Nice legal information that MIGHT help, although the entire thing basically yells, "don't tell the RIAA n00bs anything."
And it seems to imply that only people who share are sued. I don't share, but I download a boat load of MP3s weekly. Do you think I would get pwnt by the RIAA?
If you don't share, the you're a leech. We don't like leeches. I think I speak for the vast majority of file sharers when I tell you to get the fuck out. So here I go:
In terms of logistics, it's much better for the RIAA to go after heavy seeders (which they tend to do), because A) the people who are spreading the files around are - as a rule - vastly outnumbered by the people downloading their music, and so it's far more effective to get rid of a seeder than a leecher. It's also very difficult to track downloads compared to uploads - incoming data can be spread over a variety of ports, but outgoing tends to stick in one piece, so it's easier to figure out what people are putting out there as opposed to taking. Finally, someone using plenty of upstream bandwidth is much more suspicious than a heavy downloader; while a youtube user could pull a gig or more of data in a day with a little bit of determination, you'd be hard pressed to think of why someone would be uploading that much.
I would also guess that suing someone who just downloaded music would earn them penalties that aren't so stiff as for someone who was uploading, but that I'm not sure of.
So, can they sue you for downloading? Absolutely. Will they? The odds are against ANYONE getting sued (as the article says, 6000/9000000 or 1 out of every 1500), but given the extra difficulties, it's a good bit less likely for a downloader to get hit than a seeder.
Keep in mind this mainly applies to music; movies are rather different due to their size and the fact that the MPAA and not the RIAA is after you.
I wrote a very long and detailed comment about why seeders are less likely to get hit than leechers, which I guess was too long for engadget's taste, but basically it boils down to that it's harder to track what files you are downloading as opposed to uploading, and the seeders are almost always outnumbered by the leechers (sorry, it's true) and so it's more effective to go after the seeders.
I believe there was a previous court battle which effectively said that downloading for whatever reason wasn't against the copy-right or it was not very significant (perhaps limiting their payout).
As such they go mostly after people who share, I assume they might be able to collect their $750 per song per downloader which means that someone sharing just a few songs might have downloads might have thousands of downloader’s a song, thus letting the RIAA claim 'millions'.
(I'm not totally sure on the first part, but it think that’s the jest; the second is just a guess.)
He is not giving, only taking. Doesn't matter how."
..
Well, go on and seed then, big man!
I hope you get caught by the RIAA now. *teases*
Seriously. I will download and then do my part by seeding too. But, I'm not gonna seed a file 24/7 or anything like that. That's the job of the person in charge of the original download.
I'll seed on private networks, but helping seed a popular video or album? Not likely. As I've said, I'll do my part and move on.
There's no way I'm getting in trouble all because of some unwritten "downloading" rule. Come on, FFS!
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
waiownsyou @ Aug 31st 2007 7:43PM
Nice legal information that MIGHT help, although the entire thing basically yells, "don't tell the RIAA n00bs anything."
And it seems to imply that only people who share are sued. I don't share, but I download a boat load of MP3s weekly. Do you think I would get pwnt by the RIAA?
Paul Fehr @ Aug 31st 2007 8:00PM
Leecher.
The General @ Aug 31st 2007 8:04PM
If you don't share, the you're a leech. We don't like leeches. I think I speak for the vast majority of file sharers when I tell you to get the fuck out. So here I go:
Get the fuck out.
fischju @ Aug 31st 2007 8:06PM
You guys are idiots, he could be using usenet or rapidshare
The General @ Aug 31st 2007 8:10PM
Leech = someone who takes but does not give.
He is not giving, only taking. Doesn't matter how.
John @ Aug 31st 2007 8:16PM
In terms of logistics, it's much better for the RIAA to go after heavy seeders (which they tend to do), because A) the people who are spreading the files around are - as a rule - vastly outnumbered by the people downloading their music, and so it's far more effective to get rid of a seeder than a leecher. It's also very difficult to track downloads compared to uploads - incoming data can be spread over a variety of ports, but outgoing tends to stick in one piece, so it's easier to figure out what people are putting out there as opposed to taking. Finally, someone using plenty of upstream bandwidth is much more suspicious than a heavy downloader; while a youtube user could pull a gig or more of data in a day with a little bit of determination, you'd be hard pressed to think of why someone would be uploading that much.
I would also guess that suing someone who just downloaded music would earn them penalties that aren't so stiff as for someone who was uploading, but that I'm not sure of.
So, can they sue you for downloading? Absolutely. Will they? The odds are against ANYONE getting sued (as the article says, 6000/9000000 or 1 out of every 1500), but given the extra difficulties, it's a good bit less likely for a downloader to get hit than a seeder.
Keep in mind this mainly applies to music; movies are rather different due to their size and the fact that the MPAA and not the RIAA is after you.
John @ Aug 31st 2007 8:16PM
I wrote a very long and detailed comment about why seeders are less likely to get hit than leechers, which I guess was too long for engadget's taste, but basically it boils down to that it's harder to track what files you are downloading as opposed to uploading, and the seeders are almost always outnumbered by the leechers (sorry, it's true) and so it's more effective to go after the seeders.
Hello Moto @ Aug 31st 2007 11:31PM
I believe there was a previous court battle which effectively said that downloading for whatever reason wasn't against the copy-right or it was not very significant (perhaps limiting their payout).
As such they go mostly after people who share, I assume they might be able to collect their $750 per song per downloader which means that someone sharing just a few songs might have downloads might have thousands of downloader’s a song, thus letting the RIAA claim 'millions'.
(I'm not totally sure on the first part, but it think that’s the jest; the second is just a guess.)
kirby @ Aug 31st 2007 8:53PM
Fishju,
Get out, we know you've been sued. =)
LiQuiD_FuSioN @ Sep 1st 2007 2:12AM
The General:
"Leech = someone who takes but does not give.
He is not giving, only taking. Doesn't matter how."
..
Well, go on and seed then, big man!
I hope you get caught by the RIAA now. *teases*
Seriously. I will download and then do my part by seeding too. But, I'm not gonna seed a file 24/7 or anything like that. That's the job of the person in charge of the original download.
I'll seed on private networks, but helping seed a popular video or album? Not likely. As I've said, I'll do my part and move on.
There's no way I'm getting in trouble all because of some unwritten "downloading" rule. Come on, FFS!