Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Chats With Song Swappers
einer writes "Orignally seen
on Drudge; in reaction to their recent loss in court, an IM was sent to 'hundreds of thousands' of grokster and Kazaa users by the RIAA warning that they were NOT anonymous and that they could face legal consequences if they did not stop sharing copyrighted material. The IM was sent to users hosting copyrighted songs for download. Is this a scare tactic or an honest attempt to reform the p2p user community, or both?"
Ok, so first they argue in court that there are no legit uses for these services. Then they use them themeselves. Are they not admiting to doing something that they would claim is not legal?
"It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
They claim the swapping of copywritten songs is illegal, using kazaa for chatting would be a perfectly legal way in RIAA's eyes.
Now corecion, and harrasing people after a judge said that what was going on wasn't illegal ? that is another matter
Hi CtC? /ignore RIAA
Uh, no.
ASL plz
get lost
plz talk 2 me!
plz talk 2 me!
plz talk 2 me!
plz talk 2 me!
fsck off!
y r u so mean?
wats your name?
damnit! leave me alone!
"Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
I'm not sure I get this... they say that there's no legit use for these programs, but they only send messages out to people who are "breaking the law." Not sure about this, but if they have to single out those people, doesn't that prove that there are legal and legit uses for these products?
I don't think I have a sig.
To vacillate or not to vacillate, that is the question... or is it?
Scare tactic. Next question please.
C - A language that combines the speed of assembly with the ease of use of assembly.
The article was sketchy... what I.M. service was used to convey the message?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Do the owners of the music lose it after you steal it? if not, it's not stealing. Looks like the people you are accusing of not knowing the basics know the basics better than you do!
What it boils down to is that companies who don't want to admit that their methods are outdated and move on to better systems are trying to clamp down on any form of progress, and punish forward-thinking individuals.Imagine if, in the 1930s, the powers that be decided that car companies were just becoming too big for comfort and decided to put a stop to it. I can see it now:
Aussies Face Jail Over CarsAfter many years of battling, the RIAA has decided to pressure world governments into stopping the spread of illegal transportation devices known as cars.
"We tried to go after car manufacturers, but have had no luck, so we are going after car-owing individuals," explains the RIAA representitive we chatted to."What people don't realise is that by accepting and using this illegal means of transportation, people are losing their jobs. Horse breeders don't get a cent from these illegal car networks."
The jail term for using a car instead of a horse in Australia is 5 years.Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it? Well so is jailing MP3 file traders.
Hi CtC? /ignore RIAA
<user> Uh, no.
<RIAA> ASL plz
<user> get lost
<RIAA> plz talk 2 me!
<RIAA> plz talk 2 me!
<RIAA> plz talk 2 me!
<RIAA> plz talk 2 me!
<user> fsck off!
<RIAA> y r u so mean?
<RIAA> wats your name?
<user> damnit! leave me alone!
"Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
so they think that a message that is generic sent to everyone on a network will make it stop? it might be frightening if it is done by a real person one on one otherwise id call it more spam than an IM.... no diffrent then the FBI warnings on the videos i back up *shrugs*
The RIAA talks like high school immers? I thought they just acted like children. I didn't know they typed like them.
Come now.. the biggest theives ever (the recording industry) telling others they are theives? HAHAHAHA..
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= - The Celtic - =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
"User banned by Metallica" dialog boxes, as well as a scare that "they" knew who you were, and had your name, email, and whatever else logged.
Waiting for ad.doubleclick.net...
I bet that this worked for them. At least for a few days.
I know a lot of ppl who would stop trading songs online and be a bit scared after that. Specially if they live in the us where personal liberties are not in an all time high, and the riaa/mpaa hold a lot of sway.
I guess that after a few days of reading online how the courts ruled agaist them and yadda yadda trading would resume.
I use kazaa for trading of tv shows because as i am not in the us i can't enjoy the pleasures of PVRs and building my own for a few shows is not worth it. I used audiogalaxy for music as i could find there the stuff i like, but not kazaa so i don't have a normal paramater with which to check against. But i bet that similar searches on popular music a few days ago and tomorrow will show significant difference in found sources
They simply cannot subpoena Grokster or KaZaA (thanks to the recent ruling) for users' names -- let alone actually find their e-mail address to send a nastier C&D 'letter'.
By doing this, the RIAA is basically admitting to the fact that they have lost their stranglehold on the music industry's implementation of non-DRM (or DRM lite) technology.
$DEITY bless $NATION
Its pointless to fight technology and progress. It slows and stops innovation and for what? I thought the whole point is to promote progress?
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Someone kept repeat messaging me "What the F**K do you think you're doing?" so I replied, "I'm download your album BIACH!"
They want as little song swapping as possible, because
they assume that
(fewer songs downloaded)=(more songs purchased).
They don't care whether it is perceived as a scare
tactic or a warning, as long as less songs are downloaded.
Come to think of it, sending out that warning would
make people they take to court more culpable, being
that they had been warned.
I have yet to see a single person actually use Kazaa or anyother P2P ware to chat. I don't see this being a very good tactic for the RIAA to use. Half those people sharing files on Kazaa are not even at thier PCs most of the time to see these messages anyway. Better luck next time RIAA!
[n8.r0n] http://petesweb.spymac.net/
..this move of theirs will probably be effective with some people. It'll work for the same reason that the "buying marijuana fuels terrorism" ad campaign works, because the average person is dumb.
& I wish I knew the password to your heart . . . &
[RIAA] There are no legal uses for this software; it's just for thieves!
[Kazaa] There are plenty of legal uses, your honor...
[RIAA] Not a chance, thieves! Judge, there's not one legal thing that can be done with this junk!
[Judge] I'm hereby ruling in favor of Kazaa, as I think there are some legal uses for it.
[RIAA] Hogwash! In that case, we'll use their software to send instant messages to all the users! Ha ha!
[Kazaa] But doesn't that prove...
[RIAA] Yes! We will use the infidel's own pirate software against them!
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
Me: "Man the desperate things you try... How does it feel to be obsolete? Artists don't need you anymore. Consumers don't need you anymore. I hear your industry fading. Better brush up on your customer service skills, your gonna need them in your new job at Mcdonalds. If they hire form scum sucking executive types. ah... I hear the clock... tick tick tick tick"
when you log onto certain people's servers on IRC (the types of which will remain unmentioned) they sometimes put up a disclaimer saying "if you are a member of a law enforcement agency, blah blah, etc, etc..." Could that be done on file swapping networks, and would it have any bearing? I ask because, why would so many people on IRC do it if it didn't matter at all? I suppose it would have been done already if it mattered on kazaa.
I'm no fan of the RIAA, but if they want to destroy the fileswapping systems, this is the way to do it. Sue some kids with gigs of shared songs and send warnings to everyone else telling them "It could happen to you!" What's more, the latest legal judgements make this method pretty much the only way the RIAA can fight back. Now it's our job to make the connections completely untraceable, sending the RIAA back to the drawing boards. All this is doing is forcing the software community to innovate even more. Don't think of it as a bad thing, it's software evolution in action!
So, it would seem that we need a peer-to-peer service that is built with the following attributes:
-completely anonymous users, file transfers, hosts, etc.
-reliable and stable structure
-decentralized topology
-efficient data management
-and complete deniability (I didn't host that file, or I didn't download that file, as member's cant control content on the network)
Well, I don't work for FreeNet, or their developers, but I did have to read a paper on FreeNet for school, and FreeNet does do all that.
I guess it's time to make the switch to FreeNet.
Perhaps I am just stupid, but what do they know about you?
XXXX @ kazaa----
How many people don't change that name, to begin with. I've seen a lot of kazaaliteusers@....
I would have told them to piss off. This is good news - the enemy is losing, and getting desperate.
The RIAA talks like high school immers? I thought they just acted like children. I didn't know they typed like them.
LOL! u r 2 funny!
Scare tactics like this are meant to reform the P2P crowd just as much as the P2P guys are pirating movies to reform the movie industry.
The RIAA will continue the only possible strategy for prosecuting illegal music-swappers: hammer a few "extreme offenders" college students to set an example for the many.
IM warning notwithstanding, Joe Blow from Iowa who downloads a few Celine Dion songs has as good a chance of being prosecuted as he does replacing Rene Angelil. The RIAA must prosecute copyright violators individually, and out of necessity they will focus on the select few worst abusers, at least those who are easy targets.
Actually using spam companies to spam the mass community and tell them to stop pirating their overpriced plastics.
In conjunction with M$, they will also roll out an unblockable windows messaging service that will pop up a message reminding you not pirate plastics as soon as a keyword is identified: Such as Britney, Spears, Boy, Band, Love, Like, Foo, plus practically the entire webster dictionary
Can't beat you legally? We will beat you illegally, and there's NOTHING you can do about it -RIAA PR
out of curiosity, could they be prosecuted under any spam laws?
I do security
The basis for the RIAA case against Verizon, as pointed out in the article, is that Verizon must release contact info for customers because the RIAA has no way to contact these customers without Verizon's help.
The Verizon lawyer just said: "Wait a minute. You just contacted millions of people."
Also, about "the messaging": it appears that the RIAA is "logging on" to popular file sharing services and using simple scripting to message users through the system. Kazaa provides this functionality.
See, the thing I don't understand, is that to do this sort of thing *legitimately* - that is, prove the user who they're messaging IS distributing copywrited content - the RIAA must log on, search, download, and play a potentially infringing file. Then, the RIAA has to send out the message.
No matter what the speed of the RIAA connection, something tells me that it's going to be very difficult for them to download millions of songs, check them by hand, and then send out messages - since it simply isn't possible. Perhaps they could hash files, sure, but they're STILL downloading thousands of songs. In other words, this is what this says: "I just used this file sharing service to illegally copy a song - and if I want to, I can sue you for it." In previous suits, the RIAA has said things to the tune of: "Since you didn't own copyright to this and my computer made a copy, regardless of whether or not I own copyright, the file isn't legally mine." Or, translation: "I committed a crime to prove your guilt."
I'm pretty sure that isn't legal.
Design a new *anonymous* file sharing system - the excuse is to share file swap storage space as well.
Each client has a public area repository of which they don't know and can't know the content (encrypted, etc.). Songs to be shared will be distributed randomly to your peers. Well I'm sure you clever people at \. can work out a nice scheme to implement that fairly.
The 'infrastructure provider' not being liable argument for Grokster/Morpheus should apply as to the file repository users too.
Downside: might need double the drive space if you want to keep your own private stuff permanently. But hey storage is cheap right?
Back when Napster was the rage, I used it's chat feature. I found it parrticularly helpful when I found a song that I wanted, but was only being hosted by a red or yellow (low speed) connection. I'd IM the person to ask if they were downloading or uploading anything else at that time. If they weren't, I'd let them know that I'd like to try and grab a file from them, and well.. yeah, that worked. That way, I avoided trying to cram another mp3 over an already overloaded 56k modem that was transfering other mp3s.
So, I did find a use for Napster's chat features. However, since most people who have just about every song are on "broadband" these days, I don't try to see if it will be a hastle to download from a particular user.
The chat feature was/is still helpful.
Wow, RIAA spammed Gnutella.
Does this mean I can perform Unsolicated Commercial Communications using Gnutella?
Sounds like Gnutella is a commercially viable mode of communication amonst a targeted audience.
Proxies, especially chained proxies, could make it impossible to trace.
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
Hell, these people will tal out of the side of their mouths and change their arguments as often as suits them.
What you forget is the RIAA/MPAA/etc couldn't give a fuck about the law breaking aspect of this. Their intrest is shutting down file swapping and any Internet distribution they don't control to maintin the bussiness model and control their members have. It isn't about legality or morals for them, those are just a means to an end, it is maintaining their control.
Anyone know of a list of the netblocks owned by the RIAA/MPAA and any member organizations, contracted companies, etc?
I've been building up a fairly large blacklist of hosts returning bogus search results, but that only works so well. If there was a good blacklist, P2P programs could include it, and deny all connections from those ``nasty" hosts.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
From the Kazaa terms and conditions :
You agree not to use the Software to:
2.1 Transmit or communicate any data that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, invasive
of another's privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise
objectionable.
Isnt that basis enough to sue the RIAA ?
Siggy Say, Siggy Do
The use of fear tactics have been used in the penitentiary system for the last century or so: it's called a Panopticon and I think it goes far in explaining how the RIAA may scare many individuals by suing only a few:
The structure is a tower with tinted windows that casts a light down towards the surrounding inmate holding regions. Only at certain times does the structure have a guard inside of it. The idea of panopticism is that inmates are less prone to attempt an escape with the existence of a panopticon because of an internalized restraint. It is a restraint that is self-imposed and is based on the possibility that there could be a guard in the structure, not that there IS actually a guard in the tower. The prison system has to employ a guard a minimal amount(more cost effective than guarding everyone)... and the prisoners have that fear that the guard is in the tower, and consequently, they don't escape.
How does this relate to MP3s? The following mappings:
prison : file distribution system
prisoners : users of the file distribution system RIAA : watch tower
Partially guarding the tower : auditing certain individuals (as seen in the verizon case)
Granted that any analogy has problems, it has been shown historically through this panopticon that it is possible to somewhat control the masses by being somewhat random in prosecuting a few individuals and I think that to be exactly what the RIAA is doing.
Everyone should remember that repeated threats of legal action qualify as battery... If RIAA oversteps their bounds here, there could be a nice big class-action lawsuit over it.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
THanks so much, that Shit City one is indeed the SHIT! It's worth every penny of my girlfriend's credit card.
I think that before we all say that the RIAA has to die, we should come up with some viable alternatives so that our favorite artists don't end up broke and in the gutter.
But, all in all, I'm with you...the RIAA must go.
from the article: '"Way to go, RIAA. Sue and threaten the public, your customers. I think I'll go and download," one posting on Yahoo said.'
This is not the answer. I'm not saying that the RIAA is right in claiming that the MASSIVE amount of pirating is hurting their business, but if this is the response we all start taking eventually it will. We do have to realize that it is the recording industry that signs artists, produces and records their work, and markets them to a vast audience. In a round about way, pirating music is eventually going to end up hurting us. I'm not exempt, nor do I plan to stop downloading free music period, but we can't just fight back by stealing more music. IF we continue to ramp up our efforts in a big "fuck you" to the RIAA and recording industry we'll end up with a world FULL or DRM and Longhorn/Itanium like shit. I, for one, shiver at that thought.
from the articel: 'The RIAA argued that Verizon is obligated under the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act to help the music industry protect its copyrights. Verizon says it is willing to help, but argued that the law only applies to Web pages stored on its computers, not traffic on the "peer-to-peer" networks that merely travel across its wires.'
Here we see the DMCA being wielded again. We have to face it, the law is here now and they're going to use it. We have a couple of choices: accept it and learn to play by the rules it outlines, or band together (there's a hell of a lot of people that read Slashdot) and strike it down, or AT LEAST reform it. The DMCA is pure evil and until we change or destroy it we're not going to make any progress in regards to the current state of affairs. It was a way of treating a symptom (like so many things in America) and NOT a solution to the problem. BUT all of us bitching about it online and on Slashdot DOES NOTHING. We have to take action on this.
"I think a small number of users will be deterred by this effort. It's not going to come as a surprise to them the RIAA finds it unlawful," said Jonathan Band, a copyright lawyer for Morrison & Foerster.
I have a fifteen year old sister. Think about it, these kids start getting online around 10-12 and all they've EVER known is FREE MUSIC. Most of them don't know or even consider that it IS stealing. DON'T STEAL MUSIC was part of the message sent buy the RIAA (Apple is still innovating the industry, in more ways than one. Remember when the iPod first came out....) and this is something we should really think about. Are we justified in demanding lower prices? Yes. How about calling foul on the DMCA? Yes. Figuring out a new model that is beneficial to artists, consumers, and the corporations providing the content? Yes. As the law stands though, downloading music from p2p IS ILLEGAL. Are we justified in stealing? No.
Look at the new service from Apple, iTunes Music Store. I don't think Apple got it 100% correct but they've come a HELL of a lot closer than anyone else so far. Unlimited burns of tracks to CD, burn a playlist 10 times, register 3 Macs to play purchased files and be able to change which 3 Macs you have registered, unlimited ability to put your music on as many iPods as you like, and Rendezvous streaming of your entire library both on your network and across the internet. I feel the price points are pretty damn close to right....and maybe we'll see them get a little better.
I don't know exactly what point I'm trying to make but it just seems like we're all screaming "foul" on this and maybe we should re-examine the whole situation. Escalating this to an epic battle of theft, rights infringement, lawsuit, counter lawsuit, destruction of an industry just doesn't seem like the only option.
The Slashdot community could have a lot of power and a lot of voice if we could agree on something that was fair to BOTH sides and then get out in the real world and make that voice heard.
When GNUNet is ready and people start to use it, those kinds of problems will cease to exist(GNUnet offer anonymity and deniability) but, they will probably be replaced by some other issues. I wonder what they will be?
...in the constant striving for perfection in the AIA.PB848's which have been built this year. Five felons have been caught fleeing rehabilitation center dd2. All five have been undergoing treatment for drug offenses, two of the felons were products of the sex act, the other three....
LUH
What?
NEWSCASTER
Two of the felons are products of the sex act, the other three are from reproduction clinic nineteen. The quintet escaped from compound 545 and were all subsequently destroyed. Reports indicate....
THX is confused and preoccupied.
SEN (Cont.)
I know what you're thinking... Program shifting isn't that major a crime is it?
(pause) LUH is a problem for you. I've watched her during work. She's been acting very strange.
THX stands up and starts for the door.
SEN
I won't have another mate like ONA. You rate very high in sanitation. I've checked. In fact, I am surprised that you were ever matched with LUH. Her ratings are very erratic - you know what I mean. We'll be happy.
THX
I don't feel well
I was first introduced to MP3's a number of years ago at a house party in London (UK). The hosts had some friends who worked at MTV, and these blokes brought along around 10 CD's full of MP3's with tunes that varied from old 80's stuff that I hoped I'd never hear again, to some songs which were still due for major release.
The trouble is, it's all too easy to get MP3's. I love that, and it's obviously going to change the way we percieve musicians as artists and what they should be paid.
This scare tactic just proves that the recording companies are scared of loosing their 'muso' lifestyle, and the trapping that are associated with that. IM's from people I don't know get binned with other junk mail.
How is this different from the mafia and triad members asking for protection money? The effect is the same, a user is being threatened, rather or not of what he is or is not doing.
In effect, all the RIAA is doing is to scare people into doing something. That's got to be illegal in some way. I mean, would the police pull a gun on a crack addicts head?
perhaps the difference is that sometimes even the mafia and triads have morals
I am not clear on your second to last paragraph, but if your saying that the RIAA is illegaly downloading the copyrighted songs to verify that they are in fact, illegal copies... I think they do have that right. Or at the very least, I think the will get legal permission from the record lables to make illegal downloads and check them.
Also, your right, to cut down on the number of downloads they would have to make, they could implement some sort of hashing on the bit streams in the files. This would work for A LOT of popular songs where everyone seems to have the same copy. However, technically, one could argue that with hashing, two completely different songs could have their contents hash to the same value, and thus hashing, or comparing the contents of the suspected illegal copy's contents by data alone, and not audio output, is not a valid or technically sufficient proof.
time to move to encryption. encrypted peer to peer is the answer i think.. distributed 128 bit encrypted p2p. now that is music to my ears.
Who cares if the RIAA are hitting kazaa users. If you are serious about acquiring mp3's that are of decent quality you certainly won't be expecting much from kazaa.
At the end of the day kazaa carries a lot of 128 kbps (Inferior) copies of mostly common, bad music. Napster was much more effective for rare tracks but kazaa is mostly a virus ridden poor rendition.
Kazaa is not the first place to look for mp3's, its the last.
The
but then I kill-filtered *@riaa.com from alt.binaries.mp3.*.
First we waste bandwidth on causing wallop hacks, channel flooding and massive bot networks on IRC. Then we discover DDoS and waste bandwidth on that. Then the spam gets so bad that the majority of email traffic is spam.
...now "millions and millions" of IMs. Die.
Seems to me like the RIAA is looking for WMD's - invade first, then question.
HTH
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
RIAA MP3 S.W.A.T. teams to mop up evil music swappers!
I would find it unlikely that Kazaa would try to sue the RIAA. For many reasons, but particularly one that might normally be over looked:
If Kazaa sued, they would have to attach a real person's name to the law suit, and give a location for themselves. This is one reason that the RIAA is having trouble suing Kazaa in the first place, they don't know who exactally to sue, and where they are located! (though there is a pretty general idea, but still spread between australia, holland, and eastern europe)
Can't anyone be creative enough to think of one of these? I am getting bored without one to reply to.
"It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
"That's just a rabbit!!"
Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10
u'RE 1/\/ d33p d00 d00 no 435 no youssa in deep doo doo!
.smell my feet.
You are participating in the piracy of copyrighted materials. You are not anonymous, and further violations can result in legal action being taken.
<l4m0rman2000X> omg wtf
<RIAA> Please remove all copyrighted material from your shared folder and refrain from downloading copyrighted material in the future.
<l4m0rman2000X> gimme the new limp bizkit faggot
<l4m0rman2000X> fuck u
<RIAA> I am attempting to converse in a civil manner. You have been given a warning to cease your illegal activities. Failure to do so could result in legal action being taken.
<l4m0rman2000X> shut up b4 i ddos u!!!!!1 take ur jewish lawyer crp back 2 israel!!!!1
*** Quits: l4m0rman2000X (Leaving)
Respectfully, I don't think the RIAA looks upon the mass of file sharers as a community. No one I know who shares considers themselves part of a community. Besides, that kind of approach would make the RIAA look soft. They don't want to reform anyone, I don't think. They just want them to stop and will send lawyers if their demands aren't met. The infringers are seen as nothing more complex than an army of shameless theives.
Personally I spend money on music pretty regularly. I go see a lot of bands live, maybe buy a t-shirt, buy cds straight from the bands, etc...
I really don't see the problem with the RIAA trying to limit piracy, it's their tactics that suck. Kazaa for example has a lot of stuff traded on it that has absolutely nothing to do with the RIAA, yet they try to shut the whole thing down, and they're terrible hyocrites and can't see that they need to change their business model. I hardly even use cds anymore, and if I do they're mp3 cds. I have the means to use more convenient methods than having hundreds of cds laying around (and I HAVE hundreds, legally bought over the years.. not many from recent years, but hundreds nonetheless) so why the hell should I stick to overpriced media in a format I don't even like anymore?
They don't get with the times... people adapt, they're not. Tough shit if nobody wants to do business with the RIAA anymore. You might as well sue me if I grow food in my garden because I've decided it's nicer than paying for all my food already pre-grown. Not the same thing, sure, but it's a similar situation...
Of course I'm preaching to the choir here.
I think pay music can and should exist. They're obviously not learning how to SELL it though. Update the business model, get with the times, stop screwing over the bands (I won't get into that here, but they certainly do), and realise that most people don't want to spend nearly $20 for an hour's worth of content when there's so many hours of content out there to listen to.
Support your favorite bands by seeing them live. You'll probably even discover a lot of new music that way too.
...but maybe if the RIAA spent more time producing products people wanted to purchase and less time alienating their users they wouldn't have this problem!
Justin Timberlake, Christina Agularia, Kelly Clarkson, 50 Cent, and Linkin Park are being shoved down the throats of their listeners with their preprocessed, $18 garbage, its no goddamned wonder CD sales are down! In one quick swoop, Napster made available all of the "good" music people want to hear AND made the CD format obsolete.
I'm sorry, but I believe it's time for the RIAA to buckle down and try and change their business model if they want to stick around.
"In a Democracy, people get the kind of government they deserve." -Winston Churchill
I don't know about you... but I have a wireless basestation.... no password... soooooo I suppose someone else from my IP MUST have been d/ling all the copywritten stuff... I just use KAZAA for the *significant* non-infringing uses... /Sounds like reasonable doubt to me...
At least they're not trying to get me to look at their webcam...
But I'm willing to make exceptions for Britney Spears.
(for the sarcasm impaired: Stealing Britney Spears music would mean she wouldn't have the master tapes anymore, which would mean none of you would ever have to listen to it again. Wouldn't that be nice?)
Now, violating copyright, that's something I can get behind.
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
This reminds me of e-mail I got from my internet provider concerning e-mail they got from NetPD. Funny thing was that I haven't ever shared song trough p2p-network I just had the client on. And as I looked trough the mail I found out I never had owned mp3 they mentioned or even haven't had directory which they referred it would have been on my computer. (Yes. I was using WinMX where you can see share directories on sharing computer) So I think this is probably same kind of harasment as I got.
Hey, that post is an exact copy of one I posted a couple of months ago! Respect my copyright or something, will you?
This is neither a scare tactic nor an attempt at reform; it's the opening salvo in the next battle.
Next step will probably be legal notices handed out: cough up X dollars for all of these downloads. Pay X now, or if we have to take you to court you pay 2X later.
How much you wanna bet that X will be some astronomical sum?
"Is this a scare tactic or an honest attempt to reform the p2p user community, or both?"
Those of us who actually read the article found this:
Sherman said the trade group did not plan to take further action against the users it had contacted for now. "There is no next step. We are just letting them know it's illegal and they are not anonymous," said Sherman.
So it would seem like this is a scare tactic only. For now.
SIG: TAKE OFF EVERY 'CAPTAIN'!!
Is that the RIAA complains of unfair trading of copyrighted songs.
The RIAA labels do not own rights to all the copyrighted songs, and some artists grant rights to exchange their works, even on P2P services, freely.
The RIAA speech needs to stop being so broad and arrogant, already.
Human nature is the same everywhere; the modes only are different. -- Earl of Chesterfield
Hi there
I am from Cape Town, South Africa and I personally think one of the many reasons why people p2p for music is because of the price of CDs nowadays. Here, we are paying about R130-R150 a CD which averages about $17. It may not sound much for the Americans out there, but for us here in SA, it is a lot of money to spend on a CD.
Compare to a Large McDonalds Big Mac meal, fries and a Coke for R22.
Many people out there would rather own the original CD because of the quality advantage and CD sleeve, etc, but people are only prepared to pay for CDs rather than to p2p if they were cheaper. Doesn't the RIAA realise this? Don't they think that if they had to bring the price down by 50% or so that they would sell more CDs, and so in turn make more money?
But nowadays commerce doesn't think like this. For example, bring the price of plasma television screens down by a huge amount and BELIEVE ME, people will storm each and every Circuit City, Best Buy, etc and buy them.
I would love to hear your comments on this.
Thanks
but is there a legal file-swapping schema out there that functionally masks the participants?
-completely anonymous users, file transfers, hosts, etc.
Freenet is still suseptable to a man-in-the-middle attack. Your ISP could log everything you insert. Also, it won't protect you from your own software. For example if you publish a word document with your name and LAN address embedded in it, you've pretty much given up your privacy.
Well out of my webcam you can just see a quiet street. Oh you mean that sort of webcam? You got any URL's :P
Rus
Cheap UK and US VPS
Why I ask is simple. If it is possible, then one can have anonymous transmission of P2P materials simply by sending everything out via UDP. You simply spoof the UDP address, and you should be essentially untraceable. And if anyone starts spouting about the moral issues of such a system, fuck you. First off, there are a lot of legitimate uses for P2P. Second, all the uses of P2P combined for music swapping don't come near the damage to the long-term viability of the music industry the RIAA has done through downright assinine and short-sighted business practices. So, the exects of the large music studios can all curl up and die for all I care; I'll be dancing on their graves when it happens.
Marxism is the opiate of dumbasses
Let's say that tomorrow, Kazaa and Gnutella became completely encrypted. Every single bit that flowed through the networks was Blowfished. What does this solve, exactly?
Peer to peer is called that for a reason, the file transfers happen between two distinct nodes. Any filesharing network has to have a search feature, so you can find files, and figure out who has them in order to start the download. Put bluntly, you have to know who's sharing the file in order to download it and once you've got that much, you just look up who owns the IP address and fire off a DMCA notice.
Encryption isn't going to stop any of that. And the P2P programs themselves would have to decrypt the information (such as filenames and IP addresses) as part of normal operation, so you couldn't countersue RIAA for circumventing anything.
The only way for P2P to operate anonymously is to have a P2(..P..)2P network. For example,
User A sends search query for "Beethoven"
Users B and C are hosting "Beethoven.mp3"
User A receives query hit from Users D, E, and F to which he is connected
User A requests the file, which sends commands to Users D, E, and F who proxy the download to User A from Users B and C
Of course, in order for this to really be anonymous, it would take more than one layer of proxying. Mixmaster remailers handle this sort of chaining fairly well, i.e. each remailer in the chain only knows where it got the message from and where that message must be sent. The remailer that knows the source and the remailer that knows the destination are (presumably) completely separated. There is also the implicit trust that at least one of the remailers in a chain of 3 is not under the control of a foe.
Unfortunately, the implications of applying this sequence to a P2P network are simply too outrageous to overcome! Imagine if in order to use Gnutella, not only did you have to put up with the protocol overhead, you also had to proxy other users' downloads of god-knows-what? If you thought ISPs were complaining about P2P users hogging bandwidth now, wait until literally every user of a particular P2P network is maxing out his upstream 24/7 in order to proxy downloads to other users. And there are already tons of people who use P2P networks but complain about all the porn. You think those users would be willing participants in proxying other users' porn downloads?
Not. Gonna. Happen.
Progress is a fine concept. It really is. But the real issue here is that this "progress" that you speak of may, at some point, kill the incentive for creation of new works.
;)
Of course, I'm not nearly so naive to think that a little P2P is going to kill the recording or film industries because certainly there is a huge potential for profit in both of them.
Artists really do need their work protected; otherwise, why make the effort? I suppose my own sick hopes are wanting to see these big corporate entities, money-sucking middlemen, eventually collapse under their own hypocrisy.
Personally, I can't wait to see how things turn out.
I find it even more amusing that the RIAA has replaced their people with bots. Heres why:
We all claim the RIAA mainly is a representative for music-distributers that are no longer necasery. And then they start doing their dirty work (which is all they do, apperantly) with bots!
They have thus proven our claim is correct, by employing technology to do their work, instead of doing it themselves :)
Oh. And this is meant to be moderated funny, not insightfull, if anyone cares to spend modarator points on such a lousy post.
Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.
its a win only app available here
. 160.127.255
R anger:204.92.244.0-204.92.244.2551 92.0.0-65.192.0.255. 255.255e fender:66.79.0.0-66.79.255.2552 25.292.0-64.225.292.127. 255.2552 .150.191.0-12.150.191.2559 9.57.128A :198.70.114.0-198.70.114.255. 67.255.255
N etPD:128.241.0.0-128.241.255.2554 .106.170.128-64.106.170.192- 209.204.191.255. 255
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
MediaDefender:64.
RIAA:208.192.0.0-208.255
RIAA:208.225.90.0-208.225.90.255
RIAA:1
MPAA:63.199.57.96-63.1
MPAA:64.166.187.128-64.166.187.192
MPA
MPAA:209.67.0.0-209
NetPD:207.155.128.0-207.155.255.255
UnknownC&DCop:6
BayTSP:209.204.128.0
Vidius:207.155.128.0-207.155.255
Xupiter.com:63.236.32.50
It currently blocks this range of IP's, so I would guess that's a good place to start with in your firewall
I shudder to think on what legal basis the RIAA could be prohibited from doing this. If anything like that existed, it would probably be sweeping and be a threat to P2P and IM in general. However, the creator of the P2P software might be able to do something if it bugs enough users.
If you aren't offering copyrighted songs and they still keep bothering you, maybe you can sue them for some kind of harrassment. If you are offering copyrighted songs, just live with it, or, alternatively, perhaps you should just stop.
Am I the only one who just fired up Kazaalite, hoping to get one of these messages? The firewall is all set, I'd love an authentic RIAA tongue-lashing to screencap.
Maybe it'll be worth something twenty years from now on ebay.
---
"Dude, I'll trade you a cease-and-desist by Harry Fox for that"
"Deal!"
On the flip side--if they set up downloads and people bite can't they also find you and send nasty letter?
I don't see that as a problem. Kazza is a publik network after all! No one really has any "protection" for their actions using their network. If they want to look you up they are more that right to do so. Try kiddy pr0n on Kazza and I'll guaranty you'll have someone at your door in a hurry! The only problem is that going after every music downloader is time consuming. Again, go after the kids at home-upset the parents and you'll get results. A little sabotage of the CDDB would be good too. If they embeded a tracker number in the database tags everyone would download them to their mp3's! You could track at least the stupid users back home with it.
As for college students, they need to offer a more reasonable alternative. If the college gets a kick-back for sharing the network they'd be more likely to keep the kids straight too! Funny how a little money in Deans hands fixes lots of things! [Take a page from the MS playbook here!]
To throw some more fuel on the flames I'll be a-getting [but that's OK, I've got marshmellows!]..I use AOL DSL and love it. They've got radio stations that play just about anything you'd want. [Music videos too] or you can go to the other legal music sites at decent bandwidth too. There's enough stuff on there you don't have to steal to get it! More ISPs need to follow that example. [and AOL needs to support Linux!]
If You want that, try Mnet (http://mnet.sourceforge.net/).
.haeger
* Distributed files over several nodes
* Each block is encrypted on disk.
* Transfers between nodes are encrypted
* Swarm downloads
* Works on several platforms
* Freenet-like anonymity
* Open source (LGPL license)
New version will include bittorrent-like URI's to just paste into Your browser, but for now You have to use a web or python GUI.
FEC (Error correction) is also being worked on for the new version.
Do read some more about it on their webpage as I think it's a really interesting project.
No, I don't work for them. I just like the idea.
You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. -- Harlan Ellison
wow doesnt sending a mass of unwanted IMs constitute spam??? a new virgina law makes the sending of spam a felony. hmmmmmm make you wonder
You can't have a completely anonymous peer2peer system. Any system that requires your peer to connect to another will always comprimise your anonymity.
OK, I have to play devil's advocate here.
I am no fan of the RIAA. But the reactions here are surprisingly hostile for what they're doing. If I'm reading this article correctly, they're sending instant messages to people who are offering files to upload (based on song titles), warning them about their traceability and legal liability.
So what?
This is rotten behavior but it is an improvement. Remember, these are people who would much rather communicate with you via certified mail on legal letterhead. If I get an instant message on Kazaa I don't start pacing around in a sweat wondering if I should contact a lawyer.
Presumably, anyone using Kazaa for non-infringing uses shouldn't get one of these instant messages anyway (unless the RIAA is lying about examining song titles first, or there's a name collision with a copyrighted work in a user's upload directory). Running a file sharing node doesn't expose you to liability unless you've got copyrighted stuff on it. We always emphasize how file sharing networks have non-infringing uses. I don't see how this would have a chilling effect on such use unless the messages are sent to people in error, are used for DoS attacks, or are indiscriminately sent to all users of the network whether their node contains copyrighted content or not.
Frankly I would almost give them points for cleverness. Compared to their typical antics this is quite tame. It will probably be more effective for them, too. Most people probably don't care enough about file sharing to risk liability, and it's only natural for the average user to presume his own anonymity on Kazaa. In fact I bet most people who use Kazaa aren't even conscious of the fact that their IP is exposed and traceable to them, and might very well stop using Kazaa once they realize it. The message is clearly targeted at such people. The RIAA might just effect a greater dent in file sharing with this stupid instant messaging than they have so far with all their lawyers, lobbyists, and hired network saboteurs. If so, we should only hope the lesson sinks into their thick heads. This is the best behavior we can realistically expect from them. They don't understand anything but threats and intimidation. Let's all hope they stick to instant messaging.
Yes they're corporate vultures, cultural parasites, etc., and this is clearly an act of a desperate industry that just lost a huge court case and has sunk to the point of threatening individual file traders, but the shrill tone and accusations of hypocrisy is a bit much for what they're doing here. It's a frigging instant message. What do you expect from the RIAA, a love letter? You should already be aware of the risks you're taking. If you didn't know before, now you do. Just click OK and keep downloading.
...this incredibly short, blanket criticism of millions of individuals the poster does not know will continue to be modded up, like similar posts that have no contributive value whatsoever, because the moderation system is inferior to, say, Kuro5hin.org's. Even the fact that no reason was given as to why they are dumb, or what they are ignorant of, was not viewed as a weakness by these moderators. Ieshan's interesting point way down below is apparently like so much kitty litter, in the eyes of the moderators, next to the godlike qualities of the above statement that people are dumb.
P.S. I would like to contribute and 'reform the system' as it were, but modding posts like this down as overrated for being to brief, or an obvious statement of 'good things are good, bad things are bad', is what got my moderating priviledges taken away for 6 months or so last time.
It seems to me that their latest activities are more akin to a dictator ordering a few dissenters and opposition to be executed in order to scare everyone else into conformity, more than anything else...
People will pass up steak once a week, for crap every day.
"Everyone should remember that repeated threats of legal action qualify as battery... "
Smith Battery: We make money the old-fashion way, we beat it out of you.
RIAA> We've noticed that you host copyrighted material on your PC. You are not anonymous. Please cease and desist.
Eliza> What makes you think You are not anonymous?
RIAA> Eh?
Eliza> Please go on.
RIAA> Are you kidding me?
Elia> Has it something to do with your childhood?
RIAA> Oh.. now as you said that I recall my parents being very cruel to me. They refused to buy me a Walkman for my 13th birthday..
Lisp is the Tengwar of programming languages.
Both the GPL and music licensing are forms of copyright, they are just very different uses of copyright.
Why do you think we have such corporate sponsored pop-music travesties such as Britney "Pepsi" Spears? Because people actually buy their garbage! With file-sharing only the strong will survive, and the RIAA and Music labels cannot continue to put one or two good songs on a CD with 16-17 "filler tracks" and make billions. The crap will not get listened to. People will download and burn only the good stuff and this will force the no-talent pop-stars on the shortbus back to Creative Inspiration special education school.
If you want people to pay 15 bucks for a CD you had damn well better put $15 worth of decent music on it. In the end we must realise that we have created this monster. We, the consumers, financed and permitted these people to build this empire and in the end we can only strive to take back what we have allowed them to annex from us. filesharing is one way of telling these people that enough is enough.
I am now off to download all of Madonna's work just for the hell of it. In the end she, and the greedy alcoholic neanderthals of Metallica have shown us the depths of greed that a person can sink to once you give them a taste for money and popularity.
They are right, of course. Which is precisely why you should all use Freenet which IS anonymous, totally distributed, and has a much better distribution model in that popular content is automatically cached all over the net and all downloads are automatically "swarmed" so you don't get stuck downloading Madonna's music off of someones 56k modem. Using 60 download threads I can consistantly get 90k/s on recently inserted files, no matter what the connection speed of the person who made them available.
I bet she's not half as good looking as Heidi Wall.
(Mods : I know it's off-topic, and a reply to an AC, but I just have to bitch.)
...to pay for rent, snacks, and a PlayStation.
... a good deal comes from Southern Asia and Asia Minor, and is sold specifically to fund terrorist organizations in those parts of the world ... So yeah, by buying drugs you really ARE supporting terrorism
But what about the vast majority of the marijuana bought in the United States? It comes from drug cartels in Mexico and Latin America.
Wrong. The vast majority comes from within the US.
That money goes (indirectly, through your dealer)...
Since we're talking about funding drug cartels and supporting terrorism, I suppose it's only fair to bring up Iran-Contra.
It's heroin that's the real killer.
Well, our government
did pay those same terrorist organizations in hopes that they wouldn't sell drugs. Of course, being 'evil-doers', they didn't. Nor did they stop being terrorists.
Nevermind the fact that for the poor farmers of Afghanistan, it's easier to buy food with money from poppy fields than it is to grow food for your starving family. Funny how that still hasn't changed, dispite being 'liberated' by the US.
I don't care one way or another who uses drugs, but I do care when people believe the bullshit our own government spouts. The drug-money that reaches terrorists is a pitance next to the amount of pork in our anti-drug budget.
-dr.badass
Don't become a regular here -- you will become retarded.
Here, blow your load.
I finally got what *I* was looking for. A quick easy way to scan for tunes, check em out, and buy em online. That new iTunes service from Apple is amazing. It takes just a few minutes to scan, preview, download, and drop into my ipod and away I go. No hassles, I only get the tracks I want, and the DRM is very reasonable and usable.
I guess if you're time isn't worth much, then paying for your music isn't very attractive, but this new apple thing answers all of my issues with pay services. Albeit, it is still a bit expensive (Apple's new ipod holds 7,500 tunes and so how much would it cost to fill it?) but I'm happy.
I still use bittorrent to grab my fave TV shows because my cable co is too stupid to offer recent TV shows "on demand" for a reasonable price, but once they get their heads out of the sand and offer that service, I'll pay a buck to watch a TV show (sans commercials) as well.
but none really cared, it wasnt every joe doe leaching off whatever. i was only the few, who knew what they were doing could get it.
what i hope is the RIAA forces the whole warez sceen back underground, so the general public cannot access it.
the people who made napster are bad. BBS were the place to go for warez, and it took skill to use it. napster brought a GUI to warez.
quite frankly i dont care if the RIAA kills off P2P, its fine by me. ill get my goods, no matter how hard they try.
and, i would like to leave you with a one line summary of the above: feel free to use this line as much as u want, i do!!
"warez" is a very common word and was not included in your search
Since 1992, the U.S. Government has collected a tax on all digital audio recorders and blank digital audio media manufactured in or imported into the US, and gives the money directly to the RIAA companies, which is distributed as royalties to recording artists, copyright owners, music publishers, and music writers:
In exchange for those royalties, a special exemption to the copyright law was made for the specific case of audio recordings, and as a result *all* noncommercial copying of musical recordings by consumers is now legal in the US, regardless of media:
The intent of Congress was clear when this law was passed (http://www.cni.org/Hforums/cni-copyright/1993-01From House Report No. 102-873(I), September 17, 1992:
From House Report No. 102-780(I), August 4, 1992: Therefore, when you copy an MP3 the royalties have already been paid for with tax dollars in accordance with the law. If you are a musician whose recordings are publicly distributed, then you are entitled to your share of these royalties by filing a claim under Section 1006 (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/1006.html)Napster tried to use this law to defend their case, and the court ruled this law did not apply to them because they are a commercial company. But as a consumer it seems to me you are perfectly within your rights when you make a copy for noncommercial private use.
It dosent work with any free JVMs
I had a thought recently, can someone explain to me why an MP3 is actually a copy of a song ripped from a CD. The MP3 differs in many many ways to the original digital source (Due to compression, file format etc etc).
There are no copyright issues for me to go into a gallery and make a sketch of a rembrandt picture, so why should there be for lossy copies of original recordings.
CD->CD copying is something different I think.
I'd like to see them track you down trading mp3's on FreeNet... maybe a chance to make FreeNet more popular? ;)
"he drew his sword Ringil that glittered like ice... and he wounded Morgoth with seven wounds..."
Below is the MPAA lawergram, I think the important phrase in it is that they have 'good faith' that the files are copyright and being illegally distributed. So they assume that a file with the name of their property is their property.
Which is, to be honest, a fair assumption.
>
> RE: Unauthorized Distribution of Copyrighted Motion Pictures
> MPAA Case Name:
> Reference#:
>
> Date of Infringement:
>
>
> Dear abuse@myip
>
> The Motion Picture Association (MPA) represents the following motion picture production and distribution companies:
>
> Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc.
> Disney Enterprises, Inc.
> Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc.
> Paramount Pictures Corporation
> TriStar Pictures, Inc.
> Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation
> United Artists Pictures, Inc.
> United Artists Corporation
> Universal City Studios, LLLP
> Warner Bros., a Division of Time Warner Entertainment Company, L.P.
>
> We have received information that an individual has utilized the above reference IP address at the noted date and time to offer downloads of copyrighted motion picture(s) through a peer-to-peer service, including such title(s) as:
>
>
> The distribution of unauthorized copies of copyrighted motion pictures constitutes copyright infringement under the Copyright Act, Title 17 United States Code Section 106(3). This conduct may also violate the laws of other countries, international law, and/or treaty obligations.
>
> Since you own this IP address, we request that you immediately do the following:
>
> 1. Disable access to the individual who has engaged in the conduct described above, and
> 2. Take appropriate action against the account holder under your Abuse Policy/Terms of Service Agreement.
>
> On behalf of the respective owners of the exclusive rights to the copyrighted material at issue in this notice, we hereby state, that we have a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owners, their respective agents, or the law.
>
> Also, we hereby state, under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California and under the laws of the United States, that the information in this notification is accurate and that we are authorized to act on behalf of the owners of the exclusive rights being infringed as set forth in this notification.
>
> Please contact us at the above listed address or by replying to this email should you have any questions. Kindly include the above noted Reference # in the subject line of all email correspondence.
coldcity
code, life, art
Most of the marijuana I get seems to come from British Columbia these days. As we all know the Al-Canuck and Hoser-amas cartels are notorious terrorist groups funded through Molson and the Canadian Snack-Food Industry.
-- thinkyhead software and media
Cry me a fucking river. Slashdot is a glorified message board and you are bitching as though it were your divine right to be "moderated fairly," whatever the fuck that means. Boo hoo. Go back to your pussy-ville "kuro3245432shin" then, the land of milk and honey moderations.
Perhaps you should consider waggling your cock. That might make you feel better.
I have a massive collection of 60s and 70s vinyl. I'm downloading electronic versions of these songs and no others. This activity is perfectly legal, just as if I had ripped them myself. Yet another legitimate use of file swapping services.
Nyah nyah.
how will this affect my porn downloads? the RIAA dont care about videos of chasey lain gettin it large do they?
In the 80's the record manufacturers lowered the quality of vinyl pressings when they were charging top prices for CD's. Next they started to lower the quality of cassette tape copies of albums to push CD sales.
Now they're trying to persuade us that we should buy Super Audio CD's and junk all our CD's.
At the same time there's a long history of hardware manufacturers responding to demand by producing devices that circumvent copyright. Double cassette decks were once touted as the work of the devil by record companies, yet look at the market in low-end double-deck audio systems! And look at the number of hardware MP3 players and DVD decks that play MP3 CD's!
There appears to be a strategy here. "Consumers are passive. They'll eat any carrot we dangle in front of their faces."Unfortunately those consumers are increasingly questioning the value of what they're offered. Why buy a big name DVD player when you can buy a cheap one and turn off M****vision and make it region free? Why buy a CD for 15 pounds or whatever you pay in USA when you can download the MP3's and burn it?
Making it easier to do with software and hardware has increased the level of "piracy". But I believe the main reason for the current level of "piracy" is people feeling they're being ripped off, and having the chance to get their own back. And they will as long as they can. I overheard a sales assistant in a clothing store a few days ago planning to download a song a friend identified for her. She was no archetypical nerd, just an ordinary person.
History shows that if one door is closed then another door will open. The more the RIAA fight file-sharing, the more they alienate the very people they expect to pony up all those bucks...
I had heard of Kazaa before but had not bothered to give it a try. This report really caught my eye so I am now downloading the program. Thanks for the suggestion RIAA.
MaryJane is the biggest cash crop in Illinois, bigger than soybeans and corn combined. Biggest in Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, too.
We've got over 2 million in jail and we haven't even made a dent in juana production. What's left of rural America would vanish overnight if we were as successful at eradicating marijuana farms as the Taliban were at eradicating opium production.
"If you are a musician whose recordings are publicly distributed, then you are entitled to your share of these royalties by filing a claim under Section 1006" I am a semi-pro musician, having posted original music on Napster, Kazaa...etc.(publicly distributed) Who do I call to get check! Really I think that all this RIAA mess is a good thing, we are in the middle of a revolution, we are the rebels fighting the RIAA/DMCA Empire. We have a obligation to force change in the record industry. I am not for copyright infringement, but I am for a new way of music distribution. I would love to see less emphasis on global promotion of artists and more local music scenes. I have spent years playing and writing music (I ended up in the IT industry, imagine that) and I still performed 134 shows last year, I believe, wait I know that there are thousands of great musicians out there and never get recognized because they do not fit into the monopolized record industry world. Imagine being able to use P2P to get music from your area, or the work local filmmakers. It is time for us to make a stand and revolutionize the music industry. Freedom the is freeedom to say that two plus two is four. If that is granted, all else follows. George Orwell, 1984
There are no pirates.They are not downloading songs. We are not violating their privacy or doing anything remotely illegal to try to scare them. There is no non-pirated music- it was all burned.
I never spellcheck and I freely admit it. Save your karma for more worthwhile "lol erorrs" replies
Personally, I think she should eat -MY- diahhorrea. Madonna sucks.
Suppose the RIAA or it's members were to decide to set up a subsidiary which would purchase the major ISP's?
Think through the ramifications of that one for just a moment...
Scary when the judge owns the jail..
I sort of see the same issue with the middle man getting REALLY GREEDY here in Canada, eh? Such as when the poor farmer is offered 12 cents a unit for something than by the time it gets to the store, the price is now between 100 to 250 cents per unit.
OR service charges at you local bank. You put your money in, they offer you squat for interest. Then gouge you in interest rates, service fees and account fees. Write off millions if not billions in bad loans to companies or countries then hassle you for a few hundred dollars IF you miss a payment by a day or two (but you have always paid in have paid) thanks to a glitch within their computer system. Or worse yet when there businuess model says;
0) is their enough money to cover transactions?
0.a) was their a deposit for this day?
if so then:
1) process all out going transactions first.
2) is account short yet?
2a) IF yes: charge NSF charges, overdraft charges and extra service fees...
3)Then take in account deposit.
3a) if deposit doesn't create a client positive amount, loop back to 2)
Artists! Stop using the RIAA. Form your own company or go independent!
Bastards.
"Sleep deprivation is no substitute for caffeine." Untold Lessons in Life
Yes, the record labels take advantage of artists, promote crap and pull all sorts of nasty tricks and yes the RIAA has completely bungled the whole p2p issue for years and they are mean to their customers (to say the least) but that doesn't give anyone the right to steal from them.
Just because the owner of a store is a jerk, or charges too much, or whatever, doesn't give me the right to steal from him.
I certainly don't believe the "trial period" arguement either, you can't just drive a car out of a dealership and claim that its okay because you'll return the car if you don't like it.
There are certain rules that keep society from falling apart. Unfortunately the internet has become a magic invisibillity ring that allows anyone to break the rules and get away with it.
The least we can do is stop pretending that the RIAA is the issue and own up to the fact that we are stealing music. If the RIAA wants to spam or prosecute offenders or otherwise make their lives miserable that's completely their perogative. The music industry is finally getting around to providing fair alternatives to piracy (the iTunes Music Store) and it is in everyone's interest that we use them.
If the internet continues to be a place where responsibillity is non-existent and theft is rampant than The Powers That Be will be forced to control the internet much more tightly and that's in nobody's best interest.
... but they made one fatal mistake. In the '60s, '70s, and even in the '80s, they unknowingly released REALLY GOOD MUSIC. This shall be their undoing, for I do not need to buy their 'NStink and ButtSweet Boys, for my Pink Floyd, Sabbath, and Zeppelin shall sustain me indefinitely.
Imagine if Microsoft made Windows98 completely perfect and bug-free, then went back to releasing the same old crap again. We'd all buy 98 and stick with it until they pry it from our cold dead hands, right? That's what happened with music (or should I say Muzak?)
The RIAA used to release good music, but they won't make that mistake again.
I am a troll, please mod me down! Why won't anybody mod me down?
http://www.wired.com/news/digiwood/0,1412,58676,00 .html
m l
There is now no legal basis for the RIAA to proceed. I believe the grokster case will open the flood-gates. What do we have here? Morpheus with a new version:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/30474.ht
h.
Patriotism is a virtue of the vicious
"No action may be brought under this title..."
That doesn't preclude bringing action under another title.
Y'know, I think I may start downloading MP3s after this. I'm on Kazaa, and suddenly get that RIAA message. Now I search my entire network. There is not one MP3, movie, or any other illegal bit on it. In fact, the only things I had shared were some source code bits, and levels for games like UT2k3. Maybe they want those? Anyway, this is disturbing that they threaten you with legal action over something that does not apply to you. It's definately a scare tactic, and one that they don't really put much effort into it. I mean c'mon! Not one stinking bit on there, and they threaten me with legal action... Legal action for what, I'm still wondering...
Repeat after me: Reproduction for non-comercial use is NOT theft! Leave it to the RIAA and libraries will be illegal.
no the whole point is to make useless short posts which are drivel you are useless
We can all dream can't we?
Pay for music: attend live concerts.
Did anyone get one of these RIAA messages who *hadn't* used Kazaa or whatever for d/ling dodgy MP3s? If so, then isn't that effectively slander by the RIAA?
yuck...the mental image of hillary rosen posing in front of a webcam doesn't sound too appealing.
however if they would like to put up say, shakira...that'd be more interesting.
but back to the topic...i don't know what they think they are doing. heck...it's been over a decade and they can't even put a dent in software piracy.
Use Kazaa Lite for porn and other movies, and use WinMX for music. They don't seem to be scrutinizing WinMX at the moment, and probably won't for a couple more years. It's also alot faster when trying to get most audio files (as in more users with the file).
I try to make everyone's day a little more surreal.
It looks like NH will pass into law a bill that says if your wireless network is unsecured, no charges can be filed against anyone who comes snooping around your network. I think that's great and coincides nicely with this idea. Can anyone shoot some holes in this theory for me? I wonder if any of those college kids who are getting hit for $97 billion had a wireless setup?
this sig deleted by another sig
Would their actions qualify as "spamming"?
Wouldn't this be considered assault? They are causing a person to fear for there personal safty. And they are doing so in an undirected fashion. Its essentialy the same as walking into a train station and telling random individuals that they could be hurt. Would any legal types care to correct me if I'm wrong?
On 97.4 in Detroit they did a radio segment of RIAA and P2P networks. Unfortunately I didnt get the chance to call in yesterday but I sent them an email today. The entire show missed the point. They spent the entire time arguing over whether or not pirating songs was legal or not. I did not listen to the entire show, but I never heard them bring up legitimate uses of the networks, or the tactics of the RIAA. It was pretty much(I am paraphrasing here) "P2P = Piracy = Bad". Hope they actually read my email because I told them to come read /.
Unless they charge about 100 small time swappers and publicize it widely to send a chill to everyone else.
On the other side of that coin, the "I had a trojan" defense seems to be pretty effective.
It'd be nice if the RIAA made themselves useful and started promoting better system security...
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
A copyright is any of the exclusive rights granted to the author of a work under the Berne Convention, or under local copyright laws, such as USC Title 17 for those of us in the US. These exclusive rights can be transferred, as occurs with Copyright Assignment to the Free Software Foundation, but even such a transfer isn't the copyright itself, but a transfer of ownership of copyright.
The GPL not a copyright, it is a license, and a non-exclusive one at that. A person who makes use of the GPL to redistribute or modify software doesn't have a copyright for the software, they have permission from the copyright holder to do certain things under certain conditions. The GPL makes use of copyright law, but that doesn't make it a copyright.
Music licensing is more complicated. Sometimes a license is given to redistribute a work, or to use a sample in a recording; sometimes music is licensed en masse . Sometimes copyright is assigned to various parties, sometimes it isn't, sometimes it is assumed as part of a "work-for-hire" contract. Sometimes the copyright is split, the songwriter having copyrights for the lyrics, the band having copyrights for the score, the producer having copyrights for the studio recording, and these can get licensed in whatever ways. But, again, the license is not the copyright.
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, the above should not be interpreted as legal advice. Determining which parties own which copyrights can be a complicated issue demanding professional legal help.
----
Open mind, insert foot.
This sounds (and smell, and taste) like P2P SPAM to me
They are desperate
Sending thousands of messages for a commercial/political interest. That's the definition of SPAM.
I suggest you read Slashdot
If I like enough songs available on one CD, I'll still go out and buy it. I have low standards already, so long as half the songs on the CD are good, I'll go buy it, no question there. I'll even order them from overseas if I can't get them here. It's just that nearly all CDs out these days have maybe 1 or 2 good songs and the rest SUCK. I just can't justify spending $20 on 2 songs. The RIAA realizes their artists suck right now. So they're trying to find a new source of revenue, by sueing their customers. Notice how alot of companies these days are doing the same these days now that the economy is down?
I REALLY really, and I mean REALLY dont understand why this is such a big deal. REALLY. This whole file sharing business about copyrighted files is so simple-- I agree that the product (content / music) in this case belongs to the publisher (RIAA). Therefore it is illegal to give away (publish) to untold thousands of other people. Now the whole p2p thing is a completely different issue - those are legal entities as proven by the earlier court case. But lets say the RIAA ticks you off right, and you want to listen to music. There are tons of good bands out there that will offer their music for free download (check mp3.com for one example) or for quite cheap on CD (5-9$ which is reasonable IMO). I have not purchased a CD in 2 years because of this whole mess - it is so easy to live without "popular" music, because it is HONESTLY not any better than the music that is not "popular". Oh, but do whatever people. I'll just sit in this corner with my indie music, safely away from the fanning flames.
Why not find a club band they like that does not have a contract with a record company and create a market for them. Rating system, advertisement and so on.
Instead of the RIAA IM'ing thousands of individual users, suppose thousands of individual users sent IM's, emails, letters, etc. directly to the RIAA. The movie Hackers may have been farfetched, but the notion of computer-geek solidarity is hardly impossible. The concept of safety in numbers is alive and well, and I wonder just what the RIAA would do if we bombarded them with timely and substantive letters of complaint.
Or couldn't we just start with a bigger hit? The RIAA has been trying to knock out the legal foundation for file sharing for years now. I'm certain that we have a legal defense, but isn't the best defense in some cases a good offense? I say go on the attack and sue the RIAA. (Okay, I lack the knowledge of exactly what the RIAA and other groups can be sued for at this moment, but I have only been following headlines for the last few months. If this is plausible at all, perhaps it will at least generate a little discussion before we don't do anything.)
I'm sure I need to RTFL (that's an L for law) somewhere, but is the law broken when someone who owns a license to listen to a song shares that song, or is it broken when someone who doesn't own a license to listen to that song comes along and downloads it?
If it's illegal to share in the first place then the RIAA should be able to take legal action against file-sharing services forcing them to disallow users from sharing their music files, but the ruling in the Streamcast case seems to indicate that just the act of sharing isn't illegal, because it could be that the files are being shared only between people who already have a license.
If it's an unlicensed user downloading the file that's illegal, how in the world does the RIAA prove the absence of a license? We've already been made to understand that when we go buy a CD, we don't own that CD, we own a license to listen to the music on that CD. So even if that CD is lost in a fire, the license to listen to the music should still persist, right? It would then follow that obtaining the content from a P2P network would be perfectly legal. For the RIAA to prosecute a file-swapper, they'd have to prove that the receiving party never owned a license, and they'd be hard pressed to do that.
I know it can't be that simple, so someone kindly flame me for missing the obvious illegality here. Obviously the law is being broken daily, but how are they going to prove infringement under the 'licensing' system they've created? It seems to me like they've shot themselves in the foot, but I'm sure I'm missing something.
Also the Jews should have given up during the Holocaust, because it is useless to fight technology and progress. Why slow down innovations in mass murder like Zyklon-B and gigantic people-eating furnaces? I thought the whole point is to promote progress?
You barbaric buffoon! Not all technological progress is good. Ask the victims of DDT! Interview a thalidomide baby! There are good arguments against the RIAA, but yours is not among their number.
Monopolies are not illegal. Your power company has a monopoly on selling you power. Monopoly abuse is illegal. Therefore if a copyright is used by a monopoly to help defend its monopoly which it is not abusing then copyright is being used as it was intended. For instance, if Pepco Power sues "Pepco Power Pills" for copyright infringement, they've got a legitimate case.
Please stop your ignorant, facile babbling and go to school or something.
The RIAA is corrupting congress and purchasing laws that adversely affect me. Nothing they do can or could make them look any better until they repair at least some of the damage they have done. Mind you, they do have, and have repeatedly exhibited, the ability to make themselves look worse...
Telling people that they are not anonymous is a combination of threat and fair warning. It's not an either/or. It's like the bully has told you that he's upset about the color of your hat, as that's *his* color, and you aren't allowed to wear it." It's both a warning and a threat.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
"We don't care; Kiss our collective asses"
I can't wait for someone to come up with a hack or script to do this any time they get a message from them.
Better yet, do so running Freenet and say "Actually I am anonymous, morons."
I'm curious about what types of violations the RIAA has possibly been committing. (On a P2P system,) What would be grounds for harassment? For threatening? Or even conspiracy?
What the RIAA did? I mean they are entangled in many lawsuits against various people and companies over this thing and they turn around and harrass the very people they are in the lawsuits against? Its basically the same thing as if someone killed one of my family members so I went to the suspects house and started harrassing them and their families. This can't be legal. When you are in a lawsuit there are certain things you can and cannot do when it comes to contact with the other parties.
Of course, a $99 iPod would be nice, too, but that's just wishful thinking...
-David, waiting to see what RealNetworks does with Rhapsody.
Visit me on the web at Permanent4.com.
A la Napster, which was probably used by 6 people to do legal things, simply having some legit use is insufficient. One way they could have won the last decision is to show that there is no SUBSTANTIVE legal use of the service. The fact that they used Kazaa as an instant messenger service does not make that a substantive use.
Naturally, with Kazaa, there really are other uses, and they've been careful not to hard-code music piracy as use #1 (though, like, duh). That's only one of the standards that RIAA would have had to meet, and they flamed out pretty much on all of them (especially on Kazaa's not controlling the networks).
What part of P2P makes the industry obsolete exactly? Just because P2P makes possible blatant violation of copyright that was previously much harder does not make the industry any less necessary. What you are trying to imply is sort of like arguing that because I can steal from, say, Nordstrom's that clothing retailers are no longer necessary. Even if we completely ignore the (misleading) distinction between these two forms of theft, you're taking still does not answer the tough questions, namely, what is going to secure the continued production by the originators (read: artists or clothing makers) or what is going to replace the marketing and publicity function that both you and the artist ultimately depend on.
I have no problem if you wish to completely cut RIAA out of the loop. However, the fact of the matter is that you're not. You're trying to have your cake and eat it too--you want to enjoy the services without paying for them. You're taking music for which RIAA owns the copyright, which they own because they perform a multitude of functions and which is the reason why you're downloading the music in the first place. If you want to do P2P and claim that neither you nor the artist "need" RIAA, then do it without misappropriating copyrighted material.
You guys assert that P2P can somehow replace the current function of RIAA. Maybe, but probably not in the form that it exists today on Kazaa and numerous other networks, and you certainly have not demonstrated it. P2P has been around for a couple years now and yet you'd be hard pressed to point to a single major artist that can really credit their success to these services. Record sales may be slumping today, but up and coming artists are still signing with major record labels by and large, despite the existance of the P2P that you claim makes the industry irrelevant. The proof is in the pudding, or should I say...NOT?
This is Pete.
This is the music that Pete illegally downloaded from the internet
This is musician who performed the songs that Pete illegally downloaded.
This is the money that the musician lost because Pete didn't pay $15 for a CD.
This is the terrorist orginization that is angry at the United States for launching a war against Iraq because American musicians could not raise enough money to have enough rallies and protests to make a dent in the warmongering machine of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.
I guess that's a stretch...
I shudder to think on what legal basis the RIAA could be prohibited from doing this. If anything like that existed, it would probably be sweeping and be a threat to P2P and IM in general. However, the creator of the P2P software might be able to do something if it bugs enough users.
Many IRC networks have specifically banned bots in their AUP. If the P2P clients have a similar clause, whatever scripting bot RIAA is using is also illegal. IANAL, yadda yadda...
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
I believe the IM went something like this:
We are the RIAA. Big Rosen is watching. You will cease and desist or we will blow up your home planet using... umm... lawyers. EXTERMINATE! You have no chance to escape make your time. *Evil laugh*
But seriously, what the hell do they think they're pulling on this one? A mass lawsuit to all who use Kazaa? Now that would be funny... Or maybe they're going to try to shut down Kazaa through mass scare tactics, hacking, and mass poisonings of the networks. Don't they get an idea? They really need to get a clue and realize that if they don't stop they will go under within months.
What's left of rural America would vanish overnight if we were as successful at eradicating marijuana farms as the Taliban were at eradicating opium production.
What kind of fucked-up fantasy world do you live in? There are no rolling hills of pot plants in our nation's heartland. There are a few rednecks who have window boxes, or who keep fields back in the woods behind their houses. When these people are caught, as they always are because by definition nobody but an idiot would do such a thing, they are put in jail where they are brutally ass-raped for a decade or more. Pot is not a "cash crop." It's a fucking plague, one that we're doing a really good job of wiping from the face of the earth. Assholes like you are making it harder, though. Maybe we need to start putting people like YOU, people who think drugs are okay and who admire the fucking Taliban for chrissakes behind bars where YOU can be brutally ass-raped for a decade or more.
And I'll be first in line, man, because you got a PRETTY ass.
I downloaded American Life about 6 times and each one was the actual song.
Try this one.
(Yes, I know you were joking :-)
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
Just out of curiosity could you sue the RIAA fo spamming you IF you were not in violation of their BS?
For example lets say you bought the CD "Madonna - Raps Like Shit" and lets say you are not the most computer savy person so instead of ripping your own mp3s you downloaded (using Kazaa) the CD so you could listen to it on your Laptop and not have to worry about carrying the CD with you all over the place.
Now assuming that you are not the most tech savy person and left your Kazaa settings on the default (which if it's anything like the other P2P's i've tried shares your dload directory by default) you are sharing the files and so the RIAA sends you a message saying "Bad Monkey You DIE" or whatever....
Can you count that as a spam? or a harrassment? maybe seak retribution in a legal setting? In other words could you sue them for harrassment or spamming you?
Ave Molech Setting
I just had a buddy get off after a cop solicited him for drugs and sold them to the cop. You see, if a cop initiates the deal (whether, its bying or selling), then its entrapment. If a perpetrator initiates a deal then it's against the law.
Interesting assertion. Pardon the pun, but I just don't buy your full argument.
I would tend to agree that consumers would be interested in CDs that were lower in cost. I feel pretty confident to say that consumers don't really care all that much about how much of the purchase price goes to the artist.
As for the 99% conjecture, which is certainly optimistic, I would say that the consumers fall into two camps:
Those who would buy CDs anyway
Tech-savvy folks who will continue to use their home/school/work broadband connection to get music for free
The goal is to expand the first group, and lowering prices would work toward that end. But 99%? No way. I highly doubt that those who download copyrighted material, and try to "justify" it by saying that they are only ripping off the evil obsolete music executives ("because artist isn't getting paid anyway"), will not be moved to suddenly paying.
Hey, Windows users, there is no such thing as "forward" slash, there is only slash and backslash.
It's fairly easy, once you have a few tricks up your sleeve.
1) Buy used CDs if you *need* something by an RIAA label. Essentially the same as downloading, since no one but the store gets your money. The RIAA actually tried to condemn this at one point in time, but they were taunted mercilessly and began to cry.
2) Buy import CDs. A little more dubious, because many of the big guys are international comglomerates. Still, I feel it's safe to assume that the views of Sony Music USA's are not those of Sony Music Japan's.
Indie CDs are still a good choice. So is MP3.com, although it's become a little harder to find quality music there.
I own lots of CDs, my PC takes ages to rip and encode them. Is it still fair use for me to download them from someone else? I think so??
It is not a very common legitimate use of p2p but it is still there.
If I run with this for a while...
If you work on the assumption of innocent until proven guilty I could assume that anyone who DLs from me must have a legitimate copy that they can't burn (especially if it came from a copy protected CD as these can vary with the territory). I have not seen their guilt proven; nobody has told me that they don't have a copy so why should I restrict their fair use.
Now if the RIAA came to me and gave me a list of people who didn't own copies of a song (as proven in a court of law) I would be duty bound to stop them otherwise I would aiding and abetting them in a criminal act. I have not received such a list so why should I stop sharing. The Law assumes people are innocent so why shouldn't I??
All IMHO, etc.
Seriously, I'm sure the RIAA is doing most of this shit from their own networks with their own IP addresses. Just like that bullshit where they pollute p2p networks by putting out fake mp3s and trojan installers. On gnutella I've noticed that most of this shit comes from only a handfull of IPs all on the same network. I now have those IPs blocked because that network also appears to have a number non-Bullshit-RIAA clients on it to. If I webserver space, I would start hosting this list. Unfortunately, I don't (I also have no idea how to set up such a website, with all the scripts and whatnot that you would need to automate such an undertaking). Does anyone else want to try?
The RIAA is doing this out of utter desparation.
:)
I hope you're right, though it is unlikely. They are basically saying 'we are watching you' and this makes many people uncomfortable at least.
Quite obviously the next step for p2p swapping networks would be to add an anonymity. There are many ways to do it - to create virtual network like X-bone does or to convert indivdual nodes to the proxies or something else. And as pipes are getting fatter, an overhead of overlaying custom p2p topologies over Internet will no longer create any performance or scalability issues. The technology is not a rocket sience, it's already here and once end-users are diverted away from existing p2p networks - watch them switch to new ones. That's basics of the evolution
3.243F6A8885A308D313
One could argue that the owner of the account is responsible, but what happens when there is a WAP that someome has hacked into* has their fat pipe 0wn3d by a neighborhood script kiddie? Who is legally responsible in this situation?
*this is assuming that all appropriate security precautions (WEP, SSID blocking, MAC ACL) have been taken
$DEITY bless $NATION
What if you "bragging rights" consist of a multimillion dollar lawsuit for copyright infringement?
Perhaps I don't belong on slashdot. I seem to have a different opinion than most of you. This is not intended as flamebait or a troll.
The RIAA sending instant messages to the song-swappers is a clever idea. Song swapping is illegal. I'll agree that the DMCA is an evil law, but I see value in the traditional concepts of copyright as did the framers of the Constitution.
If you're a song-swapper because you feel it's a form of civil disobedience--a protest against the the music industry or IP law--fine. I think it's a horrible approach, since it merely arms the RIAA lobbyists with amunition to push through more crap like the DMCA.
It's important to realize that many, many people who are downloading "free" music on the Internet are not part of the civil disobedience movement. They just want music without paying for it. I'd guess that decribes the vast majority of participants. When confronted with the ethics of it, they may "join" the movement, but in many cases, that's just rationalization to continue grabbing tunes for free.
I know (personally) only half a dozen people who use song swapping services, from pre-teens to older, educated adults. None of them recognized that what they were doing was illegal. They honestly thought that music on the Internet was free. I think it's safe to assume that many participants are in the same boat. The RIAA found a creative way to inform people that what they're doing is illegal.
(I don't know how well the RIAA messages were targetted.)
The RIAA is an organization that represents an industry. It's their job to protect the interests of that industry. I'm sure they honestly believe that the explosion of rampant piracy is the primary cause of the downturn in the industry. From an industry point of view, peer-to-peer infringement was an overnight occurence. There was no warning. There was no chance to evolve the business models. And the threat is a consequence of illegal activity. You have to expect them to use everything they can to fight it. If you were falsely accused of a crime and your lawyer could get the charge thrown out on a technicality, you'd insist on it. If the EFF managed to use the DMCA against privacy invaders, we'd all cheer. The RIAA is looking for every weapon they can find.
And the civilly disobedient members of the song-swap movement are helping to arm them. They increase the infringement numbers, which is exactly the exuse the RIAA needs to justify dropping industry revenue. (You can argue that the drop is due to other causes, and you might be right, but it's not provable. Congress and the courts are likely to believe the industry experts who can show that since 60 million Americans started downloading music on the Internet, revenues have dropped by billions.)
If you think the music industry treats artists badly, then boycott them, or write editorials, or organize a picket. If you think the industry is near-monopolistic and engaged in price-fixing, then dig up the dirt and get the trust-busters after them. If you think indies get the short end of the stick in this industry, then support your local indies. But don't delude yourself into thinking that downloading music without paying is going to further your principles.
Madonna has been madly seeding the trading networks with her own bogus file that looks like a song but is actually her swearing and berating her fans which should do wonders for her most recent CD.
:-)
If trading these songs is illegal. Then planting MP3 and trojan bombs on personal PC isn't exactly by the book either! Hasn't the RIAA been doing that too.
I think the business model has to be changed by music and movie industry alike. Consumers will not continue to shell out $25 for a CD will 1 maybe 2 good songs no more then $30 for a DVD movie that has already made gazillions at the theatres.
If these two industries would get their collective heads out of their asses they'd see the HUGE potential these networks and other emerging technologies have to add to their profits.
Calling your customers thieves and slapping them with law suits won't win them any new customers, grammies or oscars for that matter!
And that's where M@'S @!
Verizon could solve this problem easily, BY JUST BLACKHOLING THE LOGS after say a 2 hour retention of maybe even 4 hours, or drop the identifying pieces from the logs and keep the clean data if they wanted, then they could happily roll over for the RIAA like a good company and still 'protect' their customers. I've yet to see anywhere that REQUIRES you to keep this kind of information, and you can't turn over what you don't have...
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
The picture you paint seems all-too-true of what happens to the "little guy" in courtrooms around the world in these times. But every now and then, cases such as the McLibel trail come along, and we see what can happen when a big Corp pushes the law too far.
It takes a lot of courage to stand up to Big Business, but people have to sometimes, despite it being a terrifying prospect.
-- now where did I put that
Then in THIS case, why don't the software writers enhance the anonymousness (?) of the users of their software to the point that not even the writers can find out who they are? I'm thinking CDC-style anonymity. That'll kill the beast right quick.
How many users did they spam? It seems to me the RIAA is guilty of spamming a network and should get their connection taken away.
Also how did they spam that many users at once? Did they reverse engineer kazaa to see the people using trading files online? and then using some program to send messages to those people?
Did they violate the DMCA to do this?
Their sales probably haven't really dipped, they are just shelling out more dough to lawyers and kazaa users which is cutting into their bottom line.
So, if they set up a honeypot to catch people downloading from THEIR servers, could they do anything? I mean, THEY own the license and THEY are distributing.... and if they hire someone to trap you, aren't you downloading from their licensed distributor?
I mean, it's not like the police catching drug dealers, the police don't sell the drugs, they just ACT like they are.
Seems a much more difficult thing with IP. You would have to outlaw owning digital music to narc people.
"It's time we found a way to ensure that artists get paid without killing off this tremendous new technology." - EFF Executive Director Shari Steele I think its time we (the people; our government) stopped going out of our way to protect/preserve the recording industry by artificial means such as the DMCA, proposed DRM hardware laws, etc. It seems to me that technological advances have rendered/are rendering the business of selling phonorecords unenable as a practical matter (information "wanting" to be free and all). Would we feel sorry and expect that extraordinary law enforcement resources be spent for the protection for car dealers who were going out of business because they stored their inventories in insecure areas with the keys in the ignitions? And so what if the recording industry as we know it disappears completey? Why should *America* care? If recording artists and record company executives had to change careers and start digging ditches or serving hamburgers, why would that be necessarily bad for our economy? If record buyers instead bought computer hardware or simply saved their money, how would that be bad? If Cunt Rosen had to defend drunk drivers for a living, how would that be bad? There is nothing inherently valuabe or important in any of the products or services that the RIAA's members provide. Indeed, the commercial viability of their wares derives and depends on an artificiality - copyright law. I say fuck 'em, let 'em die. We'll all get along just fine.
Until all music is distributed freely by artists or by artist-owned "labels", we're going to keep seeing this nonsense. And no, Apple's joke of a music service won't cut it. There is simply no room for distribution middlemen in a digital society.
Until then, boycott all RIAA music--including concerts. Artists need to learn that it is in their best interests to never sign a label contract. Support only artists who go the independent route. It's best for the artist. It's best for the consumer.
Nice try, but the plausible deniability goes right out the window the minute they subpoena your hard drive and find all of those illicit mp3s in your playlists. Logging the transfers gives them the probable cause they'd need to get a warrant.
And then come the perjury charges... you think copyright infrigement is a serious offense?
"As the law stands though, downloading music from p2p IS ILLEGAL."
The revised version should read:
"As the law stands though, downloading some music from p2p IS ILLEGAL."
Om, nomnomnom...
Section 512 (h) of the DMCA states that a copyright holder can ask for a subpoena from a service provider in order to identify the person they believe is infringing copyright. They essentially only need to provide:
It seems that the RIAA would have no problem satisfying these three requirements... yet another reason why the DMCA is not such a good law :P
-Brendan
In previous suits, the RIAA has said things to the tune of: "Since you didn't own copyright to this and my computer made a copy, regardless of whether or not I own copyright, the file isn't legally mine."
They should be talking to the people who are not downloading songs and find out why.
The RIAA routinely hosts bogus mp3's on kazaa. You think you're downloading a new madonna song when what you really get is a loop of her saying "what the fuck are you thinking?". Now I would imagine a lot of these same people that got duped are going to be getting warning's from the RIAA for "hosting copyrighted material" since the file names correspond with copyrighted songs. It's amusing anyway, download a phony from the RIAA and 5 minutes later they're spamming you with warnings for having copyrighted songs on you computer.
both ways...either you provide the means but assume no responsibility for the content, ala online forumn boards, or you own and are responsible FOR EVERYTHING...give an inch, taken a mile. While I am not advocating kiddie porn, presidential death threats or terrorism in any form, you can't really moderate some with out moderating all.
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
That said, what does your example demonstrate? Ok, so you have some artists on your webpage, but that's not P2P promotion or even distribution. That's putting ads on a page that is frequented occassionally by a bunch of people--it can't scale. How much have these artists grossed? How many CDs have they sold? How many artists can make these claims? Have any of them ever sold out a large venue? Can they really point to P2P being the engine for their (limited) success? Why should RIAA be afraid? Perhaps I'm just skeptical about the motivations of Bearshare, but it looks to me like they're putting some lesser known artists up to give them the appearance of legitmacy--that they provide some unique benefit. The real test is in P2P to serve as a replacement for RIAA. Even if this sort of P2P does provide some significant benefit for said artists (which I doubt) it does not necessarily offer an alternative for major artists. For instance, it is quite possible that this form of P2P may boost CD sales for lesser known bands (due to its alleged ability to promote), but substantially damage better known artists (due to its ability to provide easy access to popular pirated material).
Help combat monopolies at home by boycotting them. Start with the power monopoly. Unplug your computer immediately and stop using that monopolistic swine electricity.
> Oh and those US weed ads suck.
No kidding, man, the Canadian ones are way better:
"Got munchies?"
I feel I've somehow been vindicated.
Earthstation, currently in final beta, to be released in 2 weeks, has all these features and more.
It uses SSL for uploads and downloads to prevent eavesdropping.
It supports use of proxies for both downloading AND sharing so you can share files without the downloader knowing your ip address.
It integrates with PGP disk so you can keep all your media files on a virtual encrypted disk drive (for example X:)
Its search protocol is encrypted UDP which it bounces between nodes to obscure ip addresses. This also allows much more efficient "direct-to-supernode-queries" instead of the terribly wasteful use of TCP which takes 7 packets for a "transaction" type request (SYN, SYNACK, ACK, REQUEST, RESPONSE, FIN, FINACK), or channels requests/responses back through the latticework multiplying traffic very wastefully.
It is decentralized and requires no user identity (unless you want to use the dating system where you can provide a hotmail address for others to contact you for dating purposes).
It has no license.
It is based in Palestine where there are no copyright laws.
Seriously, whom does RIAA think that it's kidding ? At most, they can extract a user's IP address. The user will then hang up his modem, redial, and never get assigned that address again. And don't even get me started on NATs...
What happened to RIAA ? Why are they using these last-ditch scare tactics all of the sudden ? Did they run out of money for lawyers ?
>|<*:=
Naughty RIAA! Tsk, tsk tsk... From the Kazaa EULA (http://www.kazaa.com/us/terms.htm) What you can't do under this Licence You agree not to use the Software to: 2.1 Transmit or communicate any data that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable; 2.11 Monitor traffic or make search requests in order to accumulate information about individual users; 2.12 "Stalk" or otherwise harass another; 2.14 Collect or store personal data about other users.
in a hallmark new decision today, the RIAA lead the way in a new and advanced customer realtaions protocal. "The Customer is ALWAYS wrong!" and "you'll buy our products and LIKE IT!"
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
This is MY galaxy...go find your OWN!
"We at the RIAA, think you're doing a great job promoting our artists to people who would otherwise be unaware of them due to stifled radio playlists. Keep up the good work.
"PS. There is another kazaa user pretending to be the RIAA saying things about illegally sharing files, ignore him. He's a troll."
Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
RIAAD00D: It appears that you are offering copyrighted music to others from your computer. ...When you break the law, you risk legal penalties. There is a simple way to avoid that risk: DON'T STEAL MUSIC either by offering it to others to copy or downloading it on a 'file-sharing' system like this. When you offer music on these systems, you are not anonymous and you can easily be identified.
KazRiprock: You got the new Britney Spears??
RIAAD00D: Yeah, is your copy of Quake3Arena working...s/n?
KazRiprock: Of course! You want it?
RIAAD00D: Cool, thanks! But just take your music offline, okay?
KazRiprock: Sure, whatever...
Mordor...a magical, mythical land where women are more rare than dragons--but where every man would rather find a dragon
I've heard too many stupid things been done by the RIIA. Though they seem quite stupid, i dont actually think they really do some of them. This sounds to me to be more likely anyone but the RIAA itself. IMHO.
__
Sig: Marine Stock Photos
Ok so the RIAA sends me an IM. I reply with "You are to no longer contact me." and they send me another IM. Can I get the FBI to throw them in jail for Threat by Communication or some other Wire Fraud Act section?
The thing I like most about this job is all the rocket scientists who bang their mice on their desks shouting 'It Broke!
I also think splitfiles are fairly meaningless unless you get all of them.
FEC. 50% redundancy.
To be fair though, IIRC, you have to change the start-freenet.sh to fix up the command-line arguments. Sun JVM uses -cp for classpath whereas Kaffe wants -add-cp or something like that? It's not too bad anyway.
If you're confused on the difference, ask yourself if you get a human when you download porn. Or if you get your dead relatives back when you look at pictures of them.
The RIAA is protecting recordings, by use of copyrights on recordings. There's usually a copyright on the music as well, and that's not at issue here -- which is another example of the difference. You're not in violation of a music copyright when you download a recording. You're in violation of a music copyright when, say, you make a recording of yourself singing "Graceland" and sell your recording without paying Paul Simon.
Some /. folks have alluded to this difference
when pointing out that it's perfectly legal
to make recordings of your own original music
and make those recordings available for download
and free sharing. Yes, it is. If you own it,
you can give it away.
Now (as we all know) the vast majority of activity in question is not musicians giving away recordings of their own original music. The vast majority of what we're talking about here is people making copies of recordings copyrighted by someone else.
Another way of highlighting the difference: music that has fallen into the public domain; recordings of it are still subject to copyright. For example, Verdi's works have fallen into the public domain, but if Pavoratti makes a recording of him singing a Verdi song, Pavoratti will no doubt exercise his right to copyright that recording.
So: we are not talking about song swapping at all here, there is no song swapping happening here, nor can there be; RIAA is not against song swapping, even though it says it is; no music has been downloaded nor can it be.
If we were really talking about song swapping, we could be talking about, I'll sing you a song, and you'll sing me one.
Now, why has RIAA gotten this so consistently and completely wrong? Along with everyone else?
My theory is, the recording industry consciously sought to redefine itself as the music industry, in an attempt to convince people that the sole or primary source of music was copyrighted recordings, as if those records were music.
Now if this was the plan, it has been notably successful. Most people speak and act as if it were true.
But it is not true. In fact, music is what happens when a musician plays or sings. A recording is a great way to capture some of that -- but it is not music. Music is different every time; the same song will not be the same every time it's sung or played. By contrast a recording seeks to do the exact opposite: be identical every time it's played back. Recordings are a great thing, but are not music. Photos are great but they're not the people photographed.
I for one am tired of hearing the constant mistake being repeated "song swapping" and "music sharing". You want to share music, get up and make some! You want to make copies of recordings of someone else's music, that's different.
Sharing files that don't belong to you is illegal, and should stay that way. Simply because it is difficult to enforce, or because people enjoy doing it is not sufficient reason.
If an artist wants to give away their product, that's cool, but the choice should belong to them, not to some cheapskate punk who won't pony up $15 for a CD.
Do you think that if these guys stop making money on their products that there will be anything to share?? The only thing that will be out there are crappy bootlegs of live shows, 'cause decent quality live recordings, not to mention studio releases, won't make it to the shelves - no money for distributors or the artists in selling 1/10 the normal copies and sharers undercutting the rest.
Mike VA
My pc was advertised that I could rip/mix music cds and videos.. I based my purchase on this advertisement. On the TV commercial it didn't even mention other features or functions that my pc *might* be capable of. I guess running 'productivity software' was just a bonus.
My internet service specifically states that I can 'download music in seconds'.
Does this mean my pc AND service are both 'marketed for the primary purpose of' ?
---- Booth was a patriot ----
What I'd do if sued:
1.Install unsecured wireless access point anonymously so there is no record of the date purchased. Anyone could have had access to my system, your honor.
2.Start trying to collect physical CD's for most of the songs found on my computer in order to claim an existing license and those other CD's just got lost scratched and I lost the CD cases and I was just trying to restore my collection that I legally purchase.
3.Start installing a plethora of trojans. It wasn't me, I'm the victim of script kiddies.
4.Claim that there was just an error in the extension naming of some files that were really just a database of songs I wanted to buy in the future.
5.Insist that most of the mp3's were mislabeled, not really copywrited songs, and demand that the court listen to every single god damned fucking awful repetitive piece of shit song to verify that they are all songs that is covered by copywrite and under the RIAA umbrella.
6.Drag out court case with hilarious antics, serve an unreasonable prison term, make fortune with t-shirts, books, and guest speaking lectures.
7.Point to American Idol to prove that American Music Industry as it exists is completely evil and bereft of value and must be burned to the ground, salt the earth, and burn American Idol judge Simon at the stake while forcing him to listen to poorly sung country songs.
I'm horny..excuse me while I rub one out...