Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

How to Tell if the RIAA Wants You

Posted by CowboyNeal on from the and-the-music-never-stopped dept.

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."

6 of 468 comments (clear)

  1. Re:How safe are those not in US by CreatorOfSmallTruths · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I wondered the same thing...

    Currently it seems that the RIAA goes after US people only, the DMCA does not apply in europe and the middle east (anyway, it didn't till not long ago)...

    But , seeing the history of cooperation between the US and european countries the RIAA might very well get their hands on users from other countries...

    In short, I would love to hear from anyone the "countries outside of the US are not involved in this"... but I fear no one will be up for the challenge...

  2. Re:How safe are those not in US by sploreg · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Depends on your counry's copyright laws and international treaties. If the RIAA has established itself as a business in your country, and your country has copyright laws (it will), then the RIAA can go after you very easily. Some treaties will allow them to come after you through borders and without much trouble, so you have to be careful no matter where you live. Very few countries don't have treaties, less than what you can count on your hands, so assume that you can get busted.

  3. Small world by Pac · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  4. Define Piracy by bubbazanetti · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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?

  5. Re:Important point by joel8x · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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!
  6. A Modest Proposal: The Music Worm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting
    The RIAA's fight against music sharing is becoming increasingly desperate, their current tactics are to seek legislation that elevates music sharing from a civil to a criminal offense (thereby obtaining a taxpayer subsidy for the pursuit of users), while attempting to prosecute individual users (or their parents, if they are underage). Basically, these tactics are based upon the "war against drugs," which has had moderate success. But in the case of music sharing, the RIAA's tactics are doomed to failure. Why? Because there will ultimately be a "killer application"--the music worm.

    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.