Slashdot Mirror
Justice Dept. Raids Homes of File Swappers
Cryofan writes "Reuters is reporting that the Justice Dept. has
raided the homes of 5 people in several states for trading music on p2p networks. The traders were, however, not arrested. 'P2P does not stand for 'permission to pilfer,' Ashcroft said. The Reuters story says that the 5 'were people operating hubs in a file-sharing network based on Direct Connect software,' and who had provided between 'one and 100 gigabytes of material to trade, or up to 250,000 songs.' 'They are clearly directing and operating an enterprise which countenances illegal activity and makes as a condition of membership the willingness to make available material to be stolen,' said Ashcroft."
I thought it meant pleased 2 plunder!
Each of the five hubs contained 40 petabytes of data, the equivalent of 60,000 movies or 10.5 million songs, Ashcroft said.
In order to join the network, members had to promise to provide between one and 100 gigabytes of material to trade, or up to 250,000 songs, Ashcroft said.
200 petabytes of songs and movies! Pretty amazing.
I wonder if the RIAA will ask the feds to turn over all of the involved parties and I wonder if the feds would do it if asked.
Or maybe they are too busy since they just sued a bunch more customers....
The Recording Industry Association of America on Wednesday announced it had sued another 744 individuals and refiled suits against 152 others who had ignored or declined offers to settle.
Cheers,
Erick
http://www.busyweather.com/
... like go after terrorists?
"You're getting brutal, Sark. Brutal and needlessly sadistic."
"Thank you, Master Control"
-Sark and the MCP
Wow, actually it sounds like they are starting to target the correct people. Good.
Fantasy remains a human right; we make in our measure and in our derivative mode... -- JRR Tolkien
100 GB, huh? Sounds pretty good. Link?
Dragging people kicking and screaming into reality since 1996.
Isn't that what happens to people who wear fur?
"You know Myra, some people might think you're cute. But me, I think you're one very large baked potato."
under what penalty of law? last i heard copying things (download) never got anyone in trouble... now sharing on the other hand, is still a civil matter. (but selling is an FBI matter).
Direct Connect, for the three or four of you that don't already know, doesn't work like Napster or KaZaA. The hubs are sometimes public, but in these cases admission to the hub required you to share your own collection for free as well. So the hub owners are not only sharing music with a select membership, they require their members to share large amounts of music as well.
They were copying, trading, and encouraging others to do the same in large quantities. I don't like seeing people's hard drives raided for any reason, but it's pretty clear these five folks didn't have a leg to stand on.
Washington Post link, free reg. req.
...who has a friggin PENTABYTE??
Ah, the irony.
I have serious trouble filling a 10th of an iPod with music I can stand.
Its seriously sad that these people are just massing huge collections of crap to trade simply for the purpose of being "in the club" what a waste.
It if were all porn that would be unerstandable, but just music and movies? Come on people.
He who knows not and knows he knows not is a wise man. He who knows not and knows not he knows not is a fool.
What a way with words he has! Between that and 'Let the Eagle Soar', I say we have a strong candidate for the next national poet!
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
All the easier to cast doubt during whatever trial occurs.
"Initial reports filed by the state claimed that the defendents were each serving 40 pentabytes of pirated content for illegal download. After being raided, seized computers were shown to only have several hundred gigabytes of storage. The capacity of the computers siezed was more than 1 million times less than that claimed by the state. The state used clearly false information to procure the warrents for the search... how can we trust any of the information gathered by the state when such a fundamental error occured in their investigation..."
'P2P does not stand for 'permission to pilfer,' Ashcroft said
:-P
No, it stands for Peer To Peer, which is unrelated to piracy.
I dunno, but that quote sounded like Ashcroft was thinking P2P = Piracy To People or something like that.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
Times like these are when running a diskless server really pays off. Sure, you're limited in the amount of storage that can be made available over p2p, but when they seize your server, there's no evidence whatsoever.
Just imagine the news story for that one: "Teenage File Trader's Computer Seized by FBI, Exercise in Futility"
Starting way back when the record companies were giving grief to the original Napster, many Slashdotters and like-minded folks were questioning the record company's authority to involve themselves in such matters, and said that if Napster was breaking the law, then the feds should get involved.
And then they did.
When harrassment of the P2P companies by both the government and private enterprises became more commonplace, many Slashdotters and like-minded folks said that the P2P companies weren't responsible for the actions of their users, and that the record companies should go after the users themselves.
And then they did.
When the record companies started suing the "whales" of the P2P world (those who were sharing sufficient amount of content to nudge into the territory of criminal, rather than civil law), many Slashdotters and like-minded folks claimed that if it really was criminal territory, then the record companies should stop picking on the pirates, and let the government handle it.
And now the government is doing just that.
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
Check earlier in the day and you'll find this lovely quote explaining everything, "...pentabytes are the new, arbitrary metric of the evil, satanic file-sharing people."
To be a little more technical, I think it's somewhere between a crap byte and a fuck byte, 500-1000 shit bytes, IIRC.
I bet he thinks he's so clever. However I find this story a little strange, the article claims that the five hubs each contained 40 petabytes (7200 Libraries of Congress) which at my count is about 160,000 250GB hard drives. That's ~$26m worth of hard drives per hub. The article is written in such a way to suggest these five hubs were run by people in their basements while the supposed retail value of their setups is anything but basementable.
I guess this shouldn't be surprising though. It is a well known fact al-Qaeda is trying to topple the American government by supporting music piracy over the internet. The RIAA member companies are practically bankrupt from their tremendous losses due to piracy. They're such excellent role models for young people, persevering in the face of such insurmountable odds. The movie industry is soon to be entirely out of business from online trading of hits like Gigli. I feel really bad for those gaffers that only make $250,000 a year that can barely make ends meet because someone downloaded a movie.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
If I have a to do list of:
1. Get heart surgery done.
and 2. Pick up laundry.
I tend to prioritize the first one.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Last time I priced it SAN storage was about $2,500 a TB so that makes 1PetaByte 1024*$2,500 or about 2.56 MILLION bucks. Not to mention the floorspace and the power bill for the A/C and the drives. Those guys must have been some fatcat file swappers. There are large companies that don't have that much storage!
"Information wants to be free" and "monopolies are bad" would be those general arguments you're looking for, I think, along with "copyright was considered a necessary evil from the beginning* and now isn't even necessary."
*see the writings of Jefferson and Madison
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I'm not sure what to think about these raids. For those of you who don't know what direct connect is, it's not like KaZaA.
The client connects to a server (there are many), and then can share files and chat with people on that server. The server does not actually have any files; they come from the clients.
In essence, each server acts like a mini-KaZaA, and judging from the recent Grokster rulings, would mean that they aren't liable for anything. So, basically it means this is just more FUD coming from Ashcroft.
Although the operators weren't arrested, they probably won't see their equipment back for a long time. I guess that is the Justice Dept.'s way of dishing out justice when the law doesn't fit whoever is paying them off's will.
Not just one, but 5 places with 40 PETABYTES, EACH?!?!
Uhm okay math time....
1 Petabyte = 1024 Terabtyes
1 Terabyte = 1024 Gigabytes
So 40 Petabytes = 41,923,040 GB
41,923,040 GB / 300 GB per drive (generous assumption) = 139,744 drives per node!
5 nodes means 558,976 drives in use in total. Half a million 300 GB IDE drives?
I can think of a few places with petabyte arrays, this is not one of them I think.
Some simple math. This is assuming these people paid for the hardware and didn't just hijack a few 18-wheeler shipments from Maxtor.
139,744 300GB HDs * $157.5 (Knock 30% off for a volume discount from lowest price online of $225) = $22,009,680 in sunk capital in drives alone per node!
Or in total this means $110,048,400 spent on just HARD DRIVES ALONE. This doesnt even begin to include costs for enclosures or anything else.
So who the fuck are these "people"? These numbers are ether TOTALLY WRONG AND FASLEIFIED or they busted some kind of massively well funded organization?
(And no, I haven't even read the article yet but if those numbers are wha they said I stand by this)
"This is an extremely disturbing development, seeing as these folks are not guilty of a crime, merely a civil offense."
I'm not sure where you got the idea that this is a civil case. If you'd like to learn more about criminal violations of copyright law, here's the relevant section.
This war will be fought with new ideas, not ignorance. Being the squillionth Slashdotter to parrot the old "civil, not criminal" meme will not help things. If you truly believe that artists have too many rights and it's high time to put them in their place, the first thing to do is to understand how the law works, so you can work to change it.
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
Guys,
I dont' think you understand the way these hubs work. Basically, if you have a certain amount of data, you connect, and your data is added to a large pool of data (everyone's files). This means the owner of the hub doesn't host all the files, it's the users that are connecting to the hub that own the files (and as such, the hardware). It certainly is possible that several thousand users are connecting to the hub, and are sharing their files. This could easily add up to quite large numbers, without needing a million harddrives in one server/cluster.
A wee lesson, brought to you by.. me.
"which is a f-ing CIVIL manner anyway?"
Sheesh. This is the fifth or sixth comment I've seen here from somebody insisting that this falls under civil law. Is this one of those Slashdot memes?
I feel like I'm just banging my head against a wall here, but here's where you can read up on what constitutes a criminal offense in copyright law.
Please help me spread the word. To fight the law, you must first understand it.
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
Ok, so these 5 people each hosted around "40 petabytes of data, the equivalent of 60,000 movies or 10.5 million songs" each, and made them readily available internationally via the Internet. Maybe these records companies and movie studios, with their vast resources, could learn a thing or two about delivering content.
Seriously, a bunch of amateurs can make 10.5 million songs available but the **AA's can't ??? Maybe the RIAA should steal the technology and user base and call it even.
"Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech."--Benjamin Franklin
makes as a condition of membership the willingness to make available material to be stolen
Material to be "stolen", eh? Nobody's stealing stuff from me if I offer it up online for them to take. Makes as much sense as "Officer, my house was burgled after I swung open the door and yelled 'please burgle my house'". It's only indirect theft from the record companies as well. If I broke into someone's flat and pinched all their CDs, I wouldn't be stealing from the record company, I'd be stealing from whoever I just robbed. I wouldn't be making any money from the action either, so it's not like the record company is watching money that should go to them go somewhere else, all they're watching is money not go anywhere at all, and they don't like that.
Music has to come from somewhere. Currently it's coming out of record companies, who are consistently saying "how the hell do we create an audio track that people can listen to without being able to copy it". This is a pipedream. If you can listen to it and it's on a shiney disc, it MUST go through a DAC at some stage, and that's where your entry point as a copier is. Even with a decent analog system you can make a perfectly fine copy just off the line out.
If you download a copy of something, rest assured that at least someone somewhere must have bought it. Perhaps now the best thing for the record companies to do is auction off one single original copy of an album with bidding starting at six million dollars, wait for a community of fans to get the funds together and buy it, then watch it spread across the net, safe in the knowledge that they got a guaranteed six million dollars from an album before anyone had even heard it.
I am so glad that you are taking time off your busy schedule of raping the public's personal freedoms to further the cause of rapacious corporate greed while 14% of the nation lives under the poverty line.
Yours Truly
The RIAA and the MPAA
the police will do nothing, because I am not a wealthy man. This happened to my brother. His apartment was robbed. The criminal was caught only because the apartment manager inspected the crook's apartment and found some of my brother's music cassettes (his own recordings, he's a musician, so there really wasn't any doubt). The man responisble was arrested and promply released. He was still living next door when my brother moved out of those apartments. There's no room in America's prisons for people who victimize the poor.
My definition of "theft" is something physically taken. This is also yours, if you live in the United States and choose to be bound by our laws. For what I hope is the last time, copyright infringement is _not_ theft.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
File swappers -- even if guilty of infingement -- are NOT stealing. Period.
All data is speech. All speech is Free.
lower the threat level to blue now?
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
>Each of the five hubs contained 40 petabytes of data, the equivalent of 60,000 movies or 10.5 million songs, Ashcroft said.
Does Ashcroft really expect me to believe there are 60,000 distinct movies on that network? Netflix only has 25,000 movies. I suspect they counted the number of COPIES of movies in the whole network. Ashcroft loves to mislead people, doesn't he? Why does he feel the need to inflate the numbers if his goal were upholding the law? Who signs his paycheck, anyway?
There is something quite wrong about their figures.
The ratio of video to audio size seems about right: 1 movie = 175 songs. So that would be about right for 700 MB Divx movies and 4 MB mp3s.
However, based on those rates the number of movies or songs they list would only add up to 40 TB.
Looks like somebody got mixed up between petabyte and terabyte.
News sources should really have some people to double check their math before publishing an article.
Hmmmm.....
[...](2) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000[...]What, exactly, IS the retail value of a single track off of a commercial CD, I wonder? Or the retail value of a DVD Movie separated from the add-on content (which is often mentioned as a reason to buy a commercial DVD over a poorer-quality illegally-copied version), and/or a DVD or recorded-in-a-movie-theater-by-videocamera movie which has substantially lower quality video and sound than the commercial version would?
It sounds like this network, presuming most or all of the files on it WERE illegal copyright infringements rather than public-domain material or material which the sharers actually had permission to copy - probably a fair assumption - well exceeded the $1000 limit in any case. I just have this sneaky suspicion that, as usual, a single track from a CD is being counted as the full retail value of a whole CD (and therefore each individual track from that CD is being counted as a WHOLE CD...) to pump up the purported value "lost" by publishing corporations...("petabytes" of "stolen" copies! Including 1,976 copies of the same Metallica song, 978 copies of the same Britney Spears track, and 178,493 copies of the "Dance, Monkeyboy" Steve Ballmer video....?)
Shouldn't this also imply that someone sneaking a camera into a theater and putting the recording on the 'net has cost studios LESS (~$8.00US or so at current movie theater rates - the "retail value" of viewing the movie at the theater) than copying a a DVD of a decade-old movie ($15-$30US at current rates for the DVD...)?
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
"Today's enforcement action is the latest step in our ongoing effort to combat piracy occurring on the Internet," said Christopher A. Wray, Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division. "This is the first federal law enforcement action against criminal copyright infringement using peer-to-peer networks and shows that we are committed to combating piracy, regardless of the medium used to commit these illegal acts."
"Today we are sending a clear message that federal law enforcement takes piracy seriously," said U.S. Attorney Kenneth L. Wainstein. "It is illegal to trade in copyright-protected materials on the Internet. This is theft, plain and simple. If you are engaged in this behavior, you are on notice that you are not as anonymous as you may think."
Is copyright 'enforcement' a civil matter or not? I don't get the whole 'arbitrary enforcement' thing the DOJ is doing.
No arrests - just confiscating your stuff.
Vote.
42,949,672,960 megabytes / 60,000 movies = 715,827.883 megabytes per movie, or 699.050667 gigabytes per movie.
All math for this comment was done using the all-powerful web interface to the god Google using its conversion feature, i.e., "40 petabytes in gigabytes" don't believe me? try it for yourself
Untits, people, units!
It is Petabyte and the 'pb' somebody further on uses would be a "pico bit", i.e. 1/1000000000000 of a bit.
Here is a reference for those without clue about SI prefixes: http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/prefixes.html
Just because the media has no clue is no excuse to do it wrong.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Considering the "pentabyte" thing, I wouldn't be suprised if this was just an iditot reporter who doesn't have a techy bone in his body.
Especially so because there is no such SI prefix. It is "petabyte".
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
We are talking about copyright infringement. This is clearly bad, but when somebody infringes on your copyright by downloading music, you haven't lost money, you just haven't made it.
When someone walks into a record store and steals a few albums they have actually caused a loss to the record store.
A rather serious difference..
Pentabytes? Some of that satanic shit like Pentagrams and calico cats! Devil worship I tells ya! Thank the Lawaaaard for John Ashcroft!
How ya like dat?
"But you DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO TAKE IT."
Really, says who... you? The law? I'd guess your arguement as to why copyright infrindgement is immoral really should be longer than a single sentence to be compelling.
Let's not forget that copyright property is a state-sponsored temporary monopoly which creates a scarcity which does not correspond to any state in reality. No such scarcity exists or would exist except as created by law. If these idea monopolists get to uppity, as I see they have been doing, it is then time to change the law.
3dinfo@maficstudios.com
I'm seeding about 9GB of non-commercial, freely-distributed game mods to Gnutella (custom user-made maps for UT2004, Doom3, etc).
Every time I see one of these reports I get nervous thinking that they'll come busting my door down on the mistaken idea that because of the bandwidth I'm using that I must be swapping illegal content.
Of course, I have nothing to worry about, but the abuse of power is disgusting and there are much more important things in our country that need attending to.
Yeah. With all the hard drug dealers, murderers, hard property thieves, rapists, carjackers, and smugglers in the world, I really want my tax dollars going towards raiding some nerds house.
It's fucking file sharing. Anyone who is seriously passionate about this and seriously thinks all the money spent on this is worth it has a serious problem with perspective.
It's been a long time.
This is Ashcroft. Don't you mean Terrorbyte?
This is the same old argument that comes up, typically in piracy raid articles, where someone states "with all the $crime1 and $crime2 going on, I really want this happening!" Its faults are as follows:
1.) Laws are meant to be enforced. They were enforcing the law. If a law will not be enforced, why have the law?
2.) The argument assumes organizations are one-track minds that only operate on one task at a time. This is like saying "with all the desktop work that needs to be done, do we really need Linux kernel hackers writing more drivers for arcane hardware?" The illogic in the statement is obvious. Simply because a piracy raid took place does not mean 100% of all money and 100% of all resources were utilized in the execution of this one, single raid. The argument is a convenient dismission meant to distract the issue from the event that took place to some imagined flaw in the process of the organization--thereby shifting the label of wrongdoer from the guilty pirates to the guilty law enforcers.
Note that this flawed argument is also often used against Microsoft. "With all the security flaws out there, it's good to know they were working hard on a new version of Encarta!" The statement ignores that Microsoft is a multi-tiered organization made of several dozens of software groups.
3.) It's a distraction from the fact that what the people were doing was illegal and inethical. The law caught up with them.
"There should be a -1 moral relativist option"
I see nothing morally relativist about asking for an arguement, a justification, as to why someone can morally prohibit another person, via the government, from thinking certain ideas or viewing certain materials (copyrighted materials of course).
Moral relativists do not need or ask for justification since they use their own belief system to self justify their behavior, in case you were ignorant about the term in question.
"As a US citizen, you have the right to disagree with laws and lobby for their repeal. You do not have to right to break them."
And if a law is immoral, you happily continue to obey? All law is are promulgated rules passed by the sovereign. If the sovereign, say a dictator or perhaps even a legislature as the case maybe, passed a law requiring that a group of individuals be inslaved, have their property taken away, and or put into camps you'd obey that law?
"You decided that because everyone in Europe drives on the left side of the street, people in this country should also"
Is the problem of driving on the left or on the right side of the road really an immoral law? If you think so it'll be a laugh for you to come up with that line of reasoning.
On the other hand the fact that governments seem to be jailing and bankrupting people in order to protect idea monopolist's profits and in spite of 300 year old copyright law that does not work in the digital age seems to be the type of law people should be objecting to and resisting.
3dinfo@maficstudios.com