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

[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.

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?

[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