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?"
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
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
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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