Slashdot Mirror
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.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
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..
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.
my password really is 'stinkypants'
so not liking the top 40 could save you.
In ways that are too many to count.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
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
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.
my password really is 'stinkypants'
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.
Ignore this signature. By order.
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.
:P). Especially people with a usenet connection. Just leave your computer running for a couple hours and download stuff.
:P
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
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
Good times!
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
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.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
My blog
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.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
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.
Assuming they're talking about something like MD5 hashing here--
/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.
/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.
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
There are other identification methods for music files, such as the one used by http://musicbrainz.org/, which
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.
The RIAA should be given a medal for prosecuting people that listen to that charts drivel.
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.
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.
"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.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
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.
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.
50% of statistics are completely made-up. 40% of all people know that.
Those who believe the Internet is private,
find their privates are on the Internet.
... because most people have downloaded everything they ever wanted to download.
don't cut it off www.mgmbill.org
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.
...Quite how you can download if someone else is not uploading though...
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...
p.s. Ianal, so take the above with a pinch of salt
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.)
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
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
UTF-8: There and Back Again
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.
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?
If you can read this sig, congratulations, you have your glasses on!
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?
DATABASE WOW WOW
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.
DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
. . . 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.
Gone over to his neighbor's garage in the middle of the night and made a copy of his car? Oh Noes! PIRATE!!!11
The creator of this post (Jacob Smith) hereby releases it, and all of his other posts, into the public domain.
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.
Copyright 2010. All rights reserved. This comment may not be copied in any way including, but not limited to caching.
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
> 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?
Look, I've got to use the toilet badly. Could you stop posting on Slashdot and get over here to fix this already?
Tell that to Tanya Andersen.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
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
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
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...
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"
"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.
DAILY ROTATION
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?
"...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.
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.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.