How Big Brother (RIAA) tracks downloads

Discussion in 'Miscellaneous [BG]' started by P. Aaron, Aug 28, 2003.

  1. - Daniel Ballard, lawyer for acused file sharer.

    Ok, let me get this straight......its ok then to commit a crime as long as you are anonymous....and you can use being anonymous to prevent being caught in the first place???????????

    WHO DOES THIS LAWYER WORK FOR, Bill O'Reilly and Fox??????

    That has got to be the worst defense since....since...since..Bill O'Reily and Fox.

    Prediction.......the judge's guffaws will be audible and you WILL be able to download them from some news service.
  2. brianrost

    brianrost Gold Supporting Member

    Apr 26, 2000
    Boston, Taxachusetts
    No, the question is whether innocent people should have their privacy violated so that authorities can search for the guilty parties.

    This is why American justice is supposed to be based on "innocent until proven guilty": to protect those of us who haven't done anything wrong.
  3. have you guys been following the story about the "jane doe" fighting the riaa? if so whats the latest?
  4. P. Aaron

    P. Aaron Supporting Member

    Some of this will parallel the other thread about the morality/legality/right to...endless downloads of copyrighted music.

    Just looking at it from my own perspective, I see downloading others music without their permission as wrong.

    But that's just me.

    How the authorities want to prosecute it, well they have attorneys to figure that out, and judges who will hopefully referee it properly.
  5. FunkyDom


    Aug 31, 2002
    I'm so glad that I'm Canadian and don't have to worry about getting caught.
  6. Brianrost wrote:

    So let me get this right. The RIAA tracks downloaders via cookies and other evidence that the downloaders leave from THEIR computers. Its not tracking me, a person who has never downloaded a file because my computer hasn't visited those sites.

    I am an innocent. The girl in question is a thief. My privacy is intact. Hers is not because she broke the law.

    You may not like the law, but the copyright and patent clause in the US Constitution is the basis for a vast majority of commerce - goods and services - that we HAVE to use every day. Overturning that clause would be the same this as leading this country back into the 17th century economically.

    That will NEVER happen. So get over it and don't break the law.
  7. jondog


    Mar 14, 2002
    NYC metro area
    Jane lied. The RIAA found "hashes" in her song files that showed she had gotten them from Napster and Kazaa, not her personal cds. The issue at hand is whether the RIAA should be checking peoples shared files folders for these hashes in the first place. They automatically assume guilt if you're got a "substantial" # of mp3s. I think the procedure should be more like regular theft, where they have to get a warrant and the police do the investigating, not the plaintiff.
  8. jondog,

    The RIAA didn't just choose her out of thin air. They had proof based on her computer logging on to download sites.

    No one is walking up to someone's home and demanding to see your computer files for no reason.

    Also, the police have more important things to do than to go after music downloaders.

    Anyway...this will all be thrashed out in the courts. But I would like to point out something. No court has ever handed down a decision that goes against the patent/copyright law...nor will they. The courts are there to uphold the laws of the land...and the Constitution is the first and foremost law of the land. The "privacy" issue that keeps on being brought up is not an issue at all. Privacy is not a concept that takes precedence over the law. The RIAA is not targeting any innocent computer users...they would be sued big time if they did. They are not checking file folders of folks like me who don't download.
  9. jondog


    Mar 14, 2002
    NYC metro area
    I know she wasn't a random choice, she was somebody sharing a substantial # of files and that was their grounds for the subpoena. She tried to fight the subpoena by saying the files were from her own cds, which was a lie, so I'm not on her side.

    The police exist to enforce the law; they keep order and fight crime. At the beginning of every videotape sold, there's a message from the FBI telling you not to pirate it. It is not the MPAA's job to investigate if I pirate a movie, it is the FBI's job. If pirating is such a big crime, then the police should be involved.
  10. pilotjones

    pilotjones Supporting Member

    Nov 8, 2001
    It seems that one legal issue under question here is whether the ISP is required to provide the personal info on the subscriber necessary for identification.

    If a law enforment entity presents sufficient evidence to a judge and the judge then grants a subpoena, where is the question? Just as in any other criminal investigation, the evidence must be produced.

    The lawyer's citation of a "constitutional right to ... anonymous association" would seem to be either BS, to or superceded by the subpoena. This is not lawyer-client or doctor-patient privilege here.
  11. jondog


    Mar 14, 2002
    NYC metro area
    I guess this is the step I'm not clear on. Who is the law enforcement entity? From reading the news, the picture I get is that the RIAA is doing all of the detective work.
  12. pilotjones

    pilotjones Supporting Member

    Nov 8, 2001
    I'm guessing that since this would be a criminal case (violation of federal copyright law), not a civil case, that the case would be People vs. defendant, and that it would be prosecuted by the federal equivalent of a District Attorney (Attorney General maybe?).

    Any subsequent civil case might be RIAA vs. defendant.

    (But I'm not a lawyer.)
  13. jondog


    Mar 14, 2002
    NYC metro area
    I'm not a lawyer either, but I watch a lot of fake ones on tv, and in criminal cases the cops are always involved. Even if victim X hires a PI to gather evidence, they don't go straight to the DA, they give the evidence to the police, who say thanks and then conduct their own independent investigation, and then go to the DA.

    I think I'm bothered by the RIAA doing the investigating -- I would like an impartial gov't entity, the police, to do this. I dunno, maybe the RIAA procedure is legal but just too boring to make a tv show out of.
  14. pilotjones

    pilotjones Supporting Member

    Nov 8, 2001
    US-NY-NYC most things in life...
  15. paintandsk8

    paintandsk8 Pushin' my soul through the wire...

    May 12, 2003
    West Lafayette, IN
    Anyone interested in this topic should read the book "sonic boom" by john alderman. It is great reading and provides some excellent insights.
  16. P. Aaron

    P. Aaron Supporting Member

    The RIAA has to file a complaint and, the law enforcement authorities have to investigate, ejudicate, and determine merit. Sometimes complaints are thrown out, sometimes they proceed.

    I believe the RIAA as a coporate entity cannot "investigate" to gather evidence without first filing or petitioning the court for law enforcement to step in and gather evidence.

    Procedures, ya know.


    Mar 12, 2003
    USA, PNW
    So, if this defendent looses her cases, pays a zillion dollars for each song. How much will the artist get in return? Nilch? A dollar a song? This is a case of who can screw who the most.
  18. jondog


    Mar 14, 2002
    NYC metro area
    Yes, that's what I thought, but this AP article

    makes no mention of the FBI and indicates that the RIAA is doing the investigating.

    "The recording industry is providing its most detailed glimpse into some of the detective-style techniques it has employed as part of its secretive campaign against online music swappers."