Slashdot Mirror
IFPI Employee Describes P2P Sabotage Activities
Maxwell'sSilverLART writes "From The Reg: Matt Warne, an employee of the international version of the RIAA, admitted that he helped the organization spread garbage and random noise on the P2P networks. Apparently, they used multiple DSL connections to present the appearance of separate users, disguising the origins of the files. His group has stopped, but he claims several of the big record companies are still doing it themselves. And here I thought all of their garbage came on CD."
I have been running Limewire, and has anyone else noticed that no matter WHAT you put in the search box, you nearly immediately get three hits back with exactly that title and an appropriate extension? One is a broken move file that just locks your player, and two others are pr0n teasers.. but that must be a large server with a fast pipe... because it consistant, and it is FAST.
Has anyone run into this with any of the other P2P clients, or is it just limewire specific?
(I would think that would be a better way to tie up the services anyway.. just have a remote server that responds to incoming searches with a couple of crap files. Get enough of them doing it, and the S/N ratio will get so screwed people will stop using it.)
Maeryk
Feminine Protection? What is that? A chartreuse flame thrower?
once again, the IFPI and RIAA don't understand technology. given the infrastructure, p2p users could 'moderate' content up and down, and 'metamoderate' the moderations of other users (wonder where i've heard of those terms ;) ). but seriously, this technological solution would destroy poisoning efforts - as content and users were moderating, crappy content would be marked as 'to be ignored', and valid content would sift to the top of the heap.
smd4985
playing little guerilla internet tricks rather than trying to understand/reform your industry. It's so much simpler to poison a well rather than figure out how to use it to make money and satisfy your "customers". It's so much more restful to sit around and blame "pirates" rather than addressing new technology and a changed customer base. It so much less tiring to pay off legislators to outlaw things that are inconvenient rather than putting together a business model that isn't 30 years out of date. Thanks IFPI.
Where did this list come from? How can I verify its legitimacy? Even more important: how can I discover new addresses which should be blocked?
Sometimes I worry that I'll develop Alzheimer's disease, but no one will notice.
This might be a little offtopic but I thought it was interesting. I attended a Spoken Word Event by Henry Rollins. He discussed his views on P2P and downloading music off the net. His basic view was go ahead download my stuff. "I would rather have your time than your money," he said. Amen. I liked it so much I added it as my sig, sorry about the repetition.
"I would rather have your time than your money" --Henry Rollins Jan 14 2003 on the topic on internet file trading
I can't say that I don't give a fuck. I've just run out of fuck to give.
If they're going to mess with files, at least be clever about it. Take a lesson from the Barenaked Ladies' book - Take a legit file, and implant funny ads for upcoming releases in them. "Pinch Me" off of their Maroon album is a perfect example of this. Do a search for the track on your favorite P2P network, and you're sure to notice that some people note "no ads" in the title.
I actually prefer listening to those versions now over the stock ones.
Erm, wouldn't an MP3 of silence (of any length) compress down to almost nothing? If not then it'd be a pretty shit compression algorythm....
Yes, it is true that they did not lose a sale. However, how can you say that it is not theft?
- Something costs money to get.
- You get it without paying any money
- Therefore, you have committed theft.
It doesn't matter that they didn't lose money on it. It does matter that they didn't get the money that should have come to them for the transfer of property.Let me put this a different way.
- You buy the rights to download something digitally
- You download said item
- You steal the money you used to buy the rights
Is this theft? The owner can still sell more copies of the digital item. However, they are now out the money you originally paid them. Where is the difference between these two scenarios?I can't say that I don't give a fuck. I've just run out of fuck to give.
One of the arguements for Napster was that it is a common carrier, similar to a telephone company. They provide a service (the peer-to-peer network) that is content-agnostic (i.e., they don't care about the content). Therefore, the telephone company is not responsible for policing their networks for illegal activities. Remember, the "go after the users, not Napster" arguements. Well, with a EULA like this, Kazaa and other p2p networks are not really content-agnostic like a telephone company, ISP, search engine or private p2p network.
Now what about those of us that do actually own a valid copy of a song?
I have a large collection of LPs (remeber those? the large, circular vinyl disks with the small hole in the middle?). I take loving care of my albums, buy the best stylus I can and clean them when needed. I used to record onto cassette so I could listen to my albums in my car (perfectly leagal time shifting-- if I am driving in my car, no one is back at home listening to my albums).
Now, I have a car with a CD player, but no cassette. I want to listen to my albums, but I don't want to pay for them all over again when I already own a legal copy. So, I can try and get the output from my turntable to my computer (not easy!) or I can check out a P2P network and download copies of those songs I already leagally own.
Why should the RIAA have any problem with that?
How come Slashdot never gets Slashdotted?
Labels spoof files on p2p networks. Duh. Short of suing the entire world, that's currently their best weapon against piracy. Sure it doesn't stop it, but it does make it more of a pain in the ass.
/.). Long story short, this paper went to the voting delegates at the national NARAS meeting. They voted NOT to support the RIAA's stance on mp3s and NOT to support the RIAA's current marketing scheme where Britney Spears says downloading = stealing.
At the same time, I wrote an influential paper for the NY chapter of NARAS disputing all of the RIAA's claims (much of the support used in the paper came from articles posted on
A part of that paper said this:
Record labels are confused and contradictory. They use mp3s in private while they deride it in public. If they're promoting a new band, they'll post the band's songs on p2p networks (often in a covert manner) with the hopes that they'll be traded and talked about in chat rooms. If it's an established act with a history of sales, they'll "spoof" the p2p networks with fake files. It's just another way of using mp3s, albeit in a subversive and anti-customer way, which is par for the course.
Have we FORGOTTEN all the perceived angst and trauma about usage-prevented audio CDs (sharpie marker deprotection, all that)??
If I buy a CD and find I'm totally unable to rip it, I can and will go searching for the tracks on p2p. If/when every "CD" that comes out (including from the smaller dance music labels I like) is similarly mangled, a few people will manage to rip it (carefully via analogue, or whatever) and the music will still proliferate over p2p.
If, in order to get the music I've paid for into a format I regard as usable (mp3s or oggs) I have to go get them off p2p networks then I've gained no *actual* value from the purchase of the "CD".
I think they'll find this gag runs out of steam as soon as P2P clients start using checksum techniques. Use trust boundries and individual checksum lists and you can keep the system from being poisoned. It just a little client support and requires that users take the 5 seconds to notice if a file is shit or dangerous and mark it as so in their client. Best of all you don't even have to keep a copy of the actual file to provide the checksum info so you can act as a P2P cop without being set up for feds raiding your basement. The trust boundries is as simple an idea as saying Jack is my friend and I trust his checklist and I trust Jack's friends friends 80% as much as I trust Jack and I trust a friend of Jack's friends 80% as much as I trust Jack's friends.. so that you form a large verification network that eventually peters out unless you raise one of those individuals to your own friend status. This would make it difficult for the RIAA to get into the average users 'friend' list to poison them from there.. and as soon as they did they would be removed from the list and have to start the whole tedious process over again.
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
These people just dont get it. With the hopes of poisoning P2P file populations with garbage, do they actually hope to discourage users? I remember when I still used P2P for fileshareing, if I got a bad file, that just made me more determined to find a good one. These people dont give enough credit to the persistence and patience of people looking for music. Just because they put out bad files doesnt mean it will discourage users anymore, theyll just keep on looking until they find a good one...
P2P Networks need a moderation system, perhaps similar to slashdot's. Have metamoderation, where you can listen to an mp3 and judge if it is rated well. You could have a system similar to slashdot's where user's that put up mp3s that have been rated well automatically get bumped up a notch (+2). Don't allow moderations until some metamoderation has been done. I think the community would be willing to take an extra few minutes of effort to help police itself and ensure quality.
What if I own the CD and am too lazy/unable to rip it myself, but want to listen to it on my PC? If I *only* download mp3s of songs from CDs that I actually own, is that illegal?
So I went out and bought her CD, but found out that I can't play in to my computer (which IS my CD player by the way). "No problem": I thought to myself. Since I already own the CD (that I can't play), I'll go onto Kazaa and download the tracks. BIG PROBLEM, as every one of them has been altered with a 'swishing' tone every 30 seconds or so. In disgust, I returned the CD. If Norah doesn't want me as a fan, she can go fuck herself. Actually, I wonder if Norah (even) knows and appreciates how hard her label works at derailing her career?
Lots of people seemingly download stuff but never audit what they download for quality or validity of files.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!