Adjacent Thread: Kazaa Sues Record Co's. Brings up interesting point.

[Xenon14]

CNN article is another source.

I made a new thread because I have been meaning to address the overlooked issue of the file-downloading ordeal. Most articles and lawsuits focus on the legality of file-sharing, but few if any address the right to privacy, and how RIAA violates that right in order to find offenders. I'd like to look at it like police entering a house without warrants... even if something is illegal within the premises, I find that it is unjustified to violate the law to the right of privacy in the process of finding something illegal. I feel that the current lawsuit by kazaa addresses that issue, at least from the point of RIAA violating the terms of the network in order to find offenders. But, I'd also like to see defendants to turn around and sue RIAA for privacy violations.

 

[HOWITIS]

since the RIAA isn't a legal body i thought that whole privacy thing didn't apply to them?

 

[Xenon14]

Originally posted by: HOWITIS
since the RIAA isn't a legal body i thought that whole privacy thing didn't apply to them?

Firstly, just b/c they aren't a legal body doesn't mean they can violate the right to privacy. I'm not a legal body, but i certaintly don't have the right to violate your privacy, private property, or right to life.

However, From my understand they have agreements with universities and internet provides to have information about users provided to them. I know that I have signed an agreement with the University that i will not download illegal files on the network. Nonetheless, even if i DO download files, the university has no right to infringe on my right to privacy and observe whether or not I have downloaded something illegally...unless that contract i give them permission to do so, which i do not believe is the case especially for internet providers.

Edit: I do know that they can find out things legitimately. For instance, if RIAA or my university checks "My shared folder" then i have implicitly given them permission to observe those files. Any other way, however, violates the right to privacy, unless the person has given specific permission as i have mentioned earlier.

 

[ProviaFan]

<devil's advocate>If you publish for the public internet community a list of things that you're willing to copy for others (i.e. infringe on the RIAA's copyrights), then how are they "invading your privacy" by looking at the list, and proceeding to file lawsuits?</devil's advocate>

Of course, the method in which they bypass due process is one thing among others that isn't too kosher with this, but I digress...

 

[Krugger]

by forcing providers to give out personal information based solely on their accusation of wrongdoing, threatening with the DMCA, and getting a name and address from only an IP.

 

[Xenon14]

Originally posted by: jliechty
<devil's advocate>If you publish for the public internet community a list of things that you're willing to copy for others (i.e. infringe on the RIAA's copyrights), then how are they "invading your privacy" by looking at the list, and proceeding to file lawsuits?</devil's advocate>

Of course, the method in which they bypass due process is one thing among others that isn't too kosher with this, but I digress...

They can't do that. That's like someone putting a list of people they plan on killing, and then being charged for murder. It maybe foolish of them to do so, but they violate no law in making such a list.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

The RIAA is not busting into your house to illegally snoop. You intentionally hook into a P2P network and you intentionally share files. At that point, you've ceded your right to privacy. You've hung a giant "open for business, come on in" sign on your shared folder.

 

[digitalsm]

Originally posted by: Krugger
by forcing providers to give out personal information based solely on their accusation of wrongdoing, threatening with the DMCA, and getting a name and address from only an IP.

You do realise, everytime the get information from ISPs, its by court order.

 

[ProviaFan]

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: Krugger
by forcing providers to give out personal information based solely on their accusation of wrongdoing, threatening with the DMCA, and getting a name and address from only an IP.

You do realise, everytime the get information from ISPs, its by court order.

Yea, some secretary signs the paper or something? Nobody actually makes any effort to confirm that this would be a legit request. Hell, I could set up a forum, entice you to register, then send a letter to the court saying that I believe you're infringing on my copyright(s), and your ISP would have to cough up your name and info. This is the danger in the way the current law is set up; anyone can get all the info they need to steal your identity, or perform some other nefarious purpose, just by claiming a copyright violation.

 

[DaveSimmons]

> They can't do that. That's like someone putting a list of people they plan on killing, and then being charged for murder. It maybe foolish of them to do so, but they violate no law in making such a list.

You haven't watched enough TV, people get charged with "conspiricy to commit X" every day.

Most of the posters here are also ignoring that the DMCA gives the RIAA the right to trample your privacy rights, just like the Patriot Act lets John Ashcroft make people disappear without ever being charged with a crime.

Don't like it? Register to vote, actually take the time to vote, and try writing a polite letter or two to your elected representatives

 

[her209]

Sue them for slander/libel.

 

[Xenon14]

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt
The RIAA is not busting into your house to illegally snoop. You intentionally hook into a P2P network and you intentionally share files. At that point, you've ceded your right to privacy. You've hung a giant "open for business, come on in" sign on your shared folder.

Right. I agreed that if they come across your shared folder in such a way that you described, and find that you possess illegal files... well, then you're screwed. However, if they violate your right to privacy in the process of attaining that information (illegally gaining access to your computer) then they are the ones that ought to be sued.

 

[Lyfer]

Every person with good Christian values know that downloading illegal music is a sin.











































Did I say that? Fvck the RIAA.

 

[brigden]

I love downloading music. I haven't bought an album since 1999.

 

[jdini76]

Originally posted by: Xenon14

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt
The RIAA is not busting into your house to illegally snoop. You intentionally hook into a P2P network and you intentionally share files. At that point, you've ceded your right to privacy. You've hung a giant "open for business, come on in" sign on your shared folder.

Right. I agreed that if they come across your shared folder in such a way that you described, and find that you possess illegal files... well, then you're screwed. However, if they violate your right to privacy in the process of attaining that information (illegally gaining access to your computer) then they are the ones that ought to be sued.

I agree. Its like you are in the privacy of your home, and you kill somebody. the government needs a warrent to enter your home. But if you do the murder and display the dead body in your windw, then they don't need anything to access your house.


But in defence to the whole file sharing thing. Was the copyright law changed to refelct these recent problems? I was always under the impression that it was ilegal to copy for the intent to sell. In this case these file are given out freely.

 

[Lyfer]

Originally posted by: brigden
I love downloading music. I haven't bought an album since 1999.

:beer:

 

[00Jones]

Originally posted by: Xenon14

Originally posted by: jliechty
<devil's advocate>If you publish for the public internet community a list of things that you're willing to copy for others (i.e. infringe on the RIAA's copyrights), then how are they "invading your privacy" by looking at the list, and proceeding to file lawsuits?</devil's advocate>

Of course, the method in which they bypass due process is one thing among others that isn't too kosher with this, but I digress...

They can't do that. That's like someone putting a list of people they plan on killing, and then being charged for murder. It maybe foolish of them to do so, but they violate no law in making such a list.

Conspiracy of murder(or something like that). They can get you for making a list of people you want to kill.

 

[BadNewsBears]

[qOnce the industry determined a downloaded song file was a copyright work, they issued subpoenas to Internet access providers to find out who was behind the account used to log onto the file-sharing network. [/quote]


How can riaa issue a subpoena?

 

[00Jones]

Can't the ISP just delete the logs, then they can't tell the RIAA who was doing what???

 

[jdini76]

Originally posted by: 00Jones
Can't the ISP just delete the logs, then they can't tell the RIAA who was doing what???

why should the ISP be responsible for your ilegal behavior. we would have another enron on our hands!

 

[00Jones]

Originally posted by: jdini76

Originally posted by: 00Jones
Can't the ISP just delete the logs, then they can't tell the RIAA who was doing what???

why should the ISP be responsible for your ilegal behavior. we would have another enron on our hands!

Verizon didn't want to give out the information, So why didn;t they just delete the logs.

 

[SagaLore]

Too many Americans have been brainwashed... there is no right to privacy, at least not in our Constitution. Although it would be nice if there were...

 

[jdini76]

Originally posted by: SagaLore
Too many Americans have been brainwashed... there is no right to privacy, at least not in our Constitution. Although it would be nice if there were...

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


Sounds like a privacy right to me!

bill of rights