Slashdot Mirror
File-sharing and AOL
Andrew Leonard writes "Farhad Manjoo's cover story in Salon today, on AOL's refusal to take a stand on the RIAA's (so far) successful attempt to get subscriber information from Verizon, is a detailed look at the most important battle in the file-sharing world right now."
...give me death"? And then good old TJ said something to the effect of "He who would sacrifice his freedom for safety deserves neither". /me wonders how far this all will go...
__________
[Big Brick Wall]
Very true, deviant activity such as file-sharing is just like marijuana smoking, it supports terrorism.
Sorry about the spelling, too much free beer.;)
=If life was easy, i would be out of a job=
Bleh!
If you want to see where we will be in 5 years as a general, having a look at the solutions adopted in these situations would seem to be a damn good guide.
"To any truly impartial person, it would be obvious that I am right."
From the article:
...and a nasty case of trying to count without taking their socks off... :)
It takes, like, five hours to download an MP3 on AOL.
~D:
Warner music is one of the most imortant members of the RIAA
AOL is a part of the AOL-Time-Warner corporation; so is Warner music. Is there therefore a conflict between divisions of the company? Hmmmm... me thinks it's time to sell my ATW stock.... wait, I don't have any anyway.
"Entropy is the bad-guy, and he is everywhere"
The article even points out that MSN and others have refused to comment. Why then is AOL so suspicious just because of their TW relationship?
/.ers have pointed out many times on the media/hardware manufacturer copy protection debates.
If _I_ had an ISP, I wouldn't comment either (I'd just go for another swim in my money....)
These big companies rarely have a unified front, as
Feb. 10, 2003 | One day last summer, a person using Verizon to access the Internet logged on to Kazaa, a popular peer-to-peer music-swapping service, and started downloading MP3s. It was the sort of thing that millions of people do every day; the only difference this time was that an analyst at the Recording Industry Association of America was monitoring the action.
... on a massive scale." To make matters worse, the crook was anonymous; the person's age, sex, phone number and address were unknown to everyone outside Verizon's billing department. All that the record industry had on the alleged thief was an eight-digit Internet protocol address, 141.158.104.94.
... It is unlikely, the Court concludes, that Congress would seek to protect copyright owners in only some of the settings addressed in the DMCA, but not in others."
The RIAA's efforts to obtain this single Verizon subscriber's identity has ballooned into a major courtroom battle over the scope of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the 1998 law that outlines protections for online content. The litigation has split the ranks of Internet service providers and content companies: ISPs, who say they worry about their subscribers' privacy, have generally sided with Verizon, while copyright holders have supported the RIAA.
But stuck in the middle of this fight is a firm that is both a huge copyright holder as well as a huge Internet company -- in fact, it is the leading company in each industry. This is AOL Time Warner, a neither-fish-nor-fowl hybrid of copyright and consumer interests, a combination that has left the company pretty much speechless on a case that could determine the privacy rights of its more than 30 million subscribers, not to mention the rest of us. While other ISPs are running scared, AOL, the biggest ISP of all, is keeping mum.
In January, after months of legal back-and-forth in the Verizon-RIAA case, U.S. District Judge John Bates ruled in the recording industry's favor, ordering Verizon to hand over the Kazaa user's name and address. Internet service providers, privacy advocates, and people critical of the growing influence of copyright owners were devastated by the Bates opinion. The ISPs are worried that they'll be flooded with requests for their subscribers' information, and that they'll have no way to determine the accuracy of these claims.
"You could simply walk into a courthouse, sign a form, and send us a subpoena," says Les Seagraves, the chief privacy officer of EarthLink. "We would have to turn over the name and address of that user. And of course that could get abused -- and there's really nothing we could do about it. The volume of these things would increase, and we'd find ourselves in the subpoena-compliance business, not the Internet business."
Verizon plans to appeal the ruling, and dozens of ISPs have supported its position. But AOL Time Warner has said nothing about the case. The company's online unit has declined to explain what it thinks of the legality of the type of DMCA subpoenas the RIAA seeks, or whether, like other ISPs, it fears being inundated with requests for its users' private info.
Ordinarily, AOL's silence might not mean much. Giant corporations tend not to comment on ongoing litigation, and MSN, the huge ISP owned by Microsoft, has also refused to say anything. But AOL's silence is conspicuous given its unique position as a troubled sister-company to the world's largest media firm. Its silence may also have important practical effects. "They're the biggest ISP, and if they said, 'Wait a minute, we think there's a problem here,' that would be taken very seriously by the courts," says Cindy Cohn, the legal director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. "I think there's no question that would be a tremendous voice."
But will that voice speak out -- or will it be muffled by the media interests that now appear to control AOL Time Warner's future? It's not really an exaggeration to suggest that the privacy of your actions on the Internet could depend on what this single company does next.
The RIAA analyst who logged in to Kazaa last July 15 discovered that the Verizon subscriber had 666 music files available for others to download, including songs by "Billie Holiday, the Beatles, the Who, Pete Seeger, James Taylor, Bob Marley, Johnny Cash, Stevie Wonder, Billy Joel, Barry White, Aerosmith, Janet Jackson, Madonna, U2, Jennifer Lopez, 'N Sync, Britney Spears, and countless others," the RIAA says.
The person was obviously a music lover and may have been one of the record industry's best customers. But the RIAA considered this person a significant threat to its business, guilty of "theft
When the RIAA asked Verizon for the identity of the user at that IP address, Verizon declined to release it. The trade group filed suit against Verizon, citing the provisions of Section 512h of the DMCA.
Section 512h of the DMCA is just a bit more than 500 words in length and about as easy to decipher as an ancient hieroglyphic scroll. Legal experts are fond of saying that the DMCA was conceived as a grand bargain between ISPs and copyright holders -- the law freed the ISPs from liability for their users' copyright violations as long as the companies cooperated with media firms' anti-piracy efforts. Section 512h reflects the muddle of that grand bargain, and everyone seems to have a different idea of what the passage means.
The recording industry says that Section 512h allows copyright holders to obtain a subpoena ordering an ISP to identify a subscriber accused of infringing upon a copyright. To be granted such a subpoena, a media firm must draw up a list identifying the works in question, must provide "a statement of good faith" testifying that it believes infringement has taken place, and must swear "under penalty of perjury" that it wants the information only to protect its copyright. The copyright owner would present these documents to the clerk of the court, not to a judge; the clerk would check to see that the documents are in order and then issue the subpoena. Neither the clerk nor the ISP would initiate any investigation to determine the accuracy of the claims made by the copyright owner.
Since last July, the RIAA has served other ISPs besides Verizon with 512h subpoenas, and some of them, including EarthLink, have also rejected the requests. But according to Nicholas Graham, a spokesman for AOL, the RIAA has not recently sent such a subpoena to AOL -- a company whose member base is at least 10 times the size of Verizon's and probably includes at least one or two, if not 1 or 2 million, peer-to-peer file traders. Asked what AOL would do if the company received a 512h request for member information right now, Graham declined to answer, saying that it would require him to comment on a hypothetical situation closely related to an ongoing legal case.
Did the recording industry purposefully not serve AOL with a 512h subpoena because of its ties to content companies? The RIAA says no -- in fact, the group says, AOL has been served with such requests for subscriber information in the past, and it has complied. "We have sent AOL these subpoenas and they have responded," said Matthew Oppenheim, the RIAA's vice president of business and legal affairs. (AOL's Graham did not confirm or deny this charge.)
Determining exactly what AOL is really doing with RIAA subpoenas -- if it has actually been on the receiving end of them -- is critical, because other ISPs, including Verizon, read section 512h very differently from the RIAA. Verizon says that the law requires ISPs to turn over a subscriber's name and address only under one condition -- if the subscriber has stored copyright-infringing material on the ISP's computers. For example, if a Verizon subscriber saves an illegal copy of an 'N Sync song on a Web site hosted by Verizon, the company would have to tell the record labels how to contact that subscriber; but if the material is just on the user's computer, as it is for people who use peer-to-peer services, Verizon says it has no obligation to disclose any information at all.
"I was one of the 10 industry representatives who was there to draw up this law," said Sarah Deutsch, associate general counsel for Verizon. "There were five people from the telecom sector and five from the content sector -- and it was clearly our interpretation that the content would have to be on our network. We agreed to a process called 'notice and takedown' for material that was on the network." Deutsch says that the use of the word "takedown" in the DMCA is important, as it implies that the content in question must be on an ISP's system to trigger the law -- if the material is beyond the ISP's control, she argues, how can the company take it down?
The RIAA says Verizon's position is illogical. "There are so many ways it doesn't make sense," Oppenheim says. Why, he asks, would Congress have decided to protect online content in one location -- on the ISP's network -- and not in another? And how did Congress expect the copyright holder to determine where the content was being hosted?
The DMCA doesn't care where the content is being hosted, Oppenheim says. Whenever a copyright holder sees media of its own that appears to have been illegally copied, whether on the Web, on a peer-to-peer service, an e-mail message or some other digital form, the DMCA allows the content company to find out who did it. Oppenheim says that the law is straightforward, and he rejects the idea that the RIAA's case against Verizon is a "test" of any kind. Since the passage of the DMCA, the RIAA has obtained 96 such subpoenas, Oppenheim said, and Verizon was the first ISP to reject one. "Before that, nobody ever objected," he said, "and the only reason it's now a test case is because Verizon thought there was a question."
In documents filed in the case, the RIAA points out that Verizon may have only recently come to that position. On several occasions in 2000, the RIAA asked Verizon to take down infringing material from its network -- and nine times, the company said that the content in question was not on Verizon's network, but that the company would be happy to provide the RIAA with subscriber information if the RIAA obtained a subpoena under the DMCA's 512h.
"And that's not surprising," says Oppenheim, "because everybody knew 512h allowed that. So you have to ask: Why would Verizon suddenly change their view? And, well, I have my answers. They've got an enormous base of infringers. Their view is there would be an economic hit if they started to allow this."
Nobody has a larger number of subscribers than AOL, or would be likely to take a bigger hit if suddenly forced to crack down against every instance of file-trading that an AOL subscriber engages in. But, at the same time, no company has more media properties at risk from file-trading than AOL Time Warner.
Oppenheim points out that the only interpretation of the DMCA's Section 512h that counts, so far, is that of Judge Bates -- and Bates' decision is not even a close call. He sided fully with the recording industry. "The Court disagrees with Verizon's strained reading of the act, which disregards entirely the clear definitional language of subsection h," Bates wrote in his 37-page ruling. (PDF file here.) Verizon's position, Bates said, "makes little sense from a policy standpoint. Verizon has provided no sound reason why Congress would enable a copyright owner to obtain identifying information from a service provider storing the infringing material on its system, but would not enable a copyright owner to obtain identifying information from a service provider transmitting the material over its system
Verizon says it will appeal the decision. The stakes are enormous. If you accept that Congress really meant to say what Bates and the RIAA say it meant -- that anyone who suspects a copyright violation can obtain the alleged infringer's identity rather easily and without judicial review -- then the DMCA would seem to be much more unreasonable, and much scarier, than even critics of copyright owners have previously said. According to ISPs, consumer groups, and legal experts, the practical effects of this ruling would be terrifying -- and AOL's silence on the issue despite these consequences "is deafening," says one person in the industry.
"The scope of copyright is infinite in the Internet era," says Peter Swire, a law professor at Ohio State University and the nation's first (and last) chief counselor for privacy at the Office of Management and Budget in the Clinton administration. "Every time you send an e-mail you could say it's copyrighted." The 512h subpoenas, he notes, are "automatic -- no judge is involved. So you will have all these automatic subpoenas where the underlying facts may never have been checked by any human being. You have bots that search for files," and the findings of those bots will simply be passed along to a court clerk, who will order up a subpoena.
These copyright-sleuthing bots -- software programs that scan the Internet for files that "seem" like illegal copies, a determination that can be made on as little evidence as a filename that appears fishy, like "MetallicaSong.mp3" -- are already in use today. They are run by copyright-enforcing firms hired by media companies; everyday, these firms bombard ISPs with requests to pull from their network material that appears to be illegally copied.
Documents Verizon presented in the case show that these bots can sometimes be wrong. For example, the company produced a letter sent to UUNet by MediaForce, a "DMCA enforcement" firm that represents Warner Bros. -- an AOL Time Warner company and a member of the RIAA. The letter demanded that the ISP take down a file that MediaForce said was an infringement of the "Harry Potter" series of books. You can see how the bot might have made that mistake -- the file, which was tiny, was called "harry potter book report.rtf."
"The ISPs get thousands of these things, and they get a not insignificant percent that are not just wrong but are spectacularly wrong," says Cohn of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. "And if the Verizon decision under 512h is upheld, we'll start seeing the same thing for people's identities, and they're going to be wrong in the same percentage that they're wrong now." That's because a key problem with the DMCA, critics of the law say, is that it provides little incentive for copyright owners to make sure that they're providing the court with accurate claims. "They may as well make these things as broad as possible," Cohn says. "There's nothing in the system to make them do otherwise. It's just takedown, takedown, takedown."
Critics of the Bates ruling also worry about intentionally fraudulent copyright claims making it through the system. If you have an entire legal apparatus devoted to "expeditiously" divulging people's private information, there's a chance that the system will become a target of people with something much more sinister than copyright enforcement in mind. "We have seen copyright laws abused by people who have other agendas," Cohn says. "This is a method by which an angry ex-husband can locate an ex-wife, or a process by which stalkers can locate people."
The RIAA's Oppenheim rejects such horror stories. He notes that the DMCA requires people filing for 512h subpoenas to attest to their "good faith" intentions under "penalty of perjury" -- which he says is a strong standard and punishment. Moreover, the judge, Oppenheim says, found the DMCA 512h subpoena process more protective of consumer rights than the process Verizon suggested: that copyright companies file "John Doe" lawsuits against alleged infringers, a scenario that would allow a judge to decide the merits of the case before any personal data was revealed.
One attorney that the RIAA said would back up its view is Douglas Lichtman, a professor of intellectual property law at the University of Chicago Law School. "The cases we should be worried about [with 512h] is where the accusations are not true," Lichtman said. "A case where there's a false accusation, or even worse where there's someone who's using anonymity in an important way -- say where I have a site where I'm making political comments. So the core question is: Does the system as interpreted by [Judge Bates] protect the system enough from false accusations. Verizon says no, the music industry says yes, because the statement is a sworn statement.
"And I have to tell you, I've been torn," Lichtman said. "I've gone back and forth. And I think that the right answer is that a sworn statement under penalty of perjury provides a strong protection." But Lichtman also said that he felt "reasonable minds" could disagree about the consequences of the ruling.
Although AOL Time Warner has refused to say much about its position on this case, the company hasn't, really, been officially silent. Rather, it has held two diametrically opposite views that, taken together, signify a deeply split identity. On one side are many of the company's media subsidiaries -- its record labels and movie studios -- which are part of the RIAA. On the other side is the company's online division, AOL, which is part of the U.S. Internet Service Provider Association, an ISP trade group that filed a legal brief in support of Verizon, and therefore against the RIAA in this case. Through two trade groups, then, AOL has technically told the court that it's on both sides of this issue. Talk about a tough merger!
When asked any questions regarding the specifics of the RIAA-Verizon case, Graham, the AOL spokesperson, repeatedly declined to comment, explaining that the case was a "legal matter that did not affect AOL directly." But he said that the mystery over AOL's stance on this case didn't indicate anything about its privacy policy. "We have a strict privacy policy in place at AOL that prohibits us from providing personal information about our members, unless there are specific circumstances under which the information was requested," Graham said.
Those are cases in which the company is served with a criminal or a civil subpoena. In the case of a criminal subpoena, one obtained by law enforcement in the course of a criminal investigation, AOL will "absolutely" turn over a user's identity, Graham said. In the case of a civil subpoena, "there is careful legal scrutiny, and we have a right to review or contest it, which is what happens in many cases. We check to see whether the subpoena has any merit whatsoever, or whether the subpoena asks information that we do not have and do not keep." If a member's identity is requested through a civil subpoena, Graham said, AOL would first get in touch with the user and let the person know of "their right to contest it. And we'd give them a certain period of time in which they can answer us."
The process set by AOL to comply with ordinary civil subpoenas would seem to be protective of a user's identity; but the scheme wouldn't work with the sort of DMCA 512h subpoenas that AOL's media siblings are seeking. If AOL received a 512h subpoena, it would not have the opportunity to check whether such a request had any merit. And the subpoenas -- which Bates said were designed to be "expeditiously" processed -- would not give the company and users a few days to think over the request.
This will be made all the clearer if ISPs are served with hundreds or thousands of such subpoenas at one time, a scenario some people fear. Dave McClure, the president of the U.S. Internet Industry Association, an ISP industry group that does not include AOL, says: "If an ISP receives 60 boxes containing 10,000 IP addresses for which the RIAA wants you to cut off their access and give up their information, the ISP has no way of knowing whether these people were guilty of infringement or not."
Does AOL recognize, or share, these fears? That's impossible to tell. If you ask people in the ISP industry what they believe AOL's position on this case to be, many say that they couldn't guess but that they suspect the company's silence so far means it has taken a back seat to Time Warner. Others in the industry will tell you of rumors, whispers -- unconfirmed, and denied by the company -- that AOL Time Warner has told lawmakers it's pleased with the Bates decision.
One person conjectured that the RIAA met with AOL before serving other ISPs with 512h subpoenas, but the RIAA's Oppenheim said that the story was absolutely false. "That's just one of those myths you hear," he said.
What if, deep in its corporate heart, AOL Time Warner really, truly, has no position on this case, if only for the reason that neither side presents a very good option?
If AOL Time Warner sides with Verizon -- and therefore its own online subscribers and their privacy rights -- it faces a clear cost: the wrath of its media divisions and of others in that business, companies who believe that file trading will be the death of them. And what benefit would it get from protecting consumers' privacy? Perhaps not a whole lot; the subscribers would likely be oblivious to the whole matter anyway. (The sort of people who care about how their ISP interprets obscure sections of the DMCA aren't likely to be on AOL in the first place.)
How would AOL TW do if it took the RIAA's side? If 512h subpoenas become a frequently used tool of media companies, and if RIAA applies them fairly across ISPs, AOL would probably face a hurricane of such requests. It might very well have to kick off many of its own users for the sin of file trading -- which would be terrible for its image, and help depress already stagnant subscriber growth rates.
Perhaps, in the end, silence is AOL's only rational option, at least until its internal politics are solved.
"AOL's problem is they're just a two-headed monster," Mark Cooper, of the Consumer Federation of America, likes to say.
The important question now is, which monster is bigger?
Not only are all the tech jobs going overseas, but now the US is going to lose it's warez site superiority too.
I just downloaded Metallica's "Enter Sandman" from the following P2P network:
Kazaa
My IP is 204.39.65.157, a proxy
My information is:
Home Address:
John Abshire
14387 SeeYouInCourt
Whatareyougonnadoaboutit, MI, 48hahaha
You may also contact me at my work address:
John Abshire
1 Microsoft Way
Redmond, WA USA 98052-8300
Dialing..... Connecting... Loading... WELCOME! YOU GOT LAWSUIT!
Why are industry people there in the first place, to draw up the law? Are they balanced by ten representatives of the public?
All that the record industry had on the alleged thief was an eight-digit Internet protocol address, 141.158.104.94
Of course, it would have been 8 digits if it was written in Hex. maybe the author was just a hard-core nerd? And thought, digit = 4bits?
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
-kgj
wait a minute ... people still use aol?? now that's what i call a news story!
from the article:
The RIAA analyst who logged in to Kazaa last July 15 discovered that the Verizon subscriber had 666 music files available for others to download
and, imagine: he or she had even set the file permissions to 0666!!
All that the record industry had on the alleged thief was an eight-digit Internet protocol address, 141.158.104.94
so, lets see... 1+4+1=6... 1+5=6... 8 ("eight-digit internet protocol address") is the 6th digit... 104+94=66+66+66...
bring on the californian inquisition!
My next comment will be ready soon, but moderators can beat the rush and mod it up early.
This will get interesting when the RIAA comes crashing into a dorm room that is NATted behind a proxy/firewall.
They have a warrant to search...
IP WW.XX.YY.ZZ, but THAT is the IP of the NAT proxy/firewall. Oops, no music THERE! No warrant for any OTHER IP, such as the PC which is 192.168.0.100...
User "Joe Schmoe", who, by the way, HAS no MP3s. THOSE are all stored on his friend's PC -- who isn't named in the warrant.
OR, "Joe Schmoe" doesn't OWN the PC, he only is paying for the service. The PCs actually belong to someone else -- who is not named in the warrant.
OR, the PC with the goods belongs to a minor, who just happened to be the purchaser of all the CDs that he ripped and shared. A minor who CAN'T ENTER INTO A LEGALLY BINDING CONTRACT such as a music licensing agreement...
OR... take your pick. The costs for the RIAA to start tracking down and legally pursuing individuals would be astronomical.
Good luck proving successful downloads of songs for copyright infringement. Not to mention proving the downloads were of the SONGS claimed, and not some other file with the same name. Even if the file "baby_one_more_time.mp3" exists on the subject's machine, and the RIAA downloaded it and tracked back to to the subject that is only ONE violation. There is no way they can legally prove other infringements -- maybe the person was sharing a copy of bible reading masquerading as Brittany Who's-Dumping-Me-Today Spears? Maybe the RIAA was the only one that got the real thing?
The sheer expense will deal with this issue.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
Speak before you think
if the subpoena of IP addresses based on pure suspicion as supported by the DMCA holds, then media and/or ISPs will be powerless when p2p networks provide authenticated, encrypted services. freenet is already making strides in this area but i think it can be even better.
as much as they fight it, AOL/RIAA/whatever are only shooting themselves in the foot. embrace digital content as a viable content delivery mechanism or die....
smd4985
I'd like to put emphasis on this part of the article:
"And that's not surprising," says Oppenheim, "because everybody knew 512h allowed that. So you have to ask: Why would Verizon suddenly change their view? And, well, I have my answers. They've got an enormous base of infringers. Their view is there would be an economic hit if they started to allow this."
Isn't it widely held that the DMCA is intended to maintain revenue streams for the prosecutors in this case? So this case is essentially about whose revenue is more important: The RIAA components, or ISPs. Since I'm on Slashdot, you know which one I'd regard as more important.
Sigs are like bumper stickers.
Content-makers and content-distributors vie for control until they collide (e.g. AOL-TW, Sony) at which time they engage in fierce legal battles which garner headlines.
Meanwhile, their customers carry on performing "criminal" actions.
You don't have to be Jeffrey Friedl to match this pattern.
--K.
Sig: Bad people happen. Try to avoid being one of them.
If the RIAA wins, wouldn't it cause the downfall of the Internet? Well, I mean, if the RIAA goes after everyone who downloads their music (rather than buying it, or even along with buying it-download to find new and interesting music, then buy), what will they do to them? Have them jailed for their actions? Okay, so the USA becomes a jail country, where 50%+ of its population is held hostage by the RIAA.
Obtaining of media will never be the same! It's been brought up many times in the past; to have video on demand. Well get on with the implementations already. Perhaps do such with audio as well, although this will probably have to be free since it can be obtained freely anyway. Perhaps, in regards to audio, add some quirks and then charge for them. In my opinion, 75%+ of the population of the U.S. ages 12-30 download their music instead of buying. Although, there probably are some accurate statistics already (anyone know where) which would be interesting to see. We need to stop trying to censor our technological advances, but rather develop upon them while allowing them to flourish.
If you're religishitty, KILL YOURSELF!
You've Got Warez!
Trolling is a art,
Wait...if they're going to try to sue to get IP addys why not just go for the gusto: Sue Microsoft for allowing it's operating system to run Kazaa and other "piracy" software. Don't forget about harddrive makers, after all without them we wouldn't have enough space to store those MP3s for very long. Oh hell, why not just go after the makers of computers in general? Without those damn computers the software to pirate music is useless.
Here's a better idea, dont charge goddamn $20 for a CD with 2 good songs on it and maybe we'd be willing to buy them a bit more often. Dont get me wrong support the artist, go see a concert or something. But $20 for a half hour of music? Thats insane. I'd be willing to pay about $12 for a CD, you can't tell me that you can't make a profit on $12 a CD. Maybe if the record companies fired a few lawyers they would realize that the problem comes from within.
And that old rabble-rouser opposed ratifying the Constitution butterly. A very independent-minded guy.
... I'm not suggesting God is going to weigh in on copyright enforcement, and if anyone wants to dies over it, well, I'll be sure to read about it. To exaggerate the debate is to trivialize it. :)
The other example mentioned, Thomas Jefferson, is an even more complex character, given his shifting views aas he contributed far more material to our culture than Mr. Henry's one classic line. On slavery, he wrote, "I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just." His relationship with Sally Hemings, still not entirely resolved, adds to the mix. (Speaking of complex icons, I felt a little sheepish when I realized the White House and Congress were built with slave labor. Of course.)
Metaphors are nice, but
Salon is having major financial troubles. They make their money by having people view their ads when reading their content. There is no registration required to view their content. If you have a problem with viewing an ad as a requisite for accessing their content, why not try to find a print substitute of Salon's quality that costs money.
Welcome to: w4r3z_w4ld0
40L_h4x0r: g1bb0r m3 j00r ju4r3zzzz!
h4x0r_g0d: gn0, j00 g1bb0r m3 j0000r ju4r3zzz!!!
40L_h4x0r: J00 f4gg0rzzz!! G1BB0R M3 J002930mczxcfsdf lsd3 0 013
###CARRIER LOST
***40L_h4x0r has joined w4r3z-w4ld0
40L_h4x0r: where was I.. oh ya.. G1BBOT M3 J00R JU4R333ZZZZ F4GG000RRRRZZZZ!!!!
Now I see why the RIAA is so worried. Crime as organized as this is a threat to everything that keeps democracy flowing.
Trolling is a art,
1. AOL doesn't want other agencies snooping into its network, because it'd make it easier to find out the other illegal stuff going on in there. Nice, wholesome kiddie pr0n, for example. The fewer eyes that aren't theirs, the better.
2. Yes, TW is in the music business. They don't have a good way, however, of preventing filesharing from happening. As others have poined out, the slow speeds within AOL itself are enough of a deterrant there -- where they ought to be concerned is in the TW broadband area.
So they're gonna cool their jets and see what happnes. Makes sense to me.
Slaves weren't people under the American system of slavery: they were property, to be used as the property owner saw fit.
But that's not true of all slave systems throughout history. The laws of ancient Greece and Rome granted various rights to slaves. (A lucky slave might even save enough money to purchase his own freedom.)
Sparta was a particularly interesting case: slaves belonged to the State, and were only "on loan" to their current master.
-kgj
What p2p software needs is a login procedure where a message is displayed that expressly forbids certain classes of individuals from using the network. The classes should be carefully defined so that no mention is made of protected groups (of course) and so that absolutely everyone is covered. Something like "You may not access this network unless your bodyweight is either more than 1000 pounds or less than 10 pounds" would do. Anyone who logs on would be violating the law by gaining unauthorized access to a network.
At this point the proposal probably doesn't seem very promising, but here is the advantage:
Presumably people who were planning to break the law by trading copyrighted material wouldn't be scared of by the warning, but on the other hand, if the RIAA came along with evidence that someone on this network had violated copyright then that alone would be evidence that the RIAA had violated the law, or encouraged someone else to do so.
This just pop'd in to my mind about the whole filesharing issue...
Ok all they have are a list of filenames.
if a person have say 1000 zero-byte or whatever-byte sized files with filenames of whateversong.mp3.
Does having just a list of filenames provide enough evidence to use DMCA as a legal stance?
Does anyone know with some fair amount of detail what evidence the RIAA provided in court to provide some proof other than the list of filenames?
Maybe the kid had 666 files of porn and he renamed them so his parents wouldn't find out...ha ha ha
---
tkt
Ideally the *AA's would also want to make p2p expensive to condone/tolerate on their networks. Pestering ISPs with subpoenas is one avenue of doing this. Hopefully p2p customers bring in more revenue than it costs to service the RIAA.
Xix.
"Everything is adjustable, provided you have the right tools"
See what happens.
0110100100100000011000010110110100100000011000100
Personally, I think the burden of proof for the subpoena is the whole bananna. Note that once the RIAA has your name, is still must make its case you broke the rules. They'll maybe get part of that by suckering you into downloading directly from decoy computers. The hard part will be getting you for nickle-and-dime offenses. More likely, they'll look for the folks who host thousands of titles on P2P. And perhaps they should.
I don't really have a problem with copyright in the abstract, unlike many here, but do with the basic privacy issue in careless attempts at enforcement. Can weirdoes (e.g., Capitol Records
Perhaps the simplest fix is a method of IP obfuscation. But anonymizing makes legitimate enforcement of far more compelling laws (kiddie porn, stalking, etc.) will become more difficult -- yet another side-effect of this whole enterprise.
Nice to see some positive mention of Salon, though. They did some interesting journalism a while ago, and I wonder if those days are long gone.
A modest proposal....
/. community this could be expanded to be a major mine field for the **AA cartel....
1. Write a little script/program to scan the top 5000 swapped files (got to beat the Verizon 666 guy)for filenames/file sizes.
2. Stock a honey pot system with random files of the appropriate file size and names (there is no law requireing you to label your files correctly...look at the **AA's spoofing efforts for examples), making your honey pot a big target.
3. Wait for them to come for you.....
4. Counter sue the socks off them & retire.
I am sure with the technical knowledge base of the
Just a thought....
This is very silly of them. I see a couple of problems if they do start attempting mass-enforcement
Try and subpeona someone outside the US.
Try and explain to average, white upper-middle-class parents that their "little angel" is a "criminal" and NOT have a bad publicity stink about it when parents complain of "needless harrassment".
Try and keep the egg off your face as people start to use proxies outside the US to reroute the download to their computer.
Am I missing something here?? I feel like we're being scared by the big, ominous shadow on the wall and missing the little dork casting the shadow with his hand.
blue
AOL not/having a stance IS news because it's AOL Time Warner. It's the largest ISP AND media company. It has a lot to lose on either side of the fence. If users knew their info was being given up on possibly trumped up charges of illegal file-sharing based on a non-judge issued subpeona then they lose most if not all of their customers who really care about their privacy. On the other hand they have to protect the interest of copyright holders they represent (e.g. RIAA and MPAA members. So while I can understand how one might think AOL not stating their position on way or another is just filler news, I also can't understand how one can comment without actually reading the 4 page article.
Personally I think, as a former AOhelL subscriber, that AOL's public non-stance speaks as loudly as if they had taken a stance one way or another on the Verizon case, which is the reason AOL has a non-stance in this article.
"There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
If the ISPs are forced to give the information, it would be a good time for somebody to write a Kazaa client that used similar technology to that developed by Zero Knowledge back in the day.
Basically, it would go through a couple of intermediate servers that hid the IP addresses in such a way that nobody knew who you were anyway...
Then it would really suck to be the RIAA.
Like AOL, I seem to have a conflict of my own. I love freedom, don't want people watching me etc, but as my freedoms diminish, so does my retirement account grow. I think I'd rather die free than rich.
My Blog
People will demand legal change because if there really are more than a handful of prosecutions little Johny or little Suzy is now potentially in the DoJ's legal crosshair. I've met more than a few people who were self-righteous about it until they found out how absurd it was and that their kids and kids they thought were really great kids could sit in a federal prison for 3 years and be literally bankrupt before the age of 18. You see, most people think you're directly ripping off the artists when they hear piracy. They're not thinking their kid with his small mp3 and divx collection.
Click here or a puppy gets stomped!
So in version 11 of AOL's software, after a few downloads can we expect to hear, "You've got busted" ?
__ Someday, but not this morning, I'll finally learn to use the preview button.
Most of the maintream news sources claimed that opium was a major source of funding for the Taliban. Usage may have been discouraged, but from what I hear, the Taliban activey encouraged opium poppy cultivation over food production. The poor farmers got about as much per acre for the poppies as they would have from foodstuffs, with the Taliban/warlords gtting the lion's share of the markup.
Of course, there is a good deal of US propaganda in there, but I'd like to hear your sources.
Copyright Violation:"theft, piracy"::Anti-Trust Violation:"thermonuclear price terrorism"<-Overly dramatic language.
But, given all that, it never hooked onto who is using that card.
The Federal Department of Justice can obligate communications providers to install equipment to facilitate court-ordered investigations. Primarily, this has taken the form of telcos keeping their switches ready to trace or wiretap.
If enough ISPs start claiming "anonymous prepaid cardholder" as an explaination for failing to complete DCMA 512h requests, then the Feds will start to require them to use a Caller-Id function to log the phone numbers used for the dialup.
Soon enough, they'll track you down.
I can envision a day in which private companies will set up technology to broadcast a variety of popular music over the airwaves and people will be able to buy receivers and tune in for FREE!
That'll show those RIAA dastards.
Trev
I think that ISP's logs would show who logged in and what DHCP IP address was assigned to that user. Additionally, I believe that each subsequent IP address you aquire is connected to your log-in record. They also link your IP to your MAC address for you device that you connect with. Each MAC address is a unique address assigned to the device by the manufacturer. There is no such thing as true anonymity. There is always something that is left behind as evidence. The trick is only leaving behind what you want, not something you don't want, or something "accidentally" left behind. Typically, you only want to leave something behind that is not traceable (either out of practicality, or from a technological standpoint). However, don't take my words as gospel, as I have been known to be wrong.
To know is to have knowledge....to understand is to be enlightened.