Inside the RIAA and MediaSentry

bsdewhurst sends along an interesting article about how MediaSentry and the RIAA identify file sharers. Since 2003, while the RIAA has been filing 28,000 lawsuits, the percentage of US Internet users using P2P for downloading music has dropped from 20% to 19% (there is no knowing how much of a factor the lawsuits have been). The list the RIAA uses for ISP takedown notices is about 700 currently popular songs that are updated based on the charts, so not liking the top 40 could save you. The list of songs tracked for the user-litigation program is said to be larger.

Comments

The best way to not get caught

[houghi]

is not to download. Put your money where your mouth is and do not listen to it.
Whatever you call it, it is forbidden by law, so stop doing it. If you do not agree with their policy, do do not be a hypocrite and still use their product.

You would not like it if they would compromise your GPL license, so do not compromise theirs.

Re:The best way to not get caught

[JonathanR]

Put your money where your mouth is and do not listen to it I find it's a little hard not to hear the scrunching and gagging sound. The clinking of coins is also a little hard to ignore.

Re:The best way to not get caught

[weierstrass]

it is inaccurate to say that downloading copyrighted music is forbidden by law. it is 'unlawful' rather than 'illegal', so the law allows for the possibility of the copyright owner to seek reparations, but does not forbid it whatsoever.

Re:The best way to not get caught

[cp.tar]

If you do not agree with their policy, do do not be a hypocrite and still use their product.

Well, what if it is not their product?

For instance, what if you cannot buy the songs in question in the format you want?

Besides, what choice do I have? I live in Croatia, and I cannot access the iTunes store, though I would very much like to purchase some music in a high-quality format. My time is more worth than the meager sum I save by hunting it through various torrents, where I may or may not find acceptable quality both in sound and in tags.

And, of course, if there is something available free of charge, many people will take it. It may be illegal (though not in the way you imply), but there is more than one way of putting one's money where their mouth is. One of those ways is copyright infringement.

Re:The best way to not get caught

[Anonymous Coward]

turn off your radio, switch off your TV, and put your head in a bucket...

leave this world of "products" and "intellectual property" and "piracy IS theft", where words can mean whatever you want as long as you pay them enough (the Humpty Dumpty principle)...

if they are going to lock you up for copying bits, they'll lock you up for dissent too, for this is the way of the land of freedom

Re:The best way to not get caught

[Anonymous Coward]

Downloading is not forbidden by current law in the U.S.

What constitutes current "copyrights law(s)" forbids the distribution of copyright-controlled work without creator's approval. The act of downloading is not distribution, unless you are using a P2P sharing program with its defaults set to "share" the contents of your download folder. This is how RIAA lawyers discover and attack.

A more accurate term to use would be "sharing". That would constitute distribution.

Recently, RIAA lawyers have tried to assert that any copy of a copyright work that does not originate with their member corporations is illegal, and have written/supported legislation that would attempt to redefine such works, but that has failed in the courts and has yet to pass through Congress.

So, why put money to something that has essentially been set to minimal value by the market availability of music? Shouldn't the author of said music be happy we're even listening to it? Should they not PAY US to listen to them, above the fray of MILLIONS of artists around the world, now recording and distributing their own music through the Internet?

Re:The best way to not get caught

[morgan_greywolf]

I find it's a little hard not to hear the scrunching and gagging sound. The clinking of coins is also a little hard to ignore.

Oh, for fsck's sake! I give him money for lunch and what does he do? Eat the money! *sigh* *hangs head in shame*

Re:The best way to not get caught

[sm62704]

Whatever you call it, it is forbidden by law, so stop doing it.

Eldred was a miscarraige of justice. When Congress starts writing respectable laws, I'll respect the law. The current copyright laws are no more respectable than the marijuana laws.

However, stop sharing RIAA files because sharing RIAA files only helps the RIAA labels! If they didn't want you to hear it they wouldn't allow it on the radio. File sharing is free advertising, and the RIAA is against it because it is as useful to their competetion as it is to them, while they have radio and the competetion doesn't. If you want that new top-40 song, just plug your radio into your computer and "download" it from your radio.

How to rip from vinyl or tape or radio, and defeat any and all music DRM in the process! The linked file is an illegal thought crime under the DMCA.

Re:The best way to not get caught

[AikonMGB]

it is inaccurate to say that downloading copyrighted music is forbidden by law. it is 'unlawful' rather than 'illegal', so the law allows for the possibility of the copyright owner to seek reparations, but does not forbid it whatsoever.

Even this isn't quite right.. Copyright refers to the distribution of a work. Here in Canada (at least for the moment), it is perfectly lawful (and legal) to download copyrighted works, in the same way that it is lawful to use a photocopier at a library. The part that is not lawful is the sharing back of the work to others. At that point, you are "distributing" the work and infringing on the copyright holder's rights.

Re:The best way to not get caught

[ledow]

1) How do they know it's illegal? Are they aware of every jurisdiction?

2) Are they aware of the *actual* contents of any particular file downloaded? Some cases have been brought on the basis that the filenames were suspicious.

3) Are they aware of my private collection of CD's which, in this modern era, are quicker to download than to rip from the CD? No.

4) Are they aware of my fair use rights, and therefore my ability to exercise them by downloading songs I already have, which has been "approved" by some record labels / artists / courts in some jurisdictions?

5) Do they bother to check their facts BEFORE filing a lawsuit? Apparently not, unless it's to offer "peace treaties" where people sign away rights (including fair use) on the basis of a promise not to prosecute, even when that wouldn't stand up in a court of law.

Apparently, none of the above count when they file lawsuits. That's the problem, not them chasing after people copying copyright material.

So I disagree with their policy. I disagree with many of the lawsuits. I disagree with their tactics. I disagree with their interpretation and publicity surrounding copyright law (the word "pirate" or "theft", for example, when there is no intention to permanently deprive). I disagree with their ignorance of jurisdiction and applicable laws. I disagree with their attempts to strip *existing and well established* rights of my own, on the basis of rumour. I disagree with blanket contracts that people are frightened into signing. I disagree with their pricing policies. I disagree with their segmentation of the market (only offering certain songs online etc.).

And yet, I'm *trying* to give them bloody money. But I'm not doing anything wrong. And all the methods where I can do this either want to charge me all-over-again for the same songs I already have, or punish me by removing my ability to do so (DRM, FUD etc.). Guess why a lot of people hate them. Guess why a lot of less-lawful people just decide to rip their music anyway and don't care for their ramblings. Guess why "piracy" (Yuck!) is rife and they "aren't making money" (Rubbish!).

It's all a scam, based on little actual legal content. The big players won't be stopped by a little bit of DRM or their favourite torrent site going down. The only people to suffer are their prime customer market - people who want to pay them for a song, once, and then have their song (minus broadcast, performance rights etc.) for the course of their life.

Re:The best way to not get caught

[Anonymous Coward]

I could agree with you, except that the record industry has shown itself to be more than willing to trample all over other peoples rights.

I have a memory of the SonyBMG/XCP-debacle, parts of it were about XCP containing source code protected by GPL, but not distributing the source code (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_Copy_Protection#Copyright_violations)

Also, here in Sweden a record company distributed a CD with seven photographs on the cover. They had not obtained the photographers permission, not printed her name and turned the pictures into black-and-white without permission. As per standard pratice the photographer sent the record company a bill of (approx) 160K SEK (not quite US$27K), but was offered 2K SEK plus two tickets for the bands next concert. (http://www.fotosidan.se/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=29644, only Swedish text unfortunately). From the silence from the photographer I think this was settled out of court.

Further, and also in Sweden, IFPI has published a copy of a newspaper article on their website. When asked about this they answered that they didn't know that copyright also extends to written material (http://www.idg.se/2.1085/1.146198, only Swedish text.)

When the record industry tramples other peoples rights under thier feet like that I see no major reason for me to bother about their rights, as long as I don't do it for profit.

Re:The best way to not get caught

[Dorkmaster Flek]

This is true, for now, but it won't be for long if our current government gets their way. I'd blame Harper and his lackey Jim Prentice, but it's likely the Liberals would cave as well if they were in power. I hate Harper more though.

Re:The best way to not get caught

[R2.0]

"law allows for the possibility of the copyright owner to seek reparations, but does not forbid it whatsoever."

So if the law allows me to download songs (i.e. "not forbid it whatsoever"), why should I pay the record companies for a legal act?

You are trying to show a difference in meaning between 2 words where there is none. Whether you use the word "unlawful" or "illegal", downloading is not allowed under the law. The "reparations" associated with that act are damages and penalties, NOT licensing fees - they just happen to be collected by the injured party, not the State. (Note that I disagree with that practice, but it is the law as currently written). Similar to parking ticket - it's not a fee for the parking space, payable to the state. It is a fine for doing something that is not allowed under the law.

Re:The best way to not get caught

[Eivind]

I agree in practice: there's no good reason to download major-label-crap anyway.

But I disagree with the theory; that I should not do something -because- it is illegal. It's not as if laws are infallible sources of moral guidance. There are lots of laws which are flat-out wrong.

You shouldn't do stuff that is WRONG. You should however apply your own head to the problem of right and wrong, and not let your morals be dictated by whomever wrote the laws of your country.

Re:The best way to not get caught

[aplusjimages]

I thought the RIAA was only going after those who are seeding and not those leeching.

Re:The best way to not get caught

[SomeoneGotMyNick]

Put your money where your mouth is and do not listen to it. Sorry, but the cars driving by all day booming the crap prevents me from not listening to it.

Re:The best way to not get caught

[Whibla]

Granted, a lot of their (RIAA) behaviour is reprehensible, but you seem to have ignored virtually everything the article said and trotted out the same old rant.

They, rightly, do not mention suing for copyright infringment for those people who download songs...they do mention suing those people who share their tracks and make them available to upload.

You are not in breach of copyright for dowloading a track; you are in breach of the 'distibution' clause if you allow others to copy it from your computer... ...Quite how you can download if someone else is not uploading though...

p.s. Ianal, so take the above with a pinch of salt

Re:The best way to not get caught

[Pofy]

>Downloading is not forbidden by current law in the U.S.

But creating a copy is in many cases.

>The act of downloading is not distribution,...

It does normally includes creating a copy of what you download on your computer. Hence it can, and often is, a copyright infringement.

Re:The best way to not get caught

[Jarik_Tentsu]

In Australia, I have noticed nothing but an increase in MP3 downloads. It's just such a common thing. Why pay when you can get it for free?

I mean I do buy the occassional album if it's a smallish metal band I love, and who do actually reap most of the profits, but really, even with the RIAA's ridiculous amount of lawsuits, it's still a tiny percentage of the whole 'music piracy' community.

Most people at this age are like that.

~Jarik

Re:The best way to not get caught

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Oh well. It has all the important parts of illegal activity: you can be punished for it, it's frowned upon, and it's immoral. Whether or not it is illegal or a civil matter in your jurisdiction, the GP still raises valid points.

Re:The best way to not get caught

[mumblestheclown]

Let's be really really clear about what you are trying to say, since I think a lot of people will misinterpret.

What weierstrass is commenting on is the semantic difference between "unlawful" and "illegal." It's an important point in law theory, but quite unimportant with regards to the main discussion here, since regardless of whether it's "unlawful" or "illegal", the penalties are the same.

What some of you reading this may have gotten hung up on is "but does not forbid it whatsoever" to mean "so go ahead and download all you want without fear." This is simlpy not the case.

"unlawful" in this case means this: there is NO law that says "Thou art not allowed to tranfer KaiserChiefs-Ruby.mp3 via limewire." In fact, for the most part, "the law" says nothing about mp3 files, p2p networks, ipods, and so forth.

What the law does lay guidelines for, however, is what constitutes LEGAL IP distribution, redistribution, and fair use. Frankly, if you're reading this thread in 2008 and don't know the four or five US provisions for something to be classified as "Fair Use" off the top of your head, then you have no business being in this discussion - get thee to a wikipedia.

So, the law does not "forbid" transferring "KaiserChiefs-Ruby.mp3" via limewire - what it does, however, is state the principles and guidelines under which transferring such intellectual property could be considered legal. Since basically all interpretations have found that wantonly sharing this file on a P2P network does not fall under such guidelines, it is therefore "unlawful".

What does this mean for you? Not much. The penalties and the penalties are the penalties no matter whether it's "illegal" or "unlawful." "The law allows the copyright owner to seek reparations" basically means that if you do it, you can get sued for a lot of money. I'd add to this that it takes very little actual P2P use to cross into the line of CRIMINAL copyright infringement ($1000 worth of material in any 180 day period - I guesstimate that most p2p users exceed this by a considerable margin.)

If you're interested in reading more, please see http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html . It's short reading, but worthwhile for anybody who participates in these threads other than to throw up more piracy-"justifying" obfuscation and FUD.

Oh wait - i said "piracy!" This gives green light for some of you to blather on (incorrectly) about the inappropriateness of the term for copyright infringement and its reservation for high seas crimes. Whew! That sure will get you out of actually confronting the issues.

Re:The best way to not get caught

[Sfing_ter]

I didn't know John Prine read slashdot...
Spanish Pipedream

Re:The best way to not get caught

[Z34107]

After reading the article:

1) They concentrate on college and university networks here in America, and your IP address generally betrays (at least) your nationality. Yes, they are aware.

2) Sources? You may very well be right, but the article says they download the file themselves and run it through a "fingerprinting" software to see if it matches a song they hold a copyright to. (You know, one of those nifty programs that'll tell you what's playing on the radio.) If it's an infringing file, they record its size and hash and look for matches.

3) They're probably not aware of your CD collection. But, what in Xenu's name are you doing torrenting an album you already own, when just putting the disc in the freaking drive gets you whatever quality (even Windows Media Player lets you do lossless!) correct tags, album art, and is done in a few minutes? In what case is finding a torrent faster than ripping the actual disc? Do you have a T3 line connected to a Windows 98 box with a dual-speed CD-ROM drive? And has anyone actually been sued for downloading their own CD collection?

4) Again, why are you downloading songs you already have? And again, has anyone actually been sued for this?

5) It's called "settling out of court." Our courts prefer it, actually. Now, the RIAA has done a lot of stupid, reprehensible things - but if I just finished pirating a record label, I'd rather spend a few hundred bucks to settle out of court than actually go to court for something I know I did illegally/unlawfully/contrasanguinous kittenous.

Now, the prices for a new album are pretty rediculous, especially if you only want one song on the disc. $.99 doesn't cut it, either, if the track's DRM'd. I was burned by the closing of the "URGE" music store, and I had to burn/rip my (rather small) music collection onto disc and off again to play my tracks after they shut down.

I also am a huge fan of Japanese music - but a lot of that's hard to get a hold of without spending $bucks at an importer. (Amazon.com has a surprising selection, though.) It's not like they'll let you into the Japanese iTunes store without a Japanese mailing address and credit card, either - although you can get around that by having someone send you (or e-mail you a scan of) a Japanese iTunes gift card. (Here's the one advantage of our entertainment industry being one evil **AA tradegroup - it's easier to license music. From what little I've heard, their entertainment industry is somewhat more fragmented, which makes it harder for people to license music.)

What a rant! But two points I want to make - it's still illegal/unlawful/contrasanguinous kittenous to "pirate" music, and it's just stupid if you own the disc. If you don't like it enough to pay $.99, then it probably wasn't worth downloading anyway, was it?

Re:The best way to not get caught

[Anonymous Coward]

The whole world is backward on this issue.

It's _downloading_ that should be wrong--but only if you don't already own the CD. If you already own the CD or have bought the MP3 you should be able to download it as many times as you want.

_Uploading_ should always be fine. Since when is it my responsibility to make sure you're entitled to have a song or not.

I know this doesn't mesh with current copyright law, but that just means the law needs to change.

Re:The best way to not get caught

[cliffski]

2For instance, what if you cannot buy the songs in question in the format you want?"

Tough.
If I'm a plumber, and don't work weekends, you don't have the right to force me to work weekends because that's what you would prefer. As a plumber I sell my wages. if a content producer sells licenses to his work, you are no more entitled to dictate what licenses he sells than you are to tell the plumber when he should work. It's their content, not yours.

Re:The best way to not get caught

[orlanz]

"The best way to not get caught is not to _upload_."

There, fixed that for you. Downloading is perfectly legal, except in very specific situations.

Re:The best way to not get caught

[houghi]

For instance, what if you cannot buy the songs in question in the format you want?

Then you are out of luck. It is their decision whether or not they want to sell it to you or not. The license (copyright in this case) lies with them to decide who gets access to it, not by you. All you can do is accept or decline their license.

Re:The best way to not get caught

[lilomar]

Oh, I think that it's appropriate.
From one of the kings of the MPAA...

Yo, ho, haul together,
hoist the colors high.
Heave ho,
thieves and beggars,
never shall we die.

The king and his men
stole the queen from her bed
and bound her in her Bones.
The seas be ours
and by the powers
where we will we'll roam.

Yo, ho, haul together,
hoist the colors high.
Heave ho, thieves and beggars,
never shall we die.

Some men have died
and some are alive
and others sail on the sea
- with the keys to the cage...
and the Devil to pay
we lay to Fiddler's Green!

The bell has been raised
from it's watery grave...
Do you hear it's sepulchral tone?
We are a call to all,
pay head the squall
and turn your sail toward home!

Yo, ho, haul together,
hoist the colors high.
Heave ho, thieves and beggars,
never shall we die.

Re:The best way to not get caught

[nurb432]

For those of us that don't believe in IP rights, we are 'putting our money where you mouth is' and are downloading what we want.

We always have ( even before the commercial internet ), and always will.

I don't see it being a hypocrite.

Re:The best way to not get caught

[tehcyder]

it is inaccurate to say that downloading copyrighted music is forbidden by law. it is 'unlawful' rather than 'illegal', so the law allows for the possibility of the copyright owner to seek reparations, but does not forbid it whatsoever.

In fact, in US/UK legal terms, it is a civil rather than a criminal matter. Or at least, it still is in the UK, the US I'm not sos ure about any more.

Re:The best way to not get caught

[snowraver1]

Similar to parking ticket - it's not a fee for the parking space, payable to the state. It is a fine for doing something that is not allowed under the law.

Call it what you want, I can still park under a stop sign every day if i'm prepared to pay the $35 fee. Oddly similar to paying $18+ to park in a real parking spot, just you pay at the end, not the beginning.

Re:The best way to not get caught

[pm_rat_poison]

Have you heard of civil disobedience? If you don't believe a law is right, you just don't obey it, but you bear the full extent of the consequences of your actions. The theory is that your disobedience, if justified, will potentially lead other people to follow your example eventually either creating a political trend that can no longer be ignored, or by creating a status quo which renders the law de facto obsolete. Sponsored by Ghandi and friends.
----
Left Wing: Poor people stealing from the rich
Right Wing: Rich people stealing from the poor

Re:The best way to not get caught

[Pofy]

> You may very well be right, but the article says they
> download the file themselves and run it through a
>"fingerprinting" software to see if it matches a song
> they hold a copyright to.

Out of curiosity, what if they found out through the fingerprinting that it was NOT a song they hold the copyright to, do they then report themselves for copyright infringement? And how large is the fractions of files they download something they don't hold the copyright to? 1%? 50%? Something else?

Re:The best way to not get caught

[Z34107]

For all the stretches of fair use I see here, downloading "03_Beyonce_Alubmtitle_Songtitle.mp3" to see if it's Beyonce's Songtitle from Albumtitle is probably the more reasonable.

I'm guessing that the RIAA doesn't even keep the stuff that they do own - that's a lot of space, when file sizes and hashes are only a few bytes.

Re:The best way to not get caught

[Jor-Al]

downloading is not allowed under the law. Where does any law say that? The law only forbids the distributing copyrighted works and the courts have confirmed that in a number of cases.

Re:The best way to not get caught

[Bud Dickman]

Look, I've got to use the toilet badly. Could you stop posting on Slashdot and get over here to fix this already?

Re:The best way to not get caught

[sconeu]

Tell that to Tanya Andersen.

Re:The best way to not get caught

[tehcyder]

there is NO law that says "Thou art not allowed to tranfer KaiserChiefs-Ruby.mp3 via limewire."

There bleeding well should be, that song was awful.

Re:The best way to not get caught

[vux984]

Call it what you want, I can still park under a stop sign every day if i'm prepared to pay the $35 fee.

And you can bludgeon a man to death with a baseball bat too if your prepared to pay the price too. Does that make it somehow legal?

Re:The best way to not get caught

[PylonHead]

And if you ever get a letter from the RIAA, then you literally will be putting your money where your mouth was.

You might find that your choice of music distribution was more expensive than iTunes.

Re:The best way to not get caught

[nurb432]

Nope, as i wont be bowing to their scare/extortion tactics.

Re:The best way to not get caught

[R2.0]

That is a good point, which someone below made. Indeed, it is distributing that is illegal, and "sharing" is where it gets murky.

In my defense, I was responding to the OP who got confused as well.

Re:The best way to not get caught

[Heddahenrik]

Sorry, but I don't care if you're a plumber and don't work on weekends. I'll break your monopoly on plumbing and fix the toilet anyway!

That's what information piracy is all about: Breaking a monopoly. Claiming the right to use the computers we own and Internet we hire in any way we want as long as we don't hurt anyone.

Maybe the record companies feel hurt when they can't sell the same information again and again, but I don't see why we should say no to the huge benefits of free information charing just because they feel hurt if they can't steal money and freedom from us.

Making sure that the ones producing information are getting paid is a different issue. In principle, if you buy a right (to copy something), you're paying a tax even though the tax money goes to some used to be musician. It takes no Einstein to figure out that taxation of information sharing and giving tax-money to people who aren't doing something is as stupid as the president of USA...

Re:The best way to not get caught

[Anonymous Coward]

Whatever you call it, it is forbidden by law, so stop doing it. Being illegal doesn't make it wrong.

Re:The best way to not get caught

[JD-1027]

Think about it like this (since your analogy is flawed a bit)...

Person A creates product X, and has infinite quantity of item X.
Person B's life would be improved if he had some of item X.
Person C has infinite quantity of item X.

Person B: "May I buy some X please? It would make me happy!"
Person A: "No."
Person B: "Person C has some X, and has offered some to me, may I use some of his please?"
Person A: "No."

Person A does not deserve to live in a civilized society. How can you deny someone something you have an infinite quantity of when they have no other method to get it, and it would improve their life?

Re:The best way to not get caught

[rbrinkman]

Actually its not the downloading* that is the problem, its the uploading that is the "file-sharing" part that gets you in trouble. *See also NNTP.

Re:The best way to not get caught

[JD-1027]

Well put.

I'm sick of people taking moral guidance from laws. That leads to a messed up society... the one we are headed that is run by corporations where "law == morals"

Re:The best way to not get caught

[Heddahenrik]

"And yet, I'm *trying* to give them bloody money. But I'm not doing anything wrong. "

Yes, you are. You're trying to give them money so that they can harass people, severely limit our freedom and steal money with help of the tax on copying they are allowed to take. You're a bad evil person, not much better than RIAA!

If you want to support a band, it's much better to go to a concert. Or even buy the crap they are advertising, if they are into that. Paying for information is great capitalism, but paying for it when it's already public, that's Mugabe style of economic.

Re:The best way to not get caught

[Idiomatick]

Since when was illegality equivalent to immorality?
 
  Furthermore when did I ever say music was worth 20$ a cd? I don't agree with RIAA policy and they don't have a product... unless you are referring to the turn yourself in service. But no, i don't use that.

Re:The best way to not get caught

[cp.tar]

Well, I decline their license.
Then I accept a freebie from someone who doesn't mind sharing what he has.

Unlicensed it may be, but the one thing going for the culture I grew up in is the fact that we don't let trivialities such as these stop us.

Piracy is an evolutionary force. The MAFIAA and their ilk will learn to adapt.
The only question is whether they will adapt themselves or the laws. And if they adapt the laws to serve them, how long it will take the Americans to organize another revolution. Or do you still think nation-wide elections really make a difference?

Re:The best way to not get caught

[Qzukk]

If I'm a plumber, and don't work weekends, you don't have the right to force me to work weekends because that's what you would prefer.

Then you have absolutely no grounds to whine if I get someone else to come over and fix my toilet because you refuse to take my money on a weekend.

Re:The best way to not get caught

[mpe]

Out of curiosity, what if they found out through the fingerprinting that it was NOT a song they hold the copyright to, do they then report themselves for copyright infringement?

Of course not, these people are world class hypocrits.

And how large is the fractions of files they download something they don't hold the copyright to? 1%? 50%? Something else?

It would also be interesting to know what the false positive rate is for their "fingerprinting"...

Re:The best way to not get caught

[hackstraw]

If I'm a plumber, and don't work weekends, you don't have the right to force me to work weekends because that's what you would prefer.

Well then, I'll go to the plumber that charges less and gives me what I want, when I want it.

Deal?

Re:The best way to not get caught

[Anonymous Coward]

Whether you use the word "unlawful" or "illegal", downloading is not allowed under the law

The laws of which country? There are many countries in which it is legal.

The United States of America is one such country that allows downloading of copyrighted materials. There are many online stores that allow you to download copyrighted content. I have downloaded quite a lot of that content from the iTunes store...all perfectly legally.

In Canada it is certainly legal to share copyrighted content with your friends. The courts there have ruled that 'sharing' via downloading over a computer network is perfectly legal.

So what part of downloading is not allowed under the law?

Re:The best way to not get caught

[Travelsonic]

Further adding $0.02, just because it is copyrighted doesn't necessarily mean sharing it is a crime. There are a lot of works that are shared - legally, with the creators permission - that are in fact copyrighted. his is a note that I feel NEEDS to be made.

Re:The best way to not get caught

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice Strawman.

Re:The best way to not get caught

[Travelsonic]

And further, that downloading is only forbidden if the copyright holder does't allow it, not jut because a file is/isn't copyrighted. :)

Re:The best way to not get caught

[daradib]

You would not like it if they would compromise your GPL license, so do not compromise theirs. But they (RIAA/MPAA) already do compromise the GPL license. Look at the MPAA university toolkit.

Re:The best way to not get caught

[snowraver1]

Not legal, no, but my argument still holds. If I were to beat someone to death with a baseball bat, the penaly would no longer be $35, but 5-25 years in prison (depending on the charge). Depending on the person I am sh*t kicking, it may, or may not, be worth 5-25 years of ass pounding in jail.

Also you are comparing civil actions, to criminal actions. The $35 dollar parking ticket is unlikely to come back and haunt me, while a murder charge carries significantly more baggage.

I, personally think that it should be a human right to be allowed to break the law. After you break the law, you should be hunted down like a dog, and prosecuted (or for a parking ticket, pay the $$$).

Re:The best way to not get caught

[Crazyswedishguy]

Put your money where your mouth is and do not listen to it. I did. It didn't taste very good. Maybe because it was dirty. I'll put it in the laundry and try again.

Re:The best way to not get caught

[Not The Real Me]

"...who are seeding and not those leeching..."

Once a leecher has downloaded a full copy of the file and then shares that file, they become a seeder. On a 3Mbs DSL connection, a leecher can become a seeder in less than one minute.

The RIAA is taking the vacuum cleaner approach and sucking up everyone who is sharing the same file. The only way for the RIAA to find the person who created the rip would be if the person doing the ripping added metadata that linked them to the ripped file.

Re:The best way to not get caught

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, your anology doesnt apply as plumbing is an fungible service and cliffski can hire an plumber that works on weekends.

(Posted as anon due to hassle of signing up)

Re:The best way to not get caught

[deathy_epl ccs]

Whatever you call it, it is forbidden by law, so stop doing it. If you do not agree with their policy, do do not be a hypocrite and still use their product.

Civil disobedience is a valid way to protest a law that you disagree with. What you recommend is a rather sheepish way to cope.

If you don't agree with something, you should fight it!

If we were to just follow every law, no matter how stupid, we'd never have gotten rid of some of the stupidest of them.

Re:The best way to not get caught

[Omestes]

Whatever you call it, it is forbidden by law, so stop doing it.

For all the arguments against piracy, this is by far the weakest. Just because something is illegal, doesn't mean it is morally or ethically wrong. There is no reason to follow unjust laws, and one can make the case that breaking them is more ethical than following them.

For example, is it really unethical to freely get music whose original author is dead, or no longer holds the rights to? Is me downloading Ella Fitzgerald tracks ethically wrong, even if it is illegal?

Re:The best way to not get caught

[Anonymous Coward]

Thats such a good idea I'm going to start ripping FLACs from my radio and uploading them to all the private torrent sites I can. High quality ahoy!

Re:The best way to not get caught

[strabes]

Just because something is illegal does not mean that it is morally wrong or that the law itself is just. I can think of a few examples of this in American history.

Re:The best way to not get caught

[Anonymous Coward]

A better analogy might be:

You're a plumber, and you don't work on weekends. However, a younger, less experienced and unlicensed plumber offers to work on weekends for drastically reduced cost.

Though illicit, the younger plumber is fulfilling a need that isn't being fulfilled by the current legal channels.

You might be grumbling about it, but the unlicensed plumber is making customers happy in a way you can't.

Re:The best way to not get caught

[Anonymous Coward]

In other words it is the people who are doing the dissemination of the work who are at fault, not the folks who are benefiting by the actual downloading of that work. Nice. I should move to Canadia.

Re:The best way to not get caught

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice explanation, well said.

Re:The best way to not get caught

[Doc Daneeka]

Why do I download music I, or my nuclear family, already own?
1) We own it on vinyl/tape/whatever and do not want to go buy another device to convert it to .mp3 or any other format
2) The tape/disc/whatever was damaged and unrecoverable
3) DRM makes it highly unreasonable to rip the cd to my harddrive
4) The music disc is at home while I am far enough away so that downloading is cheaper than a round trip

It's only stupid if you have the disc with you, have a computer with ripping capabilities, and the free time to do it. Otherwise, it would be quite intelligent of you to save time by downloading instead of ripping. *mumbles damn gray area invalidating assumed perfect, and absolute, conditions*

Re:The best way to not get caught

[fugue]

That's no fee, it's a fine.

You're making the argument that the only laws are the laws of physics (etc). Humans can't make laws, in that they can't make it impossible to do something. Since we can only punish people for what we've deemed immoral, everything is legal. You've defined a perfectly good word so that it doesn't refer to anything.

Except physics. Having law use its own damn words rather than stealing from science would be nice, but it just ain't gonna happen.

I still like the idea of selling organic food, produced however I want, and maybe even squeezing a little gasoline into it before delivery. Yep, it's got hydrocarbons in it, yer hanner. It's organic.

Re:The best way to not get caught

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh! Is that all you have to do? Well here's something that may be of interest to you.

http://dmca.cs.washington.edu/

This paper documents how a printer can easily produce a false positive. What is the best way not to get caught when you haven't actually downloaded any illegal material? I would find that advice more helpful.

Re:The best way to not get caught

[Ihmhi]

Unless you set up your client to stop seeding when you have completely downloaded it. It's a dick move, but the functionality is included in more than a few clients.

Re:The best way to not get caught

[bsdewhurst]

For the record, I submitted the story. Now that this disclaimer is over. I agree with you, I don't download myself so am unlikely to get caught, not being in the US would also help. The main reason I did submit this story is to point out the facts 28,000 lawsuits and no real drop in the percentage of people getting music from P2P systems, in fact the number of internet users would have increased in that time so the absolute numbers of users of P2P system would have increased as well. So the lawsuits aren't working. My other point is that they are focusing on the most popular songs, which means they are more likely to be suing 13 year old girls who love the latest plastic pop than a 40 something geek listening to Van Morrison, you know the lawsuits that make them unpopular. I guess it helps that these are the people who cannot fight back on technical details.

Re:The best way to not get caught

[vux984]

Not legal, no,

To use your words "call it what you will". Its all the same, each action has a price. If you pay the price, you can do the action... park in a lot for $18, park by a stop sign for $35, park on top of a homeless man for some time in the can. No real difference between them except the price.

but my argument still holds. If I were to beat someone to death with a baseball bat, the penaly would no longer be $35, but 5-25 years in prison (depending on the charge). Depending on the person I am sh*t kicking, it may, or may not, be worth 5-25 years of ass pounding in jail.

So if you deem it worth the price, its ok to do it?

Also you are comparing civil actions, to criminal actions.

"Call it what you will."

Those labels are just needless distinctions. They are all just actions, each with a price, right?

The $35 dollar parking ticket is unlikely to come back and haunt me, while a murder charge carries significantly more baggage.

Part of the price.

I, personally think that it should be a human right to be allowed to break the law. After you break the law, you should be hunted down like a dog, and prosecuted (or for a parking ticket, pay the $$$).

So if sending a virus on purpose were against the law (and it is to my knowledge) if an ISP installs effective antivirus on their mail servers preventing you from being able to send their subscribers a virus, they would be violating your human right to break the law?

At what point does societies desire to protect itself from you breaking the law infringe on your right to "break the law". Because societies do all kinds of things to prevent people from breaking the law... we put locks on our doors to prevent invasion, tresspass, and theft. We have all manner of anti-counterfeiting technology in our currency. Stores tag merchandise to prevent shoplifting. The FDA audits labs to ensure hygenic conditions and proper quality process controls are in place... etc etc etc, all seemingly at odds with your human right to break the law.

Surely you don't really object to all that stuff?

Re:The best way to not get caught

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a bad analogy. Your time is scarce. An mp3 file is not. You may argue that the artist's time is scarce, but the artist's time is not consumed when an mp3 is downloaded.

Re:The best way to not get caught

[jgoemat]

Copyright refers to the distribution of a work.

Not true. Distribution is only one of the rights copyright holders are granted a monopoly on, at least in the U.S.. The other rights are to reproduce (copy), prepare derivative works, perform the works publicly and display the works publicly.

At one point at least running a program was considered protected by copyright because the program was copied into the computer's memory from disk. There was a company that developed trucking software and had maintenance contracts. Another company competed for the maintenance contracts. The court ruled that after the company started licensing the software instead of selling it, the other company had violated copyright when servicing the software since it involved running the program and thereby copying it into memory. Prior to licensing that was OK because of the first sale doctrine I believe.

Re:The best way to not get caught

[Anonymous Coward]

do you actually believe the shit that you write?

Re:The best way to not get caught

[Anonymous Coward]

is not to download. Put your money where your mouth is and do not listen to it.
Whatever you call it, it is forbidden by law, so stop doing it. If you do not agree with their policy, do do not be a hypocrite and still use their product.

You would not like it if they would compromise your GPL license, so do not compromise theirs. jaywalking is forbidden by law....so is sodomy.

Re:The best way to not get caught

[zmollusc]

If, since I can't force you to work weekends, is it ok if I copy the plumbing you did on someone else's bathroom if i supply the materials and labour? Or will that cost you money, somehow?

Re:The best way to not get caught

[AikonMGB]

As far as my understanding goes, the situation you have described falls under the umbrella of licensing and not copyright; for example, if the software's license indicated in someway that it was prohibited for the third-party to service the software in that manner.

Re:The best way to not get caught

[snowraver1]

Thank you for your reply. Very well thought out.

When you commit a crime, you are in debt to the community. The sentance is your repayment of that debbt.

At what point does societies desire to protect itself from you breaking the law infringe on your right to "break the law".

When my freedoms are taken away.

we put locks on our doors to prevent invasion, tresspass, and theft

We do, and you can do whatever you want with your stuff. If you were to put handcuffs on everyone just in case they might B&E, we have a problem. Filtering the internet is similar to handcuffing everyone.

We have all manner of anti-counterfeiting technology in our currency.

We do, yet I can still study it and if I'm good enough (really good!) duplicate it. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't be sold tools that MIGHT be used to counterfit currency.

The FDA audits labs to ensure hygenic conditions and proper quality process controls are in place...

Yet you can still ignore them should you choose. If they assign a FDA person to watch over every worker 24/7, we have a problem.

I'm really not trying to comtinue a flame war, and really do appreciate your point of view. I'd add you to my friends list if I could figure it out. Basically i'm just sick and tired of the gov't telling me what I can and can't do. I'm sure that you can appreciate that. Good day to you good sir!

Re:The best way to not get caught

[vux984]

When you commit a crime, you are in debt to the community. The sentance is your repayment of that debbt.

That is part of the rationale behind punishment. But really, society is actively trying to discourage you from going into 'debt' in the first place. Passing a law and making you pay $35 for parking is primarily to dissuade you from parking by stop signs in the first place. It was not intended to be 'rich persons parking'.

When my freedoms are taken away.

But that happens in all the cases I cited.

We do, and you can do whatever you want with your stuff. If you were to put handcuffs on everyone just in case they might B&E, we have a problem.

Agreed. But at the same time, the moment I put a lock on my door I took away your freedom to open it. Some small measure of your freedom to 'break the law' and tresspass at will has been clearly taken away.

Now at the same time I agree you shouldn't be forced into wearing handcuffs 24x7 just in case, and I certainly don't advocate that we submit to being clockwork oranges. But at the same time...

How is an ISP that scans for viruses and spam any different than wearing handcuffs all the time? All your traffic flows fine until you try to move a virus or spam... then it clamps down and blocks it. Is that acceptable or not?

How is an ISP filtering childporn any different from that?
Is it ok for them to block viruses and spam but not childporn?

Besides you should only ever notice when you try to access child porn. Assuming you don't do this, it doesn't affect you. The moment you try, the filters block the attempt. The filters are there all the time, but they don't clamp down and restrict you until you try to do something illegal. Do you consider that being handcuffed 24x7? or just when they clamp down?

Its an interesting problem, and I mentioned clockwork orange because that is -exactly- the situation in A Clockwork Orange. The restraints on Alex clamped down the moment he tried to engage in rape or violence.

Filtering the internet is similar to handcuffing everyone.
Similiar maybe. But is it the same? Do you realy object to your ISP blocking spam or viruses?

I'm really not trying to comtinue a flame war, and really do appreciate your point of view. I'd add you to my friends list if I could figure it out. Basically i'm just sick and tired of the gov't telling me what I can and can't do. I'm sure that you can appreciate that. Good day to you good sir!

I didn't really see this as a flame war. And I appreciate your point of view. I wholeheartedly agree that becoming clockwork oranges where our ability to even choose to commit a crime has been effectively taken from us is a very bad thing. But at the same time, I can't find it in me to object to isps filtering spam and viruses.

And I'm having a hard time seeing how an ISP filtering child porn and an ISP filtering viruses are truly different.

Re:The best way to not get caught

[Paradigm_Complex]

"Let's put it this way: if you need to ask a lawyer whether what you do is "right" or not, you are morally corrupt. Let's not go there. We don't base our morality on law." -- Linus Torvalds

Re:The best way to not get caught

[Z34107]

I totally agree with you on #1. Of course, they'll want you to buy The Beatles Remastered Special Dolby 5.1 Edition Deluxe ZOMGPONIES! for the thousandth time, and they could probably get away with sueing you for torrenting the tracks that originally came on on the vinyl you own. But, it is my humble belief that torrenting a digital copy (if you own the record) should be fair use.

Ditto for tapes, but for a disc I would just eat the cost and buy another one. (Generally I rip to my hard drive and lose the disc in some pile anyways; the original might as well have been lost.)

I'm confused on number three. (Posting with numbered "bullet points" makes nit-picking sooo much easier ^.^) Let's take Windows Media Player - arguably the worst media player ever created. Even with this atrocious program, you can rip to completely unencumbered MP3s (128, 192, 256, or 320Kbps), lossless WAV (also unencumbered), or Windows Media Lossless (much smaller, also unencumbered unless you check "copy protect my music.")

Number four is another odd case, but you really should have ripped a copy (see #3) before you left the disc somewhere inconvenient. Remember that with torrents or most any other peer to peer application, every "fair use" bit that you download is offset by some fraction that you upload to those "not-so-fair-use" individuals. With bittorrent you can just refuse to seed, but short of special kludges (NinjaTorrent or whatever), you'll be punished with dial-up speeds for not seeding.

Ripping a CD to MP3 on my machine is finished before the first track is done playing. I only have 3Mbit DSL (which behaves like a 2Mbit line); finding the songs and downloading them is probably going to take from 15-30 minutes. More if I want lossless copies - those are both impossible to find and take a long time to download.

Take the worst case scenario: A six-year-old XP machine. Click start -> run -> wmplayer. Click on the "rip" button. Put your disc in. Wait five minutes, and watch as it properly tags all of your tracks, gets you the album cover, and puts it in its proper place in the rip folder. Easier than having to normalize somebody else's tags, or worse, do all the digging myself.

Is <rant/> valid HTML? I think I need to properly close mine >.>

Re:The best way to not get caught

[Doc Daneeka]

I wanted to make a concise list of reasons I've had to download torrents of media I already owned. I agree that #3, by itself, looks like something that can be easily circumvented by a smart enough person with the time and the means for most media. However, I got kind of irritated by Nine Inch Nail's With Teeth duel disc. One side was DVD and the other was cd. I couldn't get the damn disc drive to recognize that I actually inserted a disc, let alone rip the media. So, I took the shortest, easiest path and downloaded it. I definitely would not expect my parents or siblings to know how to do rip a cd like this if they don't even know how to install OpenOffice without me explaining in detail over the phone.

#4 is the case where I am at my university, a significant distance from school, and maybe forget one or a few cds, have to wipe a partition, have my mp3 player screw up on me, or some combination thereof. I have learned from these mistakes but they are understandable mistakes for people that haven't had a big data loss before so they have no idea they should make backups.

An example: my mp3 player was being stupid and not recognizing the files I was trying to add to it because it decided it needed to reencode every music file into an arcane file type. So, I used some free mp3 player software to be able to play regular file types. It turned out I needed to delete all of the old music files and reload them all with regular suffixes but I forgot that I didn't have a few of the cds with me or on my computer. I had accidentally wiped them after I installed Windows XP + Ubuntu onto my laptop and had left the originals at home. Make backups: lesson learned.

It isn't that big of a deal to rip music for most people but it does eventually become a bit "burdensome", or rather dull, to rip or rerip an entire collection spanning multiple media formats.

Again, that worst case scenario isn't that bad, but normalizing someone else tags isn't that bad either - it helps if you just mass rename, import into wmplayer and find the correct album. The whole point of this is choice. The consumer deserves to be able choose to make mistakes on their computer without being overly punished for doing so when they try to learn how to correct them.

Re:The best way to not get caught

[paulgrant]

pirates generally kill the crew or clap them in irons when they're done. any objection?

there is a world of difference between, copying of a book, and hostis humanis generi.

I think its about time somebody pillaged your village to remind you.

Re:The best way to not get caught

[Z34107]

Dual discs... so that's what those are. I wouldn't expect most programs to recgonize the DVD half of it, but downloading VLC and clicking file->wizard should take you through most of the steps of ripping the audio out of the DVD part of it.

Is is (or should be) legal to download something you already own in some form, neglecting the fact that you generally have to share/upload/seed to others who probably don't own it. It's just unfathomable to me that anyone would try to download something when they have the disc right there... ^.^ I would rather spend the $150 for a drive and eSATA enclosure and never worry about backups again than try to fight with torrents or rapidshare or, heaven forbid, kazaa or some other gnutella POS.

Personal preference, I guess. I have the disc, and the disk space, so I want my copy lossless. Let WMP re-encode it for me when I plug my MP3 player in. But, I can see where others would prefer to get online copies - just be careful with the torrents, especially at college. Mine will potentially kick you out for torrenting music (it's in the honor code, but it's mostly a bandwidth problem) and the RIAA seem to be focusing on campuses. A judge probably would, but they won't buy the "fair use" bit if you're using a protocol that can upload to other clients.

Re:The best way to not get caught

[mpe]

If I'm a plumber, and don't work weekends, you don't have the right to force me to work weekends because that's what you would prefer. As a plumber I sell my wages. if a content producer sells licenses to his work, you are no more entitled to dictate what licenses he sells than you are to tell the plumber when he should work. It's their content, not yours.

The important difference is that you don't get to tell people that they can't use another plumber. Also your work is intrinsically scarce. The economics of plumbing would change if it were trivially easy to magic up an arbitary number of plumbers.

Re:The best way to not get caught

[mgblst]

You analogy is a bit rusty.

What is you are the only plumber in town, and refused to work on weekends, and then found out that people were fixing there own toilets, and started suing them.

That is a more accurate analogy.

Re:The best way to not get caught

[PheniciaBarimen]

3) They're probably not aware of your CD collection. But, what in Xenu's name are you doing torrenting an album you already own, when just putting the disc in the freaking drive gets you whatever quality (even Windows Media Player lets you do lossless!) correct tags, album art, and is done in a few minutes? In what case is finding a torrent faster than ripping the actual disc? Do you have a T3 line connected to a Windows 98 box with a dual-speed CD-ROM drive? And has anyone actually been sued for downloading their own CD collection?

I can think of when I had done that with my CD collection. It took 5 days of nothing but swapping out disks upon disks, and if it couldn't find the album on windows media player look up (i.e. some of the complication cd's they sell with all the good songs on them cheeply. Your still hand typing in your information.)

This was back before the age of P2P or iTunes - and then after the fact I still bought someof the new ones in CD and iTunes format because it took less time. What is easier setting something to download while you sleep - or sitting there with stacks of CD's for days?

Re:The best way to not get caught

[cliffski]

fine. write your own game, and make your own movie.

Re:The best way to not get caught

[Anonymous Coward]

That might minimize the chances of you getting caught, but still doesn't get those chances down to zero. No matter what you do, you still may end up in court or offered a "settlement." You don't have to do anything wrong or illegal for bullies to be a threat.

Re:The best way to not get caught

[Anonymous Coward]

Out of curiosity, do all of you buy all of your music/movies/games/etc.? Here in the real world I see a lot of people are struggling just to get by. If they can't afford to dish out money to the record labels and artists, why is that a problem?

Re:The best way to not get caught

[jgoemat]

All licensing is really is allowing one party to perform the acts prohibited by the copyright monopoly of another. There's an exception in copyright law for the owner of copy of the software to make use of the software by copying into ram to run the program, but that doesn't automatically apply when the software is licensed instead of sold. If you didn't purchase and didn't license a piece of software for instance, you would be violating copyright just by copying it into memory by executing it. I think I found the case I was thinking of, TRIAD SYSTEMS CORPORATION v. SOUTHEASTERN EXPRESS COMPANY.

Numbers

[MichaelSmith]

Since 2003, while the RIAA has been filing 28,000 lawsuits, the percentage of US Internet users using P2P for downloading music has dropped from 20% to 19% So the actual number has doubled or something, and the percentage might have gone from 20.1 to 19.9 depending on how it is rounded.

Re:Numbers

[capnkr]

Don't take them, or this article, serious. It's a puff-piece, something to make Joe Public think that what the MAFIAA is doing is a legitimate way to identify offenders, and to make them think that their methods are so technologically complex that they can't be wrong. It's also another big-publication article the MAFIAA can point out to Congresscritters they are trying to influence/buy.

Just stay away from MAFIAA music - support indies, and those artists who have broken out from under the "protection" they had foisted on them by signing a contract with a big label.

Re:Numbers

[supremebob]

The big problem with supporting independent music is finding artists that you like. Since they're not part of the RIAA marketing machine, odds are that I'm never going to hear their music on the radio, see it on TV, or find it as a featured download on iTunes.

I wish that there were more mainstream methods out there of promoting independent music. And my mainstream, I mean something that most people have actually heard of and use to find independent music! Yes, I'm sure that there are already tons of indie fan sites out there, but they aren't much help if most people have never seen them.

Re:Numbers

[Anonymous Coward]

Question : do you really think calling them the MAFIAA makes your point seem a grown up approach to the issue? or just a silly teenage angsty rant against whoever its cool to bash this year.

Re:Numbers

[capnkr]

Actually, it's been almost 42 years since I was born, and despite not being a teenager, I think using the word "MAFIAA" reflects very nicely their tactics, the way that I've seen them to shake people down. I'm no proponent of piracy (even though I *am* a sailor...;) ), and in fact advocate against it whenever I see evidence of my customers having done so when I fix their systems.

Yet the heavy-handed tactics, their sense of entitlement, their buying of politicians, their often scant evidence turned into a weapon of overwhelming force when wielded by their army of lawyers, and the expense incurred upon *innocent people* to fight these oftentimes spurious claims makes me regard them with no sense of respect, none at all. So my disrespect is shown here in a textual manner by the use of a descriptive and IMO demeaning name.

Sorry if that sparked *your own* angst there, pal, but I can't help what you choose to get upset about.

Re:Numbers

[capnkr]

I listen to "free" internet radio stations (those which feature indie artists) and get the names of bands I like from there.

RadioTower
GarageBand
Live365

Re:Numbers

[mpe]

It's a puff-piece, something to make Joe Public think that what the MAFIAA is doing is a legitimate way to identify offenders,

A bit like censorware producers claiming that their block lists are at least "reviewed" by humans. Even though it's typically possible to find "overblocking" characteristic of machines in such products.

and to make them think that their methods are so technologically complex that they can't be wrong.

Whereas anyone from a science/technology background will realise that the more complex a system, the more likely it is to generate errors...

now lets do the math

[queldor]

5 years for 1%. so in 2103 it will be down to 0%. Way to go RIAA!!! That will also be 532,000 lawsuits.. and don't forgot that is IF that 1% was from them..

Re:now lets do the math

[an.echte.trilingue]

I might just be getting old, but I think that music today is less compelling than it was 10 or even 5 years ago. Seriously, music today is crap. The drop probably has more to do with people not wanting big label music even if they can get it for free over the internet.

Of course, it should be noted that one percent is much smaller than the sampling error for this kind of thing, so for all we know it could have gone up.

Re:now lets do the math

[loutr]

I might just be getting old, but I think that music today is less compelling than it was 10 or even 5 years ago. Seriously, music today is crap. If by "music today" you mean "Britney Spears and Justin Timberlake", then you are right. However, there's plenty of brilliant bands that are worth listening to nowadays. For example, if you were a prog rock fan in the 70's you might want to check out Porcupine Tree, or Ozric Tentacle. Same goes for almost every genre, you juste have to search a bit (emusic is a good place to start).

Re:now lets do the math

[Anonymous Coward]

Most pop music today is crap, yes. There's still a LOT of good stuff coming out. You just have to put some effort into finding it.

Re:now lets do the math

[TapeCutter]

I am an old fart, since my parents bought our first record player in the 60's I have seen a handfull of great albums appear each year (same with films). IMHO the output of good music/films/TV has stayed relatively stable even though the volume and variety of all these different mediums has exploded.

Re:now lets do the math

[Myrddin Wyllt]

The Ozrics have been kicking around since the early eighties, always seemed to turn up at Stonehenge and Glastonbury; not a good example of 'music today' I would say.

(Yeah I know they're still recording / gigging, but so are The Stones)

"has dropped from 20% to 19%"

[weierstrass]

a complete meaningless statistic.

The error inherent to measuring something that is 'unlawful' and often frowned upon is far greater than the difference between 19 and 20 percent. Perhaps everyone has simply got better at concealing their downloading of copyrighted material (mp3 blogs, private trackers, etc) or perhaps the effect of the RIAA's grandma-suing onslaught has been that people lie about their online activity more.

As a music lover

[east coast]

so not liking the top 40 could save you.

In ways that are too many to count.

Targeting Certain Universities?

[slifox]

From the article:

"There is an idea that we target certain universities," the investigator says. "That is completely incorrect and, technically, not possible. We find what we find by song and through public means; we don't try to get into a university's internal system." Who said anything about trying to get into a "university's internal system"?

The question is more like: Are they only sending take-down notices to certain universities?

No notices have been sent to Harvard, supposedly because they have lots of money, power, and law professors

Re:Targeting Certain Universities?

[yakumo.unr]

They did try and get into university internal networks though : "MPAA College Toolkit Raises Privacy, Security Concerns" and more on google: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=MPAA++university+toolkit&btnG=Search

Re:Targeting Certain Universities?

[Anonymous Coward]

On the contrary - Harvard certainly has received notices through their IT department. I can't say whether they've received them specifically from the RIAA, but I would be surprised if they hadn't. http://www.dmca.harvard.edu/copyright_policy.php

Re:Targeting Certain Universities?

[mpe]

They did try and get into university internal networks though : "MPAA College Toolkit Raises Privacy, Security Concerns"

Using software which they had "pirated". Thus showing everyone exactly what kind of hypocrits they are.

Re:Targeting Certain Universities?

[silgaun]

Here is a question for them: If it is not possible to target a whole university, which may be attached to an entire block of IP addresses, then how is it still possible to target an individual? It seems to me that it would be easier to identify a university than one person. Then again, I shouldn't be surprised something they say isn't logical.

Re:Targeting Certain Universities?

[Anonymous Coward]

MPAA != RIAA

Re:Targeting Certain Universities?

[PheniciaBarimen]

I don't know about notices, but I know when I was in college we we're all given notices of when to expect the servers to slow down because RIAA was scanned the university server for pirated music. I think they got like one kid who had an audio clip on their university website - which was all of please take this down.

No drop in file sharers

[Anonymous Coward]

"Since 2003, while the RIAA has been filing 28,000 lawsuits, the percentage of US Internet users using P2P for downloading music has dropped from 20% to 19%" http://www.internetworldstats.com/am/us.htm Internet Users in 2003 - 172,250,000 - About 320000 file sharers Internet Users in 2007 - 212,080,135 - About 420000 file sharers That's not a drop by any means, although the sentence in the article reads: "Since 2003, labels have filed more than 28,000 lawsuits against individual file sharers.", so I don't know where these figures are coming from

Re:No drop in file sharers

[bsdewhurst]

Thank you, I didn't have the numbers myself when I submitted the story but I knew that it may have been a percentage drop but an increase in absolute numbers.

Statistics - Surveys?

[aceofspades1217]

If these statistics are based on surveys obviously they are going to be low. If I got a survey saying "do you pirate RIAA music over P2P" obviously everyone is going to say no. No one is going to admit to doing something illegal on a survey.

You mind as well send out a survey asking "do you sell, traffic, or push Illegal Drugs", I wonder what the actual "infringers" are going to mark as an answer?

Pretty everyone I know has pirated some music. Even the mos moral guys have pirated an album or two because hey weren't able to buy it or just really wanted it.

So in actual people who have pirated anything in their lifetime I'm guessing its pretty high (50% at least). But people who are casual pirates who download one or two things whenever they feel like it (maybe once a week) or moderate pirates who download stuff whenever they want it.(maybe an album ever 3 days).

Than you have the serious guys who never have their computer going without downloading something (eg me :P). Especially people with a usenet connection. Just leave your computer running for a couple hours and download stuff.

I am slowly making a shift to usenet because it has no logs whatsoever. Even if the RIAA begin fighting usenet they aren't going to able to fight the users.

The battle for usenet will be a big corporation vs another big corporation battle. Considering their are only a few usenet companies and all of them are massive conglomerates such as giganews, usenet.com, astraweb.com (my fav...real cheap).

So they are just trying to chip away and do some fear mongering. But they will never defeat piracy. It has become almost cultural and most people with a computer have pirated something. Heck i remember when kazaa came out and people would have a computer dedicated to kazaa just because of all the Spyware :P

Good times!

Re:Statistics - Surveys?

[hostyle]

If these statistics are based on surveys obviously they are going to be low. If I got a survey saying "do you pirate RIAA music over P2P" obviously everyone is going to say no. No one is going to admit to doing something illegal on a survey. You almost had it right:

"Do you still pirate songs off the interwebs?"

A. Yes.
b. No.

Re:Statistics - Surveys?

[aceofspades1217]

Yep you are probobly right. I remember when people had napster and would brag about all the music they downloaded....oh we were so innocent back than. We only downloaded music...movies, games, and shows were simply a pipe dream.

Well see how we have progressed!

Re:Statistics - Surveys?

[Anonymous Coward]

You broke the first rule of Usenet:

You DO NOT talk about Usenet!

Re:Statistics - Surveys?

[tehcyder]

people who are casual pirates

So they wear pastel sweaters and loafers for their raping and pillaging?

Re:Statistics - Surveys?

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Even the mos[t] moral guys have pirated an album or two because [t]hey weren't able to buy it or just really wanted it.

When I think of the "most moral" people I know, I always remind myself that their beliefs are malliable if something is unaffordable or the "really really" want to violate them.

Whatever you think of the morality of downloading, certainly expousing convictions you cannot follow is inferior to openly, non-hypocritically, violating someone else's convictions.

Re:Statistics - Surveys?

[marxmarv]

I am slowly making a shift to usenet because it has no logs whatsoever. Even if the RIAA begin fighting usenet they aren't going to able to fight the users. One, NNTP leaves trails in the headers and you can track down the injection points to the first dishonest actor if you're willing to take the trouble. Two, ARTICLE can be logged. Three, what happens if nobody wants to peer alt.binaries.* with you?

If case law makes an unfavorable turn, expect even the big boys to get a little itchy.

Lies, damned lies, and statistics

[sm62704]

Dropped from 20% to 19%? Samuel Clemons (Mark Twain) said there are three kinds of lies: Lies, damned lies, and statistics.

First off, how are these numbers generated? Finding out how many file sharers there are may not be as impossible as finding out how many Linux users there are, but how are these metrics obtained?

Second, what is the margin of error? If there is a +- 4% margin, then the actual percentage could have risen.

Third, if the total number of internet users has risen by, say 5% (number pulled from a dark hairy orifice) and file sharing dropped by 1%, the actual number of file sharers has risen.

Fourth and most importantly, not all file sharers are breaking the (civil) law. There are far, far more musicians (and programmers, etc) with files they WANT you to share than there are RIAA musicians. How many file sharers are sharing legitimate content? The corporate media would have you think everything on Kazaa or Morpheus is illegal, when in fact that "fact" is a damned lie.

Re:Lies, damned lies, and statistics

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget, also, that P2P users are getting smarter. Some people have transitioned to using private networks (like myself, the AC) that would never show up in these statistics. All that's decreased, by a measly 1%, is the visible number of P2P users.

Hash value?

[kyriosdelis]

From TFA:

If the user rips the same song with an older computer - even with the same software - the file will have a different hash code. From Wikipedia:

To serve its purpose, a hash function must be fast and deterministic --- meaning that two identical or equivalent inputs must generate the same hash value. So the article seems mistaken in this regard. Somebody care to give some more insight?

Re:Hash value?

[J_DarkElf]

Assuming they're talking about something like MD5 hashing here--

Two rips of the same CD music track do not necessarily lead to the exact bit-by-bit identical MP3 file. Thus the hash is different, even if the same software, same CD, and same settings are used.

Two people with /exactly/ the same MP3 file will have the same hash. /Exactly/ the same, so if person B has added or changed ID3 tags, the file will already get a different hash.

There are other identification methods for music files, such as the one used by http://musicbrainz.org/, which /will/ provide the same hash for the same track even if it was ripped with different settings or on another computer. But from the article this is not what MediaSentry uses.

Re:Hash value?

[sjf]

Both statements are correct. In the former, however, one of the inputs may be some function of time: time since power on, date, etc... Actually hash functions encoded in this manner, are intended to be unique and are equivalent to GUIDs.
Actually there's a little bit of loose terminology. I expect that Wikipedia is talking about true hash functions which are really short cuts to otherwise complex algorithms. LimeWire on the otherhand is really using GUIDs and the main requirement is that they are globally unique. Determinism is a consequence of being globally unique. Being fast is desirable, but by no means necessary for GUIDs.

Hash functions and GUIDs are related, but not the same thing.

Re:Hash value?

[91degrees]

As far as I understand, the hash values in file sharing networks are to identify identical files so that the client can download from multiple peers. Doesn't matter to the network when they were generated or what software was used as long as they have the same output, so there's no need to distinguish between these.

So if they do mean that files have a GUID, they're wrong.

Re:Hash value?

[Lloyd_Bryant]

Assuming they're talking about something like MD5 hashing here-- The article references the Gnutella network, so I'm assuming that they're talking about the standard SHA1 hashes that are used to identify a particular file on Gnutella.

Re:Hash value?

[mdmkolbe]

But are those differences due to different compression algorithms/settings or differences in the raw data before it is ripped?

If it is the former, then these duplicates could easily be two people with the same software left on default settings. In today's software mono-culture, that's not very far fetched.

If it is the later, then how do data CD's get away with it since they can't tolerate a single bit out of place?

Thats a very one sided view of things...

[Anonymous Coward]

yes, thats right. I'm going to give ALL of my money to record companies. Actually, I'd be willing to do this if it weren't for the fact that I'm, well, broke. permanently.

When buying things isn't an option than it becomes a simple matter of deciding "am I going to download this or not have it." Any reasonable person will download it, and if you say otherwise you clearly haven't been in this situation, or are just incredibly stupid.

Re:Thats a very one sided view of things...

[cliffski]

or have a sense of right and wrong, something that seems to have eluded you.
For a long time I couldn't afford the car I wanted, so you know what I did? I got the flipping bus, and saved up to buy it. We can all guess what you would have done.

Re:Thats a very one sided view of things...

[lilomar]

Gone over to his neighbor's garage in the middle of the night and made a copy of his car? Oh Noes! PIRATE!!!11

Re:Thats a very one sided view of things...

[pm_rat_poison]

what about my large multinational corporation which suffers from imaginary loss of profits, you insensitive clod!

Lets hear it for pop culture

[kiehlster]

The list the RIAA uses for ISP takedown notices is about 700 currently popular songs that are updated based on the charts, so not liking the bottom 40 could save you.

There, fixed that for ya.

Seriously, use the library

[mlwmohawk]

In the U.S.A. the public library legally lends CDs, DVDs, and even, gasp, video cassettes.

Borrow the CD, rip it at the format and audio quality you want, listen to it until you get sick of it, then return the CD for the next person.

100% legal and moral behavior. That, quite frankly, is the purpose of the library.

Re:Seriously, use the library

[HaloZero]

To be 100% legal, you would have to either delete the ripped audio, or purchase a copy of the CD from some vendor (BestBuy, Amazon.com, iTMS).

Re:Seriously, use the library

[mlwmohawk]

To be 100% legal, you would have to either delete the ripped audio.

That was kind of implied, however, I'm not entirely sure that is true.

There are some ambiguous areas in the law around "fair use." If you do not redistribute the music, use it only for your own personal and private use (i.e. not in a commercial venue), and obtain it with proper rights, it may be perfectly legal to keep the copies. Your public library and every thing in it is shared property of your city or town and its residents. This is especially true if you keep only a few songs from the whole CD.

I was talking about this with a lawyer (socially over alcohol, of course) a while back and he thought it was a very interesting point. We laughed about coin-op copying machines in the library as a revenue generation system for copyright infringement being no different than a web site selling ads.

That, however, has not even been prosecuted by RIAA and I don't even know how they would.

Re:Seriously, use the library

[Anonymous Coward]

It's also more environmentally friendly since you don't have to drive back and forth to the library every time you want to listen or view the CD/DVD.

I guess if you walk or ride you bicycle, but that's kinda of difficult for most during bad weather and the winter months.

Re:Seriously, use the library

[mlwmohawk]

I guess if you walk or ride you bicycle, but that's kinda of difficult for most during bad weather and the winter months.

In rural communities that may be a problem, but in most urban areas the public libraries have multiple "branches." More than that, communities of multiples towns sometimes join forces and provide a common library system.

Where I live, we have one main library and two branches, on top of that our library is in a larger network of libraries. I can get practically any book, CD, or DVD I want for free. I can even call or email the library to get something, and get an email or phone call when it is in. The branch is a couple blocks walk away.

Do I donate to my local libray? You bet I do! The younger generation should really really look closer into their local libraries, it is an AMAZING resource.

Re:Seriously, use the library

[Mike89]

100% legal and moral behavior.

Wrong, ripping CDs (defeating copy-protection) is illegal under the DMCA.

Re:Seriously, use the library

[nurb432]

Except that the local library has nothing i want.

Re:Seriously, use the library

[mlwmohawk]

Wrong, ripping CDs (defeating copy-protection) is illegal under the DMCA.

CDs do not, generally speaking, have copy protection. Besides, format shifting, comes under fair use.

Re:Seriously, use the library

[HaloZero]

I realise that it's ambiguous, but the issue I had thought of was the fact that ripping is generally accepted under Fair Use under the making-a-backup policy. But if the media does not belong to you, and is no longer in your care, then... you're backing up something that isn't yours. You need to remove the data after the asset is returned to it's owner.

Re:Seriously, use the library

[mlwmohawk]

Except that the local library has nothing i want.

I don't know where you live, so I can't say 100%, but where I live, my Library is part of a larger network. I can call or email the library, search the whole network on-line, and order what I want and get a call or email when it comes in.

Take a closer look!

Re:Seriously, use the library

[nurb432]

Even then, i doubt they have much from my taste ( that i dont already have )

And ive never seen a bootleg at the library.

Re:Seriously, use the library

[mlwmohawk]

You need to remove the data after the asset is returned to it's owner.

That's kind of one of the the points I was making, if it is owned by the library, it is "public property." So, you have some shared property rights.

also, "format shifting" i.e. ripping for an MP3 player or other device has been upheld as reasonable "fair use."

Re:Seriously, use the library

[mlwmohawk]

And ive never seen a bootleg at the library.

A bootleg, by definition, is illegally obtained.

Re:Seriously, use the library

[nurb432]

And the point still holds, they dont have what i want.

Re:Seriously, use the library

[mlwmohawk]

And the point still holds, they dont have what i want.

I guess the point "I" was making is that there is no legal or moral way of obtaining that. So, you're on your own I guess.

Re:Seriously, use the library

[nurb432]

Morals are relative. Remember, i dont belive in IP rights, so there is no moral issue here for me.

Legal, thats often a grey area when it comes to bootlegs.

Re:Seriously, use the library

[Anonymous Coward]

>That's kind of one of the the points I was
>making, if it is owned by the library, it is
>"public property." So, you have some shared
>property rights.

So a person exercising their "shared rights" to this "public property" by making their own personal copy would be under no legal threat if they informed the RIAA or the library of what they just did? Right?

Ripping a file into MP3 doesn't make the source legit.

Bad Taste?

[inamorty]

The RIAA should be given a medal for prosecuting people that listen to that charts drivel.

Re:Bad Taste?

[rootooftheworld]

not everything on the charts is crap, but i have to agree, they only cover the least common denominator in people's taste, which can be defined as mediocker and non-anoying, so the charts are only a very general representaion of people's fancy at the moment, your tastes should define it, not vice-versa.
SOme other people's more exotic and rebelious, or flat out controversial preferences in music, for instance, are not covered at all due to censorship or other reasons
BTW i like avril and eminem

Statistics?

[oahazmatt]

50% of statistics are completely made-up. 40% of all people know that.

Re:Statistics?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ha, that's meaningless! You didn't give the standard deviation!

Downloading has gone down 1% because...

[viking80]

... because most people have downloaded everything they ever wanted to download.

Re:Downloading has gone down 1% because...

[JD-1027]

Also likely is that we've actually got reasonable methods to purchase (DRM free) music online now.

Re:Downloading has gone down 1% because...

[davper]

I think more so because there is less quality content worth downloading.

Seem Incomplete

[Anonymous Coward]

So... where's the part where they cut to a "Most Wanted" poster of the dreaded Lexmark bandit?

Re:Lies, damned lies, and statistics -- not Twain

[Anonymous Coward]

"Samuel Clemons (Mark Twain) said there are three kinds of lies: Lies, damned lies, and statistics."

And he attributed that statement to Benjamin Disraeli. http://www.bartleby.com/73/1769.html

Which is what RIAA sues for, isn't it?

[Moraelin]

Well, AFAIK the RIAA never sued anyone for downloading. They sued people who "made available" the songs for download by others.

The waters are muddier, because apparently some P2P programs do (or did) effectively default to sharing anything downloaded right back. (I guess because the whole P2P model wouldn't really work if there were 1 or 2 guys offering it for download, and a few million downloading from them. At that point, you're back to the classic server model, and not in a good way.)

Re:Which is what RIAA sues for, isn't it?

[superbus1929]

Anyone too stupid to alter their settings deserves to get caught.

Re:Which is what RIAA sues for, isn't it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone generously sharing their bandwidth doesn't deserve to get caught. Leecher.

Re:Which is what RIAA sues for, isn't it?

[hackstraw]

Anyone too stupid to alter their settings deserves to get caught. "Stupidity is the only universal capital crime." - Robert A. Heinlein

Re:Which is what RIAA sues for, isn't it?

[ScreamingCactus]

And that's exactly what the RIAA is trying to do. If everyone is too scared to seed, then the leechers won't have anything to leech.

Decrease in file-sharing...hah!

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it is more likely that the percentage decrease really shows that fewer people are willing to admit to file-sharing in a survey. With the chance of getting sued, what percentage of file-sharers are going to say, "Oh yeah, I do that all the time?" From what I have seen, file-sharing has grown tremendously since the lawsuits started. The proliferation of file-sharing and torrent sites across the internet has grown dramatically, and many more of the people I know have used file-sharing today than a few years ago.

Useless statistics

[Anonymous Coward]

Internet users using P2P for downloading music has dropped from 20% to 19%

The problem with reporting statistics has gotten worse over the years and this is a prime example of why. You report a single statistic in percentages but give no context or relevant data to understand it or the impact of it.

By presenting the statistic as "dropped from 20% to 19%" gives the illusion of a 1% drop in P2P activity which may or may not be accurate. If you want to provide a cocktail party snippet or provoke a simple reaction then you have succeeded, most media outlets stop at this point. Giving percentages of something over time when it's based on a different changing base does very little good when you don't give any information on that changing base.

If the actual number of internet users has increased 20% since 2003 then the number of P2P music sharers have actually INCREASED 2.8% over the number of P2P music sharers there were.

Based on Internet World Stats the number of US Internet users between 2000 and 2007 actually increased by 125%. This would imply that between 2002 and 2007 the ACTUAL number of P2P music sharers actually increased a significant number even if the aforementioned percentage relative to total users dropped.

Method

[halcyon1234]

how MediaSentry and the RIAA identify file sharers.

• Tea leaves?
• d20?
• Gut feeling
• C:\>find pirate
• Every citizen's name in a gigantic, wind-powered "grab-a-prize" booth?

Re:Method

[JasterBobaMereel]

Since they have tried to sue people with no internet connection, and tried to sue people for sharing music they obviously have no interest in....yes

They don't look for people sharing RIAA members music, they just look for P2P connections

They are not a government organisation
They do not represent the music industry
They do not represent the artists
They cannot arrest you
It is not stealing (it is licence infringement)
It is not piracy

It is however a crime!

The Law Needs to Change. Sharing is Good.

[westbake]

PJ sang the praises of file sharing years ago but well. We are all richer if we share and artists benefit most of all through well earned fame. If we don't share all we are left with 19th century distribution efficiency and ratings. Many people do share their work and P2P of the same is perfectly legitimate, but idiotic laws make that difficult.

I'm not going to bother reading this article because I know enough already. We have already seen how the Media Defender dirt bags attack trackers by stuffing them with RIAA crap and DoS attack. Big publishers have no place in the P2P world and would rather eliminate free press than give up their position in the world. They may be punished for that but that won't cure copyright laws that are equally obsolete.

Copyright needs to allow us to share our culture without worry. To that end, non commercial personal copy should be allowed.

Two wrongs don't make a right, though

[Moraelin]

Two wrongs don't make a right, though. (Though three lefts do ;)

Far from me to defend the RIAA, but IMHO the best way to put an end to their own lawlessness is to smack them with the law, not to get into a "he did it first!" kindergarten show. I mean, going by "he did it first!" just sounds like a way to spiral into complete chaos, as everyone eventually finds some pretext as to why he/she shouldn't obey the laws either.

Who cares?

[twitter]

Laws should follow morals, instead of morals following laws. We know that sharing is good, so it should be legal.

Re:Who cares?

[doctorfaustus]

"Laws should follow morals, instead of morals following laws."
 
That is usually true in a democracy. However, look at our current crop of Congressmen, Senators, and Administration officials, and the way money influences them. After Our current grand scheme of government is that "money talks" and everyone else walks.

Re:Who cares?

[redcaboodle]

Laws should follow morals, instead of morals following laws. We know that sharing is good, so it should be legal.

Why is it moral to share what does not belong to you?

You did not write, perform or produce the music.

Corporations should not have such a stranglehold on what is a significant part of our culture as a society but there are people who have rights on what they made.

Their claims are bullshit!

[M1rth]

I can't believe nobody caught this one from the article: When a consumer rips a song from a CD and gives the digital file a name, the computer hardware, ripping software and other digital data together create a digital file identified by a distinct hash code. If the user rips the same song with an older computer - even with the same software - the file will have a different hash code. The slightest change in the music source, computer hardware, ripping software, P2P protocol, file name or length of recording will change the hash code identifying the resulting MP3 file. 99% of all ripping software rips the track digitally from the CD and uses lame to encode it, setting up the id3 tag from a free online database. The processor and timing don't matter for shit. I say it's quite easy that 6 guys ripped a CD and came up with the same hash. This is the level of "evidence" the MafiAA's been giving to judges, and they won cases? I wanna know how many whores and bags of cash did it take to buy those judges off?

Re:Their claims are bullshit!

[Anonymous Coward]

I can understand that maybe itunes/windows media player might do this sort of thing hidden in the background!?!?

Re:Their claims are bullshit!

[Deagol]

Wait a sec. I thought that due to things like "jitter" and other factors with CD drives made it possible for the same hardware/software rig to rip the *same* track and yet get slightly different results.

In any case, I just tested this by ripping a track 3 times on my machine (cdparanoia on a Plextor drive), and all 3 copies have the same md5 hash. Maybe newer drives have special ripping modes that now allow "perfect" CD audio rips. 10-to-15 years ago, this certainly wasn't the case, as I distinctly remember being tweaked by the test above resulting in 3 slightly different files (though they all sounded the same). Still, I can imagine that enough older (and cheaper, perhaps) hardware is out there in circulation which could result in different files each rip.

Now I'm curious. I'll have to try ripping the same track on the 2 other machines in the house.

Re:Their claims are bullshit!

[WhiteDragon]

In any case, I just tested this by ripping a track 3 times on my machine (cdparanoia on a Plextor drive), and all 3 copies have the same md5 hash. Maybe newer drives have special ripping modes that now allow "perfect" CD audio rips. 10-to-15 years ago, this certainly wasn't the case, as I distinctly remember being tweaked by the test above resulting in 3 slightly different files (though they all sounded the same). Still, I can imagine that enough older (and cheaper, perhaps) hardware is out there in circulation which could result in different files each rip. The key factor in that statement is cdparanoia. It is called CD Paranoia because it is designed to anticipate all the jitter and random noise which could appear, as well as transient failures caused by dust, etc. and still get a completely clean and exact bit-for-big digital copy of the digital audio tracks on a CD. In fact, anyone ripping from the same CD using cdparanoia should get the same file every time unless there is a deep scratch or something like that in the disc. What is more likely is that they used a different encoding algorithm, or different parameters. for instance if you rip to mp3 using linux, you will probably be using LAME, other software may create a different mp3. That being said, if programs like LimeWire do their own CD ripping, chances are that they use the same parameters across all copies of the software, so anyone who uses that same software to rip the same CD should get an identical mp3. I don't use it so I don't know its capabilities, though.

Re:Their claims are bullshit!

[Taibhsear]

I started encoding my discs for backups several years ago. (about late 1990's) My cdrom would pick up scratches and smudges and either stall on the track or enter artifacts into the music. I had to borrow friends' discs just to back up my own music if the disc had even a minor scratch. (this was before we had internet at my house) Currently, on my DVDRW drives I can encode the exact same discs using the exact same program and get a perfect rip every time. Even discs that have a complete crack through the whole one 'side' of the disc I have gotten a perfect rip. THAT seriously blows my mind. The technology sure has advanced over the last decade.

Re:Their claims are bullshit!

[mdmkolbe]

CD's are digital media. They had darn well better "rip" the same data every time, otherwise we couldn't use the same technology to store non-musical data. I would be astonished if there were any variance between "rips" (assuming the disk isn't scratched and "skips").

While there will of course be differences in compression modes and algorithms before it gets to the MP3, these happen after the CD ripping process. I assumed the original article was referring to these artifacts.

Re:Their claims are bullshit!

[MessedRocker]

It didn't take bribes. It took old-man judges who don't understand technology.

MOD PARENT DOWN - DID NOT RTFA

[mumblestheclown]

Objections 1 - 5 (all of them) are accounted for in the article, which explicitly describes how, when, and why takedown decisions are made and what the verification process is. Please mod the parent post down, as he is throwing up FUD which clearly shows that he did not RTFA.

Hash Codes

[Anonymous Coward]

could someone pleas explain what the hash code nonsense mentioned in the article actually is? Seems like nonsense.
"The slightest change in the music source, computer hardware, ripping software, P2P protocol, file name or length"

Re:Hash Codes

[lilomar]

I'm guessing they are talking about something like this.

I don't know why they keep putting "hash" in quotes though.

not liking the top 40 could save you

[nurb432]

In more ways then one.

Re:not liking the top 40 could save you

[pembo13]

you said it bro!

Question from a "not-so-geek"

[Anonymous Coward]

If they're using hash to identify specific files, can software be used to change the hash each and every time???

In other news

[PIPBoy3000]

. . . the number of P2P clients that use peer blocking jumped 40%.

I suspect that the people measuring P2P downloading are the same people being paid to find downloaders. It's in their best interest to show that they're making a difference and should continue to be paid.

Further, there's what they consider to be p2p.

[plasmacutter]

There is also the question of what they consider to be p2p services.

From the use of such terms as "shared folder" my guess is they're still referring to the archaic gnutella style clients, when bit torrent has been taking over for years.

I haven't used a gnutella client since 2004, and the last time it was a primary means of p2p sharing was 2002

Error in the article

[Quila]

Once they file the suit, the labels may then have the court issue a subpoena for the ISP to identify the registered user for the IP address. That person then replaces John Doe as the defendant.

That is not what happens. The RIAA drops the John Doe suit once it has the identity, and then sends the person one of their extortion letters.

They are already gettin all the righting they need

[Anonymous Coward]

So where are the lawsuits against Sony for GPL violation and computer trespass when they have successfully sued a woman 1/4 mil for 24 songs?

Competition doesn't exist with music

[Anonymous Coward]

But with a plumber, there's competition. So I can get that service from someone else. Which is why there's no way I'd hire someone like you, given the choice.

And with music, there's no direct competition except piracy, even if there are plenty of others selling different music.

Re:Competition doesn't exist with music

[cliffski]

and there is nobody fixing your burst pipe 'the way Steve fixes it' except Steve. If you want ANOTHER plumber to come fix your pipe, go for it, in which case why don't you go buy ANOTHER bands album?
What is so evil about this specific plumber restricting his services to HIS terms. If that's so evil, then why do you still want his service anyway?

I can has free ride plz

[dedazo]

We are all richer if we share

Yes, except the person who worked hard and invested their own money to produce the content you want to share.

Re:I can has free ride plz

[UNKN]

Some folks download digital copies of music only to go out and buy the same music on CD. From then on if they produce a new album, it usually gets picked up as physical media, not downloaded illegally. So yes, it does make people richer even those that work hard to put out the music to some extent.

Re:I can has free ride plz

[Naturalis Philosopho]

Ok, first, I have stopped listening to most music (and I didn't die (general statement of fact)).

Second, I find it difficult to swallow any argument that says record executives, let alone media sentry or others have invested "their own" money to produce music (response to parent post).

Third, it is ultimately the artists' own problem if they choose to produce using a label- they should know in advance by now that their music will be locked away from all but their law-breaking fans. With a cheap mac-mini they could produce their own CDs at a quality that rivals all but the best label-produced albums, but they get greedy, make their manager's rich, and suffer the consequences. boo hoo.

Give me the artists that produce their own albums to support their live performances, not hacks who tour to support album sales for their corporate overlords.

Re:I can has free ride plz

[Minozake]

And if that artist had a donation page, people who really liked the music would donate. If the music sucks, it doesn't deserve to be exchanged my money and take up my hard drive space.

Re:I can has free ride plz

[MacWiz]

Yes, except the person who worked hard and invested their own money to produce the content you want to share.


Like Radiohead? NIN?

What about the person who worked hard and invested their own money to produce content that no one wants to share?

Re:I can has free ride plz

[vuffi_raa]

Yes, except the person who worked hard and invested their own money to produce the content you want to share. I am one of those people and I have turned away a number of labels in favor of indie releases and actually encourage people to share my files and ask to purchase merchandise and come to see shows- I constantly spar with other artists on the issue as I firmly believe that, like most businesses we as artists need to understand that we are not selling access to our music, we are selling a community and a lifestyle and need to take advantage of this aspect of the business and though the music is the foundation, it doesn't need to be exclusive in order to make $.

Re:I can has free ride plz

[Corwn of Amber]

Who tour to get at least a little money to recoup the one million dollars they owe their labels before selling one copy, you mean?

Re:I can has free ride plz

[Doddman]

I know that I download a few songs before I decide to buy an album. Usually the music videos on Youtube don't do the album justice (for instance, Dream Theater. Their video for "The Dark Eternal Night" was good, but didn't even come close to how awesome the rest of the album was). I downloaded 2 of the other tracks, and decided to go buy the album. If I wind up not liking what I hear, I just delete what I downloaded.

Backwards...

[Xenographic]

> You shouldn't do stuff that is WRONG. You should however apply your own head to the problem of right and wrong, and not let your morals be dictated by whomever wrote the laws of your country.

I think you have that backwards. You're starting with the people instead of the law. Of course people should follow the law. The part that's wrong is that lawmakers should make reasonable and just laws.

When they start making unreasonable, unenforceable, for-profit laws that do not benefit the people, the lawmakers are no longer doing their job and should be removed.

At this point in time, I wish that the people had a veto (perhaps an even stronger one than the president's). How many laws would get shot down then?

IF you can't compete - what do you expect?

[penguinbrat]

Well, tough to your tough...

Your analogy is very weak, there is not ONE SINGLE pirate/person/leecher who are in anyway dictating who works when, secondly you provide a *SERVICE* not a *PRODUCT* that is by nature reproducible - the service isn't. Although if you that is what your truly meaning - then it's tough luck for you, simply because if your *ONLY* willing to provide your in-demand product at a lower quality and limited supply as to your competitors (yes the pirating is your competition) then that's *your* problem as I see it, simply because your refusing to supply what your customers want and then complain because they find a way to get it.

If your consumers are willing to chance getting caught obtaining *BETTER* quality version of your product by means in which you are out right *DENYING* them, then what in the hell do you expect?

Your customers aren't going to just accept that they are limited to low quality products, or nothing at all simply because you just dont want to provide it - especially when what they want is *VERY EASY* to obtain.

With the right software, obtaining the product you want is literally as complicated as writing a check to pay for the goods in real life. Regardless of the legality, this is at least partly what your competition is, and if you can not or will not provide what the competition does provide, your simply not going to get the business - if your customers are willing the risk the chance (what ever it may be) they *WILL* go to the competition every time.

Back when I started with Linux, I saw OSS as one thing (excluding the free aspect) - and that is forcing the commercial segment to get there act together are start producing valuable products again, otherwise everyone will just opt for the lower quality free product, it only makes common since.

The problem, as I see it at least, is that OSS and pirating is ultimately producing *HIGHER* quality products than what the commercial industry is *STILL* producing, and to top it off the cost of the products have gone up.

Two versions of the same product side by side, one is of higher quality and very easy to obtain - as compared to the one next to it, which is of lower quality and can be frustrating to obtain and keep (ZUNE DRM comes to mind I think). Which one do you think people are going to opt for?

Doesn't it go something like... If you can't stand the heat of the kitchen, get out?

get out of your shell.

[westbake]

How much free content do you need to see before you realize that people want to share? There's more music on Archive.org than you can listen to in hundreds of years. Wikipedia spanks all other encyclopedias so badly that Britannica has given up and started to accept downloads. Free software is about to entirely replace non free software. You are spending your own time on a user created news service. It's not a free ride, but it's a lot cheaper than depending on some kind of publisher/freeloader.

Re:get out of your shell.

[dedazo]

Free software is about to entirely replace non free software.

I love how you invalidate anything you have to say with this type of idiotic hyperbole. The "M$" thing usually does it as well. You still haven't learned anything.

Actually the numbers are down

[marcus]

Because by now, just about everyone has downloaded all the good songs. All that's left is a trickle of new stuff that's decent.

Illegal to view/listen?

[Anonymous Coward]

Lets say I have a theater and decide I want to play the movie Iron Man. I invite as many people as I can to come and see the movie for free. The movie is pirated, but the people don't know that.

If the police find out about this, they would arrest me of course. But the point is, they wouldn't have a basis on which to arrest the viewers of the movie other than myself.

So if I make an illegal file available for download/viewing on any service at all, I can understand where I can be arrested. But how can they go trying to arrest people who downloaded the file but did not share it?

Unique hash codes

[Skapare]

When a consumer rips a song from a CD and gives the digital file a name, the computer hardware, ripping software and other digital data together create a digital file identified by a distinct hash code. If the user rips the same song with an older computer - even with the same software - the file will have a different hash code. The slightest change in the music source, computer hardware, ripping software, P2P protocol, file name or length of recording will change the hash code identifying the resulting MP3 file.

For example, while searching for a Madonna song at the RIAA offices, dozens of users were sharing the same Madonna title over LimeWire - but six users were sharing the digital files with identical hash codes. Since it is highly improbable that more than one user would have the exact combination of equipment and timing to create identical hash codes, the investigator says, the six users are likely sharing copies of the same file that one person originally uploaded to the internet and that was later downloaded and shared by other users.

How does this extra information get into the digital file to create distinct hash codes? It must be the software that does it.

I've ripped music from CDs I own (just to play on my own computer, of course). There is often different results. But I was curious about that and did some tests. I found that the results varied due to some kind of sample shifting going on. The raw data (before compression) was different only by a shifted amount. It seems to be a timing issue in how the transfer is done from CDDA discs. But it turns out there are only 7 distinct possible shifts. I found that by running the rip in a loop for a few days and checksumming each.

It's the MP3 files people upload and share. So it's the hash codes of those files that matter. So if they are different by more than 7 (or whatever might be the issue with different CD drives) unique values, then the compression code must be inserting something. It could be as mundane as the date. Open source people could get into their programs and stomp that out easily enough.

Use the God damn library

[Simonetta]

Use the God damn library for your music needs. Every big city library has thousands of music CDs available for you to check out, take home, make exact copies for your personal use, and return. For Free! And the libraries have their catalogs on-line. Go to your libraries web-site, search for the latest and greatest songs that you were going to download, reserve the librarie's CD (they have many copies of the most popular stuff), and within a few days to a month you will have the disk in your hand. No charge, No RIAA harassment, no ISP fees.

    Then go on Craig's List or some other web site that caters to all the other people in the place where you live who like the same kind of music that you do. Put all the music that you like that you have copied from the CDs that you have borrowed from the Library, and make arrangements with all the other people who have your taste in music in your area to meet and trade your CDs. CD blanks cost 10 cents American each and they can be copied in five minutes or less.

    File sharing over the web seems cool because you can do it without interacting with actual human beings. But the whole point of music and entertainment is to interact with other people. Use computer networks to develop real human networks. Then expand your real human networks to areas outside of traditional web interaction, like grocery shopping and ride sharing (and sex with real humans, if you're so inclined).

    This is the only real and effective way to crush the RIAA.

MOD PARENT UP

[mdmkolbe]

Thank you, thank you, thank you. All the posts about how the rips are different have been driving me crazy since it shouldn't be possible on digital media. You're the first poster to give a clear answer to what is happening.

Now the only question is how Data CD's get away with it. I suppose there could be a start marker in the data to timing issues don't throw it off, but that would only be a guess on my part.

Re:Where the numbers came from.

[Jaywalk]

From TFA:

A recent NPD Group report estimates that 19 per cent of US internet subscribers 13 and older download free music from P2P services, barely less than the 20 per cent reported when the RIAA began its user litigation campaign in 2003.

We're not comparing apples to apples here. We're comparing a number generated by a market research group to the number the RIAA used to justify its "litigation campaign." Based on the reliability of numbers the RIAA has produced in the past, I would take this to indicate a substantial increase in downloads of copyrighted music.

I wonder if the RIAA's campaign has served as an advertisement for the availability of free music?

CDs do not rip the same way every time...

[davide marney]

... because audio CDs are not a random-access medium. They are designed for sequential access, and presume that synchronization may be lost for very brief periods of time. When sync is lost, the missing data can sometimes be recreated on-the-fly from other data.

The point of a CD is to create the impression of continuous sound, not to faithfully transfer binary information. See the CDDA Paranoia FAQ for a better explanation than mine.