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...

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?

[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