Thread: file sharing - RIAA conspiracy?

File sharing has legitimate, legal uses. The existence of file-sharing sites and software are not, in themselves, illegal. However, anyone who thinks that the majority of file-sharing traffic is NOT illegal, is simply living in a fantasy world.

However, recently, I've seen a disturbing trend in file sharing, p2p, and streaming media sites.

Filesharing software has begun to add disclaimers about use. p2p sites are putting up warnings that they are now required by law to share server traffic information with the RIAA, including your isp and what you're downloading. Streaming media sites have begun to put up little signs that say

<div class='quotetop'></div>

committed to an industry solution that will provide a mechanism to compensate artists that create the work you enjoy watching. [x] would like to be part of the long term solution.

Now, we've all heard of the RIAA lawsuits and fines:

<div class='quotetop'></div>

The RIAA’s demands usually range from $750 to a whooping $30,000 per song uploaded. According to them, that’s how much loss they incur per song, per person. These claims seem to be rather overstated since the cost of one of those songs from an online music retailer like iTunes is under $1.

(quoted from a torrent site)

or if that's not reliable enough for you, WIRED:
http://www.wired.com/politics/law/ne...7/10/copyright
<div class='quotetop'></div>

The petition (.pdf) to U.S. District Judge Michael Davis, among other things, challenges the constitutionality of the 1976 Copyright Act, the law under which the RIAA sued Jammie Thomas of Minnesota, as well as over 20,000 other defendants. The $750 to $150,000 fines the act authorizes for each download is unconstitutionally excessive and against U.S. Supreme Court precedent, wrote Brian Toder, Thomas' attorney.

and

<div class='quotetop'></div>

The minimum penalty under the Copyright Act equals a ratio of over 750 times the actual injury, assuming the value of a single music track is iTunes' 99-cent rate. Rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court and other courts say financial punishments exceeding a 9-to-1 ratio are unconstitutional.

Toder speculated that each digital download that is pirated costs the industry only 70 cents -- meaning Thomas' conduct was punished at a ratio of more than 1,000 times actual damages.

Now, the RIAA, in regards to streaming media, has also argued in court that listening to unlicensed streaming media counts as downloading since a record of the streaming is kept in the computer (as cookies, cache files, temporary internet files, etc.), and as a record of the media is kept in the computer, it is therefore a download and subject to fines.

(a) Streaming media conspiracy theory.
basis: several websites were set up with the quote above about compensating artists, and including the disclaimer that the sites were not illegal because they do not host the media: they only provide links. The sites then encourage people to post the media. However, I soon discovered that the sites that had the 'media solution - compensating artists' notice (not ALL sites, only those with the notice), suddenly became filled with broken links. Every single link on the site was systematically, one by one, shut down. There are lots of sites where this did not happen: only those with the 'media solution' message.

Theory: Did the RIAA set up fake sites in order to get people to tell them location of illegally hosted content in order to shut them down?

Now, we can argue: the content is illegal. So what? However, it strikes me as being unnecessarily misleading.

Now, when the sheriff's department sends out special notes to the families of people who have warrants on them and are hard to find, notes saying they have won a special prize, and should show up in person to collect: I find it hilarious! I LMAO!

This, though, the fake website: disturbs me somehow.

( p2p and filesharing. These sites stay up, even though they are host to considerable traffic in illegally shared copyrighted material. The sites stay up. People continue to trade. However, RIAA: MONITORS it.

They basically let people get fat on pirated content: then lead them to the slaughter, charging them (as reported) 1000 TIMES the value of the content.

It seems to me that the RIAA people are using p2p and filesharing as a business. Its like opening a store and telling people everything is free: "Take what you want! Take as much as you want! See? It's ALLLLLLL free." Then hiring people to follow them home and spy on them. When they've taken a lot of stuff, they move in with the bill. "Look, you took all this stuff. Now you have to pay!"

Now, we can say, quite honestly: these pirates and downloaders and sharers are breaking the law. They are stealing intellectual property. I don't have a problem with the concept of 'break the law, get busted, pay the price. Do the crime, do the time" and all that.

What I have a problem with is the RIAA people USING these sites as a way to generate revenue. Not to punish people who stole: but to make money off of them.

I know this is, as conspiracy theories go, rather mundane. However, I think it speaks of corruption, greed and misuse, and it has rather important implications beyond this.

Did you know Sony was found to be using hidden software that, when Sony music CDs were played on a computer, secretly hid that software on the computer to track illegal content?

http://www.villagevoice.com/music/05...,70217,22.html
http://antivirus.about.com/od/virusdescrip...sonyrootkit.htm

Did you know that Microsoft Vista sends information about licensing and rights management?

http://www.aaxnet.com/editor/edit042.html
http://badvista.fsf.org/what-s-wrong-with-...t-windows-vista

Did you know Windows Media Player does the same?
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsme...chitecture.aspx
http://www.theinquirer.net/en/inquirer/new...eds-your-rights

Did you know that Microsoft Genuine Advantage has been identified by some as spyware:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Genuine_Advantage
http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,12...1/article.html
http://windowssecrets.com/comp/060615/
(on the last one, scroll down)

Now, what's the point? The point is that corporations have successfully demonstrated in court that, when pursuing Digital Rights, the rights of the consumer have no meaning. Now, we can say: people are breaking the law, therefore they have no rights. However, Microsoft is LEADING the charge in software development for DRM on behalf of media corporations, and Microsoft's software is invading the privacy and annihilating the rights of people who have done no wrong except to buy microsoft products and legally install microsoft software.

This attitude has spread, as we can see with the underhanded actions of RIAA with regard to streaming media, file-sharing, and p2p.

I welcome all comments.
Question: Is there a conspiracy here?