*DAMN R6 Forum

Well if you haven't heard the RIAA (recording industry association of America) is gathering evidence against people who use peer 2 peer applications, and will be filing 150 thousand dollar lawsuits agianst them.  They claim that peer 2 peer programs have damaged their indusrty and are demanding compensation.  Personally I think filing 150 thousand dollar lawsuits against their consumers is going to damage them a lost more than peer 2 peer programs.  But anyway I'm pretty sure all of us have used Limewire before, should we be scared of landing one of these lawsuits?

You shouldn't be scared if you haven't stolen any music. If you have and you get caught, don't expect any sympathy.

I wouldn't use the mainstream networks they are targeting, and not allow yourself to upload anything. They seem to be targeting the uploaders since they can't take down the networks because of a recent court decision.  I think its bullshit that they are suing people for this, since they've never been able to prove that any money from their successful lawsuits went to the artists they support...  No one has seemed to realize that the downturn in the economy and the downturn in cd sales are pretty closely related when you look at the two on a graph.  I dislike the RIAA so much that i stoped buying cds, if i want something i download it and listen to it on my ipod, the only cds i listen to are the ones i burn for my car.

On the lighter side of the p2p world, senator Orwin Hatch, who says that copyright-holders should be able to hack into and destroy people's computers who illegally have their material... was found to be using pirated code on his website.

Intellectual property rights should be banished, and the RIAA should be dissolved for the corrupt money grubbers they are. The RIAA doesn't represent anyone I listen to anyway, but they still piss me the fuck off. I feel sorry for anyone who gets retribution for sharing their files. If anyone is getting punished, it should be leeches. I think most of these lawsuits will get dismissed or greatly reduced in value, but if the RIAA tried to sue me for 150 grand I would probably leave the country.

ahh. I'm glad I listen to music the RIAA has probably never even heard before. =D Just don't go downloading any Metallica or Britney Spears anytime soon, and you'll be fine. hah.

im actually happy the RIAA is doing this because then it will force more people to pay for music AKA iTunes which in turn makes my apple stock go up.  RIAA are asses and jacked that college kid but AAPL first.

Just because the RIAA is a money grubbing institution doesn't make it right to steal music.

Just because the economy is down doesn't mean make it right to steal music.

Artists may not make what they are due because of the business behind the music, but it's still taking money out of the artists pockets.  If you want "free" music, listen to the radio.  Using excuses like you don't have money, or the artists are already rich is just bullshit.  It's like saying it's ok for a homeless guy to rob a bank.  

Tasty, are you saying that musicians and artists shouldn't be paid for their creativity?  Without intellectual property rights, how does one get paid for their work?

I love what iTunes has done, it fits in with my own feelings about samples.  I don't have a problem downloading a song or game, trying it out to see if I like it, and then PAYING FOR IT if I like it.  With iTunes, you can sample any song or CD, see if you like it, then actually PAY for it.  Otherwise it's really no different from walking into the music store and shoplifting a few CD's.

A last note, to answer the first question here.  Ask the student from Michigan Tech that they busted a couple months ago (April) if you have anything to worry about.  They are going after him for $97.8 BILLION.  It's $150k per song, not total.  You can read about it in the Detroit Free Press (www.freep.com)

I personally believe that music has always had a history of sharing. what do you do when you perform music? you are sharing it to others. Music has always had a history of being somthing which people share, fundamentally a musician sharing their music to other people.

Back in the days of tape decks etc there was little hassle about people making a copy for a friend, or to listen to in their state of the art 'tape player' ;)

or what about kids taping stuff of the radio?

It seems now that strings are being tightend for several reasons... One the record companies can no longer see anything that dosn't look like either ?, $, or ?  and secondly becasue it has become so much more prolific and noticable....
It all seems like such a shame, especially since their are such great services like the Apple music store... (which i wish they would spread to other countrys than simply Canada and the US... the same goes for the Photo services etc)

All throughout history, artists were paid for their performances, composers paid for their operas and symphonies.  Music has long been a business.  People have made their living through their musical talent and creativity for most of known history.


Actually, I can remember quite a few busts on bootleg operations from when I was a kid.  I remember the industry trying to fight it when the first dual cassette decks came out.  I remember the industry fighting DEC's.  I remember the industry fighting recordable CD's.  

Bootlegging wasn't the problem in the 60's and 70's that file-sharing is today either.  It wasn't easy to find the bootlegs, and the quality sucked, so they didn't really pose as much of a threat.  If all the file-sharing that went on today was at, say, 16k or 32k and not the 160 / 192 sample rates, I doubt they'd have as much issue too.  Since people would then still go out to buy the high quality stuff.


Again, shitty quality, so they still want to go buy the album (I know, I used to be one of those kids).  On top of that, the music industry makes money every-time the radio plays the song.  So listening to the radio was contributing to the overall revenue stream (higher ratings, more playing, more stations, more sponsor money, etc).  


It's always been about money to the industry.  That's why it's an industry.  It's nothing new.

But you have hit the nail on the head with PROLIFIC.  The stealing of music is everywhere on the net today.  And don't kid yourself by softening it with words like sharing.  It's not sharing, it's stealing.  

Yep, and by "Sharing" music, not only are you stealing music by downloadin from someone, but the people who download from you are stealing it, too. I think bands should release singles and a few songs as MP3's on their websites as a way to encourage people to purchase their CD. I'm a bit of a hypocrite, though. I'll download an album and give it a listen, and if I don't like it I'll throw it away, and if I like it, I'll burn it and then eventually go out and buy the album. It's still stealing, even though I do eventually go out and buy the cd (99% of the time). Being poor or having no money isn't an excuse to steal music. I don't have a real job or steady income, but I find a way to buy an album now and then. Same with the excuse that the record companies are making most of the money. That might be true, but that makes it another reason to buy the album so the actual artist can make what little money they can from it. It's like recycling, because one person can make a difference. If one person thinks "oh, someone else will buy the album so I'll just burn it", it's a major problem. What if everyone thinks that? Well, then your favorite artist doesn't have the money to release another album, and ends up having to get a real job. =D Anyhoo, I'm done ranting.

Since Bucc gave the "Just cuz the RIAA is evil doesn't make stealing right" rant already, I guess that leaves tasty's commie theories on IP to me. Tasty, do you realize how fucked a bunch of industries would get if you took away IP rights. It goes far beyond just music. Movies, books, software, etc. If you take away the right to IP, you take away the biggest motivator for innovation: greed.

Take a look at the software industry. You have proprietary developers where IP is not shared, and then you have open source development where IP is shared pretty freely. (The GPL makes things kinda fucked, but that's a story for another day.) Sure, there is some good software coming from the open source community. This is the kinda stuff we could expect in a world without IP rights as this work is already done by people who do it for generosity, curiosity, or whatnot. However, despite some areas where open source has really worked (BSDs and Apache namely), there are many areas where it is lightyears behind. For big databases, proprietary setups from Oracle and the like are the standard, not MySQL or PostgreSQL. There hasn't been an open source game worth noting. And nobody has come even close to designing an OS usable for those who aren't computer geeks. The fact is that without IP rights, you take a lot of the motivation for innovation and it has a noticeable impact.

If you don't like IP, don't give money to the people who are selling theirs. However, don't argue that other people shouldn't have a right to make a living just because you think that everything should be shared freely.

Just so you know, I DO NOT steal music. I have downloaded thousands of mp3s. But if I enjoy the music, I buy the album and if I don't I delete them. I spent over a grand on CDs alone last year. The reason I am anti-RIAA is because I don't think that file sharing is really having that much of a negative effect on record sales. I know that there are plenty of people out there that do download mp3s, burn them to CDs, and never pay for a thing. However, if the opportunity to download were taken away and the consequences for downloading imminent, I don't think the record company's profits would increase much. The people downloading music are the people that are personally opposed to buying music in the first place, not potential customers who just need the temptation of file sharing taken away so they can continue consuming music. So the real issue in my mind comes down to the fact that the RIAA simply doesn't want people to be able to own music without paying for it. This debunks most of the arguments the RIAA is using. It may be wrong for people to be able to have music without paying, but it is not having the damaging effects that the RIAA claims it is.

As for the abolishment of intellectual property, that was an extreme statement, meant to illicit an extreme answer. I realize that this concept has its place - I just think that it has been overstated, primarily by the RIAA. The only other industry where pirating is really a  problem is the software industry, which in my opinion has a much better claim to suing people than the RIAA. The RIAA just really busts my balls because they are hardly helping the artists at all with their barrage of bitching and lawsuits - they are only helping themselves, who as greedy middlemen should be cut out anyway, at least by any serious artists. In an industry where the artists only earn a dollar or two, the product costs well under a dollar to produce, and the end product costs 15 dollars, something is wrong. The people out there who are stealing music are giving the RIAA what they deserve.

And I hope that at even the staunchest moral absolutists will agree with me that $97.8 billion is nothing short of obscene.

I agree with you that $97.8 billion is ridiculous, but that still doesn't make you right for stealing music. And yes, YOU STEAL MUSIC. It doesn't matter if you download and delete, you are still breaking the law. If you are going to steal it, at least admit it. Trying to make excuses only makes you look worse.

Sure i think its stealing, but that doesn't stop me from doing it. I have spent thousands of dollars on cds in my lifetime, and i'm not ready to spend anymore.

Acording to my caculator (if i had all RIAA music) i could be sued for about "7.5e+08" (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~damnr6/yabbse/YaBBImages/beer.gif)
But lucky for me about 4,600 of my songs are from labels that aren't within the big 5 labels that make up the RIAA, and the rest of the commercial music i have i either own, or have ripped from friends.

Basicaly don't share anything...

So what exactly is the RIAA? It's a bunch of major record labels that sue kids? If so, is there a list of all the labels that are with the RIAA?

Tasty, if you shoplift a CD, listen to it 5 times, decide you don't like it and toss it away, did you steal?  The answer is yes.  And you are doing the same every-time you download a song.

Tasty, you are also short sighted.  You see one evil (be it Bush or the RIAA) and focus on the fact that nothing good can come from that evil.  You seem to think that anything that screws over that evil is a good thing.  You see that and ignore all the profits for anyone else besides the RIAA that were lost.  How about the company that presses the CD's?  The one that prints the graphics?  The one that makes the jewel cases?  The record store itself?  The artist?  They may not be getting a huge piece of the pie, but it's a big fucking pie.  And the theft of music by these "file sharing" activities is taking some big bites.

Well, let's look at just that one case at MTU.  97.8 billion dollars.  652,000 songs.  Average of what, 12 tracks a CD?  54,333 CD's, call it 50k if you want.  Even if only one tenth of those would have been bought without the stealing, you are talking about 5000 CD's.  That's another $10,000 out of the pockets of Artists (and not all of them are rich you know).  That's money out of every person in the industry's pockets.  That's workers laid off at the print shop.  Come on, you care about the workers.  This is ONE GUY, and he's shared fifty thousand CD's worth of songs.  Now, how many guys do you know that do this?  How many people out there are doing it?  That's a lot of money not getting to the artists or anyone else in the loop.  I don't care that the RIAA gets the lions share of it, that's for the rest of the industry to fix.  But don't pretend that just because the large percentage of it comes out of the RIAA's pocket, that you aren't taking out of the pockets of everyone involved.  

And if the RIAA, publishers and producers are out those profits, that also means less non-mainstream music.  Lower profits means less money to spend on the risky stuff, the different stuff.  

Correct me if I'm wrong but I was under the impression that you can download intellectual property of any kind provided you delete it within 24 hours.  Maybe that's a state statutory thing, but I remember hearing something of the like.

Bucc, it's not that straitforward.  If you go to a CD store, make a copy of a CD, leaving the original intact, and then leave, what did you steal?  To steal something, you have to take it - but in this instance nothing has been taken.  And even better - what if after copying the CD, you decide you wouldn't ever have bought it.  You toss your copy.  Isn't this the equivalent of a buy and return?  Tasty's point was that much of the downloading community works that way.  It's a try before you buy system.  But ultimately, the real problem is that to shut down file transfers because they CAN be abused deprives them of their legal uses, as described above.  That would be akin to banning the sale of glue, because someone out there might sniff it and get high.  Or banning alcohol because people get drunk.  It's not unheard of. . .

Furthermore, IP rules typically involve some kind of harm.  It's a pretty big stretch to get those 97.8 billion in damages, even the way you so nicely did the math for us.  For one, there's no way to prove that the file transfer caused the loss of CD sales.  There's evidence it might have increased them.  And frankly, where there's no harm, there's no foul.  Copyrights on books, for example, do not allow you to pass off work as your own, but there's nothing stopping you from making another copy to use.  And have you ever been to a library?  Sharing intellectual property isn't illegal either.

Ethically, tasty makes good points, whether they hold up legally or not.  But from a moral and legal standpoint, there's no grounds on which to prosecute someone for sharing music.  Arguably, it's illegal to do the extreme and download thousands of songs, keep them, and never pay a dime.  But I can't think of a way within the ethical and privacy bounds of the law to prove that.  Prosecuting music sharers strikes me as as offensive as arresting people who break state sodomy laws.  Some things you have a reasonable expectation of privacy, and that includes what you do on your own computer.  All this smacks of Big Brother - especially as long as these are victimless crimes, the government has no business monitoring private citizens in their own homes.

And yes, tasty has already presented why these are victimless crimes.  Show me a print shop worker screwed over by file sharing, Bucc.  Prove it.  And then, I'll show you an independent artist launched to fame by file sharing.

The problem with the lawsuits is that none of the money will be going to the artists (none has in the past). Thats like you getting hurt at work, and me taking your disability. How is that fair to the artists?  I also am not happy about the fact that they could get my name from my isp without showing any proof of my wrong doing.

I've never heard about a 24 hour rule, and I haven't seen it in the US code.  It's not covered by the Fair Use act, if that's what you are thinking.

The CONTENT.  You took the content.  You took what was of value in the item without paying for it.  Just like taking a book over to a xerox machine.  The people that created that content, that published it, and are selling it, expect to get paid for their services.  You are taking their service without paying them, same is if you walked out with it.  


No, it's not.  It is SOMETIMES used that way.  But, look at Jeb's post.  Look at the numbers provided by actual polls of the old Napster.  The majority isn't doing the try it before you buy it.  Show me where you get that idea from.  You think that student up at MTU shelled out half a million dollars to cover the CD's worth of material he had?


What in the hell are you talking about?  Nobody is shutting down the internet.  The reason they are going after the people uploading and downloading is because they can't hold the file sharing itself responsible (that was all over the news).  They aren't banning FILE SHARING.  They are punishing the illegal reproduction of copyrighted material.  This is nothing new.  The RIAA wanted to shut down the sites and servers, but that was kabashed.  So, they are going after the people actually breaking the existing laws.


Nope.  Not in the US Code.  Want me to copy and paste it?  There are sections specific to recorded media.


Um, that's not what the law says.  And I don't agree that there is no harm.  There is also no evidence that it increased sales, that's just conjecture.  Some artists have released tracks to advertise and drive up sales, but these do not evidence make.  No study has really been done, just numbers thrown around.  

And they don't have to prove loss of CD sales.  Please read the laws.


Go take a copyrighted book to a Kinko's and give it to the guy behind the counter.  If he copies it, he's breaking the law.  Most Kinko's wont do it (they will let you do it yourself on the self service machines, but they wont take part in it.)  Go into your corporate copy center, I wanted a chapter copied, they made me get the letter and keep in on file.  I am not making this up.  It is illegal to make those copies.  There are exceptions (fair use act) and they are:

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair     use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in     copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that     section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting,     teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use),     scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

Now, you can talk about back-up copies of material you already own, but that is another issue altogether.

Oh, and Libraries have their own issues / conditions.  


I don't think his ethical points are that good.  Robin Hood is not a defense.  And there are both moral and legal grounds to prosecute someone for stealing music.  


Nothing arguable about it.  I just is illegal.  Saying it your way is like saying it's arguable if taking a car for a joy ride is grand theft auto.  You can argue it, but it's still GTA.


Way off base.  If you are talking about two consenting adults having sex in their own homes and comparing it to file sharing / stealing, you are so off.  They didn't have to peak into the windows for the people that have been busted.  These people were doing it in public.  So, just like you can see and arrest two men having anal on the street corner, you can see and arrest someone that is opening up their files to the public.  If the crack dealer is on the corner, giving away product in plain sight, the cops can nab him, and everyone that got it from him.  Doing things on public servers does not include an expectation of privacy.  

The cops are not breaking into your private computer.  In the case of the MTU guy, he was using MTU networks to do it, and they have the right to turn him in.


It doesn't take monitoring, and I haven't heard a whiff that they are.  So no big brother.  If the cops didn't have to break in, it's "plain sight".  

And I do not agree that this is a victimless crime.  There are plenty of victims.


Presented, not proved.  There is a difference.  I don't agree with it.  Have anything to add of value?


Show me the immigrants that are left to starve that Tasty talked about before?  I can't point to a person, but that doesn't mean they don't exist either.  But just look at the numbers.  

I'm looking at your post Loudnotes, and it sure looks to me like you are posting without actually being up on the subject.  Some of your points are way out in left field and not relevant.  Some of your law is just off.  

the real problem that the RIAA has to deal withis not p2p networks, its the fact that they really have alienated the consumer base. i've come to believe the majority of the music industry is corrupt and evil these days, why i'm not completely sure-other than the fact that to go and buy a CD at best buy with 12 tracks will probably cost me 15+ bucks. more than a dollar for 3 minutes of singing and drums that i will probably dislike after playing about 5 times over. WTF is up with exorbitant prices these days.

and you can claim that these musicians work so hard, you can even claim that only a fellow musician would understand, but i AM a musician and i testify that it isn't that hard to sit down, use a little creativity, and think up a song. please don't tell me britney spears worked hard and deserved her millions, thats as incredulous as nike signing on that kid for 90 something million. i'll go out and buy a CD from a local artist, i'll go out and buy a CD if i really want to support the band, but why do i have to be forced to line the pockets of no talent big shots?

anyway, the point is the music industry had a monopoly, they were squeezing the necks of their customers, and now they're feeling the consequences. they have to make compromises to revive their industry, and it's as simple as that.

and good point jeb. the artists likely won't be seeing a penny of this. unless it's metallica.

I can use that one line to sum up your whole thread Cookie.  You don't.  You don't have to buy the CD's.  But that doesn't justify stealing them either.  You don't have to listen to the music, or you can listen to the radio.  

Letting supply and demand work is great.  Don't buy the CD's and eventually prices will drop (if all the public feels the same way).  When VHS first came out, they were charging like $70 and $115 per tape for most movies (quite a long time ago), but they came down within a year or so because nobody would buy them.  Now almost all of them are around $20 on DVD.  Supply and demand.

But, stealing has no place in that.  By stealing it, you are contributing to demand, demand that they still see a potential profit for.  So stealing it works against bringing the prices down.

For all the music stealers, err sharers, out there, answer me this question: Do you think it is right for you to download software (warez) that you have not paid for?

So if stealing is creating demand and potential profit, what is the RIAA bitching for? This makes no sense. What you just said would imply that stealing is helping the industry.  ???

Nope.  I guess I didn't explain that well enough.

Stealing is creating demand and therefore potential profit, yes.  But they see the potential and want the actual.  So what results is:

1) them not lowering prices because demand is high.
2) them cracking down (applying pressure for the legislation and enforcement of laws) to turn that potential profit into actual profit.

By stealing you aren't helping the industry.

The point I was trying to make was that if you see the problem as a grossly overpaid machine with an overpriced product, you are hurting the cause to reduce prices when you steal.  Stealing raises prices.  

This is just how business works.  And, before anyone says if they lowered prices, then there would be less stealing, it doesn't work that way.  The only way to drop prices is to drop demand.  Don't buy and don't steal from any of the overpriced labels.  Don't request the songs on the radio.   Hell, just look at any software game that hasn't sold well.  In a month or two it's half price.  The music market is much bigger, and would take longer to effect, but the principle works.

On a final note.  Anything stolen that's available from the Apple Music Store none of the excuses fit for so far (yes, I know this doesn't fit for the non Americans or Canadians today - but that's part of available).  The AMS lets you listen to a good size sample as often as you want, to know if you like it.  And a buck a song is not too much.  You don't have to buy the whole CD, just the songs you want.  And $10 per CD isn't very expensive either.  Yeah, the selection still needs to grow, but it's early.  I think it's a great model.  

Ahh, a lot of you guys are being very ignorant about this. You're saying that because the artist lacks talent, you shouldn't have to buy the CD? Well, you're still listening to it, aren't you? Don't be so hypocritical. You're like how I used to be. You're making up bullshit excuses so you can steal people's music. It's wrong. It's illegal, and it's immoral. What more do you want? There's no argument against it.  If an artist wants to share their songs on their website, then let them. If they don't though, there's nothing that you can argue that will prove what you are doing is legal and right.

Okay, for one that is bullshit.  The RIAA and the government cannot search people's computers.  It is invading their privacy.  Also, they need warrents, like 2.5 million warrents to do this.  Plus, they need a whole shit load of evidence.

Blitz 8)

What are you talking about?

Yes, they need warrents to search your computer, but guess what, they get them, and with the proper probable cause too.  Most of the stealing that you guys call file sharing is done openly, on public servers even.  You start sending out your files to whoever asks for them, and you are guilty.  They didn't even need to search your computer (but they have the probable cause to get the warrant and will do it anyway.)  

Give it a break.  All your excuses on why you should get away with this crime are useless.  There is no invasion of privacy, no entrapment.  The people that they have gone after so far have deserved it.  You guys sound like the dealer that gets busted with 100lbs of weed.  "But it's just pot".  

The facts are, it's a crime.  Like it, don't like it.  It is a crime and you can be busted if you do it.  And no amount of bullshit you spew about invasion of privacy is going to matter if it happens, because you guys obviously have never read a law book.  So, to answer the first question again.  Yes, if you have stolen a bunch of music online, and especially if you share a bunch of your files, you should be scared.  

It is an invasion of privacy.  The only way to prove that files are being misused is a search and access to the computers.

Again, I think the 24 hour rule is a state-by-state issue, but unless I am very much mistaken there are statutes that allow a download of a file for a limited period of time.

Anyway, here's why - first of all, there's is absolutely nothing illegal about downloading a backup copy of material you own.  This is why there are still Hotline servers around, although some of them I can't fathom why they haven't been arrested for something.  And whether you believe one side or another as to the morality of music stealing/sharing - there's no way to prove the misuse without a search.

Therefore, the people downloading the files can hardly be legislated, because how can you prove the way in which people are using the files, or whether they have any right to them?  Thus, the RIAA is going after uploaders.  But what exactly is illegal about that?  There's a huge burden of proof there as well.  Simply offering something that people may or may not use legally is not a crime.

This is like prosecuting a gun dealer.  People can use guns legally and illegally.  Likewise, people can use a downloaded song/movie/whater legally or illegally.  But it's not the uploader's responsibility.  Morally, perhaps, but not legally.  To continue the CD store analogy, if the owner puts a CD in a customer's hand, and then they run away and steal it - is the store owner responsible??

Finally, I have a sneaky feeling you're going to say the law for some reason prohibits any copying of a file, even for personal use.  If it does, I'm surprised, and that needs to change.  There are perfectly justifiable and legal reasons for copying a music file, including backup - and thus the proof necessary to stick wrongdoing would inevitably destroy personal privacy.

$1 for a song? fuck that. i don't have a grand to spend on nice sounding clicks and beeps.

love, cookie.


on a side note, isn't it funny that it seems to be only the big shot musicians that complain about p2p networks, as if they needed the extra money, and not the smaller groups who actually need it?

funny indeed.

I think supporting the RIAA on this issue is the ultimate example of seeing things completely black and white. Stealing=wrong. Paying=good. You refuse to acknowledge that my behavior is advantageous to the RIAA. Like it or not, I grew up with p2p file sharing, and if it is taken away I simply won't buy records unless I can listen to a majority of the songs on the album, all the way through. I illegally download music to aid my legal music purchasing. I couldn't care less about the artists that are whining and bitching about having their intellectual property stolen, because I don't have a single mp3 by any of those bands on my computer. I also don't give a shit about market forces: the record companies should lower their prices because its the right thing to do, out of respect for the consumer. I think if everyone had the same downloading habits as me, there wouldn't be a problem, and I don't want my experience ruined by a bunch of cheapskates that can't handle the responsibility of being able to take music freely.

Not true at all.  I can think of many ways that don't involve searching anyone's actual computer, or sniffing the packets they are sending.  Hell, if you are using Peer to Peer, you could be sending them to a cop right now.  And that's not entrapment.  Think about it.  Sharing them at all is misuse by federal law, and since we are dealing with the internet, you are dealing more with federal then state laws (most connections are passing over state lines.)


Ahm.  There are things illegal about it.  Depends on the license you agree to when you buy it.  And it's make a backup copy, not download / upload / share.


That little misconception has gotten many a criminal convicted.  You can prove it without a search.


Um.  Downloading files that you do not own legal copies of is a crime.  If you are seen downloading from a public source, they have probable cause to get a warrant and do a search, and there is nothing illegal about that.  That's the magic phrase, Probable Cause.  If a cop sees you driving like shit, he has probable cause to pull you over and check for alcohol, even if you are just a shitty driver.  If you are seen downloading thousands of MP3's that are copyrighted, that's probable cause.  And that's downloading.  The hard part.  Not so hard.

If a cop jumps onto Kazaa or bittorrant, or any other P2P app, and does a simple trace to see where the files are coming from, well, there ya go.  End of story.  Just the act of distributing the copyrighted material is a crime (even when not making a profit).  Read the laws.


There's a problem, right there.  There is no legal use of that material.  Distributing it is a crime itself (violation of the copyright for recorded materials).  


This is nothing like a gun dealer.  Gun dealers are licensed sellers.  This is like the guy that buys guns from a gun dealer then turns around and sells them or gives them away without following the laws.  Doesn't matter if the gun is used legally or illegally, he's still guilty of a crime (ok, it gets worse if the gun is used illegally, but the point still stands, he committed a crime).  In your analogy, the gun dealer is the record store owner.  They sell and pay to the distributors.  It's the customers that then go on to break the laws.


What laws are you reading?  I really want to know.  Because that's not what I'm reading.


Backup is covered under licensing.  In the case of music and software, I believe it's one backup copy for personal use only unless otherwise stated.  Some software doesn't allow you to make any backup copies (you should read before clicking the I AGREE button sometime, you'd be surprised what you see).  You agree to the licensee, so it is binding.  Too bad for you if you don't read the fine print.  

But the laws are pretty clear.  Ignoring them doesn't make them change.  And thinking that it has to be an invasion to get the proof is just not thinking it out.  But, that's why most criminals are caught, dumb mistakes.  There is a world of information available without invading your personal computer, and that information is enough to bring you down.

So, if you don't have $3000 is it ok to steal a new G5?  If you don't have $10,000 is it ok to steal a new car?

Simple choices.  Steal or not.  You don't have to steal music to survive, you could listen to the radio, etc.  


I think you have way too many Robin Hood delusions.  Just because the RIAA is corrupt, bloated and greedy doesn't make stealing from them ok.  It's not like you are starving and stealing food.  It's entertainment.  And it's not like you are only taking money away from the RIAA, like I pointed out to you.


Go to a music store then.  Listen to the tracks.  All nice and legal too.


You are still taking money out of the pocket for every band that you have an illegal MP3 of.


Spoken like someone that just doesn't accept reality.  Supply and demand and market forces will not ever go away.  Learn how to use the system, or get used by it.  


Sure, but you aren't really abusing the system much.  The RIAA isn't going after guys like you.  You said you don't have any MP3's on your computer that you don't own the CD for (or rights to some other way I'll assume you mean).  Great.  You have nothing to worry about.  But the fucktards that they have gone after are abusing the hell out of the system, aren't they?  So you should be glad that they are being removed.

First, since nobody has responded, I'll post this again.


Second, about the legality of catching people for sharing files. If you run a P2P program with a public server and allow the according TCP or UDP connections from your firewall, you are giving permission for anybody to connect to your server. If the RIAA uses the same P2P program and catches you sharing copyrighted materials, you just gave them free access to incriminating evidence. Don't falsely blame them for an invasion of privacy when you left the door wide open, so to speak.

As for the debate about the advantages/disadvantages of P2P in the RIAA's eyes, the whole point is that it is not your decision about whether it is profitable to them or not. They think that it is not profitable, so they are exercising their legal right to protect their copyrighted materials.

Yep. And, if you're the uploader, it doesn't matter if you own legal copies of the albums or not. 99% of all CD's say on the back "No unauthorized distribution blah blah blah", so already you're breaking the law.

I haven't bought a cd from any label under the RIAA for more than a year, mostly because the music is garbage (or rarely downloaded the trash for free). I started to listen to trance music as an escape from the shit thats put out day after day by shitty rock groups. Occasionally there will be a new band that comes out thats great, but mostly its old bands like metalica trying to hump every last cent out of the consumers by putting out a horrible cd, a one hit wonder's 2nd cd which is shit, or enimen putting out another track about getting beaten up by black people.

 Aside from my anger with the recent slump of rock music, i've taken to listening to hiphop more, maybe because there still is a bit of emotion put in their songs.

Downloading music is the best outlet to listening to new stuff i wouldn't hear on the radio. With this saturation of available music, most of which is pretty unknown and good, putting out a crappy video on MTV is having less of an effect. The RIAA is losing my purchasing money because i've found greener pastures, not because I'm stealing their music.

And now, a rant about Trance. Sure i could buy a trance cd as an import, or for 40$ per cd, but i don't. Most singles aren't released on cd, so i'd have to spend years searching out vinyls that contain a certain remix i want. In this world producers and djs embrace the internet as a facet to let their music be heard. Example being... Itunes built in web radio features 11 rock stations, 7 top-40 stations, 11 rap stations, and a whopping 62 trance stations. And yet trance is 1/100 of any of those other music genres but its so widely embraced on the net. Djs and producers listen to their fans and are more concerned over the quality of their productions than the money they might make from cd sales. And yet no one in this community is upset about the internet. Remixers get paid to remix a single by another artist which is released on vinyl, and Djs get paid to dj. Somehow i've found a genre thats still about music, and not about making money and everyone is happy.

First Bucc I think you are seeing this too black and white simply because the radio allowed you to do the same and nobody complained! I could call my favourite local radio station and they played my song. I recorded it with my cool ?berold tapes and voila I listened it again and again... Nobody complained like it is nowadays.

Now I don't listen to the radio - I download my favourite music. I bought 2 handful CDs in my life: 10cd before I had internet and half after I started to download music.

May I'm stealing someones music but I hardly doubt that I would have bought 213cds within the last year(=amount of downloaded music) which would have cost me approximatly 3000Dollar. I only bought last year Smashing Pumkins Greatest Hits because I really like them but that's it. All in all my indie pop music isn't that easy to find at medium sized cd stores if at all.

With or without RIAA I continue to downloading music and I don't have a bad feeling doing so simply because I copied music my whole life(radio-tape and now mp3). Downloading apps is something different especially concerning games: I bought R6 and GR instead of downloading it simply because I liked them and every pirated game hits a small game market, like the Mac game sector double hard(Mac top games, like UT, MOHAA , are sold only between 20.000 - 40.000times.) Also I get most software for student prizes (Flash 6 - 20bucks or Adobe Illustrator for 18bucks) so there is no need to download it.

Bye,

Mauti

It could also have to do with what I heard on the radio the other day. Korn was working on an album for months, set a release date and somehow people already had their entire cd 3 months before it's release. If you worked on an album that long I think you would be pissed too. My friends are trying to put together a demo and they are putting so much work into it. So I can just see where some artists are coming from.

Well you can't make p2p responsible for this in general. Then you could make the general globalisation also responsible for every bs. I think I would have missed fantastic indie music without p2p. I don't think you take much notice of bands like Hooverphonic, Pixies, Athletes, Ok Go,... without p2p.

I love p2p and music sharing or how often do you buy a cd from a group you have never heard before!?

Mauti

Bucc, I don't spend my time reading laws to letter because I'm still idealistic enough to think about how they should be, whether they are or not.  My impressions as to the actual wording of the law come from what I see in the news media and the like.  So, legally I'm going on impressions, but ethically my arguments are sound.

For example, you've said it's illegal to distribute a copyrighted file.  I've always thought the law had exceptions for examples such as this, and if it doesn't, it should.  Say a friend of mine buys a CD that I also have a copy of.  One day he loses it.  I should be allowed to copy my CD for him.  That concept, on a larger scale, is the moral (and legal?) justification for mp3 file sharing.  Whether that actually happens or not is very difficult to determine simply from an IP address.  The government would have to determine whether the downloader owned the song or not.  Quite simply, that cannot be accomplished without invasion of privacy.

Your probable cause is ridiculous.  There is no instance of probable cause when the target population is so great.  The government doesn't have probable cause to investigate millions of file transfers.  The fact that someone downloads many mp3s might suggest that they don't own them all, but it's unreasonable for that possibility to justify search.  Where do you draw the line?  How on earth could you ensure fair standards as to that.  And don't use irrelevant analogies.  If you're driving badly, the only reason the copy can pull you over is because you're endangering yourself and others.  If you're driving badly on your own private race track at home, no cop can come in and give you a Breathalyzer.  And exactly how could you determine whether they owned the material without a search??

Obviously you can prove someone downloaded something or upped it without searching.  But how can you determine whether they own it?  Frankly, if the licenses don't allow backup copies, that's ridiculous.  And I'm not sure it would hold up in court.  If I assist my friend as in the earlier example, how can the company force him to purchase a new CD?  

I don't know about the legality of you making a backup copy for him, but if we go on the assumption that it is legal, there are many other (more efficient) ways to do it for him than running a public P2P server. The fact of the matter is that they are going after people who leave P2P servers open to the public to download. Regardless of the legality of whoever is downloading it, the law is quite clear that the server admin is illegally offering copyrighted works. Once it has been established that someone is illegaly serving copyrighted materials, it should be quite easy to get a warrant to search their HD. With a warrant, it is a proper ciminal investigation, not an invasion of privacy.


You driving analogy is as dumb as any. Running a public P2P server with copyrighted files available for download would be the equivalent of driving around with a sign saying "PULL ME OVER AND GIVE ME A BREATHALYZER."

Besides, shouldn't we all knowledgeable enough about computers to talk about the technology as is, not using some flawed analogy. I realize that targeting downloaders would be trickier legally, but targetting uploaders is a piece of cake. Once you send someone using a P2P app a TCP packet with SYN/ACK set, you have given them permission to make a connection to your computer on that port. Furthermore, after their client sends a request for what information is on your server, you send more packets telling them what files, some possibly being copyrighted works, are available. Finally, you actually send them a file. Face it Loudnotes, this is no invasion of privacy just because you fail to understand the technology.

So, just because you've broken the law your whole life, makes it ok?  

And there is a big difference between recording from the radio and downloading.  I already pointed a few out, but I will again.  The biggest being if you listened to the radio long enough to copy all those songs, the artists and industry is still making money off you.  Not so with downloading.  Remember, Radio stations pay a fee everytime they broadcast a song.  And the quality was crap, so the RIAA didn't feel it was eating into sales.  Even when I made copies off the radio, I still listened to the radio more.


So, just because pirating games hits a smaller market, has a larger impact, it's wrong?  What you are saying is that you are choosing when it hurts enough to be illegal.  So, you are judging how much the overall market suffers, while I'm talking about the actual crime.  Someone that abuses one person is just as guilty of the crime of abuse as someone that abuses 100.  Both need to be punished.  

Here's a good analogy for you.  If you rob a poor guy, and take his last $100, are you more guilty then if you rob the rich guy for $100?  In either case, you are guilty of the crime.  One guy just didn't feel the hurt as much as the other.  Under the law, you still get the same punishment.

First, as far as I know recording radio or recording television is totaly legal. So this means I only was "breaking" the law the last 4 years since I have internet.

Yep radios pay fees everytime they play a song(at least real radios, no streams).

However since I never bought many cds(20 in 8 years isn't much) the RIAA doesn't lose anything and I benefits from p2p. May I'm violating copyrights but they don't lose money because of it. The guys that bought tons of cds are still buying CDs because I made the experience that guys who buy many cds are kinda "collecting" cds. They would never stop buying cds because of mp3 or p2p. They want a nice cd case with cover...

P2p affects more the casual CD buyer and may they buy less... BUT I hardly bought CDs nevertheless I like music and p2p gives me a great possibility to listen to unknown or older indie bands. Fantastic for me. Why should I feel bad? The artists doesn't lose money because I wouldn't have bought their songs but may because I know them now I will buy their cd...

I wouldn't compare downloading music with robbing. I would compare it(in my case) with speeding. Everybody does speeding from time to time. You enjoy it and nobody gets hurt although you break the "almighty" law.

Bye,

Mauti

One more thing for Mauti.  It's not p2p that should be gone after.  There are plenty of legal uses for it.  Plenty of bands that allow their music to be shared.  But the people that pirate music that was not meant to be shared are the ones being arrested now that I mentioned.

Loud,


Sure, be idealistic, but that's doing a disservice to the question.  You basically told him not to worry about it because the Government can't do it legally.  That is wrong.  You don't THINK they SHOULD be able to do it.  It's important to note the difference.

And, I don't buy into the way you think it should be either.


I don't agree that your arguments are ethically sound.  


I posted the exceptions up there a bit.  The exceptions do not include distribution except for the stated purposes.


First, no.  He should have made his own backup copy.  You making one for him violates the law.  He's responsible for his own shit, he loses it, he has to replace it.  Sorry, but that's the way things are.  He could have made his own MP3's, and then burned his own replacement (if he couldn't, then he couldn't really "file share" with you either).

Second, that is not the concept of or moral justification for file sharing.  If it were anywhere close to that, you'd have to prove you once owned it someway.  BTW, I'll give you a real world example.  One of my game CD's became all scratched and unusable.  The license didn't allow for backup copies.  The publisher allowed me to send it in and get a replacement CD for free (just postage charges to send it in).  

Filesharing should be and is allowed for items who's copyright allows for that kind of open distribution.  And there is plenty of stuff that uses this kind of licensing.  The music in question isn't one.


Quite simply, yes it can.


Since when did volume make it not a crime?  Since when did frequency make it not probably cause?  Do you understand you are comparing apples to oranges?  

Read this carefully.  The government sees you go on a PUBLIC SERVER (no invasion of privacy).  They see you downloading thousands of MP3's in the span of a week or so (again, not an invasion).  They see you uploading to other IP's the same files you've just downloaded (again, not an invasion, and the way that many P2P's work).  Now, even without the uploading, they have probable cause to get a warrant.  How likely is it that you owned all those thousands of songs and just happened to lose them all?  That's called probable cause.  And if a judge sees it so, your computer will be searched.  I don't care if you like it, that's the way it works here.  So, don't go making this personal.  It's not MY probable cause, as you put it.  It's your law too.  I'm just explaining how it works.


The judge draws the line, just like in any other criminal investigation where they need to get a warrant.  It's the judge's job to ensure that the standards are applied.  Further, if your lawyer doesn't think they were, they can have special hearings just on that.  Is this enough, or do you need a deeper explanation of the laws here?  This is nothing special for MP3's.  It's the same for everything.


First, a cop can pull you over even when you are not endangering yourself or others.  That's why it's called PROBABLE.  They don't know that you are committing a crime, they just see evidence that points to it.  That's what gives them the right to carry it farther.  

Also, if you make it home, park the car in your front porch, the cops can use that, go get a warrant, and then give you a blood alcohol test, even in your own home.  

And, we aren't talking about in your home.  What you are doing is over the internet, out on public servers.  We aren't talking about you borrowing your buddies CD collection and ripping them to MP3 for yourself (still illegal, but not the topic).  We are talking about file sharing over the internet.  P2P and the like.

Second, I've supplied the real world cases, including the guy they busted up at Michigan Tech.  I wouldn't call that irrelevant at all, but nobody has wanted to go near that one.  I showed you the flaw in your gun analogy too, but you haven't mentioned that either.


Again.  If you upload it, it doesn't matter.  You are not allowed to distribute it.  You broke the law right there.  If you use bittorrant, and download copyrighted material, and allow others to download from you (which you'd have to turn off, it's on by default) you are breaking the law.  

If you download enough, that they have probable cause, they get a warrant and then can search.  And once they have a warrant, it's not an invasion of privacy.  It's a search warrant.  

Bottom Line.  They are going after the abusers.  People like Tasty don't have to worry.  I even do what Tasty does.  But I don't try to lie to myself or others that it's legal.  If I get busted, it's my own fault for doing something illegal.  The excuses that it wasn't much harm, that the RIAA is corrupt or that everyone else is doing it is just that, bullshit excuses.  Know and accept what you are doing like Jeb.  If Jeb gets busted, he wont be crying about it.  He knows the risks and is at least honest to himself.

So, if you are a huge abuser, yes, be worried, because legally, you are guilty.  Morally, you are guilty.  Ethically, you are guilty.  And yes, they can catch you legally.  Just because you may not agree with copyright law doesn't make it not so.

One last thought.  Idealism is not an excuse for ignorance on how things actually are.

Actually, recording off the radio is illegal but they have turned a blind eye to it from what I've read.

Recording off the TV is legal, only for home use.  Read some of the copyright notices they flash sometime in the credits.  Personal home use only, no distribution, rebroadcast, charging admission, etc.  So, they are licensing out their product for home recording under those conditions.


Legally, streams have to pay them now too.  It's why all the streams have been going bye-bye lately.


You may not compare it, but it does compare.  It's no different from the software either.  

But your speeding analogy works fine.  You make a decision to break the law or not.  You may or may not be hurting someone (some speeders do lose control and hurt/kill people, just like the abusers are costing people money).  And, just like with speeding, you get caught, you pay the price.  

One more thought while I'm posting.  Jeb and a couple others have mentioned music not by the RIAA.  Same laws apply, so you can still get busted (unless there is a different notice on each piece of music you have).  Like I do have some downloaded music that is free to the public to use and distribute.  But it's rare.  So, just because it's not RIAA doesn't mean the law may not bust you.  It just lowers your odds (since the RIAA is acting like MADD of the 80's when they used to hang out outside of bars and call in your plate to the cops when you got in your car).  And yes, that's legal too.

You can get off the soapbox now.  I never said I was breaking any of the laws, as it happens I haven't downloaded or uploaded a song or anything in months.  There's no need to preach, and "I don't agree that your arguments are ethically sound." is just plain redundant.

Ultimately, the probable cause you describe is still just guessing, and because of the extremely large volume of file sharers, the guesses need to be pretty sound.  Your example is fit by perhaps a million people within the US alone, and if the government has "probable cause" to get a warrant for each one of them, it has probable cause to do virtually anything.  After a certain point, the volume of people makes the justification for cause a little harder to find.  

Ethics and morals are all based on popular opinion, and change with the times.  Adhering strictly to law as an absolute guideline resists the advance of society.  Of course there are varying degrees of separation - but the US law was designed to be modified.  Thus, maybe people should be scared of the RIAA right now, but theoretically they should have nothing to fear.  

The fact is, most people believe there to be no crime associated with sharing copyrighted files, especially for the reasons Mauti and tasty have given.  If there truly is no legal justification under the current law, there will be, since the law eventually bends to popular will.  If the people demanded revolution and anarchy, such would be the case.  Thus if the people wish to download music, there's really no stopping it, and any legal violations will eventually be negated.  Furthermore, the system of downloading already in place demeans the value of copyrighted material.  The intellectual property is no longer as valuable a commodity as it once was, now that everyone has access to it.  Think of it in terms of the invention of the printing press.  Yes Ace, another analogy, but I'm not talking about the technology here.  Previously only the moneyed elite could afford books and knowledge.  However, the printing press made information available to the masses.  Suddenly a book was worth far less than it had been before, but demand soared.  The eventual result of file sharing will be increased spread of music that earlier might not have had a chance to disseminate, and CDs will become cheaper.

The court fights and attempts to maintain the status quo are hopeless against the will of the populace.  I've tried to outline loopholes in the current law, but ultimately the law itself will be forced to change, unless of course the public changes its collective mind about file sharing.  Trying to keep things as they are is no different from the aristocracy preventing the education of the masses throughout the Dark Ages.

Someone mentioned that performers have done so for profit for millenia.  Mp3s really are wonderful in that they allow a return to the roots of music - performance.  The recorded sound will never be the same as a live performance, and perhaps that can again be the main source of revenue for an artist.  Recordings haven't always even existed, and it seems almost ridiculous to claim ownership over sound - it's the production of it that is special.  Posterity shouldn't be for sale.

So in conclusion, even if some forms of file distribution are illegal under the current law, and I'm not convinced that it's as concrete as you find it - prosecution would be a nightmare.  Probable cause simply cannot exist to investigate such a large portion of the populace.  If the RIAA really becomes something to be feared, any intelligent society would object.  And, inevitably, it will.

You first.


And you saying that your arguments are ethically sound is what?  (besides wrong)  Pompous maybe?


What in the hell are you basing this on?  Because it's sure not sound legal advise.  You are just using the "everyone else is doing it" defense.  Which has no standing.  Find me a court that has held up that defense.

It does not matter how many people are doing it.  Probable cause is probable cause, for 1, 1000 or 1000000.  The police will go after the big abusers first, but that does not exclude or exonerate the little abusers.  Look at Mauti's speeding example.  Everyone speeds.  Millions upon millions.  They still give out tickets when they catch you, and you are till breaking the law.  It really is that simple.  Just like if a cop sees you hand money to a drug dealer, and him hand you a small bag back, that cop now has probable cause to search you for drugs.  It's held up in court every single day.  


There you go, making a huge assumption.  You are assuming that the laws will be changed.  I don't think they will.  Look at the majority of people that disagree with them, then look at how many of them actually can or are able to participate in the changing of the laws.  Now look at the people that support copyright laws, and how many of them actually can and do participate in the system.  Do the math.  And you think it's going to be changed?

And, least you forget, laws don't often grandfather punishment, and not fines.  If you break a law today, are tried this year, convicted under the law now, a change in 10 years isn't going to do you much good at all.  You'll still have paid or be paying for your crime, because it was a crime when it was committed.


Where did you get this fact from?  Show me the poll and the source if you would.  Because I don't believe it.

Also, your ideas about public opinion automatically changing the laws ignores times when the courts and legislature decide the public is wrong, as has often happened in civil rights cases.  I think you are counting chickens before they are hatched.

And ethically, you are still dead wrong for stealing.  If copyrights are brought down, you are saying that no musician or writer can make a living doing that anymore.  Why would the vast majority of the public pay to read a book when they can download it for free.  Don't claim altruism, because I'm talking real world, not Utopia.  As an artist, in whatever medium, it is up to them to decide to give it away or sell it.  Just because you don't think it's worth buying doesn't mean stealing it is then ok.  


Bullshit.  Pure bullshit.  Do you really believe that crap?  Let me translate that for you.  The fact that stealing is already going on wholesale makes the copyrights worthless and therefore irrelevant.  So, if we start murdering in the millions, murder should no longer be a crime, right?  It's the same logic.  Life would hold little value in that society, so why let it be a crime.  

I'll get on to your "there's no stopping it" in a second, it ties into the next part quite nicely.


No.  You want to know what the result will be.  A change into a format that is much harder to copy.  We've already seen attempts at making CD's that can't be ripped to MP3 (or did you miss the news on that).  And with this new technology, prices will go up, not down.  The industry isn't going to just give in.  It's going to fight.  

Thinking that there is going to be some revolution of music listeners and that copyright laws are all going to be abolished, and all music and software will then be free is not idealistic, it's nuts.


Wow, how could I have been so blind.  That's right.  All the laws that are set to protect people and their work are stupid and should be abolished.  Let's all get rid of minimum wage!  No more protection for women in the work place, get pregnant and lose your job!!.  The laws and government are trying to hold you back with these protections!!!!

What bullshit.

The people that create these things have rights.  It's their right to sell it, rent it, give it away for free.  But you get to decide if it's ok to steal it from them.  Way to go.

BTW, your printing press analogy was the worst yet.  Yes, books were cheaper and available to the masses, but they still had to pay for them.  It wasn't FREE BOOKS FOR EVERYONE!  And back then, the common guy couldn't hear the best music either, since it was far too expensive for them to attend.  So the music industry has progressed right along with the print industry.  Think these things out.


It was me that brought it up, and it was artist, not performers.  You seem to be ignoring the composers, that wrote the music.  They got paid for their work, right?  And the money came from the people making money off the performance (they had to pay for the rights to the music).  Gee, that sounds familiar.  

Think it through.


You aren't convinced, but you don't look at the laws (said so yourself).  I even posted the exception for you.  So, be as unconvinced as you want.  But, I'm sure that your feelings on the law are more valid then the American Bar Association's printings of it online.


Just because they can't investigate all of them doesn't mean that the ones they will aren't breaking the law, and wont be convicted.  It's the same problem as drugs.  Drugs are just to abundant to investigate and prosecute all use, so they just go after the big boys.  But, just because they don't target the guy that only smokes a joint once a year, doesn't mean that if a cop sees him do it, they wont arrest and prosecute him.  The fact that he doesn't do it all the time, that so many people are doing it, or anything of that sort doesn't change the fact that if he's caught, he's still guilty.  

So, they probably wont investigate even close to most of the people out there.  BUT, if they investigate someone who's server you happen to be on, you just may get busted in the process (like picking the wrong time to be in that crack house).  

I still notice you are ignoring the real world situations while trying to bring up analogies that don't fit.  Go ahead, talk about the real cases.  See how far your ideology carries to them.

Ahh. Bucc, thanks for writing all of that, cuz I'm too lazy, and I know I'll end up screwing up what I'm trying to say. But yeah, I agree 100% with Bucc. Just because thousands/millions of people download copyrighted material illegally doesn't make it right. It's ridiculous to think that, because as Bucc said, it would not hold up in court. Now, obviously, the RIAA isn't going to be able to bust everyone, but you bet your ass they'll make an example of a lot of people. After the first dozen or so court cases, people will hesitate to download MP3', which is what they're trying to do in the first place. They aren't dumb enough to think they can get everybody, so they're doing some psychological warfare. Just remember, if you get busted, don't whine and cry, because you know what you're doing is illegal.

     How wrong you are. Let's take a nice, big, popular, music-oriented P2P system: Kazaa. How does one get music from Kazaa? One searches for the music one wants, then connects to the users offering the file or files, and downloads them. How hard would it be to get hard evidence on copyright violators? Let's see: search for songs that your client has copyright on. Once found, download them and have a look at your connection. Find their IP address. Look up the ISP that is providing that IP address, contact them with a nice friendly letter from your expensive lawyers politely requesting information about the person who was using that IP address at such-and-such a time and date. Now you've got 1) a network log showing that you were receiving packets containing copyrighted material, in violation of copyright, from a given IP address; 2) information from an ISP connecting that given IP address with a person. 1 + 2 = easy conviction in any court of law.

     The best part is, this process could very easily be automated such that it would be possible to gather evidence on hundreds of thousands of copyright violators in a span of days. Don't kid yourself; nobody's being "overlooked," it's just that the RIAA is, as Mellow said, exercising money-efficient strongarm tactics by nailing the big boys first.