Slashdot Mirror
The RIAA's Hit List Named
Carpoolio writes "TechTV is the first I've seen to name names in the fight between the RIAA and music downloaders. Using an online court records search service, they've found a number of the subpoenas served by the RIAA to ISPs, which will ultimately end in lawsuits for the people named on this list. Right now, they've published a number of the P2P user names filed with the US District Court in Washington, DC, mainly Kazaa users. Are you on the list?"
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!
My name is up there! I'm screwed...
--fetch daddy's blue fright wig, i must be handsome when i release my rage
I live in the UK, can these lawsuits be filed over here from the RIAA?
They named the default username given to those who install Kazaa Lite...
So I wonder how many people that covers?
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
I hereby give my blessing to anyone who wants to sue a guy with the balls to be known as: hottdude0587@Kazaa.
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).
;) What's the lifetime value of a consumer to RIAA? I imagine it is less than $12000...
RIAA will probably make more out of lawsuit settlements than through their music
KoalaBear33
......The worst thing in my life happened when the stock market started mattering more than the economy
It's been well established that I'm paranoid, but is anyone else bothered by the number of (apparent) True Names in the list?
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
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.
time to move to a new p2p app, I perpose giFT.
When are they going to learn that we wont stop sharing files, we'll just keep switching to more obscure networks.
-makoffee
Second, where is kazaalite? There is only one entry for that, but I know there are more users of kazaalite than that...
I guess I'm also shocked that anyone actually hasn't heard of Klite and/or isn't running it instead of Kazaa.
hmm. Glad my name isn't on there - HillaryBlowsMonkeys@Riaa.com
That seems kind of silly though... RIAA can just hire anyone to get an AOL account or a NetZero account or something and find these same people.
I really like the Lite software but I think that feature is total bullshit... it makes absolutely no sense. The only way to stop RIAA from getting who you are is by using FreeNet or something like that.
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.
What are we all going to do now that 100% of the people actually sharing files have been named? (:
Ladies, form queue here -->
Joan Jett is going to jail! "joanjett@Kazaa"
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.
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
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
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.
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
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.
(You only have yourself to blame for this).
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!!
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
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.
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
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?
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...
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.
Whew! Thank God I'm only munkeyspanker19@Kazaa.
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?
Not surprising, though. After all, it's the RIAA that's suing, not the porn industry.
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
munkeyspanker21@Kazaa
I'm not sure which is more disturbing: The name itself, or the fact that more than one person uses it.
A little off topic, but on the subject of the RIAA.
...," he said. "It is the fans that drive the success of the music business; I wish this would not be forgotten."
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
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.
I'm not on there! My username is kazaalite@Kazaa. Haha, RIAA suckers!
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...
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
"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
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.
The RIAA's Hit List
That sounds so nasty. I bet some would prefer "The Pirate's Honor Roll".
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
Ummm, a quick piece of a dvice, first, for those of you whose user names are listed: Don't. Or, if you really want to, get a lawyer and ask him for advice. If this does get to trial, you don't want something that you posted to slashdot to be used against you and torpedo any of the defenses you and your lawyer develop.
The effort expended by the Court in the processing and issuing of these subpoenas is probably insubstantial. The court's and judges duties are largely ministeriel. Of course, if these cases are actively prosecuted then the court's workload would of course increase. But, if my understanding of how the federal court's work is correct, the impact will only be on the civil side of things, not criminal; generally speaking, criminal cases are given priority in matters of scheduling, etc.
Wrong -- one Grokster and several fileshare's...
...we are from the government - we are here to help...
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
Oh Shit!
60% That's a little low for the RIAA. Make it 117%. Actually charge the artist.
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
Download this handy list of network ranges that the MPAA/RIAA use.
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
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.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
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.
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.
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.
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..
A full subpoena may be examined courtesy of Cryptome:
...etc
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
suddenly i feel so safe with 'ashcroft@kazaa'.
members are seeing something, your seeing an ad
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.
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
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
...will there still be Kazaa left? I still need to download a dozen of songs and a movie.
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
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.
" yea and why did they skip munkeyspanker1-20 and go right to 21?"
:)
... 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!"
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
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
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?
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
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."
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."
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.
Prove? What a quaint little concept.
KFG
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
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.
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...)
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
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?
But debate continues about what PC users can and can't do with digital media, prompting ongoing courtroom battles and proposed new laws. With new technologies like copy-protected PCs in the offing, even folks who happily pay for movies and music have voiced concerns that they could end up unable to rip songs to a PC or transfer them to an MP3 player.
Some people maintain such activities fall under the copyright law's fair use clause, but Frackman believes that isn't true: "Fair use has become a real buzzword, but it's a phrase that's often misused. [It] grew up to permit people to do things like criticism or scholarship.a?| In my view, it was never intended to permit copying of copyrighted material for purposes of just making a copy or moving it to a hard drive."
In other words, the RIAA really doesn't want anyone to copy usic, even if it's from independant artists, even if it's from old analog sources like a record, cassette, or 8-track. To the RIAA, if you want to listen to it, play it on it's original media and equipment, and your equipment and can't replace the media, if you media fails, or if you would just like to listen to it on your4 cd player, then purchase it on CD, if you can't then tough luck. In a few years, I woudn't doubt it if they go after companies Like Ahead Soft, Roxio, Goldwave, Syntrillium, etc, for writing software that allows people to copy music from any source.
These are civil suits, the burden of proof is lower. In a criminal trial, a good lawyer could probably get anoyone off based on the fact that there computer might have been hacked, ore records forged, etc. There is reasonable doubt that it was actually this person downloading (unless they catch you with the songs). However a civil suit is a much lower burden. BAsically they have to just argue their side better than yours. There may still be some doubt, but they can still win.
The RIAA is suing file sharers. I know this doesn't get much play on the news, but it's the unauthorized distribution, i.e. sharing, that is in "violation".
So they don't have a log of you downloading something, they have a screenshot of all the files you are letting other people download.
If you blog it...
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...
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.
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
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:
a te
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=don
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
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?
like, mr_unjustly_accused, miss_taken_identity, poor_waif_being_bankrupted_by_multinationals, riaa_is_lying, other suggestions?
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.
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.
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!
Perhaps they're cutting you some slack for the first 20 times.
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?
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.
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
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
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
Fortunately for me, this was before the days napster and file sharing, so I never had to professionally deal with that.
But some of the cop nature has worn off on me. Despite my hatred of the RIAA and the structure of the music industry as a whole, I do oppose those who engage in copyright violation. And just because the RIAA is a bunch of feckheads, doesn't make such copyright violations right.
There are cases where I would be more sympathetic to copyright violators:
- The item was originally published more than
17 (or maybe 34) years prior, and so would be in
the public domain under a founders copyright scheme.
- The item is out of print and the used market
is bare. (I would take the music publishers
claims of trying to serve the artist more
seriously if they released the rights back
to the artist when they took things out of
print.)
- The violator is (as in civil disobedience)
willing to commit their copyright violation
act publically and under their own name.
When a law or structure is bad enough that
one feels it is legitimate to violate it, you
need to be willing to take the consequences.
Otherwise we all just merely would be obeying
laws when it is convenient to do so.
Without that last condition being met, bad laws and a bad publishing industry does not make you a good guy for violating copyright.Now I am currently enganged in a compaign of "civil obedience". This term was coined to complying strictly and obnoxiously to bad laws in order to highlight how bad the laws are.
I made some home videos (which I'll be sending to maybe half a dozen relatives) to which I've added a soundtrack using things I legitimately have copies of. I am slowly trying to work through the procedures to be allowed to distribute six or so copies of VHS tapes of my daughter's trip the an aquarium to which I've added a soundtrack. So far it seems difficult to get useful responses to my email requesting permissions or license terms.
Prime numbers are exactly what Alan Greenspan says they are -S. Minsky
Are others receiving these as well? I realize in matters of tracing criminal acts (such as kiddie pr0n, molesters stalking in chat rooms, etc) I would hope ISPs would release names, but in cases of music/movie piracy (and any other crime that doesn't have a *real* victim) I would hope the ISPs would push back on the P2P networks.
I disagree, the more serious the alleged offense the more important due process becomes. I don't mind ticketing for parking offenses but there'd better be a proper trial in a murder case, and so on.
If someone is being accused of owning kiddie porn then that's an extremely serious matter, the case had better stack up and all the proper steps had better be followed. I agree that's true in the cases of alleged copyright infringement too but if you have to rate it in order of importance then it's the serious charges where it's most crucial to get it right.
Am I the only one that sees a difference between a police agency with a warrant in hand asking who's who and the damn 'copyright holder'?
The difference is the warrant, not who the person is. I agree that proper court orders should be required in all cases.
Shouldn't there be a burden of proof before my privacy is violated?
Yes, there should. I'm just worried that you seem to think that that stops being an issue if they accuse you of something more serious, when the consequences are highest.
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!
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
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!
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
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
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
If someone is accused of downloading kiddie porn, then there should be solid evidence of this before any action is taken. How many people have had their lives ruined because of false charges? I can think of quite a few cases raised in the media, as well as others that didn't get the chance to clear themselves in public.
It is disturbing to see that people almost defend certain criminal acts "because they don't have any real victims", while at the same time almost calling for a witch hunt against certain other groups of criminals - or even suspected criminals.
I agree completely with your comments, AC, and only wish you were logged in and had a karma bonus so more people would read it :)
Kiddie porn might be bad, but people who are willing to throw away people's rights just because they are accused of a serious crime are dangerous to us all.
Clever signature text goes here.
I have nothing to allude to, and I am alluding to it.
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
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
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
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
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.
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 |
... was concerned with taking action and being an advocate against injustice. The poster percieves this issue to be an injustice and believes it should be spoken out against. It is a good quote to use for such a purpose... regardless of which side I may or may not be on on the issue.
Let not the quote wither in perpetual disuse. No one is getting killed in this issue, Use of this quote neither kills anyone nor cheapens the tragedy of its original subjects.
*honk*
This is my sig. It's prescription, I swear. I need it for reading things... on the other side of things
Christ, this is the tiredest argument of them all.
Do you believe it's legal to sneak into a movie theater or concert without paying? Those seats would have been empty anyway, so nobody's losing any money.
Do you steal cable? If you spend the money to buy the equipment to tap into the line and a descrambler off eBay with your own money, then Time Warner or Comcast or whoever isn't losing any money, so it's got to be okay, right?
Just because you can't afford something doesn't give you the right to take what you want. Maybe the solution is to do what I did in college and GET A JOB.
Whether you think music downloading is morally ok or not doesn't matter. Bottom line is that it is illegal. I thing levying hundred-million dollar suits is excessive, but if you get caught, you deserve what you brought upon yourself.
Happiness is like peeing yourself. Everybody can see it but only you can feel its warmth.
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...
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.
Okay, I'm curious . . . why does it have to be a van?
<sig>Guvf vf abg n frperg zrffntr
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.
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.
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!