark and Patent Infringement.
Failure to adhere to fair wage laws.
Investment Fraud.
Filing false tax returns.
Embezlement.

Are you saying that all of these actions are ok because all they do is deny income?

It is not theft, as it does not deny use of the item in question to the legitimate holder of copyright.

THAT depends on what you define as 'use'. I am sure that New Line Cinema defines their 'use' of a movie they hold a copyright to as something other than viewing it in the privacy of their studio! The fact is that their use is in the sense of a product that they use to generate revenue and profits! By pirating people are IN FACT denying this copyright holder USE of the product in exactly the manner they intended when they invested the many millions of dollars required for its production.

Re:Uh, those customers are same as shoplifters...

[EllisDees]

By pirating people are IN FACT denying this copyright holder USE of the product in exactly the manner they intended when they invested the many millions of dollars required for its production.

That's some seriously convoluted thinking there, bud. My copying or not copying a piece doesn't change anyone's ability to use anything. They can still do whatever their little hearts desire with it. I am under no obligation to fulfill their monetary wishes.

Re:Uh, those customers are same as shoplifters...

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

If you agree that this is theft

I don't. It's still copyright infringement (versus the copyright holder). Consider this counter-example: A store has a 20% discount coupon, which they give to you upon entering the store. You take yours, carry it out, pass it on to a friend, who then redeems it. Is this "theft"?

Your hypothetical store is not selling a product. It's selling a service -- the warehousing and downloadability of the MP3. Your taking the MP3 and file-sharing it doesn't stop that store from providing the same service to someone else that they did to you. They still have the MP3s and the hardware.

Of course, they won't be able to stay in business. When you share the files, you undercut their business model. Too fratzing bad! They don't have some "right" to make money any way they choose. Their desire to sell a service one way doesn't create in me any obligation to conform. If they pick a dumb model, they starve. If the technology changes and they can't, they starve. That's the way it's supposed to work.

Or, more succintly: No one weeps for the buggy-whip makers.

Re:Uh, those customers are same as shoplifters...

[EllisDees]

Actually, by using their product, you are under such an obligation.


Nope, I'm not.

Their product is created and provided with the explicit condition that you fulfill their monetary wishes.

Sucks to be them.

If you use their product, you are tacitly agreeing to that condition.

Anyone can make up any conditions they want. If they don't want it distributed, they shouldn't release it.

ARIN?

[|<amikaze]

Wow they've learned how do use ARIN. Congratulations!

Old news.

[www.sorehands.com]

This was written up a while back in a piece called, "Fingered by the Movie Cops". But in that case, the MPAA was mistaken.

Re:Invasion of Privacy

[garcia]

Nope, it's not an invasion of privacy. You are using a publically accessable program to break the law (whether I see it this way or not is not the point).

The MPAA didn't come to your house and serve you w/a fine, warrant, etc. They called your ISP, told them you did X and asked them to stop you.

The ISPs usually have a TOS agreement that you agreed to when you started the service. By downloading this shit, you broke that TOS. The ISP has the right at that point to stop you from breaking those TOSs.

It's not invasion of privacy until they actually arrest you for doing it. That would be crossing the line.

False negatives?

[crc32]

Since the 'False Positives' section seems to make it clear that all the MPAA is doing is looking at filenames, wouldn't it be trivial to use some sort of '133t' type phonetic coding to mess with the search algorithms that they are running?

Re:False negatives?

[echucker]

Igpay atinlay. 'Uffnay aidsay.

How hard could it be?

[handsomepete]

"Tyler was nabbed by an automated program developed by Ranger Online Inc. The software cruises file-swapping networks like Gnutella to find copyrighted materials, hunts down the IP address of the poster, then discovers which Internet service provider is being used."

I imagine this tracker that they use must identify itself somehow. I've never been heavily in to the whole swapping/p2p thing, but shouldn't it be possible to find a signature of some sort from this thing and tack it on to the front of a swapping program? Honestly asking, I really don't know. Not that I think getting in a pissing match with the MPAA/RIAA is the best solution for the software writers...

Here's the Ranger Online website. This section provides a very lame explanation of how they do the voodoo that they do.

Re:How hard could it be?

[kaden]

They don't really need a program, you can find out the IP and ISP of anyone on Kazaa as soon as they start sending you a file, just using basic tools on any OS, even Windows. I imagine if they really are using a custom program to do this for some reason, then the program just runs on top of Kazaa/whatever and therefore never is actually connected to the network itself. I'm just speculating, but it doesn't seem like there'd be any reason for them to right an entire P2P client to do this.

Re:How hard could it be?

[RatFink100]

They downloaded them on behalf of the people who own the copyright - with their knowledge and permission.

Re:Invasion of Privacy

[billbaggins]

If a police officer goes through your room and finds a bomb, without a warrant, he can't do anything with it, until he gets one from a judge.

True, but if he sees one through the window, or is just dropping by to chat and spies a few dozen sticks of TNT and schematics of the Hoover Dam, he doesn't need a warrant, any more than an arrest warrant is needed when the cop sees you stick up the 7-11. (Ok, IANAL, but I did read up on this a while ago, and I believe this to be true...)

So they go on Gnutella like everyone else and see something (something anyone could see) that you shouldn't be sharing. And they ask your ISP to ask you to stop. I don't thin this is IoP.

Whether they should is another question entirely. But if you are sharing something for the whole internet to see, you should expect everyone on the internet to see it. Even the ones you don't want to.

Re:Invasion of Privacy

[CheechBG]

wow, quite a knee-jerk rant you have there.

First of all, it's not "illegal search" if you HAVE THE FILES OPEN FOR SHARING TO BEGIN WITH. If you and I were both on KaZaA and you had some Simpsons episodes, I searched for that and found them on your computer BECAUSE YOU HAD THEM AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC, how is that an "invasion of privacy?" You are making this out to be that they have some crawler that checks random IP's and does a full HD scan. THAT would be illegal.

Face the facts, YOU ARE PIRATING ILLEGAL COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL. However way you determine to package that up for yourself is your business, but you're still doing it. The MPAA is within it's right to come after you if you blatantly leave it lying around for anyone to find.

What customers?

[man_ls]

You're only a customer if you pay for a product, or have a legal license to use the product free of charge. I.e. Windows XP NFR copies...you're a customer even though you didn't pay for it.

People who are involved in trading music/movies on the Internet are, for the most point in time, either fully aware that it is copyright infringement (I hesitate to say stealing because I don't really believe it is, but it is copyright infringement) or are vaguely aware that there's something "grey" about it.

It's within the (RI/MP)AA's right to go after the individuals who are responsible for copyright violations, which they are doing--rather than try to increase prices on movies, institute DRM, etc. If a large-scale sharing user knows that if he gets caught, he'll have his bandwidth taken away, that'll be a decent deterrant. Similar to the Windows XP preview editions and Microsoft IRC spiders-anyone running Windows XP and an fserv at the same time was given a nice little message, courtesy NET SEND, warning them not to share software illegally. (I personally know two people this happened to.)

Besides, the gnutella network isn't all it's talked up to be, anyway. I run a very fast DSL connection (1536/512 up/down) but STILL can't maintain more than 3 Gnutella network connections or pull more than 2kb/sec. I get transfers on IRC over 50kb/sec and direct from web sites in the 150kb/sec range...Gnutella as long since stopped being useful to me.

Besides, everyone knows the REALLY good movies are found in IRC FServs in the distro group channels, or on FTP servers--not on Gnutella. All you'll find on Gnutella are fakes and porn.

Re:What customers?

[mark-t]

People who are involved in trading music/movies on the Internet are, for the most point in time, either fully aware that it is copyright infringement (I hesitate to say stealing because I don't really believe it is, but it is copyright infringement) or are vaguely aware that there's something "grey" about it.

I've spoken to a number of people who seem to have no qualms about downloading illegal material that someone else has shared -- their view: "Nobody's gonna catch me anyways, so why should I bother obeying an unenforceable law?" Every single person that I have spoken to who does this is FULLY aware of its illegal nature, but don't give a damn because they believe that unless some self-righteous bastard such as myself draws attention to their activities, they'll never get caught -- and even if I did say something to someone, it'd be my word against theirs. Stalemate -- no point in pushing the point any further. But I have yet to find a single person that thinks it's "grey"... Everybody knows it's wrong, but they just don't care.

It is this attitude of feeling untouchable, I believe, that is the cause of the degree of piracy we see today. Going after the people who illegally share material might do a lot to make it inconvenient enough for such people to stop doing what they are doing, but until we can change the underlying attitude, we won't have really done anything to solve the problem -- only hidden it from public view.

Re:What customers?

[mark-t]

The problem is that if you keep moving the "morality fence" to synchronize with the views that society has at the time, it isn't long before theft and even murder become legal. Take things to their logical conclusion and you will see such a world.

(well... so much for my karma, but I think it needed to be said.)

Re:What customers?

[mark-t]

I didn't really want to go there, since as it happens, I believe that a world such as what I've described above is inevitable. However, the mere fact that moral views have changed in society should not, by itself, be a reason to retract a law.

Consider the issue of people who speed on the highway. People do it because they want to, and they believe (sometimes correctly, sometimes not) that they won't get caught. Nothing more, nothing less. In fact, a majority of drivers speed on a regular basis. Should the speed laws be changed solely on the basis that they do not reflect society's values? Probably not.

If legal system's view of Copyright is to be changed, there should be a more objective reason than apathy. Otherwise, we end up taking someone's (the copyright holder) rights that they formerly enjoyed without ANY justification.

Questionable mapping of inventory control

[geojaz]

In any retail industry there is a certain percentage of profit lost due to "pilferage". The company's objective is to minimize this percentage.

This strategy by the MPAA employs an inventory control system which doesnt control the original products and may be better suited to a physical product/store. These are all derivatives of the movie from the movie theater or the DVD from Blockbuster, but in fact, none are a physical product complete with 100% of the value.
How the American people and the government deal with this will obviously set an interesting precedent for the future of media. These methods need a close reality check to see if this is the way to deal with the lost profits.

Not necessarily a bad thing.

[darkonc]

In terms of the long term fight for the freedom to use P2P networks to distribute Indie works, this may actually be good. I was thinking about the AudioGalaxy takedown, and I think that I came up with a scheme that allowed them to make legit works available by making the people who post the songs responsible for them:

Before submitting a song to AudioGalaxy, a user has to 'appropriately identify' themselves. Once a user is identified, they can submit songs to the AudioGalaxy universe to be authenticated for distribution.
When an identified user submits a song for use, the song is fingerprinted, and identified as 'good'. A properly identified song is the responsibility of it's submitter. AudioGalaxy is simply a tranmission medium. If a copyright holder feels that their song is improperly submitted, then they can go to the person responsible for the song for the 'publishing' of it. If a user is identified as consistently submitting unauthorized copyright material, then their entire set of authentications can be revoked.

user authentication

Users can be authenticated by any of a set of means -- eg:

• A credit card authorization (should appear on credit card summaries as something obvious like "ID verification audogalaxy-id.com" with the domain (and www.domain) pointing to a page that precisely describs what the ID was for and about and what the associated person would be responsible for [[in case the ID was the result of a credit card theft]]).
• Thawte (www.thawte.com) allows all sorts of ways to authenticate the identify a person -- including their 'web of trust' system which is free, and various paid methods.
• Persons who don't have access to (or don't want to use) other methods, could mail in a notarized copy of personal ID,
• Pick your favorite other method of verification.

Once a user is verified, they would be issued an SSL certificate that would allow them to submit songs (automatedly) for authentication.

SSL certificates allow for repudiation, so if someone's ID was used inappropriately, they would be able to issue repudiation.. It should be possible to issue repudiation starting from a specific date (when the certificate was compromised), generally (e.g. if the identity was issued improperly), or even for specific songs (if a publishing authorization turns out to have been mistaken, or the publisher has second thoughts.).

Sharing would then be checked for authentication of a song, rather than a record company claim (after the fact) of copyright infringement. If a record company claims copyright on a song, they would identify it by fingerprint (or a fingerprint summary) then DMCA procedures for notifying the 'owner' of the impugned song would follow.

The point here is that the users are then explicitly responsible for the songs that they post -- combining this with the fact that the RIAA is now proving themselves capable of going after the individual violators, this means that they should have a much harder time going after distribution services like AudioGalaxy for actions that individual customers are really responsible for. (and able to be held responsible for)

On the other hand, the RIAA's high-handed tactics may backfire on them, and provide a real boost to the indie music industry.

Re:Not necessarily a bad thing.

[jquirke]

This is supposed to be moderated as Funny right...? I hope so...

Re:Not necessarily a bad thing.

[darkonc]

If you don't want the RIAA to use your bandwidth, don't make their stuff available. The actual purpose of this setup would be to effectively make RIAA stuff unavailable. If any RIAA content was available, then it would generally have to be posted by RIAA staff. Think of it as an effective RIAA boycott (and at their request, too!).

I guess I didn't make it clear: Each user wouldn't have to register every work tht he/she downloaded and then made available again. A work would only have to be authenticated the first time it was posted (nominally by the artist that made the word). Once a work was authenticated, users would be able to share it freely.

Re:Not necessarily a bad thing.

[darkonc]

There, franky, isn't that much legal stuff people would be interested in sharing that way.

There's a LOT of stuff that doesn't get canned by the RIAA corporations -- and that's what they're actually worried about. There are a few things to remember here:

• Recording contracts rob artists blind
• everybody BUT the musicians makes money on most recording contracts
• 90% of all recording artists end up owing money to the record label.
• most artists are just happy to know that somebody is listening to their stuff.
• Most musicians make money from touring. They eat losses on the recording contracts because it gives them exposure for their tours
• P2P music distribution could replace recording contracts for many musicians.

Let's say, for example, that I hear that "The Dog Woker's Union" (a mythical band) is going to play at a local venue. The best deal for me would be to go to AudioGalaxy and see if they've made some, or all of their songs available. I download a couple and listen to them. If I like what I hear, I'm MUCH more likely to gather my friends together for a live go-listen, where they get much of the door money. For me. this is far better than listening to the local top-40 station and praying that they'll play a Dog Wokers' Union song.

If they've self produced a CD, then I can pay them $10 for the CD and they get to keep $7 after printing costs (as opposed to them having to pay Sony Records $11 for their own CD, selling it for $15, and keeping $4).

Also: those bands that really have hopes of making money selling CDs can still sell the CDs on the net -- and make more money off of a few thousand sales than they'd ever get from 1 million sales on an RIAA contract.

Re:Not necessarily a bad thing.

[dirk]

There's a LOT of stuff that doesn't get canned by the RIAA corporations -- and that's what they're actually worried about. There are a few things to remember here:

Recording contracts rob artists blind
everybody BUT the musicians makes money on most recording contracts
90% of all recording artists end up owing money to the record label.
most artists are just happy to know that somebody is listening to their stuff.
Most musicians make money from touring. They eat losses on the recording contracts because it gives them exposure for their tours
P2P music distribution could replace recording contracts for many musicians.

Let's look at your points.
1. Artists are not robbed. They willing sign unfair contracts of their own free will. I agree the contracts are unfair, but if you agree to give me $5 in exchange for me giving you nothing, you can't complain that I have robbed you.
2. The only people that make money on most recording contracts are the people that are paid up front, i.e. engineers, the recording studio itself, producers, etc. Labels lose money on most CDs produced.
3. It is true that 90% of artists end up owing money to the label, but that is a direct result of 2. If the CD does not sell enough to make back the money the label has lent the artist, then the artist owes the label (mind you this is usually never repaid). So while the artist ends up owing money he will never have to repay, the label is out actual money they have spent.
4.If most artists are just happy with people listening to their stuff, why are they signing horrible contracts with big labels? They can sign with a small, non-RIAA label, or put stuff out themselves, and never have to worry about the RIAA at all. The truth is most artists love what they do, but they want to make a lot of money doing it as well. very few people in this world want to do something (even something they love) and not get paid for it. They want to make money doing what they love, just like anyone else.
5. Most bands lose money touring (although they do make money from merchandise sales on tour). The label once again fronts the money for the tour, and usually the tour loses money (unless it is a huge band like the Stones). The tour is advertising for the CD, not the other way around.
6. This is correct, except the bands then have to come up with the money to make their own CD and they don't get all the advertising that comes with a big label. How do people know to go out and download The Dog Woker's Union if there is no advertising for them? No one has heard of them, so most people won't pay money to go to their show. The one big thing that is missing from bands going totally online is the advertisement. An unknown band will have a hard time getting known if there is no place for people to first find out about them. This is the biggest thing major labels offer, even bigger than the money. They offer a small artist the chance to have their song pushed with millions of dollars in advertising. They have the power to get people to listen to the music, and that is something that P2P doesn't offer.

Re:Not necessarily a bad thing.

[darkonc]

Record companies do make money on the small bands, but the contracts are put together in such a way that it doesn't look like that to the bands. Consider, for example, the practice of giving away $2 CDs and charging the bands $11 each for them.

The "costs" that the record company charges to the bands are often inflated so that the band officially loses money, but the record company makes money off of the charges that they assign to the band (and almost never has to pay royalties).

The way that the royalty system seems to go is that there are royalties that go to the recording company and friends, and then there are royalties that go to the band. All costs come out of the royalties that go to the band. Profits have generally been rolling onto the record company books long before the band actually sees black ink. Add in the inflated costs assigned to the band, and I think that record companies do quite nicely by even the smaller bands that they sign.

1. Artists are not robbed. They willing sign unfair contracts of their own free will. I agree the contracts are unfair, but if you agree to give me $5 in exchange for me giving you nothing, you can't complain that I have robbed you.

Part of the reason why bands are willing to sell their souls to the record companies is that the record companies have pretty much sewn up the market on marketing of bands. If you want to have airplay, you have to play by their rules.

Company agents sometimes also have a nasty way of getting a band to sign. They will get the band in a happy moment, and get them to sign a pre-contract agreement. With words like "It's harmless", and "It just says that we're going to negotiate", it's generally done under circumstances where the band members don't have much opportunity to really read and understand the agreement -- "but that's OK, because your lawyers will have a chance to OK the full final agreement".

Once it sees the light of day, the terms of the 'interim' contract binds the band into near oblivian until and unless they sign a final contract. The band then has pretty much two choices: "Sign whatever we hand you, or die".

Re:Not necessarily a bad thing.

[darkonc]

6. ..... An unknown band will have a hard time getting known if there is no place for people to first find out about them. This is the biggest thing major labels offer, even bigger than the money. ..... They have the power to get people to listen to the music, and that is something that P2P doesn't offer.

A place where people can go to listen to bands that they otherwise wouldn't know about is precisely what P2P offers to bands, and is exactly why the RIAA is afraid of P2P. That's why they sued Napster into oblivian even though napster increased their sales.. Napster -- and other P2P networks provide a marketing venue that's independant of the RIAA monopolies. If P2P is allowed to live, bands will have an actual choice if they want people to hear what they're putting out. Once the companies lose their monopoly they'd have to offer reasonably fair contracts to artists to get them to sign. That would cut back on their profits (and, yes they do profit off of small artists).

If Napster were alive today, I could go look up Dog Wokers' Union and hear what they were did before I decided whether to go see them. The Wokers would only have to have one small server up for me to find them -- but if people liked them, there might be dozens (or even thousands) of peer sites making their music available. The more popular their music, the more numerous the sites.

P2P provides a cheap auto-scaling distribution system and a (semi) centralized catalogue of music that any would-be listener can easily find and search -- and it also allows the users to choose what they want to hear, rather than waiting for some paid bobbin to decide to let let them hear what they're looking for. It has the potential to provide everything that an artist needs without having to sign away their soul, hip-hop, R&b , or whatever it is that they play.

Threat by Form Letter?!

[Grendel Drago]

Uh-oh.

Are we now to believe that a form letter generated by Share-O-Stop software can threaten an ISP into cutting off someone's service? Does the MPAA really think they can get away with this?!

See, the thing about P2P was that it was so incredibly distributed that it would be impossible for the MPAA to sue all of us... but now, it looks like they're trying. As we've learned, the threat of legal action can frequently be as effective as actual legal action, at a fraction of the price.

I can't believe they're using bullying tactics like this. What bastards. Maybe there's some kind of threatening form letter we can send to something the MPAA depends on, to cause them a great deal of meaningless trouble? Anyone have any ideas?

--grendel drago

Re:Threat by Form Letter?!

[kindbud]

Anyone have any ideas?

Stop going to movies.

Stop buying DVDs.

Stop buying CDs.

If they seem to be telling you they do not like having you as a customer, oblige them. If everyone did this, the MPAA/RIAA tune will change faster than you can say "bankruptcy."

And if no one but you boycotts them, then everyone one but you will have to live with their restrictions. Boycotting movies and music is drop-dead easy, precisely because no one is going to drop dead from not listening to Eminem or from failing to see Minority Report. This is not like boycotting Monsanto or Exxon-Mobil.

Re:Threat by Form Letter?!

[marxmarv]

The DMCA requires that a binding takedown order swear under penalty of perjury that the file is illegally distributed. Someone who suffers as a result of such a sworn statement ought to have some sort of recourse against them. Share your non-MPAA music exclusively and make them suffer death by a thousand paper cuts.

If the orders are not sworn under penalty of perjury, they are non-binding and therefore ISPs should give them exactly as much weight as any "ENLARGE YOUR PENIS!!1" spam, because that's exactly what it is.

-jhp

Re:Invasion of Privacy

[WildBeast]

Hehe funny guy, their's nowhere to run, nowhere to hide. Like it or not, the US rules the world. The MPAA doesn't care what country you are from. They'll shut you down anyway.

So much for privacy.

Vigilante Justice

[MarvinMouse]

Interesting form of vigilante justice I see. They go after and punish everyone that they deem as wrong. And perhaps they are right, but the reason for the justice system is not to punish everyone who commits something wrong, but to avoid punishing those who have no committed wrong.

I remember hearing a great man say that "it is better to let 30 men go free, then have one innocent man condemned for life."

Vigilante justice has the problem that while it catches more of the guilty, it punishes more of the innocent, as well if I remember correctly it is illegal in the states (could a lawyer check me on this?)

I understand the need for the MPAA and RIAA to solve these piracy problems, but becoming the prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner is not the way to go. When you are all four, you are guaranteed to false positives and punish those who don't deserve it.

Re:Vigilante Justice

[Kamel Jockey]

I remember hearing a great man say that "it is better to let 30 men go free, then have one innocent man condemned for life."

Contrast that to King Herod, who said "It is better to kill the innocent, than to let the guilty go free."

Police Involvement.

[Grendel Drago]

The MPAA doesn't forward information to the police because they wouldn't have a leg to stand on. They send form letters and threaten legal action, but if they clogged up the court system enough (across how many jurisdictions? Quite an expensive nightmare for them) with frivolous accusations, the courts wouldn't look so fondly on this sort of thing.

There really is something incredibly frightening about this mafia-like body's accusations having some of the force of law.

--grendel drago

Re:Police Involvement.

[Beliskner]

The MPAA is violating the law, the FTC regulations state that traffic going over a dial-up voice network are protected and regarded as private. The MPAA can only go after cable and xDSL suscribers now that the FTC has classified these as information services. Dial-up is still protected as voice and is protected by the constitution and freedom of speech, the Telcos cannot dictate or allow others to dictate what happens over a dial-up connection.

Re:Police Involvement.

[boomer_rehfield]

transfering a file isn't considered speech. If this argument was true, then there are hackers that should have never been hassled because they were on dialups.... You do not have free reign just because you are on dial up.

Re:Police Involvement.

[Beliskner]

the Telcos cannot dictate or allow others to dictate what happens over a dial-up connection. But the ISPs can!

If you're using AT&T dial-up internet then the telco is your ISP, which means they have no right to regulate your traffic due to FTC regulations. If you're using a third party ISP e.g. AoL or @home then their own TOS applies because they're not a telco. (IANAL but then many lawyers don't know about Internet law anyway)

Re:Police Involvement.

[Beliskner]

Yeah, but have you ever tried to pirate a movie over dial-up? It's painful! I don't think the MPAA has anything to worry about on that front

... apart from people that are desperate, but then if you're desperate then you're probably a 13 year old kid who has no money and nobody to drive him to the Blockbuster store. By forbidding him the movie industry would be alienating itself from him, making him resent it PLUS this kid would fall into the "patient kid, grow up to be a good manager" demographic so the industry will be alienating someone with great influence in the future.

Just look at the US president, he's never "Yeah my mommy and pops gave me all the music and videos that I wanted", all the future Presidents of the United States who are working in poor farms right now will get shafted by the MPAA and will take down the entire industry. Go MPAA go! Put everybody that tries to download over a dial-up in jail.

Re:Police Involvement.

[Beliskner]

Then explain why telco ISPs such as AT&T have their own TOS (e.g., no spam), and are able to enforce it without getting sued.

The problem with big companies that have big lawyers is that even if you're right you don't necessarily win. I'd call anyone apart from MCI, Unilever, etc. that tried to sue AT&T stupid.

Re:Invasion of Privacy - I think not

[Alan Cox]

It becomes an invasion of privacy if they decide to break into your computer. What is going on here is quite different. Its more akin to people leaving piles of copied movies on the road with a big "take one" sign.

If you make stuff available for download you stuck it up for people to see and put it out in the open.

There are guilty until proven innocent problems with the current take down approaches but the privacy one is a red herring here.

Re:Good idea

[WildBeast]

Can you stop it? I don't think so.

Me myself I've downloaded a few movies to see if they're actually worth buying and to be honest I wanted to see how look it goods after all the compression :)

That didn't stop me from buying DVD's; I have over 25 movies. Its not like I was gonna watch movies on my computer screen while I can watch them on my 48" HDTV instead.

Usenet

[warmcat]

There is going to come a moment when the people who get rich off restricting availability of readily copyable content go after Usenet.

If it becomes impossible to post arbitrary content to Usenet, I believe a line will be crossed.

It is already the case that the law, especially in the US, is tilted too far away from the consumer and into the hands of copyright holders who figure that by so perverting the system, they can take shortcuts to profit like DVD region coding that spit in the face of their customers.

As the parasitical feeding frenzy between media owners and our representatives - who fear the disapproval of those media - goes on, at some point there will be a flashover where we realize just how screwed we are.

Remember these prophetic utterances: Usenet is the tiber, the last stand of liberty.

Re:Usenet

[Wesley Felter]

There has already been one lawsuit about this (ALS Scan v. RemarQ (one of the largest Usenet sites)) and I think ALS won, so it has already been set in motion.

So when will they be fighting themselves?

[tedrek]

I mean if they automatically hunt down offenders.. and also put bogus files on the network..
how long until they are accusing ppl of sharing content they put on the network in the first place?

Lazy?

[nuggz]

The MPAA is just being lazy, they can fire off these letters and be done with it.

I hope someone manages to sue them for falsely accusing them, they shouldn't be permitted to harras people who are doing nothing wrong just because they don't properly verify their accusations.

That being said the actual infringers will have to accept that what they are doing IS currently illegal.

Re:Lazy?

[realdpk]

I disagree... The MPAA was being lazy going after the software developers before. Now they're moving towards going after the actual offenders. They're getting closer and closer to the actual infringers. Granted, they're doing it slowly, but they're getting there.

Re:Lazy?

[dattaway]

If a landlord provides internet service and someone misuses it, does the landlord get punished for trying to provide a service? What if one of your teenagers has a friend over for the afternoon and the MPAA comes a knocking. Everyone denies knowledge. Shall we prosecute you?

Re:Invasion of Privacy

[starX]

No, it's not even then. The key words you're looking for are "unreasonable search and seisure," and while we may consider this unreasonable, in the eyes of the law, it's perfectly legit as long as no law enforcement body put them up to it. Now whether it would stand in CIVIL court is another matter, but if you try to go that route, the MPAA would be able to, and would be within their rights if they did, to seek to CRIMINALLY prosecute you. Getting a lawyer is probably a good idea if they have falsely accused you and no one is listening to your side of the story, but if you have actually posted the movie, the smart thing to do would be to take it down when your ISP comes knocking.

Been done.

[billbaggins]

IIRC, Napster did this a while ago, while they were still being dealt with piecemeal (eg, everything Metallica must go). Someone wrote a plugin or something (never used it, not sure what it did) that munged filenames in some reversible way. I think the counter-solution was to ban files based on ID3 tags.

In the battle between better warhead and better shielding, the warhead always wins. But who's got which here?

I feel validated

[Borealis]

I can't remember how many times I've said or thought "without the fucking customer, my life would be so much easier". I'm so glad to see somebody finally decided to just say "screw them" to all their customers and live the easy life.

I wonder if the MPAA is hiring...

Re:I feel validated

[dimator]

I fail to see how media pirates (and thats what they are, unless someone can explain to me otherwise) can possibly be considered customers of the media industry.

Re:I feel validated

[Borealis]

Perhaps not "current customers" but "potential and future customers" is not such a stretch. I recommend reading Eric Flint's "Prime Palavers" at www.baen.com/library as his discussion is both more detailed and more precise (and less rambling)than what I'm inclined to answer with.

To sum up (pardon martha stewartisms), exposure is a good thing. Exposure doesn't happen at $17 for a random try at it, unless you're very rich and more than a little careless with your money (and since carelessness with money tends to lead to impoverishment, you'd have to be very damn lucky too).

Right now, the only means of "legitimate" exposure is concerts and radio. Concerts usually require $$ on the part of the listener, which is not going to happen unless they like the music anyway. Radio exposure is free for the listener (unless you do satellite radio) but tends to be... shall we say... a bit repetitive. It costs $$ for the major studios to buy airtime on the radio so in return they only promote music that seems to be a "safe bet" (aka bland shit by talentless teenieboppers with big tits and/or handsome boys that think that waving their arms around at the same time they lip sync somebody else's voice makes 'em cool). To boot, you typically only hear at most 40% of an album by listening to radio, not exactly a comprehensive disclosure.

Where was I? Oh ya, pirates. So why do people download music? To see what music they want to buy. Or, in the case of kids too young to have any money, to simply listen to it until they reach an age where they decide they want (and can afford) to have a "real" copy of the music.

Do you go out and buy movies you've never seen, just because the previews look cool? Then why should you go out and pay $17 for an album that you haven't listened to except for a few singles that are getting played on the radio 20 times a day?

Fact of the matter is (yes fact) that since napster died the RIAA has seen revenues for music sales drop. Yet when napster was in full swing, revenues were increasing... Why is that you ask? Because people were listening to more music and they were buying the music that they liked, knowing that they would be getting a good deal for their hard earned cash. What's more, the people who couldn't afford to buy any music at all (and thus wouldn't have contributed to sales anyway) also listened to a lot of good music and if/when they have surplus finances they'll go out and buy the music they listened used to listen to.

Imagine that... people listening to music for free, and making more money for the RIAA's studio friends...

But wait, it's piracy, let's round up the anarchist pirating cretins and shoot the lot of 'em, nevermind that it makes money and that it's a stupid idea.

Clue: anytime you see the word "pirate" in anything put out by the RIAA replace it with "future customer". Then you'll understand the sarcasm of my original post (although it's true that sometimes I wish I could shoot all my customers, it's just not likely that I would make any money doing so).

The only real pirates that are a menace to the RIAA are the ones that make and SELL copies of a legitimate artist's work (note the emphasis, we're not talking college guys making a few CDs for their buds). They are the ones passing off an inferior product for their own profit at the expense of the labels. You want pirates, go after those bozos, don't cut your own legs out from under you by persecuting your own customers.

Invasion of Privacy.

[Grendel Drago]

It's called "probable cause". If a cop stops you for a traffic violation and sees a fat sack labeled "COCAINE" in your back seat, he has probable cause to search your car. This has been stretched quite far, for instance, having a locked gate on one's yard has been construed as probable cause for police to go in and look for marijuana plants. ('Cause if you weren't hiding something, why would you lock your gate?)

--grendel drago

Re:Invasion of Privacy.

[Mister Transistor]

Actually, it's called "Plain Sight Seizure". Probable cause means he "thinks" he saw a flash of a bag or may have "heard" a cry for help. PSS means he DEFINITELY saw a bag sitting on the seat, etc.

Re:Invasion of Privacy.

[Chops]

A nitpick: "Probable cause" refers to what must exist for a warrant to be issued by a judge -- it's not mumbo-jumbo that allows a cop to conduct a warrantless search; in the case of the bag of cocaine, the cop never had to search for it, so probable cause never entered into the equation. A cop who starts talking about probable cause may be trying to bully you into letting him search you without a warrant.
There's plenty of stuff on the net about this (like here.)

Re:Think about the numbers....

[God! Awful]

There're literally millions of p2p network users, how could MPAA possibly disconnect them all? It's even more laughable that MPAA is asking the ISPs to disconnect their OWN MILLIONS OF USERS. And even if they've sucessfully disconnected and maybe prosecuted that millions of users, what would the people think about this?

The police hand out millions of speeding tickets every year, and I still think it's unfair when they get me.

-a

The MPAA's lapdog

[shagoth]

Unless things have changed dramatically, the MPAA is still using software from Ranger Online to perform their searches exclusively. This software isn't all that technically impressive. Anybody with an understanding of protocols and search techniques can make the searches they do in public forums like gnutella and IRC. So then I imagine that they do a simple traceroute to locate the ISP or hosting provider and then a whois for the contact. THis all publicly available and frankly probably requires lots of human intervention. We're not talking banks of computers here, we're talking about a room full of MPAA flunkies doing jack Valenti's bidding.

Gnutella.

[Grendel Drago]

Which Gnutella client are you using? I was staying at a university for a week, and so I had about 300k/s of unused bandwidth that I could just play around with, using Gnucleus (1.8.4.0, I think.)

I scored some pretty good stuff... most of Gowenna's encodes of the Black Adder series, as well as lots of Simpsons episodes, and Ralph Bakshi's animated version of LOTR, which I hadn't been able to find anywhere else.

What were you looking for that you couldn't find there?

--grendel drago

Making it more anonymous

[erroneus]

Someone like bearshare or whoever should create a gnutella extention that will use a proxy service for all the P2P hosts to relay through. It would conceal the sender and could possibly even speed up the network in general.

It's the lack of source anonymity that makes me hold off on hosting the files I've acquired.

Re:Making it more anonymous

[0x0d0a]

It's the lack of source anonymity that makes me hold off on hosting the files I've acquired.

Want anonymity? Try Freenet.

Shrinkage.

[Grendel Drago]

Losses to theft are actually called "shrinkage", as in, the inventory shrinks. I'm not sure if it refers simply to employees stealing, but ask anyone in retail---it's the preferred euphemism for theft.

--grendel drago

Re:Think about the numbers....

[dzym]

The ones doing the sharing are also the ones using a lot more bandwidth than the ISP could afford to allot to them with a regular flat-rate broadband internet access fee.

This way, the ISPs can cut their losses.

Re:Invasion of Privacy

[Beliskner]

Mod Parent up. IANAL but it sounds like you are. Oh well, it's BBS time. And all these ACs thinking that they're posting anonymously, bwa ha ha haaaaaa.

what about irc and these...

[Mark19960]

bots they have going onto networks to look at the traffic in warez channels? I know of some irc networks including ours that have policies against invading the privacy of users, but what legal grounds do we and other irc networks have? we have a notice on connect that if you stay on the network you agree to our policies, and one of them is not being affiliated with any law enforcement or the MPAA or RIAA we are just trying to keep the users privacy on our network, we dont spy on them... and really dont care what they do. it also says in our notice that you agree not to use the network to break any laws, hence you will be disconnected. (which isnt exactly enforced) is there anything that we can legally do to prevent them from coming onto our network and harassing our users that may be breaking the law? I and many others just dont want the network used for hunting people down. thats not what we are about. can anyone shed some light on this issue as well?
our message follows as an example:

"JustIRC.Net is a privately owned and operated network. By connecting to any of JustIRC.Net's servers (including this webserver), you agree to hold JustIRC.Net and its staff harmless from any legal action arising from use of the servers. You agree that you are not using JustIRC.Net's servers for malicious or illegal purposes. You also agree that you are not in any way involved with the RIAA, the MPAA, or any state, federal, or local law enforcement agency. If you fail to meet or disagree with these terms, you must immediately discontinue use of JustIRC.Net's servers. JustIRC.Net and its staff reserve the right to disconnect any user from any of its servers, with or without reason. These terms and conditions are subject to change without notice, and it is your responsibility to maintain a current knowledge of them. Complaints can be mailed to webmaster@justirc.net. "

Rent, not Buy?

[Grendel Drago]

Don't they know that most people still only rent movies. Only a small minority actually buy them.

Really? This is pretty interesting... can you back that up with something? Most of the people I know don't own many movies, but they have some. I remember when my folks used to rent movies and dub them off onto tapes in SLP mode, or whichever the eight-hour one was...

I have a friend who still lives at home. She's college-age, and not exactly rolling in cash. She owns over a hundred DVDs. How she affords this, I can't begin to fathom, but she's the kind of customer the MPAA wants.

Oh, and if you think online copies of movies are bad quality, go find that 2-CD DivX LOTR that's floating around everywhere. Much better than VHS, and it even approaches DVD quality.

--grendel drago

Ummm...read the DMCA lately?

[SPYvSPY]

The DMCA requires ISP's to takedown materials that are alleged to be infringing until the alleged infringer disputes the allegation. There's a whole messy procedure for the back and forth, and it favors the intital claim of infringment.

Re:Ummm...read the DMCA lately?

[Citizen of Earth]

The DMCA requires ISP's to takedown materials that are alleged to be infringing until the alleged infringer disputes the allegation.

And in addition to Due Process, the DMCA also eliminates Fair Use and Free Speech.

Oh no...

[Null_Packet]

Watch out if you are on 192.168.x.x networks! They'll be coming for you next!

Re:Wonderful!

[Kamel Jockey]

Freenet provides anonymous uploads and anonymous downloads.

But even if they are anonymous, can't they just track the IP addresses of the machines connecting to theirs? Like if you use Netstat or some powerful network sniffing tool?

Re:A better way to do file swapping...

[Kamel Jockey]

Yea... generally most DVDs, unlike CDs, are very reasonably priced... I mean... $9-$12 for older (early 1990s and earlier) movies and $16-$23 for newer releases is pretty reasonable pricing, considering all the extra features you get. To me, aside from the fact its wrong to steal others' works, it would just not be worth my time to wait a day or two for the movie I want to download.

I really wish the music industry would learn from the movie industry, instead of putting 2-3 good songs a CD and pricing it more than what a DVD costs, why not price it accordingly based on the "good" stuff? With a DVD, even if you don't want the bonus features, most of the content, in this case the movie itself, is what you want, as opposed to CDs, where very little of the content is what you actually want.

Unless of course its a Bloodhound Gang CD :)

Re:Good idea

[WildBeast]

Yes I have TV out but Divx compression doesn't look as good as a DVD

Encourages more freeloading

[Peyna]

Since they are going after people who are sharing movies, if word gets out, I'm sure most people will learn quickly how to not share anything on the P2P networks, thus making them useless for most people. Then the only ones who will get these notices are those who are too clueless to disable sharing. If no one is sharing, then P2P isn't very fun.

Re:Encourages more freeloading

[Sloppy]

This should only have an effect on people sharing non-free movies, music, warez, etc -- copyright infringement. If you're sharing your garage band's songs or that new independent film you made or something that the maker said could be freely distributed (e.g. Free Software), then nothing has changed. P2P still has many fun uses.

UNFAIR!

[Stoutlimb]

I pay taxes on every CDR and CDRW, and soon every other kind of digital media, because here in Canada I'm allowed to make copies. I think there's an equivalent thing going on in the US and Europe. I'm not sure about the rest of the world.

So how is it fair, when people have already paid their dues, and are only doing the digital equivalent of trading with each other the tapes they've bought? It's a big swap meet.

So, does the DMCA apply to me in Canada? Could my ISP get sued by an American judge if they don't comply?

e-mail I sent to rangerinc.com

[fmaxwell]

Disgusted by this whole modus operandi, I sent the following e-mail to several addresses within Ranger Online:

---

Gentlemen,

I have the static IP address xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx (via my {ISP Name Here} business Internet service) and am officially notifying you that I will not tolerate your firm snooping around on my computer, using bandwidth that I paid for, in order to conduct your clandestine spying. I suggest that you take whatever steps are necessary to assure that Ranger Online and its affiliates never access that IP address. Any attempts by your firm to access data on my computer will be treated as a "trespass to chattels."

I do not like your self-appointed 'net police' attitude. You are not a law enforcement agency and your searches are being carried out without probable cause or a warrant. The accuracy of the information you produce is suspect and your methods have not been undergone public scrutiny and peer review. You are using huge amounts of bandwidth from consumers, businesses, and institutions that often have limited resources and bandwidth already.

Frankly, you are like spammers. You believe that you have a right to use bandwidth paid for by others for your own financial gain.

Regards,
{Name and address}


If I do not get a response from them, I will reformat the message into a printed letter and have it delivered with a signature required and a return receipt.

Re:e-mail I sent to rangerinc.com

[fmaxwell]

How will you know if they are following your demand?

I can't prove that they have not, through some means, started scanning my address, but I sincerely hope that Ranger Online uses an IP address assigned to them to try to scan my system. I have VERY good logs complete with reverse DNS resolution.

I have thought of various means to make it look like I am sharing copyrighted content when, in fact, I am not. I won't go into details about this for obvious reasons, but suffice it to say that I'd love for my ISP to get a letter from Ranger Online falsely accusing me of sharing copyrighted material. At that point, Ranger Online can expect to have a bumpy ride in court, not only for the trespass to chattels matter, but also for defamation, slander, damage to my business, etc.

Re:e-mail I sent to rangerinc.com

[fmaxwell]

how can you complain when the action is taken against you?

Because I've already given them a "no trespassing" notice for my computer. If they obey the law, they won't ever see what's on my computer, much less take action.

Besides, I don't "know" how they evaluate what they find. Do they watch it? Do they download the entire thing? Do they just look at the title? If the latter, how do they tell the difference between copyrighted material and something that just has a title that looks like it could be copyrighted material? Is that the movie "Woodstock" or is it home video shot there?

The trespass upon chattels claim I don't know enough about, but I'd guess it'll be suspect as well.

That one is rock-solid. If you give someone notice that they are not to use your computer server, whether FTP, Kazaa, or e-mail, their continued use of that computer is a trespass to chattels.

Re:e-mail I sent to rangerinc.com

[fmaxwell]

Your actions are designed to bring about what you'd be suing them for. That's going to be a problem for you.

I'm perfectly within my rights to bait anyone I choose. If they are going to claim that I'm exchanging copyrighted material, then they need to have rock-solid proof of it -- regardless of whether I put a file on my PC called "Star_Wars.mov". I'll gladly tell any court that I put the files there with the intent of catching this group trespassing on my computer and to test the accuracy of their methods.

Exactly the right thing to do!

[werdna]

This is, in fact, precisely what they are supposed to have been doing all along. The problem with file sharing is not file sharing services, but that individuals would use file sharing to engage in copyright infringement. The proper defendants, if any, have ALWAYS BEEN the persons actually copying the files without consent and not for fair use.

But MPAA finds this unsatisfactory, because they don't want to actually deal with legitimate defenses that will inevitably crop up from time to time, or spend their energies on judgement-proof defendants. Fair reasons, but quite frankly, these are the checks and balances of the Copyright Act that have worked (to their advantage for the most part) for 200 years.

Nor is this a fault of the DMCA -- prior to the DMCA, caselaw imposed liability on a provider (the Netcom/Scientology case) only who had been given actual notice of an infringement. Indeed, this is to the advantage of the user -- because the takedown only need go on for ten days, unless MPAA actually sues.

So I applaud MPAA for doing the right thing. And, I rather like the (tacit) admission that they have been fibbing all these years about how imposible and implausible it would be to actually sue proper defendants instead of those providing viable and valuable new technologies to the public at large, particularly those capable of substantial noninfringing uses.

Re:Invasion of Privacy

[DEBEDb]

> YOU ARE PIRATING ILLEGAL COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL

Ah, so all these copyrighted recordings
are illegal to begin with? Well, then,
pirating them is the least we could do...

**** 'em

[dh003i]

The solution here is to develop anonymous file-sharing techniques. Things where your IP address is masked, for instance. I believe he mentioned a program called "Flyster" which provides downloaders with anonymosity.

Also, lets get real here. This is a scare tactic which only works if you get scared. The MPAA/RIAA have neither the time nor desire (nor even the money) to actually litigate each one of these 50,000 cases out. You should automatically challenge these rulings, whether they're true or not. Chances are, they won't respond back. ISP's have to give you back access if you challenge the accusation, at least until the dispute has been litigated out. And chances are, the MPAA/RIAA isn't going to respond to any challenges of their accusations. It simply isn't feasable to sue 50,000 people, and increasing.

So there are two ways to fight this: one technological (anonymosity), the other "legal" (challenging the accusation within 24 hours).

They have their backwards beliefs about how intellectual property should be enforced draconianly, and how no fair-use should apply, and about increasing its scope, and increasing its duration ad-infinitum.

We have our ideals about freedom of information, democracy, freedom of speech, privacy, and an open society.

In other words, they represent fascist nazi values. We represent democratic values.

P.S. -- Another solution is to get on a broad-band connection with a dynamic IP; thus, IP numbers can't be traced back to a specific user. However, this raises its own problems as dynamics IP's take away users rights. You can't log into your own computer from remote w/ a dynamic IP; can't host a web page; etc etc.

Re:Erm, wouldnt people jsut ignore a EULA?

[Dyolf Knip]

No, what he's saying is to try and turn the tables on the MPAA. They want to search P2P networks and prosecute users. But the EULA they had to sign says they can't. And furthermore, their pet law, the DMCA, actually forbids them from legally installing it without 'signing' said EULA.

The idea is that if it should ever actually go to a courtroom, the MPAA would be forced to stand up and say, "Yes, we know that the EULA said we couldn't do this, but we did it anyway." And here's the great part; if they win anyway, it's a big precedent for the notion of "EULA's are aren't worth the phosphors they're printed on" and if they lose, then that P2P is basically immune from prosecution since the only evidence was acquired illegaly.

Re:Windows XP

[alizard]

Why don't you try it and see what happens? Then tell us.

Hint: you'll have to reinstall your OS to do it.

Re:Think about the numbers....

[Dyolf Knip]

Not a very good analogy. The cops have no stake in your being happy with them. You are not their customers.

If you want to use the car comparison, then it's more like the company that makes the car is giving you speeding tickets. It's something you may tolerate a bit, but if they get overly obnoxious about it you can get a different car without too much fuss. The MPAA is demanding that ISP's start pissing off their customers in droves. Given the millions of P2P users out there, the ISP's know that doing this to the extreme would be akin to shooting themselves in the foot. Both feet.

About the only way this will be effective is if there are local monopolies on broadband, which is something we should be concerned about anyway.

Re:Wonderful!

[0x0d0a]

Freenet may not be perfectly anonymous, but it's very, very difficult to break. OTOH, Gnutella is incredibly easy to track people on and build up incriminating logs...and yet, the MPAA took years to get around to trying to work it over.

Not just Commercial ISP's

[carambola5]

My friend who works at the Medical Sciences building of a major university got a call from the U's IT department, who in turn got a call from the U's lawyers, who in turn got a call from the good ol' MPAA. Apparently someone in the building was sharing movies illegally (is there really any other way?). Not sure what the repercussions are yet, since this happened 3 days ago. My friend feels kinda bad about it, seeing as he was the one who suggested installing Kazaa Lite.

Re:Not just Commercial ISP's

[buss_error]

...sharing movies illegally (is there really any other way?).

Yep. If I purchased the DVD, and want to be able to access it from my computer in the work shop from my computer in the living room, that's legal as far as I know. Except for the trival problem of circumventing the "encryption" on the DVD, that is. That isn't legal, though it should be.

I wonder if it would be legal for me to just pipe the baseband around. Oops. DVD doen't have a base band output. Well, I guess I could capture it off of the VGA out put. Opps. Guess not. Well I could... aw, screw it. I don't want to watch anything that badly. I just won't bother buying any more DVD's or going to movies.

IANAL, YMMV, Do this at your own risk.

well

[waspleg]

this has probbaly already been said but

what about dynamic ips? what happens when Tommy Warez kiddie gtes 10 new movies and his ip changes and you get the cease and desist order?

i hope some really big class action lawsuit puts them back in tehir place, the mpaa is being even more stupid than the riaa -- movies are much harder to trade (since they're massive even the divx's are not manageable over dialup) and there are fewer of them...

besides they still seem to assume that just because you have a copy you both a.) don't own it legally and b.) even if you didn't when you downloaded it that you *would* have gone out and purchased it (which is what they base their losses on)

Re:well

[Nonesuch]

what about dynamic ips? what happens when Tommy Warez kiddie gtes 10 new movies and his ip changes and you get the cease and desist order?

Presumably, the order would include the details regarding the incident, including a TIMESTAMP (in GMT) along with the IP address.

That should be enough for the ISP to track down who was assigned that IP at that moment in time, and correctly go after Tommy Warez kiddie.

Accusation == guilt???

[HiThere]

The problem is that appearanly accusation is being considered equivalent to proof of guilt. There doesn't seem to be much of an appeals process.

Copyright or not...

[Lothar 0]

Frankly, I don't care. All of the abuses of copyright by the various industries has all but convinced me to advocate getting rid of the concept entirely.

If you want an income, don't make it through false scarcity. Make your money off of tangible property that really is scarce - theater seating, T-shirt sales, movie posters, and DVD discs that coincidentally have added features that "pirates" aren't trading. Making people pay for things that can be copied ad infinitum is not an efficient allocation of resources - and pretty immoral if you ask me.

SPAM?

[robertchin]

So if we had an anti-spam law in place, would the MPAA be able to be sued under the fact that it was e-mail from someone we had never done business with in the past and had not requested the e-mail?

Oh, right...

[MenTaLguY]

Yeah, like the ones who developed algebra [hint: al-gebra is an arabic word], or preserved and translated many of the surviving writings of the ancient world.

About time....

[supabeast!]

Isn't this what we wanted? The last time I checked, people were pissed at the MPAA for trying to sue filesharing networks out of existance. That tactic failed, and the MPAA followed up by trying to legislate DRM into existance. Public outcry seems to be keeping legislated DRM from happening, and also helps more and more people find out what laws like the DMCA can really be used for every day.

So now the MPAA is being responsible by dealing pirates the smart way - direct attacks. Rather than clogging up the legal and legislative systems with crap that will never go anywhere, tactics have switched to a little corporate communication to stop people from passing out movies online. Pirates are forced to stop passing out movies, while bandwidth hogs are tossed off networks, keeping net access cheap. Filesharing networks can now exist in peace, and perhaps once the pirates go away people will start finding legitimate uses.

I hope that this method DOES work for the MPAA. Furthermore, I hope the RIAA does the same. If internet music eventually moves from top 40 piracy to sharing files released by independent artists looking for cheap publicity, the popularity of musicians not on big labels will grow and the RIAA will have to work harder to sell records, instead of churning our generic overproduced top 40 hits.

This is the way the internet should be. As long as people keep our legislators and Microsoft from taking away the control that groups like the MPAA failed to, the internet will evolve to better humanity over time.

Re:Now let the MPAA know

[WildBeast]

True, I do that with movies that I'm not really sure about.

Dynamic IP is no panacea.

[Nonesuch]

dh003i writes:

The solution here is to develop anonymous file-sharing techniques.

There are pseudonymous chat and filesharing systems where all transfers go through a central server which masks the end-users IP addresses from one another. In this case, your anonymity is only as good as the strength of conviction of the service operator, and his lawyer's ability to avoid a conviction (for contempt of court, after he refuses to turn over any records).

Things where your IP address is masked, for instance. I believe he mentioned a program called "Flyster" which provides downloaders with anonymosity.

The MSNBC story refers to going after the people offering to SEND you the file, not the people who have downloaded it. Masking the true source IP of the sender is not trivial, as any legitimate ISP will have implemented packet filters to prevent IP spoofing.

To quote the article " Called "Flyster," the program will allow downloading in complete anonymity, according to developer Louis-Eric Simard. However, those who host files for download could still be traced, he said"

Also, lets get real here. This is a scare tactic which only works if you get scared. The MPAA/RIAA have neither the time nor desire (nor even the money) to actually litigate each one of these 50,000 cases out.

No, they only need to litigate in the cases where the takedown notice isn't sufficient to cause the offender to cave and pull the content. To quote the MSNBC story "...the music industry has been behind several high-profile arrests of individuals involved in the online music trade. And just last week, The Wall Street Journal reported the industry is planning to step up such individual prosecutions."

Another solution is to get on a broad-band connection with a dynamic IP; thus, IP numbers can't be traced back to a specific user.

Wrong. Given an IP number and a timestamp, the ISP can check their RADIUS or DHCP logs and determine who was assigned that IP at that time. Dynamic IP does make it tougher for a random attacker to come after you, but it gives you very little insulation from lawyers who subpeona your ISP for their records.

However, this raises its own problems as dynamics IP's take away users rights. You can't log into your own computer from remote w/ a dynamic IP; can't host a web page; etc etc.

These 'rights' you speak of, where were you granted them? If your contract with your ISP says you cannot host servers, you do not have that right. Your desires are not rights, they are wants. If you want to run a server, have a static IP address, ask your ISP how much more you must pay them to be granted these priviledges.

Re:Dynamic IP is no panacea.

[dh003i]

There are pseudonymous chat and filesharing systems where all transfers go through a central server which masks the end-users IP addresses from one another.

Aside from the disadvantage you mentioned, this also has the disadvantage of being centralized similarly to Napster. A court can shut down such a service. Though perhaps there will eventually be a constitutional challenge to the Napster rulings.

No, they only need to litigate in the cases where the takedown notice isn't sufficient to cause the offender to cave and pull the content.

Which, if we inform the public, can be nearly every case. Each accused person has nothing to lose by denying the charge. If you make the public aware of that, then there will nearly everyone will deny the allegation within 24 hours. This could be done VERY easily. People who share files need to do so through a file-sharing program -- Kazaa, LimeWire, Bearshear, Phex, etc etc. Simply form a coalition of various people who offer file-sharing software, and have them all place a message on their program informing users what their rights are and that they have nothing to lose by denying any allegations. This and other measures aimed at the (mostly) tech-savy people who file-share, could quickly raise the number of denials from less than 0.1% to nearly 100%. Their scare-tactics would then be completely broken, and litigation isn't an option against 50,000 people.

On a similar vein, perhaps file-sharers should put together a common fund for defending ourselves against litigation.

rong. Given an IP number and a timestamp, the ISP can check their RADIUS or DHCP logs and determine who was assigned that IP at that time. These 'rights' you speak of, where were you granted them?

Gee, by the constitution, under freedom of speech. Freedom of speech isn't a right unless you have the means to speak. And being realistic, your rights can be violated by entities other than the government, including corporations, organizations, and people.

Re:We need to modify the P2P clients

[ergo98]

I personally can't wait to see how they will deal with the ad hoc wireless networks that will start springing up in public places.

It's pretty obvious: They'll sue the wireless provider for facilitating a crime. Anonymous wireless, and I guarantee this, will never become more than a tiny marginal factor because its growth will guarantee a simultaneous effort to make wireless providers culpable.

Personally I think that would be the right thing to do: The net is ugly enough as it is without a bunch of haxxors and IRC DOSers anonymous launching assaults from public parks.

Re:Think about the numbers....

[God! Awful]

Not a very good analogy. The cops have no stake in your being happy with them. You are not their customers.

Okay, firstly it wasn't an analogy, it was a counter-example. The OP thought it was ridiculous that anyone would try to impose fines against millions of people. Secondly, analogies aren't meant to be perfect. They are meant to illustrate one idea by making an imperfect comparison to some other idea. Anyone can pick apart an analogy; it's just not productive. Thirdly, stores that prosecute shoplifters aren't worried about pissing off the shoplifters, even though the shoplifters probably buy more than they steal.

If you want to use the car comparison, then it's more like the company that makes the car is giving you speeding tickets.

The government uses my tax dollars to pave the roads and pay the police officers' salaries. Then they turn around and charge me a fine just because I occasionally break the law. Is that the thanks I get for all my hard work? (I'm considering not paying my taxes next year.)

-a

is gnutella broken

[samantha]

Exactly why is a peer-to-peer file sharing service making available the IP address of the poster? This is broken if it is the case. It is also extremely dangerous in the case of things like political dissent.

You are guilty of illegal file sharing!

[jesterzog]

I know this from a hunch, and therefore you owe me royalties.

If you don't want to pay them then prove to me that you're innocent. Sending me police-verified evidence of an approved ISP's logs should be sufficient.

Re:You are guilty of illegal file sharing!

[RatFink100]

It's not a hunch - it's evidence gathered automatically. Which may be incorrect (but probably isn't most of the time) - so the person involved should have the information needed to defend themselves.

Just won't work...

[evilviper]

The firm is not 'snooping around' on your computer. Rather, they are accessing public information. As for using your bandiwdth, I've never seen a case where using bandwidth was illegial, except in DDoS attacks, where intent to deny services was evident.

Your analogy to SPAM is quite a good one. We may all think of it as something sneaky and underhanded, it is still not illegal.

Let this be a lesson to all those who just a short time ago were saying that the internet is just like trains... It shouldn't have laws specifically to govern it. What laws cover this?

Re:Just won't work...

[fmaxwell]

The firm is not 'snooping around' on your computer. Rather, they are accessing public information.

Incorrect. If I prohibit them them from accessing it, then it is not "public." I have the right to set the terms for the access of my computer and the data on it. If I choose to share data with a certain group, it does not mean that anyone who masquerades as part of that group has a legal right to the data.

As for using your bandiwdth, I've never seen a case where using bandwidth was illegial, except in DDoS attacks, where intent to deny services was evident.

Then read up on "trespass to chattels" as it applies to computers. You will find that several ISPs, including AOL, have filed suit under that legal concept and have won. In each case, it was a spammer accessing what you would call a "public" mail server after having been explicitly denied permission to do so.

Re:Just won't work...

[Fjord]

Regardless, I don't think AOL has ever done some like put up a website and then send a letter to someone saying "don't access this public website that is open to everyone (including you), for if you do we will prosecute you". When you join a P2P network, you are participating in an open network. Sending a letter to someone saying "don't connect to my Gnuttella server" isn't likely to be more legally binding than sending someone a letter saying "if you see me on the street, don't come up to me" (in second case the legally binding way is to get a restraining order).

Re:Just won't work...

[fmaxwell]

Regardless, I don't think AOL has ever done some like put up a website and then send a letter to someone saying "don't access this public website that is open to everyone (including you), for if you do we will prosecute you".

No, AOL put up an e-mail server and sent a letter saying 'don't access this public e-mail server that is open (in the sense of not being password-protected) to everyone (including you), for if you do we will prosecute you'.

When you join a P2P network, you are participating in an open network.

And how is that different than putting up an e-mail server?

When you join a P2P network, you are agreeing to share files with other members of that network, not to open up your computer to warrantless searches by self-appointed net police.

To use an analogy, a store may open its doors to the public, but that does not mean that they give up their right to exclude people or limit the activities in their store. If a store asks you to stay off of their property, your returning is legally considered trespassing. That's why you don't find Hare Krishnas, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Mormons handing out leaflets in every store.

DMCA Counter-notice HOWTO

[Anonymous Coward]

Prof. Dave Touretzky at Carnegie-Mellon (yes, the same one with the gallery of CSS descrambler implementations) has a nice information page for how to provide counter-notification if you get one of these form letters and you believe the copyright infringement accusation contained in it is wrong.

Phew!

[vena]

it's a god damn good thing i'm a leech and never share anything!

Ok, let's be realistic

[BelDion]

I'll forgo the whole right/wrong diatribe and get right to the point: they'll never stop the piracy.

We'll tunnel, encrypt, do whatever it takes to do what we do. They may break down the current systems eventually (Kazaa etc) and sure that'll take out a lot of the userbase, but pirates have been around lots long. We can fall back to the days of irc & ftp. Back to trusted users and trusted connections. ISPs crack down even more? It's BBS time. It'll go on and on.

The only thing they'll ever accomplish if they keep pushing the way they are is to annoy and irritate their customer base. And although I'm no MBA, but I'm fairly certain that's bad for business..

Re:Invasion of Privacy

[DutchSter]

I hear so many of you spout your ignorant bullshit about "suing them" that it's sickening. Go pay $15,000 to file a complaint. See where it gets you. Maybe after you lose $50,000 or so, you'll change your mind about your juvenile thoughs.

Slightly off topic in regards to the copyright issue at hand, but in reference to the costs of working the criminal justice system: The guy who got the pledge ruled unconstitutional spent the following: $300 in filing fees, and his time. He went up with the state lawyers (state being the government) attacking him, and he won.

Regardless of what you think of the case or its outcome, this guy spent very little in cash for a fairly high-profile case.

The trick is having the legal basis to stand on. While perhaps not very popular, the pledge case was rooted very strongly in previous court decisions (and yes, I was bored one day and read a lot of the testimony).

That all being said - I agree with Lew Payne's overall point in that it's probably not very practical to sue them. Like I said - you need the legal basis to stand on. Those BASTARDS - I put something in the public (on my treelawn) for anyone to take (my garbage) and someone comes along and says "HEY! That looks a lot like my bicycle that stolen from my mega-shop last month with a UHaul!" Then they call UHaul and report that they believe you used their vehicle (the internet connection) to steal something, and then UHaul refuses to rent to you in the future, or imposes strict conditions in your next agreement.

Before you outright flame me because "But it's not a REAL bicycle - you didn't lose any property!!" Well no, but it's already been established that it is illegal to set up a shop to mass produce copies of a book. Even if you hand them out for free to the general public (in this case at a loss to you financially). In fact, by the internet, you essentially have an "unlimited supply" of the product and the ability to make perfect copies (something photocopying doesn't yield). If wholesale piracy of imperfect copies of reading materials can be illegal, chances are unlimited piracy of perfect copies of something will be quite illegal as well.

Regardless, the whole thing is kind of a moot point once you make them available for anyone in the public to view/access. The plain-view concept. If the police cared enough, they could probably do the same thing and actually arrest you, not just have your internet shut off.

Re:Erm, wouldnt people jsut ignore a EULA?

[Dyolf Knip]

Wouldnt this be akin to a shop keeper shooting an armed theif?

Not entirely. It's more like the shop keeper, after being robbed, goes vigilante and starts breaking into pawn shops and houses to see if they've got his stuff. And then, if he actually finds anything, it gets only a superficial check ("A Samsonite briefcase with the initials T.S. on it! Must be mine!") before he calls the power company and demands they shut down the juice to that locale, lest they be prosecuted for consorting with criminals.

i bet anyones ass that the EULA would be declared invalid due to its use to protect criminals.

Yeah, very likely. And yet when a EULA is written by criminals with deep pockets and big legal teams they expect it to be treated like a legit contract. Funny, that.

Re:Think about the numbers....

[Dyolf Knip]

Anyone can pick apart an analogy; it's just not productive.

Certainly true, but the better the analogy, the harder it is to take apart. And it really is ridiculous to try to impose fines on millions of people. So they are going with plan B, threaten legal action on 'mere' hundreds of ISP's, a course of action which makes up in disgustingness what it lacks in sheer insanity.

stores that prosecute shoplifters aren't worried about pissing off the shoplifters

Certainly not. But a shoplifter is stealing from the store whereas the P2P user is not stealing anything from the ISP (they did pay for unlimited bandwidth, after all. the ISP doesn't get to bitch about it later). Imagine the shoplifter situation thus: the actual store isn't worrying overly much about shoplifters, but the marketing agencies for some of the products they carry are going nuts over it and are demanding that the store start doing crazy things like strip searches at the door or kicking out anyone who has baggy clothes since it _might_ be used to shoplift or, as is happening here, letting you pay for a product but then not letting you use it.

P2P programs, for the most part, used to be to ISP's only something that sucked bandwidth and cost them a bit more money. The -AA's are going beyond that and trying to make them legally accountable for other people's actions. I can't think of a single other industry where this sort of insanity is tolerated, much less considered a Good Thing by Congress.

The government uses my tax dollars to pave the roads and pay the police officers' salaries. Then they turn around and charge me a fine just because I occasionally break the law

Again, the government and the police don't really care about your satisfaction with them since you pay taxes and get fined and arrested whether you want to or not. They are a 'local monopoly' and your only choice is emigration. Which is a tad more involved than changing an ISP and so not an option for most people. A non-monopoly _has_ to keep their customers happy since they'll just spend money elsewhere if they aren't.

I'm considering not paying my taxes next year.

I applaud your determination and wish you luck. Can you post to /. from prison?

Finally!

[batquux]

Now we can have all sorts of fun with the MPAA. Since my gnutella client is open source, I can modify it to pick up on the MPAA's snooping, and send a note to all the other guys out there to start pinging that IP address. But why stop there? Send it dummy information or write a program that sits around on the gnutella network pretending to have copyrighted stuff (speaking of false positives). The possibilities are endless...

--batquux--

Re:MPAA Goes After Its Customers?

[Rick the Red]

No, the Slashdot editors (in this case, michael) are "filthy thieving open sores geeks trying to distort the facts."

If the Slashdot readership got to write the headlines (or even moderate them), things here could only improve.

Re:Think about the numbers....

[God! Awful]

Anyone can pick apart an analogy; it's just not productive.

Certainly true, but the better the analogy, the harder it is to take apart

I disagree. An analogy is an argument that if A1=>B1 and A1 is "like" A2 therefore A2=>B2. You can always pick apart an analogy by simply stating that A1 is not A2. My high school physics teacher used to explain that electricity going through a wire is analagous to water going through a pipe. It was a perfectly good analogy for illustrating the macroscopic equations of voltage, current, resistance, etc, and that's all it was intended to accomplish. You can always pick it apart by complaining that it doesn't explain electron tunneling.

stores that prosecute shoplifters aren't worried about pissing off the shoplifters

Certainly not. But a shoplifter is stealing from the store whereas the P2P user is not stealing anything from the ISP (they did pay for unlimited bandwidth, after all. the ISP doesn't get to bitch about it later).

Not particularly relevant here, but a common misconception. The user doesn't pay for unlimited bandwidth. They pay for uncapped bandwidth, on the presumption that they won't abuse it. Of course they do abuse it, which is why all the ISPs have hand to either institute bandwidth caps or byte limits.

Imagine the shoplifter situation thus: the actual store isn't worrying overly much about shoplifters, but the marketing agencies for some of the products they carry are going nuts over it and are demanding that the store start doing crazy things like strip searches at the door or kicking out anyone who has baggy clothes since it _might_ be used to shoplift or, as is happening here, letting you pay for a product but then not letting you use it.

An overdramatization. Generally, the manufacturers don't have the ability to impose arbitrary limitations on what you can do with a product, but the government can (or the manufacturers, with permission from the government). Imagine how the gun lobby feels about those silly restrictions that prevent you from turning your semi-automatic weapon into a fully-automatic one.

P2P programs, for the most part, used to be to ISP's only something that sucked bandwidth and cost them a bit more money. The -AA's are going beyond that and trying to make them legally accountable for other people's actions. I can't think of a single other industry where this sort of insanity is tolerated, much less considered a Good Thing by Congress.

Oh really? Have you ever heard of the strict regulations placed upon pawn shops? They are responsible for ensuring that their customers aren't selling stolen goods. Liquor stores can't sell alcohol to minors, even if it means pissing off their customers. Swiss banks were held accountable for not asking questions about the source of Nazi art. In many, many cases, industries which can be used to facilitate illegal acts are held responsible for monitoring and preventing those acts.

The government uses my tax dollars to pave the roads and pay the police officers' salaries. Then they turn around and charge me a fine just because I occasionally break the law

Again, the government and the police don't really care about your satisfaction with them since you pay taxes and get fined and arrested whether you want to or not. They are a 'local monopoly' and your only choice is emigration. Which is a tad more involved than changing an ISP and so not an option for most people.

Not true. If enough people took issue with speeding fines and made it a big issue in the next election then the laws would be changed. The government has a vested intrest in pleasing the electorate.

A non-monopoly _has_ to keep their customers happy since they'll just spend money elsewhere if they aren't.

There are some cases where we need to have monopolies. For example, governments. We can change the government every 4 years, but in the meantime they have a monopoly. I can't start my own government franchise (with my own constitution that allows murder), and then my customers could murder people with impunity. (That would be called a mafia.)

ISPs don't have monopolies in most areas. And anyway, I doubt that the MPAA is selectively enforcing its copyright against some ISPs and not others, so that has no effect. It is perfectly reasonable for a film studio to have a monopoly on one particular movie, as long as they don't have a monopoly on all movies.

I'm considering not paying my taxes next year.

I applaud your determination and wish you luck. Can you post to /. from prison?

Unfortunately, my tax bills seem to always come out negative, so my form of protest is only costing me money.

-a

Public Network

[jbolden]

The MPAA wouldn't have the right to tap your phone. However by using a public forum like Gnutella you waive any privacy you might have. For a similar example: mail is private, mail sent to a newspaper letters column is public.

Re:Think about the numbers....

[Dyolf Knip]

You can always pick apart an analogy by simply stating that A1 is not A2. [voltage-water thing] You can always pick it apart by complaining that it doesn't explain electron tunneling.

That's the kind of thing I mean. If the analogy is a good one, you have to start picking exotic scenarios and highly technical details for the metaphor not to match up with anything. Anyway, it's neither here nor there.

they did pay for unlimited bandwidth, after all. the ISP doesn't get to bitch about it later).
The user doesn't pay for unlimited bandwidth. They pay for uncapped bandwidth, on the presumption that they won't abuse it. Of course they do abuse it, which is why all the ISPs have hand to either institute bandwidth caps or byte limits.

Well, I've looked over my agreement with Time Warner, and there's nothing in there about capped usage or anything like that. Not even the sections regarding copyright. Only thing in there is that clause how "we can change the terms and not tell you about it and you will bend over and like it." That sort of crap is about as bad as a EULA that 'reserves the right to demand your firstborn in payment for services rendered.'

Have you ever heard of the strict regulations placed upon pawn shops? They are responsible for ensuring that their customers aren't selling stolen goods. Liquor stores can't sell alcohol to minors, even if it means pissing off their customers. Swiss banks were held accountable for not asking questions about the source of Nazi art. In many, many cases, industries which can be used to facilitate illegal acts are held responsible for monitoring and preventing those acts.

The pawn shop doesn't compare, since we're concerning ourselves with how the business is held accountable for what their customers do with products they have bought and paid for. Neither does the liquor store, since ABC doesn't get blamed if a 22-year old gets drunk and does something naughty. Gun manufacturers aren't held responsible for the crime if someone uses a weapon to kill or steal or whatever.

But I do see your point. Regardless, the whole 'guilty until you prove otherwise' aspect of how the -AA's are handling this via the DMCA is despicable. Would you like it if, after taping the superbowl on your VCR to watch more than once, the MPAA got your power disconnected?

Not true. If enough people took issue with speeding fines and made it a big issue in the next election then the laws would be changed. The government has a vested intrest in pleasing the electorate.

And if the guy they elect reneges and raises the speeding fines even higher? We may get to choose the head of the 'corporation', but other than that... as individuals we have very, very little control over how we get treated. And as far as pleasing the electorate goes, there are more than enough laws on the books to suggest that those making the laws like to forget about them for long intervals.

We can change the government every 4 years, but in the meantime they have a monopoly.

And again, if I am still unhappy with the government where I live, the only thing I can do is move.

I can't start my own government franchise (with my own constitution that allows murder), and then my customers could murder people with impunity.

But they'd be allowed to defend themselves under their own constitution... nuts, I don't feel like adding the whole 'anarchy as a government' thing to this otherwise fascinating discuission. Suffice to say, I think we can both agree that less government control is generally far better than more, yes?

ISPs don't have monopolies in most areas

For dialups they don't. For broadband they most definitely do. And that particular situation is getting worse.

Re:Think about the numbers....

[God! Awful]

Well, I've looked over my agreement with Time Warner, and there's nothing in there about capped usage or anything like that. Not even the sections regarding copyright. Only thing in there is that clause how "we can change the terms and not tell you about it and you will bend over and like it." That sort of crap is about as bad as a EULA that 'reserves the right to demand your firstborn in payment for services rendered.'

I can't say I read my broadband EULA, but when they promised 1 Mbps, I naturally assumed it would be 1 Mbps burst rate, not 1 Mbps of steady streaming 24/7. Anyway, they recently added bandwidth limits and they sent me an e-mail telling me about it.

The pawn shop doesn't compare, since we're concerning ourselves with how the business is held accountable for what their customers do with products they have bought and paid for. Neither does the liquor store, since ABC doesn't get blamed if a 22-year old gets drunk and does something naughty. Gun manufacturers aren't held responsible for the crime if someone uses a weapon to kill or steal or whatever.

See, this is what I mean about picking apart an analogy. Pawn shops have two sets of customers: those who buy and those who sell. They are nor responsible for who they sell to, but they are responsible for who they buy from. Liquor stores have to verify that their customers are of age. Asking your customer to show their id may insult them but you still have to do it.

And bars are liable for lots of things that happen on their premises. If you get drunk and do something stupid, they very well might be liable. They are responsible for cutting you off when you have had too much to drink. (My favorite story recently was about a bartender who allowed a man to wear pork chops strapped to his feet like shoes. A customer slipped on the grease and sued the bar.) You can also be liable if you host a private party and a guest drinks and drives.

But I do see your point. Regardless, the whole 'guilty until you prove otherwise' aspect of how the -AA's are handling this via the DMCA is despicable. Would you like it if, after taping the superbowl on your VCR to watch more than once, the MPAA got your power disconnected?

But I don't think that will happen because I believe that that -AAs have a better sense of proportion than the average Slashdot reader.

And if the guy they elect reneges and raises the speeding fines even higher?

Okay, admittedly we don't control that. Although the fact that we have political parties means that the leaders have to pay attention to their party's reputation.

Suffice to say, I think we can both agree that less government control is generally far better than more, yes?

I don't fundamentally believe in less government control or more. I think it depends on the specific industry.

For dialups they don't. For broadband they most definitely do. And that particular situation is getting worse.

I dunno. Where I live, you can get broadband from both the phone company and the cable company. Maybe that's atypical.

-a

The legal issue is "Expectation of Privacy"

[TheConfusedOne]

There is a legal concept called "expectation of privacy" that comes into play in this. This means that there are certain actions that you can undertake that do not receive protection under privacy clauses.

The difference is highlighted thus:
1) Shouting out plans about an illegal operation in the middle of a park. (If a cop overhears then it's admissable.)

2) Using an encrypted cell phone to discuss said plans. (If a cop uses a descrambler and listens in without a wiretap permit then it's inadmissable.)

So, having your computer sit there and "shout" on the Internet "here are a bunch of files for downloading" puts you into the category of not expecting privacy.