Slashdot Mirror
The RIAA's Hit List Named
Carpoolio writes "TechTV is the first I've seen to name names in the fight between the RIAA and music downloaders. Using an online court records search service, they've found a number of the subpoenas served by the RIAA to ISPs, which will ultimately end in lawsuits for the people named on this list. Right now, they've published a number of the P2P user names filed with the US District Court in Washington, DC, mainly Kazaa users. Are you on the list?"
time to move to a new p2p app, I perpose giFT.
When are they going to learn that we wont stop sharing files, we'll just keep switching to more obscure networks.
-makoffee
Second, where is kazaalite? There is only one entry for that, but I know there are more users of kazaalite than that...
I guess I'm also shocked that anyone actually hasn't heard of Klite and/or isn't running it instead of Kazaa.
hmm. Glad my name isn't on there - HillaryBlowsMonkeys@Riaa.com
That seems kind of silly though... RIAA can just hire anyone to get an AOL account or a NetZero account or something and find these same people.
I really like the Lite software but I think that feature is total bullshit... it makes absolutely no sense. The only way to stop RIAA from getting who you are is by using FreeNet or something like that.
Since that's the generic user name that Kazaa Lite uses (At least I think that's it) they probably left it there so they can pretty much sue anybody they want to who uses that name, including Joe Only-Downloaded-2-Songs-Ever.
There are only 10 kinds of people in this world... those who understand binary and those who don't
Disclaimer: I am not in any way associated with trading copyrighted material online, and even if I am you can not catch me :).
We're only gonna die from our own arrogance, that's why we might as well take our time...
It is far too expensive to start going after users who are trading overseas, for one it is expensive, and for two the court systems are different.
Gah, isn't that an eerie feeling to look for your name on the list. Reminds me of the AIDS tests we were required to take while working in the infectious disease labs. I could rule out most of the normal ways a person could become HIV+ (a pretty dull life) and most of the work was pretty routine, but there always that worry in the back of your mind.
In this case I'm not a P2P'er, but I did find one of my boxes was hacked and turned into an FTP server / port scanner the other week. With the way this week has gone so far...
+++ UGUCAUCGUAUUUCU
Well... Since the last "A" in RIAA stands for America, you probably wouldn't get sued by the RIAA. But I wouldn't put it past an internationally focused recording industry group to try legal maneuvers in other countries to establish a precedent similar to the "Verizon" one here.
Who did what now?
It's more akin to putting a computer with a CD burner on your front porch along with your entire cd collection and hundreds of blank cds, then going and staking signs around the neighborhood about how the computer is there and so are the blank cds, and listing which cds you have, and your phone number in case they would like to ask you if you have cd XYZ song ZYX.
Try to claim you are innocent after doing that... because after all, you didn't explicitly say that they could.
In that situation, you are providing the enabler to steal the content. Just like when you use a p2p app, you have to specify what content to make available, and whether you would like to make it available, and then respond to search queries.
Hope this helps clear your mind.
Video meliora proboque deteriora sequor - Ovidius
After all scare tactics and thick-headedness the RIAA has shown with this issue, I wonder how much in 'tips' they would actually pull in. I know I wouldn't contribute. They would probably keep 99% of the donations for their own expenses anyway (ala the CDR tax). I would like to see individual artists with some way to donate and bypass the RIAA middle-men.
They can't prove anything actually. But your guilty if your name is on that list man. Unless you could prove yourself innocent. Well you could always get a copy of Sub7, put it on all your computers and get rid of stuff like log files and stuff. I mean what is going to prevent people from doing this? I'm not saying to do this I just don't see any real way they can convict you without reasonable doubt that your innocent. It's almost impossible to really prove if someone did or not.
Creative Demolition
This could have a chilling effect on the public access WAPs.
They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
Ummm, a quick piece of a dvice, first, for those of you whose user names are listed: Don't. Or, if you really want to, get a lawyer and ask him for advice. If this does get to trial, you don't want something that you posted to slashdot to be used against you and torpedo any of the defenses you and your lawyer develop.
The effort expended by the Court in the processing and issuing of these subpoenas is probably insubstantial. The court's and judges duties are largely ministeriel. Of course, if these cases are actively prosecuted then the court's workload would of course increase. But, if my understanding of how the federal court's work is correct, the impact will only be on the civil side of things, not criminal; generally speaking, criminal cases are given priority in matters of scheduling, etc.
It covers exactly 1. The Person named, so what that their name just happens to be the default one installed by K++. You think on the subpoena it says:
"Name = www.k_lite.tk_Kazaa_Lite@Kazaa"
or
"Name = Mr Foo Z Barr a.k.a. www.k_lite.tk_Kazaa_Lite@Kazaa"?
(IANAL, and I've never seen a subpoena so . . )
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
If you really need to stray from kazaaliteuser@kazaa, add some profanity to your username.
I seriously doubt we'd see "RIAA vs. FuckRIAA@Kazaa" on the news, or "RIAA vs. YourGoatsAssFuck@Kazaa".
I don't see any usernames on that list that have R-rated language in them. The worst appear to be "pimp", "booty", and "hot", in whatever self-serving context the user thought would be exciting.
If I was to guess the average age of all of the listed users, I'd have to guess around 16 or 17. They're going after people who do not have the disposable income to purchase music on the RIAA's terms. (Read: give them arm and/or leg). What they fail to see is that by suing these kids, and probably settling out of court for their life savings, (read about 500 bucks) they are going to alienate the next generation of music buyers. These kids are going to turn to indie labels who aren't going to sue them at the drop of a hat.
So, the RIAA is filing lawsuits against 911 pre-pubesent kids... Ha. What a stupid idea... I think this has the potential to backlash on them bigtime. Do they think that this is going to scare people away from P2P? They cannot sue everyone. Why don't they just give up? It has been over for some time now.
One has to kinda feel bad for the recording industry, poisoned by the P2P, we watch this dinosaur breath it's last few breaths. Sympathy aside; do we need record labels? What need or demand do they fulfill? They take artists, produce their albums, then distribute the album (radio/CDs.TV) - their revenue is generated from record sales of which 1-2 percent ends up going to the artist. Artists make money by touring and endorsements.
Recording equipment used to be extremely expensive - thus making bands dependent on record labels to front the money needed to make an album. This is not the case anymore. One can make a professional recording studio for under 30,000 dollars, and this number keeps shrinking every year. Bands can produce/fund their own albums. Technology has brought 'Recording' to the individual - eliminating the 'Industry'.
What about distribution? Well, it is evident the Internet is a pretty effective medium for distributing music. No longer are people limited to being exposed to new music solely by what they hear on the radio or see on tv; rather millions of people can be exposed to your music via the internet. Radio and TV were easy for the RIAA to control/influence - but the internet is to decentralized.
No more mass marketed music? Sounds like a good idea to me. No more boy bands, brittany spears, linkin park, etc. What does marketing have to do with art?
History will explain the recording industry as merely a phenomina fueled (and destroyed) by the development of digital technology. IMHO
Are you really to paint a big red target on yourself for an onganization that has more money -- and less ethics -- than you do?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Prove? What a quaint little concept.
KFG
It covers exactly 1. The Person named, so what that their name just happens to be the default one installed by K++. You think on the subpoena it says:
"Name = www.k_lite.tk_Kazaa_Lite@Kazaa"
or
"Name = Mr Foo Z Barr a.k.a. www.k_lite.tk_Kazaa_Lite@Kazaa"?
So the question remains, do they track sharing by username or by IP address. If they track by username and then resolve that username to an IP address and then to a person, then process is flawwed. Under this scenario, one person could be charged for the files that other people shared.
If they did do it properly, then why are usernames even listed? Usernames are not identifiers to a user, since many users can have the same name and anyone can change their name at anytime.
By using the word "theft", the RIAA skews public opinion. Judges, juries and lawyers too are members of the public, and whether we want to admit it or not, despite their education and specialization, they are subject to rhetoric, marketing and propaganda.
By accepting the word "theft", the seed of the notion that this is about tangible property, not distribution rights, is planted. Tangible property has an intrinsic value, while distribution rights over something non-tangible are more difficult to relate to, especially for non-techies.
By calling it "theft", the RIAA avoids the whole issue of their being distributors of goods that are so easily shared as to be a commodity. By making it seem as though it were about the theft of property, the RIAA avoids justifying their role and the possible subsequent questions about the value and validity of copyright and IP laws.
Most non-techies can not relate to digital data. The RIAA, by calling it "theft", brings to mind books. Books are copyrighted, and they cost money. When people buy a book, they "feel" that they pay for the medium. The "unauthorized reproduction" clause is there, and most people understand it because text isn't easily divorced from paper.
Digitalization makes the separation of content from medium very possible (obviously) and this is where the confusion by the public comes in. "What do you mean I can't share this? I didn't make a physical copy. It's digital, not REAL".
Calling it "theft" is the RIAA's way of making it feel real, but it is a misrepresentation of what it is. It's not theft, it is unauthorized reproduction and redistribution; and the ugly side of that is that people who didn't properly buy the right to access the content now do not need to give the RIAA money.
Were the RIAA to put this whole issue in semantically correct terms, they would come across to Joe Public as running a racket, which, really, they are. Joe Public would then, at the next election, likely influence legislation in a direction unfavorable to the RIAA. So they're calling it what it's not, to stack public opinion in their favor.
The REAL jabber has the user id: 13196
What you do today will cost you a day of your life
But debate continues about what PC users can and can't do with digital media, prompting ongoing courtroom battles and proposed new laws. With new technologies like copy-protected PCs in the offing, even folks who happily pay for movies and music have voiced concerns that they could end up unable to rip songs to a PC or transfer them to an MP3 player.
Some people maintain such activities fall under the copyright law's fair use clause, but Frackman believes that isn't true: "Fair use has become a real buzzword, but it's a phrase that's often misused. [It] grew up to permit people to do things like criticism or scholarship.a?| In my view, it was never intended to permit copying of copyrighted material for purposes of just making a copy or moving it to a hard drive."
In other words, the RIAA really doesn't want anyone to copy usic, even if it's from independant artists, even if it's from old analog sources like a record, cassette, or 8-track. To the RIAA, if you want to listen to it, play it on it's original media and equipment, and your equipment and can't replace the media, if you media fails, or if you would just like to listen to it on your4 cd player, then purchase it on CD, if you can't then tough luck. In a few years, I woudn't doubt it if they go after companies Like Ahead Soft, Roxio, Goldwave, Syntrillium, etc, for writing software that allows people to copy music from any source.
These are civil suits, the burden of proof is lower. In a criminal trial, a good lawyer could probably get anoyone off based on the fact that there computer might have been hacked, ore records forged, etc. There is reasonable doubt that it was actually this person downloading (unless they catch you with the songs). However a civil suit is a much lower burden. BAsically they have to just argue their side better than yours. There may still be some doubt, but they can still win.
The RIAA is suing file sharers. I know this doesn't get much play on the news, but it's the unauthorized distribution, i.e. sharing, that is in "violation".
So they don't have a log of you downloading something, they have a screenshot of all the files you are letting other people download.
If you blog it...
When they came for the Kazaa users, I said nothing because I wasn't a Kazaa user;
When they came for the Grokster users, I said nothing because I wasn't a Grokster user;
When they came for the Gnutella users, I said nothing because I wasn't a Gnutella user;
When they came for me there was no one left to speak for me.
I know this because Tyler knows this.
An ISP is not liable for infringement committed by their customers. But if they have not records, how can they prove an infringement was by a customer? This is not clearcut, but if an ISP were to lose their potential liability could be enormous.
Your mac address doesn't make it past the router, assuming you are running one. (most of the users probably are on cable/dsl with multiple computers behind a NAT) only the MAC of the nat box shows externally at the ISP's end.
The RIAA doesn't care if this is bad PR, or if the media turns these guys/girls into "martyrs" or any of that. Don't you see? The RIAA exists to be the bad cop in the music industry's good cop/bad cop routine. Here you've got companies like Sony whose bread and butter is home electronics, including a sizable interest in the MP3 player market. They're also, of course, a member of the RIAA. Which face do you think they put on when they go after file traders? They'd never do that under the Sony brand name - they'll let the RIAA take the brunt of the backlash.
10 years ago few people had even heard of the RIAA. Sometime in the last decade the industry decided to start utilizing the organization as their hired muscle; the guys they let loose to do the dirty work none of the individual companies want to be associated with. But let's not forget who the RIAA really is. It's as much Andrew Lack and Tommy Mottola as it is Hilary Rosen.
The RIAA is sitting back and reading all this and saying "bring it on". They're happy if they get bad PR, because that's bad PR deflected away from the real names behind the RIAA.
Of course, I'm not arguing that the RIAA's strategy is sound in the long run, I'm just saying I understand it. Many of the things they're doing will still turn people off buying CD's even without people associating those actions with Sony or BMG or EMI or Universal. What the RIAA is doing is still stupid, but it's at least a better thought-out strategy than most of us here seem to give them credit for - and our tactics in trying to belittle them in whatever small ways we do here seem to miss the point completely. The RIAA knows exactly what they're doing and the reaction they'll get to it, and they don't care.
Fortunately for me, this was before the days napster and file sharing, so I never had to professionally deal with that.
But some of the cop nature has worn off on me. Despite my hatred of the RIAA and the structure of the music industry as a whole, I do oppose those who engage in copyright violation. And just because the RIAA is a bunch of feckheads, doesn't make such copyright violations right.
There are cases where I would be more sympathetic to copyright violators:
- The item was originally published more than
17 (or maybe 34) years prior, and so would be in
the public domain under a founders copyright scheme.
- The item is out of print and the used market
is bare. (I would take the music publishers
claims of trying to serve the artist more
seriously if they released the rights back
to the artist when they took things out of
print.)
- The violator is (as in civil disobedience)
willing to commit their copyright violation
act publically and under their own name.
When a law or structure is bad enough that
one feels it is legitimate to violate it, you
need to be willing to take the consequences.
Otherwise we all just merely would be obeying
laws when it is convenient to do so.
Without that last condition being met, bad laws and a bad publishing industry does not make you a good guy for violating copyright.Now I am currently enganged in a compaign of "civil obedience". This term was coined to complying strictly and obnoxiously to bad laws in order to highlight how bad the laws are.
I made some home videos (which I'll be sending to maybe half a dozen relatives) to which I've added a soundtrack using things I legitimately have copies of. I am slowly trying to work through the procedures to be allowed to distribute six or so copies of VHS tapes of my daughter's trip the an aquarium to which I've added a soundtrack. So far it seems difficult to get useful responses to my email requesting permissions or license terms.
Prime numbers are exactly what Alan Greenspan says they are -S. Minsky
Are others receiving these as well? I realize in matters of tracing criminal acts (such as kiddie pr0n, molesters stalking in chat rooms, etc) I would hope ISPs would release names, but in cases of music/movie piracy (and any other crime that doesn't have a *real* victim) I would hope the ISPs would push back on the P2P networks.
I disagree, the more serious the alleged offense the more important due process becomes. I don't mind ticketing for parking offenses but there'd better be a proper trial in a murder case, and so on.
If someone is being accused of owning kiddie porn then that's an extremely serious matter, the case had better stack up and all the proper steps had better be followed. I agree that's true in the cases of alleged copyright infringement too but if you have to rate it in order of importance then it's the serious charges where it's most crucial to get it right.
Am I the only one that sees a difference between a police agency with a warrant in hand asking who's who and the damn 'copyright holder'?
The difference is the warrant, not who the person is. I agree that proper court orders should be required in all cases.
Shouldn't there be a burden of proof before my privacy is violated?
Yes, there should. I'm just worried that you seem to think that that stops being an issue if they accuse you of something more serious, when the consequences are highest.
Formatting your harddrive isn't going to make the charges go away and you could face additional charges.
Perjury is also not a good idea. You better be a damn good liar before you pull a stunt like that.
Format your harddrive BEFORE they collect evidence against you from it and stop downloading pirated material.
Ben
Work Safe Porn
If someone is accused of downloading kiddie porn, then there should be solid evidence of this before any action is taken. How many people have had their lives ruined because of false charges? I can think of quite a few cases raised in the media, as well as others that didn't get the chance to clear themselves in public.
It is disturbing to see that people almost defend certain criminal acts "because they don't have any real victims", while at the same time almost calling for a witch hunt against certain other groups of criminals - or even suspected criminals.
I agree completely with your comments, AC, and only wish you were logged in and had a karma bonus so more people would read it :)
Kiddie porn might be bad, but people who are willing to throw away people's rights just because they are accused of a serious crime are dangerous to us all.
Clever signature text goes here.
i'd mod you up.
it would be a very bad case for riaa if they just argued that they had screenshot of person thats sharing only identified by user name, some people don't use an username at all(or use just blank ' ')! of course just a screenshot sounds very shoddy evidence at all, since i'm not familiar with the usa court system i don't know how hard it would be to turn this down in court because the evidence isn't exactly much, what i know is around here you would basically make a request of investigation for the police (because it's a crime you want investigated, that needs evidence to stay up in court and pre-investigation that suggests so to even make that far) which would in turn investigate the matter, get a permit to confiscating the computer(s), searching the harddrive, possible isp logs that proved you to be online at a given time(these require permit too and wouldn't be really available to just 'anyone', not even the possible 'victim'), question the suspect and so on, basically in a p2p i would say that unless you plea guilty straight a way you could get out like a rat easily, especially if you kept all the shared stuff on encrypted partition and never admitted to anything, though i suspect they wouldn't even confiscate computers if they went after p2p users in mass simply because they don't have time for that. this at least is the 'normal' way warez bbs's and warez ftp's are busted, when they are busted (confiscate everything, question the suspect, have expert fiddle through the files, question the suspect again & so on, hoping the suspect pleas guilty, it really easens up things for them).
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
People have shared their music with their friends since the compact cassette was invented. It's a great thing to do.
Now people are doing it on the internet: the great thing that brings people together accross the world.
That means it's happening on a WIDER scale. That's all. It's not imoral. It's "big issue" status seems to be solely to do with it's transparancy.
Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
... was concerned with taking action and being an advocate against injustice. The poster percieves this issue to be an injustice and believes it should be spoken out against. It is a good quote to use for such a purpose... regardless of which side I may or may not be on on the issue.
Let not the quote wither in perpetual disuse. No one is getting killed in this issue, Use of this quote neither kills anyone nor cheapens the tragedy of its original subjects.
*honk*
This is my sig. It's prescription, I swear. I need it for reading things... on the other side of things
Christ, this is the tiredest argument of them all.
Do you believe it's legal to sneak into a movie theater or concert without paying? Those seats would have been empty anyway, so nobody's losing any money.
Do you steal cable? If you spend the money to buy the equipment to tap into the line and a descrambler off eBay with your own money, then Time Warner or Comcast or whoever isn't losing any money, so it's got to be okay, right?
Just because you can't afford something doesn't give you the right to take what you want. Maybe the solution is to do what I did in college and GET A JOB.
Whether you think music downloading is morally ok or not doesn't matter. Bottom line is that it is illegal. I thing levying hundred-million dollar suits is excessive, but if you get caught, you deserve what you brought upon yourself.
Happiness is like peeing yourself. Everybody can see it but only you can feel its warmth.
Just wondering.... with the levels of fines that the RIAA is saying, is there anything to stop you from buying all the CDs that you have on your computer once you are issued a saponea? If they are going to fine you atleast $750 per song, it just seems to make more sense to buy the CDs once they start watching you. Then all you are doing is making a digital copy of your own music for yourself. Nothing wrong with that.