Should I be scared of the RIAA?

[Ace]

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.

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.

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??

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.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

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).

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.

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.

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.

[*DAMN Mauti]

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

[|MP|Buccaneer]

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,

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.

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.

So, legally I'm going on impressions, but ethically my arguments are sound.

I don't agree that your arguments are ethically 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.  

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

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.  

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, that cannot be accomplished without invasion of privacy.

Quite simply, yes it can.

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.  

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.

Where do you draw the line?  How on earth could you ensure fair standards as to that.

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.

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.  

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.

Obviously you can prove someone downloaded something or upped it without searching.  But how can you determine whether they own it?  

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.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

[jn.loudnotes]

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.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

You can get off the soapbox now.  

You first.

"I don't agree that your arguments are ethically sound." is just plain redundant.

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

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.  

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.  

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.

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.

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.  

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.  

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.  

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.

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.

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.

Trying to keep things as they are is no different from the aristocracy preventing the education of the masses throughout the Dark Ages.

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.

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.

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.

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 -

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.

Probable cause simply cannot exist to investigate such a large portion of the populace.  

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.

[Mr.Mellow]

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.

[Mr. Lothario]

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.

     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.