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.
Comment removed (Score:1, Insightful)
"has dropped from 20% to 19%" (Score:5, Insightful)
The error inherent to measuring something that is 'unlawful' and often frowned upon is far greater than the difference between 19 and 20 percent. Perhaps everyone has simply got better at concealing their downloading of copyrighted material (mp3 blogs, private trackers, etc) or perhaps the effect of the RIAA's grandma-suing onslaught has been that people lie about their online activity more.
Targeting Certain Universities? (Score:5, Insightful)
The question is more like: Are they only sending take-down notices to certain universities?
No notices have been sent to Harvard, supposedly because they have lots of money, power, and law professors
Re:The best way to not get caught (Score:2, Insightful)
leave this world of "products" and "intellectual property" and "piracy IS theft", where words can mean whatever you want as long as you pay them enough (the Humpty Dumpty principle)...
if they are going to lock you up for copying bits, they'll lock you up for dissent too, for this is the way of the land of freedom
Re:The best way to not get caught (Score:1, Insightful)
What constitutes current "copyrights law(s)" forbids the distribution of copyright-controlled work without creator's approval. The act of downloading is not distribution, unless you are using a P2P sharing program with its defaults set to "share" the contents of your download folder. This is how RIAA lawyers discover and attack.
A more accurate term to use would be "sharing". That would constitute distribution.
Recently, RIAA lawyers have tried to assert that any copy of a copyright work that does not originate with their member corporations is illegal, and have written/supported legislation that would attempt to redefine such works, but that has failed in the courts and has yet to pass through Congress.
So, why put money to something that has essentially been set to minimal value by the market availability of music? Shouldn't the author of said music be happy we're even listening to it? Should they not PAY US to listen to them, above the fray of MILLIONS of artists around the world, now recording and distributing their own music through the Internet?
Re:now lets do the math (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, it should be noted that one percent is much smaller than the sampling error for this kind of thing, so for all we know it could have gone up.
Re:The best way to not get caught (Score:4, Insightful)
Eldred [wikipedia.org] was a miscarraige of justice. When Congress starts writing respectable laws, I'll respect the law. The current copyright laws are no more respectable than the marijuana laws.
However, stop sharing RIAA files because sharing RIAA files only helps the RIAA labels! If they didn't want you to hear it they wouldn't allow it on the radio. File sharing is free advertising, and the RIAA is against it because it is as useful to their competetion as it is to them, while they have radio and the competetion doesn't. If you want that new top-40 song, just plug your radio into your computer and "download" it from your radio.
How to rip from vinyl or tape [kuro5hin.org] or radio, and defeat any and all music DRM in the process! The linked file is an illegal thought crime under the DMCA.
Re:The best way to not get caught (Score:5, Insightful)
2) Are they aware of the *actual* contents of any particular file downloaded? Some cases have been brought on the basis that the filenames were suspicious.
3) Are they aware of my private collection of CD's which, in this modern era, are quicker to download than to rip from the CD? No.
4) Are they aware of my fair use rights, and therefore my ability to exercise them by downloading songs I already have, which has been "approved" by some record labels / artists / courts in some jurisdictions?
5) Do they bother to check their facts BEFORE filing a lawsuit? Apparently not, unless it's to offer "peace treaties" where people sign away rights (including fair use) on the basis of a promise not to prosecute, even when that wouldn't stand up in a court of law.
Apparently, none of the above count when they file lawsuits. That's the problem, not them chasing after people copying copyright material.
So I disagree with their policy. I disagree with many of the lawsuits. I disagree with their tactics. I disagree with their interpretation and publicity surrounding copyright law (the word "pirate" or "theft", for example, when there is no intention to permanently deprive). I disagree with their ignorance of jurisdiction and applicable laws. I disagree with their attempts to strip *existing and well established* rights of my own, on the basis of rumour. I disagree with blanket contracts that people are frightened into signing. I disagree with their pricing policies. I disagree with their segmentation of the market (only offering certain songs online etc.).
And yet, I'm *trying* to give them bloody money. But I'm not doing anything wrong. And all the methods where I can do this either want to charge me all-over-again for the same songs I already have, or punish me by removing my ability to do so (DRM, FUD etc.). Guess why a lot of people hate them. Guess why a lot of less-lawful people just decide to rip their music anyway and don't care for their ramblings. Guess why "piracy" (Yuck!) is rife and they "aren't making money" (Rubbish!).
It's all a scam, based on little actual legal content. The big players won't be stopped by a little bit of DRM or their favourite torrent site going down. The only people to suffer are their prime customer market - people who want to pay them for a song, once, and then have their song (minus broadcast, performance rights etc.) for the course of their life.
Re:The best way to not get caught (Score:5, Insightful)
But I disagree with the theory; that I should not do something -because- it is illegal. It's not as if laws are infallible sources of moral guidance. There are lots of laws which are flat-out wrong.
You shouldn't do stuff that is WRONG. You should however apply your own head to the problem of right and wrong, and not let your morals be dictated by whomever wrote the laws of your country.
Downloading has gone down 1% because... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:now lets do the math (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:The best way to not get caught (Score:2, Insightful)
They, rightly, do not mention suing for copyright infringment for those people who download songs...they do mention suing those people who share their tracks and make them available to upload.
You are not in breach of copyright for dowloading a track; you are in breach of the 'distibution' clause if you allow others to copy it from your computer...
p.s. Ianal, so take the above with a pinch of salt
Re:The best way to not get caught (Score:3, Insightful)
I mean I do buy the occassional album if it's a smallish metal band I love, and who do actually reap most of the profits, but really, even with the RIAA's ridiculous amount of lawsuits, it's still a tiny percentage of the whole 'music piracy' community.
Most people at this age are like that.
~Jarik
Their claims are bullshit! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The best way to not get caught (Score:1, Insightful)
It's _downloading_ that should be wrong--but only if you don't already own the CD. If you already own the CD or have bought the MP3 you should be able to download it as many times as you want.
_Uploading_ should always be fine. Since when is it my responsibility to make sure you're entitled to have a song or not.
I know this doesn't mesh with current copyright law, but that just means the law needs to change.
Re:The best way to not get caught (Score:5, Insightful)
Tough.
If I'm a plumber, and don't work weekends, you don't have the right to force me to work weekends because that's what you would prefer. As a plumber I sell my wages. if a content producer sells licenses to his work, you are no more entitled to dictate what licenses he sells than you are to tell the plumber when he should work. It's their content, not yours.
In other news (Score:3, Insightful)
I suspect that the people measuring P2P downloading are the same people being paid to find downloaders. It's in their best interest to show that they're making a difference and should continue to be paid.
Re:The best way to not get caught (Score:3, Insightful)
Call it what you want, I can still park under a stop sign every day if i'm prepared to pay the $35 fee. Oddly similar to paying $18+ to park in a real parking spot, just you pay at the end, not the beginning.
Re:The best way to not get caught (Score:3, Insightful)
----
Left Wing: Poor people stealing from the rich
Right Wing: Rich people stealing from the poor
Re:The best way to not get caught (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The best way to not get caught (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The best way to not get caught (Score:2, Insightful)
That's what information piracy is all about: Breaking a monopoly. Claiming the right to use the computers we own and Internet we hire in any way we want as long as we don't hurt anyone.
Maybe the record companies feel hurt when they can't sell the same information again and again, but I don't see why we should say no to the huge benefits of free information charing just because they feel hurt if they can't steal money and freedom from us.
Making sure that the ones producing information are getting paid is a different issue. In principle, if you buy a right (to copy something), you're paying a tax even though the tax money goes to some used to be musician. It takes no Einstein to figure out that taxation of information sharing and giving tax-money to people who aren't doing something is as stupid as the president of USA...
Re:The best way to not get caught (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm sick of people taking moral guidance from laws. That leads to a messed up society... the one we are headed that is run by corporations where "law == morals"
Re:Numbers (Score:5, Insightful)
Yet the heavy-handed tactics, their sense of entitlement, their buying of politicians, their often scant evidence turned into a weapon of overwhelming force when wielded by their army of lawyers, and the expense incurred upon *innocent people* to fight these oftentimes spurious claims makes me regard them with no sense of respect, none at all. So my disrespect is shown here in a textual manner by the use of a descriptive and IMO demeaning name.
Sorry if that sparked *your own* angst there, pal, but I can't help what you choose to get upset about.
Re:Their claims are bullshit! (Score:3, Insightful)
In any case, I just tested this by ripping a track 3 times on my machine (cdparanoia on a Plextor drive), and all 3 copies have the same md5 hash. Maybe newer drives have special ripping modes that now allow "perfect" CD audio rips. 10-to-15 years ago, this certainly wasn't the case, as I distinctly remember being tweaked by the test above resulting in 3 slightly different files (though they all sounded the same). Still, I can imagine that enough older (and cheaper, perhaps) hardware is out there in circulation which could result in different files each rip.
Now I'm curious. I'll have to try ripping the same track on the 2 other machines in the house.
Re:Who cares? (Score:3, Insightful)
That is usually true in a democracy. However, look at our current crop of Congressmen, Senators, and Administration officials, and the way money influences them. After Our current grand scheme of government is that "money talks" and everyone else walks.
I can has free ride plz (Score:1, Insightful)
Yes, except the person who worked hard and invested their own money to produce the content you want to share.
Re:Targeting Certain Universities? (Score:4, Insightful)
Using software which they had "pirated". Thus showing everyone exactly what kind of hypocrits they are.
Re:I can has free ride plz (Score:1, Insightful)
IF you can't compete - what do you expect? (Score:3, Insightful)
Your analogy is very weak, there is not ONE SINGLE pirate/person/leecher who are in anyway dictating who works when, secondly you provide a *SERVICE* not a *PRODUCT* that is by nature reproducible - the service isn't. Although if you that is what your truly meaning - then it's tough luck for you, simply because if your *ONLY* willing to provide your in-demand product at a lower quality and limited supply as to your competitors (yes the pirating is your competition) then that's *your* problem as I see it, simply because your refusing to supply what your customers want and then complain because they find a way to get it.
If your consumers are willing to chance getting caught obtaining *BETTER* quality version of your product by means in which you are out right *DENYING* them, then what in the hell do you expect?
Your customers aren't going to just accept that they are limited to low quality products, or nothing at all simply because you just dont want to provide it - especially when what they want is *VERY EASY* to obtain.
With the right software, obtaining the product you want is literally as complicated as writing a check to pay for the goods in real life. Regardless of the legality, this is at least partly what your competition is, and if you can not or will not provide what the competition does provide, your simply not going to get the business - if your customers are willing the risk the chance (what ever it may be) they *WILL* go to the competition every time.
Back when I started with Linux, I saw OSS as one thing (excluding the free aspect) - and that is forcing the commercial segment to get there act together are start producing valuable products again, otherwise everyone will just opt for the lower quality free product, it only makes common since.
The problem, as I see it at least, is that OSS and pirating is ultimately producing *HIGHER* quality products than what the commercial industry is *STILL* producing, and to top it off the cost of the products have gone up.
Two versions of the same product side by side, one is of higher quality and very easy to obtain - as compared to the one next to it, which is of lower quality and can be frustrating to obtain and keep (ZUNE DRM comes to mind I think). Which one do you think people are going to opt for?
Doesn't it go something like... If you can't stand the heat of the kitchen, get out?
Re:I can has free ride plz (Score:2, Insightful)
Ok, first, I have stopped listening to most music (and I didn't die (general statement of fact)).
Second, I find it difficult to swallow any argument that says record executives, let alone media sentry or others have invested "their own" money to produce music (response to parent post).
Third, it is ultimately the artists' own problem if they choose to produce using a label- they should know in advance by now that their music will be locked away from all but their law-breaking fans. With a cheap mac-mini they could produce their own CDs at a quality that rivals all but the best label-produced albums, but they get greedy, make their manager's rich, and suffer the consequences. boo hoo.
Give me the artists that produce their own albums to support their live performances, not hacks who tour to support album sales for their corporate overlords.Re:The best way to not get caught (Score:3, Insightful)
What is you are the only plumber in town, and refused to work on weekends, and then found out that people were fixing there own toilets, and started suing them.
That is a more accurate analogy.