Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government The Internet United States News Your Rights Online

RIAA Files 532 Lawsuits 877

Like2Byte writes "The RIAA is at it again. This time, Yahoo! News is reporting that 532 file sharers' IP addresses are being submitted to the courts instead of their names because ISPs decline to name people and the courts previous blocks. Music lawyers filed the newest cases against 'John Doe' defendants -- identified only by their numeric Internet protocol addresses -- and expected to work through the courts to learn their names and where they live."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

RIAA Files 532 Lawsuits

Comments Filter:
  • Time (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Neon Spiral Injector ( 21234 ) * on Wednesday January 21, 2004 @02:31PM (#8046376)
    I wonder how long most ISPs keep their logs linking usernames to IP addresses.
    • Re:Time (Score:5, Insightful)

      by djh101010 ( 656795 ) on Wednesday January 21, 2004 @02:33PM (#8046400) Homepage Journal
      I wonder how long most ISPs keep their logs linking usernames to IP addresses.

      I suspect there may be some policies written very quickly, to say "not long at all".
      • Re:Time (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Of course, then the government will enforce log retention policies for everyone operating any sort of servers anywhere for any reason. Just like companies are legally obligated to retain financial, tax, customer and other business records for three or seven years - they will soon be required by law to retain server logs for as many years, most likely.

        I wonder what will happen when your server crashes or you wipe over a hard drive or you go out of business or you have a drive malfunction or something - and
      • Re:Time (Score:3, Informative)

        by mcrbids ( 148650 )
        I wonder how long most ISPs keep their logs linking usernames to IP addresses.

        I suspect there may be some policies written very quickly, to say "not long at all".


        Actually, I sysad at a few local ISPs, (outsourcing isn't just for Indian workers, y'know) and one of the client ISPs long ago made it clear to keep logs as short as possible to avoid problems like this.

        Most records are deleted automatically (a la logrotate.d) in a month. The only real reason to keep these records is for tech support, which vir
    • Re:Time (Score:5, Informative)

      by TwitchCHNO ( 469542 ) on Wednesday January 21, 2004 @03:00PM (#8046843) Homepage
      The dhcp servier & radius server (PPP) are separate entities. More accurtately the dhcp Ip is linked to a MAC address - Once a dhcp lease expires (connection is terminated) the arp table is refreshed. I don't know how long other ISP's leave thier arp tables up - but my routers refresh every 20 minutes.

      In order to tie any specific IP to a particular user the connection has to remain active and the lease on the IP cannot expire.

      This is why some macintosh users were accused of running the kazza client - the IP in question was linked to the mac adress currently in the arp tables. I have never encountered an isp that logs thier arp tables. So the customer who gets slapped with the lawsuit may not have been the customer who was originally sharing mp3's.

      The only time usernames would be used at all if some sort of radius authentication is required by the isp before a dhcp address is leased (pap - chap, whatever). The most common broadband technologies that use radius is PPPOE & PPP over ATM.

      The majority of ISP's used bridged ethernet technologies that don't require radius authentication. The only way of matching an IP in that case is via mac address.

      Many firewall / router products allow for mac address cloning - which essentially allows a user to change his or her mac adress. IANAL but if the corresponding mac adress was not found on an offenders network then the RIAA would have no case.

      In either way - due to the fact that most residental broadband services only offer DHCP addresses - the method that the RIAA is using to identify thier victims is highly unreliable.
  • Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Wednesday January 21, 2004 @02:32PM (#8046378)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • Re:NAT (Score:5, Interesting)

      by metlin ( 258108 ) on Wednesday January 21, 2004 @02:41PM (#8046544) Journal
      You know, at my apt we have a Wireless Network which is shared by 3 other roomies.

      Sometimes, my neighbours use it too when their net is slow. All in all, one DSL shared by ateast 5-6 peple.

      Now, any one person could have used their system for P2P. Are the going to take all 6 of us to court just because one IP has been logged?

      Has anyone had similar experiences? What would the RIAA do in such a situation?
  • DHCP? (Score:3, Redundant)

    by peterprior ( 319967 ) on Wednesday January 21, 2004 @02:32PM (#8046390)
    What about those people on DHCP who get a different IP address each time they log on ?
    • Re:DHCP? (Score:3, Insightful)

      People are obviously still not understanding the whole process. When you connect to your ISP they assign you an IP address, and log the time you leased that address. The RIAA previously was able to subpeona the ISP directly and say "Who was using this IP at this time on this day" and the ISP then had to go through their log and supply the subscribers details who had that IP at that time.

      All this means now is that the process is longer. The RIAA now has to go through the courts and get the courts to issue
  • Oh my (Score:4, Funny)

    by Orclover ( 228413 ) on Wednesday January 21, 2004 @02:32PM (#8046392)
    Hell just file against 192.168.0.0-255 and get it over with.

    Then work on 172.16.#.#

    You know they wanna.
  • I see (Score:5, Funny)

    by Joe the Lesser ( 533425 ) on Wednesday January 21, 2004 @02:34PM (#8046406) Homepage Journal
    identified only by their numeric Internet protocol addresses

    TK-421! Why aren't you at your post?
  • RIAA resources (Score:3, Insightful)

    by kneecarrot ( 646291 ) on Wednesday January 21, 2004 @02:34PM (#8046408)
    This seems ever more expensive than the previous rounds of lawsuits since now there is even more effort required in matching names to IP addresses. My question is when will the RIAA start running out of money to do this sort of thing. Surely it must already be hurting the bottom line.
    • My question is when will the RIAA start running out of money to do this sort of thing

      You know the Arnold Schwarzenegger movie "Terminator." It's like that;

      Listen! And understand! That RIAA is out there. It can't be bargained with! It can't be reasoned with! It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are sued!

      All I can say is "May the Schwarz be with you."
  • by potat0head ( 568137 ) on Wednesday January 21, 2004 @02:34PM (#8046415)
    people yesterday. They said copying movies from the Internet costs them money and puts people out of a job. The ad was well done and would be understood by most anybody. The music folks are just an order of magnitude stupider than the movie people are. Instead of messaging combined with clear product value propositions and additional rewards for buying more product, we get lawsuits, attempts to fix pricing on CD media, media that does not work, trash artists and on and on and on.... No wonder these dumbasses are having such a hard time. Hope each one of those lawsuits cost them a bundle. Maybe they will think back to the early Napster days and a reasonable offer. If they had only taken it, things would be cast in a far different light today. You reap what you sow.
    • by furiousgeorge ( 30912 ) on Wednesday January 21, 2004 @02:38PM (#8046499)
      >>The ad was well done and would be understood by most anybody.

      Yeah, unfortunately it's totally missing the point.

      I've seen one of these ads (3 different ones so far) in front of every movie i've seen for the last for months.

      HELLO!?!? I JUST PAID $10 to sit in this theatre and you're preaching to me to not steal off the internet!??! HELLO? WE'RE THE DAMN PAYING CUSTOMERS.

      shit. Talk about missing the point and annoying the wrong people.
      • I JUST PAID $10 to sit in this theatre and you're preaching to me to not steal off the internet!??!

        The intended market for those ads includes the projectionist and the prick in the nth row with a camcorder.

      • by Loki_1929 ( 550940 ) on Wednesday January 21, 2004 @03:09PM (#8046989) Journal
        "HELLO!?!? I JUST PAID $10 to sit in this theatre and you're preaching to me to not steal off the internet!??! HELLO? WE'RE THE DAMN PAYING CUSTOMERS."

        My first reaction to seeing that ad for the first time was, "there's going to be some guy, some place, who's going to think to himself, "Holy shit! I can get movies online for free?! What the hell am I doing here then??""

    • by tadas ( 34825 ) on Wednesday January 21, 2004 @02:44PM (#8046603)
      When I made my annual trip to the movies earlier this month (to see ROTK), they showed the same commercial. When it got to the "no copying" punchline, it was booed by the audience.
  • ISP records (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Alizarin Erythrosin ( 457981 ) on Wednesday January 21, 2004 @02:34PM (#8046418)
    I'm sure if we could get a list of the IPs and the times they recorded it we could contact our ISP (for those of us on DHCP like myself) and find out if we had that address at the time. I for one am curious to see if I'm on the list since I was looking for an old jazz song last week. Who knows, the RIAA are bastards. They might try to sue me.
  • hrmm (Score:5, Funny)

    by Judg3 ( 88435 ) <(jeremy) (at) (pavleck.com)> on Wednesday January 21, 2004 @02:34PM (#8046423) Homepage Journal
    the newest cases against 'John Doe' defendants -- identified only by their numeric Internet protocol addresses

    Your honor, my client, 216.250.128.12, is innocent. He was coerced to download those files by RIAA's public enemy number 1 - 127.0.0.1. There is also plenty of evidence to implicate his cronies, 192.168.1.1 and 10.0.1.0 as well.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 21, 2004 @02:35PM (#8046424)
    He shared over 5000 songs!
  • by Scorpio1 ( 82882 ) on Wednesday January 21, 2004 @02:35PM (#8046430) Homepage
    I work at the my school's computer help desk and just yesterday we got a phone call asking us to shutdown a certain IP address because the user was found to be in violation of copyright law. I have a feeling this is linked to this RIAA lawsuit business.
    • by technos ( 73414 ) on Wednesday January 21, 2004 @03:06PM (#8046942) Homepage Journal
      Ask them who they represent. Ask them what content is allegedly infringing. Ask them where the DMCA-compliant takedown notice or court order is. If they start getting pissy, I remind them that there ain't squat I'm going to do about it (or am required to do about it) until they at least have the courtesy to write me a real takedown notice.

      Oh, yeah. Then go look and see if the fool actually is infringing, and scream at him.
  • Rolls eyes. (Score:3, Funny)

    by darkmayo ( 251580 ) on Wednesday January 21, 2004 @02:35PM (#8046431)
    Will everyone with an IP of 192.168.*.* please proceed to your local RIAA internment camp for processing please.

    Go get em boys....
  • Good for them. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Phroggy ( 441 ) * <slashdot3@NospaM.phroggy.com> on Wednesday January 21, 2004 @02:35PM (#8046440) Homepage
    This is what they should have been doing from the beginning, instead of trying to weasel their way around the law and demanding proprietary customer information from ISPs so they can bully them with settlement offers. This gets the process into the courts where it belongs.

    Sure the RIAA is still evil, but they're improving their tactics, and should be commended for that. Going after P2P sharing services is wrong, demanding proprietary information from ISPs is wrong, filing John Doe copyright infringement suits is NOT WRONG - it's EXACTLY what you should do if you find people sharing binary apps derived from your GPL'd project and you don't have a way to contact them yourself.
    • Re:Good for them. (Score:3, Interesting)

      by jeffy124 ( 453342 )
      hello nail? meet hammerhead.

      You hit the nail on the head, this is how it's should be done. It also opens up an interesting situation for the RIAA that they didnt have before, and not just the money required to file a lawsuit first.

      Before, when they could supoena the ISP directly, the RIAA could review who the person was prior to filing a suit. Thus, if the name of a politician, a music industry exec, or major public figure were to come up, they could just not sue that person because of the PR ramificat
    • You're a bit off (Score:3, Insightful)

      by TubeSteak ( 669689 )
      you didn't read the article terribly well did you?

      The RIAA said that after its lawyers discover the identity of each defendant, they will contact each person to negotiate a financial settlement before amending the lawsuit to formally name the defendant and, if necessary, transfer the case to the proper courthouse.

      This is the exact same shakedown tactics they've been using all along, they're just jumping through a few more hoops to do it. Now, John Doe issues aside, why are the filing all 532 lawsuits in Wa

  • by Wingchild ( 212447 ) <brian.kern@gmail.com> on Wednesday January 21, 2004 @02:36PM (#8046459)
    I start to wonder about the sheer cost of pursing this type of legal tactic. It cannot be cheap to field the army of legal weasels that the RIAA keeps throwing at filesharers. The court-order-required process of tracking an IP down to a given user is neither quick nor easy, especially with certain major ISPs refusing to hand out names.

    If you stack the cost of the lawsuits on one side, and the average settlement win from people scared out of their wits on the other... is there a profit being made here?

    I'm betting the answer is 'no'. And all that means is the Recording Industry is attempting to achieve compliance through fear. All authority derives from force, as the old saying goes ... if they can wield enough phantom, borrowed force through the courts, they can give the appearance of having the authority to terrorize the little people who feel the legal system will not deal fairly with them.

    I wonder if that's worth the money they're spending.
  • by bugnuts ( 94678 ) on Wednesday January 21, 2004 @02:37PM (#8046467) Journal
    RIAA first tried to horribly abuse the (horribly abusable) DMCA and issue their own subpoenas.

    Filing against John Does is the correct way to do it (from my armchair lawyer stance), if the ISP's won't voluntarily divulge the information.
  • Hmm... (Score:5, Funny)

    by JoeLinux ( 20366 ) <joelinux&gmail,com> on Wednesday January 21, 2004 @02:37PM (#8046468)
    That could be a scene in futurama. Especially if IPv6 was used:

    "Your honor, we would like to file charges against 04ef:4326:33d6:13a9......"
  • by Pac ( 9516 ) <paulo...candido@@@gmail...com> on Wednesday January 21, 2004 @02:37PM (#8046476)
    I am 192.168.0.23, and I have a transcript of my network log to prove it. But as we are a DHCP shop, I am not always 23. Sometimes I am 17. Other times I am 9. I have even been 2 once. But never 200.256.49.3. That would be the gateway and nobody uses it. Locked down in the server room. No access. Verbotten. Very verbotten.
  • wireless routers (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Petronius ( 515525 ) on Wednesday January 21, 2004 @02:38PM (#8046490)
    "Judge, one of my neighbours grabbed an IP from my wireless router and was using KaZaa, not me, I swear..."

    how are they going to address that???
  • by BrynM ( 217883 ) * on Wednesday January 21, 2004 @02:40PM (#8046525) Homepage Journal
    From the article:
    "Our campaign against illegal file sharers is not missing a beat," said Cary Sherman, president of the recording association. "The message to illegal file sharers should be as clear as ever."
    Yes. Obviously it's working since sharing is on the rise again [slashdot.org]. They must be scrambling to file suits to keep the "file sharing will get you sued" mantra going in the press. I don't think they'll have much success with just IP addresses though. NAT, Dynamic IPs and other such stuff is known for imcomplete or regularly purged logging from what I understand. By the time this gets to the point that a judge orders the names (or however they swing it), the data may be gone to the bit bucket.
  • by purduephotog ( 218304 ) <hirsch@@@inorbit...com> on Wednesday January 21, 2004 @02:40PM (#8046540) Homepage Journal
    Anyone remember the episode of Law & Order where they had only days to track down a rapist... and tried to use DNA 'fingerprint' to issue a John Doe warrant? Courts rejected it.

    However several new reports allow this and it's still? waiting for supreme court review. I can't find anything about any further challenges- but I don't know what I'm not searching.

    http://www.courttv.com/news/hiddentraces/yalem/s id ebar_dna.html

    https://coldhit.doj.ca.gov/dna/news10.htm

    http://www.denverda.org/html_website/denver_da/D NA _John%20Doe_warrants.html

    http://www.ndaa.org/publications/newsletters/sil en t_witness_volume_7_number_1_2002.html
  • by NeuroManson ( 214835 ) on Wednesday January 21, 2004 @02:41PM (#8046558) Homepage
    I am not a number, I am a free man!
  • Wow. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by einer ( 459199 ) on Wednesday January 21, 2004 @02:43PM (#8046593) Journal
    This could be the first time I've ever been happy about not having a static IP address from Time Warner.
  • Dear RIAA (Score:4, Funny)

    by mm0mm ( 687212 ) on Wednesday January 21, 2004 @02:47PM (#8046664)

    Music lawyers filed the newest cases against 'John Doe' defendants -- identified only by their numeric Internet protocol addresses -- and expected to work through the courts to learn their names and where they live.

    This type of "I-dunno-but-U-figure-out-Urself-,-judge-!" tactics is already copyrighted by Darl. RIAA will receive a nice letter from ScO concerning potential lawsuit for infringement of their IP in a few days, probably before they lose one of their "I-dunno" cases this Friday. Maybe we should establish RIAA/SCO Survival Funds so we won't lose two of the most entertaining litigation clowns.
  • by Schlemphfer ( 556732 ) on Wednesday January 21, 2004 @02:47PM (#8046666) Homepage
    Generally, in these kinds of articles, the basic idea is that the RIAA is launching these lawsuits as a deterent against piracy. I think the truth is a little different. I think the RIAA is trying to develop a second revenue stream.

    Basically, our friends at the RIAA are more than happy if you'll keep buying your CD's at fifteen dollars a pop, then every few years they'll try to make what you already purchased obsolete by offering a new release with better packaging.

    Sometimes I wonder if they are deliberately incompetent in issuing their first release. I remember back in 1991, I picked up Miles Davis' "Kind of Blue." Five years later, the record company had re-released it, along with the shocking announcement that one of the original CD's songs had been mastered at the wrong speed -- so the CD I owned had a song that was therefore in the wrong key and at the wrong tempo. And for this incompetence, on their part, I was supposed to shell out another fifteen bucks to get the fixed version.

    Understandably, people are tired of this crap, so they've resorted to downloading music. That's where the RIAA's new revenue generating tactic comes in: they're using their legal department to send letters, coercing downloaders to pay up at about seven grand a pop. That's a lot of shiny CD's.

    So buy CD's or download illegally -- either way the RIAA wins. Unless you decide to get out of the game.

    If you follow the RIAA's tactics at all, you might have decided it's appropriate to not give these bloodsuckers another dime of your money. So here are a couple tips. Don't buy from labels that are affiliated with the RIAA [boycott-riaa.com] -- and don't buy legally downloaded music from these labels just because they happen to be on the iTunes record store.

    Second, check out sites like Magnatune. [magnatune.com] Read everything you can about their business practices. These people are cool, their artists' music is awesome, and they deserve our support.

  • BS (Score:3, Insightful)

    by H8X55 ( 650339 ) <jason DOT r DOT thomas AT gmail DOT com> on Wednesday January 21, 2004 @02:54PM (#8046763) Homepage Journal
    It's like filing suit against a phone number for a bomb threat.
  • DHCP logs??? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ewhenn ( 647989 ) on Wednesday January 21, 2004 @02:54PM (#8046769)
    Everyone is bringing up the question of how long the logs would be kept for. Remember back when the US govt. was (possibly still is) granting itself the power to check out what books you were reading at the library? Remember how the librarians decided to destroy the records because it was legal? How long until ISPs get the idea and follow suit? No records, no court. Remember, ISPs want to keep customers, one way is to have a strong privacy policy.

  • by nolife ( 233813 ) on Wednesday January 21, 2004 @02:54PM (#8046771) Homepage Journal
    Next hurdle for the RIAA is to PROVE these people were actually offering or distributing actual content the RIAA members own the copyright to. A file name or a list of file names/or mp3 tags is NOT going to stand up in a real court. I would think they should have to prove that person was actually distributing an actual copyrighted file by downloading the whole thing or a major portion of that file from only that one person (not getting it from multiple users either) and have some type of timestamped logs or process of the file transfer to stand behind their evidence gathering. Metallica_-_Ride_the_Lightning_01.mp3 can contain anything. A file name is not a copyright violation and without evidence, you would have to assume what the content was. There is no provision in the DMCA to fall back on that can override actual evidence is there? IANAL but since these RIAA lawsuits are civil and not criminal, I don't believe they can obtain a search warrant to come for your physical equipment either. Who knows.
  • by canfirman ( 697952 ) <pdavi25@@@yahoo...ca> on Wednesday January 21, 2004 @02:54PM (#8046772)
    This whole "lawsuit" with the RIAA is nothing but a freeking joke. My buddy wrote EMI Music Canada complaining he couldn't download music from his (store bought) CD to his new IPod because of the copy protection. So, EMI Music gave him an unprotected CD and actually told him not to buy copy protected CD's until the technology changes! So, what's he supposed to do if he can't buy CD's? I guess the only thing left is to download them (but then he'll get sued by the RIAA even though the music company told him not to by the CD).

    Like I said, what a joke.

    (If you're interested, I've got the e-mail chain between my buddy and EMI.)

  • by CliffH ( 64518 ) <cliff.hairston@NOSPaM.gmail.com> on Wednesday January 21, 2004 @02:56PM (#8046810) Homepage Journal

    I just did a random few. I'd love to see the RIAA sue people in France, Germany, and all of the other countries IPs who are in that list. I saw a couple of 212 addresses and figured, no, they aren't from the states so I did a lookup on them. Low and behold, European address blocks. Have fun RIAA. Something tells me your tactics won't fly as well outside of the US as it does within...

  • heh (Score:4, Funny)

    by ArmenTanzarian ( 210418 ) on Wednesday January 21, 2004 @03:04PM (#8046919) Homepage Journal
    Tom Brokaw: 127.0.0.1 was unavailable for comment.
  • by werdna ( 39029 ) on Wednesday January 21, 2004 @03:15PM (#8047089) Journal
    Actually, this is an ordinary application of a fairly common legal point. If you have enough evidence to show that SOMEONE has committed a tort, and some plausible basis for attempting to identify the plaintiff, but not enough to name them in the complaint, you may file a "John Doe" complaint, and then use routine discovery (particularly of third parties) to obtain more detailed information.

    RIAA tried to avoid that process by using the DMCA subpoena provisions, and got rebuffed. Now they are going through the routine process that they would have to have done without the DMCA. In this case they are very likely to prevail, by the way.

    Just another step in the P2P wars. This one is not terribly controversial.
  • by acomj ( 20611 ) on Wednesday January 21, 2004 @03:17PM (#8047118) Homepage
    The way it was:
    RIAA got your info- sent a letter telling you to settle. If you didn't you get dragged to court.

    The way it is now:
    RIAA goes to court, gets your info, sues you.

    I'm not saying your ISP should be giving out your info to anyone, but now you name is in public record as a defendent in a lawsuit. Probably won't get off the hook as easy as the first batch of defendents either.

    I'm guess I'm glad I don't distribute..

  • by Ignorant Aardvark ( 632408 ) <cydeweys@@@gmail...com> on Wednesday January 21, 2004 @03:26PM (#8047234) Homepage Journal
    When I first got my Verizon DSL, I was annoyed that I didn't get a static IP address. But now I realize the advantages of a dynamically-assigned IP address. Everytime my DSL connection reconnects, I get assigned new IP, and because my connection crashes regularly, I go through up to 10 IP addresses per day. Thank God for Verizon and their crappy connections. Try finding me now, RIAA! Nyaaah Nyaaah!!
    • Re:Thank God for DSL (Score:3, Informative)

      by micq ( 266015 )
      Doesn't matter, really.. I'm sure they log the ip handouts, and would know who had what ip at what time if they were forced to look.

      The big ISP's wouldn't destroy their logs on their own, and they wouldn't turn off logging, and it's a crime to destroy them after subpeona'd... So you really gain nothing.

  • Good (Score:4, Insightful)

    by cjpez ( 148000 ) on Wednesday January 21, 2004 @04:20PM (#8047994) Homepage Journal
    This is how it should happen. I'd much rather have identity requests come as a court order rather than via some organization like the RIAA. The DMCA has some very worrying clauses about your duty as an ISP to take care of problems once they've been brought up by the RIAA et al, but damned if I'd just hand out user information. If it's coming in as an actual court order in response to an actual, pending case, that's something different. That's working inside the system, and the RIAA doesn't have any special privileges. That's what's always pissed me off about the DMCA, is that it seems to give the media organizations these godlike policing powers, where a notice from them is just as good as any "official" notice. If the courts are involved, at least you know that The System, such as it is, is getting involved in the process, and you're not just handing information over to some corrupt, money-grubbing organization. This is The Way It Should Be.

    Now, I'll still say that the actual prosecution of filesharers is ridiculous, but at least if they're going through the court system I don't have to be pissed off that they're using police-like activities sanctioned by some piece of horrible horrible legislation.

  • by PureFiction ( 10256 ) on Wednesday January 21, 2004 @04:34PM (#8048207)
    I see a lot of confusion over the way files are identified and whether this will stand up in court or not.

    If you think they are using a method as trivial as "they responded to a search for name label_muzak.mp3" you are mistaken. This would definitely not be credible evidence in court (anything could be in the file) and it's not how the RIAA is going about tracking illegal uploads.

    The method they are using has been described in some of the articles concerning the subpoenas issued to users of the networks and it works as follows:

    1. The RIAA employs modified nodes in the various networks (KaZaa and Morpheous seem to be the big two) to search for known song names or groups.

    2. When they find a match, they attempt to download the entire file from the user. This point is important: if they can't prove you actually uploaded a copyrighted file in its entirety, they don't have a case.

    3. When the upload is complete they perform an MD5 sum on the content and verify that it matches a database of known copyrighted files. If they didn't do this step, they would have to have someone listen to it to be sure its actually what they think it is.

    Given the nature of peer networks, there are a number of common rips (i.e. identical) of songs widely shared among many users. Thus the MD5 sums will match for the same file among many users.

    This is all the information they need to bring a suit against your. They have an IP address and time/date associated with the upload, they have a verified MD5 sum for the upload that matches known copyrighted files.

    This information was covered in a previous article here: Innocent File-Sharers Could Appear Guilty? [slashdot.org] and the techniques they use are explicitly designed to withstand the scrutiny of a legal proceeding.

    All of the cases of mistaken identity to date (the mac user sent a nasty gram, the grandmother, etc) appear to be mistakes by the ISP correlating a given IP + date into the right account holder, and not a flaw in their methods associated with identifying infringing content traded over the networks.
  • Suing... who? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by the grace of R'hllor ( 530051 ) on Wednesday January 21, 2004 @05:24PM (#8048863)
    Last I checked, IP-addresses were not legal ID, like ID cards or passports are. As far as I know, you can only sue legal entities, like people or businesses. Not abstract concepts (if I could, I'd sue some Back Propagation Algorithm for grievous mental harm)

    So they're bringing lawsuits against unidentified IP-addresses, which could be anything from a NAT router to a university network, a government agency, or whatever. Many of these lawsuits will therefore be against companies which are not liable for their customers' actions.

    This is ridiculous.

    (IANAL, as if it wasn't obvious)
  • by nathanh ( 1214 ) on Wednesday January 21, 2004 @05:51PM (#8049215) Homepage

    This is RIAA maths... so was it actually 27 lawsuits but some of them were really serious?

Avoid strange women and temporary variables.

Working...