'ISPs don't work for the RIAA'

"We want money"

The EFF needs a new name - Encouraging Fraudulent Filesharing. They seem intent on making sure that people can illegally share music and movies without paying for them.

No. It's a matter of bowing down to an organization to disclose, on a whim, private information.

If Verizon just gives out information without a proper COURT ORDER (giving the XXaa information on a whim), I will drop them. There is a matter of consumer privacy they need to uphold.

Court order, fine. No court order. PROBLEM.

BTW, I do not, nor do I support, illegal downloading of anything.

RIAA... Recording Idiots And Assholes

protecting your rights to privacy is a good goal because once you loose that right whether or not you do illegals or not they have essentially stripped away your right. It is a lot easier to loose your rights then to maintain them.

Don't hate the players, hate the game!

If xxAAs weren't so anal about what/where/when/how much, legal media downloads would skyrocket.

Same price or more, for a download that is restricted/DRMed to death vs a physical copy from BestBuy that will play anywhere at any time.

Yeah, that makes sense, huh?

Whewn I can download a media file that is comparable to the physical CD/DVD in terma of usability... for less cost, I'll do it!

Seeing as that may never happen, TPB is bookmarked.

Maybe you should actually read the article before spewing self-righteous tripe.

The methods the RIAA uses to enforce their obsolete business model are unethical and possibly illegal.

I spent my life in the music biz. If you knew the players, you would have a different outlook on them.

A lot of them make liver flukes look noble and useful, in comparison.

Maybe TCH needs a new name - The Corporations Hyperbole. So intoxicated with the gospel spewed by corporations that it makes him type blanket statements with extravagant rhetorical exaggerations and not an iota of logic in them.

by "illegal share", I assume you mean copyright infringement? In some cases it can actually be legal to share (a little something called "fair use").

in any event, if the RIAA and member companies would get their heads out of their @sses and offer non-DRMed music, there would be much less reason to "illegally" download or "make available".

the actions of the RIAA are about as futile as bottled water companies complaining to the municipal water commission that "people are getting water out of their taps for free!" Although they would never do that because they have actually figured out how to compete with free.

He voted. LoL TCH, at least you do have a sense of humor.

What the EFF is doing is making sure people like the RIAA do not invade privacy through their Gestapo tactics. I don't share nor download copyrighted media, but that doesn't mean I can't be drawn into the fray through misguided or incorrect research.

My DSL gets its IP through DHCP, and if I happen to land on one that was previously used by someone hanging out on Bittorrent 24 hours per day, I'm suspected. The EFF is making sure that proper legal routes are followed as opposed to those jackasses at the RIAA calling me up or sending me a letter demanding payment. Either way, I lose because if I refuse, it goes to court and I have to pay to defend myself.

The EFF doesn't want to promote piracy, but it does want to make sure that getting online is a protected form of speech and isn't going to subject you to tyranny from some business organization.

YESI disagree. It just would make it easier to infringe on copyrighted material.You are probably right. But I don't think giving up the fight is the right thing to do, even if the fight is not completely winnable.

Excellent post TCH. Let me expand a little up on this...

I am a published writer and photographer. In my short freelance career, I have personally caught a few websites and publications using my work as their own. A few sites were non profit, but still, the point is that my work is just that. Mine to own. If I sell that work, then it is no longer mine.

I know software makers who make shareware who find their full version products downloaded thousands of times on P2P networks. Then you have the small regional bands who will share a couple songs of their work, but find their full albums out on P2P networks. The community expects us to believe that these people aren't seeing a cut in their profits from lost sales? Please. I personally know 6 people who have at least 8GB of music they have downloaded and have no intention of buying. However, they listen to this music on a daily basis. If that doesn't spell lost sale right there, I don't know what does.

There has to be some protection of intellectual property rights out there. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying P2P should be outlawed, but there has to be a punishment for illegal file sharing. In my mind, there should be a totally independent law enforcement group going after people who are sharing digital music and movies online.

There is no such thing as anonymous file sharing, which is why it should be very easy to find those that infringe and be able to prove it. Gee, its as simple as getting a list of everyone sharing, their IP address, ISP hands over their information based on the IP, and there you have it.

There just needs to be a separate entity doing all this work and not the RIAA.

Regardless of your philosophy on file sharing, why is it that we have to keep giving up our hard earned rights? Is it for our "safety", "child safety", "anti terrorism", so on...we are slowly becoming what we were once so against........

It is nice to hear from an artist on this who depends on copyright to make a living. There are always posts here at BBR that claim that no harm is ever done by stealing copyrighted works. Of course, they are only cheap people who feel that it is their god given right to take something without paying for it.

Yes, for a small publisher like yourself, you does hurt you, but the artists are paid regardless of piracy. The artists sign a contract and it's done. It's not like they are paid a weekly check where the $ amount is based on how many times their album was downloaded.
So yes, I agree with the small man trying to make a living wage, but with $$ artists that flaunt a obscene lifestyle, they are still getting paid regardless.

The EFF is right here, we have a process where RIAA can get users' identities through a court order. Would you support your local library, video store, and book store all giving anyone your purchasing info just because they believe you might be infringing a copyright?

I agree. If my ISP give up my data without a court order, subpoena or my prior written permission, not only will I drop them, I will also sue the living cr*p out of them. Any business who doesn't respect my privacy does not deserve my money.

And thus you followed the procedures by copyright law to notify and pursue owners of such websites and publications on that matter? You had your work registered with the Copyright Office? Not sure I follow you here. There are plenty of protections for intellectual works. Before P2P you could tape a song from the radio and listen to it on a daily basis, wasn't that legal and did that spell a lost sale?Again, I'm not sure I follow, there are plenty of laws protecting intellectual property rights. P2P != illegal. Sharing digital music and movies != illegal. Law enforcement is not a dept. of the RIAA/MPAA. They can follow due process and existing laws. The problem is they want to legislate their way to profits. Besides, there are far bigger problems that deserve independent resources in the USA than maintaining the RIAA/MPAA outdated business model.It is not that simple. It has already been shown in a news item recently that even connecting to say, a torrent tracker that is being watched over by MediaSentry will get your IP flagged as an illegal filetrader, even if you're not uploading/downloading. And lets not forget about the dead filetraders and other bogus lawsuits that the RIAA has filled. Someone takes your car without your knowledge and robs a bank. Would it be fair if you have to pay for that crime? An IP address is not a reliable identifier of an illegal filetrader. And besides, the ISP will hand over the personal info of an illegal filetrader as long as the RIAA follows due process.And there are plenty that will do the work, I just don't see why we as taxpayers or the ISPs have to subsidized the cost of it. Let the RIAA/MPAA pay for it. Going by their inflated figures on loss due to piracy, their ROI will be almost immediate.

how can non-DRMed, legal downloads increase file sharing? CDs don't have DRM, so the music industry sells non-DRMed music all the time. In addition to that, some music is available for file sharing even before the CD is out. Saying they need DRM isn't to stop piracy, it's to perpetuate the music industry business model of central control.

As for giving up the fight, they could get a clue and change their business model - remember the bottled water.

Just out of curiosity.... How do you think they got from the small time to the big time?

So are we now going to determine whether or not a theft or infringement upon someone's rights is based on how big or how successful the offending party is?

I've seen this argument a thousand times, and I think it's time to debunk the myth.

The fact is, while 90% of the people HERE have a problem with DRM and the portability of their music, for practically everyone else, what they download off of iTunes is effectively as good as the CD. They can put it on their iPod, burn it to a CD, and to an extent, move it to another computer. That's all practically everyone wants from their music. So for you to say that removing DRM would cause sales to "skyrocket" is a joke. You might get half of the people who said they would convert to do it, but then you'll have the other half that comes up with some other excuse to keep downloading for the real reason they do it at all: because it's free.

Edit: Not to say I've never downloaded a song or movie from "alternative sources," but I'm just a realist here. It's time to stop making excuses.

I'll say it again; Extortion.

Wikipedia on Extortion.

I disagree. It just would make it easier to infringe on copyrighted material.

No harm done? No...but can one prove that there's a net loss? (aside from **AA's manufactured numbers) I'm sure on the flip side, there are people who've downloaded Nightfall 's music, liked it, and bought it. Hell, alcohol causes physical harm 100% of the time, yet it is still widely sold because (when used in safety and moderation) there is no ill-lasting effects.

Do we know an exact figure of sales lost vs. sales gained? Lament P2P all you like, however, you need to show proof-positive damages before calling wolf.

right thing to do is irrelevant, only thing relevant is what you can get away with and clearly people can get away with p2p

you can get all my information but unless you can prove in court that it was me who was downloading and not someone that was using my "connection" i am not responsible for braking the law. It's same as if you get a speeding ticket, the person that broke the law is responsible and not the register owner. So having information of who "downloaded" is not enough

Look bro, although I was someone who downloaded hundreds of songs per day eventually my own principles got in front of me and I erased around 90% of my library which was downloaded music.

Now I only listen to music I either recorded and was given a right to hear or I simply buy a album that's "really" worth it. Eventually as I became a sound engineer I began to realize how I was hurting artists and in person. Especially when one of the singer's of the group who I had a personal talk with gave me her point of view on P2P.

In the end all your doing is stealing and as much as I hate the RIAA, it's for other reason's beyond extortion. So just don't spout some crazy stupid ass idea with numbers out of your ass if you simply don't know what happens when you don't see it with your own eye's.

The money that comes in just don't go to the artists, what about me? I am a sound engineer I need to get paid, the mortgage for the studio needs to get paid, and all this expensive 40K in audio equipment.

A nice studio microphone is priced around 150 dollars and up, and that's just the freaking microphone.

A court order wouldn't be applicable unless the information in question is requested by the government. Businesses routinely buy and sell private information.

If the RIAA offered enough money for the information I'm sure Verizon would jump on it.