RIAA robs student of life-savings.

[Miscue]

This is what your 'experience' entails: You've implemented someone else's string matching algorithm, or perhaps your own, which would be inferior. And, you have applied this in obtaining resources on your network. Now, what does this have to do with RIAA? So you say, it is because you had to do research on RIAA's position on search engines and what not.

It does not take a computer engineer or scientist to do this, or to understand what is going on.

And... for all I know, you borrowed Google... and used their search engine to find stuff on your network.

[Pokaris]

How about you assume more things incorrectly?
Try dealing with what you were given, which has all been correct. If I start giving out false information feel free to question my knowledge, until then I'd appreciate it if you would just keep your opinions (this may be a shock to you, but that's all your incorrect assumptions amount to) to yourself.

I had indepth consultations with student legal, on a campus that has had a large number of piracy related siezures, so we have a knowledgable legal staff when it comes to technology issues. They recommended against it, as they weren't sure how solid a precident had been set. I then consulted lawyer's for a company I work with, who indicated a search engine alone should be safe, but to keep anything else off that box. How's that for a Google search? How many other people do you think have taken the time to investigate this issue that thoroughly?

I'm sure whoever wrote the actual searching algorithm did borrow from others, but that is not the part of the project I worked on, so once again I must remind you about your opinions. An indexer covers more than just shares, so it is a little more complicated than you assumed, but I'm begining to notice you have a problem with that.

So would you prefer to drop this, or continue to make yourself out as assumptive moron?

[Miscue]

Agreed. I will not continue any further, as would an 'assumptive moron.' But, don't stop on my behalf. Please, continue and I will not interfere.

[nippinout]

Damn nerds flexing their nerd wangs. :)

[shartley]

[Pokaris]

Well genius, by your own VCR example, they go after the individual that is distributing copyrighted material. They don't go after the person that sold him the VCRs or the company that made the VCRs. Because someone uses something for illegal purposes doesn't automatically mean it should be outlawed. Didn't some guy commit murder with a hedge trimmer? Do you feel that we should arrest all owners of hedge trimmers because they have the potential to be used in illegal acts?

Your responsiblity as an end user is because you have a contract agreeing to certain things with your ISP. As for a school not being an ISP, hmm ISP = internet service provider, and strangely on my bill there is this internet service fee. That would make the school? Oh that's right, my ISP. I didn't claim the school didn't provide other services, I just claimed it was an ISP for students. Anything else(Academic, Administrative, etc) had better be on a seperate network or the school is suffering from some major mental short comings.

It does not matter if the search engine can find pirated files, as long as it has a valid purpose(we set it up to find notes for particular courses) it is perfectly legal. Feel free to read the outcome of the trials to get a better grasp of this.

As you said to be charged someone must knowingly allow something illegal to happen. Several ISPs have stopped any form of packet monitoring so they can claim they just provide bandwidth and what their customers do with it is their business. Much like what you do with your car is your business, not Ford's. It is just as easy for an ISP to monitor how much bandwidth a user is using as it is for them to monitor the packets to a user, and by only monitoring bandwidth the ISP takes itself out of the equation.

Poor ISPs have crappy policies regarding usage because they think being big brother is the best way to keep themselves out of trouble. Unfortunately this is one of those cases where ignorance is bliss and if you don't know you can't be held responsible for it.

As for the price fixing thing being irrelevant, because one crime doesn't justify another. First, this is a continuing crime, they have been caught and yet continue to do it. If someone is robbing your house would you let it continue because a crime is already occurring? If you would, that would explain a lot of your post. Just a quick counter example to show you obviously have no grasp of the legal system. If a man breaks into my house with a knife and I shoot him, I'll most likely walk on self defense. But if I walk out on the street and shoot that same man for no apparent reason, I'm probably going to jail on murder 2, maybe murder 1 if it's premeditated. No difference you say? Hardly. In both cases I killed a man which is illegal, but in the first case it's justified.

I never said there weren't legitimate costs to music, I notice this assumption problem seems to be spreading. BUT it was proven that they were tacking on illegitimate costs, and that's where my problem with the music industry arises. Maybe they should fix the inhouse problem before trying to place the blame on others, which seems to be their favorite way of dealing with things.

I will grant there may be something that isn't being reported here, but still a giant industry going after one kid seems like a crappy intimidation tactic any way you slice it.

[irbodden]

Pfft, he lost 12 grand and already has had 9 grand donated to him.... I do NOT feel sorry for him

[shartley]

Originally posted by Pokaris
Well genius, by your own VCR example, they go after the individual that is distributing copyrighted material. They don't go after the person that sold him the VCRs or the company that made the VCRs. Because someone uses something for illegal purposes doesn't automatically mean it should be outlawed. Didn't some guy commit murder with a hedge trimmer? Do you feel that we should arrest all owners of hedge trimmers because they have the potential to be used in illegal acts?

Originally posted by Pokaris
Your responsiblity as an end user is because you have a contract agreeing to certain things with your ISP. As for a school not being an ISP, hmm ISP = internet service provider, and strangely on my bill there is this internet service fee. That would make the school? Oh that's right, my ISP. I didn't claim the school didn't provide other services, I just claimed it was an ISP for students. Anything else(Academic, Administrative, etc) had better be on a seperate network or the school is suffering from some major mental short comings.

Originally posted by Pokaris
It does not matter if the search engine can find pirated files, as long as it has a valid purpose(we set it up to find notes for particular courses) it is perfectly legal. Feel free to read the outcome of the trials to get a better grasp of this.

Originally posted by Pokaris
As you said to be charged someone must knowingly allow something illegal to happen. Several ISPs have stopped any form of packet monitoring so they can claim they just provide bandwidth and what their customers do with it is their business. Much like what you do with your car is your business, not Ford's. It is just as easy for an ISP to monitor how much bandwidth a user is using as it is for them to monitor the packets to a user, and by only monitoring bandwidth the ISP takes itself out of the equation.

Originally posted by Pokaris
Poor ISPs have crappy policies regarding usage because they think being big brother is the best way to keep themselves out of trouble. Unfortunately this is one of those cases where ignorance is bliss and if you don't know you can't be held responsible for it.

Originally posted by Pokaris
As for the price fixing thing being irrelevant, because one crime doesn't justify another. First, this is a continuing crime, they have been caught and yet continue to do it. If someone is robbing your house would you let it continue because a crime is already occurring? If you would, that would explain a lot of your post. Just a quick counter example to show you obviously have no grasp of the legal system. If a man breaks into my house with a knife and I shoot him, I'll most likely walk on self defense. But if I walk out on the street and shoot that same man for no apparent reason, I'm probably going to jail on murder 2, maybe murder 1 if it's premeditated. No difference you say? Hardly. In both cases I killed a man which is illegal, but in the first case it's justified.

Originally posted by Pokaris
I never said there weren't legitimate costs to music, I notice this assumption problem seems to be spreading. BUT it was proven that they were tacking on illegitimate costs, and that's where my problem with the music industry arises. Maybe they should fix the inhouse problem before trying to place the blame on others, which seems to be their favorite way of dealing with things.

Originally posted by Pokaris
I will grant there may be something that isn't being reported here, but still a giant industry going after one kid seems like a crappy intimidation tactic any way you slice it.

[gimp]

holy cow, he's raking in the dough. Someone should sue me for being to cool so I can have lots of money and buy a banjo.

I'm not gonna lie and say that file sharing helps bands. It doesn't. I used to say that I would buy the cd if I liked it. Yeah right, That happened like, 4 or 5 times. Now I only buy a cd if I can't find a decent copy or something. I've only bought one cd in the past year. That was because I was stuck on dial up, and I couldn't download stuff! Pretty much everyone I know just steals music from the internet. It does expose me to different bands, and might make me go to a concert I didn't previously consider, but thats about it.

[MantisMag]

*sigh* did anybody hear that the riaa sued morpheus and grokster and the court ruled that they couldn't be held liable? now who thinks the riaa had a case against this kid?

http://news.com.com/2100-1027-998363.html?tag=nl

[irbodden]

Originally posted by MantisMag
*sigh* did anybody hear that the riaa sued morpheus and grokster and the court ruled that they couldn't be held liable? now who thinks the riaa had a case against this kid?

http://news.com.com/2100-1027-998363.html?tag=nl

Ever hear of legal fees? The kid only paid $12,000, and has already recovered 9,000.

He got out easy

[Pokaris]

Originally posted by shartley

I will continue to be condescending as long as you continue to be a moron, so I don't see it stopping anytime soon.

Did you notice how I also mentioned the salesperson behind the VCR? Funny how you conveniently don't acknowledge that. Are they responsible either? I mean technically they provided the VCRs in your example.

Last I checked murder was a criminal charge, but maybe I've been dealing with reality while you were off in la la land. It's called drawing a parallel, look into it.

Ever heard of leasing a vehicle? Wanna break that one down? Oh you rent the vehicle from the manufacturer. Is Ford responsible for speeding tickets of leased vehicles? Looks like I am talking to idiots, no wonder I get used to it.

Do you understand how hard it would be to prove that an ISP should be monitoring packets? I don't think there has been a case that remotely resembles this, because no one would waste time on a losing battle like that. How can you legally prove someone should be aware of something?

A police officer is enforcement of the law, that doesn't mean you have any understanding of it, they enforce what they are told is the law. That's like claiming the military is a major factor in the establishment of foreign policy, they are just an enforcement agency. When was the last time the Supreme Police Officers made a ruling on a law in this country? Oh that's right, it has never happened.

Apparently you don't live in the United States, but this country was founded on the fact that an unjust law should not be obeyed. Apparently you don't have to take any US History to be a Cop in whatever sad area you policed.

I never used the term "but", I acknowledged you may have been right which may have been a first time in your life. If you honestly believe that you could fight the RIAA, then you are seriously one of the most stupid individuals I have ever met. Do you know how much money you would have to invest just to get to trial against them? We're talking tens of thousands of dollars(if not more), don't you think they know they can spend anyone into the ground? How much venture capital was behind Napster, and how did it fair? If you don't believe that the legal bills would have surpassed 12k, then I will just stand back in awe of the rampant ignorance.

How about you go do whatever the you do, and leave technology issues to those that can understand them?

[joeyjoe367]

If this program the kid wrote had an "MP3" button on it, I think it was a good idea that he settled. There's a lot of details that we don't know here on AO that could change any one of our oppinions either way.

It could have been a generic search engine where you can *.mp3 or *.exe and look for stuff.

or there could have been a "Pirate Mp3's" button.


All this accusation of the RIAA being "greedy bastards" or "money grubbers" is rediculous. If you think that it is somehow "Evil" that a corporation/firm is trying to maximize it profits, you are a socialist and I'll tell you to get out of my country.

As bad as it sounds, GREED and GREED alone is the driving force behind the colossus that is the United States Economy. There is no other human force that is as consistant, reliable, and relentless as greed. Compassion for your fellow man? Gee. Look at communism; That worked out GREAT. Can Greed get out of hand? Yes. We found out in the late 1800's and early 1900's that large corporations can screw stuff up. That's why we have laws, Unions, etc.. to prevent this.

The RIAA is committing NO crime by prosecuting this kid. You play with fire and you'll get burnt. (Positive Statement)

It was not *nice* for the RIAA to prosecute this kid (Normative Statement)

And to be honest, the RIAA does much more good than you'd think. One of my favorite bands "Evanescence" is out of Little Rock, Alabama. I'd *NEVER* have heard about them unless the recording industry stepped in, sold a few liscences to radio stations, did a bit of advertising, etc.. Without the recording industry, these two WONDERFUL artists would probably get discouraged at the results they were getting as musicians, quit their jobs and end up in a cubicle talking about how big of jerks their managers are instead of writing/performing music.

Now some of you might say, "Indie Lables can do this!"

Sorry, no.

The Recording industry is definatly one, that by becoming large, benefits from economies of scale. It takes *LARGE* sums of money to advertise, rent the studeos for recording, pay the photographers for ad shots, pay the marketing executives to run the advertisment campaigns. An Indie lable does *NOT* have the capital, nor the liquidity to produce and distribute an album that reaches the 4 corners of the United States, much less the world.

I heard of Evanescence about 4 months ago. Their music is now being played and their albums are being sold in Japan.

All with the very *HIGH* risk that the band they are supporting might FLOP entirely, or have little returns because they happen to be the "Flavor of the month". It's a pretty high risk business. There's plenty of *CRAP* bands that the recording industry puts out and has to eat the losses here and there.

Don't be so quick to judge.

[joeyjoe367]

To Further my position, I've done a bit of research. Here's a screenshot of AOL Time Warner's Financial Reports for the year 2002. You'll note the (1,313) in 2002 for "music" which represents a $1,313,000,000 (Read, 1.313 BILLION DOLLAR)loss in the year.

Now can you blame them for trying to protect their own assets?

[nippinout]

Their operating cost was 1.313 billion.

Their revenue was 4.something billion.

They profited.