Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Justice Dept. Raids Homes of File Swappers

timothy posted about 10 years ago | from the reasonable-suspicion dept.

United States 1173

Cryofan writes "Reuters is reporting that the Justice Dept. has raided the homes of 5 people in several states for trading music on p2p networks. The traders were, however, not arrested. 'P2P does not stand for 'permission to pilfer,' Ashcroft said. The Reuters story says that the 5 'were people operating hubs in a file-sharing network based on Direct Connect software,' and who had provided between 'one and 100 gigabytes of material to trade, or up to 250,000 songs.' 'They are clearly directing and operating an enterprise which countenances illegal activity and makes as a condition of membership the willingness to make available material to be stolen,' said Ashcroft."

cancel ×

1173 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Terminology (0, Flamebait)

adamscottphotos (681121) | about 10 years ago | (#10073262)

Each of the five hubs contained 40 petabytes of data, the equivalent of 60,000 movies or 10.5 million songs, Ashcroft said.

Umm... Pentabytes? Come on.. who has a friggin PENTABYTE??

Re:Terminology (-1, Offtopic)

adamscottphotos (681121) | about 10 years ago | (#10073287)

ffp w00t

Re:Terminology (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10073314)

Peta, not Penta.

Re:Terminology (4, Funny)

eggegg (754560) | about 10 years ago | (#10073331)

...who has a friggin PENTABYTE??

Ah, the irony.

Re:Terminology (2, Insightful)

adamscottphotos (681121) | about 10 years ago | (#10073346)

Hey, am I the only one who saw that go by?

I don't know how big of an enclosure you'd need to house even ONE PENTABYTE of storage, but considering that it's 1000 times a TERABYTE, and I've got .. two full boxes here to hit a measley 900GB, .9 of a TB, or .0009 of a PENTABYTE.

I can't believe nobody over there is clueful enough to have corrected PB to TB.. I -might- believe 40TB. Maybe.. Probably not...

Re:Terminology (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10073354)

All the easier to cast doubt during whatever trial occurs.

"Initial reports filed by the state claimed that the defendents were each serving 40 pentabytes of pirated content for illegal download. After being raided, seized computers were shown to only have several hundred gigabytes of storage. The capacity of the computers siezed was more than 1 million times less than that claimed by the state. The state used clearly false information to procure the warrents for the search... how can we trust any of the information gathered by the state when such a fundamental error occured in their investigation..."

Re:Terminology (1)

Tongo (644233) | about 10 years ago | (#10073429)

Considering the "pentabyte" thing, I wouldn't be suprised if this was just an iditot reporter who doesn't have a techy bone in his body.

Re:Terminology (-1, Flamebait)

psylence (87893) | about 10 years ago | (#10073365)

I'm guessing by your retarded post you either:

a) Are retarded
b) Just wanted first post
c) Don't realize the data the hub contains is NOT an individual computer but rather the culmination of all shared files on all members of the hub

I'm gonna go with 'a' though.

Re:Terminology (1)

adamscottphotos (681121) | about 10 years ago | (#10073457)

As far as C) goes, yes, but I ask you, where would you store that much data? The Internet Archive brags about being able to use a "standard 8'x8'x20' shipping" containter to house just ONE petabyte. So maybe they grabbed a zillion bittorrent files, but hardly 200pb of data.

Re:Terminology (2, Informative)

akadruid (606405) | about 10 years ago | (#10073375)

Come on.. who has a friggin PENTABYTE

er... no-one? unless you have?

If you're looking for a petabyte, it's 1000 terabytes (or possibly 1024, depending who you ask).

But you're right, that is some real hardware. I can't see any private individuals having that much at this point. At a minimum, that kind of storage is going to be costing in the region of $100,000 dollars.

Re:Terminology (3, Informative)

twiddlingbits (707452) | about 10 years ago | (#10073428)

Last time I priced it SAN storage was about $2,500 a TB so that makes 1PetaByte 1024*$2,500 or about 2.56 MILLION bucks. Not to mention the floorspace and the power bill for the A/C and the drives. Those guys must have been some fatcat file swappers. There are large companies that don't have that much storage!

Re:Terminology (1)

adamscottphotos (681121) | about 10 years ago | (#10073378)

Sheesh.. Ok, sure.. PETAbyte not PENTAbyte..
What kind of unit is that? Probably came from the same great folks who gave us decimeters...

Re:Terminology (5, Funny)

macshune (628296) | about 10 years ago | (#10073403)

Check earlier in the day and you'll find this lovely quote explaining everything, "...pentabytes are the new, arbitrary metric of the evil, satanic file-sharing people."

To be a little more technical, I think it's somewhere between a crap byte and a fuck byte, 500-1000 shit bytes, IIRC.

Re:Terminology (2, Informative)

adamscottphotos (681121) | about 10 years ago | (#10073409)

Now wait a second. Look at THIS [archive.org] , the Internet Archive's 'PETABOX'.
They found 200 of these?? Who's got their terminology wrong.

I do! (2, Funny)

commodoresloat (172735) | about 10 years ago | (#10073426)

In fact, I have millions of them! Pentabyte = 5 bytes, right?

Pentabyte? (0, Redundant)

uberdave (526529) | about 10 years ago | (#10073441)

PENTAbyte? What is that, like, five bytes?

p2p (3, Funny)

xhorder (232326) | about 10 years ago | (#10073264)

I thought it meant pleased 2 plunder!

Re:p2p (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10073438)

Pleased to plunder?

Why not phailed to phind WMD?

A busy day for the feds... (5, Informative)

erick99 (743982) | about 10 years ago | (#10073265)

These were some serious downloadin' folks:

Each of the five hubs contained 40 petabytes of data, the equivalent of 60,000 movies or 10.5 million songs, Ashcroft said.

In order to join the network, members had to promise to provide between one and 100 gigabytes of material to trade, or up to 250,000 songs, Ashcroft said.

200 petabytes of songs and movies! Pretty amazing.

I wonder if the RIAA will ask the feds to turn over all of the involved parties and I wonder if the feds would do it if asked.

Or maybe they are too busy since they just sued a bunch more customers....

The Recording Industry Association of America on Wednesday announced it had sued another 744 individuals and refiled suits against 152 others who had ignored or declined offers to settle.

Cheers,

Erick

Re:A busy day for the feds... (1)

pilgrim23 (716938) | about 10 years ago | (#10073313)

Deleting a Petabyte or two....humm How many burned Libraries of Alexandria would that be?

Re:A busy day for the feds... (4, Insightful)

diamondsw (685967) | about 10 years ago | (#10073321)

This doesn't seem possible - that's what, 100,000 x 300GB hard drives? Are they really providing that much, or is this the total amount available on the entire network?

Re:A busy day for the feds... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10073370)

I doubt that much is even on the network...

The largest I've ever seen on direct connect was 120TB, which is still a heluva lot

Re:A busy day for the feds... (4, Informative)

McDutchie (151611) | about 10 years ago | (#10073324)

200 petabytes of songs and movies! Pretty amazing.

The website [neo-modus.com] says the whole network contains about 1 petabyte of data.

Who to vote for (-1, Offtopic)

kabloom (755503) | about 10 years ago | (#10073267)

Now we get to the part of the presidential campaign where I hate both administrations a whole lot.

fp! (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10073268)

ashcroft rulez!

Doesn't the DOJ have better things to do... (3, Insightful)

AtariKee (455870) | about 10 years ago | (#10073269)

... like go after terrorists?

Re:Doesn't the DOJ have better things to do... (2, Funny)

lucabrasi999 (585141) | about 10 years ago | (#10073306)

like go after terrorists?

Not now, we are only on YELLOW [dhs.gov] Alert.

Re:Doesn't the DOJ have better things to do... (1, Insightful)

WIAKywbfatw (307557) | about 10 years ago | (#10073308)

Terrorism is just a smokescreen.

The real agenda is clamping down on the rights of the individual whilst letting companies get away with murder (literally so in some cases). You see, individuals don't make huge campaign donations, or pay multi-million dollar salaries with generous stock options and pension benefits. Companies do.

Re:Doesn't the DOJ have better things to do... (5, Funny)

M51DPS (757403) | about 10 years ago | (#10073311)

Well sure, let's just ignore all the kids downloading music for free and go after people out to kill us. Now who sounds absolutely ridiculous?

Re:Doesn't the DOJ have better things to do... (5, Insightful)

TedTschopp (244839) | about 10 years ago | (#10073315)

Do you have only one thing on your to do list?

Re:Doesn't the DOJ have better things to do... (1)

AtariKee (455870) | about 10 years ago | (#10073362)

I don't think the government should be doing the bidding of the movie and music cartels, especially since this is a civil matter . That's one sign of the emerging corporatist state that the US is slowly devolving into.

Re:Doesn't the DOJ have better things to do... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10073380)

But then you don't like it when the music cartels get into vigilante justice. You know what that makes you? A fucking hypocrite.

Re:Doesn't the DOJ have better things to do... (0, Flamebait)

AtariKee (455870) | about 10 years ago | (#10073425)

Nice strawman there, AC. Typical of someone with no refutation of the facts. The cartels are doing just fine with their lawsuits against sharers. This move just shows that, with a few dollars in the right place, government can be bought. It's called Corporatism, or, in it's classical sense, Fascism.

Re:Doesn't the DOJ have better things to do... (1, Insightful)

centralizati0n (714381) | about 10 years ago | (#10073384)

Last I checked, copyright infringement was a crime.

Re:Doesn't the DOJ have better things to do... (2, Interesting)

Izago909 (637084) | about 10 years ago | (#10073445)

Check again. The reason no charges were pressed was because they can't. It's a civil matter, despite what the media conglomerats want you to believe.

No, but... (4, Insightful)

rsilvergun (571051) | about 10 years ago | (#10073417)

If I have a to do list of:

1. Get heart surgery done.

and 2. Pick up laundry.

I tend to prioritize the first one.

Re:Doesn't the DOJ have better things to do... (5, Interesting)

thedogcow (694111) | about 10 years ago | (#10073319)

According to Sen. Hatch, they are going after terrorists (peer 2 peer users).

Re:Doesn't the DOJ have better things to do... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10073323)

well if they are not successfull at that, they attempt to pursue other goals to make themselves not look like a waste of money

Re:Doesn't the DOJ have better things to do... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10073385)

You make it sound like the entire DOJ is focused solely on busting file swappers. How incorrect you are.

You're probably one of those people who, when they get a speeding ticket, scream at the cop, "Shouldn't you be arresting murderers?"

Re:Doesn't the DOJ have better things to do... (1)

mrchaotica (681592) | about 10 years ago | (#10073387)

Didn't you get the memo? P2P users are terrorists!

Re:Doesn't the DOJ have better things to do... (2, Insightful)

Phillup (317168) | about 10 years ago | (#10073391)

Let's see... they went in to someone's home and took their stuff.

And made no arrests.

I don't recall the gov't being able to do that before 9/11... so... I'm sure it is related somehow.

Re:Doesn't the DOJ have better things to do... (1)

b-baggins (610215) | about 10 years ago | (#10073422)

Yes, because we all know that no organization can do more than one thing at a time.

Re:Doesn't the DOJ have better things to do... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10073447)

Of course they have better things to do, like making sure finnish symphonic metal [nightwish.com] bands don't enter the country!

I feel safer already!

That's all? (1)

TapTapTheChisler (691570) | about 10 years ago | (#10073270)

100 GB won't even get you into MY hubs

Re:That's all? (1)

escher (3402) | about 10 years ago | (#10073297)

Fine, fine, I'll go recode my mp3s at a gazillion bits per second.

Re:That's all? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10073453)

I hope it's lossless stuff and not some useless 320kbps mp3 crap

damnit (1)

thedogcow (694111) | about 10 years ago | (#10073272)

This is going to lessen the amount of files I can download now. Fuckers.

FIRST POST (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10073273)

Slashcode is broken and ugly.

Well I WOULD have gotten first post, but alas...

Slow Down Cowboy!

Slashdot requires you to wait 2 minutes between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment.

It's been 1 minute since you last successfully posted a comment

Slashcode is STILL broken and ugly. Hail Satanas we are the black legions.

250,000 songs? Warez/Movies more likely. (0)

azaroth42 (458293) | about 10 years ago | (#10073279)

More likely to be warez or movies than someone with a quarter million mp3s.

Re:250,000 songs? Warez/Movies more likely. (1)

billyjoeray (65862) | about 10 years ago | (#10073336)

I have nearly 100GB of mp3s, but no where near 250,000 songs, look like they just did the math wrong. I have ~9000 mp3s, though only around ~400 of them take up 35GB because they are DJ mixes. Also if you have high quality rips of albums 100GB is still much less than 250,000 songs.

Re:250,000 songs? Warez/Movies more likely. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10073411)

No -- that's not what they meant. Read it again. They meant that every user in the DC hubs they were operating shared between 1 and 100 Gbytes, totalling up to 250,000 songs available in the hub. HTH.

Frist Post (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10073280)

first post with hot grits

wth? (2, Interesting)

micronix1 (590179) | about 10 years ago | (#10073282)

how is 100 gigabytes of music 250,000 songs?

Re:wth? (1)

alteridem (46954) | about 10 years ago | (#10073400)

My collection is nearly 25 GB and has over 4600 songs. I rip all of my CD's at 192 or 256 bit so they are fairly large. That would make for nearly 18,000 songs ranging from 128-256 bits.

I guess to get 250,000 songs they could all be at 16 or 32 bit mono and 30 seconds long ;)

Good! (4, Insightful)

TedTschopp (244839) | about 10 years ago | (#10073289)

Wow, actually it sounds like they are starting to target the correct people. Good.

Re:Good! (5, Insightful)

AtariKee (455870) | about 10 years ago | (#10073339)

The DOJ should saty out of what is clearly a civil matter. Now we have the government doing the bidding of the music and movie cartels.

Corporatism is slowly taking over the USA. I just hope we still have time to stop its onslaught.

Re:Good! (0)

psylence (87893) | about 10 years ago | (#10073402)

They facilitate and provide stolen goods across state lines en mass, this is the correct action.

Re:Good! (5, Informative)

shark72 (702619) | about 10 years ago | (#10073443)

"The DOJ should saty out of what is clearly a civil matter."

Copyright violation becomes a criminal matter once the value crosses a fairly low threshold. This has been the case for several years now. Here's the section of US copyright law [copyright.gov] that covers criminal offenses.

Department of "Justice" (1)

Frank T. Lofaro Jr. (142215) | about 10 years ago | (#10073454)

Perhaps the Department of "Justice" should be renamed the Department of Legal Affairs.

40 petabytes? (2, Insightful)

TelJanin (784836) | about 10 years ago | (#10073291)

Isn't that enough to hold damn near the entirety of songs/movies ever made?

I fought the law and the... (2, Interesting)

TroyFoley (238708) | about 10 years ago | (#10073299)

You know how it goes.

Long story short, so long as the letter of the law has you down, the best route is to change the letter of the law. Whilst minor fixes here and there can suffice in the short run, I've long wondered if there are any moral/philosophical arguments against copyright (communist "Property is theft" notwithstanding) as a whole. Lately, the practical nature of it as a boon for innovation has been falling short and shown to be a bane in certain instances, but there really ought to be a general argument against the entire concept.

I'm just too lazy to develop one.

Re:I fought the law and the... (5, Interesting)

mrchaotica (681592) | about 10 years ago | (#10073435)

"Information wants to be free" and "monopolies are bad" would be those general arguments you're looking for, I think, along with "copyright was considered a necessary evil from the beginning* and now isn't even necessary."

*see the writings of Jefferson and Madison

Wow. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10073300)

"P2P does not stand for permission to pilfer."
Very catchy.

To be honest, I'm surprised it's taken this long for something like this to happen.

Direct Connect (5, Funny)

Burgundy Advocate (313960) | about 10 years ago | (#10073302)

100 GB, huh? Sounds pretty good. Link?

Inept Legal Advisors? (2, Insightful)

tarquin_fim_bim (649994) | about 10 years ago | (#10073303)

"to make available material to be stolen"

Does this available material, have some non-availability clause attatched? Or maybe I'm confusing the whole infant grammar thing here.

Petabytes? (5, Funny)

JDRipper (610930) | about 10 years ago | (#10073304)

Isn't that what happens to people who wear fur?

Re:Petabytes? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10073357)

People who don't make sure the fur is dead first, yes.

I can't say I feel sorry for those that got raided (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10073305)

People like to look at movies, music, software as simply a string of ones and zeros, but ultimately, someone had to spend a lot of time to produce them.

Now if only those P2P traders spent their time making love to their dog they would be too busy to take someone else's work.

Good old DoJ.... (2)

Kid Zero (4866) | about 10 years ago | (#10073310)

enforcement arm of the RIAA, MPAA, and whomever else has the cash to bully people around.

Re:Good old DoJ.... (-1, Troll)

TheKidWho (705796) | about 10 years ago | (#10073342)

and you blame the DoJ for stopping them because...???

No dear god no, they werent stealing where they?!! OMG!!! never!! this is slashdot!! Filesharers are our saviors from wasting money on things!!! Long live the filesharers!!

so if they werent charged (5, Informative)

Comsn (686413) | about 10 years ago | (#10073312)

what were the warrants for the raids granted with?

Authorities made no arrests. But Ashcroft warned that those who copy music, movies and software over P2P networks without permission could face jail time.


under what penalty of law? last i heard copying things (download) never got anyone in trouble... now sharing on the other hand, is still a civil matter. (but selling is an FBI matter).

Re:so if they werent charged (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10073452)

That's what I'd like to know too. What was their basis for the warrant?

Since it was an essentially private hub, did they infiltrate it to establish that file sharing was going on? (That would mean sharing >1GB of stuff themselves!)

What I'd like to know is whether the feds can search company/educational subnets without a warrant. Now that would be scary.

Ashcroft is greasing up big rod! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10073316)

His baptist god told him to screw everybody in the ass!

Worth noting.... (4, Informative)

mblase (200735) | about 10 years ago | (#10073317)

Direct Connect, for the three or four of you that don't already know, doesn't work like Napster or KaZaA. The hubs are sometimes public, but in these cases admission to the hub required you to share your own collection for free as well. So the hub owners are not only sharing music with a select membership, they require their members to share large amounts of music as well.

They were copying, trading, and encouraging others to do the same in large quantities. I don't like seeing people's hard drives raided for any reason, but it's pretty clear these five folks didn't have a leg to stand on.

Re:Worth noting.... (2, Informative)

Mazem (789015) | about 10 years ago | (#10073377)

It's also worth noting that to catch these 5 in the act, the government would also have had to partake in illegal sharing, at least for a little while.

Press conference tomorrow... (4, Informative)

keiferb (267153) | about 10 years ago | (#10073320)

Washington Post link [washingtonpost.com] , free reg. req.

idiots (0, Flamebait)

weenis (656512) | about 10 years ago | (#10073325)

ur supposed to just leech off other peoples servers, dont host in the US!

A show of force... (2, Interesting)

IamGarageGuy 2 (687655) | about 10 years ago | (#10073332)

The RIAA obviously took it seriously when pople said that they would go underground after they started to sue the Kazaa crowd. This is a show of force when they can bring in the feds to help in their cause. Now that the feds are in on the big ones, how long until they start to move on the little guys?

Why do people have soo much music? (4, Funny)

Photar (5491) | about 10 years ago | (#10073333)

I have serious trouble filling a 10th of an iPod with music I can stand.

Its seriously sad that these people are just massing huge collections of crap to trade simply for the purpose of being "in the club" what a waste.

It if were all porn that would be unerstandable, but just music and movies? Come on people.

Re:Why do people have soo much music? (1)

Brightest Light (552357) | about 10 years ago | (#10073450)

Well, I'm sorry that your musical tastes are so limited that you only like enough music to fill "a 10th of an iPod". I know several people who have 100GB+ music collections; they don't amass crap for the purpose of "being in the club", they do it because they love music and like to listen to lots of it.

Long live Pope Ashcroft (1, Flamebait)

Izago909 (637084) | about 10 years ago | (#10073338)

I'm so relieved that even though I live in an era with constant threats such as domestic terrorism, senatorial flight risks, the patriot act, the induce act, and non-Christian "citizens" running amok, that Pope Ashcroft can see through the unholy mess and guide our nation in the direction it needs. "Need not you worry", he said to his congregation of corporate leaders and wealthy elite, "For I, a federal chair, shall perform all of your duties in this civil matter." Praise Jesus that in these treacherous times a man of a singular holy vision shall unite American corporations with its 228 year old government to make the most self-righteous, most capitalistic, most federally pervasive and invasive political embodiment in all of recorded human history.

For more interesting reading on Ashcroft and his fight for the status-quo and his battles against individuality, please visit the following links:
BBC Profile [bbc.co.uk]
Rotten.com [rotten.com]
Eldred v. Ashcroft [harvard.edu]
Extreme Ashcroft [extremeashcroft.com]
Ashcroft's Detention Camps [villagevoice.com]
Some guys blog [livejournal.com]

Re:Long live Pope Ashcroft (1)

lucabrasi999 (585141) | about 10 years ago | (#10073405)

While I am certainly not a fan of Ashcroft, I must point out that he is certainly not Catholic [who2.com] .

Re:Long live Pope Ashcroft (1)

Hollins (83264) | about 10 years ago | (#10073451)

Your comment might be construed as saying "Ashcroft may be a bad guy, but he's not Catholic", implying that being Catholic would make him somehow worse.

Was that your intention?

Good ol' Ashcroft! (4, Funny)

lawpoop (604919) | about 10 years ago | (#10073351)

"P2P does not stand for 'permission to pilfer'"

What a way with words he has! Between that and 'Let the Eagle Soar', I say we have a strong candidate for the next national poet!

Public hubs get ya' caught! (1)

dustinbarbour (721795) | about 10 years ago | (#10073355)

Doh! I use and love DC, but every hub I'm on is private.. run by friends or run from a machine overseas. No password.. no access. [jack black]See.. It's fuckin' simple![/jack black]

lol (3, Insightful)

Jugalator (259273) | about 10 years ago | (#10073358)

'P2P does not stand for 'permission to pilfer,' Ashcroft said

No, it stands for Peer To Peer, which is unrelated to piracy. :-P

I dunno, but that quote sounded like Ashcroft was thinking P2P = Piracy To People or something like that.

Be smart at least (2, Insightful)

moankey (142715) | about 10 years ago | (#10073363)

When your running a P2P music sharing greater than that of iTunes and you think no one is going to come knocking?

10 million songs, 60k in movies, what did they think would happen they would be vaulted to underground geek martyrdom?

Diskless Servers (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10073368)

Times like these are when running a diskless [jct.ac.il] server really pays off. Sure, you're limited in the amount of storage that can be made available over p2p, but when they seize your server, there's no evidence whatsoever.

Just imagine the news story for that one: "Teenage File Trader's Computer Seized by FBI, Exercise in Futility"

this is a case being careful what you wish for. (5, Insightful)

shark72 (702619) | about 10 years ago | (#10073374)

Starting way back when the record companies were giving grief to the original Napster, many Slashdotters and like-minded folks were questioning the record company's authority to involve themselves in such matters, and said that if Napster was breaking the law, then the feds should get involved.

And then they did.

When harrassment of the P2P companies by both the government and private enterprises became more commonplace, many Slashdotters and like-minded folks said that the P2P companies weren't responsible for the actions of their users, and that the record companies should go after the users themselves.

And then they did.

When the record companies started suing the "whales" of the P2P world (those who were sharing sufficient amount of content to nudge into the territory of criminal, rather than civil law), many Slashdotters and like-minded folks claimed that if it really was criminal territory, then the record companies should stop picking on the pirates, and let the government handle it.

And now the government is doing just that.

Thank you DOJ & Ashcroft!!! (0, Redundant)

winkydink (650484) | about 10 years ago | (#10073381)

I don't have time to keep up with all of the new emerging p2p sites.

Thanks for turning me on to this one! Remember, there's no such thing as bad publicity.

Does this really solve any problem? (1)

chrispyman (710460) | about 10 years ago | (#10073383)

Incase the justice department doesn't know, the internet is worldwide. Sure you shut down a few of the big pirates in the US, they can't do much about those servers overseas. Other than temporarily causing a little drop in pirate traffic (and punishing 5 people), at the end of the day, does it really matter?

Nice (1)

Nos. (179609) | about 10 years ago | (#10073388)

How much you want to bet Ashcroft is sitting in a corner somewhere giggling to himself
'permission to pilfer'

JUSTIN BAILEY (5, Interesting)

Graymalkin (13732) | about 10 years ago | (#10073407)

'P2P does not stand for 'permission to pilfer,' Ashcroft said.


I bet he thinks he's so clever. However I find this story a little strange, the article claims that the five hubs each contained 40 petabytes (7200 Libraries of Congress) which at my count is about 160,000 250GB hard drives. That's ~$26m worth of hard drives per hub. The article is written in such a way to suggest these five hubs were run by people in their basements while the supposed retail value of their setups is anything but basementable.

I guess this shouldn't be surprising though. It is a well known fact al-Qaeda is trying to topple the American government by supporting music piracy over the internet. The RIAA member companies are practically bankrupt from their tremendous losses due to piracy. They're such excellent role models for young people, persevering in the face of such insurmountable odds. The movie industry is soon to be entirely out of business from online trading of hits like Gigli. I feel really bad for those gaffers that only make $250,000 a year that can barely make ends meet because someone downloaded a movie.

A distressing development (2, Interesting)

the arbiter (696473) | about 10 years ago | (#10073412)

This is an extremely disturbing development, seeing as these folks are not guilty of a crime, merely a civil offense. An egregious and large-scale civil offense, to be sure, but a civil offense nonetheless. Which is why there were no arrests. So why is the Justice Department involved?

Oh that's right...I forgot. Herr Reichsmarshall Ashcroft IS the law.

Well, it's not so bad (1)

agraupe (769778) | about 10 years ago | (#10073414)

It's the difference between busting a pot smoker and someone who traficks millions of dollars worth of the stuff. I can say that I have bought all my music online, legally, (well, at allofmp3, which is legal is Russia). I have only downloaded one song in the past few months, because it wasn't on their archives. I will also buy CDs, because some bands/people make it worthwhile. The truth is that these "hubs *were* taking money from the artists, at a fairly high rate (my entire music collection, at 192 bitrate, is only 570MB). 100GB is a bit excessive, and that does take money from people who deserve it.

Re:Well, it's not so bad (1)

netglen (253539) | about 10 years ago | (#10073460)

>> busting a pot smoker

I like how the Republicans put out those anti-drug ads stating that drug money was being funneled to terrorists groups. What a load of crap.

Heavy Metal (1)

netglen (253539) | about 10 years ago | (#10073420)

That schmuck Ashcroft reminds me of that android that short-circuited in the middle of the movie Heavy Metal. I hope some alines would come down and haul his ass back to the repair shop.

DoJ: Preserving the Status Quo or Your Money Back (5, Interesting)

Alaren (682568) | about 10 years ago | (#10073446)

Okay, so we're cracking down on copyright infringers. Jokes about "petabytes" aside, there was doubtless a lot of infringing going on.

But this whole thing is starting to look more and more like the enforcement of prohibition back in the roaring twenties, or like the religious persecution that started the American colonies. When something is illegal even though most people don't consider it "wrong," bad things happen. Small-time infringers are getting sued, big-time infringers getting raided, and a fair number of innocent folk get caught in the middle. Some of the Warez folk are looking more and more like the gangs of Chicago back in the day... and like those gangs, there are as many or more doing it for the thrill and the challenge than for the money.

So when do we get a constitutional amendment? When do we get a "digital revolution?" Where are the folk who realize that there is something seriously wrong with the way we understand the words "intellectual property?" When millions of people engage in an activity that bucks the status quo yet somehow remains illegal enough to warrant armed attention from the DoJ, you no longer have a government A)of the people, B)for the people, or C)by the people of the U.S.A.

Once upon a time, conditions like these would start mass emigrations. When the world was still largely unexplored, people packed up, moved out, and started their own countries.

But where can the persecuted flee today?

More FUD (4, Informative)

EdMcMan (70171) | about 10 years ago | (#10073455)

I'm not sure what to think about these raids. For those of you who don't know what direct connect is, it's not like KaZaA.

The client connects to a server (there are many), and then can share files and chat with people on that server. The server does not actually have any files; they come from the clients.

In essence, each server acts like a mini-KaZaA, and judging from the recent Grokster rulings, would mean that they aren't liable for anything. So, basically it means this is just more FUD coming from Ashcroft.

Although the operators weren't arrested, they probably won't see their equipment back for a long time. I guess that is the Justice Dept.'s way of dishing out justice when the law doesn't fit whoever is paying them off's will.

Not in several states.. (2, Funny)

xmedh02 (100813) | about 10 years ago | (#10073458)

Only in USA. :-)
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>