download music ? face huge fines

[kronas]

the RIAA :******: is stepping up its action against file-sharing in music and is to adopt a stricter fines system with law suits coming in the next few weeks against users demanding atleast £90,000

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/music/3021126.stm

i would have most likely never have bought my avril cd if i had not have had a chance to sample her other tracks
:rolleyes:

[aliferste]

idiots:rolleyes:

[paul11974]

the world has gone mad ......whatever next ......outlaw the sale of cd rw :wavey:

[Dave Stones]

lucky thing i live in england where the RIAA have bog all authority at the moment...


Computer users who wished to avoid legal action should change the settings on their software to block access to their hard drives, or uninstall the software completely, Mr Sherman said.

sounds like he is subliminally telling customers to install a firewall to stop the RIAA having access to scanning your files to me :erm: hehe

[{FU}Fubar]

yep i cant see it really doing any damage here :/

[kronas]

its a matter of time before we start to get hit by groups in europe

[Dave Stones]

Originally posted by kronas
its a matter of time before we start to get hit by groups in europe

ah well we're all innocent arent we ;)

[{FU}Fubar]

Originally posted by kronas
its a matter of time before we start to get hit by groups in europe

by the time eaurope and england get round to it the p2p clients will be too sneaky for them to cope with.... after all the coders that write these clients are always one step a head of them ;) p2p will always continue ... clients these days have random port settings so its impossible to track the data unless they scan all ports anyway thats udp and tcp......... hell most files come in rar format these days anyway making it even harder for them to prove its copy written stuff

[kronas]

Originally posted by Dave Stones
ah well we're all innocent arent we ;)

maybe some of us are...........

[kronas]

Originally posted by {FU}Fubar
by the time eaurope and england get round to it the p2p clients will be too sneaky for them to cope with.... after all the coders that write these clients are always one step a head of them ;) p2p will always continue ... clients these days have random port settings so its impossible to track the data unless they scan all ports anyway thats udp and tcp......... hell most files come in rar format these days anyway making it even harder for them to prove its copy written stuff

yes i know all that more advanced clients will come along

[Theodoric]

Originally posted by Dave Stones
lucky thing i live in england where the RIAA have bog all authority at the moment...

'at the moment' are the operative words. America has an increasingly unpleasant and arrogant habit of forcing other countries to bend to their will.

[poolking]

And guess which band started the ball rolling on this.

[triplea]

Which....???:D

[triplea]

Here's another article on the subject:

http://www.techtv.com/news/news/story/0,24195,3463091,00.html

[El Diablo]

Originally posted by kronas
yes i know all that more advanced clients will come along

Well, whilst more advanced clients will come along, the RIAA will still have access to them. Due to the very nature of P2P software, if you want to share your files, then others must know how to find and access them... including the RIAA! Simply by looking for files that are similar to their copyrighted material and then doing a partial / full download, they can determine whether you are indeed in breach of copyright laws... they're using nothing particularly clever to do this.

I've seen similar trends already with organisations [1] trying to take persons that make their customers software available for download online to court by issuing notices of claimed infringement to the ISP, detailing the source of the P2P host and the infringement details - the onus is then on the ISP to provide the relevant details for the person responsible so that any possible legal actions can be followed up.

Could this be the end of the road for P2P piracy?? :eek:


[1] eg. The Business Software Alliance(BSA) (http://www.bsa.org)

[kronas]

well the RIAA are stepping up on there action against p2p music sharing by using advertising to warn people and especially parents of children who download/share illegal files

the header of the advertisement says

"Next time you or your kids 'share' music on the Internet, you may also want to download a list of attorneys,"

the RIAA says downloading music is basically shoplifting

more in the link below

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/internet/06/26/ad.music.reut/index.html

[darkangel]

I'm pretty sure that any UK/euro isp cannot be forced to give info because of the human rights act they are not allowed to give out personal identifiable information although ntl may do this as they are a yank company

[kronas]

Originally posted by darkangel
I'm pretty sure that any UK/euro isp cannot be forced to give info because of the human rights act they are not allowed to give out personal identifiable information although ntl may do this as they are a yank company

they do and we will be affected by this in due time.................

[darkangel]

Originally posted by kronas
they do and we will be affected by this in due time................. they do what?
edit:-k got u now, do u think then as under EU law that they are not allowed to reveal this info ntl users affected could raise a class action in the US or EU equivalent

[kronas]

Originally posted by darkangel
they do what?
edit:-k got u now, do u think then as under EU law that they are not allowed to reveal this info ntl users affected could raise a class action in the US or EU equivalent

they have handed details to foreign compaines outside of the EU before on piracy issues

[kronas]

the head of the morpheus p2p program which cant be sued due to a recent ruling is to lobby congress over the RIAA plans to sue individuals

more below

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/music/3025312.stm

[darkangel]

Originally posted by kronas
the head of the Morpheus p2p program which cant be sued due to a recent ruling is to lobby congress over the RIAA plans to sue individuals

more below

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/music/3025312.stm if we don't make a stand on this one now these mega corporations will roll over us, i personally have a have nearly 500 mp3's but i also have 600 Cd's at last count that roughly 9500 songs, maybe if we all start informing local MP's etc that may have some effect(probably not) but anything we can do has got to be worth it right?

edit:-grrr note need grammar and spell checker

[nogger]

I think music companies, etc, should loose copyright in any material that they don't make available for purchase (at reasonable cost).

In other words, if I can't go in a shop and buy Albumn A by Artist B, having to order it's ok, because they've deleted it from their catalogue, then they should be forced to make it freely available on the 'net.

That'd teach 'em to abuse copyright.

[Bill Payer]

How do the RIAA plan on finding what copywrited material you have on your computer?
Maybe this has something to do with it;
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/30003.html

[david_w2k]

The record companies are absolutly pathetic. All thats going to happen is that they will end up suing some teenager who downloads a few songs for £90,000 and missing the people who produce disks and sell them for a living. The thing is, i download a song if i like it (e.g on the radio), im not going to buy a whole album of even pay £5 on a single for 1 song. The company isnt losing anything, as i wouldnt have bought it anyway:)

[david_w2k]

Originally posted by Bill Payer
How do the RIAA plan on finding what copywrited material you have on your computer?
Maybe this has something to do with it;
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/30003.html

Trying to ban firewalls!:eek: The whole internet would come to a complete standstill, definatly.

[deadite66]

Originally posted by nogger
I think music companies, etc, should loose copyright in any material that they don't make available for purchase (at reasonable cost).

In other words, if I can't go in a shop and buy Albumn A by Artist B, having to order it's ok, because they've deleted it from their catalogue, then they should be forced to make it freely available on the 'net.

That'd teach 'em to abuse copyright.

i agree with that one, i've been trawling through various online music shops and they can't get me the cd's i want, even P2P and usenet was fruitless.

if your tastes are off mainstream and are looking for an older cd prepair for a long and unrewarding search.

[timewarrior2001]

Originally posted by darkangel
I'm pretty sure that any UK/euro isp cannot be forced to give info because of the human rights act they are not allowed to give out personal identifiable information although ntl may do this as they are a yank company


If NTL did this they would be in breach of EU law, the fact they are an american owned comapny doesnt matter, they must trade within the laws of the countries they operate in.

As for the rest of the debate, all thats going to happen is that people will find more ways to share music etc. Look at the whole debacle over napster, what did it do? it created a bigger interest in filesharing because it hit headline news.
Also I am sure that it isnt technically illegal to donwload these files, its a case of having them available for download thats illegal.

There wasnt this much hassle over blank tapes, there was some but nothing like this, if the price was brought down sales would almost certainly go up. There is no way I would pay £16 and over for an album that I might not like.

[Stuart W]

IMHO....

p2p is fine if the films / music is of a 'lesser' quality than the DVD / CD. That way people can download and 'sample' new tracks / films, but if they actually like / want the film / track, they can purchase it legitimatley and have a decent copy.

Example... If I download the latest Matrix movie and the whole film is about 300MB, it's fair to say that it is LOW quality. I can then view the film, see if it's my kind of thing and then either go to the pictures or buy the DVD when released.
Having the low quality film would only make me want to buy the film more!

Trouble is, there's too many films / tracks that are of a decent enough quality to stop people buying the legitimate DVD / CD.

As for 'banning' P2P, what a laugh! Anyone remember Napster? Remember when they said it would close and end P2P piracy overnight??

[El Diablo]

I can't help but think this has all gone off track :confused:

Surely we're all agreed that music / software piracy is illegal right? Whilst the net is a difficult place to police, copyright owners are going to want to prevent people from sharing their material with everyone else... It wouldn't be too difficult, using software similar to that of Kazaa, to identify Kazaa subscribers and use the various search tools to view what files people are offering for download. If legal action then needs to be taken against the person offering the files, then the ISPs will be obliged to provide details of the individual in question... simple.... same as any other online crime, there's no hiding behind your ISP, whoever they are, they are certainly not your friend when these matters arise!! :spin:

[Dave Stones]

my mind goes back to an article i read somewhere, probably here or something.

anyway remember how metallica were all against napster and everything? well in this article the guitarist of metallica said he used to go round to the drummer's house and copy tapes from the drummer cos he couldnt afford the tapes himself...

perhaps im being naive but isnt this what the masses are doing now? us poor peeps download the music cos we cant afford £16 an album :D

oh and as for banning firewalls... "only in america!"

[darkangel]

Originally posted by El Diablo
I can't help but think this has all gone off track :confused:

Surely we're all agreed that music / software piracy is illegal right? Whilst the net is a difficult place to police, copyright owners are going to want to prevent people from sharing their material with everyone else... It wouldn't be too difficult, using software similar to that of Kazaa, to identify Kazaa subscribers and use the various search tools to view what files people are offering for download. If legal action then needs to be taken against the person offering the files, then the ISPs will be obliged to provide details of the individual in question... simple.... same as any other online crime, there's no hiding behind your ISP, whoever they are, they are certainly not your friend when these matters arise!! :spin: ur missing the points above it is illegal for any company/person to share personally identifiable information to a third party without you express permission for any reason.

[kronas]

Originally posted by darkangel
ur missing the points above it is illegal for any company/person to share personally identifiable information to a third party without you express permission for any reason.

does that include your modems mac address account number ?

[darkangel]

Originally posted by kronas
does that include your modems mac address account number ? i would presume so if it's accompanied by personal identifiable info i.e home address cc details etc, not sure of the status of a mac address even thought the are unique, i'll ask.
why do u ask?

[El Diablo]

Originally posted by darkangel
ur missing the points above it is illegal for any company/person to share personally identifiable information to a third party without you express permission for any reason. Err... not strictly true... you should also remember - "unless required by law" ... it's a common inclusion in most privacy statements. Granted, it would be illegal in any other circumstance.:eek:

[fraz]

Originally posted by darkangel
I'm pretty sure that any UK/euro isp cannot be forced to give info because of the human rights act they are not allowed to give out personal identifiable information although ntl may do this as they are a yank company

All the copyright holders have to do is obtain a UK court order under section 35(1) of the UK Data Protection Act and ntl (or indeed any other UK based ISP/company) would have to pass over any information related to the customer identified as redistributing the material in question.

[darkangel]

Originally posted by El Diablo
Err... not strictly true... you should also remember - "unless required by law" ... it's a common inclusion in most privacy statements. Granted, it would be illegal in any other circumstance.:eek: didn't mention any privacy statement, i referring to to the EU human rights act which supersedes any privacy statement,T&C etc it states.
"Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence" i believe that it could be argued that p2p and other Internet traffic could be considered "correspondence" which means the initial act of monitoring the connection would be illegal?

[darkangel]

Originally posted by fraz
All the copyright holders have to do is obtain a UK court order under section 35(1) of the UK Data Protection Act and ntl (or indeed any other UK based ISP/company) would have to pass over any information related to the customer identified as redistributing the material in question. but how would they know if u where d/l or u/l copyrighted material in the first place?

[El Diablo]

Originally posted by darkangel
i believe that it could be argued that p2p and other Internet traffic could be considered "correspondence" which means the initial act of monitoring the connection would be illegal?

But the connection isn't being monitored, as such. The the third party would just need to provide time stamps / IP address of the offending person, this can then be tracked via the originating ISPs logs to see who was allocated the IP at the time the incident took place.

Originally posted by darkangel but how would they know if u where d/l or u/l copyrighted material in the first place?

If copyrighted material is being offered via services such as Kazaa, copyright owners are likely to perform some of their own monitoring as to what is being offered by participants of the service. i.e. If I have 1000 files that I am sharing and they take a look at all the files I am sharing, it wouldn't take much to identify any of their copyrighted material - simply by downloading part or all of the file that I am offering they can confirm that I am in breach of their copyright. They simply then provide the ISP with my Kazaa identity, time and IP address of my machine and it can then be tracked back to me.

It'd be different if they were looking for persons performing the downloads, and harder to trace, so by targetting persons that are making the files available to everyone in the first place, they kill both birds with one stone!

Like I say, as long as the files are available for anyone to download from your PC / server, they must be available to the copyright owners, since you have no way of knowing who they are so that you can filter them out.

Anyway, the Internet functions on the basis of sharing files, such as this web page... it's only a file stored on a publicly accessible machine... it will always be possible to share files with others but the distribution methods will have to change.

Personally, I have no problems with actually purchasing MP3s online, at a reduced rate, provided that the right mechanisms are in place. This is something that the music industry has until now failed to provide for it's many customers... If they address that and concentrate on providing a good quality service at a reasonable price, then more people would be inclined to obtain their music from any legal sources.

:D

[fraz]

Originally posted by darkangel
but how would they know if u where d/l or u/l copyrighted material in the first place?

All they (the copyright holders) have to do is run a P2P client , record the IP thats offering the material and do a lookup on which ISP it belongs to. They then obtain the court order asking the ISP to identify who was on that IP at the particular date/time & the next thing you know you have a court order through your letter box for a breach of copyright.

Next :D

[Stuart W]

Well done Fraz ;)

That's hit the nail right on the head.

I don't think peeps need to worry about using P2P software as far as the ISP is concerned, as it is not the ISP's responsibility to scan users to see if P2P software is in use. More importantly, AFAIK, ISP's arn't allowed to scan customers equipment.

This reminds me of a similar thread about peeps getting letters for sharing a certain Lord of the Rings movie.
They only got letters for that movie. Not any others they may have made available for download.
This strengthens my theory..... only individual (company) copyright owners would persue a case.
I can't see a 'governing body' stepping in to prosecute people for sharing multiple copyrighted files.

[darkangel]

Originally posted by fraz
All they (the copyright holders) have to do is run a P2P client , record the IP thats offering the material and do a lookup on which ISP it belongs to. They then obtain the court order asking the ISP to identify who was on that IP at the particular date/time & the next thing you know you have a court order through your letter box for a breach of copyright.

Next :D was trying to make a point, u could argue that they could not monitor ur connection without proof but to get that proof they would have to monitor ur connection,u can not legal monitor telecomunication for the purpose of gathering evidamce without a court order?
If they set up their own p2p/ftp server would this not be entrapment of a sort

[El Diablo]

Originally posted by darkangel
was trying to make a point, u could argue that they could not monitor ur connection without proof but to get that proof they would have to monitor ur connection,u can not legal monitor telecomunication for the purpose of gathering evidamce without a court order?
If they set up their own p2p/ftp server would this not be entrapment of a sort I get your point, but they are not monitoring anything, they are simply saying that the person at xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx was offering y product for download at z time... with y product being copyrighted by them! If someone is openly offering material for distribution then the act of someone else accessing the material is not monitoring. It's really no different to catching a market trader with a load of pirated CD's. If they're up for grabs / being sold (albeit for Kazaa points) then they're breaching copyright, which is illegal.

[El Diablo]

Originally posted by Stuart W
This strengthens my theory..... only individual (company) copyright owners would persue a case.
I can't see a 'governing body' stepping in to prosecute people for sharing multiple copyrighted files. Ah.. but this is where it gets interesting! :D Whilst there may not be a "Governing body", I believe that we are likely to see agencies specialising in this field of work and therefore being contracted by, say big record labels, to recover costs that they believe to have been lost due to P2P distribution. The agents can then do all the groundwork / fieldwork and legal work and could effectively identify numerous files being offered for download that are in fact copyrighted by various copyright owners, whom they happen to be working for... this isn't too far fetched is it??! :shrug:

That way, they can build up bigger cases on individuals and ensure that the relevant measures are taken to prevent any re-occurrence by the same offender.

[darkangel]

Originally posted by El Diablo
I get your point, but they are not monitoring anything, they are simply saying that the person at xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx was offering y product for download at z time... with y product being copyrighted by them! If someone is openly offering material for distribution then the act of someone else accessing the material is not monitoring. It's really no different to catching a market trader with a load of pirated CD's. If they're up for grabs / being sold (albeit for Kazaa points) then they're breaching copyright, which is illegal. understood but they could not use this evidence in any sort of court then?
illegal suggest criminal isn't copyright infringement a civil matter unless u are passing these of as originals i.e then it's fraud?

[El Diablo]

Originally posted by darkangel
understood but they could not use this evidence in any sort of court then?
illegal suggest criminal isn't copyright infringement a civil matter unless u are passing these of as originals i.e then it's fraud? I guess it isn't illegal in the sense that the old bill aren't gonna pop round and chuck the silver bracelets on you, but in the sense that it is a punishable offence - again, given that a court order has been obtained and the appropriate charges filed with the courts etc... I can't see why the evidence wouldn't be submissable to a court of law, provided that they've logged their actions in a systematic way so as to prove beyond doubt... unless of course they can obtain physical access to your eqipment which would provide conclusive evidence? I would imagine that provided they can prove that they accessed files which were being shared with the rest of the world and that the source of the file rested upon your machine, then they'd have a damn strong case. It's all a matter of piecing together all of the bits of evidence and making a strong enough case.

[Atomic22]

kazaa has 5 million users and i think it will prolly take 5 million detectives to track them all down... we went through this same crap with cassettes , videos , cd-writers etc etc .
all magazine talk and poppycock

[Ramrod]

Originally posted by Dave Stones
ah well we're all innocent arent we ;)
I am:)

[Theodoric]

Originally posted by Atomic22
kazaa has 5 million users and i think it will prolly take 5 million detectives to track them all down... we went through this same crap with cassettes , videos , cd-writers etc etc .
all magazine talk and poppycock
But they don't have to get all 5 million. I assume that their tactics are to have a small number of high profile cases that put the fear of god into the rest. Don't forget that what they are threatening people with is not jail sentences, but some ridiculously high penalty per item downloaded. Essentially, they're talking about bankrupting you.

[kronas]

Originally posted by Theodoric
But they don't have to get all 5 million. I assume that their tactics are to have a small number of high profile cases that put the fear of god into the rest. Don't forget that what they are threatening people with is not jail sentences, but some ridiculously high penalty per item downloaded. Essentially, they're talking about bankrupting you.

the riaa say it will be a gradual process of catching people there first swoop will be going after a couple of hundred then building on that as they process fines and applications for court etc

[darkangel]

Originally posted by kronas
the RIAA say it will be a gradual process of catching people there first swoop will be going after a couple of hundred then building on that as they process fines and applications for court etc how many fines prosecutions have taken place outside the US?

[kronas]

Originally posted by darkangel
how many fines prosecutions have taken place outside the US?

a few in sweden and holland

[darkangel]

Originally posted by kronas
a few in sweden and holland successful prosecutions? u have any links?

[kronas]

Originally posted by darkangel
successful prosecutions? u have any links?

on the .com site there are threads where i posted i think i cant find the direct links it has happened with big fines imposed in both countries sweden is wanting to ban a form of downloading ill try dig up that link

[kronas]

cant find that though i found this

boycott riaa has been setup for obvious reasons

http://www.boycott-riaa.com/forums/general/402

[Theodoric]

Originally posted by darkangel
how many fines prosecutions have taken place outside the US?
There was a recent case in Denmark.

EDIT (After a bit of quick Googling)
From The Register 9 June 2003

The Danish Anti Pirat Gruppen (Anti Piracy Group) has issued invoices of up to $14,000 apiece to approximately 150 users of KaZaA and eDonkey for illegally downloading copyright material.