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."
Sounds like a great way to harvest usernames for future lawsuits.
-- "You can lead a yak to water, but you can't teach an old dog to make a silk purse out of a pig in a poke" - Opus
I have already done it. All you do is enter your name, address, phone number, and SSN and a helpful representative from the RIAA will contact you in 30-60 days to tell you if they want to prosecute you.
They make one huge point that I've been waiting for someone to make aloud: "Disable the "sharing" or "uploading" features on your P2P application that allow other users on the network to get copies of files from your computer or scan any of your music directories. We hate this option, but it does appear that it will reduce your chances of becoming an RIAA target right now." I see this as a foolproof approach because there is no way to defend oneself as a sharer, but downloaders may still claim rights to listen to the music; the approach has one obvious flaw, however, which I'd still like to see covered in some major media outlet: once everyone begins to turn sharing off, there is nothing to download and the system collapses. My bet? The RIAA recognises this effect and is just waiting for it to render P2P file-sharing dead...
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.
don't share any copyrighted files. What a great idea to reduce the risk of being sued! Why didn't I think of that!
"It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton LaVey
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.
Just the username that identifies you on the given network. Just need to plug in any old text that gives you a unique name - /. stylee. Nothing to do with buying(?!) software or what not.
;-)
By the way, I'd lay off whatever drugs you're on - you have the coherency of Mr.Bush
Not to burst your bubble but CDs have gone down in prices in most up-to-date stores [in Canada anyways].
I totally agree that the levy on CDs is a waste [specially since I bet more people pirate software than audio with the CDs].
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
Ahh , so this explains why i was modded offtopic..
Slashdot Sig. version 0.1alpha. Use at your own risk.
I don't know about other Slashdot readers, but up until a few days ago when Slashdot brought the word into daily use (and read the article!), I thought that 'subpoena' was stuff that floated in ponds. If anyone else doesn't quite remember 'subpoena' being in their day-to-day vocabulary either, this might help clear things up:
[a@desk,docs] dict subpoena
3 definitions found
From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) [web1913]:
Subpoena \Sub*p[oe]"na\, n. [NL., fr. L. sub under + poena
punishment. See {Pain}.] (Law)
A writ commanding the attendance in court, as a witness, of
the person on whom it is served, under a penalty; the process
by which a defendant in equity is commanded to appear and
answer the plaintiff's bill. [Written also {subpena}.]
{Subp[oe]na ad testificandum}. [NL.] A writ used to procure
the attendance of a witness for the purpose of testifying.
(etc)
-Andrew
"Given the right to harrass private citizens at will"? Uhm, they are using the legal system IN THE WAY THE LEGAL SYSTEM WAS MEANT TO BE USED.
They are supoenaing (sp?) the details of those people who they have identified as being infringing, which is EXACTLY what people on this forum have been saying they should do.
Back when the RIAA was going after the networks themselves, the big shout on here was "They shouldnt go after the networks, they have potentially legitimate uses, they should go after the infringers", and now they are going after the infringers, the new cry on here is one of "privacy" and "harrassment".
So come on guys, why wont you jsut admit it, you wont give up until Copyright infringement as a crime no longer exists.
I always thought it wasn't the sharing of files that was illegal, but the downloading of them. I would still contest, to the death (or until they lock me up) that I can have any files I damn well please shared under Kazaa, Limewire, etc, it's when someone downloads them that *they're* doing something illegal. This is comparable to someone walking in your wide open front door and taking your backup cds...then *you* get sued for it. Utter bullshit.
--trb
1. Breathe on to some glass. Does the glass fog up?
2. Place your fingertips on your neck just below the corner of the jawline. Do you feel a beating often associated with a lubdub sound?
If you answer yes to either of these tests, the RIAA wants you!
It's interesting that the press isn't stressing that YOU ARE SAFE if you disable sharing to others. The FUD here is that "if you use Kazaa you might be caught." Remember - people in other countries are not being targeted, so if you MUST download copyrighted material, there will still be plenty available from Kazaa users in Canada, land of sodomite marriage and soon-to-be-legalized marijuana, where the air blows cold but free.
The flag just makes more sense than the constitution. - Judas Gutenberg
Revealed! The algorithm for the online RIAA check form:
output = "";
username = ENV("uname");
if username {
output = "You are wanted by the RIAA. Please report to your local police station and turn yourself in.";
}
print "<HTML>";
print output;
print "</HTML>";
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
They are supoenaing (sp?) the details of those people who they have identified as being infringing, which is EXACTLY what people on this forum have been saying they should do.
Yes, and a subpoena before this RIAA crap was something that could only be court ordered, not something a company or corporation could do just out of the blue. That is what's shitting people. It's giving law enforcement rights to a body that is NOT a law enforcement agency. The "slippery slope" thing here is what worries me. How small a change would it take before the RIAA is given not only the right to subpoena an ISP for names of users who they suspect of filesharing, but to send out fines without running through proper legal channels?
There are philosophical links to PayPal here. It's not a bank and is not under the same regulatory controls as banks, yet it acts as one and gets the benefits of being one. the RIAA is not a law enforcement agency and is not under the same regulatory controls as one, yet it acts as one.
That's right, buddy. You and I are the smart ones.
I belong to the ______ generation.
Did you check to see if it's the same people saying both things?
I, for one, am happy to see that they are no longer attacking the networks themselves as much. If they would have succeeded on a larger scale, the only result is the crippling of the Internet as we know it. The Internet is designed to copy files, shutting down services that just facilitate what the Internet inherently does is stupid.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
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?
All RIAA is achieving is making itself unpopular with a certain class of people. Whether upset by RIAA or apathetic (or, admittedly not at /., even supportive) noone is going to buy more licensed music because of their efforts. They may achieve a reduction in file sharing (they will never eliminate it) but those that stop getting their music this way will just go back to taping what they like instead.
By the way, I'd lay off whatever drugs you're on - you have the coherency of Mr.Bush ;-)
Damn, I am not even on any drugs - merely high on life. oh wait i did share a litre of white wine with a few people at lunch and I did try an experimental cherry fanta. perhaps that's what led to my general incoherancy. But hell, that's the first time anyone has ever compared me to the great satan himself.
I used to have a better sig than this, but I got tired of it
> Uhm, they are using the legal system IN THE WAY THE
> LEGAL SYSTEM WAS MEANT TO BE USED.
No. the RIAA is not using the legal system at all and that is what's highly questionable. It is now able to bypass the legal system and directly order subpoenas by itself. That is inherently dangerous when a corporation who stands to benefit from legal action has been given the legal right to bring action against whoever THEY suspect, WITHOUT going through all the correct channels of the legal system that has existed in this country for hundreds of years.
Download and share music that can be legitimately shared. Frankly, I'm so pissed off at the media cartel that I don't want to even bother pirating their products, let alone buy them. Even commercial radio stations thoroughly suck these days.
Oh, no! You have walked into the slavering fangs of a lurking grue!
I'd be interested in knowing if any Canadian Slashdot readers found their user names in the database. Afterall, file swapping is NOT illegal in the Great White North.
I wonder how many drug dealers would respond if they saw an advertisement saying "Call the local police station and give us your name to see if you're on our current drug dealer watch list." Almost sounds like entrapment.
...which of course I don't know anything about personally *cough*.
1. Make your private server.... just you and your friends, people with broadband connections. Say 30 people with 1-200gb each = 3-6tb.
2. Download new stuff from public networks, but never be a big sharer, just one among the huge crowd of small traders.
3. Relax and realize the chance of getting into trouble is slim and none.
While the RIAA/MPAA might be moderately successful in cracking down on public networks, the network of friends they'll never manage to stop...
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
And if the RIAA manages to shut them all down they will still be traded.
The KGB couldn't stop samizdat. Now I know that the RIAA is more powerful and pervasive than the KGB, but even they can't stop samizdat like networks.
Avoiding prosecution by the RIAA is easy, use humanware P2P networking.
KFG
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.
Here is a link to the subpoena issued for "munkyspanker21@KaZaA."
Note that this particular subpoena was sent to Time Warner. That means that although AOL users were conspicuously missing from the subpoenas so far, Time Warner Cable/RoadRunner users are being hunted down.
In the previous story there was some speculation that since Time Warner has interest in RIAA their customers might be off the hook... Doesn't look that way.
So do you friends a favor and swip their username.
Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
They will need that too, plus your yearly income.
Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
robandfab@millivanilli.com (Getting material for that new album)
captainjack@caribbean.pirates.org (If yer gonna be a pirate, expect to show up on such lists)
hrosen@riaa.org (oops!)
uday@saddam.iq, qusai@saddam.iq (now we know why they had to bomb that house!)
senatorhatch@senate.gov
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
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
Isn't the username idea rather dumb anyway? What happens if you use the same username as 10,000 other people? Besides, your real name is not attached to your username in any way (unless your dumb enough to tie it to your real email account).
How is that for an answer?
Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
Uhm, they are using the legal system IN THE WAY THE LEGAL SYSTEM WAS MEANT TO BE USED.
Riiiiiight. You like just any old entity to be able to decide what information to get about you from your ISP just because THEY suspect you of doing them wrong, instead of going through courts?
You do by what you've just said. Cool. I'll just go subpoena your CC number. Thanks!
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
Americans were the majority for a long time. I guess I haven't looked at the numbers for a long time. And as you point, theyr are still the largest group by far (the second country in the list is Japan with less than a third of the American users).
So, no need to be harsh. It was just a mistake, and one that doesn't even make the argument in the comment invalid, quite the contrary. The more users worldwide, the less the networks depend on RIAA subjects.
IANAL, but how will the RIAA prove that any copyright infringemnt has taken place?
I've had a few files available for download on Kazaa for a while now but no-one has downloaded any of them - I think my upload speed is too slow for people to bother. If I'm accused of copyright infingement, how can I be guilty if no-one has downloaded anything from me?
I assume the RIAA have downloaded at least one track from the people they are taking action against and will use that as evidence against them, but what offence has taken place? The RIAA are legally entitled to own a copy of the music, and it isn't an offense to allow them to take a copy. They would have to prove that people who aren't allowed to take copies had actually done so, and I don't think they can do that with the information they have.
Input error. Replace user and press any key to continue.
RIAA_can_lick_my_sweaty_balls@KaZaa doesn't match. Safe for now!
"Anonymous Coward" is for whistleblowers, not unpopular opinions.
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!
Because um it's illegal? Just because you considered it accepted doesn't make it legal. Normal and healthy still doesn't make it "legal". That's the big point you seem to be missing here.
What about file traders in the UK? Now that America 0wnz our asses they can have us sent over to the land of the un-free for anything they like with no trial. If the RIAA wants to, can they have us? I cant wait to get rid of the current government here, we should have nothing to do with Bush, i would rather take my chances with this place being an enemy of America, atleast nuclear annihilation is quicker than spending the rest of my life in a foreign prison.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
I personally listen to almost 100% indie music and find that its harder to find good RIAA artists/songs than it is to find good indie artists. Certainly per capita the RIAA loses and badly.
You can try this site if you're new to indie music, indie rock in particular. They also have 128kbs streaming MP3s. Or you can pay a visit to a couple of the bigger and more popular indie labels like Matador or Jade Tree.
Yeah, its tough finding good indie music, but that's only because the RIAA and Clearchannel monopolies make it so. If you put in a little effort you might be surprised at what you find.
I hope the indie labels exploit these damn lawsuits to increase their profile amongst music lovers.
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
The illegality of an action on its own is not a very strong argument. Not if it's up against a large number of people - a larger number than have voted for the current American president (nice one, EFF!) - thinking the same actions are moral.
Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
INSERT INTO have_to_sue VALUES $handle_entered_by_user;
what a great way to collect more handles for people to sue. use a cron job to see what they share and file the complaints.
easy as onehundredtwentythree...
Privacy is terrorism.
I checked the username www.k-lite.tk_Kazaa_Lite@KaZaA and found out that I'm wanted! Should I call my lawyer?
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.
Say for instance, I bought a CD from Amazon. Is it legal for them to offer me a free download while I wait for the physical one to arrive? I mean, buying a CD is pretty good proof that I own it, right?
c-hack.com |
Ok, in reply to you and the other replies to my comment, i have this quote:
"The following user names were culled from subpoenas filed with the US District Court in Washington, DC." (taken from here which was reference in this slashdot story)
As you can see, the subpoenas were files WITH A COURT. Therefor the RIAA was asking the court to enforce the subpaenos, as happens whenever someone wants to issue a subpoena!
So, lets see, in this case the RIAA hasnt done anything extra legal, non legal, or unlegal. They went through the courts. Hence, they ARE USING THE LEGAL SYSTEM AS ITS MEANT TO BE USED.
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
The RIAA went through the courts to get details on people who they already had evidence on, in order to prosecute them (see my reply to someone else in this thread). What the fuck do you want to do, hide when you do something wrong, because that is exactly what you are insinuating.
The RIAA had evidence, but in order to prosecute or to bring a court case against the infringers, they needed the details that the ISPs have. How else do you expect them to get these details apart from using the legal system, as they are the ones that need to bring the case as infringement is civil law.
Oooh ooh, and lots of people do hard drugs, steal, murder and otherwise devalue society.
Should we allow all those to be legal too?
Also there is MUCH less harm in sharing music with your friend then 57M of your closest buddies on the net. It isn't more wrong to share via P2P just more noticeable.
As for taping off radio, you can't actually give out those tapes to people. That is still copyright infringement.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
Please see my other comment here
"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.
Last time I checked Hotline, which was about a year ago, it seemed there were all these Warez servers out there, often actually charging money for access.
They all had extensive disclaimers and anti-law-enforcement statements you had to click-through "agree" to before you could even browse the file lists.
In short, "No cops allowed; these servers are for backups of licensed software only; you are only allowed to download what you have licenses for; etc."
I wonder first whether this sort of thing has any legal value, and if so whether it could be used in other P2P contexts.
IANAL and maybe I'm just dumb, but it seems like prosecuting someone who had such a disclaimer would require arguing against the validity of click-through agreements, which would be against the interests of certain folks much bigger than the RIAA.
This Like That - fun with words!
Hmm what is this username that identifies me on my given network i wonder?
Umm, that would be the username you have to use when you connect to Kaaza, WinMX, Morpheus, or just about any other p2p network besides Freenet. They didn't mean the wifi network you're using.
You really don't sound like you have much of a clue at all.
But I don't see kazaauser@kazaa.com on there
No sig for you!!
IP ??? I only download music !!!
I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
You think that's paranoid? It's called intelligence gethering. Websites like Slashdot and the EFF have set themselves up as hubs for opposition to the RIAA. And on Slashdot, where you actually post your thoughts, they can track the mood, ideas, and strategies of the opposition. Folks, they'd be stupid NOT to watch this site. It's as old as Sun Tzu, people. "Know Thy Enemy".
Of course, they're still trying to figure out just HOW Natalie Portman and Hot Grits fits into piracy...
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
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.
Personally, I'm much more bothered by the bypassing of the process. I'm a big advocate of the slippery slope theory, which is why I'm against gun control even though I think it would reduce the crime rate.
However, the occasional fear has bothered me. I, personally, only have mostly legal things shared out (unlicensed anime and anime music videos), but my roommates often have less legal things shared. It's kinda scary to think that the RIAA could just walk in and screw us all over.
Well, this finally did it--this pushed me over the edge I am now a card-carrying member of the EFF. If you've got twenty-five bucks to spare, you should join, too.
Face it--we're losing the war on copyright. We're losing it, and there's precious little we can DO about it. The EFF is one of the very few things standing between us and the removal of the right to own property.
There is a difference between the RIAA subpoenas and normal subpoenas. Normal subpoenas require a judge's approval. The RIAA subpoenas in the DMCA only require that a copyright holder show up at a court, pay a fee, and get a clerk of the court to rubber stamp it, with no review.
And the muscular cyborg German dudes dance with sexy French Canadians
You can come to Slashdot all you want and complain about what the RIAA is doing. But talk is cheap. If you don't support organizations working to change the laws, the RIAA will win out.
C - A language that combines the speed of assembly with the ease of use of assembly.
Here is a good quote from EFF's campaign site ( http://www.eff.org/share/ ):
;).
But there are more than 60 million people in the United States alone who use file sharing--more than the number of people who voted for our current President. If we all band together and stand up for our rights, we can change the law.
If everyone who used P2P voted on the basis to have it legalized, then they could elect their own president next time
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
hello?
Looking at your code, I see the RIAA is looking for alot of guys named "Linux 2.4.21" and "Solaris 2.8"
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Block the bastards:
i nt ext.asp
http://www.simplyclick.org/uploadertest/pg2_pla
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.
It's worse. Either you live in a crappy country, or you don't understand the legal system. In my country, even law enforcement has to get a court order for the kind of information RIAA is asking for. If the company sucks, they'll just give the info away, but if they have their customer's interests at heart, they will only give it away if legally required.
You are an idiot. First of all, they don't need to identify the supposedly "infringing" user before they file a claim. That is what a John Doe lawsuit is for. This is why Verizon was fighting the RIAA, they wanted the RIAA to file a John Doe lawsuit.
Secondly, the RIAA had evidence??? WTF kind of crack are you smoking? They've been spamming the internet with bot created DMCA complaints. That is not evidence, that is fraud.
I support inde's.
The students probably don't have the money to pay off the RIAA... but the college certainly does. By enacting this policy, the college wants to separate itself from being liable. It wouldn't surprise me if the RIAA tried to find the "network providers" liable as well. In other words, suing the college for allowing P2P apps to be run on their network in the first place.
"You spoony bard!" -Tellah
assuming the validity of the search engine, this search engine is probably one of the best assets a malicious hacker could ever hope for >o). Not only are there address for areas in which people live, but now there are IP addresses of people who will forever be scared to use the internet (but will probably still do so for things like email,homework, and research).
on another note, the subpoenas also give insight into the monitoring habits of the RIAA. In the 120+ subpoenas i've examined (via this site) every one had a download time stamp between 3am and 1am. perhaps there is a window on opportunity in those 2 short hours, or maybe there arent any worthy users to persue during those hours. Of course the 75 subpoenas being sent out each dy would depricate or abolish the significance of thes two hours and reduce it down to 1 or none.
I was also thinking that the RIAA has to verify that the song is authentic. perhaps hashcode comparison? (to which variable bitrates and encoding schemes would hamper thier efforts) if they are manually verified then they must have the largest collection of pirated music in the world. =P
i can't wait to read about the first case of someone suing the RIAA for giving them a nervous breakdown from the scare they are creating.does anyone else see the similarities between:
a thousand monkeys at a thousand typewriters and the RIAA?
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:
As of this point, it looks like the RIAA isn't subpoenaing (sp?) the default names that Kazaa and Kazaa Lite use. This may be a good way of safety through mundanity for anyone who wants to hide their sharing habits, since there's no way the RIAA can possibly press charges againt everyone who use the default name. Especially when a lot of the people who use the default names probably don't share or have legitimate rights to the music on their hard drives...
Most people using IRC for files are leechers. Not that thats a bad thing, but it limits the effectiveness of the RIAA targetting sharers.
Of course, there are fserve's; but xdcc's are much more common. I don't think its likely, at least at this time.
"The lesson to be learned is not to take the comments on slashdot too literally." --Vinnie Falco, BearShare
Napster?
AudioGalaxy?
Just when was this letter sent?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Yeah, it's sad when the only way to prevent getting completely screwed over is to stop participating in the internet. These sort of problems are the reason why the internet is slowly turning into a one way medium. There is no reason a person should be afraid to speak their mind and distribute their own creative works, yet the legal system has become corrupt, so we all suffer.
I guess I live a sheltered life, not having used windows much, and not really being a p2p fanatic anyway. I am confused i guess because the p2p client software I do use (legitamately of course - see higher posts) does not ask for a username. it seems crazy to me that any p2p sopftware would ask for a username if it aims to protect its users anyway. but judging by the responses i am getting to this thread it seems that windows p2p clients do ask for a username. i have no way to tell if this is the case, not knowing anyone silly enough to use windows' based p2p clients anyway. but as you infer, what the hell would i know anyway. I'm just a mac-using, java coding, frequent-flying, wifi-abusing no good sonofabitch.
I used to have a better sig than this, but I got tired of it
Yes, but that isn't all they have. They have your IP Address too, and that is tied to your real name. Go to http://www.showmyip.com to find out your external ip address.
Note that it shows the country your IP block is tied to if possible. Which means they can target US users only.
Then it's a relatively simple matter of finding out which ISP owns that IP block, and then they issue a Subpoena to your ISP to find out which customer was assigned that IP address at the time of infringement. And suddenly they have your real name and address.
The internet isn't as anonymous as you think.
IPv6 a nano-dime a dozen...
I'm dead sexy!
It's so obvious. (.test, I salute you!)
"...how to avoid a lawsuit from the RIAA."
You know, I was kind of hoping for useful, less painfully obvious ways to avoid the RIAA. I mean really. If we're using this program to begin with, it stands to reason we already know exactly what removing out files or not sharing would do.
I mean, where's the real info here? Like how you don't see any "defaultuser@kazaa" names on that email list. Or using the newest versions of K++ and Kazaa Lite that have 1st generation RIAA counter-measures. I guess if you're audience is the noob (or you're actually more afraid of the RIAA than you care to admit) then the EFF's basic lawsuit avoidiance steps will work, but forgive me for saying so, but I'd wager that most people know exactly what they're doing with Kazaa, rendering this meager info page utterly useless.
You need a FREE iPod Nano
Oooh ooh, and lots of people do hard drugs, steal, murder and otherwise devalue society.
Should we allow all those to be legal too?
No, because society as a whole thinks that those things are wrong and should be illegal. Society at large has not viewed loaning CDs, albums, and tapes to friends as wrong. That's why libraries will loan out books, tapes, CDs, records, etc. But why do you specify "hard drugs"? Are you using pot but think it's okay even though it's illegal?
Speeding is illegal. Going 65 in a 55mph zone is against the law. Should the speeding laws be amended so that anyone caught doing that faces up to 5 years in jail and a $250,000 fine? That punishment has been proposed in Congress for anyone who makes any copyrighted material available via a P2P network -- even if it's just one track for a few minutes.
As for taping off radio, you can't actually give out those tapes to people. That is still copyright infringement.
Why is it okay for me to make a recording of "American Top 40" on cassette and not okay for me to record those same 40 songs from Kazaa onto my hard drive?
But you missed the whole point. The copyright laws are being perverted by big business paying off legislators. Stuff that SHOULD have already been in the public domain long ago is now locked away for another God-knows-how-many-years. Disobeying unjust laws is "illegal", but it's not automatically "wrong." I also took offense at the original poster referring to everyone who traded copyrighted music as "assholes."
No! The RIAA went through a clerk of the court. When anyone else wants to get a subpoena for any other reason, they need to go through a JUDGE and show actual proof, not just make an accusation. If the subpoenas were issued be a judge with the same standard of proof required for any other civil subpoena, I would have no problem with them.
"Do I dare disturb the universe?"
Or to shift it around a bit -- if the RIAA has the right to subpoena alleged infringers -- ISTM that you and I should have the exact same right.
So do we? Would an ISP cooperate if Joe Private Citizen said "Yo there, ISP, I think johndoe@isp.net is distributing my stuff!" Would it get the same notice if said stuff was a few images pilfered from a web page (which are equally copyrighted material)?? I doubt it.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Arrg. You are mixing two questions.
1. Should piracy via P2P be illegal because many people do it.
2. Should piracy via P2P be a felony with 5 years prison sentence attached.
In my opinion I think the answers are
1. yes
and
2. no
While I also disagree with the DMCA and various other perversions that doesn't make P2P piracy "right". I mean on one hand people around here bitch about "oh music is all minted bs teeny-bopper crap" and on the other hand "I should have the right to download whatever I want off P2P, specifically stuff the RIAA owns".
I seriously doubt the RIAA is going to waste their time with people on P2P who are sharing linux ISOs or free-label music.
Of the 57M americans "sharing" on P2P I'd say easily 56.9M of them are sharing pirated music/videos/software of one sort of another.
Does that mean the government should imprison all P2P users? No. And nobody is saying that either. The government is simply looking to augment the punishment for PIRACY not free speech.
To
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
"You may be tired, but it is theft, and you are a criminal"
Just because it is illegal does not mean it is "theft". "Theft" has a certain meaning, and acts of copyright infringement, rape, pulling tags off mattresses, and other crimes do not meet it.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
You're score is "redundant".
You need a FREE iPod Nano
don't buy overpriced CDs. download music from soulseek or piolet.
---- oh no - it's the RIAA and their $100000000 fine. I'm gonna take that so seriously...
Copyright law is designed so that the originators of creative works can derive compensation from those works, right? No, the recording industry likes to take 90% of artist proceeds and stuff it into some hole and now wants to put a greater lean onto touring revenue.
The RIAA is of course whining about how it isn't gettin gits fair share of cash for these songs that are being downloaded. Now, the RIAA for the most part, has nothing to do with the creative process, and those corporate bands/singers that are puppets, can't really be called creative (say hi Justin) by any real stretch.
In essence, by swapping files we take money away from the RIAA (money that it really didn't deserve to have in the first place, but that's just an editorial aside), and then the RIAA takes away more money from the artists.
Here's a simple solution, let the artists sue the RIAA for getting continually raped and having this crusade carried out in their name. I'm sure that any number of artists down on their luck would like their fifty million dollars from their platinum album back from the RIAA. They are the originators of the creative content and are thus in charge of the copyright (unless they were stupid with their contracts), it should be the decision of the artist who gets their money and who gets to be compensated for money lost from file downloading.
Hopefully the artists aren't totally stupid and just keep the suits to the RIAA, because suing their fans would be very much counterproductive (after all, would you buy a band's cd if they were in the middle of litigation with you). Just a thought.
Friend of mine the other day asked the same question after I gave him two books to read:
"I was wondering why are they all up in arms about sharing files, when at the same time I can borrow a book off of you, it isn't any different."
Well, let's wait two more years and I am sure we get a license agreement with our ebook that doesn't allow us to share books either.
I think I stick to the paper kind.
M.
If you want to e-mail me, use my PGP Key.
pub music can still be a nice surprise, sometimes. always worth swapping the odd night of file searches for a night in a pub.
---- oh no - it's the RIAA and their $100000000 fine. I'm gonna take that so seriously...
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.
Corporate interests may be getting police powers, but I still have the right to bear arms; there's a reason we've got it.
my sig's at the bottom of the page.
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.
The use of the term "theft" to encompass the taking of nonphysical items of value, where the victim is deprived, not of the item itself, but of his exclusive control over its disposition, has long been well accepted in our culture (e.g. theft of services, information theft).
Illegal? Absolutely. Theft? Hardly. I can define one as the result of 2+2, but that doesn't make it true. If you do not deprive someone of the use of their property, it is not theft. A copy is neither taking, nor depriving the rightful owner of the use of said property. It is a violation of several federal laws, and hence illegal, but a rose by any other name is still a rose.
Well I'm the doctor and I say you're dead, so shut up and take it like a man!
They have more rights than the average person imprisoned in "Camp Castro" that takes up the rest of that island.
How would you know?
What a rotten party, have we run out of beer or something?
i have posted this before, but it was nested so deep i don't think anybody read it. if the sharing mechanism forces a searcher to be a pirate, then the RIAA would be implicated just for searching. see below:
(1) All users must register their filesharing client.
(2) The first thing the client does is upload a VERY SMALL "guilt file" to which kazaa, napster, or whoever wrote the client, has EXCLUSIVE rights. The user is now in cahoots before he ever downloaded anything. Before a client downloads any single file, he first uploads 2 "guilt files" to the sharing user. This verifies that the requester has implicated himself. So he is guilty but not to be punished.
(3) User must click "I Agree to Terms of Use."
(4) Term of use 1:
"I recognized that I have already violated a copyright just to launch this application. I understand that I will be sued, if and only if I decide to press charges against anyone on this network who violates my own copyrights on this network. I agree that the terms of settlement will be as follows: any spoils I achieve by copyright lawsuit, or by settlement, using this network, I agree to pay in double to kazaa, napster (whoever wrote the client). 75% of that will be returned to the original victim of the lawsuit." So it actually PAYS to get sued.
"I understand that for each file I have downloaded, I have, myself, illegally shared TWO files. I understand that I am pardoned of my offenses, so long as I pardon everyone who has offended me." ("Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.")
(5) Term of use 2: "I am not using this software as a third party agent." i.e. I am not a private investigator, lawyer, snoop, cop, stool pidgeon, etc., I'm just a joe using this client for his own purposes.) This term reduces the risk that RIAA hires a little kid to do the download and then films it as evidence.
Neat huh? I want to see it! Those laws (that the RIAA has democratically bribed our politicians for) would work against them SOOOO harshly here.
SWEET!
-The REAL Sam
"Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us." -Jesus Christ The Lord's Prayer
I may be wrong, since I haven't ever used KAZAA, but I find that most file sharing software has a handy feature that lets you grab a convenient list of every song or file that a person shares, or some way of indicating how much space the files a person shares take up. This feature is useless.
To solve the "problem" of RIAA litigation, all that needs to happen is for all filesharing programs to release a protocol-breaking upgrade which enables searching only by song title, rather than username. As well, it should completely disassociate the sharer's username from the search results. The IP address is still needed, but does not need to be reported through the client. If you make it more inconvenient for the RIAA to figure out who is sharing what files or how much music, lawsuits will decrease.
I keep hearing everyone jawing about how the RIAA needs to adapt its "outdated" method of music distribution, but no one on the filesharing side of things wants to adapt. These changes will slow the RIAA down, but one thing won't change... if you get caught sharing music, you really don't have anyone to blame but yourself.
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.
... the US is starting to feel like a puppet state of Washington too.
___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
Right, that'll hold up in court.
That analogy is fatally flawed. It might hold up if all your copies were destroyed after they were transmitted to your friend. When you "share" a file, you're creating a copy as it's transmitted over the wire. If you don't have a license to do that, you're infringing copyright.
The funny bit is, if there wasn't so much of this "sharing" going on, there wouldn't be anywhere near the incentive for copyright holders to impose draconian restrictions on their works when distributed electronically. I have people who reason like you do to blame when I cannot make fair use of copyrighted works that I have a legitimate copy of.
You're right, it's not. However, avoiding illegal acts is a great way to drastically reduce run-ins with the law or lawsuits.
In any event, it's important to remember that copyright is granted by the Constitution -- and if it's so immoral or unjust or what not, then where are the voters putting the fear of recall in their representatives if they don't amend the Constitution to kill it?
Instead of leaving your door open, you put your stuff outside with a sign that says "free"...
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Evidence? You mean a list of file name scanned and filtered somehow in mass by an automated scanner? The RIAA's evidence is a file NAME stored on a computer, that is NO different then me writing down a couple of groups and song name on a piece of paper. We are talking about a court and lawsuits here worth 10's of thousands of dollars each here, not a bunch of people sitting around a card table thinking someone is guilty of something based on something they overheard near the water cooler. These are real lawsuits and real courts where real evidense should be required to proceed. There is NOTHING illegal about sharing out bogus files with bogus names and anyone can do it. It does not matter if it is not ethical, not right in your mind, and questionably stupid to do so but the point is again, it is not illegal to do it and nothing prevents anyone from doing it. You should not get prosecuted or have to defend yourself for thousands of dollars, lose you ISP account and have to put up with the strong arm tactics of the RIAA because of it. The simple fact that they have this power over you right now is simply amazing. A reply of "well don't have those file names shared out" is not a justification for what they are doing. I can walk into Walmart and put any merchandise down my pants and they can do nothing until I leave the store without paying for it. I can have a car that can triple the max speed limit in my state and never actually speed. A female with huge breasts can walk the city streets with high heels and almost no close at 2am and not get arrested for prostitution until solicated. I can buy all the papers and bongs I want and never get arrested for drugs. We can all sit around and guess what those examples above are going to lead to something illegal but until they are caught by REAL evidence, there is nothing you can do. Why can I not have a file named "Hotel Califonia" listed on P2P?
Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
Thanks for the clarifications, it was all broadly speaking of course though. Of course the problem is endemic to the medium, really a single band would be hard pressed to distribute their music in an anolog (well, solid non-electrical sort of thing) form. Which why the internet is sort of ideal, but then again, people are clamoring for free content and not subscription services, and if you want to sell something then you'll want people to be exposed to it or have a name behind you. It's a great cycle that's been built up by the recording industry, a real give and take relationship that ends up being rather one-sided.
Why you ask? Because the owner of the material says so, if you do not agree to the terms then you do not get the toy. Get it?
No, I do not get it. When the owner of The Beatles catalog published it in the U.S., they did so with the understanding that they were getting a copyright, a form of government granted monopoly, that would expire at a certain date. Now, suddenly, they find that the expiration has been extended with no consideration to the public good.
Too expensive, too hard to find in a store, so what. Get over yourself, you know damn well that you are wrong.
No, I am right. You are wrong. You don't even know the difference between copyright infringement and theft.
If I tell you that something costs a dollar, and you want it bad but do not have a dollar, you do not have the right to fucking steal it.
Downloading music via a P2P network is not stealing. In some cases it is copyright infringement, but it is not stealing. If some kid downloads Britney Spears' latest single, does Britney have one less copy of it to sell? If a lot of people do it, does she have to issue a press release saying "Sorry, but there are no more copies of my single available. They were all stolen by people on the Internet."?
Get off your high horse. You've broken copyright laws over and over, so don't lecture me with your f***ing holier than thou attitude.
what incentive is there to make music if any joe-blow can pirate it and not pay a dime?
Well, what incentive is there to make music if any joe songwriter can claim that your song is "substantially similar" to his in an infringing way and win in court?
Will I retire or break 10K?
You can copy a song, but you can't copy a concert.
It is possible to copy a bootleg recording of a concert. In fact, some bands permit this.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Do you have a pulse?
I am the unwilling control for my Origin.
But the RIAA says he doesn't "own" the music--only that he has a license.
An RIAA rep says he owns the record. This implies a license to perform it privately for the physical lifetime of the record. It's similar in effect to the typical software EULA condition that the license terminates when all copies in the licensee's possession are destroyed.
Will I retire or break 10K?
So THAT IS you ....
I am the unwilling control for my Origin.
the service that the RIAA members perform is obsolete
CDBaby.com can sell a band's CDs over the Internet, but not everybody has Internet access from home. Some people prefer to shop in record stores such as Tower or in discount stores such as Wal-Mart. I don't think CDBaby.com has contracted with prominent big brick-and-mortar record stores yet.
listeners choose a more convienient channel
The most convenient channel for a good cross-section of listeners is FM radio in their cars. CDBaby.com can sell a band's CDs over the Internet, but Clear Channel's "independent" promoters must be paid to tell the radio-listening public that the CD exists. Most people don't have wireless Internet access and cannot listen to Internet radio during a commute.
CDBaby.com can sell a band's CDs over the Internet, but it doesn't provide access to music publishers' catalogs. Harry Fox Agency handles licensing of sound recordings based on copyrighted musical works, and I would imagine that it's harder for an individual to deal with Harry Fox Agency than for a large corporation to do so.
Will I retire or break 10K?
If you upload a copy of Photoshop to your server and post a link, who do you think would be prosecuted?
The authors of GIMP, when Adobe sues them claiming that GIMP is "a copy of Photoshop".
Will I retire or break 10K?
Yeah but so many people are not violating it for a good reason. It eating say fruits was illegal and people ate them anyways to get nutrients I would argue that indeed the law needs changing.
However, in question here is a business model not a law. If you don't like the way take-out pizza works do you instead hi-jack the delivery people?
If you don't like the flashy-nature of modern music [and who does?] then don't buy it. It isn't a law that all music has to be RIAA certified stamped with approval.
I mean what drug use rised in the US. Would the fact that so many people are addicted to drugs merit changing the laws? Or would the country simply have an epidemic on its hands?
The biggest problem is the polarity of the people. You can be against flashy teeny-bopper crap music-of-the-week bullshit and not pirate music. However, people seem to like the extremes.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
You don't own the rights to music you pirate. And even if you own the CD/tape/LP you don't have the right to distribute it.
Ok put it this way. You invite someone to your house. They have a right to be in the house and reasonably make use of the faculties. Do they now have the right to give it out to their neighbours?
Or say you toil over something that is supposed to pay your bills. But instead I decide to "share" it with 1000 of my closest friends. And then they "share" it. My bet is if you ever worked hard on something in your life that you were counting on you wouldn't appreciate it.
And before you get all snappy I too give out software for free and I do freelance software development. If my boss decided "oops I'll copy your project and not pay you for it" I would be plenty upset. However, if people copied my free projects I would be plenty pleased.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
I've rarely met anyone who didn't have an axe to grind about something. What's Snopes pray tell?
Revolutions are never about freedom or justice. They're about who's going to be top dog. -- Kilgore Trout
Option a) Only share non-RIAA music online.
This is really their worst nightmare, and the reason they want filesharing eliminated. The fear is that too much freedom of information could break their oligopoly (Along with MPAA types) on entertainment, possibly pushing the price of an album to less than $15 (gasp!) Even worse, people could start listening to music from independent labels who encourage the internet community (read: everyone, especially young people who like music, it just makes sense) to do their promotion for them.
Well, clearly this must be stopped.
If Sony and RCA had it their way, it would be illegal for non RIAA labels to produce music. And while we're at it, lets be serious, we can live without major label bands. Try it, go download something off the internet, something off of a mp3-friendly band's actual website, one you haven't heard before. You might like it. Fill your P2P shared folder with the like. Why be an unpaid distributor for the mega-corporates? This is how the revolution starts.
Waiting for ad.doubleclick.net...
They are. See for example this and this
Nonsense. The word "sharing" has no connotations of legality or illegality. Bank robbers generally share the stolen money.
I'll add one thing. I'm getting tired of /., the EFF, et. al. calling it "sharing" or "swapping". It's neither. It's only sharing or swapping if you have the rights to it. Otherwise, it's illegal (with certain small exceptions).
It is sharing/swapping and it may be illegal, but the issue is whether it should be illegal. Sure the law (especially the DMCA) may call it that but that's a flaw of the law, not the users or the P2P-networks.
Let's do a small example. I own a recording on LP. I do have a tape copy of it (still legal to make) but I don't have a tape deck at work, nor a record player, but I have my computer. Now I find my favourite track from that LP on a P2P-network and download that in order to play it at work... SLAM! - that is illegal for me to do, despite the fact that I've already paid for that song at the record shop and everything. How stupid is that?! - I can legally just sample the tape and create the MP3 from that and it'll still be legal for me. Mind you, I'm never allowed to share this MP3 with anyone else and that's fine with me.
Why am I not allowed to make a copy of something I've paid for, for my own use?
No, the law is wrong and I'd rather respect the much basic law that that I bought and paid for is mine to do with as I please.
Please note that's talking about music that I've already paid for. I'm not talking about new stuff because that may be theft provided that the user never pays anything for it. I'd call it borrowing when it comes to beating the labels at the teasing game and use a downloaded copy of a song until it becomes available in the shops.
Let's do a practical example. About a week ago the english singer Dido released a new single (the first in years) entitled "White Flag" to the radio stations which began playing it right away. Now I want that single because I'm a huge fan and I already own (bought and paid for) all her other stuff, including rare stuff, so I went to my local retailer right away and was told that the single won't hit the shelves until mid-September, 5-6 weeks away! - It's so insanely stupid that they still try to play that teasing game (creating a feeding frenzy thus boosting the sales at the release) and I simply refuse to play along.
So does a lot of other people it seems because my local retailer told me that none of the other major releases caused any kind of frenzy despite months of teasing. Madonna's "American Life" single hardly moved when it came out and is already on sale. The reason is of course P2P-network filesharing because people have downloaded and listened to the song for a long time and grown tired of it when the official release finally comes around. I'm sure the Madonna single would have sold much better is it was available in the shops right from the start. And the same thing will probably happen to the Dido single unfortunately, and it's too bad because Dido didn't have anything to do with that stupid release policy.
In any case I therefore borrowed the new Dido song from a P2P-network and I'll pay for it when I can. Yes, the will to pay is there but right now I simply can't pay for it no matter what. I've got the money in hand and I'm in the retailers shop but the single isn't there to buy! - Stupid, isn't it?
So, using a P2P-network is far from always theft. Sometimes it's a tool to make things work, and if that means to bend a few rules (laws) so be it. I know I paid or will pay for my stuff, so my conscience is clean. I just don't accept the tyrrany of the labels.
Now back to the 3:36 mins of bliss from Dido that her label forced me to borrow instead of buying...
"I will go down with this ship,
I won't put my hands up and surrender.
There will be no white flag above my door." -- Dido, "White Flag"
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
if i kill 2 people to establish the guilt of an unrelated third party, aren't i still guilty of the 2 murders?
it would be EXACTLY as effective as the laws that defend the RIAA.
if you're still in doubt, keep in mind that the "guilt files" need not be meaningless. they could actually be pretty decent stuff... art, essays, short stories, etc. (all copyrighted, datestamped, checksummed, etc) this would be stuff that clearly falls within the domain of copyright protected material. these files would be available for download-sale on the website of the software distributer, so that there's no doubt as to their intended commercial value.
now the RIAA wants to build a case. to snoop the network, RIAA illegally "pirate-shares" 5000 units of Software, Inc's intellectual property, (files which are available for sale online). the RIAA finds out that joe student illegally "pirate-shared" 2500 mp3 files, which are available for sale in the store.
good. RIAA builds its case, and shows up in court. their $million lawyer cries "we're just trying to make a buck. we bribed your legistlature for some laws, and now we want to see them enforced. please take this 21 year old's college savings away." the student says "i'm sorry, yes, i'm guilty, here you go, my life savings. i'll quit school and work at mcdonald's to pay off the rest." but then a third party stands up (the software company) and says "we'd also like to see the law enforced, since the same law obliges RIAA to pay us twice what it just took from that student. RIAA "pirate-shared" 5000 of our files while establishing his guilt." RIAA appeals and either (1) overturns their own law, or (2) suffers under it. if the law is overturned, GREAT! if RIAA is penalized double, GREAT. most of that is given to the poor student, who quits mcD's and resumes school.
i believe that this idea would blow the doors off the whole file trading dilemma, and put the RIAA lobbyists back in their place.
"Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us." -Jesus Christ The Lord's Prayer
This sounds more like a plan by the RIAA to get more Kazaa usernames to check up on. 'Just submit your username to see if it's not already on our list. If it's not, we'll follow-up on it and if we see that you've done a lot of file trading, we'll add yours as well.'
The Smart One: I'll take "Things you should know" for 200.
Alec: Since the beginning of time, this specific method was used to avoid being prosecuted by others.
The Smart One: What is not breaking the law?
Alec: Correct.
The Smart One: I'll take "Things you should know" for 400.
Alec: The 20th century is marked by the loss of this great leader and moral officer, which dawned an era of weak men and scared little boys who cried out for some sort of empathetic revenge due to their faces being barried in a surealistic existence, one which their brains try to forcefully merge with reality.
The Smart One: What is "Responsibility, son of Accountability"?
Alec: Correct. No.. wait.. someone is complaining, that must mean we are in the wrong. Okay, whoever said that our show is against constitutional rights, that's just not funny!
on the sixth day God created man.
on the seventh day, man returned the favor.
This would *NOT* hold up in court. IANAL, but I *STILL* know this wouldn't hold up. The original ToS/EULA is illegal. Contracts that require breaking of the law are not honored by the court system. When's the last time you've heard a mob-boss successfually sue a hit-man for not killing cousin Vito? Joe Distributor getting a court decision in his favor against Dan the Dealer for selling his stash and not giving Joe his cut? Hell, I can't even get the money from my ho's that way, that's why God invented the 'pimp-slap'.
:)
In all reality, if you had a EULA like that, you'd get sued pretty much right away by the RIAA/MPAA/whoever. I can't imagine a *LEGITAMATE* use for this software to save it from being shut down.
-Ab
ps. Screw the RIAA and nice trolling with ya
Nothing fails quite like prayer.
You ment to click "Funny" not "Flamebait" - moron.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
If you want to hurt the RIAA - hurt its members... Record Companies. If you stop buying new Records/Albums/CD's whatever format... http://www.boycott-riaa.com/membership.php The answer is simple - use your wallet. Whether you file share or not, DONT BUY ANY MUSIC FROM ANY RIAA MEMBER. If you must, buy it used. That way the money goes to a local merchant not the record company. If everyone stops buying music, then the music companies will have to change their tune. ha ha ha... Seriously - if no one buys new music - record stores/retial merchants will preasure the RIAA to stop its nonsense... Retail has far more power than the RIAA. Hell - get Walmart on your side and you've got it made.
This might be a good revenue opportunity to charge $5 a month for users to proxy through them, and there'd be no last-mile infrastructure. Just good bandwidth. Hmm...
Ouch! Stop him! He stole my thought. Make him give it back.
Cool concept. Reminds me of the book "Deathkiller". Or it could be something spies use: steal his thoughts and wipe his brain, although I always figured killing was much easier than wiping a mind.
We all reuse thoughts, and it rarely hurts anyone. I may use the phrase "thought theft" in a song. You may never hear the song, and my reuse won't hurt you. Thousands of people may share my songs on P2P networks, and that is good for me:
1. People are listening to my songs.
2. People are being injected with my ideas.
3. People will pay to see me play the songs.
4. People may order my CD. Yes, CDs are almost obsolete, but they are still a good method for those who do not have high bandwidth to transfer music without losing quality.
5. I will get paid for being on late night television, and have cameos in movies and maybe start an acting career doing commercials, and write a book, and write a column in a magazine like John Mayer telling how he wrote a song that nobody wants to hear while travelling between famous people's houses. And that is what dreams are made of.
---
Copyright was allowed in this country so that a creator would have a limited monopoly so creators would gain some benefit from creating and would have the incentive to do it again.
Now the benefits all go to corporations for a period of time formerly known as limited. Yes, they still expire, but I will not live to see the copyrights expire on works that were created by people that were dead before I was born. I do not have the legal ability to derive new creations from the work of the greats. The original copyright had a maximum of 28 years. That means people should be able to reuse the entire Beatles catalog without legal hassles. (Someone once said they wrote every song. Does that mean noone can create anything new? That explains today's popular music.)
I spend my life entertaining my brain.
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.
Any idea why?
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
Be a leech, stay out of jail :)
And I can rent a house. The rental agreement is arranged by contract. If there's no contract, the tenant is TRESSPASSING! Tresspassing is a crime. But the CONTRACT makes occupancy legal.
:) :)
:)
:)
And that is what this amounts to. In essence, the software provider is saying, "it's legal for you to upload our files, as long as you don't sue anyone for uploading third party files to you. But if you act like an RIAA lawyer, and start suing network members, we'll nail you TWICE as hard as you sued them. and we CAN do it, because you DID upload OUR intellectual property in exchange for theirs. and WE didn't tell you to go out and do that, YOU CHOSE TO DO IT ON YOUR OWN.
Basically, to look for a legal example which [at least looks] equivalent: I can give you permission to tresspass on my yard, and still say "I won't sue you for tresspassing in MY yard, unless YOU sue my aunt bessie, or my cousin jim for tresspassing in YOUR yard. In THAT case, our deal is OFF, and i'll throw the book at you."
now, maybe a judge would look at this ball of yarn and say "you, software company, implicity gave permission to trade your files, and you cannot retroactively revoke that permission, simply because one of your users decides to persue their legal rights. that, because, you already gave permission to trade your files - and, at the time they were traded, you either defined the trade as a legal tresspass, or an illegal one. if it was a legal tresspass, you can't sue, and if it was an illegal one, the contract is null and void."
response (1)
if the judge said that, the response would work like this: if i agree to rent a room to a tenant, the tenant, stops paying rent, does the landlord still have to keep the tenant? because when he and the tenant made the agreement, the landlord defined the tenant's presence as a LEGAL tresspass. but if the tenant renegs on rent, tresspass status suddenly flipflops, and the sherrif throws my couch on the sidewalk. therefore, the legal status of an activity CAN -SOMETIMES- *DEPEND* on fulfillment of a contractual agreement.
comparable..?
response possibility (2)
change design: the guilt files are not at all mentioned in the contract, they are mentioned in the user interface:
*USER! WARNING! SUCH'N'SUCH-A-CLIENT WANTS TO UPLOAD ILLEGAL CONTENT FROM YOU! WILL YOU AGREE? YES/NO?*. What does the RIAA lawyer click?
lawyer clicks no: disconnect.
lawyer clicks yes: he's a "PIRATE," and so is the RIAA!!
now, how could THAT fail?
-Sam
ps
(thanks, it's nice being trolled..glad somebody read my ideas
"Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us." -Jesus Christ The Lord's Prayer