Interesting new twist RE:RIAA

There are countless marketing companies that gather data on people's activity on the web, and it is 100% lawful. For example, you go on Amazon.com and buy a few things and suddenly BAM! personalized recommendations every time you come back! "we thought you might be interested in these items". Do you think they just guessed? They have systems in place that monitor your buying habits - not just what you buy but how you buy and navigate their site, and several of those companies share that data with each other.

LOL dude, what does that have to do with this case? Amazon has built in software that guestimates what you would be interested in once you buy a product. It's no different though, then having a "related artists" section on an already existing website. What the RIAA is doing is not unlike what Sony did when they quietly embedded spyware onto their CDs so that it would install itself onto your computer as soon as you popped it in.
 
that was worse than spyware, that was a rootkit. Basically granting every hacker on the internet full access to your PC.

Yeah that's right. And Sony's response was "people don't know what rootkits are, so why should they care?" :lol:

And fyi to SyXified, the fourth amendment was not instituted just to "keep the police, etc, from gaining too much power and thereby abusing it." It was also instituted so non-government cannot illegally compromise your privacy for ANY reason.
 
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.
 
And fyi to SyXified, the fourth amendment was not instituted just to "keep the police, etc, from gaining too much power and thereby abusing it." It was also instituted so non-government cannot illegally compromise your privacy for ANY reason.

Actually the 4th amendment was created to keep those darn Red Coats out of our houses, the intrusive buggers.

police, etc...

ET CETERA

Latin for 'and others'

I'm already long winded, did I really need to say 'any person, government body or entity now known or later created in possession of power'?
 
Et cetera = and so forth. Et al = and others.
Regardless I mostly agree with you. IP addresses are not private. Some forums and guestbooks even display the IP address of the poster. There are java scripts that when added to a page read your IP back to you. In short they are tossed about rather openly.

However, I think the point here is that the RIAA is being accused of hacking, or having a third party hack, into another site to obtain those IP Addresses. If that's true, and it remains unproven that it is, then the university may have a legitimate case.
 
In order for the RIAA to be able to tell the University, which students are downloading what, they have to be going behind the University's firewall into the University INTRAnet. The students, themselves do not have IP addresses that can be logged by sites, kinda like getting a phone call from a company. When the caller ID resolves it, it's the switchboard/operator number, not the desk number. In the case of the University, if a student downloads something or visits a website, that site gets the University IP address, not the internal IP address. (that was for the people who don't get the fact that you do have to "break-in" to the University network, in order to get the IP addys, not the people who already understand that).

So all-in-all, if the RIAA does have the IP addresses of the students, it means they are breaking laws in order to get them, if they did not get them legally, or with the University's consent. So, argument is moot, when trying to claim that the RIAA has the right, to break in to someone's house (effectively), to prove that activity is going on. The police can't do that, it's called a fishing expedition. And when the RIAA does it, not only can they be brought up by charges, but they'll be hard hit to get a judge to OK the findings, because they were gained illegally.

Yes, illegal downloading is illegal and shouldn't be done. I'm not going to argue that fact. But if the RIAA wants to have some semblance of sympathy for their cause, they need to quit being under-handed and criminal in their means, as well. So no, I don't have much sympathy for them, just the artists that suffer because of them.
 
Thanks freak, I don't think they were understanding the concept of NAT. I will explain it further and in even more depth for anyone who cares later on when I make my counter post.
 
But the colleges network grants students access to the internet, which is inherently public

Not really. If colleges didn't "grant" students access to the internet, students would simply attend schools close to them so they can go online at home. Secondly, in this day and age, the internet is pretty much required in school, work etc. It goes without saying that today, you'd be in a weird position without the internet.

Also, although access to the internet is public in schools, what you do on the internet- as long as it's not a matter of national or campus security or something- is private. The school does not have the right to view your search history or other personal things such as account information etc.
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?

Yes, not only should people be able to download without detection, but they should also be able to download PERIOD. Plenty of countries are already legalizing file sharing.

Cookies happen without my consent ALL the time.

Cookies are not necessarily illegal with or without your consent. Don't compare something that memorizes your favorite bands to something that tracks your IP so that a company can attempt to incriminate you with no concrete proof.



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?

Moot argument. If there's no proof that he threw his PC into the river you cannot make that assumption. And how exactly is the RIAA "legitimate" to begin with? lol
 
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. etc.

I agree.

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.

As Freak already explained, since I failed to do so, the College's access to the internet is a completely seperate entitiy from the IP addresses assigned to the computers on the campus network. Basically it works like this: College X decides it wants to have access to the internet, and then share that connection among it's network nodes (those being the PC's attached to the college network). The first step it needs to take is to aquire an IP address and an ISP. Due to the internet technology, it will want a static IP, in this case, lets say it's 200.100.0.0. That means that the college can house approximately 65000 internet connections on that IP block. No self serving company with a network technician with any sense will dole out any of those specific IP addresses for it's PC's. Rather, a set few of those IP adresses will be put to use for routers and web servers. Example: 200.100.0.2 will be used for a router, and 200.100.0.3 will be used for a webserver (ex: wwww.collegexwebsite.edu) It gets fairly complicated when setting up outside IP addresses but lets use these for the example.

Now then, you're a new student at College X in your dorm room, and you want to hook up your laptop to "the internet". You plug in your network cord into the wall, or connect wirelessly, and WOO! Now you can google all the porn you want! Transparent to you, you now have a connection to the internet through the college with an IP address not designated from that original 200.100.X.X block.

Here's whats actually going on: You plug in your laptop, and the network card sends out a request/discovery packet to whats called a DHCP server. The server then says "OH, cool! New computer! Here, have an IP address!" and then it assigns the laptop say... 170.10.10.10.

Now you have an IP address for the internal college network. You're also assigned other things from the server, included with that is whats called a "DNS server" to keep things short and suite, (as short as it can be anyway) .. it tells your computer how to traverse the college network in order to get to the router. Once the request, sent by your computer reaches the router, the 170.10.10.10 address is no longer valid to the outside world. I won't bore you with the details on how things work on that point, but the router sends out a request on your behalf to google, who then responds to the router, the router then forwards the information back to your computer. So, in essense the whole request to the internet is made by the router. It has nothing to do with your computers current IP address, thats what I mean about snooping around on the college network. It's a private network, using one device (in this example) to make public requests that could not be traced, save for then going internal. Hope that makes sense, it seems a bit heavy on technical gargon, hope others are able to follow. Please note, that this same process does not occur on home ISP's, like Adelphia, Cox, AOL, etc... you get a specific unique IP identifier for use on the internet.

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?

In a civil case? I don't know. I would say that you'd have to firstly have the permission of the College to determine who's doing what. The RIAA would have to go after the college first, since their network was the one making the requests for the copyright infringement, it would be up to the College then to release specific information to the RIAA if it so chose. I'm not a lawyer either, but this seems to be, from my technical expertise and understanding of the law, to be the case.

In a legal case like what you're constantly describing, it should be done with Judge issued search warrants and subpionas, such as the law states. If the RIAA has a problem with the legality of the issue, they should be letting the correct law enforcement agency handle it. I don't understand how you can't see that point?


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?

Absolutely not. By knowingly violating any law, no matter how many others are doing it, you obviously open yourself up to the possiblity of retribution.

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.

Again, the RIAA is not a law enforcement agency. Why should I have to surrender ANYTHING to a COMPANY? Example: Microsoft holds the copyrights et cetera to it's Windows operating systems. Only recently have they incorperated technology into their software to allow for validating legitimacy of every OS install. Way back when, everyone and their mother had illegitamite copies of, for example, Windows 98. What do you think would have been the reaction if Microsoft found a way to look into our computers, through everything we had stored on there, no matter wether our copies were purchased or pirated, at their convenience? Well, they're Microsoft, and it's their product, and by using it, all of my privacy should be ignored, because really, how else could Microsoft prevent piracy?! ... Leave it to the law. Period.

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.

See, you're not understanding what I'm telling you about IP sniffing. In order to find who's doing what on a College network, they need to analize IP packets. Lots of them. With no indication of what they were originally for. The internet transfers data in these packets. The originating IP address is hard coded into them, along with whatever data is being sent to whatever server, along with the destination IP address of said server. ANYTHING could be in those data packets. Including passwords, credit card information, google searches, again, your imagination is the limit here. There's no telling what IP packets were and were not seen. Is it really Ok with you to compromise that kind of privacy to find a few kids downloading some songs?

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!

It wasn't CNN, but it was quick and easy, and definitely the same cases that have been floating around forever.

Here's the story of the dead woman ... sadly it's been removed from the news site as per the copyright policy of the associated press. Fortunately, the title remains on the webpage, which is the best way on that site to verify it's existance.

Cnet Article

Oregon News site

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.

Documents from every case the RIAA has filed. Some 404'd on me, but feel free to look up any of the cases I've cited.


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.

So you don't think the RIAA actually expects to collect the $222,000[/quote] from a single mom they recently bankrupted?


The punishment should always fit the crime involved. You're, however, comparing Civil vs. Lawful lawsuits again. They're not the same thing. Stop trying to make them the same thing.

I'm curious. For 24 illegally downloaded songs, being charged $222,000, does that fit? Or, should she be charged $480, which would be the cost of 24 individual CDs, assuming each CD was $20? I mean, is [url=http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=bizarre&id=5389441]$54 Million an acceptable amount to ask for for a pair of missing pants?

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.

you misunderstand me, as I've mentioned several times in this particular post. I don't call for IP anonymity over the internet. I call for unlawful searches to not be a basis for lawsuits in Civil or Lawful cases. You want to search something, go through the proper channels. the RIAA should not be above the law, any more than people who are illegally downloading their material.
 
Also, although access to the internet is public in schools, what you do on the internet- as long as it's not a matter of national or campus security or something- is private. The school does not have the right to view your search history or other personal things such as account information etc.

Lol, if you're using their network, they have every right in the world to monitor your activities.

Yes, not only should people be able to download without detection, but they should also be able to download PERIOD. Plenty of countries are already legalizing file sharing.

There are plenty of sites that offer legal downloading in the USA.
 
Lol, if you're using their network, they have every right in the world to monitor your activities.

Nah, at least not to my knowledge. Dorm rooms and stuff have no specific privacy protection laws but I'm fairly certain that a University cannot monitor what you're doing online unless you are under suspicion of something that could compromise the security of the campus, etc. Otherwise, what's to stop Universities from gaining access to your credit card number and other things?




I said file sharing. Not downloading. :D Although, that's a completely different discussion.
 
Nah, at least not to my knowledge. Dorm rooms and stuff have no specific privacy protection laws but I'm fairly certain that a University cannot monitor what you're doing online unless you are under suspicion of something that could compromise the security of the campus, etc. Otherwise, what's to stop Universities from gaining access to your credit card number and other things?

Short answer, nothing. Believe the person who has worked for and now works for Major American Universities in the IT department. They may not actively monitor what you're doing, but everything you do is logged at all times, and by law, must be kept backed up for a minimum of 5 years. There are very strict laws on data retention.

Fear not, however, as we don't install keyloggers.

Edit: I'd like to see articles indicating where countries are legalising copyright infringement in file sharing though, that should be a good read.
 
Thanks freak, I don't think they were understanding the concept of NAT. I will explain it further and in even more depth for anyone who cares later on when I make my counter post.

NP, I used to work in the Technology Lab for the College of Arts and Sciences professors at my University. Had to deal with this stuff all the time and coordinate stuff with the IT dept. on several occasions.
 
Only reason why I haven't posted articles about this subject was because I thought it was easy enough to just look up.. lol


http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/2317/196/

http://netforbeginners.about.com/od/p2plegalitiesandethics/a/p2p_france.htm

"I cannot see a real difference between a library that places a photocopy machine in a room full of copyrighted material and a computer user that places a personal copy (of a song) on a shared directory linked to a P2P (music sharing) service.", stated Judge Von Finckenstein in his landmark ruling.

There are plenty of other articles surrounding different countries. Not every country has officially legalized it (as of 2006 only France and Canada actually have- I believe there are others that have since then but I cannot recall), some have, but LOTS are considering it. I'm not up to date on the current status of these countries that are considering it, but the fact that they're considering it in the first place is enough. And for the record, Von Finckenstein's (Canada) argument is spot on and I fully agree with it.

EDIT: I'd also like to add that some countries, INCLUDING THE US (if you read the Denmark article) have considered allowing free file sharing which would be offset by an added fee tacked on to the ISP bill. It's an interesting notion as well. Not sure if I agree with it though. I don't want to download a bunch of metal albums and have my ISP bill payments go to Brittney Spears... lol
 
Short answer, nothing. Believe the person who has worked for and now works for Major American Universities in the IT department. They may not actively monitor what you're doing, but everything you do is logged at all times, and by law, must be kept backed up for a minimum of 5 years. There are very strict laws on data retention.

.

Wasn't aware of that. Interesting.
 
There are plenty of other articles surrounding different countries. Not every country has officially legalized it (as of 2006 only France and Canada actually have- I believe there are others that have since then but I cannot recall), some have, but LOTS are considering it.

You are correct about Canada, for the moment...

Reuters: Canada moves to reform copyright protection.:

It's hard to believe that TiVo and VCRs are illegal in Canada, but unauthorized file sharing of copyrighted material isn't. Probably explained by their French ancestry. :loco: