Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Chats With Song Swappers
einer writes "Orignally seen
on Drudge; in reaction to their recent loss in court, an IM was sent to 'hundreds of thousands' of grokster and Kazaa users by the RIAA warning that they were NOT anonymous and that they could face legal consequences if they did not stop sharing copyrighted material. The IM was sent to users hosting copyrighted songs for download. Is this a scare tactic or an honest attempt to reform the p2p user community, or both?"
Ok, so first they argue in court that there are no legit uses for these services. Then they use them themeselves. Are they not admiting to doing something that they would claim is not legal?
"It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
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.
"It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
They simply cannot subpoena Grokster or KaZaA (thanks to the recent ruling) for users' names -- let alone actually find their e-mail address to send a nastier C&D 'letter'.
By doing this, the RIAA is basically admitting to the fact that they have lost their stranglehold on the music industry's implementation of non-DRM (or DRM lite) technology.
$DEITY bless $NATION
..this move of theirs will probably be effective with some people. It'll work for the same reason that the "buying marijuana fuels terrorism" ad campaign works, because the average person is dumb.
& I wish I knew the password to your heart . . . &
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"
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.
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.
The RIAA will continue the only possible strategy for prosecuting illegal music-swappers: hammer a few "extreme offenders" college students to set an example for the many.
IM warning notwithstanding, Joe Blow from Iowa who downloads a few Celine Dion songs has as good a chance of being prosecuted as he does replacing Rene Angelil. The RIAA must prosecute copyright violators individually, and out of necessity they will focus on the select few worst abusers, at least those who are easy targets.
from the 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.
Personally I spend money on music pretty regularly. I go see a lot of bands live, maybe buy a t-shirt, buy cds straight from the bands, etc...
I really don't see the problem with the RIAA trying to limit piracy, it's their tactics that suck. Kazaa for example has a lot of stuff traded on it that has absolutely nothing to do with the RIAA, yet they try to shut the whole thing down, and they're terrible hyocrites and can't see that they need to change their business model. I hardly even use cds anymore, and if I do they're mp3 cds. I have the means to use more convenient methods than having hundreds of cds laying around (and I HAVE hundreds, legally bought over the years.. not many from recent years, but hundreds nonetheless) so why the hell should I stick to overpriced media in a format I don't even like anymore?
They don't get with the times... people adapt, they're not. Tough shit if nobody wants to do business with the RIAA anymore. You might as well sue me if I grow food in my garden because I've decided it's nicer than paying for all my food already pre-grown. Not the same thing, sure, but it's a similar situation...
Of course I'm preaching to the choir here.
I think pay music can and should exist. They're obviously not learning how to SELL it though. Update the business model, get with the times, stop screwing over the bands (I won't get into that here, but they certainly do), and realise that most people don't want to spend nearly $20 for an hour's worth of content when there's so many hours of content out there to listen to.
Support your favorite bands by seeing them live. You'll probably even discover a lot of new music that way too.
...but maybe if the RIAA spent more time producing products people wanted to purchase and less time alienating their users they wouldn't have this problem!
Justin Timberlake, Christina Agularia, Kelly Clarkson, 50 Cent, and Linkin Park are being shoved down the throats of their listeners with their preprocessed, $18 garbage, its no goddamned wonder CD sales are down! In one quick swoop, Napster made available all of the "good" music people want to hear AND made the CD format obsolete.
I'm sorry, but I believe it's time for the RIAA to buckle down and try and change their business model if they want to stick around.
"In a Democracy, people get the kind of government they deserve." -Winston Churchill
I don't know about you... but I have a wireless basestation.... no password... soooooo I suppose someone else from my IP MUST have been d/ling all the copywritten stuff... I just use KAZAA for the *significant* non-infringing uses... /Sounds like reasonable doubt to me...
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
-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.
I find it even more amusing that the RIAA has replaced their people with bots. Heres why:
We all claim the RIAA mainly is a representative for music-distributers that are no longer necasery. And then they start doing their dirty work (which is all they do, apperantly) with bots!
They have thus proven our claim is correct, by employing technology to do their work, instead of doing it themselves :)
Oh. And this is meant to be moderated funny, not insightfull, if anyone cares to spend modarator points on such a lousy post.
Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.
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.
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.
RIAA> We've noticed that you host copyrighted material on your PC. You are not anonymous. Please cease and desist.
Eliza> What makes you think You are not anonymous?
RIAA> Eh?
Eliza> Please go on.
RIAA> Are you kidding me?
Elia> Has it something to do with your childhood?
RIAA> Oh.. now as you said that I recall my parents being very cruel to me. They refused to buy me a Walkman for my 13th birthday..
Lisp is the Tengwar of programming languages.
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...
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.
Since 1992, the U.S. Government has collected a tax on all digital audio recorders and blank digital audio media manufactured in or imported into the US, and gives the money directly to the RIAA companies, which is distributed as royalties to recording artists, copyright owners, music publishers, and music writers:
In exchange for those royalties, a special exemption to the copyright law was made for the specific case of audio recordings, and as a result *all* noncommercial copying of musical recordings by consumers is now legal in the US, regardless of media:
The intent of Congress was clear when this law was passed (http://www.cni.org/Hforums/cni-copyright/1993-01From House Report No. 102-873(I), September 17, 1992:
From House Report No. 102-780(I), August 4, 1992: Therefore, when you copy an MP3 the royalties have already been paid for with tax dollars in accordance with the law. If you are a musician whose recordings are publicly distributed, then you are entitled to your share of these royalties by filing a claim under Section 1006 (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/1006.html)Napster tried to use this law to defend their case, and the court ruled this law did not apply to them because they are a commercial company. But as a consumer it seems to me you are perfectly within your rights when you make a copy for noncommercial private use.
coldcity
code, life, art
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.
09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0
"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.
Enable 3D printed prosthetics!
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