Slashdot Mirror
MPAA Goes After Its Customers
EyesWideOpen writes "The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) is issuing 'takedown' notices to ISP's to alert them that customers are using their internet service to transmit or post copyrighted movies. The ISP's in turn send a letter to the customers threatening to disable their internet connection unless the offending material is removed. The MPAA is using software that 'cruises file-swapping networks like Gnutella to find copyrighted materials, hunts down the IP address of the poster, then discovers which Internet service provider is being used.'"
My first reaction is "so? Sounds fair". I mean, it's going at the source of pirating and illegal sharing, not a problem.
The article raised the issue of false positives. It had this chilling bit on it:
"Of all the letters we have sent out, we only had 2 other people who corresponded back who said we were mistaken," Jacobsen said. "And we didn't think we were."
Oh, wait-- the folks doing the automated search get to decide whether its infringement. This is kinda backwards.
I mean, someone thinks you stole a coke from 7-11, the cops come and listen and maybe a judge makes a verdict-- not the 7-11 clerk.
But here, the person making the allegation gets to decide if it's true or not-- and when has any person ever been really psyched to say "Oh, wait, sorry, I was totally wrong, wasted your time, and opened myself up to legal risk by making a false accusation."
So, neat idea, but the implementation needs some better due process.
A.
that title is really stupid. Sorry, but if you went into Blockbuster and "lifted" titles you too would be being chased.
Your no longer a customer if your not paying for the content.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Unfortunatly, these practices are within their rights. I wonder what will happen when there is a file-swapping system that requires one to break some sort of encryption to determine the IP addresses of hosts. Will the RIAA/MPAA be liable for DMCA violations in that case?
"In order to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe." -- Carl Sagan, Cosmos
I'm getting tired of this. This is called invasion of privacy. If a police officer goes through your room and finds a bomb, without a warrant, he can't do anything with it, until he gets one from a judge. The evidence is inadmissable in court. Get a decent lawyer, and you'll go free undoubtedly.
If your ISP relays the message to you, ask who found it, them or the MPAA. Your ISP probably has the right to (they can check transfer logs, etc). If it was the MPAA, then you're losing your right to privacy, and you can sue your ISP and the MPAA. You didn't authorize their searching your computer, and your ISP shouldn't allow it either. Once again, they can't use the "evidence" if it's found like that.
This is why I'm leaving the US, the whole system is shit. MPAA, lack of government involvement with internet privacy, Constitutional rights that evaporate once you go digital (don't get me started on the pledge.
Ramble On
GL
because consumers are just sick of their manufactured bands and their assault on fair use. I'm not a P2P user, but the trouble the RIAA is causing makes me more likely not to buy music from the big labels anymore. When I was a teenager we all recorded songs off the radio on cassette long before the album was released. Don't see how mp3s are much different, except they can be tracked on the network.
"As flies to the wanton boys are we to the gods; they kill us for sport." - William Shakespeare, King Lear
Are the Slashdot readership filthy thieving open sores geeks trying to distort the facts?
Can anyone enlighten me?
And with every article about the crackdown, more people are made aware that movies and music are free for the downloading.
As someone once said here, copyright law in the digital age will be unenforceable without DMCA death squads.
CEE5210S The signal SIGHUP was received.
Wow they've learned how do use ARIN. Congratulations!
Fight Spammers!
Unless They are paying people to actually download and listen to each file, how can they verify that the metallica file that appears on someones system is a "copyright infringing" mp3? They would have to be very careful, otherwise it will backfire and end up in a class action lawsuit.
If you think about it though, this could work to the advantage of keeping the RIAA expending resources to catch the "little people", and ending up pissing off prominant people because their kids were swapping mp3's....
An ounce of perception is worth a pound of obscure
Since the 'False Positives' section seems to make it clear that all the MPAA is doing is looking at filenames, wouldn't it be trivial to use some sort of '133t' type phonetic coding to mess with the search algorithms that they are running?
"In order to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe." -- Carl Sagan, Cosmos
"Tyler was nabbed by an automated program developed by Ranger Online Inc. The software cruises file-swapping networks like Gnutella to find copyrighted materials, hunts down the IP address of the poster, then discovers which Internet service provider is being used."
I imagine this tracker that they use must identify itself somehow. I've never been heavily in to the whole swapping/p2p thing, but shouldn't it be possible to find a signature of some sort from this thing and tack it on to the front of a swapping program? Honestly asking, I really don't know. Not that I think getting in a pissing match with the MPAA/RIAA is the best solution for the software writers...
Here's the Ranger Online website. This section provides a very lame explanation of how they do the voodoo that they do.
Seriously you are, if you are sharing something, then you are making it publically available and it is not an invasion of privacy.
Movie pirates are doing illegal things. They don't physically hurt people, but that doesn't mean that they can get away with it.
Just because a lot of people here don't believe in copyright, doesn't mean the rest of the world shouldn't believe in it.
You're only a customer if you pay for a product, or have a legal license to use the product free of charge. I.e. Windows XP NFR copies...you're a customer even though you didn't pay for it.
People who are involved in trading music/movies on the Internet are, for the most point in time, either fully aware that it is copyright infringement (I hesitate to say stealing because I don't really believe it is, but it is copyright infringement) or are vaguely aware that there's something "grey" about it.
It's within the (RI/MP)AA's right to go after the individuals who are responsible for copyright violations, which they are doing--rather than try to increase prices on movies, institute DRM, etc. If a large-scale sharing user knows that if he gets caught, he'll have his bandwidth taken away, that'll be a decent deterrant. Similar to the Windows XP preview editions and Microsoft IRC spiders-anyone running Windows XP and an fserv at the same time was given a nice little message, courtesy NET SEND, warning them not to share software illegally. (I personally know two people this happened to.)
Besides, the gnutella network isn't all it's talked up to be, anyway. I run a very fast DSL connection (1536/512 up/down) but STILL can't maintain more than 3 Gnutella network connections or pull more than 2kb/sec. I get transfers on IRC over 50kb/sec and direct from web sites in the 150kb/sec range...Gnutella as long since stopped being useful to me.
Besides, everyone knows the REALLY good movies are found in IRC FServs in the distro group channels, or on FTP servers--not on Gnutella. All you'll find on Gnutella are fakes and porn.
In any retail industry there is a certain percentage of profit lost due to "pilferage". The company's objective is to minimize this percentage.
This strategy by the MPAA employs an inventory control system which doesnt control the original products and may be better suited to a physical product/store. These are all derivatives of the movie from the movie theater or the DVD from Blockbuster, but in fact, none are a physical product complete with 100% of the value.
How the American people and the government deal with this will obviously set an interesting precedent for the future of media. These methods need a close reality check to see if this is the way to deal with the lost profits.
prosebeforehos.com
Before submitting a song to AudioGalaxy, a user has to 'appropriately identify' themselves. Once a user is identified, they can submit songs to the AudioGalaxy universe to be authenticated for distribution.
When an identified user submits a song for use, the song is fingerprinted, and identified as 'good'. A properly identified song is the responsibility of it's submitter. AudioGalaxy is simply a tranmission medium. If a copyright holder feels that their song is improperly submitted, then they can go to the person responsible for the song for the 'publishing' of it. If a user is identified as consistently submitting unauthorized copyright material, then their entire set of authentications can be revoked.
user authentication
Users can be authenticated by any of a set of means -- eg:
- A credit card authorization (should appear on credit card summaries as something obvious like "ID verification audogalaxy-id.com" with the domain (and www.domain) pointing to a page that precisely describs what the ID was for and about and what the associated person would be responsible for [[in case the ID was the result of a credit card theft]]).
- Thawte (www.thawte.com) allows all sorts of ways to authenticate the identify a person -- including their 'web of trust' system which is free, and various paid methods.
- Persons who don't have access to (or don't want to use) other methods, could mail in a notarized copy of personal ID,
- Pick your favorite other method of verification.
Once a user is verified, they would be issued an SSL certificate that would allow them to submit songs (automatedly) for authentication.SSL certificates allow for repudiation, so if someone's ID was used inappropriately, they would be able to issue repudiation.. It should be possible to issue repudiation starting from a specific date (when the certificate was compromised), generally (e.g. if the identity was issued improperly), or even for specific songs (if a publishing authorization turns out to have been mistaken, or the publisher has second thoughts.).
Sharing would then be checked for authentication of a song, rather than a record company claim (after the fact) of copyright infringement. If a record company claims copyright on a song, they would identify it by fingerprint (or a fingerprint summary) then DMCA procedures for notifying the 'owner' of the impugned song would follow.
The point here is that the users are then explicitly responsible for the songs that they post -- combining this with the fact that the RIAA is now proving themselves capable of going after the individual violators, this means that they should have a much harder time going after distribution services like AudioGalaxy for actions that individual customers are really responsible for. (and able to be held responsible for)
On the other hand, the RIAA's high-handed tactics may backfire on them, and provide a real boost to the indie music industry.
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
Looks like its time to start burning my DVD and laserdisc collection to my shared folder. I really hate these guys. They're making a ton of money. Movie tickets are approaching $10. The quality of online movies is certainly no better than VHS tape and probably worse. Pretty soon they'll be going door to door for VCR inspections. There's no way they're losing money over this. Do they have any idea how long it takes to download one of those movies. It can take long enough that the money you have to pay to the power company for leaving your computer running can cost almost as much as renting the real thing. I certainly hope this kind of behavoir is going to come back and bite them in the @ss. Don't they know that most people still only rent movies. Only a small minority actually buy them.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
Uh-oh.
Are we now to believe that a form letter generated by Share-O-Stop software can threaten an ISP into cutting off someone's service? Does the MPAA really think they can get away with this?!
See, the thing about P2P was that it was so incredibly distributed that it would be impossible for the MPAA to sue all of us... but now, it looks like they're trying. As we've learned, the threat of legal action can frequently be as effective as actual legal action, at a fraction of the price.
I can't believe they're using bullying tactics like this. What bastards. Maybe there's some kind of threatening form letter we can send to something the MPAA depends on, to cause them a great deal of meaningless trouble? Anyone have any ideas?
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Actually a degree in African art can save your life if you ever go to South Africa. A wrong move will get you slaughtered in that part of the country. They don't appreciate white tourists messing with their tribe's symbols.
Interesting form of vigilante justice I see. They go after and punish everyone that they deem as wrong. And perhaps they are right, but the reason for the justice system is not to punish everyone who commits something wrong, but to avoid punishing those who have no committed wrong.
I remember hearing a great man say that "it is better to let 30 men go free, then have one innocent man condemned for life."
Vigilante justice has the problem that while it catches more of the guilty, it punishes more of the innocent, as well if I remember correctly it is illegal in the states (could a lawyer check me on this?)
I understand the need for the MPAA and RIAA to solve these piracy problems, but becoming the prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner is not the way to go. When you are all four, you are guaranteed to false positives and punish those who don't deserve it.
~ kjrose
Enforcing existing copyright laws is about the most sensible idea I've heard for a long time.
The only thing I would add is that I would expect a WRITTEN apology from anybody making false accusations.
Be a leech. It's just as illegal, but they won't try to catch you. Of course, that is a good way to kill a P2P network. What would be really scary is prosecuting the downloaders. If the ISP won't cooperate they could just go after people buying spindles of 100 CD-Rs. If you're really paranoid, don't fill out that rebate form. It might just be used as evidence.
word.
The MPAA doesn't forward information to the police because they wouldn't have a leg to stand on. They send form letters and threaten legal action, but if they clogged up the court system enough (across how many jurisdictions? Quite an expensive nightmare for them) with frivolous accusations, the courts wouldn't look so fondly on this sort of thing.
There really is something incredibly frightening about this mafia-like body's accusations having some of the force of law.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
It becomes an invasion of privacy if they decide to break into your computer. What is going on here is quite different. Its more akin to people leaving piles of copied movies on the road with a big "take one" sign.
If you make stuff available for download you stuck it up for people to see and put it out in the open.
There are guilty until proven innocent problems with the current take down approaches but the privacy one is a red herring here.
Why not just get some random porno movie, change the name of the file to reflect whatever is at the theater, let them inform your isp, show them that it's a waste of your time and THEIR time.
Maybe ISPs will just start ignoring this futile attempt at the MPAA try to police the internet.
There is going to come a moment when the people who get rich off restricting availability of readily copyable content go after Usenet.
If it becomes impossible to post arbitrary content to Usenet, I believe a line will be crossed.
It is already the case that the law, especially in the US, is tilted too far away from the consumer and into the hands of copyright holders who figure that by so perverting the system, they can take shortcuts to profit like DVD region coding that spit in the face of their customers.
As the parasitical feeding frenzy between media owners and our representatives - who fear the disapproval of those media - goes on, at some point there will be a flashover where we realize just how screwed we are.
Remember these prophetic utterances: Usenet is the tiber, the last stand of liberty.
I mean if they automatically hunt down offenders.. and also put bogus files on the network..
how long until they are accusing ppl of sharing content they put on the network in the first place?
There're literally millions of p2p network users, how could MPAA possibly disconnect them all? It's even more laughable that MPAA is asking the ISPs to disconnect their OWN MILLIONS OF USERS. And even if they've sucessfully disconnected and maybe prosecuted that millions of users, what would the people think about this?
The MPAA is just being lazy, they can fire off these letters and be done with it.
I hope someone manages to sue them for falsely accusing them, they shouldn't be permitted to harras people who are doing nothing wrong just because they don't properly verify their accusations.
That being said the actual infringers will have to accept that what they are doing IS currently illegal.
Just wait for the next Gnutella virus which replies perfect matches to every search query...
Well unfortunately, the illegal world always come back with something better - viruses, exploits, and P2P thingywatsits. We're gonna see SSL connections, obfuscated searching methods and anonymous downloading from now on. This method of searching out the big warez d00dz will inevitably fall prey to these improved methods. The Internet as a whole always seems to balance out the effects of large organisations that try to swing it one way or another. I think its trying to tell us something...
In the battle between better warhead and better shielding, the warhead always wins. But who's got which here?
"The best argument against democracy is a five minute chat with the average voter."
--Winston Churchill
I can't remember how many times I've said or thought "without the fucking customer, my life would be so much easier". I'm so glad to see somebody finally decided to just say "screw them" to all their customers and live the easy life.
I wonder if the MPAA is hiring...
Unbreakable toys can be used to break other toys.
It's called "probable cause". If a cop stops you for a traffic violation and sees a fat sack labeled "COCAINE" in your back seat, he has probable cause to search your car. This has been stretched quite far, for instance, having a locked gate on one's yard has been construed as probable cause for police to go in and look for marijuana plants. ('Cause if you weren't hiding something, why would you lock your gate?)
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
or not at all.
Point is, they should not be going after those who *offer* the media. THey should be going after those who *take* it.
Have you seen many police officers going to the shopping place in your town and arrest all those who have some of their merchandise outside their shop?
(i know that on p2p you don't sell anything, i just wanted to say that it's not the one who offers who is to blame, but one who takes it illegaly. actual story: i had Death - The sounds of Perseverance on CD. Bought, fair and square. Then, one day, i stepped on it and it got ruined...i was very sad. Then i went on p2p to get it from someone else.Both me and the other party are perfectly legal.)
please don't take me wrong
Looking for people to chat about multicopters, coding, music. skype: gtsiros
Unless things have changed dramatically, the MPAA is still using software from Ranger Online to perform their searches exclusively. This software isn't all that technically impressive. Anybody with an understanding of protocols and search techniques can make the searches they do in public forums like gnutella and IRC. So then I imagine that they do a simple traceroute to locate the ISP or hosting provider and then a whois for the contact. THis all publicly available and frankly probably requires lots of human intervention. We're not talking banks of computers here, we're talking about a room full of MPAA flunkies doing jack Valenti's bidding.
So, let's get some packet-sniffers up and going and figure out what range of IP's these "attacks" are coming from. If I find anything I will post it here in this thread. Let's shut these guys down and put them out of business for good!
Which Gnutella client are you using? I was staying at a university for a week, and so I had about 300k/s of unused bandwidth that I could just play around with, using Gnucleus (1.8.4.0, I think.)
I scored some pretty good stuff... most of Gowenna's encodes of the Black Adder series, as well as lots of Simpsons episodes, and Ralph Bakshi's animated version of LOTR, which I hadn't been able to find anywhere else.
What were you looking for that you couldn't find there?
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
For quite some time now, we've been hearing how decentralized P2P networks would be impossible to police. Not true - once it becomes *possible* to get caught and face punishment for something, the amount of that activity will go down. If Joe Sixpack suddenly has to worry about losing his Internet connection, or worse, he'll think twice about file swapping. Anecdotally, I know of several parents where I work who have children that trade hundreds of thousands of songs and movies from their local machines. It won't take much for these parents to put the kibosh on that. --Latro
Someone like bearshare or whoever should create a gnutella extention that will use a proxy service for all the P2P hosts to relay through. It would conceal the sender and could possibly even speed up the network in general.
It's the lack of source anonymity that makes me hold off on hosting the files I've acquired.
P2P networks always seemed very a very promiscous and un-anonymous way to share legally-dubious files.
The alt.binaries.* heirarchy of the usenet, on the other hand, appears to contain about 99% copyrighted material. The people primarily at risk are those posting the copyrighted material. Most posters take some precautions: when I examine the headers it seems like they go through NNTP servers that offer anonymity and privacy, such as usenetserver.com. (They claim to keep posting logs for 48 hours as a way to controlling spammers... Of course if the MPAA came with a subpoena, they'd certainly have to turn them over to them.)
My perception is that downloaders of Usenet binaries are subject to considerably less risk, as there is no public log of NNTP downloads. While ISPs may log them, I can't imagine a judge granting the MPAA a subpoena for checking an ISPs download logs just to go fishing.
It is really astonishing how many terabytes get posted to alt.binaries.* per day.
By the way, I routinely stress-test my new hardware using alt.binaries.*. I don't really even know what the binaries are, I just pick a few files, and start trying to reassemble the pieces. This seems to crash my potential production servers faster than anything.
Do you think the MPAA will be knocking at my door?
-tomRakewell
www.freenetproject.org
Losses to theft are actually called "shrinkage", as in, the inventory shrinks. I'm not sure if it refers simply to employees stealing, but ask anyone in retail---it's the preferred euphemism for theft.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Couple things --
1 --Those programs probably are not coming from an AOL domain so even if they fake their user identification, they cannot fake their IPs. Ban those IP ranges.
2 --Create false positives, too bad for the users then sue your ISP because you have the right to rename a file to anything. Better yet, make your own MP3 "non-copyrighted", mark it as Metallica and let them chew on it then sue them.
If every one person out of 10000 does that, that would be enough lawsuits.
3 --Network packets can be fiddled. Write a program that will change its MAC address and IP address. Request to get your file and to which IP address will come from the server and you can send the packets to this IP address as long as your address is faked they cannot tell who you are. Some low level ethernet card tweaking should do it no prob. This would cause a few problems with servers being in danger but move them to seahaven.
Maybe it's offtopic but:
Some time ago I've placed the Operation Thetan III on my page. Then I was contacted by the legal dept of my ISP and they claimed that according to the letter from Religious Technology Center I violate the copyright. I confessed that I really violate the copyright hoping that I do this under an aegis of "Extreme necessity" article of local criminal code, and we agreed that I will stop the violation if the due Court will sentence me to do so. Of course, RTC was not going to sue in Siberia.
Let's return to MPAA. When somebody places the movie to the 'Net, it's a violation and it can be proven by copyright holder. But when somebody obtains the copyrighted material then he can not prove that the material is copyrighted before he obtains the material. In other words, every receiver may say "Yes, Your Honour, I've obtained the movie from the network. Then I have seen the copyright marks and promptly erased it". I have no idea about your law, but in Russia it's so.
Moreover. If the sender shows the files to everybody including the MPAA, in order to find the receiver you need a sniffer somewhere in the network. The sniffer may be illegal, and I hope that every ISP that wants to keep it's clients will NOT let anybody to sniff without the due court order. At least it's a base for countersuit.
our message follows as an example:
Don't they know that most people still only rent movies. Only a small minority actually buy them.
Really? This is pretty interesting... can you back that up with something? Most of the people I know don't own many movies, but they have some. I remember when my folks used to rent movies and dub them off onto tapes in SLP mode, or whichever the eight-hour one was...
I have a friend who still lives at home. She's college-age, and not exactly rolling in cash. She owns over a hundred DVDs. How she affords this, I can't begin to fathom, but she's the kind of customer the MPAA wants.
Oh, and if you think online copies of movies are bad quality, go find that 2-CD DivX LOTR that's floating around everywhere. Much better than VHS, and it even approaches DVD quality.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
The DMCA requires ISP's to takedown materials that are alleged to be infringing until the alleged infringer disputes the allegation. There's a whole messy procedure for the back and forth, and it favors the intital claim of infringment.
Oh, and where on IRC are the damned distro chans? #imp-iso seems to be closed now, and I didn't really know any others. (Aside from the #*-central channels on DalNet.)
Where can I get Xena episodes? They're for my girlfriend, honest...
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Why use the Internet for this?
Look, many people are saying that the MPAA doesn't have a legal leg to stand on, etc, but that's not the point.
They do not have to prove that you're doing anything for you to lose your account. All they have to do is say, "Hey, Cable Company, this guy is a pirate", and the cable modem gets turned off.
No courts necessary or applicable.
I received one of the letters through Time Warner, as someone in my house allegedly was sharing movies through IRC. I don't particularly care if anyone decides to go to the cops, as it's unprovable, but I damn sure don't want to lose my cable modem... the phone lines near me aren't good enough for DSL, and I can't afford a T1.
Of course I'll make sure that things aren't shared from this location. That's why the method is so completely effective.
Freenet provides anonymous uploads and anonymous downloads. I'm wondering how will MPAA stop that. At this moment Freenet already has some MP3. So if you want to join, I suggest you check the Freenet and Frost websites.
One thing I think Freenet desperately needs is good content. I don't think it will get very far if people use it only to distribute MP3, warez and other illegal content. It needs lots gaming, news, geek, and those typical "This is me and this is my dog" websites to avoid looking as a system only made to distribute illegal content without being caught.
Watch out if you are on 192.168.x.x networks! They'll be coming for you next!
Can the MPAA press charges in other countires? Seeing how most of the movies come from Asia, do they have any jurisdiction in these countries?
See the forbiden post Here
54,000 letters have been sent out to try to shut down the IP access of people with copyrighted material. I pay 49.95 a month for DSL 54000 * 49.95 = 2,697,300 2,697,300 * 12 = $32,367,600 dollars a year. How many ISP's can take this hit and stay in business???
What if I record something off TV and post it on the internet yet still get bitched at by the MPAA, where do my legal rights stand?
Since they are going after people who are sharing movies, if word gets out, I'm sure most people will learn quickly how to not share anything on the P2P networks, thus making them useless for most people. Then the only ones who will get these notices are those who are too clueless to disable sharing. If no one is sharing, then P2P isn't very fun.
What?
I pay taxes on every CDR and CDRW, and soon every other kind of digital media, because here in Canada I'm allowed to make copies. I think there's an equivalent thing going on in the US and Europe. I'm not sure about the rest of the world.
So how is it fair, when people have already paid their dues, and are only doing the digital equivalent of trading with each other the tapes they've bought? It's a big swap meet.
So, does the DMCA apply to me in Canada? Could my ISP get sued by an American judge if they don't comply?
So make a video of your hamsters fucking and post it on a p2p network.. Call the file "Simpsons episode_123" and wait. Sue 'em for false arrest.
They should at least VIEW the material they think is pirated, just to make sure.
The following is a copy of the letter one of the ISP sent out. This topic has been discussed on SecurityFocus' vuln-dev for the past day or so.
Dear Customer,
We are writing on behalf of Cox Communications to advise you that we have
received a notification that you are using your Cox High Speed Internet
service to post or transmit material that infringes the copyrights of a
complainant's members. I have enclosed a copy of the complaint letter.
Pursuant to the provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA"),
which is codified at 17 U.S.C. 512, upon receiving such notification, Cox
is required to "act expeditiously to remove, or disable access to" the
infringing material in order to avoid liability for any alleged copyright
infringement. Accordingly, Cox will suspend your account and disable your
connection to the Internet within 24 hours of your receipt of this email if
the offending material is not removed.
Please be aware that the DMCA also provides procedures by which a
subscriber accused of copyright violation can respond to the allegations of
infringement and, under certain circumstances, cause his or her account to
be reinstated. To do so, however, the response must meet certain criteria.
Pursuant to section (g) of the DMCA (17 U.S.C. 512(g)), you have the right
to submit to Cox a counter-notification which, to be effective, must include
the following elements:
(a) a physical or electronic signature of the subscriber;
(b) identification of the material that has been removed or to which
access has been disabled and the location at which the material appeared
before it was removed or disabled;
(c) a statement under penalty of perjury that the subscriber has a good
faith belief that the material was removed or disabled as a result of
mistake or misidentification of the material to be removed or disabled;
(d) the subscriber's name, address, and telephone number and a statement
that the subscriber consents to the jurisdiction of the Federal District
Court for the judicial district in which the address is located.
In the event that you submit to Cox a counter-notification that includes
these elements, Cox will forward your counter notification to the
complainant and advise them that Cox will cease disabling access to the
allegedly infringing material in ten (10) business days. Unless the
complainant notifies us that it has filed an action seeking a court order to
restrain you from engaging in the allegedly infringing activity prior to the
expiration of those ten (10) business days, Cox will reactivate your
account.
Sincerely,
The Cox Abuse Team
Actually this sort of happened to me. I was running a not so legal server and got my service shut down. I was a stupid high school bandwidth junkie so I totally deserved it.
If someone wants to host Episode II for everyone in the world to download he should face the consequences. It isn't exactly like the people who are downloading the movie are backing up their own copy.
Would a clause in the softwares EULA work, that states that you can't install nor use the software if you're in some way associated with the MPAA/RIAA/..., and that by using this software you agree to not take any action (legal or other) that could harm other users of this software, no matter what they are using the software for...
After all, by clicking "OK" or "Continue" or whatever, you agree to the terms of the EULA.
Of course, this wouldn't stop stuff like this Ranger soft, but combined with a closed protocol and some heavy encryption scheme that would make it near to impossible to reverse engeneer the protocol so that downloading and installing the original software would be the only way to participate in the network...
But then again... Who cares? Copying movies and songs around is wrong. But if software companies can use EULAs to impose restrictions which are on the edge (or beyond) if the illegal, why wouldn't it work for the small guy?
Install windows on my workstation? You crazy? Got any idea how much I paid for the damn thing?
"To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;"
i on.articlei.html
Article 1, Section 8
Found at http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitut
The MPAA being neither author no inventor cannot have any Constitutional right to the "intellectual property" that is a movie. Copyright can only be given to authors and inventors. Thus any cease and desist is based on unconstitutional law. It is as unconstitutional as warrantless search and seizure, declaring Judaism the official religion of the USA, or allowing warrantless searches on a random basis of people's houses. Further it is not just enough for the author or inventor to have produced the work but it must also only be theirs for a limited time and only as it promotes the progress of science and the useful arts. I would submit that "The Avengers" or Britney's latest album do not meet that criteria and as such cannot be granted copyright.
A 2 cent legal analysis and worth every penny:
There are exceptions to search and seizure under the US Bill of Rights. One of these is the plain-sight exception rule and it applies equally to both police and citizens.
If a police officer goes through your room (as in walks through and conducts no search) and happens to see a bomb lying on your desk and he has reasonable suspicion you are a previous bomber; he may arrest you. The bomb will be used in court under the "plain sight" excception to illegal searches and seizures.
Another example: If the police come to your house on a noise complaint and find an easily recognizable wanted criminal sitting on your couch; they are not blinded by their lack of warrant, no by the fact they came for a different purpose. They will arrest the criminal and then arrest you for harbouring a wanted felon. If the DA can prove in court that you were aware of your guest's wanted status; you're going to jail.
Similarly, if you're sharing files; you're displaying your perfidity and defiance of the law for all to see. The evidence is in plain sight. If the police found such violation, they could indeed arrest you and use the logs of their search against you under the plain sight exception. Whether those logs would hold up in a court of law is another question, but the same logic would easily apply to a private party sniffing an open network.
Glad we both agree... shame we're not modded higher.
False positives, just because I name a file on my system, that is accessible by a public IP, to the same as any copyrighted piece of work, does not mean the data contained is held under their copyright. Surely, you could make some amatuer videos, or media, and offer them for download under a name. E.G. Name your home videos "family guy" and then a description. Name your home made music after an artist that it sounds similar to , and place your own band name and song name in the title also. Having your own media that you created online, under the impression that you are your own 'business', you could sue for anticompetitive behaviour. Being required to take down media you are the copyright owner of, just because they believe they own the copyright, would be interesting. I hope some ISP's will actually take a stand in cases like these, and have some form of due process, i.e. where you can send a legal letter back to the ISP proving you own the copyright on everything that you have posted, and any denial of service, would be a disruption of service.. Why would this be any different than trying to take down the MPAA's or RIAA's server, claiming that you own the copyright to something that is hosted on their site based upon a filename. Or, perhaps you could sign some form, which waves any responsibility the ISP has over your actions, and makes you directly responsible for what you do with the service, I.E. they cannot get into trouble for not disrupting your service, someone has to actually have a court order to deny you service. This would put the ISP in a safer position to not do anything. Surely, independent artists should have an outlet of free expression on the internet, when they are not violating any laws, that would be a free market.
Looks like we'll just have to do it the old fashion way with videos. VCD! Only this time, MPAA is forcing divx to replace VCD's original format. Hey, it works in Asia.
And what's more for divx on CDs....When this becomes the only cheapest option left, people can start making money out of it...instead of freely offering it online.
this may be slightly off-topic, but I've noticed a lot of people have different ways to refer to the RIAA and MPAA collectively.
Can somebody please specify the most specific and "correct" regex to include both of these organisations together?
Hmmm I was just thinking, what if all the files under /winnt and /windows were all renamed to file names like any other media names, i.e notepad.exe would be britney_spears_baby_hit_me_one_more_time.mp3 and yet it would still be executable. I guess it would make your entire OS all garbabled up and hard as heck to find where files where. But at least then if you share out your /winnt and /windows directory, you would be injecting so much fake files into the network that it would probablly bring the p2p network to its knees.
Just a thought...
Disgusted by this whole modus operandi, I sent the following e-mail to several addresses within Ranger Online:
---
Gentlemen,
I have the static IP address xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx (via my {ISP Name Here} business Internet service) and am officially notifying you that I will not tolerate your firm snooping around on my computer, using bandwidth that I paid for, in order to conduct your clandestine spying. I suggest that you take whatever steps are necessary to assure that Ranger Online and its affiliates never access that IP address. Any attempts by your firm to access data on my computer will be treated as a "trespass to chattels."
I do not like your self-appointed 'net police' attitude. You are not a law enforcement agency and your searches are being carried out without probable cause or a warrant. The accuracy of the information you produce is suspect and your methods have not been undergone public scrutiny and peer review. You are using huge amounts of bandwidth from consumers, businesses, and institutions that often have limited resources and bandwidth already.
Frankly, you are like spammers. You believe that you have a right to use bandwidth paid for by others for your own financial gain.
Regards,
{Name and address}
If I do not get a response from them, I will reformat the message into a printed letter and have it delivered with a signature required and a return receipt.
The other day I was watching a movie in the theater and was handed a survey to find out how effective different marketing stratagies were. The question was: What made you want to see this movie. Myself, and all of my friends left all of the options blank and wrote in "we downloaded it from a p2p, and decided it was worth watching". If everyone started writing this kind of thing, (true or not) the MPAA might take a second look. Can't hurt anyways.
In a related news FBI has started methodical searches for unlicensed software and copyrighted media (vhs tapes of copied movies, audio tapes recorded from the radio, photocopied pages from your university textbooks).
They are also talking to your neighbours, colleagues and family about occasions when you have performed copyrighted material (have you sung "Happy Birthday?") or used trademarked phrases ("Drivers Wanted") without paying license fees and / or having written permission from the copywright holders.
Citizens which have done any of the above activity will be prosecuted to the furthest extend of the law, on the spot.
There's a PreCopy task force being formed which will be empowered to issue arrest warrants before the copyright crime takes place, based on profiling.
Happiness, we are all in it!
This is, in fact, precisely what they are supposed to have been doing all along. The problem with file sharing is not file sharing services, but that individuals would use file sharing to engage in copyright infringement. The proper defendants, if any, have ALWAYS BEEN the persons actually copying the files without consent and not for fair use.
But MPAA finds this unsatisfactory, because they don't want to actually deal with legitimate defenses that will inevitably crop up from time to time, or spend their energies on judgement-proof defendants. Fair reasons, but quite frankly, these are the checks and balances of the Copyright Act that have worked (to their advantage for the most part) for 200 years.
Nor is this a fault of the DMCA -- prior to the DMCA, caselaw imposed liability on a provider (the Netcom/Scientology case) only who had been given actual notice of an infringement. Indeed, this is to the advantage of the user -- because the takedown only need go on for ten days, unless MPAA actually sues.
So I applaud MPAA for doing the right thing. And, I rather like the (tacit) admission that they have been fibbing all these years about how imposible and implausible it would be to actually sue proper defendants instead of those providing viable and valuable new technologies to the public at large, particularly those capable of substantial noninfringing uses.
If I ever got one of these notices threatening me, it would be game over for the RIAA/MPAA, and every other content provider.
I would never, ever buy their products again. I would go out of my way to acquire them from other sources.
They can either have me as an occasional customer, or as an adversary. There is no middle ground.
Would a clause in the softwares EULA work, that states that you can't install nor use the software if you're in some way associated with the MPAA/RIAA/..., and that by using this software you agree to not take any action (legal or other) that could harm other users of this software, no matter what they are using the software for...
What, you mean like the clauses in the EULA or licenses of the stuff being shared that basically says you can only use the item if you have payed for it? Auww come on, grow up. If people want to expose themselves by illegally allowing protected items to be shared from their pc, then they should stand up and face the consequences when they get caught.
What you are saying is akin to a bunch of kids saying "but i didnt know i wasnt sposed to do it....."
If people want something with no risk, then buy it, yes pay real money for it. Look, no risk involved!! Its a fantastic method of avoiding prosecution.
I think we should all resurrect Gopher and start sharing files with it. We'll show em!
-- If we don't stand up for our rights, now, there will be no right to stand up for them later.
Yes, this in tongue in cheek.
:)
All that is needed to make the MPAA and RIAA go away is a new EULA in the P2P software which states that the P2P software may not be used by an entity for the purpose of gaining evidence of copyright violation . The penalty for using the software in this matter will be to provide the person you allege of copyright violation with a legal license.
Click OK to AGREE.
This will stand up in court, or serve to invalidate all other EULA's. Wouldn't that be a catch22.
The solution here is to develop anonymous file-sharing techniques. Things where your IP address is masked, for instance. I believe he mentioned a program called "Flyster" which provides downloaders with anonymosity.
Also, lets get real here. This is a scare tactic which only works if you get scared. The MPAA/RIAA have neither the time nor desire (nor even the money) to actually litigate each one of these 50,000 cases out. You should automatically challenge these rulings, whether they're true or not. Chances are, they won't respond back. ISP's have to give you back access if you challenge the accusation, at least until the dispute has been litigated out. And chances are, the MPAA/RIAA isn't going to respond to any challenges of their accusations. It simply isn't feasable to sue 50,000 people, and increasing.
So there are two ways to fight this: one technological (anonymosity), the other "legal" (challenging the accusation within 24 hours).
They have their backwards beliefs about how intellectual property should be enforced draconianly, and how no fair-use should apply, and about increasing its scope, and increasing its duration ad-infinitum.
We have our ideals about freedom of information, democracy, freedom of speech, privacy, and an open society.
In other words, they represent fascist nazi values. We represent democratic values.
P.S. -- Another solution is to get on a broad-band connection with a dynamic IP; thus, IP numbers can't be traced back to a specific user. However, this raises its own problems as dynamics IP's take away users rights. You can't log into your own computer from remote w/ a dynamic IP; can't host a web page; etc etc.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
What will they do, when more advanced p2p networks begin to gain popularity?
2 00 2a.php
http://www.zeropaid.com/news/articles/auto/0712
http://www.angryburrito.com/ The best, completely unfinished software review site ever.
What is scary is that the ISP's are taking there word that the material is in violation of law. File swapping is not illegal. Is the MPAA willing to take responsibility for mistakes they make by reimbursing the end users for there time and trouble? If your ISP tries that with you and you do not have any illegal software on the server, make them aware of how many customers they have and issue the phrases "Class Action Lawsuit" and "due process" and hope they back off.
I actually don't expect anything less from the MPAA; they will get away with anything they can. If they thought they could come in and do searches in your house, they would. We have to put pressure on the ISP's about there responsibility to there customers, and try to make people less fearful of the almighty MPAA.
Does anyone know if The MPAA has won lawsuits against ISP's for NOT removing material that the MPAA thought was illegal?
Peace
I mean anyone can do what the MPAA is doing. Why should ISPs listen to them? Because they're big and have money? "Oooo, the MPAA!" BFD. People act like they're the mafia or something.
But I guess the ISP can do whatever they want. I'm sure I agreed to something with my ISP that says they can kill my access for whatever reason they want. But I hope there's some ISPs out there who have the balls to say "Unless our users have been charged of criminal activity in a court of law, we're not going to kill their access just because of allegations a third party is making."
And if there was ever a way to track down every single person who had an illegal MP3 somewhere on his hard drive, ISPs would probably be pretty pissed when they're asked to kill access to 90% of their customers. :)
Macintosh humor! MacComedy.com
I use a fringe p2p network, its great. Sure there isn't as much stuff on it as KaZaA, but everyone on it is fast and sharing a ton of stuff (100% linux users at the moment)
Its lovely, and its called giFT (gift.sourceforge.net)
My friend who works at the Medical Sciences building of a major university got a call from the U's IT department, who in turn got a call from the U's lawyers, who in turn got a call from the good ol' MPAA. Apparently someone in the building was sharing movies illegally (is there really any other way?). Not sure what the repercussions are yet, since this happened 3 days ago. My friend feels kinda bad about it, seeing as he was the one who suggested installing Kazaa Lite.
IWARS.
People, in general, disappoint me. Politicians even more so.
~s/song/movie/g
this has probbaly already been said but
what about dynamic ips? what happens when Tommy Warez kiddie gtes 10 new movies and his ip changes and you get the cease and desist order?
i hope some really big class action lawsuit puts them back in tehir place, the mpaa is being even more stupid than the riaa -- movies are much harder to trade (since they're massive even the divx's are not manageable over dialup) and there are fewer of them...
besides they still seem to assume that just because you have a copy you both a.) don't own it legally and b.) even if you didn't when you downloaded it that you *would* have gone out and purchased it (which is what they base their losses on)
The problem is that appearanly accusation is being considered equivalent to proof of guilt. There doesn't seem to be much of an appeals process.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Frankly, I don't care. All of the abuses of copyright by the various industries has all but convinced me to advocate getting rid of the concept entirely.
If you want an income, don't make it through false scarcity. Make your money off of tangible property that really is scarce - theater seating, T-shirt sales, movie posters, and DVD discs that coincidentally have added features that "pirates" aren't trading. Making people pay for things that can be copied ad infinitum is not an efficient allocation of resources - and pretty immoral if you ask me.
"Anonymous Coward" is for whistleblowers, not unpopular opinions.
A friend of mine posted a movie to a newsgroup recently...woke up one day and found he had no internet connection, waited a few hours/days thinking it was just a network fuckup with his his isp. Gave them a call after a few days to find that his connection had been yanked without notice due to one of these letters from the MPAA and was told to call network security. He called up network security a few days later and had his connection turned back on. Kind of ironic in this case because his cable company is Time Warner.
I heard rumors that a major effort was under way called :six/five (not sure the name is correct, it is meant to be the date of the massacre in Tienamens square in 1989). Please post any methods to secure ip from being public or any way to use alternate ports, such that it would obscure unwanted observers. I am not an expert on what is out there.
That's got nothing to do with whole "going after customers" title, though. :)
The point is it's a incendiary and pointless title. A bank robber might be a customer of a bank, but when the police chase him, they're not chasing a "customer", they're chasing a "bank robber." Similarly, a file-sharer may or may not be a customer of the RIAA. It's irrevelant - the RIAA is targetting people that share files ("file-sharers", "copyright infringers", "p2p users", whatever), not people that buy CDs ("customers").
Whether they're going about it in a fair or just way, or whether its a just cause, is a separate issue. It doesn't need pointless rhetoric like "going after customers"; adding that just weakens the actual valid points.
it was innocent until proven guilty.. I guess people just don't like the wait.. So guilty until proven innocent..
So if we had an anti-spam law in place, would the MPAA be able to be sued under the fact that it was e-mail from someone we had never done business with in the past and had not requested the e-mail?
I heard a rumor that one was being developed called Six/Five ( I could have the name wrong as it is meant to be the date in 1989 that Tienamens Square had a student massacre). I am not an expert so could people that have a theory or a prog post ideas. JAVA code/ideas would be useful ( in addition to network admin ideas) as they would be cross platform compatable to most os.
I imagine they'd do this by using tools much like nslookup to return a domain based on IP address. While this might stop your average computer user (and even that would be questionable given how many people trade movies), it won't stop people who run servers and write their own Resource Records. At the most, the MPAA would reduce the distribution of movies to those who have servers.
You guys all seem to have the level-headed mindset that the MPAA is within it's rights to go after individual users, and I agree. So why does everyone get so worked up over the Metallica/Napster issue? It was the same thing: Metallica searched and found a bunch of users openly sharing Met mp3s ripped from albums. They provide this list of users to Napster and asks that Metallica songs get blocked, but Napster only bans those users (who can easily sign up again). They don't implement effective measure to block songs, so Met takes them to court over it, with copyright laws on their side. Despite a judge's orders, they still don't filter well enough. Met sues Napster for facilitating infringement, not the individual users who may be hard to track down. How's this any different?
Yeah, like the ones who developed algebra [hint: al-gebra is an arabic word], or preserved and translated many of the surviving writings of the ancient world.
DNA just wants to be free...
Isn't this what we wanted? The last time I checked, people were pissed at the MPAA for trying to sue filesharing networks out of existance. That tactic failed, and the MPAA followed up by trying to legislate DRM into existance. Public outcry seems to be keeping legislated DRM from happening, and also helps more and more people find out what laws like the DMCA can really be used for every day.
So now the MPAA is being responsible by dealing pirates the smart way - direct attacks. Rather than clogging up the legal and legislative systems with crap that will never go anywhere, tactics have switched to a little corporate communication to stop people from passing out movies online. Pirates are forced to stop passing out movies, while bandwidth hogs are tossed off networks, keeping net access cheap. Filesharing networks can now exist in peace, and perhaps once the pirates go away people will start finding legitimate uses.
I hope that this method DOES work for the MPAA. Furthermore, I hope the RIAA does the same. If internet music eventually moves from top 40 piracy to sharing files released by independent artists looking for cheap publicity, the popularity of musicians not on big labels will grow and the RIAA will have to work harder to sell records, instead of churning our generic overproduced top 40 hits.
This is the way the internet should be. As long as people keep our legislators and Microsoft from taking away the control that groups like the MPAA failed to, the internet will evolve to better humanity over time.
Apples and Oranges comparison.
.)
The Music is intellectual property. The ATI card is physical property. Yes, the music has some small amount of physical property - the CD itself, artwork and case - but the other cost is intangible and is for paying for the license to use the intelectual property.
He broke the the physical representation of what he had payed for but had not damaged in any way the license he had purchased for using the intellectual property. In this case he did not steal the physical part for replacement: he payed for the physical part out of his own pocket in the cost of his Internet connection and possibly the cost of a blank CD for burning the music to. He did not steal the physical part in any way.
Your incorrect analogy assumes that he stole the Internet connection and the CD for burning the music to. (Then again, he didn't state that he paid for them himself . .
Those that obtain the intellectual property without obtaining a license for it are not stealing anything physical but are infringing the rights of the owner of the intellectual property. Anyone infringing other's rights should be punished. This guy has not infringed anyone's rights.
I think it's more than time to get rid of copyright/patents on so called "intellectual property" for once and all. It doesn't serve society and it certainly makes no sense economically.
To quote the article " Called "Flyster," the program will allow downloading in complete anonymity, according to developer Louis-Eric Simard. However, those who host files for download could still be traced, he said"
No, they only need to litigate in the cases where the takedown notice isn't sufficient to cause the offender to cave and pull the content. To quote the MSNBC story "...the music industry has been behind several high-profile arrests of individuals involved in the online music trade. And just last week, The Wall Street Journal reported the industry is planning to step up such individual prosecutions." Wrong. Given an IP number and a timestamp, the ISP can check their RADIUS or DHCP logs and determine who was assigned that IP at that time. Dynamic IP does make it tougher for a random attacker to come after you, but it gives you very little insulation from lawyers who subpeona your ISP for their records. These 'rights' you speak of, where were you granted them? If your contract with your ISP says you cannot host servers, you do not have that right. Your desires are not rights, they are wants. If you want to run a server, have a static IP address, ask your ISP how much more you must pay them to be granted these priviledges.I do not deploy Linux. Ever.
The great thing about todays new breed of privacy invading corporations and dignity whipping boys is they will all be defeated by the same type of freedom-seeking revolutionaries that decided taxed tea looked better in the ocean than in their cup. You can only fuck with the common man for so long until he decides to tell you how it's going to be.
Here's an article on ripping to pieces what's left of fair use rights.
People scream about he MPAA, then they turn around and make a big deal when the trailer to a movie come out.
If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
Actually, I think there's another important issue here. If the MPAA sends out a search packet containing "star wars episode II" and your computer responded with a search hit packet saying "I have that! Here's a list of hits to your search that I have on my computer." then did they really enter your computer without your permission? Setting aside the debate as to whether it's "right" for the MPAA to do this or even operate their business under current copyright law, this brings up an interesting question.
Isn't that the digital analogue (har har) of the MPAA calling you up on the phone and asking "Do you have a pirated copy of Star Wars Episode II: Attack of The Clones?" and you replying "Sure do! If you want a copy, send me a self addressed stamped envelope big enough for two cds."? I certainly wouldn't consider _that_ situation an invasion of privacy.
Of course, law, information, and copyright operate differently in the realm of computers and the internet. You can even sign a binding contract that holds up in court simply by hitting the tab key a few times on your computer and then pressing the enter key (choosing "I Agree" after a EULA).
In my IRC days a lot of people would operate file servers, but upon connecting they would display a message to the effect of:
You may not download any file from this server or obtain any file listings. You must disconnect immediately! If you stay connected or interact with this server in any way other than disconnecting, you are violating the terms of the Internet Privacy Act signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1995 and will be guilty of a federal crime.
IANAL. I don't remember the text exactly. However, would something like this still work if the user's computer hit "I Agree" automatically or blocked the warning text from being displayed?
If so, then couldn't all p2p packets carry a disclaimer such as this one to prevent "unauthorized" usage by the *AA? If not, then where do you draw the line between a user's action and a computer's action? After all, when you click I agree, isn't it _Windows_ that sent the WM_LEFTCLICK (or whatever) message to the window causing the software to install?
Exactly why is a peer-to-peer file sharing service making available the IP address of the poster? This is broken if it is the case. It is also extremely dangerous in the case of things like political dissent.
I know this from a hunch, and therefore you owe me royalties.
If you don't want to pay them then prove to me that you're innocent. Sending me police-verified evidence of an approved ISP's logs should be sufficient.
The firm is not 'snooping around' on your computer. Rather, they are accessing public information. As for using your bandiwdth, I've never seen a case where using bandwidth was illegial, except in DDoS attacks, where intent to deny services was evident.
Your analogy to SPAM is quite a good one. We may all think of it as something sneaky and underhanded, it is still not illegal.
Let this be a lesson to all those who just a short time ago were saying that the internet is just like trains... It shouldn't have laws specifically to govern it. What laws cover this?
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Restrict them to just one address, 127.0.0.1!
Prof. Dave Touretzky at Carnegie-Mellon (yes, the same one with the gallery of CSS descrambler implementations) has a nice information page for how to provide counter-notification if you get one of these form letters and you believe the copyright infringement accusation contained in it is wrong.
8 months without buying or renting a video or DVD!
Times of weakness: went to see Attack of the Clones and Spiderman. Rented "Siberia" from the alternative video store (Dutch movie). I have been borrowing movies from my friends when I have the need to watch something.
RIAA, bought the Blade sountrack (Cypress Hill vs Roni Size track) and may buy the new Hives CD.
Screw you MPAA!
Wearing pants should always be optional.
so :P
My friend used to share movies on IRC... about a year/year and a half or so ago, he received an email from @Home that said something around the words of "We have received complaints from the MPAA that you are engaging in copyright infringement, blah, blah, terminate all sharing within 24 hours or else we'll cut off your service and your nuts while we're at it..."
:)
Nothing really came of it; he still has his service. Scare tactics, IMHO. But he did get that IP address banned from the IRC channel!
Aw, fuck it. Let's go bowling. - The Big Lebowski
Here's a simple rule of thumb:
Its only somewhat serious if you get a registered letter.
Otherwise, it's a joke.
too bad the gnutella protocol cant be made anonymous.. :P
it's a god damn good thing i'm a leech and never share anything!
Where are you moving to? I think I'd like to move there as well once I finish school if they have laws that actually make sense and don't decide to ignore them if big business wants to do something else.
I'll forgo the whole right/wrong diatribe and get right to the point: they'll never stop the piracy.
We'll tunnel, encrypt, do whatever it takes to do what we do. They may break down the current systems eventually (Kazaa etc) and sure that'll take out a lot of the userbase, but pirates have been around lots long. We can fall back to the days of irc & ftp. Back to trusted users and trusted connections. ISPs crack down even more? It's BBS time. It'll go on and on.
The only thing they'll ever accomplish if they keep pushing the way they are is to annoy and irritate their customer base. And although I'm no MBA, but I'm fairly certain that's bad for business..
I am BelDion's
Actually... I think it could be much more automated than you are giving them credit for. All you would have to do is setup a computer that connects to the sharing networks and when a user is flagged for stealing a movie, record the external IP. Then do a quick lookup on http://www.arin.net/ and get the email address of the administrator for the ip in question, then send out a templated form letter. With a unique return e-mail address per sent threat. And a database driven system that logs all replys which can be reviewed at a later time.
Hello,
$contact_name we have logged theft of $movie_name from $ip on $date at $time, please smack them on the wrists or we will get really angry!
Thanks,
MPAA
Theft is it?
Consider the following from Thomas Jefferson's Letter to Isaac McPherson dated: 13 Aug. 1813
"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from anybody. Accordingly, it is a fact, as far as I am informed, that England was, until we copied her, the only country on earth which ever, by a general law, gave a legal right to the exclusive use of an idea. In some other countries it is sometimes done, in a great case, and by a special and personal act, but, generally speaking, other nations have thought that these monopolies produce more embarrassment than advantage to society; and it may be observed that the nations which refuse monopolies of invention, are as fruitful as England in new and useful devices."--Thomas Jefferson
"Oh drat these computers, they're so naughty and so complex, I could pinch them." --Marvin the Martian
MPAA Minority Report. The Tale of one movie buff working at the Pre-Download unit of the MPAA. Where they use Precognition to determine if you will ever download a pirated movie! See Tom Cruise in his best role yet! He plays the Elite Hacker who finds a massive flaw in the system... the Flaw.... too many False positives. Innocent people are being arrested and having their Netconnection shut down for legal movie files from atom films. When the Pre-Cogs go after him he fights back! Comming to a File Swappign Service near you!
I'm just about the crappiest coder ever but u guys need to teach the bastards a lesson and modify their code to send back a worm or virus instead of IPs. that'll teach the greedy assholes
We seldom regret saying too little but often regret saying too much.
The ISP's just relay our trafic.
We need to make sure that the ISP's are not liable for what the users do. They should be treated like Telcos.. And everything that goes over it as free speach. Yes, even if it is nuclear bomb plans or terrorist orders, Or the latest Briteny Spears fakes. Because, what we do routinely can be viewed as just as serious and negative by others.
The government should not be allowed to read our email in secret. If they want to read our email... it needs to be fully public.
Privacy is there to protect freedom... Full Disclosure and openness also protect freedom.
Some manipulated composures of secrecy and openness can destroy our freedom. It can allow a group of people to use overwhelming force on a person or group to squash their idea. To divide and conquer.
I'm passionate about releasing my information to encourage others to release thiers, so that we can withstand the terrorist tactics of people who have poor products(fruit) and feel that they must protect their system instead of adapt.
-GRrrrRRrrr
Please use [ informative / summarizing ] SUBJECT LINES
Flame me here
This is great. I mean face it after everyone on p2p networks stop sharing "copyrighted content", piracy will go away!
Oh the world will be so sweet when we have to pay $15 to say an album sucks and have to wait a year for a rerun of a program because we missed it on TV the first run. Sweet indeed.
I just wasted your mod points! HA!
What you say is partially correct, but I wonder if you are misled by a little tidbit not mentioned in the original post... The MPAA is not only going after the ISP's of the posters of copyrighted movies, but they are also going after the ISP's of downloaders of copyrighted material. This happened to my roommate recently. Now I'm not my roommate's keeper so I didn't check to see if the folder he downloaded the file into was saved in a shared folder; however the nasty-gram we received specifically mentioned *downloading* the file, not hosting it.
get LimeWire , get openBSD , set up a real firewall on an openBSD box , install LimeWire on workstation behind said firewall assign yourself ip in the range of 10.x.x.x or 192.168.x.x and wa-la they now have to try and trace a non-routable local IP. especially if things with p2p stay the way they are -ip based that is. you actually see ALOT of people with 192.168 boxes on limwire, and since road runner (time warner) uses hubs on there network instead of routers or switches the will be looking into your "general" area. otherwise in legal speak , PROVE IT WAS ME !
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." --Albert Einstein
I really like you sig, but I think that it would read better if it said "Liberty over life, fear of big brother over fear of terror." instead of what it currently is.
Now we can have all sorts of fun with the MPAA. Since my gnutella client is open source, I can modify it to pick up on the MPAA's snooping, and send a note to all the other guys out there to start pinging that IP address. But why stop there? Send it dummy information or write a program that sits around on the gnutella network pretending to have copyrighted stuff (speaking of false positives). The possibilities are endless...
--batquux--
Everyone whines about DRM this and Palladium that.
So what happens? When the MPAA does something that wouldn't bastardize hardware, we have self-styled 'freedom fighters' who are going to work on ways to defeat the MPAA's methods.
Ya know what they're gonna do then, Bob? They're going to push for DRM, because all else has failed.
Yeah. What they're doing now probably borders on illegality. Maybe we should help them out, and figure out a system that will work while saving the rights of users? (Copyright infringement != theft, no, but it isn't a right, either.)
Ah, fuck it. I'll laugh when all the little whiners are cut off and your hardware is holding your hand, telling you what you can and can't do.
But first, I'll troll a bit: I need to go preorder Fellowship.
The MPAA wouldn't have the right to tap your phone. However by using a public forum like Gnutella you waive any privacy you might have. For a similar example: mail is private, mail sent to a newspaper letters column is public.
I'm preparing for New Zealand myself - better weather without the language barrier.
Plus it's a nuclear-free country and far enough away so that when the poop really hits the fan you have a chance to survive...
Jude
Audere est Facere
There is a legal concept called "expectation of privacy" that comes into play in this. This means that there are certain actions that you can undertake that do not receive protection under privacy clauses.
The difference is highlighted thus:
1) Shouting out plans about an illegal operation in the middle of a park. (If a cop overhears then it's admissable.)
2) Using an encrypted cell phone to discuss said plans. (If a cop uses a descrambler and listens in without a wiretap permit then it's inadmissable.)
So, having your computer sit there and "shout" on the Internet "here are a bunch of files for downloading" puts you into the category of not expecting privacy.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.