- 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?
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?