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.
Numbers (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
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
Re: (Score:2)
Just stay away from MAFIAA music - support indies, and those artists who have broken out from under the "protection" they
Re: (Score:2)
I wish that there were more mainstream methods out there of promoting independent music. And my mainstream, I mean something that most people have actually heard of and use to find independent music! Yes, I'm sure that there are already tons of indie f
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
RadioTower [radiotower.com]
GarageBand [garageband.com]
Live365 [live365.com]
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.
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.
now lets do the math (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (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: (Score:2)
"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.
As a music lover (Score:5, Funny)
In ways that are too many to count.
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:Targeting Certain Universities? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Targeting Certain Universities? (Score:4, Insightful)
Using software which they had "pirated". Thus showing everyone exactly what kind of hypocrits they are.
Statistics - Surveys? (Score:4, Interesting)
You mind as well send out a survey asking "do you sell, traffic, or push Illegal Drugs", I wonder what the actual "infringers" are going to mark as an answer?
Pretty everyone I know has pirated some music. Even the mos moral guys have pirated an album or two because hey weren't able to buy it or just really wanted it.
So in actual people who have pirated anything in their lifetime I'm guessing its pretty high (50% at least). But people who are casual pirates who download one or two things whenever they feel like it (maybe once a week) or moderate pirates who download stuff whenever they want it.(maybe an album ever 3 days).
Than you have the serious guys who never have their computer going without downloading something (eg me
I am slowly making a shift to usenet because it has no logs whatsoever. Even if the RIAA begin fighting usenet they aren't going to able to fight the users.
The battle for usenet will be a big corporation vs another big corporation battle. Considering their are only a few usenet companies and all of them are massive conglomerates such as giganews, usenet.com, astraweb.com (my fav...real cheap).
So they are just trying to chip away and do some fear mongering. But they will never defeat piracy. It has become almost cultural and most people with a computer have pirated something. Heck i remember when kazaa came out and people would have a computer dedicated to kazaa just because of all the Spyware
Good times!
Re:Statistics - Surveys? (Score:4, Funny)
"Do you still pirate songs off the interwebs?"
A. Yes.
b. No.
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
CDs do not, generally speaking, have copy protection. Besides, format shifting, comes under fair use.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know where you live, so I can't say 100%, but where I live, my Library is part of a larger network. I can call or email the library, search the whole network on-line, and order what I want and get a call or email when it comes in.
Take a closer look!
Re: (Score:2)
And ive never seen a bootleg at the library.
Re: (Score:2)
A bootleg, by definition, is illegally obtained.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I guess the point "I" was making is that there is no legal or moral way of obtaining that. So, you're on your own I guess.
Re: (Score:2)
Legal, thats often a grey area when it comes to bootlegs.
Re: (Score:2)
That was kind of implied, however, I'm not entirely sure that is true.
There are some ambiguous areas in the law around "fair use." If you do not redistribute the music, use it only for your own personal and private use (i.e. not in a commercial venue), and obtain it with proper rights, it may be perfectly legal to keep the copies. Your public library and every thing in it is shared property of your city or town and its residents. This is esp
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's kind of one of the the points I was making, if it is owned by the library, it is "public property." So, you have some shared property rights.
also, "format shifting" i.e. ripping for an MP3 player or other device has been upheld as reasonable "fair use."
Re: (Score:2)
In rural communities that may be a problem, but in most urban areas the public libraries have multiple "branches." More than that, communities of multiples towns sometimes join forces and provide a common library system.
Where I live, we have one main library and two branches, on top of that our library is in a larger network of libraries. I can get practically any book, CD, or DVD I want
Bad Taste? (Score:4, Funny)
Statistics? (Score:3, Funny)
Downloading has gone down 1% because... (Score:5, Insightful)
Method (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
They don't look for people sharing RIAA members music, they just look for P2P connections
They are not a government organisation
They do not represent the music industry
They do not represent the artists
They cannot arrest you
It is not stealing (it is licence infringement)
It is not piracy
It is however a crime!
not liking the top 40 could save you (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Error in the article (Score:4, Informative)
Re:The best way to not get caught (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The best way to not get caught (Score:4, Funny)
Re:The best way to not get caught (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (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.
Which is what RIAA sues for, isn't it? (Score:3, Interesting)
The waters are muddier, because apparently some P2P programs do (or did) effectively default to sharing anything downloaded right back. (I guess because the whole P2P model wouldn't really work if there were 1 or 2 guys offering it for download, and a few million downloading from them. At that point, you're back to the classic server model, and not in a good way.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (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.
Their claims are bullshit! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (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 rem
Re: (Score:2)
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.
The key factor in that statement is cdparanoia. It is called CD Paranoia because it is designed to anticipate all the jitter and random noise which could appear, as well as transient failures caused by dust, etc. and still get a completely clean and exact bit-for-big digital copy of the digital audio tracks on a CD. In fact, anyone ripping from the same CD using cdparanoia should get the same file every time unless there is a deep scratch or something like that in the disc. What is more likely is that t
Re: (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 - t
Re: (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: (Score:2)
And you can bludgeon a man to death with a baseball bat too if your prepared to pay the price too. Does that make it somehow legal?
Re: (Score:2)
Also you are comparing civil actions, to criminal actions. The $35 dollar parking ticket is unlikely to come back and haunt me, while a murder charge carries significantly more baggage.
I, personally think that
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
From one of the kings of the MPAA...
Yo, ho, haul together,
hoist the colors high.
Heave ho,
thieves and beggars,
never shall we die.
The king and his men
stole the queen from her bed
and bound her in her Bones.
The seas be ours
and by the powers
where we will we'll roam.
Yo, ho, haul together,
hoist the colors high.
Heave ho, thieves and beggars,
never shall we die.
Some men have died
and some are alive
and others sail on the sea
- with the keys to the cage...
and the Devil to pay
we lay to Fi
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:The best way to not get caught (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, what if it is not their product?
For instance, what if you cannot buy the songs in question in the format you want?
Besides, what choice do I have? I live in Croatia, and I cannot access the iTunes store, though I would very much like to purchase some music in a high-quality format. My time is more worth than the meager sum I save by hunting it through various torrents, where I may or may not find acceptable quality both in sound and in tags.
And, of course, if there is something available free of charge, many people will take it. It may be illegal (though not in the way you imply), but there is more than one way of putting one's money where their mouth is. One of those ways is copyright infringement.
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.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (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
Re: (Score:2)
Then you have absolutely no grounds to whine if I get someone else to come over and fix my toilet because you refuse to take my money on a weekend.
Re: (Score:2)
Well then, I'll go to the plumber that charges less and gives me what I want, when I want it.
Deal?
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 *y
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I decline their license.
Then I accept a freebie from someone who doesn't mind sharing what he has.
Unlicensed it may be, but the one thing going for the culture I grew up in is the fact that we don't let trivialities such as these stop us.
Piracy is an evolutionary force. The MAFIAA and their ilk will learn to adapt.
The only question is whether they will adapt themselves or the laws. And if they adapt the laws to serve them, how long it will take the Americans to organize another revolution. Or do y
Re: (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: (Score:2)
Spanish Pipedream [jpshrine.org]
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: (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...
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?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
> download the file themselves and run it through a
>"fingerprinting" software to see if it matches a song
> they hold a copyright to.
Out of curiosity, what if they found out through the fingerprinting that it was NOT a song they hold the copyright to, do they then report themselves for copyright infringement? And how large is the fractions of files they download something they don't hold the copyright to? 1%? 50%? Something else?
Re: (Score:2)
For all the stretches of fair use I see here, downloading "03_Beyonce_Alubmtitle_Songtitle.mp3" to see if it's Beyonce's Songtitle from Albumtitle is probably the more reasonable.
I'm guessing that the RIAA doesn't even keep the stuff that they do own - that's a lot of space, when file sizes and hashes are only a few bytes.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course not, these people are world class hypocrits.
And how large is the fractions of files they download something they don't hold the copyright to? 1%? 50%? Something else?
It would also be interesting to know what the false positive rate is for their "fingerprinting"...
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.
Two wrongs don't make a right, though (Score:2)
Far from me to defend the RIAA, but IMHO the best way to put an end to their own lawlessness is to smack them with the law, not to get into a "he did it first!" kindergarten show. I mean, going by "he did it first!" just sounds like a way to spiral into complete chaos, as everyone eventually finds some pretext as to why he/she shouldn't obey the laws either.
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.
Re: (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"
Backwards... (Score:2)
I think you have that backwards. You're starting with the people instead of the law. Of course people should follow the law. The part that's wrong is that lawmakers should make reasonable and just laws.
When they start making unreasonable, unenforceable, for-profit laws that do not benefit the people, the lawmake
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (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
Re: (Score:2)
We always have ( even before the commercial internet ), and always will.
I don't see it being a hypocrite.
Re: (Score:2)
You might find that your choice of music distribution was more expensive than iTunes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
----
Left Wing: Poor people stealing from the rich
Right W
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Furthermore when did I ever say music was worth 20$ a cd? I don't agree with RIAA policy and they don't have a product... unless you are referring to the turn yourself in service. But no, i don't use that.
Re: (Score:2)
Whatever you call it, it is forbidden by law, so stop doing it. If you do not agree with their policy, do do not be a hypocrite and still use their product.
Civil disobedience is a valid way to protest a law that you disagree with. What you recommend is a rather sheepish way to cope.
If you don't agree with something, you should fight it!
If we were to just follow every law, no matter how stupid, we'd never have gotten rid of some of the stupidest of them.
Re: (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: (Score:3, Funny)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (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 un
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know why they keep putting "hash" in quotes though.