From this article at the Boston Globe, one user is metioned as “[using] the nickname ‘‘crazyface’’ to download at least five songs, including Radiohead’s ‘‘Idioteque’’ and Dave Matthews Band’s ‘‘Ants Marching.’’”
My understanding is that the only way to tell what files a person has downloaded is if the files were downloaded from you. If this is the case, then it must have been the RIAA which was offering the songs in question. Does the fact that the RIAA was offering the file for download cause their case problems? How can a copyright holder offer his own work for download, and then sue the people who downloaded it?
Note to mods: I realize that questions bearing any relation to filesharing make the board rather… uneasy. I don’t believe that I’m advocating or discussing any illegal acts, but if you have to close the thread, please accept my apologies.
Note to everyone else: Please try to stick to the specific legal question of whether the RIAA has a leg to stand on if my above assumptions are true (or tell me why they aren’t), so that the thread doesn’t get closed. Thanks.
I believe that the RIAA has some way of monitoring downloads. At least, that’s the way it’s come across in the articles I’ve read. Though now that you mention it, it is kinda funny…
I think they are going after people who are offerign songs for download, so they would download it from crazyface (in your example), make sure it’s real then issue a supenia
Entrapment is when someone is compelled to do something they would not otherwise do. For example, if a cop posing as a prostitute stood on a street corner and agreed to have sex with men that propositioned her, then busted them, it would not be entrapment, as if she had NOT been a cop it would have occurred the same way, and a crime would have been comitted. If an attractive female cop offers you sex if you’ll shoplift her some beer from a convenience store (buying it won’t work), then busts you, that might count as entrapment, because an offer of sex will induce people to do things that are out of character.
In this case, if the RIAA HADN’T been sharing the songs, they would have been downloaded illegally from another source.
Question: If you know the user offering the songs is a RIAA bot (you can tell by the IP address), can you download from them legally, since they’re obviously authorized to share the songs in question?
Alereon, that’s a good distinction. However, the analogy falls through when you consider that, while prostitution or stealing both illegal regardless of circumstances, downloading music files isn’t. Specifically, it isn’t illegal when you get it from the copyright holder, I think.
Obviously, if you broke into their computer to download it, that would be illegal, but they were (again, I’m assuming) just sharing it freely for download.
I’m not sure if you would even have to know it was them in order for it to be legal. I think that all they could charge you with is attempted copyright infringement.
RealityChuck, I’m pretty sure that the RIAA is looking at KaZaA, which is pretty decentralized. Plus, don’t you have to have some kind of access to a website to put a packet sniffer on it?
I’m kind of confused about the question and how all this stuff works, but it sounds to me like you’re right that crazyface couldn’t be held liable for downloading those files. You can’t sue someone for attempting to violate your copyright - copyright violation is not a crime. They’re probably trying to use that as grounds to get a subpoena to see what other music he’s downloaded. Though it seems like the main point is to intimidate people into refraining from downloading music.
Not necessarily; perhaps the RIAA bot was the only node sharing that version of the file, and the user was looking for that version specifically (e.g. “finding more sources” after a failed download, or clicking a magnet link from a web page).
Also, a bot sharing a file on a P2P network is more like a prostitute offering her services to passers-by, rather than just standing around waiting to be propositioned. The bot announces its files in response to potentially unrelated search or browse requests, essentially saying “Come on in! I’ll send you any of these files, all you have to do is ask.”
And the search or browse request isn’t analogous to a john propositioning a hooker, because the search results don’t necessarily have anything to do with what you were looking for: if you’re looking for public domain songs and you enter “public”, you’ll get invitations to download Public Enemy tracks. If you enter “bible”, you might get an invitation to download the copyrighted Macintosh Bible. If you right-click on someone’s name and browse his files, you’ll get invitations to download them all. It’s like asking “Do you know any Christian sects?” and getting “Sure, I’ll have sex with you, or would you prefer to buy some crack?” in response.
I have to correct myself. They have made some copyright violations federal crimes. Wow. When the idea of intellectual property was invented, they never intended for violations to be considered crimes. Here’s some information on IP crimes from the government:
While attempted murder may, indeed, have a specific law covering it, the general proposition is that attempting any specific-intent crime is itself a crime. So if mopery is a specific-intent crime, attempted mopery is a crime, even in the absence of a specific law defining “attempt to mope.”
Thanks for the information on intent. I was not aware of the distinction between general and specific intent. A google search and some reading later…
My (very limited) understanding of general and specific intent suggests that a search on a filesharing service would probably fall under the former. One’s general intent in searching is to find the music. If it happens to be offered by the copyright holder (and some are offered free to download). The specific intent crime would be to deprive the copyright holders of control of their work. Short of other evidence about the actions of the downloader, how could one make that argument?
Or am I totally off on what general and specific intent mean?