Riaa And Filesharing

I quit sharing since 2001 when I got a letter from Charter Pipeline and the RIAA. Reminding me that I was sharing Illegal files. And by cont. I would suffer legal conisqunces. Anyways... I always have been wondering if the Kazza User patch to show I am not sharing file works? And how safe is it?... like 100%? or wat?

Plus I have more dought in my mind since the RIAA has realsed a message saying "Easily Identifed" and crap like that.

So can some one give me reassurance, that this so called Privacy Patch is 100% safe. I can't afford to lose 15,000.00 to the RIAA :) espically since I owe 72.50 for a parking ticket. lol :P

Snow

The privacy patch guarantees you nothing. I don't use it, though I don't see a problem with it. You can't protect your identity from anyone whom you are sharing files with. So you have to take your chances when you share files. However, I truly believe the risk is very low for getting caught. B)

In theory, everyone on this board is "easily identified" if the MPAA/RIAA were able to get a search warrant for the IP's of users of this site. However, the vast amount of resources needed for this don't justify the end result. ;)

The K++ option disables people from downloading the complete listing of all your files. Nothing else. People can still download from you. If you download from someone they will know your IP address and what file you're downloading. If someone downloads from you, they will know your IP address and the file they're downloading. In other words, you can still get caught.

No, you are not easily identifiable.
Yes, your IP address is very easy to get.
Only your ISP can identify you from an IP address.

Here in the US, Verizon just lost a court case where they must provide this info.

It's a hot topic among american politicians and still being debated as to the legalities of it.

I suggest all P2P users visit the Electronic Frontier Foundation website and stay informed!

I thought Verizon was still in the appeal process?

:ninja:

Verizon is still the appeal process. Don't expect a verdict on this one very quickly.

Harrycary, your interpretation is slightly wrong. Your IP address is your online signature. In theory, all they need to do is download a copyrighted file, log your IP, and apply for a search warrant for a 'content wiretap' to monitor your online activities.

Granted, this rarely happens to filesharers, but its common practice in regards to child pornography and other online activities such as terrorism, exploition of children, information warfare, fraud, etc. :huh:

As of this past Thursday, Verizon has 14 days to turn over the identities of 2 of their customers.

Jibbler,
While that is true, the information can only be provided by the ISP(as I previously stated). This is who assigns your IP address to you(if you didn't already know this).

The Verizon argument is based on this information being disseminated without need for a court order. (latest article)

I applaud Verizons' efforts and anxiously await the appeals process. If they even have one. The latest ruling came from an appellate judge so their lawyers have limited options.

I guess the point I was trying to make, is that if they want you, they'll find you. Verizon is doing everything they can to fight for the users privacy. This is not the case with every ISP. You have to sign a privacy policy, and filesharing copyrighted works is generally in that agreement. So, at the very least, the RIAA could pressure your ISP to reveal your identity. Most likely, they will cooperate by simply terminating your connection. They do reserve the right to do that, in most cases, upon written request from a third party. The Verizon verdict may soon change all of that, but I doubt it. The ball is in Verizon's court on this one, and I suspect they'll win this one, but probably not all of them. :)

Can someone comment on Filetopia (www.filetopia.org)? They claim their software can "mask" origin IP numbers. True?

Any proxy server on the internet can do this for you. They are free, just do a search on google. However there is no hiding your IP from your provider, since they assign it to you. They are required to maintain logs of their IPs for many different reasons, so at any time, they could match a given IP with the user who has it.

Quote:

---

Any proxy server on the internet can do this for you. They are free, just do a search on google. However there is no hiding your IP from your provider, since they assign it to you. They are required to maintain logs of their IPs for many different reasons, so at any time, they could match a given IP with the user who has it.

---

This is true ... but it's also true that merely connecting to a file-sharing service is not proof you're sharing something illegal. That's partly why Grokster/Streamcast prevailed in the recent court case -- because the judge cited the Supreme Court ruling of Columbia V. Sony, "...substantial non-infringing uses." If someone uploading a file from you cannot ascertain your IP number, how can they ascertain who your provider is? And without knowing who your provider is, who do they complain to?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by OlderThanDirt@4 May 2003 - 21:08
If someone uploading a file from you cannot ascertain your IP number, how can they ascertain who your provider is? And without knowing who your provider is, who do they complain to?

---

You've hit the nail on the head, and this is a flaw in the design element of kazaa. As the RIAA/MPAA grows more powerful, and they will, encryption and proxy servers will be the key to survival of p2p. Essentially, a new service, similar to kazaa will hit the market, and it will use public proxy servers as "go-betweens" so that file sharers won't be able to see each others IP addresses.

Its a game of tug of war, today we win, tomorrow, they do. B)

This is why I'm wondering whether Filetopia is privy to the current "solution" (which, tomorrow, may not be). Still, the real scary prospect isn't the technology aspect. As the Microsoft antitrust case has proven, our current administration isn't concerned that much with monopoly business practices. Therein lies the REAL danger. Imagine this nightmare scenario.

The top-5 music-cd cartel, together, is a multi-national conglomerate worth billions of dollars. What would happen if each member of this cartel decided to (ahem) diversify ... with each of them buying up the current broadband communications entities (Verizon, Covad, Comcast, etc., etc.). Then you'd have a situation where all the broadband ISPs are "owned" by the music police ... who would check EVERY connection to ANY file-sharing service and prosecute ANYONE who crossed the line they've drawn in the sand.

Given the debt load that many of the large telecommunications companies are burdened with I really don't see anyone jumping in to buy them.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by OlderThanDirt@4 May 2003 - 22:09
This is why I'm wondering whether Filetopia is privy to the current "solution" (which, tomorrow, may not be).

---

Oh they are, however the technology is there, but to unroll a new platform, that's not so easy. Sharman Networks (those who created the original Kazaa) invested millions. So its easy for me to point us all in the next logical direction. However it takes capital and demand for that business venture to become a reality. :)

Quote:

---

Given the debt load that many of the large telecommunications companies are burdened with I really don't see anyone jumping in to buy them.

---

Yet ...

But, there may come a time when the vast sums of money the media cartel "claims" to be losing supercedes worries over these debt loads ... convincing them to take such a plunge. And if they did, the current administration would tell the antitrust division of the Department of Justice to give it a wink and a nod.

The war on terror is so vague, so they'll find a way to associate filesharing with terrorism. It appears this is the cloud the government is hiding under for most of their atrocities now.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by OlderThanDirt@4 May 2003 - 20:26
And if they did, the current administration would tell the antitrust division of the Department of Justice to give it a wink and a nod.

---

You apparently attribute greater longevity to the current administration than I.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by clocker@4 May 2003 - 22:42
You apparently attribute greater longevity to the current administration than I.

---

Are you suggesting another democrat will make it to the oval office? :blink:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jibbler@4 May 2003 - 20:46

Are you suggesting another democrat will make it to the oval office? :blink:

---

Well, you know, Americans aren't all that fond of their vegetables...

i got an email from riaa that told me im sharing copyrighted files and illegas stuff soo i jus email them back say



GO FVK YOURSELF U STUPID FRUIT CAKES hahahaha :lol: :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by infamousalbo101@4 May 2003 - 20:53
i got an email from riaa that told me im sharing copyrighted files and illegas stuff soo i jus email them back say



GO FVK YOURSELF U STUPID FRUIT CAKES hahahaha :lol: :lol:

---

Boy, you really showed them.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by clocker+4 May 2003 - 22:50--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 4 May 2003 - 22:50)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Jibbler@4 May 2003 - 20:46

Are you suggesting another democrat will make it to the oval office?&nbsp; :blink:

---

Well, you know, Americans aren&#39;t all that fond of their vegetables... [/b][/quote]
I believe one badly lodged pretzel could have changed all that. Maybe next time? :o :huh: ;)

if u ever get a email from riaa jus emial them back saying you work for mpaa and if u get a email from mpaa

jus tell them you work for riaa

if u get a emial from both jus say this


GO FVK YOURSEFL YOU CACA HEADS

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jibbler@4 May 2003 - 21:01

I believe one badly lodged pretzel could have changed all that. Maybe next time? :o :huh: ;)

---

Next time?

Are you suggesting that there really was another pretzel on the grassy knoll?

Clocker,

Well, if Bush can overcome domestic economic woes (and his Middle East policies don&#39;t backfire terribly), he stands a good chance for a 2nd term. But, his administration isn&#39;t letting grass grow on appointments to judgeships in the meantime. If he can fill enough Federal Court slots with pro-big-business judges, even a Democratic-controlled Justice Department will find an unfriendly atmosphere in which to argue a case. Laissez faire monopoly practices are probably going to be with us for some time to come ... no matter who sits in the White House.

I think there&#39;s a serious paranoia thing going on here. The chance of any of the big music companies buying any of the big broadband co&#39;s out is slim to none. Most music companies are in worse debt than the telecoms co&#39;s and they are in big shit as it is. The simple answer is... don&#39;t worry, it&#39;ll be a while before the small time sharers get busted by the big corps

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Viqer_fell@4 May 2003 - 21:11
The simple answer is... don&#39;t worry, it&#39;ll be a while before the small time sharers get busted by the big corps

---

Well, I agree with the simple part.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by OlderThanDirt@4 May 2003 - 21:10
Laissez faire monopoly practices are probably going to be with us for some time to come ... no matter who sits in the White House.

---

As if they ever left.

Jibbler wrote:

Quote:

---

The war on terror is so vague, so they&#39;ll find a way to associate filesharing with terrorism. It appears this is the cloud the government is hiding under for most of their atrocities now.

---

Actually (grin), the war on terror may have the opposite effect. Right now, Homeland Security is very fearful of potential "electronic attacks" by unfriendly people ... and if the RIAA starts giving the go-ahead for high-tech attacks on file-sharers, they might find themselves on the business-end of a Federal investigation. And remember, a lot of people in the music and movie businesses are anti-war lefties anyway (grin) -- people who may have skeletons in their own closets that the government may be very interested in.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by clocker+4 May 2003 - 23:15--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 4 May 2003 - 23:15)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Viqer_fell@4 May 2003 - 21:11
The simple answer is... don&#39;t worry, it&#39;ll be a while before the small time sharers get busted by the big corps

---

Well, I agree with the simple part. [/b][/quote]
Public opinion always comes after the technology. :huh:

The RIAA is just into intimidation right now. They aren&#39;t gonna get serious yet because of the "price fixing" deal a few years back. When they got busted trying to tack an amendment on to that terrorism bill they probably lost a lot of "friends" in Washington. Politicians hate bad press with an election year coming up.

On the more humorous side,their trojan and virus are just that. Either one has to have an executable or a script to work and that ain&#39;t mp3s. They&#39;ll have to go way out of their territory to get them to work. Can you see them launching a trojan to wipe out harddrives and it got rerouted to the Pentagon. Now that would be funny.

F**k those liberal anti-war commies, who in the goverment reallys wants to help these saps.

Regarding the original post here, case in point, people will RUN, due to the scare tactics.

I think someone should file a harassment suit regarding these IM&#39;s and letters. :lol: :lol:

In case it is not mentioned yet Filetopia has encryption built in to stop your ISP from seeing the data you dl or ul through it. Now if you were to couple this with a proxy or bouncer (which Filetopia offers), well then you could virtually dissapear. I currently use Filetopia, well designed, but the user base is still limited.

Earthstation 5 -- Anyone heard of this? It&#39;s apparently a stealth-P2P network under development. And, I suspect they&#39;re not alone.

actually the Department Of Defense already has done a so-called study on the file-sharing networks and now links terrorists with peer2peer.

Quote:

---

actually the Department Of Defense already has done a so-called study on the file-sharing networks and now links terrorists with peer2peer.

---

... and the Surgeon General has proof that smoking leads to excessive belly-button lint (grin).

Seriously, though, it wasn&#39;t the Department of Defense. It was John G. Malcolm, deputy assistant attorney general in the criminal division of the U.S. Department of Justice. I mention his name because, frankly, his opinion does not represent the opinion of the agency itself. When he concocted this fanciful notion, he was asked to come before the House Subcommittee on Terrorism and explain himself. When Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) asked him for proof, he could provide none ... but continued to ramble on with his unprovable notions until stopped by John Carter, also (R-TX) who said, "It seems to be a growing trend for the government to lump things together with terrorism that really are not connected at all."

So much for that.

However, regarding the Earthstation5 entity I mentioned above (and being a curious sort), I went to NetSol&#39;s WHOIS database to see who they were. (Entering "woo-woo" mode.) They list their address as being in a refugee camp in Palestine (snicker, I kid you not) ... but call themselves a Vanuatu Corporation (Vanuatu being an island nation with very good Internet infrastructure).

Quote:

---

Originally posted by OlderThanDirt@5 May 2003 - 18:26


... and the Surgeon General has proof that smoking leads to excessive belly-button lint (grin).

---

Really?
Well, you learn something new every day, don&#39;t you?

And I used to think this forum was just a waste of time. ;)

Isn&#39;t Vanuatu where Sharman is hiding out?

Quote:

---

Isn&#39;t Vanuatu where Sharman is hiding out?

---

I didn&#39;t know they were hiding. But, they could have offices there. Their homepage states, quote, "Sharman is a worldwide operation, based in Australia, with offices in Europe." Their registration record shows them as being in Sydney, Australia ... and the registration record for Kazaa shows them as being in Cremorne (probably a suburb of Sydney).

Hehehe. FWIW, I went to the Justice Department website to see if I could find the exact text of Malcolm&#39;s speech to the Subcommittee on Terrorism. A search unconvered nothing (maybe DOJ was embarrassed, hehe). However, Malcolm didn&#39;t stop there. He also made speeches to the House Committee on the Judiciary and the Subcommittee on Courts, The Internet, and Intellectual Property. And, in that speech, his comments on the "terror tie-in" comprised one paragraph near the end:

Quote:

---

"Finally, Mr. Chairman, I want to close by briefly discussing terrorism. Earlier I noted that organized crime syndicates are frequently engaged in many types of illicit enterprises, including supporting terrorist activities. On this point, I want to be crystal clear. Stopping terrorism is the single highest priority of the Department of Justice. We are constantly examining possible links between traditional crimes and terrorism, and we will continue to do so. All components of the Justice Department, including CCIPS, the Counterterrorism Section, and the Organized Crime and Racketeering Section, will do everything within their power to make sure that intellectual property piracy does not become a vehicle for financing or supporting acts of terror."

---

Jeez Louise, hehe. If terrorists wanted to profit off stolen intellectual property, they wouldn&#39;t log on to a P2P network. They&#39;d buy a CD off the shelf, slap it into a multi-CD copying machine, and crank out whatever their market would bear. Organized pro pirates (ie., China) have been doing that for years. Frankly, I think someone needs to mail Mr. Malcolm an alarm clock and a jar of Maxwell House instant (regular, not decaf).