36 replies to this topic

[Simakos]

does anybody know if anyone has been busted for simply uploading a record to something like Mediafie, Sendspace, etc? is it always peer to peer?

[cerebralcaustic]

does anybody know if anyone has been busted for simply uploading a record to something like Mediafie, Sendspace, etc? is it always peer to peer?

There was a big RIAA raid of divshare servers a couple of weeks ago. We'll see what comes of that

[M_Rots]

http://www.npr.org/t...mp;d=12-22-2008

Excellent Fresh Air interview today with Lawrence Lessig about intellectual property.

[wakingrufus]

Please point out to me the LAW which says file-sharing is illegal. Thanks.

DMCA

[The Sheck]

does anybody know if anyone has been busted for simply uploading a record to something like Mediafie, Sendspace, etc? is it always peer to peer?

There was a big RIAA raid of divshare servers a couple of weeks ago. We'll see what comes of that

I can't find any news of this on google which makes me think it's not true. Where did you hear this?

It's much easier to track when people use Limewire, Kazaa, and such. A file download is harder to locate and stop, especially when it's labeled differently.

[Simakos]

does anybody know if anyone has been busted for simply uploading a record to something like Mediafie, Sendspace, etc? is it always peer to peer?

There was a big RIAA raid of divshare servers a couple of weeks ago. We'll see what comes of that

you're just messing with me, right?

[Heretix]

does anybody know if anyone has been busted for simply uploading a record to something like Mediafie, Sendspace, etc? is it always peer to peer?

There was a big RIAA raid of divshare servers a couple of weeks ago. We'll see what comes of that

you're just messing with me, right?

Don't know about divshare, but no, Simakos, no one has ever been 'busted' for using file hosting sites. If someone were to get in trouble, it would be the hosting site, because they're the ones openly hosting and transferring data to other people, disseminating the copyrighted material. Rapidshare is in quite a bit of hot water, and it's probably a ticking time bomb. But really, even if, say, rapidshare gave in and handed in all their transfer logs with ips and details of files, there's a) no way to prove that, for example, a file labelled Kanye West 808s & Heartbreak.rar actually contained any copyrighted music, and they can't go after every person that ever uploaded a copyrighted album, that's just insanity. So you're safe, unless you have a personal stake in actually running one of these websites, or are making money off of them.

[Simakos]

yeah, i own divshare.

[cerebralcaustic]

does anybody know if anyone has been busted for simply uploading a record to something like Mediafie, Sendspace, etc? is it always peer to peer?

There was a big RIAA raid of divshare servers a couple of weeks ago. We'll see what comes of that

you're just messing with me, right?

Yes, I am

[M_Rots]

yeah, i own divshare.

cool. can I borrow a dollar?

Oh. You have me on ignore, don't you?

Fuck you, I already got a dollar.

[radiocure]

Please point out to me the LAW which says file-sharing is illegal. Thanks.

For residents of St. Paul, MN:

Digital Millennium Copyright Act

http://www.copyright...lation/dmca.pdf

17 U.S.C. 501 et seq.

http://www.copyright...17/92chap5.html

Of course, if you're asking about non-copyrighted file-sharing (like emailing your mom some photos that you took with your camera phone), the answer is no, there aren't any laws against that.

[MattDrufke]

does anybody know if anyone has been busted for simply uploading a record to something like Mediafie, Sendspace, etc? is it always peer to peer?

I wonder if there will ever be a Napster-like attack on these sites, claiming that since they're used to illegally share music, the sites are held liable.

[The Sheck]

Please point out to me the LAW which says file-sharing is illegal. Thanks.

For residents of St. Paul, MN:

Digital Millennium Copyright Act

http://www.copyright...lation/dmca.pdf

17 U.S.C. 501 et seq.

http://www.copyright...17/92chap5.html

In a nutshell, this is what the DCPA says:

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is an extension to United States copyright law passed unanimously on May 14, 1998, which criminalizes the production and dissemination of technology that allows users to circumvent technical copy-restriction methods. Under the Act, circumvention of a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work is illegal if done with the primary intent of violating the rights of copyright holders.

This covers circumventing DRM on files, CDs, and DVDs. There's no mention of .mp3s (which don't have copyright protection) and 'ripping' material to a CD/DVD doesn't fall under that act too if there's no DRM on the disc itself (which many do not have.) The definition of 'Internet Transmissions' as it's worded talks about re-airing network TV shows on a specific cable or Internet provider without permission, and liabilities faced for Cable and ISPs who willingly store copyrighted material on their servers. No mention of how file-sharing works today. What can you expect from a 10-year old act that was created before Napster, Broadband connections, and the rise of the Internet in general?

Also, it goes on in detail to talk about 'copyright violation for financial gain.' It isn't correct to assume every time a copy is made (DRM-breaking or not), a sale is lost. Lawrence Lessig (who has more experience with this than anyone), and the Consumer Electronics Association are two of those. What is the value of an .mp3 or a digital file? How is that quantified? It's not the same quality as a CD or other physical, material product. Heck, it's not even a material product to begin with. How can one claim money is being lost, then without some kind of proof? Many of the studies we've all read state that file-sharing INCREASES sales of the physical product!

The RIAA claims that file-sharing falls under the DCMA, but it's at best a gray area which isn't specifically addressed. There's a whole ton of rhetoric flying around whether it's legal or illegal, and there remains no law on file which even begins to define it. People against use the DMCA, proponents use the 'VCR Ruling' of 1985. Both have their flaws. There's a great book out called 'Peers, Pirates & Persuasion' written by John Logie (which you can download for free (legally) here that I highly recommend if you're even the least-bit into this issue.

For the record, I do believe this needs to be addressed in our big book of laws, but with the realization and understanding that this is not a black and white issue, where every (or even most) occurrences are copyright violations. The odds of such a law coming into fruition are slim, where it benefits both sides of the issue, so that's why I think they should just add an extra fee into your service which would let you have whatever you want whenever you want and skip all the legal trouble.

[The Sheck]

does anybody know if anyone has been busted for simply uploading a record to something like Mediafie, Sendspace, etc? is it always peer to peer?

I wonder if there will ever be a Napster-like attack on these sites, claiming that since they're used to illegally share music, the sites are held liable.

They're not if they don't know there's copyright infringement going on. That's covered in the DMCA. But most probably DO know it's going on (if they don't, they're clueless), and those companies do take down files that violate copyright. But those are ones that have the name of the album, movie, etc. in the title. The files which are named differently (which I'm seeing more and more of), how do you stop those? Or even become aware which files are what without downloading them all if you're the company? No one has the resources or time to go through terrabytes of data. It's unrealistic. And since these file-sites are used for non-copyright infringing purposes they legally have the right to stay in business. I might be wrong, but rapidshare, megaupload, and the like are not US based, so the RIAA can't easily shut them down or take them to court like Napster.

[radiocure]

Sheck, Go to law school, take some IP classes, read the news, avoid wikipedia, stay off drugs, and practice law for a few years. Then get back to me.

[The Sheck]

Sheck,

Go to law school, take some IP classes, read the news, avoid wikipedia, stay off drugs, and practice law for a few years.

Then get back to me.

Oh, please. Stop with the condescension. I've done plenty of research on this topic on my own and corresponded with people more knowledgeable when I had questions. You link to sites and documents you don't read all the way through.

At best, file-sharing is a gray area not specifically addressed in the DMCA or any other 'law' on record. *shrug* You don't want to believe it, I'm not going to try and convince you further.

[radiocure]

Sheck,

Go to law school, take some IP classes, read the news, avoid wikipedia, stay off drugs, and practice law for a few years.

Then get back to me.

Oh, please. Stop with the condescension. I've done plenty of research on this topic on my own and corresponded with people more knowledgeable when I had questions. You link to sites and documents you don't read all the way through.

At best, file-sharing is a gray area not specifically addressed in the DMCA or any other 'law' on record. *shrug* You don't want to believe it, I'm not going to try and convince you further.

I have to admit, that was a pretty condescending post. But you're wrong if you think I haven't read those statutes inside and out.

It's clear to me that you've read a few things about file sharing, but it isn't clear that you have a good grasp on basic legal concepts like "copyright" and "fair use."

Anyway, Merry Christmas!