Slashdot Mirror
ISP Bans RIAA to Protect Its Customers
fader writes "Information Wave Technologies, a northeastern (US) ISP has announced that "it will actively deny the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) from accessing the contents of its network". Apparently this is in response to the RIAA (and MPAA, but they don't seem to be blocking them yet) plan to actively attack P2P users. All I can say is, you go, guys! I hope more ISPs will follow their lead."
It'll never last. They'll cave under legal pressure right away.
It's Christmas everyday with BitTorrent.
Me too. Especially if they can recover from the /.'ing they're going to receive now. (Will they ban /. too?)
That takes guts. They are going to actively search&seek out the RIAA drones! Unfortunately, they will be placing "fake" files on gnutella....the question being, are those fake files worth the gain of having a major isp on "our" side?
When in doubt, parenthesize. At the very least it will let some poor schmuck bounce on the % key in vi. (Larry Wall)
Thats awesome! I really hope they can last though, instead of following the normal trend, i.e. "Screw the RIAA!! Err... wait... you're an RIAA rep.. err.. I meant, we like you guys, do whatever you want." Its about time someone stood up for the rights of the little man.
My bet would be some unscrupulous hackers would be contracted to carry out the riaa's bidding. in fact, I'd guess that's how they are alredy keeping an eye on things.
"Information Wave will also deploy peer-to-peer clients on the Gnutella network..."
So, on the flipside, people also risk downloading fake mp3s if they don't check the length of the song.
Such is the infinite Grace of Popeye.
Information Wave will also deploy peer-to-peer clients on the Gnutella network from its security research and development network (honeynet) which will offer files with popular song titles derived from the Billboard Top 100 maintained by VNU eMedia. No copyright violations will take place, these files will merely have arbitrary sizes similar to the length of a 3 to 4 minute MP3 audio file encoded at 128kbps. Clients which connect to our peer-to-peer clients, and then afterwards attempt to illegally access the network will be immediately blacklisted from Information Wave's network. The data collected will be actively maintained and distributed from our network operations site.
How about this part of the article? Honeynetting your ISP with fake mp3s to confound RIAA meddling is way more proactively defiant, IMO, than simply blocking traffic from riaa.org.
I work for an ISP also and would like their network information so I could pass it along to the boss to block.
Does anyone have their IP blocks?
Just because they gave the DOJ a handjob doesn't mean we can't get around that.
Get paid to code OSS
Im planning on sending my isp an email asking them to follow suit. We should also look at the next logical step in this fight against RIAA, which is targeting one or two senators who have/are supporting the actions of RIAA and the DMCA. Maybe then we can be taken seriously.
epicstruggle
"Im drowning here, and you're describing the water!"
Isn't offering up fake MP3's and then acting upon people that download them a form of entrapment? I'm all for what they are doing in regards to blocking the RIAA website, but the assumedly fake MP3's was a bit much IMHO. Jason
In the drops - An Aussie's musings on all things cycling
I am sure this is the start of a huge slew of lawsuits. UserFriendly had a strip about this on Sunday. You can view it here. It raises an interesting point. The comic implies that anyone with a big enough footprint can ignore/swat the RIAA if they want.
That said, I think that the banning of the RIAA from networks is a start. Now they need to ban the spoofers and companies like MediaDefender who spend all of their bandwidth downloading files from YOUR computer to keep other people off.
The Dopester
"Yes, I'm a Karma Whore, but I'm doing it to pay my way through school."
The idea of using a Gnutella honeypot and then using access logs to "spot the fed" is terrific - it'd be nice to see more ISP's stand up to the RIAA this way.
I used to think the balkanization of the Internet would be a Bad Thing, but I'm not so sure now given the kind of tactics we're seeing the record and movie giants use.
-- Josh Turiel
"2. Do not eat iPod Shuffle."
Maybe it's just me, but it seems like a bad idea to block consumer access to an IP or range of IPs. They are perfectly justified in preventing incoming connections to IPs they control, but I would be angry if an ISP I payed money to began restricting the content I could access, just because there is the threat of an attack. Where do they draw the line?
I like this. Actively monitor for any hostile action and block it.
People should not be punished or harrassed for doing things that may appear to be illegal, at least if the accuser doesn't perform a reasonable inspection before making accusations.
Conversely why can't people just not steal the mp3's?
Due to the nature of this matter and RIAA's previous history, we feel the RIAA will abuse software vulerabilities in a client's browser after the browser accesses its site, potentially allowing the RIAA to access and/or tamper with your data.
I'm all for sticking it to the man, but has the RIAA actively attacked end users before? I know it has used legal means to shut down sites, but is there really any precedence to base this decision on, or is it a marketing ploy to try to get more anti-RIAA folk to join up....
People who have witty things here blow.
Clients which connect to our peer-to-peer clients, and then afterwards attempt to illegally access the network will be immediately blacklisted from Information Wave's network. The data collected will be actively maintained and distributed from our network operations site.
Nice, but many networks would need to do this to make it really worthwhile, afterall RIAA no doubt have many other targets they can choose before they need to to go to informationwave.
If ISP's had karma, Information Wave Technologies would have just hit the cap. I just sent an e-mail to them at thier riaa@informationwave.net address expressing my thoughts... you should too. Imagine what thier management would do if they got 25,000 e-mails stating how much people liked thier service?
(Yes, I know what would happen... thier mail server would go on strike, and be burned because it was too close to the exploding webserver)
Karma: SELECT `karma` FROM `users` WHERE `userid`=138474;
Everyone should be against any censorship!! May the RIAA burn in hell , but this ISP is no better....
Hell, this will proubly be modded down to hell, but think about what this could do to all our freedoms....
Secure multi-mediation is the future of all webbing...
The RIAA has announced its intention to crack any boxes that it wants to and has even bought a bill that would legalize it for them. That makes the RIAA a big security threat, even bigger when you consider that they have no oversight and a long record of not caring about little things like rights. Any contact with their network makes you vulnerable.
Any security type would want their network protected from snooping of any kind. Especially from a company that wants to shut down anyone it doesn't like and is protected against liability for any damage it does. An ISP blacklisting a company that does this, or even just announces that it plans to, is protecting its customers and being a good citizen.
I think the idea is going to catch on.
I spent a year in Iraq looking for WMD and all I found was this lousy sig.
Uhmmm excuse me? Cave to legal pressure on what grounds? Any content provider can choose to not route traffic from any host they so choose. The only legal pressure could come from their customers if they want to access the RIAA website for some reason.
I mod down any one who says "I'm sure I will get modded down for this"
While I admit, an action like this has an appeal in a very gut feeling kind of way, as a method of striking back against an unfair, almost unstoppable opponent, if we really sit back and think about it it's not a very workable solution. First off, it's censorship. We may not like the message, but ISP's blocking particular groups for their beliefs or acitivities is a pretty slippery slope. It's not so exciting if AOL decides to ban "hacker" groups from accessing AOL (or AOL customers from accessing them) because of the content (or activities) involved. Policy based filtering creates a fragmeted network, where company A's network can't reach customer B, etc.
Two, it's unworkable. Certainly whoever the MPAA/RIAA will employ to do their dirty work will be smart enough to come from a different location once they realize their IP's are blocked. This solution would be a little better if they had a system in place to block IP's that were actively attacking a P2P network, or a client, or a browser, etc. I see no problem with temporarily blocking small netblocks or IP's to stop an attack.
Remember; we'd cry bloody murder if the situation was reversed, and we'd be right to do so.
This is good, but there's a small problem. It should be interesting though to see what the **AA will do in return, as in complaining to Congress while filling their pockets with cash. Since we all know that Congress can be easily persuaded by cash, don't see surprised to hear one day that blocking the **AA from accessing your computer is a now violation of the DMCA/other new laws enacted in reaction to this. They will probably also say that firewalls are illegal as well, but that's just about the brain power I think most people up there have.
C:\>
Someone bullying the bully, at last.
It is also interesting how they mention that they will fake Gnotella clients sharing popular songs, in an attempt to trick RIAA to try and hack them.
It is encouraging to see that the grassroots are being helped by the ISPs, which means that the ISPs have realized who their customers are. Everyone should call their ISP, demanding to be protected from RIAA!
Unfortunately, seeing how the broadband ISP market is consolidating into a few players with local monopolies, it is unlikely that this will spread to the major ISPs. Like someone mentioned in an earlier comment, I doubt that AOL/Time-Warner have the guts or even interest to pull something like this off.
Oh, I can't help quoting you because everything that you said rings true
While we should all applaud their efforts to stop the RIAA from being all intrusive, please also understand that they are also actively entrapping users. They are setting up a 'trap' on a P2P client with artists/songs in the top 100. If you connect, you get banned.
Doesn't anyone else see this as a win/win situation for the RIAA?
If the RIAA is allowed to DDOS people of the net, they can go after the big boy file traders.
If on the other hand, ISPs start blocking traffic based on DDOS attacks, the net gets devided into small islands of net and the whole file trading comunity is cut off from each other anyway.
Hell pretty soon we are going to have zoning laws similar to television anyway.
Str8Dog
using System.Darkside; public
I think it's cool what this ISP is doing, I hope they're successful, but the bigger question is what all the other people are doing. A small ISP isn't going to change anything alone.
The thing is we all need to help fight the RIAA, and the laws it's lobbying for, and the best (legal) way to do this is to just stop giving them money. Don't buy there product, and encourage others not to also. If nobody buys there product, they have no money to lobby. If they have no money to lobby then their silly laws won't get passed.
PolySci 101: The intent of political leaders in the U.S.A. is to grab as much power and money as possible, while maintaining just enough credibility with the public to get re-elected. So a good (read 'effective') politician wounldn't pass a law like the CDMA or this new fascist crap being pushed by the RIAA if they weren't getting something. The sad fact is, voteing with your money is much more effective then voteing in elections.
So fight on!!! There's a lot of excellent, often better music out there *not* published by the big music industry. Give these people you money, not those that want to take your money and screw you with it.
--- Nothing To See Here ---
Wait! Isn't this the sort of thing that we're usually all up in arms about when the **AA threatens to do it?
Fake mp3's, with popular song titles, on a popular p2p network, wasting our bandwidth and time...go figure.
I offer this conspiracy theory: Information Wave is a front for the RIAA. Watch for black helicopters in your neighbourhood.
On a more serious note, I applaud this move. The RIAA and its affiliates and members see no problem with wasting our bandwidth with bogus clients and files. That bandwidth costs our ISPs, backbone providers, and--ultimately--us, money. It's almost as bad as spam in that respect, though at least there are nontrivial bandwidth costs on the RIAA's side in this case. Dinging their signal to noise ratio (possibly, hopefully) might make it too costly to annoy the rest of us. Throwing some of the RIAA's crap back at them seems like a reasonable, proportionate response if handled carefully and responsibly. (I hope Information Wave gets some good legal advice before they start doing this.)
~Idarubicin
Terribly sorry, you must have missed this:
RIAA Sues Backbone ISPs to Censor Website
~Chazzf
No statement is true, not even this one.
Press any key to continue, any other key to quit.
Nice to see smaller companies standing up to the mega-money corporations instead of just allowing them to act irresponsibly...
Height: 38U, Weight: 0 Newtons, Eyes: #0000FF, OS: Gray Matter 1.0 (Alpha)
If you can do it to them, they can do it to you. Pretty difficult to argue otherwise.
An ISP that blocks or restricts RIAA use of the net is legitimizing the practice they purport to oppose. This is not the way to fight this particular battle.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
in the article, it says they're also gonna set up a bunch of honeypots that act as P2P nodes and appear to be hosting Billboard 100 mp3 files. In reality, those mp3 files are spoofed, and are not the actual songs.
They're gonna use that pot to see who's accessing their network, and if the RIAA should cross the line with that pot, the accessing IP gets blacklisted.
Unfortunately, the loophole is that the RIAA can keep generating IP's out the wazoo, creating a whack-a-mole type of situation.
The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
So by taking this step, do the ISPs take responsibility for threats on their network? What sort of practical precident will this set requiring ISPs to ban organizations and IPs that are considered a "security threat."
After that, how long before P2P becomes such a threat?
Alas, Babylon.
This is probably the neatest thing i've ever seen. an isp offering OC3 to your house. heh.
I truly applaud this ISP's efforts. Right on, y'all.
There've been a slew of comments about how maybe AOL will adopt this policy given enough consumer pressure or maybe RoadRunner will or any other major ISP. Think for a second about that.
There is a reason these groups are called media conglomerates. They have faces across many different media. Those who provide the Internet connectivity medium also provide the musical content medium. AOL and Time Warner are all owned by a conglomerate that makes records.
But again, right on to those smaller ones who take a stand like this. Maybe if we reward them with our business, we'll put the conglomerates in their place.
http://starboard.flowtheory.net/
No copyright violations will take place, these files will merely have arbitrary sizes similar to the length of a 3 to 4 minute MP3 audio file encoded at 128kbps. Clients which connect to our peer-to-peer clients, and then afterwards attempt to illegally access the network will be immediately blacklisted from Information Wave's network.
...when the machine that connects to these arbitrary p2p clients ends up inside the IWT network? Are they blacklisted as well? It seems as if they are trying to gather addresses to ban RIAA access, no?
"I bet I'll get blamed for this." --Mayor Quimby
It seems like it would be a good idea to implement this as distributed honeypots instead of one on ISP's network. Otherwise, what would stop the RIAA attack drones/bots from just blacklisting the blacklist and ignoring the honeypot.
riaa@informationwave.net
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
I predict that this issue is more complicated that simply blocking the RIAA's netblock.
KWTCMA
Hey, if they can't survive the Slashdotting then there is no way they are going to be able to cope with all the customers they are going to get now. But if they can survive today I'm going to see if I can buy a *boatload* of their stock...
About time someone told the *AA's where to go!
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
It would be interesting to watermark a popular song and release it into the wilds of the P2P networks and track how quickly it moves through the community.
August 19, 2002
Information Wave Technologies has announced it will actively deny the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) from accessing the contents of its network. Earlier this year, the RIAA announced its new plan to access computers without owner's consent for the sake of protecting its assets. Information Wave believes this policy puts its customers at risk of unintentional damage, corporate espionage, and invasion of privacy to say the least.
Due to the nature of this matter and RIAA's previous history, we feel the RIAA will abuse software vulerabilities in a client's browser after the browser accesses its site, potentially allowing the RIAA to access and/or tamper with your data. Starting at midnight on August 19, 2002, Information Wave customers will no longer be able to reach the RIAA's web site. Information Wave will also actively seek out attempts by the RIAA to thwart this policy and apply additional filters to protect our customers' data.
Information Wave will also deploy peer-to-peer clients on the Gnutella network from its security research and development network (honeynet) which will offer files with popular song titles derived from the Billboard Top 100 maintained by VNU eMedia. No copyright violations will take place, these files will merely have arbitrary sizes similar to the length of a 3 to 4 minute MP3 audio file encoded at 128kbps. Clients which connect to our peer-to-peer clients, and then afterwards attempt to illegally access the network will be immediately blacklisted from Information Wave's network. The data collected will be actively maintained and distributed from our network operations site.
The placement of this policy is not intended to hamper the RIAA's piracy elimination agenda or advocate Internet piracy, but to ensure the safety of our customers' data attached to our network from hackers or corporate espionage hidden by the veil of RIAA copyright enforcement.
If you have questions, comments, or concerns regarding this policy, please e-mail riaa@informationwave.net.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
Yeah, but by doing this, are they risking their status as a common carrier?
When the RIAA comes and demands they cut off access to warez.org, they'll be in less of a position to say they can't/don't do content-based filtering. In for a penny, in for a pound; this may be shooting themselves in the foot.
If they either sue, or get the law the RIAA to court on the "evidence", since entrapment is a legal issue. I don't think it applies to private entities anyways.
I somehow doubt they'll do that, and they are a private entity, so no.
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
If I'm reading this correctly, it looks like the situation IWT wants to prevent is that of RIAA agents "finding" songs being shared, then trying to attack the sharing hosts. If that's right, then even more kudos to them!
:eof
Comment removed based on user account deletion
First IANAL, don't even play one on TV...
The legal system runs on precedents, and the more you have on your side, the better.
Is the gated community a precedent for an ISP? A gated community can restrict access of outsiders to the interior of the community, but does not restrict members' access to the outside. Sounds kind of like what an ISP is doing in this case. I presume gated communities have provisions for police and firemen to obtain access, as well as desired visitors.
Are there precedents for salesmen or bill collectors (without an accompying policeman) gaining access to a gated community? I can see a better case for religious types, claiming Constitutional protection. But last I knew, the RIAA didn't qualify as a religion.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
I doubt they would launch an attack simply on the basis of a file name and size. They would need to listen to the file to verify that it was one to which they hold the copyright.
They may initially run a high-level 'finger-print' check and then those that pass are given a more detailed examination, with a final check being performed by someone actually listening to the track.
Political Correctness is doubleplusungood.
Just to play devil's advocate (I actually like their idea)...
How is this not censorship? Why does my ISP need to protect me "for my own good"? Surely it's up to me to secure my machine against intrusion and deal with those who might commit a crime if and when they actually do?
I would think they would pose a national security threat if they haven't yet. I could imagine some guy working for the FBI or some WHite House Janitor in the basement downloading some MP3 and then the RIAA disabling servers on the network. I would hope the heck that the US Government has them all blacklisted themselves by now.
In other news, US Rep Howard Berman introduces a bill to outlaw ISPs using blacklists against the **AA.
Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10
Help, lawyers!
Now, filtering out SPAM shouldn't compromise your neutral carrier status - after all, it's a needed step to maintain the health of the network. Likewise, filtering out potentially damaging hackers, like the RIAA.
However, if they're smart, the RIAA is going to use this as ammunition in their struggle to get ISP's neutral carrier status revoked! Or, they are if they have any sense. If the ISP can block access to OUR site (for security reasons) they should block access to that site in china (b/c we tell them too.)
Scary.
The good and new comes from no quarter where it is looked for, and is always something different from what is expected.
Would love to get their IP addresses, and any company working for them to add to my blocked list on my firewall, and my customers firewalls.
ttyl
Farrell
CAN-CON 2019 - Ottawa's only book oriented Science Fiction Convention! October 18-20, Sheraton Hotel, Ottawa, Canada h
I would also add
Rebuilding corrupt/scratched or broke Vinal/CD's/DVD as fair use, especially old CD's that were sold as 'indestructible'.
You may still be licensed for any CD's/DVD's that have been stolen because in the UK at least you still own the stolen goods unless they are recovered or you claim on an insurance policy, even if the thief sells them.
at least that's what I use P2P networks for!
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
I hope techies will reward this ISP for their decision by patronizing them. Boycott the recording industry and do business with Information Wave Technologies if they have a presence where you live.
The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
Awesome news. An ISP that actually has a backbone (really, pun not intended!)
:)
Now if only the PC manufacturers would show similar courage, maybe we could convince the RIAA/MPAA that they are just companies and that even money can only go so far.
I think Rosen and Valenti just have an inferiority complex and are trying to be like Bill Gates.
First of all, 'entrapment' only applys to law enforcement agencies. That said, only in specifc circumstances. If you are coherced into doing something by an undercover police officer you would not normaly do, that is entrapment. If they step out from an ally and start offering you free samples of cocaine, then you take it and they bust you for posetion, that is entrapment. If you come up to the same cop and start asking for it, that's not entrapment. That's you soliciting illegal drugs. He was just standing there. Looking like a drug dealer isn't illegal, is it now? Nope. You just assumed. the RIAA is just assuming that they are volating copy right laws. The ISP isn't pushing it. Even if it was teh FBI sitting their hosting the files, it wouldn't be entrapment. It's not like they went into IRC and started telling people about their "cool" new archive. Dumb ass.
Actually, it isn't stealing.
.wavs and mp3's on my computer of my own composition. I own the rights to their use, and I choose to distribute them freely. My sharing of MP3's is NOT illegal under any construct of the law.
The supreme court has ruled time and time again that you cannot patent a sound. Nor can you copyright it. You can copyright it's composition (the sheet music), but you can't own a sound.
Never mind that argument. Think on this: I have several
However, the act of copying music from CD's without approval IS a violation of the law, provided I do it for profit. The profit doesn't have to be monetary. I can exact profit from the loss of sales the artist would normally enjoy. That said, seeing as I am not SELLING the mp3's, and study after study has proven that the sharing of mp3's BOOSTS sales, they have to PROVE that they suffered a loss from my activities.
It gets even more complicated than that - they only have Offensive Rights for protected works. They means THEY have to sue ME, and if they don't do it within 5 years of the infringement, they lose offensive rights to that work in TOTAL.
So go ahead and argue that people who share mp3'
s are stealing (and privately, I agree), but the RIAA and the artists themselves have the onus places on them to do something about it in court.
Some people are arguing that Napster, Morpheus, LimeWire et al are facilitating this, and are thereby guilty through association (in an "aiding and abetting sort of way). IF that's true, and I AM willing to scede that argument, then the RIAA and the artists need to take action against the manufacturers of CD-RW, DVD-RW, Casette tapes, mini-disc, VHS, Super-H, BetaMax etc etc etc, ad inifinitum. Anything less implies that they don't actually care about protecting their rights.
The Dopester
"Yes, I'm a Karma Whore, but I'm doing it to pay my way through school."
As per the article, the provider is banning the RIAA website . So you might want to add 208.225.90.120 to the IP address space. Note that 208.225.90.120 is part of the UUnet Technology (Web Business Unit) IP Address space.
The RIAA will flood this address with a huge horde of lobbyists! It is up to us to counter that.
Please write a nice email to them praising them for this policy!
Come on, let's constructivly /. that email address!
Which is that the RIAA simply does not understand the tech industry or technology.
It's like allowing an 18 year old with a basic knowledge of physics to decide regulations for bridge building.
For a less abstract analogy, I know that my television has been stolen from me. I don't know who, but I know it had to be someone in my neighborhood. Using the RIAA as a model, I should be able to go into each of my neighbor's houses to look for this television, without their permission. And if I have a strong suspicion that I have found the violator, I am allowed to destroy the house. That's basically what the RIAA wants.
Humorless sig goes here.
As an admin for an ISP, I can say, that the ISP is not required to let their users have unrestricted access to the internet. Look at AOL, MSN.. MSN won't allow you to access an external SMTP server.. Also, from an ISP standpoint the RIAA just became the enemy. Part of our job is to protect our network from malicious attacks, this includes the crappy RIAA. I wish I could convince the owner to allow me to block the RIAA IP blocks...
I know there have been a few things like this before, but I really don't like the whole scenario. Basically, as an ISP, you have to either open up your network to whoever wants it OR play cop and divulge client info (even guilty-client info).
Think about it - I can't think of any "real-world" situation where this would be allowed to occur. Let's say I own an apartment building, and I value my tenants' security, so I installed a gate. Now, the RIAA decides they think one of my tenants is bootlegging CD's. So they try to bash the gate down, but they can't. Now they sue me. Or, to avoid the suit, I install cameras in every apartment so I can see what all of my tenants are doing, all the time. And, when I catch someone, I write his name attached to a list on the front gate. Yeah, it's nice to have the gate, but now my landlord is no better than the RIAA.
That's exactly what's happening here. This is barely better than unfettered RIAA access. But this is still no acceptable solution. If the RIAA proposal were to be proposed in language people understand, they would be enraged. But it isn't, so they don't care. Great.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
One technical note here: Road Runner technically isn't owned by AOL Time Warner (there are people on Insight Cable in Ohio who get Road Runner, and even some people in Newfoundland), so they aren't DIRECTLY controlled. That means that Road Runner could theoretically disagree with AOL Time Warner and protect the network from the RIAA's actions - which wouldn't be entirely unthinkable, as they still their own security obligations. AOL Time Warner would probably also know that they can't just toss out Road Runner, even if it contradicts them: no one would stand for it if they were suddenly forced to use AOL High-Speed.
Of course, let's not kid ourselves too much. Road Runner may well feel pressure on their side of the equation. We just have to remember that they're not completely beholden to the cable provider they're most commonly affiliated with.
You're right about AOL but what about AT&T? I didn't know that they owned any movie/music companies. Also, Earthlink and Mindspring are still independent, aren't they?
People can do whatever the heck they want (blocking-wise) on their own networks. Anyone who says otherwise is a complete and utter fool. To say that a private network can't block access to and from an organization THAT ACTIVELY ADMITS THEY WANT TO CRACK INTO END USERS' MACHINES is akin to saying you have to invite burglars in for crumpets and tea, give a tour, and give them a spare key on the way out.
Absolutely stupid.
As for the ORBS list (or the one that was 'forced' to remove the blacklisted site), well, that was a bunk case. I can't remember the details; are you sure they won the suit? I do remember legitimate sites being removed from the list, but wasn't that because they fixed their mail relay? The spammers that sued... dang... they didn't actually win the case, did they?
Use the legal liability argument as this ISP is. If the RIAA attacks your clients computers and destroys something of value, your company is liable for it. That should be argument enough.
This isn't the sig you are looking for... Carry on...
[calum@womble calum]$ host www.riaa.org
;)
www.riaa.org has address 208.225.90.120
[calum@womble calum]$ whois -h whois.arin.net 208.225.90.120
[whois.arin.net]
UUNET Technologies, Inc. (NETBLK-UUNET1996B) UUNET1996B
208.192.0.0 - 208.255.255.255
UUNET Technologies (Web Business Unit) (NETBLK-UU-208-225-90-D1) UU-208-225-90-D1
208.225.90.0 - 208.225.90.255
A couple of IPTables rules would do it...
Get your own free personal location tracker
Its nice to see a company has such heaving huge balls of steel. Keep it up!
-- Note: If you don't agree with me, don't bother replying. I won't read it.
h4xx0red! d0n7 m3ss w1th t3h RIAA!
R3g4rds,
1337 RIAA h4xx0r
Since most ISP's won't take this tactic, I'd like to know if they'd be willing to hand out their honeypot generated blacklists, so those of us that have the ability to, can protect our home networks as well.
I call bullshit unless you can produce a case.
Put our money where it counts and support these guys, and anyone else willing to stand up and say "NO"
---- Booth was a patriot ----
More like, "from the, uh, ACK packet heard round the net dept"
Instead of just blocking the RIAA itself, how about blocking RIAA members? Imagine if Sony, RCA, AOL/TW, etc.. had all of their internet traffic blocked by ISPs? It really wouldn't be that hard to get the consumers on the side of the ISPs, as the ISPs could argue that the RIAA and its members are promoting and financially supporting electronic terrorism!
I say, support these people with our wallets. Next time you want some web space, consider going with Information Wave. They seem to have some nice web hosting options; $10/month gets you a modest amount of space and traffic, plus PHP, Perl, MySQL, PostgreSQL, htaccess, FTP and POP accounts. Even if they're not the best deal you can find, they seem like a reputable bunch and not afraid to stand up for the rights of their customers.
I really hate signatures, but go to my website.
if the RIAA gets what they want i will be denying their access to my company. I personally dont mind if fellow employees download music or what not. Its their business. So i'll man an effor to protect them.
See Sig! See Sig Zig! Zig Sig Zig!!!!!
An ISP that blocks or restricts RIAA use of the net is legitimizing the practice they purport to oppose. This is not the way to fight this particular battle.
... if they do not, they are likely to see the underlying reason for why people are willing to pay for internet access go away, and with it their entire market dry up to virtually nothing.
Nonsense. They are restricting system crackers from attacking their networks, and their customers. This is a longstanding policy for most ISPs, who blacklist SPAMmers and other neferious crackers who are looking to steal information (e.g. credit cards) or damage people's systems out of pure maliciousness.
The RIAA has chosen to become one of the above, and announced their intention to do so publicly. The ISP is responding in a responsible manner, both in terms of immediate security and in terms of long-term economic viability.
Think about it. If the RIAA and the MPAA are allowed to crack, and possibly destroy machines on the internet, or succeed in their more modest objective of turning the internet from an interactive publishing medium everyone can be hard on into a more-or-less one way, glorified interactive shopping network channel, how many people are going to be willing to spend $40/month or more for access?
Virtually no one, which means all of the ISPs in question essentially go out of business, or become a niche market. Either way, they lose.
AOL, Sprint, AT&T, and other large broadband players had better stand up to this as well
That would serve the purposes of the MPAA, the RIAA, and other copyright cartels, but it would be devistating to the tech industry, the internet, and very directly to the ISPs in question.
It looks like one ISP has actually thought the consiquences through, and chosen the best alternative for dealing with it. I suspect any ISPs capable of reading the writing on the wall, and interested in projected earnings beyond the next couple of quarters, will likely reach similar conclusions.
Perhaps not AOL, which has come to be dominated by their media-cartel half, Time-Warner, but certainly AT&T and others should seriously be considering similiar measures to protect their networks, their customers, and ultimately their business.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
I've got no technical knowledge of internet security. I have tried to keep up with general news about defensive strategies and tactics.
It looks to me like IWT's tactics are reasonable extensions of well-accepted defensive moves. Blocking an ISP that will not police its own members has been a routine defensive ploy for some time, I believe. The difference here seems only to be that IWT is able to act proactively (since RIAA has blatantly stated that they are going to violate the generally accepted code of good behavior). Is my thinking wrong about this somehow?
Similarly, their use of the honeypot tactic to identify and counter specific threats seems like accepted behavior, too. Again, is there something here that I'm not seeing?
It seems like the only real new thing that IWT is doing here is being public about their activities. This stuff is usually handled in the back rooms-- but then it usually involves finding some script kiddy's Mommy and making sure that she disciplines her child appropriately. To my knowledge RIAA is the first institution that has ever publically declared that it will violate the unwritten codes of behavior that keep the internet working. Making a public hue and cry about this seems like the moral equivalent of telling the brat's Mommy that she needs to teach her kid some lessons.
Other than being public about it, is there some way in which IWT's tactics differ from what you should expect your ISP to do to guard your interests?
At this point my livelihood is damaged badly when my computer system is messed with. I lose money for every hour of down time. But my livelihood is also damaged when any of my clients or my potential clients go down. Can RIAA guarrantee that neither I nor my clients will be recipients of "collateral damage"? I don't think so...
It is in the best interests of all of us who now depend on the internet in our jobs to oppose this threat from RIAA.
AOL has announced it is buying Information Wave Technologies.
He got convicted of possessing an unlicensed firearm. And used self defence as his defense against the attempted murder charge.
How does that fit into entrapment?
Common Carrier doesn't apply to ISPs. That precedent has already been set.
Oooo! I like it!
(Is that 20 seconds supposed to be cumulative?)
If you do something right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.
The ISP isn't stopping it's customers from obtaining content, on the contrary, it's protecting their ability to access content. What it is stopping is a threatening organization, stopping it from accessing their clients and disrupting their network. The ISP should have no trouble retaining Common Carrier as they do this all the time with regular hackers and spammers. _khl
If you are in their service area, use their service. Support them!
The RIAA is not going to use their corporate network for this; They are going to use disposeable connectivity such as DSL, cable, and dialup to launch these attacks.
...and on a another note, how long do you think it will be before the RIAA has trained dogs to search out illegal copyright infringing media sniffing every bag and person at the bus temrinal, trainstation, or airports? How long before they request the DoJ to randomly pull over and search automobiles for CD-R, Dubbed Audio Cassettes, or *gasp* portable mp3 players and arrest the driver/owners for interstate transport of stolen property and seize the cars for sherrifs auction? IMO this whole IP thing has gone so sideways that all bets are off, infact I'm suprised we havent seen a shotgun weilding hillary rosen on the covers of Time and Newsweek.
The two questions I have for you armchair systems admins and network engineers are;
1. What good will blocking 208.225.90.0/24 and 12.150.191.0/24 do for your network?
2. What good will transit providers derive from blocking 208.225.90.0/24 and 12.150.191.0/24 from traversing their network?
This is a purile waste of time and energy, do the right thing; Call your congress critter, hack them back, or protest in some other more effective way -- a router or iptables entry is a weak protest.
This communication is secured using Rot-26 Encryption Algorithm, Unauthorized decryption will be subject to laughter.
until the RIAA attempts to break into my network here in Canada...where I'm fairly certain their little powers don't apply. I'll lawsuit them back to 8-tracks.
ping... ping, ping... ping, ping, ping, ping, ping, ping, ping, ping, ping, ping, ping, ping, ping, ping, ping, ping...
where the hell did our bandwidth go?
It gets even more complicated than that - they only have Offensive Rights for protected works. They means THEY have to sue ME, and if they don't do it within 5 years of the infringement, they lose offensive rights to that work in TOTAL.
Where'd you hear that? Last I heard (IANAL, I live in the USA, but copyright is important to my professional ambitions) you don't have to defend copyright all the time. That's why some fanfics can exist.
These guys must've been using that magic 8-ball :) Thumbs up for userfriendly!
Jobs? Which jobs?
Well now, how easy is it to circumvent this ? You just need two IPs apparently unconnected, which is cheap to obtain...
The "and then afterwards" is terminally flawed
--f
Does this mean that the ISP will be recording the IPs of people accesing those files and if those IPs then attempt to illegaly access the IW Network, ban those IPs. Or does that mean that they will be checking to see if theri clients are accessing those files and disconnect their clients?
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
I don't understand why people get so pissed at the record and music industry for trying to stop the pirating of Music/Movies. Basically all I hear is whining and bitching because you all want to "Steal" Music and Movies that you haven't paid for. They (RIAA/MPAA) aren't really infringing on your rights, Since it is you who are acting illegially and downloading copyrighted material. The attitude of most people using the internet is if I can download it, it is my right to. Regardless if I didn't pay for it. Really we need to view this type of internet activity in the same light we look at real theft. Whether you download a song illegially or you rob a record store it should be viewed as commiting the same crime.
well ... if i put a method of protection on my computer (firewall.. encrypt data on hdd) and riaa decides to "crack" aka .. "Bipass the protective mechanism" on my computer/network .. . Won't they be in violation of the DCMA?? ooohhh then i could sue them for just such a thing..
i dont think they can pass laws that allow others to break laws just because the want to...
The RIAA/MPAA having the ability to attack people running Peer-To-Peer servers is stupid on their part. This is just one example where they are alienateing themselves from people/companies that can help them. This ISP isn't going to help the RIAA or the MPAA because it's going to attack/have the ability to attack the ISPs customers. Not only is the RIAA pissing off customers (or potential customers), it's now pissing off the ISPs that Could have helped them..
The Good Life
I think he meant that they had to sue him for damages within 5 years or else it''s considered that the artist (person whoever owns the copywrite) has accepted the activity as legal. Hence, fan fics can exist, in so long as the people are not sued by CW holders
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
Some people are arguing that Napster, Morpheus, LimeWire et al are facilitating this, and are thereby guilty through association (in an "aiding and abetting sort of way). IF that's true, and I AM willing to scede that argument, then the RIAA and the artists need to take action against the manufacturers of CD-RW, DVD-RW, Casette tapes, mini-disc, VHS, Super-H, BetaMax etc etc etc, ad inifinitum. Anything less implies that they don't actually care about protecting their rights.
h tml
They did, they've fought all of these and in many cases still are. Hell they even fought the CD sampling machines in Wal-Mart. read here for more fun: http://www.janisian.com/article-internet_debacle.
However, I would like to make the case that if they are going to charge a tarrif to offset piracy (as they do on cassette tapes, Audio CD-Rs and VHS tapes) Then they are giving me permission to use the music and files any way I see fit so long as I do not derrive a profit from it. THIS INCLUDES FILE SHARING.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
C'mon, do you really think that when the RIAA tries to poison peer-to-peer networks with bogus files, that they are going to use their own netblock? No way, just like spammers, they will be using throw-away DSL accounts, and it'll change constantly.
This ISP is just trying to grab headlines...
"Heard that" in Patent It Yourself (a book..). It's also available at the USPTO's website.
Another person replied to this post, and he/she is exactly correct. The same thing happens with trade secret infringment. If you don't attempt to prosecute within 5 years, you've essentially said "it's okay. It's not that important to me."
The Dopester
"Yes, I'm a Karma Whore, but I'm doing it to pay my way through school."
Actually, no I didn't. Interesting. Do you have a source for this?
How does the artist collect their share of the tariffs for the 100 pack of CD-RW's I just bought? I imagine it can't be a huge tarriff.
The Dopester
"Yes, I'm a Karma Whore, but I'm doing it to pay my way through school."
Here's what happened at ORBZ.
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
Folks, you should have learned your lesson from the American civil rights struggle. All it takes is one person who refuses to accept an ideal forced upon them by the government to incite a whole country! This may or may not be it, but here here to an ISP with BALLS!! An ISP we can ALL be proud of!
when we as BBS operators would ban Law Enforcement officials from entering our service, not that we had anything to hide (most of us anyway) but to keep them from harrassing our users.
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
If there is any chance that anyone could identify RIAA crackers from REAL crackers, the RIAA must be registering or keeping records of it's actions. Would any unrecorded or unapproved action then be classified as a REAL attack - along with REAL liability ? Would every report of cracking need to be cross-referenced or would they all be ignored ?
If ISPs report every instance of cracking by the RIAA, wouldn't the limited resources of the FBI be required to investigate so many 'approved' federal crimes that the real criminals would be getting away with more ?
These guys have the right idea, document, blacklist, AND report - treat the RIAA attempts like any other illicit action on their network !
"Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech."--Benjamin Franklin
I quote, "No copyright violations will take place, these files will merely have arbitrary sizes similar to the length of a 3 to 4 minute MP3 audio file encoded at 128kbps. Clients which connect to our peer-to-peer clients, and then afterwards attempt to illegally access the network will be immediately blacklisted from Information Wave's network. The data collected will be actively maintained and distributed from our network operations site."
They're not listing OR blacklisting everyone who accesses their honeypot, just those that try to ATTACK it. Nowhere at all do they ever mention spying on their own users. You can't 'illegally access' an open network like a Gnutella honeypot unless you're doing something to disrupt it. (The difference between entering a library and entering a library whilst screaming and throwing molotov cocktails everywhere.)
They're blacklisting and posting people who ATTACK their honeypot. Not users who download the fake files.
Does anyone have the IP subnets or class C subnets that the RIAA and/or MPAA own? I'd like to have my home IP router/firewall deny all access from the outside that originates from their networks. Anyone?
Would this prevent them from trying to actively attack a system in my home?
I'd rather be a conservative nutjob than a liberal with no nuts and no job.
"Heard that" in Patent It Yourself (a book..). It's also available at the USPTO's website [uspto.gov].
Those are patents, not copyrights. Different laws.
Copyright lasts *much* longer, and can be foiled by a clean-room implementation. Patents only last a few decades (at most), and apply to the procedure even if the second party had no knowledge whatsoever of your patent.
I'd chalk this up as "yet another reason to see a lawyer if you're going to do more than meanginless speculation."
I will seriously consider signing up with these guys. Finally, an ISP that cares about its customers!
"Do I dare disturb the universe?"
It actually covers Patents, Copyright, Trademarks, Trade Secrets and Service marks.
Chalk this up as "yet another reason to check the cited source before you decide it's irrelevent."
Or
Chalk this up as "yet another reason to stay quiet and look stupid than to speak and remove all doubt."
The Dopester
"Yes, I'm a Karma Whore, but I'm doing it to pay my way through school."
Hmmm, the link disappeared.
Here is is again: ORBZ
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
Now, this sounds alot like what RIAA proposes to do aswell. I mean, putting files out on the gnutella network that aren't actually what the pretend to be. Sounds very familiar.
And as someone else wrote, blocking RIAA is no better than RIAA blocking you. I'd rather have that it was an opt-in service, which, if you for some reason, feared RIAA (or wanted to make a statement) could ask the ISP to block it. However, this is unlikely to happen, since it would probably be too costly and few would apply for it.
So whats the solution then? Well, the ISP should monitor RIAA and if they attempt to damage or intrude on peoples network, sue them.
Other than that, now would probably be a good time to read up on firewalls and install/tweak one :)
Anybody can say they'll oppose the RIAA, but the really test comes when they are under actual legal obligation to let them have their way. What will they do when the shit hits the fan? Follow the moral obligtion or buckle under? In otherwords, talk's cheap.
You need a FREE iPod Nano
I used to work for a content filtering company (they were featured here on slashdot in association with aol - but now going slowly away) and we used to do all our crawling over purchased qwest.net dsl lines - some of them were 7 megabits.
That way whenever someone complained about someone downloading all their web pages at 700KB a second and got our line shut down we just called qwest.net - and even if it was our third strike we could usually get the line turned back on.
Although a grass roots effort to slowly deny the riaa all access to the internet is a good idea.
Starting at midnight on August 19, 2002, Information Wave customers will no longer be able to reach the RIAA's web site.
So this isn't merely preventing the RIAA from entering the ISP's network, it's blocking any customer access to the RIAA site. What if I want to read what the RIAA has to say about a topic? The ISP has decided what the customer can and cannot read.
Welcome to China.
Good, let that happen! The law will be repealed when the government realizes just how crackbrained this is in the first place.
If anything, they better take the clue now, because more and more ISP's are going to jump on this when they see how popular it is.
--Won't that be grand? Computers and the programs will start thinking and the people will stop. - Dr. Walter Gibbs
But it sends a powerful message to the RIAA by saying that you will basically shut down their corporate mouthpiece to the masses if they continue in this.
It also shows congress the kind of war and chaos that will result on the internet if the RIAA passes these kinds of laws and that even those who run the internet are against it. Hopefully they will take the clue or we will see the type of wild west shootout on the web that will have them scrambing to repeal the law.
--Won't that be grand? Computers and the programs will start thinking and the people will stop. - Dr. Walter Gibbs
I'm sure that RIAA would LOVE to ALL ISP's honeynetting RIAA. Then they don't have to spend their own bandwidth to do that themselves.
Just my $0.02
___ This sig is in boldface to emphasize its importance!
People will pass up steak once a week, for crap every day.
While listening to the Total Annihilation soundtrack. Yeah, that's offtopic, but I hope for the Great War of Fair Use, and this constitutes such a glorious escalation of the existing fair use/drm conflict. Will we see ISPs and the RIAA/MPAA devoting more and more time to circumventing each other? Daily salvos of DDOS attacks by ISPS on the RIAA, and vice versa? Would be cool, albeit a bandwidth drain.
All glory to fair use, and damn the RIAA!
I'm the stranger...posting to
From my understanding we would treat this just like any other unauthorized access into our system, and put an end to it as it arose.
On Tue, 20 Aug 2002, Andy Ringsmuth wrote:
http://www.informationwave.net/news/20020819ria
I'm wondering if IN would ever consider something such as this.
-Andy Ringsmuth
andyring@inebraska.com
Internet Nebraska System Manager - manager@inebraska.com
6942
The nature of the internet is such that one can not censor another, there are too many methods of circumvention. Decss.c, this source although illegal is all over the net and will never be censored entirely. The RIAA's website is available via archive.org, google and a multitude of other caching servers - are you going to ask everyone to nullroute or filter those sites too? We could also address the idea of mirrors, alternate domains, alternate routes, renumbering of their networks, ad infinitum.
I agree with you that the DMCA act is one of the worst laws ever written. I agree with you that it should be repealed, yet a firewal rule set or null route on your backbone edge is not very effective in shuting the RIAA and their draconian law-lobbying down. The folks who signed that silly law have most likely never visited RIAA.ORG, however I'm sure they've had some pretty nice meals with their lobbiers and possibly received a few complimentary copies of britney spears latest release for their family members...
Real change will come about when people stop buying media from artists who work for labels and studios who are members of the MPAA/RIAA. That change will come from within the RIAA/MPAA, probably after a large internal restructuring, in efforts to save their dying model of profit taking. The change will not come from government in the repeal of the law. It is abundantly apparent that the body of government who passed the law is not so very clued about technology, or much else. Seriously, how often does one see laws struck from the books?
A filter on a network is like taking a cap-gun to a war, think bigger, think better, think smarter, and most of all think about the scope of the problem you are dealing with. There are much bigger things one can do with less effort that have more lasting impact on the situation.
This communication is secured using Rot-26 Encryption Algorithm, Unauthorized decryption will be subject to laughter.
When the RIAA starts DDoSing people for using p2p software, that will affect other users on the offender's network. It will result in lowered bandwidth.. Now, I don't know about YOU all, but I am paying out the ass for broadband so that I have HIGH SPEEDS.. So honestly (and this is not a rhetorical question) what will it take to get to the point where I can have lower-cost broadband, download songs to check out (you know, kinda like going to a friend's house to listen to a record before you bought it back in the analog days) and decide if I want to buy it without the riaa hassling me????
no soup for you
"We're all in favor of RIAA's LEGAL efforts to deter music copying, BUT they have stated intent to trespass on our users' computer systems and hack them. We don't feel they have any right to commit this crime, so we're blocking whatever avenues we can identify as potential hacking attempts."
Just spin it as, "RIAA want to hack and trespass, we can't allow that". Who could get in trouble for wanting to protect their users against hacking and trespass?
Ironically, I have used RIAA's website to good effect in the past. If you're doing statistical analysis of popular music, their gold/platinum database is useful. Full of junk and bad data, but still, it's on the internet available to all. But- it's not worth letting the RIAA crack your machine. Call it collateral damage :)
It actually covers Patents, Copyright, Trademarks, Trade Secrets and Service marks.
I suggest you read the book again, more closely. You seem to be confusing the specific subject matter with the book (Patents) with all forms of IP.
Your link was, btw, less than useless. "Patent it Yourself" is not a ready reference, and thus meaningless in this debate. Either quote the passage you think says that copyright needs to be enforced, or admit that you might be wrong.
Nothing I have ever seen at all, online or in class, hints that copyrights (or patents) can be lost by non-enforcement. Trademarks certainly can, but I have no knowledge that there is *any* way to lose a copyright or patent by simple non-enforcement.
Think about it--if simple non-enforcement could be enough to lose copyright, MS would have lost their copyright on half of their software by now.
What Information Wave is doing will be perceived as demonstrating the ability of a private company to block consumer access to sites they don't want their customers to visit. It will not be perceived as an effort to prevent attacks on their network. All it will do is convince more naive legislators that the Internet needs more, not less, regulation.
By yammering away about preverving the "right" to copy and freely distribute music and entertainment, the community is playing right into the hands of the RIAA by letting them define the boundaries of the playing field. But, don't worry. Pretty soon, the feds will mandate the use of software that monitors and arbitrates downloads and the exchange of files across the web.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
Puhlease get your head out of the clouds. The internet is a real thing. NO more fad, no more hype. It has challenges and opportunities, qualities and limitations, like any other thing we're used to.
There's no reason we can't apply the same things regarding the things people do each other (RIAA cracking other people's boxes) to the net as we would on the street or highway (robbery and carjacking)
The message on the other side of this sig is false.
What happens if the RIAA take action against a user based in another country? AFAIK the RIAA and the US Congress have no legal influence in the UK for example :o)
They are blocking the RIAA (which I could care less about), and they are also blocking users of P2P software. So the moral is don't be a dweeb on their network, whither you are the RIAA or a P2P user, and you will not get blocked, right? Wrong, at least I don't think so. I go through an ISP which uses dynamic IP assignment, as do many many people in this world. You can see where this is going now, can't you? You could easily be blocked from their networks just because some pimple faced kid who just happened to have your IP address an hour ago tried to download Britney's latest crap. Assuming their blocks never expire, then it is logical that most ISPs entire address range will eventually become blocked. Hmmm, not good.
Damn... Now I'm even answering AC's.
But your final question is a valid one, an your post makes me wish you logged in, and I hadn't already posted on this page.
A little digging on Information Waves page reveals THIS page, where they say that multiple listings will be available, including flat-file and DNS.
So to answer your question: They seem very willing to make useful information available.
"Information Wave will also deploy peer-to-peer clients on the Gnutella network from its security research and development network (honeynet) which [we] will offer files with popular song titles derived from the Billboard Top 100 maintained by VNU eMedia. No copyright violations will take place, these files will merely have arbitrary sizes similar to the length of a 3 to 4 minute MP3 audio file encoded at 128kbps. Clients which connect to our peer-to-peer clients, and then afterwards attempt to illegally access the network will be immediately blacklisted from Information Wave's network. The data collected will be actively maintained and distributed from our network operations site."
http://www.archive.org/details/ThePowerOfNightmares
Yeah, Private property, the thing which all you socialist types seem to forget.
ITS THEIR DAMN NETWORK AND THEY CAN DO AS THEY PLEASE WITH IT!
They have NO obligation to carry any IP packet they don't actively want to. They're an ISP, so they run the network to profit by providing for customers' desires. Realistically, they've decided that alienating the RIAA loses them nothing, while giving a helping hand to their paying customers will be lucrative. I applaud their entrepreneurial spirit.
Chapters 3, 4, 5, and 6. Copyright, Trademarks, Service Marks and Trade Secrets, respectively. I'm too lazy to go out to my car to get it, but go to Borders and look at it.
Copyrights cannot be lost, but you can lose offensive rights to them, especially after they become widely distributed. Patents can be lost if you don't keep up the maintenance fees.
The Dopester
"Yes, I'm a Karma Whore, but I'm doing it to pay my way through school."
The way to win this is to convince politicians that copying CD's, DVD', whatever, is not a crime. Most of them believe it is, and actions like Information Wave's will, I'm sure, be viewed as just another bunch of techies trying to sustain the free ride.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
I did, just after posting, and I found several references to the practice here in the US and in the UK. I didn't realize that there was a tariff on recordable media. Hmph. I would love to see where that money actually goes.
The Dopester
"Yes, I'm a Karma Whore, but I'm doing it to pay my way through school."
"Information Wave will also deploy peer-to-peer clients on the Gnutella network from its security research and development network (honeynet) which [we] will offer files with popular song titles derived from the Billboard Top 100 maintained by VNU eMedia. No copyright violations will take place, these files will merely have arbitrary sizes similar to the length of a 3 to 4 minute MP3 audio file encoded at 128kbps.
Clients which connect to our peer-to-peer clients, and then afterwards attempt to illegally access the network will be immediately blacklisted from Information Wave's network. The data collected will be actively maintained and distributed from our network operations site."
In other words, they are not looking to trap Gnutella users, but trap people who query and begin downloads of popular songs and then make an attempt to drag their server down, ala. the RIAA's plan to search out music on popular networks and then "hack" (really sounds like cracking, to me) the computers of the people distributing the music.
Doh! Messed up my tags... Should have previewed... let that be a lesson... let's try again...
"Information Wave will also deploy peer-to-peer clients on the Gnutella network from its security research and development network (honeynet) which [we] will offer files with popular song titles derived from the Billboard Top 100 maintained by VNU eMedia. No copyright violations will take place, these files will merely have arbitrary sizes similar to the length of a 3 to 4 minute MP3 audio file encoded at 128kbps. Clients which connect to our peer-to-peer clients, and then afterwards attempt to illegally access the network will be immediately blacklisted from Information Wave's network. The data collected will be actively maintained and distributed from our network operations site."
Information of that nature is widely available from other source, plus the number of free, anonymous proxies is steadily growing. Guardster VPN and Anonymiser come to mind, not to mention Peek-a-booty. It's kindof a protect-the-innocent-unknowing maneuver, whereas anyone who seriously wanted to know such information can aquire it, and it's assumed that they know what they are doing and can protect themselves form the maliciousness of the homepage, wheres people who don't have a clue (who sadly, make up the majority) will be protected by the ISP instead.
Or, that's the aim, anyway...
They are blocking the RIAA (which I could care less about), and they are also blocking users of P2P software.
Wrong from the start. They aren't blocking "users of P2P software", they're blocking "[c]lients which connect to our peer-to-peer clients, and then afterwards attempt to illegally access the network". In other words, if you try to download the files over P2P and then try to break into their system then your IP is toast, but just accessing the files won't get you anything, except a bunch of junk data. RTFA (carefully).
The law the RIAA wants passed only allows the RIAA to act when copyright infringement is going on. If they catch the RIAA, trying to break into the honeypot, the RIAA will be just a guilty (i.e., 20 years jail time) as any other hacker.
Also, the law in question does not allow they RIAA to do anything which affects innocent parties; so, it essentially does not legalize DoS.
An engineer who ran for Congress. http://herbrobinson.us
They setup a trap to block Gnutella users who attempt to download any song on the billboard top 100. It has nothing to do with dragging their server down. They setup fake Gnutella servers with songs that have arbitary file sizes and mislabed (fake songs). Then when users attempt to download these songs they are blocked from the network and if they are "Information Wave" customers, then they need to go find a new ISP.
http://www.archive.org/details/ThePowerOfNightmares
Let's see, in your example, it's several :)
million vs. 12 billion... You do the math
Considered harmful.
Want to take your own stand. Don't buy music. Email your congressmen/women over and over till they stop this plague of favoritism for RIAA and MPAA. Congressional email addresses can be found at http://www.webslingerz.com/jhoffman/congress-email .html among other places on the net. So let them know where you stand...daily if possible.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds. ---Albert Einstein
May I suggest you go out to the car and make certain you're referencing the same book? I just went to my reference shelf (I'm a librarian) and checked. Chapter 3 of that book is NOT Copyright. Indeed, the book touches on copyright twice. The first time is a small section in chapter 1 which briefly covers what copyright is and notes that the rules for copyright and patent are completely different, that for all but a small grey area what can be patented cannot be registered for copyright (and vice versa), and briefly mentions what falls into that grey area. The second time copyright is mentioned is in chapter 8, where the author discusses copyrighting the patent design and registration paperwork.
Actually, you're exactly right. I just did that. I was thinking of another book which I was reading in my lawyer's library. (Moment to spam here: I just filed a patent application. GrayCary law firm helped greatly and did most of the work for free...)
While researching what parts of my software I could and could not patent, I was reading a LOT of books about the various avenues of intellectual property protection....
The Dopester
"Yes, I'm a Karma Whore, but I'm doing it to pay my way through school."
Moment to spam here: I just filed a patent application. GrayCary law firm helped greatly and did most of the work for free...
Cool beans. Hope you get it.
While researching what parts of my software I could and could not patent, I was reading a LOT of books about the various avenues of intellectual property protection....
Which explains how it's easy to get confused--and why it's a good idea to check with a lawyer before you assume something odd about the law.
The first thing the first lawyer who ever taught me a "law course" (all undergraduate stuff--I am so much not a lawyer) said about the law was "here are the basic rules, but there are exceptions for everything."
Then he went on to point out that the law didn't get so complex by design; it go this way because morons & businessmen kept finding loopholes and stupid ways to exploit what was said, forcing judges & gov't's to make the law more and more complex...
I suppose I should have qualified that with IWT as the SGT/Officer = IWT and the Agent as the RIAA.
Sheesh, mod, whatever happened to "Concentrate on *promoting* not *demoting*.
Read my sig.
.
Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)