Support NeoGAF

[MaverickX9]

Do they sue you for SHARING files or do they share you for DOWNLOADING files?

I thought that they sued you if you were sharing files, but I am being told by a bunch of friends at school that they sue you for downloading files. This comes amidst the whole thing involving i2hub and everything.

Anybody willing to enlighten me?

 

[rc213]

They will sue you for either if they can get evidence. But they tend to target heavy uploaders more than they do downloaders.

 

[Phoenix]

They will hit you for either as providing the data (trafficing) is a crime, and so is downloading. It is easier for RIAA to get to the uploaders and RIAA also tends to monitor heavily traffic'd uploaders to get to the downloaders as well.

Both activities are illegal in the US and RIAA goes after both.

 

[MaverickX9]

So how do they get this data?


Do they have NARCs out there or something?

 

[Phoenix]

Simply monitor the IP traffic. P2P networks exchange information with all other seeders and leechers on the network - that's how the protocol works. You cannot be anonymous in a P2P network. When you request some data from another machine in the P2P group, you do so with your IP address. When another leecher asks your machine for data, it does so from your IP address. The P2P networks require clients to share routing information with each other in order to function. If RIAA is in the network (and they are) as a client, they know exactly who the seeders and downloaders are.

 

[MIMIC]

Simply monitor the IP traffic. P2P networks exchange information with all other seeders and leechers on the network - that's how the protocol works. You cannot be anonymous in a P2P network. When you request some data from another machine in the P2P group, you do so with your IP address. When another leecher asks your machine for data, it does so from your IP address. The P2P networks require clients to share routing information with each other in order to function. If RIAA is in the network (and they are) as a client, they know exactly who the seeders and downloaders are.

What about IRC?

 

[Phoenix]

Yes, even IRC. If stuff is inbound or outbound from your machine - it can be tracked.

 

[Willco]

You're busted, MIMIC. Hard time from now on. Don't drop the soap, bitch.

 

[Ecrofirt]

private FTP is the way to go, ya scurvy seadog.

 

[MIMIC]

Yes, even IRC. If stuff is inbound or outbound from your machine - it can be tracked.

But if you're not on a P2P (like IRC, or a file from Yousendit.com or something), isn't monitoring your traffic illegal, since they can't tell what exactly is being downloaded?

 

[Hitokage]

Yes, even IRC. If stuff is inbound or outbound from your machine - it can be tracked.

Not so fast though. On simple user-to-user sends, the initial negotiation request is sent via the server directly to the user and you'd have to tap the server itself or your own connection already to even know anything was happening at all. After that everything is direct IP to IP and then only a direct connection tap will help. Basically the only people to be concerned about are your ISP, people serving an existing warrant, or hackers who are in the process of owning you.

Bots and other automated modes of serving stuff on IRC, however, are about as easy to bust as P2P, but only the people serving.

 

[MaverickX9]

Simply monitor the IP traffic. P2P networks exchange information with all other seeders and leechers on the network - that's how the protocol works. You cannot be anonymous in a P2P network. When you request some data from another machine in the P2P group, you do so with your IP address. When another leecher asks your machine for data, it does so from your IP address. The P2P networks require clients to share routing information with each other in order to function. If RIAA is in the network (and they are) as a client, they know exactly who the seeders and downloaders are.

So, let's set up a situation where I am downloading something from my friend.

Can the RIAA look in on that exchange and find out both our IP addresses and catch us?

Or do I have to be downloading something from somebody who works for the RIAA?

 

[fse]

use soulseek.

 

[Pachinko]

Eventually the heavy uploaders will all be canadians and the RIAA won't be able to do a damn thing becuase us canucks pay a charge equal to almost what a recordable medium costs. See CDR's at best buy for 30 bucks ? they'll cost nearly 60 in the end but you can put anything you want and download anything you want.


As far as I'm concerned if you are american you are in a legal grey area by downloading music from canada. I think the RIAA just checks shit randomly , like they'll go after the heavy users and just randomly find out 1000 names on a list of IPs and send them subpeonas.

 

[galeninjapan]

What about bit torrent? IS that safe? And if so how?

 

[nataku]

What about bit torrent? IS that safe? And if so how?

No, it isn't safe. I got in trouble with the MPAA for downloading a movie through Bittorrent. It's pretty easy to get IPs thorugh the thing... just a couple clicks with something like Azureus and you can get a list of all the IPs connected to that torrent.

 

[galeninjapan]

I thought bittorent was the wave of the future!

 

[fallout]

I thought bittorent was the wave of the future!

Just because you're downloading large files (in large quantities even) doesn't mean they have to be copyrighted albums, movies, tv shows, etc. That just happens to be one of the biggest things to do with it.

 

[ince]

No, it isn't safe. I got in trouble with the MPAA for downloading a movie through Bittorrent. It's pretty easy to get IPs thorugh the thing... just a couple clicks with something like Azureus and you can get a list of all the IPs connected to that torrent.

what do you mean in trouble

 

[WedgeX]

It's part of the Copyright law that allows the RIAA (since they own the copyrights most times and not the artists) to sue people.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/usc_sup_01_17.html

Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;
(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and
(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.

 

[Zaptruder]

Simply because most stuff worth watching is copyrighted and has commercial value to it...

Pirates are cockroaches tho... they're a very hardy breed and they're so many of them... best you can do is try to scare them so that it doesn't become too mainstream...

 

[Phoenix]

But if you're not on a P2P (like IRC, or a file from Yousendit.com or something), isn't monitoring your traffic illegal, since they can't tell what exactly is being downloaded?

RIAA always monitors with a warrant or monitors in cooperation with an ISP. Without that, even if they found evidence that you were illegally traffic'ing they couldn't use it in court.

 

[Phoenix]

Not so fast though. On simple user-to-user sends, the initial negotiation request is sent via the server directly to the user and you'd have to tap the server itself or your own connection already to even know anything was happening at all. After that everything is direct IP to IP and then only a direct connection tap will help. Basically the only people to be concerned about are your ISP, people serving an existing warrant, or hackers who are in the process of owning you.

Bots and other automated modes of serving stuff on IRC, however, are about as easy to bust as P2P, but only the people serving.

There is a reason why RIAA is serving ISPs with warrants for people's IP addresses. Provided the proper amount of evidence/probably cause is available - RIAA taps AT the ISP.

 

[Jeffahn]

Do they sue you for SHARING files or do they share you for DOWNLOADING files?

I thought that they sued you if you were sharing files, but I am being told by a bunch of friends at school that they sue you for downloading files. This comes amidst the whole thing involving i2hub and everything.

Anybody willing to enlighten me?

I don't think they've actually successfully sued anybody for anything. What they have done is intimidate people into settling rather than go to court.

...

 

[Jeffahn]

It's part of the Copyright law that allows the RIAA (since they own the copyrights most times and not the artists) to sue people.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/usc_sup_01_17.html

They're not really after people who rip their own music. Their focus is on the mass uploaders, but one judge has actually says that most sharing may not be copyright infringment as such because it is often passive in nature i.e. most p2p noobs (or just plain stupid people) don't actually realise that they are uplaoding to other people.

...

 

[Phoenix]

Did that judge issue a ruling that said that? Hadn't seen that, and unless its in a ruling - his private thoughts on the issue don't mean anything.

 

[Hitokage]

There is a reason why RIAA is serving ISPs with warrants for people's IP addresses. Provided the proper amount of evidence/probably cause is available - RIAA taps AT the ISP.

...

. On simple user-to-user sends, the initial negotiation request is sent via the server directly to the user and you'd have to tap the server itself or your own connection already to even know anything was happening at all.

 

[Jeffahn]

Did that judge issue a ruling that said that? Hadn't seen that, and unless its in a ruling - his private thoughts on the issue don't mean anything.

IIRC it was a judge involved earlier on in the Grockster/Morpheus case who said that people sharing music was akin to leaving your backdoor open in that you can't be held responsible for what is taken/stolen from you, as opposed to such people being regarded as distibutors of copyright material like the RIAA have led most everyone to believe.

...

 

[Phoenix]

...

The words packet sniffer immediately come to mind. Want to do an experiment - sit one on your network at the office and initiate a P2P conversation with someone else on your subnet and see how private it is


If you think that your traffic going through someone elses architecture is private - you're fooling yourself. Internet traffic is just as monitorable as a good old phone conversation.

 

[Phoenix]

IIRC it was a judge involved earlier on in the Grockster/Morpheus case who said that people sharing music was akin to leaving your backdoor open in that you can't be held responsible for what is taken/stolen from you, as opposed to such people being regarded as distibutors of copyright material like the RIAA have led most everyone to believe.

...

Well the Supreme Court ruling (MGM vs Grokster) basically said that the Grokster technology has non-infringing uses, therefore it should be allowed. Had nothing to do with leaving backdoors open. Interested in a link to the judge/article/case you're referring to.

 

[Jeffahn]

The words packet sniffer immediately come to mind. Want to do an experiment - sit one on your network at the office and initiate a P2P conversation with someone else on your subnet and see how private it is


If you think that your traffic going through someone elses architecture is private - you're fooling yourself. Internet traffic is just as monitorable as a good old phone conversation.

Well, the newer networks like Ants and MUTE make packet niffing pretty much pointless because it's much more difficult to tell if somebody actually used a particular packet s part of a copyright work or whether it was just being proxied through them.

...

 

[Jeffahn]

Well the Supreme Court ruling (MGM vs Grokster) basically said that the Grokster technology has non-infringing uses, therefore it should be allowed. Had nothing to do with leaving backdoors open. Interested in a link to the judge/article/case you're referring to.

http://www.zeropaid.com/news/articles/auto/09162003a.php

Judge Challenges Music Industry Claims
posted by dubstylee on September 16, 2003 @ 10:21am

From Yahoo / AP: Judge John Roberts of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia challenged Recording Industry Association of America lawyer Donald B. Verrilli Jr. on whether computer users downloading music were any different from people who maintain libraries in their homes.

Roberts questioned whether the fact that copyrighted files were publicly accessible on someone's computer necessarily means the Internet user is illegally distributing those files. File-sharing software typically stores downloaded music in a computer folder that is freely available for other Internet users to browse.

"Isn't is equivalent to my leaving the door to my library open?" Roberts asked. "Somebody could come in and copy my books but that doesn't mean I'm liable for copyright infringement."

Yahoo link no longer valid.

...

 

[Hitokage]

The words packet sniffer immediately come to mind. Want to do an experiment - sit one on your network at the office and initiate a P2P conversation with someone else on your subnet and see how private it is


If you think that your traffic going through someone elses architecture is private - you're fooling yourself. Internet traffic is just as monitorable as a good old phone conversation.

And since the RIAA already has access to all packets everywhere on the internet, no private IRC filesend will ever be safe!

 

[Vormund]

use soulseek.

Yeah it's really gre....I err don't know anything about it. >_>

 

[borghe]

The words packet sniffer immediately come to mind. Want to do an experiment - sit one on your network at the office and initiate a P2P conversation with someone else on your subnet and see how private it is


If you think that your traffic going through someone elses architecture is private - you're fooling yourself. Internet traffic is just as monitorable as a good old phone conversation.

many irc networks do ip shadowing now, so without a court order to reveal the actual ip address that was used, the companies have no real way of knowing the actual ip, just the network that it came from (wi.rr.com for example). yes there are ways around that, but only with a court order which means they already have to start the process.

packet sniffing only works really well if you are at one of two locations, the start or the beginning, and in many cases (published ips aside) the beginning is really the only useful place. So while packet sniffers rule the school, unless they are stuck in a place where they are seeing the traffic from the box, almost always at the ISP, they really aren't going to gain much information. and in today's switched enviornment, it isn't just sticking a box on the network but mirroring ports and setting up the box to filter traffic, etc. Not saying by any means it's impossible, but it does require work and in almost all cases will require a court order. again that means the process needs to be started.

they can still target you, but I think what is burning the RIAA and MPAA right now is with the relative non-usage of Kazaa and destruction of Old Napster it is now in fact VERY difficult to pin heavy uploads on anyone. Packet sniffers are in fact the only way to go now, which means court orders, leaving the sniffers up for probably gigabytes of data, and then going through the data and carefully analyzing it, separating it, sorting it, etc to piece together what they need. hardly as simple as firing up a kazaa client and seeing that some user has 15000 songs for download on their PC.

don't get me wrong.. eventually it will all become a lot harder to download free pirated stuff.. but in the meantime the MPAA and RIAA definitely have an uphill climb until they can figure out an easier way to bust all you pirates.. hahahaha... (j/k)

 

[Diablos]

No, it isn't safe. I got in trouble with the MPAA for downloading a movie through Bittorrent. It's pretty easy to get IPs thorugh the thing... just a couple clicks with something like Azureus and you can get a list of all the IPs connected to that torrent.

So what happened?

 

[nataku]

Nothing too big really. They threatened to force Cox to turn off my service and take further action if I didn't get rid of the movie, so I got rid of it. I never told them I got rid of it though... I replied and asked them if it was a scam email, and if it was, what should I do with it. Haven't heard back since, guess they took that as "I got rid of the movie." and my service was never shut off, so I guess I'm ok.

Never gonna download another movie again though... first and only movie I downloaded and I got caught... scared the shit out of me. Guess that's what I get for using BT though.

 

[ypo]

Use PeerGuardian. Keep them snoopers away.

 

[Jeffahn]

Use PeerGuardian. Keep them snoopers away.

PeerGuardian, Protowall et al can only offer limited protection. The most they can do is reduce the chance of being nabbed.

...

 

[MIMIC]

Never gonna download another movie again though... first and only movie I downloaded and I got caught... scared the shit out of me. Guess that's what I get for using BT though.

Damn...that's why I never used BT to download movies. At the time, they were just too slow for me. And I always found IRC more convenient.

 

[Phoenix]

http://www.zeropaid.com/news/articles/auto/09162003a.php

Judge Challenges Music Industry Claims
posted by dubstylee on September 16, 2003 @ 10:21am

From Yahoo / AP: Judge John Roberts of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia challenged Recording Industry Association of America lawyer Donald B. Verrilli Jr. on whether computer users downloading music were any different from people who maintain libraries in their homes.

Roberts questioned whether the fact that copyrighted files were publicly accessible on someone's computer necessarily means the Internet user is illegally distributing those files. File-sharing software typically stores downloaded music in a computer folder that is freely available for other Internet users to browse.

"Isn't is equivalent to my leaving the door to my library open?" Roberts asked. "Somebody could come in and copy my books but that doesn't mean I'm liable for copyright infringement."

Yahoo link no longer valid.

...

Yeah, that's just pontification and is actually flawed reasoning in the actual judicial process. If you leave the door to your house open and poeple come in and Xerox your books is that not tresspass and theft? According to the law it is and according to precedent it is. So clearly the person taking the stuff is stealing. Now if you advertise to people (which is what P2P systems do) that other people can come and get stuff for free at this location - is that not being at least an accessory? If not, we've got a lot of barbershop bootleggers in jail for the wrong reasons

Man I can't wait until I can practice law.

 

[Phoenix]

many irc networks do ip shadowing now, so without a court order to reveal the actual ip address that was used, the companies have no real way of knowing the actual ip, just the network that it came from (wi.rr.com for example). yes there are ways around that, but only with a court order which means they already have to start the process.

That's actually what happens. When it is determined that bootleg movies/songs/etc are coming from a particular network, that's actually enough to subpeona for a network tap at the ISP. Many ISPs have tried to not comply and through legal countermeasures forced RIAA and MPAA to issue 'ip subeonas' instead of nabbing actual user information right off. This makes it more difficult to chase one down for small crimes (small numbers of songs and such), but many people leave their machines seeding for days or months at a time in superseeding mode. With these you're like a black hole for traffic and you will be targetted quickly.

Packet sniffing works well if you're anywhere in the line of traffic. Routers/Switches can always be tapped to ascertain where traffic is coming from/going. If you're smart you'll break your connection often over a number of IP addresses by resetting your router. That makes it more difficult to truly nail one person. Nevertheless, if you leave yourself seeding (and that is after all how the network prospers - especially IRC bots) - sooner or later you will be hit.

 

[Phoenix]

Nothing too big really. They threatened to force Cox to turn off my service and take further action if I didn't get rid of the movie, so I got rid of it. I never told them I got rid of it though... I replied and asked them if it was a scam email, and if it was, what should I do with it. Haven't heard back since, guess they took that as "I got rid of the movie." and my service was never shut off, so I guess I'm ok.

Never gonna download another movie again though... first and only movie I downloaded and I got caught... scared the shit out of me. Guess that's what I get for using BT though.

Yeah, you may have actually hit a MPAA honeypot - a seeding server whose owner has already been busted that MPAA leaves open to catch other traffickers.

 

[galeninjapan]

So is there anyway we may download without fear?

 

[Doth Togo]

Do they sue you for SHARING files or do they share you for DOWNLOADING files?

I thought that they sued you if you were sharing files, but I am being told by a bunch of friends at school that they sue you for downloading files. This comes amidst the whole thing involving i2hub and everything.

Anybody willing to enlighten me?

Eenie, meenie, miney, OWNAGE.

 

[Phoenix]

So is there anyway we may download without fear?

There is no way to be 100% safe when you're using your ISPs network. If you're sharing files with a friend or similar, you can set up a VPN (virtual private network) over the ISPs network and that will afford you some security, but that's only good for sharing with a friend - maybe 2. Mass P2P applications will continue to be fairly easy to spot and straightforward to track/shutdown via legal channels.

 

[Diablos]

WTF? I've been idling... why are these people probing my IP?

 

[The Faceless Master]

so when will they go after the usenet?

 

[Jeffahn]

Yeah, that's just pontification and is actually flawed reasoning in the actual judicial process. If you leave the door to your house open and poeple come in and Xerox your books is that not tresspass and theft? According to the law it is and according to precedent it is. So clearly the person taking the stuff is stealing. Now if you advertise to people (which is what P2P systems do) that other people can come and get stuff for free at this location - is that not being at least an accessory? If not, we've got a lot of barbershop bootleggers in jail for the wrong reasons

Man I can't wait until I can practice law.

The RIAA/MPAA would like copyright infringement via file-sharing to be a federal offence. Now imagine a 10-year-old goes on the internet for the first time, sees a Google ad: "Dowload Millions of Movies, Music & Games for only $19.95! Safe! Legal!" So he pays out, downloads a few tracks and is then promtly busted for federal copyright theft. The point is is that there are a fair number of people arriving on the net each day and doing something similar. It's serious stuff and dangerous to assume that innocent poeple won't be hurt.

Also, I think that you misunderstood the meaning behind the 'backdoor' analogy. The law can do nothing if choose not to file charges against a burglar, and I am no more compelled to file charges against a friend who might borrow a CD of mine to rip & burn.

With regard to your statements about networks advertising what might be available -I've never seen it, at least not with any legitimate free version. The fact is that most of the succesful networks are where they are due to word-of-mouth and maybe a bit of pre-hype.

...

 

[Hitokage]

phoenix: I like how you've spent the past few responses completely missing my point.

many irc networks do ip shadowing now, so without a court order to reveal the actual ip address that was used, the companies have no real way of knowing the actual ip, just the network that it came from (wi.rr.com for example). yes there are ways around that, but only with a court order which means they already have to start the process.

In a normal DCC connection, the person initiating the send offers an IP/Port to the recipient, to which the recipient can either reject or connect to the given IP/Port to establish the send. If a person tries to send a file to an RIAA person, then their IP is plain as day. HOWEVER, unless the RIAA compromises the sender's box, then finding out the IPs of the people he's been sending to would involve monitoring ALL connections on every server in the network to match up nicknames(which can be known from the initial DCC request that is sent through the server) with IPs... and even then they'd only know the filename.