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."

69 of 1,173 comments (clear)

  1. A busy day for the feds... by erick99 · · Score: 5, Informative
    These were some serious downloadin' folks:

    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/
    1. Re:A busy day for the feds... by diamondsw · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This doesn't seem possible - that's what, 100,000 x 300GB hard drives? Are they really providing that much, or is this the total amount available on the entire network?

      --
      I don't know what kind of crack I was on, but I suspect it was decaf.
    2. Re:A busy day for the feds... by McDutchie · · Score: 4, Informative
      200 petabytes of songs and movies! Pretty amazing.

      The website says the whole network contains about 1 petabyte of data.

    3. Re:A busy day for the feds... by dazilla · · Score: 5, Informative

      As someone who has used the DC client before, most hubs run between 10 and 200 TB or user shares. So the idea that there was 40 PB per hub being shared is preposterous. Neo-Modus had a news item on their site when the TOTAL culmination of ALL THE HUBS sharing data reached ONE PETABYTE. I'm sure that each hub was probably sharing around 40TB.

    4. Re:A busy day for the feds... by mothz · · Score: 5, Informative

      Nice math, too.

      If 100 GB is 250,000 songs, then each song file is about 400k. But if 40 petabytes is the equivalent of 10.5 million songs, then each song file must be about 4000 MB.

    5. Re:A busy day for the feds... by Datasage · · Score: 4, Informative

      This requires a little explaintion, each of these people themselves didnt have that much data, but they ran hubs that had that much data over all the users.

      I have never seen any hub have a petrabyte of data, most of them have 5-500 terabytes.

      It also should be said, that most of the data is not unique, many users may have a copy of the same file or similar file. Of course the media spin is to make it look like its more than it really is.

      It looks like they only went after the people who ran some of the hubs, not the users thenselves.

      In response to one of the other comments, There are many hubs that are not on neomodulas list, in fact the ones on thier list tend to be really small, mostly only a couple hundred users. Other hubs accessible via dc++ have several thousand users.

      --
      In America we are imprisoned by our fear of them.
    6. Re:A busy day for the feds... by bergeron76 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You're missing another important number:
      10.5 million songs

      Let's see:
      10.5 million songs
      ~40 years of reasonable recorded audio

      Some simple math:
      10,500,000 / 40 = 262,500 songs every year...

      Hmmm:
      262,500 / 12 = 21,875 songs every month...

      Sounds like a hell of a stretch to me, especially considering that music wasn't as easy to record back in the 60s and 70s as it is today.

      The biggest music libraries that I've seen contain less than 1 million songs. I'm not sure where another 9.5 million could come from (unless Al Queida provided them).

      --
      Don't think that a small group of dedicated individuals can't change the world. It's the only thing that ever has.
    7. Re:A busy day for the feds... by samantha · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "This doesn't seem possible - that's what, 100,000 x 300GB hard drives? Are they really providing that much, or is this the total amount available on the entire network?"

      Any p2p net out there would be really, really proud to have that kind of hardware to share. Obviously, Ashcroft inflated the hell out of the numbers as per usual and things the people are too friggin' dumb to notice.

    8. Re:A busy day for the feds... by Zareste · · Score: 5, Funny

      our attorney general is confused about the difference between peta- and tera-

      And also 'stealing' and 'transferring', 'interrogation' and 'torture', and 'his ass' from 'a hole in the ground'.

      --
      I am NOT a number! I am a - oh wait, I'm number 761710. Look! 761710!
    9. Re:A busy day for the feds... by dasmegabyte · · Score: 5, Funny

      100 gigabytes of material to trade, or up to 250,000 songs

      Ah, I see Ashcroft is using the world famous iPod scale of data density, which will some day eclipse the byte as the standard metric measurement of all data lengths and capacities.

      "Hey ted, I'm going to attach pictures of the baby to this email."

      "How big are the files?"

      "1.25 songs."

      "That's a no go, man. My mail server only allows up to .95 of a song before charging me for the soundwidth."

      --
      Hey freaks: now you're ju
    10. Re:A busy day for the feds... by Abjifyicious · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Probably not more than a few hundredths of one percent.

      I wouldn't be so sure. The number of scrolls in The Library is estimated to have been somewhere between 400,000 and 700,000. Now let's make a very generous allocation of 5MB for each scroll. I've got a 700 page PDF on my desktop that's only 2.5 MB, so this is probably a bit high, but I'd rather guess too high than too low.

      5MB for each scroll times 700,000 scrolls comes up to about 3.5 terabytes. 5 hubs that each contained 40 petabytes of data is 200 petabytes. 200 petabytes divided by 3.5 terabytes is 58514.

      In terms of raw data, they destroyed more than fifty thousand Libraries of Alexandria.

      Now admitidly, scrolls are a more efficient medium for conveying information than movies, and the information stored in The Library was far more important than what was probably stored in these hubs. Nevertheless, it makes our current culture seem hippocratic when you compare this sort of thing to the general opinion that the burning of The Library was a tragedy. Many of the manuscripts contained within The Library were aquired by means no more legitimate than today's file sharing; copying without permission.

    11. Re:A busy day for the feds... by jrexilius · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I am still amazed that this even warranted federal attention. Last I checked, I thought the FBI was short on resources and had more terrorist leads to chase then they could shake a stick at...

      And did they pay this much attention to Enron and Tyco and obviously other large scale crimes?..

      Whats with the political sex appeal and fear mongering of kids swapping stolen entertainment?

      Call the local cops and treat it like any other petty crime...

    12. Re:A busy day for the feds... by Cyberllama · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yes, but these were just hubs. The actual data was still stored on the computers of the people sharing the files -- and they are ultimately the ones responsible for the data they're sharing. These individuals are essentially doing the same thing Napster did -- provide a conduit by which others can exchange data (legally or illegaly by their own choice) and then not policing it to ensure the content is kept legal (or perhaps even actively encouraging illegal content).

      Does anyone else but me think that at MOST this should be a civil issue? Just becuase they've given people the means to violate copyright doesn't mean their as guilty as the people who do it. Last time I checked there was no such thing as "conspiracy to violate copyrights" charge. . .

    13. Re:A busy day for the feds... by mattkinabrewmindspri · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I am not at all surprised that we trust Google more than the U.S. Government. When you ask Google a question, you generally get an accurate, consistent answer.

  2. Good! by TedTschopp · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Good! by AtariKee · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The DOJ should saty out of what is clearly a civil matter. Now we have the government doing the bidding of the music and movie cartels.

      Corporatism is slowly taking over the USA. I just hope we still have time to stop its onslaught.

      --
      "You're getting brutal, Sark. Brutal and needlessly sadistic."
      "Thank you, Master Control"
      -Sark and the MCP
    2. Re:Good! by shark72 · · Score: 5, Informative

      "The DOJ should saty out of what is clearly a civil matter."

      Copyright violation becomes a criminal matter once the value crosses a fairly low threshold. This has been the case for several years now. Here's the section of US copyright law that covers criminal offenses.

      --
      Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
  3. Direct Connect by Burgundy+Advocate · · Score: 5, Funny

    100 GB, huh? Sounds pretty good. Link?

    --
    Dragging people kicking and screaming into reality since 1996.
  4. Petabytes? by JDRipper · · Score: 5, Funny

    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."
  5. Re:Doesn't the DOJ have better things to do... by M51DPS · · Score: 5, Funny

    Well sure, let's just ignore all the kids downloading music for free and go after people out to kill us. Now who sounds absolutely ridiculous?

  6. so if they werent charged by Comsn · · Score: 5, Informative
    what were the warrants for the raids granted with?

    Authorities made no arrests. But Ashcroft warned that those who copy music, movies and software over P2P networks without permission could face jail time.


    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).
    1. Re:so if they werent charged by DeepRedux · · Score: 5, Informative
      Sharing can be a criminal act. Under the No Electronic Theft (NET) Act, sharing copyrighted works with the expectation of getting works in return counts as "financial gain". The act makes it a felony to trade works with a retail value over $2,500 in a 6 month period. It sounds like they were well over that amount.

      The NET Act was passed in 1997 to criminalize warez trading. I do not think that the act distinguishes between software and other copyrighted materials like movies and music. Sixty people have be convicted under the NET Act, with 20 sentenced to jail.

      See Warez Trading and Criminal Copyright Infringement for the details.

  7. Re:Doesn't the DOJ have better things to do... by TedTschopp · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Do you have only one thing on your to do list?

    --
    Fantasy remains a human right; we make in our measure and in our derivative mode... -- JRR Tolkien
  8. Worth noting.... by mblase · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:Worth noting.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's also worth noting that to catch these 5 in the act, the government would also have had to partake in illegal sharing, at least for a little while.

      This is an established, legal method of law enforcement in the U.S., and is hardly noteworthy.

      To catch drug dealers, the government buys drugs from them, while videotaping the transaction. This doesn't mean the government partakes in illegal drug dealing. It's a perfectly legal means of law enforcement.

  9. Re:Doesn't the DOJ have better things to do... by thedogcow · · Score: 5, Interesting

    According to Sen. Hatch, they are going after terrorists (peer 2 peer users).

    --
    Yes! I listen to NYC Speedcore and do math at 3AM. I suggest you try it too.
  10. Press conference tomorrow... by keiferb · · Score: 4, Informative

    Washington Post link, free reg. req.

  11. Re:Terminology by eggegg · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...who has a friggin PENTABYTE??

    Ah, the irony.

  12. Why do people have soo much music? by Photar · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.
  13. Good ol' Ashcroft! by lawpoop · · Score: 4, Funny
    "P2P does not stand for 'permission to pilfer'"

    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
  14. Re:Terminology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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..."

  15. Diskless Servers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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"

  16. this is a case being careful what you wish for. by shark72 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  17. Re:Terminology by macshune · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

  18. JUSTIN BAILEY by Graymalkin · · Score: 5, Interesting
    'P2P does not stand for 'permission to pilfer,' Ashcroft said.


    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.
  19. No, but... by rsilvergun · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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/
  20. Re:I fought the law and the... by mrchaotica · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "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

  21. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  22. More FUD by EdMcMan · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  23. I call BULLSHIT here... by dspisak · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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)

    1. Re:I call BULLSHIT here... by adamh526 · · Score: 4, Informative

      What they mean is 5 hubs, each with 40 petabytes of content available, probably shared between a few thousand members. If you're not sure how direct connect works, look here .

      There are lots of hubs around the country hosted by people at colleges with fast connections. Those that host them think their hubs are secure since they can limit hub access to only others having on-campus IP addresses.

      I really would not be suprised if the five raids targeted people hosting university specific hubs.

  24. Re:Doesn't the DOJ have better things to do... by b-baggins · · Score: 4, Funny

    Which explains, of course, why your post makes no logical sense. You were obviously hurrying through it so that you could move to your next safe house before the Ashcroft thought police bashed in your door to arrest you for sedition.

    And as soon as you get your transmitter set up again in another safe location, you'll transmit proof that the World Trade center attack was actually coordinated by George Bush, which is why all Republicans and religious conservatives didn't show up for work that day.

    After that, you'll show us how this election is really just another smoke screen because Bush long ago made himself king and will ignore whatever election results there are. It was a deal he brokered with the Supreme court in a back room while the Republican congress ran interference for him by forcing Bill Clinton to have oral sex with their top Republican operative, Monica Lewinsky.

    --
    You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
  25. Re:A distressing development by shark72 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "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.
  26. Re:Doesn't the DOJ have better things to do... by Izago909 · · Score: 4, Funny

    I bet you would LOVE this shirt.

  27. How these hubs work by highlander123 · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  28. Re:Dont they have better things to do? by shark72 · · Score: 5, Informative

    "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.
  29. Steal the technology... by Dave21212 · · Score: 4, Insightful


    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
  30. Strange wording by TwistedSpring · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  31. Dear John by theolein · · Score: 5, Funny

    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

  32. The next time my house gets burgled... by rsilvergun · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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/
  33. Re:Doesn't the DOJ have better things to do... by Quixote · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I don't recall the gov't being able to do that before 9/11... so... I'm sure it is related somehow.

    Look up "Steve Jackson games" on the 'net sometime..

  34. Can we... by Kozar_The_Malignant · · Score: 4, Funny

    lower the threat level to blue now?

    --
    Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
  35. Classic quote by neurojab · · Score: 4, Insightful

    >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?

  36. DOJ press release ??? by teamhasnoi · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Huh? "Today's actions send an important message to those who steal over the Internet. When online thieves illegally distribute copyrighted programs and products, they put the livelihoods of millions of hard-working Americans at risk and damage our economy," said Attorney General John Ashcroft. "The execution of today's warrants disrupted an extensive peer-to-peer network suspected of enabling users to traffic illegally in music, films, software and published works. The Department of Justice is committed to enforcing intellectual property laws, and we will pursue those who steal copyrighted materials even when they try to hide behind the false anonymity of peer-to-peer networks."

    "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.

  37. WTF, Those are some high quality movies by iamatlas · · Score: 5, Interesting
    40 Petabyes = 42,949,672,960 megabytes


    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

  38. Re:Doesn't the DOJ have better things to do... by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You have no idea how undemocratic the even "democracies" are. Think. Most people you know oppose things like copyright extensions and the DCMA when it's explained to them, right? Yet how is it these things become law? If it's not the will of the people then it shouldn't be the law of the land, right?

    The answer is they become law because companies and organisations with far bigger pockets than the average individual exert undue influence on those that actually legislate within our societies. In effect, through things like campaign contributions and lobbying they buy power.

    You don't think that Microsoft's political donations and lobbying played a part in it only getting a slap on the wrist from the DOJ's antitrust lawsuits? You don't think that chemical companies not having to pay for the messes that they make because Newt Gingrich killed the Superfund counts? You don't think the handcuffs placed on the FDA's inspectors when investigating food contamination, which effectively make them powerless to protect consumers from unscrupulous manufacturers, counts either?

    It's not in the US's interest to have monopolies abusing their positions in key industries. Or to have no effective safeguards to stop companies from polluting the environment without either effective penalty at the time or having to foot the bill to later clean up the mess. Or to allow contaminated food to reach the plates of average Americans.

    Yet these things happen, and they happen even more frequently nowadays because the people who call the shots are effectively in bed with those doing the damage.

    The foxes are guarding the coop. That's great if you're a fox, not so great if you're a chicken.

    --

    "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
  39. Re:Doesn't the DOJ have better things to do... by zenyu · · Score: 4, Interesting

    News flash: you don't have to be convicted of a crime to have evidence seized. If someone steals your wallet and the cops catch the guy, guess what -- you don't get your wallet back! IT'S EVIDENCE. Once the court case is over and the appeals process has run its course, THEN you get your wallet back. DUH.

    Actually under current law, upheld by the SCOTUS, the FBI and local law breakers^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H enforcement can sieze property and declare it guilty of a conspiracy to commit a crime. Now you can always sue the government to get back the stuff they robbed you of, but it will cost you at least $20,000 to try. Only the most stubborn go through that hell. Sane people just say "to hell with the American fascist state" and continue their lives as if it were an act of nature that injured them.

    The stories of those that fight back are heart breaking, professional photographers that have 20 years of negatives maliciously scratched beyond all recognition by the time they are returned. Men who have their hard won businesses destroyed and their unfortunate employees. Charities that lose all the funds intended for good work. They usually win their court cases eventually, but it is always a pyrrhic victory, years of their life are gone. The cost of fighting against an evil force with the almost unlimited purse of the American tax payer far outweighs the initial losses.

  40. Re:Terminology by gweihir · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.
  41. Re:Doesn't the DOJ have better things to do... by orthogonal · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Unfortunately the DOJ doesn't have the option of picking and choosing which laws to enforce--and especially not according to YOUR whims.

    Yeah! So there!

    That's why when an individual or small company calls the FBI, the FBI always requires damages of at least $5000 before they'll even consider investigating.

    Yeah, that's why prosecutors have no discretion about what charges they dismiss and which they prosecute -- and they never decide to "make an example" of a defendant, or give a sweet plea bargain to a connected defendent, or dig up all sorts of unrelated charges in order to get any conviction after their original charges fall through.

    Yeah! So there!

    So you're saying that when Ashcroft came on board as Attorney General, it wasn't his choice to de-emphasize anti-terrorism enforcement so as to concentrate on cracking down on porn and Tommy Chong? Huh, because he touted those decisions at the time as reasons his Fundamentalist base should be happy about the Bush administration.

    Yeah! So there!

    Hey, tell me, on Big Rock Candy Mountain where you live, how many licorice dollars did your condo cost, 'cause if Bush wins in November, I gotta move there, ok?

  42. Re:Doesn't the DOJ have better things to do... by ESSBAND. · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Jaysus, yet another fucking **AA troll. Does it have to be explained, yet again, to you?

    Stealing a milkshake and copying a digital file are not, I repeat not, the same thing.

    Perhaps a better example would be the person charging you $10 for the recipe of a milkshake and you took a picture of that recipe and shared it with your friends.

    Some 12 year old kid downloading music from the internet is not the same as the 12 year old kid creeping merchandise from Tower Records. There is a potential sale lost in the first case, and actual damages to Tower Recs, the distributor, the manager, etc. in the second.

    I repeat, fundamentally not the same. How did this ignorant and blithe comment get modded as insightful? More **AA patsies in the mod system, I guess.

    One would hope, on /. of all places, that this fundamental difference would be observed. Call it copyright infringement, but do not call it "theft," "piracy," or any other action which it is unequivocally not. There is a difference, and that difference matters. Both may be illegal, but one is a very fundamentally different beast than the other and they should be referred to and dealt with in different ways. Having the penalty for downloading (or uploading, or providing, whatever) digital files shouldn't have the same penalty (actually, much worse) than jacking merch in the store.

  43. Re:Free Rein To Thieves?? by iantri · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Come now.. you are deliberately mixing up two terms to to further your point.

    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..

  44. Re:Terminology by macdaddy357 · · Score: 4, Funny

    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?
  45. Your Arguement? by KrisHolland · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "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.

  46. Re:Doesn't the DOJ have better things to do... by cortana · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The downloader has not deprived the copyright owner of his property. It is not stealing, it is copyright infringement.

  47. Re:Doesn't the DOJ have better things to do... by drsmithy · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The downloader now has in his posession something he obtained without legitimately paying for. That's stealing.

    No, it's not. Stealing is taking something away (ie: so they no longer have it) from another party without right or permission.

    It has nothing to do with having something in your posession. By your logic people who receive gifts are stealing and people who steal something and then give it away are not stealing.

    Word games like this are going to do nothing but make your average joe look at your side of the argument as bizarre extremism.

    It's not a word game at all. It's as simple, clear and obvious a distinction as the difference between manslaughter and murder - and most people don't have any trouble with those. The only people who seem to have difficulty seeing the difference are media company executives, their bought politicians and people who have been too brainwashed by advertising campaigns to actually think about it.

  48. Re:Terminology by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 4, Funny

    This is Ashcroft. Don't you mean Terrorbyte?

  49. The classic "one-track organization" fallacy by rd_syringe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:The classic "one-track organization" fallacy by LordLucless · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Copyright infringement isn't the business of the state. Copyright infringement is a civil offence; it is up to the wronger party to claim damages and press suit. Taxpayer's money should not be used to fund a corporation's civil suit.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
  50. Civil Disobedience by KrisHolland · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "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.