Forums General Discussion File Servers on IRC

- Not really. The attempts by the RIAA and MPAA and similar organisations are pretty pathetic. Sure, they can bully a network into giving them access to see information about IRC users, but that provides no proof of an actual filesend of illegal content.

What a load of old cobblers. I don't know of any IRC network that would go against their privacy policies to 'feed' the record industry associations around the world. Even a court wouldn't be able to force the handover of information because these associations are just citizens like you and me, composed of self-appointed representatives not government/law enforcement bodies.

As for the evidence, all one has to assume (and this is the most likely scenario that I can think of) is that a record industry representative simply joins a filetrading room and logs filenames from a bot's advertising banners. It's not half obvious that is a bot advertises !Michael Jackson - Thriller.MP3 that the song would actually be that song and not an uncopyrighted song disguised with that name.

What more proof is needed?

- Clearly you're a little out of the loop. I suggest you check around IRC-Chat's website.


- Dare I say, actual proof? Text logs made by an employee of an organisation which state simple text and offer no proof of filesend or of the file's contents are meaningless.

Text logs made by an employee of an organisation which state simple text and offer no proof of filesend or of the file's contents are meaningless.

With that line of thought any text log of any kind would be meaningless, but we arn't discussing the legal aspect of it are we. Based on what I mentioned before about "Hollywood and the record companies" what proof do they need to make sure that fileswapping becomes regulated or restricted to uncopyrighted files? Absolutely nothing, especially when they see fit to take the law into their own hands.

It's no different to, for example, someone hacking my network. If I assume it is a particular person then I won't bother asking questions or wastintg police time with it. I would choose between owning them or ignoring it. Do I need actual proof or just a text message from my firewall to make that choice?

Looking at things from a legal aspect, always remember that most of the hoohar comes from the US (RIAA) and US based record companies. In the US you can sue your next door neighbour for poking their tongue at you or for letting their dog poop on your front lawn. What evidence do you need? Maybe a pic of the grogan gently nestled on your grass. Who knows? Courts have been known to find guilt on lesser evidence. It's only your job to prove beyond a reasonable doubt not beyond any doubt. It might suck but it's democracy.

I think you have a point. Going slightly off the topic here - didn't some fat people sue MacDonald's a while back for making them fat? And for not displaying a clear sign on their food stating "This crap will make you fat"? (Or words to that effect)

Yes, and now I believe the person can now eat Big Mac's for life. Next thing you know they will be suing the Trojan company because some dork can't follow directions and got his girlfriend pregnant. Whats this world coming to...You cant take money with you when you die....whether its by a burger or aids or whatnot.