p2pnet - rss feed: File sharing questions
p2p news / p2pnet: “Through casual conversations, I’ve discovered that lots of folks have questions about what’s legal and illegal when downloading music online,” says Richmond Times-Dispatch columnist and lawyer John Farmer.
The overall impression is: anything not supported by the corporate music industry is wrong, dangerous and probably illegal.
By way of example, below are several statements, questions and answers in the article:
Q: How do I know if a download site is offering legal or illegal music?
A: You can find a partial list of legal sites at MusicUnited.org.
The Music United Coalition, a propaganda organization maintained by the members of the Big Four record label cartel, Sony BMG, Vivendi Universal, WarnerMusic and EMI, is also cited as a credible authority in another Q&A on music downloading that appeared in the Jan Jose Mercury News last September.
Popular legal services include iTunes, Rhapsody, Napster, Wal-Mart and Yahoo!
None of these services can properly be called “popular”. The most-used is Apple iTunes with a reported 650 million [may be higher] downloads since 2003. Against that, in September, 2005, alone, the average number of files available on the p2p networks for download at any given moment (average simultaneous files) was close to three billion, says p2p research company Big Champagne.
Q: I want to watch my teenager. What sites are commonly used for illegal music downloading?
A: Again, the P2P software offered by various sites has hypothetically legal uses, but such software frequently is used for illegal music copying. Popular sites for obtaining P2P software include KaZaA, LimeWire, BearShare, Morpheus, Gnutella, eDonkey and BitTorrent.
There’s nothing “hypothetical” about it.
Q: I know lots of folks who download music with such P2P software, and nothing has happened to them. Can’t I get away with this?
A: Take your chances if you wish. The music industry has sued thousands of folks for illegally downloading music.
The RIAA hasn’t actually sued anyone, yet. It’s fired subpoenas at more than 17,000 men, women and children, but so far, not one of them has appeared in a court or before a judge or has been found guilty of anything. Patti Santangelo, who’s defending herself against the Big Four, will be the first to plead her case.
As to taking chances, in the US alone, more than 60 million Americans have shared files on the p2p networks, says a Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School paper. Of these, the Big Four, Vivendi Universal, Warner Music, EMI and Sony BMG, have only been able to single out a tiny 17,000, or so, since 2003. Or put another way, the chances of any given individual being victimized are akin to him or her being struck by lightning.
Q: Can I be held liable for illegal downloading by my teenager or someone else using my computer?
A: Whoever owns the Internet access account is the one who will be sued. Music labels watch for the IP addresses of computers engaged in illegal music copying, issue a subpoena to the relevant Internet service provider to discover the identity of the person holding that Internet access account, and sue the account holder.
Correct. Ask Santangelo. But as to the second part, RIAA employee Jonathan Whitehead claims, “metadata accompanying each file [allegedly downloaded from defendants’ computers by the RIAA] demonstrates that the user is engaged in copyright infingement”. In fact, Net expert Zi Mei says the RIAA has yet to explain how metadata can be used as proof of copyright infringement.
“If your teenager is using your ISP account for illegal downloading, you’ll be the one sued,” continues the Richmond Times-Dispatch. Even if you could pass off liability to your teenager, which may not be entirely doable, would that really solve your problem?”
What problem is that?
Also See:
Richmond Times-Dispatch - Questions and answers on downloading music, January 23, 2006
credible authority - RIAA lies and disinformation, September 27, 2005
Patti Santangelo - Santangelo fund: 69 cents needed!, January 21, 2006
more than 60 million - Content and Control, January 8, 2005
yet to explain - Tech expert hacks at RIAA evidence, December 29, 2005
January 23rd, 2006 at 3:22 pm
Why the emphasis on music?
Really, the hypothetical questions must aply to everything copyable (same as “downloaded” from the net. This includes software, images, text, videao and audio.
Until clear cut explanations are given no explanations will suffice. The problem is, that when the explanations are given in a clear cut manner, only two possibilities exists: Shut down the internet or allow free copying.
Here is a though/opinion: Freedom of speech must include freedom of listening. Freedom of speech/listening is incompatible with copyright laws as they exists and as RIAA wants them to be.
Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com
January 23rd, 2006 at 4:03 pm
“Freedom of speech must include freedom of listening. Freedom of speech/listening is incompatible with copyright laws as they exists and as RIAA wants them to be. ”
Nicely put Rafael!
January 23rd, 2006 at 4:26 pm
Did anyone e-mail the columnist?
Has anyone e-mailed their senators or House Rep?
Don’t let the RIAA be the only voice that is heard.
Even Patti should be complaining bitterly to her Reps.
BTW: I did complain to one of my Senators.
January 23rd, 2006 at 4:52 pm
Here are some more questions:
Where is the expiration date of copyrighted recordings placed on the records so that we know when we are free to copy?
Answer: Nowhere!
Why is does the copyright laws does not require that the copyright expiration dates be placed on copyrighted documents, photographs, records, etc.?
Answers:
a. Because the intention is that copyrights last forever through trickery.
b. Because people would ask why the “Star spangled banner” and “Happy birthday” is still in copyright and there would be no answer.
c. Because the date is unpredictable.
d. Because it is different for different countries.
Why are 100 year old photographs being printed and sold with copyright notices?
Because they are newly scanned photos of old photos. The person with the scanner and the graphics software is therefore the new creator of the photograph.
If a monkey uses a digital camera, is the monkey the owner of the copyrights of the resulting photographs?
Yes. Button pudhing is considered “art creation” by copyright laws.
If a computer program cleans up scartches of a recording that is in the public domain, can the “new” recording be copyrighted?
Yes, no kiding. It’s done all the time, by record companies.
If I change a couple of notes and a couple of letters on a public domain song can the “new” song be copyrighted?
Yes, no kiding. It’s done all the time, by music publishers.
All put together: Because the law is dumb, made by a comittee of lobbysits and a bunch of jackasses.
Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com
January 23rd, 2006 at 5:50 pm
Okay, I’m going to share something fairly simple - that I believe is also legal and ENDS the tracking BS that comes with p2p which gets people in trouble.
Streaming radio has been on the net for a long time. Many people get ‘free’ Rhapsody-like service with their internet connection or you can use Streamcast or something similar. You can connect a simple stereo headphone style jack (go to Radioshack or Fry’s or your local mega electronics store) to your speaker-out that connects to your mic-in and use Microsoft’s sound recorder “C:\WINDOWS\system32\sndrec32.exe” that everyone has and save the wav files to your drive, for future burning.
Sure the downside is, you have to basically record long pieces of music and then cut it up later with various ‘mp3/wav splitter’ programs but the difference between this and p2p is this IS legal… and you still get the music you wanted.
It’s only legal if you use it in a certain way though - the streams are your ‘radio’ and you are legally able to record ‘radio’ for future playback as long as its for ‘personal use’ and not being shared with anyone….unless this legality has changed and I’m unaware.
All that said, its completely untrackable and the only sure way you can utilize ‘fair use’ without getting sued or raided. Also, I’ve only given a quickie version of the ‘hard way’ to record net radio - there are programs out there called ’streamrippers’ that do the same thing on the software side instead of using a hardware work around but to each their own. The biggest difference between those ‘easy’ software workarounds and a hardware use like this one is that no matter what DRM is added, the sound still needs to come out of your computer or stereo and once it leaves that device the sound can be recorded on hardware..
*Of course, since I have not re-re-researched the constantly changing legality, I could be proven wrong about its use so if you choose to use this information, you do so at your own legal peril - and agree to hold me ‘blameless’ on your actions.*
Just my 10 cents.
_-Jile-_
January 23rd, 2006 at 6:37 pm
wonder where he got his ‘facts’?
January 24th, 2006 at 5:17 pm
If you’re using a few anon proxies to mask your ip on IRC you might be right for the most part(but anything can be back tracked eventually, if they’re working with the ISPs and actively hunting you)… but BT is an entirely different dog..
On BT it’s a trivial task to monitor the ip’s your pulling filez from - the riaa-types could easily just sue every ip that they are able to get connection to on a torrent since its the same as any other p2p in that the users you’re pulling from ‘are’ sharing the IP products….
There are only two p2p that claim anonymity - MUTE and ANTS… and they’re basically the same beast. Another is Waste but anyone you let connect to your group can monitor any traffic within the group so that ‘really’ needs to be a trusted-group only app.
*sighs* Please, don’t misinform people about their safety using a public p2p… The closest BT is going to get to ’safe’ is on private tracker items - presuming the users clients are even setup right.. and you cant presume every p2p user is some 1337 user… most are just regular home users ‘having fun’.
Most p2p users accept the odd’s, just like gambling - except in this case the cards are stacked in favor of the users and not the ‘house’… sure, 20,000 people got messed up but how many hundred million p2p users are there? 200m? 300m? The RIAA-Types are really just looking up at the stars and shooting arrows up at them - they’re never going to impact them and the effort is laughable at best… so p2p users being ’safe’ is a generic term that only sort-of applies only because of the improbability of being caught…. ’safe’ isn’t really the case…as people are being ‘caught’ every day..
Just my 10 cents.
_-Jile-_
January 25th, 2006 at 6:28 pm
The key is that with bittorrent they can’t tell which peice is from which ip so it makes it impossible to gather evidence (ie. downloading an entire song from one person).
On irc you download from bots which dish out the warez so theres no way to catch you sharing etc.
I suggest you have another look at the technology. Why do you think no file sharers have been sued for using bittorrent?
January 26th, 2006 at 5:54 pm
It’s a weak defense bud - you really think the court’s going to care if you upload 1 byte or the whole song? The courts have lain waste to our rights we had on fair use so far (amongst many others but that’s too long a convo) so what makes you think BT isn’t next? It really doesn’t matter what they’ve done – what matters to noob’s that may happen along a story and think based on the 1st comment that using BT is safe to leech away without any risk and that’s just plainly not the case – its easy enough to track and log every ip that flows through an active torrent – even if the MPAA/RIAA were to share the files themselves in order to capture ip’s… they’re not above it.
Sure, pulling an entire file from an individual has been their technique but it’s also irrelevant… if they will go after ppl for sharing an entire movie or song - they’ll go after you for sharing a piece.. No matter the size.
Oh, but if they just wanted to narrow down to one ip, they’d monitor the incoming packets and block all the ip’s incoming except one in order to have that one user make a complete upload of 1 file. They’ve done weirder things so I don’t think they’re above this either.
Regardless, anyone thinking ANY public p2p where their ip’s are exposed, is safe - would be in error..
Trusted groups - encryption - anonymous transfer… The way of the future for filez…
Don’t get me wrong - I use BT for Linux related files or free avi’s like ‘welcome to the scene’ but short of that, I’d definitely avoid suggesting any p2p as being ’safe’ with minor exception to ANTS/MUTE/(and reservedly, Waste since its more of a trusted group private networking app than what I’d consider a traditional p2p).
Don’t get too trusting in your safety - normally, that’s when something ‘bad’ happens.
Just my 10 cents.
_-Jile-_