I partially uploaded a song to them? People rarely download entire files from me. Just wondering if them downloading half a song = me paying half the damages.
Also, how is the RIAA suing people who are at college behind firewalls? Are RIAA reps going to the colleges, sneaking on to the LAN, checking what’s being shared, then issuing subpoenas?
Thanks for (hopefully) relieveing my worries.
Those being sued for filesharing at colleges are not using the LAN. They are using the college’s provided internet connection* to share files over Kazaa or other networks. In these instances, the RIAA subpoenaed the universities for user’s personal information.
From my experience, LAN usage by itself is fairly rare and more commonly used for network gaming. Transfer over the LAN is however incredibly fast (like moving a file on your computer from folder a to folder b) and I would not be surprised if this is a popular practice that I am not aware of. Still the parties in question are accused of transfer over the internet, not their local network. Nevertheless, I could never find anything worth copying from my fellow students’ computers.
*I know not what to call it. T1? Generally I just plugged the network cable into the wall so I wasn’t bothered by the semantics of what was going on.
Using Direct Connect, my college’s LAN is currently sharing 2.51 TB of movies, software, and music. Kazaa is blocked through the firewall. New content come from people coming onto the LAN with new files (freshman) or people who actively seek out new content to be shared on the LAN.
*Most colleges have T3s, to answer your question.
*New content comes from people entering the LAN…
Just making it sound better… 
Hmm. 261 lawsuits out of 60,000,000 million file-sharers. Oh yeah, I’m gonna delete all my mp3s and pray for amnesty. Sheeya. :rolleyes:
Besides, the next generation of file-sharing software will be 100% anonymous and untraceable. The RIAA is only digging themselves deeper and deeper. Music itself will survive, though. But the monolithic corporate structure of the music industry will not.
How did they pick the 290 or so people they filed suit against?
Just those that the ISP forked over their contact information from? Just those that downloaded more than X number of songs?
Seems like a really small amount considering the MILLIONS of people that participate…
D.
The people were chosen “blindly,” according to a few articles I’ve read, Daylon.
New York Times, Sept. 9, 2003, p. C6:
Well, blindly from that sample.
Blind and the RIAA in the same sentence…how fitting.
From the NYT article:
Referring to them as “actively” sharing is misleading, as most file-sharing software that I’m aware of has sharing on by default, and may not even allow you to turn it off.
Also, some programs share pieces of files you are downloading, even before the download is complete.
I opened a thread asking this same question a few months ago, but got no answer.
Crossin’ my fingers, dude…
Hmmm… so WinMX is immune?
I had read recently (sorry, I don’t have a cite handy) that one of the main methods the RIAA was using to target file-swappers and bolster its claim that these people were illegally sharing copyrighted music was by examining the hash of the files.They then compare those to known hashes of illegal MP3s from the past from places like Napster.
A hash is basically like a checksum that’s generated off of the data in the file, a unique code that identifies identical copies of a particular file, even if the file name itself has been changed. The RIAA’s position is that it’s pretty hard for someone to argue that the files on their hard drive are copies from their own CD when the hash matches a file that was on Napster on 1999.
My WAG is that they’re searching for users who have large numbers of files available that match these particular hashes and targeting them.
It’s also worth pointing out that the hash code of an MP3 can be totally changed by removing even one byte of the file, or by removing the ID3 tag with a sound editor. (The ID3 tag is text stored in the MP3 that displays when you play it in Winamp or the like - usually the title/artist/etc.)
Exactly what I was thinking, Revtim. Apparently, no one seems to know the answer.
I’ve heard talks of people conjuring up imaginary software that will only share 5 second clips, combine every 5 second clip into one file only on the computer, effectively allowing this to work. The problem of sueability (erm?) still exists, though, if sharing minute pieces is illegal.
[quote]
A hash is basically like a checksum that’s generated off of the data in the file, a unique code that identifies identical copies of a particular file, even if the file name itself has been changed. The RIAA’s position is that it’s pretty hard for someone to argue that the files on their hard drive are copies from their own CD when the hash matches a file that was on Napster on 1999.
[quote]
This may be the RIAA’s argument but I find it to be weak. There are a few common programs like winamp and the like that will automatically rip CDs to mp3s. If 2 people on different computers rip their own copies of a CD using the same program with the same options the checksum will be the same because the files will be exactly the same bit for bit. The mp3 files on napster were in general made by people that ripped CDs with common ripping programs.
Look, get this straight – it is a copyright violation to make copies of a CD on a computer hard drive. Period. So the hash is irrelevant.
Read the copyright law.
And, many programs use the same encoders, such as LAME or Blade. I’d bet a lot of different programs end up with the exact same MP3s, as well (assuming the bit rates are the same too).
You may or may not be right; either way it’s irrelevent. The discussion is about what the RIAA is suing people for, which is sharing the files. Not simply making them.
