1 comcast or any ISp dosn't have the right to give location of user up, invasion right of privacy.
2 p2p I would take a guess that 100 percent people in the US have a copy of a copy righted song, cd, dvd, vhs tape , even casset, Tivo , you record off of TV or radio, you are saving copy righted broadcast. I bet you few bellow, that work for the RIAA, I bet I could go in your house and find copyrighted media in some fourm. Even though you gripe.

As a poor musician, I can say that in no way does downloading of music affect the bottom line of musicians, poor or rich. The only ones affected are the greedy record company execs who aren't making as many millions in profits as they were in the past before P2P. And really, sharing music is nothign new. People have been copying tapes, etc for years. The record companies are still here and still posting record profits.

Musicians make the majority of their income by touring and selling merchandise. When it comes to recording contracts, the majority of the money a musician / band makes comes from the check they get when they sign a record deal. They get a lump of cash up front, and get small royalties on subsequent sales of the album if they sell more than X copies (usually several tens of thousands). And even then, the band rarely sees more than a few cents for each album sold. Only the real BIG NAME musicians can expect to see any more than 50 cents (tops) or so for each album sold.

And in many cases, the musician / band ends up signing the rights to their music over to the record company anyway, so they don't even own their own music anymore. The music becomes property of the record label and they make all the profits off it.

IMO, the RIAA should be embracing the new technology and using it to deliver its material rather than trying to squash it. Music trading, regardless of the medium, is not a new phenomenon, and not going away anytime soon, regardless how many lawsuits are filed. People will jsut find a differnt way to share their music.

But in the end, stealing is stealing, even if it is from uber-rich corporations that have been robbing us (and the musicians) blind for decades. It comes down to being an issue of morality. Whether or not we agree with it or do it, it's there and it ain't going anywhere.

Thank God for "other sources" besides P2P.

No sweat off my back. The RIAA can lick one.

1. Do not steal Music, there are NO argument about poor vs rich musicians here, just because you got your goods insured doesn't mean you want a burglar to steal it.

2. Not 100% tracking, well we all know RIAA are tracking P2P users, we all know that the majority of these users are swapping some kind of illegal software, because if they werent why would they even bother being on P2P?

3. We all know RIAA are tracking swappers, so if you are scared of being wrongly accused, DO NOT DOWNLOAD AND USE P2P.

4. Americans should be so ashamed of themselves, a brand new CD cost 1/2 of what it does in Europe, you have no excuse for stealing, you can even download songs for some odd cents.

I am not on RIAA's side but if you are commiting the crime better be ready to pay the dime.

whatever. all the music that RIAA puts out is garbage. same songs different artist. i am sorry. listen to the people. i DOWNLOAD music, but not what rias provides. i can not find anything else anywhere else. so whatever and hell with them. give what people want. also, me making 18.25/hr and paying about 24 bucks for a cd that is "HIP" is not really common sense. i rather pay that for gas and food...

1. Do not steal Music...

## Agreed, Stealing is stealing

2. ...the majority of these users are swapping some kind of illegal software, because if they werent why would they even bother being on P2P?

## P2P does make it efficient for file transfers, but it is up to the user to use it for legal purposes. RIAA is trying to completely bring down / regulate P2P. That is just not right of the RIAA. One of RIAA's competitors, Soul Seek (http://www.soulseekrecords.net/) - a net label, depends partially on P2P to get its releases out. Using P2P will lighten the load of software transfers on major servers such as http://www.sf.net and Linux distributions, which are often 1-3 cds full. I use legal Torrents all the time, even if i'm not downloading, just for the cause of lightening the load.

3. We all know RIAA are tracking swappers, so if you are scared of being wrongly accused, DO NOT DOWNLOAD AND USE P2P.

## Yes, I partially agree with suing the ISP for giving out personal info, though this is practically the only way for RIAA to find out info needed. I do disagree suing P2P though - you are responsible for what you put on P2P, not P2P, not your ISP, not the RIAA...

4. Americans should be so ashamed of themselves, a brand new CD cost 1/2 of what it does in Europe, you have no excuse for stealing, you can even download songs for some odd cents.

## I hate how RIAA is just customer driven, you will not find a product so restrictive as music and movies. The less they charge for it, the more we could buy, increasing the incentive to buy too. Instead of 1 cd, i could buy 2 or 3. Sure, they might be doing 2X the work, but i'm sure they'd make more than 2X the money - which is what they are in it for.

I am not on RIAA's side but if you are commiting the crime better be ready to pay the dime.

Holy crap! You make $18.25 an hour!?

...and I thought my $10.50/hour was really good...

A few major reasons why music is traded online:
1. Music that we would not have bought anyway can be obtained.

2. When you buy a CD, you are not directly supporting the artist. You are supporting all the fee's that went into that nice little package - Which doesn't include the music.

3. Artist's make money from contracts and touring. A miniscule amount of money comes from CD purchases. Regardless to what some believe, for each CD purchased the band gets an AVERAGE of ONE dollar. Do not try and use the "look how many platinum rappers are out there!" argument, it is childish. The overall ratio of poor musicians to wealthy musicians is extremely lopsided - I dare you to guess which musicians there is more of.

To show support for the artist you go see them live. That is where they make the most money.

File sharing destroys the corrupted minds that sit behind desks and push out pop music. This is a revolution - You primitive minded people can argue it all you want, we will not allow it to stop.

"The overall ratio of poor musicians to wealthy musicians is extremely lopsided - I dare you to guess which musicians there is more of."

I took a dare: poor. And that's not a guess.

That was my point. I'm glad you got it. ;)

I agree completely on all points.

I wonder if the RIAA could sue Comcast for being an accomplice to theft lol. Might as well make the lawsuit chain complete.

Yeah, lets sue Chevrolet because a bank robber used one of their cars in the getaway.

Sounds absurd!

When will some people get it. The RIAA is going after people who are sharing files without paying the price. That is stealing. The argument that College students are poor is ludicrous and will not stand up in court.
If you want to not pay them for the CD and pay the band directly, then that is perfectly fine, no one is stealing. They are legitimately paying for the songs.

Perhaps the world as one should agree that the "Internet" is not to be a place of anonymity. We can also declare that we're not paying ISPs for "privacy" as to what we do online. The "Internet" should be regarded as a totally public place. This way everyone can see what everyone else is doing and everyone will be happy.
WAIT! OMG WTF AM I ON ABOUT?
Rhetorical question and comment. Long story short:
The "Internet" is regarded as both a public and private means of communication. Many people and organisations rely on it's "privacy" to make money. One person has as much privacy as an organisation. So if we're going to take away the privacy of "the lil guy", why not open up information on all organisations? They could be doing something "illegal". God forbid... or in this case "your mom".
There's probably hundreds of Anti-RIAA sites around but if you find yourself in the same situation like this mother and her two teenagers and don't have enough money to take RIAA to court then perhaps you could find others and have a joint lawsuit to prevent RIAA from even requesting information from ISPs about Internet Protocol numbers.
FYI: That method of tracking people is "idiotic" if your about to charge someone $4,500 without being 100% certain that that ISP didn't stuff up their IP tables and have their loggin system out of sync.
PS: disable commenting on P2P related articles or atleast have letter limit since we all seem to be posting essays on our thoughts. ;-P

It's coming, soon it will be here... They (RI/MPAA) know this and you can literally see the daily crap these greed-mongerish entities are perpetrating on the public. I love it. I really like to see that they're filing lawsuits and threatening people and ISP's with bush-like crap like "you can click but you can't hide". I love it because you can plainly see that they know they have very little power left against P2P. ACTS OF DESPARATION. That's what the litigation is all about.

They know that in less then 10 years we're gonna have their a$$es on the street with cardboard "will sing for food" signs. Sweet sweeeet revenge. I will personally promote and teach the usage of P2P/downloading etc.. and make sure to "teach OTHTERS to teach" as well. This is a David and Goliath story. We're David.

Time to kill the beast and to starve out the overpayed undertalented henchment it employs. I want to see a world where NO ONE EVER pays for music or "digital entertainment" again. Not a cent for home use. A world where the entertainment giants will make their cream fair and square from other means. It will happen, and I can't wait.

p.s. dont' gimme any crap like "what about the economy". I dont' even wanna hear that nonsensical poo.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I want to see a world where NO ONE EVER pays for music or "digital entertainment" again. Not a cent for home use. A world where the entertainment giants will make their cream fair and square from other means. It will happen, and I can't wait.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Nobody is going to want to create new music/movies if they aren't going to be paid for their work. It will never be free... never.

It's funny that you want entertainment for free, but you'll gladly pay for gas, heat, electricity, cable, telephone, etc. I'm guessing you also work everyday for free. How do you pay your bills without a salary like that?

Simple... People can get paid for concerts, producing something... But to hold "information" is inheritantly impossible. To sell one's and zeros when said data is so cheap, it'll be impossible to enforce.

No saying people won't pay for it.... but those who know how to get it will continue to do so.

In your example, then software is one's and zero's and therefore should be free?

Doesn't sound like the correct path to take. Though there might be a need to revise several aspects of this law as well as the way in which they are taking action, choosing the path you have just stated seems unjust to several people.

I love living in Canada where the government actually protects our privacy rights.

Privacy yes but groups like the RIAA still get our money from a hidden tax on all recordable media you buy cds casettes ect regardless of what your using them for.

Most people would find it hard to go into a shop, pickup a CD and walk out without paying. Thats because the risk of being caught is higher, and it is blatent theft in that you have taken something that the owner is now without.

Taking a file from the net is easy, its not the same as taking from a shop and in your mind you think u can get away with it and so you do. The chances of being caught as minimal.

Some will say theft is theft, and it is .. BUT

have I really commited theft ?

Have i deprived the owner of the item i have just taken? no .... i have not. Its still there. Have I deprived them of hard earned cash ? no .. i have not.

I have thousands of MP3's so i must have cost the industy millions. NO, i have not. why ?

because i dont have millions, if i could not copy them then quite simply i wouldnt have them because I would never buy them. If i have to buy any CD's I think I would have about 10, if that.

The only way i cost the music industry is if i give access to anyone a cd that they would buy.

Copying is wrong, i know it. But the cost of music is too much. Its now too easy to copy and not spend anything to the point that even if music cost a pound a CD i think i would still copy it.

If you get caught then u knew the risk, its tough, no use complaing like a newbie.

until then i will take the risk.

An axiom MUST hold throughout all tests to be considered valid, correct? Ok, so copying a song and listening to it privately without paying (cash, credit, etc.) for the duplicate is considered theft. Granted I can make one copy of the media if I purchased it legally, for backup/damage recovery only, not for sharing with others. However, if my neighbor builds a cool new shed, that he intends to market, and I see him build it from across the street, and then I build my own just like it, did I steal it? Playing a music track is akin to viewing a physical object, both are passive replication methods. If I make a copy from what is perceived (heard, viewed, etc.) is that theft in all situations?

It is still not illegal to download in Canada for personal use since we pay a small tax on every recordable media we buy which goes to the artist.

Do you think that what is "recorded" far out values what it cost to buy the media in question?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
However, if my neighbor builds a cool new shed, that he intends to market, and I see him build it from across the street, and then I build my own just like it, did I steal it?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

If your neighbor really intends to sell the design, than you just stole the idea. You'll most likely get your pants sued off too.

Your example has nothing to do with stealing music. However, it would be a good example of stealing a trademark, patent, etc.

huh? So... it's legal to get stuff for free because the idiots that would actually pay for the stuff in a system like that are covering the cost with the extra tax? I don't get it...

...right.... 99 cents a song is too much? Please...

****EDIT****
oh yeah, btw, most comment hosting servers log the IP addresses of the posters, so now the RIAA can come after you the same way... lol nice one

I am not taking side of the RIAA or anyone for that matter, but you are comparing

Apples and Cars.

This is not the same. Your argument doens't stand.

thank you for that comment. Since CD's are made from machines that just copy the original, then the copy should be free? Two duplicate cars are made, the one is free?

I like this society!

I wonder who is going to pay the price for the first one? How expensive will that be in order to make several more?

That is fine that you want to take the risk. And to say that these individuals that are copying do not know is idiotic(no offense).

But when they get caught and then want to blame someone else for their ignorance/stupidity is even more moronic than the original act.

If i use an Impala to commit a crime and then get caught, I don't think it legally acceptable to sue Chevrolet for providing me with the car - or a dealer for that matter.

Do you think that what is "recorded" far out values what it cost to buy the media in question?

In my case the answer is yes i buy disks to save things like pictures and freeware programs that i like so the groups like the RIAA get my money even thou i'm just using those disks for legal data backup.

$4500 or else doesn't this sound like an intimidation/threat from the RIAA.(and isn't that illegal as well)

On another note the RIAA expects people to respect the law and not download copyrighted material yet they don't follow it themselves by not getting a court order and they have been at this long enough to know better.

That is because they know that once they get to court their case will be thrown out, so they threaten people instead.

No! Not unreasonable, if you consider what they can get for copyright infringement. Pay it and move on. Do you think that 4500 will stop them from doing it again, no way! They will just find a way in which to hide themselves and do it again.

I can't wait for the RIAA to go after those websites that give out lyrics and album covers out for free too.

That is hallarious. haha

Again...I need to defend Comcast on this because you know what? Stealing is stealing, is stealing.
I hate the RIAA....but until there's a better resolution to this P2P issue, you don't need to be getting on Comcast' tail. It's after all YOUR fault that things are the way they are and that the RIAA even has any right to ask for the info. period. Make a noise and go out to your local politicians and have them change this from the root upward. What do YOU think will happen if Comcast doesn't comply? Paperwork - paperwork costs money, nut that's no excuse. The point is that the issue is not Comcast....they did what they thought was the right thing to do. Instead of spending the money to sue comcast, she should post a countersuit at the RIAA. Shes blaming the wrong person....but then, something like this is somewhat on the edge.

theft or not, there are laws and legal proceedures that have to be followed. There are protections against such things as this. If the RIAA wants to break the law then that makes them no better than the alleged thieves they are prosecuting.

That said, refer to my earlier posts on this topic. The RIAA copyrights the original - if you copied the original you are guilty, if - however (and this is 99.9% of all the cases you will find) you download a copy from someone who got it from this place that got it from that place, then the copyright is no longer valid on the media, since the person who did the original copy failed to copyright their copy :)

"The RIAA copyrights the original... but if you download a copy from someone who got it from this place that got it from that place, then the copyright is no longer valid on the media, since the person who did the original copy failed to copyright their copy :)"

As much as I have a growing sickness of the RIAA, I believe that you are wrong...

"The way in which copyright protection is secured is frequently misunderstood. No publication or registration or other action in the Copyright Office is required to secure copyright. There are, however, certain definite advantages to registration."
- http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#hsc

I agree, they are using double standards then. If Comcast broke the law, then they should have penalties also. But, you watch, there might be a s*** in the law soon to cover that.

I just think it is funny that they are sueing Comcast as a way to cover their illegal activity. It is like grade school "Well look at Johnny, he kicked the ball too!"

This is a comcast issue also, who the hell are they to give out our personal info without a court order? This is even a bigger issue!
SHAME ON YOU Comcast.

You might as well be upset with nearly every ISP on the planet then, or even at betanews. They all use cookies to track what websites you go to. Heck look at all the betanews cookies--they've got ad.doubleclick.net, hitbox.com, smarttargeting.net, smarttargeting.com, adforce.adtech.de--just to name a few. Am I upset with betanews on this? Not in the least bit (especially since I block those sites and about 4,000 other cookie 'tracker' websites). If you have IE, just click on View, then go to Privacy Report... and select All Web Sites.

It seems like the RIAA thinks they are above the law. They don't care whether their actions are legal or not so long as it helps them end the evils of piracy. I actually hope this woman wins her case. At least if they were forced to get a subpoena they might actually review there information a little more carefully. If the RIAA is going to acquire evidence illegally they shouldn't be able to benefit from it. If this woman wins her case against comcast any evidence that was handed over to the RIAA should get thrown out.

I completely agree. According to our laws, the court must render the evidence no longer admissable if it was obtained by illegal measures. If they did obtain a warrant previous to it, and the case is still lost, then the RIAA is not allowed to try the teenage sons/mother for the same crime twice...hence "double jeapordy". I love it when the RIAA totally fsks up and shows their true colors: money hungry idiots who don't know their TCP from their IP.

The RIAA could procede against the alleged downloader notwithstanding the lack of a court order mandating disclosure. The 14th amendment neither applies to civil suits nor actions by private individuals (i.e. Comcast).

There's case law which prohibits abusive discovery tactics between litigating parties. See Theofel v. Farey Jones, 341 F.3d 978 (9th Cir. 2003). I presume that the Downloader is pursuing their case under the Stored Communications Act and Fraud and Abuse Act.

The question that remains is whether Comcast disclosed this information pursuant to an unlawful subpoena, at the mere behest of the RIAA, or did so of its own free will. Under the first scenario, the RIAA could be liable under the Stored Communications Act and Fraud and Abuse Act. This could possibly be a basis for a motion to exclude ill gotten evidence in RIAA v. Downloader. The same result would likely occur under the second scenario, and both the RIAA and Comcast could be held jointly liable. Under the third scenario (most likely case here), Comcast unwittingly provided that information to the RIAA. Comcast would be liable for disclosure and the RIAA could then proceed with their case.

beautiful!

Be careful here. The RIAA can't force the ISP to render something without a warrant, that much is true. But if the ISP freely gives them the information then its the ISP's fault, not the RIAA. That said, filesharing potentially violates Comcast's TOS and according to it "...Comcast and its affiliates...have the right to monitor these transmissions and postings from time to time for violations of this Policy and to disclose, block, or remove them...".
http://www.comcast.net/terms/use.jsp

You might also read their Privacy statement. It may not help them against RIAA but unless Comcast was presented with a valid subpoena they didn't have a legitimate reason to release information. If Comcast released information about a subscriber without a subpoena or the subscriber's permission one could argue that the subscriber was defrauded .

See http://www.comcast.net/privacy/#disclosure

"Information Use and Disclosure

Comcast considers the personally identifiable information contained in our business records to be confidential. Applicable law authorizes Comcast to disclose personally identifiable information concerning any subscriber for the following purposes if the disclosure is:

* necessary to render, or conduct a legitimate business activity related to, the Service and Service features or other services provided to the subscriber;
* required by law or legal process (as described below in this Policy); or
* of the names and addresses of subscribers for "mailing list" or other purposes (subject to each subscriber's right to prohibit or limit this disclosure as described below in this Policy)."

"The question that remains is whether Comcast disclosed this information pursuant to an unlawful subpoena, at the mere behest of the RIAA, or did so of its own free will."

According to the Reuters story this woman's attorney states that there was no attempt to seek a subpoena or notify her that her records had been disclosed. See http://www.reuters.com/n...ews&storyID=8186223. If that is true then the the first isn't the case. Contrary to what you stated the third scenario is actually the least likely scenario. Under the third scenario Comcast would have independently notified the RIAA of the piracy. The problem is in order for that to occur they would have to had to been keeping track of what their customers were using their connections for. Legal issues aside I don't know of any legitimate ISP that wants their customers to believe that they are 'spying' on them. Consumers don't want their ISP to be handing over their information to third parties which have neither a legal subpoena or subscriber permission to have. In order to avoid liability issues most companies simply view themselves as content providers that don't want to know what their customers are doing. As soon as you start keeping track of every action that is made you get into problems of whether you are complicit with customers that are breaking the law. Accordingly the ISP don't try to keep track of that information to avoid the burden that would come with having to report every customer that breaks the law.

Amongst other issues you mentioned the issue of abusive discovery tactics. The decision in that case is available at http://cyberlaw.stanford...0v.%20Farey%20Jones.pdf for those that are interested. After having read the decision I can't help but question whether that is even relevant here. In that case a subpoena had been issued but it was simply invalid because it was too broad in its scope. The woman in this case alleges that there was no such subpoena. If it true that there was no subpoena requested by the RIAA this wouldn't be a cause of "abusive discovery tactics" because there was no attempt to acquire the records by legal means.

Given that your third option is unlikely by you own admission it seems likely that either Comcast will be held liable or the evidence will be thrown out of court if the copyright infringment goes to trial.

true, but read further in the Legal Disclaimer section:
We may also use or disclose personally identifiable information about you without your consent...for violations of the Service's terms of service and policies (including our Acceptable Use Policy).

I've said it thousands of times before & I'll say it again: If you're stupid enough to pay for an mp3, you're stupid.

Thats the best thing I have seen all day.

"true, but read further in the Legal Disclaimer section:
We may also use or disclose personally identifiable information about you without your consent...for violations of the Service's terms of service and policies (including our Acceptable Use Policy). "

Ok, but did Comcast take the time to verify that someone is actually going against the TOS? OR are they just taking the RIAA's word for it and giving them the info once requested.

Furthermore, if I am sharing music, who's to say I am actually breaking any laws. It's those that downloaded that may be. And one could argue that their tape or cd is damaged and they are just replacing what they have already paid for. And maybe I'm simply sharing them so I can access the remotely myself :)

Well, maybe some people don't mind supporting the artists that produced them?

What do you think would happen if starting tomorrow, noone bought any more CD's or MP3's. While I'm sure eventually the artists would come up with alternative ways to make money, it would have a huge impact on the music we see. This of course would never happen, but at least mp3's are at a reasonable price - at $1.00 a song, you at least aren't wasting money buying a full cd containing songs - you can just buy those songs you want.

Having said this, I have never paid for an mp3, but that's not to say I wouldn't.

Legal or illegal, all or nearly all ISP's track you, indirectly using third party cookies is the preferred choice, as the companies pay you to use them anyway. Even blocking cookies I'm sure you are tracked by some other means--not to say it makes Comcast's actions OK, but it is not illegal to track what websites you go to.

Why pay for a compressed MP3 that is sonically inferior to a real CD? Maybe if they would offer songs in a lossless format I'd be interested. Lossy compression schemes are tools of convenience for the consumer... not a money-making platform for the manufacturers.

The whole idea of selling individual songs isn't new. I'm old enough to remember the 45... I could buy my favorite song on a 45 for 99 cents... and at least I got another song on the flip side! Now... they want to sell me a sonically degraded individual song for a buck and they don't even have to produce anything physical to do it! It costs them NOTHING to produce.

The recording industry is dominated by archaic, narrow-minded control freaks that have recently found themselves in unfamiliar territory. Like anything else... they must evolve or perish.

Another post that unreservedly gets my vote.

You understood my comment about the pseudo-music that people are paying for.

If a lossless version (FLAC or APE) were able to be played in an IPod, I'd consider buying one, and consider buying the music file.

They can't *give* me mp3's.