Support NeoGAF

[Apharmd Battler]

I just can't understand how the RIAA's acitvites aren't considered an invasion of privacy or unconstitutional. It's ridiculious that they take these extreme approaches just to keep the their pockets fat. But like I tell everyone it has nothing to do with downloading music. They could care less about that, it's the bigger issue that nobody seems to address. Music rights and distrubution. The main reason these record company execs stay fat and paid is due to the fact that artist don't own the rights to their masters, and the record companies get to distrubute their stuff. See the big thing that they're scared of is that the digtal medium will cut them out.

Look at an artist like Master P. I think his music is balnd, but the point is is that he OWNS his label...which gives him a personal net worth of $300 million. I tell this to my friends started up their bands all the time. If you had control and ownership of your own music. And decided to distrubute it over the internet YOUR way, think how much money would go into YOUR pocket and not Clive Davis'. You may not be worth $300 million like Master P, but I could split $20 million five ways and not work the rest of my life. Think about it!

<hides soapbox and RIAA angst>

 

[Diablos]

What the RIAA and MPAA also fail to realize is, even if one day all music piracy on the Internet stopped... people would not go out and buy the albums instead. They'd be lucky if they bought one a month. Unless it's something the masses really really want, they just won't buy it.

I still love how record sales were at an all-time high when Napster was in its prime. Nobody seems to remember that though.

 

[galeninjapan]

What I cant understand is why ISPs give your info over to RIAA.

That and why you all hate freedom so much.

 

[midnightguy]

So is there anyway we may download without fear?

modified Aliens quote:


"I say we take off and nuke the entire RIAA/MPAA site from orbit. It's the
only way to be sure"

:lol

 

[Phoenix]

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.

And no judge would find that this person/downloader was a criminal because they lacked the key ingredient - intent. They can send the people who put up the google ad to jail - pretty easily, but the downloader will more than likely be found innocent unless there are some special circumstances.

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.

Not sure what you're meaning - the language is throwing me off from what you're trying to say.

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.

...

When you look through a network for something and it says 'hey here is the stuff right here' that is 'advertising the presence of materials'. It would be different if you went into a P2P netowkr and just had a list of machines and had to actually go into each one and look at each of the file names and then preview the materials to discover what it is. However many P2P forums/networks/softwares tell people what is on a host/seeder, allow the rating of it, allow previewing of it, and some cases further their crime by attaching box art or other copyrighted materials to the bootleg downloads.

 

[Phoenix]

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

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.

Yes - clearly. Perhaps you should look into network monitoring software. WHat you're suggesting already exists. There are more than a few companies that already use similar 'security' products to monitor their employees AIM accounts, monitor P2P traffic, etc. There are no technical limitations here and this entire process can easily be automated. It is doable and within the realm of what RIAA has access to - legally and technically. There are however, far far more long hanging fruit to keep RIAAs lawyers busy for a long long time and this is why you don't see a LOT more of this sort of takedown.

 

[Phoenix]

I just can't understand how the RIAA's acitvites aren't considered an invasion of privacy or unconstitutional. It's ridiculious that they take these extreme approaches just to keep the their pockets fat. But like I tell everyone it has nothing to do with downloading music. They could care less about that, it's the bigger issue that nobody seems to address. Music rights and distrubution. The main reason these record company execs stay fat and paid is due to the fact that artist don't own the rights to their masters, and the record companies get to distrubute their stuff. See the big thing that they're scared of is that the digtal medium will cut them out.

You would be correct is RIAA themselves were to be doing it. RIAA is not a police organization. They submit their preliminary evidence to law officials who investigate the crime (like the FBI Computer Crimes Division) and perform the tap and gather the data in the legal manner within the boundaries of the law and RIAA along with (usually) federal agents are involved in the arrest/shutdown/etc. RIAA DOES however have the legal ability to join a P2P network just like anyone else. You have no expectation of privacy if you are letting strangers into your shares. (analogy) You can't take off your clothes and then complain that the policeman looking at you is invading your privacy. As such RIAA can have access to any other information that any other peer on the network or client in the IRC world would have - and none of this would violate any of your rights.

Look at an artist like Master P. I think his music is balnd, but the point is is that he OWNS his label...which gives him a personal net worth of $300 million. I tell this to my friends started up their bands all the time. If you had control and ownership of your own music. And decided to distrubute it over the internet YOUR way, think how much money would go into YOUR pocket and not Clive Davis'. You may not be worth $300 million like Master P, but I could split $20 million five ways and not work the rest of my life. Think about it!

<hides soapbox and RIAA angst>

True. Same thing goes for independent game studios. THe problem, however, is that the 99% case is that you will simply be lost in the shuffle. You may sell 50 units, never have a concert, and never get anywhere close to $20 million dollars. I worked with a startup movie studio here in Atlanta (and a game studio in London) for a while and while they were a talented bunch, they were hellbent on believing that their stuff was worth millions of dollars. They didn't want to work with a movie studio or give up any rights or anything. It wasn't until they spent several 10s of thousands of their own dollars that they realized that there were THOUSANDS of people in the same boat who had produced wares and movies and that unless they were to win a film festival or similar. More than likely it would remain a hobby for them.

Reality is that in order to just GET on the radio and get your music heard costs absurd amounts of money. ClearChannel will rape you repeatedly to get your music on the air. Blockbuster could give a rats ass if you give them the movie for free - they don't have to deal with you. EBGames and BestBuy aren't donating their shelf space to independents. The gatekeepers that control what you see (TV), hear (radio), and play (stores) all want a piece of the pie and if you aren't in with a big partner - they want a BIGGER piece of the pie because they know they can get it.

Yes there will be that 1% that both survives and thrives in that environment, but they are the miniscule exception rather than the rule. Get your name out THEN talk about being independent.

 

[Phoenix]

What the RIAA and MPAA also fail to realize is, even if one day all music piracy on the Internet stopped... people would not go out and buy the albums instead. They'd be lucky if they bought one a month. Unless it's something the masses really really want, they just won't buy it.

And that's fine. But I can't go into the BMW dealership and grab a 745i because they have 500 of them and they aren't selling because they are too high. Its their product. If they want to drive it into the ground, that right remains theirs and no one elses.

I still love how record sales were at an all-time high when Napster was in its prime. Nobody seems to remember that though.

Because its irrelevant and statistically useless.

 

[Phoenix]

What I cant understand is why ISPs give your info over to RIAA.

That and why you all hate freedom so much.

The ISPs cannot refuse a subpeona for that information from a judge. They don't have a choice.

 

[Jeffahn]

And no judge would find that this person/downloader was a criminal because they lacked the key ingredient - intent. They can send the people who put up the google ad to jail - pretty easily, but the downloader will more than likely be found innocent unless there are some special circumstances.

Depending on the network, it's very difficult to prove intent beyond a reasonable doubt, or even be certain of anyone's intent with the way the technology works; without going into all the technical details, I can assure you that it's very difficult. Those Google ads are everywhere and nobody's looking like going to jail for it 'coz the comapnies that run them are proabably all based overseas from the target market (Europe/USA).

Not sure what you're meaning - the language is throwing me off from what you're trying to say.

A person who enters my house via the backdoor and copies my CD collection is the same as a person who is downloading those same CDs from me, in the sense that I am merely allowing the 'theft/infringment' (possibly unwittingly) as opposed to engineering the situation for pecuniary gain, as in the case of guy selling dodgy DVDs down the road. The RIAA/MPAA's aim is make all sharers (unwitting or not) regarded as criminal piraters in the eyes of the law and that is what the Judge had a problem with.

When you look through a network for something and it says 'hey here is the stuff right here' that is 'advertising the presence of materials'. It would be different if you went into a P2P netowkr and just had a list of machines and had to actually go into each one and look at each of the file names and then preview the materials to discover what it is.

No, it's be repeatedly extablished that the developers/owners have no control over what is available on their networks (except for BT & DC) and cannot be held liable for anything that their product is used for.

However many P2P forums/networks/softwares tell people what is on a host/seeder, allow the rating of it, allow previewing of it, and some cases further their crime by attaching box art or other copyrighted materials to the bootleg downloads.

Well all those forums/sites (I'm assuming your reffering to BT) have disclaimers which say for example:

Disclaimer: None of the files shown here are actually hosted on this server. The links are provided solely by this site's users. The administrator of this site (removed) cannot be held responsible for what its users post, or any other actions of its users. You may not use this site to distribute or download any material when you do not have the legal rights to do so. It is your own responsibility to adhere to these terms.Disclaimer: None of the files shown here are actually hosted on this server. The links are provided solely by this site's users. The administrator of this site (removed) cannot be held responsible for what its users post, or any other actions of its users. You may not use this site to distribute or download any material when you do not have the legal rights to do so. It is your own responsibility to adhere to these terms.

Remember that BT sites folded under the threat of being sued rather than actually being sued and there are just as many trackers today as ever before.

...

 

[Phoenix]

Depending on the network, it's very difficult to prove intent beyond a reasonable doubt,

That's your first mistake. THese are generally civil matters. Civil cases are NOT based on reasonable doubt but upon preponderance of the evidence.

A person who enters my house via the backdoor and copies my CD collection is the same as person who is downloading those same CDs from me, in the sense that I am allowing the 'theft/infringment', as opposed to engineering the situation for pecuniary gain, as in the case of guy seling dodgy DVDs down the road. The RIAA/MPAA's aim is make all sharers (unwitting or not) regarded as criminal piraters in the eyes of the law and that is what the Judge had a problem with.

Of course, but the law doesn't grant RIAA with that. They may want that, but they can't have it because nothing in the law affords them that until legislation is changed. The new DMCA stuff is what they are trying to use right now to force this stuff through the courts. The unfortunate wording of it, however, allows many sharers to be treated as criminals in the eyes of the law.

No, it's be repeatedly extablished that the developers/owners have no control over what is available on their networks (except for BT & DC) and cannot be held liable for anything that their product is used for.

You're confusing who is liable. The downloader and the hoster are liable. The provider of the technology is not.

Well all those forums/sites (I'm assuming your reffering to BT) have disclaimers which say for example:

Disclaimer: None of the files shown here are actually hosted on this server. The links are provided solely by this site's users. The administrator of this site (www.filelist.org) cannot be held responsible for what its users post, or any other actions of its users. You may not use this site to distribute or download any material when you do not have the legal rights to do so. It is your own responsibility to adhere to these terms.Disclaimer: None of the files shown here are actually hosted on this server. The links are provided solely by this site's users. The administrator of this site (www.filelist.org) cannot be held responsible for what its users post, or any other actions of its users. You may not use this site to distribute or download any material when you do not have the legal rights to do so. It is your own responsibility to adhere to these terms.

Remember that BT sites folded under the threat of being sued rather than actually being sued and there are just as many trackers today as ever before.

...

And that's fine. That protects the SITE, but not the provider of the content. At issue here is whether the hoster of the content is liable and punishable under the law. The technology only provides an avenue for violations of the law, people actually do the violating.

 

[Phoenix]

A person who enters my house via the backdoor and copies my CD collection is the same as person who is downloading those same CDs from me, in the sense that I am allowing the 'theft/infringment', as opposed to engineering the situation for pecuniary gain, as in the case of guy seling dodgy DVDs down the road. The RIAA/MPAA's aim is make all sharers (unwitting or not) regarded as criminal piraters in the eyes of the law and that is what the Judge had a problem with.

And here is where that breaks down.

A person who enters via your backdoor does not know for certain that anything of value is there. They may enter under the assumption that something of value is there but there is nothing suggesting that something of value is there. A P2P network TELLS you that something valuable is there. The network supplies the motive for your activities. You want the new Prince CD - you ask the network where it is and it tells you where it is. This is not the same as going through a random open door looking for something. When a person enters a P2P seed they have a reasonable expectation that there is something valuable there and that they are going to get what they are after.


Hopefully I'll never find myself on the prosecution side of these matters

 

[Jeffahn]

That's your first mistake. THese are generally civil matters. Civil cases are NOT based on reasonable doubt but upon preponderance of the evidence.

I knew you'd make that point No wonder I was no good at representing myself!

Of course, but the law doesn't grant RIAA with that. They may want that, but they can't have it because nothing in the law affords them that until legislation is changed. The new DMCA stuff is what they are trying to use right now to force this stuff through the courts. The unfortunate wording of it, however, allows many sharers to be treated as criminals in the eyes of the law.

You've gone off a bit of tangent here again. Do you understand why the judge said what he said?

You're confusing who is liable. The downloader and the hoster are liable. The provider of the technology is not.

Uploaders may have actually bought anything they have uploaded and it's very difficult to prove otherwise. Furthermore, the jury's still out on whether sharing is indeed illegal in that it may not srictly be that different from just laoning a CD/DVD/game to a friend.

And that's fine. That protects the SITE, but not the provider of the content. At issue here is whether the hoster of the content is liable and punishable under the law. The technology only provides an avenue for violations of the law, people actually do the violating.

I don't want to give the impression that I'm rallying for any side here, but the fact is that it's not over. Many people mistakenly believe that the RIAA/MPAA has a legally watertight case to successfully sue any file-sharer and that it what they want you to believe. I can't predict the future and I don't want to be seen to be advocating for any position or behaviour. There is hardcore of people who are unlikely to ever give up 'the fight', some may be forced to settle but many others seem to be happy to carry on -at least for the time being.

*returns to watching something from BT*

...

 

[Jeffahn]

And here is where that breaks down.

A person who enters via your backdoor does not know for certain that anything of value is there. They may enter under the assumption that something of value is there but there is nothing suggesting that something of value is there. A P2P network TELLS you that something valuable is there. The network supplies the motive for your activities. You want the new Prince CD - you ask the network where it is and it tells you where it is. This is not the same as going through a random open door looking for something. When a person enters a P2P seed they have a reasonable expectation that there is something valuable there and that they are going to get what they are after.


Hopefully I'll never find myself on the prosecution side of these matters

I don't see the breakdown? What's the difference searching Ares for an album and scoping out my neighbourhood for that same album? Maybe I'll find something I'd like even more.

...

 

[Phoenix]

I don't see the breakdown? What's the difference searching Ares for an album and scoping out my neighbourhood for that same album? Maybe I'll find something I'd like even more.

...

There is a fine distinction in it and what makes them different crimes.

If you leave your door open, a person has no idea what is in there. They have to go in and see what is there. You have aided them in no way (not illegal to leave your door open).

In a P2P environment they have a reasonable expectation that if they search from Prince Purple Rain (the track or the album) your host is telling them - advertising to them "hey what you want is right here, come and get it". A perp. doesn't have to investigate your machine to find what they are after - they already know (have a reasonable expectation that they are going to get what your machine told them was there).


Very different situations. Where he would be correct would be if you just had a good old anonymous FTP server running. Now you have an open door, and someone can go in it, but they have no idea what they will find until they get there and look around. Only in that situation are the scenario are the variable analogous.

 

[Phoenix]

I knew you'd make that point No wonder I was no good at representing myself!

No biggie - many people miss that point. Its why the vast majority of people who fight traffic tickets lose, they believe that its a reasonable doubt issue.

You've gone off a bit of tangent here again. Do you understand why the judge said what he said?

Yes, but his analogy wasn't a good one as he clearly doesn't have a good understanding of the technology. Which is one of the reasons I study law as a computer scientist and will one day (hopefully) become a lawyer.

Uploaders may have actually bought anything they have uploaded and it's very difficult to prove otherwise. Furthermore, the jury's still out on whether sharing is indeed illegal in that it may not srictly be that different from just laoning a CD/DVD/game to a friend.

Nah, that jury isn't out. Duplication of the material is not and never will be the same as sharing. If you loan a CD/DVD/game to a friend, you are deprived of its use until its returned. On a P2P network you retain the ability to use the goods that you are allowing to be duplicated. Hell you could be listening to them while they are being shared. They aren't equivalent and while I hope to never have to prosecute file sharers, I would certainly do so if that distinction needed to be made.

I don't want to give the impression that I'm rallying for any side here, but the fact is that it's not over. Many people mistakenly believe that the RIAA/MPAA has a legally watertight case to successfully sue any file-sharer and that it what they want you to believe.

Nah, they have a good case - but its not watertight. The bigger issue for most people is that once they've been caught - it makes more sense for them to settle than to find a competent lawyer to defend them. Even then, few would be able to fight the preponderance of evidence from RIAA/MPAA. Expert witnesses of coders, systems admins, etc. to defend ones self would be far more costly than paying the fine - and hell its like speeding. If you've been caught, pay up and move on.

 

[Hitokage]

Yes - clearly. Perhaps you should look into network monitoring software. WHat you're suggesting already exists. There are more than a few companies that already use similar 'security' products to monitor their employees AIM accounts, monitor P2P traffic, etc. There are no technical limitations here and this entire process can easily be automated. It is doable and within the realm of what RIAA has access to - legally and technically. There are however, far far more long hanging fruit to keep RIAAs lawyers busy for a long long time and this is why you don't see a LOT more of this sort of takedown.

....

When will it get into your skull that I'm NOT talking about a workplace in which network traffic is probably already monitored. Do you honestly think I don't know about this shit? The RIAA isn't fucking Big Brother. They do not have the entire internet on tap. MY POINT is that all your talk of "probable cause" is bullshit because since from a passive onlooker stance IRC sends are impossible to track unlike P2P where IPs are easily skimmable. Now, WHY the RIAA would go from a passive stance into active monitoring where they CAN track such stuff for any paticular instance on nonautomated sends is a question you have yet to answer.

 

[Jeffahn]

There is a fine distinction in it and what makes them different crimes.

If you leave your door open, a person has no idea what is in there. They have to go in and see what is there. You have aided them in no way (not illegal to leave your door open).

In a P2P environment they have a reasonable expectation that if they search from Prince Purple Rain (the track or the album) your host is telling them - advertising to them "hey what you want is right here, come and get it". A perp. doesn't have to investigate your machine to find what they are after - they already know (have a reasonable expectation that they are going to get what your machine told them was there).

Very different situations. Where he would be correct would be if you just had a good old anonymous FTP server running. Now you have an open door, and someone can go in it, but they have no idea what they will find until they get there and look around. Only in that situation are the scenario are the variable analogous.

Phoenix, you know after the climate change and evolution debates I tought I had you pegged as a fence-sitter, you agreed with me in diet debate but now you're just flip-flopping on me and my head hurts due to lack of sleep and junk food and my wriiting's gone to ^$#\*~. Though I still consider this an interesting discussion and I'll see if I can squeeze in some response to you when I 'm at work in a few hours time (need to sleep first).

The fact is that I've trawled through too many pages of this over at Zeropaid, and the folks there (from all spheres and opinions) have argued every possible permutation of this debate. This is what I know:

1. Little is settled in the legal sense and threats rule the day.

2. The hardcore know where to go to find what they want.

3. p2p is still growing.

4. I'm going to bed now.

...

 

[Phoenix]

Not sure if you understand rules of evidence or not, but from your comments you don't.

....

When will it get into your skull that I'm NOT talking about a workplace in which network traffic is probably already monitored. Do you honestly think I don't know about this shit? The RIAA isn't fucking Big Brother. They do not have the entire internet on tap. MY POINT is that all your talk of "probable cause" is bullshit because since from a passive onlooker stance IRC sends are impossible to track unlike P2P where IPs are easily skimmable.

Interesting. So, I know how to search the internet for IRC servers. I know how to find stuff to download on IRC servers. I know how to write bots that can give me a list of everything on an IRC server in an IRC channel. Okay, so I know what's there so now I have probable cause to get a warrant from a judge to get the uniquely identifiable information from an ISP. Once I have that warrant I can have the exact switch that handles that machine tapped and monitor all traffic passing through that switch for port 6667. IRC operates on a well known port so if I wanted to I could grab all traffic on that port. The IRC negotiation packets contain the information you're trying to get so if I know that's information that is protected - I know you're downloading content. I also know your initial IP address based on the initial negotiation so I can now get a warrant for YOUR uniquely identifiable information.

What keeps you safe at the moment is that there simply are extremely small numbers of lawyers and judges with computer science backgrounds. That is a changin my friend

Now, WHY the RIAA would go from a passive stance into active monitoring where they CAN track such stuff for any paticular instance on nonautomated sends is a question you have yet to answer.

Now maybe you will get it. But if you want to believe that you are safe on IRC, keep believing it. If its a public host providing information to strangers I can guaran-damn-tee you that more savvy professionals working with the likes of RIAA and MPAA will be the end of you and more savvy layers will be quite capable of prosecuting you.

 

[Phoenix]

Phoenix, you know after the climate change and evolution debates I tought I had you pegged as a fence-sitter, you agreed with me in diet debate but now you're just flip-flopping on me and my head hurts due to lack of sleep and junk food and my wriiting's gone to ^$#\*~. Though I still consider this an interesting discussion and I'll see if I can squeeze in some response to you when I 'm at work in a few hours time (need to sleep first).

Because clearly you don't understand the difference between the technologies. FTP as a protocol and any of the common P2P protocols operate entirely differently. You can't broadcast a search across FTP servers. You have to enter it and browse it. It does not allow you to ask it if it contains particular information. That's not a function of the FTP protocol.

When you understand how those two systems are functionally different, you'll understand why they are night and day different from a legal perspective.

The fact is that I've trawled through too many pages of this over at Zeropaid, and the folks there (from all spheres and opinions)

There are no opinions. There is only what the law says. Anything else is pontification.

 

[Jeffahn]

Firstly, what I am still doing up?

Because clearly you don't understand the difference between the technologies. FTP as a protocol and any of the common P2P protocols operate entirely differently. You can't broadcast a search across FTP servers. You have to enter it and browse it. It does not allow you to ask it if it contains particular information. That's not a function of the FTP protocol.

When you understand how those two systems are functionally different, you'll understand why they are night and day different from a legal perspective.

Dude I FTP stuff like very second day at work.

Ok, your point is that I'm 'advertising' copyright material in my shared folder so that makes me a criminal pirater becasue somebody else can search for it and download it? There are so many possibilities here. Fair use? I might of obtained the files illegally, but maybe the guy who's downloading from me couldn't rip it from his CD to play on his mp3player becuase of some copy protection (terrible sentence I know, it's late).

There are no opinions. There is only what the law says. Anything else is pontification.

Huh? What the law says is currently ambiguous and/or contradictory and the only precident (Betamax) is in favour of the tech owners. Clarification is what is required.

...

 

[Phoenix]

Firstly, what I am still doing up?

Dude get some rest. I'll bookmark the thread for tomorrow

Dude I FTP stuff like very second day at work.

Ok, your point is that I'm 'advertising' copyright material in my shared folder so that makes me a criminal pirater becasue somebody else can search for it and download it?

No, you need some rest. You're inferring things I never said nor implied. What I said is that the judges anaology to the backdoor would apply to an anonymous FTP server, but NOT to a P2P seed. The manner in which a P2P network works makes his anology VERY inaccurate.

There are so many possibilities here. Fair use? I might of obtained the files illegally, but maybe the guy who's downloading from me couldn't rip it from his CD to play on his mp3player becuase of some copy protection (terrible sentence I know, it's late).

That's actually irrelevant. The law provides him the ability to make backups himself - not to get them from someone else.

Huh? What the law says is currently ambiguous and/or contradictory and the only precident (Betamax) is in favour of the tech owners. Clarification is what is required.

...

Nope - catch me tomorrow. The technology is not what we're talking about. The Betamax case protects the Groksters of the world - not the people using the technology distributing illicit materials.

 

[Hitokage]

What part of NONAUTOMATED do you not fucking understand?

Ok, this is the last time I'll attempt to intervene in your stupid ramblings here.

 

[Phoenix]

What part of NONAUTOMATED do you not fucking understand?

Ok, this is the last time I'll attempt to intervene in your stupid ramblings here.

WTH are you rambling on about? I've made it 100% clear what the actual process is based on current law and proceedings that I've studied. So tell me, what the hell are you talking about?

And if you can't keep your tone civil, then yes please just say nothing and don't come back in the thread.

 

[Diablos]

And that's fine. But I can't go into the BMW dealership and grab a 745i because they have 500 of them and they aren't selling because they are too high. Its their product. If they want to drive it into the ground, that right remains theirs and no one elses.

That's where their logic gets funky, because pirating HURTS music, they say. When in reality, top 40 artists tend to do very well. A lot of music that is pirated isn't very popular or is a lot older. Simply put, people wouldn't buy it if they couldn't pirate it, and to say that they can drive their own products into the ground is nearly contradictory. All that work to eliminate pirating only to find no one still went out and bought the damn CD. Shucks.

Because its irrelevant and statistically useless.

What? Are you kidding? The music industry was at an all time high when Napster was, too. That says a lot. It certainly isn't irrelevant, because it puts a hand over the mouths of those that say Napster was directly responsible for the music industry going down the toilet. Listen to the radio lately? Most of the time, the music is awful, and only those that like what they hear are inclined to buy it. The rest of us use the internet as our radio station.

If the masses like the music, they will buy it. Do you think 50 Cent gives a shit about his songs getting pirated at the end of the day? No. Right now everything being marketed to the masses is music that I (and a lot of people here) usually don't care much for.

I'd almost assure you that if there was a clear channel of indie rock/other independent music that played new, innovative, creative music on a constant basis, you'd see top 40 dramatically change and the sales of what would then become popular would reflect that.

 

[Phoenix]

That's where their logic gets funky, because pirating HURTS music, they say. When in reality, top 40 artists tend to do very well. A lot of music that is pirated isn't very popular or is a lot older. Simply put, people wouldn't buy it if they couldn't pirate it, and to say that they can drive their own products into the ground is nearly contradictory. All that work to eliminate pirating only to find no one still went out and bought the damn CD. Shucks.

And that's fine. That still does not make piracy okay. It still doesn't mean that they shouldn't fight it nor that they don't have the right to fight it. They can spend 10 gagillion hours of lawyer time fighting it if they want to and right now, in many instances the law is on their side, their actions are law-abiding, and they can say what they want the same way mentadent can say 9 out of 10 dentist recommend their product They can SAY whatever they want. They can try to sway public opinion. They can lobby to make piracy illegal. Those are their rights. That doesn't change irregardless of whether or not they are effective or if they actually change anything.

What? Are you kidding? The music industry was at an all time high when Napster was, too. That says a lot. It certainly isn't irrelevant, because it puts a hand over the mouths of those that say Napster was directly responsible for the music industry going down the toilet. Listen to the radio lately? Most of the time, the music is awful, and only those that like what they hear are inclined to buy it. The rest of us use the internet as our radio station.

And that's great. From a legal perspective however - it is meaningless. As a statistic it is worthless as it cannot be used to sway a judge or a jury. There is no 'value judgement' on that statement - it contains no legal currency that assists a defendent in any way. We're talking about How RIAA sues people - the statement you made would be worthless in a defense because it would be beside the point and would not counter any of the evidence weighed against a defendent.

If the masses like the music, they will buy it. Do you think 50 Cent gives a shit about his songs getting pirated at the end of the day? No. Right now everything being marketed to the masses is music that I (and a lot of people here) usually don't care much for.

I'd almost assure you that if there was a clear channel of indie rock/other independent music that played new, innovative, creative music on a constant basis, you'd see top 40 dramatically change and the sales of what would then become popular would reflect that.

And that's great. But in the end - its really a so what. That still doesn't help the people RIAA are suing, the people sharing, or anything else. It is a logical fallacy that the industries position during the Napster days has any meaning within the confines of a courtroom. It may have some value with a politician who establishes a law, but in the court - meaningless.

 

[Doth Togo]

Meanwhile, the entertainment software industry sits back and rides the coat tails of the fatcats.

 

[Diablos]

And that's fine. That still does not make piracy okay. It still doesn't mean that they shouldn't fight it nor that they don't have the right to fight it. They can spend 10 gagillion hours of lawyer time fighting it if they want to and right now, in many instances the law is on their side, their actions are law-abiding, and they can say what they want the same way mentadent can say 9 out of 10 dentist recommend their product They can SAY whatever they want. They can try to sway public opinion. They can lobby to make piracy illegal. Those are their rights. That doesn't change irregardless of whether or not they are effective or if they actually change anything.

I think the people have the right to lobby that the tactics used to sue people and how they determine to sue are almost completely flawed. But no one has that voice.

And that's great. From a legal perspective however - it is meaningless. As a statistic it is worthless as it cannot be used to sway a judge or a jury. There is no 'value judgement' on that statement - it contains no legal currency that assists a defendent in any way. We're talking about How RIAA sues people - the statement you made would be worthless in a defense because it would be beside the point and would not counter any of the evidence weighed against a defendent.

Bullshit. It pisses me off that a kid sitting in his dorm room sharing maybe 20 or 30 songs on Kazaa gets sued and kicked out. Meanwhile, some guy with a server that has 30,000 songs on it distributes albums, movies, games, etc. all the time and does not get caught, even if he was probed a couple times. It's wrong to make the people easier to snatch get sued just so you can "set an example." This is bullshit and you know it, you also know you can argue the logic behind this behavior in snatching P2P pirates is simply flawed. Stopping a bunch of fucking leechers is not going to solve the problem of piracy; kids decide they want to start leeching every day. It's the seeders that are the problem. It's the groups that have the music/games/movies and distributes it to other big well-known seeders that are the problem. If there are no seeders, there would be no leechers. BitTorrent effectively makes everyone a criminal in the eyes of the law, but should the RIAA/MPAA (or whatever organization) want to target all uploaders, that would technically be anyone who uploaded even one kilobyte of data to other users on the BitTorrent network. Even a brilliant judge with a rock solid computer science and networking background wouldn't know where to start in taking those individuals to court because there'd be millions upon millions of them...

And that's great. But in the end - its really a so what. That still doesn't help the people RIAA are suing, the people sharing, or anything else. It is a logical fallacy that the industries position during the Napster days has any meaning within the confines of a courtroom. It may have some value with a politician who establishes a law, but in the court - meaningless.

In the court for a specific case it may very well be meaningless, but generally speaking, you could definitely use that as an argument to prove that the music industry is too aggressive in obtaining personal information for the sake of fining people for sharing music. Throw the law into your explaination all you want. But you've already acknowledged the fact that the RIAA wouldn't mind if they drove their own products into the ground in a world where piracy does not exist. This could be used to argue that the RIAA isn't protecting the interests of themselves and the artists, but trying to get "their piece of the pie" as you put it earlier.

They all need to get a grip. Early last decade and even before that, when you had a stereo with a tape recorder, the RIAA could do nothing about it. When your friends brought over a CD and you transferred it to tape, they could do nothing about it. When you go to the video rental store, get a DVD and copy it, the MPAA can't do a damn thing unless you give them back your pirated copy by mistake or get into the business of selling and/or uploading. Combine those and tell me how much money the RIAA and MPAA have lost? You can't, because that isn't trackable. You can estimate, but you'll never, ever know how accurate it is. I bet if they could find out, the money lost due to that type of piracy would be beyond alarming. It's just that now, like everything else, your activity can be tracked and thus they have an excuse to do what they've always wanted. But as I mentioned I think there are some serious, serious flaws that make absolutely no sense whatsoever when it comes to determining who gets sued and who doesn't. Unless you're a big seeder (i.e. you distribute multiple releases 24/7) or you get the advance copies and are among the first to distribute them (obviously this is done with the clear intention to), I see no need for making examples out of people and making them pay serious fines or threatening to suspend their internet access over being a leecher or even using bittorrent. Threatening those people will never, ever kill piracy. You have to go to the source. This is common sense.

 

[Hitokage]

WTH are you rambling on about? I've made it 100% clear what the actual process is based on current law and proceedings that I've studied. So tell me, what the hell are you talking about?

Oh, I'm sorry, it was wrong of me to interrupt you to ask that you do such a trivial thing as pay attention to other people. Please continue talking to yourself.

*walks out, grumbling something about Uter and Mandark*

 

[EviLore]

<Poster> xyz zyx etc. etc.

<Phoenix> THE LAW

<Poster_2> Our real point.

<Phoenix> THE LAW, WHY CAN'T YOU SEE THE LAW



I rarely see such substanceless posts. Next time you want to get into a drawn-out argument, please try to participate on some sort of real level instead of essentially pasting the same paragraph a dozen times over. R.I.F....and R.I.P.

 

[Diablos]

As a final note, I would like to also mention that in a court of law "uploaders" and "seeders" should be viewed as two completely different things, because they now are. You can thank BitTorrent for this (love it or hate it). There's a big difference between someone who wants to get a torrent and their client forces them to upload what they are downloading, and someone who gets a copy of something, makes a torrent, and uploads it to the tracker. Huge difference. Even someone that leaves the torrent open should not be held accountable for "distributing" - it's not like they were the ones with the intent to originally make the torrent. If the torrent was never made by Joe Schmoe with MakeTorrent, then no one would have the opportuinty to be sub-seeders (which I would still classify as "uploaders") on the network.

Simply put: How the BitTorrent network works properly SHOULD NOT BE HELD AGAINST THE USER. It's all about the seeders. I'm sick of the law overshadowing common sense, especially when you are threatening and/or fining the wrong people.

 

[Jeffahn]

Dude get some rest. I'll bookmark the thread for tomorrow

Back at work, stamina at 65% after 4 hours sleep.

No, you need some rest. You're inferring things I never said nor implied. What I said is that the judges anaology to the backdoor would apply to an anonymous FTP server, but NOT to a P2P seed. The manner in which a P2P network works makes his anology VERY inaccurate.

Not much is so far settled in terms of the legality of file-sharing. Even in a near worst case scenario (which I think you have alluded to) say I guy uploading a rip of newly released DVD, there are still numerous legal defences he could assume, depending of course on all manner of technicalities and yet-to-be-resolved legal arguments. He could say that he bought the DVD (very difficult to disprove in the first place) ripped it for backup/fair use purposes and uploaded for a friend who couldn't backup his legally-bought copy for technical reasons. That other people joined the torrent is incidental and it would be easy for uploaders to add some kind of disclaimer to protect them in this case.

That's actually irrelevant. The law provides him the ability to make backups himself - not to get them from someone else.

I don't think the law prescribes or restricts the manner in which you obtain a backup copy of a legally purchased item. Furthermore, what happens if you can't rip a backup yourself for technical reasons (copy protection -which might be illegal to bypass, or lack of ripping hardware/software)?

Nope - catch me tomorrow. The technology is not what we're talking about. The Betamax case protects the Groksters of the world - not the people using the technology distributing illicit materials.

I understand that. That's why I said "tech owners".

...

 

[Cubsfan23]

What a lame banning. Jesus Christ

 

[aka]

Heil Hitler!

 

[EviLore]

Cubsfan: Next time David DeAngelo instructs you to act hard & edgy by bumping a dead thread to moan about a mod action, you may want to restrain yourself and go back to baseball talk or trying to fellate yourself or whatever you do to occupy the day.