Remember not to destroy evidence when in a fight with the RIAA or anybody else

[SampSon]

Originally posted by: ThaGrandCow

Originally posted by: SampSon
What would happen if you went out and purchased each and every song/album the RIAA accused you of stealing, while the court case was in progress?
You could present these cd's to the judge and say "I've owned them all along."

They ask for a reciept. Reciepts have dates on them.

The assumption is that you pruchased the cd's at a much eariler date. Receipts are not available because they are not a sensitive document.

Honestly, how many receipts from music purchases do you have? Hell, how many receipts do you actually keep?

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: mordantmonkey
So what kind of virus/worm is out there that one could "accidentally" become infected with that would result in a harddrive of completely wiped or replicated garbage?

There are numerous if you don't mind using an older OS

 

[randay]

If I ever get sued by the RIAA, first thing I do is go out and buy out an entire record store.

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: spacejamz

Originally posted by: homercles337

Originally posted by: Garet Jax

Originally posted by: Czar
exactly
its like if the RIAA would put a box of CD's with a sign that says free cd's, then sue everyone for theft when they take one

Just because the software to take music is readily available and easy to use doesn't mean that it is OK to use it to steal things with it.

If someone forgot their keys in their car on the front seat with the door unlocked, does it make it any less of a theft when you take their car. You know you didn't pay for it, you know it isn't yours so why is this different?

This is the most common and dumbest response. Distribution of music is different because the original is intact. For your dopey analogy to work the keys would have to create an exact atom-by-atom copy of the car that is "stolen." The original car would still be in the driveway.

what part of taking a 'copyrighted work' that you did not pay for are you not understanding?

The artist and record company provided a product. Either you obtain the product through legal means or you don't. Any excuse that you come up with to use this product that was not gained legally is total BS...Period. End of story...

That doesn't change the fact that it's the dumbest analogy ever. Stealing a car really is not the same thing by the fact that you are hurting 2 parties instead of 1.

Stealing a car- hurts the owner of the car + the manufacturer
Stealing a song - hurts the manufacturer (record company)

It's still stealing, but anyone who uses the car analogy is an idiot.

 

[randay]

Originally posted by: Eeezee

Originally posted by: spacejamz

Originally posted by: homercles337

Originally posted by: Garet Jax

Originally posted by: Czar
exactly
its like if the RIAA would put a box of CD's with a sign that says free cd's, then sue everyone for theft when they take one

Just because the software to take music is readily available and easy to use doesn't mean that it is OK to use it to steal things with it.

If someone forgot their keys in their car on the front seat with the door unlocked, does it make it any less of a theft when you take their car. You know you didn't pay for it, you know it isn't yours so why is this different?

This is the most common and dumbest response. Distribution of music is different because the original is intact. For your dopey analogy to work the keys would have to create an exact atom-by-atom copy of the car that is "stolen." The original car would still be in the driveway.

what part of taking a 'copyrighted work' that you did not pay for are you not understanding?

The artist and record company provided a product. Either you obtain the product through legal means or you don't. Any excuse that you come up with to use this product that was not gained legally is total BS...Period. End of story...

That doesn't change the fact that it's the dumbest analogy ever. Stealing a car really is not the same thing by the fact that you are hurting 2 parties instead of 1.

Stealing a car- hurts the owner of the car + the manufacturer
Stealing a song - hurts the manufacturer (record company)

It's still stealing, but anyone who uses the car analogy is an idiot.

how exactly does a stolen car hurt the manufacturer???!?!?!?

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: EyeMWing

Originally posted by: ThaGrandCow
And that, my friends, is why you have a 2nd hard drive for things like that. Want to see my HD? Sure! *removes operating system HD*

Lawyers are dumb - but not THAT dumb.

The phrasing would be something like "all hard drives in your possession", not "your hard drive"

Frankly, music piracy is like speeding. Some people are against it, some people go out of their way to avoid doing it even by accident, some people don't care, and some people are really good at it and are virtually impossible to catch.

You have people with multiple-terabyte collections encompassing virtually every recorded piece of music ever, who haven't been caught and won't be caught because of how they go about building that collection - these are the equivalent to people driving supercars at full tilt down empty highways with no police presence. And it goes down from there.

You don't have to be "good at it" to not get caught pirating music or movies or whatever... you just have to not be an idiot.

Edit: The defendant in this case is an idiot.

 

[fatpat268]

Originally posted by: ThaGrandCow

Originally posted by: SampSon
What would happen if you went out and purchased each and every song/album the RIAA accused you of stealing, while the court case was in progress?
You could present these cd's to the judge and say "I've owned them all along."

They ask for a reciept. Reciepts have dates on them.

yea...Like people keep receipts older than a month old. :

I started a thing to keep every last receipt I had, and a majority of my receipts that are 3-6 months old are starting to fade, and receipts that are almost a year old are almost completely faded.

Then again, most people don't keep receipts for very long, and even then, they're not very durable to begin with.

 

[bctbct]

Could somebody give me the cliffs

If you own an album and upload it on the net its ok?

How would they know if you gave them someone elses HD?

If you download a song, how do they know?

I have never downloaded music and have heard a lot about these lawsuits but never understood the whole process. Didnt somebody just win against the RIAA saying there router was insecure?

 

[EyeMWing]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: EyeMWing

Originally posted by: ThaGrandCow
And that, my friends, is why you have a 2nd hard drive for things like that. Want to see my HD? Sure! *removes operating system HD*

Lawyers are dumb - but not THAT dumb.

The phrasing would be something like "all hard drives in your possession", not "your hard drive"

Frankly, music piracy is like speeding. Some people are against it, some people go out of their way to avoid doing it even by accident, some people don't care, and some people are really good at it and are virtually impossible to catch.

You have people with multiple-terabyte collections encompassing virtually every recorded piece of music ever, who haven't been caught and won't be caught because of how they go about building that collection - these are the equivalent to people driving supercars at full tilt down empty highways with no police presence. And it goes down from there.

You don't have to be "good at it" to not get caught pirating music or movies or whatever... you just have to not be an idiot.

Edit: The defendant in this case is an idiot.

You don't have to be "good at it" to not get caught speeding, either. Anyone who is going to go excessively fast on a stretch of road they aren't sure is cop-free, is, frankly, an idiot. I was just using that terminology to avoid having to call 90% of ATOT idiots.

But, hell, they are. So lets leave it at that.

 

[EyeMWing]

Originally posted by: bctbct
Could somebody give me the cliffs

If you own an album and upload it on the net its ok?

How would they know if you gave them someone elses HD?

If you download a song, how do they know?

I have never downloaded music and have heard a lot about these lawsuits but never understood the whole process. Didnt somebody just win against the RIAA saying there router was insecure?

1) No.
2) The fact that their name is all over the damned software, for starters. The fact that you still have a hard drive would also tip them off pretty well, too. If they can get a court order for your hard drive, they can get permission to make sure you forked it over, too.
3) Generally speaking, they connect to a torrent, grab all the IPs that send them pieces. Or they do the same thing on a P2P network. They ARE legally allowed to download the music - because they own the intellectual property. You, on the other hand, are not a legal distributor, and thus are not allowed to send them any of it. There are mediums, however, which thus far, have eluded them for several reasons which will not be discussed here.
4) Yes, some judges do accept the "insecure router" defense. Essentially, this turns your internet connection into a "common carrier", even though you don't have the FCC's protection and endorsement as such - so there's no insurance that this is going to work.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: EyeMWing

You don't have to be "good at it" to not get caught speeding, either. Anyone who is going to go excessively fast on a stretch of road they aren't sure is cop-free, is, frankly, an idiot. I was just using that terminology to avoid having to call 90% of ATOT idiots.

But, hell, they are. So lets leave it at that.

You do have a point there.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: EyeMWing

Originally posted by: bctbct
Could somebody give me the cliffs

If you own an album and upload it on the net its ok?

How would they know if you gave them someone elses HD?

If you download a song, how do they know?

I have never downloaded music and have heard a lot about these lawsuits but never understood the whole process. Didnt somebody just win against the RIAA saying there router was insecure?

1) No.
2) The fact that their name is all over the damned software, for starters. The fact that you still have a hard drive would also tip them off pretty well, too. If they can get a court order for your hard drive, they can get permission to make sure you forked it over, too.
3) Generally speaking, they connect to a torrent, grab all the IPs that send them pieces. Or they do the same thing on a P2P network. They ARE legally allowed to download the music - because they own the intellectual property. You, on the other hand, are not a legal distributor, and thus are not allowed to send them any of it. There are mediums, however, which thus far, have eluded them for several reasons which will not be discussed here.
4) Yes, some judges do accept the "insecure router" defense. Essentially, this turns your internet connection into a "common carrier", even though you don't have the FCC's protection and endorsement as such - so there's no insurance that this is going to work.

as soon as they download anything from a torrent, they seed back, thus allowing people to download their music for free.. legaly

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: Garet Jax
I agree with Tom. The artist has to believe that the penalty for copyright infringment is going to outweigh the benefit of copying it - otherwise there is not much point in making the song.

If all I had to do was to pay a nominal fee for stealing music, then it might be worth the risk. At $150,000 per incident, it will never be worth it.

Why don't we apply that logic elsewhere?

I mean, we don't want people to steal stuff, right? If we just make them return the item, fine them a few thou, and maybe throw them in jail for a few days, then it might be worth the risk...and, more importantly, the corporations might not believe the penalty for stealing their product is going to outweigh the benefit for the thief. Maybe we should, instead, have an automatic $1,000,000 minimum fine for theft, plus five years in jail. Then it would never be worth it.

We don't want people drinking while underaged, either. What do they do now, take away your liquor? Why won't we have the cops give you a severe beating on the first offense, and then remove your liver on the second?

Those Muslim countries have it right...extraordinarily harsh justice IS the route to true social betterment!


It's not so much the penalty for copyright infringement per se, it's the severely lopsidedness of the legal system. Part of justice is making sure the punishment fits the crime. Unfortunately, a strong lobby and/or a good lawyer can execute a truly perverse farce such as the incident posted in that news article. Our justice system is for sale if you have the $$$.

Originally posted by: EyeMWing
2) The fact that their name is all over the damned software, for starters.

There are people who use their real name for that?

 

[tyler811]

Originally posted by: j00fek
rule #1 dont get caught

EDIT Rule 1 dont do it.

 

[Raduque]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
She's pretty stupid and should have just used a magnet. Prove it, there's nothing left.

The only kind of magnet guaranteed to wipe the HD, would have probably damaged the woman's hands when it yanked the HD to it from a foot away. Plus, the HD would have shown up in court stuck to the magnet. It takes a very powerful magnet to wipe a modern HD.

Oh yea, and if they asked for "all hard drives in your possession", they'd get my boot drives...... which contains only my legal OS and legal programs.... all my music is on another HD I'd simply dump and claim never existed. They could easily examine my boot and find no evidence of deleted music files.

 

[cw42]

Originally posted by: Raduque

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
She's pretty stupid and should have just used a magnet. Prove it, there's nothing left.

The only kind of magnet guaranteed to wipe the HD, would have probably damaged the woman's hands when it yanked the HD to it from a foot away. Plus, the HD would have shown up in court stuck to the magnet. It takes a very powerful magnet to wipe a modern HD.

Oh yea, and if they asked for "all hard drives in your possession", they'd get my boot drives...... which contains only my legal OS and legal programs.... all my music is on another HD I'd simply dump and claim never existed. They could easily examine my boot and find no evidence of deleted music files.

I'm sure your OS has evidence of logs that you had another drive connected, and accessed files from another drive.

 

[Raduque]

Originally posted by: cw42

Originally posted by: Raduque

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
She's pretty stupid and should have just used a magnet. Prove it, there's nothing left.

The only kind of magnet guaranteed to wipe the HD, would have probably damaged the woman's hands when it yanked the HD to it from a foot away. Plus, the HD would have shown up in court stuck to the magnet. It takes a very powerful magnet to wipe a modern HD.

Oh yea, and if they asked for "all hard drives in your possession", they'd get my boot drives...... which contains only my legal OS and legal programs.... all my music is on another HD I'd simply dump and claim never existed. They could easily examine my boot and find no evidence of deleted music files.

I'm sure your OS has evidence of logs that you had another drive connected, and accessed files from another drive.

Hmmm, what? Windows doesn't keep information like that. It's all stored in the boot record. It might have recorded info about the drive in event viewer, but I blow away those logs every weekend to keep it from filling up. The log about formatting my brand-new 320gb are already gone.

 

[kt]

Originally posted by: teddyv
The problem is not downloading, it is uploading. When you use a (well, most) P2P file sharing proggy to download a song, you are not only downloading a song you are also making available for upload to the world the pieces you've already downloaded. When you make songs, or even pieces of them, available for upload you are basically sharing them with anyone and the total number you could be sending the copyrighted material to is basically limited only by the software itself. They don't get you on the download, it is the making available for upload.

Not saying it is right, just explaining why the penalties are so harsh.

The thing is why do they choose to use P2P method to distribute a song when they know damn well that it requires file sharing. It's like going into a store and the owner marks an item is free, but as soon as you walk out of the door with the free item the owner catches you for shoplifting.

 

[manly]

Originally posted by: kt

Originally posted by: teddyv
The problem is not downloading, it is uploading. When you use a (well, most) P2P file sharing proggy to download a song, you are not only downloading a song you are also making available for upload to the world the pieces you've already downloaded. When you make songs, or even pieces of them, available for upload you are basically sharing them with anyone and the total number you could be sending the copyrighted material to is basically limited only by the software itself. They don't get you on the download, it is the making available for upload.

Not saying it is right, just explaining why the penalties are so harsh.

The thing is why do they choose to use P2P method to distribute a song when they know damn well that it requires file sharing. It's like going into a store and the owner marks an item is free, but as soon as you walk out of the door with the free item the owner catches you for shoplifting.

WTF? Why is a wheel round? File dissemination is the whole purpose of P2P networks, even if they are most frequently used to violate copyright law. And what kind of piss-poor analogy is that? The copyright holders never authorized end users to share their licensed content; heck contrary to long-standing Congressional legislation, they've been trying to deny fair use rights through DRM.