• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

Some thoughts on the RIAA's actions

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.

Admiral Falcon

Registered
Joined
Jun 23, 2002
If the RIAA's method of discerning IP addresses is accurate enough to hold up in court, then why isn't the FBI already using it to nab P2Pers under criminal law? The prospect of going to prison would scare many more people into abandoning piracy, and all the FBI would need are a few high-profile cases to accomplish this. But then again, the FBI prosecution would fall under criminal law. Which means they would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that their suspect actually did violate the law. I think the fact that the FBI isn't already doing this is a sign that the RIAA's methods aren't as infalliable as they seem to think. The issue of IP spoofing was already brought up - a hacker could easily do this, and an innocent non-user of P2P software could be sued onto the streets. And what about dynamic IPs and serivces such as Anonymizer? What about corporate broadband sharing a single TCP/IP IP address among thousands of machines in one building? Does the company get sued? Do all the employees get sued?

Also, I've got a question from way out in left field. Is anyone here familiar with those more expensive CD-R blanks labeled "For Music Use" or "For Consumer Use Only"? They were originally intended for use in standalone CD duplicators, because under the Audio Home Recording Act, they had to use such discs. These CD-Rs are more expensive because they have a royalty to the RIAA already included in the purchase price. So, then, couldn't a person download music and put into such a 'pre-paid' disc legally? Theoretically, the RIAA would not be able to take legal action, as the user would simply produce the disc in court for examination (there is an on-disc difference in the subcodes which distinguishes it from normal CD-R blanks, in order to prevent copying a copy with standalone equipment). It would be proven to be a royalty-paid disc, and the RIAA would have no case because the user could rightfully claim he or she paid the royalty for the music. If anyone here is a lawyer, do I have my legal reasoning correct on this one?
 
I don't think they would send everyone to prison because for one, Congress would have to raise taxes for the increased population, and two you can't send children to prison. I think they should just fine people. It's alot easier that way.
 
Admiral Falcon said:
If the RIAA's method of discerning IP addresses is accurate enough to hold up in court, then why isn't the FBI already using it to nab P2Pers under criminal law? The prospect of going to prison would scare many more people into abandoning piracy, and all the FBI would need are a few high-profile cases to accomplish this. But then again, the FBI prosecution would fall under criminal law. Which means they would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that their suspect actually did violate the law.

Violating copyright law only becomes a criminal act if you profit from it. Someone who sells bootleg CD's is defrauding the record company, the artist who created the work, and the consumer who thinks s/he is getting an authentic item, for their personal gain.

You have to remember that not all laws are enforced by law enforcement agencies or are punishable with jail time. There is civil law and criminal law. Copyright violations like we are seeing with P2P file sharing fall into the civil law category. Illegal acts under civil law are punishable by prescribed financial penalties that are most often directly paid to the injured party. These financial penalties are (supposed to) punish and deter illegal activity the same way jail time does in criminal cases.




Admiral Falcon said:
I think the fact that the FBI isn't already doing this is a sign that the RIAA's methods aren't as infalliable as they seem to think. The issue of IP spoofing was already brought up - a hacker could easily do this, and an innocent non-user of P2P software could be sued onto the streets. And what about dynamic IPs and serivces such as Anonymizer? What about corporate broadband sharing a single TCP/IP IP address among thousands of machines in one building? Does the company get sued? Do all the employees get sued?

I agree with your assessment of how P2P networks can work anonymously. But as Ed mentioned yesterday, only a small minority of casual users have the technical expertise to do this or they would be doing it right now to cover themselves. If RIAA can scare off the casual users the pool of files will shrink to where there is little benefit to using P2P.

You touch on another point Ed didn't cover. You imply, as many do, that geeks who are into file sharing are so smart they'll always find a way to beat the system. That's only true until those geeks are recruited to go to work for the RIAA and use their knowledge against you. The best card cheats in Vegas are working for the casino, just as the best old-school hackers (as opposed to script kiddies) have very good jobs protecting networks from the type of person they used to be. Carve this in stone: RIAA will do the exact same thing. They will find and hire the people who do the best job of frustrating their efforts to shut down file sharing, if they haven't started already.

And to answer your last point about an employee using a company IP address and network, the company would be fully liable for the actions of that employee.



Admiral Falcon said:
Also, I've got a question from way out in left field. Is anyone here familiar with those more expensive CD-R blanks labeled "For Music Use" or "For Consumer Use Only"? They were originally intended for use in standalone CD duplicators, because under the Audio Home Recording Act, they had to use such discs. These CD-Rs are more expensive because they have a royalty to the RIAA already included in the purchase price. So, then, couldn't a person download music and put into such a 'pre-paid' disc legally? Theoretically, the RIAA would not be able to take legal action, as the user would simply produce the disc in court for examination (there is an on-disc difference in the subcodes which distinguishes it from normal CD-R blanks, in order to prevent copying a copy with standalone equipment). It would be proven to be a royalty-paid disc, and the RIAA would have no case because the user could rightfully claim he or she paid the royalty for the music. If anyone here is a lawyer, do I have my legal reasoning correct on this one?


Licensed CD burners and media only give you the right to back up your existing CD's. Downloading is illegal. How you store it after the fact is irrelevent.





BHD
 
Last edited:
It's the same reason compaq can stick 512mb of sdram in a computer and have no problem selling it.

People are confused easily as well as scared
 
i just recently received a notice "remove this "movie" from your computer and cease downloading copyrighted material. I thought what in the hell is happening. Ive never even heard of this movie. Well I happen to have 3 other room mates all of which are connected via a router/switch to one cable connection. Which means we all have the same IP address. The connection happens to be in my name. Because civil laws dont follow the same rules as criminal laws, "the laws my taxes pay to support". I am just as or more so responsible than my room mate for this incident.

Thankfully its only a warning. But it still ****es me off. I agree that the entertainment industry charges an insane amount of money for there products. The fact that some big shot actor/actress demands 10-20 million for a few months work is completely assinine. If people really want to hurt the RIAA and such, quit buying their products and maybe they will realise they are chargin to much.

The main problem is they are a union. Anyone who wants to enter or startup the industry. Will be forced to join or be run out of town. This created in essence a monopoly. Funny "microsoft" comes to mind. $300 for xp pro, HEY, thats more than my computers worth. Where's the support going for the window 9x i bought for $150 a few years ago?

The big problem is we are all addicted to their lifestyle, entertainment, and such; that there is no way to gain enough support (or loyal support) to stop buying there products. I figured a while back that the p2p software might allow them to see how greedy they are. I dont agree with stealing, I dont steal myself, but im not going to go out of my way to stop it (in terms of the entertainment industry). I realize the p2p sharers/downloaders are greedy, but sometimes you need to fight fire with fire. Are they really the greedy ones, Im sure they are all millionares just too lazy to go to the store and buy it.

It is coming of an all to familiar ecinomical cycle where the rich 1% own 90% of the total wealth. It has happened before, when the economy gets too one sided all hell brakes loose. Stock markets crash, riots, unemployment. It will happen again, unless we save our money or spend it in a diverse way. Limit your RIAA controlled spendetures at least, if not do what i do and say the hell with the RIAA. I need to read more anyways (at least tha should help my spelling, which you all should have noticed if you've read this far).

In summary, i wasn't ****ed off until i was wrongly accused. Now the true intentions of the RIAA come out. They want their money and they don't care who or what they hurt, as long as they get it. This war is the greedy vs the more greedy. The sad part is the more greedy have more resources and will win if we fight their war. If we fight our war and not buy their products (im not saying pirating them, but avoiding them) we will win.
 
I would like to bring up the point that is now becoming harder to backup your legaly purchased music. We all remember those ill-fated discs that caused computers to not play them, freeze, or in the case of certain Apple machines cause actual physical damage. When asked to respond to the charges the Labels just said that it was to stop people from making un-authorized copies. Now, everytime I am worried about scratching a cd on a road trip and I want a new one I have to call the RIAA? Someone has to draw the line. It is true that they have all the old-school hackers. Well, those old-school hackers caused a lot of mayhem in there day, making their brand of fun illegal now. I would like to see them "hack" into my computer and delete my music, legal or not. The sames laws that would punish me from breaking into say Visa's computers will apply to them. Public relations isn't going to cover that, now is it? Weren't they appaled that someone would go and deface their website?
 
Back