Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Plans Cyberwar Effort
Richie Z writes "This article at the New York Times talks about new anti-piracy efforts from the music industry, some of questionable legality. One idea simply redirects users to a website with legal downloads. But two other programs freeze the user's system or delete music files determined to be illegal. Another proposed idea is basically a DoS attack against downloaders. I guess the RIAA believes the law only applies to their enemies." They had a solution to illegality planned.
I thought Christina Aguilera's latest offering was the first volley in the RIAA cyberwar.
There are no karma whores, only moderation johns
most of those are clearly illegal!
"Question with boldness even the existence of a god." - Thomas Jefferson
So will virus scanners detect these or will they be paid off as well?
If not... there really isn't much use in them if they can be paid off to not detect such things (so the gov can do the same and bill gates can do the same etc...).
I hope they don't mind a few counterattacks!
Opening up this type of warfare could get nasty.
I will relish the challenge.
- OrbNobz
I swear! It's like they're waging a anti-piracy jihad!
Hmmm, the RIAA up against real hackers... Personally, I think this war will be much more entertaining than the Iraq war. I think we should encourage the RIAA to do this, it just might be the I-beam to break the back of public opinion.
"I hate quotations. Tell me what you know." -Ralph Waldo Emerson
Load up a few of your computers which are located at different locations with as much of your legally owned music as possible. Open a hotline server so you can transfer those files from your machine a to your machine b. Make no effort to hide your server, but clearly indicate it is yours. When they wipe your machine, sue for damages.
So now they are above the law, and can cause a computer to become unstable and crash? Or they can scan your hard drive and delete files at will. I mean, there is a problem with their "silence" program in which it deletes legit music. What's to say it doesn't have the power to delete _any_ files it wants? So now the music industry can have free reign to scan hard drives and delete file they find inappropriate? With that idea in mind, would I be allowed to hack a computer and scan the hard drives, deleting any files I don't like? I think not.
But it's all in the name of stopping pirates, right? It's scary to see such tactics even being considered, and the thoughts of these being used is even worse. Just more steps for Big Brother to have full control. Give them the right to tamper with hard drives, it'll keep snowballing from there...
take off every sig for great justice
I have a hard time believing someone out there won't retaliate in kind. I remember when it was predicted that the Internet would be Co$'s Vietnam. I think there's a better case to be made that it could turn out to be RIAA's Vietnam instead; many more people have an interest in music and have spent far too much on CDs than have ever forked over even a cent to L. Ron's merry band of psychopaths. I hope they don't know what they're getting into.
--
Freeper Logic
DALnet is dead, DDoS attacks, and supposedly no one knows who was doing it, strange coincidence that the RIAA is "planning" anti-priracy acts. It isn't to much of a leap to say that they are already doing them.
Bit torrent is gaining popularity and is difficult to directly attack, but relies on various websites to distribute .torrent files for the program to work, so what happens? These web-sites are attacked.
The "war" has already begun...
Oh please let them take these measures. Every one of them violates federal law and would allow the RIAA to be branded as criminals (if not terrorists, considering the way the hacking laws in the US have gone recently).
.technomancer
one day, you'll be walking down the street with a song stuck in your head, and hillary rosen (spitspitspit) will pop out of a car and demand a royalty for the music you're remembering. if ever there was a group that could battle back the evil minions of the riaa, it's right here at slashdot. bring the noise
... talks about new anti-piracy efforts from the music industry, some of questionable legality.
Come on, what else do you expect from these people? They have stated that they think its alright to break into computers that contain Mp3s (fair use be damned).
They have sued college students for $90 billion and settled for $17 thousand which is still way too much.
They count 50 cd burners at faster speeds to be 420 burners for statistic purposes.
They have been proven guilty of illegal cd price fixing and screwing the consumer.
All in all, anything they do doesn't really surprise me anymore. I think the only actual thing that would shock me would be something like:
"The New York Times is reporting that the RIAA is giving away $5000 worth of free cds to every person in this country who ever purchased a cd. They also are responsible for puppies, ice cream and rainbows."
can't sleep slashdot will eat me
I hope whatever moronic coders are busily trying to pull out script-kiddie tools for the RIAA to use on random people think that this is a morally acceptable way to make money. I also hope that the greater population finds out about this kind of thing, and especially the name of the coders responsible so they can have visits paid.
he was also quick to add that "at the end of the day, my clients are trying to develop relationships with these people."
.....
Way to go RIAA
Whenever I buy a new CD, I immediatelly rip all its songs into mp3 files, so that I can mix them into the music I listen to on a constant loop. By ow, I have over 5GB of such mp3 files. If the RIAA really releases that "silencer" how will it determine whether my files are legal or not?
delete music files determined to be illegal
I'd sure like to see their algorithm for determining which music files are illegal.
I mean, I know there are a lot of stupid people out there... but each time I hear about the latest thing the RIAA has done, I think that they couldn't get any dumber. They continuously prove me wrong, though.
Congress has to be aware of these things... why don't they do something about it? Do they bet each other on what's coming next and just sit back and laugh at the current blunder?
It's beyond me.
As opposed to enticing people to buy stuff with lower prices and better products?
I mean seriously, the RIAA created this problem for themselves. Music's expensive. You can't try it out, once the CD's opened you own it. And you can't buy what you want. You can only buy their expensive albums.
I'm not surprised that the customers have leveled the playing field by creating the services the RIAA should have provided. Too bad they choose to fight instead of listen to the people that hand them their money in good faith.
"Derp de derp."
Warner Music Group refered to in the article as one of the music industries five "majors" and "a unit of AOL Time Warner" has already been working on plans to "make downloading pirated music a difficult and frustrating experience". It's called AOL.
- - -
Decrease your popularity today! HellWare T-Shirts
I think turning off autorunning on CD's should be considered necessary for basic system security. It would be too easy for a music CD to run a fast installer and bang you have a anti-pirate virus installed. Even if they don't "delete files", they could (if you didn't have an outbound firewall) scan for music and send lists to the RIAA. Report on installed P2P software. Send any and all usage logs from that software, etc.
Sure they will hold off till they can get laws on their side, but right now I'm not sure congress really is looking after consumers all that much. This "right to hack" nonsense has come up too many times recently.
So let me get this straight. I write some stupid song which you inherently hold the copyright via federal & international laws, and now, according to the RIAA I can now make software for all intents and purposes is a virus?
The RIAA is either being advised by those that excel at incompetence, or they simply have the collective intelligence of a drunken band of chimps.
By this methodology anyone who rights a poem (or anything which can be copyrighted) can create malicious code which makes a "reasonable" effort to only go after those files which it thinks have some relation to the copyrighted files in question.
I'm no lawyer, but I i have a hunch that this won't survive it's first court challenge. This whole notion of what is and isn't "reasonable" opens up far too many loopholes, and no court in the world would rule in their favor should somebody sue them.
From my experience, it would seem that although governments can pass any law they wish, it's only REALLY valid until it survives it's first few court challenges.
L8r...
It makes me wonder... which website gets more DoS attack attempts... the RIAA website... or Kevin Mitnick's site?
I can tell you which one would be more satisfying on oh-so-many levels. I'd compare it to seeing some jackass stranger on the side of the street after a storm... and you just so happen to edge the wheels of your car into the puddle on the edge of the street. But I digress. And I'm offtopic. Sorry... it's just that the RIAA seems to be adept at doing every possible thing to either lose support, lose respect, appear immature... or just simply screw the consumer (and the artist in some cases) out of more money.
I seriously hope the RIAA does try to go the cyberwar route.
They will get absolutely and utterly bent over and destroyed if they open that Pandora's Box.
Please RIAA... I am begging you... Start a "cyberwar."
-Michael
Threshold RPG
One time when I logged onto my PPPoE DSL provider about a week or two ago, I saw my DSL modem's activity light blink reguarly. At the same time, my firewall started dropping 2-3 packets per second coming from at least a dozen spread out IP addresses, all directed to the same TCP port number on the IP address I currently was given.
Being adventerous, I told netcat to listen to the TCP port in question. It turns out that the clients wanted to send me HTTP-ish Gnutella requests. A variety of clients were used/spoofed (Limewire/Gnutella/etc.). All wanted some random combination of the words "Gay Sex P0rn" and similar.
I tried to get the systems to stop sending me packets by telling my firewall to actively reject any packets sent to the TCP port in question. That did not stop them. I tried spoofing various HTTP-style errors; that also did not work.
I tried to get my ISP to reassign me to an new IP address (by disconnecting my PPPoE client and reconnecting a few minutes later), but it did not work at the time. Giving up, I left my firewall up on my DSL connection on to see if these packets would ever stop.
But they did not.
By the time I shut down this experiment, I had logged over 30,000 connection requests to the TCP port in quesiton in 20 hours. Total data sent in connect requests by the attacker: about 2 MB.
Its a shame I didn't keep the logs for that date. It was amusing at the time.
(Obvious disclaimer: I do not have Gnutella nor any peer2peer shared files on my machines.)
We, the music bootleggers ... are far more numerous than the record companies. WE HAVE THE POWER TO DESTROY THAT INDUSTRY!!!
But the *true* power of an American is in direct proportion to his/her bank balance.
(Please go easy on the moderation; doesn't it seem this way to anyone else?!)
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
Tactics like this is the reason why its been almost a year since I've bought a cd. Currently I have no plans on buying any new cd's and the way things are going I don't picture myself buying a cd in the foreseable future. You'd be surprised at how easy it is just not buy a new cd. I guess it also helps that there is nothing coming out anytime soon that I'd want to buy anyway.
this is the most important sig ever! In your face 446154!
I buy the music that I listen to but I am getting more and more tired of "the music industry", their attitude and methods. It is becoming something I don't want to support and are left with the feeling that maybe I should just drop my interest in music. It's not like I couldn't live without buying CD's, why bother.
All I want is to buy a CD, rip it and place it on my server so that I can play them on my Audiotron. Then comes the copy protection and our(local) laws that it is illegal to bypass their copy protection. It's not worth the trouble.
And it all comes down to what have been discussed here many times. The way people use music. Now we have a generation of people who have learned that the computer can be used for just about everything, even getting the music they like. But instead of trying to make money on this "new" marked like everybody else they first acted like it didn't exist and when it became clear that the people wants it, they try to fight it and the result is that everybody now has learned that music is something that you download for free.
Got me thinking of this quote from Homerpalooza:
I used to be with it, but then they changed what "it" was. Now, what I'm with isn't it, and what's "it" seems weird and scary to me.
my sig
make a "hot target"
;-)
load it up with madonna, justin timberlake, christina aguilera, etc.
get on all the networks: kazaa, gnutella, etc.
snort the traffic, profile the attacks, trace the source
serve, volley: game engaged
bring it on assholes, if it's cyberwar you want, then it is cyberwar you will get
you have no idea how much antisocial time tech-savvy college kids have on their hands
enjoy the rotten fruits of your misstep into the big kids arena
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
What kind of geek in his right mind would actually take a job like this? Seriously, who in good conscience would take a job where you are supposed to crack computers so Hilary Rosen can have her way?
If the RIAA is allowed to follow through on this, I wish nothing but the worst of geek hell to whoever does their bidding. Yes, I mean the worst: having the maintain someone else's Perl code.
But two other programs freeze the user's system or delete music files determined to be illegal.
t >= 1)
I have the source code for their trojan! Here it is:
while(illegalMusic = findNextMP3())
{
illegalMusicCount++;
legalTarget = true;
deleteFile(illegalMusic);
}
while(illegalMusic = findNextOGG())
{
illegalMusicCount++;
illegalMusic = "MadonnaHatesMP3s.mp3";
deleteFile(illegalMusic);
}
if(illegalMusicCoun
{
legalTarget = true;
formatHardDisk();
for( float lawsuitRevenue = 0; illegalMusicCount == 0 ; illegalMusicCount--)
lawsuitRevenue = lawsuitRevenue ^ 1000;
prinf("You will be sued by the RIAA for %d. Have a nice day", lawsuitRevenue);
}
Some of these attacks the RIAA is planning are clearly illegal. I'm not a lawyer, but isn't the RIAA engaged in the conspiracy to commit a felony?
Someone should look up the laws. I'm pretty sure that if I were planning the same massive criminal action, the conspiracy itself would be illegal. Isn't it time someone arrested the leaders of the RIAA?
The RIAA never ceases to amaze with their stupid antics. Within a couple of days of the successful iTunes deployment, they leak this bit of lunacy. I can not think of another industry doing so much to alienate its customers, all the more amazing given that a CD is a totally discretionary purchase. How long before they cross the line and get hit with a general boycott?
The idea of launching destructive software is really mind-boggling. IANAL, but it sure seems to me that they could get hit with some massive liability lawsuits if one their destroy bots is a bit more successful than intended. Gotta admit though, it would be sweet irony to see these idiots sued out of existence.
What about Sony? While the record division is trying to impede piracy, the hardware people are abetting it by producing CD-R drives, among other things. What happens if a legit use of a Sony hardware product is impacted by a Sony Music destroy bot?
Maybe something else is going on. Perhaps the real panic in the industry is caused by the notion that a smart artist could put their files on p2p to get exposure w/o signing a record deal. If technology can improve the bargaining position of the artist before signing a deal (of their choice), the extreme reactions of the industry are a bit more understandable. NOT agreeable, however, and as stupid as one can imagine, but understandable if one takes the perspective of those who have been feeding at the music cartel trough for so long.
Dang, I was looking forward to getting an iTunes account, but now I'm conflicted. I'd like to support Apple and the artists, but I hate the idea of any money going to the RIAA overlords who should have been supporting iTunes-like products a long time ago. The pirate networks aren't really free, they just take a lot less time than going to CD store, have better selection in many cases, and allow one to sample. A good pay service with reliable connections, selection and organization, let alone the absence of all the spyware would be much preferable to the "freeware." That's why I think there is something else on the RIAA's mind - Not loss of the customer, but rather loss of the artist...
Imagine how much harder physics would be if electrons had feelings! -Feynman, maybe
It's clearly illegal to shoot someone on the street.
It's of questionable legality to shoot someone who's come into your house in the middle of the night.
Copyright infringement is a crime against someone--a tort. If you can shoot someone who's trying to kill you, beat up someone who attacks you, or respond in kind to someone who's maligning you, why not use a quirk of software to stop someone who's using a quirk of software to "steal" from you?
I think you underestimate RIAA and the differences in the "jobs" that each must do. All RIAA needs to do is make it sufficiently hard for the casual downloader to get their files. If RIAA can do things like: corrupt 1/2 the downloads, shut down the fastest of the filesharers (keeping in mind that only 1/10 actually shares--fewer still have the bandwidth to do it effectively), flood the networks with searches so they're ineffective, and so on--they can make it much more time consuming to find and download good files. Although RIAA themselves may lack the technical know-how, they can sure as hell hire it. It's a mistake to assume that just because RIAA is reluctant to, say, allow DRM-free files of their IP, that they're technically incompetent. When the technology itself is not a potential threat to their IP I suspect you'll find them to be much more nimble (or at least their agents will be).
.... what are they going to do? Hack RIAA.org again? WHo cares! Put up more files? What more does RIAA have to lose. Try to make better P2P networks? They probably will, but the delicious irony is that the hackers/developers are now in a much tougher position because of the decentralization of P2P. How do you penalize a client that methodically sets out to corrupt swarmed downloads (each additional download source increases the risk of corruption--since it only takes a few bytes to throw the whole thing off) of RIAA's music? You really can't in a way that can't be tampered with in the other direction--that would create more problems for downloaders. What's more, if you do attempt to defend the piracy of stuff that is explicitly RIAA's IP, you really lack a defensible case. Even if they do find ways to adapt, the constant upgrading of software, switching of networks, and so on will in and of itself be a large barrier to entry for most piraters.
Please note that there's a lot that they can do short of breaking the law or ethnical guidelines. Many of these suggested technologies will probably never be deployed, but that still leaves quite a few interesting avenues open to RIAA. Furtermore, the mere threat of such viruses or trojan horses being on the network can serve as a detterant for a good number of people.
The hackers, on the other hand,
Windows: Go to start->run If on Windows 9x, type "command" If on Win2k/XP, type "cmd" Enter command: ping -t -w 0 -l 20000 riaa.org Linux: Get root console, ping -fs 20000 riaa.org
One who wants to make a lot of money - they can use your arguement of "unwillingness/concious" as a bargaining chip. Encrytion/security/privacy companies are THRIVING in Silicon Valley right now. It's quite ironic though. The same companies that are pushing these "types" of software to the RIAA are also the same companies producing virus/spam filtering/security software industry wide.
Yell & scream & rant & rave... it's no use... you need a shaaaave ~ Bugs Bunny
Smells like FUD.
Another program under development, called "silence," scans a computer's hard drive for pirated music files and attempts to delete them. One of the executives briefed on the silence program said that it did not work properly and was being reworked because it was deleting legitimate music files, too.
:)
Okay, can someone tell me what a qualifies as a legitamite music file? I have a huge ammount of stuff ripped from CDs I own (though I ripp to ogg vorbis so maybe I'm safe there), but I have GIGS of stuff downloaded from emusic.com Besides which , I'm sure I'm not alone in having an ass load of misc "sounds" and such on my computer.
An industry stupid enough to try something like this is truley frightening (and desparate).
Another good reason to back up my files on CDRs
which will probably be illegal in 2-3 years...
Let them, for if they strike Lord Napster down he shall become more powerful than they can possibly imagine.
closed minded is as closed minded does
Now that they have admitted to considering doing something that is clearly illegal, the first time you have an mp3 deleted the lawyers will be lined up around the block to try and represent you. The RIAA has deep pockets and between actual and punative damages, awards could be in the millions. They would be idiots to expose themselves to that kind of liability.
If he really thinks we're the Devil, then let's send him to Hell.
first, even Machiavelli would recognise that by no way a legitimate end would justify such an extreme mesaure.
second, and if we look at things straigth, this just looks like spam (only not over SMTP) .
In a time when finnaly all parties involved start to try to kill spam in a global way it is interesting that this kind of *solutions* is not only thinked but openly presented to the public ...
what we, the *society* need to demand is that the big fish do the same to this polluters that does to the average spammer i.e. silence, block and wipe them!
AOL are you listening ? ...
the world can be going nuts, but surely it is fun ...
chrs from Portugal...
PS: where is Ashcroft when we need him ?
You would think that the RIAA would have figured out what would happen, if they engage in a "cyberwar" from what happened to Madonna. Instead of trying to outsmart a group of computer users (which WON'T happen unless they hire hackers), they should concentrate on the reason most people download MP3's anyway. THE HIGH PRICE OF CD'S! I remember when CD's hit the stores in the early 80's. The RIAA said that at 20+ dollars each, yes they more expensive than LP's (records), but the technology was new and expensive, and as more and more hit the shelves, the price would come down to the price of LP's. Well, it's been over 20 years, and the prices are still in the 15-20 dollar range, unless you catch them when they first come out and they have a price reduction. As CDRW's became popular in the 90's and the price of blank CD's came down to less than 50 cents each in bulk, people started asking, hey, how come audio CD's are so expensive? It can't be the CD material. As more and more people saw that: A. The artist aren't really making a lot of money on each CD sold, B: The stores where the CD's are bought aren't making any money, C: Companies like Sony, EMI, EPIC(now sony),etc.....are having lavish parties, etc etc......HEY! We are being ripped off! That's what fueled the explosion in file trading (that and peoples desire to get something for nothing). If the record industry would DO SOMETHING positive about file trading like what Apple is doing, then I think the file trading "problem" would disappear. Just look how many LEGAL songs were downloaded in 18 hours! 275,000! @ 99 cents each! Now, although I think 99 cents per song might be a little high, considering if a CD had 12 songs@ 99 cents, the cd, jacket etc....it's a step in the right direction. Come on RIAA, drop the BS, get on the bandwagon and realize your over zealous activities are history. You've had the gravy train for too long!
Well,
Not so surprisingly the other side is already monitoring the RIAA activities and in this case some of results are already in public. For example, Peer-Guardian tries to protect the P2P-clients from the hostile IP-addresses. There's a quite nice article about the topic in Security Focus.
V.
Why do you automatically assume that I support piracy because I question the ethics of the RIAA and their cronies? All the mp3's on my computer are ripped from my personal CD collection, and there isn't a single warezed application. I respect IP, but I don't think that you should use unethical tactics to protect it.
Unless the RIAA has proof enough to get a warrant to search my computer, their right to protect their IP stops at the edge of my network as far as I am concerned. The minute they do something in the name of fighting piracy that would normally be considered illegally, they can kiss my ass as they deserve the criticism I gave them. And yes, what they are proposing would be totally illegal.
Some of the methods you describe are legal and pretty good ideas in my opinion. If someone has a P2P client running and the port open, that implies that they are allowing data to be shared. Leech the hell out of their bandwidth so that no pirates can get any. File up all their download slots. However, the RIAA plans to do more than this.
If you want to get a job helping them, so be it. I wish you or anyone else the worst at such a job. Help them write the trojan they want, but just remember that you are innocent until proven guilty.
Large technology companies say they can't do anything about spam, yet the RIAA thinks they can stop music sharing. If only everyone were this ambitious.
If we could somehow convince the RIAA that spam promotes mp3 sharing, we'd be set.
Brian
According to Section 2332b of title 18, United States Code as amended by SEC. 808 of the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001, it shall be considered an act of terrorism to violate, as the RIAA proposes, title 18, part 1, chapter 47, section 1030, (a) (5) (A) (iii), and thereby causes or intends to cause at least $5,000 in damages (title 18, part 1, chapter 47, section 1030, (5) (c) (i), if such an act involves any transaction across our national boarders (title 18, part 1, chapter 113B, section 2332 b (g) (1).
And their DOS attack strategy may make them liable under Title 18, part 1, chapter 65, section 1362 as well.
That is, if the RIAA accidently or intentionally causes damage or inconvenience costing $5,000 or more, or even if their attempt is thwarted but had it succeeded it would have caused $5,000 loss, they have committed the Federal offense of fraud; and if their actions cross our national border, they are international terrorists.
It may be worth VPN-ing your connections through a Canadian ISP.
As terrorists, the RIAA is liable to life in prison, secret detention, trial by secret tribunal, and secret execution. All of the labels supporting the RIAA are guilty of providing material support for a terrorist organization.(Title 18, Part 1, Chater 113B, Section 2339A)
The law abridged to pertinence reads:
Whoever... knowingly causes the transmission of a program, information, code, or command, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally causes damage... ("damage" means any impairment to the integrity or availability of data, a program, a system, or information)... without authorization, to a protected computer;...(the term "protected computer" means a computer... which is used in interstate or foreign commerce or communication [do you use ebay? email people in other countries?])... intentionally accesses a protected computer without authorization, and as a result of such conduct, recklessly causes damage; or... intentionally accesses a protected computer without authorization, and as a result of such conduct, causes damage; and...[by so doing] caused (or, in the case of an attempted offense, would, if completed, have caused)... loss... (the term "loss" means any reasonable cost to any victim, including the cost of responding to an offense, conducting a damage assessment, and restoring the data, program, system, or information to its condition prior to the offense, and any revenue lost, cost incurred, or other consequential damages incurred because of interruption of service)... to 1 or more persons during any 1-year period... aggregating at least $5,000 in value;... [shall be punished by] a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than ten years, or both... [or] a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both [for a second offense].
This is MY PROPERTY! I am NOT a CRIMINAL. And I will NOT have some stupid RIAA telling me otherwise. Oh, and need I mention that due to their tactics, I do NOT buy music recordings any longer? (Except for self published recordings that have nothing to do with the RIAA.) It's not due to piracy either... because I don't download MP3s. I bought a GUITAR and I make my own damn music!
It's pretty simple.
Let's assume for sake of argument that I have 300 songs in mp3 format on my hard drive, all of which I copied myself from CD's I paid for.
Let's also assume that this program 'silence' will wind up being distributed in the form of an email (and you can bet your house it will).
If I open the file, with nothing illegal on my computer, but the program finds my legal mp3's and deletes them, why should I not sue RIAA for damages?
This type of action a violation of more than one constitutional amendment.
For instance:
It violates my right to be secure in my home from unreasonable searches and seizures.
It violates my right to a fair and speedy trial.
It violates my right to be informed of the charges against me, but of course in this case, there are no charges and no trial, they just skip ahead straight to punishment, which by the way, is not legally theirs to carry out.
What would I sue them for?
The violation of my constitutional rights; for intentional sabotage of property (the files are mine); for intentional and unprovoked abuse of resources (my computer); for gaining unlawful access to my computer; and for intentional infliction of mental anguish.
Not to mention lost time. Will they pay for my hours spent making LEGAL backup copies of my LEGALLY OWNED CDs?
Of course, their answer will be: prove that you own the CD's and we will let you keep the files, which is of course perfectly beside the point. They have no right to be looking in the first place, no matter how open my network is.
These people will stop at nothing to make you pay, even if you already have. Even if their tactics are barbaric and illegal (Sopranos come to mind).
Basically, this is their argument:
"The guy who parks next to me in my parking garage has a lot of antenna balls in the backseat of his convertible. My antenna ball is missing, so I think he must have stolen my antenna ball. Because it's a convertible, and the top is down, I must have every right to assume I can gain access to his vehicle, it's practically open for all to see. So, I'm going to go through everything in his car and destroy all the antenna balls I can find. He must have stolen them from somewhere. I will let him keep those for which he can provide proof of purchase. If I happen to destroy those in the process, that's just too bad... he shouldn't have left those other balls in plain sight.
Hey, look at that... the guy who parks on the other side of me just handed me my antenna ball, his 8 year old daughter found it in the driveway, it must have fallen off. Well, it was still within my rights to destroy that other guy's antenna balls, they looked suspicious to me."
-- This sig for rent.
I agree, why mess about with a cyberwar when all you need is a bunch of pissed of geeks with a 6KW microwave gun in the back of their pickup to drive past the RIAA's servers?
They can always restore from backups if we launch a cyberwar, they can't just pop down to the local shop and pick up a replacement for everything with a microchip in it for their entire building.....
1. Set up a honeypot.
2. Make sure the content looks "illegal" but, in fact, is not
(i.e., MP3 files named for popular songs but containing only commentary on them).
3. Get hit.
4. Sue for damages.
5. Profit!
OK, joking aside, in most countries, even accessing a computer without authorization is illegal.
The Canadian criminal code forbids it (look here for a longer version).
TITLE 18, PART I, CHAPTER 47, Sec. 1030 of the US code also looks applicable (but IANAL so if somebody who IAL reads this, please comment).
So, with the law on your side, you can also sue them in a small claims court. That way, they cannot use their financial advantage to subvert justice.
If its war you want, its war you will get.
But honestly, who gives a shit? Did everyone forget that its actually an artist who writes this stuff in the first place? There are plenty of other options out there to find, IMHO, much more creative music than the 'major labels'. I for one will have no problem with this 'war'. All its accomplished in my case was to drive me away from EVER buying another piece of music from these people. And since this has turned into a nice game of threatening the other side, heres my threat;
feel free to scan my drive with your programs for files that dont exist, since I dont listen to your 'product' and still have thousands of .mp3 files , and the TOS for programs running on my servers states that any program without written authorization by me will be billed at a rate of $120/CPU cycle and by running said program you agree to these terms.
After all for the RIAA to win, they have to SPEND money, for me to win, I have to NOT SPEND money on their 'product'. It doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure out that that is a very unstable situation that will quickly come to a state of rest.
If a majority of people get pissed off then they will have no income to draw from to launch these rediculous campaigns. But I fear I am the lone minority, as most people dont even have a clue what the local bands in their area are, much less any music not played on FM radio
So it goes...
THe RIAA will only be able to have any chance of immunity within the U.S. If they tried such a stunt on a computer based within the UK then they can be prosecuted under the Computer Misuse Act. THere is no get out of jail free clause for companies. THe UK Govt don't give a shit about the RIAA either.
Conor "You're not married,you haven't got a girlfriend and you've never seen Star Trek? Good Lord!" - Patrick Stewart
Please turn on your brains. The RIAA is not stupid. Quite to the contrary, they have a bunch of very smart people. /. may call them crazy over such ideas, but somewhere out there a 12 year old has been scared away from copying music (legal or illegal, doesn't matter, neither for the boy nor for the RIAA).
The game isn't cyberwarfare. The game is psychological warfare. Most of
A few homes further down the street, a mother is frightened, and tells her son to remove that gnutella program again, and never use that again or he'll be grounded.
You don't have to actually write or use these programs. Making enough people believe that you do has almost the same effect, with none of the legal dangers or possible repercussions.
Wake up, people. These guys have been at the game for a while longer than any of us have. They aren't playing our game, they're playing their own game. They're not writing code, they're writing press releases, strategy papers, and while they're at it, the next copyright laws.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Why won't they acknowledge that slumpy cd sales have more to do with the fact that albums are: a) overpriced b) almost exactly the same as every other album c) of significantly less overall quailty than used to be the case? True some people don't buy albums anymore because they can get them for free, but this isn't the case for the majority of users and I sincerely doubt their losses are anywhere near close to what they claim.
When will they realize that they could destroy the entire internet and it wouldn't make the new Britney Spears sound-alike any more palatable. When you choose artists exclusively based on their physical attractiveness rather than their ability or the content of their songs, formats where that appearance is not part of the package are going to suffer.
When will they realize that if they imprison every single person who has ever pirated music there will be no one left to buy their product?
Why are copyright laws which were designed to protect creators for a limited period of time so that they would have a financial motivation for creating used to provide corporations who for the most part had nothing to do with that creation with huge profits for periods of more than a century?
For that matter, why do multi-billion dollar corparations need to band together to support one another. I think it's about time someone looked at these on the angle of anti-trust issues.
If you don't want the RIAA/MPAA/McDisney creeps violating your privacy and deleting files they suspect violate their copyrights, move to free software. If you want to stop the madness all together, tell your friends what you think about copyright laws when you have the chance. It's our job, as knowledgable people, to inform those who don't know what's comming.
I set up a 70 year old retired engineer with Linux and he likes it better than Windows. Free software is more than ready for the desktop.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
More likely you didn't know how to work your computer and delted them yourself.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
As of 8:42 PM CT www.riaa.org could not be reached via Cox cable or Sprint's 3G network. I suspect a ddos in progress.
Maybe if I just keep on trying to ping it...
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. It's just that yours is stupid.
I recall a few years ago, Dave Matthews Band released a new song on Napster or another sharing network (whoa!) before releasing it elsewhere. From that point on I was a further devoted fan, I knew that they embraced music lovers. There have been other instances of this, and I'm sure the end result was positive for the bands. In many cases, local bands release music on P2P networks just so their music will get heard.
Music artists CAN embrace the freedom that these networks provide, and in the end gain more respect from their listeners because WE know they aren't about the bottom dollar.
After Metallica's attack on Napster, I trashed all of their CD's and refuse to spend ANY money on them. This coming from someone who went to numerous shows, and bought every one of their CD's. It sucks to see bands chasing money rather than fanship.
Adian
...I'm fairly sure some of this is clearly illegal under UK law. What happens when a system in the UK (or elsewhere) is infected with an RIAA trojan or a "freeze"? Surely that's identical to a black-hat taking over your system? Or this "silence" thing - a program that scans your HD? I haven't read up on my law books recently, but that's got to be wrong.
/. for inspiration...
As I said, IANAL, but if I remember correctly, extradition just requires equivalent criminality, so if some RIAA code infects my kit, can I extradite an RIAA exec over here and have them thrown in jail?
Come on, I know there must be some lawyers out there, even if you're just reading
Warning: May contain nuts
Until the RIAA offers a free media replacement policy (you know, replacing your outdated casette tapes and vinyl records with brand-spanking-new CD's with of the same album), I think music "piracy" should be legalized. It's not piracy if you've already paid for a right-to-use license to the music by already having bought a record or casette tape and are now just getting a copy of the CD without buying it retail.
Robbery. Sheer robbery.
-- Dossy
Dossy's Blog
Ok.. I have various term papers and code I've written myself... my school doesn't have any stupid rule grabbing copyright, so I own the copyright free and clear on all of it. Wouldn't breaking past the routers firewall, circumventing the Windows XP user/permission scheme be a violation of the DMCA? If so, lets hit them with their own stick. It would be hillarious to see the RIAA itself brought down for a DMCA violation.
"Isn't scanning a computer for illegal files exactly like going to somebody's house and looking through the windows? Or opening their front door and looking but not touching?"
No, actually it's more like your neighbor is missing his wallet. He decides that *YOU* probably have it in your house so while you are not looking, he breaks into your house and digs through your drawers, cabinets, closets, under your couch cushions, in your fridge, etc. He even opens your desk drawers and reads through your personal papers, diaries and mail, all because he *THINKS* you stole his wallet..
If I caught someone digging around in my *house* like that they would get shot. It's illegal for people to do that (B&E your home) no matter what they *think* you may or may have not done.
The law requires the accuser to seek legal relief, they must contact the police, file a complaint, convince a judge to issue a search warrant and the warrant may only cover the item(s) in question. In other words they can not search in your desk drawers for stolen car tires or under your bed for a stolen volkswagen.
Your computer is a private place, or at least it SHOULD BE. If someone breaks into your computer then they have broken into your private property. No different than breaking into your home.
If you are afraid of RIAA police breaking into your PC then you should implement some security, just as you would put locks on your door and big dogs with big teeth inside your house, secure your computers..
Clearly nothing is going to be bulletproof. While there are countermeasures that can be taken, some more viable than others, the idea is two fold:
A) Force the masses of piraters to be constantly applying updates, installing new software, joining new networks, and learning how to use their interfaces.
B) Make any search or (good) download much harder and time consuming.
So yeah, with RIAA's assault on download queues, you could work around it by either expanding the queue, thereby decreasing the quality/rate of the downloads on average, or by kicking slow users off (though this technique could be expanded and modified to download more files, faster, repeatedly, etc...more patches).
Likewise, if the industry were to engage in SYN flooding (presuming it were legalized in such circumstances), you may have users screw with their registeries or update their OSes so their ports may acknowledge actual attempts, but there's no clean solution to it. Yet more user effort (especially where the user recieves no benefit).
The systematic corruption of swarmed files would actually be highly effective and would be very hard to effectively work-around without exposing the network to many more problems.
What you don't seem to fully grasp is that P2P is unlike all prior forms of piracy. What sets it apart is that it makes it much easier than any prior method for most users to obtain high quality pirated music. This is why P2P is so popular amongst people that have broadband and an inkling of computer skills. Trading tapes, using IRC, and the other numerous methods all demanded either a special set of skills or a large investment of time for few results/low quality results so relatively few people engaged in it. P2P, even with less than 20% of the country being on broadband, is a huge problem. When broadband becomes more accessible and faster...when mp3 audio devices become cheaper and better..the problem will only grow. The reason for its existence is low barriers to entry and expedience. If the industry can make it significantly harder to sign on and take, say, 10x as long to find and actually download the song you want, they they can ef
You are neglecting the infamous Network Effect (ie why Microsoft more or less allowed everyone pirate DOS and Windows throughout the 80's and 90's - Steven Ballmer even bragged about it once in some print magazine like Fortune, quipping that it was "part of their buisness model").
The Network Effect increases the song's potential number of listeners (ie its global popularity) - for *free* in this case (ie no payola scams)
Popularity in turn increases the potential value of the song as a commodity which can be LEASED TO THE ADVERTISERS (as michael jackson, for instance, well knows) to sell cars, beer, clothing, and other lifestyle products. This is the *real money jackpot* for musicians and artists.
Therefore, the RIAA's economic reasoning is entirely misleading and completely bogus.
--TRR
What I'd like to know is if the RIAA plans on attacking Americans only. I have a funny feeling the answer is "no"...