How Does The RIAA Do It?

[cmaracz88]

How exactly does the RIAA get the evidence that they need to charge someone with stealing music?

Do they send viruses over the file sharing programs, or have a computer sharing files and track who downloads from that computer? Do they search message boards looking for people admitting that they have stolen music?

And most importantly, what did the people who got caught do to get caught? Out of an estimated sixty million "song stealers" only a couple hundred/thousand have been charged. So I guess those people must have done something in particular to get caught.

 

[Independence]

the people being sued share a large amount of files. as for getting personal information, all the RIAA has to do is track the IP address to an ISP and then subpoena the ISP for the information on that IP address.

 

[Freg3000]

Originally posted by Independence
the people being sued share a large amount of files. as for getting personal information, all the RIAA has to do is track the IP address to an ISP and then subpoena the ISP for the information on that IP address.

Forgive me, as I am not a law buff at all, but how does the RIAA get the subpoenas from the ISPs? What is the reason? "Suspected illegal activity" or something?

 

[hugemullens]

Originally posted by Freg3000
Forgive me, as I am not a law buff at all, but how does the RIAA get the subpoenas from the ISPs? What is the reason? "Suspected illegal activity" or something?

Basicly yes, gross copyright infringement. Verizon fought this in court and lost, the courts said the RIAA has suffiecent evidence to say this person is comming copyright infringment and you must tell them the person who has that IP address. Thats all there is to it, they can search for a song, find it, find out the ip of the person that was sharing it, and whamo! you got a lawsuit on your hands. THey have a few other tricks but thats it in a nutshell. -i spell like crap -

 

[Daveman Deluxe]

The main issue I have with the RIAA subpoenaing information is the fact that there's no judicial overview. Normally a judge must sign a subpoena to get information, but in this case, there is no judge authorizing the subpoena.

I wouldn't mind so much if the subpoenas were properly authorized by a judge, but also by judges in the district in which the file-sharers reside.

 

[Sun Baked]

Re: How Does The RIAA Do It?

This is from a couple months ago, but you'll notice that most of the people offering music for download are easy targets.

originally posted by Sun Baked

Firm sleuths out illegal file sharers
BayTSP tracks down IP addresses, IDs of music downloads

When Manni Nagi typed in the name "Eminem" on his computer screen, he came up with a list of 87,974 copies of songs by the rap star within minutes.

With each song was a list of screen names and Internet Protocol, or IP, addresses of individuals who were offering it for file sharers around the world to download.

Nagi wasn't looking for a free copy of "The Eminem Show" CD. Instead, the project manager for BayTSP Inc. of Campbell was demonstrating how his company uses its Internet sleuthing technology to help major record companies and movie studios hunt down copyright infringers.

The information supplied by BayTSP is part of the arsenal that major record companies are using in their escalating war on Internet file sharing, which the recording industry blames for a three-year downturn in CD sales.

[delete to end]

FILE SHARING FRENZY Table

That table of the top 10 movies available for download in June is HUGE numbers.

Can sort of see why they are going a little insane over the number of copies available online.

But it seems like BayTSP is out to get you...

BayTSP's computers turn up about 1.2 terabytes of data each day, which its computers sift. (A terabyte is 1,000 gigabytes.) A team of employees also looks through instances of potential copyright violations to make sure they aren't tagging a file that is being legally offered for sharing.

"We find 1.5 million to 2 million bad guys per day, Ishikawa said.

 

[ftaok]

Originally posted by Daveman Deluxe
The main issue I have with the RIAA subpoenaing information is the fact that there's no judicial overview. Normally a judge must sign a subpoena to get information, but in this case, there is no judge authorizing the subpoena.

I wouldn't mind so much if the subpoenas were properly authorized by a judge, but also by judges in the district in which the file-sharers reside.

Here's a really interesting article about this topic.

Personally, I think that "sharing" music is wrong, but what the RIAA is doing (with the courts support) is ridiculous. It's just more freedoms that we Americans are losing everyday.

 

[Daveman Deluxe]

I've read that article. It sickens me more than most things, and there's a lot going on in this world that sickens me.

I'd say it ranks somewhere below the war in Iraq, slightly higher than the impending crisis in North Korea, and on a rough par with the Patriot Act II, or as I like to call it, "The Banishment of 'The Bill of Rights' Act of 2003".

 

[StealthRider]

" I wouldn't mind so much if the subpoenas were properly authorized by a judge, but also by judges in the district in which the file-sharers reside."

That's true. They should need a judge in the district where the "evil sharers" are located to sign the subpoena...i never thought of that. Let's just hope that our judges share music...lol

 

[Maclarny]

I heard that spyware was being used by the RIAA. Is that true, and, if so, doesn't that violate the Internet Privacy Act?

 

[XnavxeMiyyep]

They may be using Spyware, which would be why no Mac users are affected!

But lots of companies use Spyware on PCs. Is Spyware itself illegal?

 

[MrMacMan]

Originally posted by XnavxeMiyyep
They may be using Spyware, which would be why no Mac users are affected!

But lots of companies use Spyware on PCs. Is Spyware itself illegal?

There is spyware for mac, don't get me wrong.

There are no *viruses* or worms (excluding word Macros)


It would help users in general if they had to go through a Judge which *why* *how they got the info* *what was the songs/data*

And not bypass all of the Steps LAW ENFORCEMENT has to go through!

 

[cb911]

the RIAA is also going for people that download music now. before they were just going for the main sharers of music, then they went for the 12 year old girl that had downloaded 1000 songs or someting.

now even music artists are speaking out against the RIAA. it's just crazy that they are sueing their customers.

 

[rainman::|:|]

it's terrifically easy for them to find your IP and then track you down, since they currently have the illegal right of getting this information. However, it's reported that they have employed virii and spyware for other purposes, before they started the lawsuits they made one last furious attempt... blank mp3s, virii, etc. real classy.

i should point out that placing a virus on anyone's system is illegal. there's no magical court order that changes that.

pnw

 

[ftaok]

Originally posted by paulwhannel
i should point out that placing a virus on anyone's system is illegal. there's no magical court order that changes that.

pnw

Not to defend the RIAA or anything, but why would sharing viruses be illegal? If I'm on Kaaza and I put a virus file into my sharing folder, I not putting a virus onto anyones system.

That's a pretty good tactic to thwart file-sharing.

 

[tomf87]

Originally posted by ftaok
Not to defend the RIAA or anything, but why would sharing viruses be illegal? If I'm on Kaaza and I put a virus file into my sharing folder, I not putting a virus onto anyones system.

That's a pretty good tactic to thwart file-sharing.

I don't think sharing a virus is illegal.

Designing a program that intentionally destroys data or makes a computer do things against the user's will is. or something similar to that.

And just by sending a subpoena for information does not mean you have to comply. A subpoena is a request, and a request only. Now if a judge demands a court order, then you must release the information.

EDIT:

You need to respond to a subpoena, however you do not have to just hand over any documentation that the person requests. For example, I could subpoena anyone for their financial records. That person could turn them over to me, or go to court to see if they are required to.

 

[Foxer]

Originally posted by Daveman Deluxe
I've read that article. It sickens me more than most things, and there's a lot going on in this world that sickens me.

I'd say it ranks somewhere below the war in Iraq, slightly higher than the impending crisis in North Korea, and on a rough par with the Patriot Act II, or as I like to call it, "The Banishment of 'The Bill of Rights' Act of 2003".

No offense, but for a super-genius your a bit lacking in the information department. I suspect you have subpeonas confused with a warrant. A subpeona is simply a demand to provide information pursuant to an ongoing legal matter. They do not normally require that a judge approve them (same with a summons), because we consider it inadvisable to give judges the ability to inhibit the presentation of someone's case.

A warrant, on the other hand, is a request by the government to sieze a person or property and therefore the need for judicial oversight is obvious.

I'll never understand this righteous indignation directed at the RIAA. I don't like the record companies, I think there prices are generally too high. That doesn't mean I go to Best Buy and steal a CD. If the cost is too high, I don't buy the blasted thing. I'd love to have a BMW or a G5, but I'm not going to help myslef in the dead of night. If I did, would any question Apple's right to come after me for burglary?

"But I only want one song, and the morons at RIAA are making me buy the whole CD!" I only like the creme part of Oreos, so I guess I can rip into the package at the store and leave the cookie parts. That'll be OK, right?

I'll address your Timothy McVeigh-like concerns regarding the Patriot act at a time of your choosing.