Inside the RIAA and MediaSentry 218
bsdewhurst sends along an interesting article about how MediaSentry and the RIAA identify file sharers. Since 2003, while the RIAA has been filing 28,000 lawsuits, the percentage of US Internet users using P2P for downloading music has dropped from 20% to 19% (there is no knowing how much of a factor the lawsuits have been). The list the RIAA uses for ISP takedown notices is about 700 currently popular songs that are updated based on the charts, so not liking the top 40 could save you. The list of songs tracked for the user-litigation program is said to be larger.
Re:The best way to not get caught (Score:5, Informative)
No drop in file sharers (Score:1, Informative)
Lies, damned lies, and statistics (Score:5, Informative)
First off, how are these numbers generated? Finding out how many file sharers there are may not be as impossible as finding out how many Linux users there are, but how are these metrics obtained?
Second, what is the margin of error? If there is a +- 4% margin, then the actual percentage could have risen.
Third, if the total number of internet users has risen by, say 5% (number pulled from a dark hairy orifice) and file sharing dropped by 1%, the actual number of file sharers has risen.
Fourth and most importantly, not all file sharers are breaking the (civil) law. There are far, far more musicians (and programmers, etc) with files they WANT you to share than there are RIAA musicians. How many file sharers are sharing legitimate content? The corporate media would have you think everything on Kazaa or Morpheus is illegal, when in fact that "fact" is a damned lie.
Re:The best way to not get caught (Score:5, Informative)
Even this isn't quite right.. Copyright refers to the distribution of a work. Here in Canada (at least for the moment), it is perfectly lawful (and legal) to download copyrighted works, in the same way that it is lawful to use a photocopier at a library. The part that is not lawful is the sharing back of the work to others. At that point, you are "distributing" the work and infringing on the copyright holder's rights.
Re:Targeting Certain Universities? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Hash value? (Score:4, Informative)
Two rips of the same CD music track do not necessarily lead to the exact bit-by-bit identical MP3 file. Thus the hash is different, even if the same software, same CD, and same settings are used.
Two people with
There are other identification methods for music files, such as the one used by http://musicbrainz.org/ [musicbrainz.org], which
Seriously, use the library (Score:5, Informative)
Borrow the CD, rip it at the format and audio quality you want, listen to it until you get sick of it, then return the CD for the next person.
100% legal and moral behavior. That, quite frankly, is the purpose of the library.
Re:The best way to not get caught (Score:5, Informative)
I have a memory of the SonyBMG/XCP-debacle, parts of it were about XCP containing source code protected by GPL, but not distributing the source code (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_Copy_Protection#Copyright_violations)
Also, here in Sweden a record company distributed a CD with seven photographs on the cover. They had not obtained the photographers permission, not printed her name and turned the pictures into black-and-white without permission. As per standard pratice the photographer sent the record company a bill of (approx) 160K SEK (not quite US$27K), but was offered 2K SEK plus two tickets for the bands next concert. (http://www.fotosidan.se/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=29644, only Swedish text unfortunately). From the silence from the photographer I think this was settled out of court.
Further, and also in Sweden, IFPI has published a copy of a newspaper article on their website. When asked about this they answered that they didn't know that copyright also extends to written material (http://www.idg.se/2.1085/1.146198, only Swedish text.)
When the record industry tramples other peoples rights under thier feet like that I see no major reason for me to bother about their rights, as long as I don't do it for profit.
Re:The best way to not get caught (Score:3, Informative)
So if the law allows me to download songs (i.e. "not forbid it whatsoever"), why should I pay the record companies for a legal act?
You are trying to show a difference in meaning between 2 words where there is none. Whether you use the word "unlawful" or "illegal", downloading is not allowed under the law. The "reparations" associated with that act are damages and penalties, NOT licensing fees - they just happen to be collected by the injured party, not the State. (Note that I disagree with that practice, but it is the law as currently written). Similar to parking ticket - it's not a fee for the parking space, payable to the state. It is a fine for doing something that is not allowed under the law.
Re:Hash value? (Score:3, Informative)
Actually there's a little bit of loose terminology. I expect that Wikipedia is talking about true hash functions which are really short cuts to otherwise complex algorithms. LimeWire on the otherhand is really using GUIDs and the main requirement is that they are globally unique. Determinism is a consequence of being globally unique. Being fast is desirable, but by no means necessary for GUIDs.
Hash functions and GUIDs are related, but not the same thing.
Re:The best way to not get caught (Score:2, Informative)
But creating a copy is in many cases.
>The act of downloading is not distribution,...
It does normally includes creating a copy of what you download on your computer. Hence it can, and often is, a copyright infringement.
Re:The best way to not get caught (Score:5, Informative)
What weierstrass is commenting on is the semantic difference between "unlawful" and "illegal." It's an important point in law theory, but quite unimportant with regards to the main discussion here, since regardless of whether it's "unlawful" or "illegal", the penalties are the same.
What some of you reading this may have gotten hung up on is "but does not forbid it whatsoever" to mean "so go ahead and download all you want without fear." This is simlpy not the case.
"unlawful" in this case means this: there is NO law that says "Thou art not allowed to tranfer KaiserChiefs-Ruby.mp3 via limewire." In fact, for the most part, "the law" says nothing about mp3 files, p2p networks, ipods, and so forth.
What the law does lay guidelines for, however, is what constitutes LEGAL IP distribution, redistribution, and fair use. Frankly, if you're reading this thread in 2008 and don't know the four or five US provisions for something to be classified as "Fair Use" off the top of your head, then you have no business being in this discussion - get thee to a wikipedia.
So, the law does not "forbid" transferring "KaiserChiefs-Ruby.mp3" via limewire - what it does, however, is state the principles and guidelines under which transferring such intellectual property could be considered legal. Since basically all interpretations have found that wantonly sharing this file on a P2P network does not fall under such guidelines, it is therefore "unlawful".
What does this mean for you? Not much. The penalties and the penalties are the penalties no matter whether it's "illegal" or "unlawful." "The law allows the copyright owner to seek reparations" basically means that if you do it, you can get sued for a lot of money. I'd add to this that it takes very little actual P2P use to cross into the line of CRIMINAL copyright infringement ($1000 worth of material in any 180 day period - I guesstimate that most p2p users exceed this by a considerable margin.)
If you're interested in reading more, please see http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html [copyright.gov] . It's short reading, but worthwhile for anybody who participates in these threads other than to throw up more piracy-"justifying" obfuscation and FUD.
Oh wait - i said "piracy!" This gives green light for some of you to blather on (incorrectly) about the inappropriateness of the term for copyright infringement and its reservation for high seas crimes. Whew! That sure will get you out of actually confronting the issues.
Re:The best way to not get caught (Score:5, Informative)
After reading the article:
1) They concentrate on college and university networks here in America, and your IP address generally betrays (at least) your nationality. Yes, they are aware.
2) Sources? You may very well be right, but the article says they download the file themselves and run it through a "fingerprinting" software to see if it matches a song they hold a copyright to. (You know, one of those nifty programs that'll tell you what's playing on the radio.) If it's an infringing file, they record its size and hash and look for matches.
3) They're probably not aware of your CD collection. But, what in Xenu's name are you doing torrenting an album you already own, when just putting the disc in the freaking drive gets you whatever quality (even Windows Media Player lets you do lossless!) correct tags, album art, and is done in a few minutes? In what case is finding a torrent faster than ripping the actual disc? Do you have a T3 line connected to a Windows 98 box with a dual-speed CD-ROM drive? And has anyone actually been sued for downloading their own CD collection?
4) Again, why are you downloading songs you already have? And again, has anyone actually been sued for this?
5) It's called "settling out of court." Our courts prefer it, actually. Now, the RIAA has done a lot of stupid, reprehensible things - but if I just finished pirating a record label, I'd rather spend a few hundred bucks to settle out of court than actually go to court for something I know I did illegally/unlawfully/contrasanguinous kittenous.
Now, the prices for a new album are pretty rediculous, especially if you only want one song on the disc. $.99 doesn't cut it, either, if the track's DRM'd. I was burned by the closing of the "URGE" music store, and I had to burn/rip my (rather small) music collection onto disc and off again to play my tracks after they shut down.
I also am a huge fan of Japanese music - but a lot of that's hard to get a hold of without spending $bucks at an importer. (Amazon.com has a surprising selection, though.) It's not like they'll let you into the Japanese iTunes store without a Japanese mailing address and credit card, either - although you can get around that by having someone send you (or e-mail you a scan of) a Japanese iTunes gift card. (Here's the one advantage of our entertainment industry being one evil **AA tradegroup - it's easier to license music. From what little I've heard, their entertainment industry is somewhat more fragmented, which makes it harder for people to license music.)
What a rant! But two points I want to make - it's still illegal/unlawful/contrasanguinous kittenous to "pirate" music, and it's just stupid if you own the disc. If you don't like it enough to pay $.99, then it probably wasn't worth downloading anyway, was it?
Further, there's what they consider to be p2p. (Score:3, Informative)
From the use of such terms as "shared folder" my guess is they're still referring to the archaic gnutella style clients, when bit torrent has been taking over for years.
I haven't used a gnutella client since 2004, and the last time it was a primary means of p2p sharing was 2002
Error in the article (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Numbers (Score:3, Informative)
RadioTower [radiotower.com]
GarageBand [garageband.com]
Live365 [live365.com]
Re:The best way to not get caught (Score:2, Informative)
Once a leecher has downloaded a full copy of the file and then shares that file, they become a seeder. On a 3Mbs DSL connection, a leecher can become a seeder in less than one minute.
The RIAA is taking the vacuum cleaner approach and sucking up everyone who is sharing the same file. The only way for the RIAA to find the person who created the rip would be if the person doing the ripping added metadata that linked them to the ripped file.