Could the RIAA sue me if...

[Ms2001]

*Originally posted by RealityChuck *
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 RIAA v. Diamond. Format shifting is a legitimate activity.

[KGS]

*Originally posted by RealityChuck *
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.

Blah, blah, blah.

It’s also illegal for all the record labels to conspire together and fix CD prices. Someone should file a class-action lawsuit against them. Oh wait, they did. (But I STILL haven’t gotten my check yet!)

*Originally posted by alimarx *
**Hmmm… so WinMX is immune? **

SHH!!! It’s a secret!

[Duckster]

*Originally posted by KGS *
**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. **

Providing you don’t buy the next generation of hardware/software known as Palladium (and, IIRC, Microsoft Longhorn?).

Palladium means you will only be able to install hardware and software the manufacturers approve beforehand. If file-sharing software doesn’t have the Bill Gates/Intel seal of approval, it will not work on the new O/S and the new hardware required to run it.

[xvxdarkknightxvx]

Duckster, I’m almost positive that’s not how it will work. It will run the software but strongly advise against it.

[CaveMike]

*Originally posted by gazpacho *
**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 case that was filed recently against nycchick indicated that not only the MP3 hashes matched, but some of the ID3 tags matched. In particular, there were ID3 tags with text that also appears in many other versions of the song available when Napster was operating.

[plain_jane]

If they are only going after those sharing large volumes of music, how did that little girl end up getting sued?

[CaveMike]

*Originally posted by ooga booga *
**A hash is basically like a checksum <stuff deleted>

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.) **

I think it is a slightly more complicated than this. The MP3 hash algorithms that I know of are used to identify duplicate songs in an MP3 collection - regardless of the ID3 tags or the MP3 encoding properties. If you have a big collection, you might want to find any songs that you ripped twice or any songs that show up on multiple compilation CDs. I suspect the RIAA is using a similar algorithm.

Comparing an MP3 hash algorithm to a checksum is a good analogy, but there are a few differences. First, the algorithm ignores ID3 tags, MusicMatch tags, MP3 headers, etc. Second, the algorithm decodes the MP3 data into PCM data. Third, the algorithm skips through the beginning of the song - past any silence or low-level music. And finally, the algorithm only processes periodic samples of the PCM data in an effort to identify the song regardless of the encoded bit-rate. The idea being that if you ripped the same song, once at a low bitrate and a second time at a high variable-bitrate, then you would identify the song as a duplicate.

[Bradjam]

Can the 260 or so defendants file a countersuit against the RIAA for cherry picking them from the other 60 million or so people who download/share???

[ooga_booga]

*Originally posted by Bradjam *
**Can the 260 or so defendants file a countersuit against the RIAA for cherry picking them from the other 60 million or so people who download/share??? **

Not any more than the dozen people arrested from a mob of several hundred rioters could counter-sue the police for ‘cherry-picking’ them out of the crowd.

[cletus]

Here’s a quote from another board I visit. This is a brief explanation of how most filesharing programs identify songs.

I’ll give you a hint, the servers in most file-sharing applications discussed by typical users here are for all
highly promiscuous, what that means is every file you have available for upload and even for that matter ever file you request to download is transmitted from:

A) User to: B) Server

alerts all other users to determine who either has what u want or wants what u have.

Then, in various manners the servers provides “matches” and transmits the following information between parties:

For all practical purposes, once the following information specific to an infringing file has been identified to your computer, then you’ve been “Bagged and Tagged” as they say.

 username
 IP address
 port number
 file name

The above, when matched with a connection time (time logged) is all the information need to complete a (C&D notice)to your ISP, and I doubt the Subpoenas will be much different, but they have yet to be made available for the public to view.

In the Fast Track Network Architecture effective it is apparent the supernodes provide this information between the clients.

As you can see in the very top of this message, the posted image is the file details from whom the user is downloading, and all of this info is available immediately upon the user connecting and joining the queue before a part-transfer port connection has even been initiated.

The basic information thats transmitted via the server is all thats needed except for the timestamp.

Just be aware, whatever you make available for upload and basically request to download can be obtained or viewed by other computers on a public p2p network, and the information is sent to and fro by the same server which you use for your connection.

Basically, all the information is made available through the filesharing program your using. That’s just the way they were originally made. There have been recent patches that attempt to mask your ip# or hash# but they are still easy to unscramble. We might need to scrap the current system entirely for a new, more private method of identification. Of course, then we run into the problem of not being able to find anything.

Also, as to what plain_jane said, the only logical reason would be she or someone with access to her computer had 1000 songs on her shared folder. The RIAA said they sent these C&D forms out automatically based on the number of songs being uploaded. They said they had no personal information on the user which I find hard to believe. Still, they wouldn’t knowingly attempt to sue a 12 year old because of the negative publicity. Remember all those 10 year kids getting sued for making harry potter sites?

Revtim, ask your question in here. Maybe I can be of assistance.

[mhendo]

If you are worried that you might be one of the people for whom the RIAA has issued subpoenas, you can find out by going here and typing in your IP address. This website keeps track of the database of the DC District Court, where the subpoenas are bing filed.

If you don’t know your IP address, go here or here.

[Revtim]

*Originally posted by cletus *
**Revtim, ask your question in here. Maybe I can be of assistance. **

My question was the same as in the OP; are the RIAA suing people they just got a piece of the file from?

[Rex_Fenestrarum]

Look, get this straight – it is a copyright violation to make copies of a CD on a computer hard drive. Period.

No. It’s not. Period. But thank you for your disinformation.

[mhendo]

*Originally posted by RealityChuck *
**Look, get this straight – it is a copyright violation to make copies of a CD on a computer hard drive. Period. **

Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzt.

Thanks for playing Chuck.

Try again when you know what you’re talking about.

[Sunspace]

A Canadian viewpoint from the Toronto Star: “Canadian file sharers’ risk is low”:

South of the border, a fast-track provision in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, or DMCA, makes it possible for copyright holders to subpoena subscriber information from Internet service providers, or ISPs, without obtaining a judge’s approval.

This means the Recording Industry Association of America, or RIAA, can get the personal information of a file-sharer simply on the suspicion of piracy, creating a more efficient process for hunting down alleged music pirates…

[In Canada,] it’s unclear whether any legal challenge would succeed. That’s because the federal Copyright Act was amended in 1997 to create a levy on all blank recordable media, essentially allowing all Canadians to legally copy music as long as it’s for personal use…

“As long as Canadians don’t provide any files and are only downloading, the theory is that the private copying exemption would cover that activity…”

[sub]Bolding mine.[/sub]
Because Canadians already pay the Canadian Private Copying Collective a ‘levy’, built in to the price of the blank media they buy, they are apparently immune from criminal conviction if they copy copyrighted music without specific permission. But this has yet to be tested in court.

[cletus]

*Originally posted by Revtim *
**My question was the same as in the OP; are the RIAA suing people they just got a piece of the file from? **

No, they can’t sue you if it cannot be proven that you have the entire song. Programs are now available which can upload parts even if you don’t have the whole thing. The burden of proof is just a little bit harder for the RIAA (depending on what program your using).

Notice in this quote

The [RIAA] chose to sue a sampling of people using KaZaA, iMesh, Blubster, Grokster and Gnutella, who each had placed more than 1,000 songs in a folder that allowed millions of strangers to copy them.

they only list programs which are restricted to uploading entire files. I haven’t used every single one of those though so someone correct me if I’m wrong.

They would need to be able to show in a court of law that you had a copyrighted song on your computer which was downloaded illegally. This could be done by comparing the hash of the song with a know illegal sample (i.e. from napster). They would then need to prove you were uploading it which would mean you had the song in your possesion at the time. Both would be possible, even easy, with the current filesharing programs available.

What does this mean about a incomplete file? It means they can’t do jack squat. A incomplete file is just ones and zeros. It is not a copyrighted song. It’s just no one’s been willing to stand up to the RIAA right now. I suppose you could try to argue that it has the potential to be a complete song but that’ll be a hard case to sell. AFAIK, there is no legal precedent. Perhaps we should ask some legal dopers if they’ve ever heard of a case similar to this.

I skimed A&M RECORDS VS NAPSTER but most of it seems only pertinent to napster (the company) and it’s unclear whither it also applies to the end user. This lack of hard facts is very frustrating.:mad: I suppose ignorance would be the RIAA’s greatest asset.

[cletus]

Well, I just finished reading A&M RECORDS VS NAPSTER and found this little entry. I guess it makes my previous post invalid. At least I know when to admit I’m wrong.

We first address plaintiffs’ claim that Napster is liable for contributory copyright infringement. Traditionally, “one who, with knowledge of the infringing activity, induces, causes or materially contributes to the infringing conduct of another, may be held liable as a ‘contributory’ infringer.” Gershwin Publ’g Corp. v. Columbia Artists Mgmt., Inc., 443 F.2d 1159, 1162 (2d Cir. 1971); see also Fonovisa, Inc. v. Cherry Auction, Inc., 76 F.3d 259, 264 (9th Cir. 1996). Put differently, liability exists if the defendant engages in “personal conduct that encourages or assists the infringement.” Matthew Bender & Co. v. West Publ’g Co., 158 F.3d 693, 706 (2d Cir. 1998)

There are still many situations that would fall outside of this judgement and/or not be clearly defined. This is not black or white. Notice at the bottom of this old internal RIAA memo that they themselves didn’t believe they had a strong case against napster at the time. Still, from what I see right now, I believe you CAN be sued for uploading part of a file.