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?"
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
Scare tactic. Next question please.
C - A language that combines the speed of assembly with the ease of use of assembly.
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
..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 . . . &
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.
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.
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
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.
" out of curiosity, could they be prosecuted under any spam laws?"
Sure, and 20 years later, after costing the public $50million in legal fees, the RIAA will finally win one of their 10 appeals and we'll be right back where we started. When you ask a question like that, you need to qualify it.
To me, it's the same as someone asking, "Can't Microsoft be prosecuted for illegally maintaining a monopoly?".
Massive multinational conglomerates have outgrown our justice system. Simply put, they're bigger than we, the people, could ever hope to be.
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
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
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
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.
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!]
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.
Both the GPL and music licensing are forms of copyright, they are just very different uses of copyright.
A week or so ago when Madonna offered her "What the F*** do you think you are doing" mp3 ...
...
I wonder if Madonna got an IM from the RIAA for this?
Joking aside, this does bring up an especially interesting question: How many of you have been using p2p to distribute your own music? Let's see a show of hands from people who have received warnings from the RIAA after using p2p to share your own music.
This isn't a trivial point. One of the recording industry's real fears is that they are being made obsolete. In the past, they've had a stranglehold on music distribution channels. You and I couldn't distribute our own music; we had to sign it over to the corporations that control the distribution. This is ending, now that we can make our music available via the internet.
This is what has the RIAA and MPAA running scared. They want monopoly control over this new distribution medium. The only way they can get this is if they can prevent you from distributing your own copyrighted material via the internet. Then you'll have to sign your files over to them, and they'll take all the profits and stick you with a bill like they do with commercial recordings.
What we really need now is a few test cases in which the RIAA has threatened people who are putting their own music online. A few such cases could make for very useful legal precent
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
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?