MPAA Goes After Its Customers 522
EyesWideOpen writes "The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) is issuing 'takedown' notices to ISP's to alert them that customers are using their internet service to transmit or post copyrighted movies. The ISP's in turn send a letter to the customers threatening to disable their internet connection unless the offending material is removed. The MPAA is using software that 'cruises file-swapping networks like Gnutella to find copyrighted materials, hunts down the IP address of the poster, then discovers which Internet service provider is being used.'"
False Positives (Score:5, Insightful)
The article raised the issue of false positives. It had this chilling bit on it:
"Of all the letters we have sent out, we only had 2 other people who corresponded back who said we were mistaken," Jacobsen said. "And we didn't think we were."
Oh, wait-- the folks doing the automated search get to decide whether its infringement. This is kinda backwards.
I mean, someone thinks you stole a coke from 7-11, the cops come and listen and maybe a judge makes a verdict-- not the 7-11 clerk.
But here, the person making the allegation gets to decide if it's true or not-- and when has any person ever been really psyched to say "Oh, wait, sorry, I was totally wrong, wasted your time, and opened myself up to legal risk by making a false accusation."
So, neat idea, but the implementation needs some better due process.
Re:False Positives (Score:2, Insightful)
-It wasn't my computer
-You didn't listen to the song, it wasn't copyrighted...
and I'm sure your lawyer could come up with plenty of other excuses. They're just hoping that a letter from your ISP, or them, will be enough to scare you into stopping it. I doubt that their robots will be able to tell if it's you a second time, because your IP will probably be different.
Lazy? (Score:2)
I hope someone manages to sue them for falsely accusing them, they shouldn't be permitted to harras people who are doing nothing wrong just because they don't properly verify their accusations.
That being said the actual infringers will have to accept that what they are doing IS currently illegal.
Re:Lazy? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Lazy? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:False Positives (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:False Positives (Score:3, Insightful)
Proof isn't required. This isn't an action of a court, this is Special Interest Group A asking Big Company B to do them a favor and lean on a customer. Not that it doesn't smell like legal action, and it could lead there, but that's not what it is to begin with.
In a few years I expect the MPAA/RIAA will be IDing pirates and asking all kinds of businesses to cooperate in making their lives hell. Imagine gas stations refusing to serve you because they have a list of license plates that they have been asked (or paid) to check for... or your credit cards being refused at "participating merchants."
It's a brave new world. I think things will get a lot worse before they get better.
Re:False Positives (Score:2, Informative)
Ummm...read the DMCA lately? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Ummm...read the DMCA lately? (Score:3, Insightful)
And in addition to Due Process, the DMCA also eliminates Fair Use and Free Speech.
Re:False Positives (Score:5, Insightful)
The important thing is where are the checks and balances. The right of appeal for instance.
I don't have a problem with the process in principle but I think 24 hours is too short a time to be able to challenge the information.
They should also have the right to have access to the ISP's logs on their connection.
You are guilty of illegal file sharing! (Score:3, Insightful)
I know this from a hunch, and therefore you owe me royalties.
If you don't want to pay them then prove to me that you're innocent. Sending me police-verified evidence of an approved ISP's logs should be sufficient.
UNFAIR! (Score:2)
So how is it fair, when people have already paid their dues, and are only doing the digital equivalent of trading with each other the tapes they've bought? It's a big swap meet.
So, does the DMCA apply to me in Canada? Could my ISP get sued by an American judge if they don't comply?
Re:False Positives (Score:2, Interesting)
I have received one of these threats through my crappy ISP. It was about a movie file I had never touched on a P2P network I had never used and noted an IP address I had never had. Plus it's not just a case of them getting the details wrong, I don't download or share such files.
I never received a response to my reply to their threat.
Re:False Positives (Score:2)
Overall, I think this is a good thing, if people get threatening leters, take down the falsely identified material, and then fight your case. Personally, this is 100 Times better than them taking down Gnutella and the like.
RonB
Re:False Positives (Score:2, Interesting)
While some people will have no problem having their name attached to software/movies/music, it's time for a reality check. Take Microsoft for example. Microsoft would not have such a strong grip on the software industry if their software was not pirated. How many people have been truly altruistic and never copied any non-free software? Very few. Yes, company X might buy all their software. But is it installed only on machine X as perscribed by the restrictive licensing agreement? Chances are the answer is no. What the means, however, is that more people are exposed to the software. They in turn go out and purchase the software for their home machine. I'm not advocating software piracy, but pointing out that piracy has helped spread the popularity of some (not all) software. I can hear the moans now, but let's move on to the music industry example:
Consumer X downloads one of Bif Nakked's songs from GNUtella. There is something wrong with the encoding - half the song is missing, or the song is encoded for radio instead of CD. Consumer X likes what they hear and goes out and buys the CD, to rip it for themselves. Or consumer X doesn't like the song and decides not to buy the CD. Chances are that the song will be deleted to make space for something else, new music, a game, etc.
Video encoding is even worse than music encoding. Why store a pixalated movie when you can buy a high quality DVD? Those who download movies and archive them are not likely to have bought a DVD or VHS tape in the first place. But many people do download movies, watch part of the movie, and end up buying a copy. They then tell friends about the movie (just as they would with good software) and the friend ends up doing the same thing or going out and buying the movie.
What the real issue is, is that the MPAA wants to entrench their position as monopoly over all movie distribution. They want to be able, just as the RIAA wanted with Napster, to overthrow all free trading, and make money on those spotty, poor quality movies that get traded over GNUtella and other networks. In the process, they are doing the equivalent of a police officer coming up to your home and conducting an illegal search of your house (without a warrant) in order to gain proof of some impropriety.
Cheers,
Charles,
Re:False Positives (Score:3, Interesting)
It's very easy to eliminate false positives. You do a search on the P2P network for songs whose copyright you own. Then you download that song, and check that it is "yours". Whatever IP address you made the TCP connection to is breaking the law.
As an efficiency step, you can save the checksums of the verified songs which are yours.
Police Involvement. (Score:3, Insightful)
There really is something incredibly frightening about this mafia-like body's accusations having some of the force of law.
--grendel drago
Re:Police Involvement. (Score:2, Interesting)
Is this something new ? (Score:2, Insightful)
And well, trading movies is not legal.
You shouldn't be surprised that they do such things.
At least their money is draining etc.
Re:Is this something new ? (Score:3, Insightful)
Thats the risk... (Score:3, Insightful)
Nonsense! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Nonsense! (Score:3, Insightful)
If you don't like the laws that are on the books, change them -- don't piss and moan when you get called on breaking them.
All that said, probably the most effective way to stop this is simply to quit buying cd's and quit watching movies. I have purchased one cd in the past two years, and I've probably been to see two movies that my wife dragged me to. If more people would do this it might start having an effect on the movie/record companies' pocket-books, and they may start to change their tune.
And before anyone asks, I mainly listen to internet radio (digitally imported) and go to concerts vice buying cd's -- I don't copy music, simply because I think it's better in this case to work within the laws.
It is a pressure tactic (Score:5, Interesting)
Instead, they pressure your ISP to disconnect you, and if your ISP doesn't comply, they sue the ISP, not you, for lots of moolah.
This is indeed a pressure tactic against people who have committed no crime -- the ISPs. An ISP has no way of validating the MPAA's claims, so they either do what they're told with no proof of wrongdoing, or risk a costly battle in court. The MPAA knows this, and uses it to force their hand. As a customer, you'd like to think that your ISP won't bend over backwards to screw you over for someone with no proof, but sadly this is not the case.
Re:Nonsense! (Score:2)
It wouldn't be a pressure tatic if they sent a warning letter directly to the person--they were sending the letters to ISPs. They have to do that because they don't automagicly know the person's email address from their IP addr, but it doesn't make it any less fair.
In fact, reread the section that says "false positives"--one wonders if they are really investigating properly...not to mention their arrogance: "Of all the letters we have sent out, we only had 2 other people who corresponded back who said we were mistaken," Jacobsen said. "And we didn't think we were." (from the article) Who's to say there weren't others that were completely cut off from the internet and couldn't respond because of it...or people who weren't even told why they lost service...
Lost Profits. (Score:3, Insightful)
Now that the economy is really tanking, people are buying less... what a surprise! Blaming this downturn on P2P is ridiculous. There has yet to be shown a correlation between P2P and media-industry profits. I don't care how obvious you think one is; it just isn't there.
--grendel drago
Hollywood isn't losing money (Score:3, Insightful)
But this isn't even true in Hollywood's case. The movie industry broke box office records last year and is turning around and breaking those records this year! DVDs have taken off incredibly and adoption has been growing by leaps and bounds. For all the talk we heard about Spider-Man being pirated all over the internet, it still managed to demolish weekend box office records and is now one of the Top 10 highest grossing movies of all time!
The only ridiculous thing I see is the suggestion that the movie industry is suffering at all! In fact, I would say that all the available evidence weakens their case - despite 400,000 to 600,000 movies being traded daily (their claim), the movie industry is still bringing in record-setting revenues, despite a recession! To me, this suggests that P2P sharing has absolutely no negative effect on the movie industry.
Unclear on the Concept. (Score:2)
When I steal something, you no longer have it. I take something that was previously in your posession, and put it my posession.
It's not "theft", damn it. It's something, but it's not theft.
--grendel drago
Usenet is not anonymous. (Score:2)
That is wrong. 99% of ISPs put either an IP address or some uniquely identifying number into you headers and info stating where to send abuse complaints. It isn't anonymous at all.
As much as I hate to agree... (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, the real reasons behind the DMCA and CBTDPTA and such have a lot more to do with maintaining their tight grip on production and distribution of music and movies, than with protecting their products from being ripped off by consumers.
Can't say I'm applauding this, but this is the one thing they've done in all this file sharing mess that I can't get too up in arms about either.
Re:As much as I hate to agree... (Score:2)
Almost nobody contests a speeding ticket in court so this is probably their most effective way to go about things. Thing is if ISPs start cutting customers off like they do with warez websites "guilty until proved innocent" there will be a popular public backlash
Re:As much as I hate to agree... (Score:2)
Re:As much as I hate to agree... (Score:3, Interesting)
I regard the ??AA as evil grasping (Dare I say it? Courtney Love did [salon.com]!) PIRATES who have little, if any socially redeeming qualities. Their recent business and legislative practices rob the creative community while they seek to destroy the public domain.
That being said, this is the proper way for them to go about enforcing their copyrights. The DMCA, like it or not, expressly allows them to send a notice of an apparent copyright infringement to a user's ISP. The ISP is them obligated to notify their customer of the complaint or face suit by the copyright holder. The user is allowed to protest their innocence, shifting the burden of proving the infringement back to the original complainer.
Private enforcement of private rights paid for by private funds is vastly preferable to the alternative.
When it comes right down to it, all the ??AA is doing is telling the ISP to enforce their own Acceptable Use Policy. It's no different than me e-mailing 'abuse@someISP.tld' about SPAM and/or kiddy porn in usenet.
Re:As much as I hate to agree... (Score:2)
Sorry, but no. Fair use allows you to do anything you want with copyrighted works as long as it is for your own use. You can legally make copies for yourself, convert works to a different form of media (8-tracks to cassettes, CD's to mp3's for your Rio), time-shift television programs, etc, as long as this remains for your own use. You are allowed to distribute brief excerpts or quotations from works as part of a review or criticism of the work.
Fair use, however, does NOT allow you to simply give out wholesale copies of music or movies or other works, even if you give them away for free.
Uh, those customers are same as shoplifters... (Score:3)
Your no longer a customer if your not paying for the content.
Re:Uh, those customers are same as shoplifters... (Score:2)
So if I hack your bank account or steal your credit card number it's ok with you?
Re:Uh, those customers are same as shoplifters... (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't think that piracy and theft should really be considered the same crime. I agree that piracy (or unauthorised sharing of copyrighted materials as the EFF would like to call it) is wrong, but the crime is different since the victim still has their original.
Re:Uh, those customers are same as shoplifters... (Score:2)
Suppose I don't use your credit card number, but I sell the number to somebody else. Still happy?
Oh, you still have your original credit card number.
The crime is NOT different. By copying the movie rather than buying it, you are depriving the copyright owner of income. This is exactly the same as hacking his bank account or stealing his credit card number.
Re:Uh, those customers are same as shoplifters... (Score:5, Insightful)
Infringement is a crime. It is not theft, as it does not deny use of the item in question to the legitimate holder of copyright.
Re:Uh, those customers are same as shoplifters... (Score:2)
Denial of income is the end result of the action here. Our society makes many actions that result in denial of income illegal. Some of them are:
Copyright, Trademark and Patent Infringement.
Failure to adhere to fair wage laws.
Investment Fraud.
Filing false tax returns.
Embezlement.
Are you saying that all of these actions are ok because all they do is deny income?
It is not theft, as it does not deny use of the item in question to the legitimate holder of copyright.
THAT depends on what you define as 'use'. I am sure that New Line Cinema defines their 'use' of a movie they hold a copyright to as something other than viewing it in the privacy of their studio! The fact is that their use is in the sense of a product that they use to generate revenue and profits! By pirating people are IN FACT denying this copyright holder USE of the product in exactly the manner they intended when they invested the many millions of dollars required for its production.
ARIN? (Score:2)
Old news. (Score:2)
False negatives? (Score:2, Interesting)
Been done. (Score:2, Interesting)
In the battle between better warhead and better shielding, the warhead always wins. But who's got which here?
Re:False negatives? (Score:2)
How hard could it be? (Score:2)
I imagine this tracker that they use must identify itself somehow. I've never been heavily in to the whole swapping/p2p thing, but shouldn't it be possible to find a signature of some sort from this thing and tack it on to the front of a swapping program? Honestly asking, I really don't know. Not that I think getting in a pissing match with the MPAA/RIAA is the best solution for the software writers...
Here's the Ranger Online website [rangerinc.com]. This [rangerinc.com] section provides a very lame explanation of how they do the voodoo that they do.
Re:How hard could it be? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:How hard could it be? (Score:2)
What customers? (Score:4, Insightful)
People who are involved in trading music/movies on the Internet are, for the most point in time, either fully aware that it is copyright infringement (I hesitate to say stealing because I don't really believe it is, but it is copyright infringement) or are vaguely aware that there's something "grey" about it.
It's within the (RI/MP)AA's right to go after the individuals who are responsible for copyright violations, which they are doing--rather than try to increase prices on movies, institute DRM, etc. If a large-scale sharing user knows that if he gets caught, he'll have his bandwidth taken away, that'll be a decent deterrant. Similar to the Windows XP preview editions and Microsoft IRC spiders-anyone running Windows XP and an fserv at the same time was given a nice little message, courtesy NET SEND, warning them not to share software illegally. (I personally know two people this happened to.)
Besides, the gnutella network isn't all it's talked up to be, anyway. I run a very fast DSL connection (1536/512 up/down) but STILL can't maintain more than 3 Gnutella network connections or pull more than 2kb/sec. I get transfers on IRC over 50kb/sec and direct from web sites in the 150kb/sec range...Gnutella as long since stopped being useful to me.
Besides, everyone knows the REALLY good movies are found in IRC FServs in the distro group channels, or on FTP servers--not on Gnutella. All you'll find on Gnutella are fakes and porn.
Gnutella. (Score:2)
I scored some pretty good stuff... most of Gowenna's encodes of the Black Adder series, as well as lots of Simpsons episodes, and Ralph Bakshi's animated version of LOTR, which I hadn't been able to find anywhere else.
What were you looking for that you couldn't find there?
--grendel drago
Re:What customers? (Score:3, Interesting)
I've spoken to a number of people who seem to have no qualms about downloading illegal material that someone else has shared -- their view: "Nobody's gonna catch me anyways, so why should I bother obeying an unenforceable law?" Every single person that I have spoken to who does this is FULLY aware of its illegal nature, but don't give a damn because they believe that unless some self-righteous bastard such as myself draws attention to their activities, they'll never get caught -- and even if I did say something to someone, it'd be my word against theirs. Stalemate -- no point in pushing the point any further. But I have yet to find a single person that thinks it's "grey"... Everybody knows it's wrong, but they just don't care.
It is this attitude of feeling untouchable, I believe, that is the cause of the degree of piracy we see today. Going after the people who illegally share material might do a lot to make it inconvenient enough for such people to stop doing what they are doing, but until we can change the underlying attitude, we won't have really done anything to solve the problem -- only hidden it from public view.
Questionable mapping of inventory control (Score:2)
This strategy by the MPAA employs an inventory control system which doesnt control the original products and may be better suited to a physical product/store. These are all derivatives of the movie from the movie theater or the DVD from Blockbuster, but in fact, none are a physical product complete with 100% of the value.
How the American people and the government deal with this will obviously set an interesting precedent for the future of media. These methods need a close reality check to see if this is the way to deal with the lost profits.
Shrinkage. (Score:2)
--grendel drago
Not necessarily a bad thing. (Score:4, Interesting)
Before submitting a song to AudioGalaxy, a user has to 'appropriately identify' themselves. Once a user is identified, they can submit songs to the AudioGalaxy universe to be authenticated for distribution.
When an identified user submits a song for use, the song is fingerprinted, and identified as 'good'. A properly identified song is the responsibility of it's submitter. AudioGalaxy is simply a tranmission medium. If a copyright holder feels that their song is improperly submitted, then they can go to the person responsible for the song for the 'publishing' of it. If a user is identified as consistently submitting unauthorized copyright material, then their entire set of authentications can be revoked.
user authentication
Users can be authenticated by any of a set of means -- eg:
- A credit card authorization (should appear on credit card summaries as something obvious like "ID verification audogalaxy-id.com" with the domain (and www.domain) pointing to a page that precisely describs what the ID was for and about and what the associated person would be responsible for [[in case the ID was the result of a credit card theft]]).
- Thawte (www.thawte.com) allows all sorts of ways to authenticate the identify a person -- including their 'web of trust' system which is free, and various paid methods.
- Persons who don't have access to (or don't want to use) other methods, could mail in a notarized copy of personal ID,
- Pick your favorite other method of verification.
Once a user is verified, they would be issued an SSL certificate that would allow them to submit songs (automatedly) for authentication.SSL certificates allow for repudiation, so if someone's ID was used inappropriately, they would be able to issue repudiation.. It should be possible to issue repudiation starting from a specific date (when the certificate was compromised), generally (e.g. if the identity was issued improperly), or even for specific songs (if a publishing authorization turns out to have been mistaken, or the publisher has second thoughts.).
Sharing would then be checked for authentication of a song, rather than a record company claim (after the fact) of copyright infringement. If a record company claims copyright on a song, they would identify it by fingerprint (or a fingerprint summary) then DMCA procedures for notifying the 'owner' of the impugned song would follow.
The point here is that the users are then explicitly responsible for the songs that they post -- combining this with the fact that the RIAA is now proving themselves capable of going after the individual violators, this means that they should have a much harder time going after distribution services like AudioGalaxy for actions that individual customers are really responsible for. (and able to be held responsible for)
On the other hand, the RIAA's high-handed tactics may backfire on them, and provide a real boost to the indie music industry.
Re:Not necessarily a bad thing. (Score:2)
Re:Not necessarily a bad thing. (Score:2)
I guess I didn't make it clear: Each user wouldn't have to register every work tht he/she downloaded and then made available again. A work would only have to be authenticated the first time it was posted (nominally by the artist that made the word). Once a work was authenticated, users would be able to share it freely.
Threat by Form Letter?! (Score:3)
Are we now to believe that a form letter generated by Share-O-Stop software can threaten an ISP into cutting off someone's service? Does the MPAA really think they can get away with this?!
See, the thing about P2P was that it was so incredibly distributed that it would be impossible for the MPAA to sue all of us... but now, it looks like they're trying. As we've learned, the threat of legal action can frequently be as effective as actual legal action, at a fraction of the price.
I can't believe they're using bullying tactics like this. What bastards. Maybe there's some kind of threatening form letter we can send to something the MPAA depends on, to cause them a great deal of meaningless trouble? Anyone have any ideas?
--grendel drago
Re:Threat by Form Letter?! (Score:2)
Stop going to movies.
Stop buying DVDs.
Stop buying CDs.
If they seem to be telling you they do not like having you as a customer, oblige them. If everyone did this, the MPAA/RIAA tune will change faster than you can say "bankruptcy."
And if no one but you boycotts them, then everyone one but you will have to live with their restrictions. Boycotting movies and music is drop-dead easy, precisely because no one is going to drop dead from not listening to Eminem or from failing to see Minority Report. This is not like boycotting Monsanto or Exxon-Mobil.
Re:Threat by Form Letter?! (Score:3, Insightful)
If the orders are not sworn under penalty of perjury, they are non-binding and therefore ISPs should give them exactly as much weight as any "ENLARGE YOUR PENIS!!1" spam, because that's exactly what it is.
-jhp
Vigilante Justice (Score:2, Interesting)
I remember hearing a great man say that "it is better to let 30 men go free, then have one innocent man condemned for life."
Vigilante justice has the problem that while it catches more of the guilty, it punishes more of the innocent, as well if I remember correctly it is illegal in the states (could a lawyer check me on this?)
I understand the need for the MPAA and RIAA to solve these piracy problems, but becoming the prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner is not the way to go. When you are all four, you are guaranteed to false positives and punish those who don't deserve it.
Re:Vigilante Justice (Score:2)
I remember hearing a great man say that "it is better to let 30 men go free, then have one innocent man condemned for life."
Contrast that to King Herod, who said "It is better to kill the innocent, than to let the guilty go free."
Usenet (Score:3, Interesting)
If it becomes impossible to post arbitrary content to Usenet, I believe a line will be crossed.
It is already the case that the law, especially in the US, is tilted too far away from the consumer and into the hands of copyright holders who figure that by so perverting the system, they can take shortcuts to profit like DVD region coding that spit in the face of their customers.
As the parasitical feeding frenzy between media owners and our representatives - who fear the disapproval of those media - goes on, at some point there will be a flashover where we realize just how screwed we are.
Remember these prophetic utterances: Usenet is the tiber, the last stand of liberty.
So when will they be fighting themselves? (Score:2, Interesting)
how long until they are accusing ppl of sharing content they put on the network in the first place?
I feel validated (Score:5, Funny)
I wonder if the MPAA is hiring...
The MPAA's lapdog (Score:4, Informative)
Making it more anonymous (Score:2)
It's the lack of source anonymity that makes me hold off on hosting the files I've acquired.
Re:Making it more anonymous (Score:2)
Want anonymity? Try Freenet [freenetproject.org].
what about irc and these... (Score:2, Interesting)
our message follows as an example:
Oh no... (Score:4, Funny)
Encourages more freeloading (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Exactly the right thing to do! (Score:2)
But MPAA finds this unsatisfactory, because they don't want to actually deal with legitimate defenses that will inevitably crop up from time to time, or spend their energies on judgement-proof defendants. Fair reasons, but quite frankly, these are the checks and balances of the Copyright Act that have worked (to their advantage for the most part) for 200 years.
Nor is this a fault of the DMCA -- prior to the DMCA, caselaw imposed liability on a provider (the Netcom/Scientology case) only who had been given actual notice of an infringement. Indeed, this is to the advantage of the user -- because the takedown only need go on for ten days, unless MPAA actually sues.
So I applaud MPAA for doing the right thing. And, I rather like the (tacit) admission that they have been fibbing all these years about how imposible and implausible it would be to actually sue proper defendants instead of those providing viable and valuable new technologies to the public at large, particularly those capable of substantial noninfringing uses.
**** 'em (Score:2)
Also, lets get real here. This is a scare tactic which only works if you get scared. The MPAA/RIAA have neither the time nor desire (nor even the money) to actually litigate each one of these 50,000 cases out. You should automatically challenge these rulings, whether they're true or not. Chances are, they won't respond back. ISP's have to give you back access if you challenge the accusation, at least until the dispute has been litigated out. And chances are, the MPAA/RIAA isn't going to respond to any challenges of their accusations. It simply isn't feasable to sue 50,000 people, and increasing.
So there are two ways to fight this: one technological (anonymosity), the other "legal" (challenging the accusation within 24 hours).
They have their backwards beliefs about how intellectual property should be enforced draconianly, and how no fair-use should apply, and about increasing its scope, and increasing its duration ad-infinitum.
We have our ideals about freedom of information, democracy, freedom of speech, privacy, and an open society.
In other words, they represent fascist nazi values. We represent democratic values.
P.S. -- Another solution is to get on a broad-band connection with a dynamic IP; thus, IP numbers can't be traced back to a specific user. However, this raises its own problems as dynamics IP's take away users rights. You can't log into your own computer from remote w/ a dynamic IP; can't host a web page; etc etc.
Dynamic IP is no panacea. (Score:3, Insightful)
To quote the article " Called "Flyster," the program will allow downloading in complete anonymity, according to developer Louis-Eric Simard. However, those who host files for download could still be traced, he said"
No, they only need to litigate in the cases where the takedown notice isn't sufficient to cause the offender to cave and pull the content. To quote the MSNBC story "...the music industry has been behind several high-profile arrests of individuals involved in the online music trade. And just last week, The Wall Street Journal reported the industry is planning to step up such individual prosecutions." Wrong. Given an IP number and a timestamp, the ISP can check their RADIUS or DHCP logs and determine who was assigned that IP at that time. Dynamic IP does make it tougher for a random attacker to come after you, but it gives you very little insulation from lawyers who subpeona your ISP for their records. These 'rights' you speak of, where were you granted them? If your contract with your ISP says you cannot host servers, you do not have that right. Your desires are not rights, they are wants. If you want to run a server, have a static IP address, ask your ISP how much more you must pay them to be granted these priviledges.Not just Commercial ISP's (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Invasion of Privacy (Score:3, Interesting)
The MPAA didn't come to your house and serve you w/a fine, warrant, etc. They called your ISP, told them you did X and asked them to stop you.
The ISPs usually have a TOS agreement that you agreed to when you started the service. By downloading this shit, you broke that TOS. The ISP has the right at that point to stop you from breaking those TOSs.
It's not invasion of privacy until they actually arrest you for doing it. That would be crossing the line.
Re:Invasion of Privacy (Score:2)
Re:Invasion of Privacy (Score:2, Insightful)
So they go on Gnutella like everyone else and see something (something anyone could see) that you shouldn't be sharing. And they ask your ISP to ask you to stop. I don't thin this is IoP.
Whether they should is another question entirely. But if you are sharing something for the whole internet to see, you should expect everyone on the internet to see it. Even the ones you don't want to.
Invasion of Privacy. (Score:3, Interesting)
--grendel drago
Re:Invasion of Privacy. (Score:2)
Re:Invasion of Privacy (Score:3, Insightful)
First of all, it's not "illegal search" if you HAVE THE FILES OPEN FOR SHARING TO BEGIN WITH. If you and I were both on KaZaA and you had some Simpsons episodes, I searched for that and found them on your computer BECAUSE YOU HAD THEM AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC, how is that an "invasion of privacy?" You are making this out to be that they have some crawler that checks random IP's and does a full HD scan. THAT would be illegal.
Face the facts, YOU ARE PIRATING ILLEGAL COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL. However way you determine to package that up for yourself is your business, but you're still doing it. The MPAA is within it's right to come after you if you blatantly leave it lying around for anyone to find.
Re:Invasion of Privacy (Score:3, Funny)
Ah, so all these copyrighted recordings
are illegal to begin with? Well, then,
pirating them is the least we could do...
Re:Invasion of Privacy (Score:2, Informative)
So much for privacy.
Re:Invasion of Privacy - I think not (Score:5, Insightful)
If you make stuff available for download you stuck it up for people to see and put it out in the open.
There are guilty until proven innocent problems with the current take down approaches but the privacy one is a red herring here.
Re:Invasion of Privacy (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Erm, wouldnt people jsut ignore a EULA? (Score:2)
The idea is that if it should ever actually go to a courtroom, the MPAA would be forced to stand up and say, "Yes, we know that the EULA said we couldn't do this, but we did it anyway." And here's the great part; if they win anyway, it's a big precedent for the notion of "EULA's are aren't worth the phosphors they're printed on" and if they lose, then that P2P is basically immune from prosecution since the only evidence was acquired illegaly.
Re:Good idea (Score:2)
Me myself I've downloaded a few movies to see if they're actually worth buying and to be honest I wanted to see how look it goods after all the compression
That didn't stop me from buying DVD's; I have over 25 movies. Its not like I was gonna watch movies on my computer screen while I can watch them on my 48" HDTV instead.
Re:Good idea (Score:2)
Re:Hit em where it hurts. (Score:2, Insightful)
Make it fast easy and painless. Hit em where they will feel it, at the box office. Don't go see new movies, don't buy new cds.
I agree completely. People who don't want to pay for entertainment should just stop consuming it. Oh, and go live in a cave somewhere. You won't be missed.
-a
Re:Hit em where it hurts. (Score:3, Insightful)
Umm, what? For movies, well, yeah, they're not ridiculously overpriced, I do go to see them, and maybe buy DVDs, that part makes sense. But as for CDs, a lot of people have stopped buying them. These days, I just Grokster them, and donate to the artist [fairtunes.com]. That's the only way that makes sense these day (exception being small, intelligent record companies, that don't make me buy a tub of assorted cookies just for the chocolate chip one).
I also use my discretion as a consumer when buy CDs, but I do it legally. There's only a few bands whose CDs I will unconditionally buy. For most CDs, I go to the store and listen before I buy. If I don't *absoletely have* to have the CD immediately, I wait awhile and buy it used. I don't buy a CD if there are only one or two songs that I like. And if a CD I want is more than $20, I just don't buy it.
If all you want is cheap music then you don't have far to look. There's plenty of CDs out there in the $1.99 bargain bin. But you don't just want any music, do you? You demand to have the best music in the world... the Porche of music. Personally, I would love to own a Porche and I could probably even scrape up enough money to buy one, but I happen to think they're overpriced. However, I'm not going to walk into a Porche dealership, steal a car, and leave behind what I think is fair (in small, unmarked bills).
You could do that with any product, not just cars or music. The grocery store wants $1.39 for carrots this week. Last week they were only $1.19. What a ripoff!! I think I'll stick a couple in my pocket and pay for the rest. Oh, and I think the stock boy is underpaid. Maybe I'll stick an extra carrot in my pocket and leave him a tip.
-a
Re:Think about the numbers.... (Score:2)
There're literally millions of p2p network users, how could MPAA possibly disconnect them all? It's even more laughable that MPAA is asking the ISPs to disconnect their OWN MILLIONS OF USERS. And even if they've sucessfully disconnected and maybe prosecuted that millions of users, what would the people think about this?
The police hand out millions of speeding tickets every year, and I still think it's unfair when they get me.
-a
Re:Think about the numbers.... (Score:2)
If you want to use the car comparison, then it's more like the company that makes the car is giving you speeding tickets. It's something you may tolerate a bit, but if they get overly obnoxious about it you can get a different car without too much fuss. The MPAA is demanding that ISP's start pissing off their customers in droves. Given the millions of P2P users out there, the ISP's know that doing this to the extreme would be akin to shooting themselves in the foot. Both feet.
About the only way this will be effective is if there are local monopolies on broadband, which is something we should be concerned about anyway.
Re:Think about the numbers.... (Score:2)
This way, the ISPs can cut their losses.
Re:ATTBI. (Score:2)
VERY VERY frightening.
What's frightening about this? This seems like the appropriate legal reaction.. you copy something illegally, you answer for it. As many others have said here, this is far, far preferable to seeing technology preemptively crippled so that it is not only impossible to copy a given piece of copyrighted materials, but it is also impossible to modify your operating systems' source code, say.
Rent, not Buy? (Score:2)
Really? This is pretty interesting... can you back that up with something? Most of the people I know don't own many movies, but they have some. I remember when my folks used to rent movies and dub them off onto tapes in SLP mode, or whichever the eight-hour one was...
I have a friend who still lives at home. She's college-age, and not exactly rolling in cash. She owns over a hundred DVDs. How she affords this, I can't begin to fathom, but she's the kind of customer the MPAA wants.
Oh, and if you think online copies of movies are bad quality, go find that 2-CD DivX LOTR that's floating around everywhere. Much better than VHS, and it even approaches DVD quality.
--grendel drago
Re:Wonderful! (Score:2)
Freenet provides anonymous uploads and anonymous downloads.
But even if they are anonymous, can't they just track the IP addresses of the machines connecting to theirs? Like if you use Netstat or some powerful network sniffing tool?
Re:Wonderful! (Score:2)
Re:A better way to do file swapping... (Score:2)
Yea... generally most DVDs, unlike CDs, are very reasonably priced... I mean... $9-$12 for older (early 1990s and earlier) movies and $16-$23 for newer releases is pretty reasonable pricing, considering all the extra features you get. To me, aside from the fact its wrong to steal others' works, it would just not be worth my time to wait a day or two for the movie I want to download.
I really wish the music industry would learn from the movie industry, instead of putting 2-3 good songs a CD and pricing it more than what a DVD costs, why not price it accordingly based on the "good" stuff? With a DVD, even if you don't want the bonus features, most of the content, in this case the movie itself, is what you want, as opposed to CDs, where very little of the content is what you actually want.
Unless of course its a Bloodhound Gang CD :)
Re:Windows XP (Score:2)
Hint: you'll have to reinstall your OS to do it.