  CheesePremium
join:2003-10-26
Naples, FL
kudos:1 | Hmmm Interesting, very interesting.... | |
|
 | | | Re: Hmmm Nope.. not at all. So in order to get around such shaky ground, the RIAA sends someone to download the file and log such activity. There by, they claim the person broke the law and that they now had net losses. Easy fix. | |
|
| | | | Re: Hmmm If the RIAA did that on Bittorrent, they would be breaking the law by making the infringing file available for others to download also... | |
|
| | | | | Re: Hmmm They own title to said file, so it's not illegal to share. The FBI has done that to catch pirates, so I'm sure the RIAA can. | |
|
| | | | | | Re: Hmmm If RIAA shares the file on BitTorrent, then RIAA is in effect granting the downloaders to share the file with others because downloading requires sharing in standard BitTorrent. | |
|
| | | |  root9
join:2005-04-08
Kitchener, ON | said by jc100:They own title to said file, so it's not illegal to share. The FBI has done that to catch pirates, so I'm sure the RIAA can. Technically RIAA doesn't own the title to anything. People who they represent do. Therefore RIAA is liable just as anyone else if they download said illegal content.
--
Please engage eyeballs and retain functional brain before operating fingers. | |
|
| |  KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| said by jc100:Nope.. not at all. So in order to get around such shaky ground, the RIAA sends someone to download the file and log such activity. There by, they claim the person broke the law and that they now had net losses. Easy fix. That would require breaking the law.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) | |
|
| | | | | Re: Hmmm Nice try, but if the company they hire to download the files were given authorization to do such (which they would be as that is what they were hired for), then that company is not breaking any law. | |
|
| | |  MaggsPremium
join:2002-11-29
Woodside, NY | Wouldn't that be entrapment | |
|
| | | | | | Re: Hmmm said by Maggs:Wouldn't that be entrapment That would most definitely be entrapment. | |
|
| | | | | | No. Entrapment is a very tough defense that RARELY if ever works. I mean the police these days pretend to be kids and snare people. The person on the other line is an adult, yet they get them for attempted solicitation of a minor. That is entrapment but they still get those people. That's just one example. The only time I CAN EVER remember the entrapment defense working in a major case would be with Delorean. Delorean was approached by the FBI to sell drugs after his was going bankrupt. T hey then got him on drug charges and he won on the defense they approached him and not vice versa. However, 99.99 percent of the time, you're shit out of luck with that defense. | |
|
| | This practice will become widespread ISPs represent deep pockets with high risk profiles. They will jump at the chance to put due diligence standards in place to appease the RIAA. | |
|
|  R0CKYTSI RockyPremium,VIP
join:2005-05-19
Chatham, ON | Re: This practice will become widespread said by hairspring:ISPs represent deep pockets with high risk profiles. They will jump at the chance to put due diligence standards in place to appease the RIAA. I'd suspect this point could be argued, at least from where I stand being part of a pure ISP perspective. The ISPs that are to gain here are mostly ISPs who are also content providers or Media Providers. Those who are true-blue ISPs who are there to simply be an Onramp are only going to want to step in and get involved when the law says to do so, otherwise being transparent is healthy for both ISP and client.
This problem really seems to be more about the Telco/Cableco companies who are trying to leverage their ISP presence to serve and gain from their Media/Content presence.
...just guessing of course! 
--
TSI Rocky - TekSavvy Solutions Inc. | |
|
| | KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service
| Re: This practice will become widespread said by R0CKY:This problem really seems to be more about the Telco/Cableco companies who are trying to leverage their ISP presence to serve and gain from their Media/Content presence. ...just guessing of course! You sir, have guessed... wisely.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) | |
|
|
|  TamaraBQuestion The Current ParadigmPremium
join:2000-11-08
Da Bronx
 ·Optimum Online
 ·Clearwire Wireless
| Re: You do not have to be a Rocket Scientist to figure it out said by Mr Matt: ... Since much P to P traffic is copyrighted music ... Can you back this statement up with some evidence?
Bob
--
Motor Vessel - Tamara B.
43' Long-Range Trawler
Cape Elizebeth ME.
See her Here. | |
|
| |  japPremium
join:2003-08-10
038xx | Re: You do not have to be a Rocket Scientist to figure it out said by TamaraB:said by Mr Matt: ... Since much P to P traffic is copyrighted music ... Can you back this statement up with some evidence? Measured in data volume it's way more video than tunage. But don't play dumb, Bob. It's a given that most volume - not merely 'much' - is infringing material. I'll hazard 80% +/- 5%. Asking for "evidence" is a fool's game and beside the point.
Captivating is the tangled problem of relative harm, relative ethics, and schisms between creator(s) and copyright owner(s) ... which in an ideal world would be the same entity. Every infringement is differently speculative in it's actual social impact. Positive & negative. The comedy is watching our bizzistlators attempt to frame things as a flat-world dichotomy; infringers versus 'the rest of us'.  | |
|
| | | TamaraBQuestion The Current ParadigmPremium
join:2000-11-08
Da Bronx Reviews:
·Optimum Online
·Clearwire Wireless
| Re: You do not have to be a Rocket Scientist to figure it out said by jap: ... Measured in data volume it's way more video than tunage. You mean P2P is. How much of it is copyrighted material being illegally transferred?
said by jap: Asking for "evidence" is a fool's game and beside the point. We've entered a brave new world in our legal system when "evidence" is "beside the point", and a "fool's game". Let's see how that plays out in other parts of society. Eighty percent of Americans smoke pot; therefor you can be arrested for being an American. How does that fit? Take your logic out of the realm of P2P, and it becomes utter nonsense.
I would honestly like to know where you get these figures "80% +/- 5%" from? Does this represent your usage of P2P? A "SWAG"? Or is it merely MPAA/RIAA/ISP propaganda?
Bob
--
Motor Vessel - Tamara B.
43' Long-Range Trawler
Cape Elizebeth ME.
See her Here. | |
|
| | | | japPremium
join:2003-08-10
038xx
1 edit | Re: You do not have to be a Rocket Scientist to figure it out OK, I made you defensive. Sorry.
The realm is P2P, it's not very measurable, my percentage statement is clearly labeled as a guess. If you p2p even a little you'll know the overwhelming volume is infringed material. Arguing anything else looks rediculous. Often one must go with the experiential obvious and not play the "hard facts" game. Your insistence on the topic looks silly.
My stating these observations has no bearing on my opinions on the state of IP law or the ethics of infringement. You & I may not be far apart on those. IMO, your commonly observed ideology clouds reality and the "evidence" demands are simply a way to argue to an end you prefer. Me thinks it works against your probable goal.
Sincere, and I mean that, apologies for speaking bluntly in a public thread. I more-or-less like your politics and feel your constant railing against The Man is a burden to the collective voice of progressives same as radicals on the bizzomatic political machine side frustrate their more moderate peers.
Still want to smoke a cigar on the TamaraB with you.  Peace out. | |
|
| | | | | TamaraBQuestion The Current ParadigmPremium
join:2000-11-08
Da Bronx Reviews:
·Optimum Online
·Clearwire Wireless
| Re: You do not have to be a Rocket Scientist to figure it out said by jap:OK, I made you defensive. Sorry. Not so much defensive. The very concept of having to pay tribute, or to incur legal expenses, based on no evidence rattles my cage. Now, I hardly ever use P2P, I have no real use for it except getting a linux distro now and then. It is a valid Internet protocol.
I have absolutely no qualms about RIAA/MPAA punishing the guilty. However, to do so, they, like all other enforcement agencies, need to punish the provably guilty. It is apparently easy to see who is downloading what MAY be copyright material. A simple subpoena will reveal the address of the alleged infringer, and another subpoena will allow the search of the hard drive. This is due process.
Threatening/demanding tribute money, without due process, is nothing short of extortion by abuse of process.
said by jap:Still want to smoke a cigar on the TamaraB with you. Peace out. Got some goodies, and recently got gifted a bottle of Havana Club; that most likely won't last too long! You are welcome anytime you are in the area.
Bob
--
Motor Vessel - Tamara B.
43' Long-Range Trawler
Cape Elizebeth ME.
See her Here. | |
|
| openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | said by Mr Matt:Now how will the ISP's stop TV over IP. Caps.
In case reading 10-Ks isn't your idea of fun, ISPs are spending billions to upgrade their networks. Anyway, this discussion isn't really about ISPs not upgrading their networks, it's about the **AAs' questionable info gathering techniques. | |
|
 JehuPremium
join:2002-09-13
MA
kudos:2 | What legal fight? Can't ISPs terminate your account for any reason? Where's the legal fight? | |
|
|  marigoldsGainfully employed, finallyPremium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1 | Re: What legal fight? In the case of Comcast, their issue is that their video services are regulated and cannot be terminated for any reason. More importantly, random terminations on the internet end lead to complaints that are heard by cable regulators; which can cause frication when the next franchise renewal comes around. | |
|
 DogfatherPremium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA | How do they know what the file is? I had assumed the RIAA were the ones doing the downloading.
If they aren't the ones doing the downloading, how do they know what the file actually is? They only know the size and the title of the file. | |
|
| | | Re: How do they know what the file is? said by Dogfather:If they aren't the ones doing the downloading, how do they know what the file actually is? They only know the size and the title of the file. But there is no proof that RIAA did the downloading, ergo the RIAA isn't guilty. Don't pick on the poor RIAA and convict them with zero evidence. | |
|
| | DogfatherPremium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
1 edit | Re: How do they know what the file is? They, like you, claim people are guilty with zero evidence.
Just as you had no evidence of the Mozilla Foundation obtaining SSN, DOB or other information for profit, the RIAA, apparently has no evidence that the files they say infringe in fact infringe. | |
|
| | | KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service
| Re: How do they know what the file is? Right. Let's say I put a file on up on P2P called "Coming in the Air Tonight.mp3"
BayTSP or MediaJoke or whatever flags it... assuming it's Phil Collins track with the same title.
The DMCA sends a takedown notice and a lawsuit settlement extortion.
Then, in a just world, I'd have a ton of money for lawyers, and so would counter-sue and fight them in court, and if Justice was served, I'd win big punitive damages against them and an injunction to shut them down from doing this again to other people. (Yes, I know, dreaming of justice and money... )
You see, because my MP3 was actually a recording of my backyard at dusk with the sun going down and the crickets and critters singing their tunes. 
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) | |
|
| | | | | said by Dogfather:They, like you, claim people are guilty with zero evidence. And "they," like you, are convicting the much victimized RIAA without any proof whatsoever. Don't look now but you just stepped into a steaming pile of hypocrisy. | |
|
| | | | DogfatherPremium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
4 edits | Re: How do they know what the file is? LOL, wrong again McCarthy.
I did no such thing. You need to actually READ threads before posting.
Other articles state the RIAA admitted they downloaded the files while the court ruled that just because the RIAA downloaded them doesn't mean anyone else did. The court ruled that hosting the files in itself isn't infringement. Someone has to actually download them and the court said the copyright holder can't (apparently) infringe on his own work by downloading it. So the subpoenas for user info were denied because the RIAA couldn't prove that anyone else downloaded the files.
But thanks for stalking. It's been a hoot. | |
|
| |
| |  jester121Premium
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL
 ·voip.ms
| Re: How do they know what the file is? Errr.. that's not how P2P works. You can name the file whatever you want, but it's the MD5 hash created from the file that matches up peers. If the RIAA find a particular hash shared then it doesn't matter what the file is named if what's inside is their music.
This is basically the same argument with the .torrent search sites, they aren't hosting any video or audio files; all they have is pointers TO the actual goods.
(note -- just pointing this out for clarity sake, I don't care much one way or another about P2P, so if anyone wants to argue minutiae you can argue alone.) | |
|
| | | TamaraBQuestion The Current ParadigmPremium
join:2000-11-08
Da Bronx Reviews:
·Optimum Online
·Clearwire Wireless
| Re: How do they know what the file is? said by jester121:Errr.. that's not how P2P works. You can name the file whatever you want, but it's the MD5 hash created from the file that matches up peers. So? The only way to verify the MD5 hash is to download the file, and check the MD5 checksum. Meaning? You, the MPAA in this case, must download, and in the process make the file available to others. This activity, nullifies all your claims of copyright infringement. YOU, the copyright holder, have made the file available. Seems like a legal conundrum to me!
Bob
--
Motor Vessel - Tamara B.
43' Long-Range Trawler
Cape Elizebeth ME.
See her Here. | |
|
| | | | | | Re: How do they know what the file is? said by TamaraB:said by jester121:Errr.. that's not how P2P works. You can name the file whatever you want, but it's the MD5 hash created from the file that matches up peers. So? The only way to verify the MD5 hash is to download the file, and check the MD5 checksum. Meaning? You, the MPAA in this case, must download, and in the process make the file available to others. This activity, nullifies all your claims of copyright infringement. YOU, the copyright holder, have made the file available. Seems like a legal conundrum to me! Bob I like your thinking, but the RIAA and MPAA strike me as the leechy type; no upload for you... | |
|
| | | | | TamaraBQuestion The Current ParadigmPremium
join:2000-11-08
Da Bronx Reviews:
·Optimum Online
·Clearwire Wireless
| Re: How do they know what the file is? said by ross: ... no upload for you... Being an OLD Fart, I have collected and paid for my music many times over. Take the song I referenced above, "Keep on Chooglin". I BOUGHT it on 33RPM records years ago. Then, when the record became badly scratched, I BOUGHT it again on 45RPM records. Then, when it too became scratched, I BOUGHT it yet again on Cassette tape. When the Tape got eaten by the player, I BOUGHT it yet again on CD. I then lost the CD, so I downloaded the album via P2P. Hell! I PAID for it 4 times! All I did in downloading it was to overcome the manufacture defects in their media. Am I a criminal? Or are the Music Moguls rip-off criminals? After PAYING for it 4 times, don't I have a right to have a good copy of the piece?
Bob
--
Motor Vessel - Tamara B.
43' Long-Range Trawler
Cape Elizebeth ME.
See her Here. | |
|
| | | | | | | | Re: How do they know what the file is? Aside from the fact you appear to be just a little bit careless with your musical possessions, in a reasonable world one would expect a 40 year old song to be free for the asking, if for non-commercial use, whether you paid for it four times, or not. So, fork the 10K fine, and keep on chooglin'... | |
|
 RickPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-06
Waterbury, CT | Two problems with that defense.. First..the person offering it would have a hard time explaining what OTHER reason they would have had to have had the file there in the first place if it wasn't meant to be downloaded. And second..
if the only crime is having downloaded it..could the person offering it escape that themselves? It's highly likely they obtained it that way themselves.
IMHO..the RIAA has an effective way of prosecuting individuals
if they wanted to. The real problem is the sheer number of people doing it and the fact they have to proceed case by case person by person makes it unworkable. They tried to do that in the hopes of scaring people but now it's almost a joke to receive a letter apparently and a pinup for their wall.
I'm going to stand by my suggestion posted in another thread that because this did not work that their next target MAY be the Isp's themelves and hence, this is why the isp's are now starting to cooperate more.
--
The Coyote captured the RR! Roadrunner Rick is now Comcastic! | |
|
|
See 8 replies to this post |
|
 FLengineerCCNA, CEH, MCSAPremium
join:2007-06-26
Leesburg, FL
·T-Mobile US
·Bright House
1 edit | Criminal? Civil? or Begging? ok lets get a few things straight with all the discussions going on. The RIAA has 3 choices when it comes to pursuing someone for copyright infringement.
1) Criminal Charges
They must prove to a jury beyond a shadow of a doubt without violating entrapment or privacy laws.
Yea, Good luck with that one cause it's not going to happen.
2) Civil Charges
They must convince a Judge that you have cost them money and that they didn't break any laws finding this out.
Possible, but tough. No jury, No "beyond a shadow of a doubt"
3) Settlements
Send letters that cost $1 to make and hope that at least one out of every five hundred people get scared and pay the fines.
Cheap, easy, and profitable.
This is why the RIAA is sending letters. The ISP's are jumping on the band wagon for their own personal gain, less upgrades in their backbone and more profits in their media markets. | |
|
|
| | To avoid all that mess simply....... stop downloading illegal files. Whats so hard about it?
Money? Hell, you might end up paying more money if you get caught sharing illegal files. | |
|
| DMNTD
join:2002-10-19
Austin, TX
2 edits | Re: To avoid all that mess simply....... Oh while your on that topic of illegal...stop breathing, your c02 is killing the planet....see it all depends on your angle. | |
|
| | well actually as far as them just downloading it and then using it that way. That would be entrapment and even in a civil case would be frowned upon by a jury. The question would also arise that beyond the download of their own personnel, has anyone else downloaded it. | |
|
| | so what if.. so what if only part of the files leaves the pc and not all of it, like torents get little pieces from all over, then technicaly no one pc transmitted the complete file. | |
|
|  a333A hot cup of integrals please
join:2007-06-12
Rego Park, NY
·Cingular Wireless
| Re: so what if.. How has Verizon been reacting to such **AA attention? Also, if I want to stream my library of music over the internet on an Apache server, would that be illegal? (My server doesn't let the files be downloaded, it just opens up a QuickTime applet in the page which streams the file live) | |
|
| |  BSD24Tier 4Premium
join:2008-04-30
Middleboro, MA | Re: so what if.. said by a333:How has Verizon been reacting to such **AA attention? Also, if I want to stream my library of music over the internet on an Apache server, would that be illegal? (My server doesn't let the files be downloaded, it just opens up a QuickTime applet in the page which streams the file live) Well, illegal maybe. Just like internet radio has to pay per user to listen to 1 clip, someone has to pay to distribute someone elses music, that person in other words that created the music should be compensated. | |
|
|
|
·