Comments on: RIAA sues more file sharers

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sat, 05 Jun 2004 09:17:04 +0000

It’s going to get much worse for American file sharers if the PIRATE Act passes.

I can’t figure out why American file sharers don’t use the political clout that their sheer numbers could give them if they’d just get politically involved?

Try checking out this link and USING it!

http://action.eff.org/action/index.asp?step=2&item=2906

(Make sure you choose “Send a FAX” at the bottom BEFORE sending it!). Pete

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sat, 05 Jun 2004 08:11:47 +0000

It’s going to get much worse for American file sharers if the PIRATE Act passes.

I can’t figure out why American file sharers don’t use the political clout that their sheer numbers could give them if they’d just get politically involved?

Try checking out this link and USING it!

http://action.eff.org/action/index.asp?step=2&item=2906

(Make sure you choose “Send a FAX” at the bottom BEFORE sending it!). Pete

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Wed, 26 May 2004 20:15:06 +0000

And the site is down. Hopefully not for long.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Wed, 26 May 2004 20:13:33 +0000

I found a cheap replacement to downloading via another anonymous coward. $0.01 per MegaByte. You choose the format and quality. It’s based out of Russia and I’m happy so far with $6.37 spent for 4 albums.

http://www.allofmp3.com

Good luck,

phatpapa

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Wed, 26 May 2004 08:08:43 +0000

i believe they have the right to share the content for which they hold copyrights. im curious of the leagality of using the “honeypot” as you say. i do believe it is a violation of most end user agreements for law enforcement or other agency(corperations) to utilize the network in any way. however, it is also a violation of most end user agreements to share copyrighted material. i believe that may be the truest violation of the agreement. you would have to subpeona records from the enforcment agency to see what client they used to get your information from any particular network. they may have indeed made thier own reverse engineered software to connect to networks like fast track. i highly doubt they would disclose anything about it because most likely it would also be a violation to reverse engineer software under the DMCA. if they say we use kazaa they are in violation, but that is a separate lawsuit for sharman. i wonder if you could make that an issue for the prosecution not to use any evidence gathered “illegally”. that would blow their entire case. i doubt its that easy. i simply cant wait to see what defenses sre used in these cases that refuse to settle. one winner is all it takes to set a president. fight! fight! fight! tell us who you are and and fund should be started to help them fight. or dontate to the EFF – our freinds.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Wed, 26 May 2004 00:31:13 +0000

I dont understand how the RIAA is tracking people down in the first place. How do they know who downloaded what? Are they sharing files on the P2P networks like honeypots to attract people who are looking for music?

If so, they are breaking the law too. And if they download from the network, they are breaking the law too, arent they?

Also, if you already have purchased the music on CD, then how is it copyright infringement if you already own the work?

Lastly, how can they prove you downloaded it instead of some hacker using your system?

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Tue, 25 May 2004 21:47:57 +0000

Good point.

However, Martinez didn’t appear in court. As it says in the story, “The judge ruled because Martinez failed to answer a civil complaint brought against him or appear in court for the hearing.”

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Tue, 25 May 2004 20:58:37 +0000

Where the fuck (holy or not) do I state my name instead of getting “Anonymous Coward”?

That is, without “logging in” or otherwise navigating away.

You folks are incompetents regarding UI design.

Alf P. Steinbach, Oslo, Norway.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Tue, 25 May 2004 20:54:33 +0000

Although I share the article’s viewpoint, it is not true that nobody have ever appeared before a judge for downloading music.

See http://tinyurl.com/2cv7f>.

“A federal judge has ordered a Bristol man to pay more than $4,000 for downloading five songs from the Internet”

- Alf P. Steinbach, Oslo, Norway

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Tue, 25 May 2004 20:49:04 +0000

I stopped purchasing music CDs several years ago in response to the Napster dispute. I don’t understand why more people don’t vote with their feet when RIAA is targeting individual users for persecution.

People, you have a choice! Stop patronizing these brutal pigs until they stop this travesty!

brave coward