Glad-I-Ate-Her

By Eliot Van Buskirk
Senior editor, CNET Reviews
(August 5, 2003)

The Net is abuzz with talk of the RIAA's so-called shock-and-awe campaign against file sharers--and with good reason. The organization, which represents record labels, has been issuing subpoenas since mid-July to users of file-sharing networks such as Kazaa. The accusation is copyright infringement, and the fines for offering even a few songs could total much more than most of us make in a year. The RIAA is said to be sending out about 75 subpoenas per day--so many that the court in charge of processing them has reputedly assigned more employees to the project to keep the paperwork at bay.

Why is this happening now? First, the labels needed to make ISPs identify subscribers suspected of copyright infringement; the record companies gained the right earlier this year with the RIAA's suit against Verizon. Second, I believe the labels waited until summer rolled around so that they could catch college students sharing files through their parents' ISPs while home for vacation. Privacy laws give universities some incentive to block the RIAA's policing of their networks, as shown by MIT's brave response to its subpoena. On the other hand, if a file trader's parents suddenly find out they owe the RIAA $150,000 for each song in their child's shared directory, trading will probably stop on that account.

Much of the content trafficked on these networks is perfectly legal to trade, and many of us think there should be a lawful way to trade copyrighted material, as well. But I'll ignore that for the moment. At this point, you need to know what could put you at risk, how to find out if your name is in one of the subpoenas sent to ISPs, and what to do if you're wrongly accused.

Who are they after?
According to a widely distributed Associated Press article, the "president of the Recording Industry Association of America…said lawyers will pursue downloaders regardless of personal circumstances because it would deter other Internet users." Close, but no cigar. Although downloading music without permission does infringe on the copyright holder's exclusive right to make copies, it won't immediately put you on the list. The RIAA isn't after downloaders. Though the distinction is lost on some reporters, it's uploaders who need to watch their backs. The RIAA has always had more interest in cutting off file trading's supply side than stemming (or--dare I suggest?--meeting) the demand for online music. But if you're sharing lots of files, you might hear from your ISP at some point.

What can you do about it?
The ever vigilant Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) responded quickly to the RIAA by posting a search tool with which you can find out if your P2P nickname is on a subpoena. If it is, first calm down: your financial life might not be destroyed. The RIAA will likely settle out of court. Then, point your browser to the Subpoena Defense site, which offers free advice on how to defend yourself. If you haven't been offering copyrighted files for upload without permission, the RIAA does not have a case. Report the association's error to Chilling Effects, which will add your case to its list of incorrectly issued subpoenas. Finally, call a lawyer.

P2P won't cease to be
Now for the $64 million question: Will this litigation kill file trading? While things might seem grim, the answer is a resounding no, primarily because P2P networks are completely legal, and they distribute content more efficiently than any other method. They're just too useful to disappear. In addition, these lawsuits will fan the already roaring flames of consumers' mistrust of the record labels, causing geeks and hackers the world over to double their efforts to create anonymous file-sharing systems. This cat-and-mouse game has been going on for years, and we don't yet know how far the record companies will go to stop it.

Loss of privacy may be harmful to your health
The invasion of privacy inherent in this campaign could backfire and make the labels rethink their approach. Bill Evans, founder of Boycott-RIAA, points out one potential publicity nightmare: A malefactor enters a chat room, e-mails someone a picture or MP3 file, and asks for a reply. The answering message reveals the victim's IP address and ISP, both listed in the header. Already knowing the exact time of the online activity, the predator combines all the data with various legal statements to issue a subpoena ordering the ISP to turn over its customer's personal information. By the time someone detects the perjured allegation, it’s too late; the potential victim’s privacy has already been compromised, possibly putting him or her in danger.

False accusation is perjury, but thanks to the RIAA vs. Verizon suit, an ISP in that situation would be bound to release the innocent user's identity. Perhaps we'll find that our right to privacy is more valuable than the sanctity of copyright, and the decision will be overturned. Until then, U.S. music fans should play it safe and watch what they share on file-trading networks.



Senior Editor Eliot Van Buskirk covers portable audio and music-related issues for CNET Reviews.[B]


Glad

__________________
I'm "Glad I Ate Her" because the payback was worth it!!

kurty[B]

Very good article. I do forsee this being a never ending battle for the RIAA unless they think a bit more rationally.

tinfoil

In fact, I think the RIAA will eventually cease to exist. Record Labels are starting to wake up to the whole 'interweb' thing and using it as a tool. Eventually, they will come around to what the customer wants and realise that the RIAA was making them look very, very bad.

__________________
Get off your fuckin cross. We need the fuckin space to nail the next fool martyr.

Begora21

I was going to say the same thing Tinfoil ... the RIAA is going kerput fast in my opinion

Glad-I-Ate-Her

Good point. I never thought about it going that far.

Glad

__________________
I'm "Glad I Ate Her" because the payback was worth it!!