The P2P programs themselves do not show the IP addresses, but anyone can run netstat to see a list of open connections while a P2P transfer is taking place. If you are behind a proxy server, then you would not be vulnerable unless your college decided to cooperate.
In any event, there's nothing secret about IP addresses, just who some of them belong to.
Isn't it beside the point whether the RIAA has to file a John Doe suit first? They certainly have the legal resources to do so. And the intent: the current subpoenas will be followed by lawsuits, or so they claim. Seems to me their methodology of identifying infringers is plausible enough that most judges would grant the subpoena if asked. So what will be different?
I am uncomfortable with giving the RIAA the power of subpoena without judicial review, but so far, they have done nothing other than do what they said they would. Regardless of the procedure, I think it is inevitable that file sharing will continue, probably on yet to be developed networks that offer true anonymity. Which will trump the RIAA regardless of the outcome of the current legal spat.
The RIAA should stop pissing into the wind and figure out how to make money with new technology. In the meantime, technologists should stop pissing on the RIAA and get those new, anonymous networks up to speed.
Isn't it absurd that a company that hasn't done anything recently other than file lawsuits has a reasonable chance of prevailing in the courts? No, I'm not talking about SCO, who has little chance of winning. Lots of people remember the Beatles but who gives a damn about their former record label? Oh, yeah, the RIAA, I forgot. Funny how it all comes together sometimes.
Or maybe not so funny...
Well, actually the article does mention the name of the company, mi2g. However, their web site offers even less information about methodology than the posted article. They *do* offer to sell you a copy of the study for about 30 pounds. Hmmm....
How is one to know whether something is under copyright or not? I couldn't care less about the current offerings of the music industry, but I might be interested in an old recording of Robert Johnson blues or an old but outstanding recording of a Verdi opera. All the composers and performers are certainly dead. I think--but don't really know--that performances themselves are subject to copyright. Is that true? There must be *something* out there that the RIAA has no claim on, but how is one to know?
Slashdot Mirror
In any event, there's nothing secret about IP addresses, just who some of them belong to.
1. Do a search on some song that is under copyright.
2. When you get a list of users that are sharing that song, browse the directory of one of those users.
3. Check the IP address while you are browsing and take a screenshot.
It is hard to claim that this is illegal even though none of us like it.
Isn't it beside the point whether the RIAA has to file a John Doe suit first? They certainly have the legal resources to do so. And the intent: the current subpoenas will be followed by lawsuits, or so they claim. Seems to me their methodology of identifying infringers is plausible enough that most judges would grant the subpoena if asked. So what will be different? I am uncomfortable with giving the RIAA the power of subpoena without judicial review, but so far, they have done nothing other than do what they said they would. Regardless of the procedure, I think it is inevitable that file sharing will continue, probably on yet to be developed networks that offer true anonymity. Which will trump the RIAA regardless of the outcome of the current legal spat. The RIAA should stop pissing into the wind and figure out how to make money with new technology. In the meantime, technologists should stop pissing on the RIAA and get those new, anonymous networks up to speed.
Isn't it absurd that a company that hasn't done anything recently other than file lawsuits has a reasonable chance of prevailing in the courts? No, I'm not talking about SCO, who has little chance of winning. Lots of people remember the Beatles but who gives a damn about their former record label? Oh, yeah, the RIAA, I forgot. Funny how it all comes together sometimes. Or maybe not so funny...
Well, actually the article does mention the name of the company, mi2g. However, their web site offers even less information about methodology than the posted article. They *do* offer to sell you a copy of the study for about 30 pounds. Hmmm....
How is one to know whether something is under copyright or not? I couldn't care less about the current offerings of the music industry, but I might be interested in an old recording of Robert Johnson blues or an old but outstanding recording of a Verdi opera. All the composers and performers are certainly dead. I think--but don't really know--that performances themselves are subject to copyright. Is that true? There must be *something* out there that the RIAA has no claim on, but how is one to know?