"Music Snatching Investigations" -- the new series. Read about the MSI techniques here. I wonder if they will prosecute illegal obtainers of porn videos? Brad?

I wish I knew more about the legalities of identifying an illegal music sharer/downloader and what precedents protect the privacy rights of innocent people. As we get towards more pay-per-content on the internet, will the tactics of the RIAA be used by other groups enforcing copyrights?

Any thoughts?

quote:

---

I wonder if they will prosecute illegal obtainers of porn videos? Brad?

---

Recently we got broadband at work and we’re in doubt as to whether that’s really Anna Nicole Smith. But I digress (and I assure you that’s all I’m doing).

I was in the record store the other day and saw that there was a new Steely Dan CD. Well, at least it was new to me. I don’t go into record stores much these days. It’s all over-priced. I saw that CD and it had twenty bucks marked on it. I thought to myself “Myself, if that CD were priced at $11.99 it would be sold in a heartbeat. But as it is now, for twenty bucks, screw it. I’m not taking a chance on something for twenty bucks. What if it sucks? Hey, I know it’s Steely Dan but suckiness can happen to the best of us.”

In short, screw the record companies. They’re getting a little competition from market forces now (so what that it’s the black market) and instead of lowering their prices they’re going after the modern equivalent of the radio. Either they need to pack much more value into those CD jewel cases or they’ve got to lower their prices.

If they're looking for criminals (morally, not legally) then they should look in the mirror.

I guess what I find frightening is the Gestapo-like techniques of forcing ISPs to give up personal information in order to ferret out and prosecute these horrible criminal acts of music theft. Using that information, the RIAA must be able to get a warrant to enter a home and search a hard drive. All because someone is downloading or sharing MUSIC? Very scary.

quote:

---

I guess what I find frightening is the Gestapo-like techniques of forcing ISPs to give up personal information in order to ferret out and prosecute these horrible criminal acts of music theft. Using that information, the RIAA must be able to get a warrant to enter a home and search a hard drive. All because someone is downloading or sharing MUSIC? Very scary.

---

Here’s a question for you: Can, say, you or me also force an ISP to give up personal information if we think a competitor is somehow stealing trade secrets from us via the internet? Maybe we could get a court order after filing suit. I don’t know. But just because record companies are bigger doesn’t mean they should have rights that you or I don’t have.

But here’s the main point. This idea of going LOOKING for crimes simply by sifting through ISP data is VERY Gestapo-like. Very. It should not be allowed to happen. It’s an illegal search as far as I’m concerned. We do not give our police these powers (apart from tracking terrorists, I believe, which is controversial but possibly acceptable) and we sure as hell better not allow the fucking record companies to have it.

quote:

---

But here’s the main point. This idea of going LOOKING for crimes simply by sifting through ISP data is VERY Gestapo-like. Very. It should not be allowed to happen. It’s an illegal search as far as I’m concerned. We do not give our police these powers (apart from tracking terrorists, I believe, which is controversial but possibly acceptable) and we sure as hell better not allow the fucking record companies to have it.

---

I wonder how they do a search for offenders. Do they use a client like Limewire or Kazaa and read all the IP addresses listed as hosts? Or do they have some far more subversive method of identification? I can't believe the courts would allow a search warrant based on the information solely provided by an ISP. If so, very frightening indeed.

Well, looks like the courts may re-examine the RIAA bully subpeona tactics. MSNBC article here.

An excerpt:

Judge John Roberts questioned the RIAA’s expansive interpretation of the controversial Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), which allows copyright holders to glean the identity of alleged infringers without filing a lawsuit first. Roberts said that if he left the door to his library ajar and someone entered, “that doesn’t make me liable for copyright infringement.”
       The case is key to the RIAA’s legal strategy, which now involves suing individuals suspected of copyright infringement. If the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit overturns the lower court’s decision, the RIAA could be forced to file thousands of “John Doe” lawsuits instead — a more expensive strategy that could lead to additional negative publicity.

Apparently, the three judge panel is more concerned with the intent of the DMCA law passed by Congress and 'whether permitting subpoenas in the absence of a lawsuit agreed with the U.S. Constitution’s requirement of an actual “case or controversy"', than violation of privacy and free speech.

Lawmakers may be rethinking their wording of the DMCA too. "During a hearing Sept. 9, some senators said they were paying close attention to how it was being used, and Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., has indicated he may introduce a bill on Tuesday to amend the DMCA to immunize Internet providers from such subpoenas." Hopefully, those in Congress will see that they have given too broad and overarching powers to the RIAA.