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."
Here is a list of P2P Unfriendly IP's you can block.
. 160.127.255
R anger:204.92.244.0-204.92.244.2551 92.0.0-65.192.0.255. 255.255e fender:66.79.0.0-66.79.255.255- 208.225.90.255
MPAA:63.199.57.96-63.199.57.1281 28-64.166.187.1925 51 28.0-207.155.255.2555 5.2552 7 .155.128.0-207.155.255.2559 .0-64.94.89.2553 5.247.255. 255I AA:208.192.0.0-208.192.255.2556 .32.50
OverPeer:65.174.255.255
OverPeer:65.160.0.0-65
Ranger:216.122.0.0-216.122.255.255
MediaForce:65.
MediaForce:65.223.0.0-65.223
MediaForce:4.43.96.0-4.43.96.255
MediaD
RIAA:208.225.90.0
RIAA:12.150.191.0-12.150.191.255
MPAA:64.166.187.
MPAA:198.70.114.0-198.70.114.2
MPAA:209.67.0.0-209.67.255.255
NetPD:207.155.
NetPD:128.241.0.0-128.241.2
UnknownC&DCop:64.106.170.128-64.106.170.19
BayTSP:209.204.128.0-209.204.191.255
Vidius:20
GAIN(spyware):64.94.8
GAINCME(spyware):66.35.247.0-66.
GAINCME(spyware):66.35.229.0-66.35.229
MediaDefender:64.225.292.0-64.225.292.127
R
Xupiter.com:63.23
Xupiter.com(mirror):63.208.235.30
I get dozens of hits to each IPchains rule everyday when I am using P2P.
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.
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.
Everything Metallica has released since Master of Puppets has been garbage :).
Now, IANAL, but it seems like the outcome of such an action would be positive for the geek community:
Anybody see why this wouldn't work (unless some clients failed to put the clause in)?
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.
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?
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!!!!
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
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
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). 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.
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)
davejenkins.com |
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.
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.