Posted on 09/01/2003 6:39:01 AM PDT by ConservativeMan55
The recording industry is providing its most detailed glimpse into some detective-style techniques it has employed as part of its secretive campaign against online music swappers.
Court papers including those disclosures were filed against a Brooklyn woman who is fighting RIAA efforts to identify her for allegedly sharing nearly 1,000 songs over the Internet. The recording industry disputed her defense that songs on her family's computer were from compact discs she had legally purchased.
Story Tools
See also RIAA Target Appeals for Anonymity Vague Limits Vex Music Traders RIAA: We'll Spare the Small Fry RIAA Methods Under Scrutiny SBC Sues to Stop Subpoena Frenzy DAT's Entertainment, So Enjoy Today's Top 5 Stories Handcuffing a One-Armed Bandit Everyone Wants a Bite of Apple European Patent Law Draws Fire Reeling in Kids' Online Time Digital Rift Needs Global Help According to the documents, the Recording Industry Association of America examined song files on the woman's computer and traced their digital fingerprints back to the former Napster file-sharing service, which shut down in 2001 after a court ruled it violated copyright laws.
The RIAA, the trade group for the largest record labels, said it also found other evidence inside the woman's music files suggesting the songs were recorded by other people and distributed across the Internet.
Comparing the Brooklyn woman to a shoplifter, the RIAA told U.S. Magistrate John M. Facciola that she was "not an innocent or accidental infringer" and described her lawyer's contrary claims as "shockingly misleading."
The RIAA papers were filed on Tuesday night in Washington and made available by the court on Wednesday.
The woman's lawyer, Daniel N. Ballard, of Sacramento, Calif., said the music industry's latest argument was "merely a smokescreen to divert attention" from the related issue of whether her Internet provider, Verizon Internet Services, must turn over her identity under a copyright subpoena.
"You cannot bypass people's constitutional rights to privacy, due process and anonymous association to identify an alleged infringer," Ballard said.
Ballard has asked the court to delay any ruling for two weeks while he prepares his arguments, and he noted that his client — identified only as "nycfashiongirl" — has already removed the file-sharing software from her family's computer.
The RIAA accused "nycfashiongirl" of offering more than 900 songs by the Rolling Stones, U2, Michael Jackson and others for illegal download, along with 200 other computer files that included at least one full-length movie, "Pretty Woman."
The RIAA's latest court papers describe in unprecedented detail some sophisticated forensic techniques used by its investigators.
For example, the industry disclosed its use of a library of digital fingerprints, called "hashes," that it said can uniquely identify MP3 music files that had been traded on the Napster service as far back as May 2000. The FBI and other computer investigators commonly examine hashes in hacker cases.
By comparing the fingerprints of music files on a person's computer against its library, the RIAA believes it can determine in some cases whether someone recorded a song from a legally purchased CD or downloaded it from someone else over the Internet.
Copyright lawyers said it remains unresolved whether consumers can legally download copies of songs on a CD they purchased rather than making digital copies themselves. But finding MP3 music files that precisely match copies that have been traded online could be evidence a person participated in file-sharing services.
"The source for nycfashiongirl's sound recordings was not her own personal CDs," the RIAA's lawyers wrote.
The recording industry also disclosed that it is examining so-called "metadata" tags, hidden snippets of information embedded within many MP3 music files. In this case, lawyers wrote, they found evidence that others had recorded the music files and that some songs had been downloaded from known pirate websites.
The industry has won approval for more than 1,300 subpoenas compelling Internet providers to identify computer users suspected of illegally sharing music files on the Internet.
Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minnesota), chairman of the Senate Governmental Affairs' Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, has promised hearings on the industry's use of copyright subpoenas to track downloaders.
The RIAA has said it expects to file at least several hundred lawsuits seeking financial damages as early as next month. U.S. copyright laws allow for damages of $750 to $150,000 for each song offered illegally on a person's computer, but the RIAA has said it would be open to settlement proposals from defendants.
The campaign comes just weeks after U.S. appeals court rulings requiring Internet providers to readily identify subscribers suspected of illegally sharing music and movie files.
That's reality. But there is another reality, which is that there is no way to get the genie back in the bottle. As George Gilder says, when you have one person stealing, you have a thief problem, when you have a million people stealing, you have a marketing problem.
The recording industry needs to begin with the assumption that regardless of what the law says, there is no reasonable or efficient way to enforce the law. Thus, it must turn to marketing.
I am MORE THAN WILLING to pay $1 a song for the song I want at "buymusic.com." I would rather do so than break the law and get a song illegally. But if I can't get it any other way---short of buying a $14 CD, I will. I can't be alone. Thus, the industry needs to deal with people like me, who want to cooperate and are willing to pay---but not get screwed.
Point I'm making is that if I relied on radio or (shudder) MTV, I wouldn't own either of these two albums today. The Internet is the best promotional tool the record industry has and it has the potential to sell millions upon millions of albums for them. So what if people end up getting some songs for free? How many of us taped off the radio back in the day? FM radio used to play entire album sides. I made many tapes off the radio back in the 1970s. As a result, I own most of those albums as CDs today.
The RIAA is so afraid somebody might get something for nothing that they are doing irreparable harm to their long term survival with these kind of tactics. I believe the expression is "cut their face to spite their noses."
A discriminatory approach - Yes. I believe this type of selective targeting is illegal. All are guilty but they will only prosecute some of them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.