Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Warns Individual Swappers
Joey Patterson writes "CNET News.com reports that the RIAA has sent cease-and-desist letters to four individuals for allegedly pirating its music on P2P networks." They have yet to publicly release the names of who they have contacted, but 4 of the 5 were Verizon subscribers involved with their previous high profile case.
I've had enough of paying twenty bucks for a CD so some lazy kid doesn't have to get a job.
Hello.
News at 11 - The recent trend beating of dead horses not only continues but quickens.. is there hope for rationality?
-Digital Extremist
Everybody knows it's illegal to distrube copyrighted material? If it's p2p or ftp or http or ...
Just wouldn't think that it would be usefull for an organisation as the RIAA to send everybody C&D letters, costs a lot of money. Which they have but not that much..
Okay, if I remember correctly verizon fought the fight and lost, and is now forced to hand over internet logs or whatever of individual users. I assume (key word, assume) this is only for the people that use Verizon as an ISP, right?
And people stay with them.... why?
I mean, isnt it time to get a new provider? If everyone left, then maybe they'd fight the fight again...
This is my sig. Its pathetic.
no more individual swapping for me--it's whole truckloads of illegal immigrants from now on!
As usual the RIAA is resorting to the use of FUD to stop people swapping music. College Students, High School Kids and Lone P2P Users are very easy targets for a massive corporate body.
It may even be working to a certain degree.
I was one of them.
-Senator Orrin Hatch
Hmm, in other news; the US has gone under Martial Law because it was found 1 out of very 4 breathing beings steal music.
How can they target 4 people out of millions?
Good...
I do the same job day in and day out, and I keep getting paid...I don't see a connection.
Hello.
Desist? I wonder if they will go further than that, since it's going to be hard to prove anything beyond something appearing in a log somewhere. Is downloading music illegal, or just posession? If this was a criminal trial, they'd be a long way from a burden of proof, but again, this is probably a civil matter...
Wow actually going against people who broke the law? I didn't like that the RIAA was going after all these middle men who provided sharing services and software but the file swapers actually broke copy right law. I think this is a much fairer tactic. They also started with warning letters instead of a bagillion dollar lawsuit. I think this is the way they should handle copyright infringement.
As x approaches total apathy I couldn't care less.
Anyone else find this ironic?
I stopped buying CDs once this whole situation with copyrights and piracy came about. I barely download music, and strictly listen to others' CDs or stream obscure music from free sites. The last CDs I have purchased were independent, and CHEAP. I have not purchased a CD from a major music label in years, and do not plan to until prices for 10 songs goes below 20USD.
Just my $0.02 .
There's no question that thousands of people pirate music, and have tons of it stored illegally on their computer. We know the whole thing is just a scare tactic by the RIAA. They could never prosecute 10% of who pirate music. It's like speeding. They'll catch whoever they can to deter everyone else.
The only thing is you have much better chance at getting caught going 90 in 60 than you do with 40 GB of mp3s on your hard drive. So they've got 9 people so far. 9 lucky winnners of the RIAA lawsuit lottery! I'm pretty sure this will stop just about no from 'buying their tickets.' (i.e. pirating)
No, they are going against 4 people that "broke the law". I sure didnt get a letter, did you?
File traders are felons. There is no excuse for their behavior. We, the RIAA, propose to extend the sentence to life in prison for heavy copying, or death in extreme circumstances. If you don't, criminals will fill the streets, the music industry will be over, and (shhhh) you won't be seeing those big bucks.
They can't take *everyone* to court. They'll make an example out of these few and it'll stop some of the people, but the majority of p2p file shareing of music and movies and such will continue as usual because users will be secure in the knowledge that RIAA/MPAA can't spend a gazillion dollars chasing everyone down. It's like trying to kill all the mosquitos in the forest with a fly swatter.
My journal has hot
The truth gets buried way too often due to opposing view points.
Better that they're going against 4 people that "broke the law" than them deciding everyone is doing it.
This is a helluva lot better than dumbass laws being passed giving them the right to decide whose a "pirate" and to destroy their computers
-Cancel Verizon DSL Service.
-Check stash for those drunken nude Hilary Rosen pics...just in case.
D
The first, last, and only tech news site on the net
Does the RIAA's computer systems still exist? I would have think they would have angered the wrong group of hackers/cracker enough times by now to have only a smoking crater where their computers used to be...
Yes, but why would they?
Their other option is to not lower the prices, and make more money.
Yes, this is the way that they should address copyright infringers, but sad that this won't work in the way that those with a rosy-eyed view of our American legal system would hope.
Even if these people were totally innocent of any civil or criminal wrongdoing (which I doubt) the cost of successfully defending themselves would bankrupt them -- not, of course, that innocence is any guaranteee of victory.
And, if they were in fact guilty of some civil tort, they would face paying for, not the actual damage that they may have caused, but rather huge *statutory* damages.
Great system: Cause some RIAA member $1.25 in damage, and face $1.25 million in costs. Nothing like equal justice under law.
Thank goodness I never check my verizon.net e-mail address!
Mordor...a magical, mythical land where women are more rare than dragons--but where every man would rather find a dragon
The RIAA shouldn't target me, the person breaking the copyright law! They should target the software which allows me to pirate without even trying.
Okay, then they should target The Apache Foundation for Apache, Microsoft for it's IIS product, AOL/TW for it's AOL Instant Messenger software, basically anybody that makes anything that uses TCP/IP and/or UDP to do file transfers. Which would be pretty much the entire software industry.
Those crooks that make software! Software should be illegal! People shouldn't use computers! We should only have special purpose devices dedicated to viewing content. General purpose computers make pirating too easy.
C'mon...you don't REALLY think that do you?
My journal has hot
I really hope that was a parody. If not, it was utterly ridiculous.
"The more you tighten your grasp, the more star systems will slip through your fingers."
Because the best way to generate business is to treat your customers like criminals.
First of all, these people aren't 'swapping' anything. That implies a trade where one item (or file) is exchanged for another one, with an implied transfer of ownership. They are COPYING music from one another, not trading it (and trading CDs is NOT illegal, contrary to what some seem to believe).
And that brings me to rant #2. It's easy to regard the RIAA as an Evil(tm) organization when you read (and believe) some of the things people claim the RIAA believes/practices. People here have claimed that the RIAA wants such things as making individual backups of personal CDs, and playing said backups on their computer illegal, and that is simply not true! People make these claims without providing a shred of evidence to back up their assertions. They might as well be accusing Hillary Rosen of violating young children, with as much proof they base their statements on.
Please read this article which clarifies many of the misconceptions about the RIAA's position on fair usage. I think some of you will be very surprised (I know I was).
Is the RIAA perfect? Not even close. But putting words into their mouth for the sake of tricking people into thinking you know something they don't is no way to conduct an honest and meaningful discussion.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
The RIAA shouldn't target me, the person breaking the copyright law! They should target the software which allows me to pirate without even trying.
It's rather simple to kill someone with advances in technology for weapons as well, but that doesn't mean that gun manufacturers are blamed for the all the murders that take place. Rather extreme analogy, but the uses the same logic.
It occurs to me that if we were able to figure out how the RIAA is picking out people to sue, we could perhaps find ways of spoofing their detection processes. I know there are some anonymous p2p programs out there, but I also wonder if not following the profile of the guys who got targeted by this stuff might also be helpful.
Anyone got any ideas as far as this goes?
We should definately sue the P2P companies for new hard drives. Then we can sue the HD companies for getting us into trouble with RIAA. Then lets sue RIAA for something... hrmm... not sure what yet, but we'll think of something...
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
I received, or I should say my ISP received a C&D from the RIAA a couple of months ago for a single file that I had downloaded over eDonkey. They are certainly not just going after the "big fish".
The RIAA doesn't have that many illegal immigrants for you to steal. They only pretend to have that many so that they can tell the government how much they're losing in illegal immigrant sales. Plus, it's really hard to get a truckload of immigrants through p2p because the copy protection on illegal immigrants (DNA) is a lot more difficult to bypass than traditional forms of media.
You'll have to keep pirating songs instead.
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
I was really trying to be funny, but I'm getting way more enjoyment reading others responses to my sarcasm than any +5 funny ever could.
http://use.perl.org
I better start checking my mailbox!
"broke the law"
Why the quote marks, dude? They *did* break the law. You may not like the law, anymore than you like the speed limit, but it's still the law. Going after the P2P software guys was like going after the auto manufacturers because they enable speeding violations. And logic bombing an alleged transgressor's PC is just plain wrong. Going after the individual -- speeder or downloader -- is the right and fair way to do it.
If you don't like the law -- speed limit or copyright -- you can break it, and hope you don't get caught, obey it grudgingly, or speak out to your legislators to get it repealed.
The "Napster Era" is over, friend. We wanted to be able to sample and acquire music online at a fair price, and it is now available. We wanted the Powers That Be to lay off the P2P technology itself, and now that's happening, it seems.
Time to move on. You want to do 90 in a 55 MPH zone, that is your prerogative. I do it myself occasionally. It's just not a news story, or a movement, or a cause celebre, any more, and that's fine.
If you know where to legally get 80 gigs of music for $1.25, than you certainly know something I don't.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
I dont think the RIAA cares about the "Soviet National Anthem". It changes ever week doesnt it?
Comcast users who are found to be sharing files get an email from the **AA (forwarded by Comcast) telling them to remove the file.
sue the RIAA for producing the content in the first place and tempting you to copy it.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
I seriously wonder that even if the RIAA do scare everyone (or even say 10-15% of current file traders) into not downloading pirate material will the record labels actually see any increase in profits?
I doubt it, what with the downturn in the economy, lots of ppl who now refuse to buy RIAA associated music even if they eradicate internet piracy they may not see the results they are expecting.
Logs won't really prove that you downloaded one specific file, at least not for networks like eMule. You can make a search for, say, hicksville.mp3, which you know Simon Posford released to the public, but you can't find his website anymore. You get a hit on this search from a peer, and a hash of the file content is returned to you. You then ask the network who else has the file with this hash, and get perhaps 20 replies. You then start downloading it.
As it happens, the file is named "Metallica_Enter_Sandman.mp3" on most of the clients, and the "hicksville.mp3" was renamed such by another user who wanted to hide it. You still have no idea that it's a Metallica song you download, as you searched for hicksville.mp3.
The logs of those you download from, and who might be RIAA agents, might well show that you're downloading a Metallica song, but in this case there was no intent to do so. During the download process, others can also download parts of the file from you -- before you've had a chance to check it out. Logs from the outside will show that when someone searches for "Sandman.mp3", yours is one of the hosts that share it out. So you're also sharing it out -- thing is that you might not know, and it might not be your intent!
Summing up: There's no guarantee that the file name on the sending side is the same file name as on the receiving side, or that the file-sharing user even knows that there's a discrepancy. The file name on the remote side must be dismissed as evidence.
Regards,
--
*Art
How much trading do you have to do to before you draw attention to yourself?
Is downloading a catchy tune I heard on the local Clear Channel station gonna get me busted? What if I share it after downloading?
Will I have the RIAA coming after me for downloading (and then sharing) the latest Billboard Top 20 Dance/Club tracks?
Or does it take me downloading Blender's "500 albums I must own before I die" and then sharing those to the world?
Exactly how much can I get away with?
It seems these kids must be doing something incredibly stupid to get the RIAA coming down on them when there must be many millions of people sharing at a given moment.
obviously no deficiencies vs. no obvious deficiencies
Who should be targeted: People who rip CD's, People who host content or 'links' to content, People who download, or everyone? Is it ok to target people randomly to make examples of them while not going after the rest?
Ive never ripped a CD in my life, my biggest crime is downloading mp3's and allowing my P2P software to share them with others. Ive never speeded, commited murder, rape, genocide, ive never mugged or assulted anyone, or shoplifted or burgled. Im not a pedophile or an international terrorist, and ive never held power in a government while doing dodgy financial dealings for my own gain.
I've paid my Starbucks and McDonalds tax, and i even watch commercials sometimes.
But, i could still be raided at 6am and have my computer confiscated and get a criminal record and loose everything just for downloading music. FFS ive never even intended to buy a CD, if i didnt download things i would only listen to the radio.
What a great world were everyone gets their prioritys right.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Why doesn't everyone just turn themselves in. The legal system will be backlogged and this is the ONLY WAY congress will see that we arent talking about Pirats (narrr) but real people.
The ultimate network admin tool needs HELP!
Generally oranizations pursue legal tactics when they have no clue about their own business models or how to evolve them when times change.
How much does all this legal bullcrap add to the overpriced cost of music?
I kinda get the impression that the only reason they do this is to facilitate RIAA's own existance so they can say "see look what we are doing for artists?" What I say to artists is this... take a look at Janis Ian's website http://www.janisian.com/ she effectively uses the web to to keep her fans in tune to her music long after the recording companies (RIAA) found her to be "unprofitable".
I've said it before and I'll say it again... RIAA and the Record Companies do not make artists into stars, their Fans do.
RIAA bite my dingleberry-crusted ass, i'd rather sit in the dark and hum to myself rather than deal with your crap, that's why your sales have been lagging recently.
Stop hiding behind your lawyers and start listing to the Fans/Customers, peace = contentment, you want peace in the music bus make your customers content. Here's a little clue your attorneys are not the answer, didn't you get the memo?
I love every bone in her body, especially mine!
... or maybe we can convince them to use p2p to distribute their c&d letters, in which case we can argue that p2p has a legit use :-)
On a more serious note, a previous poster claimed that distribution of copyright materials is illegal. It's only illegal if the copyright holder limits said distribution. Look at Linux - copyright Linus Torvalds, yet freely distributable :-)
As my MP3 folder just passed the twenty gigs bar! Time to buy an iPod!
"... cover for freeloaders."
What exactly are they covering for? It's fair to say that Wal-Mart would have to raise prices substantially if, say, 5% of their inventory was routinely shoplifted. The people who bought the other 95% would have to absorb the costs.
But how does digitally copying a song inflate the prices of CDs? I never understood that. If all the music stealers were going to the brick-and-mortar music stores and literally stealing the CDs, yes, it would be cause to raise CD prices to force honest consumers to absorb the cost of the theft.
But -- really, tell me, because I don't get it -- how does copying a file from one machine to another COST them money? At most it's money they won't earn (so they aren't having money TAKEN from them, they just aren't having money GIVEN to them). Lots of people copy songs they would never buy anyway so the RIAA has lost NOTHING. Lots of people copy songs and still buy the album so the RIAA has GAINED something. I'd be willing to bet that the RIAA doesn't lose NEARLY as much due to song copying as they'd like us to believe -- not even close. The truth is, the RIAA isn't actively LOSING money to regular home users with an illicit MP3 collection, they simply see each and every song as $12-20 they didn't GET, and whether they'd have gotten the money (in the absence of file copying) or not is irrelevant. Saying it is "lost money" lets them turn the screws on the artists and the consumers. It's a sham, it's a racket, it's disgusting and it makes me thankful I don't much give a damn about music. I don't have any MP3s, I don't have any CDs. Whatever is on the radio (if I even bother to turn it on) is good enough for me.
When a country has laws that arbitrarily criminalize a vast swath of its population at the behest of a single industry (or entity), something is wrong. Isn't the law supposed to be representative of the wishes of society in general? How can a law representative of a people criminalize the actions of MILLIONS AND MILLIONS of those same people? If music trading is so damned evil and so damned widespread what does that say about us as a society? It says that we're obviously letting the wrong people define "evil".
1) Is not for Commercial Use. And..
2) Does not deprive the owner of their item.
We understand the RIAA just fine, thank you.
We need to put an end to being hassled at Kinkos etc when we want to copy passages out of books too. We need to put an end to being hassled for copying music, books or any other media for personal use.
I gave up on p2p about a year ago. Most searches were a waste of time as the first hits (fastest, closest hosts) were always in leech mode (never really sharing).
These days, I use streamripper. To snag shoutcast streams. I set it to download a stream, queue songs up for an hour, then start listening to them. As I listen I delete the ones I don't want.
I've found a lot of new music this way, and the network admins don't really mind because I'm not using one of the banned p2p clients anyway.
-- yawn. --
Warner Music prepares the pathway to sue their own employees with this memo
Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life, son.
Come get me.
You think they are going to prosecute for 1 file? Give me a break. You're hatred for the RIAA has left you very shortsided.
You fully know they are going after the big traders, ones who pass thousands of files through the isp a day. That's why there's only 5 people! Otherwise you would see a couple thousand C&D's sent out. Let's use a BIT of common sense here.
NIV Ecclesiastes 1:9
"What has been will be again,
what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun."
Ask yourself do the creators of great works get what they worked for in America?
I believe the Fascist Tyranny benefits from having the power to control a citizenâ(TM)s creativity through the law.
I believe the Corporate/Government slaves ultimately lose out under the current system.
I believe foreign nations that don't protect our IP rights benefit from the government control of IP.
I don't think it's quite the same thing. I've yet to hear of a case where they've gone after someone who only made the software. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if, say, the author of Bit Torrent manages to avoid ever being sued.
Instead, they've focused on P2P people that have some sort of contact with the network where the trading is going on. Napster had the ability to monitor and filter what was being traded on their server. The KaZaA people had to play the shell game with the company that managed the actual network to avoid prosecution. Even the college kids who were sued for running SMB search engines had the capability of seeing what was being indexed and searched for. This is nothing like an auto maker, who has no clue how a car is used once it leaves the factory.
Now I'm not saying the RIAA is definitely right in all the cases where they've pursued legal action, but there is a significant distinction here that needs to be recognized to better understand the various legal cases.
The RIAA seemingly refuses to do what it needs to do to weaken the flow of work through p2p 'sharing'. They go after whoever manages to catch their attention, and they just grumble about the other millions that slip by.
What should the RIAA do? Quietly acknowledge that they are powerless against p2p 'sharing', that new laws are not needed, but that they will continue lawsuits against large p2p 'sharing' users. At the same time
- sabotage the p2p networks by setting up a couple hundred servers in the US (and abroad) with their library spread through-out. Each song on their servers would be specially modified after the first thirty- to sixty-seconds by application of special filters to render the remaining content to noise. Servers would log IP addresses of downloaders and other servers would investigate quantity & type of files being 'shared' by the downloader for possible later legal actions.
- introduce legal downloads using non-DRM format (mp3, ogg, etc). Downloads would be priced according to quality of encoding (ie $.25 for "92", $.50 for "128", $.75 for "192", $1 for "256"). Download would be bound by license, with ample 'fair-use' rights, and some FUD against 'sharing' (ie download has been watermarked, we will prosecute if you 'share', etc). After maybe 3 months if the service is popular then the price starts dropping by $.10 every 6-9 months.
These are examples of what I would do if I were in charge of the RIAA. If anybody at the RIAA is reading - please feel free to use these ideas.
Whew! I was sweating that one out.
It's kinda hard to be an "individual swapper". Isn't that a bit like ftp'ing to 127.0.0.1?
Do you know this for a fact, or has it been proven in court? Yeah, the _probably_ broke the law, but the leagal system still requires that it be proven that you broke the law.
Even with a speeding ticked you can get your day in court if you wish.
Uh, not quite. It may be the way you interpret copyright and fair use law, and it certainly is the way the RIAA interprets it, but it is not as cut-and-dried as you may think. Other legal viewpoints say that fair use is still being invoked in many P2P cases, and P2P can be used for obviously non-infringing files. Ultimately things will be decided by conclusive court cases, at which point you may be able to say definitively they broke the law. Right now it's just a point-of-view that is being propagandized to the masses, and to the courts.
And to your point, the propaganda is mostly working.
-----------
Come on - you know this is just bullshit posturing. The reality is that the log doesn't show one file named "Metallica_Enter_Sandman.mp3" - it's going to show thousands of files with those types of names. And people do not mistakenly download thousands of copyrighted mp3s in their attempt to get publicly available ones. Sure you can argue against a few - even tens but do you honestly believe that if dude has 100s or 1000s of mp3s in those logs that he wasn't intentionally (yes intent) downloading copyrighted mp3s. Give it up man, the party is over or at least its gonna have to move to some protocol that encrypts file names as they move over the network. P
-P
Why have ONE conviction when you can have TWO?
What's tough to swallow after reading all these posts is the amazing dichtomy of opinions regarding violation of copyright vs. violation of copyleft. Break copyright by downloading gigs of copyrighted songs, and you're a hero for the common man. Break copyleft by incorporating code into a "for-profit" product and you're the reincarnation of Satan come to barbeque every newborn on the planet with some green peppers and steak sauce.
Every time you get pissed the RIAA is going after some college student, imagine Bill Gates is personally inserting your code into the next version of Windows, and you have to think of a way to counter it... Would you just let it slide? Probably not...
And yet 75% of slashdot posters seem think that that RIAA shouldn't enforce their copyrights. Why is that?
It is spelled "precedence," not "presidence." Your pattern recognition is disintegrating.
Well all, I don't know about the rest of you...but I'm done with this bullshit. The RIAA has stepped over the line this time. Today, I take my entire CD collection down to the local music trading store to sell them.
If you all need me, I'll be on one of those "free independent music" sites downloading music made by people who are concerned about making good music rather than creating overexaggerated legal cases that cost them more money than any revenue they may have lost from a few college kids buying their worthless crap only to have it not work in their brand new cd players they spent two week's worth of food allowance on.
I will never buy any music or movies that are in any way associated with the RIAA and MPAA. As a consumer that is my right and responsibility to spend my money how I want, and I will not support an organization that pulls stuff like this.
Long before napster and the Kaza people where freely trading mp3 files via usenet and ftp and small centralized networks. Very few if any legal ripples. Before that people traded copies of CDS on tape ext. and while the RIAA hated it, they didn't knock on many doors. As long as you didn't set up shop selling them you were (mostly) ok. Sadly, the genie is now out of the bottle. I suspect more technical users might start to move away from p2p and back to usenet and more "old fashioned" methods of sharing files. Failing that, those anonymous ISPS that allow users to send a wad of cash in the mail each month might see a big jump in the number of subscribers.
Copyleft is about freedom. Copyleft authors are donating to you and there is perceived value in that. Since virtually everything copyleft is code, most slashdotters understand the time, blood, sweat and tears invested in the product and empathize.
Copyright is about protecting your work. I don't think most slashdotters feel copyrights are a bad thing, just the ones that are backed by lack of value. The RIAA has been ripping us off and price gauging us for a long time, so there isn't a belief that "stealing" the songs is anything more than getting what's due.
Surely everyone would agree that stealing is wrong. But many probably feel that price fixing CDs when you have a virtual monopoly is "wronger," and therefore, downloading music is somehow fair.
I think it's a perfect analogy; both are cases of assigning blame for a crime to the manufacturer of a device used by people who commit that crime, despite significant legitimate uses for that device. The severity of the crime is irrelevant WRT evaluating the validity of the assignment of blame.
The funny part is that when it comes to (1) RIAA suits against P2P file sharing and (2) Clinton-era suits against gun manufacturers, most Americans will argue that one of these is perfectly justified and the other is utter nonsense.
I am here to tell you that I recieved a threatening letter from the RIAA, accompanied by a "comply or we'll cut you off" letter from my ISP, Comcast. And I know exactly why
I don't have any illegal shared files in my limewire shared folder. what I do have there is a number of original tracks that I have recorded over the last year, for people to check out. I was innocently poking around on limewire, when i found a small (50k or so) WMA or ASF file ( i just know it was an MS format) titled "must have - hilarious.WMA" so i clicked, and downloaded, when i opened the file, Windows media player fired up my browser, and directed me to a website telling me that the RIAA caught me, and my isp had been notified. it had my IP address and some file names (the ones it chose to display were some tracks from my single "the family guy", which i guess they think should be incriminating evidence.
what i do know is that they even admitted that they copied files from my computer. hear me now, RIAA: Immediately delete my files, get your hands off of my hard drive, and you better believe i will be watching you for derivative works.
This comment is fully compliant with RFC 527.
There is a problem, though, in that people do not realize that the digital format that makes sharing music so easy is exactly what makes it protected material, and that's what makes anyone who downloads it potentially vulnerable to being charged for criminal conduct. It isn't likely to get you or me simply because there is no money in going after individual downloaders. However, there can be loads of money in going after kids running even small warez servers... Where one CD can cost as much as $600 (and more, depending on the product), allowing multiple downloads of multiple files could quickly result in hundreds of thousands of dollars of illegal copies.
Of couse, if one CD didn't cost $600 in the first place, it wouldn't be such a problem. College professors assume that everyone on the planet uses Microsoft Office, but they fail to consider how many of us use a pirated copy. Even better, how many of us use pirated software specifically because we must have it for school or work and can not afford to buy it? The problem, in this case, is that some schools literally will not tolerate other software, and some inane professors actually require students to use particular software.
Software piracy is a problem... Piracy is a result of expensive alternatives, and the alternatives' prices increase because of piracy. What do we do? Well, we can only move in one of two directions:
As technology becomes more advanced, I can hardly imagine restricting information any more without morphing the United States into a sort of prison-state where no move can be made without Big Brother's watchful eye carefully monitoring your every move. Is that what we want? Or would we rather have the freedom to trust each other?
I choose choice.
Personally, I don't think businesses have the god-given right to have guaranteed profits.
DVD sales and especially computer game sales have really been booming. That is part of my entertainment dollar, and is probably the 2nd biggest reason why cd sales are down.
Okay, so its an acronym. Whatever.
Fact: Fair use (as we know it) and the DMCA have nothing in common.
Fact: The RIAA is a staunch supporter of the DMCA.
By logical inference, the RIAA are jack-booted thugs out to erode basic freedoms Americans hold dear. (And they like to steal the life savings of college students just for fun)
I will never buy another item (cd or any other merchandise) that comes from an RIAA supported artist. It's just not worth it.
This is a civil case, the RIAA is sueing in CIVIL court. They are not pressing criminal charges at this time.
Therefore, these guys didn't "break the law". They aren't even accused of breaking the law as the police havn't arrested even them.
The policy of the United States is worse than bad---it is insane. -- Ludwig von Mises, Economic Policy(1959)
I've bought lots of stuff from Play with no problems. They even sent my friend a second set of disks after the post office lost his in transit. Part of the reason that Play is cheap is because it's in the Channel Islands, and I don't think they currently charge VAT. The other online retailers are moaning about that, so it may change in the future.
If a person is posting copyrighted matierials onto a P2P service without permission which permits others to acquire it, then that person is breaking the copyright law. There is no further interpretating of Fair Use.
I suggest you actually read the Fair Use law sometime. You might be surprised how much it DOESN'T APPLY to anything of this nature. You're not a library. You have no rights. The music AIN'T FUCKING YOURS. Don't like it? Stop listening, or leave the fucking country.
They might stop people from downloading. They're also helping to not sell albums.
Too bad the law SUCKS, and is IMMORAL. Otherwise, things would be great!
If these were the only choices for changing a law in the United States - the South would still be segregated, women would not have the vote, and we'd still be slogging through the jungles of Vietnam. You forget that mass civil disobedience to unjust laws has also proven to be an effective tool of change. Plus, it gives us all a chance to work on the side of the angels.
Copyright infringement, rather than being a criminal matter, is a matter of causing financial damage to a corporation. They are free to sue whomever they choose to recover their damages. If it were criminal to infringe copyrights, I'm still not sure if you'd be right or not, actually, but it's certainly not the case here.
Speeding tickets are also largely handled in a civil manner, although their classification is very confusing. Similarly though, a cop operating a speed trap is under no obligation to nab every single car that speeds by.
You could have just said "YHBT. YHL. HAND." ;)
My journal has hot
There is your connection. Get back to slobbin my knobbin, perdida!
How long until a provider shows up promising to delete log files every day? Even better, every hour?
It was reading the fair use case law that informed my opinion, and tells me that you are wrong. One of the explicit examples in past case law states that you can make a cassette copy of some music and give it to a buddy. P2P is that writ large. At some point it certainly crosses current copyright law. And the powers that be are working hard to extend copyright law so that even previously allowed exceptions are outlawed. But it is an ongoing process, it has not been 100% decided yet, and so what I said is correct.
---------------
Can you post it - I would LOVE to read an actual targeted letter.
IANAL - but for anyone who is, isn't there some recourse Mr. s4m7 can take since the RIAA has STOLEN *his* copyrighted material ?
Think $150,000 per song ! (finally those music lesson are paying off
"Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech."--Benjamin Franklin
First, it's your law "friend", not mine. I don't live in the US. Second, the 90 in a 55 analogy? Christ, why not use dealing crack or stealing babies? Much closer would be reading a magazine you haven't paid for (store, dentist office, whatever.) Finally, scare quoting "breaking the law" is common parlance for "breaking something that really isn't a law because it doesn't represent the true citizens of the country but is instead the product of decades of special interest lobbying on the part of mult-nationals." Dude.
If the RIAA is the rights holders to a song, and they put the song on a public P2P share for the world to download, what is illegal about downloading it? By putting the file where they did, they are essentially granting permission for P2P users to copy the song.
How is this different from, say, the RIAA setting up a table at the local mall (a place where their market gathers) and handing out free CDs, and then accusing the people they gave the CDs to that they 'stole' that music because they did not pay for it?
It seems to me that these 'honeypot' P2P traps are on tenuous legal ground for this reason.
I've built up so much character I have an alter-ego
Music is art. Code is work.
How is this any different from IRC networks or companies that run large binary newsgroup hostings? They have the ability to index, search, and filter what goes on in their networks.
Why the quote marks, dude? They *did* break the law.
Presumption of innocence? How do you know they downloaded music (who cares what the file name is) or weren't downloading music that they already have own on CD?
"Mary had a crypto key, she kept it in escrow, and everything that Mary said, the Feds were sure to know."
Oh! So music pirates are 'Freedom Fighters' now? Puh-leeeeeeeze, junior, just get a job, pay for what you use, and don't sully the good names of real rebels everywhere.
"The side of the angels!" Stop it, you're killing us...!
Yeah, that's the defense for Kazaa and friends, their networks can be used for legal purposes. But *IF* they have proof that someone put a song out there for anyone to download, that's a pretty clear case of unauthorized distribution.
Did anyone else hear that 1 of the 5 subscribers was from Earthlink? And that they handed the name over with no fuss? What about "The completely anonymous internet"? And all of their rotoscoped commercials about the secure internet your way? Is anyone an earthlink subscriber? Did you sign up for those reasons? I personally have been tempted sign up for these reasons, but their services aren't available in Oregon. Did I just misunderstand their advertising? P.S. I realize this paragraph is made up primarily of questions but this is way earlier than I usually wake up.
It's sad that I had to google that.
*sobbing* I used to be l33+!
http://use.perl.org
Curious.
Do you happen to recall the name of that case?
This week, NPR reported that indie labels are doing better than the Big Record Companies; for example, one major folk label (I believe 'twas Rounder Records) just had its best year EVER.
The clear and obvious conclusion: Folkies and indie listeners are less prone to dastardly thieving music piracy than, say, Metallica listeners. Of course, the other explanation, that some labels are actually carrying acts people WANT to listen to as opposed to pushing mass-produced synthetic sound-alike cardboard cutout bands and buying air play for them, THAT explanation is too preposterous to consider...
"My strength is as the strength of ten men, for I am wired to the eyeballs on espresso."
Hmmm, four people out of millions of swappers. I like those odds...
I love the RIAA, they screw over the same people they need money to stay alive. Its great, I'm also sure all of you after reading this what to go out a buy a CD with a label of one of the RIAAs members. They apparently don't know that you can go so far before people get pissed off enough to backlash on you.
Please note, this is a civil action, not a criminal prosecution. The standard of evidence required is "balance of probability", not "beyond all reasonable doubt".
If you are running a service on your machine that is responding to a file sharing protocol and choosing to advertise that you have a 5MB file called Metallica-Enter-Sandman.mp3, what is the balance of probability. Is it more probable that this is a copy of that song that you are offering to make further copies of, or is it more probable that it's your 2 million word magnus opus that you just happen to have given that name?
OK, no doubt you (dear reader) consider yourself a special case. No doubt you deliberately keep piles of misnamed files around, or perhaps just have a hacked client that responds to any searches with "Sure, here it is", just to troll the RIAA. Fine, keep telling yourself that a court will believe you. But look at it another way; if files like that were on 100 Joe Filesharers' hard drives, how many of them would you expect to be copies of copyrighted songs, and how many renamed benign or random content? 1? 5? 10?
If it's fewer than 50 (and it is, if we're being honest) then the balance of probability is that any given file found advertised on a filesharing network does exist, is the content that it says that it is, and is available for duplication in violation of copyright law.
That's all that the RIAA have to show. They don't need to send in the Gestapo to kick down your door and sieze your machine (although they will if they can). They just have to convince a court that you probably duplicated content in violation of copyright law.
Thank you for your attention. Normal service of shrieking about first amendments and absolute proof may now resume.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
"...four individuals for allegedly pirating its music on P2P networks..."
I didn't even know the RIAA had an album out.
This would be the same RIAA that publically said less then a year ago they would NOT be targeting individual downloaders? You cannot believe a word they say, for they are a lying sack of runny shit...nothing more!
Anyone know if there's a patch to insert a mandatory delay in IE before an outgoing request is sent, during which it can be aborted, so that Sudden Web attacks can be halted?
:)
Yes. Install an application aware firewall, like Zonealarm, on your computer. When IE attempts to make a connection to the internet, Zonealarm will popup and ask you if it's ok, BEFORE the connection is established. Of course, this only works if you don't use IE as your primary browser, because otherwise it's a huge pain saying 'yes' every time you want to surf
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
The RIAA has more than a few smart lawyers in its employ. Is it possible not one of them understands the true meaning of the word theft? Not likely. No, the RIAA and its legal team are being deliberately disingenuous in order to portray file-sharing in the worst possible light. Open and free file-sharing - a truly innocuous and victimless activity - must be slandered in order for the recording industry (and the motion picture industry) to destabilize and render ineffectual the threat to monopolistic control of distribution posed by consumer empowerment and choice. Music consumers have spoken - they want to buy hit singles in MP3 format (not entire CDs filled up with "B" side music) at significantly lower prices than currently offered by the industry. Moreover, they want to preview music before purchase. Intelligent consumers no longer want the industry to dictate their buying and listening behavior.
The benefit of having a well-enforced law is that you get economic investment, because people can be reasonably sure that their investments will pay off. In other words, following the law leads to a well-performing economy. That being the case, RIAA has built their business model on the law as it is [not the law as it should be, and there are admittedly economic costs to that], and in reality that is the only business model that a business can follow that will be successful: the law as it is.
That said, I only have to compare this case of them sending a C&D letter, with SCO, who wants to try to sue for a grand lottery prize of everyone else's code, without showing the victims the code and giving them a chance to clean it themselves.
Which would you have? RIAA going after someone without warning, and confiscating their $12000 in order to avoid a $30000 trial? Or them sending a C&D letter, which actually gives the person a choice to avoid the $12000 loss?
Now, I fault the RIAA in a lot of places, and one of them is in pushing for more restrictive IP law.
But them sending a C&D letter is like them helping define for those 5 swappers what exactly the law will be in their case. At this juncture, those five users can decide where they want to invest themselves.
I don't often say it, but RIAA, GOOD CHOICE! I support that decision.
[Sorry about the caps, but I have to shout really loud from Lithuania for them to hear me.]
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
.. 4187425 to good.
Good luck guys. Ever hear the expression 'pissing into a forest fire'?
First, I'd note that taking $12,000 is bad -- but it won't ruin anyone's life. You start putting a person in debt, and then it's got potential for ruining a person's life.
What they've done in this case, though, is taken it to the next step. They've sent C&D letters.
Now, a C&D letter doesn't ruin a person's life -- but it actually tells a person "swap another RIAA music file, and you've ruined your own life, unless your life's goal is to become a poster child.
I don't support the RIAA pushing for more IP law. But I *do* support their choice in this case. And let me be clear -- I don't support IP law, because I think it encourages people to break the law, and that can destroy a country.
But if I don't support IP law, I really hate to see people breaking the law. What they're doing is one step closer, one step more immediate, and one step more obvious in the downfall of our nation, so it is several orders more culpable.
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
What part of Copyright Law don't you understand?
In general, [copyright infringers] are not criminals--in most jurisdictions, they are not committing a crime within the definition of criminal law.
Not committing a crime? Oh really?
Will I retire or break 10K?
I lose the ablility to copy music I purchased to another device, for my own use.
Line out, line in. The labels are not going to plug this analog hole within the foreseeable future, even if the analog hole does look like goatse.cx to labels.
All my music are ripped from my own CD collection to 128 WMA.
WMA sucks.
Will I retire or break 10K?
I have noticed that this could have been a case of IE being loaded by a url stored in the WMA file.
I heard there are some programs that remove this, but I can't seem to find any.
I also noticed that eventhough I tell zonealarm not to allow WMP to connect without my premission, WMP can get arround that by if it is used in IE (which has premission to connect).
Anyone who has some experence please share with the rest of us a list of IP addresses we may block in our firewalls.
I for one don't want the RIAA on my ass for stuff I converted from vinyl to mp3.
There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
Ok, so I have to put some text in here, but lookit my .sig.
Best. Comment. Ever. Enjoy!
The file was called "must have - hilarious.WMA" and the RIAA claimed they caught you?
Was it saying that for the WMA file or was it just for the files their little snooping claimed to have caught?
If it was the first, how the fuck are we to know that "must have - hilarious.WMA" was a illegally traded file? It sure sounds like the same generic file name a lot of people would use and one would find on p2p networks.
If it is the other, it just more proof that artist like the parent will get falsely tagged by the RIAA's retarded system as sharing their copy righted songs.
I am not surprised they used this exploit, it fits their attitude and just makes them look as "good" as the "ethical" adware, spyware, p0rn, hackers, viruses, etc that use these exploits.
To fileshare or not to fileshare? I've pondered this question about a billion times. (minus 999 million times or so) and still, at anytime I can actually get away with not having too, my happiness increases.
I've once asked someone for some software over the net, and for communication purposes and the way to make new (friends/leeches) over the net filesharing is great. The reply to that was "Well what do you have to offer me, what can you actually give someone who's got everything?"
I found this answer somewhat of a revelation. What the heck do you do after you have everything? It's not like I want to get fed up of the process, in which case I already am, but nonetheless, I'm stretching my point thin here...
Now, being a musician myself, I am definitely at odds with the whole let's share stuff freely thingy, but I have to admit to d/l and u/l tons of stuff too. That is until I found out what the heck cd-ripping was about.
Yep that's right folks. CD-ripping. Man, it's like I don't know how much effing money I've already put into the music industry. I've definitely put somebody's stuck-up, pompous Porshe-driving brat through school and University. I mean I knew what music was about in the Vinyl days...
Moving on to some sort of point...
Do you think that it's fair to the consumer when you use a tape over and over again and it ends up being chewed, used or damaged and leaving you with the need to have to buy another effing copy? And doesn't this rule apply to all media including CD's. I've got a Smashing Pumpkins CD that will never sound like it did when I bought it.
So I said, scr** that. I borrowed actual CD's from people I know, about stuff I wanted and ripped right through the whole fuc**** thing. Now I have every song, and the albums I'm interested in and not some live version no one's interested in.
Kinda like Metallica. And Justice for All. I've listened to that tape too often. So much so, I actually lend it to a friend of mine who never returned the effing thing. But that's old news, I'm much better now. Do you think I'd have to buy another album? I've got most of their albums and even some super-mini vinyls...and yet Mr. Ulrich would come up to me to be some certain Ass**** and say it was illegal. Yeah...send more money bit**!
So there you have it. File-sharing in a nutshell, legalized my way. I once had yer fuc**** album but your godamn product wears down and gets destroyed after about a million listens...So I blame crappy material for the use of filesharing.
I still think what I'm doing on a certain level can be wrong. But here's another question for you dames and fellas. What happens after the artist dies. Who the heck do you think you are supporting if not the industry itself, that is still giving you the same crappy product it always has?
Buy some Jimmy Hendrix and tell me he's seeing any of that money today?
Better yet, download the album and pay the artists through Paypal, without the industry taking a cut on a product that'll wear down eventually anyway. I wonder who's bit**** the most here anyway.
Filesharing like every other trend, will eventually be replaced with much better way to scr** the system. Long-live progression.
QD
"Everybody knows it's illegal to distrube copyrighted material?"
What about radio stations? They distribute copyrighted material each and every day! The RIAA really should do something about those evil radio stations distributing all of their copyrighted material like that. To add insult to injury, they distribute this copyrighted material to the public for free! Anyone that has a pirating device known as a "radio" can just turn it on, listen to, and record, music without paying a penny to anyone!
These disruptive radio stations could end up setting a dangerous precedence, that once entrenched in the hearts and minds of the people, would cause the public to believe that it is perfectly acceptable to distribute copyrighted material to the masses for free! This simply can not be tolerated! Something must be done about this great threat to the music industry before it means the end to all music in the world!
Write to your congressman! Destroy radios and other pirating devices! Do anything that you possibly can to help the RIAA in their endeavor to preserve copyrighted music so that there can be music for a future generation!
(This message was brought to you by the RIAA, MPAA, DMCA, our good friends at Metallica and our newest friend, Senator Hatch.) ©2003
-----------
-----Original Message----- From: abuse@cox.net [mailto:abuse@cox.net] Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 11:59 AM To: _______@cox.net Subject: [6.5.2003 282780] Notice of Copyright Infringement Dear Customer, We are writing on behalf of Cox Communications to advise you that we have received a notification that you are using your Cox High Speed Internet service to post or transmit material that infringes the copyrights of a complainant's members. We have included a copy of the complaint letter. Pursuant to the provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA"), which is codified at 17 U.S.C. ÃÂ 512, upon receiving such notification, Cox is required to "act expeditiously to remove, or disable access to" the infringing material in order to avoid liability for any alleged copyright infringement. Accordingly, Cox will suspend your account and disable your connection to the Internet within 24 hours of your receipt of this email if the offending material is not removed. Please be aware that the DMCA also provides procedures by which a subscriber accused of copyright violation can respond to the allegations of infringement and, under certain circumstances, cause his or her account to be reinstated. To do so, however, the response must meet certain criteria. Pursuant to section (g) of the DMCA (17 U.S.C. ÃÂ 512(g)), you have the right to submit to Cox a counter-notification which, to be effective, must include the following elements: (a) a physical or electronic signature of the subscriber; (b) identification of the material that has been removed or to which access has been disabled and the location at which the material appeared before it was removed or disabled; (c) a statement under penalty of perjury that the subscriber has a good faith belief that the material was removed or disabled as a result of mistake or misidentification of the material to be removed or disabled; (d) the subscriberÃâ(TM)s name, address, and telephone number and a statement that the subscriber consents to the jurisdiction of the Federal District Court for the judicial district in which the address is located. In the event that you submit to Cox a counter-notification that includes these elements, Cox will forward your counter notification to the complainant and advise them that Cox will cease disabling access to the allegedly infringing material in ten (10) business days. Unless the complainant notifies us that it has filed an action seeking a court order to restrain you from engaging in the allegedly infringing activity prior to the expiration of those ten (10) business days, Cox will reactivate your account. Sincerely, The Cox Abuse Team --- The following material was provided to us as evidence --- [Part 0 (plain text)] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Re: Unauthorized Use of Universal Motion Pictures Notice ID: 459050 2 Jun 2003 23:15:06 GMT Dear Sir or Madam: Universal City Studios Productions LLLP and its affiliated companies (collectively, "Universal") are the exclusive owners of copyrights in many motion pictures, including the motion pictures listed below. It has come to our attention that Cox Communications, Inc is the service provider for the IP address listed below, from which unauthorized copying and distribution (downloading, uploading, file serving, file "swapping" or other similar activities) of Universalâ(TM)s motion picture(s) listed below is taking place. We believe that the Internet access of the user engaging in this infringement is provided by Cox Communications, Inc or a downstream service provider who purchases this connectivity from Cox Communications, Inc. This unauthorized copying and distribution constitutes copyright infringement under Section 106 of the U.S. Copyright Act . Depending upon the type of service Cox Communications, Inc is providing to this IP address, it may have legal and/or equitable liability if it does not expeditiously remove or disable access to the motion picture(s) listed below, or if it fails to implement a policy that provides for ter
What exactly are they covering for? It's fair to say ... This entire post, through to the letting the wrong people define is perhaps the most insightful and best put argument I've heard in a long time.
You hit the nail on the head, I download a buttload of music, but I also buy a buttload of CDs. The difference between what I buy and what I download is simple, I buy things from artists (mostly independent) that I think deserve the money and that I would listen to often. I download things that I might listen to once or twice a year, and often delete after a few plays. If all p2p trading systems were to be eliminated, no one would make a dime more off of me.
And your statement about criminalizing "a vast swath" of society is absolutely correct. With as many people chanting "land of the free" these days, it's amazing that they seem to have forgotten what a free democracy is about. A free democracy should be reactive to the PEOPLE, not one small section, the actions of the court system and government officials now only reinforce the existence of an aristocracy in the United States today. TONS of people, I'd be willing to bet at least 50% of your 18-24 year olds, use p2p networks. Has society degraded to the point where 50% of young adults are outright criminals, NO. What has changed? The opinion of the "worth" of a song has changed. It is no longer necessary to purchase a physical medium distributed by a well connected company, which is what the RIAA relies on. This elimination of what was formerly a necessity has caused a paradigm shift, and as governments and corporations are notoriously popular for, they have failed to adapt with it. What does the RIAA do for an artist? They provide exposure, connections, and information, and oh yeah, make CDs.
The RIAA's greatest problem is that they see the elimination of the need for themselves and are trying (with much futility) to fight it. Imagine how many blacksmiths and stables went out of business with the coming of the automobile. Now imagine if the Blacksmith and Stable Association of America (BSAA) had sued individual drivers of automobiles because they weren't purchasing horses or shoes. The truth is CDs and the RIAA will soon be outdated, and the attempt to stifle this is an attempt to stifle progress. Lets remember that most artists who "are the hardest working members of society" are also some of the richest member of society. What do you value more, your health, or N*Sync's newest hit, so why does N*Sync get paid much more than your doctor? For years the RIAA has perverted the values of millions because they COULD, and now that people have another option, they manipulate words and situations to inflate their own importance. It's amazing that musical artists must have starved to death before the days of recorded media, how else would they have made their money?, oh yeah, by performing on a day to day basis, just like you, I, and everyone else is expected to do. Don't be fooled, artists have been overpaid for FAR too long, I don't see anyone using p2p to deny an artist the right to tour, or play regularly at a venue. For all of you p2p users, you are doing the right thing, anyone complaining about the price of a CD (which btw costs about $.43 for the EXPENSIVE media, and if you assume recording costs (reasonable) of $15,000, and sales of 100,000 or more, $.15 for productoin, for a grand total of $.58) should not complain about p2p users, but, the grand ole' RIAA.
Let's get one thing perfectly clear, I did not vote for George W Bush, and I do not endorse what he does or says.
"
"Everybody knows it's illegal to distrube copyrighted material?"
What about radio stations? They distribute copyrighted material each and every day! The RIAA really should do something about those evil radio stations distributing all of their copyrighted material like that. To add insult to injury, they distribute this copyrighted material to the public for free! Anyone that has a pirating device known as a "radio" can just turn it on, listen to, and record, music without paying a penny to anyone!
These disruptive radio stations could end up setting a dangerous precedence, that once entrenched in the hearts and minds of the people, would cause the public to believe that it is perfectly acceptable to distribute copyrighted material to the masses for free! This simply can not be tolerated! Something must be done about this great threat to the music industry before it means the end to all music in the world!
Write to your congressman! Destroy radios and other pirating devices! Do anything that you possibly can to help the RIAA in their endeavor to preserve copyrighted music so that there can be music for a future generation!
(This message was brought to you by the RIAA, MPAA, DMCA, BSA, our good friends at Metallica and our newest friend, Senator Hatch.) ©2003
Oh, I expect the lawsuits to follow. Single digits of C&D letters to people not even on your ISP are hardly threatening enough. Instead:
1. Send C&D letters to a few people
2. Sue same for $x10^9
3. HUGE PRESS RELEASES!
4. Quietly offer to settle for $x10^4
5. Claim victory while minimizing settlement details.
6. Hope nobody actually goes to court saying "Prove that those are illegal files, and that the were on my machine. I think it was the neighborhood kid who broke in through my 802.11b router.
7. Entire country scared. Filesharing ends. None of the 4x10^10 filesharers organize their votes to remake Congress to again represent the people.
8. CD sales go through the roof.
9. Profit!!
Just my $/50
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
OK, IANAL, so help me out here.
There is criminal law and there is civil law.
Both contain the word "law".
So in either case, its breaking the law.
Where am I going wrong?
Some people seem to be getting caught up in the technicalities of copyright law or simply not taking the law that seriously (a saw a post where someone said "the small matter or breaking the copyright"). In the US (where the RIAA is pursuing enforcement), the society is based on the acceptance of the code of laws. If I don't like the seatbelt law, I don't get to take my seatbelt off in protest and expect no repercussions; I have to work through the system to change the law. People are talking about "sending vs receiving of files", "misnamed files", "selective prosecution", "what about used books", etc, etc, but seem to be missing the basic point: someone went through time, effort and expense to create a work and then protected it under our copyright system. Others disregarded this protection afforded by the law. There is no moral argument to make in defense. If someone were starving to death and broke into a store to steal food, there is a moral defense around survival. No one needs the latest Britney Spears song in order to survive. It will not cure disease. It will not stop war. It is simply not a need and doesn't appear anywhere in a needs hierarchy; it is a desire. We don't get to disregard laws to feed our desires. If some technicality allows that, the technicality should be fixed. My last point is about this idea of no one getting hurt because the downloader wouldn't have purchased the song anyway. It is completly irrelevant whether or not the person would have purchased the song. The copyright holder has certain rights, and they cannot simply be disregarded. What if the government started censoring my posts under the excuse "they are so poorly worded and long winded, no one would have read them anyway"? Whether or not they would have been read is not the point, I have a right to free speech. A copyright holder has rights. If you don't like the way they handle those rights, vote with your feet, don't listen to their music, watch their movies, use the software, or whatever. In a civilized soceity, we don't get to pick and choose the laws we obey based on convienence or desire. You don't get to throw others' rights away because they don't suit you.
Sarcasm and hyperbole are the final refuges for weak minds
I've got one word for you: Firewall
Especially one like Zone Alarm that has output blocking. Just don't be foolish enough to grant these programs automatic access every time.
What I really wonder is if the WMA you downloaded was copyrighted? Did it display a copyright notice? If not, then you haven't even broken any laws since you haven't illegally downloaded any copyrighted material. You instead got caught in their shotgun approach that declares every file shared as illegal. So have a nice day.
Maybe you can sue Microsoft for revealing your personal details (your IP address and files on your hard drive) without your permission. That would make for an interesting class action suit.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
In your examples of widespread civil disobedience, people were getting harmed by the law (being enslaved, denied representation, and slaughtered in a jungle, respectivly). I fail to see how anyone suffers from not have a No Doubt song (hell, No Doubt is in my long list of "bands" that I would consider it a reward to never have their music distributed by anyone for any reason... pay or no).
Sarcasm and hyperbole are the final refuges for weak minds
In the meatspace world, the closest legal equivalent is probably writing a bad check: when you write a bad check, you deprive someone of that revenue. The usual penalty is that you have to pay 3 times the value of the original bad check (which covers the check, the costs to get a judgment against you, and a reasonable pentalty that is directly proportionate to the crime). You DON'T have to give the offended party the entire contents of your savings account.
And that's why these RIAA "deals" are so damned unfair. The punishment far exceeds the lost value due to the crime, and bears no relevance to the original crime; rather, only to "how much *can* we extort from this guy?" **
In fairness, the punishment should be no more than 3x the expected revenue for the infringed content (or if the RIAA says it is doing this "to preserve the interests of the artists", it should be 3x the royalty due -- which of course would be a helluva lot less, considering how little the artists get!)
** One has to wonder if the RIAA ran a credit check first, because the odds against hitting four students who all had $12,000 or more in savings is astronomical. Picking on four *truly random* students likely would have netted the RIAA no more than a few hundred bucks -- which certainly wouldn't have the spectacular "make an example of 'em" effect.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
"Dear Hilary: lay off picking on kids, or I'll publish those drunken nude photos... you know the ones I mean..."
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
The law defines "financial gain" to "includ[e] receipt, or expectation of receipt, of anything of value, including the receipt of other copyrighted works."
Will I retire or break 10K?
The RIAA (and anyone else) can simply point to the Verizon lawsuit as presidence in any future case where they want the names of "pirates".
We will see how long that precedent lasts.
Verizon is appealing the judge's order, and they have good arguments against the constitutionality of the DMCA-supplied subpoena power.
I think their best argument is that the DMCA violates the "case or controversy" requirement of the Constitution. The DMCA's subpoena power is available without a lawsuit or even a claim that there could ever be a lawsuit, thus it is a power that the judicial branch of the government may not have under Article III of the Constitution.
The "case or controversy" requirement is taken pretty seriously by the Supreme Court. And I would hope by the D.C. Court of Appeals as well (which will be hearing this appeal).
This isn't rocket science, this is supply and demand. I see no reason to pay large sums of cash for something I don't want or need, only to be inconvenienced further by use restrictions. I haven't bought a CD in 2 years, and haven't downloaded an mp3 in a long time. I listen to internet radio.
a civil case means a tort or a law suit.
"breaking the (criminal) law" means violating a local, state, or federal statute or regulation.
The RIAA is suing them in civil court and not pressing crimal charges. There is no law to break. They are simplay claiming that these guys did x so they are intitled to restituion.
Civil cases have lower burdens of proof then criminal cases. My guess is that the RIAA doesn't want to go after them criminally. I'd guess that means that they realize that those laws are a strawman and don't want to risk a crimal trial where the jury might call BS on them or a judge might decide the laws violate rights.
The policy of the United States is worse than bad---it is insane. -- Ludwig von Mises, Economic Policy(1959)
Just put into onto a postcard and bulk mail it to everybody!
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
yes, but thats during the slow season
[-1, Boring]
Everyone knows Radio ads suck.
GM killed the Trolley
It's been going on for a long time. The Printing Press. Electricity. Ebay & the internet has killed a lot of newsprint items this decade. The malls killed the ma & pa stores. Wal-mart kills the malls.
Great post by the way. But you missed one thing the RIAA would be quick to point out in the end of your last paragraph: Advertising to promote their 'products' is where their money is going. The retain a lot of lawyers, and they have a lot of political palms to grease too, (although those aren't they would point out)
Except the courts may not care about that. In Denmark people have been convicted based on screen printouts of Edonky screens! Some nerds have screamed bloody murder - but the court seems to say "yeah right, a file called "metallica - I'm a poor boy" thinking its something else" - and of course the fine people from the Copyright Police wouldn't dream of forging a scren dump.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
If I were to be sent a C&D order from the RIAA, they would then check for my IP and/or user name logging on to which ever p2p service they're scouring. So, whats to stop me from unplugging my cable modem for an hour which would cause my ISP's DHCP server to assign me a new IP and then changing my user name on all p2p services?
For all intents and purposes, this gives me a new "identity" as far as the RIAA is concerned. Due to the overwhelming amount of people that use these services, I think the likelyhood of being sent a letter twice is minimal.
RIAA's main argument is that filesharing decreases the revenue of the musicians, thus leaving them without an incentive to create music. Well, music is a form of Art (at least it used to be), and Art creation should not be driven by monetary reasons anyway. Art is created for aesthetic reasons, which are certainly beyond comprehension of most lawyers and business execs. I wonder if J.S. Bach was calculating his cuts and potential revenues when composing his symphonies?
It has been demonstrated again and again that file trading is free promotion.
Somehow every infringer thinks that property owners should be flattered that their property is Soooo valuable that people would actually want to misappropriate it. If they want to "squander" their property, as you claim they are doing, it is theirs to squander.
My guess is, that as between your data and theirs, their business model may well be better informed by fact. But while I personally believe your argument is the better one, I do not presume to impose upon the owner of property how they will exercise their property rights -- that is the entire premise of the free marketplace. Which brings me to this:
Don't Buy CDs
Absolutely, you are free to and should boycott those who act in a manner you deem irresponsible, even if it makes no meaningful commercial sense for you to do so -- or benefit to you to do so -- as some will argue. this is the mirror of the argument you made above.
However, do not pretend that by exercising YOUR personal property rights as regards YOUR disposable assets, that you are entitled to simultaneously "boycott" and engage in file trading, on the theory that you are somehow doing labels a favor.
Send them thretening [sic] letters
Hmmm... Ever see a credit dunning letter? Oddly enough, businesses whose products have been used expect to be paid. It is a routine and common practice for businesses to respond, sometimes agressively, even against customers.
Obviously, there is a balance to be struct. In my view, the way to strike that balance is up to the business in question. But as I see it, suing or threatening to sue indiviiduals engaging in copyright infringement is precisely the appropriate conduct. The problem with the "go after the center" approach is that it shuts down lots of innocent users and gets stupid overreaching laws passed that actually stunt legitimate technology.
If you are infringing, and they sue you, and they prevail? They are the white hat, and you are the jerk.
Of course the debtor being dunned feels "put upon" by his creditors. Get over it. You play, you pay.
The biggest concern you express is this:
1. Label most of your customers as criminals.
2. Send them thretening [sic] letters
How, exactly, is an infringer a customer? A publisher seeing a "customer" who is sharing hundreds and hundreds of albums, few of which were properly purchased, is legitimately seen as someone who isn't much of a customer at all, if at all.
You might not be permitted to avoid claims for infringement while you are infringing. What a shame.
I agree that language of theft and piracy is overbearing and inappropriate. So, too, however, is the manner by which so many slashdotters wave their pirate flag, all the time pretending that it is somehow just a white sheet.
The Music industry is perfectly legally correct.
Ha! Of course what they're doing is legal. They pay millions of dollars paying to get laws made. Just because they're doing something legal doesn't mean they aren't sleazebags from hell. Most of our government is composed of sleazebags from hell.
What confuses me is why they want to shut down file-sharing it all. Are they stupid? Or just buttholes? Or are my sources wrong? I certainly remember hearing that record sales dropped big time when they took Napster down.
PUBLIC SPLIT ON WHETHER BUSH IS A DIVIDER -CNN scrolling banner, 10/15/2004
There's something Ihave been wanting to post for a while.
The RIAA loves to trot out this independant record shop owner in Syracuse NY named Charlie Robbins as proof they are losing sales because his business is down since the advent of P2P. He has even testified in the case against Napster, I believe.
I knew Charlie when he opened his store; I worked for a record company at that time, as a local promotions guy -- and as a result I had thousands of promotional copies (which the label charges the artist for) at my disposal. Charlie called me and asked to buy all my promo albums to sell in his shop. This is, of course, against the rules and immoral (I can't be certain if it qualifies as illegal), and piracy against the artist and the label. I declined his offer (I never sold a promo album ever -- even though it was done all the time). So one of their key witnesses is, well, a crook himself.
These folks are all such crooks and hypocrites themselves it is preposterous. For all the souls of artists they have broken over the years (and even a plebe like me saw more than a few in his short time) they should roast in a special circle of hell.
A little bit of Trivia: Charlie was also in a band whose lead singer was comedian Tom Kenney, the voice of SpongeBob. They were called The Tearjerkers and they were pretty good.
What part of the American Judicial System don't you understand?
The policy of the United States is worse than bad---it is insane. -- Ludwig von Mises, Economic Policy(1959)
It's really amusing that you assume I'm an American. I am, in fact, but that's not necessarily a valid assumption on the internet anymore.
Anyway, interestingly, do a search for "Criminal Copyright Violations" on google. You don't need to tell me what you come up with, I already know.
And there are most certainly laws that don't involve criminal offenses. There are laws against libel and slander. They're civil laws. If you break them, you're likely to get penalized in court when you get sued.
Oops. Sorry 'bout that. Had I picked "Metallica_One" maybe it would have been more realistic. I meant a file about 10 megs.
Stupid people make stupid things profitable.
I didn't; I assumed we were talking about the American Judical System under which the RIAA will go to court.
The poster was confusing a crimal violation (at least where I'm from) with a civil one. There is a criminal aspect to copyright law. They COULD press criminal charges, but they chose not to. By putting downloading music on the same level as felonies like murder or rape, the poster was confusing the issue. There is a legal difference between slander or libel and murder. The poster seemed to imply there wasn't.
Most guys here either aren't lawyers or (as in my case) don't have easy access to one. Making the issue more confusing for people is never good.
And there are most certainly laws that don't involve criminal offenses.
Yes but they don't carry criminal penalties either. I can sue you in civil court for almost anything because the laws are broad and the burden of proof low. I can't have you arrested nearly as easily.
I WANT the RIAA to take these guys to court, I WANT them to have to convince a jury that they are criminals, I WANT to see the public out rage the media frenzy will (hopefully) generate. Unfortunately the are showing some sense and seem to be sticking to civil suits.
Note: I do not commit copyright infringment. My software, books, games, music, movies, etc. were all aquired legally. I simply disagree with what I feel is a law that runs counter to the intent of the founders and the intrests of the public.
The policy of the United States is worse than bad---it is insane. -- Ludwig von Mises, Economic Policy(1959)
They have an expectation that specific works will be made available to them--to which they would otherwise not have access--if they provide without permission certain copyrighted works ... I would suggest that only in the latter case could a 'financial gain' argument even be considered.
Many people on WinMX have set "share or get disconnected" policies. Some Direct Connect hubs have a similar policy. The eMule client for the eDonkey network punishes leechers in the queue. If a rare file is available on peers behind such a policy, then the copyright owner may find evidence for such an expectation.
Will I retire or break 10K?
I received a letter from my ISP(Comcast) claiming that I was in violation of the DMCA for downloading a copy of the matrix reloaded(I know it's not the RIAA but its still related). The letter said that the owners of the copyrighted works(I'm assuming the MPAA) has contacted them saying that I am in violation of the DMCA and they would cease service if I did not delete the work or otherwise remove it from their network. I did attempt to download the matrix reloaded but ended up getting the first matrix and fight club instead that happened to be named "The Matrix Reloaded [divx].avi". I own both of these dvds and I deleted both copies as soon as I found out they weren't the real thing and gave up looking. I'm not too worried about actions brought against me.
For all of you p2p users, you are doing the right thing, anyone complaining about the price of a CD (which btw costs about $.43 for the EXPENSIVE media, and if you assume recording costs (reasonable) of $15,000, and sales of 100,000 or more, $.15 for productoin, for a grand total of $.58) should not complain about p2p users, but, the grand ole' RIAA. Something you missed: The master disc by itself costs a good bit of money, over and above all the other production costs. It has to undergo alot more punishment than the media you actually see is expected to, and as a result is made of much more expensive materiels. An honest baseline estimate of production costs for a lot of 1,000,000 discs is roughly $500,000, plus upkeep on the machinery and equipment, storage space, and shipping costs. You also missed the advertising costs, which is the one service the RIAA performs that couldn't be duplicated by the average performing artist on any scale remotely resembling that of the production labels until just recently. Advertising isn't cheap either: this is actually where most of the costs come from. A conservative estimate for advertising costs via traditional media is somewhere in the area of $8-10 million. An accurate baseline estimate for the actual costs is around $9,000,000 or about $9 per disc. Running larger lots of discs brings down the cost per disc, but only if they all sell, and that rarely happens. Now do you see the problem involved in lowering costs? By the time Wal*Mart has the disc, it's picked up a 70% markup, but Wal*Mart itself is responsible for about 40% of that.
We should all start signing up cdreward@riaa.com for every mailing list we can find. Unless they want 30000 spam emails every day, they will have to sue spammers. Put their power to good use I say.
I think a better idea is for the recording and music and other forms on "IP" product owners to enter the 21st century and get used to it. Then we need to modify "copyright" laws to make copyrighted PRODUCTS mean "IP on a physical media that is transferred hand to hand". I. E. You make bootleg CDs or DVDs or tapes, etc. and sell them or transfer them, that's a violation. You share elctronically, nope, that's just sharing. Change the law to reflect technology realities. Yes, "business" would need to change as well, such is business reality, it's called "things change", and yes, this is undoubtably a HUGE change, but it happened! It is in no way near as expensive or difficult theoretically to produce, master, promote and distribute as it used to be, YET, prices remain the same or have gotten higher. this is called in slang terms "gouging" and millions of people just decided to *stop being gouged*. These media monopolist people are out to lunch, instead of every year dropping prices on physical media like they COULD have, and SHOULD have, and just selling millions more copies, they held on to their past prices while reaping the benefits of increased productivity, making their profits from a much lower sales volume when they could have increased that volume probably exponentially. If CDs of music were being sold at 2 dollars a copy, they would make it up in volume sales,they would have probably made MORE money then they are now. But because they INSISTED on higher and higher profit margins, and also because everyone on the planet KNOWS they are ricidulously expensive, then once extremly easy copying and sharing became available, millions jumped on it. It's a normal human reaction to completely lame "laws" and/or business practices. When either "laws" or some "business" becomes obsolete due to societal or technological evolution, usually it gets ignored, that's just the way it's always been for millenia.
Time moves forward, it doesn't move backwards, these companies need to get with the program and radically alter their business model or suffer the consequences of widespread consumer revolt. They are seeing the back lash and revolt, it is undeniable it happened and will continue to happen.
We all have a right to free anonymous speech as outlined in the constitution--the same right that was used by the writers of The Federalist Papers. The government requiring the release of information from ISPs is a direct attack on this very civil right.