How do record compnaies know who to sue for sharing music?
358972
They don't. They just sue everyone and hope they don't have the resources to defend themselves.
970217
If you don't upload you are less likely to get into trouble, as people who share (give as well as take) copyrighted music are far more likely to attract attention and get a lawsuit filed.\n \nPlus someone that shares say 1000s of latest chart songs is more likely to be sued than someone who has a small collection of classical and opera music.\n\nBut no it won't help prevent you from getting seen in the first place, just take my word for it you get no privacy on the internet. \n\nBut saying all this, don't stop uploading to p2p (if everyone did p2p wouldn't exist).
10040
The key difference for iTunes is that any illegal song sharing does not take place over the publicly available internet. Instead, it requires two people to physically be on the same network, a network which the RIAA has no right to be on and could not monitor even if they were on it.
537188
Chances are that it'll be illegal if you aqquire the music for free. Don't try it unless you know the artist has allowed the song to be distributed for free over the internet, otherwise you could face legal charges.
548
The short answer is, yes, of course they are tracking IPs.  The long answer to your other question follows.\n\nIt is a straight-forward, multistep process.\n\n1. Encourage laws that require internet service and server providers to log IP addresses (9/11 pretty much nailed that one for them).\n2. Collect proof of misdeeds for each particular P2P service that is allowing illegal file copying.\n3. Sue the P2P service and demand they hand over IP addresses of offending users.\n4. Trace IP addresses back to users.  Remember, the businesses involved all have to keep records.\n\nAlso, some programs embed identifying information in them.\n\nPretty much any Microsoft program, at least one that uses OLE Structured Storage, creates these huge ID numbers in them called a GUID for each item in the file.  Part of that ID number is their IP address or the unique hardware ID of their interface card, I forget which.\n\nAlso, the encoding process which generates an MP3 file from a CD can store some information in the file which can be used to piece together who created it. It may not be enough to find who did it but it is probably helpful in proving a given computer did it once they have that computer.\n\nThere is probably more going on but you get the idea. At each point along the way, from creating the song file, to transfering it to a service, and downloading it from a service, bits of information are accumulating.\n\nThe more times a person does each of these things, the easier it is to find them, prove it is them, and notice that they are doing a lot. And, just as important, more evidence is accumulating which is used in court as proof of a crime being committed and intent to commit a crime on the part of the peope being sued by the RIAA - or whoever.\n\nSo, either listen to: music you buy, public domain music, music from the radio - or compose/play your own.\n\nYou probably don't like it when you found out someone copied off your test at school.  It makes them get a higher grade than they deserve and if the test is graded on a curve, your A- work can wind up being counted as a B+.  \n\nWell, songwriters composed that music and/or lyrics, musicians practiced and learned to play that song and paid to use a recording studio to perform it in.  When people don't pay to hear that play, the musicians still have their expenses to pay but no royalty check to pay for it. They lose money doing what they love.\n\nEven if someone cannot afford a whole album they can still afford to buy their favorite song for 99 cents.
686483
Look into Natl. Musicians refferal, or through a local entertainment lawyer. Any artist management refferal. Look in the Yellow pages under Music, Musicians,..representation..etc.
1028272
it's told that It's illegal that someone uploads your music but apparently it is not against the law to download music. i advice you to use Ares, It's the best but don't let people download yours.
993509
Start by not asking how to illegally copy music from the provider on the provider's Answers page.\n\nJust a start.
968392
Do not listen to those other people in what they responded. They have no clue. First of all, if it is a product (not like music etc..) you may want to seek PATENT protection, not copyright protection. Go get a couple hundred bucks and go speak to a PATENT ATTORNEY. You are going to have to pay for a professional opinion, one way or another.
86042
Legal aspects of file sharing are not difficult to understand, it is just the term is misnamed.  It's not  file sharing, it's file stealing. You are not really sharing the file, you are distributing it away, and the author does not receive payment for the additional copies of the work.\n\nYou can read a book, and share it with a friend.  Only one person has the book at any one time.  You can not however xerox or copy the book and give the copy to your friends, or post it on the internet.  That is copyright infringement.  \n\nSame wtih music.  If you have a CD, and lend the physical CD to a person, that is okay.  Only one person has the CD at a time.\n\nBut if you copy the CD and give the person the copy or the files, then two people have it, and the author only got paid once.\n\nNow, if you copy the CD, and 'share' the files over the web, 1000's of people can now access the work but the author was still only paid for one sale.\n\nNow multiply that by ALOT of people doing the same thing.\n\nThe recording and movie industries are going after people in order to set examples, and make people think twice before 'sharing' files that they really should buy.  If you download a song or movie for free, you are in possession of 'stolen' property.\n\nNow, is the industry doing it the right way, prosecuting grandfathers and children?  Possibly not, but everyone is talking about it, and that is partly what they want.
606566
Lawsuits are part of the public record in Oregon. If you go to the county courthouse, there is a public computer terminal. You can do a name search if you know the full name. The clerks  may not be able to help you search, you will have to puzzle it out yourself. However, there is an instruction booklet in front of the terminal. You won't be able to get the full record that way, but if their name pops up with a lot of hits, it ain't too good. \n\nGood luck\nLeigh \nPortland
1074674
there are many many many other sites\n\nlimewire and even napster before them, offer the conduit or the tube for which file sharing takes place, they DO NOT break the law because at least theoretically people can often share files that are completely legal\n\nthe only component of lime wire that the government, the music industry and various lawyers and artists groups have a problem with is when copyrighted files are shared between users\n\nif you use limewire, you have to now electronically sign a statement that says that you will not share copyrighted files on their network\n\nwe all know that file sharing of copyrighted materials continue but limewire stays out of it and there are multiple disclaimers on their site that say in effect "we do not keep files of what is shared, when it is shared and between whom it is shared"\n\nnapsters problem was that it had knowledge that people were using the program to share files
399841
In Louisiana only one person has to be aware that the recording is being made. So, yes, it may be used in a court of law.  Sorry.\n\nThe only states where it requires two parties to be notified that a recording is being made are\n\nCalifornia\n Illinois\n Montana\n \nConnecticut\n Massachusetts\n New Hampshire\n \nDelaware\n Maryland\n Pennsylvania\n \nFlorida\n Michigan\n Washington
287515
Have you messed with so many people, that you're not sure which one is suing you?
1078069
http://www.riaa.com/issues/piracy/online.asp
1083587
You report fraud to local law enforcement.  \n\nYou report copyright violations to the copyright holder.  It's up to them to enforce their rights, you can't do if for them.
298441
The RIAA has to find a court that is willing to issue an injunction forcing limewire to close its networks.  Because injunctions block people's freedom, liberty, etc, they are somewhat difficult to obtain.  The RIAA has to show that limewire is violating their intellectual property rights.  Just like neighbor Tom has to prove that my building is trespassing on his land before he gets an injunction to stop construction, in a parallel way, the RIAA has to show that limewire is "trespassing" on their intellectual property.  The relevant precedent comes from the invention of VCRs.  Because they could be easily used to copy movies, etc, this pissed a lot of people off.  But the Supreme Court held that the legitimate uses (copying stuff you're allowed to copy, or recording your shows while you're on vacation) outweighed the illegal ones.  Even if the RIAA can show that the illegal uses outweigh the legal ones, this will take it a bunch of time an lawyer fees.  So limewire should be okay for a while.