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!

130 Filesharer Homes Raided in Germany

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 8 years ago | from the paid-to-watch-an-ass dept.

431

Flo writes "Today, 130 homes have been raided in Germany under the allegation of filesharing. Law enforcement agencies had been monitoring an eDonkey-Server for two months. 3500 identified users are being investigated. Searches took place when users shared more than 500 files. Partners of the music industry helped identifying copyrighted material, but monitoring of the servers was solely done by law enforcement."

cancel ×

431 comments

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

Easy to guess what's coming (4, Funny)

Henry V .009 (518000) | more than 8 years ago | (#15391466)

I invoke Godwin. Thread closed.

But... (2, Funny)

The MAZZTer (911996) | more than 8 years ago | (#15391474)

But noone mentioned the Nazis... aw shoot, I guess I just did. :/

Thread closed, sorry folks.

Re:Easy to guess what's coming (4, Informative)

Who235 (959706) | more than 8 years ago | (#15391536)

From Wikipedia:

"There is a widely recognized codicil that any such deliberate invocation of Godwin's Law will be unsuccessful."

Better luck next time. . .

Re:Easy to guess what's coming (1)

panxerox (575545) | more than 8 years ago | (#15391606)

Wow, lota riaa shills on tonight.

Re:Easy to guess what's coming (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15391797)

Only a Nazi would say that.

Re:Easy to guess what's coming (1)

commodoresloat (172735) | more than 8 years ago | (#15391706)

First, they came for the Germans, but I didn't...

Wait a minute...

Re:Easy to guess what's coming (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15391792)

the law doesn't say to close the thread -- it just says that eventually nazis will be mentioned in indefinitely lengthed threads.

Here come dem Nazis !!! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15391470)



Here come dem Nazis !!! Den Nazis?

Oh, no! It's red! (0, Redundant)

Kagura (843695) | more than 8 years ago | (#15391471)

What should we do? Tell us, O Slashdot!

I invoke my Triple-S Rule (4, Insightful)

OverlordQ (264228) | more than 8 years ago | (#15391477)

Searches took place when users shared more than 500 files.

I hereby invoke my Triple-S Rule which stats: Sharing Shit (they) Shouldn't

News flash: Break the law, and you might get caught.

Re:I invoke my Triple-S Rule (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15391563)

Break the law, and you might get caught. yeah well, at least you can still find yourself a good hooker online... www.wheresmyho.com [wheresmyho.com]

Re:I invoke my Triple-S Rule (2, Insightful)

SetupWeasel (54062) | more than 8 years ago | (#15391564)

Break the law and you may get caught, if you are a consumer. If you are a business, you get to settle out of court for pennies on the dollar.

Re:I invoke my Triple-S Rule (2, Insightful)

Mistshadow2k4 (748958) | more than 8 years ago | (#15391599)

Settle? Most of them never even have to settle. Somebody tell me again why regular citizens shouldn't be allowed to break the law while corporations do so whenever they please.

Re:I invoke my Triple-S Rule (4, Insightful)

DrEldarion (114072) | more than 8 years ago | (#15391617)

That statement is ridiculous - it should be the opposite. "Somebody tell me again why corporations should be able to break the law when regular citizens get busted for it."

Re:I invoke my Triple-S Rule (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15391786)

nah, I like mist's version better.

Depends on if you agre with the law (0)

MarkByers (770551) | more than 8 years ago | (#15391790)

That statement is ridiculous - it should be the opposite.

I guess that depends on whether you think the laws are fair or not.

Are you saying that all laws are fair? How about the 'Hand over your encryption keys or go to jail?' law in the UK.

Shouldn't we take each law on a case by case basis and determine whether or not it is OK to break that law in certain circumstances, rather than just saying that anyone who breaks a law is automatically evil and should be punished?

Yes, I know it would be better if the law makers made this decision this for us, but they have proved thir incompetence/corruption (probably the first) already and I no longer trust them to decide what is right or wrong.

SSS? Reminds me more of the SS. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15391716)

> I hereby invoke my Triple-S Rule

I thought the German secret police were just the SS?

Anyhow, Nazis/Godwin aside, the term "steal" implies that it was removed from someone's posession (i.e. they no longer have it any more). But "Infringing upon Stuff they Shouldn't" (ISS) sounds too much like a space station.

Now here's an even more interesting comparison: how many of those were leeched wireless connections? You see, I'm guessing the people who had others infringe via their wireless will get busted anyway. Even though when people are caught doing simple web browsing on a *company* wireless AP they shouldn't connect to (even though it's open and broadcasting an SSID), there the individual gets busted yet again.

It's funny that the laws prevent an individual from making themselves into a one-person corporation, because it would unduly shield them from liability. As if it helps any that normal corporations shield even more people from liability. Oh, and did you know that under US law, you can't boycott a company for "economic" reasons (i.e. because it's too damn expensive)? I'm just waiting for some lawyer to come up with a way to exploit *that* one.

I'd complain even more that too many of those damn Libertarians seem to want not to end this sort of corporate exploitation, but merely to ensure that everyone has an opportunity to engage in it, but I'm already on a wild, anti-corporate rant, so I'll shut up now.

Re:SSS? Reminds me more of the SS. (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 8 years ago | (#15391793)

Anyhow, Nazis/Godwin aside, the term "steal" implies that it was removed from someone's posession (i.e. they no longer have it any more). But "Infringing upon Stuff they Shouldn't" (ISS) sounds too much like a space station.

He said "sharing".

Re:I invoke my Triple-S Rule (1)

pintomp3 (882811) | more than 8 years ago | (#15391746)

news flash: law enforcement being used to protect private interests (not that two wrongs make a right)

This confirms it. (4, Interesting)

The MAZZTer (911996) | more than 8 years ago | (#15391481)

Law enforcement officials ARE running servers. I think this has been mentioned on Slashdot before... at least I think someone traced a server group to Sony or the RIAA or something.

Re:This confirms it. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15391538)

NEWSFLASH: Sony and the RIAA are not law enforcement agencies.

Re:This confirms it. (4, Funny)

jrockway (229604) | more than 8 years ago | (#15391573)

> NEWSFLASH: Sony and the RIAA are not law enforcement agencies.

What country do you live in?

Re:This confirms it. (5, Insightful)

HaloZero (610207) | more than 8 years ago | (#15391553)

Let me be exceedingly clear on this point.

The RIAA and the Sony Entertainment Corporation are NOT LAW-enforcement agencies. They are entities designed to make money. In making said money, they have the means to buy government influence.

This is called corruption, even while the coporation continues to screw the consumer.

The ethical debate we - as citizens, consumers, potentially file-sharers, and ultimately the ones with the votes - have to deal with is: which is more, or in this case less ethical? Corruption at a federal or even International level, or Copyright Infringement?

That is a choice I leave to you.

Re:This confirms it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15391585)

No it would be corruption if when sony or RIAA told law enforcement of the breachs and said law enforcement then said it is stupid. The Law is the Law, right or wrong the police et al are compelled to enforce it when a breach is presented to them. You seem to be suggesting that it is corruption??? Do you rally want police to choose which laws they want to enforce and which they will ignore????

Re:This confirms it. (1)

einstienbc (825770) | more than 8 years ago | (#15391643)

I think the grandparent implies that it is such corruption that had such laws brought forth in the first place.

Re:This confirms it. (0)

shark72 (702619) | more than 8 years ago | (#15391888)

"The ethical debate we - as citizens, consumers, potentially file-sharers, and ultimately the ones with the votes - have to deal with is: which is more, or in this case less ethical? Corruption at a federal or even International level, or Copyright Infringement?"

Why even set up a straw man here? Big companies buying government influence is bad. Copying somebody else's work against their wishes is also bad. It's not an either/or, and certainly not a situation where two wrongs make a right.

"That is a choice I leave to you."

The implication here is, of course, that if you're against copyright infringement, then you're for corporate corruption of government.

firewall domestic/national peers? (1)

Adult film producer (866485) | more than 8 years ago | (#15391493)

If you're american, just shut off all peer connections from your comrades in the states.. connect to japanese/canadians/europeans.. I'm sure they'll be happy to share files with you.

Re:firewall domestic/national peers? (1)

cgadd (65348) | more than 8 years ago | (#15391502)

you don't read so well? The server in the article wasn't in the states, it was in Germany.

Re:firewall domestic/national peers? (1)

jginspace (678908) | more than 8 years ago | (#15391554)

The server in the article wasn't in the states, it was in Germany.

1) I think the point being made was clear.

2) I don't think the article says where the server was; it just says the Germans had 'access' to it. Check Google News for more sources in English.

Re:firewall domestic/national peers? (1)

jginspace (678908) | more than 8 years ago | (#15391523)

firewall domestic/national peers?

And how might this be done? You lose points for replying 'dns'. Also whois data is no quarantee and the free geo location services are unreliable. (The free ones seem to be just an aggregation of whois data.)

Re:firewall domestic/national peers? (1)

Adult film producer (866485) | more than 8 years ago | (#15391566)

I really have no idea but maybe there's a public DB of ip blocks sorted by their country of ownership somewhere on google? I would start off by blocking everybody, then building a whitelist isp's that looked foreign..

Re:firewall domestic/national peers? (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 8 years ago | (#15391809)

First result on Google.

Re:firewall domestic/national peers? (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 8 years ago | (#15391820)

Ack, forgot the closing quotation marks again.

http://ip-to-country.webhosting.info/ [webhosting.info]

Re:firewall domestic/national peers? (4, Insightful)

Baseball_Fan (959550) | more than 8 years ago | (#15391559)

If you're american, just shut off all peer connections from your comrades in the states.. connect to japanese/canadians/europeans.. I'm sure they'll be happy to share files with you.

I don't think that would help. They can nail you for sharing files, even if the people you are sharing with are outside the USA. I don't believe law enforcement has to prove the other party downloaded anything, just that you were sharing.

What if someone in Germany was sharing a popular MP3. I download it in the USA. Does that make it less of a crime than if I downloaded it from someone sharing in the USA.

But to the point. These laws are stupid. File sharing is no different than what many people did in the 80's when they made tapes of music and shared it. Or taped music off the radio. I remember when radio stations used to not speak when a song started, so you could make a good copy. Now, the RIAA is going nuts and calling it theft. I always believed theft is those guys who profit selling pirated copies. But giving it away for free because you liked a song is not the same thing. Too bad the law disagrees with me. It makes me believe the RIAA used lots of cash to buy legislators to vote their way, after all, running an election is expensive.

If you ask me, the RIAA is a bunch of jackholes. Long before they started suing, they invaded the p2p networks and made available bad copies of mp3's. People would download them, and then realize it was 3 minutes of a screeching sound. I stopped buying music around that time and I remind myself just how friendly those big music companies are. I guess it wasn't good enough when I used to buy CD's and listen to the occasional MP3 on-line. Now they can live without my money.

And look at the trends with television viewing. Everything is going digital, so you won't be able to make a copy of anything. No more VHS, even TiVo is having a new flag which will force anything recorded to be deleted in 7 days (if the station uses the flag). And to top it off, when you want to fast forward commercials, guess what TiVo does? A pop up box with an advertisment is shows. Geez, isn't that why I'm fast forwarding. Lets face it, we live in a world where movie theaters force us to watch 30 minutes of commercials before they start the movie we payed $10 to see with the $6 popcorn and $6 soda. And when the DVD comes out, we are forced to watch previews of the FBI warning screen without the ability to fastforward. And a year later, the same DVD is released with special features.

They exists to rip us off. If they just wanted sales, they would treat the customer with respect. But there are too many people, and there is always someone willing to buy.

Re:firewall domestic/national peers? (5, Funny)

RaNdOm OuTpUt (928053) | more than 8 years ago | (#15391690)

[T]he RIAA...invaded the p2p networks and made available bad copies of mp3's. People would download them, and then realize it was 3 minutes of a screeching sound.
No, they were perfectly good MP3s. That's what people call "music" now.

Re:firewall domestic/national peers? (1)

countach (534280) | more than 8 years ago | (#15391700)

>I don't think that would help. They can nail you for sharing files, even if the
>people you are sharing with are outside the USA. I don't believe law enforcement has
>to prove the other party downloaded anything, just that you were sharing.

The point is, it's a lot harder to catch you if you're sharing over national borders. German police may try and catch naughty Germans, but the chance that they would be organized enough to share the information to other countries, and figure out all the legal issues is much less likely for a minor-ish crime like copyright infringement.

This actually happened to me a few weeks ago (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15391497)

Last week I was sitting around, screwing around on fark.com, when there was a knock at the door. My mom awnsered it, and it was an individual claiming to be from the RIAA, along with two county sheriff's deputies. My mom (stupidly) let them in, and the deputies came into my room and proceeded to throw me to the ground while the RIAA guy started looking around on my computer. I demanded to see a warrant and informed them that they did not have permission to search my belongings, but they said that they didn't need one due to some new state law (I live in Missouri). Anyway, they eventually found my stash of MP3s and my mom got scared and said "you're moving with your auntie and your uncle to Bel-Air" I whistled for a cab and when it came near the licensplate said fresh and had a dice in the mirror. If anything I could say that this cab was rare, but I thought now forget it, yo home to Bel-Air! I pulled up to a house about seven or eight, and I yelled to the cabby yo, home smell you later. Looked at my kingdom I was finally there, to settle my throne as the prince of Bel-Air.

Re:This actually happened to me a few weeks ago (0)

Qzukk (229616) | more than 8 years ago | (#15391557)

he prince of Bel-Air

Dammit, the containment field has been breached! Everyone, run for your karma! 4chan is leaking onto slaWHERE IS SARAH CONNOR?

Re:This actually happened to me a few weeks ago (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15391638)

O RLY?

Re:This actually happened to me a few weeks ago (1)

All_Star25 (736597) | more than 8 years ago | (#15391819)

NO U

Re:This actually happened to me a few weeks ago (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15391630)

California uber alles! The governator for Prez! Do androids dream of electric sheep? mmm... electric sheep... WTF?

Not much sympathy (0, Troll)

LifeNLiberty (975116) | more than 8 years ago | (#15391510)

I'm as liberal as the next guy, but people who steal things understand the risks involved, or if they don't, they deserve what they get simply out of ignorance. Actively sharing that much is flaunting illegal activity, and when you do that, you're gonna get caught. I think the RIAA is stealing from us as much as we from them but unfortunately their stealing is legal, and in any case two wrongs don't make a right. That's not saying that I disapprove of piracy, just that if people get caught its not like they can make a case that what they're doing doesn't deserve punishment.

Re:Not much sympathy (1)

goldspider (445116) | more than 8 years ago | (#15391525)

I'm officially Godwining all "Filesharing isn't theft" threads.

Re:Not much sympathy (1)

4D6963 (933028) | more than 8 years ago | (#15391587)

I'm officially Godwining all "Filesharing isn't theft" threads.

Huh?? I thought the Godwin law was all about comparisons to Hitler and the 3rd Reich?

Re:Not much sympathy (1)

NutscrapeSucks (446616) | more than 8 years ago | (#15391689)

Godwin's law is an analogy about inevitability. As in, it's inevitable that these stories start a long flamewar about the meaning of "stealing" or "theft".

Re:Not much sympathy (1)

cution (881211) | more than 8 years ago | (#15391541)

Unfortunately you're confusing stealing, where the property owner actually loses something, and copyright infringement, which, arguably, is quite a different thing.

Re:Not much sympathy (1)

LifeNLiberty (975116) | more than 8 years ago | (#15391556)

Copyright Infringement in this case is stealing, though I believe there is equal fault in both sides because the insane markup by the RIAA is tantamount to Grand Larceny, if the artists marketed the songs direct and you shared them, however, that shouldn't be legal, as the author deserves some proceeds from their work.

"is" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15391602)

I don't think the definition of "is" is what you think it, well, is.

Do the bookstores sell dictionaries on your planet? If so, then you don't get to redefine words at your leisure.

Re:Not much sympathy (1)

cution (881211) | more than 8 years ago | (#15391613)

I fail to see how it's equal to stealing in this case, in ANY meaningful way, when the people who are downloading copies of the music probably weren't going to buy it in the first place.

Re:Not much sympathy (1)

LifeNLiberty (975116) | more than 8 years ago | (#15391637)

I suppose I agree with you, I was just thinking out loud. It isn't right for the artists to get no compensation, and I guess I feel that if its made entirely legal people will download even if they would've bought otherwise sometime, there has to be a system whereby the artist gets compensated for their work but we can still abandon the cruel world of DRM and lawsuits, and I just don't know how to create that for music. For software its alot easier, corporations need to buy corporate licenses, but corporate software should be available to everyone else for free, since people would obviously never buy $1,000 software, there should at least be a way for them to learn it and try it out, and since corporations have the money to pay for licenses and would rather that than paying lawyers in lawsuits, they pay for licensing, in that case I think there is a solution, but i just don't know about music.

Re:Not much sympathy (1)

cution (881211) | more than 8 years ago | (#15391648)

And you're 100% correct, it isn't right for the artists to get no compensation, but I don't think they get very much from CD sales. Granted, it gets their name out there, but I think that most of their money comes from live touring (although I'm not an expert by far). If that's true, which it may or may not be, it seems like the only way the current model helps the artists is by getting their name out there. But I'm probably wrong and look like a jackass.

Re:Not much sympathy (1)

LifeNLiberty (975116) | more than 8 years ago | (#15391664)

I don't know the answer, but I think they deserve compensation for the song still. I think they deserve all the compensation people give them in fact, and I think the record companies should be completely cut out. Technology has gotten to the point that artists could publish their own music, I don't see why more people don't do that and keep the profits from selling it downloaded online. Or even make a new association to distribute music that benefits the artists, not record companies, something nonprofit.

Re:Not much sympathy (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 8 years ago | (#15391877)

Technology has gotten to the point that artists could publish their own music, I don't see why more people don't do that and keep the profits from selling it downloaded online.

Probably because record labels love to make contracts that say they own the songs and the band is not allowed to distribute them without paying money to the label.

Re:Not much sympathy (1)

dreadknought (324674) | more than 8 years ago | (#15391788)

I'm not an expert, either, but I have heard that that's true. What I've heard is that artists have to pay the labels back for the cost of producing, packaging, distributing, and marketing their albums (arguably could easily reach millions of dollars for all this). I've also heard that it takes two to three platinum albums for the artist to finally break even and start making money from CD sales.

The reason I say "I've heard" is because I don't always believe everything I read, and especially what people tell me, because it really bugs me when people start spouting off like they know something when really they only "heard" something from somewhere else.

Re:Not much sympathy (1)

NutscrapeSucks (446616) | more than 8 years ago | (#15391708)

I fail to see how it's equal to stealing in this case, in ANY meaningful way, when the people who are downloading copies of the music probably weren't going to buy it in the first place.

I don't think the guy who stole my car battery was planning on buying one for himself. That doesn't make sense.

Anyway, the "Probably weren't going to buy it" standard is ridclously low, because why would anyone buy something if they could get it for free? (and with almost no chance of legal reprecussions.) I'll happliy admit that I've bought music only after a fruitless search on the P2P networks and not all of us pirates are poor starving students oppressed by the high cost of CDs.

Re:Not much sympathy (1)

cution (881211) | more than 8 years ago | (#15391728)

What I meant was that, saying something is being stolen in this case is saying that the artist is losing money they wouldn't have made in the first place. They certainly aren't losing music, since it's copied for free anyway. I can't see that the artist is losing anything, so I don't consider it atealing.

Re:Not much sympathy (1)

NutscrapeSucks (446616) | more than 8 years ago | (#15391765)

Big assumption on your part. Of course they lose money. But who cares?

I'm sick of all the moral justification BS around here. Piracy is great because you can get free stuff by ripping off an abstract wealthy corporate entity, and there's a very low likelyhood of getting caught. Despite all the "Rage against the RIAA" and "Copyright is Immoral" hysterics you here around here, that's the bottom line that most of us pirates agree with.

Re:Not much sympathy (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 8 years ago | (#15391869)

I don't know about you but I've met quite a few people who would otherwise have bought many CDs and DVDs but decided they'd rather download everything instead. Hell, these days my father will demand an explanation when I buy something legally that I could download instead. WTF?

Sure, not everyone would have bought stuff instead and probably nobody would have bought EVERYTHING they downloaded but there are people who download things they used to buy.

Re:Not much sympathy (5, Insightful)

Mr. Slippery (47854) | more than 8 years ago | (#15391814)

Copyright Infringement in this case is stealing

No, in no case is copyright infringement stealing. They are two completely different things. (If you broke into my house, took the masters of the songs I'm working, and copied the stolen data, that would be both copyright infringement and stealing, but still two seperate acts.)

as the author deserves some proceeds from their work.

Perhaps. That doesn't means that a state-created artifical monopoly on the act of making copies is, or ever was, a good way to see that authors and creators get paid; any more than making people sing royalties for singing in the shower would be pratical, moral, or just.

Re:Not much sympathy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15391611)

2 wrongs dont make a right, but what makes 'our' stealing wrong? I dont believe it is.

Re:Not much sympathy (5, Insightful)

Admiral Ag (829695) | more than 8 years ago | (#15391685)

> I'm as liberal as the next guy, but people who steal things understand the risks involved, or if they don't, they deserve what they get simply out of ignorance.

People who use the law to defend industries for which there is no longer any need are enemies of the people. ;)

The recording industry should just die. File sharing is the best thing to happen to music since the invention of the LP (it completely rekindled my interest in popular music after years of apathy, and the same goes for many of my friends). Copyright is supposed to be about the interests of the consumer. Well, it's quite clear that the interests of the consumer are served better by the free exchange of music than by having to financially support an industry.

People will still make and distribute music if they aren't being paid (for all sorts of reasons). If you don't want to, you don't have to. But don't crap on the listeners who have no need to support an outmoded business model. No one has any moral right to make money from music, just as no one has any moral right to make other people pay every time they tell a story you told them.

File sharing is like marijuana - you just aren't going to be able to stop people from doing it.

Re:Not much sympathy (1)

NutscrapeSucks (446616) | more than 8 years ago | (#15391827)

Ah, the very articulate "I don't like paying for it so therefore it should be free" argument. Which is just "I don't like paying for it so I don't" plus a heap of bullshit to help one stay a "good boy" and sleep better at night.

Well, I prefer my hedonism straight-up, thanks. Fuck the interests of the consumer -- file sharing is great because you can get free stuff!

As for the RIAA's, your 1998-era "business model" argument needs some work. They do offer all you can eat plans for $10/month or whatever, which is probably reasonable for law-abiding citizens. The consumer interest point they fucked up the most was not mandating some sort of device interoperability for this stuff.

Re:Not much sympathy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15391715)

I think the RIAA is stealing from us as much as we from them but unfortunately their stealing is legal, and in any case two wrongs don't make a right.

Illegal and wrong are not the same thing.

If a law is unjust, then we should break it. Obeying an unjust law is both morally wrong, and cowardly.

If you don't want to download music, thats perfectly fine. If you don't want the music industry to take your freedoms away, then don't buy their products. Let them go bankrupt so they can't make the government do this sort of thing to you.

Have a music addiction? With very little effort you can find plenty of excellent music from indie artists in any genre.

Re:Not much sympathy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15391798)

Well that's the problem. You're as liberal as the next guy.

Re:Not much sympathy (1)

theLOUDroom (556455) | more than 8 years ago | (#15391830)

I'm as liberal as the next guy,

Well I'm the next guy and I say your not that liberal.

First off, copyright infringement is neither stealing nor piracy.

I think the RIAA is stealing from us as much as we from them but unfortunately their stealing is legal, and in any case two wrongs don't make a right. That's not saying that I disapprove of piracy, just that if people get caught its not like they can make a case that what they're doing doesn't deserve punishment.

This logic is retarded. Basically your opinion is:

It's illegal, therefore they deserve to be punished, regardless of whether what they did was morally wrong, but the big guys can do whatever they want. (Price fixing is NOT legal BTW, nor are Sony's recent acts of computer crime.) That view is ANYTHING but liberal. You're about as conservative as they come buddy. You haven't said a single liberal thing here.

You're literally saying, "Go against the establishment and you don't deserve my sympathy."

Here's a question for you:

How many homes were raided when they found out that the RIAA was illegally price fixing? How many people went to jail?

Re:Not much sympathy (1)

Brandybuck (704397) | more than 8 years ago | (#15391862)

Well I'm the next guy and I say your not that liberal.

Well I'm the guy next to him, and I say you can't spell.

Much better than new laws (2, Insightful)

moquist (233465) | more than 8 years ago | (#15391528)

This is excellent news. The IP rights-holders appear to be responsibly investigating the actions of people violating copyright law.

I'd rather have a million more Jane Doe lawsuits and investigations like this one before DRM achieves greater legal backing than (in the United States, anyway) the DMCA already gives it.

Copyright holders have always had the right to take legal action against copyright violators, but they made a tactical error when they chose to fight Napster instead of the users, and when they attempt to pass laws instead of civilly enforcing existing laws.

Re:Much better than new laws (5, Insightful)

HaloZero (610207) | more than 8 years ago | (#15391578)

Raiding the home of a citizen is in no way, shape, or form 'civil', regardless of their level of infringement.

Re:Much better than new laws (1)

Joebert (946227) | more than 8 years ago | (#15391785)

Smithers !, release the hounds.

Re:Much better than new laws (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15391608)


This is excellent news. The IP rights-holders appear to be responsibly investigating the actions of people violating copyright law.

I'd rather have a million more Jane Doe lawsuits and investigations like this one before DRM achieves greater legal backing than (in the United States, anyway) the DMCA already gives it.


Okay, sure.

What the heck stops the school bully from taking your lunch money AND making you do his homework?

Re:Much better than new laws (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15391640)

They just got a new law and it's not pretty.

Re:Much better than new laws (1)

drsmithy (35869) | more than 8 years ago | (#15391677)

I'd rather have a million more Jane Doe lawsuits and investigations like this one before DRM achieves greater legal backing than (in the United States, anyway) the DMCA already gives it.

Personally I'd rather have no copyright at all and a DRM free-for-all. Then the market can decide what solution is best.

Re:Much better than new laws (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15391733)

The "IP" rights holders are as a class completely guilty and have been for years of violating just a ton of laws yet not a one of them has ever lost a private personal penny or been threatened with jail time.

  As an industry they collude to keep prices jacked up. They have been engaging in payola and bribery for decades. They conspire to trick the talent into extremely lopsided business contracts, then in numerous cases won't even honor their commitments there.

  So called "law enforcement" is a lopsided joke, totally skewed in favor of the power brokers and serial gougers and technology monopolists.

  for example,you don't hear of the CEOs at bigmusic, inc's home getting raided and him hauled off in handcuffs because his company got caught bribing disk jockeys to screw up the billboard stats, even if it has happened numerous times. They might get a fine, which total cost of said fine then gets passed on to the next set of sucker customers to pay, then *that's it*, that is all that ever happens to them.

When it is a level playing field with "the law" and how police and prosecutors treat people, then maybe you might have a more legitimate point, but as it stands now it is typical fatcat golden rules, those who have the gold to bribe off -and yes I mean BRIBE OFF-the judges and cops and prosecutors and legislators get to set the rules. Until thenm, I consider all of them to be in league with each other to maintain outright large scale criminality, to perpetuate consumer fraud on people, to corrupt and distort the so called "law", and as such, they deserve no respect nor sympathy, and I am starting to lose much respect for most of the talent out there, because they have had ample time to realise that signing on with any of the big music cartel member corporations is signing on with the mafia, so they are choosing that business model.
I don't file share, but I have no symnpathy for the ones who claim they are being infringed on when they associate themselves with that cartel, none, they got in bed with crooks to try and make the big easy dollars and as such are part of the problem in the first place.

file sharing would never have taken of to the point it has IF people weren't so convinced that they had been gouged for years and years, but they ARE. Poll around, see how many people think what these boys want to charge for legit is anywhere close to a fair price based on the tech avaialble today to make digital copies.

  All I see file sharing as right now is (mostly) a little righteous civil disobedience payback. People got shafted for years and years, finally they just ignored the shafting part. Think prohibition and finally how ludicrous it got.

  In short, if you are connected to an **AA in any manner, screw YOU, you are part of an ongoing criminal eneterprise which is outmoded, has outlasted it's usefulness, and is engaged in bribery and massive corruption to try and justify gouging level prices (andf the continuation of any necessity for ANY middleman distribution/skimming) that would make enron traders feint with disbelief..

  I don't care what happens to you any more, your cries of "foul" are hollow and petty. As to the laws in general on "digital rights", who ISN'T an outlaw anymore? File sharing is just part of a much much larger battle with international corporations basically replacing elected governments,look at the article, the police were 'directed" by the criminal mob members, and this mix of entities passing as a fair pseudo government goes by a bonafide name, and that name is fascism. And who cares what happens to fascists? You can NEVER appease a fascist, they could have 100% of your money and then want you to go into future-debt for more. They could have total control over your person and still demand you tell them you love them. There is no help for that sort of megalomania. They are *pigs*. Gluttons. You cannot give one inch on this.

er... (0)

VonSkippy (892467) | more than 8 years ago | (#15391537)

Das ist nicht gut.

Re:er... (2, Funny)

EtherC (949222) | more than 8 years ago | (#15391642)

Eigo igai no gengo wa dame da yo!
...are? (x_x)

Re:er... (1)

Kagura (843695) | more than 8 years ago | (#15391748)

ya, yeongeo malgo darun woegukeo haji mara juo! muo ung? o_O

Re:er... (1)

SinGunner (911891) | more than 8 years ago | (#15391754)

nanda omae? boke!

Sneakernet (4, Interesting)

Technician (215283) | more than 8 years ago | (#15391539)

It looks a lot of filesharing is going back to sneakernet like it was in the 1970's.

I wonder if they raided any homes with a wireless AP being leached by a neighbor. That could be fun when they can't find evidance.

Re:Sneakernet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15391550)

You know what else is fun? Your spelling.

Re:Sneakernet (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 8 years ago | (#15391683)

The 70s? Hell, I've been using the sneakernet meathod since the early 90s. Even BBSs were to slow for me before I had net access in 97. Trouble was, blank CDs and CDR drive weren't cheap, so I ended up caughing up $10 per CD to be burned (help pay my friend for the blanks and drive).

Now days, I just keep a 1GB USB flashdrive on my keychain. If their PC or lappy supports USB2.0, transfering files are quick and painless ;)

Sneakernet (3, Interesting)

dj245 (732906) | more than 8 years ago | (#15391751)

This is true. At my university the IT department is, shall we say, "not amused" by students using a whole lot of bandwidth, even if it is all inter-college communications (these clowns still haven't upgraded from 24 port 10bt hubs in the dorms yet). So there exists a couple of very large CD folders (40 cds apiece) left behind by a graduating senior. One is labeled simply "The Porn", another "The Games". These travel all over the dorm, people take a cd or two, add a cd or two, and eventually return borrowed cds when they are done with them.

This may seem rather archaic, but the IT department is so paranoid about getting in trouble with the **IA that they busted a 5-person DC++ network last year.

Re:Sneakernet (1)

Joebert (946227) | more than 8 years ago | (#15391857)

I wonder if they raided any homes with a wireless AP being leached by a neighbor. That could be fun when they can't find evidance.


I was talking with a friend about somthing along theese lines a few days ago.
When they mentioned their wireless access didn't require a password, I insisted they should apply one, because it's just too easy of a proxy since the need to crack a password saves seconds usefull to hijackers.

They seemed to think that computers have their own ID, or IP address that would identify who actually did what from the network.

I'm not one to say they don't, but consider this, some 16 year old kid would jump at the chance to get a free laptop just for going into a store & buying two of them with a wad of cash would they not ?

I'm not surprised about this happening in Germany. (2, Informative)

Rahga (13479) | more than 8 years ago | (#15391544)

Tired of blaming Disney and the US government for extending copyright protections? You had the wrong target anyway... the US and the rest of the world usually falls right behind Germany's lead in extending their terms to reach back until 1919 and the Treaty of Versailles. That milestone saw Germany lose Asprin and all sorts of intellectual property, and they've been fierce in protections ever since. International trade agreements means that everyone has to play by aproximately the same rules in this space, and decent copyright terms are now long dead.

Re:I'm not surprised about this happening in Germa (4, Insightful)

iSeal (854481) | more than 8 years ago | (#15391674)

Yes, but likewise you don't hear about Germany applying pressures to the USA for copyright extensions. Though they might be worse nationally, the extention propositions have always come from internal corporate lobbying pressures; and not a sense to "catch up with the rest of the world."

It's sad really, as its meant the death of one of humanity's greatest intellectual achievements: the public domain. I equate it to the extermination of public libraries; sacrificing the bettering of society for the sake of saturating the corporate coffers. Of course, when politicians in charge of copyright reforms in the US are themselves bribed (via election funds) $300,000 by entertainment conglomerates, how can we expect any differently.

I'm not saying that corporate concerns should have no say in law-making; I'm saying that the laws that are being designed right now should have more of a balance.

English article (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15391569)

Why the police were involved... (1)

kn0tw0rk (773805) | more than 8 years ago | (#15391607)

(from what I could understand of the poorly translated article) the police were involved because there was illegal/criminal material being shared (kiddie-pr0n), and the people sharing music were just a bonus.

I couldnt see where in the article that the server was being run by RIAA(or similar organisation) as another poster suggested.

Is copying music a criminal or civil offense in Germany? And do their police get involved in catching breakers of civil laws as well as the breakers of criminal laws?

Balanced and fair response (4, Insightful)

Petrushka (815171) | more than 8 years ago | (#15391666)

Hmmmm yes, raiding people's homes is clearly a fair and balanced response to allegations of copyright infringement.

Re:Balanced and fair response (-1, Flamebait)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 8 years ago | (#15391709)

You really didn't think the Nazis were abolished in Germany now did you? Rather than persecuting the Jews, they now go after "Copyright Infringers" (aka CI).

Oh ya, almost forgot. When they find your stash-of-stuff....they incinerate it. Dancing and laughing with joy while the ashes fall around them.

What, total, utter, uber HELL!!!

Re:Balanced and fair response (1)

EvanED (569694) | more than 8 years ago | (#15391763)

Yes, how DARE those police investigate credible leads of crimes being committed and undertake searches justified by probable cause!

Screws it up for everyone (0)

Joebert (946227) | more than 8 years ago | (#15391695)

Law enforcement agencies had been monitoring an eDonkey-Server for two months.

eDonkey ? Figures, it's always the jackass...

I am curious... (1)

Danga (307709) | more than 8 years ago | (#15391707)

How do they prove you were sharing the whole file? As far as I know p2p works by downloading from multiple connections and unless they dedicated a single connection to each of the 3500 or so people they charged can you still get charged if you don't deliver the whole shared file? I know some p2p apps check for junk data, so what if you insert N amount of junk data into what you are sharing which makes it unusable on its own? One situation I can think of is if you were sharing JPEG images have 90% of people sharing portions of the image data as well as ALL the data in between the JPEG markers (I picked the majority sharing this data since its the majority of the data) and 10% of people only sharing the markers and offsets to the next markers with the rest of the data in between being junk random data. You could use some other flag to indicate which of the two types of data the people are actually sharing so the application wouldn't download too much known junk data. Either data downloaded from a single peer on its own is basically unusable and on its own could not be used to render an image, could something similar be done for MP3s and does anyone know the legality of it?

People, people this is a good thing.... (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15391738)

these are German filesharers, remember?

Imagine how many illegal copies of David Hasselhoff "singing" were just taken out of circulation.

Criminalization of society (5, Insightful)

Eloquence (144160) | more than 8 years ago | (#15391740)

DSL with downstream up to 16 MBit is now very common and cheap in Germany. This means that, theoretically, you can download almost a complete song per second. Affordable hard drives store up to 500 GB -- which translates to roughly a full year of uninterrupted listening pleasure. Burn your songs on DVD at 4.7 GB -- almost 5000 minutes -- per disc. My point: Today's technology makes "mass pirating" as easy as exchanging 20 grams of polycarbonate. It's something every kid with a computer can do. Not to mention that even those who just wanted to download something may have become uploaders without realizing this -- virtually all file sharing programs share the stuff you receive.

Those who argue "Serves them right, they knew it was a crime" don't realize just how bizarre this whole situation is. You have police come to your house, take your computer away, and you'll get fined with thousands of Euros for something which is utterly trivial. If this is taken to an extreme, it's even worse than the "war on drugs": You don't even have to leave your house to be labeled a criminal.

The music industry has this funny idea that they can scare consumers into using iTunes and similar networks. This will work -- for a while. But when you have all the technologies mentioned, copyright infringement that is undetectable will become prevalent -- because you just download 1 GB from your friend via IM, or swap DVDs (or soon HDDVDs), or use IRC and FTP. And it's not like you have to be a technology savvy guy to do these things. My mom can use IM, when she gets broadband, she can swap files.

So, what you are left with is completely arbitrary enforcement on some services, scare tactics that work against some, while the underlying "problem" keeps getting "worse" because of technology (hardware, software). Just wait until the next file sharing application with a built in "how anonymous do you want to be?" slider comes along.

The problem will only go away when those who make music embrace sharing as a way to popularize it. Those who like it, will pay. What will work better in the long run -- scaring people into paying? Or letting them choose to? If the industry doesn't realize the answer and tries to criminalize society instead, it's time for people to force them to. I really hope that initiatives like the Swedish "Pirate Party" [piratpartiet.se] are successful in working towards the decriminalization of non-commercial copying.

Marijuana is legal in quite a few countries. It can happen.

Honestly from the article ... (1)

icepick72 (834363) | more than 8 years ago | (#15391784)

"Today a very important day for the music industry" is, said John Kennedy,

Well then may the force be with him.

Re:Honestly from the article ... (2, Funny)

pintomp3 (882811) | more than 8 years ago | (#15391843)

the police force certainly is..

What happened? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15391812)

You use to be cool, German! :'(

Same here (0)

wolf369T (951405) | more than 8 years ago | (#15391836)

In Romania, same thing happened last week. WTF?

Numbers seem off... (3, Insightful)

Israfels (730298) | more than 8 years ago | (#15391842)

Forgive the bad google translation:
TFA:
Altogether it came up to the early afternoon to 130 house searches in the entire federal territory, zirka 100 computers and large quantities further evidence was therefore guaranteed, among them thousands of CDs.
Does this mean that of the 130 homes they invaded, only 100 even had a computer to take as evidence? What if there was more than one computer in some houses? I really doesn't seem like that percentage justifies the home invasions of a good number of possibly innocent people.

Solved! (5, Insightful)

kirkb (158552) | more than 8 years ago | (#15391868)

So this must mean that Germany has solved all of their problems with child porn, identity theft, extortion, and all of the other shady activities that can happen online, right?

Because there's no way that they'd place corporate trademark and copyright issues ahead of the safety and security of their citizens, would they? On the taxpayer's dime, too?
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>