How did records companies track down Kazaa users downloading music on-line?

Check this aswell
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/TECH/internet/08/28/downloading.music.ap/

Sunray

I'll skip the links, I have two quick answers, and the links ought to be about the first one, which I put it own words. I have interest in the question myself.

(1) The companies first asked the ISPs for information, and then sued the ISPs to make them cooperate and won court judgments in their favor.  This is the popular version in the press, but it leaves a few holes to the thinkers.

(2) I have recently tried searching out decent lyric websites to answer some less technical questions and depend less on my memory. In so doing, I ran into an abundance of what I call 'problem sites' that have not only popup ads that are a little annoying, but may generate revenue (ok), but exhibit behavior that is abusive, malformed code, exploitive, misinformative, intrusive, etc. and probably also illegal.  My preference is to pass good links, and those links I won't quote regardless. Here is a one-word description of small amount of that: Gator.  Being one of suspicious nature who enjoys a good conspiracy, I wonder that they created their own websites (honeypots) or agreements with webmasters (rights to music or extra ads) to first identify potential downloaders, making up suspect lists, and also to get a footprint on user computer through a download that cannot be uninstalled (easily), but will track and report the user's subsequent activity.

(3) > some particular users

This was not done well. They did poor job of identifying people. Simple example: a child is allowed to use grandparents computer on visits and is tracked using it for a download. Your "records companies" do not know which person did it, and just guess, often wrong, in situations where the link to the ISP is shared by two or more people.

(4) Those self-same "records companies" do not know whether you or "some particular users" have a legitimate right to the music. For example, you buy several copies of a CD that you like, you give one to a firend to listen to at their house, one for your car, one for work, one for your entertainment center, etc.  But in your situation, all those methods of listening are unavaliable. Possibly the family is using the entertainment center, or whatever has the only CD players around, and you want to use computer for homework or email or games or whatever, would like to hear the song playing while you do so, but have to use headphones to not disturb a sleeping child, and the computer either does not have a CD player or the one that it has is required to be inserted to validate whatever software you are running.  The courts claim that since you purchased at least one copy of the song, that you are entitled to listen to it. But the record companies do not care that it may be legitimate use. They do not care to know. They care to claim they are obviously entitled to more money, and that they need to intimidate all computer users to convince them to purchase additional CDs, and to not listen to anything that they do not personally preapprove.  Another word used in the past to describe this is: extortion.

OK. I typed so much, I'll offer a little more time. The last link is about very old D/Ls, associated with Napster and its losses in court judgments. But the story is not explaining or answering the D/L part othe than name as associated with Napster. The company's claim was "offering the files to others", which means when doing so, you are effectively identifying yourself to the companies.

On the third link,

>  A subsequent Senate enquiry led by senator Norm Coleman (R-Minn.) engendered RIAA assurances that "small" downloaders would not be targeted.
> "Our data suggests the RIAA's legal tactics have more of an effect on the attitudes and actions of lighter downloaders," Crupnick said.

This is incomplete, in that it implies a lie. The RIAA was frequently quoted earlier, at their own request, that they are ignoring heavy hitters and focusing on smallest of users to convince the greatest number of potential abusers of D/L to not participate. They have since had some leaders/speakers receive great retirement packages, and they have collected really too many names to prosecute individually. So while the statement 'may' be true, that they are willing to bow to congressional pressure to spend more attention now on the larger users, it is incomplete, and even so, may be so late in the process that it is a lie, at least concerning the first round of thousands.

I think first of the 12 yr old who they graciously settled for accepting $2000 from. That being less than the older teens had already paid out. I am sorry, I do not get convinced that a 12 yr old, had $2000 to spend, or if she did, that all of that money would go to only RIAA pre-approved CDs.

I'll skip first two links, since the last one gave me a popup that hosed my mouse. On this machine I cannot handle more than one or two of those popup ads. Sorry.

If you want to read more about RIAA, try some links at www.experts-exchange.com :

Title: RIAA
http://www.experts-exchange.com/Miscellaneous/Q_20740195.html

Title: What the RIAA does not want you to know about your mp3's
http://www.experts-exchange.com/Miscellaneous/Lounge/Q_20740624.html

(hmm, I think I'm getting behind on my own 'reading')

My answer is: RIAA does not know how to add the numbers,  it is bad math, Two wrongs do not make a right

Or,: "Takes one to know one" (thief, criminal, etc)

Oh, steal a link of mine?!
OK, fair is fair. I can cope. Without Prozac. Maybe. Try this, I can do a couple links too:

http://www.experts-exchange.com/Miscellaneous/Lounge/Q_20747730.html

I agree on trying EE links, haha

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/09/24/tech.lawsuit.ap/index.html
"File-sharing suit against 66-year-old sculptor dropped"

(a) I agree, RIAA doesn't know a flaming thing about how to flame well, even in costly (more than we can do) legal BS, quote:

"The industry threatened to hold her liable for up to $150,000 for each song. "

"But Ward's lawyer, Jeffrey Beeler wrote in a letter to industry representatives that Ward was a "computer neophyte" who never even installed file-sharing software on her computer, The Boston Globe reported Wednesday. "

"In fact, Ward uses a Macintosh computer at home, and Kazaa runs only on Windows-based computer programs, Beeler noted. "

"The case, filed in federal court in Boston, was dropped Friday. "

It is still a "win" for an RIAA who has a goal of intimidation, the little old lady still had to get a lawyer, win case, and live through the additional stress placed upon her life, as well as the subsequent statements of RIAA that they will continue to stalk her every move. Anyone hearing of the story has to think even more about looking over their shoulder for potential stalker.

(b) Comment from rdcpro:
"It really sux that this sculptor had to go out and hire a lawyer to defend herself against such a frivolous lawsuit.  "

"I rather like Kazaa's suit against those same entertainment companies.  It seems that the record labels used unauthorized versions of Kazaa in their "research" (translation: entrapment) operations.  They also violated Kazaa's terms of use.  Naughty Naughty! "

So they think two wrongs make a right? Since when?
To use illegal activity to identify potentially illegal activity remains illegal.

(c) Suppose All of their first couple thousand refused to go to court, hire lawyers, or play ball in this game of RIAA, and the men in blue came to lock them up just as

RIAA starts next round of a few thousand lawsuits, and none of those people cooperate, either by paying, agreeing, asking for amnesty, responding, listening, or going to court.

So the men in blue are sent to snatch them up.

I ask, just where the flame does RIAA think that the men in blue can put all these people, these suggested abusers of their right to be as rich as Bill Gates since they are just as smart and powerful?

My answer remains, but with as littlle as you ask about, I think you'll like my #b better. I'll repeat my answer in closing.

Answer: Two wrongs do not make a right
Answer: Takes one to know one

OK, I found another link on that, here (you are welcome to have it in exchange for yours), wondering what calculator was used to figure someone eligible for senior citizen discounts can have taken that much bread out of the mouths of starving songwriters, (is it because she was using a competitor's operating system?):

http://www.theregister.com/content/6/33007.html

RIAA withdraws $300m lawsuit against innocent pensioner
By Andrew Orlowski
Posted: 24/09/2003 at 12:39 GMT

Six record labels including Sony, BMG and Virgin have withdrawn a $300m lawsuit against a 66-year old woman sculptor who, it turns out, has never used file sharing software.

The RIAA said Sarah Ward was sharing 2,000 songs through the KaZaA P2P network exposing her, at $150,000 per offense, to $300,000,000 in penalties. But not only had she never downloaded a song, but as a a Macintosh user, she couldn't even run the KaZaA software, which only runs on Windows.

With characteristic bad grace, attorneys for the RIAA members reserved the right to harass the woman in future:

"Please note, however, that we will continue our review of the issues you raised and we reserve the right to refile the complaint against Mrs. Ward if and when circumstances warrant," wrote Colin Zick, attorney for the record labels, the Boston Globe reports.

Having attacked naval cadets, students, young children and now innocent senior citizens, the music business appears not to fear the consequences of its litigation. However, it can't afford too many more cases of mistaken identity. ®

And the link from their take on RIAA using the so-called illegal software themselves:

http://www.theregister.com/content/6/33019.html

KaZaA sues RIAA for copyright infringement
By Andrew Orlowski
Posted: 24/09/2003 at 17:46 GMT

Sharman Networks is suing the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) for distributing replicas of its P2P file sharing software.

Sharman says the RIAA has distributed versions of KaZaA Lite with warning messages to potential infringers, which it deems "monopolistic and conspiratorial" behavior. In July a Judge nixed an attempt by Sharman Networks to stop the distribution of RIAA-flavored KaZaA software using Antitrust legislation. That failed, but this time it's trying again.

This latest twist highlights some of the RIAA's stranger behavior. The copyright-cartel has been playing fast and loose with other people's copyrights: while claiming that it is upholding the law, it has proved only too happy to break it. And while claiming to uphold the integrity of the music it distributes, it has pioneered the art of poisoning works of art with clicks and hisses.

But the RIAA hasn't escaped Antitrust scrutiny just yet: last month it was sued by the Webcaster Alliance. An unguarded comment by an RIAA attorney expressed the lobby's groups satisfaction at seeing 25,000 smaller webcasters perish, if AOL could stream 200 channels.

Careless talk. ®