Slashdot Mirror
RIAA To Sue Hundreds Of File Swappers
Shackleford writes "The Washington Post has an article saying that the RIAA is preparing hundreds of lawsuits against Internet users who illegally trade copyrighted music files. The lawsuits will target people who share 'substantial' amounts of copyrighted music, but anyone who shares illegal files is at risk, RIAA President Cary Sherman said in a conference call today. The first round of lawsuits will be prepared during the next eight to 10 weeks. They will ask for injunctions and monetary damages against file swappers. It seems that after a federal judge ruled in April that file-sharing services have legal uses and thus should not be shut down, the RIAA has found that it must go after individual users rather than the services that they use." palmech13 points to a similar article on Yahoo News.
I've heard talk that once the RIAA starts suing the general public, that's when there will be a huge public complaint against them. So, what do my fellow Slashdotter's think, will this be another nail in the coffin of the music industry as we know it. Or will they succeed in scaring(sp?) people out of trading files?
Have we ever slashdotted the Washington Post or Yahoo?
Help, we're not making money during this recession. We better start suing our customers. I can't wait for the recession to become a depression. Then maybe the RIAA can pay politicians to change the laws to put people into jail.
riding round the world on an old motorcycle
If they go after enough people, those people will probably organize and be able to put together a decent defense, unlike the lone college students they've been harrassing to date.
At the very least, if this happens, the RIAA could be stuck with a significant legal bill...
Follow the adventures of the new wandering jews
If we all boycott RIAA members products (yes downloads too), we can hurt them.
There is room for a meeting of the minds. RIAA members basically charge $15.00 for something that costs them $.25 ($.01 for the plastic and $.24 to the artist). No industry that has to mark up raw materials 60 times to cover marketing and distribution can expect to survive.
At the very least a boycott of just a couple of months would defund the RIAA.
Can all of us file a lawsuit claming that the RIAA continues to overcharge for the sale of CD's even after courts found them guilty, rapes its musicians of duly earned money, and for blatent infringement on our rights as a consumer pertaining to free personal use of music purchased? You know only cause its like calling the kettle black to say they are so high and mighty and we are all evil law breakers
"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."
This could potentially be a good thing:
Out of the hundreds of users targeted by these lawsuits, all it would take is one to stand his/her ground and fight. Once one rises to the challenge, a following will form. Once the following is formed, more and more attention will be levied on the case. The more attention the case recieves, the more people will become aware of the monopolistic and grossly unconstitutional actions of the RIAA. Once more people become aware, Congress will have to start paying attention to the people again.
Keep in mind, up to this point all the people (or students) the RIAA has sued have settled. What would happen if at least one stands up and goes to court?
The constitutionality of the DMCA and associated laws would undoubtedly be the first things reviewed, and again, given enough attention, could be soundly defeated.
Heres to crossing my fingers.
I thought it wasn't the sharing that was illegal, but the downloading of material you don't have rights to. This looks like it's just going to fall under safe harbor...
Nephilium
Enough cases and favorable precedent will be set somewhere. Some of these precedents will make their way up to district courts, and could eventually make their way all the way to the Supreme Court, a risk the **AA's just can't take. We've seen this before from the **AA's where they were afraid of a precedent going against them and dropped the case. They know about this, and don't dare make this as widespread as many people seem to believe they would.
"I can't wait to see what happens when a congressman or senator's child is sued," he said. "They've taken leave of their senses. They lost their [Los Angeles] lawsuit against us and they're pissed about it, so their answer is to sue their customers. ..." - Wayne Rosso
*sarcasm* This is a sure way to get consumers back on the RIAA's good side. Once they sue a few of us, we'll all stop, and we'll buy lots of CDs from the people who sued us.*end sarcasm*
No really. I cannot think of a single idea that could possibly drive a bigger wedge between the RIAA and its consumers.
Why?
Why should I not "steal" music which I've already bought, but was delivered in a shit format? Why should I not "steal" music which is not available any longer? Why should I feel bad about taking a miniscule portion of some conglomerate's profits which for years has been selling me inferior music (thanks to ridiculous contractual obligations) on inferior media (originally, to save money; now to fuck me in the ass) for huge profits which go straight into the backpockets of knobs like Jack Valenti and almost none of which end up in the artists' hands?
Please, please please, tell me why I should stop "stealing" again. Please.
What comes around goes around! Cry me a river, indeed.
The thing that bugs me is the term "illegal files". There are no illegal files, even if there are (currently) illegal uses of those files. The benefit of p2p as I see it is that I can download songs from a CD that I own if I happen not to want to spend the hour it takes to rip them myself.
Shop as usual. And avoid panic buying.
I only use file swapping services for new release movies, software and pr0n. I have nothing to fear from the RIAA.
Funny that, isn't it? Even though the RIAA and MPAA are claming that p2p sharing is killing their business, you never hear the adult industry complaining about p2p. Perhaps they have modified their business model so that p2p sharing has only limited negative effect (or maybe even a positive effect). Boy, that would be something, wouldn't it? If all the fancy RIAA and MPAA business managers couldn't figure out something that Ron Jeremy did! Man, talk about humiliation!
GMD
watch this
> This would kill p2p networks; I say this because
> they are going after only the people that shares.
Well the people sharing stuff are perfectly free to share stuff they have a legal privilege to share. There's lots of stuff available to share that won't get anyone sued.
If it truly does kill the p2p networks, then obviously they weren't that valuable to begin with except as a tool to steal.
Who's doing the copying? He who shares, or he who downloads?
Say I rip my CD collection (I have). Every mp3 I have is legit as a backup (this is going under the assumption that fair use still exists -- the argument about THAT can go on later). I go on KaZAa and sit there, looking for those GPL'ed parod songs I've heard so much about. My legitimately created files are open for the taking. An RIAA drone comes along and copies one to his computer.
Who has done wrong? Who should be sued?
AHHHHHHH! I'm burning with goodness again!
- Reakk, Sluggy Freelance
This is precisely and exactly what they should be doing. Their attempts to ban useful technologies just because they can be used for copyright infringement can and should fail. Their attempts to mandate technologies of control ("My Computer" indeed!) can and should fail.
If you are caught violating copyright law hundreds of times with a flagrant disregard for that law, you can and should pay for the crime.
The laws we have are adequate. We don't need new IP law (unless it be to roll back terms -- retroactive extension should never have been allowed).
I have tons of MP3 and Ogg files, all cut from CDs I purchased. I've never downloaded a song. Really and truly.
What the "content industry" needs to wake up and realize is that the digital technology has changed the marketplace. People no longer want to pay $20 for a CD that costs $0.35 to make (marginal cost). Peoplw want to download music. They want to use it, convert its format, burn it to disc themselves, store it in SD cards, whatever. The music industry should be doing market research and offering "Napster-like" subscription services ($5/Gig/month, for example). People want to be legal.
Meanwhile, I'm all for suing the actual people violating the law. My gripe has been attacking ISPs, P2P server operators, etc. who are not actually engaged in violation of the law. By the RIAA's logic, there should be no such thing as a copier or a fax machine. They can be used to infringe copyright, therefore they should not be allowed. Mind you, they tried to say that about copiers, and abaout VCRs, and about cassette recorders, and...
If jack valenti were the drug czar of the US, he would put botanists and horticulturalists in jail and wonder why illegal drugs still proliferated.
I don't buy it, though. The MPAA and RIAA cabal isn't stupid. I believe they've been refraining from visibly targeting 'dealers and users' so as to keep illegal piracy high, to serve as an argument in lobbying efforts for further legislation, which they (mistakenly) believe is the real answer.
However, now that the cabal is facing much greater opposition to legislative 'remedies', they are being forced into the role they should have taken all along ... pursuing pirates. The action against the college students recently (although still against programmers and not pirates) was the first step. They were chosen because the high damanages allowed guaranteed a settlement ... note that usually secret settlement amounts became very public.
This will hopefully turn into a better, friendlier entertainment cabal. Still users of scare tactics, but no longer backward opponents of technology.
Jack Valenti and the MPAA are to technology as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone
It never was about money. They're only suing SHARERS, not downloaders. They're deliberately trying to kill P2P. If it was about money, they would sue the DOWNLOADERS. More revenue stream from that, wouldn't you say? It's about power and who determines what music gets to be popular.
And they don't want that who to be *you*. They want it to be THEM. THEY control the media, THEY control the masses. Screw you for picking the music you like. You'll take what we give you and LIKE IT!
My journal has hot
HAhAHa Come get me you shitards!!
I know how much I charge my clients for forensic/investigative work. I cater to really small companies that have been hacked (usually 10 or less PC's and help them get the evidence they need in a presentable format so they can pursue legal action. I'm sure the RIAA tech's charge a lot more.
My Prices
Initial Consultation/Site survey $100
Onsite time $65@hr (Usually get about 4 hours in)
Evidence prep $40@hr plus $0.05 per printed page
Court Time $90@hr
It ends up costing the client over $1000 if the case makes it to court. Multiply what I do by 1 billion and the RIAA is going to have a lot of legal bills to pay.
RIAA, soon to be owned by lawers.
Plus, if I share 10,000 txt files renamed to 'song-artist.mp3', will I get some papers? Sounds like a good way to countersue.
Or, place a disclaimer on all your shares - "This is for personal use only under the Fair Use Act. Unauthorized use or download is strictly prohibited. Do not download if you are not the owner of these files." - perhaps this could also be a challenge to EULAs...
Last I checked, it's not illegal to have a PC open to the net - if it was, many Windows users would be rubbing sholders with drug offenders in prison.
Is the RIAA downloading these songs to check if they are real, correctly labeled and such? If so, they are breaking the law (IANAL). Do two wrongs make a (copy)right? If not, wouldn't this be considered barratry/harrasment?
...and here's how:
:)
RIAA knows there's no way in hell to stop millions of P2P user's individually, but they realized they don't have to. The RIAA is not going after people who download music, they're going after people who SHARE the music. Sometimes, those are one in the same, but in going after people that have a large amount of files shared, they can potentially bring down all the mainstream P2P systems (Kazaa et. al.).
Think about it, RIAA sues a bunch of file sharers, the message is "share our music, lose your life savings." People get the message, but of course, since most people are lazy, they won't just stop sharing the files they aren't supposed to, they'll simply disable sharing and share zero files (thereby becoming leechers).
Of course, in small numbers this won't have mutch affect, but if everyone disables sharing and starts leeching... well, no more P2P.
Don't know if more distributed systems like gnutella would be affected by this strategy, but I can very much see the mainstream guys getting destroyed by this.
I'll bet that's their strategy... and I'll bet it works.
Time to fire up iTunes and bust out the credit card
IANAL and it probably shows, but how does the RIAA distinguish between legal and illegal sharing? If i bought a CD, don't have the knowledge necessary to "rip" it to listen on my computer, am I allowed to download a digital copy? And if so, how does the RIAA prove that I did or didn't purchase the CD in the first place? Doesn't the burden of proof lie on them?
It's probably at least partly for technical reasons. Those offering files can be found by any client -- including the RIAA's own -- via searches, but who tracks who's downloading other than the servers involved? Unless the RIAA maintained *lots* of servers and managed to lure downloaders to use them, it'd be hard for them to track.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
I don't think it's strange that the RIAA has been allowed to carry on as long as they have as the general public is not as aware as it should be of this situation or its gravity. I think that events like this, although bad for those involved, can only help to spread the word and raise awareness of it all. It might be a bit optimistic, but it can't hurt to look on the bright side.
When are people going to get it? Downloading music that is copyrighted is illegal. I can't believe how many people here try to justify their actions through some weak argument about how they are actually supporting music sales, or making the artist more popular, or that all big bad corporations need to be crushed, etc etc. Musicians sign contracts with record labels out of their own free will - they agree to what the contract says, it's their decision to do it. If they let the RIAA/studio/whatever have the rights to their music, distribution, etc than obviously THAT IS WHAT THE ARTIST WANTS!!!!
So the recording companies charge an arm and an ass for CDs. If a car costs 2 billion dollars and you want it, but don't want to pay for it cause it costs 2 billion dollars, should you steal that too? Nope. If a computer program costs way to friggen much but you want it, should you copy/download (steal) that too? No. Why? Cause it's stealing! Damn how stupid can people be?
If something costs too much, don't buy it. If you don't like a certain product, don't use it. You can't say a product costs too much and it really sucks to boot, but then still want it and use it. The concept of not liking something but wanting it anyway is irrational, just like most arguments people have for sharing copyrighted music.
The default in kazaa (and its similar in all other p2p programs I've seen) is to make one folder (empty to begin with) searchable by the other users. You would have to go out of your way to explicitly share your fair use backups. IANAL, but the act of making them available doesn't even seem like it could strictly be illegal, cuz what if someone just did it so they could get to them from another computer (say they don't know about windows file sharing much less setting up ftp servers). And then, what if someone owns a CD, but its not immediately accessable to them and they want their friend to hear a track? Would it be illegal to download someone else's fair use backup?
Personally, I have a new CD that I can't listen to in any of my CD players or on my computer, but plays in older CD players that apparently ignore the data track. Shouldn't I be able to find the songs via some other means so I can listen to them on my portable, at home and at work. I mean right now I'd have to actually go to a friend's house to hear it!
It's all pretty grey to me, but the RIAA only needs off-white to cost you tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees and maybe win a judgement for more.
No he isn't. Taking is removing, and if you are copying you aren't removing anything. If this really was theft, why doesn't the $IAA sue people for theft rather than copyright violations?
but stealing is stealing
Well, it's actually not a horrible argument, though. If substantial amounts of people are driven to do something irrespective of laws passed regarding that thing, then is it a good law in the first place?
Keep in mind that there are two generally accepted sources of law, those generated by behavior that is inherently criminal, and those generated for other societal reasons (check here for the definitions of mala in se and mala prohibita) and that we're talking about the second kind when we are talking about copyright law. Clearly, a large chunk (I don't know if it's a majority or not) of society doesn't agree with the law on the books. So, by that reasoning, maybe it should not be a law, Congress just hasn't caught up with society yet.
But I think the reasoning of the person you were replying to is not so much that, but that many of the violators are violators only because they lack the resources to buy legislators. Given a level playing field in monetary terms, the RIAA would lose out in a heartbeat, which does offer a whiff of moral justification to the traders.
No relation to Happy Monkey
"Of course, one has to question the logic of 'We're going to sue them so that they'll buy our CDs.'"
Flawed or not, I think their logic is: "We're going to sue those P2P users who host large collections of copy protected music, so they'll stop. We think this means that the vast majority of P2P users, who mostly just download, will buy more CDs."
I don't think they are right in their conclusion, but from what I've seen, they probably are right in their premise: P2P users are not all the same. Most just download, some host a few files. A small number host enormous collections, and it is from these that most downloads happen. They want to sue the distributors, so the recipients will buy more CDs.
Shareware DOES work.
Or maybe you mean unlimited-use shareware. Sure, that's less likely to bring in sales than normal shrink-wrapped software.
But publishers that release limited evaluation/shareware versions of programs and games are allowing everyone to kick the tires before plunking down $50 for a program.
I've bought probably 20-30 shareware programs over the last 4 years. And many of those I wouldn't've purchased if I hadn't been able to evaluate them first.
Same goes for music, except there's no good limited-use version of music.
However, I've purchased more CDs now that I can preview music than I ever did before.
Amazon has the right idea with their track previews, but I want to hear it in decent quality before I commit to it.
If I could somehow preview good-quality music legally from the content producer, then I'd have no use for downloading illegal rips from p2p sources.
'Course, I'm also the guy that bought Photoshop when I graduated from college instead of using the warez version I'd been using up until then... so maybe I'm not the norm.
0x0D 0x0A
The FCC could probably get into this as well. Illegal use of radio equipment.
P.S> Ignorance doesn't work in front of a judge. Just because you don't know something doesn't excuse you from it's consequences. "I didn't know the speed limit was 55." "Too bad, you were doing 95, license revoked."
I could see the FCC requiring you to have a licenses to operate an 802.11 device, just like a HAM radio. And requiring you to know what security measures need to be taken.
Hard to say what they want to hand out. Will it be sliding scale? 50GB of music gets you $12,000 fine. 200GB of music gets you Man-1...err..I mean 2 years in jail. 300GB of music gets you murder....umm... I mean Class E felony + 3 years in jail + $20,000 fine.
i was thinking that unsecured wireless would be a good out too, what makes you think a home user would be able to be held liable for traffic over their own network when your ISP has been shown not to be responsible for the traffic you put over theirs?
Saw this quote on News.com...
"It's one of the few strategies left," Radcliffe said.
The question I have then is, what's the RIAA going to do when this doesn't work? What do they have left? And how long before they realize that this strategy, like all their others, is a massive failure?
The RIAA is trying to sue "customers", but how much of the collected "alleged damaged" does the RIAA plan to kickback to the artists ? and how is that money divided ? Very, very few artists make significant money off record sales, live performances, ie, touring is the main revenue generator for the artists. This lawsuit has little to no benefit to the artists, but greatly benefits the RIAA
That being said, the RIAA's tactic will ultimately backfire, as record sales, and to a certain extent, radio airplay, determine how much "excitement" a tour will generate (outside of bands like the Stones, who'll sell out performance regardless), which in turn, will boost record slaes. If the RIAA starts angering the consumer, the records will not sell regardless of the tour, radio play, etc.
How the fuck am I supposed to support indie music WHEN I CAN'T BUY THIER CDS because no store can carry them? When radio cannot play them for fear of RIAA retailation? Break the cartel and these guys won't be indie music, they'll be mainstream.
Ummm...try an independent music store. Screw the big record store chains while you're at it. Or buy directly from the record label. Most smaller indie labels sell direct for less than you'd pay in a store, and some don't even charge shipping. There are also online stores (Cheap CDs comes to mind) that have a very good selection of indie music.
And radio? How many non-independent radio stations aren't owned by a huge media conglomerate anyway? Stick to college radio....
Whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must be silent. --Ludwig Wittgenstein
Disclaimers have been shot down in courts. For instance, old bulletin boards would contain a standard library disclaimer that this "software" would be available for a twenty-four hour period checkout. After the checkout expired, it was your responsibility to remove the software. It's flawed logic. One - you are not such a service (and as such, would be operating without a contract or license to distribute such a service). Two - such a service would be done knowing damn good and well the type of people who would be downloading software (or music) from your system probably do not own the CD.
It's simple why you cannot provide such a service. You do not own the rights to the software or music nor the content there-in . Therefore it is not up to you how it is distributed.
If you were to provide such a service, the RIAA would charge that you would have to provide a means of verifying the identity of each individual who accessed your service so that they, in turn, could audit the people of "fair use" to see if they were legitimate owners.
The RIAA would not be violating the law to download those files to verify if they are indeed illegally distributed material - they own the rights to most of the music one would listen to. You are simply licensing the rights to listen and enjoy the music that is contained on the CD you purchased. You are not purchasing the copyright or the ability to reproduce such works.
Ayup
So what P2P networks (such as freenet) can be used anonymously?
Are there WiFi P2P clients that exist? This way people can share files at public hotspots without being identified -- there'd be no fixed wire that Verizon could hand over the identification of.
What changes could be made to existing (gnutella, G2) P2P networks to make them anonymous?
If there is a intermediate node between the source and destination of the file, that could prevent the destination from knowing who the source is.
I'm posting this after the big "primetime moderation" window, but I think it's worth saying...
The RIAA's most recent action will motivate p2p programmers to introduce anonymity into their trading system, either by creating a new protocol or (more likely) modifying existing protocols and clients.
It's inevitable.
The veil of anonymity will prompt more people to share their entire music library. This will increase the diversity and wide availability of files.
In a p2p app, diversity and wide availability of files means that users a) find what they want and b) can download it quickly.
P2P trading platforms that a) are easy-to-use, b) offer multi-source downloads (for speed) and c) basic anonymity will thrive like never before because many p2p users will open up those massive libraries that are currently unshared out of fear of lawsuit.
The threat of being tracked down will have been removed by the always-responsive p2p programmers, leading to wide-spread sharing by people currently to scared to share, people with something to lose: adults with incredible collections... and a former fear of the RIAA.
There is money to be made, but it's an odd business model.
Perhaps what is happening is that musics place in the world is changing again? In history past a wandering minstrel would play for food and lodging and perhaps to get their name/songs immortalized. Flash forward to today where most music stars are pampered millionares who pump out worthless drivel (with perhaps ONE good song on a CD) while the engine of the big record companies keep turning. I know people will most likley mod this down...but I really wonder if people (as a whole) are not changing their attitude towards musics place in the world. Perhaps they are seeing that it SHOULD be free once again....at least free to listen. Many artists are now planning on making the bulk of their money from live performances and not recorded medium. Maybe they even see the light?
I would love to have someone accuse me illegally possessing those MP3s. I would produce the original CD from which I ripped the track, show that I OWN that source, assert my fair use rights, and promptly counterclaim for substantial damages of my own. Think about this: If I have paid for the content, and can legally rip an MP3 from whatever source for my own use, why can't I get a copy of an MP3 version of content I already paid for from another source? That sounds like a FAIR use of the content to me. In fact, I think that prohibiting such conversions to force consumers to repurchase the same content in a new format is an UNFAIR and deceptive business practice. In court, suing individual file traders has the potential to quickly become a bottomless pit of evdentiary and other legal issues for each file alleged to have been illegally downloaded.
Laws affecting technology will always be bad until enough techies become lawyers.
I think this whole problems stems from the way copyright law has developed over the last century. Currently, organizations such as the RIAA and the MPAA have a "natural rights" position: We own it, and you'll pay us what we want or else.
Unfortunately, consumers don't think this way. We tend to take a more utilitarian approach. The authors of the U.S. Constitution have a short sentence about this very issue, and that leans towards social compromise: limited exclusive rights for author, use by the general public.
I find it ironic that some take the position of "it's against the law so I won't do it." Problem with this reasoning is the fact that the content industries have been writing the laws for years, pushing them through with donations, and uniting to block any legislation remotely negative.
My last comment is about the punishments faced by those accused. I would hope one of the cases goes all the way to a jury trial and have some high school kid possible "fined" millions of dollars. How "fair and just" would that seem to the average American? Later.
Piracy is a cost of doing business when dealing with mostly intangible goods. The fact is that piracy directly correlates with popularity. If nobody wants it, nobody would pirate it. Chances are that the DOOM phenomenon would not have caught on without shareware, which is basically the equivalent of singles on the radio. As a matter of fact, DOOM is a big reason that shareware games got so big in the mid-90's. DOOM and DOOM II are two of the best selling computer games of ALL TIME. Of COURSE they are going to be heavily pirated just like Eminem and Linkin(sp?) Park are heavily pirated. This comes with the advantage of being able to produce a product that has a physical marginal cost of practically $0 once it has been designed.
Dissolve... Resolve... Evolve...
Seriously though, about 5 years ago my machine was invaded one day and setup as a FTP serer full of kiddy porn.
Took me all but 4 hours to find out ( actually about 10 mins once I got home ) and shut it down, removed the porn and notified the people upstream they used as a stepping stone.. , but still.. according to this new attitude id get 'the letter'. where is the proof its MY doing?
What about wireless lans.. you may not even know its happening from your neighbor.. even accidentally by over stepping your signal..
As far as downloading, how am I to know its not a legitimate service, I'm paying of access, for all I know ( Joe user speaking here ) from all the advertisements I got in the mail '' download music 10 times faster " its all ok to do.. I thought they were authorized to let me do this..
Until a cease and deist informational letter comes.. there really isn't much grounds for suits and fines..
Ok, enough, what-if's for one day..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I'll get flamed clear to hell for this but....
It seems about right now, the carrier is allowed to continue running P2P legit service, and pirates are fined. All things in their place. If you are pirating music the owners of that property have a legal and fair right to sue your ass into the stone age. So no, this is not about crushing small artists, as they are not represented by the RIAA and will release their songs on P2P networks as THEY choose to, and those networks remain available. The channel has been saved, this is the good goal, the RIAA is pissed about this, and that's fine. But they are finally having to address the real legal problem and not try to crush a new distribution model. Those of you still offended should re-think why you are so pissed off. Is it because you put up every album you have and allowed everyone to take a copy? That is in fact illegal, mass distribution is prohibited. making a tape for one friend so he can hear some new music is not, but that's not P2P. it's a question of scale on that point. If you were pissed about the little guy getting crushed by having his distribution channel yanked, then you should be cheering everytime the RIAA crushes pirates, they are helping (now) to insure that less pirates are distributing, and the little guy can use this now legal meathod to distribute their music and reach that very large audience. If I were an independent musician, and I wanted to release a song or two over any of the P2P networks, this would make me feel better about doing so. AND I could count on some better purchases of my cd at my website. As I said, all things in their right place.
all this will lead to is the development of a sufficiently untraceable P2P system. Sure, right now you can figure out where the MP3's you are downloading are coming from, but what about when they're being relayed anonymously through other P2P users who aren't directly sharing anything illegal?
The direction where everything is inevitably headed is a distributed, anonymous filesharing system where search results are ordered by popularity to prevent intentional pollution.
The RIAA will have to come to the conclusion that they can only make money from the artists who want to produce free advertisements to get people to come to their show next time they're in town.
But will they? Sure, you might download a few songs on a whim because it sounded kind of cool and you might grow tired of it later the same afternoon. But if you couldn't have downloaded the song would you really have bought the $20 CD on a whim?
It's really too late, I think. For better or for worse, 57 million Americans are used to free music and they're going to get their fix. They might trade MP3s with their friends, private sharing networks might become the norm, or perhaps private networks will have the ability to hook to other private networks such that your machine is never connecting to an unknown computer. I.e., if you can't find what you want on your private network you might have a designated "gateway" system that connects to the gateway of another private network but which is known to the person running the gateway--the file is then transferred from the source to the foreign gateway, to your local gateway, and then to you. This has the potential of being as effective as current P2P but with the advantage that you are never connecting to anyone outside of your private network; and your private network gateway is only connecting to the gateway of another private network once the gateway admin decides to trust the other gateway admin.
Just thinking out loud here, but there's so many ways for P2P to evolve that will make even these kind of lawsuits pointless. Right now P2P happens in broad daylight which means they have two options: 1) Embrace it in some form. 2) Sue the users into oblivion. If they choose #2, which they apparently have, they'll just force the technology to evolve so it's not happening in broad daylight. People will still get their MP3 fix but now the RIAA won't have any visible target. Anyone that tries to fight technology is going to lose.
Isn't technology fun? :)
More true than you probably realize. Most P2P applications don't make it terribly obvious how to disable sharing (as opposed to how to download files). The result is that it would be entirely plausable that major Sharers are providing files unintentionaly.
Granted, the file they are stored in is "My Shared Files" or whatnot... but does shared there mean files I'm sharing or files that were shared with me? There are ambiguities here that definately prevent criminal charges (to say nothing of the fact that Copyright infringement is, in most (all?) cases a civil violation anyhow).
Point being that some of these people will have clever lawyers. Many of them will get off or have charges dropped. The final point is this.
There is no legal way to kill these networks
You can discourage people from using them through scare tatics (which is what the RIAA is trying to do), but nothing they can do within the United States is going to have much of an effect. As long as I can stick a server in Zimbabwe and serve files off of it there's jack shit the RIAA can do about it. They don't want to run the risk of sueing the actual downloaders because that exposes a lot of their policy to judicial scruteny. How well would the idea that you own the rights only to files ripped from your copy of the CD hold up in court (as opposed to my right to download rips of the content I own)? They don't know, and won't risk it.
Once again the RIAA proves itself little more than a collection of jack booted thugs engaging in terror tactics to frighten its market into compliance with its desires. Unfortuately, much like the undertow of a sinking ship, the death throws of a dieing regime can be dangerous to hapless bystanders.
Killfile(TGK)
No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
Of course, it's also true that the internet has made it possible for any yahoo with a camera to start a porn site, and the resulting flood of bad, cheap-or-free porn that results probably has a lot to do with the flagging fortunes of the big names, too.
Yeah, I'd say that was for more likely. Assume for a second that you could not get any "high-class" copyrighted porn (Playboy, Penthouse, etc.) on the internet - i.e. nobody was stealing it. Who would care? There is so much free and amateur stuff out there - that is what has driven down the price that a "good" porn photographer can make: volume of competition.
If I were just an average out-of-the-box Microsoft Windows user, and say, Charter Pipeline cablemodem internet subscriber, and didn't really know a lot about how networks worked, and stuff like that, shouldn't it be charter's fault for allowing my computer to be online in the same workgroup as a bunch of other users? or Microsoft's fault for having the hard drive shared by default, so programs like kazaa can just hook into whatever content on my computer?
The **AA's were just a little too shortsighted about this whole internet thing, and are trying to put hardcore stops on the whole thing, just so they can get their hands back around it, and regain control of the masses. What happens to other companies who are shortsigthed? They go bankrupt, and disappear. Why the HELL should we pass laws and make legislation to ensure ANY company's continuing survival? If they can't paddle their own boat because they thought they didn't need the oars, they should've stayed on the beach drinking maitais, or else face the Wrath of the Jellyfish. (or something thats supposed to be profound and witty all at the same time....)
If you can read this, you are most likely close enough.
Well if the RIAA wants to play hardball... I propose that we organize local music sharing groups/clubs. Meet with people who like the same music and trade,lend actually CD's. So it's kinda like letting a friend borrow a CD but on a much larger scale with a bigger group of friends. They can go make a copy if they want and the RIAA stay's the hell out of it. Lets see how much money the RIAA really loses then. This could be really cool. Imagine you could have club dues that go towards purchasing one copy of a CD. That CD then gets passed around the group. Sure this would be very difficult to get off the ground but it would be great to see the RIAA squirm.
The way I see it, when user gets on file sharing network(or internet in general) he/she is sending and requesting bits of data across the wire. These bits of data are meaningless until they are compiled into a file. At this point their only meaning is "this is a collection of bits called x and it is of the type y." The file doesnt actually become the copyrighted "music" until it is decoded and "played" by some program like winamp, mediaplayer etc.
So if I download an mp3 file but never decode/play it have I broken the law here?
If so then they are trying to say that their copyright extends to the series of 1 and 0 that make up that file. This may be true of the digital file on the CD but if I rip that cd, its not the same series of 1 and 0 anymore. Again, the file is meaningless. It seems to me that the act of infringement occurs at the playing of the file when actual sonic recreation occurs. Thus, it seems that the makers of the media players are the ones enabling us here to break the law. Not the file sharing programs.
Just a random thought.
incorrect analogy to drugs ... the main difference being, illegal drugs are just that - illegal. There is no legal way to obtain them. If you want them, you have to use an illegal source. When supplies are cut, the source can charge whatever price he/she wants because the user has no other way of obtaining the product.
The apparent strategy of the RIAA is to make the "cost" of illegal P-P file sharing more than the cost of legally obtaining said product.
A correct analogy to the drug market would be legalizing drugs and establishing a price for use. Then you just make the black-market cost exceed the market price, and you have no use for the dealer.
I don't think shoplifting a DVD is the same thing. If I rip an MP3 off my own CD, I would hope that fair use would protect me. If someone else ripped the same song with the same software/hardware, wouldn't these files be digitally the same, and indistinguishable? If so, then I think downloading a song that I have already paid for is still fair use, and the RIAA would be hard pressed to prove anything else.
That would be fine with me. That's where it used to be (and still is to some degree).
Until Napster, you had to do a bit of actual work to get music, and you can be sure "Joe Q. Kazaa" isn't going to be learning IRC just so they can save a trip to Best Buy. Hell, I've had computer savvy friends that can't use IRC after I've sat them down, explained it, and written every step and command out on paper. Something about text commands and interfaces make people's eyes glaze over.
The RIAA no doubt is hoping that this will happen, but I think that this will probably have a negative effect on their organization. After all, hundreds of people having to declare bankruptcy because the RIAA took their lifetime earnings doesn't make a favorable human interest story from the Recording Industry standpoint. Furthermore, most people who currently trade files online (who I believe do buy more CD's because of the "preview" service) I predict will become increasingly resentful of the RIAA and will stop buying their CD's.
I am not by any means a rabid anti-RIAA dog, but I do agree with many on /. that their business practices have become increasingly self-detrimental in the past few years.
I know I'm late to this party thread, but hear me out:
I setup eDonkey, Kazaa, YFP2P software on a box outside of the country. I secure login to that box to do my illegal swapping. I secure copy the files back to my box here to enjoy.
Now, the RIAA has had it easy because if your box in your dorm room is sharing illegal files, they can just figure out where you are and bust you. But my guess is that none of the magic 100 are from the UK...or China....or Sealand, since American copyright has a harder time going overseas than it does right here at home amongst the masses with 300 GB of purloined data. They can't sniff my scp legally, so transfer to my box would be safe enough. Basically, if everyone shared their files off shores, it'd be like mp3-laundering.
Just a thought.
Mordor...a magical, mythical land where women are more rare than dragons--but where every man would rather find a dragon
OK so I work for an ISP with more than 4800 total customers. If the RIAA came knocking, we would have absolutely jack to give them other than, 'yeah someone was logged into that IP then'. Thats right...we have NO logs of who is on when, and I am sure we are not the only small ISP like that. So who gets sued then? and should I let our customers know that they are safe from the RIAA?
"Can you believe it!" -Homestarrunner
I hope not.
That would immediately convert it from a civil violation to a criminal violation with possible time in a federal prison.
4) Learn about and use additional tools that may be useful for blocking "enemy" scans of your system.
Something like Peer Guardian
From the site:
PeerGuardian is a simple P2P-enemy blocking program. It was initially just made for a few friends on XS.
It has aggression control so users can control the CPU versus their connection (dial-up users can use it with 20% aggression) and works in conjunction with the PG IP Database, an on-line database of P2P-enemy IP addresses which users can submit to, vote on submissions or add comments on existing ranges. Latest version is compatible with the 'Bulk Update' feature of the WWW-based PG2-IP-DB.
PeerGuardian is freeware.
There is an interesting review of Peer Guardian that also highlights some interesting points regarding blocking "enemy" IP scanning.
From the review:
"PeerGuardian blocks out known IP ranges used by MediaForce, MediaDefender, BayTSP, Ranger, OverPeer, RIAA, MPAA & NetPD by default," says Method on the app page."
Also, the PeerGuardian site also has a listing of "enemy" IP's that is updated periodically (not sure of the frequency).
Yeah, I believe this was your quote, dated June 20th.
As soon as the RIAA starts to bear down on users and suing the shit out of them then they'll really start to see a backlash of epic proportion. It will come to that and they're going to be in for the shock of their lives. Fuck the the RIAA/MPAA. They are getting exactly what they deserve and there's not a person I know who feels any amount of guilt over not being ripped off and now having a choice.
Kind of funny how sales of everything have gone down in recent years...IT's called a RECESSION jackass. I can't download a couch online but sales of couches have gone down to. It must be all those pesky file swappers that have made the entire retail sector decline. Just because your a media whore doesn't mean we are naive. Use a little analytical thought next time before you plant your foot firmly in your mouth.
Three years ago, right after I started boycott-riaa.com. The RIAA called and wanted to "talk." I had a 2 hour conversation with the then Internet Evangelist, Karen Allen about this very thing...
That the technology was there and it had non infringing uses as well as infringing uses. The Professional Photographers Assn. doesn't sue Nikon for making a product that could be used to copy copyrighted photos, but instead goes directly after the infringers.
The RIAA has wasted 3 years, in actually getting artists paid for their work, while pumping hot air up congresscrittwers rears to get more and more control over the internet. They aready have approx. 85% of the physical distrbution, and now they are trying to grab the same thing with the internet..
On a side note the RIAA actually took the time to fill out my contact script on boycott-riaa.com. They called and wanted to "talk." with the press release apprx 1/2 before they released it, which I have to admit surprised he daylights out of me..being as both Hilary Rosen and Amy Weiss (their PR flak) have my email address.
Actually, thanks to Kazaa and Shoutcast, I've discovered lots of new music by independent bands that I really like. A good example is Army Of Me (http://www.armyofmeonline.com/). You can buy their CDs right from their site.
I really do think the RIAA and the companies that back it are going way too far on this one. This is a dangerous area of corporate control of private citizens. History teaches us that such action can lead to all sorts of problems; from widespread civil disobedience to riots and other forms of violence. I mean, they're talking about nailing people for (say a typical user with 1000 files) up to $150 million. This would instantly force anyone save the most wealthy into bankruptcy. At that point, they don't have much to lose.
Anyone know of an IP scrubber that can alleviate this problem... preferably one that plays well with linux? Obviously one housed outside the US or other countries in the US's legal death grip....
Ppl left Napster and went elsewhere, ppl are about to .
, .
.
.
.
.
.
.
, .
.
... Good luck .
.
leave kazaa and go elsewhere
DRM won't let you play your CD in ur PC?
You can always buy a MP3 player/recorder with line in
and jack it into your boom box etc
The next flavor of the week for the RIAA will be either
I-mesh, WinMX, etc, etc, etc ad infinitium
What will be the end result ?????
An encrypted network, and or ppl going 0ld sk0ol
on them and using SSH2 dump sites
VPN's also come to mind
PGP mailing lists with atachments come to mind,
like subscribing to a certain "artist"
and when something new comes out the holder
of that mailer-list broadcasts/multi-cast mails it
I am sure there are MUCH brighter ppl than me already
making plans to make it happen as well
All encrypted too
As for the RIAA, necessity is the mother of invention
and out of it will spring stealthier ways to trade
For the unfortunates that get fried, I pity them
I swear its like trying to prosecute ppl for FAXing pages
out of a book to friends
I am not saying copying is right, I am just saying they got
one hell of a battle to beat it , I just don't see it
Peace,
Ex-MislTech
google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
I can easily write a utility that generates random blank files ranging in sizes from 3-8 megabytes in size and giving them randomly spoofed names corresponding to current hits, then serving these empty files on Kazaa.
Do it. Do it NOW. Make sure you've got a Linux and Windows version. So what if the networks temporarily get crap-flooded with bogus stuff? It'll eventually get weeded out.
Cruising the internet on my TI-99/4A @ a whopping 300 baud!