We know that apparently, the RIAA broke several rules of Kazaa/ Sharman networks with regard to how they obtained ISP and filesharing data on fellow users. The agreement that one had to agree to that was in effect at the time, included the fact that users were not to gather personal information on other users and of course they violated this. In fact, I can recall counting about half a dozen or more rules that BayTSP, acting as an agent of the RIAA apparently violated.

Now, there are questions as to how the RIAA obtained the information they did on the filesharers on internet2.

Cary Sherman was quick to assert , in what seems a defensive manner, that what they did to obtain the informaton was legal.

http://www.dvd-recordable.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=1963
"The RIAA declined to explain how it could detect piracy over Internet2 except to say it acted lawfully. Internet2's corporate members include Warner Brothers Entertainment Inc., a subsidiary of Time Warner Inc., a leading music label. Even Internet2 officials said they were unaware how the entertainment companies traced the purportedly illegal activity on their network.

"They haven't shared with us," Van Houweling said. "We have provided no special access to any of those organizations that would enable them in some non-standard way to gain access to this information."

The RIAA said the 18 schools include Boston University, Carnegie Mellon University, Columbia University, Drexel University, the Georgia Institute of Technology, Harvard University, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Michigan State University, New York University, Ohio State University, Princeton University, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, the Rochester Institute of Technology, the University of California-Berkeley, University of California-San Diego, the University of Massachusetts-Amherst, the University of Pittsburgh and the University of Southern California."

Perhaps the light of investigation should start shining on the patterns, practices, and methods the RIAA is using to obtain information on the victims of their legal attacks.

This is just like a crook breaking into your house, the crook finds something that,s illeagal, turns you in you get busted, what happens to the crook, well nothing this is the RIAA you are talking about, they have bought the goverment and are wrighting their own laws, they are as evil as the meat heads in iraq that are killing everbody, RIAA is killing freedom.

You got it Code.....I think its time to shine the light up thier dark asses and see how they went about it. I thought there was a bill out there that Bill Clinton signed that said you had to reveal your idenity when snooping personnal files or web sites....maybe someone should look into this matter. It could backfire on them putting them in a real legal bind....How bout it?

if this is the case (which I'm sure it is) why doesn't a digial rights orginazation with money behind them challenge it in court?

"Researchers at Internet2 once demonstrated they can download a DVD-quality copy of the popular movie "The Matrix" in 30 seconds over their network, a feat they said would take roughly 25 hours over the Internet."

Wow. That is awesome. Does it really take 25 hours to download a DVD in full quality on a high speed connection. How much data is on a 2 hour DVD?

I'm sorry to say but the defendants are in no position to be bringing counterclaims of breach of contract when the contract did not involve them.

Sharman could i'm sure, but they're kinda busy right now in austalia.

Roughly five gig - but an estimate like that can really have fun distorting the numbers. With or without extras? DVD, or reencoded? How fast is a high-speec connection? 512? 1mbit? 2? 4? Or do you ignore contention and decide a connection must be 33mbit, the capacity of a cable network channel? Should that be a continuous connection at full speed, or accounting for the fact that your download is intermittent and comeing from users with little upload bandwidth? Five gig in thirty seconds couldn't be achieved on any home computer, whatever the internet connection - the drive heads couldn't write it that fast. So their measurements must have been made either on a RAID machine or pipeing the download to null.

"Internet2's corporate members include Warner Brothers Entertainment Inc., a subsidiary of Time Warner Inc., a leading music label."

There's some up-to-the-minute research for ya, eh? Someone's not paying attention.

They disclosed the methods they used before, but now when everyone is baffled, they are quick to tell us that they acted legally, but they just aren't going tell us what exactly it was that they did. They're lying.

"Apparently, the RIAA broke several rules of Kazaa/ Sharman networks with regard to how they obtained ISP and filesharing data on fellow users. The agreement that one had to agree to that was in effect at the time, included the fact that users were not to gather personal information on other users and of course they violated this. In fact, I can recall counting about half a dozen or more rules that BayTSP, acting as an agent of the RIAA apparently violated."

Why is it that their violations of rights didn't get the case(s) thrown out? Back in the days when it was illegal for the FBI to obtain information on criminals by wiretapping, THEIR cases were nullified.
So, how is it the RIAA gets away with that kind of crap?
Inquiring minds want to know . . .
what kind of country do we have?
Anyone with a law degree willing to say?

Don't defense attorneys have the right to question if incriminating information was obtained improperly?

Don't judges have the obligation to throw out cases where it can be reasonable shown that violations occurred in the gathering of prosecutorial evidence?

Here's a question for all of you:

I have PeerGuardian loaded and running on my home computer. Naturally, RIAA is on the software's blocklist.

Let's just say that one day I get so pissed off at these morons that, out of revenge, I decide to start sharing my files with all of you good people.

If the RIAA attempts to bypass PeerGuardian in order to get information for a lawsuit against me, wouldn't that be a Federal (criminal or civil) violation on the grounds of bypassing computer security?

Think about it and let me know here.

Thanks.

axxis - THE WORLD REVOLVES AROUND ME

To further my point, here are some exerpts from another thread:

According to Rossi, "My fear is that if the Ninth Circuit court's ruling that the DMCA Good Faith standard is subjective is not overturned, is that copyright owners will continue to abuse the law unjustly shutting down online publications like mine giving them an unfair advantage in the marketplace and abridging free speech. Also in danger is the right given by the Fifth Amendment to due process in cases of lost life, liberty or property. The freedom to defend oneself is being curtailed by the 'shoot now, ask later' style of shutting people down when offenses may not be occurring. Any industry or person should not have the power to curb the rights of another under the protection of the DMCA's subjective interpretation of good faith belief."

Codewarrior's comments:

"Right on, Rossi!

This is a PERFECT example of a great legal point, and excellent evidence, being totally ignored by jurists.

I've personally seen this before, where judges will just ignore technical violations of law when they want to....Arrrrggggghhhhhh!"

"Selective enforcement" isn't always something that happens outside a courtroom?
Oh, no, say it isn't so!

My respect for our judicial system has sustained a major blow.

axxis, you should block everyone BUT the RIAA, then fill you share folder with viruses, worms, trojans, VB scripts, etc. Let them check that stuff out...hehe!

Thanks goldenpi.

"Why is it that their violations of rights didn't get the case(s) thrown out? Back in the days when it was illegal for the FBI to obtain information on criminals by wiretapping, THEIR cases were nullified.
So, how is it the RIAA gets away with that kind of crap?
Inquiring minds want to know . . .
what kind of country do we have?
Anyone with a law degree willing to say?"

There's big difference between breaking the law to gather information (FBI) versus violating a TOS to gather information (RIAA).

Let's add to Peergardian A DDOS code that will attack back pinging servers on the block list! Let call this PeerRetaliator!

My respect for our justice system and our governenent is dead. I want to flush this governement in the toilet and restore the supreme law of the land.

"There's big difference between breaking the law to gather information (FBI) versus violating a TOS to gather information (RIAA)."

At the least, the penalty the RIAA should sustain for violating a TOS: to thus be denied ISP information as to whose name is attached to the other end of an IP address. The providers should not have to be required to furnish it.
And any judge that would say otherwise anyhow, ought to be considered wrong-headed for ruling so!

You can't violate a policy that you agree to abide by and still expect in effect, something equivalent to: "Look, I know we acted in a procedurally incorrect manner and broke the agreement, but give us the incriminating information we want anyway (regardless of how we accessed the IP address)."

Only law enforcement agencies have (or should have) that kind of power. Thus, since the RIAA is not vested with that type of authority, they should be subject to a penalty for their infraction. And what more appropriate penalty than to be denied the detailed information they seek -- when, if they had followed rules, they wouldn't have obtained any ISP number to request the identifying information about in the first place.
It's likely they also violate an agreed-upon policy when they introduce bots and other stuff to the file-sharing network.
Well, I tell you what: Let's get some other opinions here. Leflaw; Tom; Codewarrior; George; Shmoo . . . what'dya think about all this?

Did the internet service providers protest in court on the kind of basis that I've described?

(And, of course, all this is in regard to what occurred with 'internet 1' — not 'internet2'.)

"There's big difference between breaking the law to gather information (FBI) versus violating a TOS to gather information (RIAA)."

Apparently somebody is missing the point that the RIAA probably was, in my opinion, breaking the law when violating the TOS. The TOS is, for all intents and purposes, a legal contract. You ARE breaking the law if you violate a legal contract, right? An argument could also be made that they were breaking the law by continuing to use the software after violating the TOS. As I recall, every TOS I've read for a p2p network explicitly states that if you violate the TOS your license to use the software is immediately revoked. Most that I've looked at even go so far as to say you must immediately uninstall the software and destroy all copies of it. Maybe I'm wrong about this, but it seems to me that if you're knowingly using unlicensed software you're breaking the law, therefore, the RIAA was breaking the law in order to gather the information they used to file the lawsuits.

In my humble opinion, the following is a strategy that could have been used:

"Your honor, the Recording Industry Association of America as an entity, or by an agent acting on its behalf, gained membership to a file-sharing network that we sponsor by agreeing to follow appropriate terms of service which carry the force of a binding contract....and then proceeded to violate those very terms in several aspects, including going on a kind of "fishing expedition" with an ultimate purpose of incriminating other members of our network. But, your honor, I repectfully submit that this type of conduct is to be reserved for the authority of law enforcement, not by a private or commercially affiliated organization. Because of this and other reasons, we hereby petition that the Recording Industry's request for personal information regarding other members be denied by this court. . ."
etc.

I think they used stoolies to snitch on people. I say take revenge on these stoolies.