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...
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...
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.
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!
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.
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?
> 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.
...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
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.
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.
"As you can see, we've had our eye on you for some time now, Mr. Anderson. It seems that you've been living two lives.
In one life, you're Thomas A. Anderson, program writer for a respectable software company. You have a social security number, you pay your taxes, and you help your landlady carry out her garbage. The other life is lived in computers, where you go by the hacker alias 'kazaa-lite-tk' and are guilty of illegially downloading virtually every copyrighted file available on the internet... Over your 56k internet connection in the past 3 months."
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant