The RIAA's Hit List Named

Oh man! by NEOtaku17 · 2003-07-23 11:18 · Score: 1

I want to know if anyone on /. is on that list. Well anyone?

Re:Oh man! by jc42 · 2003-07-23 11:28 · Score: 3, Funny

Sob! I'm not there! How could they have missed me?

Oh. All the "names" end with @Kazaa. I don't use kazaa.

Never mind.

--
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
Re:Oh man! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-23 11:30 · Score: 5, Funny

So are you munkeyspanker21@Kazaa or Ghettobootybabe8@Kazaa?
(You only have yourself to blame for this).
Re:Oh man! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-23 11:30 · Score: 1

For real? Damn that sucks, I suggest you find a lawyer. Good luck!
Re:Oh man! by korgull · 2003-07-23 11:36 · Score: 1

Of course not, we're not using Kazaa.
Re:Oh man! by Adam9 · 2003-07-23 11:37 · Score: 1

Yeah I didn't see any @Gnutella. *phew*
Re:Oh man! by BadSpellar · 2003-07-23 11:38 · Score: 5, Funny

munkeyspanker21@Kazaa

I'm not sure which is more disturbing: The name itself, or the fact that more than one person uses it.
Re:Oh man! by ArsonSmith · 2003-07-23 11:47 · Score: 4, Funny

yea and why did they skip munkeyspanker1-20 and go right to 21?

--
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
Re:Oh man! by wo1verin3 · 2003-07-23 11:47 · Score: 1

>> Is there anything stopping multiple people
>> using the same name?

Regardless of the names, the subpoenas include time/data and IP addresses.
Re:Oh man! by Breakfast+Pants · 2003-07-23 11:54 · Score: 1

because more that one person uses it as the previous poster JUST SAID.

--

--

WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
Re:Oh man! by blankmange · 2003-07-23 12:09 · Score: 2, Informative

Wrong -- one Grokster and several fileshare's...

--
...we are from the government - we are here to help...
Re:Oh man! by jayayeem · 2003-07-23 12:24 · Score: 1

but why aren't 1-20 being sued?

--
I metamoderate, therefore I am
Re:Oh man! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-23 12:37 · Score: 5, Funny

munkeyspanker8 who we already know sells burned music CD's on ebay, is a leach. Leaches are OK since they're helping to kill p2p.

munkeyspanker17, while having a large collection of kiddy porn, was not sharing any RIAA-label music. We're only after real criminals here..

The others weren't logged on at the time. We only logged on briefly since we didn't want to draw the attention of the MPAA who will be conducting their own witchhunt next week..
Re:Oh man! by jayayeem · 2003-07-23 12:41 · Score: 2, Funny

do you think there are 20 people using Kazaa that aren't sharing copyrighted files? Funny that they all use the variations on the name 'munkeyspanker.' I am pretty sure I don't want to see any of the files those people are sharing.

They must set the sticky bit on all their directories.

--
I metamoderate, therefore I am
Re:Oh man! by Loki_1929 · 2003-07-23 12:47 · Score: 5, Funny

" yea and why did they skip munkeyspanker1-20 and go right to 21?"

Because munkeyspankers 1 - 20 restricted their copyright infringement activities to pornography, obviously. Jesus, did you even look at the name?! :)

"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you will hear testimony during this trial regarding the complete disregard for the law shown by Mr Munkeyspanker. His total disrespect for the rule of law is shown further by his attempts to hide his identity; but I assure you, this law-breaker, this ... Munkey spanker, will face justice at your hands! Ladies and gentlemen, we intend to prove hands-down, that Mr Munkeyspanker is indeed guilty of far more than self-gratification. We have substantial evidence that this spanker of monkies is in fact a serial violator, far beyond what any decent person could even imagine!"

--
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
Re:Oh man! by dubious9 · 2003-07-23 12:47 · Score: 5, Interesting

Actually, I have a solution.

Get a wireless router
Reformat and securely erase your harddrives
Claim that somebody taped into your wireless router and was using it routinely
How could they prove you were lying?

--
Why, o why must the sky fall when I've learned to fly?
Re:Oh man! by kfg · 2003-07-23 13:03 · Score: 2, Insightful

Prove? What a quaint little concept.

KFG
Re:Oh man! by wo1verin3 · 2003-07-23 13:08 · Score: 2

Which is why they supply the information to the ISP or school, or etc and expect them to provide identifying information to the best of their ability. If you think you're anonymous because you're behind a router, then your e-mail address probably ends in @aol.com
Re:Oh man! by eln · 2003-07-23 13:22 · Score: 1

With that information, they can get your account information from your ISP.

And, according to your ISP's Terms of Service, you are responsible for any and all activity conducted with your account. So even though they may not be able to prove you as an individual downloaded the songs, they can prove that you as an individual are RESPONSIBLE for the illegal download.

Nice try though.
Re:Oh man! by ottothecow · 2003-07-23 13:42 · Score: 1

What if your ISP allows you to resell(or regiveaway) your service via wifi...and YOU have a TOS saying people are responsible for what they do...then hand the RIAA the only info you "have" (do to the highly protective nature of the pirate): the MAC address from a cheap old PCMIA card that could be anywhere

--
Bottles.
Re:Oh man! by Mistlefoot · 2003-07-23 13:51 · Score: 1

Why go wireless?

I live in a home with multiple computers and multiple users.

If my names on the list a simple format or harddrive swap would leave them with little evidence. As if they could charge my Pa or my Ma or my sister or me with no evidence "inside" the home.

That they "know" one of us did means little. This isn't school where the whole class gets detention. This is court where evidence matters.
Re:Oh man! by diersing · 2003-07-23 13:56 · Score: 5, Informative

Here is a snipet from my ISP's email they sent today.

Dear Insightbb.com Customer,
There is important information that you need to know regarding the role Insight is required to play in enforcing copyrights.
In 1998, Congress passed the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) (http://www.loc.gov/copyright/legislation/dmca.pdf ), which allows copyright holders to enforce their copyrighted material by requesting that Internet service providers takedown infringing material or disclose the identity of persons that use the Internet to infringe on copyrights. Representatives of copyright owners routinely scan computers through file sharing software or websites to identify infringers of their copyrights. If Insight is notified by a copyright holder of an infringement, we may be required to notify a customer of the alleged violation and turn off the customers service if the infringement continues. We may also be required pursuant to the DMCA to disclose the infringing customers identity to the copyright holder. This is true for any Internet service provider, whether a broadband or narrowband provider.
Copyright holders are becoming extremely aggressive in pursuing the rights afforded them under the DMCA. Many of our customers are unaware that unauthorized downloading of copyrighted music and movies over the Internet is illegal. File sharing in itself is not illegal, but downloading copyrighted material from the Internet - without proper authorization - is illegal. Such activity is also prohibited by Insights Acceptable Use Policy governing the use of your Insightbb.com High Speed Broadband service.
We also want to caution you that file sharing can be dangerous to your computer. Many of the file-sharing programs include other "sub-programs" built into their software code. When you leave file sharing ports open to the Internet, it may allow others to access and use your computer resources to do a myriad of tasks for their own benefit. Open ports also make you a target for viruses and put your personal information at risk.

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.
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'? Shouldn't there be a burden of proof before my privacy is violated?
Re:Oh man! by xenocytekron · 2003-07-23 14:06 · Score: 1

Even better: Assuming the downloader in question was only downloading a couple songs at that time they were logged, the RIAA has no proof that they have any other songs on their computer.
So, the downloader could go buy the CDs containing the songs they were downloading at that time, securely erase all other song files, and proclaim that its not copyright infringement, they already own the CD and wanted an mp3 version. Seems like it would work to me.

--
This is my .sig, if you don't like it, it will eat you.
Re:Oh man! by kannibal_klown · 2003-07-23 14:08 · Score: 1

There's a flaw in your logic. In they end, the can sue whoever's name is on the bill. This is probably what they'd do if the ACTUAL violator was a minor. - Chris
Re:Oh man! by Lord+Zerrr · 2003-07-23 14:12 · Score: 1

If my name was on the hit list and suddenly my hard drive disappears or I use a hard drive erasing method such a Gutmann 35 pass, How could they prove that I dowloaded files other than the word of the RIAA and info from their software, which was collected not in whitness of an officer of the law? I would think the courts would need physical evidence.

--
"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." -Albert Einstein
Karma? There's a serial modder out there.
Re:Oh man! by xenocide2 · 2003-07-23 14:12 · Score: 1

You can't download an illegally made copy legally. Even if it would be legal for you to possess such a copy.

OK, clearly you CAN, but good luck using fair use if you don't even have an mp3 encoder on your computer that was just confinscated.

--
I Browse at +4 Flamebait
Open Source Sysadmin
Re:Oh man! by no+soup+for+you · 2003-07-23 14:12 · Score: 4, Insightful

Assuming the downloader in question was only downloading a couple songs at that time they were logged, the RIAA has no proof that they have any other songs on their computer.

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...
Re:Oh man! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-23 14:19 · Score: 1, Informative

in cases of music/movie piracy (and any other crime that doesn't have a *real* victim)
...other than the artists who produced the work and planned to make a living from selling copies to those who wanted the music, you mean.
Come on, just because the RIAA sucks doesn't make copyright infringement ok and "victimless". Just pay the artists, or don't use their work. Don't have it both ways.
Re:Oh man! by Clarencex · 2003-07-23 14:24 · Score: 1

Actually, they don't have to prove it (see Napster trial). They just have to convince a judge or a jury. Big difference.
Re:Oh man! by FeloniousPunk · 2003-07-23 14:32 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.
Re:Oh man! by Jacer · 2003-07-23 14:36 · Score: 1

They can prove it via the mac address. Right now my computer is sitting at my friends, and I have the one from my parents house with my NIC in it. I went out and bought some cds of the songs I downloaded, and I'm fighting with fair use. Weeeeee

--
--fetch daddy's blue fright wig, i must be handsome when i release my rage
Re:Oh man! by diersing · 2003-07-23 14:48 · Score: 2, Interesting

I don't give a rat's ass about the artists in this instance. I do not use P2P and only rip albums I own (hard to believe isn't it?). Having said that, I don't believe copyright infringement is 'victimless', I'm sure between drug binges they worked hard to produce it, more power to them.
The correlation I was drawing between *real* victims was made earlier (molesters on the prowl, kiddie pron). And yes, I make a distinction between predators that will harm (in the physical sense) versus copyright/intellectual property crime. Taking a rapist off the street improves my community, attacking a 15 year old kid because he copied some music and shared with his friends IS different.
My ultimate point was drawing the line and who can request such information from my ISP (police with warrant, a copyright holder, my boss, you?). I think a reasonable solution would be let the copyright holders attack the P2P, but if you want my info, from my ISP, that should require a warrant. IMHO
Re:Oh man! by evilviper · 2003-07-23 14:51 · Score: 1

The only thing funnier was when rapper "C-Murder" was charged with... (you guessed it)... MURDER...

--
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Re:Oh man! by AmigaAvenger · 2003-07-23 15:14 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.
Re:Oh man! by the_quark · 2003-07-23 15:23 · Score: 1

Fair use is a loser, man. You don't have the right to allow others to download, which is what they're complaining about. You could own the CD to every single song you share on Kazaa and you're still violating US copyright law, according to the decisions handed down in the Napster cases. Offering music for download is currently illegal in the US and has a lot of case law behind it. There are lot of people who've been busted for doing it over FTP, and it's no different over P2P.

Your best defense is to claim it wasn't you. Failing that, sue for peace and settle. That advice goes to anyone on this list.
Re:Oh man! by zboy · 2003-07-23 15:32 · Score: 1

at least munkeyspanker won't get prostate cancer
Re:Oh man! by ted_nugent · 2003-07-23 15:36 · Score: 1

I think it would have been funnier if he had been called as a witness to a murder.

--
Free the West Memphis Three!
Re:Oh man! by theseum · 2003-07-23 15:55 · Score: 1

they could prove you are lying because if you were uploading songs, you would either have to a) set up port-forwarding for this so-called wireless freeloader b) set up port forwarding yourself or c) have been running without NAT and bought the router in a last ditch effort to cover your ass. the second two cases you're guilty, the first case is absurd.
Re:Oh man! by majorflaw · 2003-07-23 16:11 · Score: 2, Funny

Perhaps they're cutting you some slack for the first 20 times.
Re:Oh man! by Czmyt · 2003-07-23 16:15 · Score: 1

I'm thinking they're definitely_ditzy@Kazaa
Re:Oh man! by dubious9 · 2003-07-23 16:30 · Score: 2

Ah, uploading, very good point. But that still does not affect the problem of figuring guilt behind the NAT. If my network has five people on it, who is guilty? What recourse do you have if you've narrowed it down to five people but have no physical or other hard evidence?

Also, many people never change the default passwords on their routers. There is security from the outside (remote administration not being turned on by default), but not from the inside. Simply http to 192.168.1.1, use nmap if it's not a common ip address and crack into the router. If you claim that your router, (or more likely your own computer) was hacked, it makes you look more guilty but if you are careful you may still throw enough doubt into the case.

The point is the ambiguity of ip addresses, (i mean someone could even hack routing tables and momentarily steal your ip address) will make it hard for the RIAA to win a lawsuit. Watch out with IPv6 when you have a collection of immutable personable registered addresses (quite possible down the line) and no real reason for NAT. Even so, how can you garuantee the path of a packet past your first hop router?

--
Why, o why must the sky fall when I've learned to fly?
Re:Oh man! by Xtopherus · 2003-07-23 17:41 · Score: 1

I use insightbb too, and i got the same email today, and thought it was rather odd, I just threw it away just like any spam email.

--
"If the Republicans will stop telling lies about the Democrats, we will stop telling the truth about them." --Adlai E. S
Re:Oh man! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-23 19:33 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
Re:Oh man! by KalvinB · 2003-07-23 19:43 · Score: 2, Informative

No one has a legal leg to stand on.

Many don't have an ethical leg to stand on.

And many don't have a moral leg to stand on.

I refuse to defend the actions of those who pirate for any reason. There is no legal, ethical, or moral reason why piracy should be legal.

They broke the law and now they're facing the penalty of those laws.

That post of yours is a huge disgrace to the original author who spoke of people who were slaughtered simply because they believed in a different God than someone else.

It's disgusting.

Ben

--
Work Safe Porn
Re:Oh man! by Zork+the+Almighty · 2003-07-23 19:51 · Score: 3, Informative

Check out this site and skip down to 1993.

1993: Playboy Enterprises Inc. v. Frena
The Florida Northern District Court held that Frena, an electronic bulletin board operator, had violated Playboy's copyright when one of their photographs was digitized and placed on the bulletin board system by one subscriber and downloaded by another subscriber. According to the decision, "it does not matter that Defendant Frena may have been unaware of the copyright infringement. Intent to infringe is not needed to find copyright infringement. Intent or knowledge is not an element of infringement, and thus even an innocent infringer is liable for infringement; rather innocence is significant to a trial court when it fixes statutory damages, which is a remedy equitable in nature."

--

In Soviet America the banks rob you!
Re:Oh man! by DickeyWayne · 2003-07-23 20:02 · Score: 1

That brings to mind...Most NIC's and broadband routers these days allow you to change the MAC address, which is all that most DHCP servers track. Are cable operators able to track individual cable modems? If not, it would behoove the file sharer using cable ISP's to change their MAC address frequently, if said provider allows them to do so.
Re:Oh man! by hkmwbz · 2003-07-23 20:39 · Score: 2, Insightful

Excellent points. I don't know why you posted this as an AC, because it definitely needs to be read by people who read the parent post.
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.
Re:Oh man! by Semi-Psychic+Nathan · 2003-07-23 20:47 · Score: 5, Interesting

It seems that my ISP is against the RIAA's actions, and is trying to convey this fact to its users without officially taking a stance against it. This was in their newsletter:

According to this press release from the RIAA (Recording Industry Artists of America), there will be some major crackdowns on music piracy on the Internet. The RIAA plans to launch a massive investigation on peer-to-peer networks. Peer-to-peer network is the term for the networks that power such software as BearShare, Limewire, Gnutella, Morpheous, and of course the now-defunct Napster. They will be targeting users that are sharing copyrighted files and collecting evidence. This evidence will be the basis of hundreds of lawsuits they have planned, which are scheduled to start as early as August.

Under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, The River is required to assist the RIAA, MPAA, or anyone else with copyright concerns. We can be subpoenaed for information on our customer's full names, addresses and other information, should the copyright holder prove a valid suspicion that the account in question has been distributing copyrighted materials.

On a related note, a recent statement by the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) espouses destroying computers suspected of illegal behavior remotely. You may read the AP article here.

As always, we will do our best to protect your privacy within the constraints of the law and keep you educated on what you need to know to stay safe.

Other Links:

EFF's response to RIAA lawsuits
The Slashdot discussion thread
Artists Against the RIAA

Interesting, huh? It sounds to me that they're basically saying "We're resisting as well as we can, but we can only do so much when the law's on their side, and in the meantime you might want to pay a bit more attention to politics 'cause there's this senator that wants to blow up your computer if anyone even suspects you're doing something that might be illegal."

--
I have nothing to allude to, and I am alluding to it.
Re:Oh man! by DrSkwid · 2003-07-23 21:05 · Score: 1

my car ran someone over and killed them

all they have is the licence plate

how will they prove it was me?

I'll walk for this one

--
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
Re:Oh man! by flab007 · 2003-07-23 21:31 · Score: 1

I'd gladly pay the artist if it was possible however most of the time you can only buy a CD at *full* price (something like 20$/e), not taking in account the inprice reduced CD's. Of this 20$/e the artist only sees a very *small* percentage. Most of the money goes to the distributionnetwork. Now I also realize some money has to be spent on this because I blantantly refuse to go to the artists' house and collect the song I would like to hear. However, nowadays it's also possible to distribute songs through the Net skipping the whole recordingindustry. I don't give a rats ass for promotion, distribution, etc. I'd rather have some huge searchengine that enables me to preview songs and if I like the song download it. For this I'm even perfectly willing to pay an additional fee to the guys/organisation that enable the searchengine. What I don't want to pay for is this whole industry that now has arrisen around the artists that only exists purely and solely for itself!!
Re:Oh man! by Uart · 2003-07-23 21:39 · Score: 1

The RIAA uses the name "WeOwnYouNow85@Kazaa" in case anyone was wondering who that was...

--

Opinionated Law Student Strikes Again!
Re:Oh man! by Blue+Stone · 2003-07-23 22:14 · Score: 3, Insightful

Oh please.
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
Re:Oh man! by Blue+Stone · 2003-07-23 22:24 · Score: 5, Funny

I have revised my opinion on how to defend against the RIAA when using p2p. Previously I suggested the use of user names such as "sunflowergrrrl_13@kazaa" and the like, betting that the RIAA would not be foolish enough to prosecute sweet little photogenic girls, and suffer the negative publicity.
Since they are prosecuting the likes of "Lisweet@Kazaa" "ktgurl13@Grokster" and the like, however, (the heartless bastards) I now am of the opinion that "cuntfuckcunt@kazaa" might be the way to go.
Lets see them file papers against that.

--
Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
Re:Oh man! by Eudial · 2003-07-23 22:25 · Score: 1

My solution is way more fun.

1. Get a van.
2. Place this van outside of a big company using Wireless LAN. (w/o security measures)
3. Get a laptop.
4. Get a Wireless LAN card.
5. You now have free unlimited fast internet access w/o an ISP to complain about what you download..

--
GAAH! MY PRINTER IS ON FIRE!!! PUT IT OUT! PUT IT OUT!
Re:Oh man! by advocate_one · 2003-07-23 22:56 · Score: 1

do you think there are 20 people using Kazaa that aren't sharing copyrighted files?

"When Abraham learned of the reason for God's appearance, he was concerned for Lot and his family. He asked God if He would spare the city for 50 righteous men. He did not know how far God would extend His mercy, but in his inquiry he learned that if just ten righteous people could be found, Sodom would be spared (Gen. 18:23-32)."

can kazaa be spared if some legitimate users can be found???

--
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
Re:Oh man! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-24 00:22 · Score: 2, Funny

Now its on a scale comparable with unlicensed broadcasting, which just because it is a lot easier for anyone to do than it was in the days of pirate radio, is no less dodgy and IMHO should be as illegal.
Re:Oh man! by xThinkx · 2003-07-24 00:26 · Score: 1

Bad Analogy,

If you download an album, no one, not even the RIAA or the artist, is out a cent. Reason, there's no loss of tangible items, they still have the original CD, they can still sell the CD to someone else, the CD has the same "opportunity value".

If you burn someone's house down, numerous items with actual value will be lost, and while the insurance company could very well buy them a new house, now the insurance company is out actual money. Face it downloading even an entire album does nothing but possibly diminish the sales of that album. However, often those who download most (college students, geeks), do not have the capital to purchase said album, so would not purchase it anyway and therefore no one has lost anything. However those same "poor college students" tend to support live events more often (there are extra benefits to live concerts, such as the presence of your friends and possibility of cute girls, especially at emo shows, especially at emo shows, i say god damn) than the rest of society. And yes, artists do make a larger percentage off of live performances than they do album sales. So his analogy is correct.

To prove the point; This is why bands used to hand out promotional copies of CDs, so one guy hears it, tells 5 friends, who tell 5 friends, and now there's 26 more people at a show.

--
Let's get one thing perfectly clear, I did not vote for George W Bush, and I do not endorse what he does or says.
"
Re:Oh man! by KillerHamster · 2003-07-24 00:39 · Score: 1

Yeah, imagine the guy in court announcing in a deep, serious voice, "The case of the Recording Industry Association of America versus cuntfuckcunt@kazaa will now commence." I'd pay money to see that.
Re:Oh man! by ukyoCE · 2003-07-24 01:04 · Score: 1

yep, all those home-made tapes my friends gave me has really victimized the record labels. same with all those mp3s i've downloaded. nevermind that after previewing this music, I bought albums from about 75% of the artists. And nevermind that 90% of the music on those tapes and mp3s was from artists not played on the radio in my area, and who I would *never* have heard of if not for tape/file sharing.

I bet those artists are feeling quite victimized now that i've spend 12-15$ for a bunch of their albums. My wallet is crying for them at this very moment.
Re:Oh man! by elluzion · 2003-07-24 01:18 · Score: 1

Well, I've been buying CDs very sparingly since all this started (until recently, I was a two to three CD a week person, even more if I can download a few mp3s of an artist to make sure I like their non-radio stuff). Seeing this utter bullshit, I have hereby sworn off all new CDs from major label recording artists. I'll buy used, I'll buy indie from CDBaby or something, but the R I fucking A A gestapo will not see one red cent from my pocket.
You know what makes this so crazy? Commercial organizations with money now have more power than even government agencies. If the CIA had published a list of individuals who were suspected of violating electronic laws, all hell would break loose. Instead, we all stand around shaking our heads at the audacity that comes with commercial power.
Re:Oh man! by sixxlixx · 2003-07-24 01:27 · Score: 1

In Tyler we trust!
Re:Oh man! by Pirogoeth · 2003-07-24 01:40 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.
Re:Oh man! by hesiod · 2003-07-24 01:52 · Score: 1

> No, it doesn't. There's one less person who's going to buy it.

Unless, of course, that person never would have bought it anyway, which, 99 times out of 100, is true. But after having the album, they may go see the band live, which they were less likely to do before downloading the songs.

If anyone truly believes that every single download, or even above 90% of them resulted in the lack of a CD sale that otherwise wold have taken place, they are truly stupid or terribly naive.
Re:Oh man! by geronimo87 · 2003-07-24 01:56 · Score: 1

It doesn't matter who wins, it will cost you more to fight the case than settle.
Re:Oh man! by hesiod · 2003-07-24 02:00 · Score: 1

> all they have is the licence plate. how will they prove it was me?

Yeah, assuming that license plate could be on one of 10 million different cars at any given time. That license plate is used for a few hours then put back into storage until another car wants to use that road.
Re:Oh man! by Professr3 · 2003-07-24 02:02 · Score: 2, Interesting

Amen brotha! Enough of this RIAA nonsense... I am writing a screen saver that will continiously refresh riaa.org in a tiny browser window. If enough people use the screen saver, riaa.org will be constantly slashdotted. Who wants a copy? Maybe I'll put it on KaZaa...
Re:Oh man! by u-235-sentinel · 2003-07-24 02:11 · Score: 1

Not to mention you can forge the mac address also. It's easy and has been done for years.

--
Has Comcast disconnected your Internet account? Same here. You can read about it at http://comcastissue.blogspot.com
Re:Oh man! by universalcurb · 2003-07-24 02:17 · Score: 1

I agree with you that the use of the holocaust quote was inappropriate... I think it cheapens the meaning of the quote. The prosecution of file-sharers for downloading can't hold a candle to genocide on the scale of things that are Just Plain Wrong.
What we're facing now is something more akin to the civil rights movement. We have unjust laws, and we need to get them changed.
Those who are sharing files on P2P networks are commiting an illegal act, but so was Rosa Parks when she failed to give up her seat on a bus to a white woman.
But I disaggree with you on this: its not stealing or piracy, dammit! It's copyright infringement! If we ever want to see this system changed to something sane, we have to be careful about the language that we use. We will never change it if we continue to use the language that they use. Look up what Larry Lessig said about this after the Eldred case went south.
We can make copyright infringement look like an act of civil disobedience against an evil anti-consumer regime of laws... but if we agree to use their language ("stealing" and "piracy"), we've lost the hearts and minds of Joe and Jane Voter, and we've certainly lost any sympathy we may have with any judges or legislators.
Another thing to keep in mind is this: one of the big rules of civil disobedience is that when The Man does come down on you (as he always will), you have to be ready to face the consequences of your actions! Martin Luther King sat in that Birmingham jail cell and made an example of the injustice of it. We need to be prepared to do the same, and not whine about it, but fight it legally and with impassioned, pursuasive speech.

Injustice doesn't bow to whiners.

--
dum spiro, spero
Re:Oh man! by mustangsal66 · 2003-07-24 02:49 · Score: 1

I work for an ISP. This is what the MPAA sends us when they find someone offering movies for download. We have to comply, or be faced with possible enabling charges. Something we do not want to deal with. The beautiful thing about it is, all they give up is an IP address. We run dhcp for 99% of our users, with a 48 hour lease time. 98% of the time the MPAA sends us the notifications long past that time frame. Nothing I can really do about it. I notify the user of that IP at the time, that they we aren't accusing them, but if they are, they may want to stop. Here's the text of the letter, edited to protect the individuals involved. MOTION PICTURE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC. 15503 VENTURA BOULEVARD ENCINO, CALIFORNIA 91436 UNITED STATES Anti-Piracy Operations PHONE: (818) 728 - 8127 Email: MPAA@copyright.org Tuesday, July 22, 2003 Name: E-mail: ISP: Via Fax/Email RE: Unauthorized Distribution of Copyrighted Motion Pictures MPA Case Name: dcc://roached11(galaxynet)@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx/ [with IP address: xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx] Reference #: 26xxxxx Date of Infringement: 7/19/2003 3:02:06 PM GMT Dear : The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) represents the following motion picture production and distribution companies: Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. Disney Enterprises, Inc. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. Paramount Pictures Corporation TriStar Pictures, Inc. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation United Artists Pictures, Inc. United Artists Corporation Universal City Studios, LLLP Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. We have received information that you are providing Internet access to and possibly hosting the internet site; dcc://rxxxhed11(galaxynet)@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx/ which is offering downloads of copyrighted motion picture(s) including such title(s) as: 28 Days Later Bruce Almighty Fast and The Furious 2, The Hulk, The Just Married League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen, The Spaceballs The distribution of unauthorized copies of copyrighted motion pictures constitutes copyright infringement under the Copyright Act, Title 17 United States Code Section 106(3). This conduct may also violate the laws of other countries, international law, and/or treaty obligations. We request that you immediately do the following: 1) Disable access to this site; 2) Remove this site from your server; and 3) Take appropriate action against the account holder under your Abuse Policy/Terms of Service Agreement. By copy of this letter, the owner of the above referenced Internet site and/or email account is hereby directed to cease and desist from the conduct complained of herein. On behalf of the respective owners of the exclusive rights to the copyrighted material at issue in this notice, we hereby state, pursuant to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Title 17 United States Code Section 512, that the information in this notification is accurate and that we have a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owners, their respective agents, or the law. Also pursuant to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we hereby state, under penalty of perjury, that we are authorized to act on behalf of the owners of the exclusive rights being infringed as set forth in this notification. Please contact us at the above listed address or by replying to this email should you have any questions. Kindly include the above noted Reference # in the subject line of all email correspondence. We thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Your prompt response is requested. Respectfully, Thomas Temple Director Worldwide Internet Enforcement

--
Why worry? Each of us is wearing an unlicensed "nucular" accelerator on his back.
Sig changed for readability by G.W.
Re:Oh man! by mustangsal66 · 2003-07-24 02:53 · Score: 3, Interesting

Sorry, I hit HTML formatting instead of text. Here's the letter in a more readable format. MOTION PICTURE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC. 15503 VENTURA BOULEVARD ENCINO, CALIFORNIA 91436 UNITED STATES Anti-Piracy Operations PHONE: (818) 728 - 8127 Email: MPAA@copyright.org <mailto:MPAA@copyright.org> Tuesday, July 22, 2003 Name: <removed> E-mail: <removed> ISP: <removed> Via Fax/Email RE: Unauthorized Distribution of Copyrighted Motion Pictures MPA Case Name: dcc://roached11(galaxynet)@<removed>/ [with IP address: <removed>] Reference #: 2xxxxxxx5 Date of Infringement: 7/19/2003 3:02:06 PM GMT Dear <removed>: The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) represents the following motion picture production and distribution companies: Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. Disney Enterprises, Inc. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. Paramount Pictures Corporation TriStar Pictures, Inc. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation United Artists Pictures, Inc. United Artists Corporation Universal City Studios, LLLP Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. We have received information that you are providing Internet access to and possibly hosting the internet site; dcc://roached11(galaxynet)@<removed>/ which is offering downloads of copyrighted motion picture(s) including such title(s) as: 28 Days Later Bruce Almighty Fast and The Furious 2, The Hulk, The Just Married League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen, The Spaceballs The distribution of unauthorized copies of copyrighted motion pictures constitutes copyright infringement under the Copyright Act, Title 17 United States Code Section 106(3). This conduct may also violate the laws of other countries, international law, and/or treaty obligations. We request that you immediately do the following: 1) Disable access to this site; 2) Remove this site from your server; and 3) Take appropriate action against the account holder under your Abuse Policy/Terms of Service Agreement. By copy of this letter, the owner of the above referenced Internet site and/or email account is hereby directed to cease and desist from the conduct complained of herein. On behalf of the respective owners of the exclusive rights to the copyrighted material at issue in this notice, we hereby state, pursuant to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Title 17 United States Code Section 512, that the information in this notification is accurate and that we have a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owners, their respective agents, or the law. Also pursuant to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we hereby state, under penalty of perjury, that we are authorized to act on behalf of the owners of the exclusive rights being infringed as set forth in this notification. Please contact us at the above listed address or by replying to this email should you have any questions. Kindly include the above noted Reference # in the subject line of all email correspondence. We thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Your prompt response is requested. Respectfully, Thomas Temple Director Worldwide Internet Enforcement

--
Why worry? Each of us is wearing an unlicensed "nucular" accelerator on his back.
Sig changed for readability by G.W.
Re:Oh man! by ElGuapoGolf · 2003-07-24 03:02 · Score: 1

You know, you're wrong.

I'm not sure what your definition of pirate is, but it's probably entirely too wide.

If one of my cd's gets a scratch in it, and I go to download the tracks I like off Kazaa, am I a pirate?

If I want to download mp3s of stuff I already own (cassettes, cds), am I a pirate?

If I'm such a fan of a band that I own their entire catalog and I want to download rare live stuff that's never been released, am I a pirate?
Re:Oh man! by tkg · 2003-07-24 03:20 · Score: 1

On a related note, a recent statement by the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) espouses destroying computers suspected of illegal behavior remotely. You may read the AP article here.

In what way could the destruction of someones personal property, based on no more than a suspicion, be considered legal or just? What the hell is Orrin thinking? If you have a suspicion, gather evidence and have the proper authorities get a bench warrant for a search damnit! Don't circumvent due process!
Re:Oh man! by Theaetetus · 2003-07-24 03:51 · Score: 1

Actually, people have shared their music with their friends since piano rolls and wax cylinders were created. People have been copying music from their friends since cassettes were invented (though really, it was earlier. That's when it became widespread).
However, since the advent of CD recorders, and digital copies, now you can make a copy of the original with no generational loss of quality. That's why the industry is making a big thing out of it - especially because while with a CD burner, you're still doing a 1:1 copy, but with the internet, you're doing a 1:near infinity copy, with the ability for many, many, many people to simultaneously make copies.
People have shared their music with their friends since the compact cassette was invented. It's a great thing to do
You know, you're the first person I've ever seen who argued that it was morally right. I think everyone knows it's wrong, but it's an acceptable wrong, on the level of speeding or underage drinking. It's illegal, it's immoral, and due to the abysmally low rates of prosecution, it's accepted. If I pirated music (which I will not admit to in a public forum), I would be willing to accept the consequences of my actions... in the same way that when I speed, IF I'm pulled over I'm not going to bitch and whine about how it's morally right and a "great thing to do". It's a gamble - you know that the RIAA will only come after the guys who are sharing thousands of files, so you weigh the risks and share what to you amounts to an acceptable risk - but you don't ever argue that what you're doing is morally right.
-T
Re:Oh man! by Charleton+Heston · 2003-07-24 03:52 · Score: 1

I'm not on the list. Must not care about sharing pr0n

--
======
Get your stinking paws off me, you damned dirty ape!
Re:Oh man! by drxenos · 2003-07-24 04:28 · Score: 1

What I don't get it this: How can they prove it? I mean what evidence do they really have? A few server logs? How can a text file that can be made up on the spot be proof of anything? How do you verify its authenticity? I have the same question about emails used as evidence.

--

Anonymous Cowards suck.
Re:Oh man! by bandrzej · 2003-07-24 04:57 · Score: 1

No, even beter. Get a list of all the employees of the RIAA, and list them on the net. Share the list on Kazza :-) And for a step further, submit their names to their own system reporting they are pirating the right of lissening to musick! Hmm, whenever someone gets a capture of the RIAA anti-piracy commericals, someone needs to do a spoof of it.

--
LainTheWired = isgod( int Lain, int denial, float truth)
Re:Oh man! by jayayeem · 2003-07-24 06:19 · Score: 1

Hmmm The RIAA does seem to think itself divine in nature. Perhaps you can convince them of this God analogy.

--
I metamoderate, therefore I am
Re:Oh man! by Khakionion · 2003-07-24 06:41 · Score: 1

Here's the problem, then:

How are you going to justify a $150,000 lawsuit against BuBbLeS_69_XOXO@KaZaA because she's downloaded roughly 20 albums worth of music? If the RIAA is going to try to make as big a deal out of this "piracy" as a child molester, then they better make sure due process is served.

--
OMG! Wau!
Re:Oh man! by cens0r · 2003-07-24 07:00 · Score: 1

No, it doesn't. There's one less person who's going to buy it. And, when you're talking about copyright infringement on the scale of Kazaa, there are potentially millions of people who'll no longer buy it.

That is just B.S. That is one person who may or may not of bought the album before, and may or may not buy the album in the future. I never purchase any music that I have no heard before. So all the music I buy I either: hear at the record store, hear from a friend, see on mtv2, hear a preview on a website, download, or hear on indie radio. I do not buy everything I download, but I don't buy everything I hear in those other places either. If I was suddenly unable to download would I start buying all the things that I previously downloaded and didn't pay for? No, in fact I wouldn't buy any of the things I previously downloaded. So, the RIAA would actually loose sales from me.

--
Jack Valenti and Orrin Hatch will be first up against the wall when the revolution comes.
Re:Oh man! by mfrank · 2003-07-24 07:13 · Score: 1

ISPs usually keep track of who is using an IP at what time. Having a dynamic IP won't help much.
Re:Oh man! by Cinematique · 2003-07-24 07:15 · Score: 1

Even better...

" funny_how_giving_consumers_$20_somehow_makes_up_fo r_illegal_compact_disc_pricefixing_but_people_shar ing_illegally_pricefixed_music_can_SETTLE_by_givin g_away_their_life_savings_to_the_RIAA@kazaa "

I'd love to hear that out loud in a court preceding.
Re:Oh man! by mfrank · 2003-07-24 07:16 · Score: 1

I wonder if the name psychokillerwithnothingtoloseandwhoknowswhereyouli ve is taken.
Re:Oh man! by Lemmy+Caution · 2003-07-24 07:49 · Score: 1

I think it is morally right to share music. I think trying to treat copies of recordings as alienable goods is an "ontological" crime. I believe that the legal superstructure should adapt to the non-abusive realities of human nature, not vice-versa.

So, now you've met two people who believe it is morally right. I believe it is the moral obligation of the music industry to find a more viable profit model (even if it means lower profits) than to try to discourage people from sharing.
Re:Oh man! by DuckDodgers · 2003-07-24 07:52 · Score: 2, Interesting

What percentage of copyright works that are illegally downloaded fit into those categories? 0.1%? 0.01%? Probably less than that.

Everyone I know that keeps MP3 copies of the music they own just rips it from the disk that they have.

Some CD stores (e.g. The Wall) will replace a broken CD for free, for the life of the owner.
Re:Oh man! by croddy · 2003-07-24 08:23 · Score: 1

we got emails like that from the emory IT department over 2 years ago. iirc they put up posters too. but the whole thing was more of a desperate plea to "save our upstream bandwidth." last year they turned off all incoming connections to the resnet ports. wonder how long before commercial cable connections are firewalled too.
/me sends push request
Re:Oh man! by hesiod · 2003-07-24 08:40 · Score: 1

> ISPs usually keep track of who is using an IP at what time. Having a dynamic IP won't help much.

I understand that yes, some of them keeop logs like that, but I was simply pointing out that the license plate analogy was bad. I'm not stupid enough to think DHCP is a security app. :)
Re:Oh man! by croddy · 2003-07-24 08:41 · Score: 1

yeah. speaking of which,
.
.
WHERE THE HELL IS MY SETTLEMENT CHECK, YOU PRICE-FIXING BASTARDS?
.
.
Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted! Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted! Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!
Re:Oh man! by mdwh2 · 2003-07-24 09:28 · Score: 1

Do you believe it's legal to sneak into a movie theater or concert without paying?

I'd say the biggest problem with this is that you're walking onto a company's private property. A better analogy would be someone filming the movie, to then show their friend when they get back home. Also, I'm not sure what sort of punishment trying to get into a cinema without paying would result in, but I'd say that fines of hundreds of thousands of dollars or imprisonment would be equally ridiculous.

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.

Just because you once wrote something doesn't give you the right to take what you want, or mean that you have a god-given right to make money forever from anyone who sees it. I could say the same, and suggest that perhaps they should either write some more, or GET A JOB.

Whether you think music downloading is morally ok or not doesn't matter. Bottom line is that it is illegal.

I'd say that the morality of these issues is highly important. The law is not absolute or automatically right. Admittedly breaking the law may not necessarily be the best way of getting it changed, but people should certainly voice their opinions and protest, rather than saying "oh it's illegal, so that's that".

Certain corporations didn't accept that copyright lasted 14 years - they pushed to get the length extended again and again. They didn't accept that they were unable to sue consumers for watching DVDs that they had legally bought, just because it wasn't done in the way they liked. Instead, the law got changed.
Re:Oh man! by Theaetetus · 2003-07-24 10:38 · Score: 1

It's only morally wrong from the aspect that it's illegal. I believe theft is morally wrong regardless if theft is legal or illegal. I do not believe copyright infringement is morally wrong, but only illegal. In the absence of a copyright law, it would perfectally within my moral rights to make copies of something I purchased.
Replying to an AC... as if they'd ever read it...
Yes, and guess what - it's not only moral, but perfectly legal to make copies of something you purchased. It's either space-shifting (format-shifting), time-shifting, or archiving, all of which are covered under Fair Use, and are legal.
The issue is making a copy of something you didn't purchase. Filesharing online is morally (and legally) equivalent to going to your library and photocopying every page of a book. That's just as illegal, as immoral, and (as it should be) as overlooked. This is a crime, just not a big one. My point was against the people who argue that it's morally right to download copies of files they don't own. Come on! We all know that warez and music trading are illegal and immoral. Sure, we all do it, but don't kid yourself (or us) by pretending that you're doing the right thing. Own up to your consequences. Say I hypothetically downloaded some program from a warez site - I know it's illegal, and immoral, and if they come after me, I am willing to face the consequences. I hypothetically did it because the risk of them coming after me, a poor individual, is minor. But I don't try to argue that what I hypothetically did was moral.
-T
Re:Oh man! by dlosey · 2003-07-25 02:13 · Score: 2, Interesting

I recognize one of the nics as someone I know. Its an old college buddy that I can't seem to get ahold of. If you are reading this, RUN! buddy RUN!
Re:Oh man! by gilesjuk · 2003-07-25 04:51 · Score: 1

Half of the fuss is about the fact that the record labels wish to keep us back in the stone age where we drive to a shop, pick up a CD (which is >20 year old technology) and then hand over an extortionate amount for an album with one or two singles and a stack of filler junk.

Internet is here to stay, embrace it or become irrelavant.
Re:Oh man! by IWorkForMorons · 2003-07-25 06:03 · Score: 1

Hell...even if I was on it, I wouldn't know. gisudfhgifuvoaiudsfg@kazaa or apohspgoniognpione@kazaa isn't easily recognizable...
Re:Oh man! by IWorkForMorons · 2003-07-25 06:26 · Score: 1

I haven't bought a CD in years. The last one I bought I think was probably Our Lady Peace before they got really commercialized. Since them, my CD collection has pretty well vanished since I started selling them or giving them away. I have the MP3s, that's all I really need. And yes...I know what everyone will say. "YOU'RE VIOLATING YOUR COPYWRITE AGREEMENT!" Yeah, I am. So what? I bought the CD's at one point, supporting the label who happens to throw a few pennies in the general direction of the artists they own. I now go to concerts, supporting the artist directly. I'm tired of labels being the very expensive middleman sitting between us and the artists.

And you know what else? I don't download music much. Maybe every once in a while, to get songs I use to have but deleted. Or to get songs that you can't normally get from record stores, because they are worth the cost of production anymore. Other then that, I stay away from most of it, because 90% of the crap out there today isn't worth listening to. I'm tired of the cookie cutter bands, and that goes beyond the stupid N'Sync New Kids On the Backstreet pop bands. Generic rock crap, generic metal, generic everything. I think this is why I listen to more ska then anything...
Re:Oh man! by xenocytekron · 2003-07-29 08:46 · Score: 1

So if you don't turn on sharing you're not at risk? I'm not sure I understand.

--
This is my .sig, if you don't like it, it will eat you.
Re:Oh man! by no+soup+for+you · 2003-07-29 15:12 · Score: 1
So if you don't turn on sharing you're not at risk? I'm not sure I understand.
In my personal, non-lawyer opinion, yes. Due to:
1. Copyrights protect holders from unauthorized distribution. If someone else is distributing, then you are not breaking the copyright
2. If all you are doing is downloading, the only "node" that would have any knowledge of your activity is the sharer. As such, unless you download from an RIAA inspector node, no one will ever know
--
If you blog it...

phew. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-23 11:19 · Score: 4, Funny

kazaaliteuser@Kazaa isn't on there! I was really worried for a second.

kazaaliteuser@Kazaa vs. RIAA

RIAA: Please disclose any and all information about kazaaliteuser@Kazaa to us!

Comcast: Um, we're @comcast.net and @attbi.com, sorry.

RIAA: YOU'RE ALL AGAINST US!

Re:phew. by Mitchell+Mebane · 2003-07-23 11:24 · Score: 1

kazaaliteuser@Kazaa isn't on there! I was really worried for a second.

Yeah, but www.k_lite.tk_Kazaa_Lite@Kazaa is there.

--

The roots of education are bitter, but the fruit is sweet.
--Aristotle
Re:phew. by UniverseIsADoughnut · 2003-07-23 11:25 · Score: 1

beat me to it. But yeah I was curious to see that on there. That would have been interesting to see in court on how a few million people are the same person.
Re:phew. by Karamchand · 2003-07-23 11:37 · Score: 1

but http://www.kazaalite.tk@K-Lite.tk isn't up there on the list!
Re:phew. by MattCohn.com · 2003-07-23 11:43 · Score: 1

I've got an old version of Kazaa lite that used 'defaultuser@Kazaa'. Well, I'm not on there either. Not that I would have cared if I was...
Re:phew. by zaffir · 2003-07-23 11:53 · Score: 5, Informative

For those that don't know, variations on that name are the default usernames in Kazaa Lite. Let's see the RIAA sue them all...

--
"Upon attaching the waterblock to my penis, I began to notice that I know nothing about computers." -- JRockway
Re:phew. by Pogue+Mahone · 2003-07-23 18:06 · Score: 1

Here are a few more names that the riaa might like to investigate:
a@kazaa b@kazaa ...... z@kazaa
aa@kazaa ab@kazaa ..... zz@kazaa
aaa@kazaa aab@kazaa ..... zzz@kazaa
... I think you get the picture.
Should keep them busy for a while

--
Every bloody emperor has his hand up history's skirt [Peter Hammill/VdGG]
Re:phew. by Lyran · 2003-07-24 02:40 · Score: 1

Damn, I'm busted. How many 100's of thousands are using this default name?

--
Remember, for every CD you purchase, you give the RIAA that much more power. RIAA = SCO = IP terrorists. Any questio
Re:phew. by Lyran · 2003-07-24 02:49 · Score: 1

Maybe everyone should start using the same name. something like boycott_RIAA@kazaa or f*ck_RIAA@kazaa.

Don't make it too easy for them to violate your privacy and other rights. Remember, the police need a judical court-order, the RIAA just needs a clerk to sign-off on the transaction - i.e. filing fees paid.

Welcome the the USA, RIAA-police-state style.

--
Remember, for every CD you purchase, you give the RIAA that much more power. RIAA = SCO = IP terrorists. Any questio
Re:phew. by dunadan67 · 2003-07-24 03:15 · Score: 1

I don't know if it actually matters if you use a default username or not, since they are also identifying users' IP addresses. Notice that the list is much shorter than the number of subpoenas issued. I'm sure they have targets some default users by identifying their IPs.
Re:phew. by remusrm · 2003-07-24 12:03 · Score: 1

www.k_lite.tk_Kazaa_Lite@Kazaa

Oh man! by Jacer · 2003-07-23 11:19 · Score: 3, Funny

My name is up there! I'm screwed...

--
--fetch daddy's blue fright wig, i must be handsome when i release my rage

Not on the list... by rekkanoryo · 2003-07-23 11:20 · Score: 1

but I don't actually share stuff. And I don't download the...well, noise...that the RIAA holds copyright over. I can't say that I like this at all, though. I just wonder how long it'll take people to settle with the RIAA.

My bet is as soon as the subpoena is served, at least 10% of them will be contacting the RIAA to negotiate a settlement (perhaps using their legal counsel to do this for them).

Re:Not on the list... by beaverfever · 2003-07-23 11:27 · Score: 1

Not to get too far off topic, but the RIAA doesn't hold any copyrights. They represent the recording industry, which includes copyright holders, which in turn includes many of your favourite rock stars.

I just wanted to make sure things were clear.

--
RTFM; please, I beg you.
Re:Not on the list... by rekkanoryo · 2003-07-23 12:27 · Score: 1

Sorry about that. I'm in the habit of interpreting "RIAA" as all the record labels and the "representation" unit.
Re:Not on the list... by ThogScully · 2003-07-23 13:01 · Score: 1

Actually, the RIAA is a combination of several recording companies and those companies are usually the copyright holders. I'm not sure where you read that artists have copyright ownership - they usually sign that away unless they carry lots of weight... and I mean lots.
-N

--
I've nothing to say here...
Re:Not on the list... by beaverfever · 2003-07-23 13:37 · Score: 2, Interesting

Well, no, if a writer, no matter how low-profile, has any brains at all he/she will not sign away copyright, and will be under no obligation to do so.

That sort of thing was common and normal in the 60s (early Beatles - Michael Jackson wons those songs now), and still happened in the 70s (Bruce Springsteen - he unwittingly signed away his ownership in his early days, and subsequently stopped recording/performing for years waiting for his contract to expire - this is where he got his nickname), but if someone hasn't learned from the past, read their contract and understood it, not been overpowered by the 'gee-whiz' factor, not been drunk/stoned at the time and isn't a complete idiot, then they should still own their copyright. It wouldn't surprise me if there were some bands/artists who failed all the the above qualifications and got shafted with a bad contract, but then it could be argued that it's their own damned fault if that were the case.

Some writers sign publishing deals in which the publisher takes a cut from the royalties in exchange for services such as collecting royalties and getting songs into a paying position - again, it's a business deal, separate from a recording contract, so anyone signing a publishing contract should understand it fully.

Copyright royalties are The Big Money. That's why ownership is important, and anybody who even just pieces three chords together and trys to be taken seriously would/should know that.

I learned all this when I was involved in the music industry.

--
RTFM; please, I beg you.
Re:Not on the list... by Poeir · 2003-07-23 15:43 · Score: 1

not been drunk/stoned at the time

It's my understanding that if you're either of those two things, you can't enter into a legally binding contract.

--
Sigs are like bumper stickers.

What about people who don't live in the US? by Omicron32 · 2003-07-23 11:21 · Score: 5, Interesting

I live in the UK, can these lawsuits be filed over here from the RIAA?

Re:What about people who don't live in the US? by Karl+Cocknozzle · 2003-07-23 11:39 · Score: 5, Insightful

I live in the UK, can these lawsuits be filed over here from the RIAA?

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?
Re:What about people who don't live in the US? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-23 11:46 · Score: 3, Informative

the bbc seems not to think so...

Will I be sued for music-swapping?
Re:What about people who don't live in the US? by Voltronalpha · 2003-07-23 11:51 · Score: 1

If they hold an international copyright that is recognized by the UK than yes, the thing that would stop them is that filing a Trans Atlantic lawsuit is prohibitively expensive. (and of course vice versa)

--
There is evidence to prove both Democrats and Republicans are lying cocksuckers. Vote independently.
Re:What about people who don't live in the US? by dJCL · 2003-07-23 12:19 · Score: 4, Interesting

The only thing is that most countries actually have something near sensible laws(ok, not close, but better then the US). You cannot get the precedent set on the case like was dont with Verizon because you would actually have to talk with a lawyer to get the going, not some random clerk that gives you a form to fill. The DMCA appears to allow them to do this. Up here in the dotCA it appears that they would have to get a search warrant from a lawyer before they could demand the info from a ISP... A little harder for them, they have to actually do some work, and the judge may tell them to mess off... I'm pretty sure it could happen in most civilized countries out there.

--
On Arrakis: early worm gets the bird. Magister mundi sum!
Re:What about people who don't live in the US? by SoSueMe · 2003-07-23 12:24 · Score: 1

"Blair is Bush's poodle.

Linda Blair is Kate Bush's poodle???

I always wondered about those two.
Re:What about people who don't live in the US? by deuce_WI · 2003-07-23 13:11 · Score: 1

Doesn't UK stand for "Users of Kazaa?"
Maybe the RIAA has it all wrong and needs to go pick on the UK peeps instead.
-d3UCe
Re:What about people who don't live in the US? by bbh · 2003-07-23 13:46 · Score: 2, Informative

Wired has an article actually about an RIAA equivalent in Spain that is planning to try to go after users in Spain.

Spanish Firms Target File Traders

bbh
Re:What about people who don't live in the US? by doublesix · 2003-07-23 13:50 · Score: 1

Spain's out:

http://www.wired.com/news/digiwood/0,1412,59720,00 .html

In what is being touted as the largest legal action of its kind, a Spanish law firm has announced plans to file a copyright-violation complaint against 4,000 individuals who allegedly have swapped illegal files over peer-to-peer networks in that country.
Re:What about people who don't live in the US? by The+Cydonian · 2003-07-23 14:02 · Score: 1

The Phonographic Association, or whatever you've got out there in the UK, has gone on record saying that it wont sue Kazaa users for now, but that it'll keep that option open for later.
Forgot where I read that sorry; cant give links.

--
More than mere navel gazing.
Re:What about people who don't live in the US? by dammitallgoodnamesgo · 2003-07-23 16:06 · Score: 1

The IPA (British equivalent of the RIAA) have specifically said that they won't go after individual users. You're safe, for now at least.
Re:What about people who don't live in the US? by BeerSlurpy · 2003-07-23 16:22 · Score: 1

That sucks. There are a lot of good servers in spain. Hopefully none of them keep logs.
Re:What about people who don't live in the US? by cyberformer · 2003-07-23 19:27 · Score: 1

This situation may not last much longer. The EU copyright directive demands that all EU countries pass a DMCA-like law, and groups like WIPO and WTO are constantly pressing all countries worldwide to introduce oppressive laws.
Re:What about people who don't live in the US? by PhotoBoy · 2003-07-23 19:33 · Score: 1

Oh good! Share MP3s and get sued, share kiddy porn and get away with it again and again!

Couldn't all these resources be put to better use?
Re:What about people who don't live in the US? by Malcontent · 2003-07-23 19:55 · Score: 1

Regardless. You are still abusing the moderation system. It should be easy enough to prevent people from moderating the same author twice.

--
War is necrophilia.
Re:What about people who don't live in the US? by cortana · 2003-07-23 20:27 · Score: 1

The BPI is quoted in this story as saying that litigation cannot be ruled out for Brits.

Interesting is that the BPI have sued those nice people at Easygroup for charging users £5 to download and burn a CD of MP3s; I'd have thought that Internet Cafés (like regular ISPs, or phone companies) wouldn't be responsible for preventing their users from breaking the law.

Of course, they might have specifically advertised the £5-for-a-CD-of-music service, or perhaps our laws WRT the protection of communications service providers are different from those in America... one of the consequences of reading Slashdot is that you end up knowing more about the US legal system than your own!
Re:What about people who don't live in the US? by sdflkgfljdqshgjkqsfg · 2003-07-23 20:43 · Score: 1

I live in the UK, can these lawsuits be filed over here from the RIAA? Most probably. At least till T.Blair resigns.

--
how does one change his /. id?
Re:What about people who don't live in the US? by ScouseMouse · 2003-07-23 21:15 · Score: 1

It is just a matter of time i think. Even without the new trade agreements being forced through, piracy is still a crime. Fortunately the UK courts and EU courts in general dont yet consider piracy to be destroying the fabric of the civilised world :-) so you would likely get off with a couple of hundred Euros fine and court costs (Which shouldnt be more than a few thousand Euros at most). The punishments are only likely to get serious the second time (Certainly courts in the UK dont like people ignoring their cease and desist rulings) I suspect any UK arm of the RIAA (RIAUK?) would get tired of this relatively quickly. This probably also means its not worth their while until they have pretty much exhausted the honeypot of litigation in the US. In the UK, we also have the data protection act which should prevent people like this forcing ISPs to divulge information unless they are being traced for a very serious criminal offence (Ie, terrorism, kiddie porn, ect) I dont know how this works in practice though. I suspect most European judges would look down on the threats being thrown around in america to "destroy these people" and punish accordingly. Certainly a solicitor friend of mine said that such threats could be argued to imply a real threat to the physical wellbeing of the person involved and could seriously backfire in the UK. Fortuately I dont use file sharing programs (I occasionally take my computer in to work, and using these programs on their network is an automatic firing offence), but i know a lot of people who do.
Re:What about people who don't live in the US? by Stone+Pony · 2003-07-23 22:45 · Score: 1

Of course, they might have specifically advertised the £5-for-a-CD-of-music service

Indeed they did
Re:What about people who don't live in the US? by cosmo7 · 2003-07-24 01:19 · Score: 1

You're thinking of the BPI.

IPA is a kind of beer.
Re:What about people who don't live in the US? by BobTheLawyer · 2003-07-24 01:34 · Score: 1

eh? It's no more expensive for an American to sue in the UK than it is for a Brit to sue in the UK. However suing a fileswapper is a much less attractive prospect in the UK courts than it is in the US. Under English law a copyright holder has no chance of claiming the $thousands per song that the RIAA is in the States.
Re:What about people who don't live in the US? by padukes · 2003-07-24 01:56 · Score: 1

The Recording Industry Association of America's purpose is to protect the interests of the american music industry. If it feels those interests are violated outside of the US there is nothing stopping them from pursuing those violators.

In short, the industry's home is in America but its reach is global.

--

-P
Why have ONE conviction when you can have TWO?
Re:What about people who don't live in the US? by brogdon · 2003-07-24 03:42 · Score: 1

Well... Since the last "A" in RIAA stands for America, you probably wouldn't get sued by the RIAA.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that. It was the MPAA that went after that poor kid in Norway who wrote DeCSS after all. I imagine the RIAA would be eager to make sure that people in all countries that have decent extradition treaties with the US knew they should fear a lawsuit.

--

This tagline is umop apisdn.
Re:What about people who don't live in the US? by akb · 2003-07-24 09:00 · Score: 1

You mean like Danish Anti-Piracy Organization Bills P2P Users?

Why don't they just put up tip jars? by Thinkit3 · 2003-07-23 11:21 · Score: 1

Instead of suing. They would get much more money. The tips could be split to promoters as well (that's just as important as making the music). This was proposed a few days ago in, of all places, the highly mainstream USA Today editorial.

--
-Libertarian secular transhumanist

Re:Why don't they just put up tip jars? by SoupaFly · 2003-07-23 11:45 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.
Re:Why don't they just put up tip jars? by evilempireinc · 2003-07-23 12:11 · Score: 2, Funny

I can see it now: 'We are keeping 60% of the donations to pay for the cost of taking donations'

--
we can rebuild this sig. we have the technology
Re:Why don't they just put up tip jars? by Doom+Ihl'+Varia · 2003-07-23 12:17 · Score: 5, Funny

60% That's a little low for the RIAA. Make it 117%. Actually charge the artist.

Interesting that by stevezero · 2003-07-23 11:21 · Score: 5, Interesting

They named the default username given to those who install Kazaa Lite...

So I wonder how many people that covers?

Re:Interesting that by binarybum · 2003-07-23 11:26 · Score: 1

no, I don't think they do. that would be @k-lite.tk
or @kazaalite I believe.

--
ôó
Re:Interesting that by DeionXxX · 2003-07-23 11:32 · Score: 1

k-lite.tk is the official website of Kazaa Lite K++
Re:Interesting that by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-23 11:36 · Score: 2, Funny

Whoever has the IP address they pick owes billions for all the other anonymous cowards who could not pick an original nick.

--
busy renaming my mp3 file extention to fu2
Re:Interesting that by shibbydude · 2003-07-23 11:37 · Score: 1

Nope, it is still @kazaa. If you don't use the program, just don't comment on its details. The default username has changed over the years, but it has always been @kazaa.

--
We're only gonna die from our own arrogance, that's why we might as well take our time...
Re:Interesting that by ArsonSmith · 2003-07-23 11:44 · Score: 5, Funny

I can see it now:

Bailiff: would munkeyspanker21 please take the stand
please place your right....errr uhhh....left hand here.

hehe

--
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
Re:Interesting that by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-23 11:45 · Score: 1, Funny

I hope CourTV covers the cases when they finally go after irc file traders.

"All rise for the case in the matter of the RIAA vs. H0RNYCOCKINYERASS69"
Re:Interesting that by Skuld-Chan · 2003-07-23 11:59 · Score: 1

Thats ME! Oh crap!
Re:Interesting that by OverlordQ · 2003-07-23 12:10 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.
Re:Interesting that by Flower · 2003-07-23 12:37 · Score: 1

"All right. Which one of you is munkeyspanker21?"

"I'm munkeyspanker21!"

"NO! I'm munkeyspanker21!"

"I'm munkeyspanker21!"

--
I don't want knowledge. I want certainty. - Law, David Bowie
Re:Interesting that by Eminor · 2003-07-23 13:20 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.
Re:Interesting that by GordoSlasher · 2003-07-23 14:47 · Score: 4, Funny

They named the default username given to those who install Kazaa Lite...

So I wonder how many people that covers?

They track a combination of username and IP address. For the default username, the IP address they have on record is 127.0.0.1. If that's not the address of your computer, you're safe!
Re:Interesting that by Kelz · 2003-07-23 19:39 · Score: 1

Imagine the lucky bastards who are using the one they are going after's IP address as a proxy!
Re:Interesting that by gl4ss · 2003-07-23 21:09 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.
Re:Interesting that by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-24 00:01 · Score: 1, Funny

You can just hear this in court now...

"127.0.0.1 ... is this not the IP address of your computer?"

"Well..no sir..."

"Well i suggest to you that is not true sir, does your computer not contain what is known as a loopback address?"

"Yes but.."

"And would this be address be 127.0.0.1 that is on your computer?"

"Err yes but.."

"Your honour i have no further questions"

PrImED
Re:Interesting that by KillerHamster · 2003-07-24 00:43 · Score: 1

My computer's a Commodore 64. I'm safe!
Re:Interesting that by anthony_dipierro · 2003-07-24 04:59 · Score: 1

If they did do it properly, then why are usernames even listed?

Because the username is an alias for the person being sued, the IP address is not. The names could just as easily have been "John Doe #1," "John Doe #2," etc. When a subpoena against "John Doe" is granted, it doesn't mean that everyone named John Doe is being chharged. Names are not identifiers to a person, since many people can have the same name and anyone can chhange their name at anytime.
Re:Interesting that by djcapelis · 2003-07-24 14:31 · Score: 1

Being the kernel junkie I am... I poped open the kernel config options...

You can just turn off the kernel networking options... granted... X won't work, but that won't be a problem. (could also just hack the code to use a different range for lo...)

Hey, and if you turn off networking, even the RIAA can't track you down for filesharing!

(HINT: use sneakernet (like your shoes...))

--
I touch computers in naughty places

k-lite users.. by DeionXxX · 2003-07-23 11:22 · Score: 1

www.k_lite.tk_Kazaa_Lite@Kazaa was on the list... that has to be like atleast 500-1000 people who just left their Kazaa Lite name default.

So at least there's some suspense still for the K-Lite users.

Re:k-lite users.. by CptChipJew · 2003-07-23 11:24 · Score: 2, Troll

Kazaa Lite now claims to block IP address from the RIAA and other known anti-p2p companies. And the feature is left on by default, so maybe the Kazaa-Lite users aren't in as much hot water as the Kazaa users.

--
Vonal Declosion
Re:k-lite users.. by DeionXxX · 2003-07-23 11:26 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.
Re:k-lite users.. by CptChipJew · 2003-07-23 11:32 · Score: 1

Or by not sharing files. They seem to only care about the big sharers, or so they say.

But yeah, on the whole I think you're right.

--
Vonal Declosion
Re:k-lite users.. by Martin+Blank · 2003-07-23 12:04 · Score: 1

Actually, having just installed 2.41 this morning, I noticed blocking of IP addresses was off by default in the installer. Dunno if it is then enabled later, as I enabled blocking, but it was most certainly unchecked when I was installing it.

--
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
Re:k-lite users.. by superpeach · 2003-07-23 12:52 · Score: 1

because the RIAA would never think of just using some free dialup account for seeing what they can find on kazaa?
Re:k-lite users.. by Ed_Moyse · 2003-07-23 21:37 · Score: 1

How is this a troll?!?

So File Swappers *are* Terrorists by jpetts · 2003-07-23 11:22 · Score: 5, Funny

The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) has now issued more than 911 subpoenas

Reckon the RIAA's trying to make a point here?

--
Call me old fashioned, but I like a dump to be as memorable as it is devastating - Bender

Re:So File Swappers *are* Terrorists by Zigg · 2003-07-23 12:20 · Score: 1

No, I reckon you need to go put your tinfoil hat on.
Re:So File Swappers *are* Terrorists by TapTapTheChisler · 2003-07-23 12:26 · Score: 1

I'll bet it was munkeyspanker21@Kazaa
Re:So File Swappers *are* Terrorists by leviramsey · 2003-07-23 12:34 · Score: 1

The last 3 digits of your post ID is 666, you evil bastard!

Next, the 666 will become 491...
Re:So File Swappers *are* Terrorists by dasmegabyte · 2003-07-23 13:26 · Score: 1

The last three digits of yours are 8:05...do you perchance work for TBS?

--
Hey freaks: now you're ju

This guy... by blackmonday · 2003-07-23 11:22 · Score: 4, Funny

I hereby give my blessing to anyone who wants to sue a guy with the balls to be known as: hottdude0587@Kazaa.

Re:This guy... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-23 11:30 · Score: 5, Funny

I've always been tempted to call myself "Whiffles the Wonder Pig" just to see them try to keep a straight face when they say, "Joe Smith, alias Whiffles the Wonder Pig, approach the bench!"
Re:This guy... by jfruhlinger · 2003-07-23 11:43 · Score: 1

ditto "hooterzzz".

jf
Re:This guy... by stratjakt · 2003-07-23 11:49 · Score: 5, Funny

Whiffles the wonder pig?

You must be just DYING to be anally raped in prison.

--
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Re:This guy... by tds67 · 2003-07-23 11:53 · Score: 2, Funny

I hereby give my blessing to anyone who wants to sue a guy with the balls to be known as: hottdude0587@Kazaa.

Yeah, what a pansy...makes me glad my nickname is hottdude0588@Kazaa.
Re:This guy... by kaseyH · 2003-07-23 11:55 · Score: 1

phew! hottdude0586@kazaa did not make it....still safe for now... now back to downloading por....er "files"
Re:This guy... by EvilTwinSkippy · 2003-07-23 12:50 · Score: 2, Interesting

As Evil Twin Skippy I could always demand they address the proper alter ego.
Mr. Skippy...
Which one?
The Evil Twin
He isn't here right now...

--
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
Re:This guy... by Pseudonym · 2003-07-23 12:54 · Score: 1

This reminds me of an old Jimeoin routine.

The story goes that at school, he got his friends to call him "bitch sex demigod from hell", to which he would always reply "aw, man, don't call me that!" Before long, everyone was teasing him with this name. "Oooh! Bitch sex demigod from hell!"

This has even better possibilities than "Whiffles the Wonder Pig", I reckon.

--
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
Re:This guy... by AsmordeanX · 2003-07-23 12:56 · Score: 1

Hey, I used to use "Mr Poodle Eats His Noodles"
Re:This guy... by Lord+Kano · 2003-07-23 14:06 · Score: 1

I've been thinking that it would be great to be known as "The_Greatest_Lover_In_The_World" on Kazaa for that very reason.

LK

--
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Re:This guy... by Exiler · 2003-07-23 14:09 · Score: 1

So you could be tried for purjury too?

--
Banaaaana!
Re:This guy... by Lord+Kano · 2003-07-23 14:32 · Score: 1

So you could be tried for purjury too?

Not at all. When they ask me "Are you known to the Kazaa community as 'The Greatest Lover In The World'?".

I can answer "Well counselor, you and Ms. Rosen are certainly entitled to your own opinions, but I'm a bit more modest than that."

LK

--
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano

hmm... by KoalaBear33 · 2003-07-23 11:23 · Score: 5, Interesting

I wonder how all this is going to play out... I'm guessing most will settle out of court like that guy they cite (who paid $12000).

RIAA will probably make more out of lawsuit settlements than through their music ;) What's the lifetime value of a consumer to RIAA? I imagine it is less than $12000...

KoalaBear33

--
......The worst thing in my life happened when the stock market started mattering more than the economy

Re:hmm... by dasmegabyte · 2003-07-23 13:29 · Score: 1

Maybe...i buy about three CDs a month, or $50. Why, i'd have to live another 20 years to exceed that, assuming they don't raise their prices. No way will I live that long!

--
Hey freaks: now you're ju
Re:hmm... by madmancarman · 2003-07-23 14:01 · Score: 3, Interesting

RIAA will probably make more out of lawsuit settlements than through their music ;) What's the lifetime value of a consumer to RIAA? I imagine it is less than $12000...
Yes, but I want to know what their long-term sales (and losses) will be like when people like me, who used to buy music regularly, decide never to buy it again. For example, Jane's Addiction's new album came out yesterday and even though I have three of their previous albums (all legit), I have no intention of buying this one simply because it was put out by a member of the RIAA. It's painfully clear that music purchases support a draconian industry with utter contempt for its customers more than they feed "starving artists".
As the RIAA starts suing individuals for even minor infractions, it won't be a stretch for them to be perceived by regular customers as 'evil', and when you attack and alienate customers, your overall business model is doomed. You can't tell me that every one of those people sharing mp3s has stopped buying music completely, and once they're sued, you know all their family & friends are going to stop buying music too.
It's really too bad that it would be impossible to figure out how many people have stopped buying music because of the actions of the RIAA. Any poll on Slashdot would be heavily slanted. Maybe at a concert they should ask people as they're standing in line whether or not they plan on buying music in the future if the RIAA will sue them for sharing 10 mp3s over p2p.
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Gandhi

--
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Gandhi
Re:hmm... by cappadocius · 2003-07-23 14:19 · Score: 1

I have already spent the greater part of a thousand dollars on music this year. I am sure my value to the RIAA will far exceed $12,000 if I come near life expectancy.
Plus you must assume that a large portion of that 12,000 goes to lawyer fees. I doubt it is as easy to screw lawyers as it is to screw musicians.

--
omnia tua castra sunt nobis
Re:hmm... by bastion_xx · 2003-07-23 14:40 · Score: 1

New Janes? Sweet! On my way to Amazon to purchase! Unless, of course, it's available via iTunes....
Re:hmm... by __aamkky7574 · 2003-07-23 20:57 · Score: 1

For example, Jane's Addiction's new album came out yesterday and even though I have three of their previous albums (all legit), I have no intention of buying this one simply because it was put out by a member of the RIAA.
Just so that they get the message, I'd suggest you mail/e-mail the band's official address and state your reasons why you're not buying the album. Hopefully feedback like that from bands might have some effect.
P.
Re:hmm... by Alphi1 · 2003-07-24 00:07 · Score: 1

I have already spent the greater part of a thousand dollars on music this year. I am sure my value to the RIAA will far exceed $12,000 if I come near life expectancy.
I don't know about you, but if I had to pay the RIAA $12,000 and get nothing for my money, I'd be MUCH more inclined to "claim" the free downloads of their music, as I'd (obviously) already paid them for it anyways.

True Names by PotatoMan · 2003-07-23 11:24 · Score: 4, Interesting

It's been well established that I'm paranoid, but is anyone else bothered by the number of (apparent) True Names in the list?

Re:True Names by cspenn · 2003-07-23 11:29 · Score: 1

Funny, GeorgeWBush@Kazaa makes for some wonderful speculation... ... like, what was he downloading when the bombs were dropping on Iraq?

--
Subscribe for free to my show!
Re:True Names by InterruptDescriptorT · 2003-07-23 11:40 · Score: 3, Funny

like, what was he downloading when the bombs were dropping on Iraq?

Perhaps it was You Dropped A Bomb On Me, by the Gap Band? :-)

--
Karma: Excellent Birds (mostly as a result of listening to Laurie Anderson)
Re:True Names by Dijital · 2003-07-23 11:48 · Score: 1

Why, "Rock me like a Hurricane" or "We're not Gonna Take It" of course.

--
Diji
"I came, I saw, I WTF'd!"
Re:True Names by elmegil · 2003-07-23 11:48 · Score: 1

War! Hunh! Good God! What is it GOOD FOR? (Absolutely Nothing)

--
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
Re:True Names by Martin+Blank · 2003-07-23 12:09 · Score: 1

Close. It was more likely Drop Da Bomb.

YVAN EHT NIOJ!

--
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
Re:True Names by marko123 · 2003-07-23 12:30 · Score: 1

Not really, because I'm sure my spam is not coming from the True Names(tm) that it says it is.

--
http://pcblues.com - Digits and Wood
Re:True Names by Mitchell+Mebane · 2003-07-23 13:48 · Score: 1

Nah, I bet it was Political Science, by Randy Newman. ;-)

--

The roots of education are bitter, but the fruit is sweet.
--Aristotle
Re:True Names by Theaetetus · 2003-07-24 08:41 · Score: 1

It's been well established that I'm paranoid, but is anyone else bothered by the number of (apparent) True Names in the list?
I was, but then I thought about the case...
RIAA: Are you "Mike@kazaa.com"?
Mike: I'm A Mike.
RIAA: Are you the Mike?
Mike: Nope, I'm just A Mike. Unless you can prove that there's only one "Mike@Kazaa.com" and that that "Mike" only had one IP address and that that matches my IP address at the time (my IP is dynamic), then I've got nothing more to say to you... I'm not the Mike you're looking for.
Maybe? Could work. Munkeyspanker21 is a little more difficult, since there probably aren't more than a few dozen with that name. ;)
-T

Check out PACER!!! by Kr3m3Puff · 2003-07-23 11:24 · Score: 4, Informative

Everyone should check out PACER. It is free to register and if fairly cheap to access, and only costs $.07 a page and you will only get billed if you access over $10 worth of information. You can get access to TONS of information about US Court cases.

I never knew there was such easy accesible tools to information that the government owes us anyways. Takes about a week for them to e-mail you a password, and you are free to register as a individual citizen!

--
D.O.U.O.S.V.A.V.V.M.

Re:Check out PACER!!! by embedded_C · 2003-07-23 12:27 · Score: 1

Actually, since everyone on /. reads all the articles and all linked documents, the above post is redundant. We have already checked out PACER because we RTFA, right?
:)
Re:Check out PACER!!! by Kr3m3Puff · 2003-07-24 14:45 · Score: 1

True, I hadn't thought of that, but I was going to give up after a minute until I found out that if you really dig all you need to do is fill out a form and they will send you off a login ID. I assumed that other /.ers would too, being the neurotic crowd we are!

Pretty damn cool. Now I am waiting my week until I get my Username and ID!!!!!

--
D.O.U.O.S.V.A.V.V.M.

The list: by kid_wonder · 2003-07-23 11:25 · Score: 1, Informative

Aab@Kazaa, boggs2@Kazaa, allstatetide@Kazaa, Amissann2@Kazaa, AngelaMikesell@Kazaa, anon39023@Kazaa, anthonybotz@Kazaa, aoster1@Kazaa, Ariel167@fileshare, asheejojo@Kazaa, Ashley@Grokster, azn_bahamut@Kazaa, B.B.C@Kazaa, badandy@Kazaa, Benchy987@Kazaa, Bigeasssy24@Kazaa, Bigpimpinitopey187@Kazaa, bigjohnhc@Kazaa, blazel@Kazaa, bluemonkey13@Kazaa, Boilermaker1214@Kazaa, brentandjonna@Kazaa, brich410@Kazaa, budman5000@Kazaa, Bush323@Kazaa, cado@Kazaa, Carolyn@fileshare, Casal@Kazaa, cbegalle@Kazaa, cherriie@Kazaa, CLOVER77@Kazaa, Corky101@Kazaa, Cortez1023@Kazaa, CowgirlMDR@Kazaa, crazyface@Kazaa, d-dubb@Grokster, dallass@Kazaa, daredevil@Kazaa, DEFAINCE357@Kazaa, definitely_ditzy@Kazaa, dimples0530@Kazaa, dmadigan@Kazaa, dotzbadger@Kazaa, dubcha@Kazaa, dulfingurl2@Kazaa, Dyellagurl22@Kazaa, Dziion@Kazaa, eddieh@Kazaa, emmi4@Kazaa, enbbarnes@Kazaa, ERIKA@Kazaa, felicia_alvarado@Kazaa, flowerpower0818@fileshare, fox3j@Kazaa, freckles72587@Kazaa, fritzbuilding@Kazaa, Generalby@Kazaa, Ghettobootybabe8@Kazaa, h2ochamp@kazaa, harris@Kazaa, heather_thee_amazing@Kazaa, hoami316@Kazaa, hooterzzz@Kazaa, hottdude0587@Kazaa, , HyDang@Kazaa, ilovemydez@Kazaa, indepunk74@Kazaa, inthisroom@Kazaa, jamonie@Kazaa, JE_WV@Kazaa, Jeff@Kazaa, Jessica@Kazaa, jim@Kazaa, joanjett@Kazaa, joe@Kazaa, jomada@Kazaa, JustineRiot@Kazaa, kelney12@Kazaa, kenne007@Kazaa, KrAyZiE@Kazaa, ktgurl13@Grokster, kunstrukter@Kazaa, ladypimp8669@Kazaa, laurelbean@Kazaa, leahpate@Kazaa, LiLHuNnIe1480@Kazaa, Lisweet@Kazaa, Lyssy348@Kazaa, madkirk@fileshare, Marge4131@Kazaa, Marla262@Kazaa, mgokey@Kazaa, mike@Kazaa, Motivator@Kazaa, munkeyspanker21@Kazaa, nikki@Kazaa, Niltiak@Kazaa, Nodopefor2@Kazaa, paulina@Kazaa, pdia@Kazaa, PDJ1846@Kazaa, Playgirlmama@Kazaa, Prtythug23@Kazaa, qjade512@Kazaa, rebecca_m_122@Kazaa, rips42@Kazaa, rochelle@Kazaa, RockOn182@Kazaa, samlionofzino@Kazaa, shakobe@Kazaa, shonga84@Kazaa, sk8boyben@Kazaa, sneil@Kazaa, soccerdog@Kazaa, StolenSi@Kazaa, sus@Kazaa, Sweet3114@Kazaa, sweetthang1421@Kazaa ,TheLastReal7@Kazaa, TMONEYNDHIZOUSE@kazaa, Tyler@Kazaa, Unit984@Kazaa, Westly_NoGood@Kazaa, www.k_lite.tk_Kazaa_Lite@Kazaa

--

"Oh, you hate your job? There's a support group for that, it's called everyone, they meet at the bar."

Re:The list: by makoffee · 2003-07-23 11:29 · Score: 1

joan jett? holy crap bat man?!?! ;)

--
-makoffee
Re:The list: by PhoenixFlare · 2003-07-23 11:49 · Score: 1

Yes, it's very possible. I wouldn't put it past the RIAA not to know that fact, though.
Re:The list: by rossjudson · 2003-07-23 12:23 · Score: 1

How about those of you who do NOT live in a future police state get right on your favorite P2P application and log in with these user names? That oughta confuse things at least a little.
Re:The list: by Wog · 2003-07-23 12:50 · Score: 1

Riiiiight...

You'd have to take their IP addresses, too...

oooh scary... by makoffee · 2003-07-23 11:25 · Score: 2, Insightful

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

Re:oooh scary... by dmaxwell · 2003-07-24 00:35 · Score: 1

When are they going to learn that we wont stop sharing files, we'll just keep switching to more obscure networks.

Thats just good old fashioned security by obscurity. Since the primary purpose of the RIAA's actions are public relations then they can really put a scare into people by busting a few from the "obscure" networks. And yes, this has to be a PR move. There are millions of P2P users. They can't sue them all so they are going to sue a cross-section of large to small traders on a variety of networks.

If you insist on using P2P "safely" in this climate then you are going to have to wait for the next generation of P2P apps. Those will at least attempt to engineer in "plausable deniability".

time to move.... by poil11 · 2003-07-23 11:25 · Score: 1

if your name is on there move to canada.

Re:time to move.... by FrankoBoy · 2003-07-23 12:18 · Score: 1

Or to Sealand.

--

United States of America, good ol' backers of world peace.

Always referred to as theft by McQuaid · 2003-07-23 11:25 · Score: 5, Insightful

First line of the techtv story...

The recording industry has launched a sweeping effort to identify and shut down individual song swappers, making good on recent threats to expand its legal battle against copyright theft.

Why not say copyright infringement? If I go to your house and steal your cd, call the cops. If I am over at your house and copy your cd, theft has not occurred. It's copyright infringement or commonly referred to as piracy. But the media and latest barrage of commericals would have you believe it's still theft.

I know everyone here know's this, but it's always bugged me.

And in true ./ fashion, that's all I've read of the article.

Re:Always referred to as theft by perimorph · 2003-07-23 11:31 · Score: 1

(article snippet) recent threats to expand its legal battle against copyright theft.

Cool, I didn't know I could commit copyright theft! I want the copyright to "Hey Jude"!! How can I do this?
Re:Always referred to as theft by Jafafa+Hots · 2003-07-23 11:35 · Score: 5, Funny

I guess if I'm guilty of copyright theft, that means I now hold the copyrights and THEY owe ME money??

--
This space available.
Re:Always referred to as theft by McQuaid · 2003-07-23 11:38 · Score: 1

Yeah I realized that after I submitted. When will I learn to preview... And the ./ typo I blame on linux ;)
Re:Always referred to as theft by beaverfever · 2003-07-23 11:39 · Score: 1

So, on a scale of one to ten, what would you say your level of surprise is that a common journalist hasn't gotten his/her facts entirely correct? Please circle below:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

--
RTFM; please, I beg you.
Re:Always referred to as theft by Frac · 2003-07-23 11:49 · Score: 1, Flamebait

[sarcasm] and it's cracker, not hacker! jeez! get it right people! [/sarcasm]

seriously, who cares if it's called theft or copyright infringement? everyone knows they're talking about to copyright infringement when theft is mentioned in the context of file-sharing.

now that the RIAA is finally going after the people that actually share the copyrighted files (and not the ISPs), no one has an excuse to bitch anymore, so everyone jumps on this whole "copyright infringement is not theft" nit-picking.

If you're french, I'd bet you'd be one of those whining to make everyone use "courriel" instead of "e-mail". Oui?
Re:Always referred to as theft by Dave2+Wickham · 2003-07-23 11:52 · Score: 2, Funny

Damn, I've got pen all over my screen now :(
Re:Always referred to as theft by Joe+Tie. · 2003-07-23 12:05 · Score: 1

seriously, who cares if it's called theft or copyright infringement?

The Judge and Jury?

--
Everything will be taken away from you.
Re:Always referred to as theft by Dyolf+Knip · 2003-07-23 12:14 · Score: 5, Informative

Copyright theft, obviously, would be if I actually stole your copyright. By forging legal transfer documents or some such. You may not know that this is the exact stunt the RIAA tried to pull en masse a few years ago with their 'work for hire' add-on to a congressional bill. IIRC, it would have made the music produced by bands under contract with RIAA members works bought and paid for by the company. The musicians themsevles would have had nothing. That is copyright theft.

--
Dyolf Knip
Re:Always referred to as theft by jesser · 2003-07-23 12:19 · Score: 1

It's propoganda and they make a conscious effort to use it whenever they talk about copyright infringement. Read any LA Times article about file-sharing, and you'll see at least one quote where the RIAA/MPAA person uses the word "stealing" or "theft". They don't argue that copyright infringement is theft, or present it as something that can be argued. They simply refer to the infringement as theft.

As an example, here's the closing quote of an article called "House Bill Aims to Up Stakes on Piracy":

"When someone makes available to 300 million people a new movie I think it's a pretty fair assumption that at least 10 copies are going to be downloaded," said Fritz Attaway of the Motion Picture Assn. of America. "And when somebody does that, that's grand theft."

Never mind that the law he's trying to "clarify" with a new bill is a copyright law, that "grand theft" is a legal term, or that his "pretty fair assumption" is what pyramid schemes are made of.

--
The shareholder is always right.
Re:Always referred to as theft by leviramsey · 2003-07-23 12:21 · Score: 1

A Blonde Named Dave... the sequel to "A Boy Named Sue"...
Re:Always referred to as theft by leviramsey · 2003-07-23 12:24 · Score: 1

Most RIAA contracts explicitly assign the copyright to the label, anyway...
Re:Always referred to as theft by Frac · 2003-07-23 12:28 · Score: 1

and are these court documents that use the term "theft" as a substitute for "copyright infringement"?

No. Sorry, next!
Re:Always referred to as theft by Frac · 2003-07-23 12:32 · Score: 1

The point is - it doesn't matter! If you clicked your heels and tomorrow somehow everyone correctly uses the term "copyright infringement", the same file-sharers will be sued!

Sensationalistic media redefinitions mean jack shit, since the court papers will use the proper term.
Re:Always referred to as theft by Frac · 2003-07-23 12:40 · Score: 3, Interesting

That is copyright theft.

Thanks for the clarification. But it still doesn't matter jack squat. When the media talks about "theft" in the context of file-sharing, everyone knows they're talking about the mass copyright-infringement of media that happens on p2p networks.

What you're doing here is nit-picking because of sour grapes. There's no substantial damage being done to society because of these misappropriation of terms, since everyone knows they are talking about copyright infringement. And in court, the file sharers will be SUED under copyright infringement. Not theft, not copyright theft, not grand theft, but copyright infringement.

headline - RIAA sues the Universities
slashdot - that's bullshit, they should be suing the file-sharers! why do they keep getting it wrong? assholes!

headline - RIAA sues the P2P software makers
slashdot - that's bullshit, they should be suing the file-sharers! why do they keep getting it wrong? assholes!

headline - RIAA sues the ISPs
slashdot - that's bullshit, they should be suing the file-sharers! why do they keep getting it wrong? assholes!

headline - RIAA sues the file-sharers
slashdot - that's bullshit, they should uh.. uh.. uh.. stop using the term "theft"! why do they keep getting it wrong? assholes!
Re:Always referred to as theft by irc.goatse.cx+troll · 2003-07-23 13:10 · Score: 1

Court papers are based on laws, the same laws passwed by the congress people we elect based on what we know which we learn from sensationalistic media. These people are sued regardless, but whats wrong is that currently there are people that see them as bad people when they did nothing wrong.

--
Pain lasts, kid. Its how you know you're alive. Sometimes I think this growing up thing is just pain management-TheMaxx
Re:Always referred to as theft by ryusen · 2003-07-23 13:37 · Score: 1

It may be that everyone knows the difference, but what it does is create a negative image to make the riaa look better. It's a typical word game used by everyone to put their side in a better light. The RIAA goes around calling copyright infringers "theives" to make infringement have a more negative connotation. Much like how many closed source advocates will call open source "communist." For the simplereason that communist carries a negative connotation in this and many countries. It matters because this like many other cases, just might be won in the media.

--

I believe sex is highly over rated... unless it involves me
Re:Always referred to as theft by Zebbers · 2003-07-23 13:44 · Score: 2, Informative

you underestimate the power of words to ignorant people

phrasing is everything

thats why people get paid big bucks to devise headlines commercials etc.
Re:Always referred to as theft by dasmegabyte · 2003-07-23 13:57 · Score: 4, Insightful

Of course. And it should be okay for the media to use terms like "convicted murderer OJ Simpson," it's okay because even though he wasn't convicted of murder, we all know he should have been.

You see, that's what you're saying. That the media is allowed to lie and misuse terms if we "know what they mean." This is untrue. It's a form of the type of subtle spin and bias that big media conglomeration promises us it won't do. "Copyright theft" in this context is as much a misnomer as "Consumer Broadband Protection Act."

Besides, it has yet to be proven that trading mp3s is truly copyright infringment, let alone theft. We're merely assuming it is, because lower courts have said so. The same lower courts that readily ignore supreme court judgments on flag burning and abortion. The supreme court, the only court that really matters in terms of what's constitutional, has yet to speak definitively on the matter. Probably because it hasn't had reason to yet...people's constitutional rights aren't really being infringed upon to the point that they had to include that in their busy schedule.

But they will be. Probably with this case.

You see, the RIAA would like us to believe that copyright means only they have the right to "copy." That's not what the word means -- "Copy" refers to lyrics, similar to the words "ad copy." Copyright gives a person the rights to performance and production of a song. I copyright my songs so others won't turn them into hits and not give me a cut. I copyright them so they can't be used in movies without my permission (and a cut).

It doesn't necessarily give me a right to control home users who are putting my songs on a mix CD. And I shouldn't (and don't) care, because that doesn't infringe on my rights as a musician. And since I'm a self promoting independent artist, who needs all the exposure he can get, I appreciate this kind of publicity. Mix makers are a musician's best friend. Which is why so many labels give out their singles on mp3s for free...sub pop and coup de tat are two off the top of my head.

The main reason the RIAA wants to abolish file trading is that it gives users a medium to learn about new artists that their members (who include the same labels involved in payola scams, price fixing and very few independent labels) can not control. Which means people will be spending their money not on RIAA albums, but on independents. Activity we've alreadt seen. And as radio becomes EVEN LESS diverse, and members scale back their releases EVEN FURTHER to please shareholders who don't like the libertine Rolling Stone idea of funding albums that might lost money, file sharing will (and has) become a primary way for people to discover new music. New music which doesn't have a big SONY label glued to the back. And that's apparently a Bad Thing. Because if artists jump to the indies, they'll be making 3, 5, even 7 dollars per album sold instead of 1 dollar kept to offset production costs and held in case of returns. They'll be impossible to control by corralling them into a culture of drugs and debt to ensure their willingness to sign shockingly one sided contracts. And then there will be no money to pay the worthless A&R men to manufacture singles!

--
Hey freaks: now you're ju
Re:Always referred to as theft by Frac · 2003-07-23 14:13 · Score: 1

right.. and the copyright infringement happening on Kazaa is supposed to have a positive connotation?

this isn't some project gutenberg issue. This isn't some Sonny Bono issue. This is the RIAA pursuing after people that shared stuff they don't own for free for everyone else to copy. They broke the law, and now they're going to get in trouble for it. Why are they supposed to be the good guys?
Re:Always referred to as theft by Frac · 2003-07-23 14:17 · Score: 1

duh.

like I mentioned in another post, it's a feat on its own to try and paint these filesharers in a positive light. they shared stuff that they didn't own copyright for, and as a result they're going to get in trouble for it. if they did commit copyright infringement, then boo fucking-hoo, they did something illegal.
Re:Always referred to as theft by Frac · 2003-07-23 15:07 · Score: 1

It's a form of the type of subtle spin and bias that big media conglomeration promises us it won't do.

They promised us they won't do? When, and where? EVERYONE has a spin and bias when they present themselves. You just subtlely implied in your post that OJ Simpson should be convicted, even though you know fully well you were sucked into the spin and hype of everything surrounding it, and you can't look at it with unbiased view.

"Copyright theft" in this context is as much a misnomer as "Consumer Broadband Protection Act."

No it's not the same thing.

See my point? You just dragged something similar yet different, in order to try and make a point. You just tried to skew my viewpoint by associating my bias against the Consumer Broadband Protection Act with filing suits against file-sharers.

What RIAA and you just made are called ANALOGIES - when you try to explain a concept by associating similar concepts in order to speed up the learning curve. That's why they usually say things like "it's like theft" - because the general public should know that while it's not exactly like theft, where tangible objects are being taken away without permission, the copyright holder's right to distribute has been violated.

Besides, it has yet to be proven that trading mp3s is truly copyright infringment, let alone theft.

You just tried to subtlely spin and bias everyone that reads your post. It's not TRADING that happens on Kazaa. Trading happens when there is an exchange of two physical objects. On file-sharing networks, COPIES of the files are being made. (Nit-picking isn't that much fun when it backfires is it?)

It doesn't necessarily give me a right to control home users who are putting my songs on a mix CD.

See, you're spinning things again. These lawsuits have nothing to do with RIAA trying to control what we put on our mix CDs. These lawsuits have to do with the fact that there are people on Kazaa sharing copyrighted works that they do not own.

The main reason the RIAA wants to abolish file trading is that it gives users a medium to learn about new artists that their members (who include the same labels involved in payola scams, price fixing and very few independent labels) can not control.

No, you're wrong. They are targetting file sharers that have explicitly infringed on some record companies' copyright. Your tin-foil hat theory has a leg to stand on only if the file sharers were only sharing works that the RIAA does not own.
Re:Always referred to as theft by Frac · 2003-07-23 15:12 · Score: 1

If all Slashdot nerds are like that, how come your post is modded up in such short time, yet none of the insightful comments on it have been?

It's because I hacked into slashdot and removed all mods to every reply to my post. Duh.

It's time to take your pills again, buddy ;)
Re:Always referred to as theft by dasmegabyte · 2003-07-23 15:32 · Score: 4, Insightful

They are targetting file sharers that have explicitly infringed on some record companies' copyright.

Hey, you're welcome to your opinion, no matter how wrong it is. But the fact is that the argument supporting your opinion depends on the file trading being an infringing activity, which is a legal statement that has yet to be proven.

I mean, if you want to get REALLY technical (and by trying to make a distinction between "sharing" and "copying" when in the digital world the only difference is a change of state, you ARE trying to get technical), MP3s may fall under a different area of fair use: that protecting the right to establish works in the style of other works. A 128 kbit ogg file is not a "copy" of the copyrighted work on CD -- it's a digital interpretation of it which eliminates at least 90% of the original and bears as much resemblence to it on the data level as a cassette does to a record. The RIAA says it doesn't matter, but they're kind of an interested party, aren't they? Maybe we should let the courts decide, though that will never stop us from freely trading our opinions -- no matter how wrong they are. No, those are protected in the constitution, and are subject to fair use ;).

--
Hey freaks: now you're ju
Re:Always referred to as theft by Paradise+Pete · 2003-07-23 15:41 · Score: 1

if I'm guilty of copyright theft, that means I now hold the copyrights
That's right. And now if you turn yourself into the police, then you'd be the police and you could arrest them.
Re:Always referred to as theft by moncyb · 2003-07-23 15:48 · Score: 1

So you are saying Universities should be sued because they offer internet service to their students? They do this so students will have another resource to do research and work on projects. Maybe they should be forced to burn their libraries down too, because we all know some books have illegal content, so why take the risk?
Also, where are they suing file-sharers. The only cases I've heard of were the ones where they sued some students for making generic search engines, and put on copyright infringement as an afterthought. If you would've bothered to read the article, you'd know they weren't suing anyone here, they just gathered the names and addresses of a bunch of P2P users without judicial review. For all any of us know, none of these people were sharing the RIAA's music. Maybe some RIAA employees just wanted some random people to stalk.
The people behind calling copyright infringement "theft" are the same ones who are trying to distort copyright, trademark, and patent law into "intellectual property" where people own basic ideas.
If you write a novel about cybernetic kitties trying to take over the world, and without any knowledge whatsoever of your novel, I write a similar one and finish it ten minutes after you did, it does not mean I stole anything from you. Yet the entertainment cartel would say I did.
If I start an internet coffee house and call it "Java House", and you created a programming language called "Java", it doesn't mean I am infringing your trademark. Yet Sun Microsystems would say I did.
If you patent the basic idea of typing in a credit card number into a web form to take an order, this does not mean you have a valid patent. Yet Amazon would say you did.
Just because idiots can write crap claims down on a peice of paper doesn't mean they are right.
Re:Always referred to as theft by squared99 · 2003-07-23 16:10 · Score: 1

well said.

the riaa has circumstantial evidence at best that file swapping is affecting its bottom line in the manner they say it is, direct 'copyright theft'.

As mentioned here and elsewhere many times, there are many other reasons to account for a drop in profits. such as:

1. lack of quality output (brittny clones, yawn)
2. as you say, easy exposure to independent label/bands. in other words good ol fashioned 'competition'.
3. a lousy world economy, hello ~$20 for a cd! Some weeks thats all I got for my weekend spending cash.
4. rediscovery of older bands by a new generation (sort of like #2). which means all the dough they put into brainwas... advertising their 'latest and greatest' goes down the toilet.

thats just a few very plausible alternative explanations.

I dont agree with the attitude, expressed by some on this forum, that the RIAA has the right to do this. An 'unelected' governing body of our media and culture has the right to decide pricing (taxation essentially) and punishment outside any democratic process. hmmmm, I dont think so.

How exactly do we (citizens, consumers) demonstrate our unhappiness with the status quo?

Anyway I'm starting to ramble...
Re:Always referred to as theft by Goronmon · 2003-07-23 16:18 · Score: 1

These lawsuits have nothing to do with RIAA trying to control what we put on our mix CDs. What about the whole idea behind the coating on CD's that was supposed to prevent people from burning them onto their computers? If it wasn't for felt tip pens, you probably wouldn't be able to make those mix CDs...
Re:Always referred to as theft by Goronmon · 2003-07-23 16:25 · Score: 1

These lawsuits have nothing to do with RIAA trying to control what we put on our mix CDs.

What about the whole idea behind the coating on CD's that was supposed to prevent people from burning them onto their computers? If it wasn't for felt tip pens, you probably wouldn't be able to make those mix CDs...
Re:Always referred to as theft by clambake · 2003-07-23 16:47 · Score: 1

What you're doing here is nit-picking because of sour grapes. There's no substantial damage being done to society because of these misappropriation of terms, since everyone knows they are talking about copyright infringement.

Just like how everyone knows the "death tax" and the "estate tax" are one in the same... But people don't complain when the government want to repeal the "death" tax...

Words matter. If you shouted "copyright infringer!" to someone running away with "stolen" copies of your music, everyone would wonder what the hell, exactly, is your damn problem... But if you shout "thief!" you'll get a VERY different reaction.
Re:Always referred to as theft by clambake · 2003-07-23 16:50 · Score: 1

You see, that's what you're saying. That the media is allowed to lie and misuse terms if we "know what they mean." This is untrue. It's a form of the type of subtle spin and bias that big media conglomeration promises us it won't do.

You have inspired me. From now on, I'm no copyright infringer, no am I a common thief... I am a copyright MURDERER!
Re:Always referred to as theft by sacrilicious · 2003-07-23 16:54 · Score: 1

Thanks for the clarification. But it still doesn't matter jack squat.
It does matter, as it impacts how related cases are adjudicated. Suppose you broke into a house and slept on the sofa; the proper way to prosecute would be under laws against breaking and entering. Suppose instead that the prosecutor began a campaign inside and outside the court to label you a "racketeer"? Well, there are racketeering laws that have very different criteria and penalties than those applicable to breaking and enterings. What if the prosecutor calls you rapist? Would it be splitting hairs for you to declare that you're not a rapist? This illustrates precisely the way in which the RIAA's terminology campaign matters.

--
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
Re:Always referred to as theft by cyril3 · 2003-07-23 18:47 · Score: 1

everyone knows
And thats bullshit too. Joe and Martha Sixpack in Bumfuck Idaho wouldn't know what Copyright is if it bit them on their ample arses and the concept of mass copyright-infringement of media that happens on p2p networks has too many words and sounds dirty anyway but they sure as shit understand 'theft'. And they are gonna support anyone who tries to stamp out 'theft'.
But 'infringement', shoot they infringe the parkin and traffic laws all the time. If they are gonna start putting kids in jail for infringin on stuff then Joe and Martha are gonna start to get worried about their own arses.
It's called demonization and its the first step in the process of softening up the population before they do something really nasty to some group that might otherwise upset the ordinary citizen.
And that's why 'theft' is the wrong word to use.
Re:Always referred to as theft by Microlith · 2003-07-23 19:41 · Score: 1

You post a copy of a work that doesn't belong to you on a network and thousands download it.

It's the same as any old copyright infringement, in that you do not have permission to distribute it.

There may be some flaky legal ground if you download something and own a copy already, but the person you got it from still violated the copyright.

A song is the same song, whether it's an OGG or on CD. It is a copy, albeit in a different format. And if you're going to nitpick about the format, then you're just trying to make excuses.

Copying the song to OGG or MP3 is fair use. Posting said song on Kazaa is copyright infringement because you do not have permission to distribute that song.
Re:Always referred to as theft by minghe · 2003-07-23 21:05 · Score: 1

When the media talks about "theft" in the context of file-sharing, everyone knows they're talking about the mass copyright-infringement of media that happens on p2p networks.

We know, but far from everyone, belive me. Let's just hope a judge and jury knows, and can take the accusors by the ear if they start treading that line in court...

headline - RIAA sues the file-sharers
slashdot - that's bullshit, they should uh.. uh.. uh.. stop using the term "theft"! why do they keep getting it wrong? assholes!

I for one salute the RIAA for finally getting the point. The only ones that are legally responsible for publishing copyrighted work are the one who publishes it: The individual who put the songs up for grabs.

Now, the problem with all this is that as long as RIAA claims that it is theft we're talking about, they make the offense seem like a much more serious crime than it is.

To share a bunch of MP3 songs for downloading may be illegal. So is jaywalking on an empty street at 3 in the morning. In some countries (dunno about USA) you are actually not allowed to play a cd in public, due to copyright restrictions. Noone gives a shit. And having songs shared on Kazaa should not be treated as a more serious infrigement than that.

A filesharer has not the intent to inflict harm, niether physically or economically, and niether does he do it for his own profít. It is not proved in a court of law or through independent investigation that filesharing hurts anyones business.

We still have to see what a settlement in a P2P-users case will look like, and what amounts we're talking about. If sharing...say...50 tunes costs you more than a regular parking ticket, the words "travesty of justice" would come to mind.

--
...um...like...a sig...
Re:Always referred to as theft by raga · 2003-07-23 21:45 · Score: 1

If I am over at your house and copy your cd, theft has not occurred. It's copyright infringement or commonly referred to as piracy.

I give my friend access to my home and CD library. She shows up and listens to my music whenever she wants. Should that be defined as piracy?

I walk down to my local library, check out a CD, and listen to it at home. I certainly hope RIAA doesn't brand that as piracy.

I tape a song being played on the FM airwaves, and replay it at my lesure. That (time-shifting) too, has not (yet) been branded piracy.

I, with an extensive collection of such tapes, give my friend access to my music library. Now she can listen to them whenever she pleases. At her house. Is this piracy?

Substitute MP3s for tapes above. Same question.

We've let RIAA dictate how piracy is defined. By their definition, all sharing is piracy. The word "sharing" have been villified. Pity.

We can debate the maturity of the view that everyone on the internet is my "friend" and should be given "access" to my music files. We can also debate the sound quality of reproductions by tapes vs. MP3s. But these are irrelevant to the larger question of the cultural legacy of sharing, and its legality.

cheers- raga
--
Friends don't share with friends. RIAA slogan.
Re:Always referred to as theft by Rogerborg · 2003-07-24 00:14 · Score: 1

I am Osama bin Copyright Terrorist. And so's my wife.

--
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Re:Always referred to as theft by Rogerborg · 2003-07-24 00:16 · Score: 1

>Copying the song to OGG or MP3 is fair use.
Why? Not by analogy or extension, cite the book or case law that supports this statement. I know there is one, but I'm betting that you don't know what it is.

--
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Re:Always referred to as theft by Frodo2002 · 2003-07-24 00:54 · Score: 1

No, it is not nit-picking or sour grapes or anything else. What you are seeing is a wholesale shift in public discourse over the nature of the crime. The shift is being fostered by the govt. and the mass media. The shift from "infringement" to "theft" raises the states of the crime from civil to criminal. This is a powerful shift because it turns the perpetrators into petty criminals. It also serves to obscure the real debate that should be taking place about intellectual/creative property. As others have pointed out, America started out with a system which deliberately forced "intellectual property" into the public domain after the author was dead. But this is irrelevent to a larger debate about the way music is now supported by large recording/publishing companies who control who they sign and what gets published. Thus good musicians who don't have the lowest common denominator appeal of Britany Spears cannot actually get a contract. There is also another lesser publicised debate about a much more insidious problem to do with scientific intellectual property and in particular human genes. We are going to be pretty fucked one day when we discover some company owns the rights to our entire genome.

Now, I have absolutely no sympathy for file sharers who get prosecuted by the RIAA for copyright infringement (and no, it is not theft and anyone who uses that word I am going to pick a fight with). I do however think that there are some pretty scary things going on in the corridors of power right now. The problem is that these two debates have gotten mixed up with each other.
Re:Always referred to as theft by dasmegabyte · 2003-07-24 01:54 · Score: 1

"Lower" courts traditionally do a terrible and often biased interpretation of the law. That's how a man in Chicago was kept in prison for some ungodly amount of time for burning a flag despite the Supreme Court's multiple decisions saying this was not illegal.

I mean, the local courts are essential, but when it comes to blazing new ground, it's all about the appeals process. Could have been that had any of these cases -- sampling, unauthorized parody, napster, etc -- gone all the way, they may have been overturned. But in almost all cases, the parties have given up, seeing that it was easier to admit defeat than to keep up the expense in fighting it.

Of course, a guy in prison has little else to do BUT fight. So people jailed for sharing mp3s are going to be the key to finding out, once and for all, what the Supreme Court Delphis have to say on the matter.

--
Hey freaks: now you're ju
Re:Always referred to as theft by Rogerborg · 2003-07-24 02:48 · Score: 1

>Why not just say, "Na na na na na" and get it over with?
Socrates wants to know your opinion on the best method to teach people. Do you learn better by being fed facts, or by being challenged to discover and question?

--
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Re:Always referred to as theft by Sodium+Attack · 2003-07-24 03:10 · Score: 1

MP3s may fall under a different area of fair use: that protecting the right to establish works in the style of other works.

You're trolling, right? Well, in case you're not, "style" refers to a much more general overall feel of the music, for lack of a better term. The "style" provision means that if I record and publish a rap song, the first person ever to copyright a rap song can't sue me. The Offspring's "Get a Job" is very much in the style of The Beatles' "Ob-la-di, Ob-la-da," but it's also clearly a different song, so it's not copyright infringement. If The Offspring recorded their own version of "Ob-la-di, Ob-la-da," however, without permission of the copyright holder would be infringement.

it's a digital interpretation of it which eliminates at least 90% of the original and bears as much resemblence to it on the data level as a cassette does to a record

Bingo!! And the astute observer will note that copying a vinyl record to a cassette and then selling the cassette without permission of the copyright holder is copyright infringement. Despite the fact that the data format is completely different.

--
Never take moderation advice from sigs, including this one.
Re:Always referred to as theft by ryusen · 2003-07-24 04:58 · Score: 1

i never said they were the good guys, just pointing out that it's sad we have one group of criminals trying to make another group's actions look worse than theirs...

--

I believe sex is highly over rated... unless it involves me
Re:Always referred to as theft by anthony_dipierro · 2003-07-24 05:05 · Score: 1

Why not say copyright infringement?

Simple. Because theft sounds worse. It's the same reason slashdot articles use the term "identity theft."
Re:Always referred to as theft by fulldecent · 2003-07-24 05:34 · Score: 1

In Soviet Russia, the police arrest YOU.
oh wait a minute...

--
-- I was raised on the command line, bitch

Naming Names On TV? by perimorph · 2003-07-23 11:26 · Score: 1

So are they saying an announcer used up an hour of air-time on TechTV to read off a list of nearly 1000 names?

No wonder I don't bother paying for cable!

Re:Naming Names On TV? by pokeyburro · 2003-07-23 12:41 · Score: 1

So are they saying an announcer used up an hour of air-time on TechTV to read off a list of nearly 1000 names?

No wonder I don't bother paying for cable!

Oh, I dunno. Wouldn't you love to have a videotape of the guy as he reads "munkeyspanker21"?

--
Lately democracy seems to be based on the skybox, the Happy Meal box, the X-box, and the idiot box.

Frankly, I'm surprised by teamhasnoi · 2003-07-23 11:26 · Score: 3, Insightful

at two things. First, there aren't any first and last name combos. "AngelaMikesell@..." might be one, but I see them all the time on urm...screenshots of Kazaa lite running.

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

Re:Frankly, I'm surprised by SoSueMe · 2003-07-23 11:48 · Score: 1

HillaryBlowsMonkeys@Riaa.com

Davy Jones must be really happy now.
Re:Frankly, I'm surprised by scrod · 2003-07-23 13:58 · Score: 1

Second, where is kazaalite? There is only one entry for that, but I know there are more users of kazaalite than that...

Oh man is that Kazaalite guy going to get it. He must be sharing several terabytes of copyrighted stuff!

Re:What I'd like to see by Chmarr · 2003-07-23 11:27 · Score: 2, Informative

What the article omitted was the IP addresses, and times, that the offenses occurred. Even disregarding the name, a lot of 'seemingly anonymous' users can be tracked down with an IP address and time.

Now what? by tedDancin · 2003-07-23 11:27 · Score: 3, Funny

What are we all going to do now that 100% of the people actually sharing files have been named? (:

--

Ladies, form queue here -->

Oh no! by cliffy2000 · 2003-07-23 11:28 · Score: 4, Funny

Joan Jett is going to jail! "joanjett@Kazaa"

Re:Oh no! by cjsnell · 2003-07-23 15:50 · Score: 1

No, she isn't. She put another dime in the jukebox.

UserID to Person Mapping by GillBates0 · 2003-07-23 11:28 · Score: 4, Interesting

What happens if you registered on Kazaa, logged in once, and then forgot to log off? You don't have to relogin again, if the password is "remembered". What if you logged on a public computer, used by thousands of users (in a school or library), who subsequently downloaded stuff without relogging in.

Not that I'm on the list, but do they intend to catch the person who actually created the account, but may not have downloaded any copyrighted material, but inadvertently forgotten to log off? Failing to log off isn't a crime by itself, nor should you be responsible if your account was used for illegal activity, unknown to you.

--
An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam

Re:UserID to Person Mapping by nicholasharbour · 2003-07-23 13:13 · Score: 1

Good point. Knowing the account is only half the battle. You still have to put them in that account at that time in question as well as in this case prove that noone else was using that account. Seriously, I don't think they can do that. Plus they need to prove intent if I am not mistaken, which is harder than it sounds even in this case. This all kinda makes me think that this is as much a public scare tactic as anything. If these users can get a good lawyer they should be able to fight it from many different angles.

--

Nearly half of all people are below average
Re:UserID to Person Mapping by mezron · 2003-07-23 14:43 · Score: 1

"nor should you be responsible if your account was used for illegal activity, unknown to you."

now really... humor me here for a second. what legal things can you (would you) download from kazaa? favorite distro iso's maybe, if the ftp server is Slashdotted or something. I honestly can't think of anything legal I'd go to kazaa to get.
Re:UserID to Person Mapping by Alphi1 · 2003-07-23 23:49 · Score: 1
humor me here for a second. what legal things can you (would you) download from kazaa? favorite distro iso's maybe, if the ftp server is Slashdotted or something. I honestly can't think of anything legal I'd go to kazaa to get.
- MP3s from independant artists who use downloading as free advertising (and who authorize downloads)
- Downloads of shareware programs that could (potentially) be a faster download than from the original host
- Old versions of shareware programs that are no longer available otherwise
- Movie previews/trailers advertising movies coming out soon
Just to name a few, off the top of my head...

Re:What I'd like to see by gbulmash · 2003-07-23 11:28 · Score: 5, Informative

They don't have to track down the hundreds. They also have IP addresses and ISP identifications for all the users, according to the article. So though the Kazaa ID is generic, they have (or claim to have) specific information to identify the person using that generic ID.

--
Start a happiness pandemic

Let us know if you're on the list & the lowdow by felonious · 2003-07-23 11:28 · Score: 5, Interesting

If you are on the list do everyone a favor including yourself and let us know here. Keep us up to date on what's occuring and how you intend to fight it. Maybe the community here can help or atleast offer solid advice on how to proceed.

If I were to end up on the list I'd damn sure let everyone know and I'd fight it with everything I have.

Remember don't fund an entity that will only sue you into financial ruin. We can hurt them where it hurts them most...in the wallet. This is the only way to make a statement. Once these lawsuits start then the shit is really going to hit the fan and the backlash will be severe.

Think of it this way...what's more important violent crime or copyright violations? Well the RIAA is sending out so many subpoenas without judicial oversight I might add that court systems are having to redistribute their workers to cover the overwhelming workload. That means less work on violent, horrible crimes and more work on copyright infractions? This is beyond ridiculous!

Join the boycott starting August 1-30th and do not buy any music in this period.

Here's a list of who to boycott Boycott List

Here's the products to boycott Products to Boycott

--
You aren't free to do anything, until you've lost everything.

Re:last name on the list: by Alizarin+Erythrosin · 2003-07-23 11:28 · Score: 2, Insightful

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

IP's by Zed2K · 2003-07-23 11:29 · Score: 2, Interesting

So they are going to match IP addresses...well the IP address they get is the address of my router. I know for a fact that my router doesn't run kazaa so how is it that I could be in trouble?

Yeah yeah, I know, stupid defense, but this is lawyers were dealing with. Probably technology inept ones too.

This whole think irks me. If I leave a cd out on my front porch and someone steals it, makes a copy, then returns it how am I liable?

I never said anyone could d/l what I have in my directories, but I also didn't say they couldn't. I leave it up to them and their conscience.

Re:IP's by seinman · 2003-07-23 11:36 · Score: 1

If you don't disable sharing of files, then yes, you did say they could. It's basically a checkbox saying yes, you can download my files, or no you can't. You didn't pick no, so it defaults to yes. I bet if you read the EULA to some of these P2P applications, it'll say something along the lines of "you are responsible for what you share unless you disable file sharing."
Re:IP's by CyberKnet · 2003-07-23 11:39 · Score: 4, Insightful

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
Re:IP's by 0111+1110 · 2003-07-23 12:13 · Score: 1

Or some books and a photocopier?

--
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
Re:IP's by zboy · 2003-07-23 12:15 · Score: 1

Yeah, but a lot of these filesharing programs turn on sharing by default,,no user intervention required. Anyone who just opens it up and downloads is also uploading, most likely without even knowing it.
A couple years ago at my university (Syracuse) the campus network was becomming serverely bogged down (almost 100% capacity most of the day), and it turned out it was because of Kazaa and Morpheus turning everyones computer into a fileserver. Instead of blocking the ports, there were a couple articles in the student newspaper about how to disable the filesharing. Enough people got the message and disabled sharing, so the university never had to take any further action.
Re:IP's by Zigg · 2003-07-23 12:26 · Score: 2

I never said anyone could d/l what I have in my directories, but I also didn't say they couldn't. I leave it up to them and their conscience.

Bull. By "sharing", you have authorized your computer to make copies (keeping your copy and sending the other one over the wire) of (presumably) copyrighted works you have no license to copy and spread around.

"I never said anyone could d/l..."... please. It doesn't take a particularly smart person to see right through that one.
Re:IP's by Zed2K · 2003-07-23 12:34 · Score: 1

If I didn't specifically turn on sharing how can I be responsible for it? You install Kazaa and sharing is on by default. I'm not the one sending the copy out, others are the ones making the request to send it out. I didn't write the software, I don't have the ability to say yes or no to every request. The request is made and it starts transfering. Yes you can stop it, but once its started its too late, damage is done.

"It doesn't take a particularly smart person to see right through that one."

You realize we are talking about the RIAA right? They don't exactly get the point to start with.

Just the fact that there is so much discussion and "what if" questions/scenarios just proves how much of a grey area this whole topic is. The RIAA flat out says its wrong, so that means millions and millions of people are all criminals and deserve 5 years or so in jail. Doesn't sound like something that is illegal.
Re:IP's by clambake · 2003-07-23 17:02 · Score: 1

In that situation, you are providing the enabler to steal the content.

Please stop calling it theft. It's not THEFT damnit! Call it what it is... It's COPYRIGHT CHILD TOTURE AND MURDER.
Re:IP's by NeoTron · 2003-07-23 20:11 · Score: 1

Personally speaking, I'd nab the computer, the blank CD's, and the CD collection.

If I were that way inclined ;)
Re:IP's by Blue+Stone · 2003-07-23 22:43 · Score: 1

" 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."
I would disagree. It's more like putting your cd collection on display on your front porch, and a person bringing their own laptop along and popping your CD into their drive and copying it, without your intervention, then returning the disc, and going on their merry way.
Oh yeah.... except on the internet.
Doesn't seem so evil, immoral and illegal when it's put like that, does it?
"Steal content" my arse.

--
Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
Re:IP's by CyberKnet · 2003-07-24 02:55 · Score: 1

When you run a p2p program, you provide the enabler (providing a method to download). In your situation, the person copying the cd provides the enabler (the laptop).

So here are the flaws in your situation: Your situation does not have the cd owner providing the enabler. Your situation does not cover responding to inquiries as to whether you have a particular cd. Your situation does not announce the availability of the cds.

So no, what you said didn't sound so evil, immoral or illegal. But what you said was also not equivalent to sharing music via p2p.

--
Video meliora proboque deteriora sequor - Ovidius
Re:IP's by Blue+Stone · 2003-07-24 04:56 · Score: 1

Simple revision: You put your CD collection on display on your porch, along with a cd player. Other person comes along, pops chosen CD into your CD player, and plugs his laptop into the sound outputs from the CD player.
The CD player is the enabler, the other's laptop/recording device is their end of the p2p equation. Inquiries are made and resolved by the other rotating his eyes in the direction of your CD display.
As for announcement of CDs, that is different. Maybe the porch is on a very busy road, I dunno.

--
Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce

Not only... by embedded_C · 2003-07-23 11:29 · Score: 1

Not only do these people get slapped with lawsuits, their stupid user names are held up for all to see.

Yes, I'm talking about you, munkeyspanker21@Kazaa

Re:Not only... by ewhac · 2003-07-23 11:34 · Score: 1

Yes, I'm talking about you, munkeyspanker21@Kazaa

What's even stupider is that at least 20 other people tried for the same name before this guy.
Schwab

--
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
Re:Not only... by shibbydude · 2003-07-23 11:53 · Score: 1

Yes, I'm talking about you, munkeyspanker21@Kazaa What's even stupider is that at least 20 other people tried for the same name before this guy.
What's even stupider is that in your failed attempt at humor you didn't bother to understand that registration for Kazaa is nonexistant. More than one munkeyspanker can exist. It is not individual.

--
We're only gonna die from our own arrogance, that's why we might as well take our time...
Re:Not only... by shibbydude · 2003-07-23 12:08 · Score: 1

I do know a lot about kazaa, but I mostly use Direct Connect (DC++). I agree, Kazaa sucks.

--
We're only gonna die from our own arrogance, that's why we might as well take our time...

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2003-07-23 11:29 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion

So, by waspleg · 2003-07-23 11:30 · Score: 1

are any slashdotters on the list? if so have you been subpoenaed or heard anything at all from the RIAA themselves? i'm just curious

My thoughts, and a simple solution by Shack95 · 2003-07-23 11:31 · Score: 5, Informative

1) Boycott the RIAA - Since they've cranked up their customer attacks, Ive stopped buying their product (6 months and counting).

2) Shop via used cd's if you must. It will help show their loss in the upcomming year (used sales are Not tracked). Ebay/Amazon/Local stores/Whatever.

Vote with your wallets people! Stop being hypocritical and buying their stuff while complaining how they stink!!

Re:My thoughts, and a simple solution by SoSueMe · 2003-07-23 12:13 · Score: 1

The last new Cd I bought was 1993, "Gregory Hoskins and the Stick People - Raids On The Unspeakable".

No, no boycott, just no interest.
Re:My thoughts, and a simple solution by aliens · 2003-07-23 14:41 · Score: 1

Count me in already, been over a year now. Combination of lack of interest in the music and being pissed at the RIAA.

Seriously if I got sued by the RIAA and my non-geek friends didn't stop buying RIAA backed CD's, at least I'd know who are my true friends and not brainwashed consumer sheep.

--
-- taking over the world, we are.
Re:My thoughts, and a simple solution by j3110 · 2003-07-23 17:26 · Score: 1

Make a list of all member corperations. If you start boycotting them, you'll cut the circulation off before it gets to the head. It would probably mean no more Playstations as well though.

--
Karma Clown
Re:My thoughts, and a simple solution by nsingapu · 2003-07-23 18:01 · Score: 2, Interesting

Boycott Music...give the big 5 more statistics (real ones this time) about how piracy is killing their monopoly, no thanks. Once after my team won the superbowl I was downtown with some college buddies caught in the mist of celebration. Then the police riot line teargassed us merrymakers, and I'll be damned if that wasnt the biggest motivation for destruction of public property I have ever seen. The RIAA has ripped off, lied to, supressed, ad infinium. They have threatened to plant cross platform viruses on my most holy of temples, and even (gasp) corrupted my congressman. Boycotting is a great first step, may I suggest urinating on the toothbrushes in the executive restroom as an effective and rational second step.

--
How do I keep track of people who are fingering
Re:My thoughts, and a simple solution by iamhassi · 2003-07-23 20:14 · Score: 1

Boycott the RIAA...
What a wonderful idea! So the RIAA can publish more statistics proving music sales are down and blame p2p programs? Why didn't I think of that one?!?
If anything you should buy *more* CDs to prove p2p programs are not effecting music sales.

--
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
Re:My thoughts, and a simple solution by Gulthek · 2003-07-24 02:08 · Score: 1

I've said it before but it's worth saying again: CD Baby is a fantastic site if you are looking for independently released music. You can browse music by genre, geographical location (woo! local bands), featured instrument, mood, etc. CDs are previewed via streaming mp3 (usually 2 minutes of 4 songs from the CD). The commentaries and reviews are quite well written.

If you are at all interested in music, you will find something you like at cdbaby.

(No I'm not in any way affiliated with cdbaby. I'm just a very happy customer.)
Re:My thoughts, and a simple solution by eclectic4 · 2003-07-24 02:08 · Score: 1

I would also suggest listening to other music. Indie lables and the like.

I'll be honest, it's gotten to the point where the alternative labels are putting out better music anyway.

I remember when music was fun. When music was an entertainment "entity". We made cassette tapes for each other profusely, and we loved it. We went to concerts, bought tapes by the trunk load, watched MTV, etc... it was pure entertainment... fun. It was as if the record companies knew that this was just "how it is". I bought more music during my Napster days that I had in the previous 7 years. It was like a re-introduction to the music "thang", the music "culture" if you will that seemed to become far less fun over the years

And then... *sigh*. The DMCA, the RIAA, attacking customers, bringing them to court, etc... I don't know about you, but to think this helps business you would have to be one of two things:

1. Completely disconnected with your customer base and what makes your business flourish, and will never entertain that the problems are due to their own shortcomings (bad music, horrible radio payoffs for even worse music, realizing that attacking your own customers is bad (sheesh, do I even have to say that?) etc...) or

2. This is just another example of greed run amok, plain to see by it's customers.

In either case, I think they are literally only going to make it worse for themselves.

Insensitive clods.

--

"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance - it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel Boorstin
Re:My thoughts, and a simple solution by argStyopa · 2003-07-24 02:52 · Score: 1

..and the RIAA will show the loss in sales as "proof" that filesharing is killing them.

Hey, it's at least as solid as the evidence they've shown until now.

--
-Styopa
Re:My thoughts, and a simple solution by jafuser · 2003-07-24 03:35 · Score: 1

3) Make a monthly recurring contribution to the EFF

--
Please consider making an automatic monthly recurring donation to the EFF
Re:My thoughts, and a simple solution by jafuser · 2003-07-24 03:44 · Score: 1

No, no boycott, just no interest.

I'll agree to that.

During the "Napster era" I had the opportunity to explore a lot of music. It helped me realize just how horrible most of high-profile music is today.

I doubt many people have taken this into consideration when looking at the decreasing music sales.

--
Please consider making an automatic monthly recurring donation to the EFF
Re:My thoughts, and a simple solution by anthony_dipierro · 2003-07-24 05:14 · Score: 1

I stopped buying around the time they shut down Napster.

I stopped around the time I started using Napster. Free music for everyone. Why pay for something when you can get it for free?
Re:My thoughts, and a simple solution by valhalla26 · 2003-07-24 08:44 · Score: 1

I would also recommend CD Baby. I have bought a large number of albums. Generally after I have ordered some, i get a request from customer service asking how the shipment was and if I enjoyed it. On my last order, they shipped an artist that had a similar name to the one I had ordered. When they asked I said that they had sent the wrong album. The next day they mailed the correct album and refunded the shipping I paid to send the incorrect album back to them. What a concept, a store that actually cares about their customers....

Hah by Alizarin+Erythrosin · 2003-07-23 11:31 · Score: 3, Interesting

My old apartment complex at the college (I've since graduated and last weekend moved) had a firewall that showed everybody as from the same ip address... good luck to them trying to figure out why some of their top sharers were all from whatever ip we showed as (if there were anybody from there on that list).

I'm sure some other places are similar too. The college itself recently changed their network to do a similar thing for all their dorm connections.

Suck on that, RIAA!

--
There are only 10 kinds of people in this world... those who understand binary and those who don't

Re:Hah by Acidangl · 2003-07-24 02:49 · Score: 1

I work at a smaller college. We have gotten calls from the State claiming that the RIAA called and then gave us a specific internal IP address.

--
I'm a cucumber

Friend of mine was just served a subpoena by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-23 11:31 · Score: 2, Interesting

He made the mistake of calling the lawfirm listed on the subpoena before consulting a lawyer on the matter (gave them additional personal info as well as other fodder). Still waiting to hear back on where he stands with this.

How do these supena's work by javakev · 2003-07-23 11:31 · Score: 1

What is I share a song on kazaa that is really a blank file with a phony name. Can I also be sued by the RIAA for fraud. Also, how many of these people being served have invalid files on the computers. Does the RIAA verify each file before they file the court papers. With this shotgun approach I see a few problem once in a court of law. IP address and file names is not enough proof of piracy and copyright enfringment. They will need the actual files to guard against the simple mistaken file defense. So maybe they have placed a few traps out on the internet, if a honeypot is not so legal will there file traps be legal?

Re:How do these supena's work by Mantorp · 2003-07-23 12:21 · Score: 1

You make a good point, especially since there are so many fake files out there. You could in theory get in trouble downloading and sharing a file you thought was something else.
E.g. you're downloading into your share directory a file called "totally harmless non copyrighted home video.mpg" from sh33pn33dhugs2@kazaa.com, then it turns out it's really a copy of T3 and before you have time to verify the file (since the download finished while you were away) you are now spreading copyrighted material.
Re:How do these supena's work by Blue+Stone · 2003-07-23 22:46 · Score: 1

I think also of interest would be where you stand if you share a copyright, non-licensed for free copying track, which a lot of people also share, and as such only contribute, say, 12% of a given download.

--
Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce

Is everyone on Kazaalite screwed? by TibbonZero · 2003-07-23 11:32 · Score: 3, Interesting

Since www.k_lite.tk_Kazaa_Lite@Kazaa is listed, is anyone that used Kazaa Lite gonna get sued? Or is it the company KazaaLite that they are going after?
I'm pretty sure that they ruled that since the filesharing services could be used for other things, they can't really go after KazaaLite... but what about the users?

Are there (accurate) logs of everyone who has ever used KazzaLite? Should we worry?

--
Tibbon
tibbon.com

Re:Is everyone on Kazaalite screwed? by InnovativeCX · 2003-07-23 11:59 · Score: 1

More likely, they are going after a certain person [read: IP address] using the Kazaa Lite user name rather than each and ever person.

At least I hope ;-)
Re:Is everyone on Kazaalite screwed? by alienw · 2003-07-23 12:27 · Score: 1

Dude. They track by IP address, which is why they are trying to subpoena the records from the ISPs to find the owner of the account. Of course they aren't going after users by username. RTFA, dammit.

What's really ironic, though, is that a system like Palladium would make these networks pretty much immune to attacks like that. If the P2P program has control over what it's used on, it would be nearly impossible to figure out the IP addresses of the users involved (if everything is encrypted, of course). But for now, kazaa users are fucked.
Re:Is everyone on Kazaalite screwed? by Lord+Ender · 2003-07-23 13:05 · Score: 1

It is not the names that matter. The RIAA is demanding that ISPs give them the home address of the owner of the internet account that was on at a certain date and time, and had KaZaA running with that user name. The name alone would be meaningless. They need the IP, time, and ISP cooperation.

--
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
Re:Is everyone on Kazaalite screwed? by DarthWufei · 2003-07-23 14:24 · Score: 1

Indeed, there are plenty of people not sharing American music with the default name.
Re:Is everyone on Kazaalite screwed? by Lyran · 2003-07-24 03:08 · Score: 1

So if every one who logged into a certain ISP was using the same kazaa user name, it would be pretty impossible to tell users apart? The RIAA terrorists are going by username and time of access.

I doubt an ISP would give up names/ addresses of 100's+ of users to the RIAA based upon username and time of access. IPs can easily be spoofed/ faked with a proxy server.

--
Remember, for every CD you purchase, you give the RIAA that much more power. RIAA = SCO = IP terrorists. Any questio
Re:Is everyone on Kazaalite screwed? by alienw · 2003-07-24 09:00 · Score: 1

Palladium is not about encryption. It's about "trusted" computers. As in, an application can assume that the computer it's running on is not being manipulated with. In other words, if it does not disclose the IP addresses itself, it's impossible to obtain them. The encryption is only needed to protect from network sniffers. That way, it's impossible to prove that computer X is hosting song Y.
Re:Is everyone on Kazaalite screwed? by EvilSporkMan · 2003-07-26 14:46 · Score: 1

Doesn't the Kazaa Lite EULA say the program itself is illegal software? Maybe it's a hack of KaZaA or something? "They" COULD go after K-Lite if they wanted, just not in THIS particular case...

--
-insert a witty something-

Downloading or sharing? by mdvolm · 2003-07-23 11:33 · Score: 2, Interesting

I'd like to know who they're primarily going after here, people who share music or people who download it? Or is there any distinction being made at this point?

In other words, if I download a bunch of copyrighted files, but I don't share them, am I at a greater or lessor risk of getting tagged on one of these lists?

Re:Downloading or sharing? by SoSueMe · 2003-07-23 12:56 · Score: 1

Seriously though, they are going after the biggest sharers. According to their recent propoganda.
Re:Downloading or sharing? by Sancho · 2003-07-23 16:26 · Score: 1

It's a lot harder to go after downloaders for a number of reasons, not the least of which is logging. They'd have to set up sting operations, which would have questionable legality. Right now they're going after the uploaders, which is the easiest way to stem the flow of illegal music. If there are no uploaders, there can be no downloaders.

huh? by binarybum · 2003-07-23 11:33 · Score: 1

this list is really quite useless since kazaa doesn't limit the number of people with the same user names. c'mon mike@kazaa? nikki@kazaa?
things are only compounded now as well.. for instance tonight I'm ladypimp8669@Kazaa tomorrow I think I'll logon as dimples0530@Kazaa .

--
ôó

I don't know if... by shibbydude · 2003-07-23 11:34 · Score: 2, Insightful

there is any way to stop the RIAA from getting a list of your shared files, but if you check the "don't share files" box (which would screw everyone else) does that stop a file list command? Can I just benefit off the benevolents whom choose to take risks? Anyone?

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...

Re:I don't know if... by a1ok · 2003-07-23 11:57 · Score: 1

iirc, Kazaa lite has an option to continue sharing files but disallow file listing. Though I would expect that checking 'Don't Share Files' will certainly stop listing as well.
Re:I don't know if... by SoSueMe · 2003-07-23 13:01 · Score: 1

The recent buzz is disabling the "more files from same" option. This hides the rest of the files you have available while allowing indexing of the specific titles to be available.
Re:I don't know if... by dmaxwell · 2003-07-24 00:38 · Score: 1

there is any way to stop the RIAA from getting a list of your shared files, but if you check the "don't share files" box (which would screw everyone else) does that stop a file list command?

Most clients have a "show other files this user has" search option. Disable that and if the client allows it set a "show no more than 1 search result from this computer". That way, a would be litigator has to search for particular items on your machine. They can with effort determine that you are sharing files but it will be difficult to see how many you are sharing.

What about the open AP defense? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-23 11:34 · Score: 1, Informative

How good of a defense is it if I say that I deny downloading copyrighted songs if I have an wireless AP?

and if I keep my music stored on an external harddrive, I really dont see how they can prove that I dowloaded anything illegal

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2003-07-23 11:35 · Score: 4, Funny

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Highly doubtful. by HyperColor+Underware · 2003-07-23 11:35 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

Re:Highly doubtful. by elmegil · 2003-07-23 11:51 · Score: 1

Can we get some Kazaa proxies set up overseas anyone?

--
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
Re:Highly doubtful. by Metasquares · 2003-07-23 13:01 · Score: 1

There's also no guarantee that draconian DMCA-like laws exist in other countries for the RIAA to sue under. I pity those in Iraq - I heard a while back that Hillary Rosen is helping write Iraq's new copyright law.
Re:Highly doubtful. by Xtraneous · 2003-07-23 14:39 · Score: 1

If you mean proxy as in, sharer A connects to proxy and downloader B gets file C by connecting to the proxy, then the amount of bandwidth required for said venture would be astronomical.

--
.noitacidem deen uoy siht daer nac uoy fI

Many of the names appear to be female by HotNeedleOfInquiry · 2003-07-23 11:35 · Score: 1

I'm surprised that the RIAA is so stupid as to go after them in the first wave. Just wait til daddy's little 4.0 gpa sweetie from Stanford starts crying on CNN about having to go to court because she listened to a Sheryl Crowe cut off of Kaaza.

--
"Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...

Re:Many of the names appear to be female by Zigg · 2003-07-23 12:28 · Score: 1

First, I doubt the concentration of female users really is that high.

Second, it's been made clear that this wave of suits is not about someone who downloads a copy; this is about those who let others make copies of copyrighted works they have no license to.
Re:Many of the names appear to be female by forkboy · 2003-07-23 13:01 · Score: 1

Which is a good majority of users. Remember, everything you download gets shared back out. Downloaded 5 gigs of songs last month? Unless you moved em to another directory, they're being shared back out to the world. Your average user is going to install kazaa with default options on, which means it's going to start up when the computer does, and share all files in their shared folder. Big downloader==Big uploader.

--
This message brought to you by the Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People.
Re:Many of the names appear to be female by SoSueMe · 2003-07-23 13:15 · Score: 1

Big downloader==Big uploader.
= = big target and rightly so. Using any program without fully understanding what it does just thins the herd.

MOD PARENT UP by Alizarin+Erythrosin · 2003-07-23 11:35 · Score: 1

I'll probably burn some karma (got plenty to spare) but mod this guy up. It is the truth, it is not theft as they (READ: RIAA) keep saying it is. Copyright infringement is different. Theft is a criminal act, and IIRC, copyright infringement is a civil matter... or else everybody accused of this crap would end up being tried in criminal court... but they aren't, are they? (rhetorical question)

--
There are only 10 kinds of people in this world... those who understand binary and those who don't

Whew! Dodged a bullet! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-23 11:35 · Score: 2, Funny

> munkeyspanker21@Kazaa

Whew! Thank God I'm only munkeyspanker19@Kazaa.

Why not say you're behind a wireless router? by Conduit · 2003-07-23 11:36 · Score: 2, Interesting

Couldn't you shrug off the lawsuit if you get a wireless router and attach it to your ADSL/Cable/whatever unsecured? You could say that anyone could have used your IP address to host/download those MP3s without your knowledge. How could they prove otherwise?

Re:Why not say you're behind a wireless router? by Esion+Modnar · 2003-07-23 11:49 · Score: 4, Insightful

They'd probably argue that you're responsible for access to your router. Somebody does something naughty on it (illegal file sharing, hacking, child porn, etc.), you get the blame anyway.
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...
Re:Why not say you're behind a wireless router? by Conduit · 2003-07-23 11:58 · Score: 1

That's an entirely different can of worms though, and I think would require a HUGE legal struggle to argue in court. I doubt they'd pursue that for ~$12,000 as the one user settled for.
Re:Why not say you're behind a wireless router? by Blue+Stone · 2003-07-23 22:50 · Score: 1

" They'd probably argue that you're responsible for access to your router."
I dunno. In the UK, just the other day two people were found innocent when they were in a car which crashed into and killed somebody.
Each of them said the other was driving, and sice the actual driver (and hence killer) could not be identified, they both walked.
Maybe this would work as a defence in a multi-user household as well as with wi-fi.

--
Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
Re:Why not say you're behind a wireless router? by theLOUDroom · 2003-07-24 09:49 · Score: 1

They'd probably argue that you're responsible for access to your router. Somebody does something naughty on it (illegal file sharing, hacking, child porn, etc.), you get the blame anyway. This could have a chilling effect on the public access WAPs.

The neat part there is:
How are they going to make you liable for whomever connects to your AP, without making AOL liable for you using AOL to hack foobar.com?

AOL has money and doesn't want to be liable for your actions, so they are going to make sure no laws are passed that would make them liable.

If I'm using your network to access the internet, it should be possible to argue that you are acting as an ISP and deserve all the same protections.

--
Life is too short to proofread.
Re:Why not say you're behind a wireless router? by dropoffx · 2003-07-24 09:52 · Score: 1

True but, doesn't this also pass through several other routers along the way..... Why is ones wireless router any different than any of the steps along the route?

--
This space for rent. Contact for our rates.
Re:Why not say you're behind a wireless router? by Esion+Modnar · 2003-07-24 11:50 · Score: 1

should be possible to argue that you are acting as an ISP
Anything can be argued. Check the fine print of your Terms of Service. It probably says that and only you (can prevent forest fires, heh) are responsible for access to your account, and for anything you do with your account. And if somebody gets your password, and uses your account, you're in deep doodoo if they do something naughty. But AOL ain't.
When somebody comes in off the street and borrows a cup of 'net from you, you don't have any such agreement with them, as you do with AOL. Heck, you don't even know who they are. So whatever they do with your connection, looks for all the world like you did it. Especially with NAT.

--

They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
Re:Why not say you're behind a wireless router? by theLOUDroom · 2003-07-24 13:37 · Score: 1

What exactly is your point?

Your ISP's TOS are an agreement between you and them, not a law. They don't really have anything to do with whether or not you can legally claim to be an ISP. Yeah, maybe sharing your uplink is a breach of their TOS, but that just means you're breaking their TOS by acting as an ISP.

It probably says that and only you (can prevent forest fires, heh) are responsible for access to your account, and for anything you do with your account.

It probably does. That means the ISP will hold me responsible (really, claim no responsibility for my actions), not the gov't.

The higher tier providers that my ISP gets its service from probably have a similar agreement with my isp. "Only my ISP is responsible for who accesses their network" So what? Would that make my ISP the responsible party if I do something bad? Of course not. I am.

So whatever they do with your connection, looks for all the world like you did it. Especially with NAT.

Please, it's not like IP address are anything like social security numbers. It's just routing information. Anyone with any computer knowledge will understand that there are often hundreds of users connecting to the internet through a single IP (think corporate firewall).

The IP will show which network the traffic came from, not which person. The person investiaging this traffic then needs to find out more information, if they want any hope of ever knowing who it came from.

Think about this:
If I go hack from my local public library, are the librarians going to be put in jail?

If all you have is an IP address you don't have enough information. You need to know who uses that IP to prove anything. If more than one person uses that IP, then you need to be able to convince a judge that a specfic person was using it at the time is question.

--
Life is too short to proofread.

Oh I just noticed my name by NEOtaku17 · 2003-07-23 11:37 · Score: 1

www.k_lite.tk_Kazaa_Lite@Kazaa Actually that could be me. I don't share music though. I wonder if they'll bust me for sharing around 12gigs of fansubbed anime that's not out in the States? Hopefully the RIAA doesn't care about anime. Oh yeah by the way can they actually sue me for sharing stuff that you won't be able to get here in the next 5 years legally? Don't they have to prove damages or something? Or else I'm screwed(By the way I'm still sharing; good anime needs to get out there, anyway I couldn't buy a ligit copy and play it on a home DVD player anyway so what am I supposed to do? Do they want me to move to Japan?)

--
Creative Demolition

Re:Oh I just noticed my name by m4gg0tbr41n · 2003-07-23 12:17 · Score: 1

No need to worry about your fan-subs until the titles are licensed here in the US. There hasn't been a big push to catch fan-subbers....yet. Many otaku are willing to wait and then purchase the anime two years after the announcement of the title being picked up by an American company. Two when the U.S. version is finally ready that is.
Re:Oh I just noticed my name by Maul · 2003-07-23 13:12 · Score: 1

Unlike the RIAA, most companies that localize anime don't have their heads up their asses (at least right now).

Fist of all, they don't even have the right to sue you until they get the lisence.

Second of all, if ADV or someone sued fans, it would alienate a lot of people. There is no need for that, really, especially since fans are typically interested in pluking down cash for a quality DVD.

Either way, the fansub scene is actually good for the localizers, because they can get a feel for the "hot" series out there. You can bet that the localizers check out what the fansubbers are putting out and try to catch what is popular so that they can lisence popular series.

You're probably safe from the RIAA anyway, since the intellectual property you're trading isn't THEIRS.

--
"You spoony bard!" -Tellah
Re:Oh I just noticed my name by cyril3 · 2003-07-23 18:19 · Score: 1

The RIAA doesn't worry about anime.
The MPAA will be pissed off though. While the movies mightn't be released yet in the US someone probably has the local licence OR copyright exists anyway and you are violating it.. What an apt word for anime related crimes.
So no don't worry till next week when the MPAA sweeps look for ANY video files and start sending out their letters.
Re:Oh I just noticed my name by cyril3 · 2003-07-23 18:33 · Score: 1

can they actually sue me for sharing stuff that you won't be able to get here in the next 5 years legally?
Yes, certainly.
Don't they have to prove damages or something
No.
couldn't buy a ligit copy and play it on a home DVD player anyway so what am I supposed to do?
Absolutely nothing. But especially not watch the movie.
Do they want me to move to Japan
No. If you want to watch the movie you can buy the video in Japanese version. That is the only way legally to watch it. Fan subbed versions are technically little different to Ukrainian contraband copies. You are safe if the copyright holder or licensee takes no action. They may understand the value of fansubbed material as a long term word of mouth marketing tool for eventual releases.
They may not. In which case I'm screwed about covers it.

My name's not on the list by NetDanzr · 2003-07-23 11:37 · Score: 3, Funny

Not surprising, though. After all, it's the RIAA that's suing, not the porn industry.

Brilliant business plan.. by kwertii · 2003-07-23 11:37 · Score: 4, Funny

1. Sue your customers, and make a bunch of penniless college kids into martyrs in the media.
2.
3. PROFIT!!!!

Re:Brilliant business plan.. by dema · 2003-07-23 12:01 · Score: 1

I wonder how many times...

1. original idea here
2. trendy ? or black space here
3. PROFIT here ...is going to be posted to /. before it become "overrate" (:
Re:Brilliant business plan.. by Traa · 2003-07-23 12:07 · Score: 3, Funny

I thought the RIAA was more like

1. PROFIT!!!
2.
3. Sue your customers, and make a bunch of penniless college kids into matryrs in the media.
Re:Brilliant business plan.. by Zigg · 2003-07-23 12:18 · Score: 1

Sue your customers

I thought the point of these lawsuits is that these people aren't their customers.

That said, it is certainly bad PR.
Re:Brilliant business plan.. by KentoNET · 2003-07-23 12:28 · Score: 1

1. Reuse original idea about brilliant business plan
2.
3. PROFIT!!

Sorry. It has to be done... :-D

--
"You tried your best and failed miserably. The lesson is...never try. Heh!" -Homer
Re:Brilliant business plan.. by MisterMook · 2003-07-23 12:32 · Score: 1

They're certainly not going to become customers if they're spending every last dime on defending RIAA lawsuits either.
Re:Brilliant business plan.. by Cyberllama · 2003-07-23 12:36 · Score: 3, Interesting

More than likely, Kazaa users spend more, on the average, on cd's than non-kazaa users. Granted, there are some inviduals who'll download everything and never buy a single CD, but these are the type who wouldn't have bought the cd anyways -- they'd have just copied a friends.

I honestly believe that the majority of file-swappers spend MORE money on cd's than they would otherwise.

These ARE thier customers that they are suing . . .or at least most of them are.
Re:Brilliant business plan.. by Kompressor · 2003-07-23 12:37 · Score: 2, Funny

Only in Soviet...

Meh, screw it...

--
kmem russian roulette: Aquillar> dd if=/dev/urandom of=/dev/kmem bs=1 count=1 seek=$RANDOM
Re:Brilliant business plan.. by dema · 2003-07-23 12:57 · Score: 1

LOL.

you're very right. It did have to be done (:
Re:Brilliant business plan.. by salesgeek · 2003-07-23 13:56 · Score: 1

Actually, RIAA exists to ensure their members make a profit. By their client's recent financial performance, RIAA sucks at their rasion d'etre.

$G

--
-- $G
Re:Brilliant business plan.. by bedouin · 2003-07-23 14:37 · Score: 1

My thoughts exactly . . .

I quit buying music a couple of years before the p2p craze. Guess what? If p2p goes away today I still won't be buying music . .

p2p is the newer version of 'taping off the radio.' Of the 2000 mp3 I have in my iTunes library most came from friends or IRC anyway . . .
Re:Brilliant business plan.. by jafuser · 2003-07-24 04:11 · Score: 1
1. Make a recording of live musical compositions and mass-duplicate for public home consumption.
2. Profit!
3. Consolodate, fix prices, and eliminate competition. Do everything in your power to curtail the free market forces.
4. Profit!
5. Sign eagar and hopeful but naive artists with numerous conditions which are disproportionally unfair to them, but quite good for your shareholders.
6. Profit!
7. Establish a tightly controlled and inflexible promotion and distribution system which maximizes profit at the expense of all else.
8. Profit!
9. Lobby congress for laws which protect this system by granting you the power of judicial and executive authority over alleged infrignements of your intellectual property rights.
10. Profit!
11. Start suing individual people, such as college students, creating an even stronger opposition to your business model.
12. Go bankrupt!
This of course, is in an ideal world. In the world we live in, the sheeple will probably continue to consume enough to keep these lunatics going.
--
Please consider making an automatic monthly recurring donation to the EFF

An eerie feeling� by (H)elix1 · 2003-07-23 11:38 · Score: 5, Insightful

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

Jack-O says NO by Evets · 2003-07-23 11:39 · Score: 5, Interesting

A little off topic, but on the subject of the RIAA.

Michael Jackson has denounced the RIAA

couple o' quotes:

"I am speechless about the idea of putting music fans in jail for downloading music. It is wrong to download, but the answer cannot be jail,"

"Here in America we create new opportunities out of adversity, not punitive laws ...," he said. "It is the fans that drive the success of the music business; I wish this would not be forgotten."

It's not surprising that I actually had to do a search to find the story, although it was on the front page yesterday. It's not even on the entertainment page anymore.

Re:Jack-O says NO by happyhippy · 2003-07-23 11:43 · Score: 1

And he protested against Sony for not making his last album sell a million billion trillion copies.
And he said it was because he was black.
Re:Jack-O says NO by Nathan+Ramella · 2003-07-23 11:55 · Score: 1

It's a fair enough statement to say p2p users shouldn't do jail time.
It's not like they're child molestors or anything...
ha!
-n

--
http://www.remix.net/
Re:Jack-O says NO by Angry+Pixie · 2003-07-23 12:36 · Score: 2, Interesting

Jack-O may say no, but Tommy Lee says wee!

I caught the guy on a talking heads program on cable news. According to Tommy Lee (of Motley Crue fame), everyday music companies are closing or laying off people over the revenues losses.

Wow. I didn't know the music biz was suffering so much. Next time I buy an album, I pay 15-20% more at Borders instead of shopping at BestBuy. I'm helping!
Re:Jack-O says NO by SonicRED · 2003-07-23 13:15 · Score: 1

Good to have the child molesters on our side.
Re:Jack-O says NO by Superfreaker · 2003-07-23 13:23 · Score: 1

I felt the same until I read that Michael Jackson said that. Now I'm beginning to think I must be wrong.
Re:Jack-O says NO by EzInKy · 2003-07-23 13:31 · Score: 1

Wow. I didn't know the music biz was suffering so much.

Since I pretty much only listen to classic rock, I didn't either. Just about anything I hear on the radio pretty much sounds like crap to me, so maybe I should download a few songs to see if there's anything I want to buy so I can help them out.

--
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
Re:Jack-O says NO by tinrobot · 2003-07-23 13:33 · Score: 1

One more thing - I did like this quote:

I am speechless about the idea of putting music fans in jail for downloading music.

I say put them in jail if it will shut Michael up!
Re:Jack-O says NO by TopShelf · 2003-07-23 14:11 · Score: 1

Shocking, isn't it, that the music biz has been down the last couple years! In a red-hot economy like we've seen, can you imagine an industry actually losing sales??? It MUST be the pirates!

--
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
Re:Jack-O says NO by duffhuff · 2003-07-23 15:01 · Score: 1

Michael Jackson has denounced the RIAA

He's just mad because he made the list as MonkeySpanker21@kazaa.com
Re:Jack-O says NO by anthony_dipierro · 2003-07-24 05:16 · Score: 1

I am speechless about the idea of putting music fans in jail for downloading music.

Too bad MJ has totally misrepresented the RIAA. They aren't even suing downloaders, let alone putting them in jail.

Strategy for not getting a subpoena... by darkov · 2003-07-23 11:39 · Score: 1

... use a name like "fuck_you_greedy_riaa_cunts@kazaa"

It might work...

--
Reliable, Great Value Hosting: $7.95/mo 2.4G/120G

Re:Strategy for not getting a subpoena... by RAzaRazor · 2003-07-23 11:59 · Score: 1

Funny you should say that.
I frequently use RIAA_can_lick_my_balls@kazza and Hillary_Rosens_Cunt@kazza
I'm not worried about getting a subpoena. My connection is leeched wirelessly from a company not far away.

This changes nothing! by happyhippy · 2003-07-23 11:40 · Score: 1

A couple of hundred americans get sued. Does Kazaa fold and stops piracy? No.
All that happens is that the majority of file sharers will be non-US where the RIAA cant touch them.
And if they wanted to persue them, its still going to be a couple of years before they can buy...er...pass the laws there to do so.

Re:IP's (IANAL, but...) by bersl2 · 2003-07-23 11:40 · Score: 1

This whole think irks me. If I leave a cd out on my front porch and someone steals it, makes a copy, then returns it how am I liable?

You aren't. Plausible deniability. You didn't leave the CD out on purpose so that it could be "stolen" and copied. It was an honest mistake.

Or was it?

A possible defense by aaky · 2003-07-23 11:40 · Score: 1

Ex post facto

Latin for "from a thing done afterward." Ex post facto is most typically used to refer to a law that applies retroactively, thereby criminalizing conduct that was legal when originally performed. Two clauses in the US Constitution prohibit ex post facto laws: Art 1, 9 and Art. 1 10. [cornell.edu]

Most of these users downloaded songs before they were technically ruled as copyright infringement. So they can't be tried for doing something that wasn't illegal when it was done. How's that for legal defense?

Re:A possible defense by Zigg · 2003-07-23 12:34 · Score: 1

You are thoroughly confused. Although some Congresscritters have indeed been hard at work on making up laws where the punishment doesn't fit the crime, copyright infringement has always been illegal.

Proof of User at the Keyboard by teece · 2003-07-23 11:41 · Score: 1

So, they have a (quite possibly bogus) set of account info, and an IP address. My machine serves up internet access for 3 different machines, run by me, my wife, and my mother-in-law.

There is also the possibility that I have been cracked, and that someone degenerate from Buttrumpistan is using my machine, unbeknownst to me.

So how does the RIAA prove it was me, or my wife, or whomever, at the keyboard?

--
-- Hello_World.c: 17 Errors, 31 Warnings

Re:Proof of User at the Keyboard by NEOtaku17 · 2003-07-23 11:48 · Score: 2, Insightful

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
Re:Proof of User at the Keyboard by swagr · 2003-07-23 12:11 · Score: 1

So how does the RIAA prove it was me, or my wife, or whomever, at the keyboard?

I think when it's "Average Joe" vs. RIAA and and a swarm of lawyers determined to make examples out of people, the question is more like:
Holy s**t, how f*****d am I?

Really think about it. Are you going to represent yourself in court, where your defense will be "prove it was me"? Or are you going to shell out the cash for a good defense? Or settle out of court?

--

-... --- .-. . -.. ..--..
Re:Proof of User at the Keyboard by 91degrees · 2003-07-23 22:39 · Score: 1

They simply argue that you are responsible for all use of your internet connection. If your machine was hacked, then you'll just have to convince people.

Yet Kazaa goes on....? by kaseyH · 2003-07-23 11:41 · Score: 1

I know the technicalities of gnutella networks provide a shield, but I don't understand why the RIAA wouldn't try to go after Kazaa itself (maybe because it's a foreign-based co.)? Could legislation against "unregulated filesharing" be that far off? With the RIAA's lobbying ability, I don't see why they wouldn't be able to make filesharing a baffling ordeal someday.

Re:Yet Kazaa goes on....? by kaseyH · 2003-07-23 12:08 · Score: 1

I knew that, it just seems difficult to understand why the RIAA would persue 1000 people with rabid tenacity but back down from a company whose program is the root of their problem.

The point I was trying to make concerns the possible existance of filesharing regulations in the future...in what ways can the government & big business control filesharing as we know it?
Re:Yet Kazaa goes on....? by kaseyH · 2003-07-23 12:11 · Score: 1

...beside sending out subpenoas and using scare tactics. Is there a controlled p2p network out there - one that weeds out the copyrighted material?
Re:Yet Kazaa goes on....? by MisterMook · 2003-07-23 12:45 · Score: 1

Everything is copyrighted. My words here are copyright me, 2003. You literally cannot have an internet without a very loose concept of copyright. When was the last time you included a limited distribution licence on your webpage?

What next... by fluch · 2003-07-23 11:43 · Score: 1

So all the people on this list should crypt their file systems before somebody searches their homes. As long as nobody can find the files in question at home nobody can say anything against those people. RIAA can claim everything they want to, but as long the people it canot be proofen, that the people realy _had_ (=still have) those files (logs are not enough) the RIAA claims, they remain inocent.

whew... by jhagler · 2003-07-23 11:43 · Score: 1

Woohoo...not it

--
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity -RAH

Re:Let us know if you're on the list & the low by Esion+Modnar · 2003-07-23 11:44 · Score: 1

Already there. I haven't bought any music in months. Who knows when I will again...

--

They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...

RIAA sucks dong by CanadaDave · 2003-07-23 11:44 · Score: 3, Funny

I'm not on there! My username is kazaalite@Kazaa. Haha, RIAA suckers!

Re:RIAA sucks dong by madfilipino · 2003-07-23 12:16 · Score: 1

If they sucked, they'd be good.
Re:RIAA sucks dong by SoSueMe · 2003-07-23 13:37 · Score: 1

If they blew, they'd be better.

Who dunnit? by Geminus · 2003-07-23 11:44 · Score: 1

Honestly Judge, I didn't know that someone was using my WI-FI access point to use KaZaA!

Legit names by mrpuffypants · 2003-07-23 11:44 · Score: 4, Funny

I'm suprised that people actually use "real" usernames for kazaa...when I use it do download my gigs of pr0n I alwsy have a username like sfg0dfgaheow4$%#$T3g35^%h45@Kazaa just because I don't need anybody wondering why "mrpuffypants" really needs that college cam video forthe nth time...

Re:Legit names by Lavos · 2003-07-23 16:42 · Score: 1

I usually use names like I_am_not_<%= person I don't like %> That's fun on so many levels.

--
"Tax preparation software eliminates errors your[SIC] may make...." From IRS home page.

Other ways they won't know by sterno · 2003-07-23 11:45 · Score: 3, Interesting

1) You use an internet cafe or wireless hotspot that takes cash payment for the time that you use

2) You use a free wireless access network (you know trading MP3's while at the baseball game mentioned in recent post)

3) You use somebody else's network (An unsecured wireless network, etc)

4) Your ISP doesn't keep good records

I imagine most of these people can eventually be traced to a person, but I'm sure more than a few are getting away with it.

--
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service

Re:Other ways they won't know by weave · 2003-07-23 12:58 · Score: 1

Or do it from an unsecured college lab. While most of the labs I administer are secured by logons, there's a few stuborn academic departments that insist on unsecured self-administered desktops with no user auth. If we got a subpoena for one of those IPs, we'd have to say "Oh well, we have no clue who was using it."
We also have problems with students going into labs and unjacking the patch cable from a desktop and plugging it into their own laptop. Again, no authenticated access. We tried port security but they either have fun by going around a room jacking in and disabling an entire room during an evening with no network techs around, or duplicating the mac address and doing it anyway. I guess what is left is somehow securing it into the back of a desktop but some determined soul with a crimp tool and 5 minutes could just cut it and make a new end.
And what for what purpose does this little battle of witts serve? The RIAA doesn't reimburse my institution for policing their copyrights. We're making a fair effort, but nothing is fool proof.
Re:Other ways they won't know by derF024 · 2003-07-23 14:34 · Score: 1

We also have problems with students going into labs and unjacking the patch cable from a desktop and plugging it into their own laptop. Again, no authenticated access. We tried port security but they either have fun by going around a room jacking in and disabling an entire room during an evening with no network techs around, or duplicating the mac address and doing it anyway. I guess what is left is somehow securing it into the back of a desktop but some determined soul with a crimp tool and 5 minutes could just cut it and make a new end.

If this is truly a problem you want to solve, get yourself a VPN concentrator (Cisco, among other companies makes them) and put your entire lab network on private IPs with no access to anything other than the concentrator. Install the VPN software on your workstations (and even give it to your students to use on their laptops) and you've got an authenticated user associated with each connection to the internet. You can even go one step further and get some wifi bridges and you're into the 21st century with secure, authenticated WiFi access around campus.

Some caveats: the cisco VPN software is Windows/Linux/OS X only. If you've got a large BSD/MacOS population on campus (or any BSD/Solaris/etc. workstations), you'll need to use the pptp concentrator module for those users.
Re:Other ways they won't know by weave · 2003-07-23 15:29 · Score: 1

Thanks, good ideas. We've also been looking at something like bluesocket wifi gateway. No reason why it can't be adapted for wired as well as wireless for what it does from what I can tell.

possible action vs actual action by Kallahar · 2003-07-23 11:45 · Score: 1

Is it illegal to offer to share something copyrighted, or is it only illegal if you go through with a transaction?

For example, if I set up a table with a photocopier and some copyrighted books on it, and a sign that said "free copies", is it illegal to have the table set up or is it only a crime once someone actually makes a copy?

If it's legal to have the table, but not perform the act, then RIAA will have to prove that someone else participated in the crime. (I think)

Re:possible action vs actual action by PiousPeter · 2003-07-23 12:40 · Score: 1, Flamebait

Actually, in civil lawsuits the burden of proof lies with the defense, not the prosecution. You would have to prove that no one ever downloaded a song from you. You might also have to prove that you actively made sure no one downloaded any songs from you by killing their connection when they tried. Otherwise you would be guilty of redistribution by you intent. Just the fact that you lucked out and no one downloaded it does not make you innocent.

An analogy would be you can't rebroadcats a copywrighted movie. If you broadcast it on an obscure channel, you are guilty of violating the copywright weather or not anyone found your channel and watched it.

You would hope though that the RIAA downloaded and verified the files. If they didn't, I might just install Kazza (never used it) and make a bunch of 0k [artist]-[title].mp3 files in the share directory just to laugh when they send me a supena
Re:possible action vs actual action by Kallahar · 2003-07-24 08:00 · Score: 1

Very interesting, and I like your analogy. why the hell did you get -1 flamebait?

Oh, maybe the RIAA has slashdot users with mod powers :)

Re:Usernames!? by korgull · 2003-07-23 11:46 · Score: 1

don't worry, this report is a fake.

Although they can trace you, the cost involved would probably be larger than their profit.
The more people who share, the more money they need to find all of these people.
Unfortunately, if they win they might even gain some from it without ever selling some music...
They might even gain money they would never even have had without file sharing. Perhaps this "legal" business brings more money to the music business than selling music in the end so I hope music become free of commercial issues and the music business gets back to it's core business : making music.

Countdown..... by August_zero · 2003-07-23 11:50 · Score: 1

Sooooo.....

So anyone want to start taking bets that the RIAA site gets the crap vandalized out of it before the weekend is up?

How many of you just looked for your name on that list?
I haven't even used fileshare software in the last 2 years and I was looking for me....

--
On Wall Street they say "buy low, sell high" On the pad we say, "buy high, sell high" Isn't that somehow better?

Re:Countdown..... by Nom+du+Keyboard · 2003-07-23 12:49 · Score: 1

RIAA site gets the crap vandalized out of it before the weekend is up
And just how does that really harm the RIAA? No way that I can determine, except that they can try and pursue the vandals under the law as well. It's not like you tossed a firebomb into their headquarters or anything.

--
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Re:Countdown..... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-23 13:23 · Score: 1, Funny

"It's not like you tossed a firebomb into their headquarters or anything."

Now here's a straight thinker with upper-management written all over him!

Muahaha i thought of a wicked idea. by recondite · 2003-07-23 11:51 · Score: 3, Funny

If everybody on kazaa used a user name like riaasucks@kazaa or riaaisacriminalorganization@kazaa or this_is_a_bullshit_court_cast@kazaa you know they wouldn't pick you. imagine the news coverge, even better the day in court. I would like to call riaaisabunchoffaggots@kazaa to the stand.

Re:Muahaha i thought of a wicked idea. by Nom+du+Keyboard · 2003-07-23 12:52 · Score: 2, Insightful

If everybody on kazaa used a user name like riaasucks@kazaa...
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."
Re:Muahaha i thought of a wicked idea. by mfrank · 2003-07-24 07:57 · Score: 1

Like the sig - you read the metaverse article in Scientific American a month ago?
Re:Muahaha i thought of a wicked idea. by Nom+du+Keyboard · 2003-07-24 08:08 · Score: 1

Like the sig - you read the metaverse article in Scientific American a month ago?
Thanks.
Yes.

--
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2003-07-23 11:51 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Damn by sexylicious · 2003-07-23 11:52 · Score: 1

Those are all the user names I could think of!

Phew by numbware · 2003-07-23 11:54 · Score: 1

thank god I'm not on the list

--
I'm going to go create my own technology news site, with blackjack and hookers. You know what? Forget the news site.

I don't really mind... by Kassiopeia · 2003-07-23 11:54 · Score: 1

...people like sk8boyben@Kazaa getting sued, disseminating Avril Lavigne should be a crime enough already!

in the navy ... by s20451 · 2003-07-23 11:57 · Score: 4, Interesting

Failing to log off isn't a crime by itself

At the risk of telling boring old war stories, I attended a military college where one sad soul forgot to log his machine off. Someone found the machine and used it to send a vulgar message to the universal e-mail alias, including the commandant, director of cadets, and professors, on down to the lowliest first year. In true military fashion, they made no attempt to find the real author of the e-mail, but instead threatened to court martial the guy who left the computer logged on, for violating security rules. Eventually he avoided court martial, but was given a severe administrative punishment.

--
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.

Re:in the navy ... by NotQuiteReal · 2003-07-23 13:01 · Score: 2, Funny

You call that a war story ! That's nuthin.
When I was a young'un we had to use accoustic phone couplers to send email. 110 baud. And find rolls of paper for the Teletype. Sending and Receiving.

--
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
Re:in the navy ... by edibleplastic · 2003-07-23 13:53 · Score: 1

In true military fashion, they made no attempt to find the real author of the e-mail, but instead threatened to court martial the guy who left the computer logged on, for violating security rules.
In contrast to this, the Chief of Information Security at my university told the tale of how one year a student sent a threatening email to the president of the US via an another student's email account that was left open. Needless to say the Secret Service guys descended at the university. He never told how, but the folks at the university's information security department somehow managed to track down the real sender. Thank goodness for dedicated information security peoples!
Re:in the navy ... by derF024 · 2003-07-23 14:24 · Score: 1

He never told how, but the folks at the university's information security department somehow managed to track down the real sender. Thank goodness for dedicated information security peoples!

Closed circut TV cameras are fairly cheap, and the kinds of computers usually in university computer labs aren't. If your college is anything like mine, there's a camera pointed at just about every computer lab entrance or exit, to keep people from walking away with some fairly expensive equipment.

I wouldn't be surprised if some of these infringers the RIAA is going after now were on public computers when the RIAA found them. These closed circut tapes (if they haven't been rotated back into use yet) will probably be used in this case too.
Re:in the navy ... by PCeye · 2003-07-23 15:37 · Score: 1

"was given a severe administrative punishment"

Was he demoted down from "power user" to "user" on an NT network?
Re:in the navy ... by __aamkky7574 · 2003-07-23 21:09 · Score: 1

Believe it or not, a few years ago, a student here in Ireland wrote a threatening letter to the US President from a fellow student's account (without her knowledge). They were questioned by the police here about the incident, and as far as I know, would now both be refused entry to the US because of it.
Re:in the navy ... by johnkoer · 2003-07-24 00:21 · Score: 2, Funny

You better watch yourself. Based on the title of your comment, the RIAA may come after you for violating the Village People's copyright.

--
Johnkoerner.com
Re:in the navy ... by fishbowl · 2003-07-24 02:56 · Score: 1

>a severe administrative punishment.

Does anybody else picuture John Rico being flogged?

--
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Re:in the navy ... by DG · 2003-07-24 03:31 · Score: 1

Is 20451 your college number perchance?

Rats. 321 off.

DG

--
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book

Reserved addresses... by stienman · 2003-07-23 11:57 · Score: 4, Funny

"A total of 253 RIAA subpoenas were listed as of July 22 through the federal court system's paid online database, PACER."

Subpeonas 0 and 255 are reserved for networks (whole ISPs - all your user list are belong to us) and broadcast subpeonas (first use of SPAMMED Subpeonas) respectively.

-Adam

Re:Reserved addresses... by pimpinmonk · 2003-07-23 12:29 · Score: 1

naughty naughty...

they should have subpeonanetted!

(hardy har har!)
Re:Reserved addresses... by Kompressor · 2003-07-23 12:40 · Score: 1

Argh, what a time to be without mod points!

--
kmem russian roulette: Aquillar> dd if=/dev/urandom of=/dev/kmem bs=1 count=1 seek=$RANDOM
Re:Reserved addresses... by crashnbur · 2003-07-23 13:04 · Score: 1

That would leave 254. You forgot Subpoeona 128, which is reserved for loopback functions, which is how all the RIAA employees get their free music.
Re:Reserved addresses... by radon28 · 2003-07-23 13:19 · Score: 1

You mean Subpoena 127 for loopback. And none of this makes sense anyhow because anything after 223 is used for multicasting and testing, and will never be given out to the public.
Re:Reserved addresses... by crashnbur · 2003-07-23 16:01 · Score: 1

DAMNIT! Why did I say 128?! *bangs head with wet noodle*
Also, 223-239 are for government usage, and 240-254 are mostly for testing but may be used to some limited extent for, err, I don't remember what for.

Teenage Girl Arrested for Sharing N'Sync Music by fanatic2k4 · 2003-07-23 11:57 · Score: 1

I notice many of names on the list belong to women. (Or at least men posing as women) I would have thought the majority of attacks would be going after massive sharing campaigns, not kids download their favorite pop stars.

Re:Teenage Girl Arrested for Sharing N'Sync Music by Rhone · 2003-07-24 02:53 · Score: 1

Why do you assume women are sharing less music than men? Even if you assume the girls to be less geeky on average, Kazaa makes it easy for the non-geeky user to download every song that catches his or her eye, and those songs are in turn being shared by default.

I've only used Kazaa very sparingly myself, and so far the biggest Kazaa user I have seen in person is my ex-girlfriend's younger sister (age 16 at the time, I think). She wasn't at all geeky or technologically knowledgeable, she had no idea that Kazaa had spyware on her computer (and was unaware of Kazaa Lite), and she was confused as to why her overly bloated "I let every program I install load up in the system tray on boot" computer ran so slowly. But she downloaded songs left and right in Kazaa and left them there to be shared.

RIAA capitalizing by targeting KazzaLite by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-23 11:59 · Score: 3, Interesting

Although it doesn't suprise anyone, they're capitalizing on KazzaLite to drive their scare tactic machine. How many people do you think that were using KazzaLite (and stupidly using the default name) are scared shitless now? Quite a few thousand I would venture to say.

The RIAA basically just knocked out thousands (possibly millions) of glass houses with a pebble rock.

Re:RIAA capitalizing by targeting KazzaLite by forkboy · 2003-07-23 12:51 · Score: 1

I don't think so man. I'd say the fact that thousands of people using that name would instill reasonable doubt of the fact that it was even you. Especially if your ISP uses DHCP. The ones with really common or obvious names are probably going to come out of it ok, too. (I mean, come on, there's gotta be at LEAST 500 "Ashley@Grokster"s)

Honestly, I can't believe they even used kazaa screen names on the subpoenas. They obviously had to trace back IP addresses and get real names from ISPs, why not just use the real names on the subpoenas? Makes no sense at all to me. I think their lack of understanding of technology is going to bite them in the ass on this one.

--
This message brought to you by the Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People.
Re:RIAA capitalizing by targeting KazzaLite by forkboy · 2003-07-23 14:26 · Score: 1

My mistake. I was thinking these were the subpoenas being submitted to the defendents. And learn to spell before throwing the word "dumbass" around...dumbass.

--
This message brought to you by the Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People.

Program by aneiken · 2003-07-23 12:00 · Score: 1

Has anyone written an add on to kazza that will change your user name and email every couple of minutes or even seconds. If not somone should get on it.

Re:Let us know if you're on the list & the low by Jason_says · 2003-07-23 12:00 · Score: 1

Question, is this just a list of all the record companies or the ones that actually sold their souls to the devil... um I mean RIAA

Boycott? by Ledora · 2003-07-23 12:00 · Score: 1

When a company wrongs me unless there is a damn good reason for me to go back I don't buy from them. I have purchased 3 CDs ever. I don't buy CDs. I don't do this boycott for one month. if you hate the riaa so much don't buy anything EVER.

Re:Let us know if you're on the list & the low by arf_barf · 2003-07-23 12:01 · Score: 1

>Join the boycott starting August 1-30th and do not buy any music in this period.

I started my boycott in 1998 (that was the last time I bought a CD) :-)

Sounds Bad... by BadSpellar · 2003-07-23 12:01 · Score: 2, Funny

The RIAA's Hit List

That sounds so nasty. I bet some would prefer "The Pirate's Honor Roll".

we Brits are ok...for now by sentientbeing · 2003-07-23 12:03 · Score: 2, Interesting

No. the data protection act (1984?) does not allow private companies to release any information about specific people or any information which would identify specific people without a court order.( In fact it is an offence to do so).
Ie a specific court order would need to be presented for each specific individual, not a 'blanket' claim for ISP user information.it seems the much lower burden of proof in the USA for organisations like the RIAA protects us..... for now.

--

------
beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his mind he dreams himself your master

Re:we Brits are ok...for now by aed · 2003-07-23 21:32 · Score: 1

Same here in the Netherlands.
Fortunately in civilized countries, privacy is more important than the bank-accounts of big businesses :-)

This article states the RIAA is going after p2p *downloaders* (ie, those who download copyrighted files, not specifically sharing them)

Downloading copyrighted music isn't even illegal here, as the law states you are allowed to make copies of copyrighted material for your own personal use.
On every blank recording medium I buy, I pay a 'copyright fee' allowing me to put copyrighted material on the media.

However, sharing copyrighted material is indeed illegal here, where sharing means everything ranging from making my mp3's available to p2p users, to viewing a videotaped tv movie in public.
Re:we Brits are ok...for now by BobTheLawyer · 2003-07-24 01:30 · Score: 1

This is not quite correct. The poster is right that, unlike in the US, a copyright holder cannot oblige an ISP to release information on its users without a court order. However if an ISP is threatened with a court order by a copyright holder it could probably pass the information without breaching the Data Protection Act - section 35 of the Act allows disclosure of personal information "for the purpose of, or in connection with, any legal proceedings (including prospective legal proceedings)".

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2003-07-23 12:03 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Strange by prockcore · 2003-07-23 12:04 · Score: 1

I really expected to see this at the top of the list, "The following people have been found to be unclean.."

What would happen if they sued me.... by ziggy_zero · 2003-07-23 12:05 · Score: 1

I'm a college student, paying my way through college with loans. I have no "life savings". Basically the only possessions I have are my clothes, books, DVD's, computer, and....my musical instruments. That's right, I'm a musician. Here's what I'd give them if they sued me, for a settlement:

my acoustic guitar
my turntables, mixer, and records
my keyboard
my drumset
my clarinet
my bass clarinet
my harmonica
oh yeah, and the finger

I'd like to see the looks on their faces knowing they just ruined the chances of someone that could potentially become a rock star some day and make them a shitload of money (hey, it could happen!).

--
I belong to the ______ generation.

Re:What would happen if they sued me.... by Dareth · 2003-07-23 12:14 · Score: 1

Just point out how many clarinet playing Rockers there are out there and I am sure they will just let you sign a normal slave contract instead of suing you.

Real men play Sax... except Clinton... obviously it blew him instead!!!

--

I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
Re:What would happen if they sued me.... by gotan · 2003-07-23 12:22 · Score: 1

You realize that the RIAA and all that labels they represent don't give a shit about musicians, let alone good ones? Just look at all those new "rock stars" and whatnot: prerequisites are good looks and no brains (so you don't give them a hard time haggling over contracts). And being actually able to sing or play an instrument even lowers your chances of doing business with them: They don't want any more of those pesky stars who aren't 100% dependent on them.

--
"By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself." -- Bill Hicks

Re:Heres an Idea. by NEOtaku17 · 2003-07-23 12:08 · Score: 1

Yeah so what...Then they'd have the IP and the user names:jkksgsgfdr@tafasaklj and mmewlkjqajlkw@934njmkddw. You'd have to call up your ISP and have them change your IP(but they keep records of that). But what's really funny is I have Road Runner cable(Time Warner), and when the guy came and set up my cable line he logged on kazaa and dl a song to show me and my family how fast the new connection was. Funny stuff...

--
Creative Demolition

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2003-07-23 12:08 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Let us know if you're on the list & the low by geoff2 · 2003-07-23 12:09 · Score: 5, Insightful

If you are on the list do everyone a favor including yourself and let us know here. Keep us up to date on what's occuring and how you intend to fight it. Maybe the community here can help or atleast offer solid advice on how to proceed.

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.

Think of it this way...what's more important violent crime or copyright violations? Well the RIAA is sending out so many subpoenas without judicial oversight I might add that court systems are having to redistribute their workers to cover the overwhelming workload. That means less work on violent, horrible crimes and more work on copyright infractions? This is beyond ridiculous!

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.

Re:I'm thinking of creating 1000 mp3's by madfilipino · 2003-07-23 12:11 · Score: 1

You'll want to do this... then fix the file so it's roughly the same size as the "original" and if possible, the same CRC as the original. Spread them far and wide. That'll really screw them and a lot of "innocent" people up good.

Re:huh? by Servo · 2003-07-23 12:11 · Score: 1

My first thought was... everybody log on as these names and confuse the hell out of the logs!

--
A slip of the foot you may soon recover, but a slip of the tongue you may never get over. -Benjamin Franklin

I have an idea by NEOtaku17 · 2003-07-23 12:13 · Score: 1

Hey is anyone out there a hacker and an artist? It would be pretty funny if you "hosted" your song on the RIAA's site and then sued them for copyright infringment. Well anyway people should be picking apart the RIAA's site looking for stolen parts of code and stuff by now. I mean what kind of case would they have if their website had some stolen code here and there?

--
Creative Demolition

Re:What if I do own the music I downloaded? by madfilipino · 2003-07-23 12:13 · Score: 1

You'll have to prove that you got your collection before you downloaded the songs... and even then, their lawyers (for lack of a better word) would screw things in such a way that you'll need Johnnie Cochran and friends to bail you out.

NO! by Sk8BoyBen · 2003-07-23 12:15 · Score: 2, Funny

Oh Shit!

Re:NO! by Bency-987 · 2003-07-23 12:17 · Score: 5, Funny

My mom is going to be so mad!

Counter sue by Ledora · 2003-07-23 12:16 · Score: 1

Bring the riaa into court hell. let them fight the lawsuits on 2 fronts and it will crumble the civil courts and get alot of attention. yeah I got nothing better to say

Re:Counter sue by roka · 2003-07-23 12:35 · Score: 1

I'll bet they will do a counter counter sue then, so you better prepare your mirror counter counter sue.

9-11 by aastanna · 2003-07-23 12:17 · Score: 1

The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) has now issued more than 911 subpoenas to Internet service providers across the United States.
Interesting, I wonder if there was an intentional use of the number 911 by the RIAA in how many subpoenas they issued, or if that has become a round number now and the person writing the story rounded down.

Re:I'm thinking of creating 1000 mp3's by Esion+Modnar · 2003-07-23 12:18 · Score: 1

And Madonna once did this, too, only she filled it with a vulgarity followed by about 5 minutes of silence. So whose side you on, anyway? ;)

--

They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...

Re:Let us know if you're on the list & the low by leonardluen · 2003-07-23 12:19 · Score: 1

why wait until August 1'st if this is really that important, and why stop on the 30th?

i haven't bought any music in over 10 years, why should i start buying now?

Re:I'm thinking of creating 1000 mp3's by mcp33p4n75 · 2003-07-23 12:20 · Score: 1

Then the terrorists have won! Err, I mean the RIAA. These lawsuits are intended to hurt the P2P community. Creating 1000 songs and releasing them to the network will further increase the noise to signal ratio. Maybe you could make it so those files are only available to the KaZaalite banned ip lists, or something. Then both sides would win.

Absolute Power by tds67 · 2003-07-23 12:22 · Score: 1, Interesting

I think the old saying "Absolute power corrupts absolutely" applies here.

We have billion dollar record companies going after teeny-boppers, who, despite the fact that they may have snarfed a few mp3 files, are nevertheless either current or future buyers of music.

Brilliant. If this was about money, the record companies wouldn't risk alienating their current and future customer base. It's about power, instead--domination of the market by force instead of adaptation and competitive product.

Re:Phew!!!! by SuperDuG · 2003-07-23 12:23 · Score: 2, Funny

Actually ... if you were getting screwed ... you wouldn't need kazaa's sharing of the porn industries files ...

--
Ignore the "p2p is theft" trolls, they're just uninformed

Re:I'm thinking of creating 1000 mp3's by zcat_NZ · 2003-07-23 12:23 · Score: 1

Duh! Think about it..

"Let's flood p2p networks with bogus files, making it virtually impossible to find any real music. That'll show those RIAA bastards who're trying to stop us sharing music!!"

Are you really that stupid, or have I just been trolled?

--
455fe10422ca29c4933f95052b792ab2

Block the RIAA/MPAA yourself by OverlordQ · 2003-07-23 12:24 · Score: 4, Informative

Download this handy list of network ranges that the MPAA/RIAA use.

--
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.

Re:Block the RIAA/MPAA yourself by ozzee · 2003-07-23 13:52 · Score: 1

This could be interesting. Help the RIAA, get blacklisted from the internet. You could start somthing like SPEWS, but for the RIAA/MPAA. Simply put, if any evidence is provided, simply shut down the IP's, not just from the web server but from my entire network. I take the SPEWS list and regularly stuff it into ipchains to remove spammers. If I decide to simply refuse to carry your packets as a protest of the RIAA/MPAA behaviour then that's up to me.
The only thing is, once you're black-listed there's no coming back.... It could get ugly.
Another alternative is to only allow white list IP's to access a narrow range of services. That way you can operate you own private network of trusted users and share entertaining but non infringing material.

Speaking of 666... by httpamphibio.us · 2003-07-23 12:25 · Score: 1

Check out how many people on live journal are interested in jews...

click here.

--
sig.

Re:Speaking of 666... by httpamphibio.us · 2003-07-23 16:59 · Score: 1

Oh... somebody can't take a joke...

--
sig.

Not all Kazaa by SeanAhern · 2003-07-23 12:25 · Score: 2, Informative

All the "names" end with @Kazaa.

Not quite. 117 of 124 do. Here are the other 7 of them that don't:

Ariel167@fileshare
Ashley@Grokster
Carolyn@fileshare
d-dubb@Grokster
flowerpower0818@fileshare
ktgurl13@Grokster
madkirk@fileshare

grep(1) is your friend. :-)

Re:Not all Kazaa by owenb · 2003-07-23 18:43 · Score: 1

I hope you didn't miss Kazaa@fileshare :)
Re:Not all Kazaa by SeanAhern · 2003-07-23 19:14 · Score: 1

Kazaa@fileshare

Now that's a clever one! Yes, I did miss it, because I used "grep -i -v kazaa" for my filter.
Re:Not all Kazaa by SeanAhern · 2003-07-25 05:24 · Score: 1

???

Quoting and escaping special characters wasn't the problem. The problem was that I used the search pattern of "kazaa" rather than "@kazaa".
Re:Not all Kazaa by IWorkForMorons · 2003-07-25 06:36 · Score: 1

Nah...my favourite is www.k_lite.tk_Kazaa_Lite@Kazaa

I'm surprised I didn't see any kazaaliteuser@Kazaa in there.
Re:Not all Kazaa by owenb · 2003-07-25 09:09 · Score: 1

Actually, I'm not sure if there was a Kazaa@fileshare. I didn't look. There probably isn't. I guessed you might have forgotten to include that case in your grep, though.

Sorry :)

Re:What I'd like to see by runenfool · 2003-07-23 12:25 · Score: 1

Yea, but how do they know its YOU sitting at the computer? How do they know your machine hasn't been compromised? There seem to be a lot of possible 'outs' here. This mostly seems like a scare tactic - to make examples out of people.

What will they do when kazaa adapts and it becomes impossible to trace? Go out of business Im guessing.

Boy Im glad I don't share/download music on P2P for right now though.

correct link... by httpamphibio.us · 2003-07-23 12:27 · Score: 1

ugh, sorry...

here...

--
sig.

Re:correct link... by eak_the_freak · 2003-07-23 21:11 · Score: 1

It's not about not being able to take a joke, but about you not being able to make one.

By resorting to that kind of crap to make yourself popular and funny you're only paying lip service to a bunch of extremists and extending the lifetime of stereotypes.

Re:I'm thinking of creating 1000 mp3's by MattCohn.com · 2003-07-23 12:27 · Score: 1

Do a search on Kazaa for 'What the fuck do you think you're doing'

Re:What if I do own the music I downloaded? by leonardluen · 2003-07-23 12:28 · Score: 2, Interesting

i think the RIAA is trying to tell everyone that it isn't legal to download even if you own archaic forms of the song, and you should buy it on the nifty new crappy-crippled-copyrestricted(TM) cd format

Spread the word by FrankoBoy · 2003-07-23 12:30 · Score: 1

These useless bloodsuckers must be sent to /dev/null ASAP. Boycott the RIAA.

--

United States of America, good ol' backers of world peace.

Re:last name on the list: by TapTapTheChisler · 2003-07-23 12:31 · Score: 2, Interesting

Well, that username probably applies to several hundred of the subpoenas that have been filed. It doesn't matter that their user names are the same, the RIAA still has the host names and ip addresses of all those people.

Username selection pattern... by dietlein · 2003-07-23 12:32 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

More impotent than you think... by JohnDenver · 2003-07-23 12:34 · Score: 1

1. Media coverage would be limited to occasional joke remarking the balls of the user.

2. The RIAA is ALREADY being balsy sueing users, sueing a user with a beligerent name might actually entice them as it would give them a better case.

--
"Communism is like having one [local] phone company " - Lenny Bruce

Re:More impotent than you think... by sharkey · 2003-07-23 17:51 · Score: 1

sueing a user with a beligerent name might actually entice them as it would give them a better case
So, kangaroo_court@kazaa might be ill-advised?

--

--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.

Wireless AP / ISP Rules and KaZaa* User Names by ticklemeozmo · 2003-07-23 12:35 · Score: 2, Interesting

A few posters do bring up a good question:

Can you claim your Wireless AP under the same type of device as an ISP and possibly be ok? Granted, you might have to produce a list of POSSIBLE people, but then you can just say you are an open network.

Also, the changing of usernames seems to be a funny "workaround" for the time being. But consider how the judge will see your anti-authoritive point-of-view. Maybe you might get off on a "jury of your peers" (why does that sound funny?), but you will more than likely not get a snicker from the judge.

Obviously IANAL, but can someone help me out on this?

--
When modding "Informative", please make sure it both has a source and IS actually informative.

How about some indirection? by e271828 · 2003-07-23 12:39 · Score: 1, Interesting

There's an old computer science saw that all problems can be solved by adding a layer of indirection. In that spirit, how about the following:

Create a P2P system that requires a password for access (Windows file sharing should do!)
Encrypt the password
Leave the encrypted password and the decryption key accessible

Now, the password itself is a copyrighted work of my creation. So using the decryption key to crack the password should be a DMCA violation. Thus if people (including the RIAA!) use my decrypted password to access my files, it is they who are violating the law, not me, i.e. I cannot be accused of making copyrighted works publicly available.

Thoughts? (and apologies if this is how some of the more advanced systems already work; I am not familiar with them)

Re:How about some indirection? by rritterson · 2003-07-23 12:43 · Score: 1

Someone do this please! I want to see the RIAA stumble over the very laws it's using to sue the country.

Of course, if they can argue you are tacitly permitting filesharing by letting stuff be downloaded, they may be able to claim you are tacitly permiting access to the P2P service.

--
-Ryan
AUWYHSTOT (Acronyms are Useless When You Have to Spell Them Out Too)
Re:How about some indirection? by loraksus · 2003-07-23 18:22 · Score: 1

of coure, the adobe case w/ rot-13 and the dmca . . .

--
1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcfv gbhnjmk,l.;/
Re:How about some indirection? by Tiado · 2003-07-23 19:12 · Score: 1

Except that the DMCA probably won't apply to the RIAA since they're virtually above the law.

Re:Let us know if you're on the list & the low by rowanxmas · 2003-07-23 12:41 · Score: 1

It would be a great use of posting as an AC. though. It would be even better if your username was "DeepThroat"

Re:definitely_ditzy@Kazaa? by rritterson · 2003-07-23 12:41 · Score: 1

damn, that was about the most sexist bullcrap I've ever come across.

--
-Ryan
AUWYHSTOT (Acronyms are Useless When You Have to Spell Them Out Too)

Actual Subpoenae at Cryptome by gui+noir · 2003-07-23 12:41 · Score: 5, Informative

A full subpoena may be examined courtesy of Cryptome:

http://cryptome.org/riaa-hit.htm

Or, for the lazy:

This is one of several hundred similar subpoenas issued by RIAA recently under the DMCA. Most have been filed in US District Court in the District of Columbia.
US District Court in the District of Columbia

1:03-mc-00273-UNA

Unassigned, presiding

Date filed: 07/02/2003 Date of last filing: 07/02/2003
Entered 07/17/03
LAW OFFICES
MITCHELL SILBERBERG & KNUPP LLP
A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS
TRIDENT CENTER
11377 WEST OLYMPIC BOULEVARD
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90064-1683
(310) 312-2000
FAX: (310) 312-3100
June 30, 2003
Sir or Madam
Comcast Cable Communications, Inc.
3 Executive Campus
Cherry Hill. NJ 08002

Re: Notice of Copyright Infringement (17 U.S.C. 512(c)(3))

Dear Sir or Madam:

We are counsel to the Recording Industry Association of America, Inc. ("RIAA") and its member record companies. The RIAA is a trade association whose member companies create, manufacture, and/or distribute approximately ninety percent (90%) of all legitimate sound recordings sold and distributed in the United States. Under penalty of perjury, we submit that we are authorized to act on behalf of the R1AA and its member companies in matters involving the online infringement of their copyrighted sound recordings.

A user, customer, or subscriber of your system or network, identified by the IP address, date, and time on the attached document, is offering tbr download over the Internet files containing copyrighted sound recordings owned by RIAA member companies. The attached document also includes a representative list of the recordings the identified user is offering for download. We have a good faith belief that such activities are not authorized by the copyright owners, their agents, or the law, and assert that the intbrmation in this Notice of Copyright Infringement is accurate, based on the data available to us.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. Should you have any questions, please contact me at (310) 312-3297 or at dmca@msk.com.

[Signature]

Yvette Molinaro
for
MITCHELL SILBERBERG & KNUPP LLP

24.61.155.10 on 6/26/2003 at 11:49:00 p.m.(EDT)

The user at the above-identified IP address, using the screen name Tyler@KaZaA, has offered for download through the online media distribution system known as KaZaA copyrighted sound recordings owned by RIAA member record companies, including the following representative recordings:

Michelle Branch - All You Wanted
Avril Lavigne - Complicated
Radiohead - Just
Incubus - Nice to Know You
Busta Rhymes - Pass the Courvoisier
Sheryl Crow - Soak Up The Sun
Incubus - Stellar
Guns N Roses - Sweet Child O' Mine
A PERFECT CIRCLE - Three Libras ...etc

Re:Actual Subpoenae at Cryptome by ic3p1ck · 2003-07-23 13:22 · Score: 1

The question is: Did they actually download the files from the users to verify that they were in fact those songs?

Time to update those IP blocklists.
Re:Actual Subpoenae at Cryptome by FeloniousPunk · 2003-07-23 14:47 · Score: 1

Ah, an email address and a phone number connected to actual people.
Have at 'em.

--
I know this because Tyler knows this.
Re:Actual Subpoenae at Cryptome by DarthWufei · 2003-07-23 14:58 · Score: 1

"We have a good faith belief that such activities are not authorized by the copyright owners, their agents, or the law, and assert that the intbrmation in this..." What's intbrmation? :P
Re:Actual Subpoenae at Cryptome by enota · 2003-07-23 16:13 · Score: 1

LAW OFFICES MITCHELL SILBERBERG & KNUPP LLP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS FAX: (310) 312-3100 I for one will be promptly faxing a printout of hello.jpg to this most helpful law office.
Re:Actual Subpoenae at Cryptome by GnrcMan · 2003-07-23 18:05 · Score: 1

*evil grin* Hmm, perhaps that obnoxious disgusting goatse.cx picture has a use after all.
Re:Actual Subpoenae at Cryptome by front · 2003-07-24 04:15 · Score: 1

"we are authorized to act on behalf of the R1AA"

The "R_1_AA"? A typo from cryptome or on the original?

cheers

front

suddenly by hpavc · 2003-07-23 12:41 · Score: 4, Funny

suddenly i feel so safe with 'ashcroft@kazaa'.

--
members are seeing something, your seeing an ad

Average Age? by crass751 · 2003-07-23 12:41 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

Re:Average Age? by DeepRedux · 2003-07-23 14:25 · Score: 2, Insightful

It is more likely that the will sue the parents. Most minors will be using an account belonging to a parent. Whoever has their name on the ISP account can be held liable, even if the owner did not know it was happening.
Copyright is a strict liability regime under which any infringer, whether innocent or intentional, is liable for infringement. This link is from an abstract of a paper arguing that this is bad policy. But it is the law; bad policy is not necessarily unconstitutional.

Its Over by TitanBL · 2003-07-23 12:41 · Score: 2, Insightful

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

Oh damn, I am on the list by AsmordeanX · 2003-07-23 12:42 · Score: 1

www.k_lite.tk_Kazaa_Lite@Kazaa ?!

Oh dammit! I knew I should have never downloaded that song then went out and bought the album after listening (yes, I really do this).

Re:Oh damn, I am on the list by ottothecow · 2003-07-23 14:00 · Score: 1

There are going to be 20 posters now saying that in fact you DONT do this...
I however know that there are plenty of people who do this...I dont really want a 128kbps mp3 encoded on some cheap encoder that just happened to be the one I downloaded, and I certainly dont want to make a CD out of them, if I am going to use a CD, I want a real CD. There are many bands that I know own multiple CDs from that I never would have purchased if I had not heard "oh hey go download this and check it out" and had the option to actually do so for free. There is much good music that is not played on the radio and if you are talking about music with someone online, its not like they can just go grab their cd and pop it in for you to listen to, they could send you the file but hey...piracy.
Streams might be acceptable but most artists websites only have a song or 2 (if at all) to stream and maybe its not a song I care to listen too. I also tend to have to listen to a song more than once to decided I want to make a purchase and streaming makes that difficult.

--
Bottles.
Re:Oh damn, I am on the list by borg · 2003-07-23 17:29 · Score: 1

the very last CD i bought was the linkin park "reanimation" album, and that was the direct result of downloading it off the RIAA website after the labor day hack last year, listening to it and (surprise!) liking it! ...

--
Fermat's other theorem: "I have a simple proof, but I can't write it down as I fear it's a DMCA violation to discuss it"

When you all get arrested... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-23 12:43 · Score: 3, Funny

...will there still be Kazaa left? I still need to download a dozen of songs and a movie.

Re:What I'd like to see by Latent+IT · 2003-07-23 12:43 · Score: 2, Interesting

What will they do when kazaa adapts and it becomes impossible to trace? Go out of business Im guessing.

I'm curious how it would do that. Kazaa, as far as I can tell just acts as a middleman, and your computer makes a direct connection to the computer hosting the file, or vice versa, depending on firewall setups. You'll always have an ip address to work off of. This, and a time of day gives you an ISP account, even in the case of DHCP, and an ISP account gives you a name, address, and credit card, and oh boy, is it all downhill from there.

What I also wonder is how the RIAA is catching people who don't share - I seem to recall reading that they were also going after people who just downloaded songs, one guy as few as five. How do they track that? The obvious way is that the RIAA hosted the files, and waited for users to download them. But in that case, the copyright holder made the files freely available on a public network! Is downloading directly from the copyright holder now illegal somehow?

As a caveat, I don't really care, since I actually don't download mp3's in any form. Not because I think it's wrong, either, I just might be one of the ten people in the world that really likes shopping for CD's, and likes so few albums that it's actually pretty cheap. =p

But who the hell is being sued? by Angry+Pixie · 2003-07-23 12:43 · Score: 4, Interesting

First off, the entire list of potential defendents should be public record and available for free. But that's another story...

But who the hell is being sued? Is the RIAA suing downloaders or sharers -- or both? Is the RIAA really selectively choosing defendents based on the particular songs? If I download an MP3 of an unsigned local band or an independent whose music is not owned by the RIAA, will the RIAA sue me anyway?

I'd like to see these details. They speak to the ultimate motive of the lawsuit, especially if it appears that the RIAA is intentionally trying to flatten the independent music scene or prevent artists from choosing production/distribution by an entity other than the RIAA and its members.

Incidentally, Munkeyspankers 1-20 can hide out at my place until the heat blows over. #21 is SOL.

Re:But who the hell is being sued? by Maul · 2003-07-23 13:17 · Score: 1

I'd like to know that information as well. What is their criteria for suing someone?

I'm assuming that these are users the RIAA has observed at multiple times sharing loads of RIAA-distributed music. In other words, the users they have the strongest cases against.

It would be dubious if they just picked random users and said, "You were on Kazaa, so you must have been pirating our music!"

--
"You spoony bard!" -Tellah
Re:But who the hell is being sued? by duck+'o+death · 2003-07-23 13:53 · Score: 1

take a look at this post. It shows that they do know which particular songs these folks are downloading. Gives a bunch of other details too that seem to clear a couple of your points up.

--
Don't put salt in your eyes.
Re:But who the hell is being sued? by Maul · 2003-07-23 15:05 · Score: 1

Good info there. Only 9 songs, eh? -_-
I'm sure people have hosted far more.

--
"You spoony bard!" -Tellah
Re:But who the hell is being sued? by WiseWeasel · 2003-07-23 15:14 · Score: 1

Those are songs they offered for download (aka sharing). There is no info on any songs they were downloading, or whether they kept track of that. It seems they're going after people sharing songs with others, trying to turn everyone into leechers, thereby collapsing the system as no one uploads, except in other countries maybe.

--
"I like systems, their application excepted", George Sand (French)
Re:But who the hell is being sued? by suss · 2003-07-23 15:32 · Score: 1

Incidentally, Munkeyspankers 1-20 can hide out at my place until the heat blows over. #21 is SOL.

I hope you have plenty of kleenex in stock and scotchgarded your furniture...
Re:But who the hell is being sued? by Angry+Pixie · 2003-07-23 17:47 · Score: 1

Thanks for posting that article, Duck 'o Death. So apparently the RIAA selectively chooses its defendents by performing a search for a random Top 40 hit, and just jots down the screen-names of the users offering those titles. This probably means that if you are offering Avril Lavigne, you're screwed, but if your offering Men Without Hats, you're safe.
Re:But who the hell is being sued? by cyril3 · 2003-07-23 18:56 · Score: 1

even the RIAA realize that if you are offering Men Without Hats you have enough problems already.
Or they set their filters to exclude all Men Witout Hats tracks like everyone else does.

Re:What if I do own the music I downloaded? by mcp33p4n75 · 2003-07-23 12:46 · Score: 1

Remember, they're going after uploaders in this case, not downloaders. It doesn't matter that you have the cds. It only matters if you're making those files available to others. Plus, i think i remember some RIAA douchebag saying that "format upgrade" was copyright infringement or something.

Not only Kazaa by arth1 · 2003-07-23 12:50 · Score: 3, Informative

On TechTV tonight, they showed some interesting information from the company that collects the information for the RIAA. It showed that they do not only go after Kazaa, but other networks as well, and you saw harvested IP addresses from Gnutella, eDonkey and other networks as well.

The reason why the Kazaa users were LISTED is that you can reverse look up their "screen names" more easily, and that's more interesting to publish for TechTV than a list of IP addresses.

Regards,
--
*Art

Re:What I'd like to see by thedillybar · 2003-07-23 12:52 · Score: 1

Supposedly the IPs were listed right next to the Kazaa screennames on the system. I would *MUCH* rather see a list of IPs than the list of garbage they showed us.

Irony by Cyno01 · 2003-07-23 12:57 · Score: 2, Interesting

I went and looked at the list, kinda funy that the bottom ad is for something that lets you "listen to your mp3s from anywhere".

--
"Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."

Only KaZaa? by Nom+du+Keyboard · 2003-07-23 12:58 · Score: 2

So far only KaZaa addresses are listed. I find it hard to believe that KaZaa is the only network they are pursuing. Anyone have reports of other network's users being sued yet?

--
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."

Re:Only KaZaa? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-23 14:00 · Score: 1, Funny

KaZaa users would make the easiest targets, if they aren't smart enough to at least go for KaZaa LiTe then that means they've prolly got a few hundred top pop/rock/rap tracks being openly shared. The idiots of the web finally come in handy.

I am on the list by flikx · 2003-07-23 13:01 · Score: 3, Interesting

What am I going to do about it? Nothing. They can keep sending legal threats, but I will simply ignore them. Arrest warrents?? Pfft. Most cops will not even bother to take someone in for something so stupid. I don't have the time to download movies and music, I simply have plenty of server space and fast connections. I'm doing a public service, and a major disservice to the RIAA/MPAA by moving 100+ Gb a month. Half the stuff that moves through is junk that I would never even want to watch or listen too.

I'm not going to go on about how unfair it all is, I don't even care. I know that what I'm doing is wrong, and I will continue to do it because I know it pisses people off. This is an ideal hobby, especially since it's lower risk, and less time-intensive than pushing dope to kids.

And boycott . Ha! Sounds just like that stupid 'don't buy gas on April 23rd and we'll show those rich fat-cats who's in charge'. Even if such a boycott took off, the RIAA would simply absorb the loss, then attribute it to more filesharing. Way to go! That'll show 'em!

--
One future, two choices. Oppose them or let them destroy us.

Re:I am on the list by jafuser · 2003-07-24 03:33 · Score: 1

I know that what I'm doing is wrong,

See, this is where it gets kinda strange.

What you are doing could be interpreted as *illegal*, but the question of whether it is wrong or not depends on who you ask.

Not all laws are ethical. Some laws are just bad.

Copyright law had a specific intent. Whatever that intent is now obviously differs from the original intent, as demonstrated by the many extensions it has received.

IMO, it is unethical for a business to manipulate the laws to gain a competitive advantage at the expense of the rest of society. The needs of the few do not outweigh the needs of the many.

In addition, it is quite unethical to continue to conduct a campaign of inquisition-style FUD to continuiously patch the cracking foundation of a business model which continues to become more obsolete as technology advances, especially when a preferred alternative has been demonstrated to be fair and effective (i.e. iTunes).

--
Please consider making an automatic monthly recurring donation to the EFF

Re:Game. Set. Match. by SoSueMe · 2003-07-23 13:07 · Score: 1

Reciprical international agreements on copyright laws preclude a lot of protection just because you are outside the US.

Okay, but one thing first: by lysium · 2003-07-23 13:07 · Score: 1

I would, if you give me one reason why I, or anyone else, should take any risk to gratify your cowardly, leeching ass.

Disclaimer: Seriously.

--
Together, we will drive the rats from the tundra.

Re:Okay, but one thing first: by SubtleNuance · 2003-07-23 14:36 · Score: 1

huh? if your on Kazaa, and downloading files, someone out there is taking risk for your cowardly, leeching ass

The One and Only - www.k_lite.tk_Kazaa_Lite@Kazaa by deuce_WI · 2003-07-23 13:08 · Score: 1

LOL!

I'm sure there's only one person using that name. Good luck catching him / her / them.

Now everyone shutup before the RIAA subpoenas /. to find out who all the people talking bad about them are.

-d3UCe

Re:Let us know if you're on the list & the low by suss · 2003-07-23 13:08 · Score: 1

Join the boycott starting August 1-30th and do not buy any music in this period.

I stopped buying music in 1997 and there hasn't been much of interest music-wise to me since then either.
I own about 300 CD's, 1500 CD Singles, 200 LP's and 800 12" Singles, so they made a bundle on me already.

btw, the last CD i bought came from a non-RIAA label, as far as i can see (Mute Records).

The lawfirm's website by Sergeant+Beavis · 2003-07-23 13:11 · Score: 1

http://www.msk.com/

--
There is nothing inherently safe about liberty. That's why so many people died protecting it.

Class action lawsuits? by WiggyWack · 2003-07-23 13:18 · Score: 1

So, the RIAA was unsuccessful in trying to sue services such as Kazaa, but do you think that if the RIAA sues Kazaa users successfully (or gets the user to settle for thousands out of court) will the Kazaa users try to sue Kazaa because Kazaa didn't let them know about the illegal things that could be done with the software and get them sued?

It sounds unlikely to me, but with all the crazy stuff that's been going on in the courts lately. I mean the class action lawsuit against McDonalds for making addictive, heart clogging burgers should be out any day now...

--
Macintosh humor! MacComedy.com

weird thought by ryusen · 2003-07-23 13:21 · Score: 1

can you guys imagine what damage and how many people would be in trouble if th ePORN industry decided to follow the RIAA???

things that make you go... hmm...

--

I believe sex is highly over rated... unless it involves me

Re:weird thought by kgarcia · 2003-07-23 14:27 · Score: 2, Funny

Can you imagine the profit and how many people would benefit if the RIAA followed the ePORN industry's way of doing business?

things that make you go... hmm...
Re:weird thought by kgarcia · 2003-07-23 16:05 · Score: 1

Except we'd all get just 15 second clips of songs.

Yes, but then you could go to:
riaa.com/brittany/1-15.mp3
riaa.com/brittany /15-30.mp3
riaa.com/brittany/30-45.mp3 ...
etc, and thus get the complete file... ;)

Let's Copyleft It All! by crashnbur · 2003-07-23 13:23 · Score: 2

Imagine a notice from the RIAA if all music in the world were suddenly declared free (as in free speech, not as in free beer) according to the terms of the GPL:

All digital music is henceforth be copylefted according to the terms of the General Public License. Each digital music file is its own source and may be edited with common audio software. Any copylefted music file is and any derivative file of the original or any derivative is by terms of the GPL also copylefted and free to be modified and redistributed.

Note 1: By terms of the GPL, a verbatim copy of the GPL must be included with each distribution of the software -- let's say in the ID3 comment field (pretend it fits).

Note 2: The original copyright holder still may put restrictions on the original copyrighted work, but once set free, the copylefted work and any derivatives can not have its usage, modification, or redistribution in any way restricted.

Note 3: The original copyright holder's original creative work are still protected under trademark, trade secret, and/or patent law. The digital copy is not the original work and is not protected or restricted by such laws, but instead is protected by copyright law according to the terms of the end user license agreement, in this case the GPL.

I shall awake from this dream now.

couple of thoughts by X_Bones · 2003-07-23 13:25 · Score: 1

First of all, the RIAA has a right to go after people who pirate their IP. You may not agree with the way they're doing so, and you may not like the ridiculous lengths of time IP is protected for (I don't like either of those), but it's the law. Nobody should be surprised that they're actually carrying out their earlier threats.

Now, besides the fact that suing your own customers is not a viable business model, I don't think the RIAA will gain too much from lawsuits against P2P users. It's easy to get around, with the defendant showing proof of ownership of the CD in question and demonstrating that he's within his fair use rights to possess an electronic copy of the IP in question. It shouldn't matter how the copy is acquired, just as long as the original has been legally purchased. (But I am most definitely not a lawyer so don't take this as legal advice, especially if your name is on the list, ok?)

I use Kazaa and friends all the time, I'll admit. But the only things I download are radio shows (mostly Radio1 Essential Mixes) that you can't get on CD, and songs from CDs I owned which are physically at my house but a thousand miles from my dorm where I downloaded them. In both cases I am entitled to have a copy of these songs in my possession.

--

the coolest club on /.

Suicidal business plan.. (amended) by crashnbur · 2003-07-23 13:29 · Score: 1

1. Sue your customers, and make a bunch of penniless college kids into martyrs.

2. Gain support from your clients (REVENUE!)

3. Lose support from your consumers, those same college kids whose checks used to pay your salaries, but you've sued them all into financial oblivion because you wouldn't listen to reason (and that reason has been telling you all along that information is meant to be free, the internet is meant to be free, and music is meant to be heard), and they kept downloading anyway.

4.

5. CHAPTER 11 or BUST!

Re:Let us know if you're on the list & the low by ScrewMaster · 2003-07-23 13:31 · Score: 1

I agree with you one hundred percent. I was ahead of my time, I guess, since I boycotted commercial music twenty years ago. I felt then that the product was not worth anywhere near what was being asked for it, and I still do. If everyone in the US FTP'ed me their entire MP3 collections it wouldn't cost the RIAA one red cent since I won't give them any money anyway.

Actually, I take it back. About six years ago I broke down and bought the Still The One CD by Orleans. But that was in a moment of weakness ... normally my principles prevent me from knowingly feeding such a utterly amoral institution as the RIAA.

I still think that the recent actions of the recording industry in Congress are treasonous, and the Representatives and Senators (Berman, are you listening?) that are aiding and abetting them are traitors as well. The damage to our way of life will, I predict, be considerable if something doesn't derail this flow of bad Federal law.

--
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.

However, RIAA sues those who share his songs... by tinrobot · 2003-07-23 13:31 · Score: 1

But strange how the RIAA's list of songs they searched for included several by Michael Jackson...

Probably trying to protect himself and salvage those last 3 fans.

Re: well... by op51n · 2003-07-23 13:41 · Score: 3, Interesting

All I can say is that this shit makes me feel kinda ill.

It's just, damnit it's not right. I didn't think I could hate the RIAA any more than I did, but seeing this shit's happening just makes it all the worse.

I swear, if I ever get signed to a label I want to make sure in my contract it says the RIAA have no rights to sue over anyone downloading my music!

(I'd do it unsigned but I couldn't afford to get by that way, which makes me feel even better...)

The nature of the beast by s-orbital · 2003-07-23 13:42 · Score: 1

It's because those vultures like to go after the easiest targets. Sure, go after some 14 year old girl, you slimeballs...

Abusive corporations like this always target the most suceptible and defenceless in their marketing, so why not thier lawsuits?

(Disclaimer: I am not trying to apply that females are weak or defenseless, just favorite victims.)

--
Patent: from Latin patere, to be open

Theft != infringement by jabber01 · 2003-07-23 13:46 · Score: 5, Insightful

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

Re:Theft != infringement by Frac · 2003-07-23 14:45 · Score: 1

There are plenty of problems with copyright - continual extensions of copyright terms. This however, is not a problem.

If a person were to create some form of content, they deserve the right to dictate how the content is being distributed. If they want to charge you for it, they shall. If they want to put it under the GPL, they shall.

By calling it theft, the RIAA is simply shortening it from "this individual is depriving our revenues by distributing our work that we normally charge for."

Yes, it's not the same exact thing. But no, it's not a big deal. Just because distribution rights for intangible materials such as copyright is hard to assess properly doesn't mean the losses didn't happen. And even if the losses DIDN'T happen, so what? The record companies own the copyrights, they therefore can dictate how the medium is distributed. If they chose to distribute it for a price, and someone is distributing their works for free, then they have a reason to sue for potential losses.

And don't give the public that much credit. The people using Kazaa knows very well the stuff they get is supposed to be paid for. The whole "oh i'm so innocent, just because it's digital i didn't know i was supposed to pay for this" argument is not going to sit well in court, or anywhere else. It never was an issue of "what do you mean I can't share this", but it was always an issue of "hey, I can get all this music without paying for it, and I probably won't get caught".

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.

Running a racket? No, it's respecting copyright. If someone disregards the GPL (and the copyright holders' wishes to put their copyrighted work under GPL) and forks Linux without handing over the source code, I'm sure you'll be one of the first to jump in. Is THAT running a racket?
Re:Theft != infringement by MMaestro · 2003-07-23 15:39 · Score: 1

If I was to print out the lyrics and the musical notes to a song I downloaded off the net, would that be "theft"?
Re:Theft != infringement by jabber01 · 2003-07-24 02:25 · Score: 1

Would posting a Cliff-Notes summary and character analysis of a book be theft? Would posting the entire text? No, the first is perfectly fine and the second is a copyright issue.

Walking out of a book/music store with a book or CD you did not pay for in your pocket would be theft. Giving someone a copy of either is a copyright issue.

--
The REAL jabber has the user id: 13196
What you do today will cost you a day of your life
Re:Theft != infringement by fredklein · 2003-07-24 02:39 · Score: 1

By accepting the word "theft", the seed of the notion that this is about tangible property... are planted.

This can work to our advantage. If it's about 'theft', then a Downloader should get the same sentence as a shoplifter who shoplifts a CD.
Re:Theft != infringement by jabber01 · 2003-07-24 03:37 · Score: 1

For one CD, I agree. For compulsive downloaders, I'd suggest claiming kleptomania though.

--
The REAL jabber has the user id: 13196
What you do today will cost you a day of your life
Re:Theft != infringement by Dyolf+Knip · 2003-07-25 01:48 · Score: 1

Would posting a Cliff-Notes summary and character analysis of a book be theft? Would posting the entire text? No, the first is perfectly fine and the second is a copyright issue.
The RIAA has taken down some extremely good lyrics databases on the basis of copyright infringement.

--
Dyolf Knip

Re: For a reason... by op51n · 2003-07-23 13:49 · Score: 1

This is involving courts, lawyers, and demons from the darkest recesses of the underworld.
If a lawyer stands up in court and tells a jury, or a judge (not sure what kind of court these cases will be seen by, and I'm a UK resident so you know...) a heftier sentence/fine is likely to be placed if it's 'theft' not 'infringement'. I know it makes no sense, and it's just words, but they make a difference.
It's like news reports over here of the military police 'murdered' in Iraq. Surely they were killed, murders are usually slightly different in execution to being killed in a chiefly wartorn area. It's all media or lawyer built hype so they can come out on top.

Re:I do. by SoSueMe · 2003-07-23 13:53 · Score: 1

I'll by it.
Would you like to buy a vowel?

Re:Game. Set. Match. by falcon5768 · 2003-07-23 13:59 · Score: 1

Not quiet, its become pretty obvious that they dont have the IP's and more importantly there are other share services out there that hide your IP, its not quiet over yet.

--

"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."

Re:What if I do own the music I downloaded? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-23 14:00 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

Eh, this is actually a good thing in disguise... by The+Spoonman · 2003-07-23 14:00 · Score: 1

These cases'll hit the courts, and the courts will end, once and for all, the legality of steali...er....downloading music.

--
Which is more painful? Going to work or gouging your eye out with a spoon? Find out!
http://www.workorspoon.com

Not a bad idea BUT by Sycraft-fu · 2003-07-23 14:00 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

Re:Not a bad idea BUT by angmoh · 2003-07-23 19:35 · Score: 2, Insightful

I may be going out on a limb here, but does the RIAA have to prove that the content of the file actually contains copyrighted material? Just because the file name is called "Metallica - Enter Sandman" for example, does not necessarily mean that the file contains a recording of that song. The only way to know is to download the file and listen to it, is it not? Which would mean the RIAA would have to download every file they suspected contained copyrighted material ...or are there other ways of verifying the contents without actually downloading the file?
Re:Not a bad idea BUT by Sycraft-fu · 2003-07-23 20:30 · Score: 2

In a civil suit, it is basically what you can get the jury to believe. Maybe the file name is enough, depends on how smart the respondant's lawyer is (my error orignally, in a civil suit you are a respondant, not a defendant). Maybe a CRC32 does it, maybe the download the whole file. I don't know. I dn't know if they even have a cohearant strategy. One big problem is that technology is largely untested incourts and poorly understood. Add that to the fact that while a ury may be your peers they aren't usually the brightest fo your peers, this can lead to stupidity winning in the face of logic.

So really, I just don't know. Now, for a criminal case, I would say that the police (or FBI, who are federal police) would need to download and verify all the files themselves, not the RIAA. For anything less, a competent defense lawyer should be able to conjure up reasonable doubt with little trouble. However, like I said, civil suits are different. The RIAA just has to do a bit better job than the other guy to win.

Also, as I mentioned, it depends on the lawyers present. A stupid defense attorney who is ignorant of technology issues can easily loose a case simply be not knowing how to attack prosecution/plantiff arguments.
Re:Not a bad idea BUT by DrSkwid · 2003-07-23 21:10 · Score: 1

IANAL

but imagine this UK situation :

two guys, one with a bag of oregano sells it to the other as "weed".

They can both be prosecuted for selling/buying a controlled substance despite not having any.

--
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
Re:Not a bad idea BUT by Lemmeoutada+Collecti · 2003-07-24 00:16 · Score: 1

Your Honour, the substance in question as Exhibit 'A' was, admittedly, referred to by my client as 'weed.' I would like to refer the just to the 'Phylogical Guide to Gardening' published by Bogus Press, 1999. On page 128 there is a list of plants classified as weeds when gardening. Many of these, you will note, are also commonly used spices. If you will look at the 47th line, you will note that the spice being traded in this charge, 'Oregano', is in fact classified as a 'weed.'

I submit to you that my client was using the term 'weed' in it's proper subjective application, and further that the charge that my client knowingly engaged in trafficing of a controlled substance is entirely unsubstantiated.

(Disclaimer: IANAL)

--

You can have it fast, accurate, or pretty. Pick any 2.
Re:Not a bad idea BUT by DrSkwid · 2003-07-24 01:54 · Score: 1

Your honour,

Why would anyone be buying gardening refuse at £210 for an ounce?

--
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
Re:Not a bad idea BUT by Lemmeoutada+Collecti · 2003-07-24 03:34 · Score: 1

You Honour, the 'Oregano' referred to in this case is a rare variety, grown by Buddhist monks in Thailand and said to have healing properties. As you are aware, your Honour, my client is American, and therefore subject to the fad of the week.

(No offense to anyone, I (though I am loath to admit it) am American also)

--

You can have it fast, accurate, or pretty. Pick any 2.
Re:Not a bad idea BUT by anthony_dipierro · 2003-07-24 04:44 · Score: 1

Just because the file name is called "Metallica - Enter Sandman" for example, does not necessarily mean that the file contains a recording of that song.

And more than that, it certainly doesn't mean that it contains a recording made by an RIAA record company. It could be a bootleg, which may violate the copyright on the song, and might violate laws against bootlegging, but the copyright on the recording is owned by whoever made the bootleg, not the record company.
Re:Not a bad idea BUT by DrSkwid · 2003-07-24 07:03 · Score: 1

Your Honour, the defendant had plenty of opportunity to reveal this new information, indeed his arresting officer cautioned him :

"You do not have to say anything but it may harm your defence if you fail to mention when questioned something which you intend to rely on in court"

Therefore I motion that this new piece of evidence be inadmissable as it was a story clearly concocted after the fact.

--
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
Re:Not a bad idea BUT by numatrix · 2003-07-28 00:48 · Score: 1

For a civil case, no. To effectively use the DMCA, maybe. For the details on what the requirements are to complain, see:

http://copyright.lib.uci.edu/pdmcaiv.html#a

Someone is missing! by starphish · 2003-07-23 14:04 · Score: 1

Where is "kazaaliteuser@Kazaa"?

--
Yeah, yeah, yeah. The story is a dupe, the topic is boring, the facts weren't checked. WE GET IT!!

Re:Punk Labels by Radish03 · 2003-07-23 14:07 · Score: 1

I recall a few months ago seeing Fat Wreck was a member and thinking "WTF!" but it would appear they have indeed left the list.

But you do make a great point. There is plenty of music out there that isn't controled by a cartel.

Re:I'm thinking of creating 1000 mp3's by Llywelyn · 2003-07-23 14:09 · Score: 1

Wait, I thought that was her music? ::ducks:: Sorry! Couldn't resist!

--
Integrate Keynote and LaTeX

Yikes! by thirty2bit · 2003-07-23 14:10 · Score: 1

Oh no, I got mine in the mail today! "You are hereby subpoenaed.... for sharing the file 'Hamster Dance.mp3'"

Solution ("Fun with porn") by Mikey-San · 2003-07-23 14:12 · Score: 1

Step 1: Zero hard drive.

Step 2: Do it again.

Step 3: Download massive amounts of pornography. Get it from sites like Bangedup.com, Steakandcheese.com, and Consumptionjunction.com.

Step 4: Visit goatse.cx. You know what to do.

Step 5: Let the RIAA have a good ol' time looking through your computer.

--
Mikey-San
Karma: +Eleventy billion (mostly affected by watching Celebrity Jeopardy)

TMONEYNDHIZOUSE by allanc · 2003-07-23 14:17 · Score: 1

TMONEYNDHIZOUSE will have to change his name to TMONEYNDBIGHIZOUSE...

--AC

Not to beyatch about your math or anything... by MasonMcD · 2003-07-23 14:25 · Score: 1

but subpeona 1 has been reserved for Bill Gates. But he said recently, he won't distribute it.

Some people use their full name as their Kazaa by Katamai · 2003-07-23 14:29 · Score: 1

Scary that some people seemed to use their first and last names for their usernames on Kazaa... example: leahpate@Kazaa anthonybotz@Kazaa

Don't get caught by Funksaw · 2003-07-23 14:37 · Score: 2, Interesting

Here's the sad thing. The best way to fight the RIAA is to not get caught. Don't upload music from your computer - rather, only upload the music authorized for sharing. The great thing about this particular method of attack is that it requires the average user to be scared of the RIAA. And if you're scared of the RIAA, you think that you'd be tempted to buy from them? By the time that you hear that you're a target, you don't want to do business with them anymore. Stopping copyright infringement on the net does NOT mean people will start buying CDs again. On the contrary, it meants that people will START buying CDs from non-RIAA members, START buying used-CDs and STOP buying from the RIAA. Very few people will willingly knowingly cut their own throat. -- Funksaw

See, what had happened was... by IcarusMoth · 2003-07-23 14:40 · Score: 1

ok so I'm www.k_lite.tk_Kazaa_Lite@Kazaa but so are alteast 33 people I know and several I dont (Hey you might be one of us too!!! Kinda like the Borg!!) ... not only that but most of them are all behind routers... so The idea that they have the Individual IPs of these users is flakey to say the least. Personally I think they probably hate www.k_lite.tk_Kazaa_Lite@Kazaa more than anyother user cuz he (or we) have every Copyrighted song, clip, and whistle on the planet... Its tragic when teh ignorant triumph over the just...

Re:See, what had happened was... by IcarusMoth · 2003-07-23 15:01 · Score: 1

Additionally, what happens to all those under 18ers? Do they get their money whiped out? And has EVERYONE forgotten that the entertainment industry relies on DISPISIBLE income and thannks to the wonderfully capable leadership of this country, we are experiencing the worst Economic ressession since... well since the last Wonderfully capable Leader was in control.

Let Us Unite ! by LadyAshnod · 2003-07-23 14:41 · Score: 1

I believe there are slashdot members who are in the list. We should be able to convene and unite to stand by our fellas out there. Let us make a statement of protest as a community, to support our "freedom".

The Attention Defici-- HEY, LETS GO RIDE OUR BIKES by Funksaw · 2003-07-23 14:41 · Score: 1

um... right. That really should have been two complete thoughts, but kinda merged into one. -- Funksaw

Time for the Customary Freenet Reference :) by Famatra · 2003-07-23 14:47 · Score: 3, Interesting

If you want to trade content anonymously then I suggest you use Freenet. It's priorities are anonymous first, and speed second ;). A link with more information is found here:

http://freenet.sourceforge.net/

Also you might consider donating money, so the progress is faster. They already have a full time programmer paid for by donations, but they are always in need of more:

http://freenet.sourceforge.net/index.php?page=dona te

Re:Time for the Customary Freenet Reference :) by spike+it · 2003-07-23 18:09 · Score: 1

Freenet should up their advertising for their service. They could be banking a lot of dough right about now if they do.
Re:Time for the Customary Freenet Reference :) by anthony_dipierro · 2003-07-24 05:23 · Score: 1

If you want to trade content anonymously then I suggest you use Freenet.

Freenet will not protect you from civil liability for copyright infringement. Civil copyright infringement is a strict liability statute. It doesn't matter if you know what you are sending is copyrighted or not. If you send someone a copyrighted album, whether you initiated it or not you are still liable.
Re:Time for the Customary Freenet Reference :) by theLOUDroom · 2003-07-24 09:40 · Score: 1
Freenet will not protect you from civil liability for copyright infringement. Civil copyright infringement is a strict liability statute. It doesn't matter if you know what you are sending is copyrighted or not. If you send someone a copyrighted album, whether you initiated it or not you are still liable.

3 problems:
1. If freenet preserves your anonymity, they can't sue you.
2. If you're hosting someone else's file without knowledge of it, you're probably in the clear. Under the DMCA they should notify you that you are hosting it, and then you can remove it and be protected by the "safe harbor" provision.
3. Email
  An email does not pass directly from the sender's computer to the recipient's. It spends time in many other computers along its journey. Are all those computers' owners liable? Heck no.
  
  Freenet is a protocol, like email. If freenet nodes are liable, so is every mail server on the internet.
--
Life is too short to proofread.
Re:Time for the Customary Freenet Reference :) by anthony_dipierro · 2003-07-25 07:30 · Score: 1

If freenet preserves your anonymity, they can't sue you.

Freenet preserves your anonymity no more than Kazaa. The IP address of the computer sending you the file cannot be hidden.

If you're hosting someone else's file without knowledge of it, you're probably in the clear. Under the DMCA they should notify you that you are hosting it, and then you can remove it and be protected by the "safe harbor" provision.

Maybe. In order to qualify though, you have to "[designate] an agent to receive notifications of claimed infringement." How many Freenet users are going to do that?

If freenet nodes are liable, so is every mail server on the internet.

Yep, mail servers whichh have not registered as a service provider under the DMCA technically are liable. No one's going to actually sue them, because they're not doing any harm to anyone, but it is legally possible.

Any good ISPs out there that destroy records? by geddes · 2003-07-23 14:48 · Score: 4, Interesting

Does anyone know of any good ISPs that have a policy of destoying thier records of who connected with what ip daily?

I know that many librarians, after the Patriot act was passed, started to destroy circulation records daily - it wasn't illegal for them to do it, and they felt very strongly that the government shouldn't be able to see what books people were getting. (Incidentally, this is a tragedy in some literary circles since a popular field of study in literature now is examining old library records from the 18th century onward to see which books were popular during eras past).

These big ISPs, comcast, earthlink, etc. offer unlimited plans, and have no need to record which account is mapped to which IP for anything longer than a day (just to ensure bandwidth usage isn't being abused or something). If they were to have a policy of discarding the records every day at midnight, it would save them hassle (what a pain in the neck it must be to recieve 200 lettes from the RIAA in the morning) and protect thier user's rights. How can they go wrong?

Re:Any good ISPs out there that destroy records? by DeepRedux · 2003-07-23 15:04 · Score: 2, Insightful

The risk to the ISP is that the ISP could be held liable for any sharing.
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.
Re:Any good ISPs out there that destroy records? by stopntalk · 2003-07-23 21:32 · Score: 3, Informative

First and foremost, those records are money to the ISP's. It's their record of usage and backs their claim for services should a subscriber dispute any charges.

Secondly, destroying those records would be tanamount to what Enron did... they knew they were being pursued and destroyed records anyway. There are differences, to be sure, but once an entity is made aware of any kind of investigative action they are held to the position all records become part of the investigation. With the very broad press in regards to the RIAA issues, it would not be a good idea for any ISP to destroy any records. Playing pattycake with the RIAA is one thing, but having your ass hauled into Federal Court for obstruction charges is another thing altogether.

Next point is an article stating AP had culled the supoena records and managed to ID some of the people, contacting them ahead of time to explain the situation. Apparently even the RIAA didn't know they could find user information without the assistance of the ISP.

And having grep'd way too damned many router logs to verify connectivity and usernames, I want to know how AP did it with just the IP address and subpoena info. Any ideas?

DOWNLOADING MUSIC NOT RELEASED FREELY by borgheron · 2003-07-23 15:00 · Score: 1

and which you haven't paid for is WRONG. If the artist gives you the right to copy or download, then as the copyright holder he/she has that right. If however, you must pay for the music, then dont' download.

You are just hurting yourselves here. I don't know why people feel as though downloading copyrighted (as opposed to copylefted -- i.e. permission granted by the artist) music is *okay*.

Later, GJC

--
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep

Re:DOWNLOADING MUSIC NOT RELEASED FREELY by Mr.Spaz · 2003-07-23 16:20 · Score: 1

Many people don't draw the distinction between hearing a song on the radio and downloading it from the internet. Granted, we know that the radio stations pay hefty royalty fees in order to broadcast the music we hear there, ostensibly to eventually turn a profit by putting ads between the songs, but Joe Blow isn't thinking about that.

What I would like to see is someone put together an alternative system to the major labels who so madly seek unseemly profits that the product they push is priced far above its worth. If someone were to publish CD-quality MP3s on the internet for $.75 or less, I'd gladly buy the ones I wanted. I don't want to be forced into a subscription where I pay for more than what I really want to hear, nor do I want expiring, self-destructing, location-locked DRM'ed files. You sell the track to me, and I'm free to use it for personal use as I please, thank you very much. Any takers for setting this up?

The names ARE interesting by twoallbeefpatties · 2003-07-23 15:07 · Score: 1

Check out some of the names on this list:

B.B.C@Kazaa
ERIKA@Kazaa
mike@Kazaa
joe@Kazaa
nikki@Kazaa

Seems like the majority of the names on this list are very "vanilla" names. The point? Ever known anyone who was "mike@hotmail.com"? You may know a "mike1325@hotmail.com". To have such a bland name without a number after it, chances are you would have had to have signed up for KaZaA a long time ago. In other words, Clear Channel could be going after the long-time offenders who have built up the biggest "criminal record" over time.

Are you allowed to duplicate user names on the KaZaA network?

--
Libertarians somehow believe that private businesses should be stronger than governments but weaker than individuals.

Re:The names ARE interesting by Myuu · 2003-07-23 15:30 · Score: 1

Are you allowed to duplicate user names on the KaZaA network?

Believe so.

--

forget it.

I'm not worried by teklob · 2003-07-23 15:08 · Score: 1, Redundant

I a) Live in canada and b) Use the kazaa (fasttrack) network with a linux client that doesnt make you enter a name like monkeyluvr so they'll actually have to figure out my name to prosecute me...

Think of the children! by Paddyish · 2003-07-23 15:09 · Score: 1

After a quick perusal of the comments, I don't think this has been brought up: That list looks populated with an awful lot of young people. Maybe I'm waaaaay out of touch with society, but 23-year-old John Doe isn't as likely to use "sk8boyben" as 15-year old Jeff Smith.

RIAA: Ruining lives, one teenager at time.

Re:Think of the children! by fgb · 2003-07-24 02:43 · Score: 1

Are you kidding? Have you seen the frugal gourmet? He's a bit over 15!

Re:idiot by Frac · 2003-07-23 15:09 · Score: 1

thanks for proving my point :) you're right, it really doesn't bother me when ACs call me an idiot.

Re:What I'd like to see by DarkBlackFox · 2003-07-23 15:11 · Score: 1

That is more than likely true- Any generic firewall or port monitoring software can show all incoming and outbound connections to a host. Technically, all the RIAA would have to do is initiate a download from someone, pop open the port monitor, and shibby, they have an IP address.

At this point however, they are probably only refering to usernames@kazaa for privacy purposes (like it matters to them anyway), such that they don't come off as "bad guys" posting names and IP addresses publicly.

Just use a better name by ls-lta · 2003-07-23 15:11 · Score: 2, Funny

like, mr_unjustly_accused, miss_taken_identity, poor_waif_being_bankrupted_by_multinationals, riaa_is_lying, other suggestions?

Create a P2P virus by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-23 15:19 · Score: 3, Interesting

Hey thats the ticket.

Create a virus that goes to screwed up machines and installs P2P software.

Then systematicaly download VALID mp3 files from the P2P network and share them with the world.

Then the RIAA can have lots of people to mess with.

What I dont get though..why is it illegal to share files you have on your computer? You are not doing anything illegal. Not like you are sending them to the person. Besides the person knows if they are allowed to download the songs or not!

Just a thought.

I never really liked KaZaA. by crashnbur · 2003-07-23 15:28 · Score: 1

It was full of spy/ad-ware and I hated the narrow search options. Damn them for having the largest P2P network! In retrospect, however, lucky me. For now.

Also, it's good to see that my theory (and, well, lots of other people's theory too) held true: that KaZaA would be systematically erased in the same fashion as Napster soon after officially recognizing the RIAA. Ballsy move, but ultimately stupid.

Finally, I hate to agree with Michael Jackson due to a rather gaping hole in his credibility, but he's right about one thing: It isn't right to steal music, but jail is certainly not the answer. (One is thus led to ask if anyone has been put in jail for digital music copyright violations. I know they can be, but has anyone?)

He MIGHT want to quietly settle with the RIAA by bsrokc73013 · 2003-07-23 15:34 · Score: 2, Funny

If I had a name like "munkeyspanker21@Kazaa", I think I'd QUIETLY settle any lawsuit with the RIAA before my friends and neighbors found out!!! OH, the embarrassment!! Then again, this MIGHT be part of the strategy by the RIAA!

CaryShermanHasASmallPenis@Kazaa by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-23 16:14 · Score: 1, Funny

... would make for an entertaining lawsuit.

(Cary Sherman is the president of the RIAA.)

The RIAA site is behaving very strangely, probably hacked yet again. Poor little bastards.

RIAA Insurance by Dangerous_Jesus · 2003-07-23 16:22 · Score: 1

We need insurance against being caught by the RIAA maybe $5 a piece for coverage to 10 grand?

--
I love burritos!

unique usernames by dtfinch · 2003-07-23 16:31 · Score: 1

Since usernames on Kazaa do not have to be unique, some of the names on that list have probably been used by thousands, like mike@Kazaa.

Re:unique usernames by mfivis · 2003-07-25 01:59 · Score: 1

Clap Clap

So what?

Can't have nothin' nice... by Uncle+Eazy · 2003-07-23 16:43 · Score: 1

First this (DirecTV Sues Anyone Who Bought Smartcard Reader?) and now the RIAA is doing this? It's getting so that a guy can't steal anything around here without getting into trouble. Sheesh.

Uncle Eazy

The RIAA doesn't care... by badasscat · 2003-07-23 16:54 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

Re:The RIAA doesn't care... by UnassumingLocalGuy · 2003-07-23 18:08 · Score: 1

"10 years ago few people had even heard of the RIAA"

I beg to differ. Many people (including my father) were aware of the RIAA, but there was a different reason, as this quote from my father's Marantz 2240 Handbook (c.1975) shows:

"The AUX INPUT jacks are for...phonographs that provide RIAA equalized high level output, TV sound..."

This was, obviously, from a simpler time--my dad didn't (at that time) know anything about the RIAA other than the responsibilties they had to make sure audio equipment was compatible with each other.

Just some worthless information :)

--
"Hu, ho, ho-ah-oh-oh-oh. Hu, ho ho-ah-oh-oh-oh. Mario Paint! Whoaaa!"
Re:The RIAA doesn't care... by Funksaw · 2003-07-23 18:47 · Score: 1

I've never really bought into the whole "bad cop" theory of the RIAA.

By the time most people hear of the RIAA to the point where they CARE, they do the research and find out exactly who the RIAA is.

Even so, you think a guy who says he's going to boycott the RIAA doesn't know that it means "the record companies?"

The RIAA isn't the ACLU, an organization for a large number of people, the RIAA is an organization with 5 easy to remember companies as it's members.

-- Funksaw
Re:The RIAA doesn't care... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-23 21:31 · Score: 1, Informative

According to their web site (http://www.riaa.com/about/members/default.asp), they have listed 992 members, including:

EMI Classics
EMI Gospel Music
EMI Latin
EMI Records
Sega
Sony Classical
Sony Discos
Sony Japan
Sony Labels
Sony Music
Sony Music US (Latin)
Sony Wonder
Virgin Blackground
Virgin Classics
Virgin Latino
Virgin Nashville
Virgin Records
Virgin Underground
Walt Disney Records
Warner Bros. Christian
Warner Bros. Records Inc.
Warner Music Group
Warner Music Latina

amongst (obviously!) others.
Re:The RIAA doesn't care... by poot_rootbeer · 2003-07-24 02:47 · Score: 1

The RIAA exists to be the bad cop in the music industry's good cop/bad cop routine.

And the good cop is...? ...?

anyone...?
Re:The RIAA doesn't care... by doinky · 2003-07-24 07:24 · Score: 1

Duh. In his comment he obviously meant that Sony was the good cop. As in the original cop metaphor, both Sony and RIAA are really just two faces of the same organization.

well done kazaa alternative by tozzer · 2003-07-23 17:03 · Score: 3, Interesting

earth station 5 is a free p2p program that allows you to download files anonymusly by running through proxies (much like how you surf anonymusly over the internet). i can find most of what i need there. I think its just as good as kazaa except it lacks users (hopefully their population will grow) and they have junk built in it i dont really care much about like dating services etc. you dont have to use the extra stuff of you dont like. there is no spyware/adware. It looks like they may put 2 banners on the bottom that just have their name on it for now but id look a a couple banners for a good anonymus p2p program. -tozzer the illusionist

HERE'S ONE by catch23 · 2003-07-23 17:31 · Score: 1

In Atlanta around the Buckhead area there is a 6 mile radius WiFi access with the essid "FreeBeeAtlanta". It's free wireless access and it's FAST! And plus I don't think anyone could possibly trace you.... I can be downloading mp3s while walking around the bookstore... who'd know right?

RIAA scare has worked! by mercnet · 2003-07-23 17:50 · Score: 2, Funny

Just signed onto Kazaalite, and there are only 3,243,065 users currently on. I think the RIAA suceeded in making sure those listed in the article don't increase that number...

And I been boycotting the RIAA since Napster was beta :)

Obligatory Simpsons quote... by Aropax20 · 2003-07-23 18:10 · Score: 3, Funny

(Think Mr Burns vs the Germans, variations on a theme)

KaZaA user: Oooh, the RIAA are mad at me. I'm so scared! Oooh, the RIAA! Uh oh, the RIAA are going to get me!

RIAA: Stop it!

KaZaA user: Don't let the RIAA come after me. Oh no, the RIAA are coming after me.

RIAA: Please stop the 'pretending you are scared' game, please.

KaZaA user: No! They're so big and strong!

RIAA: Please stop pretending you are scared of us, please, now.

KaZaA user: Oh, protect me from the RIAA! The RIAA...

RIAA: Burns, STOP IT!

My other sig is a porsche

Notice the date? by mofolotopo · 2003-07-23 18:19 · Score: 1

Did anyone else notice that the sample subpoenas were all dated the night of 6/26? Is there some known reason for this?

It ain't civil disobedience if you hide by Charles+Dodgeson · 2003-07-23 18:47 · Score: 2, Insightful

In a previous job at a midsized university, I ended up in the role of copyright cop. This was probably because I was the only one (outside of the library) who knew the difference between a copyright, a trademark and a patent. I never actively hunted for violations within our domain, but I did act when something came to my attention. After a while, I learned that my curiosity about students web pages (all staff and students had space on our webserver, starting in 1993) which had a high level of hits only caused more unpleasant work for me (copyright, quasi-porn, etc)

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

How do we show we're pissed off? by alizard · 2003-07-23 18:47 · Score: 1

That's an easy one. Join the RIAA boycott..

This doesn't just mean not buying from the RIAA member labels.

That just gives them an excuse to buy even worse laws than the DMCA and "legalized corporate hacking."

Spend every dollar you've been spending on RIAA label music on independent musicians.

You can find some independent musicians, including some with downloadable tracks at CDBaby.

I work with an independent musician with both CDs for sale and downloadable tracks, check out http://www.eliangedeon.com.

Lots of other non-RIAA music on the Web. Google is your friend. No matter what you like, there's probably somebody who makes it who hasn't sold his or her ass to the RIAA.

Every dollar you spend on the good guys is another nail in the RIAA coffin. When music sales go up except for the RIAA labels, the multimationals that own major labels and the artists who work for them will look for a way to bail out.

When this is true, it's over for the major labels. They won't even exist in name, investor groups will be buying artist contracts and catalogues. But not the management who turned multibillion dollar companies into hundred million dollar companies, and not the "tainted" brand names. And make no mistake, a brand name that makes people less likely to want to buy is of negative value.

--
Tech Public Policy stuff

Re:How do we show we're pissed off? by Slack3r78 · 2003-07-23 19:39 · Score: 1

I've been encouraged to see over the last couple of years that a number of independent, non-RIAA labels have been growing at a rather considerable rate. Labels that are actually able to leverage for shelf space at the local cd shop. Jade Tree, Epitaph, Fat Wreck Chords, SideOneDummy, Sub-City, Hopeless Records, No Idea Records... the impressive thing, to me, being that these are all store bought CDs, all off independent labels, and they're only the ones that happen to be sitting on my desk at the moment. This is a very, very good thing for me.

There are a number of bands out there right now that I've been into for years that have recently signed to RIAA backed labels and released new albums, which if it weren't for the label, I'd have bought in an instant, but when there's such a rich collection of music available from independent labels, I find it much easier on my conscience to spend my $15 on a disc that a much higher percentage of the proceeds will go to the artist (50-50 is not unheard of in indy land. Nay, some indie artists actually have deals going 60-40 in the artists' favor and beyond) and the fact that my money will go towards supporting an independent label - allowing them to back more bands, rather than simply feeding the Beast(TM). The end result for me either way is that I get music that I like, and provide stimuli for an expansion of the amount of music available from non-RIAA sources. This is a Good Thing.

Whew... by Tiado · 2003-07-23 18:59 · Score: 1

I'm glad that I'm not on the list (yet), either that or the list on Tech TV is just a sample of the actual hit list, to which I'm on.

What about exchanging also user names? by ddubois · 2003-07-23 19:05 · Score: 1

What happens if Kazzaa also starts to swap user names?

Imagine your user Id can change from time to time in a random way. I mean the first time you connect, then Kazzaa change your user name. I think this principle must be the same as the file sharing system. This way when some "good" guys like RIAA try to track someone, the face about 1000 diffrent physical users...This would make lawsuit completely impraticable.

As a side notes, this kind of "resposibility-sharing" system has been applied by some french farmers who didnt' want to have the TGV to pass on thier lands: thez sold their lands m2 by m2 to local citizens at avery attractive price. It was then impossible for the SNCF company to contact every owner to by the lands to let the TGV go.

Re:What about exchanging also user names? by BrK · 2003-07-23 23:18 · Score: 1

I don't think the user name swappage would work. You're still tied to an IP addy, which is what they're *really* going by anyway. It's not like the RIAA is asking Comcast to give up the information on user "bigp1mpd00d@kazaa". The usernames are just a convienient (for now) way of identifying people until they have real names to attach to the lawsuits.

--
-This sig intentionally left blank
Re:What about exchanging also user names? by ddubois · 2003-07-24 19:45 · Score: 1

Yes you're true!Even if you have a changing IP (ADSL connection,..) they always have the possibilitty to analyse the logs... But this method is a little bit more complicated. Juste one hop more before trial :-)

This Dinosaur is Gonna Thrash for a Long Time by serutan · 2003-07-23 19:18 · Score: 1

What's going to kill the recording industry is musicians being able to succeed without it. This isn't going to happen overnight. First, musicians have to get comfortable with producing their own work and distributing free on the net. They have to get feedback (in the form of bigger and better gigs) and actually make money before they will believe it works. Right now it's still in the early adoption stage, and I think we are going to have to see somebody get rich this way before it really catches on. That will be the real death knell of the recording industry.

Even after that, the record industry will still have a huge backlog of copyrighted material that is still in demand, which they will jealously hold onto. As the market for recordings shrinks and RIAA companies become primarily oldies vendors, I think the lawsuits will become even more vindictive and the legislative efforts more and more ridiculous, and it will go on as long as there's a dime to be made selling Britney Spears songs or suing people for downloading them. As the companies fold, the former executives will personally sue. I really believe the death throes of the music industry will last until every last ego-inflated one of them runs out of lawyer money.

Re:This guy... What happens when they sue a minor? by RedCard · 2003-07-23 19:22 · Score: 1

I hereby give my blessing to anyone who wants to sue a guy with the balls to be known as: hottdude0587@Kazaa.

It's probably some sixteen-year-old highschool kid, judging from his screen name. "0587" would imply a date of birth of May, 1987.

So what happens in the US when they sue a minor?

WRONG!!! by alizard · 2003-07-23 19:25 · Score: 1

Spend just as much music as you usually do, but spend it on NON-RIAA ARTISTS.

Not spending money on music will cut sales, and the RIAA will go to the press and Congress and say "Of course they're refusing to buy, they're stealing our music instead."

Buy indie artists instead and the music press will notice where the money is going instead of to the major labels. The mainstream press will take it from there. A major label whose brand name turns off users is something to run away from both to the multinational that owns it ,and to its artists.

--
Tech Public Policy stuff

User@kazaa.com by Kelz · 2003-07-23 19:32 · Score: 1

Oh SHIT thats me!

*ducks*

you a stooge for the RIAA? by alizard · 2003-07-23 19:32 · Score: 1

Or do you simply mindlessly repeat their propaganda?

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.

No, it's the digital domain equivalent of swapping analog tapes. Swapping analog tapes is perfectly legal and considered "fair use". Swapping files is only illegal because the RIAA paid off politicians to make it so.

Perhaps the same people who paid off politicians to get the laws changed paid you off to spread their FUD here?

If you aren't being paid off, I suggest you contact them and hit them up for money. You might as well get yours while they can, they won't be around much longer.

--
Tech Public Policy stuff

Re:you a stooge for the RIAA? by CyberKnet · 2003-07-24 02:50 · Score: 1

No. when you *swap* a tape, you lose your copy.

You can swap your cd all you like. I'm sure they wouldn't mind.

What they do mind, is when you give away copies. Because then one copy becomes two. and all of a sudden, somebody hasn't paid for a copy.

Look, I'm not saying that p2p is illegal. I'm just saying that giving away copies of mp3s to people who have not already paid for their own copy IS illegal, and should be.

If you buy blueprints to a house, you can't go make photocopies of it and give them to other people... that would be illegal. If you buy a book, you can't scan the pages and put htem online for people to read... that also would be illegal. So why would you think that you should be able to distribute digital copies of your cds online? That also is illegal.

n.b. These scenarios all disclude the possibility that the person receiving the copy has already paid for their own copy. In that case, it would (or should) be legal, but in the case of p2p, verifying that the really *do* own a copy of their own is not possible, and trusting their "Yes, I own a copy" is really not permissable.

--
Video meliora proboque deteriora sequor - Ovidius

you've almost got it by alizard · 2003-07-23 19:38 · Score: 1

Shop via used cd's if you must. It will help show their loss in the upcomming year (used sales are Not tracked). Ebay/Amazon/Local stores/Whatever.

Buy music from independent non-RIAA artists, many do have their sales tracked. One doesn't have to be Own3D by an RIAA label in order to get Soundscan tracking. The main requirement from a musician POV is a (registered) UPC bar code.

If tracked sales go up for independent artists, the industry won't have any excuse to take to Congress and say "Of course they can refuse to buy from us, they're stealing it instead and we need NEW LAWS to protect OUR STARVING ARTISTS." no matter how far their sales drop.

The message we need to send to the RIAA labels and to Congress is
We WILL buy music. But not from a bunch of thugs.

--
Tech Public Policy stuff

not quite by Zork+the+Almighty · 2003-07-23 19:40 · Score: 2, Interesting

Actually, up until 1891 : "American publishers continued to regard the work of a foreign (i. e., non-resident) author as unprotected 'common' property.". So the US basically inherited the works of western civilization copyright-free.

Slightly unrelated, but you may also want to check out this site for a history of American copyright law.

--

In Soviet America the banks rob you!

MJ has seen the future... by alizard · 2003-07-23 19:54 · Score: 2, Interesting

Look for an increasing number of RIAA label musicians to disassociate themselves from the music industry's position on rabid attacks on fans.

Regardless of their own feelings on the matter.As the boycott takes off, this is going to become the only safe public position for a musician to take on this issue, repeating the RIAA party line is going to have an immediate downside for the musician in terms of smaller concert audiences and reduced record sales.

In fact, I expect musicians to be told by their labels and publicists to denounce their employers as soon as the boycott picks up steam.

Denouncing the labels is going to become the smart, safe thing to do... just as denouncing the War in Vietnam was the smart, safe thing for musicians to do in the '60s. It's called the marketing and commoditization of protest, and it can be very profitable. Well, this is a good thing, as long as all the money goes to musicians who aren't working for the RIAA labels.

Don't be fooled by major label musicians who denounce the industry and above all, DON'T buy their records just because they're saying cool public things about the boycott, buying their records just weakens our position..

If a musician not only denounces the RIAA, but immediately breaks his contract with the label and starts selling on the Web and uploading MP3s to P2P and Internet Radio, then reward him by buying.

However, in the meantime, just make sure all the music you buy is from independent artists and spend just as much on music as you usually do.

Every dollar spent on independent musicians is another nail in the RIAA coffin.

Let's nail the lid on the RIAA coffin nice and tight.

--
Tech Public Policy stuff

It's not a good idea to destroy evidence by KalvinB · 2003-07-23 20:10 · Score: 2, Insightful

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

you another RIAA stooge? by alizard · 2003-07-23 20:10 · Score: 1

You are just hurting yourselves here. I don't know why people feel as though downloading copyrighted (as opposed to copylefted -- i.e. permission granted by the artist) music is *okay*.

That's a question I can answer. The older people (me, for instance) around here grew up legally making tapes off the radio and even albums and trading them with friends. This was considered fair use, and more than one band Metallica and the Grateful Dead are good examples became megaplatinum artists because of this. Once we wanted to hear more than tapes could give us, we went out and bought the albums and we went to their concerts.

The younger people here had parents who did this. So there is no culture of kids who grew up being taught that recording music and giving copies to friends is wrong. Parents had no interest in teaching kids that recording music is wrong and saw recording into a computer as the natural extension of what they were doing when they were growing up. Which it is.

The only reason why this is considered copyright infringment (only "useful fools" and RIAA publicists call this stealing) is because the RIAA bought politicians to make the extention of common analog practice onto the Net illegal.

Well, they have the power to make it illegal. They do not have the power to make it wrong.

128K/broadcast quality MP3s are promotional giveways of no intrinsic commercial value in and of themselves.

Their only value is in persuading people to buy the actual products, which are CDs or higher-than-broadcast quality digital tracks.

Do you know of any place where 128K MP3s are actually available for sale and people are actually buying them? Neither do I.

Why do you think that software patents should be banned and you think that the RIAA should be encouraged in their insane attack on the customers for their intellectual property?

--
Tech Public Policy stuff

Re:you another RIAA stooge? by borgheron · 2003-07-24 14:24 · Score: 1

I'm 33, so I'm not a kid. I too remember doing this.

The issue now is that it's happening on a mass scale. Copying a tape or two here and there is nothing. Allowing every person in the world with access to Kazaa to download music that you have bought and converted to MP3s is totally different.

You know it's true. BTW, try not to play the ago card unless you know how old the person you're talking to is.

To answer your last question. Software patents should be banned because they represent ownership of an *idea* and only an *idea* which is specifically against the purpose of the patent system in the first place. The patent system's purpose was for *inventions* not everything under the sun.

I am not for the RIAA, I am for copyright protection. If I give you permission to copy and freely disctribute a program that I write, that's okay (which I have done as I contribute to several Free Software projects). If, however, I as the copyright holder don't allow you to freely copy my work, that's a different story.

GJC

--
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep

They're not attacking customers by KalvinB · 2003-07-23 20:18 · Score: 1

They're attacking people who pirate their property. It's no different than game companies that have been fighting pirates for decades.

If they were actually going after every joe dick and mary who bought one of their products regardless of pirating it or not, then you might have a valid argument about attacking their customers.

Buying a CD and pirating it doesn't exempt you from the law simply by whining you're a "customer." You're also a pirate and that's why they're comming after you. It has nothing to do with you being a customer.

Ben

--
Work Safe Porn

Re:They're not attacking customers by AnyoneEB · 2003-07-24 02:14 · Score: 1

I believe the argument is that copy-protected CDs are attacking all customers, although they aren't very common.

--
Centralization breaks the internet.

striking back at the RIAA's OWNERS! by alizard · 2003-07-23 20:28 · Score: 4, Informative

The RIAA doesn't sell records. So an anti-RIAA boycott sort of has to be directed at the major labels that tell the RIAA what to do.

Of course the reason why the RIAA is being out front and public and is making itself hated is to take the heat off the major labels.

A record industry music boycott sticks the heat right where it belongs.

To destroy them, just do all your music spending on independent artists and tell everyone else you know to do the same.

Most people don't appreciate just how fragile the position of the major labels is. They're all losing money, and so far, the music label CEOs have not only gotten away with using PIRACY!!! as an excuse with Congress, but with the multinationals that own them..

Simply refusing to buy music plays into their hands, they'll say "People refuse to buy our products because THEY'RE ALL STEALING THEM VIA P2P AND WE NEED NEW LAWS TO PROTECT US!!!"

Buying from independents will send exactly the right message both to Congress and to the companies that own the major labels.

Enough of us do this and the companies that own the major labels will be forced to dump them... lest their own stock prices follow their record companies value straight into the toilet.

Just a few percentage points of major record company sales transferred into the profit margins of independent artists and the war will be over, settled over the smoking corpses of the Big 5.

This should only take getting 1M people on board.

And the person who observes the RIAA boycott as I advise will get chances to find a lot of good new music of whatever kind you like that hasn't been dumbed down for the faceless masses RIAA product is aimed at.

--
Tech Public Policy stuff

The Beatles by OAB · 2003-07-23 21:06 · Score: 1

I am too lazy to look it up at the moment, but I think The Beatles sold their publishing company (Northern Songs), as a way to get round the income tax rates in the UK at the time (90%+ I think).

Re:The Beatles by beaverfever · 2003-07-24 01:43 · Score: 1

You may be right - hazy memory, lazy disposition etc. are not exclusively yours :) - but if I am mistaken then it only goes further to demonstrate my point that artists routinely keep their copyrights, even a bunch of shaggy-haired nobodies, barely out of their teens, from liverpool in the early sixties.

Take that!

--
RTFM; please, I beg you.

Re: well... by colinleroy · 2003-07-23 21:20 · Score: 3, Informative

How is that not right? Filesharing is illegal and people have been warned.
There are lots of laws that may seem wrong to some people - laws about haschish seem wrong to me, but I 'm willing to take the risk. If I ever get nailed by the cops about smoking outside, I certainly won't whine it's not right.
As you say the only thing that can be done against this can be done by artists themselves. If lots of them seem to disagree with RIAA's methods they won't be able to continue as they do. Users can't.

--
blah

British Phonographic Industry. by Hittite+Creosote · 2003-07-23 21:48 · Score: 1

The BPI has stated that sites such as Kazaa will have to be eradicated 'in due course'. But their tactics seem rather more realistic, reasonable and practical than the RIAA.

"... I think you've got to grow viable legitimate alternatives so you can genuinely say to the consumer 'hey, stop stealing.'"
"It's got to be pretty easy for the consumer to do it properly before they will respond to you.
"I'm quite confident that once we have enough appropriate services out there, there will be - for all the right reasons - a drift towards them." Recent quote from Peter Jamieson, executive chairman, British Phonographic Industry

Duplicate names definetly allowed OK by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-23 21:55 · Score: 1, Informative

There is a default username assigned when you install the thing and 50% of the users don't care, so it seems to be okay when 2 million users are "kazaalite.tk@kazaa" simultaneously..

Links to Tens of Thousands of Legal Music Dwnloads by MichaelCrawford · 2003-07-23 22:16 · Score: 1

You can avoid being sued or arrested if you download legal music instead of getting your tunes from the p2p networks.

Many unsigned musicians provide free downloads of their music on their websites as a way to attract more fans, for example my friend Rick Walker. Many such musicians, while relatively unknown, are as good as any major label band and certainly an improvement over the pablum they serve up on ClearChannel.

You can find many more examples in my new article:

Links to Tens of Thousands of Legal Music Downloads

The article also explores some of the historical and legal issues behind copyright, and suggests steps the file traders can take to make file sharing legal.

If you're a musician who offers downloads of your music, I can link to your band's website from the article if you give my article a reciprocal link. Please follow the instructions given here

--
Request your free CD of my piano music.

PLEASE READ THIS by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-23 22:49 · Score: 1, Interesting

RIGHT the RIAA's intention to try and sue half the planet is insane and we, the music buying (and downloading) public need to do something about it).

I am going to make a suggestion that i would like everyone to help out with. This is a legal thing so dont worry :-)

We need to announce a global moratorium on music purchases as a statement against the RIAA's actions. this will let them know that we, as their customers, will not stand for being criminalised for our actions. We need to make it clear that WE hold the power, not them and thier lawyers.

What I suggest is that on Monday the 4th of August (a week and a half from now) that noone buys any music on any format, be that cd, tape, MD or whatever. Its only one day and its easy to do. Just wait till the next day... however the global sales trend will be PHENOMENAL.

I repeat... ON MONDAY THE 4TH OF AUGUST.. DO NOT PURCHASE ANY MUSIC IN ANY FORMAT.

Those of you who are so disposed should feel free to go nuts with the downloading on that day if you so desire.

In order for this to work what needs to happen is that everyone who reads this needs to cut and paste this message into an e-mail and send it to as many people as they can. If we get the word out on this we can really make a statement to the RIAA.

RIAA
ACCEPT what is happening. Music piracy has always been around and its never destroyed the industry before. The internet does in some ways make it easier, however if you stop people downloading music, they can still copy CD's. What you guys need to do is work on digital music distribution formats and focus your vast resources on getting people to pay a fair fee for reliabel music downloads rather than suing and criminalising your customers. We will not stand for this. You are alienating your customers. The more people you sue, the more people you hurt, the more people are going to stop buying music in protest.

People, PLEASE help me out with this. WE CAN make a difference and all it takes is for you all to just pass this mail on.

Also if you lovely slasdot folks could put this on a page and mention it in the daily mailout it would be great :)

Signed

Metatron ;-)

Re:PLEASE READ THIS by Austinslide · 2003-07-24 00:09 · Score: 2, Informative

This sounds good to me.... folks... do it.. and pass it on to as many people as you can, get those cut n pasting fingers working and lets hit every discussion board and e-mail bussy we know of A

UK has no Fair Use by arevos · 2003-07-23 23:27 · Score: 1

Whilst the UK may lack the draconian DMCA, and, hopefully, will resist such similar laws being created by the EU (though I doubt it), the UK also doesn't have the same Fair Use laws as in the US (IIRC). Here it's illegal to make tapes/mp3s from CDs even if it's just for your own use. Fair Use laws would be very nice over here :)

Though, to be fair, there hasn't really been any complaining by the music industry here about personal copying; so even if it is illegal, no-one's bothering to do anything about it. One person I knew pointed out that it's somewhat of a tradition for the British to overlook laws they view as too trivial to enforce, like underage drinking for instance. Pubs might get fined if an officer happens to notice an obvious young teenager getting a pint of beer, but the police don't go looking for such things. After all, there are larger problems about.

That doesn't stop traffic police from being just as picky as anywhere else though :)

Re:UK has no Fair Use by Carima · 2003-07-24 00:02 · Score: 1

I'm not going to say you are catagorically wrong because I'm not a lawyer, but I think your suggestion of no fair use is misleading. My understanding is that there is such a requirement implicit within copyright law. If this was not the case then how could they justify placing an additioanl royalty cost on audio cassesttes, MDs and audio CDRs. That would be very similar to putting a compensation cost on say...bolt cutters because they might be used illegally by thiefs.
Re:UK has no Fair Use by arevos · 2003-07-24 00:29 · Score: 1

I'm not going to say you are catagorically wrong because I'm not a lawyer, but I think your suggestion of no fair use is misleading. My understanding is that there is such a requirement implicit within copyright law.

Well, it's my understanding that there's allowances in UK law. You're allowed to quote samples of text and suchlike for critical review. But you can't make entire copies of copyrighted material for whatever reason.

If this was not the case then how could they justify placing an additioanl royalty cost on audio cassesttes, MDs and audio CDRs.

Uhm, as far as I know they don't, at least not by law. You can sell cassettes, MDs and audio CDRs for whatever price you want.
Re:UK has no Fair Use by BobTheLawyer · 2003-07-24 02:43 · Score: 1

you are correct: under English law you can make a backup copy of a computer program but are not allowed to make any copies of audio recordings or other copyrighted materials without the copyright holder's permission. There is soemthing of a legal consensus this is stupid, and it's most unlikely a court would allow any claim/prosecution to succeed. For example, when the record industry sued Amstrad in the 80s for making a tape-to-tape copier, the House of Lords fell over itself to find in favour of Amstrad. Lord Templeman's judgment looks downright revolutionary by today's standards: "From the point of view of society the present position is lamentable. Millions of breaches of the law must be committed by home copiers every year. Some home copiers may break the law in ignorance, despite extensive publicity and warning notices on records, tapes and films. Some home copiers may break the law because they estimate that the chances of detection are non-existent. Some home copiers may consider that the entertainment and recording industry already exhibit all the characteristics of undesirable monopoly, lavish expenses, extravagant earnings and exhorbitant profits, and the blank tape is the only restraint on further increases in the prices of records. Whatever the reason for home copying, the beat of Sergeant Pepper and the soaring sounds of the Miserere from unlawful copies are more powerful than law-abiding instincts or twinges of conscience. A law which is treated with such contempt should be amended or repealed."

Re: well... by ukyoCE · 2003-07-24 00:12 · Score: 1

Sharing audio tapes isn't illegal. So why is sharing (often) equally shitty quality mp3s illegal? It shouldn't be.

you know the RIAA *is* losing sales, but it isnt due to "piracy". It's due to choice. Non-RIAA record labels are selling far more albums than ever before.

And that is exactly what the RIAA is afraid of: losing their stranglehold on the music industry.

How many actual lawsuits by Ironpoint · 2003-07-24 00:22 · Score: 1

I realize that RIAA has subpoenaed all these peoples info, but how many lawsuits have they filed?

Re: well... by colinleroy · 2003-07-24 00:29 · Score: 1

Sharing audio tapes isn't illegal. So why is sharing (often) equally shitty quality mp3s illegal? It shouldn't be.
I didn't say it should be illegal. It just is and we know it. We make our choices accordingly.

--
blah

Good thinking by jcsehak · 2003-07-24 00:41 · Score: 4, Funny

Yeah, maybe a name like "ilickmonkeyballs@thezoo.com" is the way to go. I mean, who (exec, lawyer, or judge) wants to open up the possibility of a sound clip of them saying "I lick monkey balls at the zoo" floating around the net?

--

c-hack.com |

Re:Good thinking by Blue+Stone · 2003-07-24 01:17 · Score: 1

Lmao.
I nearly threw up, I laughed so much at that.
I bow to your superior hum0r 5k1llz.

--
Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce

Re:This guy... What happens when they sue a minor? by th1nk · 2003-07-24 00:48 · Score: 1

It's probably some sixteen-year-old highschool kid, judging from his screen name. "0587" would imply a date of birth of May, 1987. So what happens in the US when they sue a minor?

Most likely the minor isn't the name attached to the ISP account. Daddy is going to be very angry.

Re: well... by ukyoCE · 2003-07-24 00:49 · Score: 1

Well just because something that shouldnt be illegal is, doesn't mean the victims of these bad laws "deserve" punishment.

But yea, you're right, they shouldnt be too surprised at it. I guess sharing music is civil disobedience at this point.

EMAIL Addresses for MSK by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-24 00:55 · Score: 1, Interesting

Here is a list of the emails for the lawyers office, right off Their website:

Managing Partner

Thomas Lambert tpl@msk.com

Chief Operating Officer

Kevin Gaut keg@msk.com

Executive Director

Jerry Kaufman j1k@msk.com

Director of Human Resources

Charles L. Curtis clc@msk.com

Client Development Manager

Gail V. Reysa gvr@msk.com

Director of Operations and Facilities

Linda Schwartz-Wright lsw@msk.com

Director of Information Systems

Paul E. Banks peb@msk.com

Director of Library Services

Carolyn A. Pratt cap@msk.com

Re:EMAIL Addresses for MSK by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-24 01:06 · Score: 1, Interesting

We cannot forget Yvette's email:

yxm@msk.com
Yvette Molinaro

This will all lead to peer to peer encryption by touringsedan · 2003-07-24 00:56 · Score: 1

Don't they realize, the more they go after these unsecure P2P clients, the more development will shift to using encryption? Played around with WASTE, though smaller, but appeared to offer a ton of security and little risk. Does anyone else see this happening?

The original quote... by Cappy+Red · 2003-07-24 01:00 · Score: 2, Insightful

... 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

Well, he is using P2P... by gosand · 2003-07-24 01:04 · Score: 1

Are you really to paint a big red target on yourself for an onganization that has more money -- and less ethics -- than you do?

Well, he is using P2P to download their copyrighted material...

Personally, I would like to see the username Hilary_Rosen_sucks_donkey_balls@Kazaa show up on the list.

--

My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

I guess everyone I know is safe by sirshannon · 2003-07-24 01:06 · Score: 1

since we're all "defaultuser@kazaa".

--
The truth doesn't care what I think.

Popularity Contest by shpoffo · 2003-07-24 01:22 · Score: 1

With hard-core traders finding more ingenius ways of masking their identity online, this 'list' may just turn into a popularity contest. "Who can get on it"

-shpoffo

How can this hold up in court? by Viewsonic · 2003-07-24 01:23 · Score: 1

I mean seriously? Someone could have just been spoofing their addresses. It isn't all that hard. That will remove any "hard" evidence of using an IP or username .. So what are they going to arrest them on? They will have to find the actual MP3s on their drives, which isn't very likely anymore.

This wont go anywhere without hard evidence.

hostnames and IPs are simply too easy to forge to be used in a court of law.

Re:How can this hold up in court? by SickFreak · 2003-07-24 02:02 · Score: 1

Clearly you are correct. Identity theft/masking is what makes the fun part of the internet go around. Share as JohnAshcroft@Kazaa and see if they post that name on the list. More to your point, what if someone hijacks your machine using a trojan or sets up a pr0n server without you knowing it? P2P users are very slippery, and the RIAA will soon find they are after some people who are quite powerful when it comes to this sort of thing. They cannot prove it was you online at the point of the download. If someone uses my IP for something I don't know about, can I be held liable? Doubtful.

Another question -- What about MAC addresses? I know you can spoof these as well, but I think less people do this because of the necessity for MAC authentication on some networks. What do you think/.

Re: well... by hesiod · 2003-07-24 01:45 · Score: 1

> I swear, if I ever get signed to a label I want to make sure in my contract it says the RIAA have no rights to sue over anyone downloading my music!

Don't expect to get that contract with the RIAA. They give you a take-it or leave-it, and it will pretty much say that they have the right to do whatever they want regarding the music you make for them.

Solution? Simple. Blame it on war-driving. by emil · 2003-07-24 01:56 · Score: 1

If you are on the list, go out and buy a wireless router, and attach it via NAT/ICS to your main network connection.

Pay cash for the router, and try to buy an older model.

How can the RIAA prove that it was you?

Re:Solution? Simple. Blame it on war-driving. by good-n-nappy · 2003-07-24 06:46 · Score: 1

That's what I'm wondering. I had this same idea. Actually, my idea involved then suing the RIAA for harassment or defamation of some sort. Well, if I was independently wealthy, that would be my plan.

Of course, having an unsecured wireless network will probably soon be illegal too. I guess you could still argue that someone hacked in to your "secure" home network given that WEP and MAC filtering aren't that secure.

--
Never underestimate the power of fiber.

Re:What I'd like to see by fredklein · 2003-07-24 02:23 · Score: 1

I'm curious how it would do that. Kazaa, as far as I can tell just acts as a middleman, and your computer makes a direct connection to the computer hosting the file, or vice versa, depending on firewall setups.

That's how it works NOW. Why not funnel the file thru one or two other clients? Then all they have is the 'first link in the chain'. And if the clients don't log the connections, that's where the trail stops.

Mmm, what about defaultuser? by UrGeek · 2003-07-24 02:28 · Score: 1

"defaultuser@Kazaa" is the default username in Kazaa++. I notice that it is not on the last. Does anyone know if anyone using this default name was ever been hit with the RIAA's crap. Yes, they remind of monkey with malodorus missiles.

Re: well... by Lyran · 2003-07-24 02:34 · Score: 1

Filesharing is illegal?

Sh!t, I better stop using Linux and Windows BUILT-IN filesharing.

Guess that makes servers illegal as well - not to mention TCP and UDP?

As one of their primary functions is filesharing.

No, the RIAA should be illegal. The police, state and fedeal authorities need a court-order to do wire-tapping, the RIAA doesn't. Welcome to fascism, RIAA-style.

--
Remember, for every CD you purchase, you give the RIAA that much more power. RIAA = SCO = IP terrorists. Any questio

hooray for Space Michael! by snooo53 · 2003-07-24 02:56 · Score: 1

I knew he would come through for us! :)

--
The sending of this message pretty much inconveniences everyone involved.

Re:putting it in perspective by SickFreak · 2003-07-24 03:09 · Score: 1

Good point and I have added questions:
I understand the RIAA 'officially' began logging/seeking out IP addresses in late June. Where are the new names coming from? Current users?

Will subsequent subpeonas come from say, the year 2000 or 2001 or just from those currently sharing? Some people move around very quickly from network to network making sharers quite difficult to track.

And as long as we're here... by Firefly1 · 2003-07-24 03:24 · Score: 1

...we should cease and desist use of the term 'piracy' in this context. Last I checked piracy entailed a range of activities more unsavory than, say, copying a CD. But then, I suppose this is another example of spin... you know, pirates are bad, and if copying music=piracy, then copiers of music are bad.
Feed the term 'infamous pirates' to your favorite search engine and see what - who - comes up.

--
- White Knight of the Order of Mihoshi Enthusiasts

Re:Oh man! [OT] by turg · 2003-07-24 03:31 · Score: 3, Funny

Okay, I'm curious . . . why does it have to be a van?

--
<sig>Guvf vf abg n frperg zrffntr

What if they're a minor? by darkscorp · 2003-07-24 03:33 · Score: 1

Will the RIAA start coming after parents... I know my teenage sister downloads music all day and night. Guess it's time to warn my mom.

Re:What if they're a minor? by darkscorp · 2003-07-24 09:05 · Score: 1

Too Late

RIAA Radar by oscarm · 2003-07-24 03:34 · Score: 1

I haven't seen this mentioned but its a relatively new site that helps you figure out if a particular band/label/album is affiliated with the RIAA. Best of all it has a cool bookmarklet for using when shopping on Amazon.

Check: http://www.magnetbox.com/riaa/

BTW I'm not at all associated with the site.

Filesharing, in and of itself, is legal... by Svartalf · 2003-07-24 04:02 · Score: 1

It's the act of filesharing unauthorized works that is illegal. Now, having said this, the people on the list almost certainly guilty of infringement by way of unauthorized filesharing.

--
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas

A brave new world... by SickFreak · 2003-07-24 04:07 · Score: 1

A funny thing is happening right now and has been happening for years. Technology 'haves' and 'knows' are outpacing the tech 'have- and know-nots' at an ever increasing rate. Information (intellectual property) will certainly become the currency of the matured digital age. Those with the most information will be the 'richest'. The so-called Digital Age is as yet it it's infancy.

In the current battle being waged by the RIAA, we will see the RIAA attack some uber-geeks and lose, big time. Why? Because some guy is going to bury them in technological knowledge and open to them so many possible ways of moving information, they will never prove he did it. This is only a small slice of the ongoing revolution that is the Internet. To say the exchange of information is pervasive is even now an overstatement. People are just beginning to tap the power of information exchange.

A new class of people is being formed, call them what you want to: The geeks, Slashdottians, whatever, the divide is widening. Some of us cannot even talk to our parents or elder peers because they do not understand what we are talking about when it comes to technology. The problem is ever more apparent that it was 50 years ago when the lastest innovation was television.

Technology and those who know how to utilize it and improve it (hackers) will one day be part of a new ruling class. Even though I struggle to remain in the know, I am outpaced as soon as I unplug for an hour. So I wish the best of luck to the RIAA, you clearly do not know what or who you are attacking. The people you catch, the 50 year-old grandfather, the 23 year-old college woman, they are not your problem. You may frighten them into submission, you may even profit from them, but your real problem is the ones you cannot hope to catch, for they are a breed apart. I say this not as a threat, but as a revelation of reality to you.

RIAA attorneys by jeh0bu · 2003-07-24 05:14 · Score: 1

FYI - The attorneys filing all of these subpoenas on behalf of the RIAA are Yvette Molinaro and Jim Trilling according to United States District Court for the District of Columbia documents available on PACER.

Tyler is guilty - white judges said so by seniorcoder · 2003-07-24 05:35 · Score: 1

UB40 was right.

Does this sound legit? by Bobo+The+Drunken+Ele · 2003-07-24 06:28 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

Re:Does this sound legit? by Tarrek · 2003-07-24 08:59 · Score: 1

The problem with this is that they are not going after people who are downloading music.

I repeat: They don't care if you download music.

All of these names are being listed for SHARING music. Even if they own all of the CDs, they're still violating the copyright by sharing it.

Re:Oh man! [OT] by er_head66 · 2003-07-24 07:05 · Score: 1

Because then it makes you look like a rapist and since the courts are too busy attacking college students, they won't bother to investigate

--
There has been an error!

Are they checking the content? by No+One+You+Know · 2003-07-24 07:08 · Score: 1

Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems to me that the RIAA is determining copyright infringement by the filenames that users are sharing. If I'm sharing a file named "Michelle Branch - All You Wanted.mp3", how are they to know it isn't a bunch of static, a JPEG, or a text file containing the string "Go to hell RIAA" for 4MB? How can they prove I was sharing what they think I was sharing?

Re:Are they checking the content? by Tarrek · 2003-07-24 09:02 · Score: 1

Because this is a civil rather than criminal case, they don't have to PROVE anything. All they need to do is convince the jury that it's more likely than not actually Michelle Branch's music.

Give it to SCO by happosai_tendo · 2003-07-24 07:12 · Score: 1

Sell the rights to distribute it to SCO but keep the copyright to yourself..

Let SCO distribute it and then say they own it and start trying to charge people for it.

Let SCO fight your legal battles. They should have plenty of experience by then.

When do they sue the artists? by ISPTech · 2003-07-24 07:42 · Score: 1

I'm waiting for Madonna to get busted for her Kazaa login. I wonder how many of the artists get swept under the rug.

I keep waiting for that news story to hit. "J-Lo charged with downloading MP3's"

--
This space intentionally left blank.

RIAA Radar by Eris23 · 2003-07-24 08:01 · Score: 1

Check out http://www.magnetbox.com/riaa/ for info on the RIAA Radar to identify (and boycott) RIAA albums: "How do you use it? 1. You can search for artists, albums, and record labels. 2. Add the RIAA Radar bookmarklet to your bookmarks/favorites list. As you're browsing around Amazon.com, you can click the bookmark and it will give you just the info you need, when you need it most. 3. NEW! Use our charts and statistics to see what people are looking for. You can check the Amazon Hot 100 to see the real ownership of the "popular" charts, and the Amazon Indie 100 to see the 100 most popular albums on Amazon that are RIAA-free. Finding independent popular music has never been easier!"

Oh man!!! by dwayrynen · 2003-07-24 08:28 · Score: 1

My daughter is definately grounded now!

Re:Let us know if you're on the list & the low by flibuste · 2003-07-24 08:40 · Score: 1

if your name is on the list

How about:
-- logging out
-- change the username
-- delete temp files
-- logging again
-- check the next RIAA list
-- goto start

When you arrive in prison: by The+Master+Control+P · 2003-07-24 08:41 · Score: 1

"Hey, we're ya new cellmates. I'm Bubba, they put me away for murder. This here's Joey, he a rapist. Him there, he's Rob. Convicted pedophile. So, what you in for?"

"I used Kazaa."

"So, how long you in for?"

"20 years!"

"****! They only gave me 15..."

Re:When you arrive in prison: by CrkHead · 2003-07-25 17:24 · Score: 1

"What were you arrested for?"
"Using Kazaa"
And they all move away from me.

-Borrowed from Arlo Guthrie's "Alice's Restaurant"

Re: well... by Lord+Dimwit+Flathead · 2003-07-24 10:06 · Score: 1

If you truly do this without any commercial involvement, the RIAA doesn't give two shits what you do with your music. If, on the other hand, you sign a recording contract with an RIAA member company, you most likely are giving them exclusive distribution rights to some of your music. In this case, you may very well find yourself on the wrong end of the RIAA's legal juggernaut if you give away recordings covered under the contract by posting MP3s, handing out CDs, etc. that haven't been approved by the record company.

Libraries? by therealsludge · 2003-07-24 10:11 · Score: 1

Ok, I know that this has probably been brought up before, but why are the publishers of books not going after libraries? Books after all, are being bowrrowed for several weeks, read, and returned for others to view.

How is this really different from sharing files, other than people can make copies of the shared files? You could technically check out a book, then type the contents into word and use distiller to convert it to a widely accessable reader format.

If I'm also not mistaken, libraries also have books on tape, along with music on tape (maybe even cd's) and vinyl of music. Are the libraries not subject to these copyright infringements?

Do they really think that going after the consumer is going to help the recoup any money that they may have lost from people "pirating" their music that wouldn't have purchased it in the first place?

just my .02.

You can't possibly be that stupid by DesScorp · 2003-07-24 10:15 · Score: 1

You sound like an arrogant child that's misbehaved, but is proud of it. And if you are indeed on that list, and do indeed move that much music from your server, and think no one will do anything about it now, you're likely in for a rude shock.

As for your assumptions that no one can do anything to you, allow me point out what they CAN do:

"They can keep sending legal threats, but I will simply ignore them. Arrest warrents?? Pfft. Most cops will not even bother to take someone in for something so stupid."

Yes they will, because it's their job. Police take things like duty and upholding the law seriously, even if they should disagree with it. You're sadly mistaken if you think cops ignore arrest warrants they don't agree with. Cops are professionals.

"I know that what I'm doing is wrong, and I will continue to do it because I know it pisses people off. This is an ideal hobby, especially since it's lower risk, and less time-intensive than pushing dope to kids."

Congratulations. If this is discovered, it can be used as evidence in a court of law. You just 1- admitted guilt, and 2- expressed a lack of remorse for the charge. If you ever did suddenly gain the intelligence to find an attorney, he's going to LOVE this one.

"I simply have plenty of server space and fast connections. I'm doing a public service, and a major disservice to the RIAA/MPAA by moving 100+ Gb a month"

For starters, you can kiss your ISP account goodbye if you're busted. Most of them have prohibitions against this type of activity in their user agreements. If this isn't in there specifically, I'm pretty sure there's a generic "inapropriate behavior" clause that they can use. And it's an inevitability that if these kinds of lawsuits become successful, ISP's will start a "blacklist" of such users to deny them service in order to protect themselves legally.

As for what can be done to you penalty wise, some others here have already pointed them out (garnishment of wages for a judgement, credit rating shot to hell; some companies will fire employess if garnishment papers arrive, and in most states, it's legal for them to do so). Increasingly, when applying for a job, employers will check your credit rating. Good luck on ever purchasing a home if you get into this situation. And while in criminal cases, judges can prohibit certain activities, I don't know if that can be done in civil proceedings. If anyone else out there knows the answer to this, please enlighten us. If this CAN be done in a civil case, look for some judges to prohibit the use of computers and access to the internet. I have my doubts about this one, though.

Finally, judging from your tone, I'm having a hard time deciding what you really are. Are you indeed on that list, and you're just showing monumental stupidity to look "leet" to the /. crowd? Or are you just a liar and a troll, trying to get some attention, and generate some controversy? I'd like to think you couldn't be dumb enough to be the former, but they don't make the Darwin Awards every year for nothing.

--
Life is hard, and the world is cruel

Legal Questions by valhalla26 · 2003-07-24 10:17 · Score: 1

I have a few questions that I have not yet seen addressed. As I understand, if the RIAA decides to bring lawsuits, they would be tried as civil actions and not as criminal actions. As part of a civil action, the RIAA or an attorney on their behalf has the right to depose you and if you are found lying in said deposition, you would be guilty of perjury.

Would an individual who was the respondent in such a case then have the right to depose the plaintiff's in the case. For example, if I was sued, could I demand the right to depose the board of directors of the RIAA for two to fours hours each, depending on the number of questions I could generate. If this is legal, what is to prevent all 911 respondents from demanding this right. Assuming that each respondent uses one hour for their deposition, this works out over 22 business weeks of down time for each board member.

Does each respondent have the right to demand a jury trial? If each respondent could drag their trial out to one eight hour day (shouldn't be too hard if you call enough witnesses), this would work out to three and a half to four years of trial time just for this batch of respondents.

Since the subpoenas were filed in Washington DC (I believe the article said this, strange that it wasn't in SoCal since the RIAA and its lawyers seem to be based there), would any civil actions be required to be performed in DC?

It seems to me that simply by using whatever legal methods are at our disposal (to combat the methods at theirs) we could make the action so time consuming and costly that the RIAA would be hemorrhaging cash at such a rate that they would be forced to drop the majority of any lawsuits filed, not to mention what this would do to court systems that are working to process real crimes.

Also, could someone who has a little more knowledge of judicial proceedings comment on the above numbers in relation to actual court time spent. I made some guesses based on working eight hour days, five day weeks. In my experience (Severely limited), trials are not scheduled for every day of the week and less than eight hours is spent in court per day in an actual trial. How long to typical depositions take and what is the range of questions that can be asked in such a deposition. Also, what kind of options does a respondent have to make arguments. Would they be strictly limited to dealing with the alleged infringement that they are accused of or could they bring in separate information that sought to establish that the RIAA is evil, the DMCA is extravagant and that the proposed penalties for the actions are outrageous and that their copying is therefore a form of civil disobedience. The action might not win, but a respondent could use significantly more time if they were allowed to raise these issues.

Can anyone out there with more legal experience than I answer those questions?

Re:Oh man! [OT] by Eudial · 2003-07-24 10:44 · Score: 1

> Okay, I'm curious . . . why does it have to be a van?

C'mon! It's a well known fact that when you are either [A. tapping into someones wireless network or B. eavesdropping using hightech software] you HAVE to sit in a van. (it wouldnt look suspicious otherwise)

--
GAAH! MY PRINTER IS ON FIRE!!! PUT IT OUT! PUT IT OUT!

Greedy bastards of the RIAA by ZzZ1313 · 2003-07-24 10:55 · Score: 1

What the hell do they think they are doing? Issuing subpoenas, whining about "losses", meanwhile there are more serious problems to be solved. $150,000 for a song? Damn it, I guess some hotshot's arm-candy desperately needs three pairs of new tits and p2p clients are the ones to pay for it. I can't believe judicial system spends their time and taxpayers' money to make those SOBs richer than the world. It's disgusting the way RIAA is making ISPs release actual names of the users thus violating their privacy. Their primary concern should be how on Earth screening tapes and other stuff end up on the Internet long before the release dates. It's sure as hell easier to try tracking their own moles rather than throwing shit on the fan.

Re: well... by ZzZ1313 · 2003-07-24 11:06 · Score: 1

$150,000 for a song??? How do they come up with ridiculous figures like that? I guess some RIAA hotshot's armcandy needs three pairs of new tits and p2p clients are supposed to pay for it. It is disgusting the way judicial system spends their time and taxpayers' money making SOBs richer than the whole world. Meanwhile there are more pressing issues in the country besides RIAAs "holy war on piracy". It is interesting though that the RIAA is hunting regular folks instead of asking themselves a question - how on Earth do screening tapes and other stuff end up on the Internet loooong befor the actual release date? How do they prove they don't have moles at studios who deliberately post movies and music on the Internet, so that the RIAA could sue the pants off the users?

Re: well... by ukyoCE · 2003-07-24 13:16 · Score: 1

Yes i meant making a copy, and yes it is legal for non-commercial use, as per the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992. Ok, well here's a better description:

http://www.minidisc.org/ahra.html

But basically, yes: it is legal to make analog copies for personal use, including giving copies to friends.

The idea behind this was that audio copies are not perfect, and hence second or third generation copies would be far inferior to the original, and thereby not hurt music sales. This was essentially a bone given to the consumers while it was made illegal to make and share digital copies of digital works.

Of course it falters a bit here, as the digital copies going around now (mp3s and the like) are lossy, and probably lower quality than 3rd generation cassette tapes. So sharing these low-quality copies should be legal (or "protected from suit" if you prefer) just as tapes copies are.

Ideally someone would realize this and propse and pass a law saying "it shall be lawful to share lossy copies of songs as long as such copies shall not exceed 128kbps" or somethin like that, allowing for decreasing the bit rate as compression methods become better.

If this happened I'd be fine and dandy with the RIAA suing the pants off people trading perfect digital copies (when our bandwidth reaches that potential).

Re:The One and Only - www.k_lite.tk_Kazaa_Lite@Kaz by mfivis · 2003-07-25 01:57 · Score: 1

LOL! Okay... well as someone probably answered multiple times before, they track by IP address and not user names. The average Kazaa user usually doesn't know his or her own IP at any given moment. Posting user names is supposed to simplify this rediculousness.

www.k_lite.tk_Kazaa_Lite@Kazaa by simsj · 2003-07-25 04:16 · Score: 1

They must be fucking soft in the head. There are probibaly 100,000 K-Lite users using the name www.k_lite.tk_Kazaa_Lite@Kazaa.

Send emails by CrkHead · 2003-07-25 17:42 · Score: 1

Most seem to agree that the RIAA will blame pirating for any slack in sales. I think the best way to get their attention is to send an email using links provided on the artist's website asking if the label is a member of the RIAA. If a reply is made (I don't expect every email sent is read) and they state the label is not a member, please be prepared to purchase the CD, preferably through their website so it can be tracked.
Here is what I sent through robertcray.com

Subject: Robert Cray's record label.

I just caught Robert's show in the [city] area and it was one of the best shows in years. I just needed to know if the label is a member of RIAA. I am doing my best to support the boycott. Until a few legal issues are resolved, I am going to be cautious in any new CD purchase and don't want to spend hours scouring through used music stores.

Thank you,
[real name]

I understand more eloquent people can get the point across better, but I think this gets the point across nonetheless. It is also not rude, which is important if you want to be remembered for the right reasons.

Easy fix by ChicksDigUnix172 · 2003-07-26 21:00 · Score: 1

How about this. Start an online campain to persuade people to hold off on all their Entertainment Industry Supporting purchases for 2 months or so. No CD's DVD's purchased. That might get the RIAA"s attention-as they're filing for chapter 11 and finding SOME way ANY way to get their sales up. Enter everything that you've always wanted from the music industry

707 of 1,008 comments (clear)