Hi I'm new here *waves*. Maybe someone here knows something about this: I remember reading that when they knock down your door to search for content, one of the ways they decide the target du jour is by the # of dl in your share folder. Due to this, I've partitioned my folders, rotating content (besides, I'm on dialup, & unless its found nowhere else, most people go pffft & look for something quicker). Is there any truth to this? I really want to open up all the content, but don't like the idea of being on the menu!

When who knocks down your door? I'm not quite sure what you are asking here. Please clarify your question.

deepblue

__________________


"THEY WHO WOULD GIVE UP AN ESSENTIAL LIBERTY FOR TEMPORARY SECURITY, DESERVE NEITHER LIBERTY OR SECURITY."
--Benjamin Franklin

Which country are you in?

As far as muse goes, as far back as record'g devices've been around, there's been some form of copy (I think that means more than a year ago.) Most likely many music execs themselves have unauthorised tape record'gs of stuff, not to mention stuff on their vcr's that they have no permission to copy & watch/show to friends. They are after the big people, people who do it to make a quid (exceptions however, it could be consequential to another issue - particularly a computer issue - to add weight to this something else.) But I'm neither a lawyer, legal specialist, or even live in your country so I don't pretend to know anything special. These are opinions. Despite the power pull of the music industry & others I don't think any government would risk being thrown out on their arses by taking such a stalinistic hardline approach. Particularly when the % of population that utilises p2p reaches far & beyond all demographic groups. Exceptions for those under 7 years of age!

Sorry deepblue, I know I definitely started my post before u but on a dial up with lw & other processes going, time almost stands still at times. I think mstfyd was refering to this thread & its links & this other thread & what it says.

I guess the point is not to overreact or b/c paranoic. That talk was of the extreme. For average joe there's probably nothing to worry about. If you're like the rest of us & don't upld/dwnld unlicenced material then u don't have anything to worry about. It's just the very small minority who try to give Gnutella a bad name (if it has one I don't think it does!) hehehe " Is it true? Does size matter?" I guess it depends upon which girl/guy u speak to. What do u think? Do u want me to give u a thred ref to it?

Wow, I guess I need to pay more attention to what goes on around here. Heh, good post Lord of the Rings. I know how the dial-up thing goes, I never get more than 24kbps on a 56k modem. My local wireless provider charges $500 for hardware and install, so I'm stuck with dial-up for now. (Ah, complaints, complaints.)

deepblue

__________________


"THEY WHO WOULD GIVE UP AN ESSENTIAL LIBERTY FOR TEMPORARY SECURITY, DESERVE NEITHER LIBERTY OR SECURITY."
--Benjamin Franklin

the RIAA of course!

from Insight on the News: Arresting Kids for Downloading Music
(

[QUOTE]But it also raises a series of privacy questions concerning those who successfully have been sued by RIAA. For example, how was RIAA able to learn the identity of the anonymous downloader? Did it hack into people's computers or did the file-sharing network freely provide the names? No one is providing any answers.
RIAA has gone so far as to bust a 12-year-old pirate who "illegally" downloaded 1,000 songs, and forced a struggling mother to pay $2,000 for alleged illegal downloading by one of her children an act of the sort the recording industry claims has led to the loss of billions of dollars in lost revenues. [QUOTE]

&
Judge: RIAA can unmask file swappers
Last modified: July 27, 2004, 4:41 PM PDT
By Declan McCullagh
Staff Writer, CNET News.com

update

A federal judge has handed a preliminary victory to the recording industry by granting its request to unmask anonymous file swappers accused of copyright infringement.

U.S. District Judge Denny Chin ruled Monday that Cablevision, which provides broadband Internet access in Connecticut, New Jersey and New York, can be required to divulge the identities of its subscribers sued over copyright violations.

This ruling is the latest decision to clarify what legal methods copyright holders may use when hunting down people who are trading files on peer-to-peer networks. Courts have spent the last few years grappling with how to reconcile Americans' right to be anonymous with the entertainment industry's own right to sue people who violate copyright law.




[B]

RIAA puts more 'John Does' in the dock
Published: 8/25/04, 11:43 AM PDT -Reuters
The RIAA filed a new round of lawsuits against 744 people it alleges used online file-sharing networks to illegally trade in copyrighted materials. The suits, filed in courts across the country, cover "John Doe" defendants whose true identities are unknown, also suits against people who were identified but did not agree to an out-of-court settlement with the RIAA.
The individuals it sued used a variety of Internet platforms, including Limewire, Grokster, Kazaa and eDonkey, to swap songs. I wish I could find what I had read about smaller content not setting off flags, but its lost in the chasm of information.
Anyway, this was what I meant.

Aye, I gotcha now. Personally I'm not afraid of the RIAA. I think they are only trying to scare people away from free P2P downloading. 744 people is quite a few, but out of the millions of people who download "illegally" world wide it is miniscule. I think that those people are only caught because they share thousands of copyrighted files. They don't know/care that they're IP address is everywhere. For now takeing a few simple security precautions can keep those *******s away from you. For example a firewall and a few internet privacy programs (such as Window Washer, Peer Gaurdian, and mabey a proxy). Why did you title your post "Is it true? Does size matter?" Oh, did you forget these? [/B][/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR] My thoughts.

deepblue

__________________


"THEY WHO WOULD GIVE UP AN ESSENTIAL LIBERTY FOR TEMPORARY SECURITY, DESERVE NEITHER LIBERTY OR SECURITY."
--Benjamin Franklin

Well, you should have read my post a week or so ago. HEY LOTR remember that post for the paranoid I put out (HAHAHAHA). The one instance I know of anyone "knocking" was a post a few days ago from someone who said their ISP called them on the phone and said they new they were sharing an AV file for a just released file. At first I thought this was interesting then I realized it had to be a bogus post. Most ISP's will send you an automated email regarding this subject -- at worst will block you from using your login/address until you call THEM and ask what is going on. The number of files you have doesn't make any difference. I know people that have more than 20K files and have been doing this for years and never had a problem.

Unfortunately, the family crest has a full panel depicting St. Murphy, of Murphy's Law


You are right, its about time I got a decent proxy program. I had tried Steganos Anonymous, but the demo period expired. LOL, size of file folder, of course . I had read an article where an RIAA person had said something about large file sizes - I wish I had kept it.

I've been to the Micrsuck web site - some very scary stuff there. And where did you get the flashing bush terrorist icon? That is great!

Yes it does. If the RIAA uses LW to browse your computer for shared files, and most of the 20,000 are copyrighted, "your friend" will most likly be in deep sh1t (they will clame that "your friend" has caused these poor artists to lose "thousands" of dollers). I don't see why size of the file would matter, as long as you got it for free they'll come after you all the same. But, I really don't know, they have said crazier things (music on car radio for owner only, complete bullsh1t!).

I'm thinking of trying out Gentoo Linux. Have you had any expirince with this strange OS? And I got the avatar at
anti-flag.com.

deepblue

__________________


"THEY WHO WOULD GIVE UP AN ESSENTIAL LIBERTY FOR TEMPORARY SECURITY, DESERVE NEITHER LIBERTY OR SECURITY."
--Benjamin Franklin