Key Questions in Crackdown On File Sharing by Music Firms
http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB105673214585979800,00.html?mod=technology
%5Ffeatured%5Fstories%5Fhs

By CARL BIALIK
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL ONLINE


The record industry has declared war on the biggest unauthorized swappers of
online music, dramatically stepping up its campaign to stamp out pirated
tunes. If you're one of the millions of people trading online, should you be
worried?

In the latest twist in the long-running battle over online music swapping,
the Recording Industry Association of America has turned from targeting the
companies that run the file-sharing networks, also known as peer-to-peer
services, to the individuals trading files. The music industry's trade
organization says users of P2P services, in which people trade computer
files over the Internet, have collectively conducted intellectual piracy on
a massive scale -- tens of millions of Americans swap music files regularly
-- and devastated its member companies' bottom lines. In an effort to stem
the rising tide of file-sharing, the RIAA announced Wednesday it would begin
gathering information that it expected would lead to a wave of hundreds of
lawsuits against individuals in the next few months, with more to follow.
(See related article.) Here are answers to some important questions about
the campaign.

How do record companies catch people?

They can join and snoop the popular file-sharing networks, or pay outside
technology companies to do so. Software developers can write programs that
can automatically scope out which file-sharers have the most available
copyright-infringing files, by scanning file names. Then investigators will
download files of music copyrighted by RIAA's member companies from those
file-sharers, recording the time and date. By doing so, they connect
directly with the other person's computer, and can get that computer's
unique Internet Protocol address and the name of the Internet service
provider from the file-sharing networks using readily available software.
"It's extremely easy," says Randy Saaf, president of closely held
MediaDefender (www.mediadefender.com), Los Angeles, which gathers evidence
of piracy for record labels. Then investigators can subpoena the ISPs to
connect the IP addresses to the names of the people who pay the bill for
Internet access. But they might not be the ones doing the file-sharing, so
follow-up investigation will be needed.

How do they forge a case against the people they catch?

Electronic evidence will suffice, the RIAA says. The record labels will show
evidence that the file was downloaded and what was the IP address of the
uploading computer. The RIAA (www.riaa.com), which is funded by fees from
member record companies, isn't disclosing the campaign's legal costs. All
ISPs are expected to cooperate and turn over the names of the owners of
accounts used by suspected file-sharers, after Verizon Communications Inc.
in January lost a challenge of such subpoenas for information about its
Internet subscribers. Verizon is appealing. The RIAA says most ISPs, issued
under the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act, already cooperated with
such subpoenas before the Verizon ruling. The RIAA says it generally won't
need to seize the suspected pirates' computer to gather the necessary
evidence, meaning no need for an additional subpoena. (See the RIAA's
answers to frequently asked questions about gathering evidence against
file-swapping.)

What's illegal? What are the laws preventing file sharing of copyrighted
materials?

It is illegal to share a copyrighted music file, under federal copyright
law. (See the text of the law at this Library of Congress Web site.) The
music industry is targeting only uploaders in this action, not people who
download music; most observers think that's the case in part because
uploading is much easier to investigate.

What are your chances of getting caught, and what will get you caught? If
you're caught, what will happen to you -- fines, jail time?

The odds are slim. On any given day, millions of people upload files; the
RIAA says it will initiate hundreds of lawsuits starting in August, with
more to follow. And if the RIAA's announcement scared you straight, you
won't be sued; the RIAA began collecting evidence on Thursday, a day after
announcing the action. "If nothing else, it was a last opportunity for
people to stop," says Matt Oppenheim, the trade group's senior vice
president for business and legal affairs. If you're swapping from overseas,
you're unaffected by U.S. copyright law, and the RIAA says it has no plans
to pursue online pirates in other countries under different copyright codes.
"The efforts on the international side are focused on education," Mr.
Oppenheim says.

Also, your risk is lower if you are sharing only a couple of files, and zero
if you're the kind of music swapper who only downloads, not uploads --
"people who are just takers but not givers," says Raymond James analyst Phil
Leigh.

Yet the record labels' methodology could theoretically snare unsophisticated
file sharers. For instance, people who sign up for the P2P networks and have
lots of music files on their computer but no intention of sharing them could
be caught if they didn't think to change the settings when registering --
the default is to turn sharing on, and if you don't change that, other users
can download even when you're not actively using the program. (Pleading
ignorance probably isn't a valid legal defense; the RIAA says it will
address such instances on a case-by-case basis.) Also, more technologically
adept file-sharers could either mask their IP addresses -- though "only your
top 0.001% maybe could do it," according to MediaDefender's Randy Saaf -- or
switch to one of the fast-growing alternative services that are tougher for
investigators to crack.

If you're caught and sued, you'd face legal penalties of between $750 to
$150,000 per song downloaded, but most analysts expect the RIAA to settle
with most defendants for much less. Four university students who were sued
in April by recording companies for running file-sharing services agreed to
each pay between $12,000 and $17,500. You won't get jail time unless the
government separately decides to prosecute, which most observers say is
unlikely.

Why are the music companies going after individuals instead of file-sharing
companies/platforms/services?

Two legal decisions paved the way for that. The first was the ruling that
Verizon had to identify its users who were swapping files. The second came
in April, when a federal court in Los Angeles ruled that Grokster Ltd. and
StreamCast Networks Inc. weren't violating copyright laws by distributing
P2P software. The RIAA, which is appealing the ruling, says it is continuing
to go after the file-sharing companies, but that individual file-sharers had
received ample warning that their own actions are illegal. "There is no
excuse for doing it anymore," says the RIAA's Mr. Oppenheim. "It is time for
people to stop."

By targeting individuals, the labels hope to scare file sharers away from
copyright infringement. "They are trying to find someone to make an example
of, in the hope that they will scare off a lot of other people," says Jack
Balkin, director of the Information Society Project at Yale Law School
(islandia.law.yale.edu/isp) in New Haven, Conn.

The evolution of file-sharing networks also helped make such actions
inevitable. Today's networks differ from Napster in that directories of
music files available for "sharing" are housed on users' computers rather
than on a central computer. As a result, when Napster was shut down, the
network was effectively shut down as well. The P2P networks have no such
centrally located directories to target. That makes such networks'
individual users the logical targets of accusations that copyrights are
being infringed.

Have people stopped file-sharing, so far?

The networks didn't see a dramatic fall-off in usage in the days immediately
after the RIAA's announcement: Kazaa, the popular file-sharing service
distributed by Sharman Networks Ltd., saw only typical fluctuations in
usage, according to a spokesman for Australia-based Sharman. And Grokster,
which operates from the island of Nevis in the West Indies, saw a 10% rise
in usage, according to Wayne Rosso, president of the company, who attributed
it to nonusers learning about the service from press coverage of the record
labels' announcement.

Previous RIAA announcements about antipiracy efforts have led to similar
upticks in file-sharing, says Eric Garland, chief executive of BigChampagne
LLC (www.bigchampagne.com), a closely held company based in Beverly Hills,
Calif., that monitors file-sharing for some record labels.

In the short term, most users are adopting a wait-and-see approach, figures
Jorge Gonzalez, co-founder of Zeropaid.com (www.zeropaid.com), a
file-sharing portal. "The vast majority are trying to establish what really
is happening," he said.

"We don't expect miracles overnight," says an RIAA spokeswoman. "This is a
long-term strategy."

What does this crackdown mean, in the long term, for file-sharing services?
How are file-sharing companies/users reacting to this campaign?

Expect a high-tech arms race between record companies and file swappers.
Already, many former users of the P2P services have switched to fledging
alternatives that allow for more privacy. Some are invitation-only, to keep
out investigators -- but these have the downside of a limited selection of
music. Others let people share files without connecting directly, which
makes it more difficult to detect the users' IP address. And some break down
files among dozens of computers, so no one computer is supplying copyrighted
files. The legality of that practice is unclear, as it hasn't been tested
yet in court.

If the file-sharing networks see a big drop in traffic, they could adopt
some of these technologies. Sharman, Kazaa's parent, declined to comment.
"The next wave of P2P technology is this masking of identities," says Mr.
Gonzalez of Zeropaid.

In addition to the high-tech arms race, some file swappers may turn to an
older technology: CD burning. "The most obvious alternative for the kids
will be the CD burner and the 'sneaker net,' " or physically handing out
copies of CDs, says Mr. Leigh, the Raymond James analyst. There were about
67 million PC burners in the U.S. last year, according to research firm IDC,
which expects 96 million by the end of this year. And sales of recordable
CDs more than doubled to 36 million in 2002, according to the Consumer
Electronics Association.

What does this mean for legal music services?

Probably a boost in subscribers. "If people really love to have music
online, and don't want to take the risk of file-sharing, they're going to
turn to the legal music services," says Lee Black, senior analyst with
Jupiter Research. "It is certainly a positive step for us," says a
spokeswoman for RealNetworks Inc., which runs subscription music service
RealOne Rhapsody.

But Windows users leaving the P2P networks may not like what they find on
the paid side of the fence. "What's missing in the Windows world is the
ability to copy without limit for personal use," says Mr. Leigh, the Raymond
James analyst. Apple Computer Inc.'s iTunes Music Store has that feature,
but it is only available for Mac users. Apple plans to introduce a Windows
version by the end of the year, and a number of competitors plan similar
offerings.

Write to Carl Bialik at carl.bialik@wsj.com





-

they are f'en morons, Sharing is good, not bad, freeloading is the evil. It is better to giv than recieve, therefore it is good to share. $750-$150,000 for one song, they are f'en nuts, i'd fly to australia and become a permanant resident than pay that redicules ammount. Someone needs to take a stand for this shlit.

Reporting that there are 4.4 million on kazaa, what are they going to do now? Nothing but sue themselves

This is big, guys, when you have the WSJ saying you have a sim chance from catching the RIAA's wrath, we know the RIAA is desperate. You can no more stop file-swapping than you can stop the internet. The only guaranteed way of doing that is actually pulling the plug on it, and we know thats not gonna happen.

We have to counter-attack. I'm working on something.

Bill from Denver - Chesspalace@hotmail.com

directive

What is the difference between downloading and uploading?

Simple - Downloading is Acquiring - Uploading is Someone Acquiring from you

So then I can download from someone but nobody can download from me? Do I have to worry about getting caught for downloading?

i dont buy many cds, but if they somehow stop file sharing, i will stop buying cds altogether

I dont think it's possible, feisable, or even plausable to track downloading. Feel free to freeload.

"Then investigators will
download files of music copyrighted by RIAA's member companies from those
file-sharers"

Whoa now? So it's 100% LEGAL to download, as long as you don't upload? It's my understanding that the RIAA is not the police. If the RIAA is not the police, they are citizens with shitty jobs, like the rest of us. And they are allowed to download music.

Great? I Know the uploaders are the ones in trouble. But it was my impression that it's also illegal to download.

Unless these "investigators" are FBI supercops (because they have time for this shit.. right) or something, then the RIAA is illegally file sharing.

because they *aren't* fucking cops.

Sorry for the double post. To ih8RIAA - i wanted to say i agree it's a ridiculous notion to try to track downloading. But if it's illegal, it's illegal, and the RIAA would then be pirates of intellectual material and liable for 250k per song.

i wanna make a citizens' arrest...lol

let's see, a CD is about $18USD and has about 10 to 12 songs on it. That makes the songs about $1.50 to $2.00 apiece. Now where do they come up with $150,000 per song or even $750? How is a CD suddenly worth more than its weight in gold if someone shares it on a P2P network?

Apparently it's safe to assume that a billion people downloaded it. Furthermore, it is also safe to assume that out of those billion people 0% made any kind of purchase that benefitted the RIAA as result (yeah right, if you download a song, you'll buy a burner and give the RIAA at least 2 bucks. That alone would compensate for everybody that you gave a song to that owned a burner.. consider it even). frauds.

The RIAA whines about how much money they are "losing". I would never have been able or willing to actually buy the wonderful collection of tunes I've acquired even if it had been possible to find them without filesharing, which of course it isn't and won't be.

I am concerned about the possibility of being the target of some outrageous lawsuit by those RIAA pirates--enough to be on the lookout for a p2p that can effectively mask my ip.

I've downloaded so many songs, I don't even know if or when I'll have time to listen to them. So if a song is dowloaded in the middle of the forest and nobody hears it, has copyright infringesment occurred?

Seriously, I imagine the value of a song is increased more by the number of uploads, than by how many times I enjoy it. It IS the uploaders that the RIAA wants to suppress.

One of my p2p programs records the number of uploads for each file in the share library. It would be a small step to have those numbers uploaded to a central database. Then artists could be paid royalties fairly, if only there was a pot of money for them to share.

So where should the money come from? I'd go for a small increase in the price of media, CDs, harddrives, etc. Others have suggested they share the advertising revenues, but what advertising are they talking about?

One thing, though. I don't think the RIAA should be allowed to be in charge of distributing the money to artists. A new internet-based group of music lovers, like us, should be.

RIAA--RIP

Doesn't plan to go after international users. Why the hell do we have to suffer here in the states I HATE YOU CORPORATE BASTARDS NOT JUST THE RIAA AAAAALLLLLLLLLLLL OF YOU!!!!!!!!! If I just knew how many bullets it would take to end it all I would happily serve the life sentence, take the death penalty I DON'T FREAKING CARE AS LONG AS THEY ARE ALL DEAD AND WE DON'T HAVE TO HEAR THEM WHINE ABOUT MORE MONEY. WHAT THE HELL DO YOU THINK THOSE OF US THAT WORK 9 TO 5 DO FOR MONEY YOU BASTARDS!!!!!! GET OFF YOUR ASSES AND INNOVATE!!!

:: I'm sorry. I'm usually a rational person I just had to get that out because I don't think it's very fair. They think they can play God with our lives because they want our money. I meant what I said all corporations think that way just take a look at TCPA. I'm sure there are hundreds of other corporations out there that are doing the same sorts of things on a smaller scale. The founding fathers always said freedom comes with a price, but I don't think they ever thought that price would include other freedoms.

Dont worry Litheon we feel your pain.
I for one am recording every time Peer Guardian kicks RIAA off my line - three times now in 24 hours - if they're expecting to sue me I'm going into court with times and dates and hollering "illegally obtained evidence"for all the world to hear.
If they keep it up i may look into pressing charges. Wouldnt that just look great on their record?

And that brings another thought to mind - if its sooooo easy to gain evidence the way they say they will - why then are they trying to hack peoples systems?

Why is the RIAA spending so much money and time suing people when they could be finding a way to please the consumer and make money for themselves?

We have a problem. What the RIAA is doing is not right. What is going on now will affect our future. We need put a stop to what is going on before it gets out of hand. The RIAA can now get your IP address and find out who you are and where you live. That right there should be enough to scare every one of us. (Kudos to Verzion for trying to stick up for us.) Who’s to stop anyone from getting that info? The Record Industry should be thinking of better ways to distribute and sell music, instead of taking everyone to court. What kind of business model is that? One that needs to change. File sharing is here to stay. So the RIAA needs to adjust their business models to reflect the times. Businesses that don’t change, don’t survive.

So if we don’t get what we want, then they don’t get what they want.

For the month of July don't, Don't buy one CD, not one, at all, for the entire month. Let everyone know. Tell your friends, parents, teachers, fellow employees, everyone. If someone buys a CD ask them take it back. Inform someone in a record store, that there is a strike going on. Don’t be mean, and let them buy it if they want. This is a free country and we don’t want to get violent. Send out emails, post it on your sites, and on message boards. Let’s see how bad we can cripple the sales for one month. Show them we aren’t playing, Show them that they need to change the way they distribute music. Show them that we aren't going to be their little pawns anymore. If one month doesn’t work then next time we'll do two, then four, and so on.

Remember not everyone is going to agree with this, at that’s their right.

We want change, and We are going to get it.

Mike

P.S. Pass it on.

RIAA is playing god with our lives, just because they have money and we do not. With that money they are influencing our congress members making them do unfair things, the only people our congress members are representing are corporate america who puts so much money in there pockets. If they come after me and my family than i will not stand for that. They are no more than rich citizens, maybe they should listen to what we want, i'd be willing to pay a small fee for a song i want, but i want to own that song and not let it be controled, I PAYED FOR IT, IT SHOULD BE MINE TO DO WHAT I PLEASE WITH IT

fuck the RIAA and all there lawyers

Hell, I don't buy CDs ever.

I also don't file-share, although now that I know that freeloading is generally "safe" I might start taking chances, grabbing those *really* rare files you can't get anywhere else.

I'll defenetly be a supernode for Fair For Share.

Does the RIAA - who admits it can't go after international users - who usually provide the best shtuff - think that even if their plan to stop USA uploaders completely actually works (haha) that it would kill P2P?

When the WSJ - not exactly the enemy of capitalism and big business - implies that your plan won't work, and actually tells people how NOT to come under your sights, that should be a warning sign that maybe it's time to "join em" instead of trying to "beat em."

Of course, it's too late to "join 'em." now.

For a minute there, they had me worried, but as long as I let my friends and family know to leech and continue to sneakernet CDRs to friends.

I actually thought the RIAA might actually be mounting a real *threat* that could affect *MY* family.

Heh. My parents don't know what an MP3 is, and I'm letting my sister know to leech when I get home today. Yay.

-- Funksaw

(From article)"They can join and snoop the popular file-sharing networks, or pay outside
technology companies to do so. Software developers can write programs that
can automatically scope out which file-sharers have the most available
copyright-infringing files, by scanning file names. Then investigators will
download files of music copyrighted by RIAA's member companies from those
file-sharers, recording the time and date. By doing so, they connect
directly with the other person's computer, and can get that computer's
unique Internet Protocol address and the name of the Internet service
provider from the file-sharing networks using readily available software."

if the RIAA tries to come after me, whats the difference in them downloading the files and me downloading them. theyre breaking the law too by downloading them, and how could they even prove that i didn't upload the song from my own cd and then sold the cd at a yard sale or something? and plus, why can they go and hack into someone's computer and do it legally but if one of us were to hack into their computer they would sue us broke? what's the difference in the 2 situations?

1) The crime is "unauthorized duplication" and "contributory infringement" - basically, the companies are authorized for the duplication, (for the purposes of verification) you, however, are not. By making the files available, you're "contributing to a possible infringement."

In other words, DMCA.

2) If you open up your computer to outside persons for the purpose of sharing files, when the RIAA connects to the computer to see what files you have shared, that's not "hacking." If the RIAA were to bypass a firewall, or to otherwise get access to files you weren't making publicly available, THEN that would be hacking.

3) Ripping is not a crime. Not even the RIAA pretends it's a crime anymore, when even Sony produces MP3 players. It's unauthorized duplication that's the crime. Ripping is fair use. Downloading is not. (At least, according to the courts right now.)

Unless your ripping a protected CD, in which case you must beak the protection to do so and doing that requires circumvention devices banned by the DMCA. (ie a SPDIF cable).

Dont forget the No Electronic Theft act. The DMCA is good for finding out whos behind an IP address, but its the NET act that sets punishments for using the internet for copyright infringement and specifies that using p2p is equivilent to selling it (because your expecting infringeing works in exchange for what you upload).

The RIAA has effectively declared themselves their own police force. They think the real police arn't doing enough to protect their profits, so they do it themselves.

I'm disgusted by the industry's low regard for most individuals intelligence! They claim that their artists suffer from "piracy" just as much as they do? BULL. It is FACT that musicians make their money from TOURS...not record sales. They get such a small cut from sales! If they relied SOLELY on that money it would be as if they were bending over AND begging for it! Instead of attacking us, they should have worked with us. They don't seem to understand that MOST of us don't want this crap they are trying to shove down our throats. I would NEVER have heard of about 60% of the artist I now love and whose cd's I now BUY!

DEATH TO THE INDUSTRY!

add "without P2P networks" on the end of that! LOL

To respond to TheSherminator up there at the top...

It's perfectly legal for you to download songs you own the copyright to... or to download those songs with permission from the relevant copyright holders.

Anyway.
I don't own a TV. I drive for a period of time long enough to get tired of the CDs I have in my car about once a week, at which point I turn on the radio for a couple hours. This gives the RIAA+ClearChannel consotrium about 2 hours a week to play advertisements for their products (songs and albums, respectively).
Here's the interesting thing, though, If I hear an advertisement I particularly like, I'll go DL the song and a couple other tracks by the same contract labor if available. Suddenly, that two hours per week of advertising time the RIAA+CCC had expands. Not only that, but it's very very specific targeted advertising space that I've sold to them. It's also an opt-in only advertising scheme.

Rather than promptly forgetting about their product as soon as I get out of the car or turn off the radio, I get reminded of it periodically throughout the week. This periodic reminder is the *only* reason I have bought any CDs in the past couple of years. I buy the CDs as a formality, voting with my dollars, if you will- "I will spend money on this if you make more of it."

Anyway, if the RIAA wishes to destroy what could be exploited as another pathway along which to advertise, they may feel free. I won't be able to DL their advertisements, will forget about their products, and, ergo, not buy them.

It's also somewhat laughable to see copyright law has become so twisted to allow it to be used against an average member of the public.
Everything is in the public domain. Copyright is when we, the public, temprorarily grant a publisher the privilege of publishing a given work to the exclusion of other publishers.
Well, that was the idea originally anyway. Then we got incoherent concepts such as "intellectual property" and the like.

What the RIAA should be doing is trying to buy some legislation that will allow them to shift the bill for this self-destructive frivoloty onto the taxpayers, like the MPAA did with the DMCA.

to quote Eminem...".. there's a concept that works".. I know.. shitty quote, but bear with me.
I've been waiting for the line 1010011010 used "voting with my dollars".
That's the surest way to get things done. The RIAA is losing money each quarter, to be sure, but it's not because of downloading per se. It's because people aren't BUYING.. maybe because of downloading, maybe because there's nothing WORTH buying?!?!
I still buy cd's. I'll admit it. I've bought four in the past year, all of them movie soundtracks, all put out by riaa stooges. I "space shift" em tho.. copy em onto my hd and put em on my nifty new watch that plays 2 hours of mp3s.
However.. I don't buy most of the other shite that's out there, for two very good reasons. 1. I can't afford it.
2. I don't WANT a lot of it. I like one or two songs, I dl em. I can't pay 20 bux for a cd that's got 20 songs on it, if it's only got 2 songs I like.
In the past, I've bought cassettes (remember them?) and worn out one side, cuz that's where all the good songs were. Usually about a year later, I find myself saying "oh! there's a B side to this cassette".
Point being...Vote with your dollars. Vote with your VOTES. Doesn't matter how it happens, but VOTE.
The RIAA is using the money they have to vote, we should do the same. Quid Pro Quo
ttmmm

Hey, here's a question for you all: What if I load my hard drive with 10,000 LEGAL TO SHARE files and put something like "Sounds like Metallica" or "Sounds like Eminem" on all of them. Would they try to sue me for sharing Metallica and Eminem files even though I don't have any on my computer and never claimed the files were Metallica or Eminem? Then could I counter sue them for filing a false claim against me?