Slashdot Mirror
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?"
Rerip all your CDs, this time to FLAC, since disk is now cheap as hell.
Get rid of all the old mp3s.
Scrap what you have and buy it all brand new. I'm sure that'll make everyone at the RIAA happy ;-)
From napster? A search for 128 kbit MP3 might be enough. Your legal ones are probably of higher quality.
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?
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
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?
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.
Morphing Software
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.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"...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.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
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.
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.