Submitted by Gecko7

I was in our chat room the day, or day after the we opened it, and I had the pleasure of talking to one guy in particular. I can't remember his screen name, but we got ourselves into a very interesting conversation.

I came to realize something. Do you remember a week or two ago when the head of Sony Music said he was disgusted as a parent to find all sorts of child pornography p2p networks? He even went so far as to call p2p Piracy-To-Porn. Well a little thinking, and something big hit me.

First, though, lets look at laws surrounding child pornography.

As everyone well knows (or should) it's illegal in almost every country in the world to view, possess, distribute or make child pornography. The legal consequences are horrific: here, the FBI can raid your house, take your computer and lock you up in jail for a very long time - pretty much destroy your life.

Now take into consideration online music.

The RIAA can't just sue everyone who has a file called "Rolling Stones - start me up.mp3" it needs to verify this is a Rolling Stones song before it can do anything, otherwise I could take a large document in Adobe Acrobat, change the name and file extension, and it could appear to be a copy of the song.

So what I'm getting at here is: the if the RIAA claims that there is, in fact, highly illegal, repulsive, disgusting, pornographic picture and videos of children on p2p networks, they needed to verify that claim. Just as I could name my "adobe.pdf" file to "rolling stones - start me up.mp3", I could name it "14 year old having sex.mpg". This means for the RIAA to make a claim, they need to verify it, meaning download and view.

This means that they've posessed it, if only for a few minutes, and they've viewed it. Not only that, they've COPIED it: by downloading, they copied it, by viewing they copied it a second time to the cache folders on their computer.

This puts the RIAA in possession child pornography, from time to time.

So my question is:

Why hasn't the FBI done something about this?

If the RIAA can verify that a file is what it says it is, they broke the law to do so. So the bounty-hunter hacker groups they hire can be held with criminal charges on the grounds of holding pornographic images and/or videos of children.

Why is this FACT being overlooked and ignored?

What does everyone else think? Is there a way we can use this against them?

They're the RIAA, they are immune to any law. Money talks and bullshit walks remember?

RIAA

Very good point, I've often thought about this, but couldn't articulate it as well as you did.

Here here. good point. does any of the lawmakers or lawenforcement read these posts?

You in turn would have to prove it. No chance. Even when they say they know it's there. Your best bet would be to phone the police/FBi etc from a payphone where no CCTV cameras or witnesses are and be an anonymous tipoff. Pointing the finger at a specific person within the organisation with a GOOD reason as to why you know this for them even to consider investigating.

Even if it got that far they would go in. Find nothing. Claim goes out the window.

But I agree. If they are claiming they have viewed such material and they are NOT in any way a law enforcement agency so have no right to look at this stuff in the first place. They are in the wrong. No matter what their moral grounds for doing so are.

its the RIAA....whatever they say pretty much goes even if its B/S

great point..in fact..BayTSP , toadie for the RIAA, "made its bones" by claiming they were great at finding child porn...
Hmm..usually, those spend a lot of time looking are the best at finding...
From whence springs their original unnatural interest in these images?

good point, so... surely if someone were to recieve a subpeona from RIAA, and it went to court, arn't you innocent, until PROVEN guilty, wouldn't it make a good defence to turn round and say "well it appears that I was swapping music online, but what I actually did was rename a bunch of files and swap the file extension, I did it cos im silly like that" since RIAA is making the case isn't it up to them to prove that isn't what you did? fuck it! I'd sure give an argument like that a go... proberly with a bit more thought... but you see roughly where im coming from. [LNF]

This would also explain why they think it is okay to financially rape a 12 year old.

Can I just declare a Jihad on the RIAA and throw in a fatua besides?

Wouldn't it be nice if whoever was sending those anthrax letters would send one to the RIAA offices =P

RIAAs-Antich -- Excellent observation, my friend. It's nice to see the humorous side of things, but at the same time a side which raises serious questions.

Regarding the whole "breaking the law to do good" issue, it's tricky. Tricky, but still illegal. It's illegal to take drugs if you were offered them, even if you intended on handing them in to the Police. Therefore, why don't the RIAA have the same problems? As noted above, money talks and bullshit walks.

Will somebody please DEPUTIZE ME?!!! I'll GO AFTER THEM!!!!!!

LeadNotFollow:

If you went to court, you can bet that the RIAA lawyers would have a lot more evidence than just a file list. At the very least, I'd expect they'd have the file hash numbers, and possibly the actual files themselves. The file hash numbers and ID tags would would be strong evidence that the files were shared on P2P networks. They'd also have to prove that it was, in fact, copyrighted material.

Just wondering, if the RIAA is looking for mp3 files, why are they also downloading avi, mpeg, and mov files?

Something smells fishy...............

Remember that the RIAA is above the law, even the constitution. It would take an army of upset congressmen to go after the RIAA's child porn, and that ain't gonna happen for a long while... unless we all vote those punks out of office. Then the RIAA will feel the wrath of the anti-child porn laws.

I agree IFeelFree, they may infact be able to use file hash numbers and ID tags to identify illegal music files. But the RIAA would not have that type of information to look for pornography. Their bots would not flag such files, So there for someone with the RIAA would have to be downloading those pornographic files and viewing them, or they would not know for sure that they were indeed porno.

Freeze up their bank accounts until there is a FULL INVESTIGATION! Then they can't pay their lynchdog wolf lawyers to ATTACK AND TERRORIZE MORE 12 YEAR OLD CHILDREN and GOD ONLY KNOWS WHAT ELSE!!!!

I can't believe I'm even reading this article here. If you want to stop RIAA, don't make these stupid accusations.

Let's put this into a different perspective; if I were to rent the latest blockbuster thriller from the local video store only to find out it had been copied over with child pornography, should my life be ruined and I thrown in jail? According to this article, absolutely.

I anyone stoops down to this level and want to sue the RIAA over this, you will be no better than RIAA and their sue-em-all campaign. I cannot continue to support this cause and this site when I keep seeing article after article, post after post of illogical garbage. I'm sorry, but that's what this site has come to lately.

Goodbye.

Anyone wonder just exactly who put all these on the P2P net? The New York Times says 80% of the "pirated" movies come from the movie industry.

Where do all the CDs that show up on P2P before their release come from?

How many files does the RIAA download every day? How many files do they upload every day?

If this activity is against the law, as they say, are they not the greatest violators?

In all of this, the ones who are hurt most are the artists, who never received honest royalties when times were good for the industry. As then, they remain silent today.

Why are we fighting so hard to save the skins of the "rock stars"? What have they ever done for us besides take our money?

Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

The fact that we hold them in such high esteem is the greatest obscenity of all.

I too dont think porno should be an issue. I was just stating that the only way to tell if it is porno is to download it. If people want to view porno,unless its illegal porn I have no problem with it. If parents are not going to monitor what their kids download then thats their own fault not mine or the P2P networks.

Read this cartoon- it aptly describes the RIAA's actions: http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2003/09/16/arts/20030916_POPLIFE_IMAGE.html?8hpib

You will laugh and be sad at the same time.

code ill be with u on the front lines for our jihad !

Well Gecko, I said that from day one...whoever d/l's Child porn even for research is in violation of federal law (Paging Pete Townsend). Glad someone finally is addressing this issue...porn is part of the issue. The RIAA is making it that way.

wow Phantom. Our Future? Hope Not.

Well... "THEY" _BUSTED_ INTO OUR HOME, WITH A BULLSHIT WARRANT, KILLED MY HUSBAND and said they were looking for MARIJUANA IN THE TREES!!! NO, HELLLLL NOOOOO!!!!!
THIS IS NOT A JOKE AT ALL!!!

Cary-Sue looks like a grade A pervert. And don't even get me started on Hilary Rosen.

I thought RIAA stood for Recording Industry Association of America, not some kind of p2p police force. Aaaah, such is the dilusion. Still, this is beyond reasonable. If it's just as legal for them to do this, we're breaking the number one law of democracy - "THE LAW MUST BE EQUAL FOR ALL!" So if the RIAA can get away with this, we are BLATENTLY bending the rules for them. Sure, I understand some people get away with things, but thå†'s just here and there. But like I said, this is an outlandish, extremely obvious display of simply looking the other way. Somebody needs a swift kick in the groin, maybe it'll knock some sense into them and something will get set right.

The trouble with a lot of this lawsuit stuff is that The Terrorist Organization, RIAA, is not using criminal courts. If they were, then they would have to go through a more rigorious process to prove their case. Rules are far more lienent in civil cases. Basically they make a charge, the proof is not innocent till proven guilty. It is prove that you didn't.

Most, right now the courts are on their side as it is pretty much viewed that the trial won't be taking place if you were doing something to attract their attention and bring you or someone else to court.

But remember this is all still fresh. It has yet to be tested in high courts. Believe that its constitutionality is being questioned by PCB. It will eventually reach there. This is going to raise a stink to high heavens as they have managed to circumvent the expense of individual search warrents for looking electronically at your computer.

However, laws go more by what has been ruled on in the past, inotherwords, historic cases. Lawyers have libaries of legal cases to refer to for that very reason. Any present ruling pretty much refers to past cases.

What we are aware of and is pretty much acknowledged is that this is a new law being used but as of yet is consistutality has not been tested. Its legal standing is still open and up for grabs, inspite of the DMCA.

This is one of the reasons for the careful picking of victums. They can not afford to take it to the supreme court. So The Terrorist Organization is building a fund for the time they know is coming. They are doing it on the backs of the very people the laws are supposed to protect.

It is in my opinion that in the end this callous disregard for human (legal) rights and the willingness to take everything from the poor will eventually result in a foul opinion in the legal court system. One that will work against the very people who are doing these terrorist acts.

Hmmmm... Maybe its time to use mp3tag..and change the info on mp3s

Hell..the RIAA is ABOVE the law. I bet they break into any computer they can thats not protected. It gets real old having to make sure your running stealth. Pathetic we have to be so paranoid of scans and probs..geez

Phantom, that is wicked, cheers.

GO !!!!!!!

Well, if you think about it, the greatest compilers of such filth are U.S. Customs, the FBI, and other LEA's and court offices. If it's illegal to merely possess the stuff, then...

The same goes for drugs.

They need to make a distinction between distributors and casual users, as the RIAA needs to distinguish between full-blown CD pirates and file sharers, they're not the same thing.

Of course the peds are going to use IRC, e-mail, newsgroups, P2p to trade their garbage...should all these forms of digital media be banned as well?

Personally, I think they need to go after the ones who are actually physically exploiting the children, and keep an eye on the ones who do not actually contribute.

As you well know, you can download what you think is one thing, and get quite another. Should you go to jail for that?

Kragok, maybe RIAA should be sent letters with Manthrax in them.

Killfrog.com look up Ultimate Survivor Season 3

dakota: This is not a stupid point. If they are going to use child porn as propoganda against p2p then someone should question where their proof is. It is not at all the same as renting a movie that has been copied over as you so stated. The RIAA has no business even downloading image or video files because they are after MUSIC, which i hope you realize, is audio. So they are purposely violating the law. Your "clever" example would only be useful if we were talking about the Porn Industry. Oh.. and good riddance.

waves goodbye to Dakota81, and wonders why they were here to begin with...

well, dakota81 is obviously uncapable of seeing a very important fact.
- if you rent a VHS copy of a movie and see some children pornographic material on it, it is not you to be sued but the one who rented you the tape. in this case you don't POSSESS the material. you rented it and saw it involuntary.

sorry if my english is not very well - i'm not from USA, britain, canada or some other english speaking territory - but i fully support your action.

dakota81
Don't let the door hit ya on the way out. Amnd the point is They said (RIAA) so its fact not fiction and two they are supposedly looking for MP3 files so why are they searching AVI's and Mpg's???

taurus-yor Your English is Great to me!
and welcome to the fight for freedom...
because the fight for freedom is for freedom in ALL languages!
~code

Ok, this came up awhile back, but who can create a "virtual" RIAA Most Wanted Deck of Cards that we can spread on the internet. For instance, Cary-Sue=Ace of Spades; Lars Ulrich=The Joker.

We need to stop these Terrorists.

In defense of Dakota, while the attempt of RIAA to portray p2p as a haven for porn is one more desperate strategy of a losing battle plan, the possession of evidence obtained to fight crime could not in itself be a crime.
Otherwise, undercover cops would be criminals. This is the misguided mentality that allowed for the gutting of our security services, and left us vulnerable to terrorists.
With all due respect to the author of the article, the logic is a little shaky.
Let's win this, but let's do it right.
Just my humble opinion.

The Kid.

50sKid - the responses to Dakota come not just from his last post..he has been making pro-RIAA comments for some time, even saying we should (in one post some time back),"give the RIAA a chance". He was in the wrong forum from the get go it seemed, and I read every post he ever made. They tended to be, in my opinion, intentionally divisive, so , he will not be missed here.

~code

like user: musicfreedom said, money talks and bullshit walks.

People like Dakota are gonna wind up being another hurdle in the effort of bringing down the RIAA. People like Dakota either come in for the sole purpose of being a jackass or they come in, like what they hear, but give up as soon as they're asked to give back to the cause, or are asked to read an opinion that doesn't EXACTLY mirror theirs.
On a final note, it seems odd that the media would pick 1997 as the year that man first cloned a sheep, when Clear Channel, Viacom, and Sony have been doing it for far longer.
Please feel free to ignore this post as the ramblings of a madman.

Stevie G The Dance Machine

Hi, Code.

I haven't really been following Dakota's posts, being new to this site. I was merely trying to help keep the thrust of the battle focused. To give him the benefit of the doubt, that may be his intention, also.
If his criticism of the article has merit, then it should at least be considered. Otherwise, we can lose credibility, if any objective criticism, even if it comes from someone with a bad rep, is met with derision.
Heck, I even agree with liberals, sometimes.
I personally would not want to approach a member of congress with this tack. RIAA looks like a good guy in this instance, and we would come off as supporting porn, if we appeared to be working against them, in any way.

Gotta get some sleep for work tomorrow.
Nice talking to you all.

The Kid.

Have a great wed. 50sKid
and welcome. I understand your comments, and thoughtful posts are always welcome.
Welcome to the fight!

~code

ShawnE3386-good post!
agreed.

I hope you people didnt misunderstand me in my post earlier. I was in a hurry and it didnt come out the way I intended. When Dakota said what he said, It really pissed me off. I know the porno is an issue, But we are not the ones who made it an issue. I wish it wasnt an issue because I feel like the only reason the RIAA even brought it up was for its shock value. If they can shock enough people and lawmakers we will surely lose the battle.

NiteRider: I agree with you. That is my whole point. They brought it up for shock value and if we only had a senator working directly with us, he could publicly accuse the RIAA of breaking the law to have such knowledge, hence, shock value against the RIAA. I didn't mean to piss people off with this article, or make them argue and worse.. leave.. but my feelings on this is anyone who leaves or is just so utterly rude like dakota, they don't belong here and are not an asset to the cause.. thats all.

gecko7,, I thought it was a Great article. I was just pissed because I felt like Dakota was accusing us for something the RIAA brought up.
When I said I didnt think it should be an issue, I was referring to the scum bag RIAA for trying to use such a sick way to discredit p2p users.

If you read it as something against your article I apoligize...

I am in this to the end nomatter what that end may be.

I run a p2p file sharing program and make no profit. I will stand no matter how hard the RIAA pushes and I will not fall. I have a programmer that is working on making all users anonymous as to protect them. Consumers feed these a-holes and then they want to turn around and bite the hand that feeds them? They need to be put down like rabid dogs. If they want to sue me, I say go ahead. You can't get blood from a turnip. Sorry this sounds so cliche, but I felt it best in order to get my point across. "I, I'll stand, not crawling, not falling down"-Mudvayne

I agree GNapster --- Hell if they want to sue me there's not much I can do about it, and if they can pull some cash out of my ass, I'll gladly share some with them, that is after I pay all the other bloodsuckers who want that same cash .

All I have to my name is the site that I run which by the way is incorporated, so if they want to sue me, they can sue my corporation. Ever heard of Chapter 11 Bankruptcy?

Actually, news of the sueing the 12 year old came out Tuesday morning. There was such a backlash to the initial news they tried damage control by claiming you could find porn on the p2p's. That was the afternoon statement on Tuesday, trying to take attention away from the lawsuit.

They knew the publicity was foul over the lawsuit and that was their spin doctors advise. Misdirect and befuddle the public before it has time to think about the lawsuit. Well, guess what? It ain't working...

Even the FBI can't go on a P2P network and download child pornography from someone for evidence, so I don't see how the RIAA should be able to get away with it.

wet1- very good analysis...I agree!