Similarly long post to my original post
Nailz - I'll discuss this with you because your post is well written, thoughtful, and demonstrates someone who has actually given this issue a lot of thought.
Do bear in mind, when I started this post I qualified that I was to some degree playing devil's advocate to expose part of this issue that is being foolishly ignored and deserves some consideration. I'm not looking to pick a fight with anyone, I think it's valuable to hash out the real arguments and issues involved in the whole file sharing controversy. That being said, I'm about to argue with almost everything you said. Don't take it personally, I think it's worth pushing the thought process on both our ends.
First off, I never claimed to be either an internet tech guru or an internet tech LAW guru. However, the idea of having a 'secure and private network' on THE INTERNET is a bit oxymoronic. It is possible to have a INTRAnet that does not hook up to the INTERnet. If the RIAA was somehow hacking into a college INTRAnet (i.e. students sharing files across dorm rooms), then the University may have a case. But the colleges network grants students access to the internet, which is inherently public, and is likely where most illegal downloading occurs. Actions are not viably private just because they are declared to be private - if I go outside and shoot a guy and yell out 'that was a private matter', that does not make it so.
What I am unclear on is what your proposal would be for RIGHTLY discovering those committing piracy and copyright infringement on the internet IF their privacy of IP address is to be so stoically upheld? Forget the RIAA for a second - do you really believe that people should be allowed to pirate all the songs they want off the internet with no fear of detection whatsoever? Take away IP addresses and what are you left with to find people? Random hard drive inspections? No, that would be considered even MORE invasive. But the precedent you seem to establish is that we should all just keep downloading away because there is absolutely no way short of voluntarily surrendering our computers to the RIAA that we could imaginably be detected without our privacy being violated.
Cookies happen without my consent ALL the time.
There is a huge difference regarding your right to privacy in your bank statement or credit cards. Those are LEGAL activities. Pirating songs is an ILLEGAL activity. Why compare these things? Of course you have a right to keep your credit card number private, there is nothing unlawful about you having and using a credit card. You're right to run a Meth lab in your basement privately... slightly less clear cut. The idea you are toying with here is a very legitimate argument, but the specific example here is not applicable.
As for your examples of maligned lawsuits... 3 off the same website and one off an ultimate metal forum? C'mon, there's no integrity to those sources!
First off, can we agree that no matter what the issue is, there is always SOMEONE who will lie to the bitter end? If you've ever worked customer service you know there are people who will lie even when they've managed to say something so contradictory there is no chance they are telling the truth. Anyone who gets caught doing something illegal is generally best to lie about it. Michael Vick lied until there was no hope of the lie standing up. Point here being, there are going to exist instances where a person caught pirating music runs off to the local paper and says 'I didn't do it, I don't have a computer, etc'. They have nothing to lose! Totally worth a shot, and precisely what I would do in their shoes.
But you actually expect me to believe the legitimacy of an online blog article that has a line like this: "Yes, just in case she buys a PC, installs Kazaa, acquires a taste for hip-hop, and decides to start sharing files." That's REALLY professional tone right there.
But the one that should really tip you off as bullshit is the one that says the RIAA filed suit against someone who didn't own a computer. You claim they are IP snuffing to find the people they prosecute, right? Where are they going to find an IP address for someone who does not have a computer? Do you think they IP snuff 364 days of the year and then that last day just throw a dart at the Yellow Pages? There are enough people committing copyright infringement on the internet that the RIAA would never ever need to manufacture fakes like that!
What's more likely, that the RIAA jeopardized their entire legitimacy by randomly picking people to sue who were actually dead or without computers (which you pretty much have to make a concerted effort to fuck up that badly), or that some guy received a $100,000 subpoena and promptly threw his PC in the river?
Find something from the NY Times, or the Boston Globe, or CNN, or any reputable source if you want to prove me wrong on that claim. I've followed the debate for some time and I never have seen a reputable publication be dumb enough to give any thought to those bogus claims.
Another comment I don't get is about NHL fines not ruining people's lives. MY point there was merely to illustrate that RIAA suits are a deterrent, not a way of making money (as in their 10k doesn't list 'victorious lawsuit gains' as part of net income). I think you would agree with the simple statement that the lawsuits are primarily MEANT to be deterrants.
But is your comment meant to say punishment for a crime committed cannot ruin a person's life? I'd be interested to see a lawyer stand up and say 'your honor, my client certainly did murder those people, but you cannot send him to jail for 80 years because that would ruin his life'. The RIAA is seeking damages well within the defined boundaries of damages that can be sought for copyright infringement. If that happens to be an amount that ruins the life of the person who committed the crime, well, too bad, did the crime, got caught, deal with the well documented and publicly accessible scope of the consequence.
Here's where your and my arguments really stem from - I'm concerned about the precedent of granting anonymity to internet users to such a degree because of the implicit consequences (which I've already mentioned). You are concerned about the exact opposite problem - the precedent set by allowing powerful companies, agencies, etc too much access to our private matters that they may abuse or misuse this information. I completely understand the validity of that concern. You say I am thinking one dimensionally, but I actually have given that side of things, in great depth, consideration and evaluation. Here, I prefaced by saying I was going to explain a particular side of the arguement that was being under-represented, not put forth a multi lateral expose' of every intricate detail of the whole debate. Still, for me what this SPECIFIC case comes down to is the degree of one's right to privacy on the internet - which is a public forum. If the RIAA barges into your house and raids your computer at random, you have a clear cut case of illegal search/invasion of privacy - even if it turned out you were infringing like a bastard. But downloading off the internet! Think of how far reaching that is - EVERYONE has access to it... EVERY SONG EVER is there! You give people IP anonymity because they called their public network private and you are granting people the ability to do whatever the fuck they want on the net with no fear of consequence.