A college residence hall was raided by police and computers were seized as another file-sharing network came crumbling down.

The Ohio State University Police Department served search warrants at four campus dormitories Monday and seized five computers authorities believe were used to freely offer copyrighted works to nearly 3,000 users, according to a police spokesperson. The files were shared over the university's residence hall network ResNet using the file-sharing application Direct Connect.

No charges have been filed against any students so far, and an investigation is ongoing.

The warrants and seizures are the culmination of a three-month investigation of the seven-month-old network by police and OSU's Office of Information Technology.

This incident comes just days after four college students believed to have established and maintained similar intranet networks on three other college campuses settled lawsuits with the Recording Industry Association of America. The students agreed to pay between $12,000 and $17,000 each.

Ohio State University was among the several hundred schools that received letters from the Recording Industry Association of America warning presidents of the illegality of and bandwidth traffic caused by illegal file-sharing over the institution's network.

This bust wasn't promoted by the RIAA, however, a spokesperson said. And it's not yet known whether music files were among those being traded since the police report didn't specify. The recording industry is known to have alerted college and university officials to the suspected file-sharing that proliferated on their school networks. One school that claimed to have received an average of 30 such calls each week, New Jersey Institute of Technology, passed a resolution in the school senate to block access to all peer-to-peer networks, despite the fact that a federal judge determined networks such as Kazaa and Morpheus were perfectly legal

Someone suggested a Boston CD Party...

Our founding fathers kicked out the British because they taxed their breakfast beverage (thanks to Dennis Miller for pointing this out).

Can you imagine what would have happened if lutes, flutes, piccolos and drums had been banned?

The musicians led the first Revolution. It's in all the paintings.

Then perhaps it's time for a new Revolution. No, not against the government, but against the music industry. If a rag tag band of farmers, hunters and fishermen could defeat the mightiest army on the face of the Earth (at the time), then the college students of the world (and their supporters) can defeat the world's largest, most ruthless monopoly.

We are the next generation. And as in generations past, we seek change. Yet, unlike those generations, the "establishment" of ours is using every tactic they have to stop our generation from effecting that change.

We need a united front in this. Just saying "RIAA sucks" or "Keep the music free" or what have you won't affect any change. Nor will saying "Don't download the labels music" or what have you.

Unlike the American Revolution, where colonists fought off the yoke of the motherland, this revolution will be the music lovers of the world fighting off the yoke of the greedy bastards who probably don't even listen to the radio, much less the music their companies produce.

There will be no deaths in this war. Some may lose property, but ultimately it will be the RIAA and the majors that lose the most. In the end, they will no longer control what is heard and how it's heard. No, control of the music will pass back to the artists and the fans.

But none of this will happen unless the multitudes speak up against the RIAA. If we do nothing, then they have already won. But if we fight and fight hard, then we will win.

Not just fight, but get organized. Create a huge grass roots movement, well organized, with a clear logical, and just message to the rest of the population. Boycott-Riaa here is a start, and it most likely will go far towards helping us all throw off that yoke of the music labels, but more needs to be done. Preach the word, tell the people and our numbers will grow.

College kids use P2P because they are on smaller budgets. RIAA should stop putting the blame on college dorms, and go after people who do have more money, if not stop this altogther.

If they even fucking TRY to shut down our Direct Connect hub, there will be a fucking massacre on this campus, I swear. I will personally make it a Columbine x 10 to the best of my ability.

And as they see the wounded and the disfigured, burnt corpses on TV, maybe then they will snap out of their little law game and rethink the meaning of their legislation.

Damn mindless piece-of-shit suits, no fucking real education, no real jobs, no technical degrees, all fucking useless to mankind. Don't they dare tell me what to do with technology which I understand and they don't.

hi niceguy 2003 re:. "If a rag tag band of farmers, hunters and fishermen could defeat the mightiest army on the face of the Earth (at the time)," are we talking Vietnam here.

I wouldn't recomend that.

If you do that, then it will be a black trench coat situation all over again.

I knew this one guy who wore a black trench coat, and after that happened the school started giving them crap.

If you do that, then all file traders will be branded as 'evil' people, when the truth is, we just want free music.

Erm
http://noriaa.the-erm.com (if you know any artists send em here)

Niceguy:

Sites like this, DMusic, Azoz, TMusic, NoRIAA and many, many others are trying, but perhaps the effort is to fragmented.

Spica: That certainly won't help matters. Think about it, the network belongs to the college, they can punt the hub anytime they want. I had to do the same thing at work not all that long ago. Sure the users were pissed, but atleast I didn't have to fire them because the RIAA came after us.

Another factor in all this, in the eyes of some, has been the steady evisceration of the Second Amendment, all in the name of eradicating "gun violence." Those who hold the Second Amendment as sacrosanct point out that if you take away a citizen's right to defend him- or herself in such a way, then it is all the easier for those seeking to impose tyranny upon everyone else, to do so. And they cite as examples (past and present) Hitler's Germany, Stalinist Russia and Castroite Cuba, all of which have / had "gun-control" laws. Also, another factor has been what some have called the "passivization" of the populace, thus making us all "sitting ducks" for such outrages as this.

Again, coming as this is after the imposition of long prison sentences onto 75 dissidents, journalists and academicians after a one-day "show" trial in Cuba, the timing of this latest police-state-style crackdown is an interesting coincidence, yet at the same time too convenient to be "mere" coincidence.

I also read that the soon-to-be-outgoing RIAA ayatollah, Hilary Rosen, is a Democrat -- which in some circles is a euphemism for "radical leftist." And, as those circles say, the radical Left has been in the forefront of many of the assaults on our rights in recent years, including but not limited to this whole issue. (Can anyone say P.C. -- and I don't mean personal computer now.)

And while the aims of business and government differ, in some areas they conveniently dovetail with one another. Not to mention certain of the methods employed by each being eerily similar.

But on the issue at hand: I predict one day a similar bust at another college will lead to somebody or a few people being killed. On what side I don't know, but there may well be actual fatalities the next time.

And as for those calling for greater, cohesive unity: I'm with you there. If the civil-rights movement of the '50's and '60's had been as splintered in such a manner as we see here, you'd still have "white" and "colored" facilities up and down the South, lynchings, and so on today.

We all know the real issue here. All of us are not here to steal copyrighted music from the big bad corporations,and they know this. I have been into independent music for the past 6 years. Why? Corporate music is crap and the big 5 corporations know this, and more and more people feel this way. The corporations know this so they relentlessly try to shut down the only way for independents have to get their music to the people. However I agree with tinfoilmusic: the movement is too fragmented. All over the internet punk fans piss and moan about rap music and hip hop heads bitch about lack of variety. What we all need to do is set our musical differences aside and come together to shut the RIAA and it's prison bitch (corporate radio) down. Because the greedy corporations are taking away our music all in the name of $$$ and no matter what kinds of music you like this bullshit hurts us all.

Will it ever end? Whatever happened to all out good assasins(sp?) that we used to have in this country? Someone really needs to dismantle the RIAA. They should be considered a terrorist threat...

and, I'm not joking.

If this keeps up I will open up a network of my own and upload every single copyrighted song and movie to the server and make it free for downloading and Im not kidding this is really starting to piss me off.

Umm, yeah, sinister, if you're going to do something like that, make sure you're out side of the RIAA's jurisdiction.

The big 5 are not trying to shut down the only way for independents to get their music to the people. What about reggae, jazz, and blues music. Artists and bands in these genres do not get commercial airplay, are not on MTV, and at the same time they did it all without filesharing and Mp3's. It's a well established underground independent music scene that has been around for much longer than the internet, much less mp3's and file sharing. The fans of this kind of music actually support the artists and don't complain about having to buy a CD. They catually want to buy it to show their support and so that the artist can afford to put out another CD for them to listen to. That is how you can show your support better than trying to fight the RIAA while at the same time not even trying to support the artists.

Corporate radio is the biggest source of the problem. If you listen to commercial radio (as opposed to listener supported radio) then you are part of the problem so quit blaming it on "the music industry" or the RIAA. Why don't you try supporting the millions of unknown acts that aren't part of the big media machine and aren't on commercial radio? Why don't you quit complaining about somebody trying to keep you from robbing them blind? If the only way you are going to become interested in music is by seeing on MTV (Or BET, VH1, etc.) and hearing it 15 million times on the radio, then you are the biggest part of the problem and don't blame everybody else. Try listening to public radio, college radio, and other listener supported radio. That is where the grassroots stuff is and has been for decades. Tired of hearing the same old crap and tired of supporting big corporations and fake plastic artists? Then all you have to do is stop listening to them and stop wanting their music (whether you are buying it or downloading it for free).

And those of you on this post that advocate violence as an answer are obviously clueless. Kill some people, that will prove to the world that you were right all along. For christ's sake, you sound like a little crybaby who didn't get his way. Grow up.

Nobody knows that all of us aren't here to steal copyrighted music. In fact quite the opposite. Most people with at least half a brain know that a good portion of filesharing is specifically for trading copyright protected material without having to pay for it. Or in other words for stealing.

By stealing music you are only making copyright owners try more and more methods of trying to prevent it. You are perpetuating the problem on both ends if you also listen to mainstream music.

Rap and hip-hop are mainstream music these days. Just like glam-rock of the 80's, but instead of hairspray and spandex they now pose as tough guys with gold chains and bling bling rolling on 22" rims. Same fake posing, just a different style. Still trying to project an image rather than being more concerned with the musical content.

If you want free music, buy a guitar or piano and make some. Or you can sing in the shower. It's free.

If all music was free, the quality of music would begin to decline until nobody even bothered with it anymore because it wouldn't be worth it. The best quality of music often comes from an artist who can dedicate themselves to their art, meaning that they don't have a day job to support themselve. If they can't make a living off their art and talent, they aren't going to even bother creating and releasing music because they know that everybody will just steal it.

In fact, the arts suffered tremendously in parts of Europe (pre USA) because of the lack of copyright protection, and it is the very reason why copyright protection was created, and modified, and implemented in the first place. America has historically provided very poor copyright protection, which is why organizations like the RIAA exist in the first place.

I am doing what i can, i am classified as a "supreme being" on kazaa and am sharing only independent mp3's
I wish i had a T1!

kneo24,

Im looking into it. No joke.

Im already a server on Gnutella but Im gonna see what I can do to share everything even if I have to put it back on my hard drive. Including movie files and software.

wish I could afford a dedicated server.

musicfann, we all can read. No matter how many times you post the same erroneous crap, it won't ever come true.

Musicfann,
You said:
If all music was free, the quality of music would begin to decline until nobody even
bothered with it anymore because it wouldn't be worth it. The best quality of music
often comes from an artist who can dedicate themselves to their art, meaning that
they don't have a day job to support themselve. If they can't make a living off their
art and talent, they aren't going to even bother creating and releasing music because
they know that everybody will just steal it."

i would argue that a lot of artists do NOT do it for the money, there are plenty of indie artists who have great music, but get no air time because of clear channel.
Its more of an issue of monopoly by the RIAA and the record labels. They are trying to make sure there music is the only one heard.

Musicfann,
I would talk with gdZiemann, and discuss your issues with him, he knows what he is talking about.

Musicfann,
Also, why isn't the RIAA adapting to technology? They accepted technology in the past, and all the sudden freak out about filesharing. That is one of the reasons why they are falling apart.
Plus indies are becoming more accessable through the internet.
Thanks

The article says it wasnt "promoted by the RIAA"

I'm guessing something else was going on besides just music piracy...guess we'll find out.

Usually when the government gets involved it's massive software piracy or pedophilia or anything else of that sort.

well then, "musicfann", maybe you should see how a bunch of "crybabies" can change the whole US foreign policy.

All through violence.

I claim that if we up the stakes a little, (by, say, performing some taxidermy on RIAA executives' children), people will actually start thinking about the the whole concept of charging money for _sounds_ and _pictures_. And maybe they will realize that they cannot ruin someone's life just to protect some fat moron's profits.
I say the RIAA can take their little moneymaking scheme and shove it. Since when has it become our job to guard their holy dollar stream anyways?!

p.s.: 176Gb uploaded in the past week. 60% movies/anime, 10% mp3, 30% pr0n.

As much as I'd like to take a bat to a few heads in RIAA and the MPAA, it's not worth the negative publicity against this popular movement.

As for musicfann's stance on this, he's got about as much faith in the consumer as RIAA has. We're not saying music should be free monitarily, we're saying music should be free of the mind numbing constraints that RIAA and it's ilk have imposed on it. The artists should be compensated of course, and we all know this, but the money we give should go TO the artists, not to RIAA which it naturally does now.
Musicfann needs to rethink his disgust of the average consumer.

Musicfann is incorrect. The "US must get in line with the WIPO positions on copyrights" is bullshit. Most European copyrights are SHORTER than US copyrights, for example. US copyrights are the longest on earth. I had a meeting with Universal last week, and they were lamenting the fact that many 1950's albums are in the public domain in Europe.

Your supposed relationship between getting paid and producing good music is bizarre. By your logic, only rich people should be able to play the violin.

You miss the entire point of the whole debate. Middle class musicians don't care about Lars Ulrich orMadonna. Let them eat cake.

This is a musico/socialistic revolution. Redistribution of musical wealth. Destroying barriers to entry of markets. Abolishing monopolies. Are you writing this down? You should be.

You are a collaborator, and we shoot collaborators.

You tell em Lef!

musicfann....
blues having success?...very funny...Blues success has become synonymous with some white kid playing a bluesy tune on an album full of rock. I happen to be a white kid (well...26 year old kid) who plays bluesy tunes mixed in with rock, and no matter how bad I am, I still have a better chance of success than many of the black artists who helped pioneer the blues? Why? Because I'm easier to sell to a crowd.

That is why music has to be free, and the big 5 must fall.

There's nothing sadder than someone who's a mental slave and can't even see it, and actually defends those who help enslave them.

swinginrick, I was actually referring to the American Revolution, not Vietnam.

The colonists got pissed by the way the British were treating them. The British taxed just about everything but the air they breathed, drew a line on the map and said "You can't go passed this line" and then, to add insult to injury, tried to tell them they couldn't have any weapons of their own.

Today we, the music lovers, face a similar situation. We're forced to pay exorbitant prices for CDs (for those that actually buy), we're told how we can legally listen to it, and we're forced to listen to crap on the radio just to hear one good song (for those of us who listen). In the 1760's-70's when you broke British law, you got thrown in prison, today, you go against the RIAA, you're arrested, taken to court and forced to pay money you only think about in your dreams. History repeating itself? Perhaps.

Right now I'm formulating in my strange mind a sort of "Declaration of Independence" against the RIAA. I'm also planning my own site with which I'll put up said declaration and my ideas and such. Not to take anything from this site, for it's wonderful, but my site will be smaller and won't have the news you find here.

I've even had a thought for a huge concert up in Washington that would put Woodstock to shame, but right now that will have to remain a dream. Maybe it'll serve as the final nail in the coffin against the RIAA, who knows. Only time will tell.

Hmmm... looks like the RIAA has come up with a new business model because theirs is obviously obsolete:
1. Make crappy product
2. Get college students to advertise our product for free
4. Sue college students
5. ???
6. Profit!!!

You do not have to DO ANYTHING. Just don't buy any CD's for a year. If the industries sales drop another 15% you can bet the shareholders will have management's heads on platters. They know this "sueing the user" is a very dangerous move on there part and can't be escalated much because of real backlash threats.

You don't have to shoot em, hang em, or boil em in oil. Just ignore them AND THEIR PRODUCTS for a year.

Don't download music if you're in college.

Buy Indie Music, it's usually cheaper, better, and help support the cause http://www.cdbaby.com/home/from/boycott We get a buck per cd that comes out of CDBaby's cut not the artist.

As a reference. The courts have ruled that individuals that useing free speech in a context that advocates violence are not protected under the first amendment.
Not that Im saying this to attempt to stop the flow of any one persons views. But as a reminder that these pages would be considered a legal document and could be presented in a court of law.
Its all well to shout kill the umpire. But if that event were to take place he/she that shouted it could be held criminally liable.
It would also be good to mention that such statements could be used againt the owner of said web site. And might give sufficient cause for said web site to be shut down by a court order.

directive: just because some people resort to giving away their music, does NOT in any way mean that they prefer to do it that way. For many, including me, it isn't about the money, but it sure would be nice to be compensated for my hard work. I've spent $60,000 building a recording studio so I could be independent. I've spent every free minute writing songs, booking gigs, forming strategic alliances with other indy folks, and struggling to make ends meet. Meanwhile I've driven a piece of shit car and lived as a renter for far too long. Do you have a job? Do you work for free? Why should I or anybody else? If someone else decides they want to do it for free, that doesn't mean that EVERYBODY agrees to do it. What is right for one may not be right for another. I don't do it for the money, but without money I can't do it. It's a sad fact. Also, regarding the RIAA adapting to technology, don't think they aren't trying to. It's difficult to compete with unlimited free downloads. It's almost futile.

Spica, you are right. Violence is the answer! I don't know why I didn't realize that before you enlightened me. But nobody says anything about you not speaking for them.

Adeptus: I do have faith in fans. My fans by my music and the music of other indy acts. I don't have faith in the mainstream public because they don't support anything but mostly mainstream artists. My disgust isn't with the consumer, but with the whole system. I would like to think that if the average consumer really knew what was going on behind the scense they would be opposed.

leflaw: I never said "The "US must get in line with the WIPO positions on copyrights" My logic doesn't dictate that only rich people should play the violin. Interesting assumption on your part. I never said middle class musicians care about Lars Ulrich either. But thanks for trying to put words in my mouth.

I am a collaborator, but not with the RIAA as you foolishly believe. I collaborate with many different artists, recording studios, promoters, and song writers. Go ahead, shoot me. That will prove you were right all along.

gr8bluesgtr: Blies artists have a strong underground with listener supported radio and tons of venues that support touring acts. If you are listening to commercial radio then you clearly missed the point. The blues scene is full of real blues, both traditional (Delta, Chicago, etc.) and modern blues. Some are white kids, most are not. The type of blues you describe like Kenny Wayne Sherphard (spelling?) and Johnny Lang is rock, and was played heavily on rock radio. That is not the blues I'm talking about. I'm talking about underground artists on public radio who tour most of the year. Maybe you didn't read what I said. I never said that the pioneers of blues music weren't black, or that they weren't ripped off, oppressed, and ignored. That is true, and I never said otherwise. And again, I never defended anyone who enslaves me. Boy it sure gets frustrating when you guys turn my words around making it sound like I said something stupid. But I didn't say half of the things you claim I said.

Chad Paulson was one of Napsters biggest supporters, and he was not affiliated with the company in any business fashion. Later, when he saw that the company had no intention of trying to honor copyrights and develop into a "fair" system he changed his stance on Napster. Check out his website http://www.savenapster.com/ and this article in the Boston Globe: http://www.boston.com/globe/magazine/2003/0420/napster.htm Before any more flames, yes I copied and pasted these URLs. It isn't really that big of a deal.

Where is this proof that the term of copyrights are shorter in Europe. You talk about me spouting hollow facts and untruths, but you are doing it even worse. Since people wish to agree with you they don't challenge or contest what you say, and even worse they may pass it along to someone else as fact without researching it at all. If I say something they don't like they require 3 notarized copies of proof.

Everybody seems to be missing a few things. I already know that the music scene sucks in so many ways. I already know that the RIAA doesn't always play fair. I don't support the RIAA nor do I advocate oppresive record contracts by record labels.

I'm not telling anybody what to do. I may suggest a different approach, but you are free to decide for yourself. I'm only stating how I feel about piracy and how it affects the arts, both present and future.

Nobody works for free, and neither should artists. You don't work for free (at least I hope you don't). Artists already struggle to make ends meet. They deserve every penny they can get, so they can keep on creating art. It's not about money, it's about survival, paying bills, having food and shelter, having a vehicle so you can drive to gigs, having a guitar and amp or p.a. system, having money for guitar string, picks, mic cables, etc.

Sorry if you don't like capitalism, perhaps you should stop using all of the inventions that were created because there was the possibility of profit. You can go back to horse and buggy (maybe not the buggy) and live in a tree fort. Maybe you should move to a communist country and see how you like it there. It's not about the money, remember. You'll have a guaranteed job and you won't have to think for yourself.

Profit drives innovation. If you don't see that I can't help you. Greed isn't always good, but innovation often times is good. Not likely to have one without the other.

Do you think the company that made your MP3 player didn't do it for the money. Do you think the spyware, malware, and adware that comes with Kazaa isn't for the money? Do you think your ISP isn't in it for the money. What about the company that made your car? How about the company that makes your clothes. Is everyone else supposed to make money EXCEPT artists? Just because some bands think giving it away is the best they can do, doesn't mean that everybody feels the same way. And it doesn't mean that you are entitled to make that decision for them.

Boycott commercial radio. Support independent music and listener supported radio. Encourage others to do the same. Try some peace love and understanding before resorting to baseball bats, guns, and hacking those who oppose you. Most importantly, don't complain about your rights if you don't respect the rights of others. Just because you want it for free doesn't make you right.

For those of you who are responsible filesharers, keep up the good work, and spread the word about being responsible and respecting intellectual property. Try to help those who can't yet see the light. Napster lost one if it's best supporters because he didn't like the way people disregarded the rights of others. Not too many people paid much attention to him after that, some called him a traitor and accused him of supporting the RIAA, just like you are doing to me.

btw, I just bought all three CD's on http://www.cdbaby.com/home/from/boycott

I hope they are good.

FogCity: Nicely put. I tried using these words "you aren't helping your cause" but I think you were much more eloquent. Even if you had to kind of pussyfoot around the issue so as not to offend anyone. I hadn't realized that it had specific legal consequence, but it will probably help the cause if more people knew that they were hurting us instead of helping us.

If you don't agree, just say so without being violent or threatening violence. If you know how to use words, you should be able to make your point without getting so frustrated that you just use threats.

btw, the 60k I spent was several hundreds of dollars at a time here and there. A few 2,000 - 3,000 purchases (which I had to save up for quite some time), but most were small and a little at a time. Looking at my post it looks like I'm some kind of high roller when I'm really just middle class at best.

I clicked the RIAA link at the bottom of this page and looked at their site for the first time in at least a year. I found some things there that reminded me of some of the efforts here on this site. Until I got to the bottom of the page. A few things in particular (number 3, 4, and 5) I found to be rather disturbing, and it represents some of the things I thoroughly dislike about the RIAA. Quiet interesting though. It's kind of like I think I agree with and benefit from some of their fights (like fighting censorshihp), while I clearly see corruption and/or conflict of interest in other fights, most notably 3,4, and 5 at the bottom of their page: http://www.riaa.com/Freedom-Issues.cfm

Now I know that some of you are going to go back to your claims that I work for the RIAA or support them in some way, but it just isn't true. I don't like that they are fighting against an investigation into the marketing practices of the music and entertainment industry. That investigation in particular could result in a better world for indy acts and up and coming bands. But not if the friggin RIAA defeats it. Get involved and don't let the investigation die. They are obviously trying to hide something.

FagCity: dont worry, I can advocate violence as much as I fucking want. RIAA affiliates don't count as people to me, they are nothing but biological waste.

btw. nobody even knows which state I am in (or maybe country for that matter). And as one of my summer projects, I have established a browser connection through 4 consecutive TCP proxies in different universities, for exactly this here purpose. Even IF you find the next proxy, maybe even the next two, it is still quite a distance from where I am at; people running those are my friends and quite good at what they do.

Look at me, advocating violence against RIAA affiliates and their property!

Spica Im happy for you. But it does not do a thing for the site. So you fuking moron remember that every time you run your mouth about killing some one your giving the RIAA or their clones another reason for a bought and paid for federal judge to shut down this site. Because utlimately its the owners of this site that have to take responsibility for the sites content. Next time try thinking with your head, no not the one between your legs, the one above your shoulders.

my oh my where are all these RIAA supporter's coming from all of a sudden? Hmmmm, I wonder?

FagCity, the one between my legs is quite enough to match wits with you.
As for any potential problems for the site owners: that's bullshit, and you know it.
Look at me, I hereby take responsibility for what I say. Oh go find me. Satisfied?
So go shove your anal retentiveness where it belongs. It is the current justice system that is at the root of the initial problem, so I be fucked if I care anymore what the law has to say.

musicfann, how many times in each of your posts must you say that you do not work for the RIAA? Even though it's been a day, it's been a while since you've been accused of it, at least to my knowledge. You're quite strung up on that aren't you? How are we really supposed to take you seriously when you post the same information time after time again?

You know, I am suprised that these college students are stupid enough to get caught at this. This is just like anything else in life. You screw up, you pay the price. I have a complete lack of sympathy for a bunch of morons who thought no one would care what they did on the college network. Come on! Wake up!

We have all sorts of rights in this country. Not one of them comes without a certain level of responsibility. If you ran someone over in your car in broad daylight, you'd be pretty amazed if no one got concerned about it. The fact is, you'd EXPECT to get in trouble for it. So use those brains you're trying to cultivate and take that thought to the article above. These people knew they could get in trouble. They just STUPIDLY assumed no one was paying attention.

File sharing is a tool. People determine its use. File sharing technology should not be judged by the people who use it. Not all of us are as completely clueless as those poor slobs that got raided in Ohio. They should have been more careful.

The thing is, the article states that they THOUGHT, not that they knew that the students were sharing copyrighed material. Furthermore, it sounds like they could have been sharing any type of file. Whose to say that some of those files weren't legit. I'm not that naive. They probably were sharing unauthorized copyrighted material (but to what extent?), but on a computer network, when someone shares a folder (or drive) with full permission, you can get everything out of it.

Right, they *suspected* that illegal file sharing was occurring. I am not sure what your point is. These students displayed a lack of awareness, which ultimately got them in trouble. Everyone is shorting the circuit and saying "the RIAA is bad - look what it did to these poor students". I say that the RIAA is bad, but stupid people get what's coming to them. I mean, in an environment like that, some one *IS* watching.

I do IT work for a living for several moderate sized corporate networks. I have run into problems with people running this type of server with regards to bandwidth. It is disruptive to other legitimate transfers (like email) etc. What I am saying is that it will clog up a network if not properly configured. People notice stuff like that, and start asking questions. If those questions are heard by the wrong people, heads roll. I have seen it myself.

Did they just say, "Hey bra! Check it out. I am sharing these files with everyone! That's cool!" without ever considering the consequences? No one thought, "Hey maybe I could be easily busted in a DORMITORY where I have far fewer rights and I am not in control of who has access to my room." My thought is (and I am not a lawyer) that it would be harder to get caught doing this out of a private home than on a public campus. Does anyone else think these kids had their heads up their asses, or am I the only one?

BTW - all they have to show is PROBABLE CAUSE to a judge to get a warrant to search and seize. So, yeah. they THOUGHT the students were sharing copyrighted files. They also investigated for three months before the the raid.

I am not saying any of this is right, but I've been around the block a time or two and I know that CYA is an important policy where the law is concerned. Some of you mentioned a fight in the earlier posts. I'd like to point out that it is hard to fight when you are behind bars. Beware! Be smart!

My point is that there's no way to tell how many copyrighted files they were sharing from the article. What if it was one or two (high unlikely, but still possible). Tell me, is it really worth busting college students for a few copyrighted materials? It's a big waste of resources if you ask me. Then again they probably wouldn't make a bust if it was a few files. None the less, many places including colleges, have done stupid things like this before - jumping the gun and busting people for stuff that's just a waste of resources and could have been better spent elsewhere.

You're right on the point that a lot of people have no idea what they're doing when it comes down to this. I wonder out of all of those students that were busted, how many of them knew what they were doing was illegal. More and more people share files everyday and some of them have no clue about the legality of what they are sharing.

Granted people could just not share if they don't know whether it's legal or not. Still, I wouldn't be so quick to judge these students as people with 'their heads up their asses'. We all do stupid things time from time. They seriously could have just been very ignorant to what they were doing and the consequences that can occur because of their actions.

As to them not knowing it is illegal, I hardly think that matters. "Ignorance of the law is not a justifiable excuse for breaking it," I was once told. I am only trying to point out that, given the legal status of all this, people need to be smart about HOW they share. I think the students at OSU knew they could get in trouble, but thought a: how could anyone know, b: who would want to know, c: why would anyone care, and finally, d: who would care. Actually, those are VERY important questions to know the answer to and just because they apparantly did not seek those answers does not make them any less culpable to the authorities.

I am not suggesting that people should stop sharing, either. However, it is important to understand the technology involved - how it works, what it does. I am suggesting that ignorant people become educated before jumping into this. Even if they are only sharing unrestricted content, there is a responsibility or liability that is attached to that action. No different than driving a car, one should know the rules of the road. Which, by the way, does not mean you can't speed. It is simply safer if you know when you can get away with it. You are not going to get away with it in a dormitory of a college or university. That is simple, common sense.

As for busting college students, well, it's easy to make an example of a college student. Most are young and inexperienced - easy to intimidate. And really, can you think of any major corporations that would share files in this manner? Most people sharing illegal content probably ARE college students. And since these were hosted on a network they did not have control of, they were easy pickins. Probably had no idea they were being investigated.

So, I maintain my position. Even ONE copyrighted file would put them deep in hot water. Ignorance of the law does not hold up in court. Unless these students have an ace up their sleeve and are going to change the filesharing world with the court proceedings of their case (once charges are pressed), they were stupid and got nailed.

well said.

I agree that people should be educated before they jump into p2p. P2P sites should have a simple guidlines page on the legality of the content in which they share. It could also possibly keep the p2p sites from frivolous suits.

Still, you have to realize not every college student will know what you and I know about file sharing and the issues at hand. It's very possible that they did know and just didn't care like a lot of people do, and it's very possible that they were completely ignorant. You're right, ignorance of the law is no excuse, and never holds up in the court of law.

I also still think that it's unfeasible for a college to bust any student for sharing ONE unauthorized copyrighted file. Colleges are also a business. Businesses strive to be more efficient in every way possible. It's inefficient to waste the resources necessary to bust someone for sharing ONE unauthorized file. There are bigger fish to go after. It's simple economics.

No, kneo24. You are wrong. If you are doing something (and I mean anything) that falls into a grey area like this and you make yourself an easy target, this is exactly what you can expect to have happen. It makes perfect sense that a college would do this.

They are a business, as you state, however I think it unlikely that a college would defend students and ignore messages from the RIAA (or other organizations) that suggest students are doing something illegal on the campus. If they did, illegal activity would run rampant on capuses all over the nation. Marajuana cultivation, kiddie porn, etc., would be seen as condoned by the universities and colleges. Not a good image for a business, is it?

Further, people don't generally choose a college for whether or not it allows P2P filesharing. A college or university is a seat of learning, not anarchy. I think you are emotionally involved in this topic, and fail to realize that in all probability, very few resources were expended to catch these students. Why? Because the students made no effort to secure their operation in a manner that would have required a great deal resources to bring it down. They were running it on a network controlled by someone else. And that IS my point.

When I say BEWARE, BE SMART, that is what I mean. If you run this thing on a network controlled by people you KNOW will shut you down if you are caught, you are ASKING for trouble. That's what they did. These are the results. It does not matter if you agree with it or not. That is reality.

I think you are saying that the authorities should ignore P2P filesharing altogether. I agree. But that is not going to happen until organizations like the RIAA stop complaining about it or are erradicated. Short of that, this will continue. Students should take a look at this, see what these students did wrong, and try not to repeat these same mistakes. That does not sound too hard to me. And yes, these folks got caught cuz they were stupid.

No business is going to waste their resources going after a person who has one file of something illegal. It would make more sense and resources would be better spent going after the people who have hundreds to thousands of illegal files. Like I said earlier, it's simple economics.

You're acting like it's a few hundred to thousands of files, and I'm only talking about the one file scenario. No matter how you look at it, all businesses strive to be more efficient. If you aren't efficient, you die. It's the way of capitalism.

I'm hardly emotionally involved into this topic. I'm not sure why you think I am.

I'm sure someones important time somewhere spent countless hours looking through logs of what went where. As I said way back when, it's highly unlikely that they had just ONE unauthorized file, but it's possible, and that it would be unlikely, and unfeasible for them to continue to go after people for ONE file. It also makes for quite the logical fallacy if you think it is efficient.

I still wouldn't call these students stupid because they got caught. Unless you know the entire story, which you don't (it would have shown by now if you did), you're really in no place to make such an accusation. Ignorant doesn't always mean stupid.

As I said before, ONE file is a violation and if some one has a mind to go and get them for it, get them they will.

Now add pressure from organizations such as the RIAA and law enforcement on the school where the suspected activities are occurring. Do you actually think the president of OSU should have told law enforcement to get lost? We're gonna look the other way. We are gonna let the students do whatever they want. To do so would probably get that president a desk job at the local welfare office. It is simple economics. Colleges and Universities are main stream businesses that hire main stream people to manage classes, students, infrastructure, etc. Abuses will not be tolerated, especially when they are pointed out by professionals in law enforcement.

I don't know why you think that the only people who should get caught are the ones sharing tons of files. Those people are probably tucked away so tight, they're tough to find and prosecute. A dumb, naiive college student is much easier to find and prosecute. Such a case would show that something IS being done, allowing for a larger budget to go after those "Big Fish" sharing lots of illegal content. That is economics.

I think I know all I need to know from the article. "The Ohio State University Police Department served search warrants at four campus dormitories Monday and seized five computers authorities believe were used to freely offer copyrighted works to nearly 3,000 users, according to a police spokesperson." I would say, they are pretty sure of what was going on, but they will need evidence from the computers to press charges. Thus the "ongoing investigation". Sounds to me that the only thing that will save these guys is if the authorities confiscated the wrong computers.

You say you are only talking of the one file scenario, and yet you say I don't have all the facts from the article. I would say that neither do you. You assume ONE file, I assume many. However, the article does say that over 3000 users got whatever file(s) they had available. They may as well have had 3000 files available, since even if they only had ONE, it was transferred 3000 times.

I am not making an accusation, I am stating my opinion. I have ZERO sympathy for these students and I think they should have been smarter. Especially in light of the fact that other students were just recently forced to settle with the RIAA for exactly the same thing. If you don't get it yet, you probably never will.

yep ThumbTack is Right and I am a cdbaby artists and have sold some cd's

Sure, they'd go after them, and imagine the back lash for it too. People get irate when they go after a person with a few hundred files. Go after a person with one file and you'll see more angry people. Yeah, it's a great way to lose business isn't it?

I never said that college should ignore the RIAA or any other organization. You keep on bring this up as if I meant that they should.

The people who share tons of files are easy to nab. Ever use a p2p program lately and look at one of those people? They range from the home user, to the college user, to the office user. I know a friend who got busted in his college dorm for sharing thousands of files. It wasn't hard to track him.

I never said that they didn't know what was going on. I just said what was likely and unlikely in this situation.

I was talking about a "what if" one file scenario from the story, not that there was one.

I do have sympathy for these students. Not everyone heard about those students that were just nabbed for billions of dollars of damages. Not everyone hears about every single story about students being caught. I'm sure there's many more that aren't reported on any major news site, or any other news site that's of relevance at the moment. It seems you really don't get it, not me.

We have an obvious difference of opinions, then. That's ok - I can live with it. But I would like to know one thing: Are you a college student?

Well, then I guess we do agree to disagree. Nothing wrong with that.

A college student? No. Why do you ask?

I was just curious. When you mentioned a friend in a college dorm, it just made me wonder. Thanks. I'll see ya around the forums again sometime!

kneo24: Admit that you ARE emotionally attached. Anyone reading this post can tell that you are. I know that I am emotionally attached to this issue, which is why we have been butting heads on these posts. At least I can admit my emotional attachment to music piracy, not that anyone needs to hear me admit it, it is pretty obvious.

AreYouRetarded: btw, I love your sign on name. Quite appropriate for this article regarding the students. I also agree with a lot of what you say, and quite honestly it is nice to see opinions that don't always assume that copyrighted filesharing is completely legal or always in small amounts. Some people here say things ike "how do they know it was a lot" and "what if they were only sharing one file" and other ridiculous rhetoric like that, which only serves to cloud the issue, not address the problem. It's like a smoke screen to derail a train. You could go back and forth all day long with "what ifs", and reading these posts that is what has been happening here for some of us. It doesn't solve or prove anything.

What if: Your assumptions weren’t ‘facts’?

What if: Other’s assumptions were?

What if: Other people respected the concept of Intellectual Property (too/ also/ even)?

That would make you an ignorant close-minded pathetic opinionated pseudo-intellectual twat.

But, (This of course means: I am a badguy, I deserve to be ignored. Do not pay any attention to me, do not keep an open mind, do not consider other points of view, you only want to hear from others you agree with, and when I have you thinking – hey he’s not tooooo bad – I’ll then insult you all again, and oh @#^$@%$&^’s I typed this all myself, so $&%$%#@ you!!!)

Reason and reasonableness are not synonymous when you’re a narrow-minded single-issue myopic moron. AND all your ‘reasonableness’ does not detract from your faulty reason.

Take it nice or not, clichéd paraphrasing of ‘B’ movie dialogue (which of course is meant in spirit NOT in fact); DIE RIAA SCUM!!! EAT HOT LEAD!!! Expresses the frustration with myopic morons whose entrence on the scene is in no way redeemed by unrepentent unapologetic inability to grasp a point of view. (Particularly when their sole reason d’etre is not origional or unique but rather it’s a view already held.)

"kneo24: Admit that you ARE emotionally attached. Anyone reading this post can tell that you are. I know that I am emotionally attached to this issue, which is why we have been butting heads on these posts. At least I can admit my emotional attachment to music piracy, not that anyone needs to hear me admit it, it is pretty obvious."

I'm really not emotionally attached. I 'butt' heads with people who fail to use logic and reasoning and facts in what they say. You've done a lot of that around here.

"AreYouRetarded: btw, I love your sign on name. Quite appropriate for this article regarding the students. I also agree with a lot of what you say, and quite honestly it is nice to see opinions that don't always assume that copyrighted filesharing is completely legal or always in small amounts. Some people here say things ike "how do they know it was a lot" and "what if they were only sharing one file" and other ridiculous rhetoric like that, which only serves to cloud the issue, not address the problem. It's like a smoke screen to derail a train. You could go back and forth all day long with "what ifs", and reading these posts that is what has been happening here for some of us. It doesn't solve or prove anything."

Once again, do some damn research. You'd see that people here do tackle the issue at hand. People here do try to figure the problems out. Then people here ponder the what if's. Pondering the 'what if's' is not fruitless. Many of the 'what if's' that have been pondered here have actually happened. They were inevitable.

"Date: May 8, 2003 @ 2:27 AM
If they even fucking TRY to shut down our Direct Connect hub, there will be a fucking massacre on this campus, I swear. I will personally make it a Columbine x 10 to the best of my ability."

It looks like there's an RIAA mole in here acting as an *agent provocatuer*. This talk of shooting cops and killing RIAA executives is just plain nuts. This is the very tactic that the FBI and CIA used during the 1960s and '70s to discredit the Civil Rights, Anti-Vietnam War, Women's Rights Movements: provoke mindless violence as a means to discredit these movements to the public at large. This talk of "Columbine X 10" utterly stinks of it.

What's *really* at stake here? Some lousey mp3's, for Chrissake! There may be some things worth dying for, but *this* ain't one of them! If you really want to teach the RIAA a lesson, then *don't* buy the GD CDs, *don't* download RIAA music, turn off MTV and VH1, *ignore* the RIAA's syntho-stars. If you *really* want to stick it to the RIAA, go to the websites of independent, non-RIAA acts -- there is no shortage of such sites -- find someone you like, and then buy their CDs. (The RIAA may have a monopoly, but it damn sure isn't on talent. ) Non-RIAA CDs usually sell for 1/4 -- 1/2 what you'll pay at "Block Buster" or "Where House", will have more than one or two good tracks, and the lion's share of the proceeds will go to the artist(s) themselves. This will have a real impact, send the RIAA an unmistakeable message, and not in any way they can use to convince the public that mp3 "pirates" really are the irresponsible anarchists the RIAA wants the public and politicians to believe. Such irresponsible talk, even if it's nothing more than false bravado, works in the RIAA's favor.

What is truly sad and tragic is that there is a very good chance that someone *will* die as a result of these RIAA antics. Either law enforcement officers who get killed when kicking in the door of a suspected file-sharer in the middle of the night, an innocent home owner mistakenly targeted as a suspect, or some college kid sharing a few mp3's with some friends. Do you suppose *that* thought has crossed Hillary's mind?