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.
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.
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
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.
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.
... because most people have downloaded everything they ever wanted to download.
don't cut it off www.mgmbill.org
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!