Cyber Sleuths vs. Secret Networks

amnfinch writes "I saw this article on BBC news and frankly, I was blown away. Just another example of the relentless campaign to treat file swappers as criminals when their 'crime' is murky at best." Sir Haxalot provides an article on the flip-side: "CNN has a story on 'exclusive' Peer to Peer networks, that require 'knowing the right people and having a wealth of content on your hard disk to get into the clique.'"

Comments

let's fight back

[Gnaythan1]

according to this http://www.techcentralstation.com/1051/techwrapper .jsp?PID=1051-250&CID=1051-072903B

quote:
"Recently, Republican Senator Sam Brownback offered an amendment to an FTC reauthorization bill that would force "owners of digital media products to file an actual case in a court of law in order to obtain the identifying information of an ISP subscriber" rather than the current standard where the subpoena power is virtually unchecked."

Sounds like Sam Brownback has the right idea, and I want to give him some encouragement...

It seems that money is the only thing these people seem to care about, so I think I will take what I would have spent on a music CD (about 20 bucks) and send a money order to this guys campaign fund instead. I think I will add a nice little note on why I did that. Too bad I can't vote for him directly...

I think I'll send a note to my senator as well, along with a copy of the Brownback note, explaining why I'm not sending HIM any money.

Twenty bucks isn't much.... but what happens if just one percent of the people who read this do the same thing? Hell I might make this an ongoing project, and send twenty bucks a month to whatever congress-critter seems to deserve it the most at the moment.

Investigate Buymusic.com

[burgburgburg]

As reported on MacSlash, Buymusic.com is violating copyrights. Jody Whitesides, a musician, found an old CD he made for sale on the Buymusic.com site without ever being informed/asked/paid. He checked and also found albums from friends of his. As it turns out, they all had dealings with a brick and mortar distribution company called Orchard in the 90's that supposedly went out of business. They didn't and now it seems that anyone who had dealings with them might be on Buymusic.com without their knowledge, consent or recompense.

Re:Bluffing?

[Lazar Dobrescu]

The RIAA are indeed 'acting tough'. Their tactic is simple: Scare people away from P2P. Once it is clear that P2P is illegal, and that people are either going to jail or get fined big bucks for it, they assume that most 'ordinary' people will stop downloading files from P2P networks.

Of course, that might or might not happen, as we know the public to be easily scared and all. On the other hand, it is very possible that it will not work, like things do not work for, say, marijuana. Of course, the penalties the RIAA wants to impose on file-sharers are orders of magnitude worst than the penalty for simple possession of marijuana, but it is my opinion that these penalties will not hold for long once they start applying it to too many people.

As for the smaller, encrypted P2P networks, I don't think the RIAA is after them for now, as they don't really cause them that much trouble. Just as music-sharing before the era of P2P, a P2P network of 30 people does not make as much noise as one of millions of users, and arguably, in the eyes of the RIAA at least, not as many missed sales.

In the end, the first people who get caught in RIAA scare tactics and decide to fight back(there shouldn't be too many of them) will be the ones who will decide of big P2P network's future. If they manage to win their case, or even bring the penalty to something affordable and acceptable for a 'normal' person, there will no longer be any way for the RIAA to scare people. On the other hand, if they end up having to pay 1000$ a month or worse for the rest of their lives, you can expect that a lot of users will shy away from the network, making them less and less efficient...

Re:This quote is very telling

[El]

This is a excellent analogy; the Pinkerton men were almost universally hated assholes who made a habit out of violating people's rights and using strongarm tactics to do their master's bidding. When companies needed somebody to beat up strikers to end a strike, who did they call? Pinkerton.

6 degrees of separation

[jemenake]

CNN has a story on 'exclusive' Peer to Peer networks, that require 'knowing the right people and having a wealth of content on your hard disk to get into the clique

Over the last several months, I've begun to conclude that something like this is the only way that file swapping can really endure. Basically, my idea was that each person's file swapping client would only make/accept connections to/from people that you trust: friends, family, etc.

The twist would be that the system would allow relaying of searches and of actual files. In other words, if I request a file that is on my friend's friend's computer, then the file has to come through the computer of our mutual friend. The whole idea is to keep things as encapsulated as possible... kinda like how terrorist cells work.

Now, I know that this increases network traffic... adds a lot of opportunities for a "weaker link" in the chain (imagine if one of the people in the relay chain is using a 56k modem)... decreases the "connectedness" of the whole sharing network, etc. However, I think this is the only real way to keep the RIAA from just being able to download a song and, *pow*, have the IP of someone to sue.

Also, some of these problems mentioned might be assuaged by the fact that people might feel more comfortable leaving their stuff shared. I, for one, have gobs and gobs of stuff that I could share, but I don't... because I have way too much to lose. However, if I knew that the only people who could connect to me would be people that I know... I'd have tons of stuff up and shared... 24/7.

The strange thing is that it seems to me that this was Aimster's plan, but they got shut down for some reason. But I don't know why.

You're missing the point, gang

[mnemotronic]

The RIAA has stated they need to hack into private networks, otherwise known as VPNs, to track down the naughty copyright violators:

"If users think that any particular service guarantees their anonymity, they're wrong,"

Naturally the RIAA will need to inspect and decode every single packet sent using an encrypted protocol to determine if it contains copyrighted material. The NSA may be able to do this (not that we'll ever know), but I really doubt if a bunch of limp-noodle Hollywood lawyerswine have the funding or technical ability to do it. Supposing though, that through some miracle, they can pull it off. How will organizations that employ VPNs or PPTP for legitimate business purposes react when they hear that the RIAA is cracking their transactions?

If exclusive networks are the wave of the future..

[PeteyG]

Then call me Captain Kirk.

At my university there's a Direct Connect hub run by an anonymous student that is accessible only by people in university IP addresses. It's crazy fast, has TONS of good (and quite illegal) media, and the university looks the other way because it helps relieve the MASSIVE (and expensive) bandwidth pressure back when everyone was trying to use Kazaa.

Makes me want to live on campus until Freenet turns into AnonymousKazaa

Re:What exactly are you trading that's 50 yrs old?

[MsGeek]

OK, now you got me started, Herr Kompressor...

There are people who trade rare, hard to find (read: suppressed by the studios) cartoons. Most are indeed over 50 years old. Let me mention a few names. "Song Of The South." "Coal Black and De Sebben Dwarves." "Tin Pan Alley Cats." "Uncle Tom's Cabana." "Herr vs. Hare." "The Blitz Wolf." "Tokio Jokio." "The Japoteurs." etc. etc. Most have either politically incorrect stereotypes and/or inflammatory anti-German or anti-Japanese content that was part of popular culture during World War II.

From a cartoon historian's standpoint, this is all stuff that should not be suppressed. Maybe it should also not be shown to impressionable children, as well -- at least without an accompanying history lesson as part of the deal. But not everyone who is interested in animation is a kid. Some of us are adults. And it is the adults that are being denied by the embargo on certain politically incorrect cartoons.

And as far as creative people having their food stolen: the screenwriters and songwriters and musicians whose "rights" are supposedly being "protected" by the RIAA/MPAA Sturmabteilung are also systematically being raped up the butt, no Crisco offered, by the same Big Media companies that the RIAA and MPAA actually represent. A recent post I made in my Slashdot blog is all about this.

Moreover, my husband is a musician, who has seen things from both the side of the struggling, unsigned musician and the exploited, swindled musician signed to a contract which in other businesses would be laughed out as being horrifyingly one-sided and biased towards Management. He is now beginning to release all his back catalog of music that he himself owns copyright and publishing on, for free, on the Internet. The only strings attached are that he'd like people to talk to him if they want to either put a song of his on a retail compilation album or use one of his songs in a movie or TV show. If you want a look, here is the link: http://www.richiehass.com/. Why is he doing this? Because his gamble is that once people get acquainted with his back catalog, when he finally gets an indie CD of new stuff done and up on CD Baby people will be sufficiently interested enough to buy it.

The actions of the RIAA and the MPAA are the actions of frightened Luddites fearing the loss of their livelihoods. As history shows, when old industries die, new ones spring up to take their place. The economic models that have supported musicians and other types of artists over the millenia have shifted considerably. They will likely shift again with the flow of technology. Like the song goes, "It's Evolution, baby." Adapt or die.