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."

75 of 412 comments (clear)

  1. Whats wrong with garbage?? by Bowie+J.+Poag · · Score: 3, Funny



    Garbage isn't so bad...their lead singer is hawt... Mee-yow!

    Cheers,

    --
    Bowie J. Poag

  2. Just block 'em at the firewall. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Here is a list of P2P Unfriendly IP's you can block.

    OverPeer:65.174.255.255
    OverPeer:65.160.0.0-65. 160.127.255
    Ranger:216.122.0.0-216.122.255.255
    R anger:204.92.244.0-204.92.244.255
    MediaForce:65.1 92.0.0-65.192.0.255
    MediaForce:65.223.0.0-65.223. 255.255
    MediaForce:4.43.96.0-4.43.96.255
    MediaDe fender:66.79.0.0-66.79.255.255
    RIAA:208.225.90.0- 208.225.90.255
    RIAA:12.150.191.0-12.150.191.255
    MPAA:63.199.57.96-63.199.57.128
    MPAA:64.166.187.1 28-64.166.187.192
    MPAA:198.70.114.0-198.70.114.25 5
    MPAA:209.67.0.0-209.67.255.255
    NetPD:207.155.1 28.0-207.155.255.255
    NetPD:128.241.0.0-128.241.25 5.255
    UnknownC&DCop:64.106.170.128-64.106.170.192
    BayTSP:209.204.128.0-209.204.191.255
    Vidius:207 .155.128.0-207.155.255.255
    GAIN(spyware):64.94.89 .0-64.94.89.255
    GAINCME(spyware):66.35.247.0-66.3 5.247.255
    GAINCME(spyware):66.35.229.0-66.35.229. 255
    MediaDefender:64.225.292.0-64.225.292.127
    RI AA:208.192.0.0-208.192.255.255
    Xupiter.com:63.236 .32.50
    Xupiter.com(mirror):63.208.235.30

    I get dozens of hits to each IPchains rule everyday when I am using P2P.

    1. Re:Just block 'em at the firewall. by Uninvited+Guest · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.
    2. Re:Just block 'em at the firewall. by DrPsycho · · Score: 3, Informative
      MediaDefender:64.225.292.0-64.225.292.127

      Um. 292?

      I presume that's a typographical error, but you might want to double check those numbers... especially with the hordes of people incorporating them into their IPChains/IPTables rulesets right now. :^)

      --

      -DrPsycho - Coping with reality since 1975

    3. Re:Just block 'em at the firewall. by don_carnage · · Score: 3, Informative

      How can I verify its legitimacy?

      nslookup

    4. Re:Just block 'em at the firewall. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      I got the list from http://www.shareaza.com 's security forums. Shareaza is a modern Gnutella client with integrated security features. I do not personally use the built in firewalling stuff though. I wrote Iptables rules to block them all. If you would like to verify the authenticity you can just use a tool like Sam Spade for your windows box. Although you will have to be warned that several of the above listed IP's are listed as belonging to some holding compay or another. I would not know where to begin in writing a tool to automate this, but if you have the skills than by all means please do so:) In the mean time you can just read shareaza's forum.

    5. Re:Just block 'em at the firewall. by Grit · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Umm... isn't one of the "strengths" of P2P that this would only be effective if everybody refused to peer with these addresses? Even if it were effective, wouldn't the parties involved just call up the phone company and order a DSL line--- with an address from the phone company's IP address block?

      The same anonymity which P2P promises cuts both ways. Installing filters like this is a big waste of time. Now, accepting the connections but keeping them occupied via a fake "honeypot" network might at least be interesting...

    6. Re:Just block 'em at the firewall. by Junior+J.+Junior+III · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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!
    7. Re:Just block 'em at the firewall. by glesga_kiss · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Why would anyone keep a crappy mp3 on their computer for other people to download?

      I've figured out a way this can happen and is happening on p2p just now. Here's the sequence:

      1. Troll user or industry contractor downloads a common file that is genuine. LOTR on DivX for example.
      2. File gets renamed to something else.
      3. New user comes along, sees the fake and starts to download it. important note: the file on your machine is always named the same as the original you first selected to download
      4. Each copy of the file (including the properly named ones) becomes a valid hash-compatible alternate source. So even if the fake-providing user goes off-line, there will still be sources.
      5. Here's the key part: Your partial downloads are shared. Other users see you with the fake file, even though you don't even know it's fake yet. They start to download it from you, with the same fake name. If it's a popular fake name, the effect snowballs from there.

      Unless everyone deletes the fake file at the same time, it's going to be there forever. This works best for large files, so you'll see a lot of mp3 singles that need overburning to fit on one disk. A lot of users don't know what to expect as a filesize, so they can and are caught out by this.

      I've been aware of this for sometime now. I didn't want to post it anywhere, in case it gives someone any ideas. This thread has kinda mucked that up though, so it doesn't matter anymore.

      Now, the question is, what to do to avoid this issue:

      1. Use WinMX and it's "Search alternates" feature, which will look for files with the same hash. You should remove the first line of the search (the filename) and re-click on "find", so you are getting back all files of the same checksum. If most of the names don't match what you have, it's usually a fake. Kazaa doesn't allow anything like this unfortunatly.
      2. Install a tool like sig2dat which gives your system a new net service available through web pages. You get a link like "sig2dat://......" which, when clicked on it will create an empty partial download for Kazaa. Restart Kazaa and it will begin looking for that particular file. If you trust the web page, then you are happy. FastTrackMovies springs to mind.
      3. Pay attention to file sizes.
      4. Block IPs that are "nasty"

      What really floats my boat is the evential outcome of this. The industry is shooting itself in the foot in this arms race between them and the world, that they cannot possibly hope to win.

      Think of it this way. Soon, no one will trust filenames in p2p and the searches will become redunant. One of two things will happen: People will start remortgaging their homes again to buy CDs. Or, people will create better systems that allow ratings of files, like the sig2dat system.

      This is fantastic for the p2p user. Not only do you know that you are getting the right file; you'll also have reviews and comments on it's quality and listings of other files you wouldn't have normally thought of searching for. Entire albums can be queued in one click (the question is, will Amazon sue?!? ;-)

      What I envisage happening long term is p2p being more of a service on the PC, with little user interaction. To send someone a file, you send them a "link" to that file on the network, and your client seeks it out itself. Just like the birth of Napster, the record/movies industries choice of action (or inaction) will ultimately bite them. Evolution doesn't work well unless someone is hacking away at the weak links.

  3. Yeah by GigsVT · · Score: 4, Funny

    I've come across some of this stuff, mostly I got mp3s that were the right length, but just silence rather than what the file was named.

    They find their way into my playlist if I am not careful, and when I am using it for background music while intensively coding I usually don't notice when one comes up, but it scares the shit out of me if a really loud song comes on after it. :)

    --
    I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    1. Re:Yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      That's what you get for pirating John Cage!

      slowdowncowboyslowdowncowboyslowdowncowboyslowdo wncowboyslowdowncowboyslowdowncowboyslowdowncowboy slowdowncowboyslowdowncowboyslowdowncowboyslowdown cowboy

    2. Re:Yeah by jc42 · · Score: 4, Funny

      mostly I got mp3s that were the right length, but just silence

      They'd better be careful with this. Remember that last year John Batt got into trouble for including a silent track on his CD. John Cage's estate charged him with copyright infringement.

      If a recording company is responding to copyright violations by sending around unauthorized copies (or derived works) of John Cage's copyright on his famous 4'33" composition, they deserve to be punished to the maximum extent of the law.

      --

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    3. Re:Yeah by buswolley · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What we need is an intelligent agent that scans our mp3's etc and gets rid of the junk.

      --

      A Good Troll is better than a Bad Human.

    4. Re:Yeah by MikeFM · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.
    5. Re:Yeah by NineNine · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's what the integrity ratings are an attempt at on the FastTrack network. The only problem with that is that the "intelligent" agents are the users.

    6. Re:Yeah by Old+Uncle+Bill · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Without a doubt, that is the biggest truth about this article. FastTrack has built in a moderation system of sorts, but do people use it? Hell no. Try this for starters, go search on FastTrack for the movie XXX. I bet one entry comes up saying it is a perfect copy with about 40 people who have it. That equates to 40 dumbasses, because that file is really Half Baked. What is the point of sharing when you are sharing shit? I think the general user on the system is more to blame than the incompetent folks over at the RIAA/MPAA.

      --
      Yes, I am an agent of Satan, but my duties are largely ceremonial.
    7. Re:Yeah by Phil+Wilkins · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It was Mike Batt, of Wombles fame, and he was stupid enough to give Cage a co-writer credit. The Cage estate sharks duely extracted their pound of flesh.

      Moral: Don't dick with the credits.

    8. Re:Yeah by questionlp · · Score: 2, Informative

      Not when using Constant Bitrate (CBR) MP3 encoding, or Average Bitrate (ABR) encoding with a forced minimum bitrate level. Both ABR, without a forced minimum bitrate, and Variable Bitrate (VBR) should be able to encode silence at the lowest possible bitrate for MP3 (16 or 32kbps I think).

      So a one minute 128kbps MP3 file will still soak up 1MB of space after compression.

  4. The basterds! by Chocolate+Teapot · · Score: 4, Funny
    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
    He shared his Brittney Spears mp3s.
    --
    Modest doubt is called the beacon of the wise. - William Shakespeare
  5. Nothing wrong with it by aridhol · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Why should the music industry be prohibited from putting junk on the network? If the user gets frustrated enough when trying to download music illegally (and yes, copyright infringement is illegal), maybe they'll actually spend money to buy music.

    Why is there no great uproar when a private user puts misnamed files on the network? Or when software goes online? Why do we save our complaints for when the legal owners do something against the spirit of the system, rather than when someone else does something against the law?

    --
    I can't say that I don't give a fuck. I've just run out of fuck to give.
    1. Re:Nothing wrong with it by thelexx · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Why do we save our complaints for when the legal owners do something against the spirit of the system, rather than when someone else does something against the law?"

      Simple. In all cases of them being deceptive, it's just that, pure deception. With the assumption of guilt on the part of everyone who might download. Not all cases of downloads are illegal however.

      --
      "Gold still represents the ultimate form of payment in the world." - Alan Greenspan, 1999
    2. Re:Nothing wrong with it by aridhol · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Not all cases of downloads are illegal however.
      Explain this to me. If I recorded music and sold it, without any provision for download, when would it be legal for you to download it? Why should I not be allowed to make fakes of my own music and put them online?
      --
      I can't say that I don't give a fuck. I've just run out of fuck to give.
    3. Re:Nothing wrong with it by echucker · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

    4. Re:Nothing wrong with it by grolim13 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      'twould be legal if the person downloading it already owned a copy on CD.

    5. Re:Nothing wrong with it by Mournblade · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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?

  6. I don't see anything wrong with this. by thinkliberty · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't see anything wrong with this. If it makes it harder to pirate the music and it isn't a DOS against the network or another person. So what? If the copyright owners want distribute blank songs or garbage songs on p2p networks. Let them do it. It would also be interesting to find out if they paid the artist for using their name on a product they are distributing.

  7. They have a right, in a way by image · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Look, as much as I resent the RIAA, I have to say that they have a total right to fill up P2P networks with bogus files that look like copyrighted material.

    What, you are not able to pirate a copy of some new album? Poor baby. Pay for it. You _really_ are ripping off the artist if you steal it. Yes, you are also ripping of the RIAA (which I don't care about). But don't complain that your organized theft ring is being hampered by the rightful owners of that property.

    I despise the RIAA and how it treats their artists. But for the love of all that is right, don't *steal* in reaction. That is certainly not going to make the artists lives better.

    Buy from alternative record labels. Go see your friends bands live. Write your own music. Read a book. Play with your computer. Make out with your girlfriend. Or, if you really want that album, pay for it. Or don't and boycott the bad labels. *That* choice is yours.

    1. Re:They have a right, in a way by RackinFrackin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You make good points, but also one error. Breaking copyright law is not stealing - it is copyright infringement. There's a huge difference.

    2. Re:They have a right, in a way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny
      Make out with your girlfriend.

      Your new here aren't you?

    3. Re:They have a right, in a way by The+Evil+Couch · · Score: 2, Insightful

      if you already bought the album, why do you need to download another copy of it?

      just do what I do and rip the audio data to mp3. depending on your computer, it'll take 3-10 minutes, whereas tracking down all the tracks for your cd and finding someone that's not being a file whore to get them from will take 1 minute- weeks. that way you don't even have to worry about mislabeling or low bitrate, because with a decent CD ripper, it'll connect to a CD database and put in the correct label for you and let you choose what bitrate you want.

      everything you want, none of the hassles of trying to pull it off a peer to peer network.

      back to your question, if you have a copy of the CD on hand, then you probably do have the right to seek out a backup copy for personal use. after all, the end state is the same as if you had ripped it yourself. but my way's a lot better :p

    4. Re:They have a right, in a way by aridhol · · Score: 2, Interesting
      If I boycott nothing records and go ahead and download the new Nine Inch Nails album, they are not out a sale. I got free music, they lost nothing
      I see this "logic" all the time on Slashdot, and it still annoys me.

      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.
    5. Re:They have a right, in a way by avgjoe62 · · Score: 3, Interesting
      That is all very good advice for those that want to get the music without paying for it.

      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?

    6. Re:They have a right, in a way by brain159 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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".

  8. Metallica is in on this too... by Tofino · · Score: 5, Funny

    Everything Metallica has released since Master of Puppets has been garbage :).

  9. Isnt this what we were expecting all along? by josh+crawley · · Score: 3, Insightful

    As an ethical issue, downloading songs we havent paid for is just plain stealing. And they tried to shut down the source (the transfer tool and servers), byt the judge bitchslapped them down.

    What choice are we leaving them? They're spreading corrupted files. It's not like they're ping flooding every user. They're just sending what the USER REQUESTS.

    I'm relieved that's all the Riaa are doing. After all, protecting the groups' rights are what they're about.

  10. EULA? by Tar-Palantir · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I haven't read any P2P app EULAs, but I wonder if some of them might try including a clause that "You agree by using this Software that You will not attempt to degrade the effectiveness of the Network in any manner, including intentional distribution of flawed or nonsense files."

    Now, IANAL, but it seems like the outcome of such an action would be positive for the geek community:
    • The RIAA might simply stop.
    • They might sue, and have EULAs ruled not binding (this would be negative in the sense that they could continue the monkey business, but good overall).
    • The P2P companies might take them to court and win. Wouldn't that be nice?


    • Anybody see why this wouldn't work (unless some clients failed to put the clause in)?
    1. Re:EULA? by zipoff · · Score: 2, Informative

      I really don't understand how the parent is modded up to +5.

      The RIAA/MPAA/xxAA could just write their own client that connects to the network. They are not bound under any EULA, as it is their software.

      As the companies releasing P2P lean towards, there is no owner of the network, and as such, there is no EULA to enforce for the network.

  11. Funny and true story by Amsterdam+Vallon · · Score: 5, Funny

    I actually e-mailed Richard Stallman a couple years ago when I realized a great way to spread the GNU message.

    My question was whether disguising pro-GNU songs (such as these) as Billboard Top 40 hits and sharing them on Peer 2 Peer networks was a "right" thing to do.

    He suggested that I not do it, but did thank me for a good laugh.

    --

    Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate. Ex-O'Reilly/MIT employee, now a full-time Google employee.
  12. This reminds me.. by Maeryk · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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?
    1. Re:This reminds me.. by theLOUDroom · · Score: 4, Informative
      I use limewire and I've noticed the same thing. Here's what I do about it:

      1. Start Limewire and let it get connected.
      2. Search one something weird like "frobittzly."
      3. Open up the settings and add any computer that replies to my list of blocked ips.
      4. Repeat the two steps above until I get no search results for things which shouldn't exist.
      5. Use Limewire as usual.
      --
      Life is too short to proofread.
  13. Re:Shirley Manson is all that by GigsVT · · Score: 3, Funny

    Shirley Manson is all that

    Her sister Marilyn is really hot too.

    --
    I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
  14. technology can beat this.... by smd4985 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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
  15. It's so much easier ... by burgburgburg · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  16. How and why do they do it? by On+Lawn · · Score: 3, Funny

    When I do a search on gnutella, I used to get nothing but good information. Then about three months ago I started seeing files like (say I was searching for Avalanches)

    Avalanches.jpg
    Avalanches.mpg
    Avalanches.mov ...and so forth. Its pretty easy to avoid them, I don't think they are fooling anyone. I've never even clicked on them to see what they actually contained.

    Wait, I did get snookered once. I was searching for "Camaflouge" the old Depech-mode sounding 80's band, which I haven't found a way to purchase the CD anyway. One of the files I pulled down turned out to be a really sweet rendition of "I Know that My Redeemer Lives". I suspect it was a fellow mormon reminding me of my values. But I liked the rendition so much that I kept it and play it.

    (By the way, I own the Avalanches CD)

    ________________________
    OnRoad: Hacking that which costs more money and is more deadly. (Its just a car-enthusiast site really)

  17. And here I thought .... by Savage-Rabbit · · Score: 2, Funny

    ".... all of their garbage came on CD"

    For the N'th time NO Record Company Garbage does not just come on CD, it comes on Video Tape, on DVD, Over cable, Over satelite and TV channles, Radio, The Internet ........

    --
    Only to idiots, are orders laws.
    -- Henning von Tresckow
  18. It's a waste of time in the end by stratjakt · · Score: 5, Insightful

    P2P networks are already chock full of bad 'rips' full of pops and skips, or poorly/wrongly encoded (like 56k mono), misnamed songs, and so on.

    Eventually the people who get 'into' it figure out who enjoys the same sort of music they do, and who tends to have quality mp3s on their sites. So the metalheads migrate together, and the hip hop fans, etc.

    If they stray outside their 'clique' and get a garbage tune or two, they delete them and move on.

    They also 'poison' newer, profitable releases, and I've found that a huge chunk of the P2P'ers are there for older or more obscure music. The fact that there's a garbage version of Britney Spears' latest floating around doesn't bother a Deadhead or someone looking for underground punk tunes in the least.

    So, I suppose it could discourage a handful of 13 year old newbies if by luck they manage to get the garbage files the first time they try it. But it won't 'kill' the networks.

    --
    I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
  19. Who's complaining? by Sloppy · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Why should the music industry be prohibited from putting junk on the network?
    No reason they should be prohibited, and I haven't seen a single poster suggest that they should be. This is news (sort of) because it's moderately interesting, not because it's some horrible atrocity.
    --
    As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
  20. be careful what you say about the riaa here by circletimessquare · · Score: 4, Funny

    be careful what you say about the riaa in your posts, or they'll use the same tactic here, on slashdot, and post random garbage comments to drown out the anti-riaa noise...

    wait... garbage posts on slashdot!? it's already begun! how much are those trolls getting paid?!

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:be careful what you say about the riaa here by ethereal · · Score: 2, Funny

      So, if some people started trolling for money, would the other trolls say that they'd sold out? I mean, there's art, and then there's puttin' bread on the troll table, you know.

      --

      Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and

  21. A quote from a Honest Artist by esorense · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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
    1. Re:A quote from a Honest Artist by Dread_ed · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That makes sense to me because I believe that Mr. Rollins actually has something to say.

      In other words, he is not just and entertainent vehicle pre-packaged and massaged into a marketable commodity for the sole purpose of making money for his distribution company and himself.

      Mr. Rollins speaks and sings about issues and discussable social phenomena, rather than "Boys", or "Thongs" or "My Beotches" or that he's "back" or whatever mindless pop icon crap you can insert.

      Since he feels intensely about what he produces, he wants others to be exposed to it. In other words, we can deduce from his saying this that he has a statement to make, and that acquisition of money for his art is secondary to the main goal of spreading his message.

      Now he probably also knows tht people who listen and respond to the things that he says will eventually contribute monetarily to his career, but that again does not seem like his primary motivation.

      Interesting to note that most of the artists making music have no message to put out (other than the ones that their producers spoon feed to them to regurgutate upon the public), no goal other than monetary gain and fame. It it is even more interesting to note the lengths that they go to to sell their wares: ie marketing a lifestyle idea of sexual promiscuity to children (Brittney Spears and her kin), glorifying degenerate or violent activity, aggrandizing money, and superficiality in human relationships.

      Not to mention the things that these artists do to their public image at the behest of their producers and marketers; all in the quest to guarantee them market share.

      In from this we can deduce that they are most likely motivated exclusively by money and fame and that they will sacrifice themselves, their morals, and the public's sensibilities to achieve their goals. They have no message other than the one that has been handed to them by the market research team, and have nothing interesting or constructive (or CREATIVELY destructive) to say about society, other than from a detached sociologial phenomena perspective which none of their regular listeners will ever have.

      From this I would call Mr. Rollins a TRUE artist, rather than honest artist. Even though he may be honest, I don't think this goes far enough. All the rappers who talk about the fact that all they want is money and ho's are honest enough, but they lack the motivation that Mr. Rollins has to convey a message of importance (at least to him).

      Now I am not saying that entertainment for entertainment's sake is not a good thing. I even admit to listening to pop radio and liking some of the music, I even like to watch Brittney Spears videos kuz she's REALLY hot and her marketing guys told her to show as much skin as possible, and I thank them for this. However, I don't think that the exclusive motivation of artists should be money and fame.

      Kind of a stuck up position on my part, but we all see the results when it is and I think we can agree that it results in krappy music.

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
  22. Re:copyright infringement is illegal by aridhol · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Hmm...I just looked at the definition of civil disobedience:
    [R]efusal to obey governmental demands or commands
    OK, so you're refusing to obey the law (meaning that yes, you admit that it's illegal but you don't think it should be).
    [...]
    means of forcing concessions from the government
    Here's where I don't beleive that you're practicing civil disobedience. See, you're breaking the law from the privacy of your own home. This means that the government doesn't see that you're doing it, so you're not making much of a statement. You're not going to acheive anything doing it this way, and you know it. This makes it not civil disobedience, but regular lawbreaking.

    If you really feel that it's civil disobedience, get a bunch of people together, set up a network in a public place (rented hall, maybe), and download there. Make sure the media is there, and hand out pamphlets telling what you're doing. Get your message out there. Face the risks of being arrested.

    Until you do something like this, I say you are not practicing civil disobedience, but plain old lawbreaking.

    --
    I can't say that I don't give a fuck. I've just run out of fuck to give.
  23. Advertising. by Moderation+abuser · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They should use p2p like a radio broadcast, put low bitrate encoded versions up for free, advertise sites where the high quality encodings can be purchased for $0.50.

    --
    Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
  24. Re:Why haven't I noticed? by uncoveror · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They want everyone to stop trading files, so they fill the networks with garbage. They want us to pay $20 for a CD that cost less than 1 to manufacture, and most of those are filled with garbage. Increasingly, they won't play in a computer because of "copy protection," when computers are they only player many of us have. How do we tell them we don't approve? By boycotting their products. Let CDs gather dust on store shelves.

    --
    The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
  25. Enigma by moc.tfosorcimgllib · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If the user gets frustrated enough when trying to download music illegally maybe they'll actually spend money to buy music.

    And the money spent on this music funds the company putting random noise on this medium instead of producing more, better music.
    What happends when more money is spent on protecting the music than actually producing music?

    Just random thought noise.

  26. The Cost of "Disinformation" by davejenkins · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Disinformation, the act of spreading rumors, false orders, and couterfeit money is as old as warfare itself. Usually, the production cost' of disinformation is much less than the 'production cost' of truth. It's easy to spread a rumor about ambushed soldiers, whereas actually ambushing someone is pricey. Fake Confederate dollars were much easier to print than real ones, etc. Al Qaeda knows this, and it's rumor mill is going full steam.

    Now to the immediate fight: the RIAA and record labels have decided to invest time and money into producing counterfeits and disinformation. The problem is that the very structure of P2P networks makes this overtly pricey:
    1. The RIAA must proactively produce 'bad' Britney Spears
    2. Some dope must download this 'bad' track-- but once they find it's bad, they delete it. The track never gets past that first copy.

    Whereas 'legitimate' tracks get copied and passed around by everyone, because the legitimate tracks are keepers, and they expand virally.

    Eventually, the RIAA will come under such heavy costs to maintain their disinformation campaign, that it would be cheaper to start using the P2P system to their advantage (theoretically)

  27. Packrat P2P users do save garbage. by ChaosDiscord · · Score: 4, Insightful
    However, more recent evidence suggests that the technique is being used by major labels in-house, instead, and the sheer quantity of junk files found on the peer to peer networks today - purportedly residing on individual's PCs - points to continuing "poisoning". Why? Because users abort a junk download, or quickly delete a file. The alternative explanation for the persistence of this noise material is that users are extremely inattentive, and that's difficult to believe.

    The Register dropped the ball on this. There is a non-trivial number of peer-to-peer users who just download things because they can. Much like the core of packrat warez traders they're not so much interested in the specifics as trying to have the largest collection. (And when you get warez from one of these packrats, you'll often get software that's seriously broken.) They're not really going to listen to the two months of continious music they have, just a small subset. Clearly they're rather have real songs, but they never bother to check. It only takes a few of these people to create the impression that the network is full of garbage.

  28. Yawn... MD5 Checksums by Rayonic · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I guess that the RIAA's anti-piracy measures are getting so bad that they're circumvented well before they're implemented.

    There are already networks out there that incorporate MD5 checksums in order to avoid bad files (example, example). Couple that with a simple checksum repository (example, example). Or maybe even a search engine (example), and you never have to download another bad file again.

    1. Re:Yawn... MD5 Checksums by anewsome · · Score: 2, Informative
      Anyone who thinks checksums for encoded music files would work has no idea what they are talking about. A checksum for two music files, ripped and encoded by different people would only work if both files were ripped, without error and encoded with the same identical encoder with the same exact options, id3 tags and all. Anything less would produce two files with different checksums. You could encode the same file at the same rate with the same encoder, options and everything else. 1 character different in an id3 tag and you have a different checksum.

      Fuzzy checksums would detect this but now we are getting off track. This supposed checksum database would have literally hundreds or thousands of valid checksums for each ripped file.

      So,.. yawn. Learn what you are talking about before posting.

      --Aaron

  29. I've done this for the Labels too... by BenSnyder · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

    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 /.). 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.

    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.

  30. Re:copyright infringement is illegal by Ann+Coulter · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Prohibition ended because of plain old lawbreaking (resulting in some corpses and blind people to boot). Sometimes civil disobedience does not send the message clearly. The most effective message is direct action and if it takes money from RIAA members and indirectly their political pawns then it is more just than parades.

  31. Reality check by GuyMannDude · · Score: 3, Funny

    For a minute there it looked like you were making some serious points. Then I got to this line:

    Make out with your girlfriend.

    That kind of delusional thinking just wiped out any semblance of reality that your post might have had. :)

    GMD

  32. Re:Fighting Fire With Fire by PinkFloyd · · Score: 5, Insightful
    "File sharing is illegal - you are paying nothing for something."

    No, file sharing is _NOT_ illegal. Copying and distributed copyrighted works is illegal. There's a world of difference between the two.

    --

    The face of a child can say it all, especially the mouth part of the face.
  33. Idiots... by j_kenpo · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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...

  34. I disagree -- on both counts by GuyMannDude · · Score: 2, Insightful

    2. Some dope must download this 'bad' track-- but once they find it's bad, they delete it. The track never gets past that first copy.

    Ah, if only p2p networks were so efficient. Most people just aren't as deligent as you about cleaning up corrupted stuff they download as you are. With harddrives in the tens of gigabytes these days, there's no pressing need for the average user to get rid of every single junk file. Most people are lazy, lazy, lazy. They download a whole chunk of mp3s at once and figure they'll sort through them later. Maybe that won't happen for a few days. In the meantime, others do the same thing and download it off him before he gets a chance to delete it.

    I don't quite understand your arguement about why creating bad mp3s is so pricey for them. I'm sure they can whip up a short program that will automate the process. Then they just pay some intern minimum wage to run batch jobs and create a huge amount of corrupted files. They can repeat this process over and over.

    I'm not saying that the RIAAs tactic is sound. But I also think that your conclusion that "Eventually, the RIAA will come under such heavy costs to maintain their disinformation campaign, that it would be cheaper to start using the P2P system to their advantage" is flawed. I think this is a dirt cheap and easy way for them to feel like they are doing something about the p2p problem.

    GMD

  35. Moderation System by Greenisus · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  36. It's not that simple, buddy by Cokelee · · Score: 5, Insightful
    If you really feel that it's civil disobedience, get a bunch of people together, set up a network in a public place (rented hall, maybe), and download there. Make sure the media is there, and hand out pamphlets telling what you're doing. Get your message out there. Face the risks of being arrested.

    Hmmm, not quite. When it comes to those who care more people use P2P than don't.


    See this is the internet and everything is distributed (not the hippie generation where your approach might actually work). Millions upon millions of people disobeying the law is infinitely more formidable than getting a couple hundred to take a fall for millions.

    You see, if the civil disobedience came only from a few people in this situation they would be squashed and become an example, not a martyr for the cause.

    By effectively eluding the government and **AA people are out rightly defying the law in masses. Meaning, if the government does not change its policies it will be forced to imprison its population. Because this cannot occur and have the government still exist, the masses will win over the few.


    It's only a matter of time and determination.

  37. Re:YES!!. Virus also, i think. by meringuoid · · Score: 3, Informative
    No matter what you put in, you get a file back instantly, some of which are some kind of pornbots or something, and i have had a few where they are a virus, i believe. It seems to change the names of its files on the fly. Its kinda neat, in a way, i wonder who it is.

    The dummy results always come from the same few machins; they say they're running Gnucleus, and I believe it - access to the source code helps if you mean to screw with Gnutella in this way.

    The .exe files in the !!_YEEHAA_!! zip files probably hijack Internet Explorer - going by what comes out of running 'strings' on them, they also add a whole lot of porno bookmarks - venusseek.com in particular. This is just a guess as I'm not planning to actually run this thing on Windows :-) The images and mpgs just show an ad for some porno site.

    The .vbs viruses... they seem to have come from Columbia. A look at the source of one of them reveals

    rem "Plan Colombia" virus v1.0
    rem by Sand Ja9e Gr0w (www.colombia.com)

    rem Dedicated to all the people that want to be hackers or crackers, in Colombia
    rem This program is also a protest act against the violence and corruption that Colombia lives...
    rem I always wanting that all this finishes, I have said...

    rem Santa fe de Bogotá 2000/09
    rem I dedicate to all you the song "GoodBye" of Andreas Bochelli

    It relies on user stupidity and Windows' habit of hiding file extensions. Instead of 'virus.mp3.vbs' the user sees 'virus.mp3' and thinking all is well doubleclicks to play it. VB script promptly scans the whole hard disk and creates a copy of itself under the name of every MP3 it finds. That's why you tend to get double results - maybe Quadrophenia.mp3 and Quadrophenia.mp3.vbs from the same user. It also seems to redirect IE's start page to a FortuneCity site, and has a bunch of other stuff going on related to script kiddie life and Colombian politics.

    Compared to this sort of malevolence, a Coral song that craps out after five seconds and continues in silence is positively benign.

    What I want to know, though, is why I keep getting back 'Free Bird' by Lynyrd Skynyrd no matter what I search for?

    --
    Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
  38. I love(d) Norah Jones' Music... by Newer+Guy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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?

  39. Re:Fighting Fire With Fire by Tenebrious1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "File sharing is illegal - you are paying nothing for something." No, file sharing is _NOT_ illegal. Copying and distributed copyrighted works is illegal. There's a world of difference between the two.

    Not quite- copying and distributing copyrighted works... without consent of the copyright holder... is illegal.

    --
    -- If god wanted me to have a sig, he'd have given me a sense of humor.
  40. PeerGuardian has this list too. by antdude · · Score: 2, Informative

    Here. Good program to block these IP addresses and will work for any Windows P2P clients. :)

    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  41. In the words of Chris Rock by SuperMario666 · · Score: 2, Funny

    The first step to not getting your ass beat by the cops is:

    DON'T BREAK THE LAW!

  42. Re:Fighting Fire With Fire by carpe_noctem · · Score: 2, Funny

    I wonder if Pink Floyd gave you permission to use his name on slashdot... :P

    --
    "Quoting famous computer scientists out of context is the root of all evil (or at least most of it) in programming." - K
  43. misnamed files - dangerous material by phorm · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What disturbs me is the great amount of misnamed files that contain somewhat objectionable content. Some are named as such things as disney movies, or pokemon, etc... but contain adult content. I'm sure at least a few kids have come across this crap on kazaa.

    Some of said clips (or those somewhat ambiguously named), contain content of somewhat dubious legality as well (not copyright legality, I'm referring to the content itself being very very wrong). It's bad enough that I see such things when browsing my kazaa cache... but it's worse when I think that somebody may have sniffed my (static) IP and associated me with it - or others have downloaded it off my PC.

    The messaging feature is nice... I can let people know when I find bad, or immoral, downloads - and hopefully help filter the crap-files.

  44. Not enough. by twitter · · Score: 2, Insightful
    it's already begun! how much are those trolls getting paid?!

    Ever met a rich whore? Neither have I. People who sell out like that are always pawns and never have anything.

    The wistle blower should not be trusted. If he had left while the effort was ongoing instead of after it was shut down, his credibility would be much greater. I don't believe him when he says that he did not engage in cracking and other illegal activity. We have several posts here that attest to the fact that people are using the P2P networks to spread viruses. All we can be sure of is that the RIAA and friends are doing everything in their power to eliminate fair use music sharing.

    They hate music sharing because they don't control it. If people are free to share what they realy enjoy instead of being forced to listen to programs designed to sell 40 albums a year, the recorded music world will once again regain the diversity the real music world still has and we will start to see more recording lables than you can shake a stick at. The RIAA will be ruined, of course. Oh well.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.