The RIAA Isn't Even Trying Anymore...

[Dmanx Pit]

http://www.macnn.com/articles/07/12/11/riaa.on.cd.ripping/

Basically, what that says is anytime you rip a CD onto your computer, it's illegal. At least that's what they're arguing in court, against prior arguments they made that it was legal.

Wow, apparently, they've already lost.

 

[Conspicuously Absent]

yep, old news by now. The irony is, its ok to share MP3s over this one website: http://www.imeem.com/ but nowhere else. Why? Cause the site spams you with ads and they get a portion of that money instead.

 

[skyrefuge]

Dammit, no. Don't be so gullible. Whoever read the actual legal brief and interpreted it to mean "anytime you rip a CD onto your computer, it's illegal" is either stupid, or willfully lying. The brief says no such thing. I wouldn't trust any site that posted this as a "news" story.

http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDF.asp?filename=atlantic_howell_071207RIAASupplementalBrief

If you can't be bothered to glance at it yourself, the brief claims that it's infringement if you rip your CDs AND (the all important AND!) put them on KaZaA. Which is hardly news.

Neil

 

[Conspicuously Absent]

Hence why I jumped right into sharing, I completely forgot to mention that point. That because you put it in a shared folder (doesn't have to be Kazaa, can be any method of sharing, even windows workgroup sharing).

 

[skyrefuge]

That because you put it in a shared folder (doesn't have to be Kazaa, can be any method of sharing, even windows workgroup sharing).

I'm not sure what you're saying. Are you saying that the RIAA considers windows workgroup sharing to be a copyright infringement? Maybe they do, but I couldn't find anything in this particular legal brief that supports that idea. Their argument pretty explicitly refers to sharing on KaZaA. To assume otherwise requires some rather unfair context-removal.

Neil

 

[skeptik]

KaZaA still exists?

 

[skyrefuge]

KaZaA still exists?

I don't know, probably not, but these lawsuit thingies apparently take so long to work their way through the system that they're always several years behind in the technology by the time the information becomes public. Grokster was their last big one, which is even more "wtf?" than KaZaA. So that means that just because we haven't seen any bittorrent-related lawsuits yet, that doesn't mean there aren't a whole boatload of those coming down the pipeline.

One part I liked about this one was that to prove that this guy knew about KaZaA and how to use it, the RIAA says that he admitted to them that he used it to download porn. "hmm, maybe if I tell 'em that I only used it for pr0n, I'll be safe!"

Neil

 

[Reign in Acai]

What they need to crack down on are these file sharing message boards. The one "WinterSusan84" is a part of offers bootleg movies, high quality dvd releases, hdporn, every popular cd known to man, video games, and software up the wazoo. WS84 primarily uses it for tv shows, nothing more.

 

[Nico]

So that means that just because we haven't seen any bittorrent-related lawsuits yet, that doesn't mean there aren't a whole boatload of those coming down the pipeline.

Not so. Bittorrent, unlike Kazaa, Grogster, Napster, is a platform technology and not an application. There are dozens of applications that utilize bittorrent but since there's no centralized network, there's nothing to sue and nothing to shut down. Even the original creator of the technology is working with the RIAA/MPAA/feds to help legitimize its use. That leaves only the torrent tracking sites as targets.

 

[Conspicuously Absent]

Demonoid (a big tracker) was shut down fairly recently. Torrentspy.com is no longer available for you americans. isohunt.com is constantly being slapped with lawsuit attempts (if you can't get em legally, then hit them in the pocketbook). Pickings could be getting slim here.

That said, Comcast is a bunch of fucking assbongs for trying to filter Bittorrent, which has NUMEROUS (WoW, Game Trailers, Movie Trailers, Game Demos, Large patches) perfectly fucking legal uses in the actual world.

As for saying sharing it on kazaa leads to all shared folders. it's a matter of precedent. If they get away with saying ripping your own CDs and putting them in Kazaa qualifies as "making available" (their definition of piracy at the minimum end). Then its simple to say that if you put them in a windows workgroup and cannot 100% prove that only you access it (no wireless access possible), then its technically also making available. That said, I'm pushing it to the extreme.

@Skyrefuge: It seems you follow this. The whole Media Defender thing was pretty fucking nuts eh?

 

[WhiteBeastofWotan]

What they need to crack down on are these file sharing message boards. The one "WinterSusan84" is a part of offers bootleg movies, high quality dvd releases, hdporn, every popular cd known to man, video games, and software up the wazoo. WS84 primarily uses it for tv shows, nothing more.

linkplz.

 

[Det Som Engang Var]

Yes please

 

[skyrefuge]

Not so. Bittorrent, unlike Kazaa, Grogster, Napster, is a platform technology and not an application.

No, the RIAA has shifted its strategy in recent years. In addition to going after the technologies, it's also going after individual users. The reference lawsuit in this thread is directed at an individual uploading stuff to KaZaA, not at KaZaA itself. The recent $220,000 award to the RIAA was also from a woman who used KaZaA. So lawsuits against bittorrent users certainly seem like a possibility. Which really makes a lot more sense from a justice perspective anyhow (since the tools themselves don't do anything explictly illegal).

That said, I'm pushing it to the extreme.

Yeah, and that's why I try to kill threads like this, because people develop these "extreme" views of the RIAA by glancing over things like this that aren't even true. Sure, the RIAA is nuts, but they aren't THAT nuts.

The whole Media Defender thing was pretty fucking nuts eh?

yeah, those guys are funny.

Neil

 

[Nico]

No, the RIAA has shifted its strategy in recent years. In addition to going after the technologies, it's also going after individual users. The reference lawsuit in this thread is directed at an individual uploading stuff to KaZaA, not at KaZaA itself. The recent $220,000 award to the RIAA was also from a woman who used KaZaA. So lawsuits against bittorrent users certainly seem like a possibility. Which really makes a lot more sense from a justice perspective anyhow (since the tools themselves don't do anything explictly illegal).

Ah, neither recent years nor a shifting of strategy were the case here, as the industry has been suing file sharing individuals since the days of Napster. However, since the ruling on the Grogster case (I think... it might have been the original Kazaa case) the precedent has been set that providing a software application with willful intent of its use in the illegal distribution and sharing of copyrighted works can be deemed illegal.

Most Bittorrent applications though, and most notably the Bittorrent organization, have made strong pushes towards legitimization by working with major entertainment groups associated with the RIAA/MPAA in order to gain their seal of approval despite the fact that these applications are predominantly used for the distribution of copyrighted works. The sharing of copyrighted works is still illegal through these applications, but the applications themselves seem to have found a safe harbour in which to continue for the time being.