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."
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)
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!"
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."
An ISP is not obligated to provide full, unhindered access for, to, or by anyone elses network. The RIAA has no legal grounds to force Informationwave to open up access to their network, for the same reasons private retail outlets and restaurant establishments can choose not to serve anyone they feel might cause harm to their establishment or other customers. RIAA is big, but not big enough to reverse precident.
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."
I'm curious what illegal things they have done? They maintain a private network and can give access to it to whomever they please, and most certainly do not have to allow another private entity access to it. Exceptions are in the case of a warrant for one of their customers where the FBI needs the equiv of a wiretap or something, but those are limited cases. I can't demand that AOL give me access to their mail server if I am not one of their customers, and this ISP can deny any incoming traffic they wish as long as doing so does not violate their contract with their customers.
What?
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?
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.
I'm not so sure about that. Since their network is a private one, they certainly have the right to blacklist anybody they want. Should they share that list with other ISPs, there may be some problems. But setting up their own list is not illegal. Furthermore, should they see this thing out, they may eventually have more business than they can even handle.
RIAA may be able to take them to court, but it would probably be worth the $$$ to fend them off.
GreyPoopon
--
Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?
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"
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
Isn't asking someone for something illegal with the implied suggestion that you are offering corresponding goods in return be entrapment?
If you go on a peer to peer copyright infringing mp3 sharing network, there is an implied assumption that you are also offering content as your "payment" for access.
It isn't entrapment if you just stand around waiting for someone to attack you.
Press any key to continue, any other key to quit.
Entrapement in what sense? If the police were doing this then maybe. As a private organization the ISP can do whatever they like (legally) to determine if someone is trying to compromise their network. The results may not be admissible in court but I don't think that's their goal.
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"
But if a traceroute stops at the ISP edge router, how can the RIAA prove an individual customer was sharing/downloaded a file. The burden of proof should lie with the accuser, if AOLTW or Universial can't find the guilty party, they are SOL.
Read my plan to save the Bengals
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/
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.
Yes, there is.
Don't read much, eh?
I spent a year in Iraq looking for WMD and all I found was this lousy sig.
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!
The results may not be admissible in court but I don't think that's their goal.
Entrapment? Come on... Don't you watch Law & Order? It's only entrapment when performed by a police officer or by someone who could be considered an agent of the police. If it's not entrapment then there's no reason why it shouldn't be admissible in court.
-a
How to rationalize theft.
If the traceroute ends at the ISP router, the ISP is thus legally responsible to either stop the user themselves, or face charges.
This is still far better than letting the RIAA actively attack unsecured home PC's. I'm glad someone has the balls to do this. Unfortunately for me, Verizon is the only broadband provider in the area. I highly doubt they will take this stand. I'm hoping SpeakEasy and other friendly providers will follow the bandwagon.
Lex orandi, lex credendi.
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.
Isn't that also a public service? "Did you really want that Backstreet Boys song? Tough. You'll have to try again."
I spent a year in Iraq looking for WMD and all I found was this lousy sig.
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.
Tell that to Bernard Goetz.
#@*&$% juries.
I spent a year in Iraq looking for WMD and all I found was this lousy sig.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Since their network is a private one, they certainly have the right to blacklist anybody they want.
Tell that to the folks who ran the SPAM mail-relay blacklists. If I recall correctly, one of 'em got sued and forced to remove someone from the blacklist. That was a private list, maintained by private individuals, utilized on privatly-owned systems, and they still got sued (and lost). (Someone help me out on the details here, please.)
So, just because they have a *right* to block the RIAA, doesn't mean that a judge will agree. And, in the end, that's all that matters -- whether you can convince a judge (or jury, or cop). If you can't convince them, or can't afford to try, then you've lost, no matter what the law says.
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.
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.
Now there's a news flash. Tell that to the RIAA. If they believe you, maybe they'll drop their lawsuit trying to force the ISPs to block consumer access to an IP or range of IPs that the RIAA doesn't like.
The internet is giving the RIAA a taste of its own medicine. I just wish the ISPs being sued were smart enough to come up with this first.
I spent a year in Iraq looking for WMD and all I found was this lousy sig.
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.
Blockquoth the poster:
I'm not sure that you do recall correctly. Yes, several blacklists have been sued, but none of those suits have succeeded as far as I know.
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."
Don't like to read, do you?
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.
See? IWT isn't being evil, they are simply keeping their network secure.
I spent a year in Iraq looking for WMD and all I found was this lousy sig.
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.
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
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...
Okay, here's a
An update a couple months later says:
I couldn't find any further details, but assuming nothing changed, I'd say that several "large ISPs are caving in to a massive lawsuit" says that the suit was successful. Maybe not legally decisive, but at least successful (for the plaintiff).
(I'm sure there are more instances and other details out there, and possibly later reversals-of-caving, but I wanted to at least show one instance where private-ownership of the resources didn't help.)
What if the RIAA anonymously pays consultants? There are plenty of people out there writing exploits who would love a regular paycheck, especially a fat one.
.au ;)
Then they bloody well better not set foot in
/*drunk.. fix later*/
No...it says people that download files from there and then turn around and start attacking will be blocked.
It all comes down to how smart the RIAA's find and kill stuff is. If it just goes by filenames, then this will work. If someone finds out that some song being billed as Linkin Park's latest is indeed someones static, then it won't work.
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.
Taking posession of a car not registered in your name and not lent to you buy the owner IS stealing.
People steal cars here all the time with the keys in the ingition. Not unusual. It is still theft.
(While you, and I may think the owners are stupid it doesnot change the law.).
(Note: this is common here in the winter as it is -30C to -40C (-40f) and it can be difficult to start a car at such temperatures. Although, they do it because they are bloody lazy and don't want the interior to cool down.
I think you missed something there. To be added to the blacklist, a site must 1) download the honeyfile, and 2) subsequently attempt an illegal access. My question is, what would constitute an illegal access attempt? Probably an attempt to scan their network?
How would such a plan work? Any attacker with two neurons left to rub together would initiate the download from one network and the attack from another. For that matter, they might even load port redirectors on other people's systems and completely camouflage their origin. Sure, this would be ultra vires, but it's none the less possible, even likely, considering the source.
A lone ISP can't effectively block this sort of thing on its own. But this statement at least will draw attention to the RIAA's sharp practice. That may be all we should hope for out of this, but that would be more than nothing.
Too much trouble to read their press release? It's not that long. If you had read it, your first two questions would have been immediately addressed by the following:
"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."
It does not directly address your third question about spoofed IP addresses, but they could address that at the routers.
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.
Your requirement that the attacker have two neurons has already disqualified the RIAA from mounting such an attack.
-- "Sucks to your ass-mar"
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
If someone finds out that some song being billed as Linkin Park's latest is indeed someones static, then it won't work.
You might pick a different example, as replacing Linkin Park mp3s with static could easily be considered a public service.
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.
The only one of those stories that meets the requirement of "RIAA actively attacking end users" is the worm, which we don't know was created by the RIAA. It's possible, but it's equally possible that it was one of the same kids who write the OE virus of the day. To my knowledge, should they try to DOS p2p network users, that will be their first direct attack on end users. So the original poster was correct, and your snide comment was not.
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
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?
That said, assuming the ISP isn't acting in concert with law enforcement, they're allowed to do whatever they want to keep out RIAA. RIAA would only have rights to pursue recourse if they had a contract with the ISP in some vendor-customer relationship. The ISP's actions don't constitute an attack against RIAA, although I'm sure RIAA would love to spin it that way.
-- "Sucks to your ass-mar"
Yeah...It was the only band name that popped into my head. I was sitting there struggling trying to come up with a current act.
At first it said Spice Girls, then I realized they've been gone for quite some time. I guess I could have used Pink - only other current act I can think of.
oh wait - just thought of Britney Spears - how did I forget her.
Well, back to my Les Claypool
Common Carrier doesn't apply to ISPs. That precedent has already been set.
Furthermore, the suits have all been against maintainers (and publishers) of blacklists, not the ISPs that used them. The owner of a private network has just as much right to block traffic they deem undesirable (unsafe, whatever) as I have to eject a burglar, or other trespasser, from my home.
utter rubbish
You're missing the "and then afterwards attempt to illegally access the network" part. They're *not* blacklisting anyone who just downloads one of the fake MP3s - they're blacklisting only those that attempt an attack on the honeypot IPs after doing so. I think they're probably watching for stuff like port scans that they might otherwise ignore.
oh wait - just thought of Britney Spears - how did I forget her.
I don't know, but if you figure it out please tell the rest of us so we can forget her too!
Hey kids, there's only 5 days left 'til Yak Shaving Day!
That's not a good example. Harris Interactive polls truly are opt-in. The ISPs in question were blocking packets specifically requested by their users, without sufficient explanation or notification.
I'm curious what illegal things they have done?
Sounds damn close to contributory and/or vicarious copyright infringment to me.
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.
These guys must've been using that magic 8-ball :) Thumbs up for userfriendly!
Jobs? Which jobs?
"Unfortunately, the loophole is that the RIAA can keep generating IP's out the wazoo, creating a whack-a-mole [tuxedo.org] type of situation."
Not quite. In this situation, the whack-a-mole game has been modified so that steel plates are welded over holes where the mole has previously appeared. Judging by IPv4's limited IP space, and our reckless usage of said limited space, I'd say it's simply a matter of time before the RIAA is SOL. Start by blocking their netblock; that should keep them scratching their heads for a few months.
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
The message is probably 32 N characters, followed by a small amount of code. That type of speech is illegal. It's called "hacking". I shall now kick you in the nuts. Don't try to block it or get out of the way; It's my right to send the message of pain to your gonads.
Personally, the whole industry is a joke; how criminal can we become before someone actually notices?
It's been a long time.
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
This is not an attack in the past, but it is a public statement that they intend to do so. It is always better to secure yourself after a warning instead of ignoring it and waiting to be victimized.
webcasting sites are NOT "end users".
End users listen to webcasters. They see no difference between webcast and radio. Forcing webcasters out of business is an attack on webcasters' fans, the end users. Do you really think that end users aren't hurt if their providers are actively hunted down?
mere speculation that the RIAA is the culprit
Yeah, but it filled out the sentence of URLs nicely.
My point is that the RIAA, long satisfied with limiting themselves to fucking the artists, has been at the forefront of attacking end users for some time. They victimize all of us by buying lawmakers and bullying hardware producers. All that aside, their stated intent to break into end users' computers is all the precedent I need.
I spent a year in Iraq looking for WMD and all I found was this lousy sig.
"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."
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...
Then how do you determine whether or not an intrusion into your network is a "legitimate" RIAA incursion or simply a hacker?
If the RIAA starts doing this -- attacking P2P networks -- then they'll *have* to have some sort of legitimate (again, I have no idea what this means in this context) credential. They'll either have to attack from a permitted domain (in which case, I assume, ISPs could easily block the domain) or have some sort of attack methodology (again, easily blocked, I assume, once you know what they're doing.)
Plus, this makes you wonder about RIAA sub-contractors -- agencies working for the RIAA and engaged in these attacks. Are these groups allowed to carry on the attacks under the aegis of the RIAA?
"No, we're not actually the RIAA, but we work for them, sir."
And wouldn't this suddenly become the number-one-most-attractive-security-loophole? Get employed by the RIAA as a "piracy stormtrooper" and suddenly everything is permitted.
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.
Which brings another thought: how many complaints of "your customer cracked my box" will it take for the RIAA's current provider to boot them?
I spent a year in Iraq looking for WMD and all I found was this lousy sig.
freind, you seem to misunderstand the dilemma; the reason that all these things are happening. THE RIAA ARE TRYING TO MAKE IT LEGAL TO THEM TO DOS NETWORKS!
It's been a long time.
Most of the problem is that the RIAA/MPAA, in their zeal to stop piracy, want to stop all legal uses of their material that they don't approve of. For example, I do have the right to make copies of copyrighted material, if I legitimately own an original copy and the additional copies are for my personal use. That's been litigated, and every court decision on it's supported that as legal. I have the right to sell my legitimate copy to someone else without requiring authorization from or approval by the copyright holder.
Add to that things like the RIAA saying it's unreasonable to demand that they actually show proof of copyright ownership before being allowed to demand the take-down of allegedly copyrighted material, and we've good reason to be annoyed at the RIAA/MPAA.
Just because you did something illegal to someone doesn't make it any more legal for them to turn around and do something illegal to you. If someone steals your TV, going and burning their house down, as tempting as the idea might sound, isn't any more legal than it was.
Therefore, Even if you "steal music", RIAA is still "infringing on your rights (whatever those may be - broadband isn't a right)".
What I was thinking is that they'd then realize this ISP is just wasting their time and filter the isp from their hunt and kill programs, which would make this ISP a haven for filesharing.
RIAA may be able to take them to court, but it would probably be worth the $$$ to fend them off.
Didn't the RIAA just ask ISPs to block music4ever.com?
What would the RIAA say? "You must block all of the sites we tell you and you can ONLY block the sites we tell you!"
Please. The RIAA has already stated that it thinks it's ok for ISPs to block sites if the RIAA asks. If ISPs want to block other unsavory sites of their own choosing, I don't see how the RIAA can complain. Of course, this argument uses "logic" and "reason" and not "lawyerthink" so anything's possible I guess.
Best. Comment. Ever. Enjoy!
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."
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.
Harris polls were NOT opt-in. That's what got them blacklisted. Also, MAPS is not an ISP, so it does not count. The ruling did not set any prescedents as to whehter or not an ISP could block Harris Marketing's mailings. Also, the corporate executives of Harris Marketing all deserve to be killed.
STOP MISUSING APOSTROPHES, YOU MORONS!!!
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
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
Moderation Totals: Overrated=1, Total=1
Damn you RIAA! Quit modding my posts down, heh.
On a more serious note, how can meta-mod work on a comment that hasn't been moderated? I thought the purpose of meta-mod was to moderate the moderators, not get free mod points.
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
I really hate signatures, but go to my website.
Blockquoth the poster:
Says who? IIRC, to participate in the Harris email polls, you had to proactively sign up for them (via the Excite portal, for example). If someone can show me otherwise, I'd love to see it.
MAPS had (and likely still has) documentation on their website. Harris was blacklisted for a reason.
STOP MISUSING APOSTROPHES, YOU MORONS!!!
"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.
Blockquoth the poster:
So give me a link.
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"
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.
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"
Say it's established that some percentage of the people are shoplifters.
Further say that I run a hotel.
There's a store next door, and sometimes people shoplift things from the store.
The store is sick of it, so they hire some thugs to tackle to the ground anyone they see carrying a purse, and then rifle through the purse.
My guests do not enjoy this - they're walking through the lobby of the hotel, and next thing they know, they're being tacked by random thugs.
So I hire a bouncer who doesn't let that store's thugs into my hotel anymore.
This strikes me as perfectly within my rights. There's no proof that my hotel guests in particular are notorious shoplifters. And there are plenty of reasons not to want to be tackled that have nothing to do with being guilty of shoplifting.
If I don't have usage-sensitive charges (and, specifically, a markup over my costs on those charges), then I don't derive a direct financial benefit from the infringement. And in any case, the financial benefit I would derive if I did have usage-sensitive charges, has nothing to do with the particular content being trafficked.
"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
If I don't have usage-sensitive charges (and, specifically, a markup over my costs on those charges), then I don't derive a direct financial benefit from the infringement. And in any case, the financial benefit I would derive if I did have usage-sensitive charges, has nothing to do with the particular content being trafficked.
You'll probably win the vicarious copyright infringement case, with that argument. But direct financial benefit isn't necessary for contributory copyright infringement. Maybe you'll win that, too, so two years later after you've spent your last penny on lawyers' fees you'll finally be able to get back to providing insane amounts of bandwidth to your criminal clients.
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
Let's see, in your example, it's several :)
million vs. 12 billion... You do the math
Considered harmful.