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?"

Comments

Irony

[benna]

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?

Re:Irony

[Mistlefoot]

This brings out a better question. A week or so ago when Madonna offered her "What the F*** do you think you are doing" mp3 I would assume that that were copyrighted material as well. Unless of course she went to the trouble of releasing it gpl it's pretty much copyrighted by default as I understand the laws. So if the RIAA and Madonna released this song with the expectation that users would share it were they not intentionaly contributing to break the same laws, effectively conspiring to have 1000's of users intentionaly share it? Logic would dictate that unless Madonna were expecting this file to NOT be shared that she would be in some ways complicit.

Re:Irony

[benna]

Is it copyright by default though? This would lead to all sorts of weird problems.

Re:Irony

[Okonomiyaki]

Your patriotic comments have brought a tear to my eye. I will now download 1,000,000 Dixie Chicks MP3s and then delete them to show my disgust.

Re:Irony

[joto]

Is it copyright by default though? This would lead to all sorts of weird problems.

Yes, and yes.

Re:Irony

[pantropik]

Better make that half a million to save some time for Springsteen ...

Re:Irony

[1u3hr]

So if the RIAA and Madonna released this song with the expectation that users would share it were they not intentionaly contributing to break the same laws

No, because Madonna owns the copyright of that "song" she can distribute however she wants. It still remains her copyright, which means no one else could publish it -- though she would have a hard time getting any damages if she tried to sue anyone after intentionally releasing it to P2P.

Re:Irony

[1u3hr]

Unless of course Madonna's contract stipulates...

In that case, it'd be her problem, not anyone who passed it on after she'd released it. If harassed, people would be able to claim a defence that they had the reasonable expectation that it was freely downloadable (here we talk about "free as in beer" only, though) as the artist herself had released it.

And remember, we're talking about the "Fuck you" mp3, not an actual track from her album.

Re:Irony

[redtail1]

Being targetted by the RIAA might be seen as some kind of street cred. I know I'm going to leave my copy of Kazaa running all day, trading files with more people with usual, until I can brag about receiving my own instant message.

Re:Irony

[HBI]

I would personally LOVE to see this.

Watch how fast the labels get crushed when they go after Everyman.

There is only so far this kind of thing goes before politics takes over. Note that they try to scare you without actually doing anything. There is a reason for this.

I'm salivating for the first _real_ martyrs in this cause. It's how we are going to win - they know it, we know it, it's just a wait for when they will feel compelled to overplay their hands.

Re:Irony

[Craevenwulfe]

Not really a better question. Someone can retain the copyright on something but still allow for it to be freely given to anyone and everyone. Madonna was not conspiring to break the same laws owing to the fact that she recorded then track (F' YOU) and then spread it for public consumption. You won't see the RIAA coming for you for having that track on your PC, though amusingly you could claim your pc was littered with those messed up tracks rather than those tracks that you may have downloaded without actually owning a version of it. Since they name them the exact same how can they tell the difference?

Re:Irony

[Wiwi Jumbo]

I actually tried to find this, I downloaded American Life about 6 times and each one was the actual song.

Trust me, *those* got deleted... I think Madonna cursing into a microphone would have been much better then what I recieved.

There aught to be warning labels on this stuff...

Re:Irony

[Gleef]

If Madonna creates a new recording, and it is not explicitly released to the Public Domain, it is copyrighted. Whether she owns the copyright or someone else does is a different question; as I understand it, the producer traditionally owns the copyright to a music recording, not the artist, but the industry is known for complicated contracts so it's anybody's guess who actually owns the copyrights.

If the RIAA has a license with the right parties to redistribute this work without restriction, then I would think it would be perfectly legal for them to put up a Grokkster node and distribute it. Users downloading the file would be downloading it legally. The legality of such users redistributing it is a complex legal question that I'm not going to try to properly answer. I would presume that the RIAA would say redistribution was illegal, but your argument that under the circumstances, sharing was assumed and therefore allowed might hold real water here. If the RIAA is working in certain ways with the police, Entrapment may also be a defense.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, the above should not be interpreted as legal advice. Redistributing copyrighted works over the internet without a license carries with it a high risk of legal complications, I suggest getting professional legal advice before considering it.

Re:Irony

[jc42]

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 ...

Not really ...

[Tensor]

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

Re:Not really ...

[benna]

No, thats the break down in their case. They DO argue there is no legit use for those services. Not that it is not legal to trade songs. The point is that the service is not at fault. So they argue that it has NO legit use so they can say they are at fault.

Re:Not really ...

[Tensor]

ROFL you are absolutely right. I stand corrected.

I can't believe this guys have given the basis to dismiss all future lawsuits against p2p services. They themselves have shown that the p2p services have, at least, the legal use of contacting ppl breaking the law and "warning" (ok, threaten) them.

Re:Not really ...

[Kenshiro]

Now corecion, and harrasing people after a judge said that what was going on wasn't illegal ?

No judge said anything like that. Rather, he held that distributing software which can be used for illegal purposes does not hold you liable when it is used for those purposes.

Re:Not really ...

[reezle]

The judge said that the makers of the software were not responsible for the actions of it's users.
He didn't say the user's actions were not illegal.

The best point made in this article was that the RIAA was stressing that they could NOT contact the users themselves, therefore Verizon had to give up confidential information. By doing this {messaging scare tactic} they invalidated their own arguments, and weakened their position overall...

Re:Not really ...

[bofkentucky]

The RIAA and MPAA have always had the ability to track the downloads of songs, using an IP address or some ungodly hostname like pool-2-246.manhattan.ny.ny.us.fooisp.com The RIAA is asking for Verizon to hand over who was using that IP/hostname at the timestamps specified. Verizon contends that you need a real warrant, signed by a judge, to get access to their logs. I agree with that totally, but apparently they have yet to find a judge with sufficent clue.

Re:Not really ...

[laird]

"The best point made in this article was that the RIAA was stressing that they could NOT contact the users themselves, therefore Verizon had to give up confidential information. By doing this {messaging scare tactic} they invalidated their own arguments, and weakened their position overall...

Not so. They're IMing people at their IP addresses -- they don't know who those people are, just where they happen to be right now. To file a suit to stop someone from sharing music (illegally), they have to know who the person actually is, which is something that only their ISP would know.

Re:Not really ...

[zackbar]

I read your solution to the riaa/verizon fight.

It seems to me that Verizon providing encrypted logs to the riaa would not actually be providing anything. I doubt if a judge would agree that providing even trivially encrypted logs is making them available.

What struck me as really weird was that, in the Verizon case, the SAME judge that found for the RIAA also found for them again in the appeal. I thought the appeal would go to another judge.

Re:Not really ...

[Cheffo Jeffo]

Uh ... the judge did not say "what was going on wasn't illegal" ... The judgement said that the P2P mechanisms themselves weren't illegal ... the unauthorized sharing of copyrighted works is clearly illegal -- it's just not Kazaa's fault.

Re:Not really ...

[the_quark]

That's not actually necessarily true, they could file a lawsuit against "John Doe" and then get a subpoena to force Verizon to tell the court who the John Doe is so they can serve papers on him.

I haven't actually read the Verizon case (and so could be very wrong) but I've always assumed that they're trying for the middle ground of being able to send formal cease-and-desist letters to the users instead of having to file actual lawsuits to get names and addresses.

There's also an important quirk of the law, here. The DMCA makes it pretty clear that, for the big awards, the violations need to be "willful," which means that you knew you were breaking the law when you did it. Proving willfullness is notoriously difficult - this is a case where ignorance of the law is an excuse, and most people can plausibly claim that they had no idea that they were breaking the law. Unless, of course, you got a cease-and-desist letter from the RIAA telling you it was illegal...

If the cease-and-desist letters are then ignored, the RIAA would then obviously have the option of formally filing suit. But, I believe, even if they lose the Verizon case, the RIAA can still sue the sharers as "John Doe" defendents and probably get the court to force Verizon to give the information up, anyway, in that context.

It's going to be interesting to see how this plays out. I've been predicting this phase for years. As on a lot of other things ($.99 major-label downloads) I was a bit ahead of the curve, but I think this is an inevitable development. Copyright law pretty clearly shows that what the users are doing by sharing is illegal. Napster and the first round of p2p were easy to shut down because they ran services, and were clearly complicit in the legal violations. The next round, as the RIAA is finding, are decentralized enough that they can reasonably claim they have no check on their users' behaviors, which means that the creation of those tools is not a violation of the law.

That doesn't, of course, eliminate the problem that what users are doing is a clear violation of copyright law. And not just the much-hated DMCA; what users do under Naptser would've been perfectly illegal in 1992 (albeit the penalties would've been insignificant since it was not-for-profit). The big change in the DMCA was to make it clear that violating copyrights even when you didn't personally profit from it was still something you could get a big damage on.

Anyway, I've been saying for years that the RIAA's attacks against providers were going to run out and the were going to have to go after individual users. If they have the stomach for it, that'll solve the problem - after a few dozen people declare bankruptcy after receiving multi-million dollar damage awards, people will really begin to understand that when they share music, they're breaking the law, and they're not anonymous.

The real question mark in all of this is what the political ramifications of this will be. Will there be enough public outcry to decriminalize the sharing of music? Personally I doubt it; there is too much money arrayed on the other side, and the long history of copyright in this country is an expansion of copyright. It's hard for me to imagine it going the other way.

One way or another, though, this is finally moving to endgame. I see three possible outcomes:

1) The RIAA fails to have the backbone to prosecute individual end-users. If this happens, the world as we know it today will exist indefinitely - lots of bluster from the RIAA and MPAA while users continue to ignore the law. This is the least likely outcome, in my opinion.

2) The RIAA actually sues people and wins. Enourmous public outcry forces Congress to revisit the issue. Despite heavy lobbying from entertainment (and software!) interests, the portions of the DMCA that made not-for-profit distribution of copyrighted material punishable by large cash fines is rolled back, effectively decriminalizing fil

Re:Not really ...

[luzrek]

I think that the major threat to Kazaa and other file sharing services is actually the $.99 downloads of pretty much all music (not just the "popular" stuff). If I can download a song that I want for $.99 quickly and easily (and without restricitons on how I use it, Apple's model), I won't be inclined to take the time to steal it.

However, while the $.99 per song quick and easy download will probably kill off Kazaa and similar services, it will also deal some serious damage to the music industry. The music industry pretty much relies on "blind buying" to get people to shell out $18 per CD when they have only heard one song, and there is only one good song on most albums. I'm pretty sure that this is a technical violation of the Anti-Trust acts. The Movie industry got into a lot of trouble in the 1940's for similar practices (forcing movie houses to buy all their products for a season in order to get access to the one or two big movies). Even if the music industry is successful with the $.99 downloads the era of the "pop-queens" and "pop-kings" is over since a single big name will no longer be enough to get people to shell out $18 per album.

Re:Not really ...

[bofkentucky]

The RIAA selling some people a DVD without a legal player for *nix is also useless, but it happens every day.

Re:Not really ...

[Blondie-Wan]

I think it's a real stretch to consider the "bundling" of songs via albums a violation of antitrust laws. An album itself is considered a creative work, not just a collection of smaller creative works. It's true the individual tracks on CDs can be listened to and enjoyed or appreciated independently of one another, but frequently an album represents an overall creative effort; artists don't randomly through a bunch of songs together (at least, not ideally), but instead they usually try to create a body of music that "goes with" each other. Yes, we all like individual songs (and I'm sure even the artists do), but good albums also have their own flow and can yield a more rewarding listening experience from listening to them in order from beginning to end than simply listening to each song once out of order and at different times over the course of a couple days. Of course, not all albums are like that; many really are just collections of songs, and not really intended as creative works in and of themselves. Many are, however, and there's no clear demarcation between which albums are overall experiences and which aren't, but rather a gradual continuum. Some albums absolutely demand to be heard as wholes, even if they do have individual tracks.

Put another way, do you think book publishers are violating antitrust laws by not offering individual chapters of novels for sale, but instead limiting you to whole books? Yes, there's a real difference, and even a song on the most integrated, cohesive album is usually better appreciated on its own than a single individual chapter of a book - but then, the recording industry does sell singles, after all. It's true they rarely if ever offer singles of all the songs on an album, but then those are the ones that you generally don't hear unless you've already got the album anyway (and moreover, they're the ones that can be argued to be nonessential filler, if any of the tracks are).

Re:Not really ...

[Wandering Idiot]

After this scenario, I think file-sharing gets pushed to a technology which effectively hides the content being transferred and who it's being transferred to. Unfortunately, this implies significant proxying. The ideal design would take all sharable content, break it up into encrypted blocks, and distribute them at random amongst all nodes. The files you're sharing would be discrete from the files you have on your machine (and hard drives are getting cheap enough this is feasible). When you requested a block, it would talk to a random peer, who would then proxy from 0 or more other peers.

I'm not sure on all the technical details, but what you describe sounds remarkably similar, at least in intent, to the Freenet project. And you're right, from what I've heard, it's quite slow at the moment (although it's expected to improve somewhat with more users and newer versions of the software).

Re:Not really ...

[Anonymous Coward]

4) The RIAA sues a small number of people and wins. The vast majority of file-sharers are successfully intimidated into removing their libraries from the file-sharing services. Having been intimidated to the point of having to change their favorite behavior, those 40 million angry, upset users stop patronizing the music industry. The stop buying CDs. They give 99c downloads the big finger. CD sales crash as the RIAA boycott spreads, and average people decide that they will no longer buy music from terrorists.

Speaking of which, in the ongoing debate over the battle between file-sharers and the music industry, one aspect that has been conspicuously missing is the fact that in the last few years, a widespread RIAA boycott movement has been forming. If you do a google search on RIAA BOYCOTT, you'll find over 8000 hits, most of which are either calls for a boycott of the recording industry, links to existing boycott sites, or articles expressing support for a RIAA boycott, yet no one ever cites this as a possible (probable) factor in the downturn in recording industry sales.

Successful individual lawsuits against file sharers may be just the thing that the general RIAA boycott movement needs to become truly widespread and start producing positive results -- positive results being defined as sales drops that threaten the ability of the recording industry, and thus the RIAA, to survive.

Eh?

[Xenotionar]

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.

Re:Eh?

[jesser]

More proof that there are legal uses for P2P services: the RIAA is using them to send short text messages they wrote, which is perfectly legal.

Re:Eh?

[mjjmoellering]

Wait... Isn't singling out people breaking the law and trying to entrap them with a clever message itself a legitimate use of the system?

It seems to me

[egg troll]

Is this a scare tactic or an honest attempt to reform the p2p user community, or both?"

Scare tactic. Next question please.

Re:It seems to me

[elwoodblues16]

Scare tactic. Next question please.

True enough, but a pretty good scare tactic for 95%+ of the population. The average computer user knows little or nothing about how their online activities can be tracked and prosecuted.

And it must have been disturbing as hell to get one of those messages, at your own computer, in your own office or bedroom, from a weird quasi-government body who may or may not have the wherewithall to arrest you/fine you/harass you.

The anonymity of the internet is what empowers people to download songs they have no business downloading. Without that to hide behind (or even if they think they can't hide behind it anymore), 95% of the use would drop off quickly. I'm not exactly applauding this tactic, but if they're looking to cut down on trading, it's a pretty effective idea (especially when compared to their other recent tactics).

Damnit! Corrected version... Re: Hi! CtC?

[Kymermosst]

Hi CtC?
<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! /ignore RIAA

Does anybody remember Napster?

[Cobralisk]

"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.

Legality issues aside,

[Tensor]

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

Rosen's Last Stand...

[DarwinDan]

The RIAA is doing this out of utter desparation.

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.

Re:Rosen's Last Stand...

[Loki_1929]

"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'."

Forgetting the Verizon rulings so quickly? They just wanted to sue the companies that make the software out of business. In terms of going after the users, they've got court backing on that one - they simply go to the ISP. Heck, they don't even need a warrant, judge's order, or even probable cause.

Re:Rosen's Last Stand...

[Motherfucking Shit]

In terms of going after the users, they've got court backing on that one - they simply go to the ISP. Heck, they don't even need a warrant, judge's order, or even probable cause.

Even if the information is so readily available (sigh), RIAA still has to do something with it. I think the point the grandparent post was trying to make is that even the RIAA isn't about to send snailmail C&Ds to - much less file lawsuits against - hundreds of thousands of people. Using the messaging systems of the filesharing apps, they can try to get their message out on the cheap. It beats paying for, what, half a million registered letters going out.

They've already tried the tactic of "making a few examples" and they see that it's not really scaring anyone. Of course, they fucked themselves on that angle; if they'd sued for $10,000 instead of $97 Billion, that case might actually have a chance of succeeding. A $10K ruling against some college kids would, I think, get out the message that "hey, they really are serious, and I don't have $10K to take the chance." But nobody is intimidated by nonsensical lawsuits seeking $97B.

i got a msg from madonna

[potmos]

Someone kept repeat messaging me "What the F**K do you think you're doing?" so I replied, "I'm download your album BIACH!"

Sadly

[andy_fish]

..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.

Re:Sadly

[benna]

Yeah but that means we have to find an equivalent to the "having SUVs supports terrorism" ads to fight back with.

Re:Sadly

[subsonic]

The drug war and the file-sharing war are very different animals. No one has ever OD'd on music, nor is it generally considered harmful to your health. Not to mention this is a private organization going after people, and not the government. I have a feeling this won't work very well at all. For many of the reasons originally posted but primarily for the fact that they can't sue us all.

And by the way. Did that many people really believe that ad campaign? I thought it was a pretty widely known fact that most marijuana bought in the US is grown in the US.

Re:Sadly

[Doobian Coedifier]

No one has ever OD'd on music

No one has ever OD'd on weed, either. Maybe cheetos...

Re:The RIAA should just give up.

[benna]

No the whole point is to promote money. If you want progress you will have to find the politi....oh nm its not worth the bad karma.

my response

[GregoryD]

RIAA: "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."

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"

This is the right way for the RIAA to do it

[zutroy]

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!

FreeNet

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:FreeNet

[caluml]

Something completely anonymous? Care to help us out?

Re:FreeNet

[blibbleblobble]

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)

We do. We have several.
- FreeNet, and similar projects (Publius, FreeHaven) for distributing anonymous files
- The Invisible IRC Project for anonymous, deniable instant messaging
- InvisiBlog for blogging
- MixMaster and Hushmail for email
- Anonymizer and Peek-a-booty for browsing

Anyone care to add to this list? I've only put the ones that immediately spring to mind, but I know there are more distributed anonymous deniable chaffed encrypted file-share programs that I've not tried.

Idle threat

[sssmashy]

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.

Real Irony

[Ieshan]

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.

Re:Real Irony

[zutroy]

I might lose some karma for this, but...
That's a load of bullshit.

The RIAA searches for a song that's in their members' catalogs. Then, when a hit comes up, they warn the user that they're sharing copyrighted material and may be sued. I'm sure that before they actually go to court, they will validate that the song is actually an illegal copy.

Re:Real Irony

[Dyolf Knip]

Because the RIAA contains the only people on the planet who put misnamed files on the service? What if they download a song that is actually copyrighted by someone else? Oh my, they just broke the law trying to gather incriminating evidence!

Re:How was this I,M. sent?

[pantropik]

They are using the built-in messaging facilities of the P2P clients themselves.

I wonder how long it'll be before they start doing pop-up spam ... er, I mean "educational alerts" ...

Blacklist RIAA/MPAA?

[evilviper]

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.

Re:Blacklist RIAA/MPAA?

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone know of a list of the netblocks owned by the RIAA/MPAA and any member organizations, contracted companies, etc?

Unfortunately, this will get you nowhere. I can tell you for a fact (alas as an AC) that much of the "scanning" that takes place on P2P networks on behalf of copyright owners happens from ordinary ISP accounts. Don't expect to see, e.g. copyrightspider41.riaa.org or dmcabot.columbiarecords.com crawling Kazaa looking for shared files. Network traversal is done primarily from DHCP DSL connections. You'd never suspect a P2P download from nnn-nnn-nnn-nnn.dsl.scrm01.pacbell.net, and people are extremely unlikely to go blocking every DSL provider in the country, so they've got the advantage.

One of the private "we'll find people who are violating your copyright" firms allegedly pays people to run a P2P spidering program on their home broadband connection. It's sort of like SETI@Home, except instead of ExtraTerrestrial Intelligence, they're searching for Evil Terrorist Infringers. (The bounty is rumored to be about $20/day if you leave the app running 24/7. No, I will not name the company as I do not have any proof to back it up with. However this company supposedly places newspaper ads of the "make money with your computer" sort.)

RIAA maybe be assholes, but they're not stupid, and they've got deep enough pockets to hire people to do the things they are stupid about.

The only "copyright enforcers" who are dumb enough to spider from their own network are Cyveillance. They tend to change IP blocks now and then. They used to be 63.148.99.0/24, though it looks like they might have smartened up and SWIPd out a lot of smaller blocks instead.

did you receive the message ? make $$ !

[ramzak2k]

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 ?

Re:did you receive the message ? make $$ !

[dereklam]

Did anyone else read this subject and think it was a spam?

Panopticon

[jmyung]

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.

Battery?

[evilviper]

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.

Probably an unpopular opinion, but....

[G3ek]

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.

Re:Probably an unpopular opinion, but....

[Eamon C]

Figuring out a new model that is beneficial to artists, consumers, and the corporations providing the content?

Artists? Definitely. Consumers? Absolutely. Corporations? WHY?!

The RIAA isn't fighting P2P because of lost record sales. They're fighting it because it hints at a new model, where artists bring their music directly to their fans. No "breakage" clause in record contracts. No payola to Clearchannel. Just musicians making music and consumers supporting them while they do it.

Just wait until Apple starts selling MP3s of unsigned and indie-label bands for less than 99 cents a pop. These bands will probably get 10 cents a download instead of the fraction of a cent the big labels are offering. The RIAA has every reason to be scared. Unless they can get legislation passed that requires bands to sign to big labels, they won't be around much longer.

Re:Probably an unpopular opinion, but....

[iabervon]

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.

But it's the indie labels who actually do this honestly, not the RIAA. And the indie labels are doing better than they ever have, despite frequently giving away free samples online, despite the economy being bad, and despite the problems the RIAA is having.

Like it or not, content distribution depends on the good will of the consumer for profit. You won't make any money on something, regardless of whether it's good or popular, if people don't think they should pay you for it. The RIAA's legal tactics have made people not want to pay them, and this means that they don't make money.

It doesn't even have to be illegal to not pay RIAA companies: if you just listen to the radio, buy used CDs, buy from indie labels, and listen to the music you already have, they don't make any money. Someday, perhaps, they'll realize that P2P is like radio, except that they don't have to pay huge amounts of money to get their music on it.

Re:Spamming

[Loki_1929]

" 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.

Re:How is RIAA != mafia/Triad?

[zutroy]

The difference is this:

The mafia kills people.
The RIAA sends people messages over a computer.

If those both scare you equally, you have issues.

Re:Use GNUNet!

[benna]

I wish this was so but I think the lack of a windows version will be its downfall. Not supporting windows but you need it to get enough people online and sharing.

The term is Barratry

[Travoltus]

HTH

Re:encrypted p2p anyone.......

[benna]

According to the patriot 2 act, if it is passed, you will be able to go to jail for an additional 5-10 years if you are cought "stealing" music even if that charge only gets you a fine.

Re:How is RIAA != mafia/Triad?

[hhknighter]

Method is what I am asking

Not the effect

big difference there.

Concept is the same. You are virtually SCARING someone into doing something.

To some people, going to jail is equal death. So you end up the same. And that doesnt mean that person's got issues, it just means that his vision of jail is different from yours.

!! This is what is coming NEXT !!

[pair-a-noyd]

RIAA MP3 S.W.A.T. teams to mop up evil music swappers!

Re:"Stealing music" ?

[NewtonsLaw]

Do the owners of the music lose it after you steal it? if not, it's not stealing.

Maybe not -- but if you deprive them of the income they might otherwise have earned by way of sales -- there's a case to argue that piracy is a theft of money even if it's not the theft of music itself.

The problem we face here is that until recently, the only way the market could express its dissatisfaction with the quality or price of a product was not to buy it.

Thanks to P2P networks, digital duplication and the like, that same market can now voice its dissatisfaction by not buying the products concerned -- but using them anyway.

One could argue therefore that the industry is losing no money because those who pirate this stuff would not have bought it anyway.

I hope the RIAA has thought this whole thing through very carefully.

What are they going to do if, once they've killed all the pirates, sales don't improve?

Surely there'd be at least a moral case for the pirates to say that they were falsely blamed for the industry's woes and file a class-action defamation suit :-)

To the RIAA -- beware of what you wish for, you may find it's not what you want.

Re:RIAA's response

[tetro]

Out of curiosity, can Morpheus and Grokster use SPAM laws since the RIAA sent out a mass amount of unwanted messages with negative connotations?

A transcript of the conversation

[Ryan Amos]

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)

Re:A transcript of the conversation

[mobileskimo]

Its not you. It was fuckin hilarious. Regardless of how stupid it was.

As for the anti-semtic. yayayayaya. OK. Slap him on the wrist. And you! GET OVER IT! There have been horrendous acts of racism that have been visited upon throughout all mankind for every imaginable race. The very fact that racist comments are all we have to deal with now for the MOST part (yes we have incidents, surprise the world's not perfect, but we're getting there), and not an EPIDEMIC, national, INSTITUTIONALIZED, accepted, persecution is relief.

Racism will live as long as humans are different. In one form or another. So, some people don't like you and your "kind". Not everyone can be as RIGHTEOUS and fair as you, ok? Just get on with your life.

"reforming a community"?

[Captain Beefheart]

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.

Re:"reforming a community"?

[benna]

Yeah thats the problem with p2p. Now IRC warez, thats a community.

Well...

[SaraSmith]

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.

i've said it before, and i'll say it again...

[deus_X_machina]

...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.

Re:i've said it before, and i'll say it again...

[Xyde]

Christina Aguilera actually has vocal talent, and some nice songs (if you bothered buying an album instead of downloading the "hits" from kazaa), as opposed to the rest of them, which are, yes, shit.

Re:i've said it before, and i'll say it again...

[maxpublic]

Perhaps, unlike your claim, people actually want to hear the music that's currently popular. I know that doesn't fit your college student model of how the world 'should' work (where everyone listens to indie or rap garbage), but the RIAA isn't the only one in need of a reality check here....

Max

Re:Lets make it anonymous!

[evilviper]

Freenet is simply not a good system for P2P. It's very design makes no sense.

Besides that, although FreeNet may have more anonymity built-in than other P2P services, it's far from anonymous... It only provides a measure of deniability ("No, *I* didn't download that movie, FreeNet did that automatically for some reason"), which is just as possible with Gnutella ("No, I was searching for something wholesome and just accidentally downloaded that because it was embedded with tons of other perfectly legal files. It's just shared because I share everything I've downloaded automatically.")

Plausible denyability !!!!!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

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...

Re:Plausible denyability !!!!!!!!

[EmagGeek]

Do you now? Well then under the Homeland Security Act, you're a terrorist.

Recall that part of the Homeland Security Act makes having an open AP a terrorist act if it is actually used by someone to aid, comfort, or assist a terrorist organization. Osama binLaden connects through your AP and sends an email, and you're going to prison for the rest of your life (while he roams free, mind you)...

Re:Damnit! Corrected version... Re: Hi! CtC?

[Guppy06]

At least they're not trying to get me to look at their webcam...

Re:A Question

[evilviper]

There are only a few real problems with the record companies. Incredibly high prices. Artists getting a small cut. Artists getting locked-in to long contracts. Releasing less-than-half-full CDs.

Make your own record company that sells hour-long, $5 CDs, and have $1 (or more) of each sale go to the artist. No copy protection is really needed, because 99% of people will just buy the CD.

Re:Use GNUNet!

[pantropik]

From the GNUNet home page:

Here is the current development plan:
fix bugs
add directories and namespaces
add additional transports
add support for internationalization (GNU gettext)
port to OS X
port to Win32

And here is a paper (PostScript) describing what GNUNet means by anonymity.

From the official GNU page for GNUNet:

Anonymity is the lack of distinction of an individual from a (large) group. A central goal for GNUnet is to make all users (peers) form a group and to make communications in that group anonymous, that is, nobody (but the initiator) should be able to tell which of the peers in the group originated the message. It should be impossible for an adversary to distinguish between the originating peer and all other peers. In particular, even peers should not be able to recognize from which node the message originated.
Of course, in practice, it may be possible for a powerful adversary to do some analysis and potentially assign higher probabilities for being the originator of a message to a subset of the peers. GNUnet tries to make this as hard as possible (see our paper on anonymity). The degree of anonymity (how hard it would be to distinguish an individual from the group) in GNUnet depends on the resources (mostly bandwidth) that the individual has available to achieve anonymity.

In the case that an extremely powerful adversary was to break the anonymity of a peer, GNUnet provides deniability. Deniability means that the communication is secret in the sense that only the final recipient knows the key to decrypt the message. The sender and the intermediaries are unable to determine the actual contents. Since content migrates in the network, the originator of the content can often plausibly deny knowledge of the contents since the content could have migrated to the peer, making the originator indistinguishable from an intermediary. Since intermediaries have no means of decrypting the content and are (in all sane legal systems) thus not legally responsible for them (if you use the Internet to send an encrypted E-mail, your Internet Service Provider (ISP) will typically not be held responsible for the content that its servers transmit; in GNUnet, every peer plays the role of an ISP, providing Internet services to other peers).

Sounds good to me. According to the docs, the final version should be ready in time to ship with HURD 1.0!

(That last bit was a bad joke. I hope.)

Make CDs more affordable

[pyrit]

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

Re:Make CDs more affordable

[Zakabog]

It's a bit off topic but I think it needs to be said in reply to your message.

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.

Think about it, if they sell the plasma screens now at a huge price, like $10,000 (and they do) tons of rich people will go out and buy them because they're new and not many people can afford them so it makes them feel elite. When they lower the price by $2,000 more people will buy them but maybe just the upper middle class. Take off another $2,000 or $3,000 and you'll start seeing alot of middle class people buying them, when the price gets to around $1,000-$3,000 tons and tons of people will buy them (like big screen projection TVs.)

If they started out in the $1,000-$3,000 price range, the super rich wouldn't buy them cause they're too cheap and wouldn't be such a sought out specialty item that's only available to few people. Kind of like a rolex watch or maybe a porsche, the rich wouldn't buy these if they were economy items and the companies would lose tons of money that comes in from wealthy people who don't care what kind of insane markup the products they buy have as long as they're rare items.

Doesn't have much to do with the price of CDs but remember you don't always need to buy the new CDs as soon as they come out, wait a while till they're in the $1 bin. You'll end up realizing the music wasn't very good in the first place and spend your hard earned cash on something more usefull.

Re:I doubt Kazaa would sue

[drdink]

If Kazaa sued the RIAA because of this, I would assume that this would be interpreted as they (Kazaa) are responsible for enforcing the Acceptable Use Policy which also says unlawful transfers are not permitted. The RIAA could then sue them back and win this time.

Link

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you meant to link here.

-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.

Re:Link

[RPoet]

Your ISP could log everything you insert.

Not really, since it's impossible to tell insertion from routing in Freenet.

Re:Link

[evilviper]

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.

And how about if I publish a document with *YOUR* name and address in it? ;-)

That part, at least, is a non-starter when it comes to lawsuits.

Yes, I agree that FreeNet is WAY overhyped, and not only does it not provide privacy, it isn't even a technically good P2P program. (I've said this elsewhere on this thread... Browse at +3)

Even funnier perhaps...

[trezor]

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.

Peer Guardian

[martissimo]

its a win only app available here

OverPeer:65.174.255.255
OverPeer:65.160.0.0-65. 160.127.255
Ranger:216.122.0.0-216.122.255.255
R anger:204.92.244.0-204.92.244.255
MediaForce:65.1 92.0.0-65.192.0.255
MediaForce:65.223.0.0-65.223. 255.255
MediaForce:4.43.96.0-4.43.96.255
MediaDe fender:66.79.0.0-66.79.255.255
MediaDefender:64.2 25.292.0-64.225.292.127
RIAA:208.192.0.0-208.255. 255.255
RIAA:208.225.90.0-208.225.90.255
RIAA:12 .150.191.0-12.150.191.255
MPAA:63.199.57.96-63.19 9.57.128
MPAA:64.166.187.128-64.166.187.192
MPAA :198.70.114.0-198.70.114.255
MPAA:209.67.0.0-209. 67.255.255
NetPD:207.155.128.0-207.155.255.255
N etPD:128.241.0.0-128.241.255.255
UnknownC&DCop:64 .106.170.128-64.106.170.192
BayTSP:209.204.128.0- 209.204.191.255
Vidius:207.155.128.0-207.155.255. 255
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

seems OK to me

[g4dget]

I don't see why people would get upset about it. Presumably, you got both the P2P and the IM software and service for free. The RIAA can participate in it as much as you can, and it's not like they are lying or threatening violence.

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.

Re:Not anonymous?

[caluml]

You have something called an IP address which you can spoof if you're using UDP for the queries and data transfer. Of course, it makes flow control difficult. http://udpp2p.sourceforge.net/

RIAA keepsake!

[gad_zuki!]

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!"

Maybe this is the way?

[mabhatter654]

If they download a song, can't they figure out the IP it came from? Then send said nasty letter to your ISP and kick you off? Most of the file sharers are kids anyway. If they got Mom & Dad kick off their ISP just once [and have to deal with finding another ISP to hook-up] a great deal of file trading would drop off in weeks.

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!]

Re:Any ISP gurus out there?

[caluml]

Yep, we're trying to build a P2P app that uses spoofed UDP source addresses. It works, but it's only in very basic alpha at the mo. It uses anonymous broadcasts to perform the queries. The main problem is the file transfer - it is hard to do flow control if you can't talk directly to the remote host. Have a look - http://udpp2p.sourceforge.net/ - if you think you can help, we'd be grateful.

Recurring Problem

[MjDascombe]

You can't have a completely anonymous peer2peer system. Any system that requires your peer to connect to another will always comprimise your anonymity.

Re:Recurring Problem

[juahonen]

Not quite so. Using a scheme akin of anonymous remailer that problem could be avoided altogether:

Clients establish encryped connections with masters. The connections are either direct (client to master) or forwarded (client to master to another master). For forwarded connections, the client does not tell from which machine the connection came from (it could be the machine or some of it's clients). So the server at the end of the request chain sees only the server immediately before it. That server sees only one before it and so on. None but the originating client knows which machine is the client.

Of course that would be slow, and quite un-interactive, but it would work well enough if each master would randomize the path it tries to follow to the final target. With a TTL-like requests, the number of intermediate servers could be controlled by the client. And the masters would never make up the route to the client, but use the route the client connected with them.

Geez, what's the matter with everybody?

[MillionthMonkey]

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.

Re:Lets make it anonymous!

[pc486]

Freenet doesn't just have "more anonymity built-in," it has leaps and bounds of more anonymity built in for the person who placed the file there in the first place. It is effectivly (nothing is impossible) untraceable to the originator and the argument of "I really didn't download that" does fly because there is not a simple deal to know for sure what one downloaded (esp. with all the safty gaurds like segmentating and encrypting the data). The key is that FreeNet data is most likly not sourced from someone who has also downloaded that data with intent or by the originator.

This defense is untested in court and may or may not fly but FreeNet brings a peace of mind when it comes to P2P.

A better argument against FreeNet as a serious P2P application is that it doesn't handle large files (aka movies and TV shows) very well :).

RIAA vs Eliza

[varjag]

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..

The GPL *is* a copyright.

[Xenex]

"Unless of course she went to the trouble of releasing it gpl it's pretty much copyrighted by default as I understand the laws".

You realise the GPL is a copyright, don't you? As stated at gnu.org:

To copyleft a program, we first state that it is copyrighted; then we add distribution terms, which are a legal instrument that gives everyone the rights to use, modify, and redistribute the program's code or any program derived from it but only if the distribution terms are unchanged.

Both the GPL and music licensing are forms of copyright, they are just very different uses of copyright.

RIAA is cutting off thier toes to run faster.

[-Unholy-Infidel-]

I think it's real slick that they are threating people now. This means they are getting desperate to maintain their stranglehold on music artists. It's almost Darwinian. Natural selection has snuck up and bit the Music industry dinosaur in the butt. They are big, slow and ponderous. Like Microsoft they stifle innovation. Filesharing is the Velociraptor of the music world. It's predatory and ruthless.

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.

NOT anonymous, eh?

[Tracy Reed]

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.

Not trying to threadjack here, honest, but...

[weave]

Just wondering, what will it take to make y'all happy?

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.

What about the Audio Home Recording Act?

[ortholattice]

Contrary to what the RIAA wants you to believe, it appears that making a copy of an audio recording may be perfectly legal in the US, even if you don't own the original recording, as long as it is for noncommercial purposes. The reason for this is the Audio Home Recording Act (AHRA).

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:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/ch10.html

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:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/1008.html

"No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings."

The intent of Congress was clear when this law was passed (http://www.cni.org/Hforums/cni-copyright/1993-01/ 0018.html):

From House Report No. 102-873(I), September 17, 1992:

"In the case of home taping, the [Section 1008] exemption protects all noncommercial copying by consumers of digital and analog musical recordings."

From House Report No. 102-780(I), August 4, 1992:

"In short, the reported legislation [Section 1008] would clearly establish that consumers cannot be sued for making analog or digital audio copies for private noncommercial use."

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.

Re:What about the Audio Home Recording Act?

[almound]

The fatal flaw of the law is the money that must be spent in order to ensure justice. (Of course, your post is technically correct. But whether or not there is a material breach, however, must be settled naturally in a court of law ... debated upon ad nauseum by very high-priced lawyers with no incentive to end the invective.)

The problem is not that the RIAA or Kazaa users are violating laws. Clearly, everyone violates laws (there are just so many of them - we are all doing something illegal, even now, for which we just haven't been caught yet ... that's how ridiculous it has become).

No, the real issue is the Internet itself and how it has been allowed to become the dragnet of every government agency with the wherewithall to get off its big, fat duff and bark out an order for "compliance" by the lapdog ISPs to give up the personal information that they obligingly store for just such purposes. (Ohhh ... now I understand why DARPA "gave" the public the Intenet for free! Geesh!!! And I thought John Poindexter was being nice.)

In other words, the system's rigged, my boys. Get used to it.

Then get on to building an alternative!!!

(Freenet is a great concept for starters, but until all the bandwidth wastage is cut by about 10%, the extra load of data encryption is going to make for some glutted pipes. However, for those in the know, using multiple pipes is a solution. Still, it might be hard to explain all the encrypted traffic to the Feds once the slimey ISP informs it of your bit-ratio.)

Wake Up Amerika!!! Stop living off Government Surplus Cheese.

Re:What about the Audio Home Recording Act?

[evilviper]

Thought I'd look through the law on my own, and didn't get far before I noticed this:

No person shall import, manufacture, or distribute any digital audio recording device or digital audio interface device that does not conform to -

(1)

the Serial Copy Management System;

Under that rule, it would seem that computers are completely illegial.

It seems to have numerous other interesting oddities as well:

(1) Prohibition on encoding inaccurate information. -

No person shall encode a digital musical recording of a sound recording with inaccurate information relating to the category code, copyright status, or generation status of the source material for the recording.

That could potentially mean that mislabeled audio files are illegial... A practice RIAA is deeply involved in.

Of course, I'm no lawyer, and legalese is nearly as hard to read as German to me. Corrections welcome!

Re:What about the Audio Home Recording Act?

[Mordaximus]

" Contrary to what the RIAA wants you to believe, it appears that making a copy of an audio recording may be perfectly legal in the US, even if you don't own the original recording, as long as it is for noncommercial purposes. "

Nope. The Audio Home Recording act likely refers to making a copy from an origianl for personal use.You don't need to own the original, but you do need to make a copy from it.

IANAL, I am Canadian (don't know US law, although it seems very 'interesting') and have very little time right now to research the equivalent in US law... But in Canada, you are free to make an analog or digital recording for personal use from an original recording and there is an exise tax on blank media specifically for that purpose. The law is also clear that you must personally make a copy of the original. For example, you can lend Joe your brand spanking new {insert album name here} CD, and he can make a copy and return the original to you. BUT, he cannot give you a blank and have you make a copy for him.

The reason P2P violates the law (as it is written now) is that you aren't making a copy from an original. The other, much bigger violation, is that someone is distributing.

Re:What about the Audio Home Recording Act?

[angle_slam]

You are missing are a large portion of the AHRA: the definitions. From section 1001:

A ''digital audio recording device'' is any machine or device of a type commonly distributed to individuals for use by individuals, whether or not included with or as part of some other machine or device, the digital recording function of which is designed or marketed for the primary purpose of, and that is capable of, making a digital audio copied recording for private use

Section 1008 (the exemption section) only applies to analog recordings and the defined digital audio recording devices. In essence, it means only standalone consumer DAT and CD-R machines and does not include computer CD-R drives. That leads to the incongruity that, if I borrow a CD from a friend or a library, I am allowed to make an analog recording of it, I am allowed to use a standalone CD recorder, but I am not allowed to use a computer CD recorder.

That is why there are separate music CD-Rs and data CD-Rs. The music CD-Rs have the built-in tax, the Data CD-Rs do not.

The original basis of the AHRA was because the record companies were so scared of DAT (how prescient of them). The compromise was the Serial Copy Management System which is built into consumer digital recorders. You can make any number of copies of an original CD. But you can't make a digital copy of another copy. Because SCMS is not built into computer CD-recorders, it is not included in that definition.

Re:What about the Audio Home Recording Act?

[angle_slam]

Under that rule, it would seem that computers are completely illegial.

No, it just means that they are not digital audio recording devices, as defined by the AHRA.

Good faith

[jez_f]

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.

To protect the software

[coldcity]

To my mind the best way to protect the future of P2P software is to show that Judge Stephen Wilson was correct in his ruling last Friday:

"It is undisputed that there are substantial noninfringing uses for defendants' software. For instance, StreamCast has adduced evidence that the Morpheus program is regularly used to facilitate and search for public domain materials, government documents, media content for which distribution is authorized, media content as to which the rights owners do not object to distribution, and computer software for which distribution is permitted."

So, in between downloading files they can bitch about, consider using your favourite P2P app any time you want to download a Paint Shop Pro trial or whatever; ie, any file you'd automatically turn to the web to download. This is a small thing that everyone can do to help, and means that no-one can make the "no legitimate use" case.

Re:To protect the software

[medscaper]

...consider using your favourite P2P app any time you want to download a Paint Shop Pro trial or whatever; ie, any file you'd automatically turn to the web to download. This is a small thing that everyone can do to help, and means that no-one can make the "no legitimate use" case.

I'm not trolling here, but...If we have to go out of the way to try and make it look legitimate, isn't its primary use fairly illegitimate? I mean, if I know I'm going to get better download speed and reliability downloading PSP demos from the software manufacturer, why would I try to "con" anyone into thinking that P2P was legit by doing it otherwise? To try and beef up the appearance of real, fair use?

Sounds like a pretty weak argumentative leg to stand on, to me...

I completely approve of P2P, but I'm not going to try and make it look more legal. Let them get a real scenario, instead of padding it with crap downloads...

Canadian terrorists?

[Slur]

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.

"Ever had the feeling you've been had?"

[s-meister]

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...

Somebody owes me some Money!!

[4string]

"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

RIAA Information minister says..

[BlackCobra43]

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.

Re:Lets make it anonymous!

[evilviper]

it has leaps and bounds of more anonymity built in for the person who placed the file there in the first place.

And how can someone on Gnutella tell if the file they are downloading from you, originated from you? How can someone tell that you didn't just get it from somewhere else?

It's really not difficult to start picking apart FreeNet if someone wanted to. Just one node-in-the-middle, and it gets two pieces of the request.

This defense is untested in court and may or may not fly but FreeNet brings a peace of mind when it comes to P2P.

Yes, but it could apply (nearly as well) to any other P2P system. It doesn't give piece of mind, it gives the illusion of anonymity, which can be even worse.

it doesn't handle large files

I basically glossed over that point when I said: " Freenet is simply not a good system for P2P." I think it's technical diffencies have been well documented and discussed, and I didn't want to bother rehashing the same old facts.

Fair Use is NOT Theft!

[BECoole]

Repeat after me: Reproduction for non-comercial use is NOT theft! Leave it to the RIAA and libraries will be illegal.

Mod Parent Up Re:Plausible denyability !!!!!!!!

[PortWineBoy]

I don't think there's any legal obligation to secure a wireless network.

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?

P2P on the radio

[fain0v]

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 /.

The GPL isn't a copyright.

[Gleef]

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.

Isn't that what we call SPAM?

[Hao Wu]

Sending thousands of messages for a commercial/political interest. That's the definition of SPAM.

Why Not Club Bands

[MissingNetLink]

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.

At what point is the law broken?

[AltControlsDelete]

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.

Is this even legal

[Zed2K]

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.

Oh BS

[FallLine]

RIAA: "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."

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"

What exactly is the industry doing wrong here? They're providing violators of their copyright ample opportunity to correct the situation before they attempt to address the matter legally. While this may be the easy way out for the industry, it is also beneficial to the user that just might arguably be unaware that he had copyrighted material or that he can be held to account for 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?

The IM...

[Peterus7]

...warning that they were NOT anonymous and that they could face legal consequences if they did not stop sharing copyrighted material.

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.

Anyone still boycotting?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

A Different Opinion

[Aidtopia]

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.

Cute but not plausible.

[Pendersempai]

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?

can't have it

[Archfeld]

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.