This is an article explaining the tactics used by the RIAA in obtaining information and evidence on illegal file-sharing, from information given by an RIAA worker himself. The RIAA hires a third party company, MediaSentry, to track down illegal file-sharers. That company then runs different peer-to-peer file-sharing programs and searches for songs specifically owned by the RIAA. They are then able to track down the specific IP address and the ISP from which the songs they find came from. They do not actually download the song however, using a digital handshake instead to let them know that the song is available for download. This complicates the matter because it is hard for me to believe that the RIAA can use a so called "digital handshake" as their main evidence when no actual download occurred. The fact that the file was in a shared folder and was ready to download does not mean the person themselves shared the file. The court case Atlantic v. Howell is a great example of this situation in which the court rule that "If the owner of the shared folder simply provides a member of the public with access to the work and the means to make an unauthorized copy, the owner is not liable as a primary infringer of the distribution right, but rather is potentially liable as a secondary infringer of the reproduction right." Also in that case the judge stated, "Unless a copy of the work changes hands in one of the designated ways, a "distribution" under ... 106(3) has not taken place," thereby negating the RIAA's claim. However, not all cases are even taken to court, and the RIAA is able to slip by with this lack of evidence by presenting it like it is their primary proof of infringement.

The article then goes on to talk about cases of a more serious nature and how the RIAA deals with it. They start off with the digital handshake but then MediaSentry personnel actually do download the songs in question. This to me seems backwards and wrong that the RIAA downloads the same songs, in the same manner, from the same programs, as the pirates they are trying to catch.

    This legal analysis by Fred Von Lohmann of the Electronic Frontier Foundation is empathetic of the McCain campaign’s fair use/YouTube problem, as the EFF has been championing internet freedom and fair use principles for many years.  However, he is highly critical of McCain proposed solution, which would put the burden on YouTube to conduct legal reviews of videos posted by political candidates that receive takedown notices.  He thinks this notion is backwards, since in terms of political speech, amateur commentators are the ones that need special protection from phony takedowns.  Despite the failings of the McCain proposal, he goes on to identify the true problem in these situations: the news media organizations.  He believes it is their responsibility to refrain from sending bogus takedown notices for legitimate fair uses.  As for a recommended response by the public when they don’t, he encourages public shaming of the companies, as well as potential lawsuits for submitting a takedown they knew was illegitimate.  He also supports the claim made by the McCain campaign that it is not incumbent upon YouTube to follow this strict procedure in the case of fair use, which YouTube itself could reasonably determine with human intervention.
    Lohman’s analysis will be useful in that it finds fault with all parties involved in the process: the alleged infringers, the copyright holders, and the host.  He also puts forth a compelling reason why McCain’s solution would not be ideal from a societal point of view.  The actual reason McCain’s proposal was rejected was because YouTube said that their hands were tied in the process; Lohman says that even if YouTube could treat politician's videos differently, they still shouldn’t.  The author is transparent in placing most of the blame on the news organizations themselves.  Other articles refrain from making the obvious claim that if it weren’t for the media foolishly asserting a broad claim to copyright, this wouldn’t be a problem.  Finally, he corroborates the assertion made by the McCain campaign that YouTube does not necessarily need to act with as much immediate speed as it says it does.