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!
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?
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.
Joan Jett is going to jail! "joanjett@Kazaa"
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.
(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!!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.
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
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...
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.
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...
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
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.
My mom is going to be so mad!
60% That's a little low for the RIAA. Make it 117%. Actually charge the artist.
Download this handy list of network ranges that the MPAA/RIAA use.
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
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.
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?
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?
These are civil suits, the burden of proof is lower. In a criminal trial, a good lawyer could probably get anoyone off based on the fact that there computer might have been hacked, ore records forged, etc. There is reasonable doubt that it was actually this person downloading (unless they catch you with the songs). However a civil suit is a much lower burden. BAsically they have to just argue their side better than yours. There may still be some doubt, but they can still win.
The RIAA is suing file sharers. I know this doesn't get much play on the news, but it's the unauthorized distribution, i.e. sharing, that is in "violation".
So they don't have a log of you downloading something, they have a screenshot of all the files you are letting other people download.
If you blog it...
When they came for the Kazaa users, I said nothing because I wasn't a Kazaa user;
When they came for the Grokster users, I said nothing because I wasn't a Grokster user;
When they came for the Gnutella users, I said nothing because I wasn't a Gnutella user;
When they came for me there was no one left to speak for me.
I know this because Tyler knows this.
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?
Your mac address doesn't make it past the router, assuming you are running one. (most of the users probably are on cable/dsl with multiple computers behind a NAT) only the MAC of the nat box shows externally at the ISP's end.
The RIAA doesn't care if this is bad PR, or if the media turns these guys/girls into "martyrs" or any of that. Don't you see? The RIAA exists to be the bad cop in the music industry's good cop/bad cop routine. Here you've got companies like Sony whose bread and butter is home electronics, including a sizable interest in the MP3 player market. They're also, of course, a member of the RIAA. Which face do you think they put on when they go after file traders? They'd never do that under the Sony brand name - they'll let the RIAA take the brunt of the backlash.
10 years ago few people had even heard of the RIAA. Sometime in the last decade the industry decided to start utilizing the organization as their hired muscle; the guys they let loose to do the dirty work none of the individual companies want to be associated with. But let's not forget who the RIAA really is. It's as much Andrew Lack and Tommy Mottola as it is Hilary Rosen.
The RIAA is sitting back and reading all this and saying "bring it on". They're happy if they get bad PR, because that's bad PR deflected away from the real names behind the RIAA.
Of course, I'm not arguing that the RIAA's strategy is sound in the long run, I'm just saying I understand it. Many of the things they're doing will still turn people off buying CD's even without people associating those actions with Sony or BMG or EMI or Universal. What the RIAA is doing is still stupid, but it's at least a better thought-out strategy than most of us here seem to give them credit for - and our tactics in trying to belittle them in whatever small ways we do here seem to miss the point completely. The RIAA knows exactly what they're doing and the reaction they'll get to it, and they don't care.
Are others receiving these as well? I realize in matters of tracing criminal acts (such as kiddie pr0n, molesters stalking in chat rooms, etc) I would hope ISPs would release names, but in cases of music/movie piracy (and any other crime that doesn't have a *real* victim) I would hope the ISPs would push back on the P2P networks.
I disagree, the more serious the alleged offense the more important due process becomes. I don't mind ticketing for parking offenses but there'd better be a proper trial in a murder case, and so on.
If someone is being accused of owning kiddie porn then that's an extremely serious matter, the case had better stack up and all the proper steps had better be followed. I agree that's true in the cases of alleged copyright infringement too but if you have to rate it in order of importance then it's the serious charges where it's most crucial to get it right.
Am I the only one that sees a difference between a police agency with a warrant in hand asking who's who and the damn 'copyright holder'?
The difference is the warrant, not who the person is. I agree that proper court orders should be required in all cases.
Shouldn't there be a burden of proof before my privacy is violated?
Yes, there should. I'm just worried that you seem to think that that stops being an issue if they accuse you of something more serious, when the consequences are highest.
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
I have nothing to allude to, and I am alluding to it.
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
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 |