Uploading or Downloading?

[Adam8281]

My question: folks getting sued by the RIAA and MPAA, are they getting sued because they downloaded, or because they uploaded/shared? Whenever I read a media article about the lawsuits it often refers to "downloaders." However, unless we're dealing with bittorrent where downloading presupposes uploading, it seems far-fetched to me to imagine that the RIAA/MPAA is detecting what people are DOWNLOADING from another individual. It seems MUCH easier to discover when someone is SHARING or UPLOADING something that is copyrighted, because all you have to do is logon to the P2P network and check their share folder, but how could you tell what they are DOWNLADING? So, does the media refer to "music DOWNloaders getting sued" as a shorthand for music UPloaders, or is the RIAA/MPAA really able to detect what people are downloading, as well as what they are sharing?

 

[WyteWatt]

Uploading

 

[EyeMWing]

Both, actually. But a few precautions and an IQ higher than 10 will protect your ass on both ends.

 

[WyteWatt]

Originally posted by: EyeMWing
Both, actually. But a few precautions and an IQ higher than 10 will protect your ass on both ends.

:roll:

No not both. I know someone that can prove it to you.

 

[Adam8281]

do tell more...

 

[meltdown75]

arrrr

 

[Iron Woode]

Untill the law is changed in Canada, we can download music but not upload it.

 

[Adam8281]

Originally posted by: EyeMWing
Both, actually. But a few precautions and an IQ higher than 10 will protect your ass on both ends.

Howso both? I guess I'm wondering what their technique is for detecting downloaders. Uploading is easy, check the shared folder/download something from the user. But how would they detect downloading? Especially if it is on a direct connect network where the user is downloading 1 file directly from another user. How can they become privy to that transaction? My computer knowledge isn't extensive, but it seems to me that detecting an uploader is infinitely easier than detecting a downloader. So, I still have the question that I've never had directly answered: when people have been sued, has it been for uplading or for downloading? Uploading just seems a much more feasible crime for them to prosecute.

 

[FeuerFrei]

You're sued for making your music collection available. Amount of fine depends on how many songs you had available for others to upload.

 

[Adam8281]

OK, so you're sued not necessarily for the act of uploading, but for providing content that may be downloaded by others. Is this all? Does this mean that people are NOT sued for downloading (with the exception of bittorrent where up- and downloading must operate together)? Is it even possible to detect downloading, or is detecting what people are sharing all that the RIAA/MPAA is technologically capable of doing?

 

[RossMAN]

Originally posted by: FeuerFrei
You're sued for making your music collection available. Amount of fine depends on how many songs you had available for others to upload.

Yep.

Why do people put their "content" in their shared folder? Who knows.

 

[DrPizza]

Besides... Suppose I own a a CD, and decide to download a copy of one of the songs because I'm not savvy enough to rip the CD. Can they sue me for that, since I've paid for it already?

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: DrPizza
Besides... Suppose I own a a CD, and decide to download a copy of one of the songs because I'm not savvy enough to rip the CD. Can they sue me for that, since I've paid for it already?

Technically, you're in violation of the DMCA.

 

[rezinn]

Originally posted by: FeuerFrei
You're sued for making your music collection available. Amount of fine depends on how many songs you had available for others to download.

It's very easy to find people sharing music, and that is just what they do. If you download it and don't share it, it's not likely that you will be caught.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: DrPizza
Besides... Suppose I own a a CD, and decide to download a copy of one of the songs because I'm not savvy enough to rip the CD. Can they sue me for that, since I've paid for it already?

This is why the RIAA sucks: they don't want you to own a license to the music, nor rights to the music itself. If you owned a license, you could order another CD if yours broke - like MS does with Windows - for the cost of the CD + shipping. If you owned the rights to the music on the CD, then you could copy it to your heart's content. Instead, you just own the physical CD, nothing else. The logical course of action seems to be selling a CD as a license to use the music on the CD, but they have frowned on this thus far.

I've heard of the RIAA joining file-sharing communities with a zillion songs shared, then logging whoever downloads from them and filing suits accordingly. Since they don't give you a license when you purchase the CD, you are not allowed to download the mp3 even if you own the physical CD legally. This is my understanding anyway.

 

[aplefka]

Fvck da po-leece!

Seriously though... YAAAAAAR!!!

 

[zerocool1]

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: DrPizza
Besides... Suppose I own a a CD, and decide to download a copy of one of the songs because I'm not savvy enough to rip the CD. Can they sue me for that, since I've paid for it already?

Technically, you're in violation of the DMCA.

but it would be illegal to rip a dvd with css

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: zerocool1

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: DrPizza
Besides... Suppose I own a a CD, and decide to download a copy of one of the songs because I'm not savvy enough to rip the CD. Can they sue me for that, since I've paid for it already?

Technically, you're in violation of the DMCA.

but it would be illegal to rip a dvd with css

What's with this but business?

 

[DaveSimmons]

Good thing the takes-music-theft-seriously mod is not on duty tonight, or you might be vacationing in sunny Real Life for a few days.

 

[WyteWatt]

Originally posted by: RossMAN

Originally posted by: FeuerFrei
You're sued for making your music collection available. Amount of fine depends on how many songs you had available for others to upload.

Yep.

Why do people put their "content" in their shared folder? Who knows.

Agree.

 

[Czar]

The idiots in control in iceland made a stupid stupid scary scary law.

ISP's must keep logs of all traffic and ip's for 6 months and the cops can request these logs without a judge's approval. Whats the ironic part is that they only have to log download's, not uploads. That shows how much idiots those people are, first downloads shouldnt matter only uploads, as in distribution and that this law goes against the constitution and privacy laws which both are above this one.

 

[WyteWatt]

Originally posted by: Czar
The idiots in control in iceland made a stupid stupid scary scary law.

ISP's must keep logs of all traffic and ip's for 6 months and the cops can request these logs without a judge's approval. Whats the ironic part is that they only have to log download's, not uploads. That shows how much idiots those people are, first downloads shouldnt matter only uploads, as in distribution and that this law goes against the constitution and privacy laws which both are above this one.

Indeed.

 

[Spencer278]

They are only sueing people they have downloaded music from. The size of the fine is set basicly at the descretion of the MPAA/RIAA but it limited to 150,000$ * number of songs people uploaded to them.

 

[Adam8281]

I've heard of the RIAA joining file-sharing communities with a zillion songs shared, then logging whoever downloads from them and filing suits accordingly.

This can't be true, can it?! How can it be? That's like a Krispy Kreme employee handing out free donuts and then having everyone who takes one arrested for stealing! I mean, it seems like if the RIAA is sharing zillions of songs, then one of two things would be the case: 1) they'd be breaking the very law they are prosecuting people for by providing music to people free of charge without the artists being compensated, or 2) It would be LEGAL to download from them since they own the rights to the music, and therefore they couldn't sue people from downloading the zillions of songs they are sharing. Anyway, can anyone else corroroborate this claim, that the RIAA actually SHARES files on P2P networks and logs those who download from them? I'm dubious, I would think that they are just getting people for sharing, not for downloading from THEM!

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: Adam8281

I've heard of the RIAA joining file-sharing communities with a zillion songs shared, then logging whoever downloads from them and filing suits accordingly.

This can't be true, can it?! How can it be? That's like a Krispy Kreme employee handing out free donuts and then having everyone who takes one arrested for stealing! I mean, it seems like if the RIAA is sharing zillions of songs, then one of two things would be the case: 1) they'd be breaking the very law they are prosecuting people for by providing music to people free of charge without the artists being compensated, or 2) It would be LEGAL to download from them since they own the rights to the music, and therefore they couldn't sue people from downloading the zillions of songs they are sharing. Anyway, can anyone else corroroborate this claim, that the RIAA actually SHARES files on P2P networks and logs those who download from them? I'm dubious, I would think that they are just getting people for sharing, not for downloading from THEM!

This is the first I've heard of that. From what I know, they're have been exactly ZERO lawsuits filed for simply downloading music.

It's much trickier to file suit for a downloader versus a distributor.

A few things though:
1) They wouldn't be breaking the law because they are the copyright holders and licensers of the music. So they could give it away free if they wanted to.
2) It still would be in a gray area as far as the legality of downloading from them is concerned