How worried are you about the RIAA & Subpoenas?

[AlphaWolf]

Yes but they really don't have any evidence against you regardless. A filelist, whoopity-do, that's completely circumstantial and meaningless. Unless they actually download said files (which presents legal issues for THEM, if you want to get really technical,) and can PROVE it (which they can't,) they have no case. Even if they did, and can prove it, they still have no case. Even if they wanted to take you to court it would be extremely expensive and not worth their time.

Well...It depends on how far into it they want to go, but its very provable because they can't violate their own copyright since they are the content owners after all, and they can get enough money to make it worth their time - $750 per copyright violation (e.g. per song) I believe.

If you do anything to make yourself anonymous and make it so they can't trace your IP address (various ways of doing this btw), then you can easily get away with it.

 

[Macca]

http://www.boycott-riaa.com/

 

[t0rek]

I live in Costa Rica. RIAA my ass!!!

 

[ScottJC]

A typical day at RIAA:
Employee: Mr Executive of RIAA, Someone downloaded another britney spears song!
* RIAA Executive almost chokes eating his dinner
RIAA Executive: Are you saying that I've lost more money?!!!!!!!!!?! I HATE LOSING MONEY!!!
Employee: I'm afraid it does...
RIAA Executive: That does it, its time to launch a tactical nuclear launch at where kazaa is located!

 

[blizz]

At least one that actualy works on the consumers terms. They wonder why many people don't subscribe in droves to those services:

1) I do not own a mac (no itunes)
2) I don't use internet explorer (no buymusic)
3) When I buy a pen, I don't want a pen that is chained to my desk, and I would rather not buy one pen for every desk I own, nor have to pay royalties for ink refills. (aka DRM, which eliminates all music services out there)

Lets see, why would I pay for something when the free alternatives have none of these limitations?

my point was they had the chance to establish a new business model to complement CDs...

 

[nephalim]

Well...It depends on how far into it they want to go, but its very provable because they can't violate their own copyright since they are the content owners after all, and they can get enough money to make it worth their time - $750 per copyright violation (e.g. per song) I believe.

If you do anything to make yourself anonymous and make it so they can't trace your IP address (various ways of doing this btw), then you can easily get away with it.

Just because they can't violate their own copyrights (which is still pretty technical) doesn't mean it's "very provable." What evidence could they should that couldn't be easily faked? They would need PROOF, or you walk. That was my #1 point. My #2 point is that there is a WHOLE slew of legal issues involved, and since them getting your identity from your ISP isn't exactly legal in the first place (still being debated in the courts,) nevermind TONS of other issues that are raised, they don't really have a case. It would be very difficult for them to legitimately prosecute thousands of people who fought back rather than gave in to their demands.

Finally we come to whether it's worth it, monetarily, for them to take you to court. Even though they get paid $750 per song (what they are likely to get IF they win, assuming the amount isn't too large, in which case it'll get chopped down by the judge,) that still doesn't make it worth their money. Maybe if they were prosecuting someone in possesion of thousands upon thousands of songs, it would be worth it. Now, whether it would be worth it to lose some money in order to set a precident and make a point is another story. But there is no way in hell they are going to take several thousand P2P users to court, that's for sure.

The people against this, such as ISPs like Verizon (whom i'm very proud of, never thought i'd be proud of a corporation like that,) and companies like Sony that make CD-R's (Sony alone could probably take the RIAA, and they are showing they are leaning on the progressive side of things with their console, which is nice,) need to form a more tight alliance to get this trash taken out.
(I'm not saying Sony is against the RIAA, but Verizon definetely is, they are currently in appeals challenging their right to not give out customer information based on nothing but testimony from a copyright holder or representative. They lost the first round. Isn't that god damn ridiculous?)

 

[KingTom]

most of my taste in music is impossible to find on p2p anyways

 

[AlphaWolf]

Just because they can't violate their own copyrights (which is still pretty technical) doesn't mean it's "very provable."

Well, no, not is it only very provable, but picture this. Lets say you wrote a song and sold it commercialy on the internet. One day you decide to give a free copy to your friend. Is that piracy? No, because you own it, and you can do *anything* you want with it, including make derivitaves of it, sell it, etc. Them downloading content that they own from you is perfectly legal, there are no technicalities about it.

What evidence could they should that couldn't be easily faked? They would need PROOF, or you walk. That was my #1 point.

Easy, get a credible witness, thats all the proof you need.

My #2 point is that there is a WHOLE slew of legal issues involved, and since them getting your identity from your ISP isn't exactly legal in the first place (still being debated in the courts,)

Them getting your identity from your ISP is perfectly legal if your ISP gives it up voluntarily. However, most ISPs do not want to give it up voluntarily, mainly because it costs them money and time. If it weren't for the money and time factors, verizon wouldn't be trying to illegalize this, they possibly wouldn't even care. But alas, the court system did rule that it is legal for them to subpoena this information (although IIRC, verizon is still trying to appeal that decision, but until that happens, the original court decision still stands).

Finally we come to whether it's worth it, monetarily, for them to take you to court. Even though they get paid $750 per song (what they are likely to get IF they win, assuming the amount isn't too large, in which case it'll get chopped down by the judge,) that still doesn't make it worth their money.

Actualy $750 per song is the minimum allowed by law, the maximum being $150,000 per song. The RIAA can sue for whatever in between, and the judge cannot alter the ammount beyond those bounds either. However, the RIAA can lower the ammount below the minimum if they want to (which they did in those first few cases against the college students), because they are the ones making the claim, the only thing the RIAA can't do is raise the ammount to anything beyond what the judge or jury decides. They can easily recoup their losses and earn some with each court case if somebody even has only 8 or so songs on their hard drive. (unless of course the defendant subsequently declares bankruptcy, which isn't hard, and will nullify all monetary claims against them, but as you know will also fuck up their credit)

But all of that aside, the RIAA does believe that by detering people from downloading, that they can increase their sales. Yes, like any fight, this is a gamble, and they intend to win, hence making it worth their while (even though I don't necessarily agree).

I don't side with the RIAA anymore than the rest of you do, but the law is the law and it is definitely on their side on this one. This is why lots of peer to peer clients these days are using stuff to make yourself anonymous when file sharing, because when you do stuff like that, it is impossible to prove anything because they can't even properly identify your ISP let alone you.

 

[nephalim]

I don't want to continue this, I just have a few (final) quick comments.

Easy, get a credible witness, thats all the proof you need.

Yeah, and how would they get this credible witness? Any witness they get would need to be on their payroll, directly or indirectly, thus not being credible. ONE witness doesn't necessarily = guilt, either.

Them getting your identity from your ISP is perfectly legal if your ISP gives it up voluntarily.

Not necessarily as well. Since your ISP does not legally have to give your information out, privacy/contractual issues are raised. I don't know the standard internet agreement, but i'm nearly certain it says they won't give out your info. The point I am trying to make here is there are a million ways for you to possibly defend yourself yet only one way for them to prosecute.

Actualy $750 per song is the minimum allowed by law, the maximum being $150,000 per song. The RIAA can sue for whatever in between, and the judge cannot alter the ammount beyond those bounds either.

A judge most definetely can alter the amount that is awarded (in civil court,) in fact it's almost a definite AFAIK. Now, as to whether they can lower it below the "minimum," I do think they can, but i'm not a lawyer. A judge in criminal court can DEFINETELY lower the sentencing below the minimum, unless it's a mandatory minimum (such as with the Rockefeller Drug Laws,) however I am not a lawyer as I said, and i'm not sure exactly where this lies (criminal or civil or somewhere in between.)

But all of that aside, the RIAA does believe that by detering people from downloading, that they can increase their sales. Yes, like any fight, this is a gamble, and they intend to win, hence making it worth their while (even though I don't necessarily agree).

I disagree completely. I don't think the RIAA can boost their sales by detering people from downloading, nor I do I think THEY even think that. I think that they are trying to prevent the future, which will hurt their pockets an amount exponentially greater than online piracy, as i've already explained earlier. I also think they will lose this fight (in relative terms.) Yes, nearly everyone they subpoena will stop sharing and do whatever reasonable thing the RIAA asks. But I think if it goes to court, and the defense is good and organized, not only will they lose but public opinion will not be in their favor. I think it's an act of total desperation.

but the law is the law and it is definitely on their side on this one.

This IMHO is so far fromt he truth it's not even funny. Not that the law is on their side, but the statement that "the law is the law." EVERYTHING is nothing but shades of grey, including the most clearly spelled out law there is. Have you ever seen some court decisions? Not only is everything interpreted differently, but everything is motivated differently, and no judge nor jury is impartial. The only thing there is for certain about the law is that it will be misinterpreted and manipulated. Just look at the Verizon case for a small example.

This turned out longer than I wanted. I'm not trying to fight with you, don't get defensive. This is the last I have to say on this topic. You have your opinion, I have mine. Welcome to America.