Ask Slashdot: How Do I Scrub Pirated Music From My Collection?

An anonymous reader writes "I tried out Google Music, and I liked it. Google made me swear that I won't upload any 'illegal' tracks, and apparently people fear Apple's iCloud turning into a honeypot for the RIAA. My music collection comprises about 90% 'legal' tracks now — legal meaning tracks that I paid for — but I still have some old MP3s kicking around from the original Napster. Moreover, I have a lot of MP3s that I downloaded because I was too lazy to rip the CD version that I own. I wanted to find a tool to scan my music to identify files that may be flagged as having been pirated by these cloud services; I thought such a tool would be free and easy to find. After all, my intent is to search my own computer for pirated music and to delete it — something that the RIAA wants the government to force you to do. But endless re-phrasing on Google leads to nothing but instructions for how to obtain pirated music. Does such a tool exist or does the RIAA seriously expect me to sift through 60 GB of music, remember which are pirated, and delete them by hand?"

Comments

That Anonymous reader works for the RIAA?

[elucido]

And my response is, build it yourself.

Or if you want me to build it for you, pay up. But don't expect the open source community or free software community to build it for free.

(I don't know for a fact that Anonymous reader works for the RIAA but this seems to be just the kind of software they'd want to have.)

That being said, just to show how easy the software would be to design. All you'd have to do is use a sort algorithm. Then simply divide and conquer.
Each mp3 file can be represented by md5. The software could create an internal md5 database. This md5 database could be sorted via a stamping or digital signature algorithm which will create a while or for loop which checks each file for it's status of being (legal) or (illegal). Starting with the files which are legal, these files should be identified first by the algorithm because these files would be easiest to identify. Then when the status is unclear, these files should be sorted by user defined criteria and checked either automatically via comparing with some sort of official database of legal md5s, or manually listened to by the user in which case they should all become one big playlist from which the user can listen and decide whether to wipe it or not.

If you want me to build the software, reply with the price you are willing to pay for its development.

Re:That Anonymous reader works for the RIAA?

[h4rr4r]

Re-encode breaks the MD5 idea. What you really need is a way to find whatever audio watermarks the RIAA will be looking for. Odds are there are not any though, and your MD5 idea is fine.

Re:That Anonymous reader works for the RIAA?

[Ark42]

One file may be legal for one person, and illegal for another. For example, if you rip your CD yourself, the resulting MP3 is legal. Copy the same MP3 onto a friend's computer, and it's illegal. I don't think such a software is even possible to write. Every pirated / illegal MP3 file would have to be already watermarked as such in order for the software to function. What if the "common" version of the file floating around on Napster was just a basic 128Kbps rip with a common MP3 encoder, and you used the same encoder to rip the same song from the original CD yourself? In theory, it is very possible that the resulting MP3 is bit-for-bit the same as the one millions of other people pirated from Napster, even though you own the original CD and ripped the file yourself.

Re:That Anonymous reader works for the RIAA?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not the code, silly. That's easy. It's having some sort of official database of legal music that is the problem... which the poster was apparently hoping existed. I doubt any such thing does exist.

Re:That Anonymous reader works for the RIAA?

[somersault]

For the naptster stuff, just check for anything that has a godawful bitrate. For the downloaded stuff, the file names will probably be very different to whatever he uses when ripping himself.. so he just needs to find a media player that can sort by bitrate, and list filenames (it will be fairly easy to just scan quickly down the list and check for any block of files that stands out, assuming he downloads albums at a time and not just lots of individual tracks..).

Re:That Anonymous reader works for the RIAA?

[Anonymous Coward]

First off, where's this big database of "legal" MD5s going to live? How are you going to compensate for people that transcode their music to different formats? You're going to have hashes for EVERY bitrate/encoding? Didn't think so. The simplest way for a normal person to code this, would be ID3 match, bitrate check, then a song length check with Gracenote. Chances are, if that matches the most common official MP3s, even if it was pirated, it would be fairly difficult to tell.

It's not perfect, but it's more feasible than hashing every song.

Re:That Anonymous reader works for the RIAA?

[Smallpond]

Absurd. How would any algorithm be able to tell from an md5 if it is a legal rip or an illegal one? Two rips of the same CD should give the same bits, regardless of whether I own it or someone gives it to me.

The only way to tell is to compare to a db of your legal music:
    - you ripped a CD and still have it (not legal once you sell or give away the CD, gray area if you lose it and don't have a receipt)
    - you bought the bits and they are licensed to run on the device that you have them on
    - the music is free or public domain (heh!)

Don't forget that under US law, the performance and the author are separate copyrights, so even if they guy who plays it gives it to you, it may still be illegal.

Re:That Anonymous reader works for the RIAA?

[elucido]

One file may be legal for one person, and illegal for another. For example, if you rip your CD yourself, the resulting MP3 is legal. Copy the same MP3 onto a friend's computer, and it's illegal. I don't think such a software is even possible to write. Every pirated / illegal MP3 file would have to be already watermarked as such in order for the software to function. What if the "common" version of the file floating around on Napster was just a basic 128Kbps rip with a common MP3 encoder, and you used the same encoder to rip the same song from the original CD yourself? In theory, it is very possible that the resulting MP3 is bit-for-bit the same as the one millions of other people pirated from Napster, even though you own the original CD and ripped the file yourself.

So just digitally sign everything you personally rip. I don't see how that could be so difficult. The computer you use to rip it could do it automagically.

Now of course if most stuff ripped isnt signed on purpose thats a different story. Maybe those Mp3s aren't legal?

True the md5 idea alone wouldn't solve everything but the guy asked if it could be possible to sort his files, and thats easy. Judging legality isn't easy even with lawyers and courtrooms.

Re:That Anonymous reader works for the RIAA?

[tepples]

The audio data and subcode (track timing) data are split into two separate streams in the CD drive. The CD standard allows sync between audio and subcode to drift by (as I understand it) up to one sector, or 588 samples. This phenomenon is called "rip jitter". CD-ripping tools will overlap reads within a single rip by a sector or two to correct for changes in this drift, but there are still hundreds of offsets where the whole rip can start. Thus there are hundreds of distinct "basic 128Kbps rip[s] with a common MP3 encoder", each with a different starting rip jitter because the CD drive signaled a "start of track" in a different place within the sector.

Re:That Anonymous reader works for the RIAA?

[Anonymous Coward]

The rips of the same CD may not necessarily give the same bits. Try it out and see for yourself. Say, rip track 6 of a random CD, and do it a hundred times, preferably on 2 or more drives, then group different versions and see how many groups you get. I have a CD that plays flawlessly (no clicks, skipping, etc) and yet gives rise to 32 versions of just one track.

Re:That Anonymous reader works for the RIAA?

[Rozzin]

It's not the code, silly. That's easy. It's having some sort of official database of legal music that is the problem... which the poster was apparently hoping existed. I doubt any such thing does exist.

The database of who has paid whom for what is currently being built--it's called "Bitcoin".

Re:That Anonymous reader works for the RIAA?

[228e2]

Perhaps that can work for current music, but how do you track music I have ripped 15+ years ago that have lived though 4, 5, 6 hard drives and computer updates?

Re:That Anonymous reader works for the RIAA?

[Anonymous Coward]

What the guy in the summary forgot to say is that he is paid by a PR agency hired by Google.

Re:That Anonymous reader works for the RIAA?

[fusiongyro]

How much does it cost for you to build a time machine to go back to 1995 and make every audio encoder digitally sign every file it compresses? I don't see how that could be so difficult.

Re:That Anonymous reader works for the RIAA?

[Cajun Hell]

So just digitally sign everything you personally rip. I don't see how that could be so difficult.

It's not that such a thing is difficult, it's that there is never any point where a user has reason to do that.

The point of knowing the origin of each file is to avoid infringement, but if you want to avoid infringement, then you simply won't infringe, so your whole collection is whitelisted by default.

Re:That Anonymous reader works for the RIAA?

[Ark42]

With crappier rippers maybe. With a direct digital rip, it should be the same every time, in theory, from any CD drive.

Exact Audio Copy uses the AccurateRip system which somehow manages to tell me that my rips are exactly the same as hundreds of other random people via some central DB. The only time it doesn't match up, is when I have a massive scratch in a very old CD, and EAC took hours ripping and re-ripping the same sector to get the best results possible with what I gave it to work with.

Re:That Anonymous reader works for the RIAA?

[Ark42]

Try EAC, it will compensate for differences in drives to ensure a perfect digital rip every time.

Re:That Anonymous reader works for the RIAA?

[TheCouchPotatoFamine]

exactly, what the OP said -- it could start over a broad range, given scratches or other errors. Gee, maybe the RIAA should not have made such a cheap and susceptible product that they charge the same licensing fee for each time you buy it...... (BARF)

Re:That Anonymous reader works for the RIAA?

[ByOhTek]

BS. There is no way to tell an legal/illegal file reliably.

Simply put - lets say you go searching various sources for pirated music. You then take a checksum of the files you find.

(1) The database will be large, but probably manageable, More than most people would want on their personal computers though
(2) You can't be sure that you've gotten everything, or even a decent sampling - so it'll falsely report many as legal
(3) Although limited in scope, there would be false negatives, what if someone has a legitimate copy, which was legitimately copied by a 3rd party and distributed? What if it was encoded by a lossless mechanism (flac, some aac, etc), and therefore ended up with the same checksum as another person who also losslessly encoded it, then shared it?

There is no good way to CYA here except ditch all of your digital music and then re-rip and re-legitimately download. As you stated, this kind of tool would be only be useful for the tools at the *IAA, who would probably be fine with a 99% false negative rate (and false positives are nice!), as long as they can find a couple and extort their victims, while the legitimate user would need a 1% false negative and positive rate.

Re:That Anonymous reader works for the RIAA?

[trrichard]

MD5 Hashes of the files is a fine way of identifying pirated music. In fact I'm pretty sure it's how most cloud services WILL do it. The real question here is how do you identify which hashes will be blacklisted? I think the best approach to that would be to go through some famous torrent and Gnutella sites and scrape the hash values from those torrent files and databases. I know torrents have a way of doing this as part of the .torrent file itself and I believe that the Gnutella protocol probably has a similar system of uniquely identifying files. This way you would not have to download all the files but could still know which ones are being shared illegally by logging all those hashes and comparing them to your files. I think it is technically feasible to do this, but extremely difficult. I would recommend cleaning your files instead by adding trash to the tags section in an unused field. This would confuse most common hash algorithms. I imagine the companies could have a much more sophisticated way of hashing the files such that it does not take tags into account, but to preform this form of unique ID the companies would have to manually download each song illegally and ID it. I don't think that's likely. I feel that cleaning your pirated files is the best solution.

Re:That Anonymous reader works for the RIAA?

[thehodapp]

As it's been mentioned, MD5 would not work. There is no surefire way to tell your tracks are "illegally" downloaded or not. However there are several telltale signs on many illegally downloaded songs that you could use to help narrow down your search for them so that you could cherry-pick the rest. If I was to write this program, I would probably make a tier of levels of likeliness of a file being pirated. For this example I'll have a system based on integers where a higher number is more likely to be pirated. 0 would be neutral and negative would be unlikely to be pirated.

I would start by filtering out everything that you know for sure is legal. For me, that would mean all vorbis files, .wma (when I used to rip from Windows), FLAC, aac, and any other free codecs not commonly used for piracy. All these files get their likelihood variable decremented by 5 or maybe filter them out altogether based on a setting. It's worth noting that 99% of all your illegally downloaded songs will be in MP3 format.

Next, I would filter out by comments tags. Many distributors like Amazon include a non-drm comment in the ID3 tag. Filter all those out or subtract from their likelihood. If you ever include your own comments in your files, filter those as well.

Now you've gotten most of the obviously legal files out of the way. The next part will be to filter out the likely pirated music from the rest. The user would have the discretion of choosing his/her tests as they see fit. For this, I would probably increment the likelihood variable by one for each matched test.

Example Tests:
1. Low bitrate? (128kbs) to filter out most of the old crappy pirated downloads.
2. Lowercase ID3 tags? Pirated downloads often have typos.
3. Missing artwork?
4. Sketchy ID3 comments (t0rr3nted by r1ppErZ, demonoid, lots of things you could search for)
5. Missing ID3 tags (no album name, unknown artist, etc.)
6. Matching filename with ID3 tags. Often people fix their pirated tags, but the misspelled filename stays the same.
7. Subtract likelihood if bitrate is what you normally rip at
8. Song in incorrect folder. I normally put my tracks in a directory structure of artist/album. You could test the ID3 tags to the directory structure.
9. Interface with MusicBrainz and scan songs for correct tags, correct song length, and if MusicBrainz can even find it.

By no means is that all the tests you could do. Next you would list all the files high to low in a nice format for the user so that he/she could easily spot the pirated music. This solution is obviously quite preliminary and could definitely be refined, but you get the basic idea. The whole point is to make the user's task of finding and marking the pirated software much easier (and I'm sure in easily less than an hour you could find all your pirated music with such a program).

Re:That Anonymous reader works for the RIAA?

[gfody]

so tag your mp3's with random guids. Now their md5's are unique and won't show up in any blacklist

Re:That Anonymous reader works for the RIAA?

[Creepy]

Actually, they probably already did back then, for instance, in an ID3 metadata container. The problem is that metadata probably contains info about the program that created it (e.g. WinAmp) and song information, but nothing personal. I don't think MP3 encoders today even write anything personal that could identify owner.

Re:That Anonymous reader works for the RIAA?

[Mister Transistor]

Maybe this is true if you're ripping exclusively WAV files, yes each extract should be identical excluding large errors as you said. But the problem comes when compressing - each encoder program is going to do the MP3 crunch a little differently, so the same pristine CD compressed to MP3 will give different results when compressed using LAME vs. say the original Fraunhoffer codecs. I also suspect even the same encoder may cause different rips on the same source due to read jitter, system metadata and possibly floating point implementation and roundoff error differences, etc. So you have at least 4 popular bitrates (128, 224, 256, 320 at least, plus all the possible VBR variants) multiplied by how ever many encoder programs you have out there, multiplied by the number of compressing formats (AAC, MP3, FLAC, etc.) = the _minimum_ number of permutations of the same song you might see in the wild.

Re:That Anonymous reader works for the RIAA?

[greg1104]

There is no such thing as a "direct digital rip". The CD standard doesn't provide one, there are no boundaries on the CD for one to work against, and as stated rip jitter is inevitable. The only question is how the software and hardware involved handle it. The post you were objecting to talks about one of the pieces of the magic used to help with this fundamental problem that you're not aware of, and there are some others too.

Drives that support what's called AccurateStream will guarantee you that they always pick the same spot every time you ask it to seek somewhere, which is the first part of the problem. If you drive doesn't do that, you end up needing to do the overlapping read shuffle described above to figure that out. See EAC Drive Options for more about all that.

Even if you have AccurateStream, there's a second problem: the spot will be the same every time, but exactly where that is can't be guaranteed--it varies based on the drive model. The way AccurateRip copes with this problem to collect a database of CD Drive Offsets. If your drive isn't in their database, what you can do is use a known music CD that AccurateRip has good data on, then calibrate your drive using it to figure out how much you're off by. People submitting those test results is how they compiled the database.

If you have AccurateStream hardware, and you know your drive offset, you can get the same rip every time and match against the checksums that AccurateRip provides. But this is only happening because several pieces of the chain know how to compensate for the limitations of audio CDs encoding, there is no way to get digital data straight off of them usefully.

Re:That Anonymous reader works for the RIAA?

[wealthychef]

The point of knowing the origin of each file is to avoid infringement, but if you want to avoid infringement, then you simply won't infringe, so your whole collection is whitelisted by default.

But the poster has explicitly said he has infringed with 10% of his music. He just doesn't know which 10%. I agree with earlier post that said what you want is to know how the RIAA does it -- they are the only ones who care.

Re:That Anonymous reader works for the RIAA?

[Anonymous Coward]

Awesome, it can tell us what basically a billionth of all transactions were, if that!

USEFULLLL!

Re:That Anonymous reader works for the RIAA?

[fusiongyro]

I mean digitally sign in the cryptographic sense, which seems to be what the OP troll was saying.

Re:That Anonymous reader works for the RIAA?

[Anonymous Coward]

First you need a hot tub...

Re:That Anonymous reader works for the RIAA?

[icebike]

Exactly.
Two rips bck to back on the same machine and the same cd give different md5s for me. Any time you are downsampling you can expect this.

Blaming others for your mess

[cgeys]

You do illegal act and then try to blame others when you have to clean up your own mess? Delete all the files, re-rip what you own and the problem is solved. But stop blaming others when you have broken the law in the first place.

Re:Blaming others for your mess

[jdavidb]

I think others should be blamed. Others are the ones who made it illegal. It was presumably not his choice to make that law in the first place.

Re:Blaming others for your mess

[Osgeld]

yea that will happen, if someone wants to impose new law onto the people then they also need to take the necessary measures to enforce it and not just hope it happens on good will

Re:Blaming others for your mess

[ciderbrew]

But if he owns the CD, what difference is it who ripped it? I recall a ripping service for people who wanted to put their collection of 1000+ CDs on to an ipod for £x amount. If it is a licence and not a copy as they want us to think. Then he's bought the licence.

I say fuck'em. Send it all back and ask for a refund as you don't agree with the terms. Stuff like that.

Re:Blaming others for your mess

[headhot]

The illegality of downloading track of a CD you own has yet to be proven.

Re:Blaming others for your mess

[Anonymous Coward]

You're an idiot.

Re:Blaming others for your mess

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, nowhere in the article did the author mention blaming anyone, yet you immediately jumped to that conclusion. Defensive much? And talk about one of the most unhelpful, least constructive responses possible.

Re:Blaming others for your mess

[Anonymous Coward]

I fail to see "blaming" in the post. Maybe frustration. He/she is simply looking for an efficient way to clean up their own mess and come into compliance. Isn't that what we all want our computers to do? Make a difficult or boring job simple?

Re:Blaming others for your mess

[gman003]

I'm sure you blame the poor for having to steal food as well.

Face it - to a significant number of people, piracy isn't an ethical problem or a "real" crime. It's like speeding - sure, it's technically illegal, but last I checked pretty much everyone drove 5-10 mph above the posted limit.

Re:Blaming others for your mess

[Anonymous Coward]

He didn't "blame" anybody else - he accepts that there are some illegal files and he wants to clean them out without the hassle of creating his library all over again. Even if you aren't worried about the hours spent ripping your old CD's, maybe some of those CD's are scratched or have been lost, and there are legal downloaded files mixed in too - and playlists and ratings or whatever.... The question is very valid.

Re:Blaming others for your mess

[Anonymous Coward]

Think about it, the RIAA sues for millions and millions, but won't spend 40k to get a slashdotter to write the app to find and remove illegal music.

They don't want you to delete it. They want to sue the shit out of you.

and eventually, they will.

Don't blame the people trying to get out of the way of the legal onslaught.

Re:Blaming others for your mess

[daedae]

I don't think that idea has actually been tested. It's not entirely clear what constitutes an "unauthorized copy." We can throw away the ridiculous old RIAA argument that ripping from your own CD is unauthorized and not fair use. But is it an authorized copy to copy somebody else's fair-use rip because it's easier than making your own rip? And can you prove that you owned the CD before you made that copy? I think at that point you get into the highly-paid lawyer version of "he said, she said."

Re:Blaming others for your mess

[eepok]

And as such, there's a moderately decent chance that an innocent person will be found innocent. But it still costs a hell of a lot to be innocent in a court of law.

Re:Blaming others for your mess

[poetmatt]

this is hilariously idiotic, if a file has DRM you won't be able to upload it in the first place - the services will not accept it. Why is this even a question on slashdot?

Re:Blaming others for your mess

[fusiongyro]

There's a difference between enforcing the law and providing free programs to help existing offenders become compliant. The government is not required to provide software for you to do your taxes, why should they be required to provide free software to help you delete your illegal files? RIAA is more than happy to take the necessary measures to enforce the law through litigation. If you can't prove you own the CDs, what do you expect to happen? What do you think a judge is going to say? "Oh, he stole so much he couldn't remember what he bought? That's fine, just don't do it again."

Re:Blaming others for your mess

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd say downloading a song for a CD you own is at best questionably legal. But I'd say there's nothing ethically wrong with doing it anyway.

Re:Blaming others for your mess

[nomadic]

Actually it has been tested: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UMG_v._MP3.com

Re:Blaming others for your mess

[montyzooooma]

He doesn't need to prove anything. They have to prove he stole/downloaded/copied it.

Re:Blaming others for your mess

[ciderbrew]

Ok, at the time when they kick down your door & kill your dog and bag up everything they find. If your ripped collection matches your CD collection, 100% !!! What is the problem with those rips being done by a 3rd party? I hope it doesn't go this far :(

Re:Blaming others for your mess

[daedae]

Interesting. I'd used mp3.com a lot back then, but always to listen to independent music. (Also, it's a nice reminder that "cloud" music services/music lockers have existed for a long time).

But the way that summary reads, the court decision was that mp3.com was outside of fair use and was infringing for making available. ("However, it was MP3.com doing the copying from the CDs onto their servers, and the court found this copying not a fair use.") It doesn't really say anything about whether a user listening to or downloading a track that they own would be an unauthorized copy.

Re:Blaming others for your mess

[frozentier]

The government is not required to provide software for you to do your taxes,

Taxes are actually a good analogy... If the gov decides there is a tax problem, they will make you come up with all the receipts to backup your claims on your tax return. Technically, if they suspected there were illegal copies of a song on your computer, they could ask to see the physical disc or a receipt where you ordered the track. However, the problem is that you are allowed one legal backup of anything you've purchased. So if I bought the latest Gaga CD (lol), ripped it to my comp, but my physical disc was destroyed when my car caught fire, I've still got a copy of it on my computer though I have no physical copy (which is exactly the kind of circumstances a backup copy is intended for). But at the same time, I can't produce proof that I own it.

Re:Blaming others for your mess

[Anonymous Coward]

So... if you murder someone, it's not your fault. It's the fault of people who made it illegal to commit murder, and it was presumably not your choice to make it illegal to commit murder in the first place. Or replace "murder" with any illegal activity.

<sarcastic>
Nobody should be held accountable for their actions... it's always someone else's fault.
</sarcastic>

Re:Blaming others for your mess

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope you aren't actually worried that felony-level no knock raids are going to happen for mp3 downloads. Honestly this sort of paranoia borders on entitlement; your parents probably told you you were unique and now you honestly believe the government cares this much about your music downloading/Google is stalking you/Facebook exists to specifically target your privacy.

Re:Blaming others for your mess

[Anonymous Coward]

Haha holy shit so let me get this straight
Entitled white brat who didn't get allowance : music :: broke starving person : food

Sooo much entitlement when Slashdot or nerds in general talk about piracy (or anything). The world isn't out to get you chances are you aren't important in the eyes of Google or the government no matter what mommy and daddy said. Also lol@technically illegal..speeding is artificial because it relies on operating machinery in a safe way..drug laws rely on control of the population..but stealing is banned in any society by it's nature..it's not an artificial rule, it is simply adopted by societies like no killing because it's antisocial and regressive.

Re:Blaming others for your mess

[BlackSnake112]

Good point. If he is not caught uploading. They have a major issue proving that he did not rip the files himself. Or borrow a friends CD and rip that. If you really wanted to make sure you are in the clear, I would only keep the files for CDs I have and I have some soft of receipt for the digital download. For the remaining files, either delete them or look harder for how you got them. If you can prove you got them legally, keep them. If not, delete them. If they call you in to court, you show them your proof you are clear.

That is a hell of a lot of work to prove you have a right to have some music. They never bitched this much back when tapes were king. I guess they knew that tapes would wear out at some point. The biggest problem I see is borrowing a friend's CD and ripping it. Back in the old tape days coping a tape was what many people did. I usually copied tapes that I played a lot so I would wear out the copy. Many people ripped their friend's CDs to their collection. They did not buy the CD but they did not download it either. Ripping your friend's CD is against the law now even though people copies records and tape for years without any problem. This looks like a move to limit digital stored music. They want to increase CD sales.

Re:Blaming others for your mess

[insertwackynamehere]

What? Really? The RIAA isn't responsible for sorting out someone else's affairs. If you download music illegally it's on you to sort your shit out. Stop acting so entitled like everyone else on here. It's embarrassing and gross.

Re:Blaming others for your mess

[Osgeld]

they are required to provide you the proper information and forms however

Lamest question I've ever seen on Slashdot.

[nicholas22]

Title says it all.

Re:Lamest question I've ever seen on Slashdot.

[Anonymous Coward]

Smartest question I've seen on /.

If you yourself can't determine the legality of the (music) files you possess, how can the RIAA? a court?

Re:Lamest question I've ever seen on Slashdot.

[Anonymous Coward]

Lamest comment, too ;-)

Re:Lamest question I've ever seen on Slashdot.

[Anonymous Coward]

A court is the likely venue. Probably involving kangaroos in some capacity.

Re:Lamest question I've ever seen on Slashdot.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you yourself can't determine the legality of the (music) files you possess, how can the RIAA?

With tools they won't give you. The RIAA would like nothing better than to catch you with a pirated song you didn't even know you had.

Re:Lamest question I've ever seen on Slashdot.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you yourself can't determine the legality of the (music) files you possess, how can the RIAA? a court?

They don't have to prove anything. They can simply assume they are illegal. You have to prove they're legal.

Re:Lamest question I've ever seen on Slashdot.

[cameronl]

Lamest answer ever on Slashdot.

You should have just said, You can't. No tool exists. But many people are going to be wondering this as they transfer their music to the cloud and see it as a chance to become legit again. The biggest reason for music piracy was convience. But you can't beat cloud-stored music for convenience.

Re:Lamest question I've ever seen on Slashdot.

[TheSpoom]

The RIAA would argue that you have no rights to transfer a track from one media to another in the first place.

Re:Lamest question I've ever seen on Slashdot.

[TheSeventh]

Not in this country. They can't prove that I didn't receive the CD with that song on it as a gift. Even a pre-law student could get that case thrown out of court.

Re:Lamest question I've ever seen on Slashdot.

[TheSpoom]

In civil suits (which for a copyright lawsuit is what it would be), the standard is a "plurality of evidence", meaning that whichever side can present a more convincing argument to the judge will win, proof be damned. (IANAL, do not consider this legal advice, all situations are different, etc. etc.)

Re:Lamest question I've ever seen on Slashdot.

[Anonymous Coward]

RIAA usually doesn't sue you for possession, but transmission

Re:Lamest question I've ever seen on Slashdot.

[molnarcs]

Smartest question I've seen on /.

If you yourself can't determine the legality of the (music) files you possess, how can the RIAA? a court?

I agree completely. I also think it's a joke (or well, kinda sarcastic). I never heard of RIAA knocking on someone's door who is not a file sharer. Mr Anonymous Reader is "obviously" not sharing any files on the net, that would piracy, and our good citizen would never do such thing. In fact, he is worried about possessing a few mp3 files that might be "pirated". Right. I believe the real question is: "can they detect if an mp3 file is pirated or not?". A GOOD QUESTION!

Re:Lamest question I've ever seen on Slashdot.

[Anonymous Coward]

First, unless they have a warrant, there is no way that they will know what you currently have on your drive. Second, I would think that it would be the RIAA's responsibility to prove that they were illegally obtained.

Re:Lamest question I've ever seen on Slashdot.

[Anonymous Coward]

Usually when I download music from Torrent sites I open it up through MP3 Tag and make sure all the info is correct. I also delete any comments on the tag that says something like demonoid or TeamXXX, etc...

I also change the album pic to a higher quality one and I am a stikler to naming so if it an artist featuring another artist, it has to be written out like Artist A feat. Artist B. I don't like the word featuring written out and I don't like it in parentheses. I am extremely anal.

The methods described here are my personal preferences but the way I see it, I alter the file that it doesn't have the same "fingerprint" as the illegal copy.

They can not keep a whitelist of what is legit however they can scan the MP3 Tag in the file for it's origin I suppose.

Re:Lamest question I've ever seen on Slashdot.

[petermgreen]

Right. I believe the real question is: "can they detect if an mp3 file is pirated or not?". A GOOD QUESTION!

And the answer is SOMETIMES

If a version of a file meets the following criteria

1: it has been detected on a major pirate network
2: it has enough defect's or other identifying features that it is highly unlikely an independent rip would produce an identical file
3: it does not match any copy sold through a legal service

Then IMO they have pretty strong evidence that it is pirate,certainly enough to start sending out threats and probablly even enough to convince a court. Afaict as much as people wish it to be otherwise it is not legal to download a copy from a pirate network and use it as a substitute for a legal copy.

The problem is while it is possible to prove some files are pirate it is not generally possible to prove a file is clean or even to prove that it won't in the future become detectable as pirate.

Re:Lamest question I've ever seen on Slashdot.

[praxis]

But you can't beat cloud-stored music for convenience.

Having access to my music dictated by network connectivity and the desires of a third party is not all that convenient, in my eyes. I'd be keeping backups of everything I send to them anyhow, probably on network attached storage. Now, if only I could access that without a network, perhaps by syncing a subset of my collection onto a portable device that needs not 100% on connectivity expect to sync a different subset. For me, that's convenient.

Not arguing that could-based music storage is not convenient, but I'd argue that it can be beat at convenience. Especially when you factor in the cost of it.

Re:Lamest question I've ever seen on Slashdot.

[Anonymous Coward]

If they knew of an easy way to detect pirated music/content... why would they offer it to the public? Sounds like a better means of strengthening their ability to hand out lawsuits.

Why let the masses determine what they have is illegal, when you can take them to court and milk them for a few thousand dollars per song?

Re:Lamest question I've ever seen on Slashdot.

[Anonymous Coward]

The RIAA doesn't even attempt to determine the legality of files. They assume all files are pirated.

It is both amusing and infuriating when you can publish a song you write, perform, and produce yourself and still get a takedown letter.

Re:Lamest question I've ever seen on Slashdot.

[vulariter]

It occurs to me that they could keep a catalog of illegal music files and run hashes on them.. Then, they run hashes on your music files and compare... Admissible in court, probably not... Cunning, maybe...

Re:Lamest question I've ever seen on Slashdot.

[demonlapin]

And AHRA would be strong defense.

Re:Lamest question I've ever seen on Slashdot.

[node 3]

But copyright is about the right to make a copy. The uploader is the one who made the copy, the downloader merely received the copy.

The way things legally stand (which can always be changed in the courts) is that the file sharer is the infringer. The file downloader is guilty of, in anything, something much less severe, and at worst would have to either delete the file, or buy a proper license for it (~$0.99 apiece).

Re:Lamest question I've ever seen on Slashdot.

[node 3]

Afaict as much as people wish it to be otherwise it is not legal to download a copy from a pirate network and use it as a substitute for a legal copy.

[citation needed]

rerip your CD collection

[h4rr4r]

Rerip all your CDs, this time to FLAC, since disk is now cheap as hell.
Get rid of all the old mp3s.

Re:rerip your CD collection

[BrokenBeta]

Yes, that's certainly a productive use of someone's day. Taking all your CDs that have been ripped... and doing it again!

Re:rerip your CD collection

[Whalou]

I'm an audiophile, I re-rip my collection to FLAC every week to make sure I keep everything pristine.

Re:rerip your CD collection

[arth1]

Rerip all your CDs, this time to FLAC, since disk is now cheap as hell.
Get rid of all the old mp3s.

What part of "legal meaning tracks that I paid for" did you fail to understand? Or, pray, tell us how he can legally re-rip as FLAC the mp3 tracks he bought online

Re:rerip your CD collection

[The MAZZTer]

It's something you can have running in the background while you do something else. Not like you have to do it all at once. Oh and don't rip to FLAC, I don't think Google Music supports it.

Re:rerip your CD collection

[denis-The-menace]

I don't waste a lot of time during my life.

But when I do I re-rip my collection to FLAC.

Re:rerip your CD collection

[AVee]

You probably don't need to rerip everything. When it was ripped the first time the files probably followed some sort of pattern, look for naming conventions, and stuff like bitrate, encoder, genre etc in the ID3 tags. Figure out what the stuff you ripped yourself looks like and write a shell script to delete everything else. That will probably get it right 99% of the time, and for what's left you got plausible deniability because the have the exact same properties as the ones you ripped yourself.

Re:rerip your CD collection

[Anonymous Coward]

This is exactly what I did when I got a job and started paying for my entertainment.

Re:rerip your CD collection

[Truekaiser]

then your hearing must be well above average. everyone i have played the same song to encoded into a mp3(cd quality or above) and a flac could not tell the difference. In case you did not know mp3's, ogg's, and aac encoding schemes only remove sounds above and bellow the biologically possible auditory sensory range of human ears. so if you 'claim' to hear the difference your either one of the 1/10th of 1 percent of people who have higher or lower then normal hearing. Or your lying to yourself to justify all the money you wasted on gold tipped super shielded audio cables and the like.

Re:rerip your CD collection

[boristdog]

Almost all of my original media (CDs and LPs) for about 60% of my collection were lost in a fire several years ago.

Re-ripping isn't an option. RIAA says if I download a new copy, it is illegal and I have to buy new media, which RIAA claims is only a license to have one copy, which I already bought. Sort of like if I lost the title to my car I couldn't get a new title without buying a new car.

So fuck them. Just upload the music you have. If you bought more than 30% of it you're probably better than most.

Re:rerip your CD collection

[Applekid]

Yes, that's certainly a productive use of someone's day. Taking all your CDs that have been ripped... and doing it again!

Well, what other potential exists? If you are out of compliance*, that may just be the cost of getting into compliance.

My OCD naming conventions for ripped files and using iTunes to manage my library seems to have worked out pretty well for me. Downloaded files didn't adhere to my naming convention but were usable because of iTunes' ID3 tagging. As such, a simple regular expression can find all the filenames that don't match their origin from me, and from there I can filter based on whether it's protected AAC (evidence I bought from iTunes), and, boom, I have a list of my potentially infringing files for me to sort through.

If I were less disciplined about it, yeah, I might have to do an audit in the same way that my customers might do an audit, and that can mean investing the time and going through everything one at a time.

* for various degrees of "compliance". I'm satisfied that if I can merely show possession of physical media or a receipt from a legitimate download source then I'm compliant. I've seen some posters (notably yesterday's about iCloud honeypot) where some users seem to think their maximum copyright violation liability is 99 cents per song, so their degree of compliance is probably much less. They'd better not be wrong, though. :)

Re:rerip your CD collection

[halivar]

Well, if you're not using $33K Nordost Whitelight fiber-optic cables, you're just wasting your time, any way: http://most-expensive.net/audio-cables

Re:rerip your CD collection

[Anonymous Coward]

Go in iTunes, select all, right click, "Get Info", check the comments box, and type "Property of [Your Name Here]". It'll take about 30 seconds on a decent computer and every file in your library has been scrubbed off those little URLs file sharing groups like to embed.

Re:rerip your CD collection

[SnarfQuest]

I'm an audiophile, I re-rip my collection to FLAC every week to make sure I keep everything pristine.

This only works if you have oxygen free monster cables supplying power to your computer.

Re:rerip your CD collection

[Anonymous Coward]

Every week? Good idea, gotta keep those bits fresh!

Re:rerip your CD collection

[JamesP]

I've heard FLAC loses the DC component of the audio wave, as well as is ambiguous with relation to phase (0deg/180deg)
Also, they don't work well with higher precision than 24-bit floating point, it loses precision.

(trolling the audiophiles - a sport)

Re:rerip your CD collection

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL, yeah, you act like it's a "Start it and forget it" process. A few years back I ripped my entire (400+) CD collection to mp3. It was a week long project that involved swapping CDs every 10 minutes or so, keeping an organized stack handy of what's been done and what needs to be done, swapping those stacks out to another stack when I get done with each one (400CDs don't easily stack on my desk). And then there's the process of checking the ID3 information as they get ripped, entering the info for those small bands that don't actually have the info already in the database, and correcting all the entries where they are were found in the database but the data is incorrect or badly formatted.

If you want to do it right, it's a fairly labor intensive process. I actually used multiple drives to simultaneously multiple CDs at once, and it still took forever. I would NOT want to do it again....and compared to some people, I don't even have that big of a collection.

Re:rerip your CD collection

[squizzar]

I think you may have missed the point... can we get a 'whoosh' mod for the cases where a poster must have had to duck to let the joke go over his head? I've got points to spare...

Re:rerip your CD collection

[Anonymous Coward]

Hearing the difference now isn’t the reason to encode to FLAC. FLAC uses lossless compression, while MP3 is ‘lossy’. What this means is that for each year the MP3 sits on your hard drive, it will lose roughly 12kbps, assuming you have SATA – it’s about 15kbps on IDE, but only 7kbps on SCSI, due to rotational velocidensity. You don’t want to know how much worse it is on CD-ROM or other optical media.

I started collecting MP3s in about 2001, and if I try to play any of the tracks I downloaded back then, even the stuff I grabbed at 320kbps, they just sound like crap. The bass is terrible, the midrangewell don’t get me started. Some of those albums have degraded down to 32 or even 16kbps. FLAC rips from the same period still sound great, even if they weren’t stored correctly, in a cool, dry place. Seriously, stick to FLAC, you may not be able to hear the difference now, but in a year or two, you’ll be glad you did.

Re:rerip your CD collection

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't that kinda useless? I thought that audiophiles don't listen to the music, they listen to the equipment... .

Re:rerip your CD collection

[Sponge Bath]

So fuck them. Just upload the music you have.

Disclaimers: IANAL, void where prohibited, may cause rectal bleeding.

Re:rerip your CD collection

[squizzar]

You should also ensure that the laser in your CD drive is correctly aligned so that the photons it emits are in phase with the originals used to make the CD master.

Re:rerip your CD collection

[massysett]

since disk is now cheap as hell.

Not on portable players or even on laptops it's not.

To make it portable you then need to keep the original FLAC and reencode it to an MP3. I have yet to see a GUI tool that does this reliably (Amarok was unstable.) I transcoded my FLACs in a huge batch. Now I don't buy CDs at all and I have no qualms about buying lossy MP3s, though I know some audiophile is going to say they are inferior. I don't care.

Re:rerip your CD collection

[JackSpratts]

me too! that and the oxygen-free sata cables i got from sandia labs keeps the bits pristine, the music minty fresh.

Re:rerip your CD collection

[Anonymous Coward]

Amateur...

I put in the original CD for each song so the file can be verified as it plays.

Re:rerip your CD collection

[Anonymous Coward]

You realize there is nothing to make "pristine". If files were being corrupted you would know sooner by your hard drive failing to boot or other obvious symptoms before you are ever able to "hear" the corrupted files.

Re:rerip your CD collection

[Splab]

Normally I'd side against RIAA in anything, but not here - either you had fire insurance, in which case you have been reimbursed for the lost LPs; which means you no longer own those licenses. Alternatively you just basically lost everything to the flames - no one is going to give you a new couch because you can no longer sit in the old one.

Re:rerip your CD collection

[iamnobody2]

In case you did not know mp3's, ogg's, and aac encoding schemes only remove sounds above and bellow the biologically possible auditory sensory range of human ears. so if you 'claim' to hear the difference your either one of the 1/10th of 1 percent of people who have higher or lower then normal hearing.

bullshit. thats true of the higher bitrates, the goal is to first remove sounds above and "bellow" what we can hear, but guess what? our ears are all different and as bitrates get lower and lower, it gets easier and easier to discern the difference. while it surely does take amazing ears to tell the difference between 256 or 320 mp3 and flac, many people can tell the difference between 128kkps mp3 and flac. anyone with half a working ear could tell between 32kbps mp3 and flac.

Re:rerip your CD collection

[Anonymous Coward]

Pretty simple actually:
  - burn the mp3s to one or more cd roms using nero burning rom
  - rip the cds to "wave" files using apple inc. itunes music software
  - download FreeFlacUltimateEncoder.exe from the interwebs
  - use aformentioned program to convert to pristine quality FLAC music files
  - back those files up on mscloud before your computer is zombiefied

Some say you can "convert" directly from mp3 to FLAC but that would result in a loss a quality, whereas the one true method above will actully improve your listening experience.

PS: seriously it reminds me of those wizard hackers you found in small offices, who know the answer to the age-old riddle "convert doc to PDF": print the doc and scan to PDF...

Re:rerip your CD collection

[Anonymous Coward]

Are the photons in the light from your laser gold plated? It's the only way to ensure good sound quality - something to do with the smoothness of the bits.

Re:rerip your CD collection

[vgerclover]

If I backup a CD to my computer, and those CDs are rendered unusable for any reason, I expect to be morally and legally in the clear to keep using the backed up data. Otherwise, why would I back them up in the first place?

Re:rerip your CD collection

[wozzinator]

I spit out my coffee and I wasn't even drinking any when I read this! I cannot up this comment enough!

Re:rerip your CD collection

[QuantumLeaper]

Not if your Power supply is failing, I could hear the difference in some of my audio files but I didn't know it was the Power supply corrupting the HD, new stuff sounded fine but the older stuff didn't. My alarm on my MB finally went off, telling me there as a problem.

Re:rerip your CD collection

[Anonymous Coward]

So, the physical CD is the actual license to play the songs, and the destruction of the CD equals to the destruction of the license? Weird, I thought licenses weren't phisical things but an abstract concept.

Re:rerip your CD collection

[uglyMood]

I do not think that word means what you think it means. Degradation would occur upon re-encoding to a lossy format, not when the MP3 "sits on your hard drive." If that's what is happening, then you've got a disk drive that's deteriorating. The problem, dear Brutus, lies not in our files, but in our substrates.

Re:rerip your CD collection

[kevinmenzel]

MediaMonkey. Works great.

Re:rerip your CD collection

[cloudmaster]

Which is why I use 320Kbps VBR mp3. Not only is it proven multiple times to be not distinguishable from the CD in double-blind tests, it also saves a lot of space over FLAC and actually works in pretty much any audio player anywhere that plays anything more than just straight CDs. Compatibility is more important to me than a purely theoretical difference in sound quality. I would be happy to read a reference which objectively compares FLAC to lame mp3 with the psychoacoustic optimizations turned on and the quality cranked up in VBR mode, though. :)

What people can actually distinguish better and which is harder for any compression (or sampling, eve) to deal with is stereo separation. These arguments regularly overlook it, but the human ear can distinguish incredibly minute differences in timing between the left and right ear. The sampling frequency has to be very high to capture the sub-millisecond differences that even a shitty ear can distinguish. Frequency range is easy; stereo separation is hard.

Re:rerip your CD collection

[cloudmaster]

This is probably the best comment I've read on Slashdot this week.

Re:rerip your CD collection

[Splab]

If you still have the original, then I'm pretty sure you are still legally sound (provided local laws allow for those rips) - but in the GP case, a fire claimed his stuff; if you are insured, you are reimbursed for those losses, but you don't get both, you can't both claim it was destroyed and cash out and also claim you still have those licenses.

And if you aren't insured then tough luck - you don't get to take a new couch from the store because the old one was destroyed.

Re:rerip your CD collection

[sl4shd0rk]

I'm an audiophile, I re-rip my collection to FLAC every week to make sure I keep everything pristine.

I used to do this as well, until I found the sound quality degraded over time because of weakening in the magnetix flux on the hard disk substrate. I've found flash drives to hold audio quality far better than magnetic media however notable picosecond pauses during playback are common as the player has to skip over bad blocks of flash. It does take a trained ear to hear them so to most Slashdot music cretins, the diminished sound quality will be undetectable.

Re:rerip your CD collection

[Anonymous Coward]

but if you lose the title to your car you can file for a bonded title, or possibly get them to re-issue it if you are the owner living at the address on the title.

Re:rerip your CD collection

[bluefoxlucid]

Actually I can tell the difference between my q=4 Ogg Vorbis and my FLAC, but only on good equipment. Monster speakers or headphones or whatnot with golden cables don't do shit; but shitty speakers, poor sound cards, and the like really do degrade quality. I put a $10 Sound Blaster Audigy2 into my computer and I have decent speakers I paid $50 for and it made a huge difference; I want some Klipsch or whatever the brand is, I love their shit.

It's notable that q=4 Ogg Vorbis doesn't sound muddy, suppressed, or weird ... no notable artifacts. But when you play it against the FLAC, it does sound a little suppressed. The FLAC is obviously clearer, more dynamic, and has more depth. This is less important today, unfortunately, than it was 20 years ago; I have 20 year old CDs, and they're a lot quieter, with a much better dynamic range. High dynamic range is really noticeable when slapped down next to a fucked up compressed master.

But, on a standard RealTek AC97 built-in sound card, even on my decent speakers, you can't tell. The difference is non-existent. The audio hardware just sucks. Same with an iPod. My shitty motorola cliq cell phone is horrible, but the sound chipset is GODLY and when I swapped to it instead of an iPod for a media player I was seriously surprised.

Re:rerip your CD collection

[cloudmaster]

Yes - it took me several weeks to re-rip my several-hundred-CD collection when a drive failed last time (on RAID now to prevent that). I guess people who think this is easy have like 25 CDs and they're all single-disk sets from major artists with 100% accurate id3 info.

Re:rerip your CD collection

[misexistentialist]

Licenses cannot be lost in a fire. Or can we burn down a record company to make all their holdings public domain?

Re:rerip your CD collection

[aujus3]

Cables probably don't matter. Apparently you can use a coat hanger and get the same effect as those pricey high-end cables. http://consumerist.com/2008/03/do-coat-hangers-sound-as-good-monster-cables.html

Re:rerip your CD collection

[uglyMood]

Having reread your post, I see that you are indeed talking about the media degrading, and that with a lossless file format the degradation would be less noticeable. However, the way it is written gives the impression that a lossy format means your file is simply rotting away like a head of lettuce, while the lossless one is immune to the ravages of time. Both file formats suffer the same amount of damage due to media degradation, but the point I believe you were trying to make is that a lossless format is more forgiving of the errors.

Re:rerip your CD collection

[Jstlook]

A better suggestion, and one I'd like to have the ability to do myself, is read the bar-codes of all my CDs. After reading them, go through your CD collection and determine what songs are extraneous, and give you the option to delete them (or go look for the CD).

I know I'm one of the unusual people who keeps the jewel cases complete, but I've found they're the perfect height to allow two rows of paperbacks on a bookshelf.

Fact is, if Napster still existed, it would be nice to give you the option to just download the songs from those CDs so you don't have to slog through burning the good ones you missed.

Re:rerip your CD collection

[bigstrat2003]

I think that's a whoosh. But maybe he's serious, you never know with audiophiles...

Re:rerip your CD collection

[vgerclover]

But you are conflating stealing a couch, depriving the store of one unit, just because you "lost" the one you had bought, and keeping using backed up data, which you licensed for use. I still don't understand what you think back-ups are for.

I've got games that I bought years ago that keep in a hard drive, original media long gone. Am I a criminal in your opinion?

Re:rerip your CD collection

[treeves]

He probably wouldn't hear the whooosh anyway. They are frequently very high frequency, even ultrasonic.

Re:rerip your CD collection

[treeves]

Small whoosh. Small since it wasn't that funny.

Re:rerip your CD collection

[StikyPad]

No, dumbass, what he's saying is that the insurance covered the losses. If he still has the data, then it wasn't a fucking loss; it was insurance fraud.

Re:rerip your CD collection

[hedwards]

Unfortunately, Linux still doesn't run on FLAC. I've written many letters to Linus and the people over at FLAC, but nobody seems interested in fixing the problem.

Re:rerip your CD collection

[sapgau]

lolz

Re:rerip your CD collection

[nabsltd]

I guess people who think this is easy have like 25 CDs and they're all single-disk sets from major artists with 100% accurate id3 info.

I can see not backing up your music due to the size (although I do), but not backing up the local database for your music application seems to say you don't bother to back up your data at all.

I had to re-rip a good chunk of my collection due to data corruption caused by bad memory, but because the database was intact, all the metadata was still there, so I didn't have to manually enter any tag info. That actually made the job harder, in that it took only about 5 minutes per CD, and I had two drives, so I was effectively swapping a disk every couple of minutes.

Re:rerip your CD collection

[equex]

It's all about having the original data. As an active CD/DVD bootleg collector, the way it's done in the community is that every bootleg must be lossless and you must post md5 and/or ffp (FLAC Finger Print) signature files every time you upload. This is of course to prevent the degradation of lossy formats. We use a handy tool called Traders Little Helper (TLH) wich is most excellent. It will generate and verify md5 and ffp files at a click and it can analyze FLAC files and check if it's a faked mp3->FLAC. (mp3 decoded into wav and recompressed as FLAC). Plus a lot of other goodies (encoding/reencoding etc). The GUI operates on aucdtect.exe, flac.exe, lame.exe, mac.exe, metaflac.exe, mkwcon.exe, shntool.exe, and shorten.exe.

Re:rerip your CD collection

[sorak]

I think you may have missed the point... can we get a 'whoosh' mod for the cases where a poster must have had to duck to let the joke go over his head? I've got points to spare...

I'd bet that woosh would sound better in FLAC.

Re:rerip your CD collection

[russotto]

If you still have the original, then I'm pretty sure you are still legally sound (provided local laws allow for those rips) - but in the GP case, a fire claimed his stuff; if you are insured, you are reimbursed for those losses, but you don't get both, you can't both claim it was destroyed and cash out and also claim you still have those licenses.

And if you aren't insured then tough luck - you don't get to take a new couch from the store because the old one was destroyed.

None of this follows from copyright law, as far as I can tell. Assuming the rip is a copy of an original CD made under 17 USC 107 fair use provisions, there's no "license" involved. The destruction of the original CD has no impact on the fair-use copy. If it were a copy of a computer program involved, the provisions of 17 USC 117(a) would be involved, but it does not require that you destroy all copies when the original was destroyed either; in the insurance case, you could argue that the insurance company takes ownership of the backups (by 17 USC 117(b)), but in the no-insurance case, this does not hold.

Re:rerip your CD collection

[Splab]

My opinion doesn't matter, (IANAL etc) but if you don't have the physical media and/or whatever paper the license is printed on, then yes, you are in fact violating the copyright laws. How do you expect to prove rightful ownership if you can't produce anything but some some obscure backup *you* claim to have made from an original?

Even if the CD can't be read any more, it still is a valid proof of ownership (jewel case isn't going to cut it though, need the original media).

Re:rerip your CD collection

[sorak]

If you still have the original, then I'm pretty sure you are still legally sound (provided local laws allow for those rips) - but in the GP case, a fire claimed his stuff; if you are insured, you are reimbursed for those losses, but you don't get both, you can't both claim it was destroyed and cash out and also claim you still have those licenses.

And if you aren't insured then tough luck - you don't get to take a new couch from the store because the old one was destroyed.

This is more like saying "you can't use your old couch if you no longer have the receipt". He still has a perfectly useful "couch". The only thing he lacks is the evidence that he paid for it.

Re:rerip your CD collection

[Kielistic]

I would agree with you if they were selling something. But they've been very clear they're only "licensing" it to you. It's either a license or property and they should not be able to pick and choose properties from both for the clear purpose of reaming the customer the most.

Re:rerip your CD collection

[N0Man74]

I don't waste a lot of time during my life.

But when I do I re-rip my collection to FLAC.

Is this when you drink Dos Equis as well?

Re:rerip your CD collection

[dargaud]

I second that. Use the (linux) 'strings' command to extract common meaningful info from your rips. Script it to filter out the odd ones out.

Re:rerip your CD collection

[yourlord]

I ripped my collection to FLAC, and when I listen on a computer that's what I play.

When loading it onto a DAP, I transcode everything to OGG Vorbis at -q2 (~96Kbps) using SoundConverter http://soundconverter.berlios.de/

Works great, and I routinely transcode 10's of GB to our DAP's and phones.

Re:rerip your CD collection

[Captain Spam]

Google Music supports FLAC quite nicely, actually.

The strange part is that it DOESN'T support Ogg Vorbis. Strange because it's clear that one of their major target audiences is Android users, where Ogg Vorbis IS natively supported, but FLAC isn't (in vanilla Android). Meaning they're doing SOME sort of transcoding somewhere along the line anyway before they kick it out the pipe to Android.

Re:rerip your CD collection

[EdZ]

If you no longer own the original media, then according to the *IAA your digitised versions constitute EVIL PIRACY.

Re:rerip your CD collection

[rworne]

It is illegal. Remember mp3.com? They were planning on rolling out a service where they pre-ripped MP3's and if you subscribed to their service, you inserted a CD, it took a fingerprint, matched it up with the pre-ripped tracks and offered them for download.

The courts found that having a 3rd party copy the data for you was not fair use. See UMG v MP3.COM (2nd paragraph): ... the court drew a distinction between time shifting and space shifting, which had previously been allowed, and "virtual" space shifting as practiced by My.MP3.com. Before accessing a song from MP3.comâ(TM)s servers, a subscriber first had to âoeproveâ that he already owned the CD by placing his copy of the commercial CD into his computerâ(TM)s CD-ROM drive for several seconds or by purchasing the CD from one of defendantâ(TM)s cooperating online retailers. Id. However, it was MP3.com doing the copying from the CDs onto their servers, and the court found this copying not a fair use.

There you go.

Re:rerip your CD collection

[LoganDzwon]

The problem with your logic is that CD are both a tangible, the actual disc, and an intangible, the license to listen to that disc. There is no comparison possible, as there is nothing else that is both tangible and intangible at the same time. The fire caused him a loss of the physical disc, but not his license to listen to it. The only way to replace his lose to buy a whole new set, disc and license. If he had insurance, it paid him for his loss of the physical disc. That does not remove his license to listen to his format-shifted backups.

Re:rerip your CD collection

[DamnStupidElf]

Technically, he still owns the LPs/CDs. Just because he can't put them into a player (due to their current molecular configuration) and play them doesn't mean anything since backup copies are allowed by fair use. In fact, he's in an even better position than most because it's very unlikely that some punk will steal his original copies of the music now. Then he *would* have to file an insurance claim, police report, re-buy his media, etc.

Re:rerip your CD collection

[bWareiWare.co.uk]

The CD is the box the music comes in. If I choose to take the couch out of the box before the box is burnt, I am then not morally or legally obligated to destroy the couch. Claiming on insurance, or selling the CD would require I delete the backups, but I should be free to choose not to claim/sell them.

Re:rerip your CD collection

[Anonymous Coward]

it's more like if your car burned up with the title inside of it, you couldn't get a new title without buying a new car.

Re:rerip your CD collection

[wembley fraggle]

While you're on a good train of reasoning there, Plausible Deniability isn't what we need when dealing with the RIAA. Remember that they send you a letter saying, "Pay us $1,500 now. If you want to try and plausibly deny this, you'll be on the hook for legal fees and we'll also end up getting a lot more in damages from you". The goal is to avoid getting one of those *cough* extortion *cough* letters in the first place.

Re:rerip your CD collection

[madhatter256]

Also, you can buy your CDs off ebay or craigslist for cheap. I bought a lot of the music I downloaded 'illegally' off ebay and craigslist used since used music stores are hard to come by these days.

Bought all of my depeche mode CDs (except for the last two recent releases) for less than $30. I'm talking about all of the regular releases. Cheaper than buying them off of itunes.

I also deleted a lot of the music I downloaded, too, simply because I really don't have time to listen to all of them and the time I do have I listen to my favorites.

Re:rerip your CD collection

[Anonymous Coward]

Sort of like if I lost the title to my car I couldn't get a new title without buying a new car.

No, it's more like if you wrecked your car, you couldn't just pick up a new car just because you still own the title (license).

Re:rerip your CD collection

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm an audiophile, I re-rip my collection to FLAC every week to make sure I keep everything pristine.

from vinyl right??!

Re:rerip your CD collection

[MooUK]

Definitely whoosh.

Re:rerip your CD collection

[greg1104]

You can't calibrate the drive, what the hell are you talking about. You need to know the type of metal used in the CD to figure out how the photons are going to bounce off of them. Why do you think I pay so much for gold CDs instead of the aluminum ones? There's so much less drift from disc to disc on those, saves me a lot of recalibration time.

Re:rerip your CD collection

[Pf0tzenpfritz]

This is mostly caused by the balanced encoding that FLAC uses. MP3 and also AAC use asymmetric, unbalanced encoding which will wear out due to single sided harddisk rotation unless one channel is encoded clockwise and the other one counter-clockwise.

Re:rerip your CD collection

[Dahamma]

That would be completely useless, as the entire point of his post was to upload legal music to cloud services, and neither Google Music nor iCloud even supports FLAC.

Re:rerip your CD collection

[greed]

I know that was supposed to be funny.... ...but I've got discs that get worse and worse each time I re-scan the collection. (I'm on the 3rd rip now; 1st to 192k MP3, then to 256k/320k MP3, and now lossless.)

First pass, everything was good. No clicks and pops--except for the ones done on Mac OS 8 where I might have moved the mouse while SoundJam MP was grinding away.

Second pass, a few discs needed the (then-new) "Error correction" feature in iTunes.

Third pass, for some of those discs, I had to use cdparanoia to rip the disc, then burn a new copy so iTunes could rip it. (I wanted a backup of the failing disc anyway, so that was easier than converting the cdparanoia rips directly.)

(And I do have a good selection of drives from an assortment of vendors; some of these would no longer play in an audio-only deck.)

One I actually had to give up and buy a new copy--I couldn't find an uncompressed one to download.

Re:rerip your CD collection

[pz]

That's scary because it sounds so plausible. Well done, sir!

Re:rerip your CD collection

[BancBoy]

Stay funny, my friend.

Re:rerip your CD collection

[twebb72]

Agreed. Just look in the ID3 comments for something like:
----==== RIPPED BY MASTERBATER ====-----
(Unless, of course, you are the 'Masterbater' in question)

Re:rerip your CD collection

[Anonymous Coward]

But you have bit-rot. So, to extend and improve the OPs suggestion to re-rip, re-rip onto a ZFS dataset so you don't get bit-rot.

Re:rerip your CD collection

[Gilmoure]

Exactly. Stale bit rot reduces fidelity. Also, if you don't keep your audio files on a hard drive with properly tuned tungsten feet that rest on a granite slab at least 2" thick, and use cables made from pure supernova produced silver, that was collected from space before it fell to earth and got contaminated, your Justin Bieber collection is gonna sound like crap.

Re:rerip your CD collection

[twebb72]

I feel much the same way. I had over 400 CDs stolen from me. I did not go to tower records and drop another $7k to replace them -- I downloaded them. And yes, I had car insurance, they paid for the window, but not the stolen CDs. Some of the arguments stating 'if you had insurance' are entirely naive to how the system generally works.

Re:rerip your CD collection

[Anonymous Coward]

You're standards are to low.

Re:rerip your CD collection

[Kral_Blbec]

Insurance usually only pays a portion of the value that was lost. Do you really expect to remember every single thing in your home that could possibly have been destroyed in a fire?

Re:rerip your CD collection

[omnichad]

Something being legal, and being able to prove that something is legal are two different things.

Re:rerip your CD collection

[omnichad]

Quite pedantic, but very well put.

Re:rerip your CD collection

[AVee]

True, but in that scenario the only sensible thing is to either go and kill some RIAA employees (because thats how you deal with mafia) or to replace all your music with vinyl. I'm a coward, so I did the latter. It does have a nice benefit though, it allows you to pretend you're an audiophile.

Re:rerip your CD collection

[mattack2]

Why didn't the insurance pay for new CDs/LPs?

Re:rerip your CD collection

[ymenager]

Yup, that's the big problem I see with those services.

By uploading your mp3s there, you're giving them recorded proof that you had all those songs, which can be subpoenaed at any time by copyright holder.

The problem is that *many* people won't have the original CDs that they ripped the music from, so if you do get sued by RIAA, such MP3s are for all practical purposes the same as pirated, since you can't prove you bought them.

Re:rerip your CD collection

[Anonymous Coward]

If you burn to an audio CD and then rerip, is there any trace of the MP3 origin?

Re:rerip your CD collection

[balbus000]

Yeah, re-ripping the album is usually easier than cleaning off the digital dust that accumulates.

Re:rerip your CD collection

[idontgno]

There is no comparison possible, as there is nothing else that is both tangible and intangible at the same time. The fire caused him a loss of the physical disc, but not his license to listen to it.

I'm pretty sure my State of <unspecified US State> Uniform Driver's license is both tangible (a piece of printed plastic) and intangible (embodiment of my permission to operate a motor vehicle on public roads). And losing my driver's license would eradicate my license to operate a motor vehicle on public roads; just ask the police officer who tickets me for unlicensed driving if I get pulled over for some other infraction but can't produce my license.

The fire caused him a loss of the physical disc, but not his license to listen to it. The only way to replace his lose to buy a whole new set, disc and license. If he had insurance, it paid him for his loss of the physical disc. That does not remove his license to listen to his format-shifted backups.

Sounds nice in principle, but trust me: if you can't prove your license with a tangible artifact, you have no license when the jackbooted thugs kick down your door. Realistically, you are presumed to have no right whatsoever to do the <thing requiring a license> unless you can produce the tangible artifact representing that license. That's the legal stance with publicly-licensed activities (e.g., driving), and it appears to be the legal stance regarding non-publicly licensed activities as well, such as listening to copyrighted music or running copyrighted software.

I'm not saying it's right, fair, or moral; but it's naive to argue that that's not the way it is, since it plainly is so in the eyes of the media companies, and unless you fight back and succeed against them in some legal venue, they win by default (by putting forth an uncontested legal position based on their ownership of copyright).

Now, in this particular case, if you promptly replace the destroyed CDs with brand new copies, using that generous fire insurance payout, you're golden... and I'm sure the *AA will be happy to take your money a second time.

Re:rerip your CD collection

[PwnzerDragoon]

Double whoosh?

The trolls are having a field day in this thread...

Re:rerip your CD collection

[fast turtle]

Then you loose the advantage that Flac/Raw offers, which is the ability to burn a standard cd that can be played in any player following the standard. Simply put, use a backup instead and in my case, it'll be a custom mix with what I like instead of all the garbage.

Re:rerip your CD collection

[scot4875]

The RIAA doesn't pay out fire insurance claims to reimburse people for their burned LPs, so your point is moot.

--Jeremy

Re:rerip your CD collection

[suutar]

Didn't say it was productive, just effective.

Re:rerip your CD collection

[Truekaiser]

missed the point. It's not the difference between bargain bin and average equipment(high end stuff is generally NOT worth it sense they claim audio fidelity beyond what you can possibly hear.). nor it is about the different quality settings on the individual 'lossy' encoding schemes. a 96kbps or lower mp3,ogg,aac will always sound worse then a higher kbps one since the lower the rate the more the algorithmic equation cuts, the more people end up above & bellow the thresholds. It's about encoding in a 'lossy' codec vs a 'loss-less'
the difference that makes flacc basically worthless is this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearing_range
all non-losses compression algorithms omit everything above and bellow what is realistically possible for the human auditory system to even detect. Admittedly they do this by using a average which means some very very very rare person will have hearing that falls above or bellow this range. but in general unless your not a human you won't ever hear any of it.

as a response to the person who pointed out that humans are very good at detecting stereo separation. This is true because it is useful for determining the origin of a sound. Our early ancestors without this were easy prey on the Savannah's.

Re:rerip your CD collection

[qubezz]

You don't use 320kbps VBR (I corrected the K for you), it's either 320kbps orVBR. The only way to get a completely 320kbps file is to encode it CBR and force it to be 320kbps. 320k is wasteful enough that a utility like mp3packer can easily and losslessly reallocate the frames to under 300k.

Anyway, It is speculative to even think evil media could make a case against a user. When the gestapo raids your house based on the digital audio files that the RIAA claims they've found, they'd need both evidence (the ripped audio files and proof they are the copyright holder) and lack of evidence (no original media, no record of purchasing) to even start. I might have all those CDs in a storage shed that I will bring in as surprise evidence.

The lack of original media is an underwhelming argument though, the 1992 audio home recording act specifically clarifies that fair use includes home taping and copying a friend's CDs, even if the destination is digitally encoded. If the OP has guilt, he should look at the thousands he already spent on music to fund lawyers, and for any unknown audio tracks, imagine that all your friends on the internet personally sent you a 'digital tape' of their CDs.

Re:rerip your CD collection

[ajs]

Almost all of my original media (CDs and LPs) for about 60% of my collection were lost in a fire several years ago.

Re-ripping isn't an option. RIAA says if I download a new copy, it is illegal and I have to buy new media, which RIAA claims is only a license to have one copy, which I already bought. Sort of like if I lost the title to my car I couldn't get a new title without buying a new car.

So fuck them. Just upload the music you have. If you bought more than 30% of it you're probably better than most.

While the above is atrocious legal advice, it's more likely than not going to be the norm. It's just sad that we're living in a time between the dark ages of zero digital media and the advent of a true digital media culture. It's patently obvious that we're going to have to get to the point that the average person can exist in a known legal state with respect to their media collection, but that's practically impossible today unless you single-source your media from a behemoth distributor who will stand behind you in court. That's not satisfactory.

My collection consists of a hodgepodge of tracks I ripped on Linux laptops at the dawn of cdparanoia from disks that have long since been lost during moves or destroyed, iTunes rips, iTunes purchases, Amazon MP3 free downloads, Amazon MP3 purchases, downloads from Jamendo and free online distributors and netlables, downloads from my musician friends of their own tracks, podcasts, and so on and so forth.

There is no practical way for me to "prove" that all of my music tracks are licensed for my use. It's simply an impossibility. Then we get into the legal grey area of ripping friends' CDs... the labels would love to claim that this is not legitimate, and that you must purchase the CDs in question... but that may or may not be defensible in court.

It gets even worse: legitimate bootlegs (e.g. of bands who allow recording); mashups; rips Web sources; recordings that include background music; and so forth.

In an ideal world, I'd say that we need the Federal Government to step in and provide a set of consumer- and artist- friendly media usage laws, but the problem is that the U.S. Congress is for sale, and most world governments follow U.S. lead with respect to media legislation (for the most part, but with notable exceptions).

Sigh.

Re:rerip your CD collection

[Ecuador]

Eh, excuse me, but those cables are a complete rip-off. They don't even have directional markings! How can you expect optimum signal transfer from them?

Re:rerip your CD collection

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the point was "If in doubt, rip again with a better quality. Screw that, just rip again with much better quality favoring unencumbered formats."

Re:rerip your CD collection

[Anonymous Coward]

When it's a question of reselling used CDs they say you have purchased a license to "listen" to the music and have no rights to redistribute the media, but when it's a question of services like mp3.com or iCloud they say you can only legally own the physical media. How the fuck does this stand up in court?

Re:rerip your CD collection

[Anonymous Coward]

You must store them far away from gluten based products since it over time even the smallest particles will fuse together when the flash board is in use and flashing. The end result is that some sounds will be muffled.
The funny thing is that most people just ignore this.

Re:rerip your CD collection

[Anonymous Coward]

The fire can't destroy your license to the music. As far as insurance, it's clear you've never had to file such a claim. You're lucky to get a fraction of what you lost from insurance.

Re:rerip your CD collection

[wolfemi1]

No they're not. I signed no license agreement when I bought a CD. Neither did you. It's not property either. You have all the right in the world to listen to the CD, just not to copy it. They could LICENSE you the right to make unlimited copies and distribute them, but anything else doesn't NEED their permission.

Re:rerip your CD collection

[psithurism]

I think parent is right, the only way to detect which songs you ripped and which songs someone else ripped is to figure out what is unique about your ripped collection, and there, we can't help you.

Keep in mind that if you can't tell the difference then your not really perjurying yourself with any EULA that you accept if you honestly thought the music was your own. And if you can't tell the difference, how will they?

Re:rerip your CD collection

[mcgrew]

I've been trying to find out exactly how FLAC (and SHN) actually work, but my googlefu has been weak. But it does seem from what little information I've found that you're right about loss of floating point precision with FLAC.

I had an idea for a lossless scheme ten years ago that uses no floating point arithmetic, and kind of assumed it was how lossless worked so I didn't pursue it -- but it apparently isn't. Here's the idea (and prior art, for the patent trolls, in the unlikely event that nobody's thought of it before).

WAV stores absolute values of the samples, but it seems to me that it would be far more efficient to store the difference between two adjoining samples, rather than the absolute value, so you could store a 16 bit sample in a single byte, or even less; look at any sampled waveform and there isn't much difference between one sample and the following sample. Rather than storing a 237 and 242, where the 242 would be would be a 5, only three bits (four counting the flag that shows whether it's a positive or negative value). When the waveform is descending, you would store a negative value. With this scheme, the higher the sampling rate, the greater the compression would be, since the higher the sampling rate the closer the two adjoining samples' values would be.

What do you guys think? Am I missing something here?

Re:rerip your CD collection

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, that would be the joke.

Re:rerip your CD collection

[NJRoadfan]

Well he does have a point about older MP3s not sounding all that great. Encoders have improved over the years.

Re:rerip your CD collection

[mcgrew]

Krakhed Linux runs on Free Local Alternating Current, you should try that distro...

Re:rerip your CD collection

[Anonymous Coward]

wtf? do the FLACs go bad every week?

Re:rerip your CD collection

[Anonymous Coward]

Its trickier than that. Yes, the media in general is degrading...but if you really look at it, its the Liberal media that is leading the way. I'm not kidding. I heard Rush talking about something like this the other day. I wasn't paying a lot of attention but this must be what he meant.

My cousin has CDs back from her first few years of college and they're just about unlistenable now. Melissa Etheridge, Sheryl Crow, The Indigo Girls. The quality has just decayed and decayed. Now my boy, Bill Jr., he has some old country CDs he first bought when he went off to fight in the war. They sound just fine...sure, maybe a little worse for wear but thats just cause the regular media is being dragged down by the standards of the Liberal media.

Re:rerip your CD collection

[mcgrew]

Well, you wouuldn't get that wooshing noise with good equipment.

(ducks)

Re:rerip your CD collection

[ThatCanadianGuy]

if that's true, then shouldn't you be shunning digital audio and telling us to buy records because they have the best possible sound?

Re:rerip your CD collection

[Zancarius]

I put a $10 Sound Blaster Audigy2 into my computer and I have decent speakers I paid $50 for and it made a huge difference; I want some Klipsch or whatever the brand is, I love their shit.

I hate to undo some of the moderation I've done in this thread, but it's only +1, Funny mods. So it's not like I'm hurting anyone's karma. I do want to share some personal experience with you before you (potentially) make a purchase now or in the future.

First, I have to agree: Klipsch produces some amazing speakers. The sound quality is outstanding. However, the design of their integrated electronics for the consumer-grade hardware is absolutely terrible. I've gone through a total of about 3 sets of their ProMedia 5.1s (before they were discontinued) simply because the cooling for the MOSFETs is poorly thought out and insufficient. After about a year and a half of pretty constant use, each set suffered the same fate and stopped working. Not to mention that when (when) their personal media sets die, Klipsch will request ~$100 to replace a $2 set of parts--it's almost not worth it. If you can replace the MOSFETs yourself, you're usually OK, except in the case (like my last set) where their proprietary BASH card burned itself out--probably from me not replacing the 'FETs soon enough. Add that to the fact that Klipsch outright refuses to send just the affected component out by itself, requesting that you send the entire subwoofer back (you pay the shipping to them, they pay the return shipping)...

Side note: I have read elsewhere that others have had better luck, and that they've often modded their sets with fans and such. That's not really something I wanted to do, so YMMV.

Anyway, long story short: I eventually replaced my Klipsch speakers with some Logitech Z5500s. The satellites aren't as great as the Klipsch, but Logitech at least mounts a heatsink on the outside of the cabinet. I'm not sure if the Z5500s have been discontinued (can't seem to find them!), but if you can get your hands on a set for a reasonable price, it'd be more than worth it. If the control pod doesn't die within 3 months of ownership, the set seems to last for a good long time (I don't know how common that problem is, though I've spotted a few people with it on the Logitech forums).

On the other hand, Logitech's customer service is crap, especially compared to Klipsch, but I think I'd rather buy a $400 set of speakers that last 10+ years than having to replace a $100 component almost every year...

If you buy Klipsch's speakers proper, you're unlikely to have problems (and you'd need a separate receiver/amp/etc). I don't own any, but from what I've read related to their lower-end offerings, there's quite a few folks who seem to swear by 1) staying away from the low end and 2) buying Klipsch stand alone stuff. I admit, though: their "personal media" offerings don't quite live up to the expectations in terms of longevity that I had. The sound was incredible, though.

Re:rerip your CD collection

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm completely anti RIAA/MPAA, but I think your analogy is wrong. It's more like you lost the car and still have the title and expect its fine to grab a car off the street that is the same make and model.

Re:rerip your CD collection

[operagost]

I do this every week, right before I tune the dilithium crystals and calibrate the forward deflector.

Re:rerip your CD collection

[sexybomber]

WAV stores absolute values of the samples, but it seems to me that it would be far more efficient to store the difference between two adjoining samples, rather than the absolute value, so you could store a 16 bit sample in a single byte, or even less; look at any sampled waveform and there isn't much difference between one sample and the following sample. Rather than storing a 237 and 242, where the 242 would be would be a 5, only three bits (four counting the flag that shows whether it's a positive or negative value). When the waveform is descending, you would store a negative value. With this scheme, the higher the sampling rate, the greater the compression would be, since the higher the sampling rate the closer the two adjoining samples' values would be.

I believe you've just described the derivative function of the waveform ... Slope of a function at a given point, if I remember my high school calc right.

It'd probably take longer for the machine to process it, but assuming you start at zero and go from there, it sounds possible ... I know nothing about codecs, but it's an interesting theory.

Re:rerip your CD collection

[operagost]

I share my entire collection via Bittorrent; I find that the constant bit exercising keeps them fresh.

Re:rerip your CD collection

[darkgrayknight]

for sure

Re:rerip your CD collection

[operagost]

And losing my driver's license would eradicate my license to operate a motor vehicle on public roads; just ask the police officer who tickets me for unlicensed driving if I get pulled over for some other infraction but can't produce my license.

Would you have to undergo another driver's examination and road test in order to get another license?

Re:rerip your CD collection

[operagost]

Your homeowner's or renter's insurance should cover property stolen from your vehicle.

Re:rerip your CD collection

[steveg]

I'd like some of what you've been smoking.

Sorry, but the "waves" that you create from mp3 will never be better quality than the mp3s are. Information that was lost is gone. That's what "lossy" means.

And your example of scanning a printed doc to convert to pdf is an excellent analogy. Not in a good way.

Re:rerip your CD collection

[Anonymous Coward]

Just use steganography to add a short text message to all of your mp3s.
This will defeat any CRC checks (etc) that the cloud might do to your files.

Re:rerip your CD collection

[sznupi]

Did you do an actual ABX test when comparing? "But when you play it against the FLAC, it does sound a little suppressed. The FLAC is obviously clearer, more dynamic, and has more depth" might as well describe approaches which fall prey to natural biases of our perception.

(and BTW the last part - funnily enough, the iPod right at the top of portable analogue circuitry implementations, appears to be 1st gen Shuffle...)

Re:rerip your CD collection

[sznupi]

many people can tell the difference between 128kkps mp3 and flac

"Many" might be not the best word, it might be too many, for modern mp3 encoders (well, lame...) at ~128kbps, if proper listening tests are any indication. Their encodings have gone a long way; basically, many people would need to train themselves to have any chance of reliably hearing the difference (and what would be the point of that, anyway?)

Re:rerip your CD collection

[gottabeme]

Sounds like the way video compression works. Are you sure there isn't already a codec that does this?

Re:rerip your CD collection

[h4rr4r]

It is if you ripped it in low quality to begin with or if you suspect you have pirated material.

Re:rerip your CD collection

[Xacid]

But what exactly was burned up? The physical item or the license? Re-read his comparison to losing his car title.

Re:rerip your CD collection

[Sabriel]

Perhaps he lives in a country where "innocent until proven guilty" is supposed to hold sway.

Your papers please, citizen Splab.

Re:rerip your CD collection

[crontab]

It has to be a whoosh. Audiophiles are fanatics about sound, not stupid.

Re:rerip your CD collection

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not golden ears, it's the type of music. There IS a difference between mp.3 and aac that you CAN hear. Not in mid-range vocals or instruments, not even in most hi pitched instruments. It's in the transients.

Listen to something like guitar picking or a banjo. On aac, the notes are clearer, twang, plink plank plunk. on .mp3, it's thunk, thunk thunk. Same notes, but not sharp in clean, kind of dull. I don't have golden ears, in truth, somewhat degraded at the high end, no longer have a decent set of speakers, but on an A/B comparison of the same song, at the same kbs rip, with this kind of music, the difference is clear.

That said, without a direct comparison, I can't hear the difference. Even on an A/B comparison, for most music. So it's not that big a deal. But, "whotthehell, whotthehell," I now rip in aac, just as easy, about the same size files. I assume that FLAC or lossless aac is better, the way to go if you have the room.

Re:rerip your CD collection

[cloudmaster]

I don't back the encoded files up because I have the originals on CD (same with all the DVDs I have ripped for my media systems to use). I do back up my database (both the .cddb directory that the ripper updates and the MySQL database created by the app). But I'm not sure how this database might actually map to the files. It can't use checksums, since the id3 tags will differ and therefore the files will differ. It can't use the id3 tags, since that's the data we're talking about backing up. I'm genuinely curious how you're managing your mp3 files in a way that separates storage of the metadata from the actual encoded music. With the .cddb folder, hopefully most of them will rip more closely to correctly next time, but I know some of the custom stuff (album art, "various artists" compilation albums, etc) won't be stored in cddb-friendly files that any ripper I know of will handle...

Re:rerip your CD collection

[cloudmaster]

No, I still tight that ability. We already discussed that the decoded output of the mp3 is not discernibly different from the original. Decoding to a CD is the same as decoding to anything else - whether it goes directly to a digital sound card or if it's temporarily written to a CD before that data is passed through essentially unmodified to a digital sound card.

Never mind that anything I'm listening to a CD on which can't play MP3s is generally going to be a low-quality reproduction device like a car or a portable boom box, so any minor artifacts wouldn't matter.

Re:rerip your CD collection

[cloudmaster]

I refuse to acknowledge kibbibits as a real word. :) In any event, "320kbps maximum bitrate VBR"; the "maximum" is presumably implicit when a bitrate is near "VBR".

Re:rerip your CD collection

[tchall]

It has to be a whoosh. Audiophiles are fanatics about sound, not stupid.

I just read a "review" today about some high dollar "speaker cables" (as opposed to mere speaker wire) a friend pointed it out as something that might amuse me... The poster replaced his old worn out wires, let the new ones burn in overnight (with a tuner input) and was waxing rhapsodic about the increase in audio quality... Apparently the company making this magic wire has at least two or three different quality levels suitably priced for those who desire better sound... ALL are fanatics... some are just plain gullible...

Re:rerip your CD collection

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah, that would work EXCEPT google music beta does not accept FLAC file type. duh.

Re:rerip your CD collection

[AmiMoJo]

Not true: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Lossless_Audio_Codec

Up to 32 bit integer precision. Floating point is not supported at all. The stream also includes an MD5 checksum of the raw uncompressed data so you can compare it to the decoded output to check for accuracy. With FLAC the output is exactly the same as the input, no loss at all, no phase differences or loss of DC offset.

Unless you were joking, in which case apparently I'm not the first person to get it because you were moderated +5 Insightful :-)

Re:rerip your CD collection

[mcgrew]

No, I'm not. That's why I asked.

Re:rerip your CD collection

[JamesP]

Unless you were joking, in which case apparently I'm not the first person to get it because you were moderated +5 Insightful :-)

The last line says it all =) I didn't expect so many people to miss it.

And of course, you're probably the first to read the wikipedia page on FLAC.

(but I guess the FP loss of precision thing still holds true, since FLAC uses fixed point)

Re:rerip your CD collection

[AmiMoJo]

(but I guess the FP loss of precision thing still holds true, since FLAC uses fixed point)

Now I know you are joking :-)

Re:rerip your CD collection

[nabsltd]

But I'm not sure how this database might actually map to the files.

Pretty much every one of the "cddb" systems use the track count plus the starting frame count of each track as the "hash" to index the CD.

The only difference I can see is that the software I use (J. River Media Center) stores any corrections you have made to the CD in a local database, and uses that one first. If there is no hash match there, then it uses an online DB. This way, the "correct" metadata (i.e., what you want the tags to be) you have entered for the CD is always there if you re-rip the disc. Album art is not preserved in the local DB, but everything else seems to be.

Re:rerip your CD collection

[gottabeme]

Let us know if you find out. Sounds interesting.

Re:rerip your CD collection

[Anonymous Coward]

who gives a fuck? and why use a fucking cloud if you are so worried about it?

Re:rerip your CD collection

[mcgrew]

It'd probably take longer for the machine to process it

I don't think so, if it was written in assembly it would only take a few byes of machine code. In a higher level language that calls libraries and such, maybe, but computers are pretty damned fast these days.

Load a, b
load c, d
add b, d
load [address of output], b
inc a
inc b
[couple of more bytes to look for eof, loop if not]
(note, I haven't programmed in assembly for almost 30 years so that's probably not exactly right)

Re:rerip your CD collection

[Tharsman]

If he purchased the music from iTunes, he will be able to re-download all the paid-tracks again at no cost with the latest version of iTunes, then re-rip everything else. Not useful tip if he bought from Amazon or other mp3 retailer.

Re:rerip your CD collection

[toddestan]

Well, the problem is that you keep on moving the files to larger hard drives. I mean, you got this album that was originally stored on a 20GB or maybe a 40GB drive, and now it's rattling around on a 1TB+ drive. What do you think is going to happen? Of course your bits keep getting knocked out of sync. What you need to do is get the proper hard drive from the Napster-era to store the music on. I particularly like the Maxtor 2F040L0 drive myself, as I think it gives the music a warmer sound than most others. However, the Seagate ST320011A is an excellent choice for electronic music as that drive really enhances the low frequencies.

Now, while they don't build drives like they used to, these older drives are somewhat fragile and can be prone to failure. However, with the right walnut enclosure, you can keep the positive energy flow going into the drive's casing, which greatly prolongs the life of the motors. Also, don't forget the optically interlocked PATA cable to keep the bits in sync, and the plenum magnets to help keep the heads aligned so you don't get jitter from the next track over. With the proper set up, your Napster-era MP3 files should sound great well into the next decade.

Don't do anything

[misophist]

Just don't worry about it. Only a dumbass would worry about legality of his music. If you're listening to it, it's yours.

Re:Don't do anything

[JosKarith]

I'm guessing RIAA would want you to dump _everything_ and start again. Buying it all anew from iTunes or the like.
Back in the real world however...

Re:Don't do anything

[rwa2]

Pretty much.

If later on they come back and say "hey! Here's a list of files you have that look like they were downloaded from illegal public torrents. Delete them and purchase them from us." Then you just delete them, and... don't purchase them.

Music is only popular because people listen to it. If you stop listening to certain music due to political reasons (i.e. DRM / enforcement), then that just becomes part of the cultural landscape of music. If you let the recording industry push their musical tastes onto you and charge you for it, then, well, there are other words for that kind of relationship.

Re:Don't do anything

[Anonymous Coward]

This really. I can't believe anyone gives two shits about cleaning their music up in this fashion. It's like an imposed morality.

Re:Don't do anything

[Hatta]

Exactly. The illegal part is in sharing the music files, and even then it's just a tort. If you really feel guilty, turn yourself in to the police. Watch them laugh at you. That will show you how unimportant this is.

Re:Don't do anything

[Anonymous Coward]

Please send me all of the source code the every computer program you've ever worked on. I'd like to use it without paying you or any of the other authors who worked to create it. I'm not worried about the legality of it. Apparently I'm a dumbass if I do.

Re:Don't do anything

[Anonymous Coward]

By that logic if I steal your money and am using it, it is mine and I shouldn't worry about it.

So if you would please quite discouraging people from trying to abide by the law, that would be great.

Re:Don't do anything

[molnarcs]

Just don't worry about it. Only a dumbass would worry about legality of his music. If you're listening to it, it's yours.

I think he isn't worried. He just didn't have the balls to ask directly: Is it possible to detect by software (implies remotely) whether my mp3 files are pirated or not.. That's a good question.

Re:Don't do anything

[Travelsonic]

Your logic fails. Stealing money and copying 1s and 0s are not the same. Hence why they are covered under different bodies of law.

Re:Don't do anything

[Anonymous Coward]

This is pretty much spot-on, I'd think. RIAA is not looking to help you find what you pirated. They are looking to get money from you whether you actually have pirated or not, it's just that people who have pirated can be sued for more money.

Re:Don't do anything

[sorak]

Pretty much.

If later on they come back and say "hey! Here's a list of files you have that look like they were downloaded from illegal public torrents. Delete them and purchase them from us." Then you just delete them, and... don't purchase them.

Music is only popular because people listen to it. If you stop listening to certain music due to political reasons (i.e. DRM / enforcement), then that just becomes part of the cultural landscape of music. If you let the recording industry push their musical tastes onto you and charge you for it, then, well, there are other words for that kind of relationship.

I think the RIAA is more likely to say "Here is a list of 30 files that you downloaded illegally from us. At $750 per file, we will drop the charges for $22,500". That has been their M.O., lately.

Re:Don't do anything

[adam.dorsey]

Except they actually come back and say "Hey! Here's a list of files you have that look like they were downloaded from illegal public torrents. You now owe us $48 million dollars."

They don't want you to delete the files or actually comply with copyright laws, they want an obscene unreasonable payday subsidised by the American court system.

Re:Don't do anything

[misophist]

Yeah you are and I would be too if I sent you the source code of every program I've ever worked on.

So, don't be a dumbass!

Re:Don't do anything

[rwa2]

Meh, I've been served a takedown notice from my ISP before (some star wars video on my anonymous ftp site... that's how long ago it was), and it was more like my version. I promptly deleted all those videos and that was the last I heard of it.

I'm fairly certain Google would work a similar way, where maybe the studios would give them the list of md5sums of infringing content, and then they'd notify any customers with breaches without really telling the studios who they were.

Anyway, the RIAA/MPAA legal proceedings so far look more like a scare tactic, with the courts dropping most of the cases vs. John Does, except for a handful of high profile cases. And even those are mostly for file sharing, not just file having.

Re:Don't do anything

[Marillion]

And people are moderating this as "Insightful"? The law is the law. Good luck with an attitude like that in court.

I know it's a popular meme on /. to morally justify piracy because of the belligerence of copyright trade associations towards the public and onerous contracts they make artists accept; but, none of that changes the fact that what they're doing is legal. Immoral? Absolutely. But it is legal.

Now enforcement of the law is another thing all together. What's the likelihood of getting caught? Probably very low. It's like speeding. I drive a little fast. I know where the areas of traffic enforcement are along my commute to work. I know they let me get away with about five MPH over the posted speed.

Re:Don't do anything

[Anonymous Coward]

So you it seems you aren't willing to give me all the fruitful products of your hard work for free just because I want them for free? I guess I'm a royal dumbass for thinking people should be rewarded for being creative and working hard? I guess I'm also a dumbass for thinking it's wrong to steal from those who do work hard?

One this is for sure..I'm definitely a dumb-ass for trying to have an intelligent conversation with your average /. poster.

Re:Don't do anything

[Anonymous Coward]

Since stealing 1's and 0's is immoral or illegal, please send me the following 1's and 0's:

Your full Name
Your date of birth
Your SSN
Your address
Your Bank Account number and ATM PIN code
Your bank login name and password
Any and all digital coinage you have (e.g. bitcoin wallet.dat files)

For the record I am not going to steal any of your money. I will use the 1's and 0's you send me to obtain 1's and 0's in the form of kewl artifacts for my Wizard of Warcraft account, some books from audible.com, 1 year of netflix accounts for every hot girl I meet on the street, etc.

YOUR logic fails. Stealing 1's and 0's means you are stealing money from someone.

Re:Don't do anything

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, it's 593 0s and 471 1s.

What, you also wanted to know what order they're in? No... that's a secret, and only an idiot would stamp secrets on metal discs, sell them to people, and then claim that they're still secrets. Or post them on Slashdot, which is about as equally stupid.

How To Scrub Your Music?

[WrongSizeGlass]

Scrap what you have and buy it all brand new. I'm sure that'll make everyone at the RIAA happy ;-)

Re:How To Scrub Your Music?

[Intrepid imaginaut]

Bigtime. And while we're about it, take a moment to savour the full flavour, implications and meaning of "illegal music".

Re:How To Scrub Your Music?

[Anonymous Coward]

The RIAA wont be happy bu him using cloud services anyway so no worries there.

Re:How To Scrub Your Music?

[Java Pimp]

I was going to say just post your collection to a P2P service and let the RIAA tell you what's legitimate.

Re:How To Scrub Your Music?

[Phrogman]

That would be the point of all their Jackboot Terrorism over electronic media wouldn't it? If they can raise the suspicion that all electronic versions of a song might ultimately be deemed "pirated" and the only safe version of a song is on a CD, then perhaps they can extend the life of their mafia-like operations a bit longer.

Re:How To Scrub Your Music?

[Darinbob]

To be serious, this makes sense to me. After all if the person asking the question honestly can't remember which is legal or illegal, something's gone seriously wrong. How does anyone get that far along?

Yes, yes, yes, we DO expect you to go through 60GB of music! Is this is too much work for a thief trying to go straight?

Re:How To Scrub Your Music?

[mcgrew]

Drinkin' beer in hot sun
I fought the law and I won
I fought the law and I won

I needed sex and I got some
I fought the law and I won
I fought the law and I won

I BLEW GEORGE'S FUCKING BRAINS OUT

The Dead Kennedys' music is illegal! How about some Dead Milkmen?

Bitchin' Camaro! Bitchin' Camaro! I ran over my neighbor!
And I didn't get arrested because my dad's the mayor
Bitchin' Camaro! Bitchin' Camaro! Donuts on your lawn!

Re:How To Scrub Your Music?

[Anonymous Coward]

Illegal music == unauthorized participation in culture.

If you were born with the right to be part of your society, you might not believe music is ever illegal.

Re:How To Scrub Your Music?

[swalve]

The music isn't illegal. Simply that the person with the "illegal" music didn't compensate the artist for the use of it.

Re:How To Scrub Your Music?

[Anonymous Coward]

Buy it used. 8)

Re:How To Scrub Your Music?

[DiEx-15]

Get killdisk and reformat at least 10 times. Then reinstall everything. Redownload your legal music and RIAA won't be looking your way!

Re:How To Scrub Your Music?

[Anonymous Coward]

take a moment to savour the full flavour, implications and meaning of "illegal music".

It would be a lot scarier if the "illegal music" in question was taken to mean "music that competes with the 'product' of RIAA-affiliated companies" rather than "music received and enjoyed without compensation."

Quality

[Morth]

From napster? A search for 128 kbit MP3 might be enough. Your legal ones are probably of higher quality.

Re:Quality

[UnknowingFool]

Unless they were higher bit when he got them. I don't think there is a general answer to this question without knowing the details of his collection. If it were me, my first attempt at this problem would be an attempt to read the "Encoded" ID3 tags and file creation date. Any MP3s encoded by software I never owned would be suspect. For example, his ripped collection might be tagged "Audacity, LAME Encoder . . .". If he runs across any "Windows Media Player" or "Handbrake" those are probably downloaded.

Re:Quality

[archen]

That's what I was thinking as well. Most of those old mp3s were also constant bitrate if I remember correctly. Unfortunately this guy want's a tool not necessarily just clues. I guess you could load your whole collection into something like winamp and sort by bitrate though.

Re:Quality

[Nimey]

I ripped some of my old stuff at 128 kbit eleven years ago when I was a poor student and hard drives were expensive. Still have it too, because I can't be bothered to find the disc and re-rip.

Re:Quality

[demonbug]

From napster? A search for 128 kbit MP3 might be enough. Your legal ones are probably of higher quality.

I don't know, back in the days of l3enc that was the standard bitrate I encoded my ripped WAV files to, so not a good way to tell legal from illegal. Of course, I didn't do it that much in the early days since it was a pain and scour.net was easier, so if I were doing this it would probably be worth it to just delete and then re-rip any of my MP3s that are 10+ years old.

Re:Quality

[gknoy]

That's an interesting point. Rather than try to find what's legal, set out to make/get high quality versions of all of your music. Eventually, what's left will be things for which you don't have source media, and you will have a much smaller list of candidates to filter.

Re:Quality

[QuantumLeaper]

Sort by Date of the file might be easier.

Re:Quality

[antdude]

Heh, I still have MP3s from 1995. Even MP2 files! I am not audiophile so it doesn't bother me if they are low quality on low-end headphones and speakers.

Re:Quality

[Vectormatic]

i did the same when i got my first 128mb mp3 player, encoding to 128kbit made it somewhat possible to carry *two* whole albums with me, without the quality being too bad. I even tried 64 kbps for a few days, allowing me to take 4 whole albums with me, for variation, but the audio quality was just too horrid, even on cheapy earbuds.

Honestly though, on your garden variety speakers/earbuds, going above 192kbps doesnt really improve anything, the only reason to go higher is if you have above average audio equipment

Re:Quality

[Anonymous Coward]

seconded. search for low bitrate MP3s and those with messed up/missing/group tagged IDv3 (i.e. RNS, RAGEMP3, etc)

Re:Quality

[greed]

That's basically what I did; I've got the storage now, so I wanted to re-rip everything into lossless. After doing that, I built a list of "suspicious" files: less than 256k MP3, VBR MP3, and 128k AAC. (The latter needed some manual inspection, to find iTMS stuff that I'd de-DRMed but no iTunes+ version was ever made.)

(Unlike another poster, I'd previously re-coded my MP2 files into 256k MP3s.)

Oh, and I had to be careful around the VBR MP3s to identify stuff I'd gotten from my brief use of emusic.com. Maybe some people like subscriptions, but I tend to buy a whole mess of music at once and then nothing for months at a time.

Then I fixed all the missing album artwork. And scanned for bad ripping, thanks for the really crappy BD-combo drive, Lite-On.

Re:Quality

[Anonymous Coward]

"Probably"... Who are they to say that you didn't rip to 128kbit yourself? As posted elsewhere, a rip is a rip no matter if you did it or someone else did. The things they'd look for are ID3 tags explicitly mentioning pirate groups or sites, common ID3 anomalies that can't be legitimately explained by known encoder bad behavior, etc. I'm sure there could be a lot of analysis around the structure of the MP3 files themselves but it'd wouldn't exactly be _proof_ of pirating.

Re:Quality

[gravis777]

This would kind of depend how long you have been doing MP3s. When I started, around 13 years ago, hard drive space was still at a premium. Most of my early MP3s that I ripped myself are at 128k. I moved to 256 about two years later, then started using VBRs about a year later. About 5 years ago I went to ripping in OGG, but in the past year, I have moved to FLAC.

i would gladly go back and re-rip all my old MP3s, but many of my CDs were stolen about 5 years ago, and I have been on the itunes / Amazon MP3 craze since, only buying a few CDs here and there. The iTunes iCloud thingy coming out in a few months looks to be a great option for me.

Re:Quality

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember back in the Napster days I got some 160kbps and 192kbps MP3s, not that there was much point at the time since my underpowered Amiga I had at the time couldn't play it at full quality, but I was thinking ahead.

No software can do that.

[drolli]

A software could identify files which were downloaded. But it can never detect legally whether you have the right to listen to that file. Unless of course oly drmd files are considered to be legally ok.

Re:No software can do that.

[nitehawk214]

A software could identify files which were downloaded. But it can never detect legally whether you have the right to listen to that file. Unless of course oly drmd files are considered to be legally ok.

I was confused about this as well. From the post it makes it sound that if you buy a CD, then download the track for it, that track is somehow now "illegal". THIS IS NOT THE CASE, and FUCK YOU to the RIAA for making people think it is.

Re:No software can do that.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, if more than one user share the same watermarked file, one of them might not be allowed to have it. They just have to find a widely spread watermarked file and sue every user until they find the original owner, who then is sued more for sharing it in the first place, and of course then keep suing everybody else.

Then again, perhaps this is only a scam so that people don't use these services with pirated music even tough it might be a legal hell to obtain permission to scan other people's files.

Re:No software can do that.

[Anonymous Coward]

THIS IS NOT THE CASE

Oh, so you are a lawyer? No? Just some 13 year old having nerd rage? Nevermind then.

Re:No software can do that.

[PhilHibbs]

I think it is a breach of copyright to do that.

Re:No software can do that.

[Anonymous Coward]

A "legal" MP3 is a state of mind. The RIAA would like to believe that all MP3 files containing music where they hold the copyright are illegally obtained the result because of file sharng. Well, they might be right in 99% of cases. The problem is, the original source of the MP3 file might have been from a dual-format "enhanced" CD. When that is shared, obviously the downloaded copies aren't being legally distributed.

But who cares? Nobody that I know. If you assume that all of the files in your collection are legitimate, then they are. It is impossible to prove via MD5 or any other technique where the files came from originally.

I don't know about you, but I certainly am not ripping CDs when someone else can do it for me.

Re:No software can do that.

[nitehawk214]

THIS IS NOT THE CASE

Oh, so you are a lawyer? No? Just some 13 year old having nerd rage? Nevermind then.

I have no idea was the law is. I mostly just hate the RIAA for perverting it.

It's probably just me

[Anonymous Coward]

But I flagged each legal MP3 with LEGAL and its source as I got it or ripped it off of my CD. Nonflagged ones are either pirated or have a questionable source, so I can replace them if I choose to.

It wasn't that hard to do over the last decade, and now I don't have to solve this problem.

Re:It's probably just me

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure just put a sign out letting folks know A. your a thief. and B. your stupid enough to advertise it...

Re:It's probably just me

[jordanjay29]

You have way too much time on your hands. :sagenod:

Re:It's probably just me

[Anonymous Coward]

That would only be true if I shared my collection around, wouldn't it?

Re:It's probably just me

[Travelsonic]

Nope.


Potential copyright infringement =/= potential thevery.


Somebody hang a sign on this AC advertising a lack of factual tact and logic in his arguments.

Ripped music

[jdavidb]

Moreover, I have a lot of MP3s that I downloaded because I was too lazy to rip the CD version that I own

How can they tell the difference between an MP3 that you ripped from a CD that you own, and an MP3 that somebody else ripped from another copy of a CD that you own?

Re:Ripped music

[barlevg]

The only thing I can think is that they compare it to a database of known illegal files using MD5 hashes or somesuch. But this is actually a valid question: if two people rip different copies of the same CD with, say, LAME, will the resulting files be identical?

Re:Ripped music

[jandrese]

The only way to tell would be if someone tossed a watermark on the file, which is unlikely.

Re:Ripped music

[MindStalker]

I think its an issue of covering your legal backside. When they go after you for having X,Y,Z songs you can prove, yes, I've owned this CD for years.

Re:Ripped music

[Anonymous Coward]

How can they tell the difference between an MP3 that you ripped from a CD that you own, and an MP3 that somebody else ripped from another copy of a CD that you own?

Easy. The MP3 that someone else ripped will have the Evil Bit set, since it acquired it during transport.

Re:Ripped music

[gman003]

He's asking for a tool that will identify downloaded files, which means he only has to sift through those instead of all of them.

Going by my own collection (~20gb, ~7000 files), OP probably has around 20,000 songs. Even if a tool only shows half of them as definitely clean, that's 10,000 songs he doesn't have to check.

Re:Ripped music

[arth1]

Look at the ID3v1 and ID3v2 data.
Many ripping programs add a signature there, and some even a fingerprint. And many pirates put text messages there like "RIPPED BY ZOOOMG".

And even though you own a CD and have the right to rip it, you don't have the right to copy a rip someone else made. That's when copyrights kick in. So if two MP3s were ripped by a program that adds a unique fingerprint, you can assume that one of them is illegal, and that the other person either is the victim of a crime where someone stole his files, or allowed the copy to be made.

Re:Ripped music

[Saishuuheiki]

The method they *could* use to tell would be to take a hash of the file. When you rip the cd, you will get a different hash each time. With file sharing services most likely there are only 3 or 4 rips that are shared among thousands of people. Consequently, if you see someone with a copy of a particular song that has a hash of one of these commonly shared files, chances are miniscule that it isn't a pirated copy.

Re:Ripped music

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you realize how much cellulite is at risk of getting up from your arse, getting the jewelcase up from your shelf, opening the case,inserting the CD (or more effort - replacing a cd in the drive already) then running something like cdex?

To some, even downloading some bin/cue then deamontoolsing it and cdex'ing it from there is 'easier' than doing this physical effort.

Re:Ripped music

[Fishchip]

No. There's no way there can be a database of every song ever recorded, to cover multiple bitrates, multiple formats, differences between coding the same format with different programs... differences with the same program (VBR limits, and doesn't LAME have quality options?) It's impossible to even conceive of this working.

Re:Ripped music

[Anonymous Coward]

No. CDDA, even when read digitally in a CDROM drive, does not produce the exact same bitstream every time.

Re:Ripped music

[Anonymous Coward]

Eh, just update the ID3 tags while organizing your music and their MD5 hash on the file won't match. And yes, assuming they used the same encoding settings in LAME, the files should be identical.

Re:Ripped music

[Anonymous Coward]

The ID3 tag most likely contains the ripper's signature. I'd start by cleaning that.

Re:Ripped music

[zeet]

When you rip the cd, you will get a different hash each time.

If you get a different hash each time you rip a file, your CD reader or encoder are broken.

Re:Ripped music

[SmilingBoy]

Yes, they will be the same. There is actually a service called AccurateRip which compares the hash of your ripped copy with a database of user submitted copies. If it matches several other ripped versions you can be pretty sure it was ripped correctly.

Re:Ripped music

[gottabeme]

"When you rip the cd, you will get a different hash each time."

Why?

Re:Ripped music

[Anonymous Coward]

Assume the same input .wav stream:

- id3 tags generally vary in quality, and format, so hashes will mismatch on at least that.
- id3 & id3v2 tags may or may not be included
- lame encoder will produce different output mp3 streams for different versions of encoder
- the same for other encoders
- the same for different bit-rate options (obviously)

So while two people with the same input .wav may end up with different files, they should be the same if:

- they use the same encoder
- use all the same meta-data
- use all the same parameters

Also, when ripping from CD, you may not get the identical .wav, especially if error correction is needed.

Re:Ripped music

[barlevg]

If there's a file you KNOW is illegal--possibly because you planted it (wasn't there a new story about the RIAA doing this with a Britney Spears album a few years back?), then it IS possible to detect it in a person's library--assuming the person hasn't altered it in any way. There's obviously no way to make a database of all known LEGAL tracks, but you can definitely make one of known ILLEGAL tracks. My question is still: if two people rip different copies of the same CD with, say, LAME, will the resulting files be identical?

Re:Ripped music

[justleavealonemmmkay]

Uberhaupt, how can they tell the difference between an unsigned MP3 that you legally purchased, and an unsigned MP3 that you got off Napster ? Do you have a legal obligation to keep a proof of purchase or do THEY have to prove that you download it from an illegal source?

Re:Ripped music

[gottabeme]

I can conceive of it just fine. It would be practically impossible for it to be completely comprehensive, but it wouldn't have to be 100% for it to be useful.

MusicDNS audio fingerprinting plus hashes of known encoded copies would make it quite simple. One of RIAA's lackeys could hook it into P2P and BT networks and automate the whole thing. It would simply be a matter of time, bandwidth, disk space, and the occasional prodding or tweaking by a human, none of which would be a problem for RIAA. Maybe they are already building their database now. Wouldn't surprise me. It'd probably come in handy in their P2P lawsuits.

Re:Ripped music

[barlevg]

Unless it's a plant.

Re:Ripped music

[barlevg]

Never mind. Question answered in a different part of the thread.

Re:Ripped music

[Unequivocal]

Why would ripping the same binary WAV off a CD result in a different hash each time? Is it b/c the encoders are different in different applications or what? If I rip the same song with CD-EX using the same settings won't I get the same exact binary assuming no read errors? I'm honestly curious what point you're making..

Re:Ripped music

[camperdave]

Unless you've kept the receipts and they have detailed information on them (eg, CD title, barcode, SKU), then you cannot prove that you've owned the CD for years.

Re:Ripped music

[_0xd0ad]

It's because the error correction on CD-DA is not the same as the error correction that is used on a data CD. The error correction on an audio CD is quite a bit more lenient - and corrupt data from an audio CD generally sounds pretty similar to the original (to the point where you wouldn't know the difference by listening to it), whereas corrupt data from a data CD is generally useless because it has to be bit-for-bit accurate or everything blows up.

It's also why the specially-marked "data" CDs work just fine to burn audio CDs, but the converse is not necessarily true. Audio CDs can be manufactured with crappy materials that cause all sorts of read errors on the disk; the error correction on an audio CD will just fudge it and get the low bits wrong and you can't even hear the difference, but the error correction on a data CD will figuratively just throw up its hands and say "I can't correct this, it's too corrupt".

Re:Ripped music

[Anonymous Coward]

more to the point, he can tell what he definitely didn't rip himself by looking at the id3 tags and encoding settings. Things made by unfamiliar tools or with stupid settings are someone else's.

Re:Ripped music

[dhermann]

It's because the process is physical, not digital. Every compact disc has millions and millions of pits, and there are tiny differences that would result in slightly different rips, even if two users were using the exact same disc reader. The odds of two rips being the exact same set of bytes is astronomical.

Re:Ripped music

[dhermann]

As above, the binary will not be the same. You are shining an imperfect laser across a spinning disc. Everyone's rips will be different. Hell, ripping it yourself twice will result in different files.

Re:Ripped music

[IshmaelDS]

Wrong question, the question is can they prove that you DON'T own that CD and never have? You are innocent until proven guilty. Also I have been ripping CD's for the years, some of those CD's have been broken, or lost, I don't keep receipts for decades, prove I never bought it.

Re:Ripped music

[Fantom42]

You will? I thought the rip was digital.

Re:Ripped music

[camperdave]

Why would you get a different hash each time? Seems to me that the hash would be the same each time, unless scratches on the disk are giving you a different bitstream. However, there's error correction on the disk to recover from that sort of thing. That's why we went digital in the first place.

Re:Ripped music

[Anonymous Coward]

What is the chance of a collision? 1 in 100? 1 in 1000? 1 in 10000? If it's even 1 in 10000, that means that one of those songs in your very large, and legally purchased, collection will cause you to be guilty. This test is not stringent enough.

Re:Ripped music

[Splab]

That's easily solved, run a script that flips a bit at the end of the ID3 tag (or in the music, shouldn't matter - any bit changed will yield a new hash) (or just add a letter or whatever to the tag).

Re:Ripped music

[Anonymous Coward]

Exact Audio Copy uses AccurateRip to calculate a checksum of your rip and compare it to an online database so you can tell if you got a clean rip without listening to every track. This is only possible because you can get consistent clean rips using good software.

Windows Media Player or iTunes aim to be quick rather than accurate, and rips are indeed inconsistent.

N.B. Every digital process is, ultimately, physical and analog. That doesn't necessarily make it inaccurate.

Re:Ripped music

[Anonymous Coward]

You might get more consistent results if you rip the tracks with paranoia

Re:Ripped music

[clickclickdrone]

>Hell, ripping it yourself twice will result in different files.
What about rippers that compare ripped tracks to a centrally stored hash list to check you got a clean rip? It must be reasonably predictable to make it worthwhile.

Re:Ripped music

[Anonymous Coward]

The one he ripped himself is a 8 bit, 22kHz, mono, un-normalized, 64k CBR, VQF renamed to mp3 with the ascii "ITMS" found more often than "0xFFFB" in its content.
The downloaded one is a proper rip of a CD to mp3.

Seriously the ID3 tag might "help", a lot of release group tend to sign the "comment" tag.

Re:Ripped music

[Krater76]

Maybe I missed something about the difference between CD-R data and audio discs, bu I'm pretty sure there is only a miniscule difference between the two and that difference isn't quality.

First, the audio discs have a special bit that is readable by audio recorders (standalone units, not computers) that makes it so that the recorder will not use data discs. Second, for every audio disc sold you are paying a royalty to the RIAA.

The data discs have no restrictions and will record and play as audio just as good as the audio discs without the bullshit of having to pay extortion money to the RIAA.

Re:Ripped music

[molnarcs]

The method they *could* use to tell would be to take a hash of the file. When you rip the cd, you will get a different hash each time. With file sharing services most likely there are only 3 or 4 rips that are shared among thousands of people. Consequently, if you see someone with a copy of a particular song that has a hash of one of these commonly shared files, chances are miniscule that it isn't a pirated copy.

Good explanation. Luckily, it's easy to circumvent. I think the author's worry is that his pirated music will be detect somehow (I don't believe for a minute that he's worried about mp3 files downloaded in the 90s - that's just too ridiculous). Anyway, I believe this is doable in the way you describe it. It's also easy to write software that would remove a single bit from all downloaded files from random locations (or it could add random microseconds of silence to the end or the beginning). This would randomize hashes of all files you dowload. So I think if such database exists, it's not in use at the moment.

Re:Ripped music

[Anonymous Coward]

"When you rip the cd, you will get a different hash each time"
You sure about that?

Re:Ripped music

[_0xd0ad]

The difference doesn't necessarily have to be quality, but it can be.

If you buy "audio" CDs and use them to record data, chances are you'll be fine. But I've also been burned because I got "audio" CDs on sale and they turned out to be low-quality - probably a defective batch, actually, but they were good enough to sell as "audio" CDs.

Re:Ripped music

[Anonymous Coward]

Wouldn't the "solution" to this be to run a script over all your music files which changes one bit in a random mp3 data block. Voilà - new set of hashes, same music collection.

Re:Ripped music

[gottabeme]

I think it can be said that the process is both physical and digital--as opposed to, say, a tape or record, which are both physical and analog.

"Every compact disc has millions and millions of pits, and there are tiny differences..."

What "tiny differences" are you referring to?

It is true that audio CDs don't use ECC as CD-ROMs do, however this doesn't necessarily mean that every rip from a clean disc in a good drive will end up with different results. Have you actually tested this hypothesis yourself, or are you guessing?

Re:Ripped music

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you won't get a different hash each time. Most CD rippers allow to do bitperfect extraction when you've got a relatively good CD reader. You can do the test yourself. Rip a .wav from one track on one computer then rip the same track on another computer.

If you do this with a good ripper and good CD readers, you'll have the exact same identical file.

The "zomg no checksum it's audio not data" you cannot do bit-perfect extraction is mostly a fad: the only thing that's true is that correction is needed when your audio reader (the one you hook up to your stereo) reads a speed x1.

Just look in the audiophile community: people rip their legit CDs and compare the checksum of the file they extracted and the ones that matches are considered to be "bit perfect" CD ripping.

Re:Ripped music

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? What if your rip with the same codec and the same settings?

Re:Ripped music

[drinkypoo]

That has everything to do with buying crappy CDs. The only difference between an audio and a data CD is in places where they're taxed differently. The encoding method is different for CDDA and for data, it's true; but that happens at recording time. That's why your optical drive can write some formats and not others, aside from having a laser and control circuitry appropriate to the medium; it has to also support the encoding.

Re:Ripped music

[Anonymous Coward]

The method they *could* use to tell would be to take a hash of the file. When you rip the cd, you will get a different hash each time.

Wait, ripping CDs and encoding to MP3 is non-deterministic?! Woot, new random number generation technique!

Re:Ripped music

[Anonymous Coward]

But couldn't you just change the tag slightly and therefore change the hash?

Re:Ripped music

[Bucky24]

No. There's no way there can be a database of every song ever recorded, to cover multiple bitrates, multiple formats, differences between coding the same format with different programs... differences with the same program (VBR limits, and doesn't LAME have quality options?) It's impossible to even conceive of this working.

Now we know why the RIAA is claiming that pirates hurt their profit margin-every new pirated song has to be carefully maintained in this massive database of theirs, thereby costing them more money.

Re:Ripped music

[SchMoops]

Parent is correct. The only difference between Audio CD-Rs and Data CD-Rs is that "Audio" CD-Rs can be burned in a standalone burner not labeled "Professional." Audio CD-Rs and "Professional"-labeled standalone burners (which, like computers, can burn audio to "Data" CD-Rs) have a royalty to the RIAA included in their price. IAAAE (Audio Egineer).

Re:Ripped music

[Anonymous Coward]

What if you re-encode every mp3 you download, because you normalize them?

Re:Ripped music

[Anonymous Coward]

I suppose you've never heard of AccurateRip then? The purpose of which is to ensure that you get the exact same data off the disc as everyone else.

http://www.accuraterip.com/

Re:Ripped music

[Anonymous Coward]

Rest assured that if the Pigopolists do decide to come after you, they'll claim that each and every single audio file on your computer (even if ripped from your own CD's) are illegal, and prima facie evidence of intent to upload them somewhere. (If you have the CD's, why would you want to make "inferior" copies?) They'll know their claims are bogus, but they'll be counting on you being sufficiently terrified of their army of lawyers that you'll cave in to some out-of-court settlement.

Re:Ripped music

[fearofcarpet]

I wrote a script that writes random strings into the comments section of ID3 tags and removes my name/email address from iTunes downloads. And you are correct, I'm not worried about decade-old MP3s; I'm just trying to point out the absurdity of asking people not to upload pirated music to cloud services.

Re:Ripped music

[Anonymous Coward]

Not sure, too easy to bypass: if that would be the case, you could add a single random byte in the end of the file, the music would still play and have different hash.....

Re:Ripped music

[awilden]

Good point! So what we really need to do is come up with some sort of a system so that we can all share our copies of music with each other so that we can identify which copies of our music we obtained by using some sort of a system to share our copies of music with each other!

Re:Ripped music

[Bucky24]

You are innocent until proven guilty.

On paper, yes. But I'm not entirely sure this is still the case. And of course as far as the RIAA is concerned, you're guilty.

Re:Ripped music

[EdZ]

When you rip the cd, you will get a different hash each time.

Only if you use different settings. If you're getting different hashes with the same settings, then your drive is faulty or your disc is so damaged that ECC is failing.

Re:Ripped music

[Bucky24]

By law, they are supposed to prove you downloaded it from an illegal source. In reality however, it depends on how good their lawyers are.

Re:Ripped music

[Unequivocal]

In that case, how can I pull the exact same binary off a data CD twice? Say an executable file? What's the difference between an audio CD that I rip a binary WAV file off of and a data CD that I rip binary executable off of? Seems like they are the same to my (uneducated) mind.. Either I can get bit-for-bit accuracy or I can't? Or are audio CD's uniformly so crappy in manufacture that you can't get bit-for-bit reads off any of them?

Re:Ripped music

[nabsltd]

It is true that audio CDs don't use ECC as CD-ROMs do

Although CD-Audio discs don't have the additional error correction that CD-ROMs use, they do have some error correction...specifically 8 bytes of CIRC per 24 bytes of data.

If you have the right CD-ROM drive, it will return the full 33 bytes per frame to the ripping application. This allows the software to perform error correction instead of the drive.

Re:Ripped music

[Anonymous Coward]

The method they *could* use to tell would be to take a hash of the file. When you rip the cd, you will get a different hash each time.

Really? A different hash for each rip from a digital (CD) source? Without a RNG in the algo, I'd imagine that everybody who rips a CD with the same program (say iTunes) would get pretty much the exact same file, barring of course, the variables you could set like delay between tracks, the bitrate, etc.

Seems to me that the majority of the files would be more similar than dissimilar.

Now all bets are off for analog sources.....

Re:Ripped music

[Anonymous Coward]

Hashing the file is not accurate. Every copy would have to start and stop encoding at the exact same bit and moreover, ID3 tags would render a file-level hash irrelevant.

Re:Ripped music

[_0xd0ad]

I'm fully aware that it has to do with buying cheap CDs, but my point was that they would have been good enough to burn audio onto. The error correction would have made the result good enough that you wouldn't notice anything if you listened to the CD.

Re:Ripped music

[Anonymous Coward]

Not if you manage to use EAC or cdParanoia to get bit-perfect copies..

Re:Ripped music

[Anonymous Coward]

When you rip the cd, you will get a different hash each time.

There's no reason this has to be true. It's all digital media, and the algorithms are deterministic. Some ripping programs may add some other stuff (a timestamp or something), but there's no reason this has to be the case. It's perfectly possible that you and I could rip the same CD (same content, not same actual CD) and end up with identical MP3s.

Re:Ripped music

[Anonymous Coward]

Well in that case, the fix would be easy... just change 1 bit about halfway through the file of each song. You'll never hear the difference (especially at a high bitrate), and the hash will not match any other that they compare it against.

Re:Ripped music

[elfprince13]

Analog to digital conversions inherently are going to miss some data. Did your first sample of the waveform come at 0:00.02 or 0:00.01?

Re:Ripped music

[DeadBeef]

What if you have run something that updates the id3 tags, album art or volume levels as I expect most people do. I ran windows media player once ( by mistake ) and I think it wanted to do this by default? Any fiddling with any of the stuff in the header is going to change the hash of the file completely. I guess they could get more sophisticated and just hash the parts of the mp3 that aren't in the header. I'm sure you could get around that by just flipping the least significant bit somewhere in each track. Seems like prosocuting based on that would be getting into voodoo territory for the cops in my country. I reckon equal odds of bringing in a psychic and presenting a 'strong feeling' the mp3's are the estranged child of some RIAA IP. In all seriousness they would just ask you where the originals are and hope that you don't have a plausible story about a house fire or burglary or something.

Re:Ripped music

[acohen1]

Theres almost always minor errors on the disc, and when reading audio instead of data the drive mostly ignores them. Try ripping the same CD twice on the same drive with the same settings and I'll bet you $100 the hash won't be the same.

Re:Ripped music

[Anonymous Coward]

flip 1 bit somewhere randomly in the middle of the MP3 - no loss in quality, still completely playable, and calculates to a wildly different hash value than anything else on the planet.

Re:Ripped music

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't there an actual physical change to the CD every time it's read as well? Like the laser eventually smooths out the pits and lands over a period of time?

Re:Ripped music

[Algan]

Encoders often embed various metadata, such as timestamps, etc. Chances are same file, same software, same system, encoded twice, will result in different hashes.

Re:Ripped music

[gottabeme]

Thanks for the correction.

Given that, it seems that a good rip of a good disc should always have the same data.

Re:Ripped music

[Anonymous Coward]

Not true in the slightest, using the same CD, the same encoder and the same quality settings will result in an identical (bit-for-bit) mp3, assuming no wonky floating-point handling stuff from a GPU encoder. AccurateRip-type software is designed to ensure the CDAudio -> PCM WAV section is identical from machine to machine, and 100% rips are common (and a point of pride/mandatory for release groups and private trackers), and an mp3 encoder is deterministic just like any program.

If you see someone with an identical hash mp3, it just means they also ripped their CD slow and used the same version and quality settings. Most people rip with LAME or BladeENC at 320, v0 or v2, which gives a grand total of six (12 if there are 64bit encoders for LAME/Blade) likely possibilities for a given moment in time, and if you go out, buy a new album, get home and rip it, you're likely to use exactly the same version as the release groups do.

Exceptions: rips from vinyl or other noisy sources, where your input stream is never going to be identical; hashes of complete directories including metadata (the odds of an identical rip, at the same time, with the same [scenetorrent] tag in the filename or comment field are low indeed)

Re:Ripped music

[nstlgc]

Slightly off-topic, but I've always wondered about this. Why is it that when I use a program to fetch data from a digital device (CD) and then encode it, I get a different hash each time? I would understand this if there was an analog component in between, but this is all digital, no?

Re:Ripped music

[cdrguru]

A "music CD" disc has an application code manufactured into it. It is otherwise identical to all other CD-R discs. You can't take a general purpose CD-R (application code 255) and decide to make it into a music CD-R with an application code of 1.

Most CD-R discs that you buy in a store were made in a factory with little or no quality control and the work was contracted by some company that simply sells CDs under their own brand. Most of them are junk because the dye isn't one of the expensive, patented dyes that have to be licensed - they are using cheaper, less stable dyes. If a few thousand discs come out bad, well ... who is going to complain? Who are they going to complain to? Nobody is going to complain to anyone important in the process, so it can be ignored.

Quality control is expensive and the stable dyes are expensive. If you want cheap discs, skip both and you can have cheap discs. Just don't expect them to last a really long time.

Re:Ripped music

[Anonymous Coward]

Easily defeated.. (pre)pad it with an extra 1 second, or for that matter simply change a single bit in the song (taking care to recompute checksums where present, I haven't looked at the file format)... all of a sudden the hash changes.

Though I know that's a lot more work than your average song thief would go to, if the MPAA/RIAA/whoever did start implementing techniques such as those in large scale attacks, it wouldn't be long before word got out... open source tools (or in the spirit of pirating, stolen paid tools?) would follow to jumble up hashes every now and then.

Re:Ripped music

[Anonymous Coward]

So basically all you have to do is mass-retag all your MP3s and add some random garbage to the comment field. :)

Captcha: thieve :))

Re:Ripped music

[Anonymous Coward]

With this in mind, just strip the last bit off of each file, and voila... New hash.

Re:Ripped music

[Anonymous Coward]

Then get an id3 utility to add a random character to the info. Even a space will alter the hash.

Re:Ripped music

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that really true? I mean, presumably everyone rips from the same (digital) source, and there are a finite number of encoders out there, so it seems like 2 people ripping the same track with the same encoder could easily produce identical hashed files. Of course, there are numerous encoder settings, but most will be left at default except the bitrate, and there's only a couple settings for that most people use. Do 2 encodes of the same file using an identical VBR encoder have different hashes? Honestly, I don't know. Seems like they wouldn't, though.

P.S. I'm kinda assuming that the hash disregards the metadata, as that changes far too easily to be used as any kind of metric, and only hashes the music portion.

Re:Ripped music

[gottabeme]

What is their rationale for including royalties to the RIAA? (You are talking about equipment and media sold in the USA, right?) I could record anything from lectures to birds chirping, and none of that would be related to the RIAA.

Re:Ripped music

[gottabeme]

AYAA? (Are you an audiophile?)

Re:Ripped music

[Anonymous Coward]

This is not necessarily true. If you use the same software with the same settings and same encoder version and neither disc is damaged you should get a file that is identicle down to every bit. Some release groups require two different people rip a CD and will reject if they are even a single bit off.

Re:Ripped music

[Anonymous Coward]

MP3 files are incredibly hardy. In the Napster days, I recall that I would sometimes resume a download but have it actually be a different file. This would typically cause the file to skip around, but it would otherwise be okay. Wouldn't it be possible to change a few random bits in the song to change the hash? At the worse, this could cause some popping, but popping wouldn't really get irritating unless it was a consistent skipping.

Re:Ripped music

[Anonymous Coward]

THIS.

I would have thought that the ripping process would result in the same file each time, but this is not true.
Now... If I purchase a track on a service that allows me to download my file more than once.. do I get a track with the same hash on each download? Or do they differ per download? Does it matter if it's DRM'd? Does it matter if it's not? Or if I.. umm... removed the DRM? ...
Multiple download (non-drm'd from amazon) results in the same hash (ie: They're not changing the file I download). So I doubt they change it for each customer.
I'm not willing to BUY music multiple times to test the other parts.

Re:Ripped music

[Anonymous Coward]

Aren't the times when ripping CDs was unreliable over since ages? Exact Audio Copy and similar tools produce identical copies in the vast majority of cases at the expense of speed.

Re:Ripped music

[Anonymous Coward]

The method they *could* use to tell would be to take a hash of the file. When you rip the cd, you will get a different hash each time. With file sharing services most likely there are only 3 or 4 rips that are shared among thousands of people. Consequently, if you see someone with a copy of a particular song that has a hash of one of these commonly shared files, chances are miniscule that it isn't a pirated copy.

That would be a F'ng hash cloud. They would also have to introduce them (aka RIAA or Big Brother) to hash all files in your system in case, something not easy to do without your consent. Additionally there are tools that can take a file padded with 0 and change the hash meaning the RIAA hash cloud would need to keep up with. BUAHAHAHA. Like someone reference, that they own the LP or CD and lost it or damage it thus already paid the rights to listen to that recording. Heck even artist are getting screwed by RIAA. It's not about the artist or the peons involved in the record industry but big exec squeezing more money out of the consumers. I just still to iTunes to avoid the headaches of ripping or illegal acquirement. At an average 120 / yr I think is worth to convenience of iTunes.

Re:Ripped music

[Anonymous Coward]

I think this question has effectively been answered by the other comments, but possibilities are you ripping program goes for a quick rip and doesn't care about errors, or your encoder encodes a time-date stamp into the encode which itself is enough to change the hash.

Are all criminals bad guys?

[elucido]

And are all laws just?

If you don't think so, then you shouldn't be concerned with whether or not it's illegal or not and should be more concerned with how users can protect themselves from corporate political aggression.

Which side are you on?

Re:Are all criminals bad guys?

[JockTroll]

how users can protect themselves from corporate political aggression.

Guns. Lots of 'em.

Re:Are all criminals bad guys?

[somersault]

I've done exactly the same things as the submitter, but if I wanted to use these services, I'd just upload it all and let google tell me if anything infringes. I'd say 99% of my music is stuff I have the CD for, and there are a few albums where I just downloaded because I couldn't be arsed ripping, or waiting for delivery after buying the CD.

Re:Are all criminals bad guys?

[Anonymous Coward]

Dura lex, sed lex.

Re:Are all criminals bad guys?

[Unequivocal]

But the way Google/Apple/Amazon might tell you is with an RIIA subpoena.. with an option to pay a fine or show up in court. Seems like an ineffective way to scrub a collection.

Re:Are all criminals bad guys?

[somersault]

Since it's Google I imagine they'd do it more along the lines of how they do things with YouTube. Allow takedown requests and give people a few strikes. Best to check first of course. Maybe they just won't allow snooping in the accounts at all.

Re:Are all criminals bad guys?

[somersault]

Oh, and as others have pointed out.. there's not really an effective way to prove that someone wasn't actually the original ripper of a file.. so even allowing the RIAA access to scan files doesn't seem that useful. Anything that's out in a public torrent file is obviously breaking copyright, but a single person using online storage for their own files is an entirely different matter.

Re:Are all criminals bad guys?

[EraserMouseMan]

Corporations don't pass laws. The political class does.

Re:Are all criminals bad guys?

[uglyMood]

You are correct. Corporations only write the legislation, and then have their lackeys in the political class pass them. If there's one thing corporations know how to do it's delegate.

Re:Are all criminals bad guys?

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Sorry, but the reasoning in your post made me wince. For one, the term "bad guys" is simply a us-vs-them generalisation that holds no water. I haven't met a single person in my life who is incapable of a good deed, or a bad deed. So, the question really should be, "Is the act of breaking a law always bad?".

For two, even if the answer to this is no, it makes no mention of how many laws are unjust, and which ones specifically are. If a significant portion of laws are just, then we should certainly be very concerned whether something is illegal or not, in general. Unless we know whether a specific law is unjust, then we would be sensible treating the laws as they are in the majority (which I think most people would say is "just").

Which side are you on?

Oh god. You voted for Bush, didn't you?

Re:Are all criminals bad guys?

[Mister Whirly]

Yeah, that is like saying "politicians don't write laws, pens do." If you really don't believe corporations are behind the law making process, you are lost.

Re:Are all criminals bad guys?

[EraserMouseMan]

I agree. Politicians these days are dumb as ink. We elect them to do right by us. But they're in the pocket of whoever will make their life comfortable. Just like an ink-pen.

Re:Are all criminals bad guys?

[omfgnosis]

There's a difference?

Re:Are all criminals bad guys?

[elucido]

Sorry, but the reasoning in your post made me wince. For one, the term "bad guys" is simply a us-vs-them generalisation that holds no water. I haven't met a single person in my life who is incapable of a good deed, or a bad deed. So, the question really should be, "Is the act of breaking a law always bad?".

For two, even if the answer to this is no, it makes no mention of how many laws are unjust, and which ones specifically are. If a significant portion of laws are just, then we should certainly be very concerned whether something is illegal or not, in general. Unless we know whether a specific law is unjust, then we would be sensible treating the laws as they are in the majority (which I think most people would say is "just").

Which side are you on?

Oh god. You voted for Bush, didn't you?

Most people? I don't think most people would say the laws are just.
Everyone is under suspicion and surveillance because there's so many laws that we are all treated as suspects. So I suspect the majority believe most of the laws are unjust and that there's too many laws and too much government. I don't see or meet people who think we need more intrusive bigger government and I don't meet people who say they want more laws to police people.

Re:Are all criminals bad guys?

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Most people? I don't think most people would say the laws are just.

I disagree. Whether they know it or not, I think that out of all the laws that enforced out there, at least in functioning democracies, they would agree with most of them. Some may focus so much on the select few they consider unjust, that they actually lose sight on how many laws they willingly obey, and would suffer from the loss thereof. Things like various bans on violent/sexual crimes, laws protecting property, the major traffic offences, safety regulations for public places, education requirements (ignorance is a dangerous thing), worker's rights, environmental protection legislation, etc, etc. In these categories alone, there are hundreds of examples of laws that, while we could do without, we would be significantly worse off.

Everyone is under suspicion and surveillance because there's so many laws that we are all treated as suspects. So I suspect the majority believe most of the laws are unjust and that there's too many laws and too much government.

Not everyone lives in the US, you know. Most of us aren't so paranoid about our governments.

I don't see or meet people who think we need more intrusive bigger government and I don't meet people who say they want more laws to police people.

Ever heard the phrase, "There ought to be a law..."? I know plenty of people who applaud various police crack-downs, or bans on things they consider dangerous. But, that's really neither here nor there. You don't have to want to extend the current set of laws in order to appreciate them. The fact that most people don't want to specifically extend the laws is more a product of there being no reason to, rather than a general dislike of laws themselves.

Re:Are all criminals bad guys?

[elucido]

Most people? I don't think most people would say the laws are just.

I disagree. Whether they know it or not, I think that out of all the laws that enforced out there, at least in functioning democracies, they would agree with most of them. Some may focus so much on the select few they consider unjust, that they actually lose sight on how many laws they willingly obey, and would suffer from the loss thereof. Things like various bans on violent/sexual crimes, laws protecting property, the major traffic offences, safety regulations for public places, education requirements (ignorance is a dangerous thing), worker's rights, environmental protection legislation, etc, etc. In these categories alone, there are hundreds of examples of laws that, while we could do without, we would be significantly worse off.

Everyone is under suspicion and surveillance because there's so many laws that we are all treated as suspects. So I suspect the majority believe most of the laws are unjust and that there's too many laws and too much government.

Not everyone lives in the US, you know. Most of us aren't so paranoid about our governments.

I don't see or meet people who think we need more intrusive bigger government and I don't meet people who say they want more laws to police people.

Ever heard the phrase, "There ought to be a law..."? I know plenty of people who applaud various police crack-downs, or bans on things they consider dangerous. But, that's really neither here nor there. You don't have to want to extend the current set of laws in order to appreciate them. The fact that most people don't want to specifically extend the laws is more a product of there being no reason to, rather than a general dislike of laws themselves.

The numbers prove you wrong. Polls have been taken year after year and the congress approval rating is around 20%. Only the 20% agree with the laws they are passing. That means 80% disagree. And it's not just the federal laws, most young people dislike how the government treats them in general.

If you are young and gay you don't like the laws which discriminate against you.
If you are a minority you don't like the laws which discriminate against you.
If you are poor, you don't like the fact that healthcare and college isn't free or that there is a war on drugs which targets you.
If you are rich you don't like the high taxes.

No, most people don't like being a target of the law but everyone is. This is why most people think the government is too big, and is in everyones business.
Are you telling me that the majority of people want bigger government? Are you telling me they want the government to police their lives?

Most of the laws being passed are the sort of laws which give the government more power whether the people agree with it or not. This is why the people are trying to starve the beast and force the government to cut spending. It's because the people don't like the laws.

Re:Are all criminals bad guys?

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

The numbers prove you wrong. Polls have been taken year after year and the congress approval rating is around 20%. Only the 20% agree with the laws they are passing.

First of all, and I cannot stress this enough, this is an auxilliary point for me. The view that everyone agrees the government is too damn big is simply incorrect. While there are plenty of people who do think this, there are plenty of others who would prefer they take a far more active role in addressing social problems. I don't claim that most people approve of congress, or that a majority want bigger government, or anything like that. I was more commenting for the sake of discussion. My point, the one I really care about, is that out of the laws we have now, if you pick any one law and one person at random, the chances are the person would agree with the law being in place. This does not imply that people are satisfied with congress. Case in point: what percentage, roughly, of the laws I referred to earlier did you disagree with? Are you satisfied with the government?

OK, now that I have the defensive-sounding stuff out of the way, I can go back on the attack. It's interesting your interpretation of the 20% approval rating. It seems to me that you didn't even consider the possibility that you were wrong. What makes you assume that all the people were unhappy with passing more laws? Perhaps it was the wrong laws? Perhaps it was the relative inaction of congress that is causing the dissatisfaction? Perhaps it is congress's pandering to the libertarian minority that is causing the low approval ratings? (OK, I don't believe that, but it still demonstrates what I'm saying.) This provides no proof whatosever towards your point, as it is as consistent with mine, and many other views.

If you are young and gay you don't like the laws which discriminate against you.
If you are a minority you don't like the laws which discriminate against you.
If you are poor, you don't like the fact that healthcare and college isn't free or that there is a war on drugs which targets you.
If you are rich you don't like the high taxes.

Certainly, but it's only a tiny minority of laws that piss off minorities. Most of the law, people are happy to obey. And again, it doesn't mean they want a smaller government, just a different one. Perhaps, some minorities who are being terrorised by racists want stronger hate crime legislation. It's far from being unheard of.

Are you telling me that the majority of people want bigger government? Are you telling me they want the government to police their lives?

Firstly, no, not necessarily a majority, just a significant number of people. As for your other question, perhaps people don't want the government policing their lives; people rarely petition for laws that target themselves, but the lives of people around them. The concerned family of an abused woman might petition for stronger powers for police to break up domestic abuse situations. They fear that they, and the people around them, will suffer without some specific extensions on existing laws.

Most of the laws being passed are the sort of laws which give the government more power whether the people agree with it or not.

That's actually not true. Read anything other than slashdot and you'll see that it's false. I think slashdotters are rapidly losing the right to criticise Fox News.

This is why the people are trying to starve the beast and force the government to cut spending. It's because the people don't like the laws.

Don't you guys have a small debt of some description?

Re:Are all criminals bad guys?

[elucido]

First of all, and I cannot stress this enough, this is an auxilliary point for me. The view that everyone agrees the government is too damn big is simply incorrect. While there are plenty of people who do think this, there are plenty of others who would prefer they take a far more active role in addressing social problems.

Yeah those are the social conservatives. They want the government to micromanage our behavior. They want to ban stuff. They want to criminalize possession and create victimless offenses. Many religious people are convinced to support them for moral values reasons, but this isn't usually a position based on rational self interest. In the short term they feel morally righteous, they feel better, but in the long term these laws and precedents will be turned against them and theirs. Such as the social conservative who reaches old age and has a terminal illness and wants to commit suicide. This person would not be allowed to do that because the laws on assisted suicide would prevent them from being in control of the way they die.

I don't claim that most people approve of congress, or that a majority want bigger government, or anything like that. I was more commenting for the sake of discussion. My point, the one I really care about, is that out of the laws we have now, if you pick any one law and one person at random, the chances are the person would agree with the law being in place.

And I think you are absolutely wrong. There are so many federal (and state) laws in existence that no one actually knows every single federal law. I'm convinced if you told each person a random law from the list of tens of thousands of obscure esoteric laws, around half will agree with the law and the other half wont. And in some cases if not in most, we'd first hear about the law at that point. It's illegal to have a lobster of the wrong size. That is a federal crime, but I'm sure you didn't know about that did you and never even had the chance to determine how you feel about it. I think thats how the majority of laws would be, and if you Google "Stupid laws" or "Dumb laws" there will probably be a lot of laws you never even knew existed so you would have no way to know whether or not you agree with them.

What you are doing and what the lawmakers do is they present to the public media all the laws they think that we are likely to agree with but then they keep quiet or don't mention the laws they passed which would upset us or which they know we wouldn't agree with. I do not think the majority of people would agree with the majority of laws, but I do think a loud minority of people agree with the laws being presented to the public. And I think politicians are careful which laws to talk about in public and which laws not to talk about in public. The patriot act for example they don't like to talk about, or eminent domain, or gun control, or internet gambling, or marijuana and the drug laws. They know most Americans disagree with these laws so they go out of their way not to focus on talking about it.

This does not imply that people are satisfied with congress. Case in point: what percentage, roughly, of the laws I referred to earlier did you disagree with? Are you satisfied with the government?

No I'm not satisfied with government, and while I do think government should fight violent crimes, those laws you mention are but a small fraction of the laws actually in place. If the only thing the government did was protect life and liberty I would not have a problem with government.

OK, now that I have the defensive-sounding stuff out of the way, I can go back on the attack. It's interesting your interpretation of the 20% approval rating. It seems to me that you didn't even consider the possibility that you were wrong. What makes you assume that all the people were unhappy with passing more laws? Perhaps it was the wrong laws? Perhaps it was the relative inaction of congress t

Re:Are all criminals bad guys?

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

And I think you are absolutely wrong. There are so many federal (and state) laws in existence that no one actually knows every single federal law. I'm convinced if you told each person a random law from the list of tens of thousands of obscure esoteric laws, around half will agree with the law and the other half wont. And in some cases if not in most, we'd first hear about the law at that point. It's illegal to have a lobster of the wrong size. That is a federal crime, but I'm sure you didn't know about that did you and never even had the chance to determine how you feel about it. I think thats how the majority of laws would be, and if you Google "Stupid laws" or "Dumb laws" there will probably be a lot of laws you never even knew existed so you would have no way to know whether or not you agree with them.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I know there are heaps. I've looked from time to time at the most recently passed laws (especially since opinions similar to yours keep surfacing), and every time, I'm bombarded with several laws I've never heard of. When I look into them, a vast majority don't apply to me, and most seem reasonably justified. Lots lots laws does not imply that they are frivolous or unjustified. Often these laws clarify thorny or grey legal issues. If you presented these laws to people, with the appropriate context, I have no doubt that most people would have no problem with them being in the books, even if they don't agree with the number of laws on the books in entirety.

What you are doing and what the lawmakers do is they present to the public media all the laws they think that we are likely to agree with but then they keep quiet or don't mention the laws they passed which would upset us or which they know we wouldn't agree with.

What!? They covered up the Claims Resolution Act of 2010? I didn't see anything about it on the 9 o'clock news, so therefore they must have covered it up. I am totally outraged! Truly government is evil and has run amok when politicians don't even try to inform me about the latest on relief for modern discriminated black farmers!

The patriot act for example they don't like to talk about, or eminent domain, or gun control, or internet gambling, or marijuana and the drug laws. They know most Americans disagree with these laws so they go out of their way not to focus on talking about it.

While I don't doubt that a majority of Americans disagree with patriot act (I am highly dubious about the rest, except eminent domain, which I am not sure about), you should also know that it is a fact of democratic politics that some issues will be kept out of debates, simply because weighing in on them loses more votes from their constituents than it gains. It doesn't imply that the US government is enacting some kind of coup on its people.

No I'm not satisfied with government, and while I do think government should fight violent crimes, those laws you mention are but a small fraction of the laws actually in place. If the only thing the government did was protect life and liberty I would not have a problem with government.

It's true, I mentioned only a fraction of the laws in place, but I think you'll find that it's actually quite substantial if you expand the categories. There are lots of bills, for example, about education.

Also, quick question: do you approve of hate speech/crime legislation? Some would argue that it is an assault on liberty (i.e. free speech). Others would argue that hate speech intimidates minorities to the extent that their own liberties are curtailed (e.g. they can't go out at night for fear of being assaulted). So, would the government be better protecting life and liberty with such legislation, or without, and why?

That is not true at all. Practically every law being passes is for the

Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe your referring to the "format" command.

Come on, wake up you freaks

[Anonymous Coward]

He's not asking if such a tool exists.

He's asking Slashdot if someone could get off their lazy backside and make one.

Sure it can

[elucido]

Through an Md5 database hosted on the RIAA website or funded by the RIAA. Every legal file could be known. And then every illegal file would be among those not in the official database.

Re:Sure it can

[TamCaP]

Database of "legal" MP3s owned and administered by RIAA sounds like a great idea. And a free program that will scan your hard drive and conveniently delete any MP3s from your hard drive that are not in the database... BEST IDEA EVER!
...

Re:Sure it can

[somersault]

Then all you have to do is rip in an unusual bit-rate or file format and you get around the MD5 checks.

Re:Sure it can

[fastest fascist]

How would they manage to detect the mp3s I've ripped myself as legal?

Re:Sure it can

[daedae]

Through an Md5 database hosted on the RIAA website or funded by the RIAA. Every legal file could be known. And then every illegal file would be among those not in the official database.

Won't work. From an article about whether iCloud's match could be used as a honeypot, that I thought was posted on /. a few days ago:

Then there will be MP3s that individuals created themselves from, for example, ârippingâ(TM) their CD collections. While these are not watermarked to the individual, they appear to be unique for each âripâ(TM). To confirm this, I ran a test with fresh installations of the exact same CD ripping software on two different computers. I then had them rip the same track from the exact same CD using the unchanged system default settings on both computers. The MD5 hashes did not match.

( http://betweenthenumbers.net/2011/06/is-apples-icloud-music-match-a-possible-honeypot/ )

Re:Sure it can

[Hatta]

Holy crap, you are stupid. You're trolling right? I don't see how anyone could be this stupid and not be working for the *IAA

You don't really think that's workable, do you?

Re:Sure it can

[Anonymous Coward]

If you rip your own CDs, that's legal, and you can set up the ID tags however you want, so no database will have a list of all "legal" mp3s

Re:Sure it can

[Anonymous Coward]

What about music from independent record labels?

Re:Sure it can

[SnarfQuest]

Database of "legal" MP3s owned and administered by RIAA sounds like a great idea. And a free program that will scan your hard drive and conveniently delete any MP3s from your hard drive that are not in the database... BEST IDEA EVER! ...

Especially if it decides to go through your OS directories, and decides that everything there is illegal.

Re:Sure it can

[Jason Levine]

Wouldn't the MD5 hash vary depending on the bitrate you use, which ripper you use, the information you enter into the ID3 tags (most times not a concern if the ripper pulls from an online database, but could be a problem if you enter custom information) and other factors? I could rip the same song five times and come up with five different ID3 tags.

Not only that, but how would the RIAA's website tell which were legally owned and which weren't? You rip your CD to MP3 tags and the MD5 hash is (somehow) known. Your copy is legal. Now you put that on a sharing site and I download it. My copy is not legal (as I didn't purchase the song on CD or any other format), yet it has the exact same MD5 hash. According to the RIAA's database, my copy is legal too.

And you can't assume that everyone would have different MD5 hashes. If we ripped the same song using the same ripper at the same bitrate with the same meta information (pulled from an online database), couldn't we very easily wind up with files containing the same MD5 hash? If so, how would the RIAA's hash index tell which of ours was legal and which (if any) wasn't?

Re:Sure it can

[gnasher719]

Through an Md5 database hosted on the RIAA website or funded by the RIAA. Every legal file could be known. And then every illegal file would be among those not in the official database.

No two files downloaded from iTunes are identical. No two files produced by ripping the identical CD are identical. No two files produce by ripping the same LP twice are anywhere near similar.

Re:Sure it can

[rjforster]

But did the intermediate wavs match? This would tell you whether the ripping or the encoding introduced the difference.

Re:Sure it can

[TheSpoom]

1. Take legal file
2. Place legal file on peer to peer filesharing network
3. Friend downloads legal file, it is now illegal on their computer, but a bit-for-bit copy of the legal file, passing all hash checks you can think of
4. ???
5. Profit!

Re:Sure it can

[C0vardeAn0nim0]

a brief explanation of WHY they didn't match.

music CDs have a high tolerance for errors. most old school CD players (think units from the 90's early 00's) use very simple error correction, mostly because with 128.000 bytes of data for every second of music, even a few hundred wrong bytes passing through the DAC won't make much of a difference in what we hear.

now, since optical drives are not all the same, different drives might pick up different errors while reading the disk, resulting in different bitstreams. when fed to the encoder, this will result in different finished MP3s.

also, if the encoder changes slightly how it encodes the file depending on the environment (kind of CPU, ammount of RAM, OS version, etc.) it can also generate different files, even if the source bitstream is identical.

Re:Sure it can

[daedae]

There was some other post in this thread about ripping jitter, but I can't really say anything about that. But what does whether the intermediate wav matches have to with anything? Even if every copy of a CD ripped to the same wav before encoding to MP3, there's no way to reverse from the MP3 to the wav to somehow get the "original" MD5 to check the match. Unless the MP3 for some reason already stores an MD5 of its "parent" wav.

Re:Sure it can

[Anonymous Coward]

Flipping a single bit will alter the MD5 hash. So all that's necessary is for someone to write a short program that goes through your MP3s and flips a bit or two in some random location of the music. Changing the bit will not be detectable to your ear but will ensure that your MD5 hash does not match anyone else's.

Re:Sure it can

[mlts]

I can easily imagine a program like this existing, perhaps being forced on us as with an anti-hacker law. It would end up running either at the BIOS or the hypervisor level, and reinstalling itself similar to LoJack for Laptops. It essentially scans and acts like an antivirus program on Windows, including chewing up CPU and I/O resources.

However, it hunts down signatures of suspect files, and not just removes them, but phones home to have the computer owner arrested on the spot.

Of course, disabling it won't be an option. Locked down OSes, hardware DRM stacks, and NAC going from the end user's router all the way to the core peerers will take care that only "trusted" devices have Internet access.

Re:Sure it can

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless of course I opt to adjust a track I legally purchased, either for more volume, bass, or to perhaps cut off a second or two of dead air from the end of the file. Or does modifying something I legally own count as making it illegal?

Re:Sure it can

[Omestes]

Oddly though, there is a ton of music not under the RIAA umbrella. I haven't actually bought any music from a label covered by the RIAA since college (roughly... 8 years?). I have, on the other hand, been spending more money on music than I've ever had. There are tons of very, very, good independent labels out there. This isn't a boycott, either, if I saw something brilliant on an RIAA label, I'd still probably buy it. I haven't though, since its generally all a bunch of very comfortable, committee designed and marketed, fluff, that sounds like pretty much everything else out there. Sometimes, though, I do think I'm keeping Tzadik and Ipecac, and Neurot in business.

I think this is the thing that REALLY scares the music establishment, not piracy, but the increased independent paths for musicians. You don't need the millions of dollar marketing budget that a label with thousands of artists can provide with the internet. You can discover 100s of good artists in a single afternoon, and buy tens of CDs without any of the dinosaurs ever getting a cent. The giant labels are becoming irrelevant. Piracy is a public dodge to try to deflect their real problems, and to squeeze every cent out of their over produced, over engineered, over marketed offerings.

Sorry for wandering off topic. Back on topic, a database of RIAA Md5 data would be pretty much worthless considering that over 50% of music these days aren't produced by RIAA labels. I'm sure, that with such a tool a majority of my legal music collection would be tagged as pirated. This is especially true since I've use torrents to get back up data for cassettes and records I own, even with some CDs since download a high quality MP3 album is much faster than ripping one. This might be illegal, but it is 100%, completely, ethical*.

* Further, so is downloading music from dead artists, or artists who never get any money from purchases, since the reason for copyright is to grant limited rights to artists, and try to coerce them into producing more works. If no producer of content ever benefits, there is no point to purchasing. It isn't about their poor families, or the poor mega-corporations, its only about me (the appreciative listener) and them (the artist). I have no moral qualms, either, about trying before you buy. Ditto for switching mediums, requiring me to buy and MP3 of a tape/record/8track/CD I own is extortion. I also have no problem with download music from living musicians, but tracks from before I was born (30 years ago), if you haven't managed to find another cash cow in that time, get a real goddamn job. I generally don't do these actions though (outside of trying before I buy) since there is plenty of current, living, artists to appreciate, and most of the older stuff I bought ten years ago, or more (or in the case of many older blues, jazz, and early rock musicians, I got on records from my parents, so I own them).

Re:Sure it can

[Bucky24]

No two files downloaded from iTunes are identical.

That doesn't make sense to me. When I buy a song, if you buy the same song, essentially we are downloading the same file, right? Why would they create a separate copy on their servers just so that you can have a different download?

Re:Sure it can

[nabsltd]

No two files produced by ripping the identical CD are identical.

This is not true. If you use the correct hardware or software, then you can reliably extract the exact same PCM from the CD.

If you then convert to a non-raw format (WAV, FLAC, MP3, etc.), you'll end up with a different file unless you use the exact same software with the exact same options.

Re:Sure it can

[DamnStupidElf]

/s/MP3s/files/, because hey, you might have renamed britneyspears.mp3 to myresume.doc to hide it.

Re:Sure it can

[Kral_Blbec]

I know you're joking, but just wanted to point out the MD5 of a music file can be changed just by altering the metadata or embedding a thumbnail image.

Re:Sure it can

[Vectormatic]

which is why you have proper user privilige management in your os..

running anything but trusted code as root/administrator is dumb

Re:Sure it can

[idontgno]

Richard Stallman, is that you?

Re:Sure it can

[Capt.DrumkenBum]

Please feel free to delete ANY Britney Spears noise from my computer.

Don't use cloud services.

[Anonymous Coward]

Or simply don't use cloud services and go to concerts of artists you like instead of paying a bunch of lawyers a tax for something they will probably find a way to take away from you some day anyway. Or better yet buy Vinyl. Personally I pirate the world and buy a lot of Vinyl. Used to buy a lot of cds before napster was shut down. Now I wont buy a single mp3 or CD on protest. However Vinyl is worth something. CD's rot. Stop supporting business models that consumers don't want and that simply don't work.

Re:Don't use cloud services.

[Anonymous Coward]

Cds may rot, but Vinyl degrades just from use.

this is an embarrasing question...

[Anonymous Coward]

are you trying to become a Soviet model citizen??

Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

You already done the deed and will go to hell for it. May as well reap what you hath sowed if your going to fry for enternity.

Top secret digital watermarks.

[elucido]

Why do you think they spend millions on DRM but can't spend that kind of money to secure gamers personal informarion?

Re:Top secret digital watermarks.

[Anonymous Coward]

Protecting the creativity of a few thousand performers is obviously more important than the personal data for millions of gamers, duh! Where do you think the soundtracks for the games comes from?!

Re:Top secret digital watermarks.

[Anonymous Coward]

Pirating causes them financial losses. Loss of PII does not.

iTunes Match Legalizes Your Tracks

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that if you pay for the iTunes Match that Apple will offer later this fall, then it will legalize any track you have that it can match. So even if you got it via Napster back in the day, as long as it is currently available in the iTunes store, then you will be able to "upgrade" your track to a legal version.

What happens with tracks they don't match? You can still upload them - but then who knows? Will they really scan them all and then hand you over to the RIAA? Maybe, but I doubt it.

OP is trolling RIAA

[Hazel Bergeron]

I assume the only purpose of this article is to make RIAA look dumb by trying to suggest that there is such a thing as an illegal sequence of 0s and 1s, especially when it may be exactly the same in meaning as a legal sequence.

Couldn't agree more.

Re:OP is trolling RIAA

[archer, the]

Or, OP *is* the RIAA, looking for a way to determine legality of the contents of an MP3 collection.

Re:OP is trolling RIAA

[tgd]

That raises an interesting question. If I rip a song using a particular program from a particular pressing of a CD, and you rip it using the same program from the same pressing of a CD, will the two end up with identical hashes? I've always been under the impression that ripping audio data wasn't entirely deterministic from a CD (no error correction), and thus two rips even with identical software and settings won't necessarily byte-for-byte match.

If thats the case, hashes of a given song can be compared to known hashes of songs from file sharing services.

Re:OP is trolling RIAA

[Anonymous Coward]

Precisely. And even if it were illegal, how would you punish a file? Have it do community service by being played to all humans interested?

Re:OP is trolling RIAA

[wintercolby]

Or, OP *is* the RIAA, fishing for geeks to unwittingly admit that they have "illegal" MP3's in their collection.

Re:OP is trolling RIAA

[gnasher719]

That raises an interesting question. If I rip a song using a particular program from a particular pressing of a CD, and you rip it using the same program from the same pressing of a CD, will the two end up with identical hashes? I've always been under the impression that ripping audio data wasn't entirely deterministic from a CD (no error correction), and thus two rips even with identical software and settings won't necessarily byte-for-byte match.

Not identical. The CD drive cannot determine accurately when a song starts, so when you rip a song, and then rip it again from the same CD on the same computer, each rip will have a small random amount of silence at the beginning. Then there is the question whether conversion to AAC or MP3 is deterministic, which depending on the software it might not be. Next anything in a Quicktime wrapper contains the creation date inside the file (which caused paranoia when people figured out that iTunes sets the creation date of files downloaded from the iTunes store to the time the file was created on the computer, so two people downloading the same song would never get identical files). That also means two AAC files created at different times will always be different.

Re:OP is trolling RIAA

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

I assume the only purpose of this article is to make RIAA look dumb by trying to suggest that there is such a thing as an illegal sequence of 0s and 1s, especially when it may be exactly the same in meaning as a legal sequence.

But they're not. They're saying there's such a thing as an illegal copy of digital music. There is a meaningful difference, and pretending otherwise damages no-one's side but your own.

Now if you excuse me, I need to stop typing. I'm currently trying to type and drive your car (whose arrangement of matter and energy was perfectly legal in your garage, so I figure it's going to be legal in mine) at the same time, and there's a policeman up ahead. For some reason, they just don't seem to get your logic.

Re:OP is trolling RIAA

[Hazel Bergeron]

What are you talking about? You've disturbed the arrangement of molecules of the car I was hoping to use. If you can make a copy of the car without disturbing mine, please feel free - I won't care.

Classical theft isn't theft because you're using something of mine. It's theft because you're denying me the ability to use it.

There is no meaningful difference between 111001101010 on my drive because I happened to come up with it using a PRNG and 111001101010 on my drive because i torrented Britney Fucking Spears.

Re:OP is trolling RIAA

[wozzinator]

Would that be legal? It sounds like some form of entrapment (which is illegal)...

Re:OP is trolling RIAA

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

What are you talking about? You've disturbed the arrangement of molecules of the car I was hoping to use.

So? You disturb them all the time. And besides, let's say someone else disturbs it for me. Then, I have your car, I have not changed it in any detectable way. Therefore, it is just as legal at my place as it was at yours.

Classical theft isn't theft because you're using something of mine. It's theft because you're denying me the ability to use it.

Not that it has anything to do with my argument, but for the record, I agree.

There is no meaningful difference between 111001101010 on my drive because I happened to come up with it using a PRNG and 111001101010 on my drive because i torrented Britney Fucking Spears.

Actually there is. If you like, I can come up with other examples where people (and courts), when morally (or legally) evaluating an incident, take into account more than the chemical composition of the objects involved. More often than not, the method of acquisition of an object decides whether the act of acquisition is moral/legal or not.

Here' a quickie: once a week, my boss allows banks to increase the float that represents my balance, at the expense of decreasing his float by the same amount. For week after week, this same event of numbers changing happens. However, if he fires me, I obtain his banking details, and I cause the same event to happen, it suddenly becomes morally and legally bad. It's the same stream of data flowing down the tubes, a similar stream of electrons passing through the lattice of metal ions. I don't know how metal molecules encode my employer's consent. Do you?

Re:OP is trolling RIAA

[fearofcarpet]

Yup, and pointing out the absurdity of cloud services asking you not to upload pirated music. I must have seen 200 headlines about the 'iCould Honeypot' theory this morning.

Re:OP is trolling RIAA

[Hazel Bergeron]

And besides, let's say someone else disturbs it for me.

Your argument seems to be something like, "If copyright infringement is OK then I'm not at fault for stealing your car as long as I get someone else to do it for me." What?

More often than not, the method of acquisition of an object decides whether the act of acquisition is moral/legal or not.

But not whether the idea/object/etc is illegal. If there is no harm done in the method of acquisition then it is absurd for the acquisition to be illegal too. Making a copy of a sequence of bits spoken by a friend harms no-one, except in the "every day you don't give me $5 you are harming me because then I'm $5 poorer each day" meaningless entitlement sense.

if he fires me, I obtain his banking details, and I cause the same event to happen, it suddenly becomes morally and legally bad. It's the same stream of data flowing down the tubes, a similar stream of electrons passing through the lattice of metal ions. I don't know how metal molecules encode my employer's consent. Do you?

What are you talking about? You're modifying part of a storage medium representing your employer's bank balance, depriving him of the enjoyment of the higher balance. You're editing part of a storage medium representing your bank balance, but the storage medium isn't under your authority to modify. This is nothing like copying using your media while maintaining the original.

Re:OP is trolling RIAA

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Your argument seems to be something like, "If copyright infringement is OK then I'm not at fault for stealing your car as long as I get someone else to do it for me."

Close. My argument is, if the reasoning you are spouting is complete and sound, regardless of what you've applied it to, then you believe it's OK to possess stolen property, for example, a car. Same atoms, same energy, yada-yada-yada.

But not whether the idea/object/etc is illegal.

There's no such thing as an illegal object, just illegal actions of creation, possession, use, etc. Every crime is an action, by definition. Hence the greater emphasis put on the action, and less on the object, including its make-up.

If there is no harm done in the method of acquisition then it is absurd for the acquisition to be illegal too.

Agreed. However, trivialising the object, or even the action, doesn't help you at all.

Making a copy of a sequence of bits spoken by a friend harms no-one, except in the "every day you don't give me $5 you are harming me because then I'm $5 poorer each day" meaningless entitlement sense.

No, it's more in the "you are harming me because I worked and spent money on the agreement you would behave in a certain way, and you turned around and screwed me" sense. Just like I would raise hell if my boss decided that one week he would continue to employ me, but not pay me the wages we agreed upon.

What are you talking about? You're modifying part of a storage medium representing your employer's bank balance, depriving him of the enjoyment of the higher balance.

"Depriving"? "Enjoyment"? I have never heard of this type of matter or energy! Surely no such things enter into moral discussions about mere flows of electrons? You commented, not moments ago, on the absurdity of assigning two different legalities to two identical strings of 1s and 0s, regardless of origin. Surely it is similarly absurd to assign two different legalities to the same physical event, regardless of its genesis (including consent)?

This is nothing like copying using your media while maintaining the original.

No, it's not, but in saying so, you've missed the point entirely. I like copyright, and I think it's hugely beneficial to our culture in ways most people don't consider, and in ways we cannot even predict. That said, I can handle people who don't respect copyright, or who want to have it redacted, even if they haven't fully thought it through. The thing you need to understand about me is that I like copyright, but I am truly passionate about logic and reason.

What I really can't stand is the bullshit people invent in order to get this point across. It grates me like little else on the internet. It's not reserved for copyright discussions, but I have to say, as someone who sniffs out bullshit everywhere, all the time, it tends to be especially pungent in copyright discussions. Maybe it's because I'm biased against copyright, but that hasn't stopped me from sniffing out examples on my side as well, so I don't know. People spout logical travesties, like "Copyright is unnecessary because there will always be true artists that will always create with or without pay". Utter horseshit. The whole point of the argument is to conflate the conclusion the argument admits, which is there will be at least one artist creating, with the conclusion they want you to reach, which is that almost anyone that you like (who conveniently happen to be "true" artists) will continue to produce music (and distribute it for FREE!). I doubt they do it consciously, but it bugs the hell out of me.

Another example? Here's one you might appreciate, given our agreement on the reason for theft being illegal. I often question the reason why people support non-commercial infringement but not commercial infringement. I say,

Re:OP is trolling RIAA

[cdrguru]

That is a myth, based on some stuff that is pretty old these days.

The specifications for audio say that there only has to be addressing every 15 frames, but in reality most audio tracks have addressing in nearly every frame. It used to be (1988-1999) that CD drives would go by the addressing that was present and would pick a frame with an address every time, no matter what. If you provided an address to read that wasn't there you would get an earlier or later frame depending on the drive and its firmware.

Along around 2000 or so CD drives started using more buffer space and would read lots of sectors in. This allowed them to do "accurate" CD-DA positioning, meaning that if an address was missing from a frame it could be inferred by an earlier frame with an address. All it takes to do this is lots of buffer space which wasn't possible with drives that had less than 32K of buffer space. Throw a couple of megabytes in the drive as buffer space and many more things become possible.

So today there is no inaccuracy in positioning and all drives report the attribute of "Accurate CD-DA positioning". Dig out an old Mitumi from 1995 and it will not report that and it will do odd things with audio tracks, especially those with really sparse positioning information.

If RIAA wants one, let RIAA pay us.

[elucido]

It would be much easier if the RIAA just created a goddamn bounty rather than pose as an Anonymous Reader and try to coax us into developing it for free.

Don't Use MP3

[Anonymous Coward]

Easy. Don't use MP3 for your legal tracks. If you rip, use FLAC. If you use iTunes, it will come in AAC. I mean, who uses MP3 anymore, this isn't 1999.

Re:Don't Use MP3

[Anonymous Coward]

Who uses mp3? Most people do, or off slashdot.

Re:Don't Use MP3

[tthomas48]

People with one of the thousands of devices that don't support FLAC or that don't have 500GB of disk space? If I just wanted to listen to music in my living room I'd just pull out the CD.

Re:Don't Use MP3

[Omestes]

mean, who uses MP3 anymore, this isn't 1999.

Amazon.

If you use iTunes, it will come in AAC.

So i should buy all my music from Apple? No thanks, I'll shop around. I generally end up buying from Amazon though, since they are generally a bit cheaper, and their store isn't as obnoxious or slow. Often they have a better selection (at least for my tastes) as well.

Furthermore, I haven't seen anything saying that MP3 is obsolete, or upstaged by any other lossy encoder. AAC is a bit better, but an MP3 with a slightly higher bitrate, sounds almost the same, and is roughly the same size, and is supported by more devices. I like FLAC, but most things I own don't support it, and the sound difference isn't really worth wasting over twice as much space for (I am not an audiophile, I can't tell much difference between the disk and anything over a mid-200's bitrate, though I generally rip at 320ish VBR).

Re:Don't Use MP3

[flimflammer]

I do.

And it sounds fine.

And it doesn't waste extra space even if space is cheap.

Dare I say 90% of people don't even have the equipment to tell the difference between a 320/VBR bitrate MP3 and FLAC anyway. I've heard both on rather high end equipment and to be honest, I didn't even really notice any negligible difference. This mad rush for everyone to use FLAC always humors me. To me it seems to be more "The bits are more pure!" than "It actually sounds better!". To that I say, "So what?"

Sure, lazyness, let's call it that.

[Jorl17]

" I have a lot of MP3s that I downloaded because I was too lazy to rip the CD version that I own"

Afraid of being found? Hey, let's all call the lulz hackerz and lullify your ip!
Bah...

How is 'legal' determined?

[Marc_Hawke]

What's a 'legal' MP3?

If you rip it from your own CD, how does that get flagged as 'legal'? I was always under the assumption that songs offered in Napster or IRC were just songs that someone else ripped from their CD (originally.) Would that song look any different if I ripped it myself versus someone else ripping it?

I would think the only MP3's that are flagged as 'legal' are those purchased from an online store such as iTunes or Amazon. Then they'd have a way to 'mark' that the song is legal for that person. Perhaps if you rip a CD with iTunes or another 'purchase enabled media player' they could mark the tracks at that point as well. I'm pretty sure WinAmp has no way of flagging something as 'legal' or not.

A previous commenter said, 'check these MD5's against and official database of 'legal' MD5's' I don't even know what they were expecting to exist. If your rip is in a database somewhere of 'legal', then it would be legal for anybody I happened to share it with as well.

Re:How is 'legal' determined?

[Anonymous Coward]

A previous commenter said, 'check these MD5's against and official database of 'legal' MD5's' I don't even know what they were expecting to exist. If your rip is in a database somewhere of 'legal', then it would be legal for anybody I happened to share it with as well.

The only way that could conceivably work is if there was a database of "illegal" MD5's. If one of your songs matched an MD5 there, you likely downloaded it in a way the RIAA disapproves of.

Re:How is 'legal' determined?

[radja]

also, legality of ripped music is different in many countries. suppose you visit a friend in the Netherlands. he has a CD or DVD you like. you can sit down behind his computer and copy it, and the resulting copy is perfectly legal. it does not have to be a direct copy, mp3 or any music or video format is just fine. it's different if the friend copies it for you, in that case he's illegally spreading copyrighted material. you can take your copied CD back home, and it's still legal as far as I know, under the Berne convention.

Re:How is 'legal' determined?

[Anonymous Coward]

You are assuming I rip my CDs with "standard" settings.

What if I really dislike bass in my music? Am I now not allowed to rip the tracks with the bass removed? Or any number of other setting I could change, is it legal to make these changes when ripping the CD? Are you creating derivative works?

Minefield.

I think the intent of this /. Q is to highlight such problems.

Re:How is 'legal' determined?

[Jason Levine]

I think the original poster is trying to make a distinction between legally purchased music (either bought as MP3s or bought as CDs and then ripped to MP3s) and music that has been downloaded without the copyright holder's permission (for example, songs back from the old Napster). The poster wants to track down any lingering "got it from Napster" tracks and delete them without having to pour through his entire CD collection and without having to match up all of his iTunes/Amazon/eMusic/etc online purchases.

You may not find a tool, but...

[Random2]

...if you're looking to make things appear legit, I imagine that proper tagging and song length will go a long way. If anything, that'd be what they're checking for (recording quality as well, but I imagine you've mostly MP3's so that's somewhat moot). Is there an easy way to do that? Use iTunes or WMP and sort through them manually. Beyond that? nothing I know of. There are plenty of music directories, and you can probably check the songs against their legit counterparts in various music vendors.

However, if you sort by artist, album, singers, title, etc it'll show the songs which are lacking that information, and should make the 'illegal' ones somewhat easier to identify. While not all professional recordings have this information tagged, the majority do and it'll help you sort them out.

Re:You may not find a tool, but...

[RJFerret]

Even easier, since the original question pointed out "old files", simply sort by creation date initially.

Re:You may not find a tool, but...

[del_diablo]

And what if he ripped a few thousend songs to mp3 back in the days of the old napster?
There is no way of telling the difference solely on that.

Only a matter of time before Facebook

[elucido]

It's only a matter of time before Facebook offers a music service which requires you to allow them to scan your harddrive and share it with your Facebook "friends".

Re:Only a matter of time before Facebook

[wintercolby]

Offers? They'll probably provide it by default, it will install upon log in. Then it will auto-recognize the artists and recommend you "like" them. It will hit everyone who just wants to get to quickly, as they'll just click okay to get the pop-up off of their screen.

No, they don't

[Anonymous Coward]

does the RIAA seriously expect me to sift through 60 GB of music, remember which are pirated, and delete them by hand?"

They expect you to delete all your music and then re-buy it. Because "... and then re-buy it" is pretty much the sum total of the RIAA's business plan.

Why even take the chance?

[ShavedOrangutan]

If you successfully purge all pirated MP3s, even the accusation that a remaining file isn't legit will cost a lot of money. Would you rather pay your attorney $20k to defend the lawsuit or settle out of court for $10k? Or just continue carrying music around on a thumb drive? This service does not seem worth the hassle.

used cd's

[TheGratefulNet]

what you don't have in cd format, buy in cd format (amazon often has used cd's at ok prices. shipping is never reasonable but its their profit margin 'tax').

advantage of used cds: 'the man' does not get paid. no riaa income on used cd's. its just the buyer and seller (and some middleman, perhaps). disadvantage: no money goes to the band (but they made their money the first time on that 'first sale').

if you are worried (I would not be, I think you are paranoid) then make sure you have cds for every file. and like I said, used cd's deprive the riaa of any income, so that's probably your best route.

personally, I think your first and only problem is even considering these 'cloud' services. copy enough songs to your portable to last a day (or run a random mix uploader) and what's so hard? today's portables are even big enough to hold what used to be our whole collection. many people could fit their entire collection on portables. the cloud is about 5 years too late, to be serious.

Re:used cd's

[kiwix]

used cd's deprive the riaa of any income

Well, not really. If you buy a used CD, someone else might end up buying a new one instead of that used one. Also, people will more easily buy new CD's if they know they can resell them afterwards, so the market of used CD's does help sales of new CD's.

Re:used cd's

[Onymous Coward]

I expect those factors are rather small influence.

I ask, has anyone here changed their behavior because of these things?

Re:used cd's

[jimrthy]

The bands rarely make any money off of album sales.

I watched an interview with the Flaming Lips' front man a few years back. It took 17 years to start getting royalty payments from their first album.

Re:used cd's

[ady1]

The convenience of the cloud is not the space, but the convenience of a central repository. If you add and remove music all the time, having a central place for all your devices is a huge advantage.

Re:used cd's

[Anonymous Coward]

personally, I think your first and only problem is even considering these 'cloud' services. copy enough songs to your portable to last a day (or run a random mix uploader) and what's so hard? today's portables are even big enough to hold what used to be our whole collection. many people could fit their entire collection on portables. the cloud is about 5 years too late, to be serious.

*I clap my hands furiously at this*

In this political climate it is becoming quite dangerous to be dependent on the Internet, it may not exist (in the useful form we currently know and "love") for much longer.

Re:used cd's

[PhinMak]

I really like this plan!

No really! Buy original CDs that are so scratched up that they are essentially valueless. Now you have the music license legally at pennies per CD.

Hmm... Could this work for both the music that you actually legally purchased, backed up, and lost the medium AS WELL AS a method for "laundering" the music you have acquired less legally? IANAL, but it sounds tempting... Would probably need to hide the $ transaction trail...

Re:used cd's

[Anonymous Coward]

I have :D

Re:used cd's

[Anonymous Coward]

> advantage of used cds:

You missed the big one - quality. Rip them losslessly with hard drive space so cheap now. Make a decent quality MP3 for putting on your phone/ipod/whatever.

Delete it all

[AmiMoJo]

All your music is pirated. The copyright holders did not give you permission to rip it from CD, or store it online.

In the UK copyright law does not even allow recording TV shows to watch later, it is merely tolerated. You might be able to argue fair use in the US, except that now you don't buy music or CDs, you buy a license to listen which does not include uses such as this.

Re:Delete it all

[Neil_Brown]

In the UK copyright law does not even allow recording TV shows to watch later, it is merely tolerated

This is incorrect.

s70, Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, entitled "Recording for the purposes of time-shifting", provides that:

The making in domestic premises for private and domestic use of a recording of a broadcast ... solely for the purpose of enabling it to be viewed or listened to at a more convenient time does not infringe any copyright in the broadcast ... or in any work included in it.

Re:Delete it all

[Anonymous Coward]

All your music is pirated.

This.

It doesn't matter whether you paid for a piece of music or not. You have violated at least one copyright law, license, ToS or whatnot in some form or another. There are just too many of them and they try to out-crazy each other as hard as they can.

There's really no point in trying to acquire "legal" media, since you WILL run afoul of laws no matter what you do.

Re:Delete it all

[vonshavingcream]

All your music is pirated. The copyright holders did not give you permission to rip it from CD, or store it online.

In the UK copyright law does not even allow recording TV shows to watch later, it is merely tolerated. You might be able to argue fair use in the US, except that now you don't buy music or CDs, you buy a license to listen which does not include uses such as this.

you are absolutely right. this is from a few years ago. but the RIAA website still claims the same information http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2007/10/sony-bmgs-chief-anti-piracy-lawyer-copying-music-you-own-is-stealing.ars ""When an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song." Making "a copy" of a purchased song is just "a nice way of saying 'steals just one copy'," she said. "

Re:Delete it all

[Anonymous Coward]

No. I've never bought a license to listen to music. I buy CDs. The CD has the music on it, and as long as I don't violate copyright law, I can do whatever I want with it. There is no license printed anywhere on the CD. No one at the counter makes you sign anything. No software pops up asking you to agree to a license before you listen to your CD.

Re:Delete it all

[aug24]

It's even Online

I love the internet.

Re:Delete it all

[Neil_Brown]

It's even Online [jenkins.eu]

Even better than that - try legislation.gov.uk for legislation, and bailii.org for case law.

Re:Delete it all

[aug24]

Bloody marvelous. Hadn't come across those (and I work in open data for the uk govt, albeit in an unrelated field!). Thanks.

What ARE the rules?

[lymond01]

So he has the CDs for some of his downloaded music. Does that mean it's legal to listen to ripped versions? Wasn't it the dream of the RIAA at one point for there to be one device, one music license? Is that not the case any more? Can I buy a piece of music on CD, then play it on any of my devices? And if I have the cassette tapes, can I download for free the music and still be legal?

And if I'm asking these questions, should I really care? The RIAA should become the MAA (no, not Missing in Action Association...but Marketing Association of America) -- recording after the first time is trivial with digital technology. Put your money into marketing the musicians in various venues. Marketing the MUSICIANS not the music. I like to hear covers of popular songs and it's refreshing to also hear the original sung in concert by the original singer. Sure everyone will make less money (unless you spread your marketing talent out beyond the usually junk pop you focus on), but not everyone needs to be a millionaire musician either.

What they really want is your money

[torgis]

Does such a tool exist or does the RIAA seriously expect me to sift through 60 GB of music, remember which are pirated, and delete them by hand?

That's funny, but neither. They expect you to pay $2000 per illegal track in your possession.

Re:What they really want is your money

[Bengie]

I thought you only got in trouble if they could show that you distributed the audio via P2P. Without P2P, there isn't much for them to stand on. ie Having illegal music doesn't get you in trouble, it's the distribution of the music that they're after.

At least that was my understanding.

Re:What they really want is your money

[torgis]

Legally, yes, that's true. But if they had their way, simple possession would be a crime.

Re:What they really want is your money

[gknoy]

Ah, but they threaten you with court costs and offer a settlement, effectively assuming that if you downloaded it, you also uploaded it.

Legality

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Moreover, I have a lot of MP3s that I downloaded because I was too lazy to rip the CD version that I own.

Is that really a problem?

Do you expect me to talk?

[_Sprocket_]

Does such a tool exist or does the RIAA seriously expect me to sift through 60 GB of music, remember which are pirated, and delete them by hand?"

No, Mr. Bond. I expect you to die.

I'm sure the RIAA would prefer you to simply delete everything and buy it again. Just to be sure. Remember... these are the folks who swore it was illegal to rip your own CDs and firmly believed you should have an individually purchased copy of media for each individual player you used.

Re:Do you expect me to talk?

[ZombieBraintrust]

Ohh, and if you play the music in your barn to your horses you have to pay a performance fee in England.

Re:Do you expect me to talk?

[aug24]

The showing or playing in public of a broadcast to an audience who have not paid for admission to the place where the broadcast is to be seen or heard does not infringe any copyright

I have never understood how the PRS have got away with that.

Statute of Limitations?

[Plastic Pencil]

I posted a similar comment in thread from yesterday, but I'll ask here again, hoping someone will see it.

Basically, is the statute of limitations applicable to downloaded music? In my limited legal knowledge, it's not a felony to download music, afik, so misdemeanors typically fall under a 7-year statute of limitation, and so if you downloaded stuff from Napster's heyday, more than 10 years ago, could those mp3s even be used to legally prosecute you?

Of course I know we're talking about the RIAA here, and they act as if the law doesn't apply to them in their dealing. But I'm curious.

Re:Statute of Limitations?

[nitehawk214]

It is a civil case, so I don't think the statue applies here.

Re:Statute of Limitations?

[meloneg]

IANAL, nor do I play one anywhere, but it is my understanding that statute-of-limitations only applies to criminal charges. Most (all?) of the RIAA attacks have been civil suits.

Re:Statute of Limitations?

[Plastic Pencil]

Ah, civil case. Good point.

Re:Statute of Limitations?

[DanTheStone]

3-5 years, depending on whether you're talking about civil or criminal copyright infringement. At least, that's what I got from reading about it a day or two ago.

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#507

Re:Statute of Limitations?

[Plastic Pencil]

Hmm, now this is getting interesting, I wish I knew a good lawyer.

Re:Statute of Limitations?

[cabraverde]

misdemeanors typically fall under a 7-year statute of limitation, and so if you downloaded stuff from Napster's heyday, more than 10 years ago, could those mp3s even be used to legally prosecute you?

Probably not now, but if you upload those files (to which you are still not entitled) to a cloud service, then you have just committed a brand new civil offence.

Just because you can't be prosecuted, it doesn't mean you now have a license to redistribute that music.

Re:Statute of Limitations?

[halivar]

If you still have the pirated[sic] songs, you continue to infringe.

Re:Statute of Limitations?

[Plastic Pencil]

You bring up an interesting point. Is anyone technically, legally granted permission to redistribute music to a cloud service, in the strictest legal terms?

I'm guessing not if the RIAA had anything to say, they'd probably want you to have to pay for the same thing all over again, like records, cassettes, CD's, digital, left ear, right ear.

Re:Statute of Limitations?

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course I know we're talking about the RIAA here, and they act as if the law doesn't apply to them in their dealing.

Oh, now I see . . . you're talking about the RIAA.

Silly rabbit!! At first I read that as "the pirates act as if the law doesn't apply them."

Re:Statute of Limitations?

[thoromyr]

I see what you're saying, but the charges the RIAA has pursued are not "possession without financial remuneration" they are for "redistributing without a license". I think the question is valid and I'm curious what the answer is.

Re:Statute of Limitations?

[Dachannien]

Is there case law to support this? Because it seems to me that (in the US, anyway) since the exclusive right is duplication, that the infringing act is completed when the duplication occurs, and so the infringement is not ongoing.

In this particular case, though, uploading the file to a cloud would constitute another duplication, and if the file was obtained through infringement initially, the new duplication would be another infringement.

Re:Statute of Limitations?

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought it was only the copying and distribution that infringed the copy-write?

Re:Statute of Limitations?

[Anonymous Coward]

You do? Last I checked, copyright infringement required, well, copying, but IANACL.

Re:Statute of Limitations?

[Anonymous Coward]

question here would be whether it's illegal to download them or to have them. if owning it is a crime than statute of limitations isn't over since the (presumed) crime continues.
YMMV

Re:Statute of Limitations?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Fine, it's a sculpture of limitations."

Re:Statute of Limitations?

[c_jonescc]

MOD PARENT UP

from Dan's link:
&#167; 507. Limitations on actions7
(a) Criminal Proceedings. &mdash; Except as expressly provided otherwise in this title, no criminal proceeding shall be maintained under the provisions of this title unless it is commenced within 5 years after the cause of action arose.
(b) Civil Actions. &mdash; No civil action shall be maintained under the provisions of this title unless it is commenced within three years after the claim accrued.

Re:Statute of Limitations?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that true? If I stole $X, can I still be prosecuted after the statute of limitations has expired? Would it matter if I had kept the money in a footlocker in my basement, or deposited it in my account?

Re:Statute of Limitations?

[jafac]

It's certainly a good point - but since they've extended copyright to like the life of the artist plus 90 years - 7 years is a moot point.

Re:Statute of Limitations?

[lewiscr]

Then they'd try to claim re-duplication every time you copied the .mp3 into RAM.

Re:Statute of Limitations?

[mcgrew]

Of course I know we're talking about the RIAA here, and they act as if the law doesn't apply to them in their dealing

Are you kidding? If the law applied to them they'd have been put in prison for stealing from their artists, for extortion, and for dozens of other crimes years ago.

If the law applied to them, somebody from Sony-BMG would have gone to prison for XCP.

The law does not apply to corporations. If it did, the operators of that mine that exploded in Virginia and killed two dozen men last year would be in prison for negligent manslaughter.

Re:Statute of Limitations?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, of course there is. When the copyright expires and the work falls into the public domain, which should be in about ... uh, well, actually, maybe not.

Re:Statute of Limitations?

[kilgortrout]

Civil actions for copyright infringement have a 3 year statute of limitations under section 507(b) of the Copyright Act. However, uploading an illegal copy of a song to "the Cloud" would be a separate act of infringement and the statute of limitations would start to run from the date of upload. Under copyright law, each unauthorized "copying" is a separate infringement. Also, while the law is not settled, most jurisdictions adopt a "discovery rule" approach to determine when the statute should start running. Under the discovery rule, the statute starts running when the copyright owner knew or should have known that an infringement occurred.

Re:Statute of Limitations?

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe they would call possessing or playing a pirated copy a crime, so the statute of limitations wouldn't apply. I say screw'em and don't worry about it.

Re:Statute of Limitations?

[Anonymous Coward]

You only infringe if you distribute

Re:Statute of Limitations?

[nitehawk214]

It is a civil case, so I don't think the statue applies here.

"Fine, it's a sculpture of limitations."

Goddamit. Well played sir.

Re:Statute of Limitations?

[Anonymous Coward]

Says who? The copying without rights (once) is not ongoing. I'll need a citation for that assertion.

Re:Statute of Limitations?

[Torodung]

Nice thought, but wrong. Infringement regarding "copyright" means you do not have the right to copy, yet make a copy illicitly. Therefore, infringment is the act of copying, not possessing. It used to be, pre-DMCA, only copying for gain (charging a customer for an illicit copy) was actionable, and only such actions were criminal. Now it's the act of making any unauthorized copy, and it is all criminal. Possession of the data is a great big (not feasibly prosecutable) gray area, unless you happen to have shelves of the same item that you are clearly using as stock to sell. On a track for track basis, there's no way to prove where it came from, be it licit or illicit.

There is some statute of limitations on the act of copying, probably state by state. Can't be arsed to look it up. It's not really helpful. Here's why:

If you copy those tracks (upload) to a cloud service, or even to your new upgraded hard disk or even so much as back them up, you've gone and done it again, explicitly and illegally. Other legal arguments claim that even loading the music into RAM from a disk source to play it is making a copy, which would mean that when you *play* them, you infringe anew, but this is not settled law.

But simply having the stuff on media? No. Nobody is suing anyone for that. They're suing for making it available for mass download. Usually these are people who, whether knowingly or unknowingly, set up their own free publication service (via Kazaa, Limewire, etc.), that is in direct competition with the licensed publishers.

Re:Statute of Limitations?

[Anonymous Coward]

As much as the RIAA would like you to believe otherwise, downloading is not copyright infringement, only sharing it or making it available to others. Also, copyright infringement is neither a felony nor a misdemeanor, but merely a civil action.

Re:Statute of Limitations?

[jwhitener]

If you still have the pirated[sic] songs, you continue to infringe.

Isn't the act of copying what violates copyright? In my mind, if you copied something 10 years ago, the statute is up. Of course, with the attitude in our courts they probably wouldn't see it that way, and agree with your statement instead of mine.

Re:Statute of Limitations?

[Q2Serpent]

[Citation needed]

Re:Statute of Limitations?

[Anonymous Coward]

But their lawsuits are always based on unauthorized distribution, right? So if I stopped seeding/uploading 7+ years ago, they would have to sue based on different grounds, correct? How can they prove you downloaded the songs illegally, unless you downloaded some songs that someone purchased digitally and contain fingerprints?

You're approaching the problem backwards

[Aphrika]

It would be easier to scan your MP3 collection for what you know is legitimate. That giant stash of CDs sat in your attic gathering dust and your memory is the best way for you to determine what you own, rather than have a program scan for what might be ripped using what, bitrates and dodgy tags as a guide?

Just look at the "pirated" metadata flag

[robot256]

...just kidding. Sorry, but there is *no way* to automagically determine what the license status of a file is. The only way is for you to make a list of every song you actually own and compare it against the library. But track names, file sizes, etc could all be different so an automated diff won't cut it. And don't forget that even if you own the CD it's illegal to download a copy of the songs on it, so even if it's on your list you still could be "illegal". The only way to be sure is to start from scratch and rip all your CDs again, saving maybe the few songs that you can find Amazon or iTunes download invoices for.

Of course, the fact that such a task is IMPOSSIBLE to automate is precisely why the RIAA is advocating it and why it will never go anywhere (or will be a massive flop when it does). Copyright CANNOT be enforced in an automated fashion--any system will inevitably revert to "all copies are bad", which is a VIOLATION of fair-use copyright law, among other things. This is why all attempts to automate copyright violation enforcement must be killed without mercy.

(I am not disputing that "detection" can be automated. It is perfectly reasonable to make a system to look for likely cases of infringement. It is completely wrong, however, to take the output of such a system at face value and sanction the material en masse without human review, which is what a lot of companies seem to be doing these days.)

Are you from RIAA?

[Anonymous Coward]

aren't you some smartie pants from RIAA trying to find a way to scan ppl's mp3 on Google Music?

Legal status is not a property the file itself

[kiwix]

The legality of the file is not a property of the file itself, and cannot be determined from the file's content. If I buy an MP3 on Amazon, I can legally use it. If I put it on bittorrent and you download it, you have the same file as I do, but the RIAA says you're not allowed to use it.

This idea is explored in more details in the following blog post What Colour are your bits?

Re:Legal status is not a property the file itself

[elucido]

The legality of the file is not a property of the file itself, and cannot be determined from the file's content. If I buy an MP3 on Amazon, I can legally use it. If I put it on bittorrent and you download it, you have the same file as I do, but the RIAA says you're not allowed to use it.

This idea is explored in more details in the following blog post What Colour are your bits?

That doesn't mean it makes any sense from a technical or scientific point of view. The only reason that is the law is because special interests have decided to go with delusional impossible ideas to protect their profit engine.

Re:Legal status is not a property the file itself

[TheSeventh]

The biggest problem with trying to do this, is figuring out which files he didn't pay for. And how is someone else (Amazon, Google, etc.) going to figure that out?

This is why the RIAA always go after the uploaders of the music. Downloading the same version of a song I already own is not illegal. Maybe I have the original CD, but it's scratched and microwaved beyond the point of playability. But since I already paid for them, downloading those same versions is perfectly fine.

My suggestion would be to go through the music and delete anything with a low bit-rate or other quality problems. Most of this can be done through software, and then when you're listening to your music, if you hear skips or problems with a track, delete it. Also, if you can sort the music by song release date or some other dating method, and you really haven't downloaded anything illegal since the original version of Napster, that should help you narrow it down as well. For example, this should help you rule out your Lady Gaga and Justin Bieber tracks.

It seems the only mp3's that they can easily prove are illegal, are the ones that aren't available for purchase (live recordings, or stuff that was never released) which should be a very, very small percentage of all the music out there. Beyond that, there isn't much of a financial reason to go after everybody with a handful of illegal tracks (too many lawsuits for way too little money, and way too much difficulty proving it). Also, keep in mind that Google making you promise not to upload any illegal tracks is mostly just them doing a little bit of CYA, to help them avoid future lawsuits.

Re:Legal status is not a property the file itself

[Smallpond]

The legality of the file is not a property of the file itself, and cannot be determined from the file's content. If I buy an MP3 on Amazon, I can legally use it. If I put it on bittorrent and you download it, you have the same file as I do, but the RIAA says you're not allowed to use it.

This idea is explored in more details in the following blog post What Colour are your bits?

That's a great article. It explains the tech to the non-technical and vice versa.

Re:Legal status is not a property the file itself

[jhantin]

That doesn't mean it makes any sense from a technical or scientific point of view. The only reason that is the law is because special interests have decided to go with delusional impossible ideas to protect their profit engine.

From a technical point of view, licensing information would be metadata, and therefore not part of the content proper. The OP's headache stems from the fact that in current practice this metadata is not typically recorded or transmitted with the file.

In my opinion, an ideal DRM scheme would be one that, in terms of design decisions, always favors the machine owner over the rightsholder and never uses technical means to attempt to prevent — or to notify the rightsholder, their agents or law enforcement agents of — any action actually or potentially infringing upon others' exclusive rights. Instead, it simply and unobtrusively records and stores (out-of-band, without adding identifying information to the file bits) provenance and rights information for files, and allows the user to make their own decisions. Whether to block, prompt about or permit actually or potentially infringing actions would be a policy set by the machine's owner.

Re:Legal status is not a property the file itself

[icebike]

Yes it does make sense, in fact the gp hit the nail on the head.
The file does not offend, illegal use or possession is the offense.

Same as you stealing my car. It's the same car, but illegal for you and legal for me.

Re:Legal status is not a property the file itself

[elucido]

A car cannot be copied and isn't made from 1s and 0s.

Re:Legal status is not a property the file itself

[digitig]

I'm not at all sure what you mean by "makes any sense from a technical or scientific point of view". It's a property that can be determined (although as with any measurement you get Type I and Type II errors). The claim that a music file is possessed illegally is a falsifiable claim (produce the receipt). Read the "What colour are your bits" article that was referenced through to the end. Just because the property is not encoded in the bits doesn't mean that the property does not exist.

Re:Legal status is not a property the file itself

[icebike]

How is that possibly germane?

Theft is theft. If you can't understand that there is no point in continuing the discussion.

Re:Legal status is not a property the file itself

[elucido]

How is that possibly germane?

Theft is theft. If you can't understand that there is no point in continuing the discussion.

Someone has to lose something for it to be theft.

I have the RIAA approved answer...

[Lumpy]

"Delete the ENTIRE library and re purchase all of them to be sure. It's cheaper than our lawyers raping you..."

IF you call a RIAA office the above will be their answer. if you call any lawyer the above will be their answer. if you cant PROVE you bought it, it's pirated by default.

Re:I have the RIAA approved answer...

[InsertCleverUsername]

Exactly. If you know what's good for you, you better do as the RIAA says. When they can make money by selling you the same exact album on vinyl, 8-track, cassette, and CD, music is obviously a physical product. When the RIAA lawyers beat you bloody for having an unauthorized MP3 you downloaded (whether you bought the CD or not) or sharing music with a friend, music is obviously intellectual property that you don't own, but rather license under their terms.

Re:I have the RIAA approved answer...

[Jason Levine]

I wonder if the same would be true of physical sources of music. Quick: Prove to me that you bought that CD! Do you have a receipt or something? I don't care if you claim you bought it a decade ago, I demand to see proof of ownership. No proof? You must have stolen it from someone. *flashes badge* You need to come with me....

Re:I have the RIAA approved answer...

[Anonymous Coward]

if you cant PROVE you bought it, it's pirated by default.

I'm pretty sure, in America, you have to prove I stole something. I don't have to prove I didn't steal it.
Burden of proof is on the prosecution. The "default" is that I didn't steal it, unless you can prove otherwise.

Re:I have the RIAA approved answer...

[Anonymous Coward]

You europeans and your golden view of the USA....

It's not like that here. It's Guilty until proven innocent.. and if you are entertaining, you will be tried and convicted in the media. If found innocent, the media will refuse to cover it at all to make sure you are known forever as evil...

Also the biggest lawyer pot of money wins... RIAA has a bigger pot o gold than you do.

Re:I have the RIAA approved answer...

[camperdave]

if you cant PROVE you bought it, it's pirated by default.

That doesn't fit the "innocent until proven guilty" meme that the country was founded on.

Re:I have the RIAA approved answer...

[Anonymous Coward]

A torture worse than prosecution: keeping receipts FOREVER.

Come now, even the IRS has a seven year rule. There should be a statute of limitations.

Re:I have the RIAA approved answer...

[Anonymous Coward]

I had my apartment robbed 3 years ago and lost my huge collection of CD's. I had ripped the majority of them over the years or burned copies to use in my card and so on, but I have zero clue anymore what I ripped, when, or how I ripped it. I have some files ranging from 64k audio up to 256k and they are all over the place.

Re:I have the RIAA approved answer...

[SoTerrified]

if you cant PROVE you bought it, it's pirated by default.

Obviously! After all, this is America, where a man is guilty unless he can prove he's innocent.

Re:I have the RIAA approved answer...

[noc007]

That applies to criminal cases, not civil cases. The RIAA lawsuits are civil cases and you're pretty much guilty unless you can hire a good lawyer. In criminal cases, you're innocent and will be found guilty unless you hire a good lawyer.

Re:I have the RIAA approved answer...

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if the same would be true of physical sources of music. Quick: Prove to me that you bought that CD! Do you have a receipt or something?

As long as it's a real original and not a counterfeit, it IS by definition it's own receipt. The owner of the physical disc holds the license, and if you have the disc physical product laws come into play and they have to prove it's NOT yours.

Now, if you made a backup copy, and lost the original... you'll have to convince a judge or jury.

Re:I have the RIAA approved answer...

[Anonymous Coward]

if you cant PROVE you bought it, it's pirated by default.

No, I'm innocent until proven guilty.

Now that they have their cake, they can eat it. And by "it" I don't mean their cake but my ass. They wanted infringement criminalized, so it's a criminal offense now. And that means that the burden of proof is on the prosecution. As a civil matter, a defendant would have to prove that they weren't infringing. As a criminal matter, the plaintiff has to prove the defendant is infringing. I plead not guilty. Now it's up to them to prove it, and it's up to my lawyer to tear their proof a new asshole. Which he will, because it's just too damned easy. And then the countersuit makes me some money.

Re:I have the RIAA approved answer...

[Anonymous Coward]

guilty until proven innocent?

o ya that's right its guilty until you pay enough to prove you are innocent. at which point they can pay more to prove you are guilty. rinse repeat until somebody runs out of money. capitalism isn't just an economic system anymore.

Re:I have the RIAA approved answer...

[Anonymous Coward]

What about innocent until proven otherwise?

Re:I have the RIAA approved answer...

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry to say, you're a bit wrong. Sure that's what their lawyers will attempt to convince a judge but even a first year law student will tell you that all you have to do is say the files are backups of cd's you purchased and had stolen/lost in a fire/etc. The burden is on them, not you. The must prove that the music is pirated, not you having to prove it's not. Now, should there be an irrefutable way to look at the files and determine that they are not backups ripped directly from CDs or perhaps that they are a 100% match to files found in piracy havens you may yet be screwed.

Re:I have the RIAA approved answer...

[Xacid]

And thus we run into "guilty before innocent". Fundamental, downright, bullshittery IMO.

Re:I have the RIAA approved answer...

[Anonymous Coward]

You just don't understand our legal system.

The RIAA is not part of the government. When they sue you, there is no presumption of innocence. Because they are suing you under civil law, the standard is not "a shadow of a doubt" nor is anyone "guilty" or "innocent" of anything. Instead the standard is "a preponderance of the evidence". Basically, all they have to decide is that it's more likely than not that you're a pirate... not that there's no doubt.

If the government is prosecuting you, for a crime, then we really do still have a presumption of innocence in the US and the standards are much higher.

Re:I have the RIAA approved answer...

[Raffaello]

The standard for civil cases is "preponderance of evidence" which is a weaker standard than "beyond a reasonable doubt," but possession is still considered "preponderance of evidence." IOW, having something in your possession means that the burden of proof is on the other side to show that you possess it illegally. The burden of proof is not on you to show that it is in your possession legally.

Re:I have the RIAA approved answer...

[Anonymous Coward]

Guilty until proven Innocent.

Re:I have the RIAA approved answer...

[Gripp]

this.

Re:I have the RIAA approved answer...

[Anonymous Coward]

"IF you call a RIAA office the above will be their answer. If you call any lawyer the above will be their answer. However, if THEY can't prove you STOLE it, it's LEGAL by default."

Fixed that for you. Innocent until proven guilty, no matter how much the RIAA wants it to be the other way around.

Doesn't Matter

[locallyunscene]

Seriously, it doesn't matter. The crazy lawsuits are for distributing music and only that, which you're not doing. The whole idea of these being "honeypots" is ridiculous. There's nothing you can actually be charged for even if the RIAA could influence Apple or Google or Amazon. Which is doubtful because they each make far more money than the RIAA and would have to destroy their reputations to go along with such a "trap".

If you have some ethical issue then just buy a legal copy of the music for anything you're unsure of. Having multiple copies for personal use IS still fair use.

Re:Doesn't Matter

[Phleg]

This.

Re:Doesn't Matter

[gcalvin]

This looks right to me too. IANAL, correct me if I'm wrong, etc. but I'm pretty sure that copyright law covers 1) making copies, 2) distributing copies. There's nothing there about possession of "illegal copies". The RIAA have sued on a theory that "making available" is equivalent to "distribution" with varying success. They have not sued anybody making copies for personal use (though I'm not sure that's actually been pronounced as "fair use" by the courts -- again, I could be wrong). Possession of files could conceivably be used as circumstantial evidence in a "making available" suit, but they still need to prove you're sharing, and if you're not, how can they prove you are? And if you were, it wouldn't make a bit of difference if you had ripped the files yourself or got them from somebody who was illicitly distributing them.

Re:Doesn't Matter

[Gorphrim]

There's nothing you can actually be charged for even if the RIAA could influence Apple or Google or Amazon.

IANAL, but I know a lawyer who said you could be charged with receipt of stolen goods. Yeah yeah I know, copyright infringement != theft, but he was confident that charge would be workable, and that the only reason the RIAA hasn't used it is because it isn't worth it compared to going after the uploaders.

Re:Doesn't Matter

[rgviza]

Putting on my tin foil hat....
You no longer own the data  you load into Google's cloud.
Google does.
If you upload music to Google's cloud music service, you just distributed a copy of all of your music to Google. What happens if Google makes the cloud searchable and allows people to download out of it? They could. Will they? who knows. Do you really want to leave your financial well being in the hands of the cloud?

What if some hacker group hacks Google's cloud and links up torrents to everything in the cloud. Who is responsible for whatever they share out to the masses out of your account? Google didn't upload the data, you did.

This is a form of sharing. IMHO RIAA will find a way to prosecute or sue people that have large amounts of music here.

Re:Doesn't Matter

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not true, there are lawsuits for people downloading the files, not just sharing. I received a notice of infringement for two movie downloads on my open wifi network. I'm not sure who pisses me off more, my neighbors who downloaded it or the MPAA/RIAA.

Re:Doesn't Matter

[spintriae]

This, this, and this. I can't believe so many /.ers live in some fantasy world where Google willfully has RIAA cronies in their offices scanning their Music Beta users's collections with highly sophisticated forensic tools that can distinguish a pirated MP3 from a non-pirated one. It's not happening and it's not going to happen.

Re:Doesn't Matter

[locallyunscene]

If they become "Google's files because they're in the cloud" and Google or someone else makes them makes them search-able without your permission through Google's fault then Google's on the hook not you.Google is distributing not you. And believe me the RIAA would love to dip into the deep pockets with a case that juicy.

Re:Doesn't Matter

[rgviza]

the point I'm making is google owns them after you upload them. Therefore you shared them with google, and if google shares them (intentionally or not) with someone else, you started the chain of sharing.

The RIAA will be all over this like flies on shit. It

There is no way for anyone to know which are legal

[Attila Dimedici]

There is no way for anyone else to identify which of your music files are legal. All that is possible is to identify that certain music files are illegal (because they contain certain "watermarks" that indicate they come from a source that you could not have legal access to). And even there there is room for argument. For example, it is not clear how the courts would rule on a case where you downloaded a copy of a file that you owned on CD rather than ripping it from the CD. There is some question as to whether possessing music files that were illegally copied is actually illegal.

What if you own the music on a record album?

[SwedishChef]

One of my pals has regularly shopped the thrift stores (Goodwill, Salvation Army, etc.) looking for albums of the music he has downloaded. His theory is that as long as he has the album with the music - regardless of the format - he's covered.

I think he's probably right, actually. Although it might cost hims some legal fees to get RIAA off his ass if they choose to land on him.

Re:What if you own the music on a record album?

[Pope]

Totally depends on what country he lives in. For the most part, he'd be wrong. Owning the physical unit only gives you a license for the music on that unit. Read the copyright & license notices. He'd be better off spending his time & money on not becoming a target.

Re:What if you own the music on a record album?

[sir lox elroy]

In the US at least ripping a CD is at this point still legal as long as the CD does not have copy protection (it itself has not been tested, however most of the concept has been based off of fair use and the betamax decision). Even MGM has said on their website that they believe it is perfectly lawful to rip a CD to your personal computer or mp3 player.

Re:What if you own the music on a record album?

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact is, it will cost anybody legal fees if the RIAA lands on them, whether the charges are baseless or not, whether you have every album that every song came from or not. The RIAA strategy is hit those who cannot afford a legal fight, knowing they will try to settle "for a few thousand."

Thus, the spending money is not something you can make a choice about; the RIAA controls that, just as surely as a blackmailer controls the situation. The only way out of blackmail that I know of, is to call the culprit's bluff -- "Yeah, release those pictures, my family has already seen them", for example. The only way to fight the RIAA is to do the same, and having the albums certainly helps. I am taking that approach myself -- I bought a lot of my music in the last five years via download, so now I'm slowly accumulating the albums.

But it won't save you; if the RIAA decides to hit you, you'll still end up in court and spending thousands of dollars in legal fees.

Re:What if you own the music on a record album?

[Zontar_Thing_From_Ve]

Probably right != Will work 100% in all US court cases.

I've told this story before, but it's worth repeating. I last served on a jury about 6 years ago. My fellow jurors were housewives, construction workers, etc. The foreman was the only other guy on the jury with any IT skills. one morning while waiting in the jury room for court to start 3 guys on the jury got into a contest where each one of them tried to out do the others in proving that they were completely and utterly unable to use a PC for the most simplest of tasks, including email. It was a "who's stupider?" contest with 3 guys actually trying to hard to prove he was stupider than the other 2. These are the kind of people you get on juries. So while buying those might work as a "fair use" argument to a smart person, most jurors are really not all that bright or technologically adept. Those are exactly the kind of people who the RIAA wants on juries. All they have to do is wait for the lawyers to pick them because they are most of the people who show up in the jury pool.

Re:What if you own the music on a record album?

[mcgrew]

The RIAA isn't going to land on him unless he shares them, in which case it won't matter if he has physical copies or not.

Re:What if you own the music on a record album?

[Anonymous Coward]

probably only holds up if the downloaded copy is of equal or lesser quality compared to the original quality of the cd, but most judges would likely tell the plaintiff to piss off at that point anyways.

Re:What if you own the music on a record album?

[toddestan]

I've got the impression though that the RIAA only considers it legal to create digital files from the media you own. So it's legal to rip your own CD, however, if your friend owns the same CD it is not legal to make a copy of his/her MP3 files (according to the RIAA). Now, it would be kind of hard for the RIAA to prove that a set of files came from your friend and not from your CD, if you both own the exact same CD with the exact same digital bitstream. However, it would probably be a lot easier if you have a CD quality rip but your media is a vinyl record or a cassette.

UMG Recordings v. MP3.com

[tepples]

The illegality of downloading track of a CD you own has yet to be proven.

In which jurisdiction? In the United States, see UMG Recordings v. MP3.com.

Re:UMG Recordings v. MP3.com

[Aladrin]

That found that MP3.com wasn't allowed to copy CDs to their server, not that users weren't allowed to download MP3s they already owned.

Re:UMG Recordings v. MP3.com

[keytoe]

MP3.com was sued for copying and distributing songs to users - which is a violation of copyright law. Not a single person was sued for downloading songs from MP3.com.

Re:UMG Recordings v. MP3.com

[tepples]

In that case, "[t]he illegality of downloading track of a CD you own" has been proven; it's illegal for the party on the other side of the connection.

Re:UMG Recordings v. MP3.com

[node 3]

In that case, "[t]he illegality of downloading track of a CD you own" has been proven; it's illegal for the party on the other side of the connection.

Um, that's exactly the opposite party being discussed. This only shows that providing a file you don't have the right to provide is illegal. Which is something we already know.

Whether it's illegal to download a song you own, however, has not been demonstrated. mp3.com are the ones found to have violated copyright, not the users.

It doesn't work for kiddieporn so it wont work

[elucido]

Because kiddie porn is the gold standard. If you have even a file in you recycle bin on your computer, that you deleted, it can be forensically undeleted and you could be slammed for possession of child pornography. They use md5s to search for child pornography.

Most people cannot determine whether 100% of their porn and jpgs,gifs, are legal, how can anyone actually know whether 100% of their bits are legal? It's not humanly possible and the question is stupid because the burden shouldn't be on the user in the first place.

Re:It doesn't work for kiddieporn so it wont work

[robot256]

At least with kiddie porn the law says that any match, whether you paid for it or not, constitutes a violation. That's not the case with music--how are they supposed to know what files are legally downloaded copies and what are illegally downloaded copies? The only way is to keep a database of invoices for everything you have ever paid for, ready for when they come to audit you. But when are they going to search your files? At border crossings? Airports? Now you have to carry this bunch of invoices around with you all the time. It's akin to the proverbial "papers" you need to travel in a repressive regime. You see where i"m going with this.

Re:It doesn't work for kiddieporn so it wont work

[bluefoxlucid]

You can "forensically undelete" a file in the recycle bin easily: it's not deleted.

Re:It doesn't work for kiddieporn so it wont work

[cloudmaster]

They use md5s to search for child pornography

What? So someone has a database of every kiddie porn file ever created? How in the hell did they create / do they maintain *that*?

Re:It doesn't work for kiddieporn so it wont work

[Cederic]

ever created

Ever created, almost certainly not.

Ever found, on the 'net or on someone's PC, or on someone's phone, or on someone's digital camera? Pretty easy.

Just take the md5 hash, and add it to the database. I'd be amazed if that's not already happening, and somewhat surprised if western police services weren't sharing/merging their databases internationally.

I guess you _could_ pay someone to flick through 80,000 photographs to see whether any of them contain illegal images, but a quick md5 hash check might give you enough positives for a conviction for just a couple of minutes effort.

Re:It doesn't work for kiddieporn so it wont work

[cloudmaster]

I don't know enough about kiddie porn to know if most "consumers" are using a small set of existing data, or if it's more new one-off stuff. If there's really a small core set that lots of people have, well, I guess the database would be useful. If it doesn't work that way, I'd question the usefulness of such a database. I guess it'd be a quick way to catch a few people.

Re:It doesn't work for kiddieporn so it wont work

[Cederic]

It's a fair point. A big part of the argument for prosecuting people who merely download an image is that they're creating demand for further images, and thus causing additional abuse.

Nonetheless it's hard to irrevocably remove anything from the Internet, so it's reasonable to assume that much of the extant material continues to be available, and that anybody 'collecting' is likely to come across and retain it.

Someone with a self-created library wont be caught through a DB lookup, but if they have just one image (out of potentially thousands) that a previous offender had then they will.

I suspect the reality is that most downloaders are leeches and not creators (as with any media exchange online) and so a DB lookup would likely have a very high hit rate on criminals.

There's a small chance of a false positive, but that's extremely easily checked by merely viewing any images that match a hash in the DB - which I'd expect to happen prior to any prosecution as a matter of course, not least because it would be done as part of providing evidence at a trial.

Then again, I don't work in law enforcement and I'm not intimately familiar with the subject matter, so I could be wrong on all counts :)

Re:It doesn't work for kiddieporn so it wont work

[elucido]

ever created

Ever created, almost certainly not.

Ever found, on the 'net or on someone's PC, or on someone's phone, or on someone's digital camera? Pretty easy.

Just take the md5 hash, and add it to the database. I'd be amazed if that's not already happening, and somewhat surprised if western police services weren't sharing/merging their databases internationally.

I guess you _could_ pay someone to flick through 80,000 photographs to see whether any of them contain illegal images, but a quick md5 hash check might give you enough positives for a conviction for just a couple of minutes effort.

The point is it doesn't accomplish anything. The people who actually harm children in the pictures aren't necessarily the ones who possess the pictures. This means one or two pedophiles could incriminate 100 or 1000 different machines with 400-3000 different users. The point being that chasing after files is a bad policy and it's a thought crime policy. Possession is a victimless crime. And it doesn't matter to me what they possess, as long as they didn't produce it.

Re:It doesn't work for kiddieporn so it wont work

[elucido]

I don't know enough about kiddie porn to know if most "consumers" are using a small set of existing data, or if it's more new one-off stuff. If there's really a small core set that lots of people have, well, I guess the database would be useful. If it doesn't work that way, I'd question the usefulness of such a database. I guess it'd be a quick way to catch a few people.

It's not really useful either way, it's just how the police typically operate when pursuing these cases. Personally I wouldn't waste the time and money chasing after the consumers. The producers, and anyone who profits from the production are the ones I'd take out.

Raiding people and destroying their lives because they possess some information you don't like or don't want them to have in my opinion is a violation. It's not justified why it is necessary that police have this sort of authority to police our bits on our machines. This is like having the authority to police our minds and arrest us for having inappropriate thoughts.

Re:It doesn't work for kiddieporn so it wont work

[Cederic]

The point is it doesn't accomplish anything. The people who actually harm children in the pictures aren't necessarily the ones who possess the pictures

I disagree. So I went hunting:

Currently Interpolâ(TM)s Child Abuse Image database has more than 200,000
images showing the sexual abuse of over 20,000 individual children.
[...]
but fewer than 500 of these had been identified.

(from http://www.nspcc.org.uk/inform/policyandpublicaffairs/policysummaries/childabuseimages_wdf56933.pdf)

The authorities try and identify the children being abused, to provide support, prevent further abuse and ideally prosecute the abusers.

If someone has 200 pictures that are known to be of child abuse, and then has another 80 pictures that have never been seen before, there's a chance further identifying information will be available to aid tracking down the victim or the perpetrator, and there's a chance the person holding those images is involved in producing them.

Re:It doesn't work for kiddieporn so it wont work

[cloudmaster]

Honestly, I'd rather find that you're right and that way less new stuff is created. :)

Re:It doesn't work for kiddieporn so it wont work

[elucido]

The point is it doesn't accomplish anything. The people who actually harm children in the pictures aren't necessarily the ones who possess the pictures

I disagree. So I went hunting:

Currently Interpolâ(TM)s Child Abuse Image database has more than 200,000
images showing the sexual abuse of over 20,000 individual children.
[...]
but fewer than 500 of these had been identified.

(from http://www.nspcc.org.uk/inform/policyandpublicaffairs/policysummaries/childabuseimages_wdf56933.pdf)

The authorities try and identify the children being abused, to provide support, prevent further abuse and ideally prosecute the abusers.

If someone has 200 pictures that are known to be of child abuse, and then has another 80 pictures that have never been seen before, there's a chance further identifying information will be available to aid tracking down the victim or the perpetrator, and there's a chance the person holding those images is involved in producing them.

If the police were to just talk to them and ask them where they got the pictures from without the stigma, and the threat of "sex offender for life", maybe these people could help them track down the perpetrators. But you and I both know the police are more interested in the witch hunt than in protecting children.

There have been cases where the police have undeleted files on a computer to recover child porn to get a conviction. There have been cases where the police have demanded the encryption key to an encrypted harddrive to retrieve evidence of child porn possession. If the police truly wanted to investigate the matter, they would probably know which ones just collect images and which ones are sex offenders who are a real threat to children. The police should obviously treat someone who has been convicted of child molestation differently than some person who just has pictures. The child molester is a predator, the picture collector is a pervert. The police can question the pervert but they should investigate the predator.

If you look at a lot of guys being caught up in child porn cases, many of them aren't sex offenders and thats their only offense. Some people have been convicted over sexting, over receiving images or trivial distribution. It's the law the needs to be changed here. Maybe if people who collect these images could report anonymously where they found these images to the police then you'd have something to build an investigation from.

Re:It doesn't work for kiddieporn so it wont work

[elucido]

Here is some supporting evidence

http://www.expertlaw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=119583&page=1

Nonsensical Nonsense

[Bucc5062]

I'll agree that this is just a dumb, time wasting effort on your part. If you are so worried about the collection, don't bother with "clouds", but set up your own streaming server. You only want to listen to your own stuff...right? I use subsonic to access and listen to mine and I love it.

Regarding old mp3's and napster...I was around when napster came on the scene. Even before then I would "share" songs I liked with friends in the same manner I did with cassettes, burn a playlist and let them enjoy new sounds. They did the same with me and what it did was encourage me to buy albums of artists I would have not normally listened too. I do not condone piracy, but the pricing issue by the music industry made "sharing" more viable then buying a CD for one song or buying an artist only to find out the CD was mostly crap. Even today there are some albums from the late 70's early 80s that still cost upwards of 10 dollars....really? with not even a CD to justify cost? The pirates are RIAA and they pillage very well.

I have old napster files and don't worry a damn about them. I still buy mp3s, but do so from places where I feel I am getting the correct value for my purchase. Some from Amazon, some from other mp3 sites, but NEVER from itunes. Trusting them is like trusting Darth Vader to release the Princess and the Wookie to stay in the cloud city (Pray I don't alter the plans further). Use these services or don't, but please don't waste time cleaning a collection of files that can be altered to wav and back.

Re:Nonsensical Nonsense

[geekoid]

10 bucks for an actual album with music from the 70's is not unreasonable.

Of course, comparing illegal distribution today to illegal distribution on Cassette is laughable. You make a cassette, 1 person gets a copy of a song that, at best, has only been slightly degraded. AS opposed to millions have access to a perfect copy.

That said, it does look like the online trading doesn't have a negative impact one would intuitively expect. Perhaps the number of people who will go out and buy it because they heard it out weigh the people who download it that would have otherwise purchased it.

The people the download but never would have purchases are not a loss, and in fact seem to be aiding in marketing the product.

The real problem are the people who stamp physical discs and sell them. The people that buy those would have otherwise bought a legit copy.

Re:Nonsensical Nonsense

[AlienIntelligence]

I use subsonic to access and listen to mine and I love it.

Bump parent to 5...

I never heard of SubSonic... thanks!

-AI

Again with the "honeypot"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Two articles in two days attempting to suggest that iCloud is an RIAA-sponsored "honeypot". Google starting to sweat a bit?

Jitter

[tepples]

if two people rip different copies of the same CD with, say, LAME, will the resulting files be identical?

Not necessarily. See a comment about jitter.

Delete them all the lord shall know the legal ones

[warewolfsmith]

Well it worked for the inquisitors in the dark ages, and this is a witch hunt right...

Do you work for the RIAA?

[Anonymous Coward]

You sound like a conniving lawyer phishing for underground tools that aren't showing up on your searches or just plain searching for more lawsuits.

Scene tags

[daedae]

Depending on the (original) source of your pirated tunes, and how particular you are about your file naming scheme, you could probably just do a find on files named with common scene release groups. If your files didn't come straight from scene releases, or if you renamed them to fit your regular naming scheme, I think most groups also put their name in the ID3 tags.

You gotta be kiddin' me!

[Anonymous Coward]

I realize there are many who will claim how effective DRM is.

1) I'm not convinced this is not a smoke screen.

2) DRM hasn't been in effect forever. Anything that was duplicated several years ago likely does not have it.

3) Are you going to grant RIAA access to your music, so they can see for themselves what is, and what isn't? They're going to claim it all is illegal, in all likelihood.

Once of the points of being able to store music digitally is/was that you can't tell a copy from the original. Having mastered this, you can't tell what is a copy, and what isn't. Only the DRM flag, if there is one, would tell anyone anything.

I'm posting this as an anonymous coward, because the RIAA is everywhere. Look under your mattress! Look under your coffee coaster! Don't trust your wife, girlfriend, or the neighbor's dog!

Use find -atime command

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

When you move from one home to the next, as you are packing, if you come across a carton that came from the previous residence but has never been opened, save yourself time, and throw away the carton without even opening it. Use a modified version of that rule. Dont upload any song you have not listened to in the last 3 years. Use the find command with -atime modifier to find the songs that have been accessed in the last 3 years.

Re:Use find -atime command

[gblackwo]

WTF kind of rule is that? Surely nothing in said boxes could ever be given to charity instead of thrown away! /sarcasm

Re:Use find -atime command

[frozentier]

When you move from one home to the next, as you are packing, if you come across a carton that came from the previous residence but has never been opened, save yourself time, and throw away the carton without even opening it. Use a modified version of that rule. Dont upload any song you have not listened to in the last 3 years. Use the find command with -atime modifier to find the songs that have been accessed in the last 3 years.

Yeah, because if you haven't looked at your grandparents' wedding pictures in the last 3 years, or in the last 3 years you haven't worn those baby booties that your great aunt knitted for you when you were born, you probably don't need them anymore. Come on, I've got albums that I haven't listened to in 10 years because I played them so much I got tired of them, but that doesn't mean I need to get rid of them.

Re:Use find -atime command

[cloudmaster]

Agreed - the "throw away anything you haven't used recently" rule is one of those things that sounds good on paper, but would lead to a society where we don't learn anything from our history, and thus continually repeat... Oh, wait.

Re:Use find -atime command

[flimflammer]

And once you've tossed it without looking inside and I open said old filled box barely fitting in the top of your garbage can and find all the gold from a sunken Spanish ship, then what?! Because once you've tossed it, it's in the public domain!

Re:Use find -atime command

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, no!

I mount with noatime.

Innocent until proven guilty

[DrHeasley]

IANAL, but: To convict you, the RIAA must prove that the files you have violate copyright, you don't have to prove that they are legal - that would be Napoleonic law, which is unconstitutional, although the current supreme court might disagree. The RIAA would face the same difficulties being discussed here. If a way cannot be found to prove your music is legal, I doubt that they'd be able to find a way to prove that it's illegal.

Who cares?

[yarnosh]

Don't worry about it. You're being paranoid. Even if they could detect that you have some illegal music, they really don't care unless you're actively trading it. Look at how companies handle pirated software, for example. Microsoft can tell if your WIndows isn't "genuine" and yet the worst thing they do is cripple your copy and give you a rather polite message about making it genuine. That's the worst I would ever expect from a "honeypot." At worst they're going to say "Hey, we think this song is not genuine, would you like to buy a fresh copy to ensure you're legit?" They're not going to call the FBI on your ass for having an illegal copy of Twisted Sister on your hard drive. It just isn't going to happen.

Re:Who cares?

[elucido]

Don't worry about it. You're being paranoid. Even if they could detect that you have some illegal music, they really don't care unless you're actively trading it. Look at how companies handle pirated software, for example. Microsoft can tell if your WIndows isn't "genuine" and yet the worst thing they do is cripple your copy and give you a rather polite message about making it genuine. That's the worst I would ever expect from a "honeypot." At worst they're going to say "Hey, we think this song is not genuine, would you like to buy a fresh copy to ensure you're legit?" They're not going to call the FBI on your ass for having an illegal copy of Twisted Sister on your hard drive. It just isn't going to happen.

Google might not but Sony definitely world.

Re:Who cares?

[fearofcarpet]

I'm not paranoid, just annoyed; the point of this Ask Slashdot is really to point out the absurdity of demanding that we not upload pirated music--which can be identified by MD5's, watermarks, etc.--to these new cloud services and then not making tools to scan for these marks publicly available. Too subtle?

Re:Who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

Look at how companies handle pirated software, for example. Microsoft can tell if your WIndows isn't "genuine" and yet the worst thing they do is cripple your copy and give you a rather polite message about making it genuine.

It depends on what the copyright holder's end-game is. In Microsoft's case, they realize that most people who are caught in the net didn't realize they had a dodgy copy of Windows. (Most people who install pirated windows for their own use are smart enough to avoid the GA check.) Most of them bought the computer from a hole-in-the wall computer firm which has secretly resold the same copy of Windows 100s of times, and assumed everything was legit. Microsoft isn't after the end user, they're after the computer shops. The reason for giving lenient terms is that they want you to roll on the place you bought it. Once MS gets the name of the shop from you, *then* the laser-bearing lawyer sharks are released, but on the shop, not the user.

The RIAA et al. have a different endgame. Instead of targeting the supply, they're going after the demand. Mostly because, unlike most pirated Windows, most people who download songs illegally know/should know that it's dodgy as fuck. Even then, the big name cases have all pretty much been people who have *also* shared the files in p2p networks. It's a whole different ballgame with music files.

Re:Who cares?

[yarnosh]

Not likely. Besides, there's no way for them to know for sure that you don't own the music in the MP3. And there are so many people with at least some illegal music that there's no reason to single one person out.

Re:Who cares?

[yarnosh]

I'm sure that making you agree to not upload illegal music is just a legal formality. Ultimately Google does not care. They have no incentive to actually scan your collection for illegal copies of music. It woudl be a waste of their resources and they'd only risk pissing off customers.

Re:Who cares?

[yarnosh]

It depends on what the copyright holder's end-game is. In Microsoft's case, they realize that most people who are caught in the net didn't realize they had a dodgy copy of Windows. (Most people who install pirated windows for their own use are smart enough to avoid the GA check.)

Nonsense. I have never bought a copy of windows and have been hit by GA checks several times. A couple times I let it slip in the updates other times it was enabled by default and I had to install a crack after installation. Also, upgrading hardware can trigger the GA failure.

Most of them bought the computer from a hole-in-the wall computer firm which has secretly resold the same copy of Windows 100s of times, and assumed everything was legit. Microsoft isn't after the end user, they're after the computer shops. The reason for giving lenient terms is that they want you to roll on the place you bought it. Once MS gets the name of the shop from you, *then* the laser-bearing lawyer sharks are released, but on the shop, not the user.

I'm curious, at what stage of buying a windows license do they let you report the source of the bad copy?

The RIAA et al. have a different endgame. Instead of targeting the supply, they're going after the demand. Mostly because, unlike most pirated Windows, most people who download songs illegally know/should know that it's dodgy as fuck. Even then, the big name cases have all pretty much been people who have *also* shared the files in p2p networks.

They get you for the sharing, not for possession, just like with pirating software. They can't claim much in "damages" for simple possession. If you download an album, they're only out a theoretical $10. If you share it, they can say you contributed to X number of OTHER people getting illegal copies, costing them a theoretical X times $10, where X is some made up number.

Re:Who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

"They're not going to call the FBI on your ass for having an illegal copy of Twisted Sister on your hard drive. It just isn't going to happen."

Better if they called the FBI if you had *any* Twisted Sister on your hard drive, pirated or not. Actually, if you bought it that would probably be worse!

Nah, just kidding. Keep rocking Dee.

Repurchase

[Anonymous Coward]

Ideally the RIAA would like you to repurchase your entire collection again. Forcing you to buy the same thing you've already paid for in the same format is just the natural evolution of their previous business model of forcing you to repurchase your entire collection in a different format.

Nope you're wrong

[mrnick]

Through an Md5 database hosted on the RIAA website or funded by the RIAA. Every legal file could be known. And then every illegal file would be among those not in the official database.

If I encode my audio tracks at 128kbps MP3 for my player and you encode it at 192kbps AAC the MD5 hash is going to be different. The options are endless I knew someone who encoded at at 127kbps or 193kbps because they like prime numbers. I cannot imagine that unless the source of the rip encoded a digital marker that anyone, including the RIAA, could prove the music was illegal. I'm guessing the best defense against a case brought against you for music piracy would be a receipt...

Re:Nope you're wrong

[petermgreen]

They could prove that a file was common on P2P networks and had sufficiant defects or other identifying marks that it was highly unlikely a random user would end up with an identical file from their own rip.

Yes they do..

[Hylandr]

Yes they do but it's easier than that. They only want you to listen to music on consumable mediums so all you have to do is delete everything from your computer
and mp3 player and go listen to your music with Beaver on the 8-track.

*BARF*

- Dan.

I don't think it's possible in the general case.

[petermgreen]

To do such a thing you would have to define

1: a whitelist of files that are identical to copies sold by legitimate services or "perfect" CD rips.
2: a blacklist of files that were found on P2P networks and have sufficiant defects or other idenitifying features that it is unlikely they would match any non-pirate's copy.

You could then go through a file collection sorting files into white, black and grey. The technical aspects of implementing such a tool are trivial.

However the problems are

1: it's pretty hard to find every file that is out there on legit services and basically impossible to find every file that is out there on P2P.
2: Afaict it is also bloody hard to get a perfect rip of a track from CD (and that is before you start considering the encoding options)
3: your CD rips will probablly not be on either the whitelist or the blacklist (see point 1), unfortunately it is likely that many pirate files won't be either (see point 1). Unfortunately not being on the tool's blacklist doesn't nessacerally mean the file isn't on the music industries blacklist.
4: most people outside of the music industry would probablly not want to give them a helping hand by building a list of "probablly pirate" tracks and those trying to track down pirates and extort money from them are unlikely to want to release their lists either.

Goldfingerer

[paiute]

"...does the RIAA seriously expect me to sift through 60 GB of music, remember which are pirated, and delete them by hand?"

No, Mr. Bond, the RIAA expects you to die.

Re:Goldfingerer

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably, the RIAA expected you to not have downloaded pirated material in the first place.

Re:Goldfingerer

[Anonymous Coward]

LMAO, I wish I had 60GB to sort.

if your worried about detection, take the profile you use to rip, filter out all files that match that pattern;
1. trash those that don't match (why would you do this?)
or
2. strip all meta-data from all that don't match, leave album, track, artist information but strip the rest (the info text for the track that gives a shout out to 133t w@r3z is likely a good indication that its not yours, lame encoder tags likewise)
re-encode (can be horrible for sound quality, but we're talking MP3 and not FLAC or LACC) using your profile, then use any number of tools to repopulate meta-data and track cover.

If your really paranoid enough to ask though I would suggest option 1 and even with that the RIAA might come sniffing, they take that stance that any ripped tracks = intent....

Re:Goldfingerer

[Anonymous Coward]

It went more like this in my head (which is probably not far from the truth):

Pirate: Do you expect me to delete?

RIAA: No, Mr Bond, I expect you to pay!

Re:Goldfingerer

[Anonymous Coward]

Only 60 GB?

OMQZ!!! Pheerz the b00gy manz

[geekoid]

They can't 'get' you, it's all a fear tactic. Especially for titles you have on CD.
Don't distribute them. There, you are fine.

Re:OMQZ!!! Pheerz the b00gy manz

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't distribute them. There, you are fine.

Sure.

1. You uploaded them to "the cloud" (an online music distribution service)
2. Subpoena "the cloud" (Google, Amazon, et. al.)
3. List of downloads to various IP addresses.
3b. Ensure that legal precedent has been set that IP addresses do not identify a human being at a computer. Should be plenty of piracy / kiddie porn lawsuits to choose from.
4. Now that we've proven that the IP address does not positively identify YOU (but at best a device) you have clearly not performed due diligence in ensuring that your uploads were not distributed to unlicensed listeners.

Should this fly? No. Would it? Probably. Even if it doesn't the defense would financially cripple most households. Heck, all it takes is a legal redefinition of the word "Distribute" and poof, you're done.

OP is crying too hard

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, rip your own CDs. It's dead easy with a program like EAC. You can do several disks in 30 minutes, just spread it out over a few weeks.

And as others have said, if you save it to a lossless format you'll never have to re-rip again.

I read OPs question as "I'm lazy and I'm a pirate, waaaaaaaaaaaaah" because that's what he said.

You're an idiot.

[Anonymous Coward]

Fucking moron. You make me sick.

Just delete all your files and pay to download them from apple like the good little consumer sheep you are.

Fucking moron. Someone report him to the riaa. Put the assholes to some real use.

Find your licenses

[Anonymous Coward]

Technically, the legality or not of every track you have a copy of isn't whether you copied it, but whether you copied it without permission. For files you "legally" downloaded, you were given a license to make that copy. Same for CDs. (Maybe; you may want to ask someone who knows more about this than I.)

So, just match your licenses up to your songs. I'm sure you can write some shell scripts to work on filename-matching most of them, then sort out the exceptions manually, and when you're matched all your licenses to songs, any songs left over are the ones you should ditch or - if you like them - just go buy the single-copy-making licenses for.

Good luck!

ID3 90% Solution

[pavon]

Get an ID3 editor that can do batch listing of tags. Look at the encoder used to generate the file. If it isn't the one you used, and you don't remember where you got the file from, then you probably downloaded it.

Re:ID3 90% Solution

[hesaigo999ca]

Problem is most files can be modified to say whatever you want it too.....so i could say that all my files in my mp3 library will be rewritten with ID3 tags saying roxio copied it legitimately and now i have a full library that is legal because the meta tags are editable.

Weird pardigm shift going on

[FeatherBoa]

To me, it seems that this iCloud class of stuff has triggered an interesting paradigm shift.

From a downloader's perspective, who's to say you are not recording from radio, ripping from vinyl, ripping from a full-price, flea-market, or borrowed CD, cassette tape, or (infingingly) singing the tune into your audio recorder. All of these things should be transferable to iCloud with the infringing or non-infringing status of the actual recording unchanged. As others have pointed out, the music cloud thing does not launder the legal status in any way. It just format shifts.

In most of the world simply copying music for your own use is not being attacked by the recording industry. In Canada own-use copying from any source is expressly permitted by section 80 of the Copyright Act 2005. The RIAA has never gone after downloaders, only sharers. The whole "making available" theory of facilitating infringement is designed around nabbing folks that give away music, according to the RIAA, improperly. They do not sue those that merely download and do not "make available."

This iCloud thing does not translate into anyone other than the cloud operator potentially treading the dangerous "making available" ground. So what is going on that makes people think that the music cloud is going to change the playing field and expose users of music, as opposed to sharers of music to some new kind of legal nightmare that didn't exist before? If there are rumours of new kinds of liability, who's starting them?

fear-mongering

[jlutes]

Congratulations - you are a shining example of how well the paranoia-generating fear-mongering of the RIAA is working. Contrary to what the RIAA wants you to believe, you are innocent until proven guilty. If you can't figure out what is legit and what is not then how the hell do you expect them to?

Crowd Source It

[Anonymous Coward]

Why don't you post all of your music online, and ask people on the internet to do it for you. They could compare your files to the ones they downloaded.

Does an app exist that slightly adjusts each file?

[aarongadberry]

Does an app exist that will slightly adjust your files so as to change hashes, etc? Bulk processing? Seems like it would be a pretty easy way to launder your collection.

look at id3 data -- itunes puts stuff there

[Anonymous Coward]

look at id3 data -- itunes puts stuff there, probably someone's apple account id. use a perl script to convert to wav, extract id3 info, remove relevant part, reconvert to mp3 with new id3 data.

Strip and replace your ID3 tags

[CPE1704TKS]

Most illegal mp3s have comments in the ID3 tags. Write a program that goes through and strips all the ID3 tags and replace then with your own. This will also do the trick of modify any MD5 checksums. After that it would be hard to prove anything, unless they isolated the audio data and used that specifically to try to detect exact matches. But then it would be hard to prove anything from that.

Estimate and pay?

[Tomahawk]

I wonder if the RIAA would allow you to estimate just how much pirated music you own, and send them a cheque (check, for you US guys) for a nomimal amount per track, thus legitimising all of your music.

Kinda like the tax system, I suppose - you send them what you owe on a yearly basis. Could the RIAA operation like that - download as much as you like, and then send them a cheque at the end of the year for the amount you owe?

Re:Estimate and pay?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep. It's called iCloud, costs $29.95 and Steve Jobs will be the "tax" collector. :)

How could that even be *possible*?

[Cajun Hell]

There isn't any way to look at a file and know whether you encoded it or someone else encoded it, unless you had the foresight when you encoded it, to somehow indicate so.

And more importantly, there isn't any way to look at a file and determine whether or not it was transmitted to you with the authorization of the copyright holder, or without that authorization. That's impossible. If that were even remotely possible, then someone would have invented a non-user-hostile DRM system by now.

The thing you want can't be done. Anyone who offers you a technical solution will be attempting to defraud you.

If you go by what the MAFIAA advocates through their DRM values, the best approach is "assume the worst." Just as DRM always assumes that anything that might be used or could be used for infringement, must be prohibited by default, any file of yours which might or could be the product of infringement should be deleted by default. If you don't remember where you got it, delete it.

If that's not an acceptable approach to you (i.e. too much collateral damage), then it sounds like you are not at peace with MAFIAA thinking. In which case, I advise you to stop worrying. Just accept that you might have some pirated files, and do your best going forward in accordance with your own ethics. Nobody really gives a fuck that you pirated some song 10 years ago.

"Copying is Stealing" --RIAA Goons

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget that the RIAA thinks your privately ripped digital music collection is theft. According to them, "Which mp3s are legal?" isn't the question. Instead, it is "Which of your mp3s aren't illegal?". (Legal = paid licensing fee to RIAA, for each copy)

There is no such thing as Fair Use or First Sale Rights in the RIAA's opinion.

Guilty until proven innocent.

lol

[Anonymous Coward]

you'll never be able to pay me to sift through 400,000 tracks for a few illegals. I'll just take the approach America does, unless they do something wrong, I'm not looking.

I have been receiving promo discs since the 90's, There is no way to pull info from my tracks that I didn't tag, all my discs were hand typed tags, and anything from any other source was re-tagged the exact same way. If the RIAA wants to go through my 20k on google music, let em, they can't sift my collection for "pirated" in the tags or filename, no way, the tracking on an mp3 that has be trans-coded is nearly impossible.

They expect you to PAY UP!

[GlennC]

does the RIAA seriously expect me to sift through 60 GB of music, remember which are pirated, and delete them by hand

Of course they don't expect you to sift and delete. They expect you to PAY UP!

Let's see....60 GB of music rounds to a fee of about $1.5 million, give or take. Of course, this is according to the RIAA, so your millage may vary. Just think of the poor starving record executives!

Route Around the Cloud

[carrier lost]

Install this:

http://edna.sourceforge.net/

Open up a port on your router, say 9040 or something

Set edna to use port 9040

Use ssh (or putty if you must ) on your laptop (or mobile device) to forward port 9040 to wherever you are.

Enjoy your music.

Re:Route Around the Cloud

[carrier lost]

Should have been - Install this: On your home (music) computer

http://edna.sourceforge.net/ [sourceforge.net]

Easy

[rjforster]

If they are oggs then they are from my CDs. If they are mp3s then I'm still partway through the evaluation phase of 'try before I buy'.

Select MP3 Folder, Press Delete

[Anonymous Coward]

Delete your MP3 folder. Done.

how would that even work exactly?

[Anonymous Coward]

How can Apple's service be a "honeypot"? What if I bought the CD and ripped it with iTunes? What if I then lent the CD to my sister at college and it got broken at a party? Do I have to delete it? Am I not supposed to listen to it while she's at her dorm?

Bad Idea!

[Anonymous Coward]

You download and execute a program designed to check for illegal content on your hard disk.

You shouldn't be surprised when this program phones home and sends the results of it's scan to a potentially unfriendly 3rd party!

Re:Bad Idea!

[Anonymous Coward]

Heh. Run it in a sandbox, block and capture all outbound packets, find out where they were going to be sent, and add that organization's IP address space(s) to your blacklist or HOSTS file if it's not there already. Then you'll know what a "detection of illegal content" program identifies as being illegal and can delete it if you want to, and you'll also know the content and destination of any "report" it makes, assuming a program like that can be easily obtained in the first place.

only 60.. must be nice..

[Wingfat]

I was looking at my 2TB drive wondering where to start with that mess, let alone my 1TB with just Live Dead and Phish shows.. and decided that I can stream my OWN music via Shout Cast and not have to deal with lame Clouds. I'm going to make an Anti-Cloud based server.. it'll be called GroundedTube. You upload your files you want to be deleted and we will delete them for you. ;-0 oh wait they already did that. next idea, Carrier Pigeon well tie your flash drive to a Pigeon and fly him to your work so you can have your music there.. oh wouldn't just be cheaper and easier for me to just carry my own flash drive, oh yeah duh. come on people now.. it is 2011 already.. I have had a car stereo that plays MP3s since 1999.

you're screwed

[curado]

If you don't have a receipt saying you own it, I think you're screwed as far as the RIAA is concerned. If they come after clouds you better have a way to prove it rightfully belongs there. I wouldn't touch cloud music storage, period.

It doesn't matter.

[Urza9814]

It really doesn't matter. The only damages the RIAA can reasonably claim for you having pirated music is around $1/song. It's UPLOADING that music that they care about, because then they can pretend that your upload is providing that song illegally to 20,000 people and therefore claim that that single song is worth $20,000 in damages.

They RIAA has NEVER sued ANYONE for merely possessing pirated music. I don't think they've ever sued anyone for downloading music either. It's all about what you upload. If you aren't uploading anything, you should be fine.

Re:It doesn't matter.

[Alsee]

The only damages the RIAA can reasonably claim for you having pirated music is around $1/song.

No. In the US (and most other countries) the law says they can sue you for "actual damages" or for "statutory damages". In the US that is going to mean $750 to $150,000 per file. He has 60 gigs, and says maybe 10% could be infringing. That works out to around a thousand files. That means statutory damages can range from a minimum three-quarters of a million dollars, up to $150 million.

All without needing to demonstrate one cent of actual damages.

-

Re:It doesn't matter.

[Anonymous Coward]

Honestly, if the RIAA decided to sue me for my failure to amputate my right foot with a rusty spoon (and post a YouTube video about it), they would eiher get a settlement or litigate me into bankruptcy. It doesn't matter at all if you break the law. They are above the law and can make your life hell if they want to. Anyone with sufficiently greater resources than you can do that.

Re:It doesn't matter.

[cpt kangarooski]

In the US that is going to mean $750 to $150,000 per file.

No, not per file. Statutory damages are calculated per work, rather than per copy. One million copies of the same work would still only count once for the purpose of calculating statutory damages, but one copy each of two different works would count twice. Also, all the parts of a compilation or derivative work only count as one work, so if you copied an entire album, that only counts once no matter how many individual songs are in it.

So it's a little bit better than you think, but it's still an awful lot, it's true.

Re:It doesn't matter.

[Anonymous Coward]

It really doesn't matter. The only damages the RIAA can reasonably claim for you having pirated music is around $1/song. It's UPLOADING that music that they care about, because then they can pretend that your upload is providing that song illegally to 20,000 people and therefore claim that that single song is worth $20,000 in damages.

They RIAA has NEVER sued ANYONE for merely possessing pirated music. I don't think they've ever sued anyone for downloading music either. It's all about what you upload. If you aren't uploading anything, you should be fine.

When I was a young child, I was doing something which could have caused me injury. A woman I knew told me I should not do this, because I could get hurt doing it. I replied that I did it all the time and never got hurt doing it.

This wise woman's reply is something I have never forgotten. She said:

"There's a first time for everything."
--
codk

Re:It doesn't matter.

[Phrogman]

Yes, first off "reasonably" does not apply to the music industry. They have money and lawyers and they can get the results they want in most cases. Fair, reasonable, legal have nothing to do with it. If he had a thousand infringing files, a judgement in the range of $250,000+ is far more likely than $1000, but only in instances where he has uploaded those files and the MAFIAA can convince a judge that multiple individuals downloaded those files.

The onus should be on the MAFIAA to *prove* that each file was downloaded by each individual, but the reality is they merely have to prove it was possible - then seemingly they can claim whatever damage figures they want and the judge will accept it. By their reasoning the total loss to their industry due to music piracy exceeds the GNP of the USA.

I have a much simpler solution: I don't buy music, I don't download music and I don't listen to music. Fuck em.

Re:It doesn't matter.

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that step 1 is UPLOAD them to the cloud.

Re:It doesn't matter.

[Flammon]

If you downloaded a song using BitTorrent, then you have uploaded at least part of it. Does that count?

Re:It doesn't matter.

[oDDmON oUT]

"If you aren't uploading anything, you should be fine."

At least until their lobbyists manage to twist enough congressional arms to say otherwise.

Re:It doesn't matter.

[Alsee]

One million copies of the same work would still only count once

Yeah, I was casually assuming each file represented a different song. Writing "per song" would have been more accurate.

Also, all the parts of a compilation or derivative work only count as one work, so if you copied an entire album, that only counts once no matter how many individual songs are in it.

The fact that there's an "album" copyright overlapping each of the individual song copyrights creates some interesting legal ambiguities. However as far as I'm aware the RIAA has been pressing cases based on individual song copyrights, and I believe the courts have been dealing with P2P cases on that basis.

If someone were to download a torrent of an album I have little doubt the RIAA would assert the dozen or so individual song copyrights. It would be interesting to see the defendant counterclaim he was downloading the album and that the individual song claims were redundant claim inflation.

If that did work, it would be interesting to see if the one-infringement counterclaim would fly when someone individually downloaded each song from an album from P2P, where P2P is effective treating each song as a separate work.

And if that does work, then there's the question of someone who specifically downloads two or three songs that happen to appear one the same album. Could he claim he merely partially infringed a single work? If not then you have the nonsensical case that downloading *all* the songs from an album could result in lower damages than downloading just some of the songs.

And then there's the fact that the same song is often released on different albums. Could the RIAA claim three songs infringe the copyrights on three different albums, while the defendant points to a different album that happens to contain those three songs? Given the large number of songs that have been released in different combinations on multiple albums, it becomes a mathematical nightmare. One side could cherry-pick albums to minimize the songs-on-an-album-overlap and maximize the number of album infringements claimed, while the other side could cherry pick a different set of albums to maximize the songs-on-album-overlap to minimize the number of albums infringed. There would be an exponentially large number of ways to group the songs onto cherry-picked albums. It could become an effectively unsolvable math problem just trying to determine the minimum and maximum counts would be for "number of albums infringed" if you're free to arbitrarily group songs onto cherry picked albums like that.

Are you aware of any P2P cases specifically dealing with the issue of grouping multiple song files into a single-album infringement?

-

Re:It doesn't matter.

[Alsee]

The onus should be on the MAFIAA to...

Note that how things should be is a completely different subject from what current law actually does say. Unfortunately those two subjects tend to bear little resemblance to each other when it comes to copyright law.

If he had a thousand infringing files, a judgement in the range of $250,000+ is far more likely than $1000, but only in instances where he has uploaded those files and the MAFIAA can convince a judge that multiple individuals downloaded those files.

Incorrect. As I said the law specifically allows the RIAA to completely bypass the issue of actual damages, and instead claim statutory damages. Statutory damages are dollar amounts written directly into law. I'm going to gloss over some minor details, but for the situation we are discussing the law says the statutory damage award must be a minimum of $750 and a maximum of $150,000 for each copyrighted work infringed.

If a case involves 1000 infringing files, the law does not permit a $1000 award. If 1,000 separate copyrights were infringed then the law mandates a minimum three-quarters of a million dollars damage award.

Again, I'm not talking about "should" here. I'm not arguing this is reasonable, that it's fair, that it's just, I'm not even claiming it's sane. I am stating that it is true. This is what is written in US law.

In fact it's even worse that that. We haven't even mentioned criminal law. Copyright industry lawyers have literally been writing the text of copyright legislation for decades, and then clueless legislators pass it as written. And of course being employed by the copyright industry, that law is written to be as biased as possible in favor of industry interests. And being lawyers, they of course are skilled at slipping in innocent-looking legal language to twist the law in obscene ways. In 1998 congress passed the NET act which contained a clause redefining the term "financial gain". They redefined "financial gain" to apply even when there is no money involved, and they redefined it such that it covers essentially all P2P infringement. This swept virtually all P2P infringement under the criminal infringement statutes. Criminal statutes that were originally intended to target major commercial manufacturing infringement operations. Almost everyone who has ever touched P2P is technically guilty of a felony, and subject to up to one or more years in federal prison. This criminal law is virtually never enforced, but the fact that people haven't been arrested and convicted for it does not alter the fact tens of millions of people technically are guilty of this felony, and could be arrested and imprisoned for it. Just a handful of P2P ordinary transfers is sufficient to qualify you for criminal "financial gain" copyright infringement.

Again, I'm not arguing this is how things should be. I'm stating this is what is currently written in US law.

-

Re:It doesn't matter.

[cpt kangarooski]

However as far as I'm aware the RIAA has been pressing cases based on individual song copyrights, and I believe the courts have been dealing with P2P cases on that basis.

RIAA generally has their choice of songs in the cases. I believe they've been just picking out a relative handful (a couple of dozen, perhaps, out of thousands off of a defendant's computer), probably where they themselves own all of the rights, so that they can leave the artists out of it. By not selecting multiple songs from a single compilation, they can sidestep the entire problem.

And then there's the fact that the same song is often released on different albums.

Ah, now that's interesting. It turns out that the recent Arista v. Limewire case has approached this issue more closely than most courts, although there are still questions left to be answered. Here's the example that the court provided for how to calculate damages when dealing with works that are published both individually and as a part of a compilation:

For albums that contain sound recordings that are available only as part of the album, and
sound recordings that are also available as individual tracks, the Court provides the following
example for purposes of illustration. Let us assume that Plaintiffs issued (1) an album containing
songs A, B, C, and D, and that Plaintiffs also made available (2) songs A and B as individual
tracks, but (3) made available songs C and D only as part of the album as a whole. Let us also
assume that songs A, B, C, and D were infringed on the LimeWire system during that time
period. Plaintiffs would be able to recover three statutory damage awards: one award for song A,
one award for song B, and one award for the compilation (of which C and D are a part).

So that at least answers the issue of singles v. albums (one award for the album as a whole, and one award for each song on the album that was also published as a single, if the infringer also copied that particular song). So in light of this, I must retreat from my earlier post; while it is possible for the compilation rule for calculating statutory damages to decrease the amount of damages, in practice, in this era of everything being available as a single on iTunes, it likely either has no effect or only serves to increase the amount of damages.

The court appears not to have considered the issue of multiple compilations, e.g. if song A from the example above not only appeared on album A-B-C-D but was also on the album 'Best of Plaintiff,' would there be four statutory damage awards in total, since A was in two compilations?

That particular judge did not at all care for the RIAA asking for trillions of dollars in damages (on the basis of damages per infringement, rather than per work), so I would hope that if he thought it through he'd introduce some limit on the compilation rule, though I don't really see any support for it in the statute after the opinion we already got, other than the general rule that statutory damage awards shouldn't be absurd. I guess we'll have to wait for the next court to screw things up. In the meantime, perhaps we can expect RIAA to start issuing numerous compilation albums just to enlarge the number of times they can ask for damages for a single song, for no real cost to themselves.

Anyone else hear anything about this general issue?

Re:It doesn't matter.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's because it's legal to download whatever you want because it's not the downloaders job to ensure the uploader has a license to upload. I mean do you ask iTunes to provide you with a signed copyright agreement for every songyou download? Or even further if iTunes screwed up and offered music it wasn't legally allowed to sell do you think you could really be held liable?

Re:It doesn't matter.

[Anonymous Coward]

HE IS UPLOADING!?! that is OP's concern. he doesn't want to UPLOAD them to his external storage site.

Sanatize your collection...

[TavisJohn]

using MP3TAG: http://www.mp3tag.de/en/

Remove all comments and other "red flags" from your ID3 tags. Clean up the artist, album and track info.

Make them all fairly uniform in ID3 info.

That's easy

[Anonymous Coward]

rm -rf ~/Music/*

On-Line Scan Tool

[Anonymous Coward]

There's an easy to use tool on the website of the US Copyright Collective Group LLC, it will also scan any connected mp3 players and DNLA streaming servers, and you can, depending on the results, get a clean bill of health (5% chance), print a settlement letter yourself as well as an invoice (90% chance) or a warrant for your own arrest (5% chance, just hand it over to the officer).

lame -V0 -vbr

[Bob9113]

"I wanted to find a tool to scan my music to identify files that may be flagged as having been pirated by these cloud services"

Interesting thought -- I rip all my music from original CDs for exactly this reason; to ensure that I am totally compliant in case my tinfoil hat is not just a rakish bit of haberdashery. However, I use the same library as lots of other people, and the same settings. Seems almost certain my rips will be identical to other people's -- assuming Lame is deterministic. I wonder if that means my tracks would get flagged? (not that I'll upload them -- I run a personal cloud)

why would you be stupid enough to use iCloud?

[Dan667]

any of these services where you upload your own music is a red flag. Get slingbox and do it yourself if you want access to your music through the internet.

Re:why would you be stupid enough to use iCloud?

[Snospar]

Totally agree. Look at the people being prosecuted by the RIAA and others, the crime is not downloading music it's uploading and sharing. As soon as you start uploading music into "The Cloud" then you are painting a target on your own back.

Not an issue I would think, only distribution.

[Anonymous Coward]

The Riaa has only gone after people distributing the data, not people that had the data on their possession. In a court case the burden on proof on something that you own would fall to the RIAA and they would need to prove you did not access it legally. AFIAK all the people they have gone after they have logs with IP addresses that people where SHARING the music, not Downloading it.

Example I used to rip alot of music from internet music services, something that is legal to do under fair use. The Lic fee was paid by the already approved service by the RIAA. All I was doing was recording something that was "broadcasted" to me, which I am 100% allowed to do.

  I would love for the riaa to prove that any music I have is illegally downloaded.

Not for you

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe "the cloud" isn't for you? I'd be willing to bet that you could carry 60 gigs on your person quite comfortably.

Invasion of privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

Wouldn't it be illegal for the RIAA without direct cause to sift through all the music stored on Apple/Google? They would have to have some direct evidence to allow them to validate the legality of the files/music. It would be different if you were sharing it (aka distributing it), but just hosting it for yourself should not be enough cause for the RIAA or other entities to access it in any way.

I'm not a lawyer, but I would battle that stand point for as long as I could. It's the equivalent of the police searching your house for drugs or stolen goods just because they happen to be on your street. They can't do that, they need cause.

Only distribution is illegal, and proveable

[Foo2rama]

The Riaa has only gone after people distributing the data, not people that had the data on their possession. In a court case the burden on proof on something that you own would fall to the RIAA and they would need to prove you did not access it legally. AFIAK all the people they have gone after they have logs with IP addresses that people where SHARING the music, not Downloading it.


Example I used to rip alot of music from internet music services, something that is legal to do under fair use. The Lic fee was paid by the already approved service by the RIAA. All I was doing was recording something that was "broadcasted" to me, which I am 100% allowed to do.


I would love for the riaa to prove that any music I have is illegally downloaded.

Key difference

[Anonymous Coward]

I get the joke, but I feel I need to review the key difference between flac/shn (lossless compression) and mp3/ogg/m4a/wma (lossy compression) because so many people just don't get it. It has nothing to do with sound quality (did that get your attention?), so the tired old audiophile bashing does not apply here.

The key difference is that with lossless compression, you have a genuine archive of the original, forever from that point on. The stream of audio pulled from a flac file is bit-for-bit identical to what came off the original cd (as close as technically possible given the condition of the disc and the quality of the drive). This is why people keep their master archive in flac format, and simply re-encode to mp3/ogg/m4a/wma as needed. The archive remains in safe-keeping, forever. Sure, you can play your collection straight off the flac archive (as I do), but you aren't limited to flac.

In contrast, a lossy copy is not an archive at all, because it is not bit-for-bit identical to the original disc. It may sound perfect to you, but that's besides the point, because ultimately it can never be the same thing as a legitimate archive. The original lossy encoding when you "ripped" the cd to mp3 was also the last lossy encoding you will ever be able to do. You are stuck from this point on, because with each successive re-encoding, the encoding logic necessarily has to throw away data (that's the entire point of lossy compression).

Make slight mods to your existing mp3s

[HycoWhit]

Wouldn't you be better off with a little program that went through each of your mp3's and flipped a bit or two? If the RIAA is using MD5's/some type of hash to identify pirated tracks, just make sure none of your files will match the hash....

Why bother?

[Anonymous Coward]

What's the difference from something you ripped or something you downloaded? The check sum? Does the RIAA keep such identifying info on all the pirated music out there?

In my experience if you have been going along and had no problems, then the only thing "doing it right" gets you is problems, you know... no good deed goes unpunished.

Basically, fuck the RIAA and the MPAA, all those greedy men clinging to their failed business model reminiscing about how they had full control of the artist, their music, and their distribution, well at least until the Internet came along.
Guess what, that's over no matter how many laws your dead soul lobbyist and lawyers create for you at the expense of innovation, freedom of access and knowledge.

Once again RIAA/MPAA, from the bottom of my heart...fuck you.

How Do I Scrub Pirated Music From My Collection?

[Veggiesama]

Pirates don't scrub music. They scrub poop decks. Yar.

Too late for you, but...

[Beorytis]

You should have organized them into folders:

• purchased - downloaded from Amazon, etc.
• CDs - Ripped from your own CDs.
• free - From sources that offer free mp3s, e.g. record label promos, artists on Bandcamp, etc.
• pirated - Obtained illegally.

Re:Too late for you, but...

[Smigh]

You should have organized them into folders:

• purchased - downloaded from Amazon, etc.
• CDs - Ripped from your own CDs.
• free - From sources that offer free mp3s, e.g. record label promos, artists on Bandcamp, etc.
• pirated - Obtained illegally.

Just remember to change the folder name from "pirated" to "thoughtful gifts from online 'friends'"

Re:Too late for you, but...

[ZombieBraintrust]

You don't really have a folder on your hard drive labled "pirated" do you? That sounds like a good way to go to prison.

Or

[Mateo_LeFou]

Ditch the RIAA for real by going to ccmixter, jamendo, or any number of other sites and build up a collection of music that you can listen to without glancing over your shoulder every few seconds.

MP3Tag

[Anonymous Coward]

Use MP3Tag to edit the ID3 tags of the pirated files. In many of the RIAA court cases they've shown how the ID3 tags matched the tags of their honeypot files. Simply clear out all of the tag fields your don't care about to empty data (publisher, composer, comment, genre etc.) Next run a batch on the files to auto rename them to something logical, like artist-tracknumber-title.

You should write a blog.

[elucido]

Your imagination is scary enough to inspire people to write software tools to protect against that scenario.

Try Subsonic

[psyclone]

Or, try the wonderful subsonic music streamer instead!

It's a great piece of software (server-side) with a sweet android client (all GPLv3). Also has many other clients (iOS, flex, windows7, etc).

Re:Try Subsonic

[carrier lost]

That probably is much better - I don't have a "mobile device" so I have no experience streaming MP3s to one. I just assumed you should be able to get a terminal session on your device so you could forward a port.

I mean, what's the point of having a mobile device if you can't get to a command line with it?

Re:Try Subsonic

[psyclone]

I use local and remote command line on my android phone. But when you're out on a run and wish to quickly find that rockin' beat, subsonic is the best option. The lucene index is fast for searching, and the streaming + caching is sweet. Also, full bluetooth controls are invaluable during exercise.

Re:Try Subsonic

[carrier lost]

If I ever find myself in the possession of a "mobile device" I will look into Subsonic. Thanks for the recommendation!

Break the hashing

[Larry_Dillon]

If (and it's a big if) they try to search for infringing tracks, they will probably either look for exact matches or do some kind of hashing (MD5/SHA, etc.) to create a database of infringing tracks. If you just flip a couple of bits at the end of each track, it will foil the above two methods.

They may try to create a database of legit (Itunes, amazon, etc) tracks, but that would yield false positives for tracks you legally ripped at home.

There's also the huge problem with the situation where you ripped a CD at home with the same ripper (exact same settings) that someone used to upload tracks as they would be likely be identical.

This ignores sticky situations like when I had a CD with two tracks that skipped and downloaded the two offending tracks.

Music from Russia??

[Anonymous Coward]

What about music downloaded from Russia?? Does this count as "pirated'?

Question is academic

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Google doesn't want to be sued. They're just providing themselves some deniability.
          They have lawyers to make it stick.
          You, on the other hand do not.
          There has never been shown to exist a correlation between the probability
                    of a given individual having pirated music and that individual being sued.
          The suit will never make it to court; you will settle first because it's cheaper and you don't have Google's lawyers.
2. The offence is not pirating the music. The offence is distributing it.
          Even if you could PROVE all your music was legit, it wouldn't help you.
3.
4. Profit.

YOU DON'T!

[Anonymous Coward]

You keep on pirating everything and anything until we legalize it!

Join your local Pirate Party!!

Damn, what happened to freedom spirit?

Need MOD points for that.

[gr8_phk]

You should be modded up for that.

But why does the criminal part say "commenced within 5 years after the cause of action arose." and the civil one says "commenced within three years after the claim accrued."? What is this distinction?

Not Possible, here's why:

[meerling]

There's no such thing as a pirate flag in those files.

Now you can search for anything that doesn't have the full metadata or tags, but that still doesn't say what it's source is, but at least they index better.
You can search for ones with non-conformist metadata like "rIppED bY BoZo" or other weird stuff.
But no matter what you choose to do, it's going to be on your decisions since the computer has no way of telling which of these you legally own.

Now some people have mentioned audio watermarks. Those are only going to exist if someone added them to the music. Those are almost never going to come from ones ripped by pirates, but rather might come from those downloaded from commercial sites like itunes. (I have no idea if itunes watermarks their audio, but it's just an example.)

I know of no way to tell.

[Cito]

I have a 250 gig external usb hard drive that is my "cloud" hehe. It's got about 112 gigs of mp3's on it aquired of the years from demonoid mainly, while early albums aquired from newsgroups. I stopped downloading single songs and download entire discographies which is why the 112 gigs of music at the moment. Then I just pick and choose a playlist and upload it to my ipod touch. Apple and Itunes can't tell the difference between a legal and illegal mp3, itunes sees my collection just fine. I've also uploaded about 5 gigs of the mp3's to amazon's cloud, so don't worry about it.

riaa should develop a tool

[Anonymous Coward]

please contact them
http://www.riaa.com/aboutus.php?content_selector=about-who-we-are-riaa

You are already a criminal.

[VIPERsssss]

Now be a good citizen and turn yourself in.

Don't use it, even if all of your mp3s are legal

[rgviza]

DON'T USE THE CLOUD

There I said it.

You are asking for it if you do.

The RIAA could make the argument that you are sharing your music with Google, which you are, and prosecute your ass. You don't own your data in the cloud. That makes it Google's once you upload it. Is it really worth the risk to use this service? Do not underestimate what the RIAA can/will do with this.

Here's a simple solution for you, OP:

[kheldan]

Don't use the service in the first place. It's going to be yet another waste of people's time and money that will go obsolete in a year or two, or get compromised by some hacker group that will rip everything including your credit card and other personal information, or just break the thing and it won't work for weeks or months while they fix it. Just keep your music on your PMP like you always have, like everyone else does, and be happy.

Are you kidding?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry, but a computer can't make moral judgments for you. When you buy a CD at a store there is no personal data embedded into the disc. There is no way a computer can tell who actually imported the retail CD. If you bought the music online, check your account for receipts. You are gonna have to scan the collection manually. Have fun!

Re:Are you kidding?

[RockDoctor]

When you buy a CD at a store there is no personal data embedded into the disc.

Yet.

Nope ... I can see it already. You take the sleeve to the counter (or however it works - it's that long since I went into a music-shop), hand over your credit card, they're getting the pre-printed disc out of the racks behind the counter, drop it into the "disc-checking station" ("to ensure that your disc hasn't been scratched in storage", despite CDs being immune to damages short of thermonuclear Armageddon - I read the reviews and believe them!) where a hash of your credit card details, store, date, time are burned into the lead-in area of the disc.

Hmm, the disc's directory might need a link part way through to make reading devices detour back to re-read the lead-in in full.

I stand by my "yet".

Not practical

[DarkOx]

I don't think there is any way you can definitively classify each MP3 file you have. If you bought any files on line like from Amazon unbox or wherever you can probably get a transaction history from those services, include those in text file.

Now go through all your physical CDs and look up the track listings online paste each of those into that same text file.

Finally with a little luck you were at least somewhat consistent in your naming or taging of the files you ripped, that make things easier. Use find to get all the MP3 files you have, write some regex patterns, that allow for different capitalization, spaces vs underscores, and any other issues you can quickly spot in the data for egrep and then some bash for loops and see what you can match. Manually inspect anything you can't match and removed as appropriate.

That is about the best you are going to be able to do it. It will take you many hours if you have lots of music. Whatever is left though you can probably make a pretty solid case you are entitled to a license for however, if you are ever forced to do so.

Easy fix

[Anonymous Coward]

Write up a script to make one tiny unnoticable change to every file... all files will have a new hash!

Re:Don't use it, even if all of your mp3s are lega

[Joe U]

I agree completely.

I think the best solution would be a home server that you can remotely access. Why give Google or Apple access to your items?

Your music and you

[Tiger_Storms]

If you downloaded any of them from the internet and you need to find out what, just look at the tags on it for comments. 90% of all the music my boss downloaded from the internet on his 2TB music drive had information in the comments field of the ID3 tags that said something like "ripped by such and such" or had a website in the comments. Other than that I'm sure it's next to impossible to tell if you got it from the internet or ripped it your self.

You can always degauss your audio cds

[bigtrike]

http://www.gcaudio.com/resources/howtos/demagnetization.html

Clean your mp3's

[Anonymous Coward]

Download Music Brainz or any other ID3 tagger, re-tag all your MP3 with clean ID3 and remove all the copy protection and noone will be the wiser.

My .02.

More than $20k

[Theaetetus]

It really doesn't matter. The only damages the RIAA can reasonably claim for you having pirated music is around $1/song. It's UPLOADING that music that they care about, because then they can pretend that your upload is providing that song illegally to 20,000 people and therefore claim that that single song is worth $20,000 in damages.

They RIAA has NEVER sued ANYONE for merely possessing pirated music. I don't think they've ever sued anyone for downloading music either. It's all about what you upload. If you aren't uploading anything, you should be fine.

You're absolutely correct that the RIAA has never sued mere downloaders or possessors, because how can you prove that someone downloaded it? Unless you're tapping the network at the ISP and deep-scanning all packets, the only way prior to seizing their hard drive to know that a person downloaded a song (which you have to be able to do to file the complaint) is to be the person who uploaded the song to them... And if you're an RIAA distributor, uploading songs so that you can nab anyone who downloads, well, they just downloaded legally since you're the owner and you put it up for free public distribution.

But, it's not just $20k in (claimed) damages... Since they're going after uploaders, they're going after distributors... and the distribution rights can be much, much more. For example, when Michael Jackson bought the distribution rights for the Beatles' discography, he paid about $115k per song. Similarly, Apple paid more in royalties that $20k for Rebecca Black's Friday. That's why the statutory damages for infringement are as high as they are: it's all about the distribution right, not the individual sale price.

Re:More than $20k

[Rojaad]

It really doesn't matter. The only damages the RIAA can reasonably claim for you having pirated music is around $1/song. It's UPLOADING that music that they care about, because then they can pretend that your upload is providing that song illegally to 20,000 people and therefore claim that that single song is worth $20,000 in damages.

They RIAA has NEVER sued ANYONE for merely possessing pirated music. I don't think they've ever sued anyone for downloading music either. It's all about what you upload. If you aren't uploading anything, you should be fine.

You're absolutely correct that the RIAA has never sued mere downloaders or possessors, because how can you prove that someone downloaded it? Unless you're tapping the network at the ISP and deep-scanning all packets, the only way prior to seizing their hard drive to know that a person downloaded a song (which you have to be able to do to file the complaint) is to be the person who uploaded the song to them... And if you're an RIAA distributor, uploading songs so that you can nab anyone who downloads, well, they just downloaded legally since you're the owner and you put it up for free public distribution.

But, it's not just $20k in (claimed) damages... Since they're going after uploaders, they're going after distributors... and the distribution rights can be much, much more. For example, when Michael Jackson bought the distribution rights for the Beatles' discography, he paid about $115k per song. Similarly, Apple paid more in royalties that $20k for Rebecca Black's Friday. That's why the statutory damages for infringement are as high as they are: it's all about the distribution right, not the individual sale price.

These guys are nothing but a disaster. http://www.betanews.com/article/Guilty-Duluth-Woman-Owes-222000-for-Pirating-Songs/1191536175

WHATEVER YOU DO...

[seandiggity]

...don't throw out (or even worse, give away!) your physical CDs, or those tracks you ripped will be considered illegal when the MAFIAA audits you! Better yet, dig up the original store receipts that correlate with the items!

You know these guys are a bunch of gangsters when people get this scared of them and are taken seriously.

only 30% or more are failing high school

[Anonymous Coward]

Well it seems we are finally here, been brain washed for so many years in a row, a full 30% or more of the kids not graduating high school are finally are so stupid in the end, as to keep pulling the lever for a pellet, yet never quite smart enough to question why they pull the lever, or what is in the pellet. They have been born into this system, and seem unable to break out.

If you are a goat blood drinking headbanger your going straight to hell, but if your a catholic I've heard an ancient ritual.

After tearing a black rat in half at a deserted crossroads at midnight and painting pirate with the blood on your forehead..
  look up at each band you have done wrong, and then go buy that song, album, video, t-shirt, or concert ticket, and get it signed when possible, this way you will be away from teh 60GB of data and so by being away, can more quickly not even go through it, after all it's only 60Gigs, why not mail it to the dhs fusion center before the viper teams and sheriff find you, christ you know their people are all made up of retired record company men.

your stupidity so thoroughly permeates your presence that the plausible deniability is attached to the soul and at some point you will be asked why you keep pulling the lever for another pellet, at which point all would be revealed, one would think

Seems like quite a few more humans have larger physical holes in their grey matter brains then our government are letting on about

Doesn't Google Music start with uploading?

[Anonymous Coward]

You might be the only one downloading what you uploaded, but you're still facilitating N unlicensed downloads where N is the number of times you stream the song from Google Music.

Narrow the field

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're on a Mac, iTunes will show the file's kind to be either "AAC file"(those are CD rips), "protected AAC" (iTunes older DRM format) or "purchased AAC" (iTunes' non-DRM tracks). Once you eliminate them (perhaps using a smart playlist) you will have a much smaller list to go through.

Beyond that, Amazon includes a comment in their tracks files (like "Amazon.com Song ID: 206744738") and so does Rhapsody (like "Date: 2009-01-04 21:09:15.0, Purchase transaction ID: xa.88231638, Store Name: Rhapsody MP3 Downloads") Once again, if you filter these files out, you should be left with your purchased mp3's from other companies or those that came from Napster

Hope this helps!

Official RIAA/MPAA solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Dir CmdrTaco, Hapless Bastard, and/or Anonymous Coward:

Please send us $5,000 immediately to ensure immunity from prosecution[*], write down the names of all the artists whose works you wish to receive, and we will sell you a license for those works allowing you to use them in any way you choose[**].

Sincerely,
RIAA and MPAA lawyers

[*] - Immunity from prosecution does not necessarily grant immunity from prosecution.

[**] - You may use the works in any way you choose, so long as it does not interfere with our current or future business models, and we can come back later for more money if we feel like it. Thanks!

Will iTunes even bother ripping anymore?

[perpenso]

Yes, that's certainly a productive use of someone's day. Taking all your CDs that have been ripped... and doing it again!

Will iTunes even bother ripping anymore? If *online* it may simply download the files from the store as it would do if synching.

ID3 tags

[shanec]

More than likely any "auditing" that may occur will be based solely on ID3 tags. Simply audit all of the ID3 tags (probably just the comments field) for anything that might be incriminating. (find . -name "*.mp3" -exec mp3info2 -p '%c: %F\n' {} \; | egrep "bad tags|more bad tags")

For that matter deleting everything in the comments fields would probably remove all possibility of incrimination. (find . -name "*.mp3" -exec mp3info2 -c "" {} \;)

Ask yourself if you like it enough...

[Anonymous Coward]

...to delete all your music and start over from scratch.
My answer is: "I guess not."
But then, the only thing I really require from a music solution is that it plays my mp3s. I don't care about anything else and I'm afraid I don't understand those who do no matter how hard I try. So if my answer isn't that useful, I apologise.

Nuke it from orbit

[Fastball]

It's the only way to be sure.

Telling the difference between mp3 vs...

[Rozzin]

Which is why I use 320Kbps VBR mp3. Not only is it proven multiple times to be not distinguishable from the CD in double-blind tests, it also saves a lot of space over FLAC and actually works in pretty much any audio player anywhere that plays anything more than just straight CDs. Compatibility is more important to me than a purely theoretical difference in sound quality.

I can tell the difference between mp3 vs. Ogg Vorbis or FLAC, regardless of bitrate: mp3's inability to indicate what data is actually audio vs. junk used to pad-out a frame leaves glitches between tracks --because there's no way for players to identify the padding as such, they just play it to completion of the frame. Ogg and FLAC don't have that problem.

Re:Telling the difference between mp3 vs...

[cloudmaster]

Ok, so if you split up one contiguous work into multiple tracks for some inexplicable reason, some junky encoders might make some noise that you can pick up. That seems mostly irrelevant in the common case, but I suppose is valid for some people in very specific situations. How to fix that?

  - Encode as a single track
  - Don't listen to music which requires gapless playback
  - Use lame to encode - like I do - which does gapless encoding by default.

That third (and clearly the best) option notes that lame has a --nogap option which, when given all the tracks at once, will shift the track boundaries by a few bits as necessary to put the audio delimiters precisely on frame boundaries and get rid of the glitches. It also adds tags to all tracks to indicate where the track actually ends (in the common case of non-contiguous tracks), rather than letting the player just guess at what that junk is. It even mentions that

LAME-encoded MP3 can be gapless with players that support the LAME Mp3 info tag.

on the wikipedia page linked.

So, with a decent player that knows about the lame tags, your glitches go away. Enjoy all the disk space I just saved you, and the freedom to play your music most anywhere. ;)

extortion

[uvajed_ekil]

Does such a tool exist or does the RIAA seriously expect me to sift through 60 GB of music, remember which are pirated, and delete them by hand?

No, they expect you to pay. Or delete your whole collection and start over, buying each song again at their very reasonable prices, of course. And I expect them to burn for all eternity, or perhaps be slowly eaten by particularly surly badgers.

When it is digital all the way...

[SuperKendall]

Analog to digital conversions inherently are going to miss some data.

That is true.

What is also true is that when you are ripping a CD there is no analog phase.

Remember that CD's are digital, they get played as analog - but when you are ripping you simply read the digital files and compress them.

So as the OP said, if your files come out different every time you are Doing It Wrong.

O(N) vs O(1) - or the Single Share Factor

[SuperKendall]

You no longer own the data you load into Google's cloud.
Google does.

Ok Mad Hatter....

So you have provably shared with ONE person (since a corporation is considered a person). That means you are liable possibly for triple damages from sharing ONE copy. So, $3 per song?

Come on, do you think anyone is going to sue over that? And again they would have to KNOW you uploaded it to Google, and why would Google tell them or let them see into the cloud? That would raise HUGE privacy liabilities for Google.

Wrong

[SuperKendall]

They could prove that a file was common on P2P networks and had sufficiant defects or other identifying marks that it was highly unlikely a random user would end up with an identical file from their own rip.

a) no matter how unlikely they cannot prove you did not rip it, especially if it matched again the "bit perfect" hash lists.

b) How do they know YOU were not the original ripper? You could easily claim that and also claim someone had stolen a system which was why they had other copies.

All these and a thousand more reasons are why it is stupid to sue someone who simply owns a pirated file and why it has never been done before. It's why the RIAA sets up SHARING honeypots where you download a file using Bittorrent and they have reasonable proof you are sharing with others as a result (by checking to see if your system is forwarding on data).

Too much time on your hands

[sjbe]

Rerip all your CDs, this time to FLAC, since disk is now cheap as hell.

Probably not a problem for unemployed teenagers still living with their parents who have nothing but time on their hands. The rest of us will get on with having having a life and doing non-pointless things with it.

Two PCs, one for the web the other not connected

[k6mfw]

I say use two different computers. One with all your "good stuff" and the other for internet use. That's what I do, although got ZoneAlarm but I had a PC that got so botched up, I nearly lost everything. So now I use two (also got Macs, one online the other not). Not that I have pirated music, don't really know if some of my few Connie Francis mp3s are pirated (virtually all my music is on CDs and vinyl). But with the mob mentality of various you-know-who organizations it seems pointless to debate the legal issues (they will continue to be as aggressive as those in Hackastan).

iTunes files tagged

[SuperKendall]

They do add your account info into the metadata for the downloaded file.

The audio data in the file is the same though.

Re:iTunes files tagged

[Bucky24]

Ah that makes sense. Thanks for clarifying.

it's out of your control, so you do as your told

[Anonymous Coward]

In a nutshell this is how it is. Some company has disk space which they are making available on the internet with security protections in place. They are telling you to put your music on there to listen to, but it can't be illegal. Since there's no digitally "legal" way to detect legality, you enter into an open-ended agreement. They can make their decisions later on what's legal & illegal.

This is 2011, there are things that hold 10's of gigabytes of information that fit in your pocket. I've yet to even think about using some "cloud" service since it's easy enough to synchronize everything I have onto a zillion different devices as needed. I have a central repository at home... on a Mac so let's not even bring in the "oh your just a geek, we're talking about the real world" mentality. My iPhone, iPad, Airplay devices (Apple TV, etc), along with NFS & SMB enabled devices have full access. My car? my iPhone taps into the stereo, and it's a MD device.

This whole cloud thing is just recycled internet services. What happens when all your trust is flushed down the toilet when it's been hit by lulzsec or just EOL'ed overnight. I've seen it happen.

Don't trust someone else to be as dilligent as yourself. It's a losing situation, at best.

Parent is trying to hide criminality

[Anonymous Coward]

If you bought more than 30% of it you're probably better than most.

Bull. Most people bought all their music.

Hmmmm....

[AliasMarlowe]

Or can we burn down a record company to make all their holdings public domain?

I am intrigued by your suggestion and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

Basic flaw in your argument

[Anonymous Coward]

"...search my own computer for pirated music and to delete it--something that the RIAA wants the government to force you to do.".
You are mistaken; RIAA wants you to give them money for your pirated music, NOT to delete it. If you would delete it, nobody else could download it from you and be forced to give them more money... That's how filesharing works, right?

Strange its the newer stuff in my collection

[Anonymous Coward]

Music from the last couple of years sounds like crap. Its the older stuff that is good. Perhaps it ages like wine. :-)

Oh, I forgot to add: Get off my lawn !

Nothing new will happen

[bgspence]

Genius in iTunes has been uploading a complete list of your library. If Apple was working with the RIAA you would have heard about it by now. Metadata sent to iCloud will have more info, but Apple wants to identify the same base tracks, aliased to different rips. They want to discard minor differences between your rip and my rip of the same track.

Apple's deals with the big music companies are good for us all. They want to collect a bit more money for music you use, not collect penalties in lawsuits. They want the music industry to move in a positive direction in this new era of music redundancy.

if this app existed ...

[shakotah]

The RIAA would have made congress to pass a law so it would be illegal to own any digital device w/o this running 24/7 and reporting to the RIAA

What an extraordinary question...

[biglig2]

No, the RIAA expect you to confess to your crimes and pay damages. What did you think they were going to do?

If you want to get 100% legal, it's simple enough. Figure out what content you can prove you have a license for; delete everything else.

The deeper problem is proving ownership...

[Paul Fernhout]

How can anyone prove they own anything digital these days, especially with lots of computers? Free software and content will win in the end, if only for that reason.

What the RIAA expects...

[rnturn]

"Does such a tool exist or does the RIAA seriously expect me to sift through 60 GB of music, remember which are pirated, and delete them by hand?"

No. The RIAA expects you to delete all 60GB of music and purchase new copies that have received their official blessing. That's the only way they can be sure your music collection is legal. (And they're the only ones who matter, after all.)

It's called delete, dumbass

[Nyder]

Seriously, that is a stupid question.

You got illegal shit your worried about? delete it.

You can't

[Evets]

You can't do it because ITunes leverages napster data.

I know this because I have some obscure tastes in music. I have a tape and a cd of an old band. I downloaded one of the songs that's only on the tape from napster. I was disappointed with the recording because of three glitches in the track. Years later, itunes pops up. I buy the song from itunes. Low and behold, same three glitches are in the itunes version.

This happened for not just one song, but two songs from two different artists in two different genres. One was a single glitch, which I would have dismissed as chance, but four glitches at the same timestamps from two different songs in two different genres?

Seriously?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think anybody is that thorough, even the Copy Cops. If you're that worried you could always launder your music..

It's pretty simple task.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's pretty simple task. You should use magical combination of Shift+Del keys.

Change the hash

[Anonymous Coward]

Its unlikely that they'll be checking metadata and encoding patterns - thats far too consuming both time wise and processor wise. Chances are they'll just be comparing hashes - a technique that many cloud services do already, to try and lower storage costs (if you're uploading the exact same thing as someone else, they can just keep one copy on the server). As such, if you were to write a small script to arbitrarily take a couple of milliseconds off all of the beginning or end of your tracks, that would change the hash and should be enough to throw off most algorithms.

!Piracy

[AP31R0N]

Piracy is ship to ship armed robbery, kidnapping and murder.

dude, it's been said

[Anonymous Coward]

many times, many ways: you sux

sifting through live shows

[KingRatMass]

I was looking at my 2TB drive wondering where to start with that mess, let alone my 1TB with just Live Dead and Phish shows..

Why would you need to worry about the Dead and Phish stuff? It's all legally tradeable unless you were dl'ing ripped Dick's Pick and stuff from Phish Dry Goods!

The way to verify the shows would be: checking that the show folders and files conform to Etree naming standards, the presence of the info text file and MD5 checksum file or searching the Etree database or Archive.org for that show source. To date, the only downloads that I have seen that don't meet those criteria are the Grateful Dead complete SBD download torrents by year. If it was a case of getting stuff that was ripped from someone's collection, you can do individual file comparisons against known sources to determine which source a show probably came from, track times are usually a giveaway since it's rare that different sources get cut at the same place...

The most efficient model for consistent music distribution has been the one used by Etree.org/Archive.org. Each live show source was transferred, encoded and seeded with the MD5's generated at the time of encoding, earliest shows were done in SHN and later it was shifted to FLAC. A new show source was considered the equivalent of a Gold Master Disc and it was entered in a database at Etree.org. All subsequent copies of the SHN's and FLAC's were expected to check against those MD5's and if they failed they were considered bad and discarded so that they wouldn't get seeded in the future. It didn't matter what transport method was used for transferring the files, all that counted was that the files were bit perfect copies of the originals.

For example, here is a show I transferred and seeded in 2000

If you were to obtain a copy of those SHN files today, and you verified the MD5's, you know you have an exact copy of the files as they were encoded A DECADE AGO. Now if I were to transfer the master cd's again and encode it, the MD5's would not match, no matter how paranoid an attempt at DAE was made (this was proven back then for all digital transfers INCLUDING DAT>WAV) If you looked across the different formats available, even after 10 years there are still only 4 unique variants in the wild in spite of the show being copied by more than 5000 people. Those 4 variants are only a single format conversion removed from the initial transfer in 2000.

But this was a system that was conceived to preserve the audit trail and file integrity. The issue of legality was not a problem since the bands have given permission to allow for taping and trading of their shows.

60GB

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, you only have 60GB of music??? Ha ha ha ha ha ha! I've lost more music than that.

Conspiracy to shut down web music

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple and the RIAA are part of the problem. As a radio broadcaster for almost 30 years, I've been increasingly giving airplay to unsigned internet novices ("netsicians"). All is perfectly legal because these artists are uploading their own music for free.

The web has become a watershed of musical creativity, but several forces are determined to take away this freedom many enjoy. Among the conspirators are record industry dinosaurs trying to reassert their power by using their sidekicks at ASCAP and RIAA. Others include Apple blowhards with their insignificant iTunes mafia, totalitarian governments trying to extend censorship beyond their own borders, and activist crackpots with ignorant "progressive" Western politicians who want to inject all art with their radical ideologies.

The above thugs are working together to control all music publishing, the same way record companies did 20 years ago. One goal is to limit to a select group who can make music; ultimately it's about controlling all the web's media and information flow. That may sound crazy, but read on.

Last summer, ACSCAP accused any artist who uploads their own music of violating their own copyright. RIAA is working on a scheme to demand upfront money from all web musicians, allegedly to protect usage of their music. This is a mob shakedown tactic designed to price out smaller independent netsicians who can't afford to pay for each one of their own songs.

I don't condone bootleg music, but billionaire record industry moguls like David Geffen are using false accusations of copyright infringement to harass innocent web music fans. Most of these companies are run by greedy hypocrites who rarely honor their own contracts with artists; just remember how many times big names like Michael Jackson had to sue for their royalties.

Phony concerns about bootleg music are being used to stop legal music uploads and sharing on the web. Creative Commons is the web's copyright protocol. In October 2010, Canada's government-run CBC banned all Creative Commons artists from receiving airplay on any Canadian radio station. New Zealand's parliament passed a law in May 2011 making it a crime for anyone "suspected" of downloading pirated music. Penalties include having internet access suspended for six months and a fine of $15,000.

When it comes to the iCult of Apple, these pathetic control freaks are a laughingstock among serious computer users and most of the world. It's product line is grossly inferior and virtually insignificant in numbers when compared to other companies, but Apple has armies of hacks paid to project it's false image. This outfit has been notorious for its restrictive operating system, goofy proprietary schemes and deliberate designed lack of compatibility with other platforms. Now Jobs wants to force all consumers and musicians to go through his iTunes so he can control music publishing. The RIAA scheme with iCloud is just another example of how underhanded and untrustworthy this company truly is.

Totalitarian rulers in China and unhinged fanatics in places like Tehran are using "cultural sensitivity" ploys as an excuse to extend their control of the web into free societies. Unbelievably, multicultural crackpots in several Western countries support this lunacy.

When it comes to America, one aspect of Obama's "fundamental transformation" has led to his government trying to regulate the web. In December 2010, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski unilaterally and illegally pushed through his version of net neutrality, even after it was rejected by the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives.

The freedom of net music is under assault from all sides. All of us who appreciate what the web offers must work together against this cabal: speak out and be known! One advantage may be that many of the jackboots trying to control all of the web's media and information flow don't have enough brains to plug a power chord into a wall socket.

Don't Fret, Pet

[Anonymous Coward]

Does this guy really think they are going to bust him for pirated music when they didn't bother to bust him (and everyone else) using Napster and other p2p services back in the day? The whole safety in numbers thing still applies dude.

how do i scrub pirated music from my collection

[Anonymous Coward]

I dont know how you will find the pirated tracks. With 60 gig collected how can you possibly listen to it all, which begs the question why did you amass so much in the first place?