Court Ordered Extortion

[nirvana]

Gotcha, thanks for putting it in words I could understand.  But still, they are always watching........

Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean their not after you.

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by nirvana
Gotcha, thanks for putting it in words I could understand.  But still, they are always watching........

Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean their not after you.

That's why I don't use any file sharing Peer to peer programs.

[nirvana]

Now you just have to watch out for the pr0n.  It's bad news though.  once the RIAA see's people fighting back I think the lawsuits will slow down a bit.  Consider the last wave, music artists started speaking up and the RIAA stpped back, but not aftergetting a few lawsuits out of it.

[Flit]

Originally posted by Gunslinger
Ok let me put it to you like this.  If a private investigator saw you selling boot leg CDs on the street and took pictures of you and he informed his client he did not violate the bill of rights.  If the RIAA broke into this woman's computer with out her consent then they could and probably would be charged with a crime.

When you have a sharing program open on your computer and you are sharing copyrighted music to other people it is not illegal for an investigator to attempt to dowload these files off your computer and find out the IP in wich the data is coming from.  Then his client files suit in federal court against a john doe or annonymous person.  Then he uses that suit to sopena your ISP to privide your name number and address.  From there they name you in the suit after the fact.  

This is not breaking into your computer.  THe worst the investigator could be doing is violating the TOS of the share program.

Thank you.
 If she was'nt online (i.e. shut the internet access off) then she never would'a got caught.
btw- They say 80% of the traffic on the net is from filesharing.Remember that the next time you complain about lag(all you bit-torrentors out there).

[AKS\/\/ulfe]

Originally posted by Gunslinger

It was Easter Sunday, and Patricia Santangelo was in church with her kids when she says the music recording industry peeked into her computer and decided to take her to court.

[/b]

I'm curious what this means. Was a file sharing program open... or did they actually invade her privacy?

If the latter, which I would not be surprised, that is hacking. Illegal in all forms.
-SW

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe


I'm curious what this means. Was a file sharing program open... or did they actually invade her privacy?

If the latter, which I would not be surprised, that is hacking. Illegal in all forms.
-SW

I highly doubt they hacked the computer.  During discovery they'd have to devulge all evidence and how they procured it.  Evidence obtained illegally is well illegal and inadmissable.  

You never know but I think the author is mistaken in how that's worded.

[Maverick]

How does ANY business find info about you and where you have been on the net and what you have done??? Think cookies, spyware, trojans, active-x etc. etc. ad naseum.

Nirvana,

Guns has already explained it but there is no CONSTITUTIONAL protection from private spying on you. The CONSTITUTION limits or enables the FEDERAL GOVT. in whatever actions they do or contemplate. Much later after the constitution was written, court decisions interpreted the constitutional protections / limitations also apply to state and local government actions, not businesses or private individuals.

The protection from private sources of "spying" are the state and local laws and limited federal laws regarding interstate communications. In other words if a private investigator is "spying" on you it is not a constitutional issue, it may be a burglary issue but not a 4th ammendment issue.

[nirvana]

It's up to the federal judge to interpret the Constitution as they see fit.  Wulfe, I believe the author was 1) trying to confuse the reader or 2) was confused.

What I was saying about the 4th amendment is that in my mind "they" we're actually going into the defendent's computer (private) they would be violating privacy because they had no valid evidence to support the entry to the computer.  I'm still split but I believe the RIAA are a bunch of tight arses that are trying to find a buck anywhere they can.

[AKS\/\/ulfe]

Guns, this would stop the RIAA why? No security = no hacking in the minds of computer illiterate, or even many computer literate, persons. If it was wide open, why would it be hacking? Any invasion of privacy into another person's computer is hacking to me, but not to many. I don't suspect she has the best in security.

I'm not inclined to believe the RIAA will not bend the truth a little.
-SW

[Maverick]

Originally posted by nirvana
It's up to the federal judge to interpret the Constitution as they see fit.  Wulfe, I believe the author was 1) trying to confuse the reader or 2) was confused.

What I was saying about the 4th amendment is that in my mind "they" we're actually going into the defendent's computer (private) they would be violating privacy because they had no valid evidence to support the entry to the computer.  I'm still split but I believe the RIAA are a bunch of tight arses that are trying to find a buck anywhere they can.

I agree that RIAA is acting in a poor manner. It's one of the reasons I no longer buy music like I used to. I can't believe they are in any financial difficulty. They charge more than the CD is worth.

I was just pointing out that their "spying" is not a constitutional issue. They are not a govt. agency.

[Holden McGroin]

The constitution limits the government.

The first amendment does not give you the right to freely express your religion.  It limits the government from taking that liberty away.

Limitations on private intrusion are statutory, not constitutional.

[Gunslinger]

I'll have to look it up but invading one's computer would probably be covered on the digital rights act or something.

Scratch that, that's actualy a copyright protection act.

probably the wires and security laws.  Invading one's computer is no different than entering one's home without permission.

But most of this is irrelevent.  I'm no computer gure by any means but all the investigators would have to do is check server logs and IPs.  It be alot more ethical and probabley more legal.

[Sundowner]

Guys...guys

If you put files in the "shared folder" to be downloaded by anyone it's no longer private. Now you are in the public domain. If I do a search for "Smoke on the water" a list of users comes up that have files available for download matching that name.

Then I can right click over any user name and select "see all files from this user".
Anything thats in their "shared folder" is displayed.
No invasion of privacy there.

Do what I do:

Keep a seperate "private" music folder.
Move all files to your private folder after download.

Leech only.  (legal)
Never share.  (not legal)

Regards
Sun

[nirvana]

That's what I always thought, Sundowner.  You can steal it but you can't spread it.  I don't P2P anymore, too much spyware and other crap that I don't need.


Then again there were the good old Napster days....

And also regarding the Constitution, an employer can limit what his employees say just because?  The Constitution is only valid against government abuses and not against regular citizens?  (at least i'm trying to learn:rolleyes: )

[MrRiplEy[H]]

With Emule, kazaa etc. you can't stop sharing in any way unless you get a hacked leech client which are btw banned in most 'legal' clients.

Even if you store your downloads in a separate folder, the client will share the files you d/l for the whole duration of your download. It shares the data from the temporary files folder so your unfinished downloads are being shared on the net 24/7.

Only way to really stop sharing is to get a leecher mod - and as I said they're often blocked so getting stuff might be hard. Never tried one so I cant say for sure.

And I strongly suggest everyone of you who read this to BOYCOTT the record industry.

I haven't bought _anything_ related to the recording industry in 2 years. Before the lawsuits, threats etc. I was a dedicated music listener who used thousands of dollars yearly to both audio equipment and recordings. Now if I want a music title, I can't buy it because I absolutely resent the idea that the money is going to these corporate criminals who force an outdated business model through by legislation.

It all begun with CD's. They promised, guaranteed, that the CD prices will drop to the vinyl levels once the mass production starts. What happened? Thiefs saw that people buy them anyway and continued to raise the price instead of droping it. Now when people are fed up paying overprice for music, they use the law to force them to continue. A legal business would have droped the price when demand goes down.. The recording industry puts a gun to your head instead.

BOYCOT THE A-HOLES! Every cent you put in their pockets goes straight to oppressing people through lawsuits and private spies.