The RIAA hates us all (RIAA Filing Suits Against Consumers Who Rip CDs)

computerworld ^ | 12/31/2007 | Richi Jennings

[Red in Blue PA]

In an unusual case ... the industry is taking its argument against music sharing one step further ... [the RIAA] maintains that it is illegal for someone who has legally purchased a CD to transfer that music into his computer ... Whether customers may copy their CDs onto their computers -- an act at the very heart of the digital revolution -- has a murky legal foundation, the RIAA argues.

[Caipirabob]

Thank Congress for enabling these thugs with special laws they use to sue individuals with.

It's the wisdom of Congress that's banned the incandescent lightbulb in 2014. Can anyone think of better reason to run all of them out of town?

[moehoward]

—”Well, obviously “they” can see the files if someone is offering them for sharing,”—

Obviously. There are also logs that record files transferred to and from a file sharing folder. These can be deleted, but your ISP keeps logs too.

—”there’s really no chance they can see drive contents without a court order.”—

Are you referring to a plaintiff taking physical custody of your PC?
Because I was referring to the RIAA seeking “John Doe” subpoenas forcing ISPs to reveal subscriber information and the possibility of remotely viewing files beyond a “shared” folder.

I wonder, because several years ago I had to place a call to my ISP tech support. I have Mac, and at the time this meant only a “level 2” tech could help me. During the call he said “I’m looking at your desktop”. He also described some files. I had a new Netgear router with firewall, and OS9 with nothing shared.

[bamahead]

ping

[steve86]

There have been various remote tech support arrangements over the years where technicians were given the ability to access the system remotely. I remember Digital, HP, and IBM offered this feature (for a fee). I'm sure similar arrangements exist today, but through the Internet, not dialup.

ISPs really aren't routinely clued in to what a customer is accessing and their logs don't contain that information (unless they own the web server). They know the customer's IP address, of course, the amount of traffic to/from that customer, and can easily determine the IP protocols being used. The rest is a stream of bytes, some encrypted, of no business interest to them and certainly not worth even a nominal amount of effort to track, without some kind of court order.

Besides physical possession of a secured PC, one of the best ways to gain access to the data on a secured PC is to trick the user into downloading some kind of a trojan program -- sophisticated spyware of one kind or another. This agent will then scan and forward the contents to the interested party. In the case of a non-secured PC, we all know it is the easiest thing in the world to gain access, especially with the advent of WiFi.

[moehoward]

—”..is to trick the user into downloading some kind of a trojan program — sophisticated spyware of one kind or another”—

Which is something the RIAA is suspected of doing. Perhaps not a trojan but planting files that get circulated.

I guess the good news in all of this is that the RIAA seems to losing the battle, both in court and in the hearts and minds of the public.

[dfwgator]

Actually, the ultimate control the RIAA could dream of would be a special ‘headset’ that would allow only those who buy it to hear ANYTHING recorded!

And here is the first prototype:

[steve86]

Yeah, they lost my heart and mind close to 20 years ago. The only music that strikes my fancy anymore is some kind of ethnic folk music that I run across.

[steve86]

Or non-contracted free stuff by musical geniuses on YouTube

[Red in Blue PA]

Re: There is a difference between tangible products and the Constitution-granted monopoly on artistic works. She buys shoes, the shoes wear out, she buys new shoes. She buys music, then plays it for 30 years.

So then I can “share” the files of those songs I first bought on LP, then paid for again on cassette, and finally paid a third royalty for the CD?

[antiRepublicrat]

So then I can “share” the files of those songs I first bought on LP, then paid for again on cassette, and finally paid a third royalty for the CD?

That would depend on which side of their mouths the industry is talking out of, whether you bought an item or a license. They take each contradictory position as appropriate.

Personally, I think First Sale would allow you to resell or give away the physical copies, but you shouldn't still have a digital copy left after you've resold them all because you've then lost your rights to the songs.

Sharing is a gray area. We all understand low-volume sharing with friends. It somewhat falls under fair use, and it's beneficial to the industry. I know I've bought a LOT of albums based on mix cassettes and CDs my friends have given me. But you really do cross the line when you share out those albums to millions of people who can now forget about buying albums at all. I wouldn't call that fair use. I've met people who have full iPods and say they've never purchased an album. That's just wrong.

[Red in Blue PA]

I agree with about everything you said.