Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Wants Right To Hack
An Anonymous Coward writes: "According to Wired, the recording industry wants the right to hack into your computer and delete
your stolen MP3s." From the article: "It's no joke. Lobbyists for the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) tried to glue this hacking-authorization amendment onto a mammoth anti-terrorism bill that Congress approved last week. A copy of an RIAA-drafted amendment obtained by Wired News would immunize all copyright holders -- including the movie and e-book industry -- for any data losses caused by their hacking efforts or other computer intrusions 'that are reasonably intended to impede or prevent' electronic piracy." Does this give you the right to crack RIAA systems to make sure no one there is selling copies of your term paper?
If this won't help bringing linux to the desktop, what will?? you can give them every right you want... For them to enforce it, you'll HAVE to be running windows! ;-)
Fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity
If this story is true (and I doubt it is, as seen with The Register's recent retraction) then it's the scariest freaking thing I've heard of in a long time. Don't want people surreptitiously going behind my back and torching my legitimate (some of us rip our own CDs, thankyouverymuch) music collection on my hard drive.
Running with the possibility that this is true, hopefully the folks who would hack into peoples' computers will be tried as terrorists under the US's spankin' fresh new bills.
Easy does it!
This comment has been submitted already, 276865 hours , 59 minutes ago. No need to try again.
Under the proposed anti-terrorism laws, wouldn't this make the RIAA a terrorist organisation?
My other sig is funny!
and when they try to break into it, sue them via DCMA and tell them to take a fly f*ck and leave my personal property alone!
I don't have pirated stuff on there, and I don't want them snooping around my system
`find / -name "*your_base*" -exec chown us:us {} \;`
If this got through then in theory a hacker could create their own 'tune', copyright it and let it wander the net. Then after a couple of months claim that the reason they were breaking into the FBI computer was to check that they didn't have any illegal copies of your MP3.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
As long as they don't delete any of my porno they can have my MP3's
We all saw this coming, but that's beside the point, you know what my main thought is today?
Who are these people?
They have that much time on their hands that they're willing to hack into individual people's computers to look for their files?
At dinner parties, do they go off about mp3's and how every college kid is going to kill the record industry?
Movements like this say "passion" to me, they're passionate about their copywrites, it's what they eat, sleep, and breath. Do they have nothing better to do? Are there this many idiots in the world?
Maybe I just haven't seen enough corporate America yet, but I can't believe people make their lives out of something this petty.
spacefem.com
Ok, something like this begs several questions: First of all, how would they determined that the mp3s and whatnot on my computer aren't legal? I happen to own cds for almost every single mp3 on my computer.
Second of all, how would they go about hacking into our computers? If these guys are stupid enough to come up with such an idiotic proposal, how can we expect them to be able to hack a 386 running windows 3.1 on a network running win NT with no patches applied?
To get to the point, this is the stupidest idea I think i've ever heard in my life.
The anti-salmon
What about the people who didn't download MP3's off Napster? How would the know the difference between "pirated" MP3's and MP3's you ripped yourself?
This is a heavy-handed "guilty until proven innocent" approach. There are a lot of privacy rights issues at stake here.
Firewall sales will go through the roof if this comes to pass.
The time for action is now. Call your congressweasel and let them know what a severe violation of civil rights this is. More important, let them know that this will affect EVERYONE, including huge businesses that may lose hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars from lost data when the RIAA's "experts" trash a hard drive (their technical experts have, from what I've seen of them in action, fewer technical skills than my cat). Sure, some will go for the rights issues, but if you also point out how many of their corporate sponsors stand to lose craploads of money, it's a nice added incentive.
Furthermore, STOP SUPPORTING THE RIAA!!! Don't buy albums from RIAA members. There's a lot of great music that isn't issued on major labels, go out and find it! Support indie artists and labels, and show the RIAA that if they want to create an entertainment police state, you will not be participating.
this is getting old and so are you
blog
Isn't it about time to move to Humorixia ?
I get it now... according to the RIAA, I'm guilty until proven innocent. They want to be able to crack my system in order to prove me innocent. Oh, and if they fry my system, sorry, but I can't do anything about it.
Skivvy Niner? Email me!
HEY! Look left just ONE MORE TIME!
Hacking is terrorism, but Hacking to defend copyrights is legal if you have enough Cash to by a Congressman, and get him to make legislation that says so? Have I got that right?
Power Corrupts,Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely, leaving one person(group)in charge is absolutely corrupt.
Read the license to Win XP carefully. It has a part in it that says that Microsoft may disable your access to copyrighted content at any time without notice upon request by content owners.
The RIAA just wants to be exempt from the new cyberterrorism regulations in the anti-terrorism bills.
They are afraid what they do all the time will be classified as cyberterrorism.
So really, even the RIAA is afraid of these new cyberterrorism regulations, and is trying to get their own loopholes put in.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
What is most disturbing however, is that those folks are not responsible for consequential damage, according to the article.
Uuups, sorry we trashed your hard disk. Here's a 3$ off voucher for the new Britney Spears CD.
If a web site defacer could wind up in jail for life, then the same measures should apply to corporate entities.
ich bin der musikant
mit taschenrechner in der hand
kraftwerk
how do they determin the eleagal mp3's from the ones you ripped from your cd's
http://Lenny.com
4 great justice!
Everyone the RIAA wants to exploit runs Windows.
It wouldn't suprise me if MICROS~1 will leave the key in the door for the RIAA, so to speak.
I guess I don't have anything to worry about; unless the RIAA sends some mad irc juariors that can root my OpenBSD 'wall.
Couldn't this potentially lead to something even more nasty (if it ever comes to fruition), like M$ coming in and wiping out pirated copies of their OS? XP is already a step in the nasty direction, but that would just be completely insane...
_______
I just wish I could c:\format Internet
Let the RIAA hack the shit out of whatever they want and then when it is all said and done, sue them under DMCA for violating and circumnavigating your boxe's security.
problem solved.
Tom.
Oh arse
But are they REALLY so insensitive as to tack it on to the end of an anti-terrorism bill? This has nothing to do with keeping terrorists at bay (some could argue that half of the stuff that is still in the bill doesn't do that either, but at least those bits have rationalized themselves). This is just some greedy organization that tried to use a "get this through quick" bill to slip in some really nasty stuff.
The other day, I was trying to force myself to reconsider my opinions on the evilness organizations like the RIAA. Or at least take a closer look at the actual humans involved in the decisions they make. But this is just insane . . .
Al Qaeda has ninjas!
eggplants!!
ender-iii
Any attempt by those bastards on my machine will constitute me to enter a "self defense mode", in which I will return the attacks to them 10 fold. This is just bullshit. I'll file charges in michigan (my home state) against them where any hacking is considered a felony.
Will the last geek to leave America, please turn Slashdot off? Thanks.
I dare you.
According to the article the reason that the RIAA was pushing this POS was because the new Anti-Terrorism bill (you know, the one that states that hacking=terrorism) would put the Kybosh on the RIAA trying to block people who trade MP3s and such.
I still think the hacking provisions of the anti-terrorist bill stink (and I hope they're sunsetted eventually) but it gives me a nice warm glow to know that they're also causing the RIAA lots of grief.
I can't wait for the first person to sue the RIAA for "terrorism" when they try to port-block someone. I'd even donate some $$$ for the cause.
Great! So now the government AND RIAA (is there any difference anymore?) want to hack my computer. What kind of country is this? Apparently freedom is only granted to those with the money. Matthew Lesko should put that in his book.
We really need to start writing our congressmen and explaining the truth to them about technology. Has everyone written their congressmen yet? With so much bad legislation being proposed, one or two are bound to get passed.
There is another solution, though: transphasic torpedoes. They took out the bork with one shot in the last episode of Star Trek Voyager; perhaps they can take out Uncle Bill's cube before he assimilates the entire government and media!
hmmm this sounds like they do not prevent terrorism but they actively commit a terrorist action. does anybody know if this applies only to the us or if the want to hack anywhere, anytime?
".Sig Stealer" was here
...It might not be all too soon. With the anti-terrorism legislation that has screwed with our rights more than necessary, it seems that congress is willing to do all sorts of scary things in the name of public safety. This seems to be the beginning of a big-brother society. Would the RIAA have rights to randomly hack into any machine they suspect of having illegal MP3s? What would happen in a situation like mine where the only MP3s on my computer are the ones I have ripped from my own CDs to transfer to my rio? Would the RIAA claim they have the right to crack my security measures because they know there are MP3s on the computer, legal or not?
This is insane....
-- these are only opinions and they might not be mine.
He hopes for public debate? We already know there won't be.
woof.
Step 1: Download a few pirated mp3's
Step 2: Leave your PC connected to file sharing programs until the RIAA finds your IP address
Step 3: Allow RIAA MP3-Killer-Bot to delete your mp3's
Step 4: Sue the RIAA, pointing out the fact that you actually had a Step 1.5, in which you renamed some of your personal documents as mp3's, named after your favorite bands. It's their fault for not checking the data inside the files first.
Ta da.
------
Let me give you the lowdown
What on earth did Glazier mean by that? If a law is current, how can it need bringing back?
Isn't it about time the RIAA (MPAA, et al) just quietly went away? Can't they see they're not needed any more?
Why is it that many people who claim to support standards have such atrocious spelling and grammar?
I knew there was something insidious about an organization that trains brownshirts in survival skills.
Wouldn't installing a personal firewall keep them out? Or, if you were behind a firewalled netowrk altogether. Kinda sucky for all those people just connected to cable/DSL modems without a clue in the world though.
~~~~~~
No man is an island, But if you take a bunch of dead guys and tie them together, they make a pretty good raft.
For once, the RIAA may be doing something (unintentionally) good for us. Since the article didn't provide the actual proposal, I am assuming its description was farily accurate. To sum it up: anyone can hack into any system anywhere for any reason with complete immunitiy if they say they were doing so to check for suspected piracy of works for which they own the copyright. This sounds like a blank check for hackers.
Edward Burr
Having a smoking section in a restaurant is like having a peeing section in a swimming pool.
.....let'm try me...
If you're not on somebody's shit list, you're not doing anything worthwhile.....
Tom.
Oh arse
It seems unlikely that hacking the individual machines would be the best solution for this (even if the law were to allow it). The cost would be very high. Much cheaper to do what they are now doing:
- Leaning on ISPs to cut off "abusing" users (without comeback - see previous slashdot stories)
- Suing the larger sites (napster obviously)
- Trying to stifle decryption technology.
In the long run these are likely to be 95% effective if the succeed. If their wording were to ever pass into law they would just be setting a dangerous precedent for anybody to go and explore somebody else's machine. I'm just off to RIAA's web site to "check" if they have a copy of my (copyrighted) memoires on the server....sig
I don't consider this very likely, say the computer they "suspected" had other intellectual property on such as commerical sourcecode, Business documents whatever. whats to stop these being deleted or viewed,of course it isn't very likely that the recording industry would manage to pull most computers with MP3's on are rarely sufficiently exploitable to allow file access (Save those windows user who share there C:\ to the world)
I think this is a great idea. People who copy music and distribute it on the internet are robbing artists of their rightful earnings. After all, the RIAA is really just a kind of charity that collects money for poor musicians.
I think they should go further. They should allow the RIAA to break into people's houses to check that they don't have any music copies on cassette. If they do, the RIAA should be allowed to smash up their music system. And crap on their carpet.
Student cant afford to pay the money for a CD BUT wants the music (and has NO intention of spending any money even if he did... beer is more important), they have one of three choices...
1) copy a friend's CD (unless friend doesnt have CD)
2) download songs off of internet
3) goes to the local store and steals it
cases one and two the RIAA doenst lose money because the student wasnt going to buy it anyway
case three, the store, the artist, the distributor, the Record Label and the RIAA lose money...
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
I think it's time for an open source "revenge" type security system. They hack your system, and the system they are using takes MUCH damage. I don't know how feasible this would be, but if every time the stuck a hand out, they drew back a nub, they would probably change thier tune. Or but more laws...
Jaysyn
There is a war going on for your mind.
Although i don't know how they would implement this, I imagine that even the most basic firewalls (ZoneAlarm for Windows, or firewalls in most Distros for *nix) would stop the RIAA. Unless, of course, dubya's cronies want to put backdoors into those as well...
My other sig is funny!
The RIAA, a private organization now wants to be judge, jury, and executioner...and this is not to mention guerilla warrior. This is a truly outrageous proposition, and it shows who is REALLY acting the part of a terrorist.
"If at first you don't succeed, lower your standards."
It is legal to create MP3s of music you own. How is it possible to determine which are legal and which are illegal, given only a list of files on your computer? Do they have a catalogue of the CDs I own?
Trolling using another account since 2005.
Frankly, I oppose the recent anti-terrorism bills has caving in to terrorists, but in any case in understand their intent and I understand why people would want them. After a terrible disaster law-makers are trying to find a way to protect the American people against more attacks. I can argue with the means, but not with the end.
But that companies would take advantage of this effort to try to sneak in amendments that would help them "protect their revenue flow" just makes me sick! Don't this people have any decency? Or moral sense? Or anything that would prevent them from using the death of thousands of people to try to curb the laws in their favor?
Look, that's why there's rules, understand? So that you think before you break 'em. (Terry Pratchett)
This could work in a couple of easy ways, if assume the world runs Win.
Simply release a great free sound player that incorporates some drice and network sweeping functions "to make it easier to find the music you want to play".
If an M3 is found the software can do one of two things;
1 Delete it, but keeping a copy within some HUGE archive file so the user can still play it but not copy or share it
2 Resave the file with your name, address, etc embedded.
Now if you share the file your info is going along with it. If the software finds a file with someone elses details, it gets deleted from your PC.
Keep the files playable so people dont go back to the old copy of REAL on a cover CD somewhere to get their old files back (as if 90% of users would know how).
That'd do it, quietly, like the way copy protection on CDs just slipped onto the market. They dont have to hack you - they just give you free software a la MS-IE
Terrorists have their own agenda, too, and want to strike against targets of their own choosing, taking the law into their own hands.
RIAA wants to be able to act like a terrorist, yet be protected from the anti-terrorist laws.
Egad!
-Eldurbarn
it says nothing about hacking into comuters and deleting files. Wired no doubtedly knows this, but they also know this headline will get them several thousand hits today
Here's the full text (emphasis mine):
'No action may be brought under this subsection arising out of any impairment of the availability of data, a program, a system or information, resulting from measures taken by an owner of copyright in a work of authorship, or any person authorized by such owner to act on its behalf, that are reasonably intended to impede or prevent the unauthorized transmission of such work by wire or electronic communication of such transmission would infringe the rights of the copyright owner.''
It looks like they are trying to come up with a way to detect if mp3s are being transmitted, and block it.
I worry about this scenario:
1. RIAA starts portscanning my box, testing buffer overflow exploits, etc. in an attempt to get into my system.
2. I notice the suspicious activity, but don't know who it is.
3. I decide to figure out what's going on by scanning the originator and applying other various security tools. This could be anything, but if someone is trying to get in and I don't know who it is, I'm going to be tempted to respond in some way to stop the attack.
4. I get convicted of a felony (in many states) or terrorism (hasn't passed yet) for trying to hack into the RIAA's system.
5. They don't even get a slap on the wrist because it's legal for them.
My point is that it puts knowledgable people in a very risky position because they don't know who is attacking their PC and would naturally try to respond.
RIAA already claims that they have the right to hack your box if there is sufficient evidence (for them) that you are engaging in illegal distribution of their copyrighted material. Any 'incidental' damage to your computer outside of their copyrighted material was just side effects and not their fault, according to how their read the law.
The rub here is that in the recently passed USA bill, any act of hacking that incures more than $5k of damages could be concidered as a terrorist act, and thus, if RIAA were to accidently wipe your hard drive with their hacking attempts, that could be a terrorist act.
So RIAA was trying to get language added to the USA bill that would protect hacking done by copyright owners from being considered a terrorist threat, allowing them to continuing following the law as they believe they can already.
Apparently, if they've done this, no one has sued them, traced them, or otherwise indicated that their mp3's have suddenly disappeared. As it stands, I think it's a rather questionable application of the law and I wonder if further legal investigation of it should be done.
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
bought 12 CDs at a pawnshop for 3.00 each, pawnshop made 12.00 on the deal, RIAA recieved NOTHING!
oh and it was some good stuff to...
ACDC, thick upper lip
ACDC, Dirty Deads
Led Zepplin, Presence
Megadeth, Peace sells
Megadeth, Risk
Days Of The New, Yellow Album
and a bunch more...
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
I?ve just read this article and to my disgust this looks very real. I do get the feeling that there is something very wrong with these ant-terrorist bills. It seems to me that they are abusing the situation somewhat to ?sneak in? other little rules that some people wanted a long time.
I quote ?If the current version of the USA Act becomes law, the RIAA believes, it could outlaw attempts by copyright holders to break into and disable pirate FTP or websites or peer-to-peer networks.?
I am sorry but isn?t that outlawed already? I really think the RIAA is going to far this time, because IMHO they are abusing the situation to legalize something that?s illegal already!!
Plus what if they succeed? And they do actually delete all files on your hard drive (as pointed out in the article) where can you go and claim your money?? Who can you sue? You probably can?t prove that there was 10 years of work on your hard drive, as they can?t prove that you had those ?offending? MP3?s on your system? this has the potential of becoming a BIG mess
Fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity
They might be able to use this to get more music, too. Say some user had MP3's of music they wrote, sitting on their hard drive, as yet un-copyrighted. Instead of the RIAA going and deleting all mp3's on the machines, they go in and grab them to check and make sure they are 'legal'. They grab this guys' stuff and copyright it for one of their own artists. bam, the guy just lost a bunch of music he had written, and even if he RE-wrote it, he couldn't copyright it now. That's bunk.
There is no such thing as 'the right thing to do' when it comes to the RIAA.
the "we claim to denounse the 'vigilante' actions of music piraters, but we are trying to become legally-protected vigilantes" hypocricy is, well, baffling. I don't think that any sane body of people could come up with anything as fundamentally and legally wrong. The RIAA just makes itself out to be a body of mentally-imbalanced sociopaths.
How far does the RIAA plan to take this? The mention of Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451 is not only symbolically but literally relevant. Will the RIAA start burning books because we could translate the music into multiple sinusoidal equations and print it on paper? Are they going to get 'expert witnesses' to testify that the human brain never loses any data which it receives, and thus the human brain itself is a physical medium of piracy? Will they then lobotomize me to get their song back?
Of course this is an exaggeration... however, it is more possible today than it was yesterday.
.... um, i lost you after "0110100001101001".
Permission denied
I don't own the directory. Good luck :P
Looking for a great online backup: Green Backup
When it comes right down to it, my mp3s are on a 60 gB reiserfs drive that doesn't even have a partition table (mkreiserfs /dev/hdd). There's no way they're getting though my mad ipchains and iptables and whatnot. When it comes right down to it, this is just helping Micro$oft shoot themselves in the foot with XP's weirdness, and it's not affecting those of us who are smart enough to switch over to GNU. To make a long story short, they're on crack if they think they have any enforcement here.
Join the Slashcott! Stay away entirely Feb 10 thru Feb 17! Close all tabs to prevent autorefresh!
> Imagine someone broke into your house and stole your stereo. Later, through your neighbor's window, you see your stereo. You try to reason with your neighbor (just as the RIAA has tried reason with music-thieving public), but to no avail. Would you not then be justified to break into your neighbors house and reclaim your property?
So you break in and take the stereo. The neighbours told you it was their stereo.
And when you get home, it turns out it wasn't your stereo, just the same model. However.. under this law it's legal...
//rdj
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
This makes a case for a person to encrypt their own MP3s. I wonder if that is legal... seriously. I'd also like to be able to leave my MP3 collection on a machine at work, but not have everyone listening to my music, or passing around my hard-earned MP3s. (I actually bought all of my CDs, and didn't get into the napster thing soon enough)
if this is true...
i've prsonally boycotted all CDs, DVDs etc. and just listen to the 'scan' channel on my car radio and NPR at home.
but if this is true, i'm going to be downloading a shit load of mp3s. i would like to see how the F**k they hack into my computer. if this is really true, i'm awed at the cluelessness of corporate lawyers. just because they heard that some people got into (hacked into) some unsecure servers, they seem to think that one can hack into computers regardless of the fact that they might not be running any services (servers). I for one, am behind a firewall and would really like to see one of them bozos get into my computer. if they do, i will go and buy 10 CDs as a sign of respect for them.
. . . we are now in a position to turn the tabled on RIAA, using the USAA's overreaching revision of civil remedies for hacking.
Perhaps it is time to set up some serious MP3-baited honeypots, and just wait for RIAA to bury themselves?
I can think of nothing more useful to turn the tables on RIAA's currently pristine image in Congress (or at least to get Congress to re-think their ludicrous rewiring of criminal computer laws), than to show the unintended consequences of massive remedies for improper hacking.
Ok, even if that is true, they can't enforce it in Europe or Asia. Non-US hackers will have ALL their freedom to develop a quick patch (if not counter attacking) for you poor US people.
Distribute in a virus form and no one can stop you from downloading a patch.
peace!
humps
If you work for the RIAA as a hacker you will now have an unlimited resource for pirating mp3s.
Because we all know that most of the illegal MP3's are in colleges which are now mostly private ips with firewalls. Those that aren't just see how many people you can get to DoS the RIAA back. I doubt that the MP3's they do delete will be anything more than 3 idiots using Microsoft file sharing
I'm glad that this didn't pass, but how long do we have until a similar one IS passed? I don't mean just the RIAA, NO private corporation should have rights to just hack a system. Heck, not even a government should!
I would be mighty pissed to find that all of my 3300 songs, which I can prove as being legal any day, were erased one unsuspecting day. Even though I do security work and generally make sure my machines are pretty damn secure, I would still be very, very upset if I kept getting port scans from the RIAA, especially since I would have no legal action to take against them. Never mind that I'd probably get into a lot of trouble if I tried to retaliate!
I know there are a lot of artists out there that are less than pleased with the RIAA, but I wonder how many of them know exactly how far the RIAA is willing to go in order to (supposedly) protect their own private interests while using the artist's rights as an excuse? I'm waiting for the artists to become more vocal on this, but I suppose that won't happen anytime too soon...
As much as I love my country (U.S.A.), these sorts of things make me wonder if the protesting Arabs don't have atleast a small hint of truth when they say they will fight against the evil capitalists.
I hold the copyright for a couple (mostly GPL) programs. Am I allowed to hack into the RIAA machines so I can verify they're not violating the GPL? That would be interesting. For some time there's been rumors of MS using GPL'ed code in Windows, I guess we can verify that now!
Thinking about it, I'm not sure even the RIAA wants that kind of laws...
Opus: the Swiss army knife of audio codec
Someone could just put out a bunch of fake MP3 filenames without actually allowing anyone to download them (to verify content) and wait for the RIAA. They hack in, sue them. It wasn't copyrighted material thus they didn't have the right.
Are just wait until the next version of BO-XP, now the Cult of the Dead Cow (or whoever makes it) passes the ability to enforce it's ultra strict copyright enforcement on to whoever wants it... Heck, why not just email your target a copy of your cool 30 day trial software. If it starts up on day 31, it emails you with ips so that you can uninstall it.
Kenny
OR use .ogg (I havent messed with it yet as I use options 1&2)
kinda hard deleting/finding mp3s when they are names DP_SOTW.zip (Deep Purple, smoke on the water)
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
What I'm wondering... if this gets through (let us pray que non), how they can be entirely sure they have "jurisdiction" to hack a machine. Maybe I'm just too illiterate as far as Internet infrastructure is concerned, but is it possible to be 100% positive where a machine you are hacking is located, whether it's in the U.S., three minutes into Canada or Mexico, in Costa Rica, in Iceland, in Bhutan...? Or is this y.a. U.S. law with effect on the whole world?
Gee.. How simple would it be to write/modify an MP3 honeypot and make them think that they are winning the way? We keep our MP3's, they publish/market the fact that they're deleting MP3's from the "hackers", everyone is happy.
Slashdot is like Playboy: I read it for the articles
I have some copyrighted materials that just happen to have names like oh, explorer.exe and win32spl.dll Now, these have nothing to do with windows at all, they're just "hello world" programs. does this mean that I can delete these off RIAA servers because they have something that has the same name as one of my copyrighted materials?
what if I have a band called M3tallica (not likely) and distribute mp3s freely from our concerts....do they have a right to delete files with that name off other people's computers, just because my band's name is close to that of a large, copyright-nuts band?
damn RIAA wants us in 1984.
now, let's go to war against them.
Imagine someone broke into your house and stole your stereo. Later, through your neighbor's window, you see your stereo. You try to reason with your neighbor, but to no avail. Would you not then be justified to break into your neighbors house and reclaim your property?
No, you wouldn't.
You would (quite rightly) be hauled off to jail for break-and-enter, as well as theft.
The correct thing to do in your scenario would be to tell the police what you know, and allow THEM to get your stereo (after obtaining a search warrant.)
Just because someone stole from you, doesn't give you the right to steal.
Why does the RIAA need an exception to a TERRORIST law? It seems to me that (illegal, without a warrant) searching for copyright infringement has nothing to do with terrorism. If the law they want to amend sees this as terrorism, then we don't need an amendment for just the copyright-related breakins, but for all breakins that are obviously not terrorism-related. Let this law be restricted to terrorism, instead of calling all computer-crime terrorism.
A new law could of course circumvent old anti-hack/crack laws, and being Federal it would trump any state laws. However, the RIAA cannot get something made into international law. So legal problem 1 leads to tech problem 1, making sure your target is actually in the US.
That being said I don't think such theoretical law would survive it's first test case. All that has to happen is some judge's mp3 collection vanishes....
Another tech problem is the fact that even Joe Average is seeing the need for firewalls. Granted, most folks are not equiped to launch counter hax0ring, but if enough calls about offensive IPs go to the ISP something might happen.
And how exactly are they going to tell the difference between legit and pirated mp3s? For that matter if someone were to burn thier mp3 collection to a CD, how do they think they will erase that remotely?
Now these are just the obvious things that have occured to me in 10 minutes while only barely awake. I sincerely hope that the voice of reason will be heard. In the meantime I'd like to announce publically to the RIAA that to the best of my knowledge I have *zero* illegal mp3s. I've only bought one CD this year because modern music sucks, not because of file sharing.
-- I Am Not A Terrorist.
A good set of backups may be helpful here...
:-)
And while you're at it, load the CD/CDRW/DVD/DVDRW with the backed-up mp3's in your read-only player, mount it and let them try to delete THAT from your PC
Imagine that you were the only conduit for music for a number of years. Now let's imagine that you ignored customer requests for things like a-la-carte songs, custom mix CDs, and reasonably priced CDs.
Now let's imagine that while you were out swimming in all your money, another distribution system-let's call it "the Internet"-emerges, offering your customers all those features that they begged you to include for years.
Well, you know it won't be long before everyone jumps on this "new distribution" bandwagon, because it offers better communication and profits between artists and music consumers.
So instead of embracing the technology, and competing in the marketplace, you decide to litigate your way back to monopoly.
Is it any wonder that anyone who knows anything about music distribution hates the RIAA?
(-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
har har har
bork bork bork
--
RumorsDaily
Speaking as a lawyer, the answer is NO. That is what we have a judicial system for. To extend your analogy, coincidentally enough your neighbor just happened to buy a stereo which was the exact make and model of yours. Under this RIAA proposal, you would be exempted from liability because you mistakenly *thought* it was your stereo. How stupid is that?
A cardinal, and often inconvenient, principle of the law is that the difficulty, expense, and time involved in using proper channels to enforce one's rights does not justify using illegal means to do so.
TANSTAAFL
Hey does that mean I can commit a burglary at RIIA, just to get back some of that money that went to them when I bought records. But of course, only for those records I found cheaper in another store.
Is it ok?
It's the same thing? Really?
great, let me just go get my crowbar...
2 reptiles beneath your current threshold.
I say bring it on.
If they think they can hack my firewall, let them try. If I catch them, they better be ready to have their firewall (if they even have one) put to the test.
Brielle
BTW how would they know if your IP originated in the States?
I mean RIIA doesn't have any jurisdiction over many countries, so how would they know where to hack...
Just a thought.
i stopped supported them about a year ago. i quit buying industry cds altogether and gave what i already had away--no joke! (minus a few that had been autographed.) now, the only music i buy is from independent bands, producers, and djs.
and i really wish rosen + crew would read this: i will never buy another cd or any other music product from any company that is affliated with riaa in anyway. you have crossed the line numerous times and there is no way in hell you'll ever get another penny of my money. let me put it this way: if jesus christ appeared before me and gave me the choice of buying a cd from you or going to hell--i'm choosing hell. fuck you!
Since the gist of this post seem to be that the RIAA allready feels it has the right to hack at peoples box's, might this be a sign that they are allready useing spyware to collect information about the number of MP3's out there?
Once they have a large enough set of data on hand to prove that we all just a bunch of dirty music pirates that don't even deserve the music they force upon us via control of the media and record labels, they will be able to mount a campaign that will make it acceptable for them to wipe our hard drives.
Really, I know what I'm doing...Ohhhh, look at the shiny buttons!
Ok, now all of a sudden cracking (hacking is a little diffrent) may become legal for the already currept mega corps. But all you hackers will be brought to prisen if you hack a system. My honest opinion is that is they crack my system, then I have the right to crack there. Say my system is also used for bisness, they crack it and down goes bissness doc's. But hey since they are alowed to crack you, then they hold no blame.
Also, is that passess in the states, , since I am canadian, they should still not have the right to do it here, unless canadian corts / gov pass it. So then if they hack me, but there hacking laws do not apply up here, then, hey it will be a fun cort case to watch.
so as everyone here beleaves, this is just another way for the RIAA to make a ass of itself in this world. But hey look at the bright sid, atleast RIAA and Microsoft are not merging to become even bigger >:)=
my 2 cents plus 2 moe
Wrong. Read it again. "Impairment of the availability of data, a program, a system or information" (translation: Damage done to your programs/OS/data) IS hacking. What the amendment really says is that if such damage is caused to your computer, if the RIAA REASONABLY INTENDED to prevent the "unauthorized transmission" of copyrighted work (translation: if they thought you might be sharing MP3's), they cannot be held liable for the damages. Sure, they're trying to block transmissions. The problem is that the amendment says that they may do so with impunity; any damage they cause while attempting to do so, *whether or not justified* (only has to be "reasonable" intent) is *your* problem.
TANSTAAFL
Just come up with a nice program to randomize data into various sizes between 3 and 6 megs and name them after popular songs for your honeypot. How foolish would they look when you can prove they broke into your system and deleted data that wasn't even their copyrighted content?
The article states explicitly that the RIAA is no longer trying to get those hacking provisions made into laws. Sorry, guys. Read the article next time before you post this bullshit.
- A.P.
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
...as long as you have less than 300 CDs up on your theoretical FTP site, you're doing less than $5000 in damage to the RIAA's bottom line.
Problem solved.
Easy does it!
This comment has been submitted already, 276865 hours , 59 minutes ago. No need to try again.
I doubt they would be very discriminating if they were actually able to do this. Besides the fact that I rip my own CD's, I play in a band and we do our recording using free ProTools and other programs. Not that I would be stupid enough to not back up my work but wouldn't something like this enable them to leave a trojan behind that just goes around deleting mp3s. I doubt they would actually check every mp3 for some fingerprint that indicates it is copyrighted. If they went around and started to delete some of my shit, I think I'd get pretty pissed!
Since we do our own recording, it doesn't cost us anything but our time. But it is a lot of time... I would value in excess of $5000. And would I be able to sue... Hell no. I don't have that kind of money laying around for lawyers...
God, I'm scared now! Doesn't this constitue terrorism?
Ascalante: Your bride is over 3,000 years old.
Kull: She told me she was 19!
As an independant artist I use P2P and FTP services to distribute my legitimate projects online.
It would be unfair for my competition (RIAA) to hack my machine or services and destroy my files,IP and or hardrive, just as it would be unfair for Coke to hack, search and destroy Pepsi.
It seems to me that they've brought out their low-life hired goon Mitch Glazier(the same guy who helped RIAA steal all the artists copyrights),to again be used for their dirtiest deeds.
If they really care to go to all that trouble. But I doubt it. They're going to go after easy targets.
--
Some of us are fish.... and some of us are sharks.
The RIAA has a steep hill to climb with this initiative. Even if they get an amendment passed in the USA that permits them to hack computers, such a law won't / can't extend outside the boundaries of the USA.
It will still be "Theft of Telecommunications" here in Canada, if they are caught hacking into a computer on Canadian soil. Although the bulk of the RIAA's concern is in the US, they have worldwide exposures and suits from non-US residents won't be nice for them.
I would caution the RIAA that, even if they get their way in the USA, there are still a hundred countries where they do not and cannot have jurisdiction, and if they hack computers in those countries, it's a crime.
"values of beta will give rise to dom!"
I think I can speak on behalf of myself and probably 1000s of other network admins when I say, try it, and prey you can handle the retalliation.
Later
The flaw in your analogy is if you break into your neighbor's house they have a right to defend themselves up to and including the possibility of killing you for trespassing on their property. Not to mention that you would be liable for any damage you did to their home.
I don't want knowledge. I want certainty. - Law, David Bowie
... is not their proposed (initial) amendment, as they already agreed to withdraw it, and the newer amendment is mainly there to ensure they would still have the legal loophole they have today (or at least they believe they do).
The real news is that the RIAA is actually admitting they have plans to use those tactics for fighting piracy.
My guess? The RIAA does not plan to hack into individual user's computers and delete their MP3 files - this would not be cost-effective. What they have in mind is a plan in case they loose the case against FastTrack/Music-City. I bet they plan to distrupt the KaZaa/Morpheus network in case they loose the legal fight and FastTrack do not accept their terms in negotiation.
There is a lot that can be done to deliberately sabotage the KaZaa network, and make it unusable. I won't mention the possible ways not to give anyone any ideas, but I think this should serve as a warning for us - we should prepare for a new kind of attack from the RIAA.
Yeah, I just want to see the RIAA hacking into MY computer! I mean, if I would live in the US. But I live in Canada, and the way things are looking right now, we're close to catching up with our neighbours in terms of idiotic tech-related laws.(DMCA and the like)
But supposing the RIAA will want to hack my box, they have to go through my OpenBSD internet gateway, that has nothing open but SSH2, then get into my Linux box, which again has nothing open except SSH2 and NFS, and finally get to my hdd in a meaningfull way so they would be able to delete something.
But unfortunately for them, even if they acomplish such an amazing feat (I'm not trying to boast, but this system is fairly tight for a home setup. No, please don't try portscanning me/ hacking into my box if you get my IP, I can't afford the bandwidth.) So even if they reach my hdd, all I have is about 500Mb-1Gb worth of new mp3s. All the rest is backed up on CDs.
So unless they figure out how to destroy a CD just by reading it in a CDROM, I think I'm safe. Now I know there are far deeper implications with this thing becoming a law, but just the fact itself is making me lmao!!!!!!!!!!!!!
...when they crack my OpenBSD bridge firewall.
I put on my robe and wizard hat.
How is breaking into my computer going to help the RIAA know which MP3s were legally ripped, from CDs I own, and which were illegally downloaded?
Unless we assume that all MP3 making is illegal, I bet some RIAA executives are wetting their beds fantasizing about that.
I have always opposed active defenses (deliberately trying to crash any system trying to crack mine) in the past.
But if any organization thinks (or worse, *gets*) the legal right to tell me that I have no recourse if they destroy my data - which includes not only my personal files but files used by my business and files I'm working on for my clients - then I have no option but to be much more aggressive about defending my system. I have no "illegal" MP3s (the ones I have are ripped from my own disks, for use in featherweight MP3 players during exercise), but that provides no immunity from either their attempts to crack my system or damage if they do get in.
E.g., to use that recent Code Red II virus as an example, instead of merely logging IP addresses I would use that script that responds to every attacking site with its own attack designed to shut down the remote site. Hopefully cleanly, but no guarantees. It's this very lack of guarantees of a clean shutdown with no adverse secondary consequences which is why I, and others, have opposed active measures in the past. But if I think there's even a remote credible risk that my clients who depend on my security will be harmed, I'll be far more proactive.
Of course, backups will prevent loss of most data. But the time required to identify the extent of damage, restore files, make up lost work between backup cycles, etc., is time I'm not working for clients. I'm not getting paid, my clients aren't getting their work done, etc. The damages from a single incident would quickly exceed thousands of dollars - far more than I spend on *all* entertainment (CDs, videos, cable TV, movies) in a year. That's real damages that can be proven in court - reduction in hours billed to clients (lost income), increase in hours billed to internal support (increased costs), possibly lost clients. None of this "oh, pity our record profits in the face of 'piracy' crap."
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
IANAL, but could even the attempt at pushing this through by RIAA be actionable under RICO?
The reason laws exist is to protect the people. As Plato said (massive condensing), "The proper function of a government is to provide justice for the people, and not for its own benefit." This means, basically, that optimum government is for the people and not nepotism.
How does this relate to RIAA and such? Well, the point here is that we have laws, we create laws, to protect the people as a whole and not individual groups or sub-groups. Further, the actions the RIAA takes and desires to take, are not those which are for the law, but function as a kind of sub-law. Despite all you who wish you had been born into a Shadowrun campaign, Megacorps do not run everything, and do not have the power to do such nefarious acts.
Score -1 redundant, of course.
io hymen hymnaee io
io hymen hymnaee
They better listen to BritneySpears.mp3.vbs before they delete it!
The Bush Administration and the press had better be all over the RIAA and its Congressional sponsors. I can't think of a faster way to discredit the war on terrorism than opportunism like this.
InstaPundit! Ahead of the Curve Since 30 Minutes Ago
...if they get the file METALLICA.MP3.vbs and it wipes their hard drive??? :^)
I thought it was a little late in the year for an April fools joke!
Seriously, though, it's times like these I'm glad I'm a Mac user. You poor schmoes who use Windoze are really in for something now. My girlfriend has already had a few of her MP3's "expire" on her Win -2K (negative sign, not hyphen). I'm sure M$ automatically applied a "security patch" that for some reason added a "feature" to make some MP3's unplayable.
Honestly though, how can they get away with that? I wish there was a computer hacker deterrant system like the car alarm in Robocop 2. (bad movie, like this one scene). Someone hacks into your computer, suddenly they are suck to their keyboard and a giant flame thrower cooks them up. Sounds like a good idea to me!
If they actually do this, I can almost guarantee that every hacker worth a penny will break into the RIAA to make sure they don't have one bit (pun intended) on their computer's HD. I don't think the gov't can prosecute thousands of hackers per day (although they would try). I'd say 90% of my MP3's are legit, that I ripped myself. The only one's I got off Napster (God rest it's soul) were ones that I didn't feel like paying $15 for one good song on a CD, or rare tracks, such as live performances.
I may not be an expert, but I don't think there is a way that they could tell which songs on my computer are legit and which aren't, unless they also break into my apartment and look through my CD collection. Correct me if I'm wrong on this (I'm sure you all will.
Also, before they go blaming file sharing services for the downfall of the music biz, why don't they first explain how the price of a CD hasn't gone down very much since the CD was first put to market 20 years ago, even though the cost of the medium has plummeted (they can thank the expanse of CD writers for that profit margin increasing tidbit).
Also, while they are at it, why don't they do a study to find out if people are not buying CD's simply because there is very very little good music coming out these days worth purchasing. I know of only 2 or 3 CD's that came out this year that I would even consider buying. All the rest just sound the same (Brittany Spears sound-alikes and Menudo/New Kid's on the Block wannabes).
I'm pissed off. Sorry about the rant, but this is just infuriating. They can take my MP3's out of my cold, dead hands. And good luck getting thorugh my firewall(s).
today is spelling optional day.
I even want to make them an account on my machine, but only if i get one on their boxes.
(I could get some SETI stuff running there)
And maybe even on the boxes of the NSA. I think my demands are fair.
No doubt that the NSA is keeping stolen/illegal information about us.
42 + 1 = 42
How about if we just get the pigs drunk before we turn them loose?
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
A new bill sponsored by Microsoft, Adobe, Apple and AOL has been put forward that will allow these companies to enter your home and install their own software and bill you for the privilage.
Dubbed the "Anti-OSS-Cancerous-Terrorist-Bill" by its detractors, the SSSCA appears to have bi-partisan support. Quoted one senator, "Who wants this cancerous open sores nonsense? We are protecting Americans from the dangers of terrorism, as well as giving our friends the protections they desperately need to survive in this tough economy. I mean look at how terrible things are for Microsoft, Adobe, Apple and AOL!"
Long time consumer advocate Ralph Nader responded by saying, "Windows acts like Pintos and now there will be legislation making Pintos the only car people can drive? What farcical nonsense is this? This crap never would have happened if more people had voted their conscience rather than simply voting for the guy that thought would win. I am writing a new book about it called 'Unsafe at any Megahertz'."
--
.sig seperator
--
If you ignore the other uses of a tool, does that make the tool less useful, or you less useful?
According to the article:
The RIAA believes that this kind of technological "self-help" against online pirates, if done carefully, is legal under current federal law.
How carefully? I see no loopholes in the link. In the UK it's certainly not legal (Computer Misuse Act). If you decide to get revenge on some script kiddie who's messing around with your site, you can't. You just have to call PC Plod - which is going to be great:
Plod: "Evening all. What did you say the address of this person was?"
BOFH: "203.41.14.3"
Plod: "I'm sorry, but what part of Essex is that in?"
This sig made only from recycled ASCII
Okay, suppose the following were all true (not bloody likely, but suppose):
The RIAA only hacked the machines of the guilty.
The RIAA only destroyed material that infringed on their copyrights.
The RIAA breaks no laws doing so.
Then what harm do you have left? The RIAA acting as its own little police force/judicial system!
There is no moderate version of this proposal!
Unbelievable.
"You can't get something for nothing." - my grandfather, on the stock market and Reaganomics.
to: alt.virii, alt.h4x0r, comp.sec.black-hat
subject: l33t h4x0r5 w4nt3d!!!!!111111
W3 wnat j00! if j00 c4n rwit3 b4d-455 viri1 liek s1rc4M, & c0d3 rde, w3 w4nt j00 to h4x0r f0r u5!!!!11111
phr34k in2 th3 b0X3n 0f l4m3r5 ru0nd th3 wl0rd 4nd t4a5h0r th33r MP3Z... l3g4lly!!!!111111 m4k3 m0n3y f45t!!!!!!11111111```````
w3'll 3v3n g3ts j00 a t3ch-g33nisu v33sa 1f j00 rw0t3 c0d3 rde 4nd l1v35 n1 ch1n0r!!!!!!1111
--The RIAA... ph33r us!!!!!!11111
One might ask the same about birds. What ARE birds? We just don't know.
Just burn all your mp3s to DVD-R, and then let them try all day to delete them!
Steven V.
I patented screwing your mom. But it got revoked for "prior art."
No you moron, it's called breaking & entering. In the following scenerio you would try to reason with your neighbor, if that fails, you call the police. You DO have the serial #s from your sterio right? Of course the bad part to this is the cops will probably sieze the sterio for evidence, and you will have to wait for your homeowners insurance to kick in to get another one. Good luck getting ANYTHING back from the cops.
Jaysyn
There is a war going on for your mind.
I'd forgotten that they were going towards asinine modes of dealership like "$4/song", treating the filler surrounding the singles like the singles themselves. Of course, I could argue that no one wanted anything but the singles off those 300 CDs I put up on my theoretical site, so I'm back in the black again. I like this New Math!
Easy does it!
This comment has been submitted already, 276865 hours , 59 minutes ago. No need to try again.
I find this really, really painful: I think the U.S. government is becoming thoroughly corrupt.
Lots of people are using the terrorism to accomplish sneaky goals.
Government corruption: What should be the Response to Violence?
Bush's education improvements were
Go back in time. What were records and movies going to do? Provide entertainment alternatives to theatre and live music.
If you are blessed to live in a place that has live music and theate, rather than spend coin on a movie, spend it going to the live music and the life theatre.
Then, make sure you not only let the 'entertainment industry' know that they didn't get your entertainment dollars, make sure you let the live music/theatre know also.
Write a 'letter to the editor' for the theater's publication and the local 'free press' expressing the "to hell with the RIAA" attitude.
Use the search engines and get the MP3's by the unknown artists that you like.
Every dollar you spend with the RIAA enables them to buy the laws. Every item of the "intellectual" property you take from them justifies their existance. The best individual action is to totally ignore them, and if EVERYONE did this, they would vanish.
If it was said on slashdot, it MUST be true!
Apparently truth really is stranger than fiction.
-
So if the RIAA was actually trying to tie something to this section they would either end up with permission to hack only gov't computers, or they would have had to amend out every reference to protected computers. Am I missing something here?
I wonder how many proponents of hacking someone's system (or writing a worm to do so) to remove Nimda for someone who isn't willing to patch their stuff feels about this. Although nobody would admit it, there's a huge double-standard here.
Of course the RIAA should not be allowed to decide what you can or can't have on your computer. We all agree on that, I think.
Granting them this right would be like deputizing them. But they'd really just be vigilante's.
The RIAA has every right to try and protect their propery, and ALREADY has a legal mechanism to do so. The court system.
I can't see this going very far. I can, however, see the RIAA encouraging politicians to write some new laws that make it more cost effective for them to seek legal remedy in the courts. We all know that the RIAA can't sue each of us for $500. Even they don't have enough money to pull that off.
Bah.
I wonder if the law enforcement/auto industry will attempt the same angle.
I would be really pissed if my car pulled over and called the cops if I was speeding. Seriously though, it would most likely alert you of your violation, deduct the fine amount straight from your bank account, and report the infringement to the DMV and insurance company.
I get shivers down my spine just thinking about scary shit like this.
Yeah.. and lets also say that other distribution guy is stealing your stuff and then selling it instead of getting his own.
Rip music and use it yourself - ok
Rip music and give it and the CD and all the
copies you have to one other - ok
Rip music and give it to others - theft
Most ISPs won't do -anything- when someone is knocking on your firewall. IME their staffs generally don't understand the issues. I've had, for some time, a guy -on my subnet- knocking. Easy enough for me, just deny his IP address, but he's probably doing it to the -whole- subnet.
For the RIAA: sooner or later we'll find where they launch their attacks from. An analog of teergrube might help them waste their time. I don't have the coding skill to build this, but allowing, say, one bit per second from RIAA addresses on 10% of machines ought to keep them from having much fun.
If they have "reasonable" proof that there's an issue of piracy at hand, they should be able to have law enforcement obtain a search warrant and take care of the problem correctly.
Otherwise we have vigilante justice on our hands.
-Restil
Play with my webcams and lights here
And as they roll out each hit one by one each hit is worth the $20 in and of itself. After all, once one song gets played to death you need a new song to milk that money out of the people holding out (You bastards!)
If we were playing Paranoid I think I'd have to say you owed the RIAA $60US for that song. < evil grin >
And what do you mean theoretical?
I don't want knowledge. I want certainty. - Law, David Bowie
Two wrongs make a right.
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
There is an article in the Los Angeles Times here which says AOL TIme Warner was objecting to the amendment for unspecified reasons.
The article also mentions that (surprise!) the MPAA also backed the bill.
Another interesting excerpt: The RIAA and MPAA have made no secret of their interest in a technological counterattack against piracy, particularly on the Internet's increasingly popular file-sharing networks.
The measures they've explored include software that can detect a song or movie as it's being copied through the Net, replace the unauthorized copy with a different file and even disable the original on the sender's computer.
GROGGS: alive and well and living in
Didn't I read that the anti-terrorism bill has some very draconian penalties for breaking into a system, Like really long stays in the slammer? That probably frightens the bejeesus out of the RIAA people who are investigating copyright theft, because I'd imagine they're planning to use these sorts of tactics (or doing them already...) I guess old Hillary Rosen doesn't want to spend time in the women's correctional facility. Then again, might do her good.
So, will they have the right to break into my home and destroy my backup CD I burned of all my music files? What will be next? This is unbelievable.
-- sorry no sig today. Try back next week.
I think this is gonna be rather easy. They're gonna try again and again to keep us from using music as we want to, and they will fail each and every time. Because we will always find a way around their obstacles. And one day, they're just gonna give up. It may take a while, but they will, after they notice that throwing tons of money into coyright-protection mechanisms won't pay off.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
Ok all you hackers out there. Lets write a script that will detect when someone is trying to hack a computer and then hack them back. What we need is a computer corbomite device.
And yet millions of Americans still believe that campaign finace reform is a bad thing.
Does anyone in a FREE nation need a young Solaris/Linux admin? I have a passport and can start tomorrow...
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
No doubt they will be looking for files with a certain file extension like .MP3. You could easily make a plugin for Winamp or XMMS that will recognize a file with a different extension.
Please help! I'm stuck inside my virtual reality headset!
The RIAA hackers are gonna hook themselves up to a cable modem with Windoze and double click the network neighboorhood icon.
Jesse Wolfe Sr. Manager Systems Integration
Seems the obvious flaw with any of these sort of plans is that even "average joe" type people are starting to run firewalls on their personal machines. Add to that most geeky type people running seperate machines for internet sharing / firewalling, and whoever wants to hack your machine is pretty screwed.
They can try and hax0r my linux server that's firewalled such that only the ssh port is open all they want, but I dont think they are going to have much luck...
Inspector: "Uh..."
RIAA: "So anyway, she drowned. She wasn't a witch, so we don't see the problem."
Inspector: "So, you're admitting you killed an innocent woman?"
RIAA: "No, we simply proved she wasn't a witch and that there's nothing wrong with her."
Inspector: "By killing her???"
I hope my analogy is clear.
---
"Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." --Dennis Miller
How many $cientologists do you think are allowed to read /.? It's subversive man!!
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
You are paritally right. However courts do tend to frown on that type of thing. I wouldn't be surprized if concequential damanges don't apply because they did not verify the .mp3 file really was a song they owned rights to. That is before they can delete a file "latest_britney.mp3" they need to download it and listen to it (or do a byte comparition with something known to be an accual britney song. Otherwise it isn't concequential damages it is thier own neglect.
Concequential damages would be using a backdoor to windows that on (other os like linux) causes your harddrive to be formated, but once they know that the backdoor has otherresults on a different OS they will then be at fault for any harddrive formated.
Atty General Ashcroft was questioned later about the amendment crafted by RIAA lobbyists.
He explained, "that it was a compromise, the effective give and take of a freedom-loving nation acting of one accord for the national interest."
According the AG, evidently, earlier proposed legislation would have provided protection to agents acting on behalf of vital national security interests, such as the RIAA and MPAA, if they were to invade homes physically in search of terrorist contraband, such as open source/hacker computers that were used to criminally steal valuable American property, such as CD recordings of Madonna.
Said Ashcroft, "I thought physical searches were probably a bad idea because of the technicalities involved. Many judges would mistakenly interpret the Constitution too rigidly and impeded such searces as being 'unreasonable'. For that reason, I though it best if the searches were restricted to electronic means."
Senators in favor of the proposed legislation said they were "unfamiliar" with the amendments, which had been added at the last minute by staffers, many of whom had industry backgrounds that enabled them to understand complicated technical issues.
One Senator harrumphed "If Osama bin Laden thinks he can get away with software piracy, he has another thing coming!"
"Provided by the management for your protection."
Reading through the posts, there have been numerous pissing contest style "my linux system is more hardened then yours".
/. community to be an effective part of the effort to reveal how ludicrous the RIAA's legal actions have been, we need to collectively pull our heads out of the sands and focus on the real issues.
Unfortunately, you missed the point entirely. Linux simply does not matter in the context of the RIAAs efforts to "protect" their "assets".
Apple is barely a blip on their radar.
In their eyes, the only systems that matter are the Windows boxen of the world. Makes sense, really, given that Windows desktop boxes comprise something like 90%-95% of the desktops around.
For the
Hardened systems, firewalls, mounting partitions as read only are not solutions. 90% of the people that would be affected by the RIAAs efforts don't even know what those things are!
Equally as unfortunate, taking an attitude of "screw the ignorant masses, we know how to do things right" is going to be terribly constructive either. A key reason why some of the multimedia "standards" that we non-Windows users leverage on a daily basis are "standard" is because of the massive "potential market" that Windows represents.
Finally, an attitude of "Linux will rule the world" isn't going to help, either. Linux simply isn't ready to compete in the ignorant dumbass marketplace that Windows dominates.
"It will not be some special exception for copyright owners," Glazier said. "It will be a general fix to bring back current law." Glazier is the RIAA's senior vice president of government relations and a former House aide.
Um, does that make sense to anyone, anywhere? Do we have a legal precedent to "return the way it is to now"?
I forget what 8 was for.
Scare stuff...
Please Rate my comment (and help support Fre
I used to be a musician and songwriter. I hold copyrights (dating back to the '70s), and have a fairly large collection of .mp3s of the songs I've written and recorded over the last 25 years.
.mp3 on my PC is an infringing item? Is it the filename? The ID3 tag? Or are they going to kill them all, let Hilary Rosen sort it out, like some crazed Crusader?
How do they determine whether the
And does my status as a copyright holder mean I have a Get out of Jail Free card with respect to hacking? What if I suspect the RIAA of infringing on my copyrights?
k.
"In spite of everything, I still believe that people are really good at heart." - Anne Frank
Folks, the RIAA has shown us its true colors! In the face of one of the greatest national tragedies in the U.S., the RIAA decides to use the political momentum to sneak through controvercial legislation granting them the power to subvert the bill of rights without even so much as notifying law enforcement!
This is deeply anti-freedom, anti-American and just downright evil. If the RIAA had pushed for hearings on the topic, or even bought enough of a congress-crittur to get a bill introduced, that's one thing. If they had pushed an amendment to related legislation, that's kind of slimy, but I'm (unfortunately) used to it in the U.S.
But, when you try to hide your actions under the cloak of an anti-terrorism bill, in response to the death of thousands... I don't think I want to have to look at someone associated with the RIAA for a very long time.
Oh BTW, in case you were wondering why anyone would ever want to risk such public backlash, let me clue you in: the RIAA wants this amendment to be part of a bill that the courts dare not strike down. Do you think the supreme court would toss and anti-terrorism law because of an entertainment-industry amendment? Sorry, I can only take so much.... I have to go wash.
This is an invasion of our privacy. No one is going to let anyone snoop around on our hard drives without our permission. They might as well say they give them permission to enter my home uninvited and dig around in my underwear drawer.
Ascalante: Your bride is over 3,000 years old.
Kull: She told me she was 19!
That's why a new amendment to the proposed amendment gives them the right to burn down your house as long as such action is "intended to impede or prevent the infringement of copyright". Of course you could sing the songs. Well a Senator from South Carolina wants to add murder to the list of measures copyright holders are allowed to use. Its called the "Rightsholder Lethal Self-help Authorization Act". Cool, the acronym even ends in "AA".
Of course infringement is not going to be a big problem, since the new version of the SSSCA expands the definition of an "interactive digital device" to include humans, so the neural implants required under the Act will keep things under control. And if someone tries to infringe, it can be set to kill them on the spot. After all, no one has the right to infringe, and it must be stopped by any means necessary. Any collateral damage is the fault of the infringer - if they didn't want to be electrocuted from within, they could have chosen not to infringe.
;)
(yes this is sarcastic, but you can see the parallels to what the copyright cartel is trying to do)
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
...which is surely the last box in a properly designed intranet to have music or video files stored on it, as well as it's likely the most secure one and most difficult to hack. Then they'd have to scan the (masqueraded) Intranet for a workstation or a fileserver.
Even then, chances are that they'll probably land on a honeypot. Or trigger a counter-attack. Or simply hack the box of a responsible sysadmin who forwards his syslogged evidence to their uplink, CERT, or the FBI.
With some NAT and port forwarding, it's quite impossible to guess from the outside which service is located on which host.
I just want to say, that I hate the facts, and things they are up to; Do I have mp3s? yes. But can I have this mp3s at local stores? NO, Did anyone heard about MasterBoy, SolidBase, BUG Mafia, RACLA, La Familia, shit they do not even know how to pronounce them, and they go after my mp3s. Recentrly I bought 2001 Hip Hop Music Awards cd, out of that CD only 2 songs are good 9 and 10, at least for my teate, and some are not even the winners, but of couse they got fill in songs, like they always do, and the damn cd is 18.99, for what? the plastic rapper? Another thing, if they snoop around my BOX, HELL on earth gonna be on their servers, shit, no one will snoop on my computer
Impairment of the availability of data, a program, a system or information" (translation: Damage done to your programs/OS/data) IS hacking
Every EULA has this sort "we are not responsible if your computer dies as the result of crappy programming on our part" clause built in. That you don't have to agree to it before it runs on your system is definitely a cause for alarm, though. I still disagree that this was intended as a carte blanche to rifle through people's drives and delete files.
The biggest question this leaves in my mind is: WHO EXECUTES THE LAWS IN THE USA???
Is it the local Police/FBI/CIA/President/etc.? And, even if they wanted to search my hard drive for illegal content, wouldn't they then have to follow due process, which includes getting a search warrant from a Judge? Remember the 6th amendment?
With this proposal, the RIAA would be "executing" the law themselves, taking upon themselves the power to search/analyze/copy/destroy information from my personal computer, without even "probable cause."
If the government starts sharing its monopoly on FORCE with companies, then God help this country! Too many companies have already given us examples of how far they will go with restraints. Just think how far they would go if unrestrained!
Don't steal. The government hates competition.
ROT13
DMCA
Do you like German cars?
This is exactly the type of crap that would drive me to start collecting MP3s and other "illegal" software. I don't generally download or otherwise store music on my computer, that is what my stereo is best at (just like my TV with DVD player is far superior to sitting at my computer to watch movies). Nonetheless, if something like this got through the legislative process, I WOULD start wasting harddrive space for the "undesireable" files.
The fastest way to ge ME to do "illegal" stuff is to take my rights away or make something legal into something illegal for the sake of a corporation's or CEO's income. Get it passed and make the situation worse - for yourself, RIAA.
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
If they want the right to hack us.... then they should be giving us the right to hack them.
In America we are imprisoned by our fear of them.
I guess I could see this working as when RIAA starts whatever monopoly online music service. The software you would have to download to listen to RIAA approved licensed music would search your hard drive for mp3s and delete them. It would all be in the license of course. You DO read your licenses?
I have a Mac.
Nuff said.
i just configured my firewall to redirect all hostile connection attempts from the RIAA to cia.gov.
-- ken williams
It would just create a larger public outcry against the RIAA. I don't know about the rest of you here on /., but all the Mp3s I have are either:
1) Ripped from the CDs I Purchased
2) Ripped from DATs that I recorded at concerts, where the band gave me a press pass to do so!
If they were to delete either one of those items from me, it would be a violation of fair use.
They obviously aren't thinking here either. Even if they delete every MP3 in the world, they won't stop people from sharing music. If everything related to MP3 disappeared, someone would just create a new format, and the whole cycle would start over again.
Lastly, I think the companies that make digital wallets, handhelds, anything that let you play MP3s, need to speak up against the RIAA, before their devices become illegal.
This is such bullshit.
Wait a minute! I thought the RIAA and MPAA were unstopable! I thought that there was nothing anybody could do to stop them from waving their cash in front of congressmen and buying legislation. At least, that's what I learned by reading /.
But this legislation didn't make it into the bill. What happened? Could it be that "Corporate America" or "Big Money" or "They" (collectively) or whoever the boogey man is doesn't actually own the whole country and that this is an instance of class warfare rhetoric falling flat on it's face?
This space intentionally left blank
Now before you go off again, lets take a global view of this. If you add all the pieces together.
This a**hole has attacked the US at least twice outright, why because he sees it as a Holy war...
but, if he is so damned Holy, he should be reading his own damned Holy book...I have spoken to several people here where I work that are sicked by what that Idiot over there is doing...they follow the same teachings and religious background, the first hing they are thought is the sanctity of Human Life, no matter what. They claim infact that all these Radicals, are the ones in the wrong, and where ever they are inconflict they should be living in piece and infact being the piece makers! I have even been told that as long as he is being harbored that they consider the US to be justified, as anyone who would harbor him, or allow their govenment to harbor him is not following their holy teachings, and therefore is looked down upon, and deserves what is happening.
Power Corrupts,Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely, leaving one person(group)in charge is absolutely corrupt.
Under this proposition, Linus and his lethal 1-armed bandits will be able to hack his way into a good percentage of company and user computers. I can see it now, hacked linux nerds will be running around like N'Sync girl-fans screaming, Linus "touch'ed me"! Oh well, at least I still have my virginity.
If someone starts hacking at my computer and tries establishing a new connection or spoofing a connection my machine will log this and in the future if this happens enough I may have it launch a couter attack.
Lets face it if someone hacks software or a site it is against the law, but they want to be able to hack your computer? I think not, what is to stop them after that of getting into your financials or address book or mucking up your system by mistake.
Only 'flamers' flame!
If this bill passes it would be great!!!!
Since I hold the copyright to my name and MAC address I can now freely hack into the RIAA systems and delete all referances to my copyrights. And if I happen to ruin the whole database, oh well.
Bwahahahahahahahahahaha!
Rule of the thumb that they don't like: "What is good for the goose is good for the gander."
III.IIVIVIXIIVIVIIIVVIIIIXVIIIXIIIIIIIIVIIIIVVIII
-jhp
/. -- the Free Republic of technology.
Here's how you can ruin the RIAA's argument. See, they keep arguing that they're doing all this for the poor artists, when in fact, they are robbing the artists just like they're robbing us. They charge 20 dollars for a CD but the artist gets pennies on the dollar. The way to win this fight is as follows: mail a check or money order for a fair amount directly to the artists for the songs you have. Accompany that check with an explanatory letter telling them that you believe they should profit from their work but the RIAA shouldn't. Tell them that you downloaded the songs for free but since you're paying them, the artist, for their work, you believe it is not piracy. When the RIAA starts complaining of people doing this, they can't argue that we're robbing poor artists, so they'll have to come up with some other argument, and then we can argue that the RIAA is the only one robbing anyone: they rob the artists coming and they rob the consumer going.
I wrote a very important and copyrighted document called README. I believe a copy of this file has been stolen from me and has been copied to many machines around the net. I have yet to break into a machine that didn't have a copy of my file.
JET Program: see Japan, meet intere
Everyone quit bitching and moaning about this. There is a very simple solution. Stop consuming mass marketed, least common denominator, MBA designed music. If you want to reduce the lobbying power of the recording industry, then stop paying them money! Support your local musicians. Sure they're aren't as refined and developed (technically at least), but hell, it's almost as good and if not better in many ways. If you don't want to listen to them in a bar, then have someone buy a CD for you.
Next stop? Corporate controlled wire taps!
Your freedoms are for sale!
Hoooray.
First of all, how would they determined that the mp3s and whatnot on my computer aren't legal? I happen to own cds for almost every single mp3 on my computer. "almost" huh? You're cover's blown. Now they know you're one of the troublemakers.
This completely misses the fact that the violation and penetration is on its face reprehensible. What if the RIAA presents to a congressional hearing a supposedly fool-proof method to do what they want?
This places the burden of right-behavior on the wrong party. Compare this to what is required to enter someone's home to retreive stolen property. It requires a search warrant obtained through proper legal channels, and then the searching and reclaiming party would be police or FBI, not the party who was stolen from.
We need to assert strongly that our virtual space (which resides in a place -- hard drives, CPUs, etc that exist in a particular place) can be defended like our physical space.
How would the RIAA know which mp3s were made from CDs that I legally own? I mean, am I not allowed to take CDs I bought and make mp3s out of them so I can listen to them on my computer?
Even though I am a big advocate for free music, I still buy the CDs of those bands which I really like.
Breaking into a system presupposes that the system is vulnerable. Properly securing a system will go a LONG way towards preventing this possibility. And unless the RIAA wants to engage in real computer vandalism, they will be hard pressed to break into any system I administrate.
But again, it is the little guy they are picking on. Not the knowledgable security professional.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
You could then sue them under the DMCA for breaking the encryption controls you placed on YOUR Copyrighted material. You're kids singing songs with the same title as the songs they suspect are pirated material are in fact Copyrighted by you, their parent, on their behalf.
I AM, therefore I THINK!
First, about the only people that would fall victim to this ridiculous proposal would be consumers. Companies, artists, writers and programmers aren't about to let ANYONE look around there systems just because they might have MP3s - and hey, what if you actually OWN the CD to begin with? Like I'm going to carry my Fear Factory CDs with me to work every day just so the staff can see proof that I have the "legal" "right" to listen to the Fear Factory MP3s on my system. My boss knows my system is loaded, knows where I got 'em, and knows that having music on hand makes me a hell of a lot more productive.
I'll give money to the artist for making a kick ass product- but the suits that are grubbing for this haven't a lick of musical talent in their bodies, haven't recorded a single damned song of their own, and flat out just do NOT deserve the proceeds or the right to poke at my system to begin with. Personally, I feel it's all a diversionary tactic to cover up the fact that the major labels have produced nothing of interest or value within the last five to ten years; how much money did you SAVE when you realized that out of ten albums you wanted to buy, less than three had more than two tracks worth listening to?
Folks, the DMCA, the RIAA, the entertainment industry in general infringe on our civil rights (or are quite obviously attempting to) a hell of a lot more than any terrorist activity or threat thereof. Money may talk, and they may have most of it, but the current state of the federal bill that they're trying to work around is a serious sticking point; as is the patently obvious fact that the RIAA seems to be more concerned with the mp3 FORMAT than any method to differentiate between songs that they distribute and music on independant labels.
[example; if something like this went down and they deleted a live recording of a friend's gig that I'd compressed to listen to later, that would technically be destruction of private property, wouldn't it?]
The RIAA has a legitimate case (and I by no means support this fascist organization) for wanting this law- to allow themselves to go after mp3 pirates
Why should they be given special powers (which is is against the US constitution in the first place) to do this?
It seems to me that the RIAA (and others) are using anti-terrorism legislation to promote their own personal agenda.
Isn't the whole thing about promoting a whole set of rather questionable pre-existing agendas.
his is not only a slimy tactic but keeps real anti-terrorism provisions that are in the bill from becoming law quickly because there will need to be debate on these issues.
How much in there would actually do much to fight terrorism. Remember that any terrorist organisation can easily adapt to changes.
More to the point there are very real issues about prevention of terrorism which simply cannot be solved by legislation.
Why is piggypacking stuff like this allowed in the first place?
An interesting question, especially when you can end up with legislation where the riders comprise the largest part.
Maybe some pro-cannabis group should get legalization passed covertly?
Difficult unless these people were also either corporate (or possibly PC sexists or racists)...
OK, so let me get this straight. A US firm thinks it has the right (under US law) to come and invade my PC (in the UK -- but how can they tell?), on the off chance that I have come of their copyrighted material on it (which I don't) so they can delete it, and furthermore, if they happen to trash my PC in the process by mistake, they are in no way liable? That sounds very illegal under UK law to me.
Still, laws aside, let me see if I can reason my way through this. I bet I'd be a better cracker than they are, if I chose to be. I further bet that a lot of my colleagues and friends are, too. I further bet that there are many more of us than there are of them. It's the great thing about democracy. When you piss enough people off, you lose. Governments get un-elected, and people who want to control cyberspace get run out of it. And you know what? If they piss enough people off, all the absurd laws and lawyers in the US won't help them.
BTW, what about legitimate use? I happen to be a member of a dancing club, and we sometimes record good dancing music (all of which we have legally bought) from various CDs onto a single compilation (which we legally play at the club, having paid for a Public Performance Licence). Would they be allowed to blitz that, if it happened to be on a PC I owned, even though it's entirely legitimate?
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
their proposal, in essence, is designed to give private industry access to "police powers" traditionally (and currently, frequently misused) reserved for law enforcement agencies?
Okay, that's funny in a twisted sort of way. Starting from point A, the corporate interest, let's see if we can figure out where this leads. By our current way of doing things, government at least (sometimes) has *some* accountability (well, unless it claims it can't disclose details of such action because it would "breach national security", ala FBI) to the public at large. The second we grant such powers to corporations, all bets are off.
Sure, some would say that companies would be hesitant to misuse such powers for fear of stiff fines and legal penalties. However, I don't think so. Most companies are able to move *much* faster than the wheels of government could ever hope to turn, because they're based on the fundamental goal of competitive pursuit of profits. Gov agencies at least are supposed to be motivated purely for the common good (again, not so much recently, but I digress).
Even in the event of companies pulling serious fast ones with this sort of thing, under much of current corporate law (IANAL) I don't think their executives could really be slapped too hard for it. The company might cease to exist under the load of fines, but perhaps not if they were large enough (hmmm... anybody remeber the "$1M/day fine" proposal for a certain software company?".
Now, this whole post *may* be null and void for much of the
Sorry, this gets me a little hot under the collar. I'll terminate this rant now; I need another cup of coffee anyhow. Back to bash.
It's illegal. Wouldn't this be a violation of "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."?
It's got loopholes galore. In order for me to verify you do, indeed, have illegal material, I have to break into your machine. "Ooops, sorry, nothing found here. Sorry about your machine.."
It's quite fucking hostile to me as a buyer of the RIAA's music. It's an assumption of guilt, backed up with the force of law.
The appropriate responses? Depends on your ethics. At a minimum, don't buy any music associated with the RIAA. At most? Do everything to hit them in the pocketbook. If it takes money from them, it's useful. Fucking bastards. Yeah, I've got great respect for our legislative process now.
"Avast! Prepare for the rodgering!" THWACK! "Arrr.. me nards.."
I've said this before and I'm afraid I'll probably find reason to do so again and again and again. The RIAA just does not get it and they will not get it until every group, man, woman, child and dog artist have gone independent. Sure, they'll try to sue them back, but in the long run RIAA will be as dead as the dodo with the sole difference that no mad scientist will want to hack DNS strands to get the RIAA back.
I don't like Courtney Love's music and I don't think I would like her personality, but I respect her stand against the industry. I believe her mutiny is just the first and most publicized in an upcoming long line of artists leaving the big labels. I sure hope so, anyway. The big 'uns are to music what Microsoft is to computing - a disease. They are simply too big and it's not healthy. They are cancers - big, fast-growing blobs grabbing all around them for more money to keep growing until they have killed the host.
I'm just thankful I'm not in the US - land of the captive and home of the scared.
Money for nothing, pix for free
I'll file charges in michigan (my home state) against them where any hacking is considered a felony.
Article 6, Section 2 :
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Anotherwords, no matter what the laws of the state of Michigan say, because this is a federal bill, it beats out any laws that Michigan, Oregon, Idaho, or any other state have to say on the subject.
Translation for the man on the streetcorner: bullshit or no bullshit, it's legit.
I might be in denial, but there is no way this is ACTUALLY going to happen.
I would lose too much sleep over this! As a matter of fact, I wouldn't lose ANY sleep over this!
Chris
it's pretty obvious that some RIAA exec has been reading about Code Red and thought "gee I wish we had ourselves one of those" ....
Musicians and music lovers need to get a few clues from the Open Source movement. If you're fed up with the establishment, you don't just whine and complain. You go do something about it!
Writing music is not that damn hard but people always make a big deal of it for some reason. Sure, if you're talking classical or big band jazz or other intricate music, then yes, you're going to need some serious time and education to do it right. But that's not what we're talking about here. That's not where RIAA members make their cash cows. No, we're talking about the people who lay down 3 or 4-chord patterns, add a weak rhythm section, then sing about their ex-ex-ex-ex-girlfriend being lonely without them or some such nonsense. Any armchair musician with a general ear for 'what sounds good' and a beginners book on music composition can do that or better.
Try this exercise if you've got some spare time. I think you'll find it enjoyable and rewarding..
- pick out a simple musical style and read up on it online. Read about its history, it's musical theory, and identify songs you already know that fit this style.
- pick a rhythm style that you'll compose to and decide on a time signature and tempo
- spend a few days writing poetry that fits the rhythmic parameters you've chosen. Write about something you feel pashionate about and let your emotions flow into your work.
- compose the basic rhythm (bass drum and snare - think drum machine)
- add a simple melody to sing your poetry to, spacing a simple chord progression appropriately
- go over the melody a few times to make it properly expressive of the feeling you want to convey in the words. Imitate melodic patterns you've heard in your favorite songs
- Congrats, your song is now ready for 1.0 alpha release. (-: Get feedback and suggestions, then flesh out the parts you kept simple at first and add a few twists.
- The last step, of course, is to actually play the song on real instruments, so you'll need a little help from other musically talented friends.. or at least some multi-track recording software.
If you like the final piece, go ahead and release it to the public -- the written music, your sample recordings, everything -- under an open license that keeps your name on your art but allows free distribution, performance, etc.
Who knows, you might have more musical talent than you ever thought.
I'll just make a directory full of Virii that are called "Metallica - Ride the Lighning.mp3". Do they think that actions like this will get people on their side?
today is spelling optional day.
Tell everyone you know to vote out incumbants in Congress. The fact that the RIAA even thinks that they can get crap like passed into law shows that they are well on their way to totally owning Congress.
"You spoony bard!" -Tellah
sure lobbyists sometimes do some unethical things that are bad for society as a whole, but some lobbyists aren't all that bad (like moderate environmentalists). however, they need to convince a lawmaker to take up their bill/amendments.
keep your eye on your local lawmaker, and if they introduce shit like this, get in their face as much as the law will allow. especially those of you who unfortunately have legislators (well, senators) like jesse helms, bob barr, and trent lott... my condolenses...
https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
Clinton tried to do just that 2 years ago. Twice. Couldn't find 'em.
It's not "us vs them", it's fight or flight. Since they're killing us in the one place we'd think to run too (our home land), it kind of limits our choices.
And please, 'jingoistic'? Geez, I wonder if you read alternet on a daily basis... Try to form your own opinion next time.
Ctimes2
My cube. My friend. My solace. My prison.
Of course, in foreign countries without democracies, corporations *already* hire militaries to enforce their policies, usually keeping the populace at bay while they extract valuable resources.
If corporations get exemptions to the laws and can legally break into your computers, then I'd say they are only one small step away from forming their own armies.
Make your own MP3, don't release it publicly, keep it on your (password-protected) machine, and when they break in, sue them under the DMCA for circumventing your copyrighted work's "technological protection measure".
w00t.
-Puk
Uhh...$2.00 for an mp3? Try $14.95 per MP3, and then your talking RIAA's tune.
Om, nomnomnom...
... or any other program which can deny web access to selected programs. While THIS program launches the browser, at least that can be interrupted. Who knows what other tomfoolery can happen under the table?
--Brandon / Split Infinity Music
Dear Mr Bin-Laden,
Please could you kill COUGH!, i mean 'take-out' the members of the RIAA, and MPAA. They are responsible for all the bad foreign policies that America has pushed, and the election of G.W.Bush (the ape man). For years they have bribed judges, and politicians to do their bidding, and have recently funded a number of airstrikes on your country which they have dubbed: "Drop CD samples onto Afghanistan" where they are attempting to fix the lack of market penetration in that area.
P.S
They are all high on crack too
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
This post is the kind of apologizing for terrorism which makes me sick. Whenever I see someone talking about the U.S. "causing slow death as millions starve" (in Iraq) I get mad. The economic and political sanctions against Iraq are 100% due to the actions of the Iraqi government. Free trade with the world in general (or the U.S. in particular) is NOT some fundamental right that the U.S. is witholding from Iraq. Free trade is a priviledge that Iraq currently does not deserve. Again, this is due to the actions of the Iraqi government.
Yes, I have most likely been trolled.
To understand what's right and wrong, the lawyers work in shifts ...
VERY weakly encrypt your hard drive, then if the MPAA decides to wreak MP3 harry carry on your box, then you can sue them for violating their very own DMCA.
:)
It's the stupid people that pass laws to protect themselves that I love. Then you get to use their own laws against them
Please give your mod points to others, Im at the cap. They will appreciate it more
How would they know that my collection of Nine Inch Nails MP3s are legitmate copies (for my own personal use) of the CDs that I BOUGHT FROM RETAILERS? Do they have a list of CDs that I own? If so, can I have a copy (I'm too lazy to catalog them myself)?
Anyone whose system is vulnerable enough to be hacked by idiots from the RIAA deserve to have their hard drives wiped and forced to listen to $18.99 Boyz-2-Men CD's for the rest of eternity.
Good heavens Miss Sakamoto - you're beautiful!
If only life were more like football.
Synergy is your friend
Most of the language of the bill refers to "protected machines" (machines belonging to the government or financial institutions)
Protected machines includes machines used in interstate commerece.
So buy something on e-bay and your machine is a "protected machine".
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Deliberately deleting somebody elses data is a crime - it shouldn't matter what your motivation is - what next copyright holders will be exempted from murder charges where they killed somebody to prevent copyright infringement.
As if we don't have enough problems with viruses, hacking attempts etc. whe now have to worry about DOS attacks and file deletion from the record industry.
"The discworld's inhabitants having no record industry had to fall back on more traditional forms of banditry" - Terry Pratchett
Hmmm. Everytime I read something like this it makes me glad I have a Mac (still running OS 9 for the most part).
When you pry them from my cold, dead fingers!
13 year old white supremacists are shitty web designers.
Buddy, take one step back and look at the world as a whole. What do you see? A bunch of men fighting each other. Look who is fighting. Nations that are more conerned about warring against each other for some fucked up "holy war" then feeding their own people.
Now look at the rest of the world. You'll realize the nations that America are friends with are very civil. They are peaceful people. They take care of thier own. Prove me wrong, I dare you.
Have you ever broken up a fight? Well America is trying to do the same thing. America is trying to get people to be peaceful. That is our goal, if people die, sorry, but this is a war damn it.
The journey is better then the end.
The US is withholding Free Trade from Iraq. It has not allowed any other member of the world community to decide independantly how they wish to deal with Iraq: if a country does not ceed to the US imposed sanctions, it too faces sanctions from the US.
i-name =twylite [http://public.xdi.org/=twylite], see idcommons.net
From C|NET:
The new strategy would take advantage of file-swapping networks' own weaknesses, amplifying them to the point where download services appear even more clogged and slow to function than they are today. Because most peer-to-peer services are unregulated, the quality of connections and speed of downloads already varies wildly based on time of day and geographic location.
The software technology, according to industry sources, would essentially act as a downloader, repeatedly requesting the same file and downloading it very slowly, essentially preventing others from accessing the file. While stopping short of a full denial-of-service attack, the method could substantially clog the target computer's Internet connection.
Besides clogging the user's internet conenction, do you suppose the RIAA considered what this might imply for bandwidth usage on the Internet in general? We don't need the RIAA purposefully sucking up bandwidth on tens of thousands of machines because they are too lazy or don't have evidence to prosecute offenders legally.
ksheff said:
c 1=War
"The starving people of Iraq only have Hussein to blame for their condition. It's obvious he has no problem letting them die if it makes him look good in the eyes of other radicals and it makes the whiny bleeding hearts in the West turn against their governments.
Pacifism can act more effectively against democracy than for it. -- George Orwell, 1941"
I don't want to see Orwell's name attached to the type of non-critical thinking, nationalist(otherwise known as Orwellian) point of view that you are promoting. Therefore, I feel the need to correct you on this:
Orwell's own phrase "objective pro-fascist" (from a 1942 publication in the Partisan Review) is exactly the kind of standard-issue Stalinist polemic that Orwell ended up so vigorously rejecting in his best work. Orwell was never a Stalinist, but later said that he was driven to use language he regretted by "the lunatic atmosphere of war" (Partisan Review, 1944). That same year he specifically rejected the Stalinist use of the word "objective fascist" to smear people who are not Fascists at all, but who do things which others believe are helpful to Fascism ("As I Please", Dec. 1944)."
Source: http://www.mediawhoresonline.com/main.htm
"The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them."
Source: George Orwell, "Notes on Nationalism," 1945 http://www.zmag.org/quotes/quotesResults.cfm?topi
As for myself, I am neither a Hawk nor a Dove but something in the grey area, between. I have heard that this position is called an Owl. I seek justice, not revenge, and I question and research everything in support of the U.S.
Bush is the worst terrorist in the planet.
Why don't you go a kill him?
Because you voted him.
So if you like a terrorist then he is no
longer a terrorist. But if someone don't
likes your terrorist ways, then he's
called a terrorist.
Fuck you, yankis kapitalistas hijos de puta.
--- "pero toda poesía es hostil al capitalismo"
I never disputed that Orwell said those things during WWII. What I am saying is that his earlier statements about pacifism are taken out of context as they are "exactly the kind of standard-issue Stalinist polemic that Orwell ended up so vigorously rejecting" in his later writings.
l
You statements about the "starving people of Iraq" are exactly the types of statements that he warned against in later works:
"So far as it goes, the distinction between an atrocity and an act of war is valid. An atrocity means an act of terrorism which has no genuine military purpose. One must accept such distinctions if one accepts war at all, which in practice everyone does. Nevertheless, a world in which it is wrong to murder an individual civilian and right to drop a thousand tons of high explosive on a residential area does sometimes make me wonder whether this earth of ours is not a loony bin made use of by some other planet."
Source: George Orwell, "As I Please", Tribune, 31 December, 1943 http://www.resort.com/~prime8/Orwell/warguilt.htm
What the RIAA is trying to do is make an amendment to this bill exempting them from the Act. It means that they (and no one else) can hack where they think there is piracy going on, without facing the penalties anyone else would.
Caveat Emptor is not a business model.