Napster...should I be worried?

[daveleau]

I think my computer may have been used to DL some music this weekend between April 28-30th. Should I be worried about the current goings-on with the naming of names?
Dave

[hd581]

It doesn't sound like they're going to take action against the individual perpetrators, at least from reading the article. Just sounds like they're going to force Napster to ban anyone who was a part of it.

[daveleau]

Coudl they take action if they wanted to do so? I don't understand how that could be legal? I thought privacy issues would coem into play. Maybe someone should sue the bands that listen in on internet connections.
Dave

[RobRich]

I will first state that I don't use Napster, as I'm not a fan of pirated music. I understand it could be used for legal mp3 searches, but is rarely used for that purpose.

I will assume it uses a metasearch capability that is based on key words in *.mp3's that are hosted by a log of servers. Considering that each of those mp3's can not be scanned and verified for content, how can anyone determine that the mp3 you are downloading even corresponds to the match? It sould be that the person on the other end has accidently labled the file wrong, and it isn't what it appears to be. http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/wink.gif

I don't believe that this net-monitorong service can verify each mp3, so how do they actually know what your downloading? All they have is a file name, not actual content delivery. I can name any file on my system:

Enter_Sandman_Metallica.mp3

and host it. But that doesn't mean its actually that. So that means the monitoring company is taking the IP adresses of "assumed" illegal mp3's, and then tracing the downloaders. What if that downloader was just searching for a file that happened to have that particular name, but not the illegal content? http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/wink.gif

Also, inorder for this monitoring agency to find these files being hosted, would they also not have to use Napster? It is perfectly legal to know where a file is, but assume they actually do download it to determine content. Wouldn't that officially make the monitoring company a user of Napster for illegal purposes, as they are now violating copyright laws?! Does that mean that they must also put themselves on the legality list, and that they should foward their own IP adresses back to themselves, so Metallica can sue them on behalve of themselves?

(Confused yet? http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/wink.gif )

If the monitoring company downloads the mp3 files to verify content, they are breaking the same exact law that their trying to enforce!!

Also, from my interpretations, packet monitoring/sniffing is illegal in the US. Hackers are commonly jailed for the exact same procedure, gaing information via packet tracing. It doesn't matter what the content is, it violates the conduct of a proper search. Did Napster users sign a form agreeing to them being monitored for traffic content? I assume not. Did the monitoring company ask the web sites in question for rights to monitor the traffic? Most likely not, as if any web admin would allow someon to monitor their hosting of possibly illegal content.

The police can't use these tatics, so how can a private organization use them to track, collect, and bring data forth in a possible court case against some 300,000+ Napster users caught during their sting?

The monitirong company is incriminating themselves by providing their service. In some states, internet comunications are governed by the same laws that govern phone networks. That means in some states, at least one party in a conversation must know that the conversation is being taped. Assuming that tcp/ip traffic is a conversation between a server and client, then the monitoring service is operating an illegal sting, since neither party of the conversation knows that their being monitored.

I don't keep up with the Napster news, but I'm with Dave on this one. I beleive that this little incidence might spur someone into suing this monitoring service. Considering where you live, they might have seriously vilated your rights. If you believe that yor rights were violated during this "sting," I would research the local laws further. You might just have grounds for a earth shaking lawsuit concerning this rather popular topic. Just a thought!!

In the ultimate form of irony, Metallica themselves could even sue the company, as it had to use Napster to search and possibly verify the mp3's!!

Just my $.02 for today,
Robert Richmond

-----------------------

I just read Napster's use policy, and it appears to be rather explicit in what it says about illegal MP3 usage. Barring this disclaimer, I don't see how anyone could actually sue Napster.com for anything.

It also states that no user can effectively use Napster to gain information of any form about other users and their activities. This extends to IP adresses, and traffic content. Considering that the monitoring company had to use Napster to locate the mp3 files, they used it as a tool to facilitate their IP tracing procedures. That means that Napster.com, and all users implicated by this "sting," could easily lodge a lawsuit against the monitoring firm and Metallica.

http://www.napster.com/terms.html

I like Metallica, but this is riduculous!

[This message has been edited by RobRich (edited 05-04-2000).]

[happyhamster]

Since Napster didn't participate in this monitoring, I bet they couldn't trace the downloads. Moreover, they apparently didn't even get IPs. Form what I read they just logged into Napster, did a search for Metallica songs, and compiled a list of Napster user names of members who happened to have them. The list contained about 330,000 user names. Now the real question is how they knew that all these copies were illegitimate, since it's certain that some of these users owned the CDs as well. Anyway, it's impossible for practical reasons to sue hundreds of thousands of users.

Also, I've read an explanation form Metallica. They emphasize that they don't go after users. They're only pissed at Napster as a company that makes money on their songs. During the arguments Napster stated that it'll ban users that exchange illegal mp3s, so Metallica tried to catch them here, sending the list and asking to ban users. Napster have already responded:

``Napster will review the over 300,000 fan names that Metallica turned in as soon as possible. If the claims are submitted properly, the company will take the appropriate actions to disable the users Metallica has identified,'' said Napster's attorney Laurence Pulgram, in San Francisco.

So the worst that can happen is that some users find their login not working anymore.


If they had downloaded a file from a particular user, verified that it was indeed metallica song, captured his IP and forced his ISP to reveal his identity, then they could contact him for a proof of purchase of CD containing that song. The probability of this happening is close to zero.

Just my 0.03

[daveleau]

Hmmmm. I wonder what the exact wording of our laws are here. This may be interesting. http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/wink.gif
Dave

[ytay]

well written thread RobRich, sheds alot of light on things, but i liken napster to a handgun manufacturer, napster makes the guns and we use them.......and i don't know of any gun manufacturer being sued cause someone was killed ( i am sure someone is gonna prove me wrong on that comment, because everyone seems to get sued in the excited states), and as far as napster banning users that is gonna be tough unless you have a static ip address

[Gutter Ball]

WOW! RobRich! If they sue me, you wanna be my lawyer?!?!?! http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif That was a great post!

[oblivion]

Mettalica could not sue them if they were given permission to DL the music right?


And another thing is that it is legal to DL anything if you own a copy of it.......I have DLed MP3's that I owned the CD's to,just so I could have them on my computer without having to rip them from CD.......so the responsibility would maybe lie in the person DLing the music.

[jad1097]

You mean the person uploading the music, right?

[grandslammer]

So, I guess we'll be part of a "reverse" class action suit!

http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/wink.gif HA!

M

[bhess]

A little off topic here maybe. How does napster make money? I see no banners, and didn't pay for the software.
I also just read it was invented by a 19 year old! Way to go!

[RobRich]

Oblivion, in theory, Metallica could not give permission to the monitoring company to download the music. That permission would have to be granted by Metallica's recoridng company, as they actually own the end produced cd's and music. This is assuming that Metallica has the standard music contract.

How about this: Metallica can sue themsleves!! Since Metallica has organized a "sting" operation, then that means anything the NetPD (I beleive that is the right company) did was under direct contract of Metallica. Thus if NetPD used Napster to collect this data (violation of Napter.com dislaimer, see rules and poilcies by the way), then they could effectively sue themselves!! http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif

I'm really sure that a judge would love me, as I believe I could keep a court case tied up in litagation for years. All you have to do is look at everything subjectively, and gather all the loop holes.

I like what GS said, a "Reverse Class Action Law Suit." Someone with a little money, and a lot of time, could have some serious fun with this topic in the court systems.

Robert Richmond

[daveleau]

If anything goes down, would you mind if I gave you a call RobRich? http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif Nice info. Thanks
Dave

[bhess]

oops just found that same question here http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/Forum1/HTML/006044.html

[ablang]

Beginning May 1, 2000, new laws go into effect for all "sharing" programs like Napster, Scour SX, Napigator, Gnutella, etc for the FBI to come and take your computer, and arrest you.

I just wish I could see the exact wording of the law.

[daveleau]

Where'd you hear that ablang?
Dave

[Wiz]

Yes, i'd like to see that one. I'll believe it when i see it... no....

[daveleau]

YGM ablang

Dave