Riaa-at It Again

**clocker** · 04-09-2003, 12:40 AM

FatalError- I respectfully disagree.
Clearly, they have no hope of actually collecting the sums of money they seek so I think that the whole point of this fiasco is to gain a forum in which to air their grievances.They actually win if they can legitimize the theory that p2p pirates are substantially at fault for their business losses no matter the outcome of this particular trial.
Having tried the "Just Say No" method- and discovered that it works no better for them than it did for Nancy Reagan-this is just phase two of the campaign.
Phase three will be the real attempt to go after everyday users.
Phase four is where they have to decide if they are willing to finance a multiyear,megaexpensive attempt to throttle John/Jane Public.
Personally, I think they will come to their senses before that but what do I know?
We did, after all, try Prohibition in this country...

Jibbler- Yep.

**Fatal Error** · 04-09-2003, 01:34 AM

Makes me kind of wonder what kind of an effect this would have on filesharing in general if they lost these cases after all this publicity.

There would be nothing that I would like to see more than RIAA/MPAA et al
become the defendents in a class action suit brought by 14 some million fileshares and get the bejesus sued out of them for privacy invasion

@ clocker: I never expected or believed that they would ever actually collect these rediculous sums of money, and yes they have a forum (albeit, a very expensive one) and there is nothing more that I would like to see than your theory prove correct. However, some very significant issues have been raised here, especially in the area of privacy. Guess I'm just going to have to wait and see how this whole mess plays out. It should be very intresting to see how far their going to go with this thing.

**clocker** · 04-09-2003, 03:06 AM

From their standpoint I'm sure this legal forum is pretty cheap. Lotta bang for the buck considering the amount of press I'm sure this will generate.
I'm going to monitor the number of Kazaa dl's on Downloads.com and will post if a significant % change occurs. This seems like a quick and dirty way of guaging how the public is reacting to this.

**Fatal Error** · 04-09-2003, 04:50 AM

I agree.. even though this campaign that they've launched has got to be costing millions they probably figure their still getting off cheap.. I mean the media coverage, and hence the free publicity, that this thing is going to generate, is priceless. I figure their just going to tack the price of what they actually have to pay onto the cost of the product,which is what usually happens.

It's a pretty risky game in my view, because it will drive up the cost of an already overpriced product, therefore providing a further incentive for filesharers to get it from a "free source" rather than puchasing it, which would result in even a bigger slump in their sales which also equates to less money going to the artist(s)..

I think that these "threats" may scare off some filesharers.. but we both know that what they threaten to do and what they can actually get away with are two entirely different things. I dont think there's going to be any dramatic drop in filesharing between new or old users, but it would be intresting to keep an eye on.

I think the important thing here is that ALL users should take all the precautions that are available.. why invite trouble when it can be avoided, get Peer Guardian at the very least, and keep it updated.

btw: nice work Switeck.. it works very well.

B)

**Switeck** · 04-09-2003, 04:52 AM

One other thing that hasn't been mentioned here: the student in trouble ran an automatic cataloger of all the shared files on the _LAN_ network -- that is all the files shared by other students (and admins?) at that university. These files CANNOT be downloaded by people on the internet ONLY by people on the same LAN and ONLY if they knew the address (which this cataloger provides...) The student has NO way of controlling WHAT people share on the LAN, so he is in short being prosecuted for OTHER PEOPLE'S 'crimes'. (I'm not even sure there is much of a copyright issue here because this is occuring in a sense on 1 LAN... or copying files inside a single network.)

The major difference with this is THIS particular cataloger can be accessed from the INTERNET even though the files it finds CANNOT. It would in fact be the PERFECT tool for RIAA to find copyright violations inside that university from the internet! But RIAA seems to have killed the goose that lays the golden egg.

And RIAA started this whole fiasco without either a search warrent OR notification to the university...

I hope they get countersued for a more 'reasonable' sum (than they're asking) like $1 million.

**Fatal Error** · 04-09-2003, 04:33 PM

Originally posted by Switeck@9 April 2003 - 00:52
One other thing that hasn't been mentioned here: the student in trouble ran an automatic cataloger of all the shared files on the _LAN_ network -- that is all the files shared by other students (and admins?) at that university. These files CANNOT be downloaded by people on the internet ONLY by people on the same LAN and ONLY if they knew the address (which this cataloger provides...) The student has NO way of controlling WHAT people share on the LAN, so he is in short being prosecuted for OTHER PEOPLE'S 'crimes'. (I'm not even sure there is much of a copyright issue here because this is occuring in a sense on 1 LAN... or copying files inside a single network.)

The major difference with this is THIS particular cataloger can be accessed from the INTERNET even though the files it finds CANNOT. It would in fact be the PERFECT tool for RIAA to find copyright violations inside that university from the internet! But RIAA seems to have killed the goose that lays the golden egg.

And RIAA started this whole fiasco without either a search warrent OR notification to the university...

I hope they get countersued for a more 'reasonable' sum (than they're asking) like $1 million.

It seems to me that this student is getting a very raw deal all the way around. Just by virtue of him NOT physically having the files on HIS computer and thereby NOT having CONTROL over their use would make this a very dicey case to bring an infringement issue on..this is further complicated by the fact that the files in question are on what could be argued as a "private network", thats not accessable from the internet,or rather,the files on it arent. The fact that the Uni wasnt even notified that this was going on when it was discovered, further complicates things.

Having said all of this, I am very inclined to agree with you that this student is indeed being prosecuted for the crimes of others..how sucessful this will be,remains to be seen. They threaten to do all kinds of things.. If and when they actually do them is another matter,and I think that IF they start doing the things they are threatening, they should be prepared for massive acts of retalliation (lol) some 14 million filesharers can keep your IT crew busy for a very long time...

**clocker** · 04-10-2003, 12:44 AM

The more I ponder this case the odder it becomes.
The RIAA seems to have picked an instance of filesharing which has all sorts of extraneous complications which could only make the outcome more difficult to predict.
Why not, for instance, cruise this forum ( which anybody can do anonymously) and target a user who has openly admitted having a large collection of songs on their HD and is sharing them with one and all?
Very clear cut and no murky side issues.
No university or other third party involved.
One defendant, one computer, indisputable evidence and a chance to cut to the bone of their contention, i.e. "This guy is causing us material harm by allowing others to access for free the copyrighted product that we are attempting to sell".
Very clean cut case.
Why didn't they do that?

Maybe I've just been watching too much Law & Order...

**chloe_cc2002** · 04-10-2003, 01:22 AM

Carnivore, Echelon, and homeland (in-)security basically says you already have no privacy. Adware and Spyware are LEGAL because of very weak privacy protections. Verizon has been forced by the courts to hand over a list of names, addresses, and other private information because RIAA/MPAA says they're committing piracy... RIAA/MPAA does NOT even have to offer evidence/probable cause anymore thanks to DMCA... a search warrent is not needed. Guilty until we say otherwise! And people who ARE innocent really ARE being trapped in this sort of thing

very true, and particularly in this political climate where powers have been enlarged under the guise of 'terrorism'

The 'Feds' ..aka the Australian Federal Police have raided Unis here in Oz and although the files havn't been handed over I think that is some indication that where there is will you can't discount the possibility.

As for skipping international boundaries, the shield of anonymity didnt protect a user on a forum board where there post was conceived of as defamatory of a particular Canadian company and they jumped hoops through two jurisdictions to get a subpoena.

**TheMan1891** · 04-10-2003, 08:22 PM

I would really love to help with blowing up the RIAA headquarters... God knows I do. I really really hate the methods they are using to stop stuff like that they have no fucking mind.