Slashdot Mirror
How to Tell if the RIAA Wants You
codewolf writes "Wired News has an article on how file sharers can check a new online database to see if they are wanted by the recording industry.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation has created a site where users can plug in their file-sharing user names. That name is checked against the list of those subpoenas filed in the Washington, D.C. district court.
The EFF also has an article on how to avoid a lawsuit from the RIAA."
How is the scene for people outside US.People in President blair's Britain,France,Germany?China,India,Japan,Israel?Ir aq?
Wanted : A Signature.
Just a quick straw poll, answer AC or whatever if you like (you will anyway)
How many of you does this annoy because you consider it a blatant disregard of legal process that the RIAA can just dive in and subpoena anyone they choose.
And who does it annoy cos you REALLY think it's your right to download as much IP as you can for free because... hey, it's digital, and it's your right?
Out of the two names i tried, bluemonkey13 and our famous munkeyspanker21, only bluemonkey worked...
Don't rely on this too much.
It's easier to grab people's IP address there. Unless of course u happen to use networks that hides your hostname (for DOS attack precautionary measures).
Has the RIAA started it's "crackdown" on IRC networks?
Welley Corporation - SLM Scammers
For users of Kazaa-Lite, where every user is called kazaa-lite-tk (or something like that), this won't help much. While 99% of lite users will be ok, there will be that 1 person who's gonna get nabbed.
Here, I pay extra on top of every blank CD I buy which goes to organisations such as the RIAA on the 'presumption' i may pirate music. By my legal and moral definition I have EVERY frikking right in the world to get what I pay for. I have paid the licensed owners of music for music that is downloaded and burnet to CD so I download it. I think anyone who doesn't 'get what they pay for' has rocks in their head.
Personally, I don't give a rats about downloading music for free, but I am PISSED that the RIAA has been given the right to harrass private citizens at will. I hope they (inadvertantly) supoena the asshats that gave them this power.
Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
The last "A" is RIAA stands for America. While the Americans are still the majority of the Internet users, it is changing quickly as more and more contries get their telecom act together.
RIAA can't subpoena Chinese, French or Russian users. And it is not even very clear if RIAA's sister organisations in their respective countries can, because laws are different over there (remember Sklyarov and how PDF encryption breaking is legal in Russia?).
So, I guess Americans can safely disable their shares and let the world feed the networks for a while. When RIAA comes to town in Australia, for instance, we do it the other way around.
Theft is wrong...it hurts everyone eventually.
BUT
I have a record album of Police Syncronisity (I know I spelt it wrong) and ACDC For those about to Rock. Both of those have unplayable first tracks on both sides...do to poor pressing/materials...they are warped.
I don't have a LP player in my car...infact I only have one in the house for the purpose of putting songs to CD.
So Riddle me this Batman...How am I supposed to get a copy of those 4 tracks that are unplayable on the albums?
Am I a pirate if I download those 4 songs to replace the ones I cannot play?...is the uploader a pirate for allowing me to get those 4 songs that I already paid for but cannot use?
I think the RIAA wants me to buy a few more albums/CDs/cassettes of the same recording so that I won't be a pirate...
OOOh but what if I get the clearance cutouts recordings at the discount store...or CDs at the pawn shop that are cheap because they don't pay any royalties...hmmm...am I a pirate then?
Stop pirating music assholes. D'uh.
Why? Why should I be able to record a song off of the radio but not off of another person's hard drive? Why should I not be able to share an out-of-print, but still copyrighted, piece of music? You act like pirating music is some heinous, horrible, despicable act. It's not. People have been trading cassettes, loaning albums, and letting their friends borrow CDs for years. They've been making "mix tapes" for their friends. They've been taping their friends' records. It's normal and healthy.
The entire copyright bullshit is infuriating. Were there not extension after extension granted by Congress, much of the copyrighted material that's out there would now be in the public domain -- as the founding fathers (of the U.S.) intended. Instead, legislation has been bought by the record companies so that they can continue to collect their ill-gotten gains for years.
As to your "asshole" remark, bite me.
So do you friends a favor and swip their username.
Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
Instead of just disabling the the sharing feature, why not populate it with free music/media/software? Wouldn't it be better for file sharing if they found a lot of people using it the way it was intended to be used?
Sound waves should be free!
Well until mankind phases out money, what incentive is there to make music if any joe-blow can pirate it and not pay a dime?
Copyright isn't the only way to promote the production of art. At least one other method - sponsorship - has been engaged in with some success in history, and one other method - grants - is continuously being employed in large parts of the world today. The former will tend to end up producing works that are desired by the sponsor and the latter will tend to be used to finance works that don't have broad consumer appeal.
Art forms that lend themselves to performance can make their profits from performance alone. Recorded copies can then be public domain. This applies very well to music.
Art forms that produce items that are still difficult to copy (painting, sculpting) won't be much affected by loss of copyright.
sigs are hazardous to your health
Specifically,
Has anyone loaded up a server with dummy files 3 or 4 mb in size, but with the same filenames as ones commonly shared by the "wanted" users?
I'd love to know if the RIAA is actually *checking* what's going around, or just jumping up and down pointing and going "Oooh! Ooh! Him! He's got a naughty file up for grabs!!"
mindslip
noone is going to buy more licensed music because of their efforts.
The target of these lawsuits isn't really the defendants, it's the US Congress. The RIAA is trying to get noticed in a way that will encourage congress to pass a law that will ensure they can continue to make money in the distribution business. The lawsuits are just a tool to make their blip on lawmakers radar screens bigger.
Piracy or no, the service that the RIAA members perform is obsolete, and without some prop to hold them up they will slowly loose revenue as artists choose alternative (and increasingly more profitable and effective) distribution methods, and listeners choose a more convienient channel. As you correctly point out, ending piracy will just postpone the inevetable. Let's not get so distracted by these petty suits that we let worse legislation than the DMCA get passed.
No need to worry, unless your ISP is comcast. The court documents doesn't list a name, unlike some of the other user names, but only the ISP.
Business News and Resources: www.usasource.net
Want to make some money, here's all you have to do:
Step 1: Buy a computer
Step 2: Use the P2P program of your choice
Step 3: Take a bunch of files that *YOU* have the copyright for or that are in the public domain and share them to the world.
Step 4: Make sure a few files are named something like b-spears.mp3, metallica,mp3 or harlanellison.doc.
Step 5: Document everything!
Step 6: Wait to get sued.
Step 7: Legal stuff
Step 8: Profit!
1) The desire for fame.
2) The desire to make good Music "just for fun."
3) Music for contract. Like an ad, for instance. I can't see why companies would mind an ad being copied endlessly.
4) Writing for performances. You can copy a song, but you can't copy a concert.
Copyright Law does have a place, though. I'll give you that. (It's got some incredible flaws, but it has a place.)
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." -- Hanlon's Razor
Almost all the music I listen to is from non mainstream labels - thats mostly because thats where all the good music is nowdays. Its a lot harder to find but its out there and many of these bands are not just local outfits but just not publicised by the music cartel.
Show of Hands for example won't be found on any RIAA list but they play the Albert Hall in the UK each year, which is not a small or cheap venue. This year they are playing the Eden Project with a load of other bands.
Some of the sounds and styles also just don't exist in the RIAAdom, hop over to www.machinaesupremacy.com and find out what happens when rock and computer game music collide.
Certainly in the UK nowdays if you want to hear decent music, turn off the radio, turn off MTV and go down the pub. or go to some music festivals that have non "mainstream" bands. Much of the music is very good and for the stuff that isnt tbe beer at festivals is almost always excellent.
How will the music worm work?
It will be distributed as an email worm. The user installs it by clicking on an attachment that arrives in an email spam. A large number people will do this knowingly, but many will be innocent "victims". Knowing users will thus have "plausible deniability".
Once installed, it will do the following:
1) Email itself to everybody in the user's address book, just like any other worm.
2) Install a hidden peer-to-peer server.
3) Identify every music file on the users computer.
4) Make all of them available over the web via peer-to-peer sharing.
5) Begin silently and automatically downloading music files to the user's computer and adding them to his music library, favoring additional titles by artists already represented in the user's library.
6) An internal list will of the downloaded files, and the worm will monitor their usage. Any downloaded file that is not played within a certain period of time will be marked for eventual replacement, in order to prevent the music archive from growing too large (say 20% above the size of the permanent library or 80% of available disk space, whichever is smaller). Any file that is played will be deleted from this list and permanently added to the user's music library. 7) Knowing users will be able to "order" specific music via a web interface by accessing a web site (actually located on the user's computer) via a web browser. The worm will silently edit the browser's history file to erase the record of this access.
How could such a worm be combatted?
1. Legal assaults on users would become difficult; there will be continuous trading of music over the net. Much of it will be entirely innocent; the result of the worm running on the computers of innocent "victims." This will provide a smokescreen for the activities of knowing users. It will be extremely difficult to prove that somebody is a knowing user, since the patterns of download to any individual user will be similar to knowing use. Many unknowing victims will accidentally add some of the downloaded music to their permanent libraries, because a lot of people do not keep careful track of the contents of their music libraries.
2. Virus scanning and firewall software could be employed, but many users do not keep their protective software up to date. Attempts to eradicate similar worms employed by spammers have not been particularly effective. And with the music worm case, many of the "victims" would actually be secret users, intentionally abetting the worm's presence on their computers.
3. The RIAA could distribute counter-worms, which would infect computers and delete music, or gather evidence of intentional trading. However, this would require the music industry itself to engage in an ongoing illegal activity. Moreover, it would be relatively unsuccessful in targeting the technically sophisticated knowing user, who would have a strong incentive to block such worms.
Dear Students, Faculty and Staff:
I am writing to you about a problem that has many of us at the college deeply concerned. You may be aware that four Bentley students are the subject of subpoenas served by the Recording Industry Association of America which is seeking financial damages for illegally downloaded and shared music files. According to The Boston Globe, the RIAA has filed at least 871 subpoenas this month. These students now face legal action and potentially significant fines.
We have every reason to believe that the RIAA will not stop here. Every person who downloads or shares music, video or software in a fashion that violates copyrights is breaking the law and is subject to fines of up to $150,000 for each violation.
All of us know that file sharing and downloading are commonplace; all of us are familiar with the argument that "everyone does it." But the copyright violations that so often accompany these activities are illegal and now the industry whose copyrights are being violated is responding aggressively.
Please recognize that everyone using our campus computer network who engages in this form of file sharing and downloading is violating Bentley College policies, breaking the law and exposing themselves to potential action by the RIAA.
Effective this morning, the college has temporarily eliminated all bandwidth associated with the following file sharing applications:
aimster audiogalaxy edonkey gnutella
hotline imesh KaZaA napster
scoutexchange blubster
If you have downloaded any of the above applications on your computer, we urge you to delete them immediately.
In September, we will launch a campus-wide discussion about appropriate longer term approaches to what is a serious legal and ethical issue.
Sincerely,
President
"Tired of being treated like a criminal for sharing music online?"
You may be tired, but it is theft, and you are a criminal. If the artists wanted people to share their music online, then they'd release it in MP3 format on the internet. Some artists do that, some don't.
If you have beef with the way that record companies go about their business, don't buy their records. I don't like the way some fast food joints treat their staff, but that doesn't give me the right to steal their product.
But I don't see kazaauser@kazaa.com on there
No sig for you!!
Of course they can. With a little help from their copyright-affiliates in the said countries.
Every western country has a RIAA/MPAA equivalent and they dance to the tune of those who represent the largest media corporations: RIAA and MPAA.
I do not live in the US, but I received a cease and desist letter from US attorneys for breaking the DMCA by sharing deCSS code on my foreign server. Recently I have been probed and DoSed (one of my IPs is still being DoSed by malformed packets to port 1214; my ISP is investigating the matter) by sites that I strongly suspect are a part of the MPAA/RIAA campaign ("we'll sue thousands") that began in June. I fully expect to receive a cease and desist, or even a subpoena, from the local copyright fascists for sharing my files.
The big huff is that they only have to file them with a measly clerk. There is no judical oversight. If that's what you call "file[d] WITH A COURT", then I've got some great "advice FROM A MAJOR STOCK FIRM"... That advice will be from the secretary, or possibly a janitor, but that's good enough according to you...
Nothing is illegial if it gets legalized... The DMCA and other such laws made this possible, but it should not be allowed. It's not strictly illegial, as congress passed the law, and the courts have upheld it so far, but it certainly violates many rights that Americans are accustomed to.
No, the founders of the USA did not mean for the legal system to be used to take away the life-savings of college students, just for sharing 3 MP3 files... Another case where congress' actions are in conflict with the constitution is copyright law, which is now being infinitely extended, even though that is explicitly disallowed. Since the congress decided that they can do that, does that make it right, or okay? Most rational people don't believe so...
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
There are a lot of people (I won't say a majority, the proportion is a point not worth arguing) using P2P simply because they want free music. For those people, I have a suggestion - one that's legal and significantly socially healthier than hiding indoors and playing Russian roulette with the RIAA's lawyers.
Find your local music scene.
Find out which clubs or bars in your town (or a nearby metro area) host live music - many do on the weekends, some do several times a week. Check the local papers for lists of such places, or activities like festivals, open-air concerts, park celebrations, etc. Ask around, check with your friends, neighbors, people at the local watering hole. Hell, take a walk through a noisy section of town sometime on a Friday night and listen to hear which places sound like they've got a band going.
For a small cover (or free, depending) at most of these places, you can get in, hang out with friends, have a few beers, talk to members of your-preferred-gender, and listen to the artists up close and personal. You might be listening to some neo-punk band of sixteen-year-olds. You might catch a really great jazz set. You might hear some grizzled-looking blue-collar fellas playing some mighty fine blues. You might dance to some eighties cover band.
And - here's the part for those interested in free music - a lot of these bands sell their CDs very cheap, and many give them away for free! Sometimes, musicians that aren't even performing will show up just to hand out some CDs of their stuff, to try and get some exposure.
Expand your horizons, get out of your house, have a social experience, spend time with friends, and get free/cheap music, all for little investment - plus, you get to support homegrown talent, instead of manufactured "talent". How can you go wrong?
Karma: Excellent, but still won't get you laid.
I'm pissed at the RIAA because they are abusing the legal process. This is all obviously FUD so they can shut down any competition and steal money from everyone (through media/internet/computer "royalties"--really taxes)--including those who don't want anything to do with their "products."
It's sad to see the EFF has joined their cause:
There are peer to peer networks for the sharing of legal music. In some cases they use digital signatures to ensure the files are legit. Here's the ones I've found so far:
- Furthur Network
-
konspire[2b]
-
Monotonik's BitTorrents - zip files with ~300 MB of MP3s
If you know of any others please let me know.Request your free CD of my piano music.
The reason I wrote this article was that a friend quite seriously told me that the money she paid to purchase Kazaa went to compensate the musicians whose music she was downloading. She had no idea she was violating anyone's copyright. I suspect people like her are not uncommon among p2p users.
Other slashdot users have repeatedly mentioned that their less computer literate siblings and friends who use p2p were quite unaware that any of the songs they downloaded were immediately made available for sharing. While you can usually disable this, most of the p2p apps are configured to automatically share by default, and I don't think they always make an effort to inform the user of that fact, or of its legal implications.
Request your free CD of my piano music.
Hear, hear.
Not passing around copyrighted material that you don't have a license to copy seems to me to be a rather foolproof way to avoid getting sued. I know I don't have that particular worry.
However, I do have quite the worry that the continued insistence of the freeloaders that they're not doing anything wrong serves only to inflame the whole issue, and then I do have to worry about things like DRM obstructing real fair use, attacks on my online anonymity, and the legal machine suffocating legitimate P2P uses in the cradle out of fear.
I suppose that's what really bothers me about this whole music "sharing" thing. If people really feel so strongly that the very idea of copyright is immoral, maybe it's time they got the Constitution amended to that effect.