Yea. RIAA tells millions more people that we will punish our consumers, but please buy more from us. yea right. Boycott all music sales until the RIAA is gone and bankrupt. If they ever want to make a dime again for their music, artists will drop the RIAA. Its already happening by the 1000s in todays online direct market sales.

I know of several networks that have been illegally broke into on campuses that have private secured file networks using student equipment on what is perceived to be PRIVATE local dorm networks with their friends on campus. Guess what? RIAA strikes there too. they break into the network using stolen passwords or hacking into accounts to see whats on the network... in other cases they use packet sniffing to illegally search and seize information to examine it on campus networks. Even worse they simply note the traffic amount and notify the campus of illegal activity being suspect but have ZERO evidence. But they will not allow these cases to go to trial because of risk of setting a precedence against them. and ensuring Fair use statues come back into being for digital consumers. Its settle or be harassed and coerced until finally charges are dropped cause they do not want to set the precedence. So they bully you into settlements.

Oh and if they loose one you can bet they will appeal and appeal and appeal until the victim can not afford to fight it any longer. They have all the money folks, and we keep giving it to them. Stop giving anything to them. if you believe in fair use rights and cheap or free music to listen too from the air... TAKE A STAND. Put the RIAA out of business. just 1 day of zero sales industry wide would scare the ever loving crap out of them. Imagine what a week of it would do? or a month? or a year? This BS will stop. one way or another. eventually the people they are suing will grow up and come to power and they will remember how they were victimized and it WILL come back to bite them in the assets someday. I can't wait for that day.

Anyone who leaves thier wireless network wide open deserves the trouble that comes with being uninformed, uneducated, and lazy.

Hidden SSID and 128 bit encryption will keep almost anybody out of your network. People are too lazy to do a little reading and become aquainted with their wireless access point / router.

It's like going on vacation and leaving your front door wide open and then crying because your 65" plasma went missing.

I can drive a block away to a subdivision where the houses are packed in like sardines and access up to wireless 10 networks at once, at least half are unsecured. When my Comcast internet was down and I had to get documents to our SharePoint server, I jumped in the SUV and watched the networks pop up like crazy, so I pulled to the curb right in front of thier house and used thier network to upload all my files.

The sad thing about using someone else's network is that it is illegal.

Don't get caught!

"Hidden SSID and 128 bit encryption will keep almost anybody out of your network"

NOT. What it will do is, give you a little piece of mind that the hacker is probably going to prefer going the easy route and use someone else's unsecure wireless, if available. Otherwise, 128bit encryption will keep him off your network for just a very short period of time...unless you change your WEP key daily.

Hidden SSID is a joke...that just keeps the xbox 360's from discovering you.

"The sad thing about using someone else's network is that it is illegal. "

The sadder thing is...he will never get caught...and the person who owns the wireless network will be the one that gets in trouble for whatever he decided to do...unless he tells them he did it.

Screw the RIAA stop buying and downloading music. There are many other forms of entertainment to choose from, they don't need our money and we don't need their bulls***!

Students need to cover their asses by staying away from dangerous apps that reveal what they're downloading. There's so many ways to share music, why use one that exposes information? One example of a safe app to use is GigaTribe, since it encrypts exchanges within a private community of friends (that way your isp has no way of knowing the names of the files you're exchanging): http://www.gigatribe.com

Or use http://www.g2p.org/ and let the power of google find the music for you.

There's no middleman.

Google? Google knows and will keep that information for a long time.

I think google supplying us with the search, not to mention thousands of copyright violations on youtube/GV, they have little leeway in complaining about copyright infringement.

If those letters didn't have pictures, they probably got balled up and tossed out by now.

Hahaha. You speak the truth.

I hate! hate! hate! the RIAA but artist have a right to get paid for their work if you like a song buy it.

the music being downloaded is not owned nor created by RIAA and often the proceeds from prosecution or out of court settlements do not go to the lable or the artists - it goes back into RIAA's pockets to sue more grandparents (pardon the gross generalization in that last comment).

Terrorism has a new and familiar Name:

RIAA

ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS disconnect from your own wireless network and use your neighbors when downloading illegal files.

Precisely why I hide my SSID.

Torrents are so ghetto, usenet is the way to go but people are too cheap to spend money on access to newsgroups.

Haha my point exactly.

Even if I did want to steal music, I'd never do that. I don't think I could live with myself if I got my neighbors in trouble over something I'd done. Then again I don't want to steal music anyway. :)

So you just received a letter from the RIAA accusing you of illegal file sharing.

1. How did they figure it out, and do they even have to tell you?
2. Is there a list of songs that you downloaded available as evidence?
3. How can you as a defense confirm their claim it was your ip address? what if it wasn't yours and your isp or college campus made a mistake, one bit out of the 32bit address was off?
4. Do they even have to share their evidence with you in order to settle?

So now bring in to the college situation, what if the college makes a mistake and gives them your info and you didn't do it? What is the college's policy in regards to your privacy?

So we all know there have been numerous issues with the RIAA suing people whome don't exist, have died, who don't even own a computer and who are 10 year olds.

Adapt or die, that is what needs to happen here, Riaa lost their first lawsuit, and they ended up paying. Let's hope the courts get their act together, were talking thousands of people getting sued or rather being victumized.

I certainly would be scared and not sure what to do. But its just like if you were arrested walking down the street being accused of robbing the candy store down the block, there is some evidence against you, pay the store 3k dollars and they won't sue, pay it not and they will make you "pay thousands in fines and penalities."

I mean that is just messed up, the RIAA should burn to the ground for this craziness they have brought on the average consumer. Some are guilty, but I bet a whole lot more are being wrongfully accused and are being torn apart legally, emotionally and FINANCIALLY. By a organization that is so greedy they will stop at nothing to make another dime, even if that means the worst PR imaginable.

There should be no out of court settlement, the reason the Riaa strong arms these students or others is to make money without breaking a sweat or losing for that matter.

Either way as the one being accused, you are going to be hurting financially, unless like in that recent case where the Riaa had to pay the lawyers fees which seems to have been a first. But who can afford 10's of thousands of dollars in lawyer fees just to prove your not guilty of this thing they are accusing you of? There goes your college education guy.

You are obviously the audience in which I was speaking to.

I don't give a rat's behind about how you were caught, if you have something to hide--trust me, they can find out if it was you. Do they always know with 100% certainty? No. Are you willing to risk it? I wouldn't.

If you are guilty, I have no advice to give other than that you should stop continueing to download music illegally. Those of you whom choose to break the law a second time in order to cover up your first offense, follow cranber's advice. Whether you get caught or not shouldn't even be the question--but since it is, just FYI, the stories here on BN are probably close to the number of those that RIAA have screwed up on. Betanews will never tell about RIAA's success, because it isn't newsworthy enough--or perhaps they should, since it will infuriate people like cranburs and thus spark up another long comments section.

"So you just received a letter from the RIAA accusing you of illegal file sharing.

1. How did they figure it out, and do they even have to tell you?"

a.k.a, so you just received a letter from the RIAA accussing you of breaking FEDERAL law (meaning if your found guilty, even the 9th circuit court of appeals won't save your skin):

1. How do they figure it out? Who cares? Do you wish to risk your future based on the possibiliy that they might not actually have hard proof?

"2. Is there a list of songs that you downloaded available as evidence?"

2. Do you think they'd accuse you of something they didn't have any evidence to support? Sue-happy lawyers, anyone?

"3. How can you as a defense confirm their claim it was your ip address? what if it wasn't yours and your isp or college campus made a mistake, one bit out of the 32bit address was off?"

3. How can you as a defense confirm their claim it was your ip address? I mean, since the ISP records the IP address and THE FILE GOT TO YOUR COMPUTER (meaning if it was the wrong address how did the TCP headers for all the 65,000 byte or so packets EACH have your IP on them wrongfully)?

"4. Do they even have to share their evidence with you in order to settle?"

4. Do they have to share their evidence with you in order to settle? I mean, if they don't, should you give a rat's a$$?

Why risk it when you know you're wrong?

Now, if you are truley wrongfully accussed, only a fool would admit something they didn't do. Fight it. Counter sue. Post in every forum about how evil the RIAA is until you can't use a computer anymore. Since I have yet to hear of any cases where the accussed WAS actually proven innocent--I'm sure there are some of those, but I have yet to see them--I can assume most of their cases they win.

Innocent until proven guilty, correct, but not guilty does not usually indicate proof of innocence, but rather lack of evidence to prove guilt. The grandmother that was sued did have a grandson that downloaded music illegally--she was not held liable for charges, but they proved he downloaded illegally.

Unless you have diplomatic immunity or didn't download the files yourself, I'd consider settling.

"Innocent until proven guilty, correct, but not guilty does not usually indicate proof of innocence"

Sorry to break it to you....because you really seem to be the type of guy that just accepts things....but, in these cases, you are GUILTY and proven innocent...love how the big corporations take advantage of that, eh?

I understand what your saying, my point here isn't that you did it, therefore your guilty. It is your innosent and your being trapped with no way out of financial ruin. Unless of course you have enough money to settle out of court, even if your wrongfully accused.

People have open wifi connections and wifi connections can even be hacked, so what proof do they have it was you? That is like saying someone stole my car to rob a bank, now I am the bank robber.

People are supposed to not be treated like they are a criminal unless they are given a fair trial and have a hearing to even see if enough evidence is there. Most of the time there is not, but their lawyers are so bullish, they can get anyone even you "BOURGEOISUDE", what would you do if you received a letter stating you did something illegal, even if you didn't? Settle out of court or we will bring you to court and crucify you is basically what the letter says, just pay 3k and your done with an agreement you won't do it again, all the while your thinking, but I didn't do anything? Going to court will cost you 10's of thousands if you win or lose, so what would you do? Settle without admitting wrongdoing?

The point is, people especially college students, can't defend against this kind of a thing, so therefore even if they are guilty or innosent for that matter will most likely just pay, and that isn't fair or right.

"Guilty until proven innocernt"

It's civil courts. Burden of proof rests on the accused. In criminal courts, it rests on the accuser.

There's good and bad regarding this.

The good:

In Civil courts, win or lose, you have no criminal record.

The bad:

The labels don't have to prove a thing. They must submit their evidence and it is up to you and your lawyer to prove them wrong.

There's a push right now that's been growing the last few months to force the RIAA to take these cases to criminal court which would stop a great deal of the "harassment" aspect of their blanket lawsuits, but the downside there is that if you do lose, you then have a criminal record.

It's been recently recommended to force this issue in the EU. It will be interesting to see what affect it has. On the methodology of their lawsuits, the sheer numbers, and the outcomes.

Any time you use someone else’s network - be it a public access network, college or church - you are subject to the rules that apply to that network - you have no privacy implied or guaranteed.

As for RIAA providing proof - in a civil court - you are NOT innocent until proven guilty - it is you who must prove your innocence.

Do I agree with wrongful accusation or civil suit - hell no! But in our civil law system - it is more often than not a fact of life and you must provide a defense to clear your name unless you plan on settling out of court.

Only to state some obvious clarity.

You say that they are harassing. Though I may not favor or even like them, it is funny how you are hiding the act of stealing the songs over how they are responding to it.

Sorry, but are you saying that they should hold out their hand, invite you in for coffee, or offer to pay for your lawyer fees even though you know what you are doing is wrong?

I just have a hard time with that. The law is on their side, and they have been winning. "Ignorance of the law is not excuse", but everyone knows it is illegal, yet continue to do it as well as bash the RIAA in their efforts to minimize the act.

Though anyone can claim to be for or against downloading, the mere fact that it is illega and it is the law of the land should be the issue. There are many alternatives. To try and justify one's actions based soley on the dislike of another's is borderline idocy. We have prisons filled with individuals that have used the same logic in their defense.

I think driving 65mph is stupid, and paying 3.89/gal for gas is extreme. It does not make it right then for me to drive 75mph, drive off without paying at the gas pump or siphon it out of my neighbors car(similar to downloading).

Some of these individuals should be dropping to their knees and kissing the RIAA's A$& for allowing them to take a lesser punishment.

Maybe I missed your point and we agree on the same issues. If so, I apologize and should have placed this at the top.

Good day sir.

it is funny how you are hiding the act of stealing the songs

Hiding the act of stealing songs. I hope that's just bad wording and you are not accusing me of something. I do not download copyrighted music.

over how they are responding to it.

Where is it stated that if one talks about one aspect, they *must* discuss the other? Sorry, but this is an open forum, we may discuss any aspect of the topic we choose to. The "coyright infringement is illegal" and 'Copyright = Theft" has been beaten to death. Some of us have moved on to the problems the response has caused and how alternatives / restrictions on that response could help alleviate some of the abuse of our legal system.

Sorry, but are you saying that they should hold out their hand, invite you in for coffee, or offer to pay for your lawyer fees even though you know what you are doing is wrong?

Where did I ever say anything close to this?

Maybe I missed your point

Yeah. I'll say. You seem to be under the impression I'm defending copyright abuse. I'm not. Look at any other posts from me in these copyright related topics.

The points you raised seemed only one sided and were on that which is for downloading. I assumed you were in favor. It was clear you were even giving equal points to both sides.

If you are calling the RIAA's efforts in protecting their content "harassment", and the fact that they should take alternative measurements in dealing with these people - I disagree. That is the "argument" that I was making. No attack on you as a person, just the points you were raising.

I feel that just because hour courts are filled and that the jails are full is no excuse to let criminals out early or turn the other cheek and give them a break.

I don't even have to read the comments to know that there are mostly anti-RIAA comments being made.

Here's where I stand: RIAA may be an evil, terrorist infested, Bush-worshipping (LOL I enjoyed adding that one) crime organisation--whatever they are, it doesn't make downloading music illegally suddenly legal again. To say that RIAA should shut down or whatever does not justify illegall activity. If you think the laws about downloading music are wrong, lobby to change them. Until then--follow the laws or break them and face consequences.

Sure, RIAA are totally screwed up in their methods, they punish the innocent more than the guilty, etc., etc., but they aren't responsible for the laws regarding music downloads, so quit blaming everybody else for your getting caught.

Those who download legally, ignore my comments. You have nothing to worry about.

"Those who download legally, ignore my comments. You have nothing to worry about. "

Really? My mom has something to worry about...what if someone is using her wireless network to download music and she gets a letter in a few months saying she needs to either pay $5k or be sued for $50k? WIreless network security is still a joke...how is my mom going to prove to the courts that she didn't do it?

Funny thing is (or not so funny), my boss's mom who's about 80 years old, just got a letter from MPAA accusing her of downloading some movie using bittorrents. She doesn't even know what that means. But hey, you say she has nothing to worry about...I'll just pass that along to her, I'm sure she'll feel much better.

That's one more reason I won't use a wireless router in my house, another being that they generally seem to suck. Wired for life. :D

"But hey, you say she has nothing to worry about...I'll just pass that along to her, I'm sure she'll feel much better."

She should. Even if her wireless access point was used, if she didn't do it, nor did anyone at her pc, they can't bust her for that. SSID can be hidden, blah blah blah--there is always that TCP header frame in every packet. That shows the destination address (see http://computer.howstuffworks.com/question525.htm ...not my preferred website for "how stuff works", but it suffices anyway) as well as the sender's address. While she SHOULD be fully responsible for her own network's security, if it wasn't her PC's address, no worries. Sure, someone could break into the wireless router, change the ip addressing scheme, then switch it back after downloading to make it look like her PC's IP address--here's the point where people need to be responsible for their own security. Do I expect my 80-year-old grandparents to understand this? No. Does that make them any less responsible? No--in fact, as their grandson, I personally ensure the security of their wi-fi network. Because I have to? No--because I should.

It is your responsibility to secure your own PC from viruses, not the RIAA's, and if you allow illegal downloading from your network, as proven in previous court cases in state appealate courts, the network administrator or the person who is responsible for the network is partially liable. This is true in downloaded child pornography, and should be true for illegal music as well. A couple links:

http://supreme.lp.findla...361/02-361.mer.ja3.html

http://family.findlaw.co...criminal-liability.html

Second one is interesting--we have yet to have a standard as to whether parents are liable for their kids downloading illegal material. Most cases say yes, but that recent one we've read about is the only significant "no" case. Apparently, grandparents are not liable but parents are...heh, that's almost what the current interpretation can be viewed as.

Word. Hide SSID if you MUST use wireless, and any time you do not have to use wireless, don't.

What are you talking about?? Wireless security is a JOKE! Hide your SSID...I'll find it within 1 minute and I'll crack your WEP/WPA/WPA2 within an hour depending on how much traffic your sending across. Prove it's not her PC? They got her internet IP...that's all they see and that's all they need...her router doesn't log mac addresses or IP translations that she can go back to and show them...and even if they did, prove it wasn't a different PC you use. Prove you didn't change your IP, NIC, whatever. The burden is on her, she has to prove her innocence thanks to the way of the civil cour where these cases are being taken to. And no matter what, it will cost her money and plenty of headaches to fight it.

You can ensure the security of your grandparents wireless network all you want, it's very hackable no matter what you do. I don't need to change your IP scheme and change it back just to make it look like your PC, and I don't need to make it look like your PC in the first place! But I'll just tell her, hey you're responsible for your wireless network security, you deserve to be sued by the MPAA for what you haven't done!!

As a network engineer I AM partially responsible for people downloading illegal content from work...because it's my JOB to prevent it from happening! At work, I have enough resources to enable the security, logging and auditing needed to pin point exactly who did it and from where. My bosses mother does not have this capability, and I don't expect most people at home to have these kind of resources...but hey, I guess you could tell them not to use wireless right? And since wireless is so vulnerable to this type of thing, should she sue Best Buy for selling her that wireless router? Why are they selling it if it will obviously put you at a huge risk of being "cought" for something you didn't do by RIAA/MPAA...just because they don't need ANY kind of proof, except for an internet IP to force YOU to prove your innocence??

Parents being liable for their kids is by far not a good analogy for this. A much better analogy would be if someone stole your car and ran over someone, would you be held liable for it?? According to you you should be held liable...your car wasn't secure enough right? Just like my friends mom's wireless network.

I do agree with you and for now, it is unfortunate that this is the society of laws we have today. We can deal with it.

I am also waiting for the day that Grandma gets sued for being an accomplice after the fact. See, Grandma knew the grandkids were downloading in the other room and using her WiFi, but never did anything about it. She sees the commercials and watches the MPAA's skits at the beginning of movies she rents from Blockbuster. Heck, she even watches the burned movies the kids make on her DVD player.

Now, should Grandma be held responsible - you bet! Whether stealing or murder, the concept is the same. We can't pick and choose what laws are OK to break and which ones are not.

hell it costs only marginally more to buy a spool of wire, jacks, faceplates, patch cables and a wired router(since most computers come with ethernet cards built on) then it does to buy a wireless router and wireless cards(that is assuming your computer didnt have one) and you get better speed, security and peace of mind out if wired ethernet.

Except, I can't take my wired laptop around the house or to the porch now can I?

"Now, should Grandma be held responsible - you bet"

I'm not sure if you have a nack for mis-understanding posts or you're just don't really read them. I never said parents shouldn't be responsible for their kids...

Any student who is dumb enough to download a movie or music file on campus should have this happen. There are simple ways to avoid being caught and thats to avoid things you know are being watched by the big companies.

What worries me is now these Colleges will attempt to purchase software to block programs like Limeware and Bitorrent in their resident halls. Well I have a problem with that considering Bittorrent is used in many legal ways, one being to patch World of Warcraft and the another to download Linux.

Whats even funnier is this software my College is going to buy, is only going to be used for the resident halls connection. Which confuses me since I would think the wireless connection on campus is abused.

What also confuses me is my roommate was caught within hours of starting Limeware ( had it installed ) when he moved in. He said it was just a virus and they gave up on it, but they clearly can watch the network traffic.

Serves them right for not acquiring the proper protection/security. Also I'm sure all those students were caught from P2P programs. When will people learn that the best method out there for downloads are torrents?

LMAO, torrents? You have to be kidding. The protocol where you have to simultaneously upload every file you are downloading? You think the RIAA and MPAA aren't watching who uses them? There have been plenty of people caught using torrents. Anyone who thinks they are safe using torrent is a fool, they are as risky if not more so than even regular p2p programs, which are themselves not safe at all.

We'll I can't argue this too extensively without self incriminating myself. But I will say this, from your response it appears that your knowledge of torrents is limited to thepiratebay... Mirc is the safest in my opinion, but not the preferred method.

My knowledge of torrents is of how the protocol itself works. Anyone downloading a torrent can clearly see the IP addresses of every person they are downloading it from. I have seen the letters sent to ISPs of people caught using torrents to download movies, the MPAA hires companies that search for copyrighted files and track down the people who share them. My point is you say that people who use p2p services to pirate music are dumb (and I quite agree) and then turn around and advocate bittorrent, which itself is a p2p service and just as dangerous to use. Probably more. For the record, I don't use any of them.

For the record my IP shows up as ? when using torrents. :-)

I'd be interested to know what gave you that idea. You can't hide your IP address using torrent. You wouldn't be able to receive any files if it didn't know where to send them. The best anyone could do would be to use a proxy service, which would be very slow and even those can be traced if the other person is determined enough. Every time you use torrent, you are sharing files with many other people, any of which could be monitoring for copyright violations. Torrents are in no way anonymous, and if you use them for piracy you can be caught.

I'm not defending the RIAA by the way, I think they are scum and the tactics they use to catch people or threaten them of questionable legality. Still, if you really want to be safe, don't share files.

I believe he is either referring to the use of torrent apps that can be set to not upload, or to the use of programs such as PeerGuardian, which will block from a list of known IP watchgroups.

Both have their own problems. Setting the client to not upload is in diametric opposition to the intent of BT, and PeerGuardian is only as dependable as the folks making the lists it blocks from. There are many people out there who claim to have gotten C&D letters while using PG.

There really is no "safe" way to share file online that doesn't go above and beyond anything a normal user is capable of. Sure, private trackers, PG, usenet, etc are all safer than public BT sites and apps like Kazaa, but it all boils down to Russian roulette. Exactly how much is having that book/song/movie worth to ya?

If it's worth $3000, it's sure as hell worth waiting a few days for and paying the $20 bucks.

Like I said, limited knowledge.

Limited knowledge nothing, your claims are wrong. You cannot download from torrents (or anything else) without an IP address, end of story. Saying that anyone downloading you will see only a question mark for your address is total nonsense.

LMAO, if you say so

I do say so, but feel free to prove me wrong. Show me this magical client that can download files without using an IP address. What is this program that only shows your IP as a question mark to people downloading from you. I don't expect any proof of course because you're full of crap. You already showed how clueless you were in your first post, saying people should not use p2p but use torrents instead (which IS p2p). So, lmao.

Like, I've said I can't disclose that information here. But if you want prove look for yourself. I'm by far not the only individual doing this. Open up a torrent and take a look at the ips. No piratebay though hehe.

what if that ip is proxied ?

people can use a proxy server in some country that could care less what the riaa thinks

"Like, I've said I can't disclose that information here."

Of course you can't, because it doesn't exist.

A proxy will still show an IP address; it may be one in another country but it still has to have one. He is saying that when he uses torrents no IP address shows up at all, that people who get files from him just see a ? for his address. BS.

I knew I recognized you from somewhere.

http://www.betanews.com/...nual_Revenue/1184879164

"By Latz !

edited Jul 20, 2007 - 2:41 PM

So what? They made fifty billion dollars in profit genius, they can easily afford to lose money on the xbox division for a long time to come. You're missing the big picture I'm afraid. One billion dollars is pocket change to Microsoft.
Score: 0
By Benjamin Linus

posted Jul 21, 2007 - 5:56 AM

Another idiot who does not know the difference between profit and turnover.

Have you been skipping school?

Turnover(Revenue) is how much they sell
Profit is how much they make on those sales after costs.

Microsoft have not made 50Billion, they have turned over 50Billion. They made 3.9Billion on that. They lost 1.15Billion of that on the 360 fixups.

Whey do all the brain-deads come here? "

". Open up a torrent and take a look at the ips."
You prove it to yourself yet?

Trying to change the subject I see. Yes, I made a mistake about profit and revenue. What does that have to do with torrents? Is that really your defense? If we are pointing out stupid mistakes let's not forget this one:

Also I'm sure all those students were caught from P2P programs. When will people learn that the best method out there for downloads are torrents?

LOL, anyway...back to your claim:

". Open up a torrent and take a look at the ips."

Your IP address isn't stored inside the file, it is broadcast by the client.

Edit: Ok, you should have been more clear then. Saying "open up a torrent" sounds like you mean open the file and view it's contents. Try saying "download" a torrent next time, oh and it would be helpful if I knew what magical client you are using that hides your address. Is that classified information you can't post here also? Very convenient that when I ask you for proof you say you can't post it here and to find it myself. lol

Well, he did mess that one up, but it doesn't change the fact that your IP is traceable by the ISP. How else could internet traffic reach your computer if nobody knew how to send it to you in the first place?

Talk about stupidity. Obviously I meant open it with a client. Were you trying to double click a .torrent file or something? lol

Like I said, no piratebay please.

Ok, just to humor you I've started a download of Fedora and I can plainly see every IP address of every peer I am connected to. Where are your magic question marks? Also why do you keep saying "no piratebay"? If there was some miraculous way to download without IP addresses a site aimed at piracy would be using it before anyone. It does not matter where you get the torrent, it still works the same way.

You do double click a .torrent file to launch it by the way.

No it does not it. When you use bittorrent other people downloading from you can see the IP address of the computer you are using (or that of the proxy you are using). It does not show up as ? or it wouldn't work.

"You do double click a .torrent file to launch it by the way."

There are other...ways to do it, or so I hear. Certain software hides the ip addresses from the Operating system, but since packet sniffers, or any non-Application layer methods can be used to trace ip addresses, this is only a very basic defense. Your router will see the ip address, as well as your NIC. The "client" that you use may hide it from Windows, but that's hardley the only way to trace ip addresses.

I didn't mean it was the only way, but he acted like "trying to click on a .torrent" file was something stupid that wouldn't do anything. :)

Bittorrent is a p2p client too, and just how do you know whether they were using torrents or not? Torrents are not safe and people get busted all the time for using them. The best method is to not be a criminal and steal music to begin with.

That's like putting ??? on the front of an envelope and expecting it to get to the address you want to send it to.

Ok, finally got home.

I did make one mistake, its not a ?.... its a "." hehe. Any hoots, give me a dummy email or something, I'll send you a screen shot. Thats the most you'll get from me. (which of course you will debunk as not sufficient, but I'm fully expecting denial to the fullest.)

Well .... let's put it this way.
3 options, where Z represents the chance of getting caught:

a) $ 3,000 x Z % lower than $ 20 x 100% (unless you run real quick from Borders, Best Buy or your choice of retail music store)
b) $ 3,000 x Z equal to $ 20 x 100%
c) $ 3,000 x Z higher than $ 20 x 100%

You forgot to factor in the chance of getting caught, PC_Tool
We can clearly see that if Z (chances of getting caught by the RIAA) is lower than 0.67%, then it's more convenient (at least from a monetary point of view) to use a P2P program to download music. Else (if Z is higher than 0.67%), buying the CD is more convenient.

Just my $ 2.10^-2 ...

What your client shows you is irrelevant, you already know your own IP address. Why should it show it to you? You can see the addresses of all the peers you are connected to though, and likewise they can see yours. That is how the it works, you must have an IP address otherwise other computers cannot connect to you. Not to mention the fact that your ISP also keeps a log of exactly when and to whom you were connected.

I hope you really aren't downloading stuff and thinking you are safe because you aren't. All a person working for the RIAA or MPAA has to do is download from a torrent you are sharing. They can see every IP address of every person that is sharing that file, including yours. That is how they catch people. If you get busted though it's your own fault, you shouldn't be breaking the law to start with. That's all I'm going to say about it.

Exactly, he apparently doesn't understand how it works. He is probably looking at his own client and it's not showing him his own address, that doesn't mean that all the peers connected to him can't see it.

Music isn't exactly expensive, why steal it?

Let's add in a further option:

d) Chance of getting caught before you've downloaded more than $3000 of material

I'm going to presume that you can download $3000 worth of stuff 99% of the time before you'll get caught.

So you'll still, theoretically, be in profit.

Wow.

It's amazing the lengths some people will go to in order to justify stomping all over the rights of someone else simply because they feel it's "Easier" or that their somehow entitled to the work of others for free.

Whatever helps you sleep at night, man.

I cannot believe we're actually discussing the profit vs. risk of breaking a law.

showittosomeonewhocares@hotmail.com

Word.

Don't get me wrong, PC_Tool:

a) I DON'T justify downloading music for free with a P2P program. My comment was aiming at something else
b) My point was: it'll be really hard to control music piracy relying on people's ethics alone. You'll have to modify my equation somehow in order to make Z x $ 3,000 higher than $ 20. Either you raise Z, or you raise the $ 3,000 or you lower the $ 20, or a combination of them. My view is that they're trying to raise the PERCEPTION of Z with these measures
c) I sleep very well at night, thank you :)
d) I don't pirate music, but even if I did, I wouldn't fear the RIAA for the simplest of reasons: I live way, WAY outside the jurisdiction of American courts

Hope it's all clearer now.

My point was: it'll be really hard to control music piracy relying on people's ethics alone.

Sad but true.

There are far to many folks who've been raised by schools and parents who constantly bombard them with fantastic tales of how "special" they are and how they deserve the best of everything.

Taught that self worth was born into them.

Never taught that self worth should come from accomplishment and talent.

They believe, because it's been indoctrinated into them since birth, that they deserve to have whatever they want and that since they are "special", traditional ethics and morality don't apply to them.

In the words of a great entertainer:

What a wonderful world....

nobody seems to see the simple fault in protocol logic here. even if your computer shows no ip address, assuming that was possible, which it isnt, your router has an ip address assigned to it to track data, which needless to say you cannot erase, and thats what they use to find you. so big deal you can hide inside your own network, or waste your time sitting around at someone else's house stealing wifi, but whats the point? i could also just copy the cds my friends have too with less effort, and no chance of getting caught, but whats the point?

I can imagine more wording for the letters: "Give me all your lunch money...or else."

So, so true. Rock Star should make a game where you have to fend off the RIAA...

Didn't they do that already?

Oh, right, that was the ESRB. :P

Well, it is illegal to share files don't know why these pupils are doing this.

It is illegal to share copyrighted files without permission from the copyright holder.

Big difference.

You can share files all you want, so long as their not copyrighted, or so long as you've been granted permission. (A lot of OSS/Freeware software, for instance...indie music...etc)

Because they're students, duh.
They're already in enough debt as it is, what's an $3000 (or whatever the going rate for an out-of-court settlement is)?

Nice pedantery* there.

*that really should be a word

^_^

I'm fairly sure he meant that really.

I'm sure he did. Unfortunately, some idiot is going to come along, see that, take it as it is written, without the implied "copyrighted", and run with it.

If I can stop one idiot from thinking that, it's well worth being pedantic.

(And I believe the word you were looking for was "pedantry") :p

Ack. So close and yet so far.

Don't worry about it. There are only 2 perfect people in the world. :p

Being poor and in debt is no excuse to break the law and download music illegally. If you can't afford it too bad, you should just do without. Music is not a necessity of life.

'settle out of court so we can bully you'
inexpensive ways such as mp3sparks.com? why are they trying to shut down this 'alternative' to illegal downloading?

...

It's quasi-legal.

Point being that the RIAA doesn't like Russian Copyright, and any service in Russia that doesn't kow-tow to US copyright law.

That said, even aside from MP3Sparks/AllofMP3, there are numerous legal options. Not the least of which is used. Nearly every campus I've ever been on has had a used music store within blocks. I can't understand why, given the litigiousness of the RIAA these days, any college student would consider downloading from P2P a valid option... Hell, even the usenet would be a better option.