In the first file-sharing case to go to trial, the RIAA is seeking up to $3.6 million

[snoopy369]

The uploader is generally more culpable than the downloader though. To make the reference to drug laws:

*Using marijuana is technically legal (if you don't possess it...)
*Possessing marijuana in "use" quantity (a few ounces) is a minor misdemeanor, almost certainly no jail time
*Possessing marijuana 'with intent to distribute' (ie more than a personal quantity) is a much more serious crime usually involving jail time and can fairly easily be a felony

The distributer is more seriously punished than the user. I don't know that it implies that it is a "worse" crime per se, but it is because it is easier to target distributors than users (fewer of them) and they "feel" worse to the public.

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
You need an uploader for a downloader. Two willing participants in one act - if that act is a crime, both are culpable.

But not necessarily equally. One uploader can serve thousands of downloaders. A downloader can only deny a company what he would have otherwise paid them for the music. An uploader can cost them thousands of times that enabling downloaders.

[Omni Rex Draconis]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
What others do with that information is up to them.. you aren't involved in it.

So glad to hear that. I posted your credit card numbers on the web, but don't worry. I won't get involved in any stealing.

Both uploading and downloading material when you do not have the rights to do so are a crime. Although legal systems are slow to react, they will eventually reach the conclusion that publishing on the internet is no different than printing a magazine or airing a television program.

Radio stations pay royalties to share music. Reception halls pay licenses to share music. But you think anyone and everyone should be allowed to share whatever they want?

As Snoopy and Victor have pointed out, the best place to focus is the uploader. A single good copy of a popular song is multiplied many times over.

What is RIAA going to do, though, when so many people think it is ok to upload their stuff? You can't sue that many people, and apparently they can't even get started on finding them.

In my opinion they are going completely backwards. When people know just how easy it is to create and acquire music illegally, and then compare it to the effort and cost of acquiring it legally, it is hard for them to feel sympathy for RIAA.

You don't need to go to the store - it downloads to your computer. You don't need to know which catalogue to search - you just search. You don't have to buy a bunch of crap to get two good songs - you just get two good songs. You no longer get stuck with what you got - you can backup, copy, clip, compress, mutate,...

Artists like Prince and Radiohead have already come to the conclusion that the music publishing industry is no longer of any use. Stick a fork in 'em...

I think RIAA is suing for millions because it may be the last chance at unearned riches they ever get.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Omni Rex Draconis

I think RIAA is suing for millions because it may be the last chance unearned riches they ever get.

The Idol sales won't last forever.



Check the modified sig ORD

[Omni Rex Draconis]

But this space keeps moving!

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Omni Rex Draconis
But this space keeps moving!

It will have a home soon.

[Gramphos]

You are almost two years late. The first trial in Sweden on a file sharing case was opened October 11 2005[1]. It resulted in a $2000 fine[2], but he was later cleared by Svea Court of Appeal[3] since they didn't find screenshots taken by a private organization sold evidence. (They could have been manipulated.)

It seems as the technical evidence in this case also is based on a screenshot by a private organization. I hope they decide not to trust that. I can arrange screenshots showing just about any IP-address anywhere. That can't be used as evidence or the entire justice is in danger. The police has to gather the evidence in these cases, since the nature of computer based evidence is that it can easily be fabricated. Harddrive reconstructions of the illegal material together with logs requested from ISPs is at least needed. And in the case that possession isn't illegal, but only the actual transfer, then probably the harddrives of two pears would be needed in conjunction with internet logs showing that there had been traffic between those pears sufficient to transfer the material.

[1] http://www.thelocal.se/2259/20051010/
[2] http://www.thelocal.se/2361/20051025/
[3] http://www.thelocal.se/5087/20061002/

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Victor Galis
But not necessarily equally. One uploader can serve thousands of downloaders. A downloader can only deny a company what he would have otherwise paid them for the music. An uploader can cost them thousands of times that enabling downloaders.

Now I could be wrong, but my understanding of P2P software was that any time you log into the system and download, in the background your computer is simultaneously uploading material to others. Is that correct?

[Dinner]

You can turn off your computer's uploads though this makes you a leech and most people kick leeches.

[Pekka]

As LOW as $750 per song?!?!?

**** that, not guilty.

[Dinner]

My avatar says it all.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Gramphos
You are almost two years late. The first trial in Sweden on a file sharing case was opened October 11 2005[1]. It resulted in a $2000 fine[2], but he was later cleared by Svea Court of Appeal[3] since they didn't find screenshots taken by a private organization sold evidence. (They could have been manipulated.)

It seems as the technical evidence in this case also is based on a screenshot by a private organization. I hope they decide not to trust that. I can arrange screenshots showing just about any IP-address anywhere. That can't be used as evidence or the entire justice is in danger. The police has to gather the evidence in these cases, since the nature of computer based evidence is that it can easily be fabricated. Harddrive reconstructions of the illegal material together with logs requested from ISPs is at least needed. And in the case that possession isn't illegal, but only the actual transfer, then probably the harddrives of two pears would be needed in conjunction with internet logs showing that there had been traffic between those pears sufficient to transfer the material.

[1] http://www.thelocal.se/2259/20051010/
[2] http://www.thelocal.se/2361/20051025/
[3] http://www.thelocal.se/5087/20061002/

Again, the key difference you're missing is that this was a civil trial, not a criminal trial, and the plaintiff's burden is much less. Its a more likely than not, not beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Oerdin
You can turn off your computer's uploads though this makes you a leech and most people kick leeches.

Then under VG's logic, leeches are the only users who don't actually contribute to pecuniary damages. I'd imagine the leech subset only accounts for a miniscule percentage of downloaders, or P2P networks simply wouldn't function.

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by Darius871


Now I could be wrong, but my understanding of P2P software was that any time you log into the system and download, in the background your computer is simultaneously uploading material to others. Is that correct?

Yes and no. Generally most programs only share things in a specific folder. You can also limit the bandwidth or number of simultaneous uploads. My ISP actually limits my monthly bandwidth usage at 30 GB or so. I never hit that limit because I don't download much, but I certainly don't let anything get uploaded if I can help it because I pay for that bandwidth.

Then again, I'm not really downloading much, except for like... The Pirates of the Burning Sea stress test client (4 GB!) things like that. I suspect MMOs eat up most of my regular bandwidth usage.

Then under VG's logic, leeches are the only users who don't actually contribute to pecuniary damages. I'd imagine the leech subset only accounts for a miniscule percentage of downloaders, or P2P networks simply wouldn't function.

Not really. The thing is most users simply don't have much bandwidth. Most P2P networks have a couple thousand users that have huge amounts of bandwidth that are responsible for a disproportionate amount of the sharing. Back when I used to use Napster, I was on dialup... good luck getting much out of me, lol. The other thing is some people leave themselves connnected and uploading even when not downloading, but other people only upload when they're actively downloading. This usually means they upload less than they download because you log in knowing what you want to look for, but people don't immediately find stuff they want from you unless your collection is huge.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Victor Galis
Not really. The thing is most users simply don't have much bandwidth. Most P2P networks have a couple thousand users that have huge amounts of bandwidth that are responsible for a disproportionate amount of the sharing. Back when I used to use Napster, I was on dialup... good luck getting much out of me, lol. The other thing is some people leave themselves connnected and uploading even when not downloading, but other people only upload when they're actively downloading. This usually means they upload less than they download because you log in knowing what you want to look for, but people don't immediately find stuff they want from you unless your collection is huge.

Bandwidth usage might mitigate culpability to some extent for some users, but the fact remains that the small number of leeches make up the only category that uploads nothing.