How to Tell if the RIAA Wants You

codewolf writes "Wired News has an article on how file sharers can check a new online database to see if they are wanted by the recording industry. The Electronic Frontier Foundation has created a site where users can plug in their file-sharing user names. That name is checked against the list of those subpoenas filed in the Washington, D.C. district court. The EFF also has an article on how to avoid a lawsuit from the RIAA."

Comments

Important point

[mgcsinc]

They make one huge point that I've been waiting for someone to make aloud: "Disable the "sharing" or "uploading" features on your P2P application that allow other users on the network to get copies of files from your computer or scan any of your music directories. We hate this option, but it does appear that it will reduce your chances of becoming an RIAA target right now." I see this as a foolproof approach because there is no way to defend oneself as a sharer, but downloaders may still claim rights to listen to the music; the approach has one obvious flaw, however, which I'd still like to see covered in some major media outlet: once everyone begins to turn sharing off, there is nothing to download and the system collapses. My bet? The RIAA recognises this effect and is just waiting for it to render P2P file-sharing dead...

Re:Important point

[PhoenixFlare]

This would be nice in a perfect world, however, in this one....The vast majority of independent music, games, and applications are sadly lacking in quality. Hence, people will go after the good (copyrighted) stuff.

Again, to be blunt, most of the free/independent stuff sucks. People don't want it.

Re:Important point

[joel8x]

Again, to be blunt, most of the free/independent stuff sucks. People don't want it.

As far as music goes, I tend to think that the majority of major label stuff is quite unbearable to listen to. A lot of people subscribe to the idea that if the artist isn't signed to a major, then it must not be good enough. That is so rediculous! Music production can be done so cheaply now that for a few thousand dollars, a talented musician can make a CD that sounds better than any big budget major label recording.

On the other hand, independent films do not have that luxury just yet and it will be a while before they can compete with big budget movie studios. This kind of limitation can be good though, as it forces the filmaker to be more creative and focus more on the story (something that this summer's crop of special-effects laden "blockbuster" films seem to lack).

Re:Important point

[bricriu]

While in the real world, this would be a perfectly reasonable idea, in the minds of the RIAA attack lawyers it becomes something altogether different. As many commentators have already noted, almost everyone who gets a subpoena is going to have to try to settle because the costs of defending oneself is going to be too high. A screenshot of free songs on offer is bullshit evidence, but you still have to expend all the time and resources proving it's bullshit evidence. That's what SLAPPs are all about.

Re:Important point

[Reziac]

The labels don't care if it's *good*; they care if it's *marketable*. If teenyboppers screamed for it last year, odds are they'll scream for something very like it this year. There's much less financial risk in backing Yet Another Same Old Song than in taking a flyer with something the audience has never heard before.

Which selects against creativity. Some creative artists will break through anyway, as much by luck and chance as by skill or talent. But more often they have to slog it alone because they aren't sufficiently *marketable*.

It's up to *buyers* of music to help convince the market that we're willing to buy different and unusual music. But most of the consumer market is never *exposed* to alternatives to whatever is on Clear Channel, and you can't very well buy what you don't know exists. So this bias against creativity remains a vicious cycle.

Great remedies

[Mr2cents]

don't share any copyrighted files. What a great idea to reduce the risk of being sued! Why didn't I think of that!

"How to avoid a lawsuit from the RIAA"

[Anonymous Coward]

Want to avoid a lawsuit? Simple. Don't download copyrighted material that you haven't paid for and don't share anything unless you have the legal right to do so.

Re:Curious point on what /. readers consider right

[Richard_at_work]

"Given the right to harrass private citizens at will"? Uhm, they are using the legal system IN THE WAY THE LEGAL SYSTEM WAS MEANT TO BE USED.

They are supoenaing (sp?) the details of those people who they have identified as being infringing, which is EXACTLY what people on this forum have been saying they should do.

Back when the RIAA was going after the networks themselves, the big shout on here was "They shouldnt go after the networks, they have potentially legitimate uses, they should go after the infringers", and now they are going after the infringers, the new cry on here is one of "privacy" and "harrassment".

So come on guys, why wont you jsut admit it, you wont give up until Copyright infringement as a crime no longer exists.

WTF?

[(trb001)]

I always thought it wasn't the sharing of files that was illegal, but the downloading of them. I would still contest, to the death (or until they lock me up) that I can have any files I damn well please shared under Kazaa, Limewire, etc, it's when someone downloads them that *they're* doing something illegal. This is comparable to someone walking in your wide open front door and taking your backup cds...then *you* get sued for it. Utter bullshit.

--trb

Re:WTF?

[Tim C]

That's not a very good analogy. The entire point of p2p software is to enable and facilitate sharing of files. By having files available in your shared folder, you are essentially saying to everyone and anyone "here you go, have whatever you want!".

If those files are copyrighted, and you do not have permission to distribute them, then you are at least contributing to the copyright infringement.

Extending your analogy, would you also argue that people who buy pirated software/movies/whatever should be prosecuted, and not the people selling them? It's the nearly same thing, after all - the discs were just there, on the market stall, no-one forced anyone to buy them.

Re:WTF?

[alienw]

Nope. Exactly the opposite. Downloading might be considered legal in some jurisdictions (after all, you can't be reasonably sure the file is copyrighted before you download it -- or maybe you accidentally clicked on the link).

However, making stuff available for download is definitely illegal. If you upload a copy of Photoshop to your server and post a link, who do you think would be prosecuted? Hint: it's exactly what is done by warez groups.

Re:WTF?

[Arker]

I'd be REALLY surprised if as much as 0.05% of the downloads were by people who have a legal right to the files, and it's not the point anyway.

Oh I agree. The point, in this particular case, is simply that they are effectively exercising police powers without being subject to police rules, and without being expected to actually prove their case.

As to how many current downloaders have legal rights to their files, I wouldn't hazard a guess. I agree it's probably low. The RIAA still should have to bear the burden of proof in any individual case, however, something they're managing to evade.

The point is whether it's legitimate to keep the current content distribution channels as they are.

And I disagree. I think a far more free market is called for, and that the regulation that keeps distribution channels that have long since become obsolete alive are a travesty, practiced simply to ensure the rich (the RIAA in this case) will never have to work to get 'their' money out of the rest of the population again. It's corporate welfare, and the RIAA are some of the biggest hoes out there.

and let the market decide.

The market has already decided. The RIAA doesn't like that decision, that's why they're buying congressmen and judges now.

Re:Curious point on what /. readers consider right

[Anonymous Coward]

They are supoenaing (sp?) the details of those people who they have identified as being infringing, which is EXACTLY what people on this forum have been saying they should do.

Yes, and a subpoena before this RIAA crap was something that could only be court ordered, not something a company or corporation could do just out of the blue. That is what's shitting people. It's giving law enforcement rights to a body that is NOT a law enforcement agency. The "slippery slope" thing here is what worries me. How small a change would it take before the RIAA is given not only the right to subpoena an ISP for names of users who they suspect of filesharing, but to send out fines without running through proper legal channels?

There are philosophical links to PayPal here. It's not a bank and is not under the same regulatory controls as banks, yet it acts as one and gets the benefits of being one. the RIAA is not a law enforcement agency and is not under the same regulatory controls as one, yet it acts as one.

Re:Curious point on what /. readers consider right

[Anonymous Coward]

> Uhm, they are using the legal system IN THE WAY THE
> LEGAL SYSTEM WAS MEANT TO BE USED.

No. the RIAA is not using the legal system at all and that is what's highly questionable. It is now able to bypass the legal system and directly order subpoenas by itself. That is inherently dangerous when a corporation who stands to benefit from legal action has been given the legal right to bring action against whoever THEY suspect, WITHOUT going through all the correct channels of the legal system that has existed in this country for hundreds of years.

Well here's a way I've heard of...

[Kjella]

...which of course I don't know anything about personally *cough*.

1. Make your private server.... just you and your friends, people with broadband connections. Say 30 people with 1-200gb each = 3-6tb.

2. Download new stuff from public networks, but never be a big sharer, just one among the huge crowd of small traders.

3. Relax and realize the chance of getting into trouble is slim and none.

While the RIAA/MPAA might be moderately successful in cracking down on public networks, the network of friends they'll never manage to stop...

Kjella

Re:ooh ooh I know!

[Anonymous Coward]

Because um it's illegal? Just because you considered it accepted doesn't make it legal. Normal and healthy still doesn't make it "legal". That's the big point you seem to be missing here.

Re:Define Piracy

[GigsVT]

Does anyone have a definitive answer on that?

Yes, see the mp3.com lawsuit. Even though the downloaders arguably owned a copy of the CDs that MP3.com was making available for download through their service, it was still infringement for MP3.com to make their copy of the exact same data available to the downloaders from their own CDs.

Of course, the check that the downloader owned the CD was weak, since you could borrow the CD and then "prove" to the service that you owned it, but I don't think they lost on those grounds, I think it was the more fundamental issue that even though you own a byte-for-byte copy of a work, it doesn't give you the right to download the same work, or give anyone else the right to make that work available for you to get.

Then again, MP3.com's lawyers gave really lame defenses, such as Fair Use, which have nothing to do with duplicating complete copies of a work.

MySQL

[Fuzzums]

INSERT INTO have_to_sue VALUES $handle_entered_by_user;

what a great way to collect more handles for people to sue. use a cron job to see what they share and file the complaints.

easy as onehundredtwentythree...

Re:Small world

[gilesjuk]

Exactly, your punishment/judgement for commiting a crime should be carried out in the country where you were residing at that moment in time.

So if you crack some encryption method in Europe then go to the US what's business is it of theirs? the current system is just a way for the US to punish citizens of countries with weak laws.

Re:why can't they just list the names?

[Fred Ferrigno]

www.k_lite.tk_Kazaa_Lite@Kazaa

Uhm, that seems a lot like the default username for Kazaa lite, which would be the same for hundreds of lazy users. Same goes for "Jim", "Jeff" and "Jessica". Good luck proving which jim@Kazaa was sharing copyrighted music.

A novel idea...

[softspokenrevolution]

Copyright law is designed so that the originators of creative works can derive compensation from those works, right? No, the recording industry likes to take 90% of artist proceeds and stuff it into some hole and now wants to put a greater lean onto touring revenue.

The RIAA is of course whining about how it isn't gettin gits fair share of cash for these songs that are being downloaded. Now, the RIAA for the most part, has nothing to do with the creative process, and those corporate bands/singers that are puppets, can't really be called creative (say hi Justin) by any real stretch.

In essence, by swapping files we take money away from the RIAA (money that it really didn't deserve to have in the first place, but that's just an editorial aside), and then the RIAA takes away more money from the artists.

Here's a simple solution, let the artists sue the RIAA for getting continually raped and having this crusade carried out in their name. I'm sure that any number of artists down on their luck would like their fifty million dollars from their platinum album back from the RIAA. They are the originators of the creative content and are thus in charge of the copyright (unless they were stupid with their contracts), it should be the decision of the artist who gets their money and who gets to be compensated for money lost from file downloading.

Hopefully the artists aren't totally stupid and just keep the suits to the RIAA, because suing their fans would be very much counterproductive (after all, would you buy a band's cd if they were in the middle of litigation with you). Just a thought.

Thought Theft

[solprovider]

Ouch! Stop him! He stole my thought. Make him give it back.

Cool concept. Reminds me of the book "Deathkiller". Or it could be something spies use: steal his thoughts and wipe his brain, although I always figured killing was much easier than wiping a mind.

We all reuse thoughts, and it rarely hurts anyone. I may use the phrase "thought theft" in a song. You may never hear the song, and my reuse won't hurt you. Thousands of people may share my songs on P2P networks, and that is good for me:
1. People are listening to my songs.
2. People are being injected with my ideas.
3. People will pay to see me play the songs.
4. People may order my CD. Yes, CDs are almost obsolete, but they are still a good method for those who do not have high bandwidth to transfer music without losing quality.
5. I will get paid for being on late night television, and have cameos in movies and maybe start an acting career doing commercials, and write a book, and write a column in a magazine like John Mayer telling how he wrote a song that nobody wants to hear while travelling between famous people's houses. And that is what dreams are made of.

---
Copyright was allowed in this country so that a creator would have a limited monopoly so creators would gain some benefit from creating and would have the incentive to do it again.

Now the benefits all go to corporations for a period of time formerly known as limited. Yes, they still expire, but I will not live to see the copyrights expire on works that were created by people that were dead before I was born. I do not have the legal ability to derive new creations from the work of the greats. The original copyright had a maximum of 28 years. That means people should be able to reuse the entire Beatles catalog without legal hassles. (Someone once said they wrote every song. Does that mean noone can create anything new? That explains today's popular music.)