Thats an old feeble arguement. Im going by what the RIAA says. You get pinched if you are caught SHARING over 1000 files. Go look it up if you doubt me. You cant get arrested for downloading. Try doing some research. They are going after users WHO SHARE NOT DOWNLOAD. Why do you think people stopped sharing? They just steal much instead. If you share small amount of files like 100/200 you won't get traced.

I never said it was a strong argument, I was just making a point.


I will 100% guarantee you that downloading 1 song / movie / book which you do not own the rights to is a violation of copyright law. I can also guarantee you with 99% accuracy that if you downloaded said copyrighted material you won't be thrown in jail.


This is the same as the war on drugs. Buying, smoking, possessing marijuana is illegal in most cases, yet most people who just smoke casually never get in any trouble. This is because the people in charge go after the source of the problem, not the end user.


This is exactly what the RIAA/MPAA is doing. Why go after the guy who is downloading / sharing one song, when they can take out a guy who has 10,000.


It's the same reason police don't actively pursue casual pot smokers, they would much rather take out the guy with 1000 lbs. of weed, selling it to half of the state.

Why on earth would congress pass a law that stated Copyright laws are violated only after X amount of material is found in your possession?

They have laws that say its illegal to download ANY AMOUNT of copyrighted material, and harsher penalties if you are attempting to make money off of it.

As you are talking about the RIAA I take it you are referring to USA; do I take it then that breach of copyright is a criminal offence in USA?? In United Kingdom (and other countries which have adopted the Berne Convention) breach of copyright is a civil offence, a "tort". It is up to the Plaintiff to seek damages from the Respondent in the civil court. In practice music copyright owners would licence their right to a music publisher/record company and the action would normally be undertaken by the British Phonographics Industry, which seems to have adopted the role of music industry policeman, citing the terms of the 'Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988' (as amended) but it is still a civil action.

Nice trick, where did you learn that?

__________________
Artist: Zug Izland
Album: 3:33
Song: Everything
---------------------------------------------------
You've got your blind indecisions of all the things they say
This is your life this time, live it how you may
Give one man power to kill, and one man hands to heal
Left one man suffering, all I want is everything

being able to change your IP addy don't matter really (cept for maybe hiding from a hacker) cause there are still records associated with said addy as it pertains to a certain time frame...i.e. @ 1:15am on blah, blah, blah, a certain specific person was using a given addy....

one poster has also made an excellent point in regards to modems...they are all unique, and all are ID'd via tags that are specific to that individual modem (and also routers, and also NIC cards), so even without a specific time date stamp, a user can be ID'd via their mac address (id tag for above items) over a wide time period (like the whole time they were in posession of said piece of hardware), knowledge of said mac address also gives certain ppl the ability to track your actions all over the net....

so, in a nutshell, of course your dynamic IP addy can be traced directly to you, and only to you given the fact a person has a time/date stamp to place you as the 'owner' of said IP addy at a specific time