Slashdot Mirror


RIAA Prepares Legal Blitz Against Filesharers

Sayonara writes "The RIAA are now well and truly gathering their forces for a financial onslaught on file sharers in the US, with a "fear and awe" campaign targetting college and high school students in particular. The strategy can be reduced to 'We should really charge you $150,000 per song you have downloaded. Pay us $50,000 now, and we'll say no more about it.' In a related article, the BBC describes how the netizen known as 'nycfashiongirl' is now attempting to delay the RIAA's case against her by claiming their investigation of her online activities was illegal. The RIAA has dismissed these arguments as 'shallow.'"

1,192 comments

  1. Joy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The RIAA is still at it, huh? It's almost funny to watch how they pursue people, asking these outrageous sums. Then you realize that they really ARE bothering these people and it's not so funny anymore...

    1. Re:Joy by B3ryllium · · Score: 1

      It's funny, and yet, everyone is doing it! Look at SCO, for example. :)

    2. Re:Joy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this is hardly funny. It is a serious problem with the legal system of our country. Somthing needs to be done but no one knows where to start!

    3. Re:Joy by letxa2000 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      "The strategy can be reduced to 'We should really charge you $150,000 per song you have downloaded. Pay us $50,000 now, and we'll say no more about it.'"

      So they're going after high school and college students for $50k? Yeah, right. The RIAA might actually succeed at causing these people to get a free college education... if they have a college debt and the RIAA comes after them for $50k they might just have to declare bankruptcy and their higher education turns out to be free.

      This is all just absurd, of course. The penalty does not fit the crime. If I were one of them and received a judgement for $50k, I'd be quite tempted to move to Cancun and just forget about it. :)

    4. Re:Joy by trompete · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You don't want a bankruptcy on your record for 7 years unless you plan on being completely liquid (cash/checks) or buying a car at 15% interest.

    5. Re:Joy by Casualposter · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Sorry, but in the US under chapter 7 bankruptcy, student loans are not eraseable. You will come out of bankruptcy with those intact. And they'll raise the interest rate later on as well.

      Going after a college student for 50K is pretty brutal. I have a hard time understanding how a single instance of copyright infringement causes a 150,000 USD in damages when the song is on an album for about 20 USD. And the law, as i recall, states that the fines may be upto 150,000USD. Not necessarily 150,000 USD per event.

      Besides, Chapter 7 won't preclude you from buying a car, finishing college, buying a house, etc. It just makes it more expensive. If I were a freshman targetted I would fight, maybe lose, and then declare bankruptcy and leave the RIAA with a nice big fat nothing. This is not legal advice, and these tactics would have to be discussed with a lawyer.

      --
      Creative Spelling Copyright (2002). May use without Persimmons
    6. Re:Joy by queequeg1 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Under federal copyright law, the statutory damages for a knowing and willful infringement are $150,000 per infringing event. Because the damages are statutory, there technically is no need for the copyright holder to prove harm. From a practical perspective, however, judges will look at a number of factors when determining whether or not to go the entire $150K route (including how many copies were made, whether the infringer sold them, whether the infringer stopped once the holder made an express demand, plus a few other factors).

      Even if the nature of the infringement does not merit an assessment of the full $150K statutory damages, please also keep in mind that the statutory damages are generally only the tip of the iceberg. Copyright holders who prevail in court will invariably have their attorneys fees awarded to them as well, which is often much more of a hammer to use against infringers than the potential for statutory damages.

      So no matter how you look at it, being named as a defendant in a copyright claim really sucks.

    7. Re:Joy by ambisinistral · · Score: 1
      Eh, what the RIAA claims the penalty would be and what a judge would award are liable to be two radically different amounts of money. It would be interesting to see people start contesting rather than settling and see what the judicial system decided.

      I'm guessing it would be far, far less than what they've been settling for so far.

      --

      deserve's got nothing to do with it...

    8. Re:Joy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You wouldn't leave them with nothing - you'd leave them with a nice victory and cautionary tale. They're not doing this for your money - they're doing it to make an example of you.

      The only thing you can do is stop buying (or otherwise obtaining) their music. If their revenue drops far enough they can't hire lawyers and lobbyists. Yes, this is patently absurd and will never work, but that's the extent of your power in a "free market" system - the $20 you can choose to drop or not. Really, "vote with your dollars" is code for "you have no say in this". And it's all you've got.

    9. Re:Joy by D'Sphitz · · Score: 0

      yeah, it is a serious problem when millions of people think it's their right to steal, and then cry foul when they realize theres actually a penalty.

    10. Re:Joy by 3terrabyte · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I always thought the the ludicrous range of $750 to $150,000 per infringement was originally based in criminal activity. You know, the old fashioned, commercial bootlegging millions of pirated CD's.

      Now that we've blurred the lines with the NET ACT (trading for other copyrighted works = 'for profit) and civil suits vs. criminal suits, I can't believe the price range isn't lower.

      As far as number of copies goes. I imagine the RIAA thinks that the one song 1 person downloaded from you then gets downloaded by 10 people, which then gets downloaded by 10X , etc, and will say 1 million copies are your fault. But in all actuality, you shouldn't be liable for OTHER people's illegal distribution too! Anyway, that is just my thought. I figured it was 10 to 20 times the actual cost (about $20 per song) but no matter how much math I do, I don't get to $750, let alone 150K.

      (By the way, the $20 per song is from an actual article I read where they were trying to define how you could fall under a felony -- something like over $2000 worth of theft becomes a felony. Why oh why does the RIAA get away with their own math?)

      --

      Why are there only 19 people folding@home for slashdot?

    11. Re:Joy by 3terrabyte · · Score: 1

      I would hope so. Logically.
      Unfortunately, logic seems to have little to do with events lately. I would hate to find out. As they say... if proven guilty... then you could owe 42 million dollars. Who's going to fight the RIAA? Will they all fold? The RIAA is going to choose only those they want to sue. They've probably factored in such things as force of will, money, etc.

      --

      Why are there only 19 people folding@home for slashdot?

    12. Re:Joy by d34thm0nk3y · · Score: 2, Insightful

      there is a penalty??? I dunno... it kind of looks like the RIAA and SCO are going to get away with it...

    13. Re:Joy by queequeg1 · · Score: 1

      I don't know anything about the $20 figure the parent describes above. However, it appears to be a mechanism used by the RIAA to determine when it is going to exercise its discretion to bring a claim. It may be a fairly idiotic mechanism based on foolish notions of the value of its songs. If the figure is merely a means for determining whether or not to bring a claim, it will have little if any impact on the damages awarded by a court.

      Check out this article for a decent discussion on statutory damages:

      Statutory damages article

    14. Re:Joy by The+Clockwork+Troll · · Score: 1
      If I were a freshman targetted I would fight, maybe lose, and then declare bankruptcy and leave the RIAA with a nice big fat nothing.
      That's fine for you but the RIAA clearly have a spammer mentality.

      To see what I mean, look at it from their perspective: if they can win just a single $50,000 judgment, Jive Records can take their cut of the settlement and bankroll production for 10 Britney Spears albums.

      --

      There are no karma whores, only moderation johns
    15. Re:Joy by Rhone · · Score: 1

      If I were one of them and received a judgement for $50k, I'd be quite tempted to move to Cancun and just forget about it. :)

      Yeah, I'm sure moving to Cancun is exactly what you would do if you were one of those broke college or high school students.

    16. Re:Joy by Elbow+Macaroni · · Score: 1
      Yeah, welcome kids to the world of big business who doesn't care about you as a person enough to make their friggin music accessible via the Internet but they will sue you for doing it yourself!

      Rock is dead.

      --
      -------------------------------------
      Technically, we are beyond survival.
    17. Re:Joy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is there a country with no copywrite laws, pattents etc.? I am tired of this bullshit and want to move there so I can copy(no longer pirate) in blis. Someone on slashdot has to have an Island they thought would be cool to own, but really dont know what to do with.

    18. Re:Joy by Evilive · · Score: 1

      The only way to get out of paying school loans is if they were grants. Federal School Loans ARE NOT dismissed in a bankruptcy proceeding. I know. Before we divorced, my ex-wife drove us to bankrupcty and we still had to pay her school loans.

      --
      -- Two in the pink, one in the sink.
  2. brockman by B3ryllium · · Score: 2, Funny

    I, for one, welcome our new Record Executive Overlords.

    1. Re:brockman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Why must people take things out of context like this? The complete quotation is

      Ladies and gentlemen, uh, we've just lost the picture, but what we've seen speaks for itself. The Corvair spacecraft has apparently been taken over- 'conquered' if you will- by a master race of giant space ants. It's difficult to tell from this vantage point whether they will consume the captive Earthman or merely enslave them. One thing is for certain: there is no stopping them; the ants will soon be here. And I, for one, welcome our new insect overlords. I'd like to remind them as a trusted TV personality, I can be helpful in rounding up others to toil in their underground sugar caves." -- Kent Brockman


      It's just not the same without the reference to "underground sugar caves."
    2. Re:brockman by B3ryllium · · Score: 1

      I was going to say "Underground Vinyl Mines", but couldn't remember how to phrase it.

    3. Re:brockman by gosand · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I, for one, welcome our new Record Executive Overlords.

      Uhh, new?

      --

      My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

    4. Re:brockman by fluxrad · · Score: 1

      The true meaning of REO Speedwagon?

      I knew they were somehow involved!

      God I'm bored.

      --
      "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
    5. Re:brockman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Soviet Russia, our new overlords welcome YOU!!

    6. Re:brockman by gordgekko · · Score: 1

      Caligula's motto was better: "Oderint dum metuant" or in English: "Let them hate as long as they fear us."

      --
      You want to know who isn't running Firefox 2.x? They spell it "definately" and "rediculous".
  3. RIAA and SCO by suedehed · · Score: 4, Funny

    Why dont we get SCO to join the RIAA, and anyone using Linux to swap songs, they can just nail them with a double suit.

    1. Re:RIAA and SCO by BrynM · · Score: 5, Funny

      That would just lead to the RIAA claiming that Linux is theirs and SCO claiming that music is theirs. Then again, if there's a way to get them to fight eachother...

      --
      US Democracy:The best person for the job (among These pre-selected choices...)
    2. Re:RIAA and SCO by rearden · · Score: 4, Funny

      No, what would be great is if we could convince RIAA that SCO has an immense collection of copyprotected MP3's. Then we need to convice SCO that RIAA is running hundreds of Linux servers to search for violaters.

      Then stand back and let them sue eachother into oblivion.... ahhh we can dream!

      --
      Huh?
    3. Re:RIAA and SCO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, that would create a vortex of evil.

    4. Re:RIAA and SCO by David+Gerard · · Score: 4, Informative
      --
      http://rocknerd.co.uk
    5. Re:RIAA and SCO by BCSEiny · · Score: 1

      I think you miss the problem if they destory each other we will have a new threat: All the politicans who now have lost a lot of campaign money due to no more RIAA and SCO. Next on Slashdot: Lawmakers tax every keystroke on a computer because they don't get enough campaign contributions to live a life most Americans only dream about. "Fear is the mind-killer"

    6. Re:RIAA and SCO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or better yet, let's get the RIAA to start using linux on their pc's, that'd make one hell of a legal battle...

    7. Re:RIAA and SCO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Then again, if there's a way to get them to fight eachother..."

      Rumor has it that there are 70 lines of Metallica songs embedded in SCO Unix.

    8. Re:RIAA and SCO by SomeGuyFromCA · · Score: 1

      'The victor would emerge stronger than either, and free from doubt,' said Gandalf.

      --
      if the answer isn't violence, neither is your silence / freedom of expression doesn't make it alright
    9. Re:RIAA and SCO by The+Original+Atrox · · Score: 1

      A more complete quote:

      "'It is a pity that our friends lie in between,' said Gimli. 'If no land divided Isengard and Mordor, then they could fight while we watched and waited.'
      'The victor would emerge stronger than either, and free from doubt,' said Gandalf. 'But Isengard cannot fight Mordor, unless Saruman first obtains the Ring. That he will never do now. He does not yet know his peril. There is much that he does not know. He was so eager to lay his hands on his prey that he could not wait at home, and he came forth to meet and to spy on his messengers."
      -The Lord of the Rings, The Two Towers.

      May that be a solumn warning against being the little dog that gets the big dogs fighting... The big dog that wins will no doubt shred you to ribbons.

      -Atrox

      --
      -Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master.
  4. shallow? by mschoolbus · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I think its pretty 'shallow' of them to bring people to court over this issue. How do they know you don't legally own all the MP3s or movies you are downloading?...

    1. Re:shallow? by Junks+Jerzey · · Score: 2, Funny

      I think its pretty 'shallow' of them to bring people to court over this issue. How do they know you don't legally own all the MP3s or movies you are downloading?...

      Oh, come on, _really_.

    2. Re:shallow? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      in the case of nycfashiongirl, because the mp3s were identical to ones created and traded by others on Napster.

    3. Re:shallow? by Lawbeefaroni · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Shallow" as in based on that worthless piece of over-valued toilet paper also known by some backwards thinkers as The Constitution. This in vivid contrast to the deep and meaningful music they peddle on the consumer.

      --
      "When it rains, it pours." --Morton's Salt
    4. Re:shallow? by Snowspinner · · Score: 1

      Because they're not stupid?

    5. Re:shallow? by Planesdragon · · Score: 5, Informative

      How do they know you don't legally own all the MP3s or movies you are downloading?...

      They don't care. Unless I missed something big, they still aren't suing you for DOWNLOADING anything--I don't even think that they can track what you download. AFAIK, they're going after folk who SHARE the files--i.e., what they've got for upload.

      You may very well have a perfectly legal reason to download that MP3--but you certainly don't have a justifiable reason to place it on a P2P network.

    6. Re:shallow? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah. Geez. Barely have a chance to post and this dumbass parent comment gets an "insightful"

      they can get you on whether you can show ownership of the songs, or simply using the md5sum of the binary (moral, trivially reencode the music in as non-lossy a fashion as possible)

    7. Re:shallow? by syntap · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This isn't an issue because they are targeting users who share MP3's, ie make them available for upload. Though one can argue that downloading an MP3 is legal and fine if you already own a CD with that song on it, but it's hard to argue that it's legal for you to make that freely available for download on the assumption that whoever downloads it is doing so legally.

      I don't know why anyone is complaining about this campaign... the ./ crowd has said all along that the tools shouldn't be attacked, the violators should be attacked. That's what the RIAA is doing. They're not targeting downloaders (yet).

    8. Re:shallow? by jollis · · Score: 1

      The real issue is that of sharing the files; that's when you violate the rights granted to the author by copyright law, and I don't think shelves full of CDs will change that. Of course, IANAL.

    9. Re:shallow? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And what does the Constitution have to do with file sharing? I don't remember anything in there are right of privacy (and don't tell me search and seizure), right to download music, or even right to copyright music. All of these things were made up after the fact.

    10. Re:shallow? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they are going after downloaders as well, but do have a justification for their case in our current (stupid) legal structure.

    11. Re:shallow? by timmy+the+large · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I hater to say it, but you are right. When they sued napster everyone said it wasnt napster, but the users.

      Well now they are going for the users.

    12. Re:shallow? by Platupous · · Score: 1

      On a similar note, How does the RIAA prove that you were not just making the files available to YOURSELF whilst at work/vacation etc.....?

      Hmmm Hmmmm? It is NOT my fault that others choose to steal MY legally owned mysic.

      Just my $0.02

    13. Re:shallow? by (trb001) · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Public libraries make books easily available to the masses...these works are legal for them to own, but they are copyrighted and it is illegal for someone to copy them verbatim. If someone did that, the person who copied the book is held liable, not the library.

      Show me the difference.

    14. Re:shallow? by Gaijin42 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The library has one copy of the book. When they loan it to you, they dont have it anymore. They make you give the book back.

    15. Re:shallow? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's see. The lady in question was sharing Michael Jackson and U2 mp3's and Pretty Woman videos. Do you really think that she owns the distribution rights to Michael Jackson's and U2's songs AND the distribution rights to the Pretty Woman video?

    16. Re:shallow? by sqlrob · · Score: 1

      Try the 10th amendment sometime for the right to privacy.

      Copyright is enumerated in the Constitution as a power of Congress.

    17. Re:shallow? by TClevenger · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Uh, yes, really. I'm downloading AC/DC's Back in Black. My first one got stolen out of my car, and my second one is so scratched up as to be unlistenable. So, yeah, I'm downloading it; I'm not paying another "RIAA tax" for music I already own.

      Oh, and these four 80's compilations I bought trying to find Der Kommissar by After the Fire? They don't have it, so I downloaded it. Here, I'll give the RIAA back three copies of She Blinded Me With Science in exchange.

      Oh, and I bought the Steve Miller Greatest Hits, but they shafted me with the short version of "Fly Like An Eagle", so I downloaded the full version. Fuck 'em.

    18. Re:shallow? by Space+Coyote · · Score: 1

      So if I contribute to a car theft by leaving my station wagon in teh driveway in plain view of potential car thieves then I'm the one who gets charged? Only in corporate America...

      --
      ___
      Cogito cogito, ergo cogito sum.
    19. Re:shallow? by selfabuse · · Score: 1

      but that doesn't mean she didn't already buy the songs.. I usually download mp3s of CDs i've already purchaced, because I can download them faster and with less hassle then I can rip the CD. Then, the stuff I'm downloading is gonna match songs traded on napster, but I still own a legit copy.

    20. Re:shallow? by CatOne · · Score: 1

      How did this get modded to +5 insightful? Is there a category for "-5 I've been living under a rock I haven't heard of nycfashiongirl or any other discussions in the last 6 months on this subject"?

    21. Re:shallow? by (trb001) · · Score: 1

      I'm not talking about the downloading process, I'm talking about the copying process. Nobody can refute that the download process is illegal because at that point you are actually committing the crime of illegally copying copyrighted material. However, making files publicly available is *not* illegal. They're *my* files, I can do whatever I want with them; I can keep them hidden, I can display them on my front lawn, I can display them on the Internet.

      The single copy comparison doesn't work as well, as you pointed out, because once a book leaves the library it's physically gone. But the comparison between in-house use is flawless, as far as I can tell.

      --trb

    22. Re:shallow? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. "

      I dont see anything about privacy here fella.

    23. Re:shallow? by Le+Marteau · · Score: 4, Informative

      I think its pretty 'shallow' of them to bring people to court over this issue. How do they know you don't legally own all the MP3s or movies you are downloading?...

      The RIAA is not going after downloaders, contrary to what they, and the media, would have you believe. The ONLY people they go after are those who OFFER tunes for OTHER PEOPLE to download, in other words, distributing.

      I don't care what the headlines say, read between the lines for gods sake and check it out. In every case where someone has been threatened legal action by the RIAA, they were DISTRIBUTING, not just DOWNLOADING.

      --
      Mod down people who tell people how to mod in their sigs
    24. Re:shallow? by IWorkForMorons · · Score: 1

      You may very well have a perfectly legal reason to download that MP3--but you certainly don't have a justifiable reason to place it on a P2P network.


      That logic can be twisted though. You don't really have a justifiable reason to download if you own the music, on CD or otherwise, because you can simply rip it and encode it yourself. Therefore, P2P networks are for nothing but pirates and theives, because the only people sharing are illegally distributing something they don't have the right to, and the people downloading can't possibly own the music since if they did they could encode it themselves. This is the logic that the RIAA is using. Whether you are sharing or downloading, you are assumed a pirate because there are other ways for you to enjoy the music in a digital format.

      Now with the DRM BS that they are putting on the CD's, they are taking away a means for us to enjoy the music in the way that we want. Of course this is just the way they want it, because then they fully control the distribution and access to the content. That's what their entire business model is based on. Strict distribution control. Take that control away from them, whether through the P2P services or other means, and they will fight tooth and nail to hold on because that's the only way they know how to make money. Sad, but true. It's just a shame that, in the process, they are killing a lot of rights and freedoms. Our only hope is that government officals realize the damage they are doing. But considering the blatent bribery that is the "campaign contribution", that will never happen either. It's just a vicious cycle that marginalizes the people in favour of wealth.

    25. Re:shallow? by Brendan+Byrd · · Score: 1

      But the wrong users. They need to go after the downloaders, which they can't do. If they shared files on their own, and people downloaded them, the RIAA would be liable for sharing the files.

      Therefore, they are going after the uploaders, which is a dubious legal position. If I owned every single CD that I share, the RIAA can't technically go after me for sharing files, because sharing files is not legal. Owning illegal material is illegal.

    26. Re:shallow? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what are you talking about I give all my mp3's back... Is that not what everyone does ?

    27. Re:shallow? by jake · · Score: 1

      Well that analogy would be valid if I could walk away with a copy of your car and the original would still be there when you got back...

      --

      -----
      "I'm like a tree; I'm all root" -- Cab Calloway
    28. Re:shallow? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The 10th Amendment? - The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

      I would say that right to privacy is a pretty liberal interpretation of that.

      And the Constitution says - The Congress shall have power to . . . promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries

      That doesn't guarantee a right to copyright. It just gives congress the option and states it has to be a limited time (which is slowly eroding right now).

    29. Re:shallow? by ichimunki · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you have a server running with files visible that allows me to download those files, then your server (or filesharing software) is making and sending me a copy. I am not doing the copying, the server is. It is literally duplicating the stream of bits on your HD and sending those duplicate bits down the wire. On my end, the client is only receiving a single set of bits and transferring them to the HD. At no point am I in possession of more than one set of bits (caching and temporary file issues aside).

      Furthermore, you DO NOT have a right to display copyrighted works on your front lawn or the internet. The right of public performance is limited to the copyright holder and its licensees.

      In the case of the library, the person who actually makes the copy is not the library (and in any case, there are actually exceptions in Title 17 that allow libraries to make copies under certain circumstances). In your example, the person who takes the book home and copies it is at some point engaged in the act of copying. It does not matter where or how they obtained that book.

      --
      I do not have a signature
    30. Re:shallow? by homer_ca · · Score: 1

      It's not about possession. It's about distribution, i.e. offering them for download.

    31. Re:shallow? by Jafafa+Hots · · Score: 2, Insightful

      wrong.

      If he is paying for the license to listen to the music whenever he wants, then he still has thay license regardless of what happens to the physical carrier it was delivered on.

      If he was only paying for the physical item, then he has stolen nothing because he has taken nothing physical.

      Either way you slice it, your argument doesn't wash. (how's that for a mixed metaphor?)

      --
      This space available.
    32. Re:shallow? by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 1

      By the RIAA's logic, by purchasing the CD's, they purchased the right for personal playback of that song.

      After all, if the CD is stolen, are you then required to delete all copies you have of it?

      The entire fiction of song-as-property is ludicrous, and it's situations like this that really bring it to the breaking point. The fact that hundreds of thousands - even millions - of otherwise quite scrupulous people in the US alone simply do not abide by these fictions is indication enough that they are preposterous. Music production should be treated as a service, not as a kind of manufacturing. Musicians need to get paid for the time they put into it, not on a piecework basis.

    33. Re:shallow? by doorbot.com · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm downloading AC/DC's Back in Black. My first one got stolen out of my car, and my second one is so scratched up as to be unlistenable.

      Actually, this would be a good way to "legalize" your music. Call up your friends, record stores, etc, and buy all their damaged CDs/tapes/lps/etc. Now you own the music and your get your fair use rights.

      The best part is this:

      You're buying on the used market so the RIAA doesn't get any new income from the sale! And you can probably get a great deal because all you want is the "license" to the song.

    34. Re:shallow? by Microlith · · Score: 1

      There's a difference here. A big one.

      Namely, what we have here is people acting like libraries. They are not libraries though. With a library, they loan out the book and no longer have it. Recieving a song from a sharer results in an unauthorized copy being created.

      Move your "library" analogy one step back down the foodchain:

      Library = Store where you bought the CD
      Sharer = Unauthorized copier
      You = Recieved that copy

      A library isn't in trouble as much as said store doesn't get in trouble. Both the person making the unauthorized copies and the person offering to send you copies do get in trouble.

      My sympathy is minimal.

    35. Re:shallow? by teslatug · · Score: 1

      Her claims are shallow, even if the RIAA has gone ape nuts. She claims the RIAA has no rights to search her hard drive for files, yet she makes them publicly available for downloading???

    36. Re:shallow? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry but your wrong. Do you even realize how backwards that sounds? By that logic - the guy selling videos on the street of movies that he shot with his handicam would be legal. By sharing the files you are effectively distributing them and copyright gives exclusive rights "To distribute copies or phonorecords of the work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending." That makes file sharing a violation.

    37. Re:shallow? by jake · · Score: 1

      trb001: Show me the difference.

      Hmmm, I would say that the difference is that there are inherent barriers to the copying of that library book, namely that it's a lot of work to xerox the whole thing. If somebody invented a machine that could copy a book (nice binding and all) in under a minute, then the anology would be more solid.

      Given that it's really easy to copy a digital work, it's reasonable to expect their owners to protect them, thereby creating a substitute legal barrier where there was no inherent barrier.

      --

      -----
      "I'm like a tree; I'm all root" -- Cab Calloway
    38. Re:shallow? by letxa2000 · · Score: 1
      True, but they should go for injunctions against the file sharers, not $50k fines.

      If the RIAA is going to go after their customers legally, they should get injunctions. Take them to court and have a court tell them they must stop sharing files or they will be liable for the full amount. I think most people--and especially most teenagers and college students--will be sufficient scared by being served by the court and having to appear before the court and receive that warning officially. If the RIAA wants to scare teenagers and college students into not trading music that's all they need to do; and those people might actually buy some music someday.

      Going after these people that, by definition, have no money to start with and trying to extort them into paying $50k (which they don't have) will probably lead them to declare bankruptcy before they even graduate from college. Now that's killing a consumer. That consumer is going to be pissed at you for life, as will many of the people he knows. You're not going to get any browny points in the court of public opinion in financially destroying a teenager. And I can guarantee you that that person will NEVER buy a product from you again. You think I'd give another dollar to an organization that extorted $50k out of me?

      No, the RIAA is crazy. Yes, they should go after the end users. But they should do so with injunctions. What they're doing is a massacre and it will earn them no favor in the public. I don't think injunctions would cost them any business, but going after teenagers with $50k fines is going to cost them the business of all those that are disgusted by a multibillion dollar organization extorting an amount of money from teenagers that is completely unreasonable given their "crime."

    39. Re:shallow? by Alzheimers · · Score: 1

      The only problem with "pay-per-work" artists is that Crappy artists and Good artists would receive the same wage. I would be able to record 60 minutes of my toilet flushing, have the best record producer and engineers make an album out of it, and make the same amount of money as Brittney Spears. Who decides what art is?

      And seriously, how can we compare the sound of my toilet flushing to....oh wait, never mind.

    40. Re:shallow? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From the horse's mouth:

      "Section 106 of the 1976 Copyright Act generally gives the owner of copyright the exclusive right to do and to authorize others to do the following: ...
      To distribute copies or phonorecords of the work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;"

      I would say that allowing people to download the work from your site would be pretty much distributing a copy.

    41. Re:shallow? by Tibor+the+Hun · · Score: 1

      i agree with you man,
      i blew over 40 bucks on 2 metallica double disc sets (s&m, and garage inc.) only to realize that there are only about 7 songs worth listening to (and ripping to the pc).

      i can't help feeling shafted, i certainly expected more quality for 40 bucks...

      riaa and lars can kiss my arse...

      --
      If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
    42. Re:shallow? by FroMan · · Score: 1

      I would say otherwise. The folks that they can go after are the sharers, downloaders. Why?

      Copyright gives exclusivity to distribute the copyrighted content. There for when you share the content via p2p you are doing so illegally. And it is known that you are doing it illegally (which only matters for my second point).

      They should not (or atleast put themselves in a risky position of assuming guilt instead of innocence) go after the downloaders because they could potentially own a licensed copy of the content and are simpley getting a digital copy.

      In this setup though there would be no providers except from a copyright holder which defeats the purpose of pirating content via p2p.

      Personally I think pirating is just a cheap scum sucking bottem feeding kind of thing to do. If you do not believe the content is worth the price that the copyright holder is asking, do not use the content.

      If people would use p2p for more non-piracy purposes I think p2p would be vindicated. However, since the majority of p2p users use it to pirate software and music/videos it puts a black eye on all p2p style apps.

      For instance, I have used bittorrent for a couple large files that I wanted to get, entirely legally. However, when folks use bittorrent for software piracy it partially invalidates the the usage of bt because it becomes associated with illegal activities instead of legal ones.

      --
      Norris/Palin 2012
      Fact: We deserve leaders who can kick your ass and field dress your carcass.
    43. Re:shallow? by proj_2501 · · Score: 1

      iirc, the RIAA has tried to go after the used CD market as well.

    44. Re:shallow? by TClevenger · · Score: 4, Insightful
      By your logic, if your television got stolen, or if your television was "so scratched up as to be" unviewable, then you would steal another television because you don't want to pay a "tax" on something you already own.

      Actually, according to the CD insert, I've purchased a license to use the works on the CD. Therefore, as long as I retain the CD insert, I'm free to redownload and reburn the works provided.

      Doesn't matter anymore anyway, as I have encoded all of my music CD's and store the originals on a spindle where they can't get damaged or stolen. But I still am owed several CD's that I still have the inserts for, but the CD's have gone damaged or missing. I have the license to use the music, so I can either download, copy from a friend or pay the RIAA to send me another CD and duplicate license. Guess which one I won't be choosing.

    45. Re:shallow? by FroMan · · Score: 1

      When a library provides a book it provides it under the contract of copyright. Only a single person can have the book at once, so doing, the library is not copying the content. If they want to loan a book multiple times they must purchase multiple copies of the book.

      So, if the book is checked out and copied, the one who is copying is at fault.

      Now, when a p2p application creates a copy it is actually the server of the file who makes a copy and distributes the copy to the client. The original copy is done by the server which happens to be transmitted to the client.

      I know this won't convince you because even if they did go after the folks with the copy you would probably come up with an excuse of why they should go after someone else or something. This is all an exercise in futility because folks just want everything free. When they went after napster you complained they went after the wrong people. Now they go after the wrong people... They will allways go after the wong people cause everyone wants stuff but doesn't want the responsiblity to pay for it.

      --
      Norris/Palin 2012
      Fact: We deserve leaders who can kick your ass and field dress your carcass.
    46. Re:shallow? by EllisDees · · Score: 1

      So how do they prove that anyone actually ever downloaded a single copy of any given file? Does the law specifically state that even offering it is illegal, or only completing an actual download?

      --
      -- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
    47. Re:shallow? by Planesdragon · · Score: 1

      It's not your station wagon--it's your company's station wagon, that you left on the side of the road, unlocked, with the keys in, and a sign saying "please drive."

    48. Re:shallow? by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      Last i looked, being an accessory to a crime is an illegal act.

    49. Re:shallow? by Abm0raz · · Score: 1
      By your logic, if your television got stolen, or if your television was "so scratched up as to be" unviewable, then you would steal another television because you don't want to pay a "tax" on something you already own.

      No, this is not his logic at all. To apply what you said to his original analogy would be to say, My CD player broke, so I'm going to steal another one. To liken your analogy to be in line with his original one (as close as you can when dealing with actual property versus intellectual property), you would say, My cable line is out and I paid for it but the cable company won't honor my transaction and replace it so I will watch my neighbor's TV.

      Now ... do I expect the the RIAA companies to replace scratched CDs?** Not really. Their (flawed) business model depends on people replacing media. Records -> 8-tracks -> Cassetts -> CDs -> ??? -> Profit!. But, courts have already ruled that people can make back-ups for their own private use. Ask yourself, would it have been just as wrong for the parent to your post to have made CD-R copies before the scratches or theft had occured? He had paid his money, he bought rights to listen to the songs on those media indefinitely. There was no license or EULA that said there were conditions on his enjoyment of those tracks.
      • These tracks are good for 3 years or 3000 listenings, whichever comes first. RIAA is not held responsible for mistreatment of our shoddily made products that may result in the physical medium becoming unreadable rendering this EULA null and void. By breathing and/or blinking while reading this license you have agreed to it and all statments that are implied, unstated, and overlooked by this document (unless they come back to bite us in the ass, at which point we reserve the right to change this legally binding license at any time without notice and sue you, your ISP, your computer manufacturer, your bank, your spouse, kids, parents, roommates, grandparents, cousins, nieces, nephews, friends, acquaintences, study partners, pets, pharmacist, doctor, dentist, gardner, cable company, local representative, landlord, insurance carrier, mechanic, plumber (and his ass-crack), your favorite restaurant, local PTA, your 3rd grade spelling teacher, local minister/priest/mullah/rabbi, your bank, electricity providor, skippy the wonder hampster, and anyone else we think we might scare into paying us for the non-existant damages you unknowingly agreed to just by being born.


      -Ab

      ** Other content related businesses do this. There are several game companies that do. I have had replacement EA games sent to me before at no cost to me. All I had to do was send the scratched disk back. They even paid shipping. This was 3 years ago, though. I don't know iff they still have that policy.
      --
      Nothing fails quite like prayer.
    50. Re:shallow? by duffbeer703 · · Score: 1

      By the parent poster's logic, if my dictionary was stolen and I forgot the meaning of "extortion" or "alienation", I would go to a library and write the meanings down on an piece of paper.

      --
      Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
    51. Re:shallow? by Planesdragon · · Score: 1

      >o?You don't really have a justifiable reason to download if you own the music, on CD or otherwise, because you can simply rip it and encode it yourself. Therefore, P2P networks are for nothing but pirates and theives, because the only people sharing are illegally distributing something they don't have the right to, and the people downloading can't possibly own the music since if they did they could encode it themselves. This is the logic that the RIAA is using. Whether you are sharing or downloading, you are assumed a pirate because there are other ways for you to enjoy the music in a digital format.

      Exactly. Absent a specific contract (or clear Public Domain) to share the files, uploading or downloading them is illegal and should be punnished accordingly.

    52. Re:shallow? by FatAlb3rt · · Score: 1

      The library also lends out CDs.

      It is the same thing.

    53. Re:shallow? by Brendan+Byrd · · Score: 1

      IANAL, but you're talking about criminal law, not civil law. I don't think the same thing applies.

    54. Re:shallow? by eyeye · · Score: 1

      Exactly.

      Here is the real problem..
      there are two things at play here and its not how the **AA want it to appear.

      People have always shared music, just as they share other items, like you might lend a set of ladders to someone. The problem arises with the internet - suddenly people's friendship groups and contact circles became much, much bigger.

      So thats the real problem for them, but they would rather not draw attention to peoples natural propensity to share.

      The other problem grew with the internet - the digital age, not only can someone lend but they can keep a perfect copy of it too. Once the matter is copying rather than lending it takes on a much different air - people call it stealing and copyright is stage front. They evoke the feelings of "that person got something for free instead of paying" whereas if you knew someone bought a single item and lent that single item to someone else only the most rapid pro-**aa people would have a problem with that.

      So whats the solution?
      perhaps actually swapping rather than sharing music. A p2p client that deletes a file as someone new uploads it, then there is only that single copy on the network.

      There is a "flaw" in this system, again the digital copying thing. Someone could just copy the file before it gets re-uploaded.

      However they cannot target the p2p software because its principle is swapping a single copy. They cannot target downloaders who won't know if the server is dodgy or not. They can target the sharers but only by trying to request the same file multiple times - something a normal user wouldnt do. There are still ways to do it of course but its a much harder task than they have now.

      --
      Bush and Blair ate my sig!
    55. Re:shallow? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You bought Metallica and expected good music?


      Fool!

    56. Re:shallow? by dbc001 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Why don't P2P apps use a disclaimer to put the responsibility in the hands of the downloader instead? for instance, each user can configure their own disclaimer in the settings somewhere. Upon downloading from me, a message pops up with the disclaimer text. the client would prevent the download unless you agree to the terms of the disclaimer. Mine would be simple: "by downloading from me you accept all liability for the use or storage of data received from my computer. you also agree that said data will be used or stored in full compliance with federal, state, and local law."

      wouldn't a system like that make it more difficult for the RIAA to continue like this?

    57. Re:shallow? by Bendebecker · · Score: 1

      Blizzard allows you not only to return scratched cd's, you can return the disks and they will give you new disks and a new cd key.

      --
      There's a growing sense that even if The Future comes,
      most of us won't be able to afford it.
      -- Lemmy
    58. Re:shallow? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      ...so the RIAA doesn't get any new income from the sale!...

      I've got a better plan for you:
      First step, don't listen to that garbage (AC/DC isn't garbage, but I doubt the RIAA gives a damn about it someone downloading AC/DC either). Next go out and hear some local indy artists, where you'll hear such amazing things as the group actually playing their own instruments, and singing lyrics they actually wrote themselves! After that, buy a cd from the artist if you like them, tell them how much you like their music and ask if they have a mailing list so you can go to as many of their concerts as you can (hint, this is cheap entertainment, local cover charges are usually under $5). A local artist usually sells a CD for about $8 or less, and they usually also care about what they're singing about. Sure some big name people will vocally support something, but when was the last time you've seen them do something about it, then read the credits and find they didn't write it to begin with. Rip tracks to your computer and tell your friends that you've just heard this really good band and tell them that they're playing next week, get them to go and repeat the process. If you don't like what the RIAA is doing, don't give them any money, don't even pretend to like their crap. Buying their CD's is just reinforcing their screwed ideology. Boycott them out of business and feel good about yourself at the same time. Should the RIAA change their practices, start to put out talent instead of tits, and stop screwing the artists "lucky" enough to be covered by them, then I'll stop boycotting them, but until then, fuck 'em.

    59. Re:shallow? by royalblue_tom · · Score: 1

      How about the 4th. ... secure in their person and effects ...

      If that ain't privacy, I don't know what is. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't feel secure in my person if someone has the right to spy on me in my own home.

      But you obviously feel so happy about no right to privacy that you hide as an anonymous coward. Wouldn't you rather have everyone know your email, street address, name, back balance, pictures of your body parts. No? Why not? Ah, because you obviously cherish your right to privacy as much as the next person.

      The government is limited to the rights enumerated to it. The constitution does not say "The government has the right to spy on us all, big brother style" so get over it.

      It was a nice troll ... but you missed the "If you've got nothing to hide fallacy". Thanks for playing.

      Back to the debate. I agree with the RIAA spokesman with his view that she's got the wrong idea about how the internet works. She was effectively publishing copyright material that she doesn't hold the copyright for.

      I was not impressed by the RIAA's "we're not lawmen so we can spy/trespass on who we like" sentiments - by this view, it's legitimate for all of us to hack the RIAA network, looking for evidence, because we're not law officers either.

    60. Re:shallow? by FatAlb3rt · · Score: 1

      chill out, at least they're not going after you pr0n....

    61. Re:shallow? by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      So f*cking what? Those mp3's could just as likely have been encoded by nycfashiongirl herself. These are deterministic processes we're talking about here. There's no good reason to assume that a file that is accoustically identical to one on Napster necessarily originated on Napster.

      The fact that nycfashiongirl likes the same encoder settings as some schmuck on Napster is proof of NOTHING.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    62. Re:shallow? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Oh, and these four 80's compilations I bought trying to find Der Kommissar by After the Fire?

      Didn't it occur to you to look through the track lists before buying them?

    63. Re:shallow? by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      The bill of Rights is specifically meant to be interpreted in a "liberal" fashion.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    64. Re:shallow? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, they are targeting downloading not sharing. An examination of court docs reveal that they are charging people based on information gathered from files that are shared, but claiming it was the downloading of those shared files that is criminal. The reason for this is they have no way of proving that anyone illegally copied a song you had shared. However, they can prove you downloaded it by the de-facto evidence that is shared from your computer.

      Its tricky for them because they cannot prove anyone uploaded files your sharing, and they only know that files you have shared are "likely" illegal by doing HASH checks against known pirate copies.

      I believe it would be quite possible to defeat the RIAA in court.

    65. Re:shallow? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Such a fitting nick.....

    66. Re:shallow? by eaolson · · Score: 1
      The library has one copy of the book. When they loan it to you, they dont have it anymore. They make you give the book back.
      True, but I've never seen a library that didn't have at least one photocopier.
    67. Re:shallow? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the ./ crowd has said all along that the tools shouldn't be attacked, the violators should be attacked.

      Hmmmm. That's what I said before, but now I'd rather they went back to attacking the tools.

    68. Re:shallow? by IWorkForMorons · · Score: 1

      Whoa....you seem to think that I agree with this statement. Just to set the record straight, I don't. Just because I download a song does NOT make me a pirate. I might have the songs on CD somewhere, and don't want to bother taking the time to encode them because it's faster and easier to download them. Just because I share a file doesn't mean I'm a pirate, because I am not forcing anyone to download from me. I might just be returning the favour for the song that I downloaded which saved me time and energy, and leaving it available for someone else to legally take a copy of a song they have paid for. The logic can work both ways. The way the RIAA is viewing it as very black and white, and simply assumes everyone is a criminal, when in reality they are varying shades of grey. It's the only interpretation that keeps them in control...

    69. Re:shallow? by log0n · · Score: 1
      Furthermore, you DO NOT have a right to display copyrighted works on your front lawn or the internet. The right of public performance is limited to the copyright holder and its licensees.

      But by purchasing example movie/CD/game/whatever, aren't you becoming a licensee and then permitted to public performance?

    70. Re:shallow? by TClevenger · · Score: 1
      Actually, this would be a good way to "legalize" your music. Call up your friends, record stores, etc, and buy all their damaged CDs/tapes/lps/etc. Now you own the music and your get your fair use rights.

      That wouldn't work for the sharers, but you can bet that if a friend of mine was hit with a lawsuit for _downloading_ music, I would tell them to take a fistful of cash down to the local record store's music section and "legalize" their collection, preferrably from the used CD rack.

    71. Re:shallow? by hackstraw · · Score: 1

      Last I looked, the government prosecutes crimes.

    72. Re:shallow? by Alascom · · Score: 1

      Actually, I have checked out hundreds of Music CD's from my library... The library is sharing (c) material in a perfectly legal manner.

      If I should choose to rip those hundreds of library checked out music CD's, has the libary commited a crime, or have I?

      I recall millions of kids in the 80's recording their favorite music off the radio using tape players. Many of those 80's kids created their own favorites tapes using music copied from the airwaves. The Music industry NEVER prosecuted a single copyright infringer back then, so I believe that they are failed to "rigourously enforce their copyrights" and have thus invalidated them... Hmm, sounds like a valid legal argument doesn't it. Whats the difference between then and now, that we have moved from Radio to Ethernet? I think its more of a fear of the improvement in efficiency and quality, not the protection of copyrights that they clear choose to ignore until just recently. There is a valid legal defense in this line of reasoning.

    73. Re:shallow? by (trb001) · · Score: 1

      Oh, I freely admit to illegal activity...everytime I download something I haven't bought. I will, however, offer up my files to other people who have lost their copy of a CD (as I have many, many times...I've bought 4 copies of "Jar of Flies" because I've either lost it, had it stolen or given it to a friend) and want to replace the music they legally bought.

      It's wrong to make something illegal because it can be used for illegal purposes. I don't feel like we should even have to lock up our guns to prevent morons from shooting people with them, but since that's a loss of life I can understand the claim of liability. Most of us think it's assanine to sue the gunmakers, or hold liable the man whose house was broken into and his gun stolen, when someone shoots another person with said gun. I think it's assanine to hold liable the person with music on their computer, when it's someone else getting a copy. The RIAA is taking the easy way out, since it would be nearly impossible to investigate whether the person downloading does have a legal right to the downloaded content.

      --trb

    74. Re:shallow? by Slime-dogg · · Score: 1

      People... This is an excellent highly modded troll.

      Simmer down already.

      --
      You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.
    75. Re:shallow? by 3terrabyte · · Score: 1
      . How do they know you don't legally own all the MP3s or movies you are downloading?...

      Please note that they are only sueing the people who upload mp3's. So your point about owning the mp3 or movie doesn't count here....unless you have the copyright holder's permission, you are not allowed to distribute copyrighted material.

      --

      Why are there only 19 people folding@home for slashdot?

    76. Re:shallow? by TClevenger · · Score: 1
      The only problem with "pay-per-work" artists is that Crappy artists and Good artists would receive the same wage. I would be able to record 60 minutes of my toilet flushing, have the best record producer and engineers make an album out of it, and make the same amount of money as Brittney Spears. Who decides what art is?

      That's the way it already works. Crappy artists with pretty faces and belly buttons are propelled to the front of the CD rack, while good artists are never signed, and if they are, they're often left with less money than they started with before signing those contracts. If every artist got the same wage, records could be promoted more evenly (after all, why blow a lot of bread pushing Britney when you don't have a huge wage to pay her?), and maybe some good artists could actually get their foot in the door.

    77. Re:shallow? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most have tape players with record buttons.

      hell, I think my local library even owns computers with CD-RW drives now.

    78. Re:shallow? by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      It is weird that people still use this as defence. What if you bought a TV set and broke it or someone stole it from you, would you expect the TV manufacturer to give you a new one? Of-course the cost of manufacturing a TV-set is not 0, but it is still a very low cost. Wouldn't you then expect this TV manufacturer to sell you this other TV for the actual manufacturing cost of let's say 50 dollars? (suppose that it costs 50 bucks to manufacture the TV-set).

      Why would anyone give you another copy of a song? You paid for a specific COPY of that song. So you overpaid (you believe) why did you pay? Why do you want to buy that product if it costs more than you believe it should?

    79. Re:shallow? by Sgt+York · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I love that they call it shallow, it just adds to the humor of the situation (well, it would be funny if it weren't so damn scary). There is a quote next to the article:

      Many students seem to think, apparently, that the internet is a law free zone

      Followed at the end by:

      Mr Oppenheim also said the RIAA was immume from rules on unreasonable searches on the internet, because it did not have links with law enforcement agencies.

      Immune to the law? Who sees the internet as a "law-free zone"?

      This could fall under the same category as evidence gatherd by a PI. However, in the case of the RIAA, it's like the PI gathering the information and then bringing charges himself. IANAL, but the way I understand it, the spirit of illegal search & seizure was to ensure that those that enforced the law could not search citizens at will; searches must be approved by a higher authority. I guess applying that to what is posted on a public server is a different story, though...

      I dunno, it just seems like the pot calling the kettle black.

      --

      There is a reason for everything. Sometimes that reason just sucks.

    80. Re:shallow? by ichimunki · · Score: 1

      Short answer: no. Long answer: RTFM-- especially the section entitled "What is Copyright?". It's very clear on all of these matters. :)

      --
      I do not have a signature
    81. Re:shallow? by geekee · · Score: 1

      The arguemnent is shallow because the RIAA did nothing wrong. nycfashiongirl shared the files with everyone. She has no expectation of privacy under those circumstances. Show me what's unconstitutional about what they did.

      --
      Vote for Pedro
    82. Re:shallow? by QuackQuack · · Score: 1
      By your logic, if your television got stolen, or if your television was "so scratched up as to be" unviewable, then you would steal another television because you don't want to pay a "tax" on something you already own.

      But I thought we were licensing the music, rather than owning the media, which is why we can't make copies and give it to our friends?

      Downloading music files for tracks that you already have on CD is a gray area. You, however, are in the red area. You are download music files for tracks on CDs that WERE STOLEN FROM YOU

      I would say the person who stole the tape is in the red area here, but what do I know?

      --
      By reading this sig, you agree to the terms of my sig license.
    83. Re:shallow? by 3terrabyte · · Score: 1
      And that's just another reason why Blizzard is an awesome company.

      But seriously, Blizzard doesn't also sell 20,000 different games at 1 million per game. Well, the numbers are inflated, but why not. We're talking about the RIAA. You know, the RIAA exec's have 42" penises too.

      --

      Why are there only 19 people folding@home for slashdot?

    84. Re:shallow? by pyros · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but I don't really care for lisetning to data CDs, blood just doesn't feel to good trickling out of my ears.

    85. Re:shallow? by QuackQuack · · Score: 1

      If someone stole your TV set, you can get reimbursed by your insurance company for a new one (if your deductible is low enough). Try doing that with a tape.

      --
      By reading this sig, you agree to the terms of my sig license.
    86. Re:shallow? by 3terrabyte · · Score: 1
      The media keeps screwing up the facts. Not only that but the RIAA loves to push the FUD. The issue had nothing to do with whether or not she owned them.

      Doesn't matter.
      In court, the only thing that matters is that she distributed copyrighted materials that she didn't have permission to do so from the copyright-holders.

      There has yet to be a case where downloading a copyrighted material is illegal. All the laws only pertain to: "distribution" of said copyrighted material.

      --

      Why are there only 19 people folding@home for slashdot?

    87. Re:shallow? by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      He, I am sure you can do it with a tape but who insures tapes? Would you pay for an insurance policy that included tapes?

    88. Re:shallow? by 3terrabyte · · Score: 1
      they are going after downloaders as well

      No they're not.

      --

      Why are there only 19 people folding@home for slashdot?

    89. Re:shallow? by 3terrabyte · · Score: 1

      .man ,backwards that got you think I

      --

      Why are there only 19 people folding@home for slashdot?

    90. Re:shallow? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I would be able to record 60 minutes of my toilet flushing, have the best record producer and engineers make an album out of it, and make the same amount of money as Brittney Spears.

      You can record the same toilet-flushing album now, and probably get a grant for the National Endowment for the Arts for it, so what's the difference. ;-)

    91. Re:shallow? by shotfeel · · Score: 1

      You may very well have a perfectly legal reason to download that MP3--but you certainly don't have a justifiable reason to place it on a P2P network.

      But I didn't do it! It was a computer virus that turned on sharing and put those songs there!

    92. Re:shallow? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What happens when books are available for borrow from the library in CD or DVD format?

      What if I make an MP3 from a song I recorded through DirecTV or over the Radio, I certainly didn't agree to any license by listening to the radio.

    93. Re:shallow? by 3terrabyte · · Score: 1

      I am sure you could turn yourself in at the RIAA piracy hotline. God knows I don't know the number off-hand, but knock yourself out.

      --

      Why are there only 19 people folding@home for slashdot?

    94. Re:shallow? by 3terrabyte · · Score: 1
      This guy is 100% right.

      I am not doing the copying, the server is.

      Another explanation is that you have to a copy in the first place to be able to make a copy. Obviously in the case of downloading, you do not have a copy yet... It's the uploader making the copies.

      --

      Why are there only 19 people folding@home for slashdot?

    95. Re:shallow? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How are the people who are legally downloading their music because it was lost or stolen supposed to get it if nobody can share the files?

      The record companies don't offer such a service.

      If millions of good samaritans want to help their fellow man by allowing people who have been wronged by the unjust theft of their hard earned cds access to files so that they can lessen the sting of that theft by replacing their property, I say more power to 'em.

    96. Re:shallow? by selfabuse · · Score: 1

      yeah, i figured that out after I posted. That's what I get for not RTFA-ing.

    97. Re:shallow? by FroMan · · Score: 1

      I think you have misunderstood me, or atleast I was unclear. I do not think that p2p should be illegal in any manner. However, as the one sharing the file you have become either an accomplice or facilitator to a crime.

      As far as making copies for a friend which have been stolen, that is an issue with his insurance company. For scratched or damaged media, you can get a replacement copy from the distributor, but this will probably cost a certain amount for replacement. In both these instances you do not get your music instantly, but it is the legal path to take.

      In either instance you may not get what you want and are just out the CD. For instance, a while ago I had my car broken into and had a checkbook and some andes candies (mmmMmmMMMmMMMmm) stolen. I will never get my andies candies back. Life is like that. I have also spilled a soda onto one of my favorite tapes many years ago, I didn't get another copy from the distributor, but then again, I was the one to bust the original. I could have made a copy of the original and kept the original tape safe sure.

      However, it would be wrong and illegal for me to make 20 copies and leave them in a box at my garage sale saying "free for the taking". That is essentially what you are doing by sharing copyrighted material with p2p apps.

      As far as the gun stuff goes, its off topic, but having your guns not put away is complete stupidity. There are certain responsibilities with gun ownership that you accept. I would find you negligent if you left your loaded gun outside (even on your own property) and someone took the gun to commit a crime. While not guilty of the crime of the crime that the perpetrator commited, you were still negligent in your ownership.

      --
      Norris/Palin 2012
      Fact: We deserve leaders who can kick your ass and field dress your carcass.
    98. Re:shallow? by 3terrabyte · · Score: 1
      Sorry, but libraries are specifically listed in these laws with certain exceptions and rules to go by. So they are not the same as you and I.

      Oh and guess what. You are allowed to lend your physical CD to your friends. Just like a library. So what the hell are you saying again?

      --

      Why are there only 19 people folding@home for slashdot?

    99. Re:shallow? by Gaijin42 · · Score: 1

      The act of infringement in the case of the library requires two things to take place.

      1) The library lends the material.
      2) The user copies the material.

      In the case of filesharing, the infringement takes one action

      1) The file is shared.

      In order to NOT be infringement additional checks or steps would need to take place

      1) User verifies that they have rights to that file in some way
      2) file is shared

      or

      1) file is shared
      2) file is deleted (and this one isn't very usefull is it?

      The library alone lending the material is not against the law. The filesharing alone is. Thats the difference.

      This is also why its not illegal to own a gun, (because you have to go shoot someone before its a crime), but it is illegal just to hit someone.

    100. Re:shallow? by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 1

      Ah, spoken like someone who has never recieved, nor known anyone who has recieved, an NEA or NEH grant.

      They are pittances, those grants. Almost negligable.

    101. Re:shallow? by shotfeel · · Score: 1

      OK, try this. Most public libraries also have CDs you can check out. Not much different than only allowing one download at a time.

    102. Re:shallow? by 3terrabyte · · Score: 1
      Web sites have used that "trick" for a long time. They get shut down because it's an urban myth that that works.

      By law, you are not allowed to distribute copyrighted material unless you have permission from the copyright holder, or are falling under the ever-dwindling Fair Use Laws. End of story. No little "warning" will get you out of that bind.

      --

      Why are there only 19 people folding@home for slashdot?

    103. Re:shallow? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's what you get for listening to Metallica. Just because it's a cool band name doesn't make the music good. Now either sell or destroy those CDs.

    104. Re:shallow? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The difference is that the book is a physical media. You still have to return the book to the library. If you make a copy you are violating copyright.

      If you own a CD you can loan it to a friend. Now he has it, not you. There is only one copy. He makes a copy and returns the original to you, he is violating copyright.

      You make a copy of your CD and give it away, you're violating copyright. Doesn't matter if it's a physical copy or a digital copy.

    105. Re:shallow? by dlur · · Score: 1

      Parent is written well and has solid logic to it. You put into words the whole argument that I have against the RIAA's recent stance on file-sharers. Great post.

      --
      Duris MUD - The best pkill MUD. Ever.
    106. Re:shallow? by shotfeel · · Score: 1

      Your argument is like an analogy I remember a recording industry spokesperson using. Its like a person holding up a large sign on a streetcorner saying the RIAA isn't allowed to read whats on the sign.

      The problem is, that's not what they're doing. The RIAA wants the right to walk up to that person, pull their wallet out of their pocket or purse, and abtain any personal information contained within.

      IMO, just like holding up a sign doen't give you the right to search me for personal information, having files publicly visible/downloadable doesn't give the RIAA the right to search my ISP for personal information.

    107. Re:shallow? by 3terrabyte · · Score: 1
      Well, they have an ace up their sleeve there, don't they?

      All the RIAA has to do is download the song themselves. That way, not only can they prove that the song is an actual RIAA song and not some 3rd-grade article about Harry Potter, but they also prove that you had the file publicly available, and IN FACT was downloaded at least once.

      And last but not least, as much as I hate analogies, there are laws for intent (like selling drugs). Also, since this is a civil case, and not a criminal case, they are not required to "prove without a doubt". Not only that, but they seem to be pushing for out-of-court settlements. You don't even have to be guilty to get fucked that way.

      --

      Why are there only 19 people folding@home for slashdot?

    108. Re:shallow? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, setup an expiration period. You download a file and have x minutes to examine it before it is automatically made available again.

    109. Re:shallow? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +5 Insightful, Cutely Naive.

    110. Re:shallow? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She's claiming the RIAA doesn't have the right to look at the files she's hosting/sharing as that would violate her privacy, what are you talking about?

    111. Re:shallow? by n.wegner · · Score: 1

      >What if you bought a TV set and broke it or
      >someone stole it from you, would you expect the
      >TV manufacturer to give you a new one?

      No, but if there was a one-time tax per household TV, like in a made-up Britain, I'd demand that I not have to pay that tax when I buy another TV.

      If I bought a CD and broke it or someone stole it, I'd demand that I could still listen to the near-free copies I can get through P2p. It doesn't cost the manufacturor anything.

    112. Re:shallow? by neoform · · Score: 1

      uhh, how about this. how can they tell your making it available for download..?

      for all they know the files might be available, but you cancel the download as soon as it's started..

      if the RIAA downloads it.. then what crime was comitted? the RIAA holds rights to the music, so both sides are legally holding copies now.

      --
      MABASPLOOM!
    113. Re:shallow? by Gaijin42 · · Score: 1

      Happening to provide tools which could be combined to do something illegal is not illegal (ala napster getting used for legit purposes)

      However, if the library offered to copy it FOR you, which is what napster et al DOES do in the case of pirated works, THAT would be illegal.

    114. Re:shallow? by homer_ca · · Score: 1

      Every P2P downloader is also uploading. Even the leeches who don't share anything. If you have a partial download, the completed parts of your partial file can be uploaded to other people on the network.

    115. Re:shallow? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so why is the university i go to saying that the RIAA is telling them to shut down internet accounts for *downloading* files, not distributing them?

    116. Re:shallow? by (trb001) · · Score: 1

      Okay, after more thought about whether or not the server is making the copy or not, I have a rebuttle (sorry for replying twice).

      I don't think the server *is* making a copy. When someone uses KaZaA to download a song from another user, what happens? Client1 requests data from client2, client2 responds with packets, client1 writes data to file on hard drive. The closest analogy I have is this: if I display a book in my front yard,(let's assume it's dark and I have a spotlight pointing at the book) you can read the printed words. Instead of packets of data, your eye interprets the light reflecting off of the printed words as data and stores it in your brain. Analogous to a library, only your brain probably doesn't have the storage capabilities that a computer has.

      Client1's request is analogous to your looking at the book. Client2's response with data is effectively my book being placed in a lit spot so that light is able to bounce off the words. Client1's writing the data to disk is your brain committing the words to memory, or at least comprehending them.

      The RIAA is saying that even though I own the book, I must keep it in a dark room and permit no candles/lamps/lights in, except for my own. To refute the argument of the book being either in or out, what if I check a book out, walk of the library and then read it out loud? Isn't everyone gaining the same information that I am? Please don't bring up pictures or the physical feel of the book, it's the information we're interested in. Were I reading it out loud to 10 people with photographic (audiophonic?) memories, what's the difference?

      --trb

    117. Re:shallow? by Le+Marteau · · Score: 1

      so why is the university i go to saying that the RIAA is telling them to shut down internet accounts for *downloading* files, not distributing them?

      What, the RIAA lie? Say it isn't so! They've always been so honorable in the past. Next thing you'll tell me is that the government sometimes lies. I'm so disillusioned... who oh who can I trust?

      --
      Mod down people who tell people how to mod in their sigs
    118. Re:shallow? by shotfeel · · Score: 1

      I was talking about her challenging the release of her personal information by her ISP.

      My bad, though. I was replying to previous articles, not the one linked.

    119. Re:shallow? by timmy+the+large · · Score: 1
      Your IP has been logged Mr. Byrd. We shall come for you shortly.

      hahahaha

    120. Re:shallow? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i'm officially confuzzled now -_-

      bastards.

    121. Re:shallow? by (trb001) · · Score: 1

      I responded to another person who had already responded to me, but I'll try to summarize that post here...

      If client1 requests a file from me, I don't think I am copying the requested file anymore than I would be if I checked out a book. Follow this....

      When someone reads a book, what's happening? The book is open, light is reflecting off the print allowing the person reading to see the words and comprehend/memorize them. If they write down what they see, verbatim, it's illegal. When someone request a file from me, I send them the data inside the file. It's their option whether or not they write that data down. Granted KaZaA, along with every other P2P app out there, does it automatically. My server isn't copying the file, anymore than light is copying the book. It's a sketchy argument, and it may not hold up because people in the legal profession aren't computer scientists and won't understand bit streams or data flow. However, that doesn't mean that people posting these files on their own machines should be guilty of something they aren't doing.

      Also, you absolutely have the right to display a copyrighted work on your lawn...if I choose to stand in my front yard and read the contents of a book, that's my perrogative and NOT considered a public performance.

      --trb

    122. Re:shallow? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But I BOUGHT the TV set, I own it outright. The manufacturer does not have a copyright on my TV set (the design maby, but not the TV)

      I only bought the physical cd, not the song. I do not own the song. the musician (or RIAA member) does own the copyright.

      Your analogy is badly flawed, it does not fit.

      A better analogy,(I think) I bought cable service. the cable service comes with a cable TV box. It broke/was stolen etc. Would I expect the cable company to replace it? (or provide some way for me to get my service?) YES. So I borrowed my neighbors's/made my own/got a replacement elsewhere and reprogrammed it to descramble the cable signal so I could watch TV. Should the cable company complain/sue me for this?

    123. Re:shallow? by Stultis+the+Fool · · Score: 0

      I think if the library's music CDs are in traditional CD format, you have committed a crime for ripping. If, however, the music CDs are in MP3 format, you have still committed a crime, but they (the library) is an accomplice to the crime, whereas they (the library) was not an accomplice in the first instance. On the second note, I agree with you. The music industry is, indeed, claiming copyright infringement, when it is in face no different (other than exponentially more users) from the transition from cassettes to CDs.

    124. Re:shallow? by Planesdragon · · Score: 1

      for all they know the files might be available, but you cancel the download as soon as it's started..

      Behold the reason we have juries.

      When the RIAA takes you to court, and you try that story as your defense, you'll have to convince those 12 ordinary people that you had those files there and, for some odd reason, cancelled all of those downloads.

      Good luck.

    125. Re:shallow? by Planesdragon · · Score: 1

      Just because I download a song does NOT make me a pirate.

      Sure it does. Or, rather, it makes you a party to an instance of copyright infringement. (Though, if you have the songs already on CD, it's not "for financial gain", and so you need to trade a lot to be guilty of the crime and the tort, instead of just the tort.)

      Just because I share a file doesn't mean I'm a pirate

      You better believe it does. You're a party to every instance of copyright infringement for the files you share--and, since it's a lot easier to track what you're sharing that what you're downloading, and you probably have a significant volume shared, the RIAA will come after you for this.

      Copyright infringement IS against the law. For a big enough volume, or done for your own gain, it's criminal--but even if it's not at the level of a crime, it is a tort, and that means that the RIAA can come after you, and unless you pull some amazing legal vodoo, you'll suddenly have a debt to RIAA that's a lot more massive than the cost of just buying your songs in the first place.

      It IS black and white, really. Regardless of how ammoral RIAA may be, they do have the legal standing to go after the rampant copyright infringement that happens on the 'net.

    126. Re:shallow? by trashcan_12 · · Score: 1

      I don't use P2P software to share MP3's, but I do rip my cd's and share them on my home webserver so I can access them from work. Is this wrong? The RIAA says that I have the right to duplicate CD's that I buy. If someone stumbles onto my site and downloads some files it seems to me that they are accountable for that and not me (as long as I haven't advertised my site or raise money from it).

    127. Re:shallow? by ichimunki · · Score: 1

      Yeah. OK. Good luck with that then. FWIW I think you're wrong on all counts, legal and technical.

      --
      I do not have a signature
    128. Re:shallow? by Lord+Dimwit+Flathead · · Score: 1

      I would be able to record 60 minutes of my toilet flushing ... and make the same amount of money as Brittney Spears.

      Holy shit, dude. You really can get rich working from the privacy of your own home!

    129. Re:shallow? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about quoting the real amendment - "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

      This says nothing about information that you publicly display or what you do in the public view. This amendment is intended to prevent government agencies from going into your house or on your physical person without a warrant. People constantly point to this amendment as the right to privacy and it says no such thing.

    130. Re:shallow? by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      You also OWN your CD. If you brake it the manufacturer does not have to reimburse you. The song on the CD... that's different. You basically paid for a licence to listen to that song and honestly, you paid for a right to listen to that song from THAT SPECIFIC CD. However, fair use says that you can make a backup copy of that CD for your own use. If you lose that backup copy noone is responsible to give you another copy of that song. Tough luck. My analogy is not flawed and it does fit. You are fighting the letter when I am talking about common sence.

    131. Re:shallow? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then I might as well interpret the 10th to mean that I have the right to call you an idiot. Go read the Bill of Rights and then come back and post moron.

    132. Re:shallow? by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      If I bought a CD and broke it or someone stole it, I'd demand that I could still listen to the near-free copies I can get through P2p. It doesn't cost the manufacturor anything. - I disagree on this. I agree that you may try and get the song off the manufacturer again because you have paid for a licence, but you have paid for a licence to listen to that specific copy of that song from that specific CD you bought. First of all p2p shares do not have copyright so they canno legally distribute the songs to anyone. Secondly it could be argued that you only bought licence to listen to the specific copy of your specific song. Even though digital copies are NEAR perfect copies it can be argued that they cannot be absolutely perfect copies of the music you had on you CD (error checking and correction during digital mastering and then during rip.) So it can be argued you are also in violation of copyright when you are trying to get a song off p2p network.

      Manufacturer is not involved into your p2p transaction, that is true, but who ever gives you this song is not complying with the copyright (he or she possibly never bought that song on the first place either.)

      Fair use says you can make a backup copy of the song for your own use, so you should do that, but nowhere at all does the licence state that the manufacturer is required to provide you with another copy of the material in case if you lost it or it was somehow destroyed while in your possession.

    133. Re:shallow? by FroMan · · Score: 1

      Copyright also pertains to public presentation.

      You know the FBI warning you used to have to FF> through with VCRs?

      We are down to the question of is copyright good or bad?

      I would argue that copyright is good to a certain degree because by enforcing a limited-time monopoly encourages first the creation of works and secondly encourages the creators to have to continue to create works.

      The state we are in currently is that copyright has been extended to a far to long period of time. Were copyright at a maximum 5 years beyond the last publish date or something of that nature society would benefit. As copyright has currently ballooned to beyond your lifespan it does not fulfill the second benefit of copyright.

      I doubt that we differ that much in our view here, only in practice. You see, I do not share (violate copyright of music or software) because it is wrong. However, I also do not purchase CDs and in general support the business practices of the companies that abuse copyright also (now there are exceptions when the content is truly worth it to me to purchase). But again, that is the point, if I do not feel something is worth the asking price I do not get it.

      Instead of weaseling around what is copyright infringement and what is not, I would avoid the whole situation and not do things even in the gray area.

      --
      Norris/Palin 2012
      Fact: We deserve leaders who can kick your ass and field dress your carcass.
    134. Re:shallow? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      store the originals on a spindle where they can't get damaged or stolen.

      That must be one hell of a spindle! Got a patent on it? ;)

      But yes, the physical CDs are nothing but a "backup" medium that rarely see the light of day around my place as well.

      What's funny is that I had a CD stolen, and I recovered the music off gnapster. This kinda amuses me, since I was actually robbed, as I no longer had the physical CD I bought. But using the service that the RIAA claims is stealing, I was able to recover my music and nobody else lost anything at all.

      Whatever. Since I discovered emusic.com, I don't "boycott" the RIAA so much as simply not care about them at all. An independent record store would accomplish more or less the same thing: Better music, less evil.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    135. Re:shallow? by Anonymous+Slacker · · Score: 1

      Fair use says you can make a backup copy of the song for your own use, so you should do that, but nowhere at all does the licence state that the manufacturer is required to provide you with another copy of the material in case if you lost it or it was somehow destroyed while in your possession.


      If the original copy is destroyed or lost through no fault of your own, does this mean that the backup copies are now illegal? If so, then what is the point of being able to make backup copies in the first place? (aside from changing the media format cd->mp3, etc.)

      --
      "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice!" -Rush
    136. Re:shallow? by Artcfox · · Score: 1

      Mod Parent Up!

    137. Re:shallow? by neoform · · Score: 1

      and the RIAA would have to convince the jury that there really were "all those people" downloading the songs from you. how CAN they prove anyone but themselves downloaded the music.

      --
      MABASPLOOM!
    138. Re:shallow? by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      I did not actually say that. Backup is allowed but there must be some record of the fact that you have purchased the CD. A receipt, a bank statement, a store record, an online purchase invoice whatever. Otherwise anyone could claim ownership of any stolen property and there would be no way to verify the claim.

    139. Re:shallow? by Dengarhunter · · Score: 1

      Its not weird at all to use this as a defence. Its called insurance, and its been around for a long time where it comes to software. Hell, I remember 15 years ago reading the license to a game (can't remember which right now) and it stated very clearly that I could make 1 backup copy in the event that the original is damaged. I've seen a HELL of a lot of software since then that allows me to do the same thing. What IS weird is people making apples to oranges comparisons, like comparing a physical object like a TV to something that is basically a bunch of 1's and 0's.

    140. Re:shallow? by Mike+Hawk · · Score: 1

      it's like the PI gathering the information and then bringing charges himself. Actually since these would be lawsuits rather than criminal charges, your analogy is more perfect than you know. A PI might be hired to follow a spouse around to find out if that spouse is cheating and under what circumstances. He would follow the suspected party around in public places, watch for any routines, and keep a log. The PI might even stage a p2p (face-to-face rather than over a network, of course) meeting to gather other information. The information then gathered could be used to sue for divorce under more favorable terms. That's pretty much what happened here. Just substitute filesharer information for spouse information.

    141. Re:shallow? by Planesdragon · · Score: 1

      Common sense.

      Like I said, this is why we have juries. "No, officer, I was just holding these drugs." "No, sir, I wasn't fornicating with the woman who slept naked next to me and is currently busily in the shower"

      It's simply implausible that you have a file-sharing system set-up and running, and that no one ever downloaded anything from you.

      I wish I had more schooling the law, so I could speculate on if the jury or the judge will set the award... I hope it's the jury.

    142. Re:shallow? by Planesdragon · · Score: 1

      Is this wrong?

      IANAL (duh.)

      If you don't allow anonymous FTP access to your MP3s, the RIAA shouldn't be able to touch you. (They might be able to, but I think it's a silly thing for them to do when there's P2P programs rampant everywhere.)

      From a security standpoint, anyway, you'd bee foolish to run an anonyous FTP server of any kind, on any IP, regardless of what your ISP says--unless you really want to share your files with everyone.

      It's easy enough to turn off anonyous FTP and require a login--I knew a friend who did it with Windows 98, actually.

    143. Re:shallow? by neoform · · Score: 1

      It's simply implausible that you have a file-sharing system set-up and running, and that no one ever downloaded anything from you.
      So cause it's possible it's bound to happen?
      If you were to put a cd on a music stores shelf, is it guarranteed it will sell? no. so why the it's bound to be downloaded thinking?

      --
      MABASPLOOM!
    144. Re:shallow? by roman_mir · · Score: 0

      A bunch of ones and zeroes burnt onto a CD is an object, is it not? When you pay the money for this object in the store part of this money is for the object itself and part of it is for the licence that allows you to listen to the song off this CD. The copyright kicks in when the owner of the physical CD rips the copyrighted song and makes an electronically transfered file and then distributes this file against the licence agreement (you do not have to agree to this licence to use the song, but you must comply with it when you start redistributing copyrighted material.)

      Now you can insure anything against anything given the correct amount of money. For example I can insure my book collection or a single book or a CD against whatever. But insurance and backups are different things alltogether. Fair use allows you to make a backup copy of your digital material for your own use and insurance will have your CDs protected against theft, fire etc. You can insure your CD against scratches so if it becomes unplayable the insurance will pay you money. Insurance, however, has nothing to do with copyright.

      I am not comparing apples and oranges, you are unable to draw a parallel between ideas that to you seem to be in some way virtual and none existant in material world. Like sounds (as if sound waves are not material.) But the law already protects sounds with copyright and sharing of copyrighted material among thousands and millions of people is not backup.

      If you want insurance you have to pay money. It can be argued that downloading of mp3s for example is also against copyright even if you own an original CD, because copyright protects specific copies, so your CD is just a copy but an mp3 file is not actually a perfect copy of whatever is on your CD. It is a near copy but for sure it differs in some bits somewhere (mastering and then ripping processes introduce errors and error-correction codes.)

    145. Re:shallow? by n.wegner · · Score: 1

      >First of all p2p shares do not have copyright so
      >they canno legally distribute the songs to anyone.

      I guess you're right, but we'd probably need a lawyer to find out for sure.

      >CD (error checking and correction during digital mastering and then during rip

      That's not a creative process. If so, then those differences aren't copyrightable, and those copies might as well be exact.

    146. Re:shallow? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they are making the claim that actually variations in the encoding process will make each mp3 encoded distinct.
      That if you encode a file twice, it'll come out differently each time.
      Now, I tried that out - dumping mp3 to wav, reencoding twice. Came out unsurprisingly identical.
      Hopefully her lawyers do the same thing.

      They could be making claim based on certain header tag information perhaps. Different user encoded, putting his name in it.

    147. Re:shallow? by |/|/||| · · Score: 1

      So how do sharers cover their butts? I wonder why P2P clients don't have a click-through before you start downloading that says something like "by clicking OK you confirm that you have the rights to this information" or something. If a downloader "lies" to the sharer, the sharer's responsibility could be mitigated.

      Pretty gray area, but I've seen it used for ROM downloads and whatnot.

      --
      [javac] 100 errors
    148. Re:shallow? by |/|/||| · · Score: 1

      I think this is a good idea. Simple to implement, and it would increase the sharer's security.

      --
      [javac] 100 errors
    149. Re:shallow? by IHateUniqueNicks · · Score: 1

      Ok, the question here is: As someone who is running a program that has the capability of creating a copy, is (s)he legally responsible for all copies it creates?

      And does who's equipment is used matter?

      This is especially pertinent in Canada, where creating your own copy is legal, but having someone else create it for you isn't.

      So, when the downloader tells their computer to tell the "uploader"'s computer to send them a copy (which is in fact what is happening), is the "uploader" doing the copying, or is the downloader doing the copying using the "uploader"'s computer???

      Strictly speaking, it soulds like the latter (legal in Canada) method to me, but IANAL and don't know what the legal word on this says, or if there's some kind of clause to hold "uploaders" responsible.

    150. Re:shallow? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod this down, thx

    151. Re:shallow? by Gaijin42 · · Score: 1

      well, the person sharing starts a copy that goes out into the ether, and then the person recieving makes another. then the first copy is deleted

    152. Re:shallow? by Sphere1952 · · Score: 1

      "...but you certainly don't have a justifiable reason to place it on a P2P network."

      How would I know whether I had a justifiable reason or not? If the artists are looking to express themselves and get heard by a larger audiance then I am doing them a favor by sharing it. If the artists are looking to sell CDs then I am doing them a disservice. But in either case there is no way for me to tell which it is. You cannot require of someone who is expressing their free speech right to be heard that they give notice, as this would be an unjustifiable intrusion upon their fundamental rights. Congress has seen fit to do away with copyright notices, so there is no notice of any kind that the music is intended only for sale.

      I would be perfectly pleased if the only music being shared was at the artists' pleasure. Aside from clearing up this legal quandary, I suspect more of the music would be things I'd want to hear. Unfortunately, the music being shared is a mixture of IP and free speech.

      I demand my free speech rights to be heard and to hear what others have to say. If copyright gets screwed in the process it isn't my problem. The copyright holders are not asserting any fundamental rights, and I guess they'll just have to find some way of solving their problem which doesn't interfere with my fundamental rights.

      --
      Big Brother Bush is doubleplus ungood.
    153. Re:shallow? by IHateUniqueNicks · · Score: 1

      well, the person sharing starts a copy that goes out into the ether, and then the person recieving makes another. then the first copy is deleted

      Well, no... The "person sharing" didn't start anything, hell they didn't even have to be in the country at the time. As for how many copies were made, and where/when that all depends on the protocols used, and has little to do with the question...

    154. Re:shallow? by Planesdragon · · Score: 1

      But in either case there is no way for me to tell which it is.

      Wrong.

      It's copyright--a concept that's been in the constitution longer than free speach. (Not more important, but copyright was in the original, while freedom of expression was an amendment.) It's not your work, you don't have proof of public domain or explicit permission to distribute, you're violating copyright.

      (Note, of course, that in ambiguous cases, the law should [and probably does] require the copyright holder to inform and give chance to cease and desist their infringement--and even if the law doesn't, practicallity does.)

      Congress has seen fit to do away with copyright notices, so there is no notice of any kind that the music is intended only for sale.

      The courts, IIRC, were the ones who decided that--and regardless of the source, the decision came down as "assume that it's copywritten until proven otherwise." Just like "assume that the house belongs to someone until proven otherwise."

      I would be perfectly pleased if the only music being shared was at the artists' pleasure. Aside from clearing up this legal quandary, I suspect more of the music would be things I'd want to hear. Unfortunately, the music being shared is a mixture of IP and free speech.

      I think you can agree then, that the best course of action for RIAA to take is to pursue individuals who are continuing to 'share' copywritten intended-for-sale works despite numerous warnings and chances to stop doing what they're doing.

      I demand my free speech rights to be heard and to hear what others have to say. If copyright gets screwed in the process it isn't my problem. The copyright holders are not asserting any fundamental rights, and I guess they'll just have to find some way of solving their problem which doesn't interfere with my fundamental rights.

      Free speach is not the most fundamental right. Property rights--a right that didn't even have to be enumerated in the bill of rights--are more fundamental. For better or worse, we as a society have given the limited-time monopoly of copyright the status of property--and, as such, it has the same basic status as the money from my paycheck and the clothes on my back.

      Your "free speech rights" are all well and good--and, really, copyright simply doesn't affect them. If what you or someone else is saying is really speech, then it's not someone else's copyright, and you're totally in the clear.

      You might be getting confused with the laws enacted by the DMCA, which curtail free speech just a bit to protect copyright. But basic copyright only infringes on your "free speech" if you are copying what someone else has already "said."

    155. Re:shallow? by Planesdragon · · Score: 1

      Pretty gray area, but I've seen it used for ROM downloads and whatnot.

      ROM downloads, btw, are just as illegal as any other sharing. "I have a right to it" doesn't allow me to send you a copy; it means that you can make your own backup copy. You could even, theoretically, hire me to make that copy for you--but I couldn't just send you a copy.

      P2P sharers can cover their butts by not sharing any media to which they are not certain is either Public Domain or explicity permitted to be shared. Or just not being sharers.

      You might as well ask "how do loan sharks cover their butts?"

    156. Re:shallow? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      WTF are you talking about. There is no license involved. You pay for a copy of a copyrighted work. That's it. You are free to do anything you want with that copy. You can even brake some copyright laws if you want, but you still don't loose any rights to listen to your CD. It's yours, You OWN the physical media. You OWN the content, not a license to listen to it. Forget everything you have heared about licenses to CDs, it's an RIAA hoax.

      And just if you were wondering, this equally applies to software licenses. It's a product sale, not license sale (se adobe vs. softman).

      IAACL (I Am A Copyright Lawyer)

    157. Re:shallow? by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      What, my view do not precisely correspond to yours? Not a very popular view I am holding, am I? Can't take it?

      Well I am right and you are actually wrong.

    158. Re:shallow? by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      First of all you are not a lawyer, you are an AC. Secondly you should read my other posts within the same thread. I stated clearly: by buying a CD you agree to the fact that this CD is copyrighted. This fact does not affect you in any way if you only want to listen to your CD (GPL also does not affect you in any way if you only want to use GPLd software.) However, if you want to DISTRIBUTE GPLd software, you MUST obey GPL. If you want to distributed COPYRIGHTED data, whether music or video or software (* and in this case it is music on a CD *) you can only do that after contacting the holders of the copyright and asking their permission and most likely they will ask you to pay them for it.

      I understand copyright but you do not, my grammatically challenged pretentious AC. You do own the piece of plastic that your CD is made of but you do NOT actually OWN the music on the CD. If you did own it you would be the author. If you had rights to distribution you would be the copyright holder (a label,) but you only have what is called 'fair rights of use', which are granted to you after you pay for that specific CD. So you are a consumer.

      In this case RIAA is correct to go after the distributers of their copyrighted material. In this case they could also be correct to go after the individual downloaders of their copyrighted material because they could in principle argue, that the downloader (even if he/she owns a CD with a specific copy of music) still has no right to download other copies of this music since those other copies are not perfect copies of whatever it is they have on their CDs. (digital mastering of a CD and whatever you rip from it is not going to be 100% the same music, some bits will be off due to error checks and corrections.)

      Anyway, my anonymous cowardus friend, your convoluted and extremely intricate disonance with the actual facts of the copyrighted law baffles me, especially after your last statement, but I guess I should not be surprised, I long suspected that you are just purporting to be something you are not. Cheers.

    159. Re:shallow? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      but you do NOT actually OWN the music on the CD

      Wrong again. You do infact own the music on the CD, but you are not the copyright holder.

      I didn't insult you, but I would have liked to, but the sad truth is that you wouldn't understand me. But I'm so naive in my faith in people, that I'm gonna give it a try any way... Nothing pisses me off like some self-righteous holier-than-thou dickhead mouthing off about some god-awful crap when I'm trying to hold a reasonable conversation. You are a stupid flapping-mouthed automaton! Endlessy repeating the moronic lies perpetrated by idiots with minds even smaller than yours, however unlikely that seems. You are ignorant and blind to the reality of international copyright law! Your feeble mind cannot seem to grasp the fact that you do own the music on the CD, but that you are not the copyright holder. If you would stop using your shriveled up, pathetic excuse for a dick and start using your head to think, you would realize that. Although the chances of that ever happening is as likely as someone taking your virginity this decade. I'd like to see things from your perspective, but I can't seem to get my head that far up your ass. So I suggest you grasp your ears firmly and pull; you might just be able to remove your head to give room for mine. And while you are at it, please get rid of nasty speech inpediment....your foot in your mouth. Now fuck off! I'm bored silly by your pansy ass attemptes at insulting me. I'll let you off this time. After all, I still remember the first time I tried beer.

    160. Re:shallow? by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Wrong again. You do infact own the music on the CD, but you are not the copyright holder. - The rest of your statement only applies to your thickheadedness, but this part is amusing me over and over again. You are the puppet of your own imagination if you believe what you have written. You do not own the music you bought on a CD - the author owns it. You do not have rights to distribution of music found on the CD you bought - a copyright holder (label) owns that copyright. You do have rights to use the music you bought as defined by the fair use, so you can make a backup for your own use. Your rights as that of a consumer end when you try to redistribute the copyrighted material.

      Now fuck off.

    161. Re:shallow? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Wrong again. Stop repeating the lies of the RIAA, you fucking moron. I give up. I'm gonna go outside and step on some turd with more IQ than you.

      Se ya...

    162. Re:shallow? by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      You do not have to step on a turd to start smelling like one and you will not see me.

    163. Re:shallow? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      roman, you truly are a moron.

  5. RIAA & SCO by Sri+Lumpa · · Score: 1


    I didn't know that Darl had been employed by the RIAA?

    When will they send their $50000 invoices?

    --
    "The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers." Bill Gates,
    1. Re:RIAA & SCO by 3terrabyte · · Score: 1
      The targets will get a letter explaining the allegation and the penalties plus a number to call to do a deal. Furthermore, in one recent case, a college student was told that just by filing an answer in court, the cost of any final settlement would rise by $50,000.

      Does anyone know what "recent case" the article alludes to? I have not heard of it. Also, there is some confusion. The slashdot piece above says that you can pay $50,000 as a no-questions asked settlement. But I don't see that in the article, and in fact the quote from the article I posted seems to imply that by fighting the RIAA in any way would impose a +50K penalty to it... well, I'm a little confused. Anyone know more about it?

      --

      Why are there only 19 people folding@home for slashdot?

  6. Damn I'm a pessismist by 3.5+stripes · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I really can't see anything positive coming out of this, people are going to be screwed (pay up because they can't afford the lawyer), the pblic won't care, and the RIAA will just gain more momentum.

    The laws that make it possible won't get changed either.

    *sigh*

    --


    He tried to kill me with a forklift!
    1. Re:Damn I'm a pessismist by s20451 · · Score: 1

      I really can't see anything positive coming out of this, people are going to be screwed (pay up because they can't afford the lawyer), the pblic won't care, and the RIAA will just gain more momentum.

      That sounds pretty positive to me, as I'm on TD Waterhouse right now buying shares in Vivendi.

      --
      Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
    2. Re:Damn I'm a pessismist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What kind of free software linux advocate are you!?!?!?!?

      Damn you to hell!!!

    3. Re:Damn I'm a pessismist by AKnightCowboy · · Score: 1
      I really can't see anything positive coming out of this, people are going to be screwed (pay up because they can't afford the lawyer), the pblic won't care, and the RIAA will just gain more momentum.

      Well, there is an alternative to getting sued by the RIAA. You can just stop offering copyrighted material on P2P networks. I realize this is a crazy solution since people like to get free music and share it, but unless you want to be sued out of existance it's your only option. The days of having fun with P2P sharing is over guys. Time to move on and go back to hiding on FTP or IRC like the criminals we are.

    4. Re:Damn I'm a pessismist by BrynM · · Score: 2, Interesting
      The article mentioned a mother who's high school child did the downloading. She stopped. She deleted the songs. She reprimanded her child. The RIAA still wants her money. The RIAA doesn't care whether they are on moral high ground anymore. This has become a possible revenue stream. This is the way of copyright litigation in the future. Even if you don't share music, the effects of this abuse of law will hit you unless the RIAA is forced to stop these extortion tactics. Some book publishers are talking about using similar tactics and they consider long quotes from literature to be a violation. The MPAA has already sued professors and students for using portions of movies in reports or lecture and have threatened people for merely quoting dialog, which is still legally fair use.

      Ever get fined for quoting a source in a paper? Ever get threatened with legal action for it? Well, you may soon...

      Worse, the amount of possible copyright violations in all of our lives is growing. There is even debate that linking to a copywritten site may be a copyright violation. Should that be judged true, do you really want the RIAA "skirt the law" tactics to be the standard? This isn't about who's right or wrong anymore, it's about how the legal precedents will be set.

      --
      US Democracy:The best person for the job (among These pre-selected choices...)
    5. Re:Damn I'm a pessismist by timeOday · · Score: 1
      That sounds pretty positive to me, as I'm on TD Waterhouse right now buying shares in Vivendi.
      I'll bite... why? It's not that easy to sue people into buying your products, and the amount collected from kids will be negligible.

      When Vivendi announces a new website where you can download any track in mp3 format for $0.50, that would be a good time to start buying stock, because there is a lot of demand.

    6. Re:Damn I'm a pessismist by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 1
      "pay up because they can't afford the lawyer"

      I dunno about that. I realize lawyers are expensive.....but now the RIAA is saying you should really be paying $150,000 per song, but pay us $50k now and we'll forget about it. Is a good lawyer going to be more or less expensive than that $50k? Hopefully a lot less, and hopefully that encourages a lot of people to fight this in the courtroom, where it NEEDS to be.

      --
      Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
  7. My legal advice to the RIAA by KDan · · Score: 1

    "You can go f*ck yourselves."

    I believe this is very sound advice. As a matter of fact, they are already following it, aren't they?

    Daniel

    --
    Carpe Diem
    1. Re:My legal advice to the RIAA by QEDog · · Score: 2, Funny
      My legal advice to the RIAA
      "You can go f*ck yourselves."

      Hey, shallow legal advised is suppose to be posted in Ask Slashdot only!

      --
      "There is no teacher but the enemy."-Mazer Rackham
  8. GOOD! by Planesdragon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In a related article, the BBC describes how the netizen known as 'nycfashiongirl' is now attempting to delay the RIAA's case against her by claiming their investigation of her online activities was illegal. The RIAA has dismissed these arguments as 'shallow.'"

    God, I hope that gets tossed out. Well, actually, I hope it all gets tossed out, or 'nycfashiongirl' gets a small ($1/song shared) damage against her.

    Repeat after me: You have no privacy on the internet. Any privacy you think you might have is simply you being too small and insignificant for anyone to bother to look. Consider your activities to be taking place on a sidewalk using postcards and loud voices--and act accordingly.

    *sigh*

    1. Re:GOOD! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      bukkake?

    2. Re:GOOD! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep. $1 per song shared should be the maximum any company can get from her. The fines in the current law (the result of campaign donations, AKA bribes) are unconscionable. They are akin to lopping off a jaywalker's legs.

    3. Re:GOOD! by shotfeel · · Score: 1

      You have no privacy on the internet. Any privacy you think you might have is simply you being too small and insignificant for anyone to bother to look. Consider your activities to be taking place on a sidewalk using postcards and loud voices--and act accordingly.


      I guess it depends on how you define "privacy". There are many different levels of privacy. Even walking down a crowded street I have a certain degree of privacy. My actions in that public place are not private, however many aspects of my identity, including my name, are private unless I choose to make them public in that venue. Nobody has the right to my name, address, DOB or any other information just because I choose to walk down the street.

    4. Re:GOOD! by tprime · · Score: 1

      I agree that your privacy is not assured while on the Internet. However, I can guarantee that any of the member companies of the RIAA would object if one of the "evil hackers" gleaned sensitive information by analyzing their Internet traffic and then posted that on the Internet. They would immediately sue the user, their family and the ISP. The rules need to go both ways.

      --
      http://www.tomandemily.com
    5. Re:GOOD! by Planesdragon · · Score: 1

      The rules need to go both ways.

      Sure. Scan the RIAA's computers for publicly avaliable information, such as what's on their FTP server, and build whatever case you want to about it. Or, if you think it'll help your case, counter-sue them for "hacking" your computer by logging onto KaZaa and tracking your IP address.

    6. Re:GOOD! by Planesdragon · · Score: 1

      Even walking down a crowded street I have a certain degree of privacy. My actions in that public place are not private, however many aspects of my identity, including my name, are private unless I choose to make them public in that venue.

      Or if someone sees you and either recognizes you, or decides to track you down. There are so many valid reasons for tracking someone down once you 'meet' them, it's hard to squalk when someone does it for no reason at all...

      and, of coure, if you were to, oh, mug me or steal my watch, or take a picture of me and sell it for mucho dollars, I'd have all the reason I need to track you down and haul you into court.

  9. What's Oppenheim's address? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I'm not affiliated with any law agency, so if he leaves his door unlocked, does that mean I can walk in and search his house. I won't take anything, but since the address would be public knowledge, then hey, it should be just fine. After all, I am not affiliated with anyone that can't do this.

    1. Re:What's Oppenheim's address? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But what if I am yelling across the street to my neighbor and you sit in your car and listen. Is that illegal?

  10. koff koff by atari2600 · · Score: 1

    from the article....
    Mr Oppenheim also said the RIAA was immume from rules on unreasonable searches on the internet, because it did not have links with law enforcement agencies.

    Yep they are immume - everyone needs to work on his/her immumity - the RIAA is immume to everything except perhaps herpes and AIDS - immume - Find more immume here Immumity

    1. Re:koff koff by c00lant · · Score: 0

      immunity to any human violations too... companys don't go to jail for theft or violations that could land you and me in prison for years. they get fines (if that) which rarely even scath their bank accounts.

  11. Non-RIAA Music Reviews? by Malic · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Would anyone be interested the creation of a web site/community/forum that specifically focused on non-RIAA member label artists?

    Or is there such a thing and I should be contributing reviews to it already?

    --
    I swear by MacOS X. Although I use to swear *at* MacOS 9...
    1. Re:Non-RIAA Music Reviews? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, what I do is find an artist I like. Then goto s/th like CDnow to find the cd. I look at the label they are with, and cross reference that to RIAA's list of labels. If they aren't on there, then it's pretty much all good. Fat Wreck Chords and Epitaph (probably two of the biggest punk labels) are both not members of the RIAA

    2. Re:Non-RIAA Music Reviews? by duguk · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I would - I write music and definately don't want to have any part with the RIAA. Some of my music is already online at frag.co.uk, free to download and listen to.

      Dug

    3. Re:Non-RIAA Music Reviews? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      One already exists.

      It's called CD-Baby.

    4. Re:Non-RIAA Music Reviews? by BrynM · · Score: 1
      I'm in. Show me an URL and how to contact you and I'll code some pages for it.

      There should really be a second trade association for this too. The Independant Music Consortium or something. From what I have heard, the RIAA has a habit of stepping on and/or ignoring it's smaller members anyway.

      --
      US Democracy:The best person for the job (among These pre-selected choices...)
    5. Re:Non-RIAA Music Reviews? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    6. Re:Non-RIAA Music Reviews? by FatalTourist · · Score: 1

      Hmm... don't know, but I did find this link posted in another thread: RIAA Radar. It allows you to figure out what CDs are "RIAA Safe". That's a good starting point.

      --


      Escape Pod Films: Sketch Comedy and Web Series
    7. Re:Non-RIAA Music Reviews? by Kaimelar · · Score: 1
      Would anyone be interested the creation of a web site/community/forum that specifically focused on non-RIAA member label artists?

      Or is there such a thing and I should be contributing reviews to it already?

      This may not be exactly what you're looking for, but CDBaby is a good Web-based independant music store. Perhaps you could contact them about setting up a forum of some kind? Seems like it would add value for them (indie music fans giving each other recommendations which can then be easily purchased from CDBaby) and you (a place to find out about indie-music and vent about the evils of the RIAA).

      BTW, in case you were wondering where you had heard of CDBaby before, it was discussed recently on Slashdot regarding iTMS and indie artists.

      --

    8. Re:Non-RIAA Music Reviews? by DraKKon · · Score: 1

      Support any local music review site.. I run a site that reviews local and national acts, with a forcus on local acts.. But I'm not what you want, as I still review RIAA acts..

      --
      "It's not like your minds are as open as the source you love..." - Me to the majority of Slashdot.
    9. Re:Non-RIAA Music Reviews? by penultimatepost · · Score: 2, Informative
      Try this:

      www.Furthurnet.org it is p2p and target only bands that allow free distribution of their work.

    10. Re:Non-RIAA Music Reviews? by fossa · · Score: 1

      That is really strange... I am sure Fat was on this list at least last year, and I'm fairly certain Epitaph was on there as well. Anyone know if they recently ended their membership? If so I can only be very happy, for I like a few bands on those labels.

    11. Re:Non-RIAA Music Reviews? by bongobongo · · Score: 1

      electronicscene.com is a hosting site featuring 99.9% un-affiliated artists (to which reviews can be contributed) and musicbboard.com is its companion forum, where un-affiliated artists converse.

      anyone's welcome to participate.

    12. Re:Non-RIAA Music Reviews? by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      I U M A

      this is the place you need to start.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    13. Re:Non-RIAA Music Reviews? by Nucleon500 · · Score: 1
      Actually, I think if there were two organizations (or none, and just competing companies), the situation would be much better. The root cause of RIAA's actions is that they have no incentive whatsoever to improve. They can charge $20 for a CD, because who else will you buy from? They can sue you, because who will you listen to when you boycott them? They can push DRM, because what are the legal alternatives to getting their music from them in their formats?

      This was the whole point of antitrust laws, and they really ought to be applied. Of course, the legal system isn't the only way; you can also support alternatives and hope some competition springs up. Perpetuating monopolies sucks in the long run. If there were real competition, CD's would be reasonably priced, the industry would respect the customer, and DRM wouldn't be tolerated, as it would be a competitive disadvantage.

  12. $50 or $15? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    'We should really charge you $150,000 per song you have downloaded. Pay us $50,000 now, and we'll say no more about it.'

    The article says $15K - "OK, we'll let you off the fine if you agree to pay, let's say, a mere $15,000"

    If you argue then it goes to $50K.

    1. Re:$50 or $15? by vegetablespork · · Score: 1

      Two words. Chapter. Seven.

      --

      Call (206) 338-5780 COLLECT for information about a genuine BA, BS, MA, MS, MBA, or Ph.D.

  13. Kazaa still going strong? by calebtucker · · Score: 1

    I rarely ever get on kazaa.. I usually get my live music over various bittorrent channels. My roommate said that it's getting very hard to find anything on kazaa and other filesharing programs.

    Is this true? I know at one point this summer we saw some stats that the RIAA wasn't really affecting the number of sharers. Is their campaign working?

    --
    My sig can beat up your sig.
    1. Re:Kazaa still going strong? by Xenothaulus · · Score: 1

      I use Kazaa almost everyday, and can find most anything I want. Of course, the odd thing is the stuff I look for is stuff I can't find anywhere else, and believe me, I've looked.

    2. Re:Kazaa still going strong? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nope, there's still plenty of mp3's, warez, pr0n, ebooks, etc, etc on kazaa.

  14. Sooo... by Tyrdium · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They're targeting high school and college students... Who tend to not have much money... Will they really be allowed to ruin the lives of hundreds (if not thousands, or tens of thousands) of people, just so some execs can make a little more cash? And also, don't college students have a tendency to rebel against things like this? There's going to be a gigantic uprising...

    1. Re:Sooo... by Snowspinner · · Score: 1

      "And also, don't college students have a tendency to rebel against things like this?"

      I'm afraid you have college students confused with "people who care". It's a common error, and one that seems to have started in the late 1960s when a bunch of oddball college students started making headlines by giving a shit, and it became briefly cool to dress like they did, while sitting in your dorm room too stoned to actually damn the man.

      As for why they're going after kids... well, unfortunately, the people with thousands of dollars to hand over in a settlement are also the people with thousands of dollars to hire lawyers and make it more difficult for them. And, also, not generally the people who are filesharing.

    2. Re:Sooo... by krymsin01 · · Score: 1

      Gigantic uprising? I think not. College kids these days don't rebel, they just whine.

      --
      stuff
    3. Re:Sooo... by rossmda · · Score: 1

      So I guess College Students and High School Students will have to resort to the borrow and burn philosophy. Blank cd's are cheap enough for just about everyone, so how can the RIAA stop this? They really can't, then burn rip them to your mp3 player and or computer.

    4. Re:Sooo... by alonsoac · · Score: 1

      I would like to see these schools organizing and telling the RIAA that no students will buy any CD's until they drop the lawsuits.

      Maybe changing the law is difficult but putting the RIAA in their place is a simple as that.

      Anyone knows how much the RIAA would loose if many schools unite to boycott them?

    5. Re:Sooo... by dr_dank · · Score: 1
      There's going to be a gigantic uprising...

      That would be nice, but unlikely. RIAA artists have a stranglehold on the mainstream music. The average person wants to hear music that everyone else listens to so that he is not out of the loop.

      Paradoxically, many people won't give a fair chance to artists they haven't heard of before.
      /Just my .02

      --
      Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
    6. Re:Sooo... by colanut · · Score: 1
      While I agree with what your getting at here, I still don't get what the "gigantic uprising" is going to be. Anyone care to expand on this?

      I just don't see people takin' it to the streets in protest. I don't think there is any "consumer" muscle to flex here. The whole vote with your pocketbook is a myth.

      I think any change will have to come from the musicians themselves to create an alternative to RIAA (which was a technical standards body wasn't it) and have actual distribution and sales solutions in place.

      Until musicians and fans unite nothing is going to change.

    7. Re:Sooo... by krymsin01 · · Score: 1

      If they'd use my idea for catching filesharers, this wouldn't make you immune to the RIAA. Simple concept, make a bot that sits on fasttrack and responds to search requests for RIAA artists. Just log the IPs, and start talking to the isps. However, it'd be much easier for the kids to get their mp3s from newsgroups/irc/ftps. This is just people's lazyness coming back to bite them.

      --
      stuff
    8. Re:Sooo... by vDave420 · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Will they really be allowed to ruin the lives of hundreds (if not thousands, or tens of thousands) of people, just so some execs can make a little more cash? And also, don't college students have a tendency to rebel against things like this? There's going to be a gigantic uprising...

      God I hope an uprising is in the works!

      Our entire "Intellectual Property" based system that we (US and much of the world) is putting in place will merely continue to entrench the "privileged" in thier positions of privilege.

      Large corporations who "own" the polititions will only continue to try and (successfully) force the masses into submission.

      Governing by consent of the governed is no longer the case. Instead, it is governing by consent of those who would be most suited to profit by your governing.
      We need a revolution of sorts.

      Alternatively, we need tech-savvy reps and lawmakers!
      I, personally, will vote for anyone who guarantees a priority of drastically reducing or eliminating the entire concept of "Intellectual Property" and the sham of goverment endorsement that accompanies it.

      This endorsement is used and abused in situations such as these. Ask any 20 people on the street if a corporation should have the legal rights to behave in the fashion RIAA is. Should anyone have the legal rights that led up to this situation? I say no! There is no good reason that I should repress myself from consuming or otherwise using a piece of information.

      Period.

      If it can be reduced to bits, then you do NOT own it! Simple as that. Or, say that you "own" it if you want, but you do not own "exclusive rights" to it to the exclusion of others. At least, not any rights that *I* will recognise or support.

      I know I am not alone in this either.

      Lets get someone in office who agrees with this viewpoint and begin to push back the tide of "Intellectual Enslavement and Combat" that is occuring, waiting for newcomers into the barratry game.


      -dave-

      Shameless plug:
      Use BearShare for all your peer-to-peer needs!

      --
      The pig browse. With Google. Sigh is to the chicken. Chicken is fool. Giggle. The DailyWTF giggle.
    9. Re:Sooo... by pyser · · Score: 1

      I really should charge them $150,000 for each time my eyeballs have been forced to scan their vile initials in yet another "news article" their flacks churned out and some clueless editor printed verbatim, but if they pay me $50,000, I'll say no more about it.

    10. Re:Sooo... by Awptimus+Prime · · Score: 4, Insightful


      Yeah, let the uprising begin.. I mean, nobody goes to Metallica concerts anymore, right?

      Last I heard, they were still selling-out stadiums across the country.

    11. Re:Sooo... by t0xic@ · · Score: 1

      Speaking of college kids rebelling against authority. How many of these same kids also rebel against drinking laws? Not too many freshman are 21 and they drink plenty..illegal. Lets see...smoking WEED. Another illegal activity college kids do on a regular basis. Why will this be any different? Just chalk up one more illegal thing for them kids to do. Heck..its more fun that way anyway.

    12. Re:Sooo... by sTalking_Goat · · Score: 1
      One word:

      Freenet

      and idea whose time has come.

      --

      My days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle...

    13. Re:Sooo... by Brendan+Byrd · · Score: 2, Funny

      For the record, I went to a Metallica concert without paying a dime. I grab free tickets from my radio station (free giveaway). During the concert, I didn't buy any CDs or t-shirts that would have give them money. Instead, I got to see Linkin Park (who I was actually trying to see), free shots of boobies, and some neat pyrotechnics...all at their expense.

      After I got home, I got on LimeWire and downloaded all of Linkin Park's albums. (As much as I like their music, I will never buy one of their albums because of their stance on file-sharing, copy protection, etc.)

    14. Re:Sooo... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      And also, don't college students have a tendency to rebel against things like this?

      They do, but they do stupid thinks like wear "RIAA Sucks" T-shirts. They don't vote.

      Ok, one or two does, but I work with college studends and I always ask them if they vote. They almost all say "no". I tell them, that's why they can be drafted, but can't drink. Vote you morons! (sorry)

    15. Re:Sooo... by Brendan+Byrd · · Score: 1

      Well, if students can't afford music any more because the RIAA has already taken away their LIFE SAVINGS, then I guess the students will be burning more music than ever. Thus, RIAA is digging their own grave, and turning the music industry in the US into the piracy nightmare that exists in Asia.

    16. Re:Sooo... by sTalking_Goat · · Score: 1
      which is fucking crazy to me since they've basically appropraited System of a Down's sound. I didn't like them before and I hate them now, but I guess after all the bullshit they still have fans somewhere.

      Which is why nothing will ever really change. The few people who care are easily drowned out by the screaming mass of blithering morons that make up the majority of the population.

      --

      My days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle...

    17. Re:Sooo... by tomstdenis · · Score: 1

      Freenet sucks ass. It's slow, almost impossible to connect to anything in a reasonable amount of time and it smells of amateur design true and through.

      That and I don't want my computer to be used to house kiddie porn no matter who thinks "free speech reigns supreme". Say what you want but there are standards that people choose to live by.

      Tom

      --
      Someday, I'll have a real sig.
    18. Re:Sooo... by WarmBoota · · Score: 1

      This actually makes a fair amount of sense. I'm years out of college, but I imagine that it would be fairly simple to create a peer to peer app that listed your collection and a contact email/phone. Running on a non-routable address space it would allow you to browse others collections and perhaps have an opportunity to contact them to trade CDs for a short time. This solution would only work in a community where people actually wanted to meet others however.

      I know that there are laws about renting CDs, but there shouldn't be anything against trading CDs. Both users are deprived of their copies for while the exchange takes place. There's obviously an opportunity to copy the CD while it's in your possession, but that same opportunity exists with books and movies.

      There's always the Music CD mutual fund concept where everyone purchases ownership in a library of CDs and can borrow one of those CDs at any time. Your funds entitle you to existing CDs and purchase new CDs for the collection. RIAA contributions could be minimized by avoiding duplicate copies of works that have proven themselves unworthy. The more popular titles would probably require duplicates to cover demand and wear-and-tear. Call it NetTunes and allow users to check out as many CDs at one time as they've purchased for the mutual fund. The more I look at this previous paragraph, the more I agree with Cringely.

      --
      90% of everything is crap. Also, crap is relative.
    19. Re:Sooo... by aussersterne · · Score: 1

      I'm not positive American students know how to "uprise" any longer; it seems that much of the American educational machine (especially the innumerable average state liberal arts schools) are well and truly an intrinsic part of the consumption machine. Rather than teaching students at some basic level about politics, economics, sociology, etc. they instead teach obedience, football, consumerism (better cars, better PCs, better fashions, better concernts, better alcoholic beverages, more expensive insignia gear) and pop-sex.

      These kids aren't likely to understand the underpinnings of any uprising, more or less start one. If there will be an uprising, it will begin at the less wealthy of America's better liberal arts schools, maybe U.C. Berkeley similar. But is one or two schools enough to start an "uprising"?

      America's college kids may well be beyond hope.

      --
      STOP . AMERICA . NOW
    20. Re:Sooo... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, freenet is slow. But you're never going to have a way to trade music unless you're willing to accept the possibility of kiddie porn encrypted on your hard drive. If there's a way to keep kiddie porn off, there's a way for the riaa to keep you off, therefore you don't have a way to trade music online. No matter what the file trading system.

    21. Re:Sooo... by letxa2000 · · Score: 1
      Thing is, you don't need a gigantic uprising. All you need is college students no longer making the trip to the record store. And from what I've seen in terms of the college students I know, that's already happening even without the RIAA making a conscious effort at pissing them off.

    22. Re:Sooo... by sTalking_Goat · · Score: 1
      Shit. I'm sure Napster didn't spring from its coders hands an effecient piece of filesharing code. In fact Napster design shortcomings were directly responsible for its demise.

      What it did do nicely however was start a revolution and spur evolution that brought us Kazaa and the Gnutella offshoots and Direct Connect.

      I fully understand your stance against kiddie porn, but do you think you not being on the network is going to stop that kind of thing? Kiddie porn doesn't exist because of P2P networks. Its been around long before easy electronic transfers. The way to stop it is at the root not at the tip. Thats like trying to stop a bank robbers by changing the speed limit so that can't drive away so fast...buts that a whole other discussion.

      --

      My days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle...

    23. Re:Sooo... by MalleusEBHC · · Score: 1

      I, personally, will vote for anyone who guarantees a priority of drastically reducing or eliminating the entire concept of "Intellectual Property" and the sham of goverment endorsement that accompanies it.

      If that happens, let me know so I can start distributing a free (as in beer), ad-free, spyware-free version of that app you are whoring in your sig.

      Oh what, you want your IP to be protected?

    24. Re:Sooo... by jav1231 · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately...but I don't listen to them anymore for 2 reasons: a) The anti-piracy rant they went on b) They suck. If I wanna hear formerly-rockin' bands sing slow songs I can just listen to Aerosmith. Let's face it, some bands should never have quit herion. JAV

    25. Re:Sooo... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      They're targeting high school and college students... Who tend to not have much money...
      Bingo! You can't buy CDs if you don't have the money for it. I'm a working college student and after paying for food/rent/transportation/entertainment, I simply do not have the resources to buy more than a few CDs per month. I just finished my Pink Floyd collection, but most of my 40GB mp3s have been downloaded from the internet. Thank god I live in a more civilized part of the world, where nobody gives a damn about home users swapping music.
    26. Re:Sooo... by Jeff+Fohl · · Score: 1

      It's one thing to be against the abuse of copyright and the leveraging of corporate muscle to force authors to agree to terrible contracts, and another thing to be against copyright altogether.

      If you ever wrote a song or made a painting, or wrote a novel, wouldn't you want to prevent that material from ending up in some national ad campaign, or turned into a movie without paying you a dime? Because without copyright, those giant media conglomerates could just as easily use for their own ends the work that you labored for as easily as you download an MP3.

    27. Re:Sooo... by shotfeel · · Score: 1

      IMO its easier just to go to the library and check out the CD.

    28. Re:Sooo... by mrmcwn · · Score: 1
      don't college students have a tendency to rebel against things like this?

      Only in France.

    29. Re:Sooo... by shotfeel · · Score: 1

      Of course based on the punishment, these things are child's play compared to sharing a few songs on the internet -a felony conviction and $millions (if the RIAA gets its way).

    30. Re:Sooo... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just wanted to let you know that Linkin Park are the Backstreet Boys of metal, and you should be ashamed to support them. They were conceived in a board room by executives to sell album), the music completely manufatured by expert producers, and as musicians the band has no talent (whop-de-fuck, I can play chords in Drop D). Being a Linkin Park fan makes you as big of a whore to the record industry as any N'Sync fan out there. You are perpetuating the production of bad music and manufactured bands. It stops with you.

    31. Re:Sooo... by Nobody's+Hero · · Score: 1

      GOOD CALL!!!

      But that is the problem with todays music. It's all produced crap.

      That's why I buy indie bands. Or I download the music to test it out before I buy it. You never know when you could be supporting the next Back Street Boys.

      --
      The Only Person Willing to be Me is ME!
    32. Re:Sooo... by iSlak · · Score: 1

      Errr... yeah. Sue me for ungodly amounts, a college student making minimum wage as it is. I'd refuse to be a victim over something like this. I would rather just leave the country than pay those RIAA bastards.

    33. Re:Sooo... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then you need to make sure you get paid for what you actually do that is valuable, which is CREATE the work. Trying to make your money by DISTRIBUTING the work is just a bad business model, because you have nothing valuable to add to the distribution process. Of course no one will pay you for what they can do themselves. Artists used to work for salaries or commissions. I don't see what is wrong with this.

    34. Re:Sooo... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't go to Metallica concerts anymore, but that could be due to any the following:

      1) Metallica has sucked since "And Justice For All"
      2) They have become a bunch of sellout posers.
      3) I'm boycotting the RIAA and all its member organizations.
      4) They don't write H.P. Lovecraft inspired songs since Cliff died.
      5) I've been listening to Ozric Tentacles (British Progressive instrumental music) lately.

    35. Re:Sooo... by krymsin01 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I've done that bit. Another trick for free music is to buy vinyl or cds at flea markets/yard sales, then sell them to a vendor at another flea market. Actual made profit a few times with this method.

      --
      stuff
    36. Re:Sooo... by Wordsmith · · Score: 1

      I'm an author, and a journalist, and I think IP as a concept needs to go. And not just because it's been abused. You can't own ideas. It's counterintuitive. Ideas aren't naturally scare - they're infinitly reproducable. You don't diminish the original by giving an idea away. Trying to rein in the spread of an idea through law goes against the nature of ideas.

      If you make creative works, great. Thanks for contributing to society. But if you're intent on profiting from those works, its up to you and not an artificial legal construct to figure out how. In my case, as a reporter, I write as a service. My more ambitious creative writing is done a side project. If you're a musician, make some dough off your performances, or create music with little replay value - say commercial jingles, for instance - on demand. Paint murals for patrons who like your art, and who value an original above a reproduction.

      In most cases, its possible to profit off of ideas without IP protection. In some, it's not - and that's just the way it goes. Not everything worthwhile is profitable.

    37. Re:Sooo... by acxr+is+wasted · · Score: 1

      I wish you weren't an AC so I could add you to my "friends" list.

      --
      "Come on, let's go drink till we can't feel feelings anymore."
    38. Re:Sooo... by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 1
      " They're targeting high school and college students... Who tend to not have much money... "

      Its funny that you should say that. Because in terms of spending money, those demographics have a lot of purchasing power. There's a reason why teenagers are one of the most sought after markets. Now, in terms of the big bucks like the RIAA wants......well, these kids have parents don't they? If they're not 18, guess who has to pay up?

      --
      Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
    39. Re:Sooo... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So I assume you regularly submit your computer to the RCMP for investigation to make sure you don't have anything illegal on it, right?

    40. Re:Sooo... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you make a really important point about your efforts to can the manham and bottle the mangoo. Excellent points, Tom.

  15. Sounds a lot like the SCO lawyers by Jonas+the+Bold · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Except these guys are actually dangerous. Can we stop feeding the SCO trolls, and have more articles about this? Maybe some ask slashdots with actual lawyers about what to do if they sue you, what they can actually legally do, etc.?

    Someone's really gotta put a stop to this. Where are they getting this $150,000 number from? If you go into a record store, steal the CD, go outside the store with your laptop, and start burning free copies for people walking in, would you fine be nearly as high?

    Why the bias against people who "steal" (or infringe copywrites) with computers?

    --
    Everything seemed to be going so nice
    'till the end of all beings punched right through the ice
    1. Re:Sounds a lot like the SCO lawyers by Snowspinner · · Score: 1

      What to do if the RIAA sues you:

      Lose $15,000, because you cannot possibly afford as good a lawyer as they can, and they've already lobbied Congress so that the law is firmly on their side.

      Next question?

    2. Re:Sounds a lot like the SCO lawyers by Jonas+the+Bold · · Score: 2, Funny

      Or hire the Slashdot Crack legal team.

      I wonder if "IANAL, but.." arguments stands up in court..

      Think about it! You could post the 'ask slashdot' on your court date, and read off the comments as they come in!

      --
      Everything seemed to be going so nice
      'till the end of all beings punched right through the ice
    3. Re:Sounds a lot like the SCO lawyers by c00lant · · Score: 0

      grab all material positions, commit a horrible crime (to justify leaving) and flee the country. the US is begining its downfall to nothingness.

    4. Re:Sounds a lot like the SCO lawyers by BrynM · · Score: 1
      According to this:
      Like the pre-existing state statutes, the new federal statute criminalizes the unauthorized manufacture, distribution or trafficking in sound recordings and music videos of "live" musical performances. However, the federal statute also provides for the seizure of bootleg recordings or music videos manufactured outside the United States by U.S. Customs at the point of importation. In effect, bootleg recordings are now subject to seizure and forfeiture in the same manner as other property in violation of customs laws. The maximum penalties for violating the new law are imprisonment up to 10 years and/or a fine of $250,000.
      So... The penalties may seem bigger and this applies to bootleg live recordings, but this is a maximum penalty. That means that things like the $22.5 million total mentioned in the article wouldn't happen. The jail time would suck though.
      --
      US Democracy:The best person for the job (among These pre-selected choices...)
    5. Re:Sounds a lot like the SCO lawyers by castrox · · Score: 1

      I think the bias is there because they know that for each word they speak they know some thousand songs have been "illegally" downloaded, and they can't do jack about it.

      --
      Fight for your digital freedom, join the EFF *now*: http://www.eff.org/support/
    6. Re:Sounds a lot like the SCO lawyers by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 3, Informative

      what to do if they sue you, what they can actually legally do, etc.?

      Well, if you actually did it, and they sue you, you're pretty hosed. Your best bet is to settle. There's little chance that you'd win if you went to court, and the expenses of a court battle are significant anyway.

      As for what they can do, they can sue you, civilly, for copyright infringement. And there might be some other possible causes of action related to what you're doing, but the copyright one is the biggie.

      As for the $150,000 number, that's from 17 USC 504. Basically, copyright infringement causes some damage to the RIAA members in terms of their ability to commercially exploit the works they hold copyrights on. They can sue for either their actual damages, or since that can be difficult to compute, statutory damages. The maximum possible statutory damage amount is $150,000 per work infringed upon. Of course whether the maximum will be applied is largely up to the judge. In these sorts of cases, it could be as low as $750 per infringement. But you'd be taking a big risk if you were betting that you could get it to be that low.

      If you go into a record store, steal the CD, go outside the store with your laptop, and start burning free copies for people walking in, would you fine be nearly as high?

      Hm. Maybe.

      Stealing the CD is a fairly minor act of conversion. I'd be more worried about criminal penalties for shoplifting than for a civil action.

      Burning it though for others is certainly a copyright infringement again, however. Depending on the precise circumstances involved, there might be a defense based on 17 USC 1008 (but you HAVE to read 1001 for the definitions of the terms used in 1008) but I doubt that a court would accept that defense if it saw any way around it.

      Anyway, the big difference between SCO and RIAA is that RIAA appears to have a legitimate complaint, and is not doing this to make money, but to discourage infringement. I suspect they're losing money doing this. SCO is less likely to have a legitimate complaint, and is really after money.

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    7. Re:Sounds a lot like the SCO lawyers by ATMAvatar · · Score: 1

      No, it comes from 17 U.S.C. 504:

      (2)
      In a case where the copyright owner sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that infringement was committed willfully, the court in its discretion may increase the award of statutory damages to a sum of not more than $150,000.


      One should note that this is per infringement (i.e. per song in this case), but that the court has to increase the award to $150k. It looks as if the RIAA can't actually sue for $150k/song right off the bat, but as none of these suits have actually gone to court, I suppose we'll have to wait and see.

      --
      "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
    8. Re:Sounds a lot like the SCO lawyers by BrynM · · Score: 1
      Sorry, I didn't remember to quote the parent. I was trying to find a possible answer to this:
      If you go into a record store, steal the CD, go outside the store with your laptop, and start burning free copies for people walking in, would you fine be nearly as high?
      Or at least the steal the CD portion. I didn't find much, but I posted what I did find.
      --
      US Democracy:The best person for the job (among These pre-selected choices...)
    9. Re:Sounds a lot like the SCO lawyers by good-n-nappy · · Score: 1

      I can think of several legal arguments. Of course IANA(BS)L.

      Here's my favorite - "I didn't know I was sharing those files" - point to papers such as this Kazaa study. Heck, the RIAA is terrified of computers so they may even sympathize with you.

      --
      Never underestimate the power of fiber.
    10. Re:Sounds a lot like the SCO lawyers by jkonrad · · Score: 1

      Uhm, maybe because the number of online thieves compared to the number of shoplifters, and the amount of online theft one person can conduct compared to the amount they can run out of Target with?

      Go RIAA, go!

  16. It's been said before, but... by pdbogen · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The tactic is broadly to remind those it catches of the truly draconian penalties the law in the United States allows ($150,000 per song - and you don't have to be a Berkeley mathematician to multiply that a few times to get more dollars that any student loan could cover).

    Then when the poor student has picked himself up from the floor and the blood returns to his face, the lawyers will say broadly: "OK, we'll let you off the fine if you agree to pay, let's say, a mere $15,000". ...
    Furthermore, in one recent case, a college student was told that just by filing an answer in court, the cost of any final settlement would rise by $50,000.


    If this isn't extortion, By God, I don't know what is.

    1. Re:It's been said before, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is a settlement. I guess you could say that a plea bargain is extortion too. The idea is to save the courts some time and everybody legals fees. Of course the RIAA is totally taking advantage of this but it is the way it works.

    2. Re:It's been said before, but... by JackPo · · Score: 0

      actually, what would happen if a community like Slashdot decides to HELP these people who are getting sued? Ask everyone who's getting sued to release a list of the songs that they are releasing. And then a large community like slashdot donate OUR REAL copies to them. How can RIAA possibly prove that we didn't give them these gifts (and hence making the mp3s legal) a LONG time ago?

    3. Re:It's been said before, but... by JessLeah · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is the RIAA we're talking about. When you're one of the most politically powerful lobbies in the nation, nothing you can do is "extortion". This is merely "business".

    4. Re:It's been said before, but... by JessLeah · · Score: 1

      Or, to put it another way: The same judges who SHOULD be smacking the RIAA around for mass extortion are the ones who'll be happily BENDING OVER BACKWARDS to do anything the RIAA asks for.

      I am no longer a party to the mass delusion that America is a republic or a "democracy". It is an oligarchy.

    5. Re:It's been said before, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Umm, because as others have stated many times already on this thread they aren't being sued for having copies of the songs or even for downloading music that they may or may not have a legitimate right to.

      They are being sued for sharing their files with others through P2P networks, which they certainly do not have a right to do. This has nothing to do with whether they have a legal copy of the songs or not.

    6. Re:It's been said before, but... by Zork+the+Almighty · · Score: 1

      If this isn't extortion, By God, I don't know what is.

      HEY! In America it's called a business model

      --

      In Soviet America the banks rob you!
    7. Re:It's been said before, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I guess you doesn't know what is extortion. :-)

      EXTORTION - The use, or the express or implicit threat of the use, of violence or other criminal means to cause harm to person, reputation, or property as a means to obtain property from someone else with his consent. USC 18

      The RIAA is walking pretty close to the line. When the violate privacy, that might be criminal means, but it's not how they cause harm.

    8. Re:It's been said before, but... by rbird76 · · Score: 1

      actually, it's more like blackmail (I don't think that it's the same as extortion) "We know you shared our files, so give us $50,000 or we'll make you live a miserable hell.." The people who posted files for sharing (probably) committed an illegal act, and so the RIAA uses the threat of prosecution to gain money. It has remarkable similarities to barratry as well - they might be able to argue that the prosecution isn't malicious but just in nature, but the "shock and awe" statement might put that into question.

      As long as the RIAA has decided that they can unilaterally rewrite copyright law (along with software companies such as MS via DRM), they may as well figure that they can rewrite other parts of the civil and criminal code...oh wait, they already did that with the DMCA...or maybe even act as a private government without that pesky democracy thing or oversight, the fantasy of dinosaurs of all stripes. As long as the record companies and movie studios (the companies that tell the RIAA and MPAA what to do) can write legislation to their liking and help get it passed, suing their customers will continue to be a profitable business model for the RIAA and MPAA.

      I like some of the music I hear on my (homogenized) radio station (my fault), but I find it harder to justify spending money on a CD if it's going into the pockets of record companies and their paid attack dogs. If the record companies shock their customers into submission, people might also remember that the record companies need their money more than they need the record companies. If I have to be intimidated to spend money on CDs, perhaps that isn't something I really need to spend my money on.

    9. Re:It's been said before, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "If this isn't extortion, By God, I don't know what is."

      Clearly you have no clue what extortion means. Since when is it extortion to sue someone for violating your copyright. Is it extortion when the FSF sues someone for violating the GPL?

    10. Re:It's been said before, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      > > If this isn't extortion, By God, I don't know what is.

      > HEY! In America it's called a business model

      Quick, file a patent on it! Then RIAA can do nothing!

  17. High Schools... by BJZQ8 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Most High Schools use proxies...if the kids are running Kazaa at school and using a proxy, then it would be unethical and highly illegal to divulge their names to a non-law-enforcement-entity such as the RIAA. Anyway, an intelligent administrator would flush their logs every day.

    1. Re:High Schools... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A real intelligent administrator wouldn't allow these illegal activies happen on their network.

    2. Re:High Schools... by thebigmacd · · Score: 1

      universal rule which is often forgotten in the intellectual world: intelligence != wisdom

    3. Re:High Schools... by BJZQ8 · · Score: 1

      You are begging the question by assuming that everything that goes on with these "activities" is illegal. Not everything that users do is violating copyrights.

    4. Re:High Schools... by pointbeing · · Score: 1
      Intelligent administrators *maintain* logs - they don't flush them.

      Also, there's no right to privacy on any network - unless you own it.

      --
      we see things not as as they are, but as we are.
      -- anais nin
    5. Re:High Schools... by BJZQ8 · · Score: 1

      If an administrator jumped at every "BAN IT" whim in the world, we'd be looking at nothing but Barney's page on PBS.com (or maybe the Teletubbies.) An administrator's job is not to be the content gestapo.

    6. Re:High Schools... by BJZQ8 · · Score: 1

      Logs are kept that serve a purpose...I see no purpose to keeping a SOCKS log, so therefore it is flushed. Do you "maintain" a log of your donut consumption?

    7. Re:High Schools... by pointbeing · · Score: 2, Funny

      I don't feed donuts to my servers.

      --
      we see things not as as they are, but as we are.
      -- anais nin
    8. Re:High Schools... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      flush their logs...

      heh heh butthead he said "flush their logs" hehehhe heh

    9. Re:High Schools... by BJZQ8 · · Score: 1

      You're missing the point of my argument anyway. My first inclination in saying that an intelligent administrator would erase logs is this: in order to prove a certain student did a certain thing you would have to read the logs. If there are no logs then there are no problems. My secondary consideration is that I see no point in keeping megabytes of logs that are useless. My daily Squid cache logs exceed 100 megabytes. I keep the syslog to way back when, and back it up. But why keep around gigabytes of logs that have no purpose? And my server likes jelly-filled ones.

    10. Re:High Schools... by pointbeing · · Score: 1
      Hence the requirement for logs.

      Do I win? :)

      --
      we see things not as as they are, but as we are.
      -- anais nin
    11. Re:High Schools... by pointbeing · · Score: 1
      I missed the point on purpose, BJZ :)

      I work on a large government network. If there were no logs there would be serious problems. Everything is kept for auditing by higher headquarters.

      Administrators don't work for students - they work for the administration. It's not in a sysadmin's job description to cover up for kids.

      I'm not arguing the morality of p2p - it doesn't affect me. What I am arguing is that a sysadmin should be logging anything that can cause liability to his employer - who in this case is the school adminstration, not the students.

      Just my opinion, though. Agreeing to disagree is just fine with me :)

      --
      we see things not as as they are, but as we are.
      -- anais nin
    12. Re:High Schools... by BJZQ8 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well I'm glad you can talk to me in a calm matter instead of flaming me like many other people would. I agree that if you are part of a large government organization that requires that kind of stuff, then by all means keep them. I had gotten the impression that you were keeping logs for the sole purpose of having something pretty to look at. I understand your point of view better now. I certainly don't work FOR the students, but I don't work AGAINST them either. I feel that allowing kids access to things like Kazaa, when not used for government subversion or something OVERTLY illegal (the illegality of downloading songs, many of which are public domain, has not been demonstrated to my satisfaction) is okay. When the kids start forming terror cells in the local playground, I will reconsider...(it's on the way!)

    13. Re:High Schools... by technos · · Score: 1

      PBS would be banned.. Why risk pissing off some creationist moron next time they run a special on early man that mentions in a offhanded way that Homo Habilis evolved into Homo Sapiens?

      And Jerry Falwell would make sure the Teletubbies were unavailable. They're deviant homosexual agents of the devil according to him..

      --
      .sig: Now legally binding!
    14. Re:High Schools... by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 2, Funny

      Most High Schools use proxies...if the kids are running Kazaa at school and using a proxy, then it would be unethical and highly illegal to divulge their names to a non-law-enforcement-entity such as the RIAA. Anyway, an intelligent administrator would flush their logs every day.

      errrmmm....downloading music at school?
      Having PC's available for kids that have:
      A) KaZaa loaded
      B) a high speed connection
      C) a CD burner
      D) open P2P ports
      E) the spare time during the school day to do all that
      = 1 ex-principal, network administrator, and probably school board.

      Completely disregarding the potential illegalities of file "sharing", misusing that many resources (including the kids classroom time) is seriously out of bounds.

    15. Re:High Schools... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're not downloading/uploading songs at school, you idiot.

    16. Re:High Schools... by BJZQ8 · · Score: 1

      A. Kazaa might be loaded...if they can figure it out, which most of them can't B. High speed on the supply end maybe...but things are limited so it doesn't take up too much bandwidth C. CD Burner? None of the machines need or have that D. Open P2P ports. Well, ya. Most of them don't have anything to share, so there isn't much uploading E. Spare time during the day? Haven't you figured out that computers are mostly babysitters for students anyway? It's called "computer lab" and it's all about spare time = No undue misuse of resources beyond what they do already, like browsing Pokemon, Slipknot, and MTV all day. If nothing else they're getting familiar with computers and P2P, which is the future of music distribution irrespective of what the RIAA thinks

    17. Re:High Schools... by BJZQ8 · · Score: 1

      I didn't say they were, as far as the story was concerned. But many of them do at the district I work for, and I know that this problem is much, much worse at other districts. At one in particular, everyone from the Superintendent to the Janitor downloads music...

    18. Re:High Schools... by BJZQ8 · · Score: 1

      The log proves nothing. Certainly not any amount of legality or the lack therof. Allowing the RIAA to look at those logs would be a violation of educational regulations.

    19. Re:High Schools... by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

      [previously]
      I feel that allowing kids access to things like Kazaa, when not used for government subversion or something OVERTLY illegal (the illegality of downloading songs, many of which are public domain, has not been demonstrated to my satisfaction) is okay.

      And many of which are not public domain. (Probably most that high school kids would listen to).
      So a little bit illegal is OK?

      But many of them do at the district I work for, and I know that this problem is much, much worse at other districts. At one in particular, everyone from the Superintendent to the Janitor downloads music...

      Jebus! Are you people running a school or a music library? I'm damn glad you don't work in my kids school district.

    20. Re:High Schools... by pointbeing · · Score: 1

      With all due respect, what regulation says that a student's network use is private?

      --
      we see things not as as they are, but as we are.
      -- anais nin
    21. Re:High Schools... by BJZQ8 · · Score: 1

      http://www.ed.gov/offices/OII/fpco/ferpa/ I can't seem to get it to accept HTML links. In any case, it is the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). Here is the relevant quotation..."Generally, schools must have written permission from the parent or eligible student in order to release any information from a student's education record." The exception is "To comply with a judicial order or lawfully issued subpoena;"...and I consider the RIAA-generated subpoenas to be unlawfully issued. The point is that you can't release any information about a student without written permission from the parents...which ain't gonna happen if I know most of the parents.

    22. Re:High Schools... by BJZQ8 · · Score: 1

      I am saying that there is little or no way to tell the difference between legal and illegal. And depending on the RIAA to do so is a very poor policy I think. Jesus CHRIST! I said another district is where everybody does it, not mine. Stop jumping to conclusions about everything I say. The district I'm in has very little downloading going on. I'm glad you think it would be nice to have somebody other than me work in your kids' school district. Perhaps they could hire the consultants that used to work here. They routinely overbilled by 100 and even 200 percent, all the while keeping us on closed-source and license-ridden software. I came in, converted everything to Linux, and now we pay NO license fees, and have 99 percent fewer problems. Thank you very much, I probably wouldn't want to be in your kids school district anyway.

    23. Re:High Schools... by pointbeing · · Score: 1

      Fascinating. It appears system logs would be protected - except "to comply with a judicial order or lawfully issued subpoena". I didn't think system logs would be considered "education records".

      --
      we see things not as as they are, but as we are.
      -- anais nin
    24. Re:High Schools... by BJZQ8 · · Score: 1

      To my fellow Administrators, a system log is a record of the student's activities during the day...which is very much considered an "education record" just as much as his or her attendance or performance on a test. It would take much more than a simple subpoena from a faceless record company organization to pry such records from my district's hands. The intent of the law is similar to medical records laws...if we have it on record, you can't have it without lots of papers and badges. It fascinates me how so many schools willingly turn over such records in the face of such regulatory prohibitions.

    25. Re:High Schools... by pointbeing · · Score: 1
      Well, I guess I learned something yesterday :)

      Thank you, BJZ - I do feel better about kids' school records now. I figure school is to learn and I don't know about you, but *I* learn most stuff by screwing something up first.

      Discoveries are made by not following instructions :)

      cheers -

      --
      we see things not as as they are, but as we are.
      -- anais nin
  18. I'd be happy to pay for this music... by rcr484 · · Score: 1

    Just send me the address of the artists. They're the ones who deserve the cash. I prefer to avoid funding anymore RIAA-funded "superstars" like N'suck and Hitme Spears.

    1. Re:I'd be happy to pay for this music... by devphaeton · · Score: 1

      Just send me the address of the artists. They're the ones who deserve the cash. I prefer to avoid funding anymore RIAA-funded "superstars" like N'suck and Hitme Spears.

      Mod this up, because it is truer that it sounds. The RIAA is using the muse of "lost artist revenues" as thier motive to extort money. Ok, I'll have to agree (as a musician myself) that pirating is bad, mmmkay?

      However, any amounts of money the RIAA gains from this barratry will not be transferred to any musicians. They're in it for themselves.

      Guess what the RIAA would tell you (as a musician) if you discovered someone used your music w/o permission or paying you royalties?

      "Since your claim/song/complaint is only worth $X, we will not be able to assist you in this matter."

      Fuck them. They're just a business, and they do anything useful except ruin the industry.

      --


      do() || do_not(); // try();
    2. Re:I'd be happy to pay for this music... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Learn to close your tags, learn what barratry means, and learn what -phile means. After that come back and post again. By the way, I agree with your sentiment but you are a blithering idiot. Somebody has to tell you and it might as well be me.

  19. Machiavelli and the RIAA by takochan · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Machiavelli:

    It is good if your subjects love you.
    But better if you can make them fear you.

    But you do *NOT* want them to hate you..

    Tested with time, over the centuries...

    I can already see where this is ultimately headed... ..does the RIAA?

  20. Sounds like... by devphaeton · · Score: 1

    Pay us $low_number now, or we'll have to charge you $high_number later!!

    I thought we already did the SCO article today?

    --


    do() || do_not(); // try();
  21. Open season? by bmf033069 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Mr Oppenheim also said the RIAA was immume from rules on unreasonable searches on the internet, because it did not have links with law enforcement agencies."

    By that logic, everyone is open to whatever searches of other people's systems they want. Why is the US gov't going after people for "hacking", if the intent is just to look around then all is fine according to them.

    1. Re:Open season? by surfinbox · · Score: 1

      OK, so let me get this straight. It's a Federal crime to release a virus that penetrates personal and business networks, uses almost all the bandwidth of some ISPs, and snarls the Internet for days. BUT, its perfectly fine to traipse into a computer, inventory that machine, and attempt to hold that computer owner liable for damages from your unauthorized intrusion? The incredibly two-faced hypocricy of how computer intrusion laws are written AND ENFORCED makes me want to change professions.

    2. Re:Open season? by bmf033069 · · Score: 1

      And if you do change professions, please choose something to improve the situation...like a lawyer, judge, or run for congress.

    3. Re:Open season? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By this logic, I should be able to poke around M$ servers all day, and as long as i dont steal anything, its legal? What a bunch of crap!

    4. Re:Open season? by geekee · · Score: 1

      "By that logic, everyone is open to whatever searches of other people's systems they want. Why is the US gov't going after people for "hacking", if the intent is just to look around then all is fine according to them."

      Ahh, reality check. The RIAA downloaded songs she made freely available. That's not hacking, by any definition I know of. Or are you saying that anyone who downloads data using Kazaa, legal or illegal, is a hacker, and therefore Kazaa is illegal by its nature? I thought people were defending Kazaa, and saying to go After the filesharers. Apparently, you feel the opposite is true. Just another lame excuse by someone trying to find a loophole to hide her guilt.

      --
      Vote for Pedro
  22. I love this hypocrasy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    First, when the RIAA went after Napster, and the p2p software makers, you people were crying for them to go after the individual pirates, instead of the technology that facilitates the piracy.

    Now that they are actuallly employing this strategy, the cry is noo!! It's wrong, it's bad, or, or something.

    What's the deal here? Do you people just don't care about copyright infringement? You people have no idea what it takes to create something and try to make money on it.

    1. Re:I love this hypocrasy by Snowspinner · · Score: 3, Insightful

      At least in my case, yeah, you hit the nail right on the head.

      I think copyright is evil. In its original form it might have been argued to at least be a practical good, and thus worth keeping around, but in its current form it is out and out evil, in that it attempts to squash the development and exchange of ideas in favor of the development and exchange of profit, and ideas are a fundamental part of the development of civilization.

      Seeing as I think civil disobedience was one of the better ideas developed lately, I'm pretty much likely to support any user who shares just about any file.

    2. Re:I love this hypocrasy by Moridineas · · Score: 1

      This is a great example of a person who will never create anything worthwhile, and therefore believes that NO ONE should have the right to make a profit off something they produce. Ayn Rand would term you a looter, and so would I.

    3. Re:I love this hypocrasy by Harp3328 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Copyright is evil. The laws should change.

    4. Re:I love this hypocrasy by Snowspinner · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Some day, you're going to encounter a serious academic - someone with graduate degrees in philosophy, English, or some other humanistic discipline. Someone who has put a lot of effort into thinking about how people operate, into aesthetics, ethics, and the like.

      When you encounter this person, you will likely have a conversation with them. You will probably bring up Ayn Rand.

      When this person snickers at the mention of her, I want you to think back to this conversation.

      Meanwhile, I'll be reading this journal article I just got published, being really annoyed that someone other than me now claims ownership to my writing, and remembering once again why I hate the idea of owning ideas.

    5. Re:I love this hypocrasy by Snowspinner · · Score: 1

      Actually, I was watching a VH1 thingy on Metallica yesterday, and Lars said in one segment that he didn't actually care if people downloaded Metallica music, so long as they didn't do it before the album came out.

      It's a total piece of revisionism, but they're now claiming that their only real beef with Napster was that songs were making it out before they were done with them.

      Which is progress, I suppose.

    6. Re:I love this hypocrasy by pirhana · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I can't speak for others. But I can tell you about myself. The fundamental issue here is not whether somebody breaks they law or not. RIAA's business model is outdated. The digitalization of property is a reality and they have not yet contained it or accustomed to it. Have you ever wondered why nobody is bothering to take xerox copy of newspapers and sell it even though its possible? beccoz they cant . Newspaper industry (which see some real competetion unlike music industry where collusion and price fixing is rampant) has adapted itself to the time and developed a succesfull business model. They are no more depenedednt on advertisement revenue rather than the price of a physical copy. They have successfully contained internet too. Untill and unless RIAA make fundamental changes in their business model and adapt like this, this issue is going to continue . People WOULD share music regardless any amount of litigation or anything else. Victo Hugo had said it long back "You can stop an invading force, but you cant stop an idea whose time has come "

    7. Re:I love this hypocrasy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love the way you spell hypocrisy.

    8. Re:I love this hypocrasy by zipfaust · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I think people understand the concept of having the right to make money off what they create.

      What seems to be the major issue is that the RIAA, without having any solid proof, is claiming that filesharing is the sole cause of the music industry's financial losses.

      They believe that the economy's downturn, does not apply to them, that sales should be constantly rising every year. When they don't rise, they look for a scapegoat.

      Rather than studying the download model, they attack it because it threatens their distribution cartel. They don't care about trying to find out how the filesharing phenomenon works. Are people truly using this to sample music and then purchase accordingly? Or are they just plain theiving?

      It's wrong to go into a music store and pilfer a CD as much as it is to download an MP3 version of a song. But, is that download occuring because someone wants to sample some music? Or is it just plain theft?

      Are there any studies on this?

    9. Re:I love this hypocrasy by Bonewalker · · Score: 1
      If the reason you are trying to create something is so you can make money on it, chances are, you won't make anything valuable.

      Most creative processes involve imagination and genuine passion for the object(s) being created. Van Gogh didn't paint so he would be rich someday. He painted because it was just what he had to do.

      Stephen King didn't set out to be a millionaire...he just has to write. It is the process that consumes him. Not the fact that it will make him money. The money is an aside that some may enjoy, a lagniappe, and others may never get that bonus.

      So, with regards to the RIAA and file-sharing, I think it is obvious they are struggling to hold on to a financial boon that they once controlled. It is slipping out of their control, and they don't like it. When they can wake up and modify their business model, they too might be able to enjoy the profits of the easily available song downloaded via a large network. Until then, they are fighting a losing battle because it doesn't matter what technologies they employ, the techies, nerds, geeks, and college students will find an alternate method to copy and distribute the songs (and movies and software) they enjoy.

    10. Re:I love this hypocrasy by Bonewalker · · Score: 1
      I guess they need tighter security for their unfinished works.

      That is simply a matter of hiring trustworthy employees...start by paying them more...that usually makes them a little more trustworthy.

    11. Re:I love this hypocrasy by chef_raekwon · · Score: 1

      you people were crying for them to go after the individual pirates, instead of the technology that facilitates the piracy.

      the irony in your statements (if you look hard enough, you can see it too!) is that you post as anonymous cowherd.

      and enough talk of hard earned cash. the money you spend on a cd doesnt go to the guy earning his keep. it goes to the music Cartel, aka the RIAA.

      check out this article

      --
      We're like rats, in some experiment! -- George Costanza
    12. Re:I love this hypocrasy by Richthofen80 · · Score: 1

      And you argued against no point of his. So you got an article published, so what. That just means that there are others who share your point of view. that doesn't lend any creedence to whether the idea has merit.

      The real point he was making is: Those who bring creations and ideas into the world have ownership of them. They have the right to dictate under what terms they can create and distribute their own ideas.

      Now you obviously don't agree with him. Fair enough. but provide evidence and actually back up your point, instead of saying that Ayn Rand isn't taken seriously, or that he's not an intellectual. Who gives a fuck if he's an intellectual? Einstein was a patent clerk. But he unlocked the secrets of the universe.

      You don't have to like Ayn Rand. She didn't always live up to what she preached, and she was peculiar in her own right. But she had ideas, which are either valid or invalid. if you take issue with them, debate them, use evidence. A statement can not be dismissed prima facia based on its source. Good ideas can come from bad people, and vice versa.

      --
      Reason, free market capitalism, and individualism
    13. Re:I love this hypocrasy by demastri · · Score: 1

      Reread what you wrote, it doesn't really make independent sense or advance your argument.

      Serious academics with ideas that can be successful in the marketplace start companies to leverage their ideas all the time to make a profit. They protect their investment of their own intellectual property through the use of patents and copyrights, where appropriate.

      There's no reasonable way to argue that people who come up with ideas shouldn't be able to protect their IP or other unique work output value through patents and copyrights. Things would simply stagnate. I do agree that perpetual copyright renewal is a Bad Thing (tm), and that, eventually, all covered work should fall into public domain.

      Seriously, though. You're angry because people own ideas for a length of time? Of course they do - it's the output of their labor! And you want to be taken seriously? (real question - please answer) Are you against private property ownership, too? If not, where's the distinction made in your mind? Where is the incentive for the individual to create something and be denied any advantage his creation might provide?

      Ayn Rand wasn't talking to the "academics" without the ability to understand working and benfiting from that effort individually. I know that there are many academics who view their work as completely compatible with her worldview.

      BTW - Good luck passing the qualifying exam...

    14. Re:I love this hypocrasy by roze · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Among other reasons: Part of the problem is how the RIAA has chosen to handle this situation. First: they are fining students--people who don't normally have any money to spare. Second: The amount that they are asking for -- if they started with smaller fines and proved to people that they have the ability to find out who is performing these illegal activities, I think fewer people would have an issue with them. People can own up that they did something wrong and have to face the consequences...but 15K or 50K is really an exhorbant amount to ask for.

    15. Re:I love this hypocrasy by Moridineas · · Score: 1

      Well, as a matter of fact I am history major at Duke University (I see you're Chicago, so I think we can agree that our schools are ROUGHLY equal ;) ) and if you're implying that the faculty is leftist beyond belief, I'll agree with that. They snicker at the mention of ANYTHING non-socialist/marxist, so of course I wouldn't be surprised when they don't respect Ayn Rand. Though actually I have had one professor who was a Rand fan, but that's another story.

      Copyright is not ownership of ideas. Copyright is ownership of something that you create. Unless you specifically GIVE AWAY your copyrights, no one can take them. Every article you write is automatically copyrighted to you (though it can't hurt to make it explicit). The rights to that article belong to YOU. Simple.

    16. Re:I love this hypocrasy by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      Because those of us who said to go after individual infringers had a larger motive in mind.

      We wanted the public to become mobilized to do something about these cartels. That's exactly what's happening. Every suit the RIAA files is another nail in their coffin.

      It's similar to the opponents of the death peanalty lobbying to keep the electric chair. It has to be shown what the enemy's true nature is, for anyone to join your side.

      The RIAA is revealing their true nature. We are winning.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    17. Re:I love this hypocrasy by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      Sorry, unions prevent that.

      The music and entertainment industry is so hogtied by unions that it's slowly killing them. Anyone who thinks the RIAA is a cartel, but also supports unions is the true hypocrite.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    18. Re:I love this hypocrasy by invalid_user · · Score: 1

      If the reason you are trying to create something is so you can make money on it, chances are, you won't make anything valuable.

      Most creative processes involve imagination and genuine passion for the object(s) being created. Van Gogh didn't paint so he would be rich someday. He painted because it was just what he had to do.

      Stephen King didn't set out to be a millionaire...he just has to write. It is the process that consumes him. Not the fact that it will make him money. The money is an aside that some may enjoy, a lagniappe, and others may never get that bonus.

      You believe it when somebody tells you that when he/she writes something, he/she does it out of passion?

      You read mind? Or you somehow just know?

      This idea which you espouses is ineffable I think best left unsaid.


      Until then, they are fighting a losing battle because it doesn't matter what technologies they employ, the techies, nerds, geeks, and college students will find an alternate method to copy and distribute the songs (and movies and software) they enjoy.


      Yeah, right. I doubt this will actually happen. Your "real techies" will just shun all commercial music. While those so-called nerds and geeks? They will most likely pay for their music after some adjustments.

    19. Re:I love this hypocrasy by demastri · · Score: 1
      It's wrong to go into a music store and pilfer a CD as much as it is to download an MP3 version of a song. But, is that download occuring because someone wants to sample some music? Or is it just plain theft?
      From a copyright perspective, it's an infraction. Period. Intent has no bearing. That's all they're claiming. Your sentence admits that. RIAA is completely in the right in defending their copyright. That's not where we should be discussing this. There is a gaping opportunity for someone to provide alternative distribution methods. The problem is that they own the copyrights to the things people want to hear. Until that changes (don't hold your breath), they have the right to dictate how their property is distributed and used.

      Should they change to a better, more realistic distribution model? Absolutely.

      Don't like their methods or the state of things right now? Tough...
    20. Re:I love this hypocrasy by mbbac · · Score: 1

      I was one of the people that said they should be targetting individuals instead of companies that make general use applications. I'm glad they're now suing individuals. It's a good thing. It's definitely bad for the individuals, but for society it is a good thing.

      Hopefully they'll upset enough citizens that there will be mass public dissent or boycotting of their products. This should result in more reasonable copyright law and a breakup of the music cartel. Either way, society wins.

      --

      mbbac

    21. Re:I love this hypocrasy by Snowspinner · · Score: 1

      The journal in question, Critical Inquiry, won't publish unless you sign away the copyright - you retain the right to include the piece in any book you are author or editor of, but you still no longer own the piece.

      The leftist slant of the academy is far from the only reason Rand is not respected - a lot of it stems from her dismissive and inaccurate summaries of other philosophers.

      And, in practice, copyright is ownership of ideas - c.f. the notion of derivative works.

    22. Re:I love this hypocrasy by Snowspinner · · Score: 1

      The distinction, to me, is that an idea can develop simultaneously and independently in two places at once (c.f. Calculus), whereas a table cannot. Yes, two people can build two identical tables, but they are not the same table. Whereas Newton and Liebnitz can both develop Calculus, and then have a long and drawn out battle over who owns Calculus.

    23. Re:I love this hypocrasy by RickHunter · · Score: 1

      A-men! "We" want sane copyright terms, sane fair use rules, and sane infringement penalties. Oh yeah, and sane restrictions on copyright to make it serve its purpose. Namely, encouraging distribution of ideas to create a base of knowledge that others can learn from. You try and hide your knowledge away (say, by not distributing source code) or prevent it from passing into the public domain, you loose the protection of the law.

      Let me ask this: is it just that, because I upload one music file to my friend, I'm hit with harsher penalties than a serial rapist or an executive that ruins the lives of millions by defrauding investors and stealing retirement funds?

    24. Re:I love this hypocrasy by FroMan · · Score: 1

      Seeing as I think civil disobedience was one of the better ideas developed lately, I'm pretty much likely to support any user who shares just about any file.

      I would admire your belief if you truly lived it. Go share some files and then call the police and let them know you are breaking a law. Make sure you are forced to defend yourself. Stand up for your rights.

      However, I doubt you are really painting a target on yourself and willing to lay your life down for your cause. How much do you truly believe? Enough to go to jail? Enough to be sued for kilo-dollars? Or just enough to sit quietly back and share files and rail on slashdot?

      --
      Norris/Palin 2012
      Fact: We deserve leaders who can kick your ass and field dress your carcass.
    25. Re:I love this hypocrasy by Snowspinner · · Score: 1

      Oh, yeah, an addendum. I do think that it is important to credit people when you use their ideas - my issue with plagiarism, though, is not an issue of theft, but of honesty - you should, when you use someone else's ideas, honestly admit that you read about the idea instead of independently developing it.

    26. Re:I love this hypocrasy by Have+Blue · · Score: 1

      Civil disobedience isn't hiding in your room breaking the law. It's breaking the law in public, getting arrested, getting hit with unjust penalties, and getting it all on the evening news so the people can see it. You're not accomplishing anything if no one besides Slashdot knows about it.

    27. Re:I love this hypocrasy by technos · · Score: 1

      I saw that too.

      Now, Lars could be considered a legal representative of the band Metallica, right?

      And Lars just said, on my very own TV, that he (and logically Metallica) don't care if we toss their songs around the net like candy, right?

      And Metallica, not the record label, owns copyright on those songs, right?

      Cool. Permission from a major copyright holder to p2p..

      I think I'll go register ridethelightningmp3s.net and masterofpuppetsmp3s.net later.. I've always thought the new Metallica fans should have heard them when they actually, y'know, didn't suck.

      --
      .sig: Now legally binding!
    28. Re:I love this hypocrasy by Snowspinner · · Score: 1

      I thought I addressed the argument presented - "Ayn Rand would call you a looter" - quite adequately, in that I argued why Ayn Rand's opinion counts for little in a philosophic debate.

      The article was mentioned primarily because it was an easy refutation to the claim of my producing nothing.

      As for your discounting of sources - ummm... no. Yes, Einstein was a patent clerk. That, however, is not his only qualification, or even, really, the one people talk about the most when they evaluate whether he's a valid source.

      The fact of the matter is that philosophy and ethics are no less of a qualified field than law or science, and that Ayn Rand is more or less the humanistic equivalent of a member of the flat Earth society.

    29. Re:I love this hypocrasy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You people have no idea what it takes to create something and try to make money on it.

      That's not the case. You obviously have no understanding of how the industry works. Musicians make money on concerts. Record labels make money on selling CD's. Record labels are obsolete, unnecessary leeches. Musicians will survive just fine (actually better) in the future freely sharing music and selling concert tickets.

      P2P is just the impetus of change.

    30. Re:I love this hypocrasy by Snowspinner · · Score: 1

      Actually, though Metallica owns the copyright on the songs, in all likelihood the label owns distribution rights on those exact recordings of them. So even if Metallica doesn't care if you download one of their songs, the label can still probably kick your ass for distribution of them.

    31. Re:I love this hypocrasy by Monkelectric · · Score: 1
      oh common, I hate the RIAA to but their business model isn't outdated.

      I still want CDs, everyone I know still wants CDs (if not only to make mp3s from them). The problem is that the RIAA represents an oligipoly (a market controlled by a few large companies). And people don't want to *pay* 25$ for a cd (walked into a wherehouse or sam good latley? thats about what they cost).

      If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times. PIRACY IS PRICE-COMPETITION IN A MONOPOLY MARKET. I'm willing to pay for windows XP, but not 200$, I'm willing to buy cds, but not for 25$, I'm willing to buy a dvd, but not for 25$.

      I can shop around for cars, clothes, computers, food, medical care, insurance, you can even shop around for CHILDREN to adopt or sperm to have a baby with. But If you want music, an OS, or a movie, YOU'RE STUCK WITH THESE COMPANIES which have *already* been convicted of being monopolists (MS), and of price fixing (record companies) etc etc.

      Record companies would have a business model problem if people were saying "We don't want your music." What people are saying is, "we don't wanna pay for your music." What the RIAA companies should be doing is focusing on leveraging the internet to sell more albums, trying to provide *MORE* value to their customers with lower prices, and higher quality goods -- thats what would happen in a normal market.

      But they are a oligipoly, so instead they've raised their prices (someone PLEASE tell me why the donnie darko DVD is 11$ and the SOUNDTRACK is 14$), and use extortion, law suits, bribes, and other dirty tactics to accomplish their goals.

      Epilogue: What companies *should be doing*. Developing active internet communities, allowing people to preview albums/songs online, giving customers extra value. Let me tell you about an *EXCELLENT* use of digital audio -- I am a steely dan nut, and their new album came out a couple months ago ... I bought it on amazon, and amazon gave me immediate access to 5 or 6 low quality tracks streaming wma tracks (which I promptlty ripped to MP3) to listen to while I waited for the CD to show up. Keep in mind I pre-ordered the CD, so I was listening to it a few weeks before the cd was even avaliable.

      --

      Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley

    32. Re:I love this hypocrasy by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 1

      I would term you a nut.

      You're reading a hell of a lot into the previous poster's argument that he didn't say.

      Personally, I think that copyright can be a very useful tool of a society in promoting the progress of knowledge.

      But I do not believe that the copyright laws we currently have on the books are doing a good job of this. Indeed, I think that they are so harmful towards this goal, that we'd be better off with no copyright law whatsoever, though again I personally would very much prefer to have copyright laws, as long as they were the right sort.

      Certainly I don't mind if someone makes a profit off of things that they produce. But it's not an entitlement. The mere fact of production does not entitle you to profit from it. Society may deem your product unacceptable legally (selling tainted food or mislabeled drugs or snake oil), or socially (i.e. flops in the marketplace -- remember Gigli?).

      At best, you merely have an opportunity to profit.

      And even this opportunity -- see the snake oil thing above -- may be rightly circumscribed.

      This is particularly true in the case of copyright, which exists to promote the progress of knowledge, not to secure profits to particular people. (Though it is founded on a notion that if there are going to be profits, then at least they should be appropriately channeled.) Sometimes these two things will coincide, and promoting progress will go hand in hand with netting profits. Other times, they'll be opposed to one another.

      As for me, I completely supported myself for several years as an artist, producing creative works, and I now study copyright law, and I too think that there is a very great need for reform.

      (and I also snicker at Ayn Rand)

      Now, another poster said this:

      The real point he was making is: Those who bring creations and ideas into the world have ownership of them. They have the right to dictate under what terms they can create and distribute their own ideas.

      To which I disagree vehemently.

      There's clearly no natural right to any sort of property interest other than that property you can fend people off from with a stick. Certainly the total absence of copyrights prior to the rather recent year 1710 seems to support this notion. The concept of freedom of speech as a natural right, and as one that is totally opposed to copyrights (how can you have free speech without the freedom to repeat what someone else has said?) also helps demolish the silly proposal that there are natural property rights.

      Property rights, be they real, personal, or intangible, are basically social constructs. And as with many other things in society, they're based in utiliarian doctrines, either organically without a recognition of this at the time, or explicitly, as in the case of copyrights.

      That is to say, while it's nice that an author might claim to have a copyright, that alone is meaningless. Unless he convinces everyone else to respect that copyright and come down on his behalf on people who do not, his claim is as moot as if he said he owned the Moon. And why would other people ever bother respecting and enforcing his claim for him? Only because it is in their own self-interest to do so.

      Sometimes it will not be in their self-interest to agree with an author. At these times, the author is up shit creek.

      Thus, the earlier statement at least needs to be rephrased to bring it in line with reality. At least it needs to be: Those who bring creations and ideas into the world may or may not be granted ownership of them by the rest of the world, who gets to make that decision. They have the right to dictate under what terms they can create and distribute their own ideas but have no inherent right to dictate what other people might do with those ideas once created and distributed; such rights to control others must stem from the others who are sought to be controlled, and then only because those others voluntarily cede those rights, it bei

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    33. Re:I love this hypocrasy by DickBreath · · Score: 1
      Do you people just don't care about copyright infringement?

      I think you nailed it in one.

      If copyright holders want some respect, they need to act in a fashion deserving of such respect. Let's see. We have
      • way overpriced music -- especially compared to movies
      • the DMCA
      • The whole DeCSS fiasco
      • digital rights management -- despite the sillyness of such a concept unless you take it to its logical conclusion, and then in that case I would say, substitute "sillyness" for "draconian".
      • The RIAA tried to sue Diamond Rio for simply seilling an mp3 player.
      • RIAA companies being found guilty and penalized for overcharging and anti competitive practices.
      • copyright term extensions -- the fact that nothing is likely to ever fall into the public domain. "Happy Birthday To You"
      • Jack Valenti suggesting to congress that the "limited time" of copyright could be extended to "foverever minus a day".
      • DVD region encoding, even on very old movies -- while arguing that the purpose of regions has only to do with new releases. (Can you say hypocracy?)
      • RIAA trying to kill small webcasters -- by structuring deals so that they can't pay a fair price
      • Clear Channel
      Yeah, you got it. I just don't care about copyright. Sort of like prohibition. If the copyright holders, like the government, want respect, then they need to set a better example.


      You people have no idea what it takes to create something and try to make money on it.

      I think you are wrong. Many here are software developers. some even write music. Everyone has at least a basic understanding of how the RIAA's business works. Look at the cost of a CD and cost of a DVD movie, and compare the costs of production. You are wrong. We do understand.

      It's not lack of understanding. It's simply lack of respect.
      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    34. Re:I love this hypocrasy by geekee · · Score: 1

      "I think copyright is evil. In its original form it might have been argued to at least be a practical good, and thus worth keeping around, but in its current form it is out and out evil, in that it attempts to squash the development and exchange of ideas in favor of the development and exchange of profit, and ideas are a fundamental part of the development of civilization."

      So the GPL is evil? It uses copyright law to allow open source development with some rules to prevent the code from being public domain.

      --
      Vote for Pedro
    35. Re:I love this hypocrasy by MotherInferior · · Score: 1

      Yes, I have (and am trying) to create something and make money off of it. I'm a musician and have very little chance of ever selling my work as I see fit under the current RIAA system. If musicians are to be "protected" under the aegis of the RIAA, they have to understand that they exist to make money for the RIAA. Musicians are employees of the RIAA, just as a high-priced basketball player is an employee of a sports franchise. It is only after the musician has acrued enough personal fame (after being a veritable slave for the industry for years) that he can strike out on his own. That is, unless there exists a system where musicians can distrubute their art directly to their fans and make a living off of it. Any system of this sort would more than likely not be highly profitable (thus of no interest to corporate types), but it potentially could support the artists at a decent standard of living. In my case, that's all I ask. If I can feed a family and be able to gig outside my town, I'm set. I'm sure most musicians are this way. We don't all need to be rock-stars....

    36. Re:I love this hypocrasy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Copyright is not ownership of ideas. Copyright is ownership of something that you create.

      But what did you create, other than ideas? Copyright is not ownership of anything, it is the right to exclusively *distribute* your work. It grants you monopoly rights by law.

    37. Re:I love this hypocrasy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      • You believe it when somebody tells you that when he/she writes something, he/she does it out of passion?
      Works done out of passion for the medium/instrument are almost ALWAYS invariably better than those produced solely for $$$$$. I know this from personal experience, through people I've known as friends. Thanks for playing, try again later. ;)
    38. Re:I love this hypocrasy by Bonewalker · · Score: 1
      You believe it when somebody tells you that when he/she writes something, he/she does it out of passion?

      You read mind? Or you somehow just know?

      I just gave you two examples...out of thousands. Sure there are people who do things just to make money...but usually they are too constrained by trying to figure out what people will pay for that they don't actually produce anything of major or of lasting value. This is because the passion is invested in creating money, rather than creating something unique. If you don't understand this, too bad, I am not wasting anymore time explaining it to you.

      Yeah, right. I doubt this will actually happen. Your "real techies" will just shun all commercial music. While those so-called nerds and geeks? They will most likely pay for their music after some adjustments.

      If that is the case, why did anyone try to crack DVD protection, or software protection, or attempt to create an anonymous file-sharing program? Trust me, what I said before is happening and will continue to happen. And I never said anything about it being "true techies"...my statement was all encompassing...so the hackers, crackers, phreakers, and just generally curious about technology will always be around to try to break the technology that big business creates.

      Try living in the real world and all this would be clear to you.

    39. Re:I love this hypocrasy by spectecjr · · Score: 1

      The journal in question, Critical Inquiry, won't publish unless you sign away the copyright - you retain the right to include the piece in any book you are author or editor of, but you still no longer own the piece.

      Then don't publish there. And tell them why. You don't have to agree with their terms, you know. There's also a phrase you should learn: First Publishing Rights Only.

      When I was a full-time journalist, I would attach a little contract to every submission. It spelled out the rights they got, and the rights I got to my material. They got the rights to publish it on the web, as part of their magazine. They got the rights to publish it in a country and/or worldwide. First time was free. Reprints, and any use outside of that magazine's scope was to be negotiated later.

      They agreed to this. Why? Because it makes sense.

      --
      Coming soon - pyrogyra
    40. Re:I love this hypocrasy by Snowspinner · · Score: 1

      CI is the leading journal in the field. If you want to make it in the field, therefore, you play by their rules. It sucks, and it's unfair, and you do it, because that's the choice you have. /shrug

      People with money and power make rules. It's the way it works.

    41. Re:I love this hypocrasy by spectecjr · · Score: 1

      CI is the leading journal in the field. If you want to make it in the field, therefore, you play by their rules. It sucks, and it's unfair, and you do it, because that's the choice you have. /shrug

      People with money and power make rules. It's the way it works.


      Then start your own journal in the field. Or offer them a limited time exclusive publishing agreement. That copyright clause is most likely so that they can publish it online in their archives, and so that you can't sell it to any of the other journals in the field. Which, if you think about it, makes sense.

      The thing is, don't ever give anything up without negotiating on it. If they want to have exclusive access, tell them "Sure! -- BUT I'll only promise that I won't publish it in any other journal in the field. I reserve the right to publish it anywhere else, after a period of 6-9 months."

      --
      Coming soon - pyrogyra
    42. Re:I love this hypocrasy by efflux · · Score: 1

      I thought that what you signed away with most journals was "First Serial Publication Rights", not general Copyright. Are you sure you're not overstating things? I'm only familiar with literary journals, so maybe it works different in other fields.

      --
      Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes. -- Walt Whitman
    43. Re:I love this hypocrasy by Snowspinner · · Score: 1

      I am quite certain that I am not overstating things. Drop into your local college library sometime and grab a copy of Critical Inquiry - look at the copyright notices under the articles. In almost all cases (The exceptions mostly being things where CI is already doing a republish of something), it's copyright University of Chicago.

    44. Re:I love this hypocrasy by Hentai · · Score: 1

      That is simply a matter of hiring trustworthy employees...start by paying them more...that usually makes them a little more trustworthy.

      That only works until you pay them enough to afford better lawyers than you have yourself.

      It's that fear that turns the record labels' knuckles white against the leashes of their artists.

      --
      -Hentai [in vita non pacem est]
  23. $50k? by CaptBubba · · Score: 2, Informative

    How on earth do they think they are going to get $50k out of a student? I certainly don't have $50,000 in the bank, nor will I have it anytime soon. I think this is more of a case of going after those least able to defend themselves.

  24. Oh, sure... by musingmelpomene · · Score: 2, Insightful

    $50,000 per song. 6,000 songs and 100 full length movies...yeah, excuse me while I pull that money out of my ass. Hasn't the RIAA ever heard the phrase "blood from a turnip"? What are they going to do, rob piggy banks? I'm sure their lawyers will be really satisfied with the $300 most college kids have in savings.

    1. Re:Oh, sure... by blancolioni · · Score: 1

      Do you really think they're doing this for the money?

    2. Re:Oh, sure... by pointbeing · · Score: 1

      Probably not - chances are the college student will end up filing for bankruptcy, get his credit destroyed, become ineligible for student loansand maybe have to quit school - but will remain eligible to make easy monthly payments to the RIAA for the next ten years.

      --
      we see things not as as they are, but as we are.
      -- anais nin
    3. Re:Oh, sure... by vegetablespork · · Score: 1

      FYI, in the U.S., bankruptcy does not make a student ineligible for federally guaranteed Stafford or Perkins loans. (Incidentally, student loans are almost never dischargable in bankruptcy.)

      --

      Call (206) 338-5780 COLLECT for information about a genuine BA, BS, MA, MS, MBA, or Ph.D.

  25. Penn State by ignipotentis · · Score: 1

    I read over on ars that Penn State was about to start charging its entire campus regardless of who uses the service (ahhh yes, I remember the great pay for what you don't use fees).

    This seems to be a regular bait and switch. We will sell this to Universities for next to nothing, hope we get the majority of the students hooked, the n jack up the price a non-student would pay for the service.

    I had enough fees added on to my tuition bill when i was at school. I feel sorry for those of you who are just entering or will be entering soon.

    --
    Don't waste time... procrastinate now!
    1. Re:Penn State by ignipotentis · · Score: 1
      --
      Don't waste time... procrastinate now!
  26. Shallow by RickHunter · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Because due process is shallow and boring and not really necessary, right? If the RIAA says you're doing something bad, well, that should be all the proof the government needs!

    Sheesh. If they're breaking the law to catch people breaking the law, they're still breaking the law.

  27. "go fuck yourselves" doesn't hold up in court by SweetAndSourJesus · · Score: 5, Funny

    believe me, I've tried.

    --

    --
    the strongest word is still the word "free"
    1. Re:"go fuck yourselves" doesn't hold up in court by mrsev · · Score: 1

      Bit of fisting?

    2. Re:"go fuck yourselves" doesn't hold up in court by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's right, pad're: sure, RIAA learned from the SunSet Blvd whores ... gonna make ya pay for video-crack and audio-morphine they pimp. But the Hollyweird neo_KKK may be struck down simply by refusing to buy their media-drugs.

    3. Re:"go fuck yourselves" doesn't hold up in court by Ryosen · · Score: 1

      >>the strongest word is still the word "free"

      Off-topic, yeah, I know, but I'd rather acknolwedge your Negativland reference than just throw you an anonymous mod point!

      --

      Ryosen
      One man's "Troll, +1" is another man's "Insightful, +1".
    4. Re:"go fuck yourselves" doesn't hold up in court by Channard · · Score: 1
      Bit of fisting?

      Well, 'bend over and brace yourself' does seem to pretty much sum up the RIAA's legal philosophy.

  28. for downloading or for sharing? by Brahmastra · · Score: 1

    I don't see anything that specifically says you have to pay $150k per DOWNLOAD. It seems more like $150k per file you share. The title is a little misleading about that. Or have the RIAA really started targeting leeches too?

    1. Re:for downloading or for sharing? by Entropius · · Score: 1

      If they're just targetting people who share... ...it'd surely be possible to write a worm that would turn computers into Kazaa clients, which would run around leeching files at random from people. With enough of these out there, 1) the original sharers wouldn't have to, except to put new files on the network, 2) the RIAA lawyers would wind up spending resources tracking down people/IP addresses that aren't guilty, and 3) "The worm did it" would become a legitimate defense.

      I'm not saying this is a good thing. Hell, such a worm would cause massive bandwidth loads everywhere, and probably cause network admins to block 1214 (until the Kazaa folks get smart and support port-hopping).

      But part of me would do a little happy-dance if this happened.

  29. RIAA funding by jedi98629 · · Score: 0

    i dont know how much $ the RIAA has as a whole, but it seems there suing the same reason SCO is, and thats cause there running out of money and want us good ol rich HS and college students to pay um

  30. well done RIAA by nocent · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Well done RIAA! You've successfully embedded the "evil recording industry" image into the hearts and minds of the youth of today, your primary consumers. You may prevent some people sharing your music but you've turned millions more from ever buying a RIAA artist's CD ever again. Previously, people might have felt bad about depriving the artist of income but now, they'll just think "screw them". Well done.

    1. Re:well done RIAA by Luminous · · Score: 1

      You are correct.

      The friends and family of those who get sued won't be eager to support the companies that did it.

      This is a great time for non-RIAA indy labels to make themselves known, spend a little cash and make it known that they are not part of this harassment.

      Does the RIAA have the right to do this? Yes. Is it good business? No.

      --
      This is not the way to build a lasting empire.
    2. Re:well done RIAA by Ogerman · · Score: 1

      Previously, people might have felt bad about depriving the artist of income but now, they'll just think "screw them"

      Is that why people have stopped going to their favorite artist's concerts at ridiculous prices of $40-200 a pop? Oh yeah, they haven't. This whole thing has nothing to do with people wanting to screw artists. It has everything to do with people saying "Hey, this copyright thing isn't such a good social compromise anymore. I'm being totally ripped off when I buy a CD and so are my favorite artists." Unfortunately, P2P is not a true solution to the problem. It is a medium of change that has not been used effectively.

      If only the P2P scene would put some political muscle behind their actions, we might see some actual change. 60 million activists could do a lot of good to reverse some of the current backwards and draconian copyright laws. How about a 7 year limit on music for starters. Why not put building the public domain back into the equation?

      Or here's a novel idea: write your own free music and establish a community of others who enjoy doing the same. What's more effective against a software monopolist? Warez sites or a well-organized Open Source project? The same is true for music. Maybe more people could like.. actually learn how to play instruments.

  31. Silly RIAA by West+Palm+Beach · · Score: 1

    They're targetting some of the poorest lots on the planet - high school and college students. How much do you think they're really going to get?

    OK, high school students caught will cost their parents those tidy sums, but for the college students, over 18, I don't know how much they'll actually get.

    Speaking from experience, my assets totalled much less than what the RIAA is asking for during my college years. I hope it costs them more in lawyers' fees than what they'll actually get from the lawsuits.

    1. Re:Silly RIAA by Stubtify · · Score: 1
      Do you think that's air you are breathing?

      in this case its not about the money.

    2. Re:Silly RIAA by West+Palm+Beach · · Score: 1

      If you think the RIAA is really not about the money, and for artist's rights, then I have a fine bridge to Brooklyn I want to sell you.

      I find it hard to believe that anyone would fall for the RIAA's line of protecting artist's rights.

    3. Re:Silly RIAA by rhombic · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The parent didn't say it was about artist's rights, just that it's not about money. More correctly, it's not about the settlement money. It's about running a few kids into bankruptcy (and hence about a decade of financial ruin) and getting those cases well publicized. Their hope is that this'll scare their peers into not sharing-- and when enough users stop sharing, the system breaks down.

      Of course, you have to question how their logic bridges the gap between stopping sharing and getting college students to each shell out $20 for all the CDs they want. It's pretty much the legendary step 2: ???

      --
      1984 was supposed to be a warning, not an instruction manual.
    4. Re:Silly RIAA by Stubtify · · Score: 1

      exactly

  32. Extortion by 91degrees · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Someday, someone with several thousand songs will call their bluff, and challenge them. Perhaps in court, they'll point out how stupid the RIAA looks demanding more money than the entire record industry is worth in damages. Perhaps.

    The thing is, even if a court does rule that you owe the RIAA $100 000 000, what would happen? It's not like they could ever collect. I never expect to own that much money.

  33. That's right asshole... by BiteMeFanboy · · Score: 1
    Mr Oppenheim also said the RIAA was immume from rules on unreasonable searches on the internet, because it did not have links with law enforcement agencies.

    That means you're not allowed to look into private data at ALL.

    That may or may not apply, I don't know to what lengths they went to to gather evidence against her. But their attitude has always been, "we'll do what we want".

    1. Re:That's right asshole... by Moridineas · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't see how it applies.

      If you put your files, publically, on a public peer2peer network, what's there to complain about when someone sees what you're sharing?

  34. *frowns* by TwistedGreen · · Score: 1

    I'm getting kind of scared. Though I'm Canadian, so this can't affect me, right?

    1. Re:*frowns* by iMMersE · · Score: 0

      No, you have much bigger things to worry about :)

      --
      codegolf.com - smaller *is* better.
    2. Re:*frowns* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      yeah, like FREE Health Care, a government with no long history of corruption, and the actual ability to speak out minds without being called a terrorist.

      No wonder I can't sleep at night

    3. Re:*frowns* by chef_raekwon · · Score: 1

      yeah, like FREE Health Care, a government with no long history of corruption, and the actual ability to speak out minds without being called a terrorist.


      you now know what you must do --- overthrow the government. rise up people!! rise up!! rise... _yawns_
      where are the potato chips....cnn is on....

      --
      We're like rats, in some experiment! -- George Costanza
  35. But they have to USE law enforcement, don't they? by Buran · · Score: 1

    Don't they have to use law enforcement (the courts) to bring a case? Would the court not have the power to throw out evidence that wasn't gathered correctly? I hear of this happening all the time -- which is why there are strict procedures covering the handling of evidence. It has to be collected within strict rules (e.g. to search a home a warrant is needed) and then it has to be kept "clean". If it's tainted, the case can be thrown out.

    I don't see why everyone's so quick to dismiss the claims. Well, the RIAA is obviously biased, but third parties should technically be not so biased.

  36. Immunity??? by Savage-Rabbit · · Score: 4, Insightful

    [RIAA vice-president] Mr Oppenheim also said the RIAA was immume from rules on unreasonable searches on the internet, because it did not have links with law enforcement agencies.

    So if I hack Mr. Oppenheims computer and "unreasonably" search it (i.e. rifle through his private data) I am immune to rules on unreasonable searches because I am a hacker and not a cop? Nice to know.... Now where did I put that SubSeven kit.....

    --
    Only to idiots, are orders laws.
    -- Henning von Tresckow
    1. Re:Immunity??? by Dog+and+Pony · · Score: 1

      Duh. RIAA didn't hack any computer, there's your difference.

    2. Re:Immunity??? by AKnightCowboy · · Score: 1
      So if I hack Mr. Oppenheims computer and "unreasonably" search it (i.e. rifle through his private data) I am immune to rules on unreasonable searches because I am a hacker and not a cop? Nice to know.... Now where did I put that SubSeven kit.....

      Browsing a public file share on a P2P client and "hacking" someone's private data are two entirely different things. If you kept your MP3s locked up safely on your drive and didn't share them you'd have an excellent case if someone were to come along and somehow gain access to them.

    3. Re:Immunity??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Duh! Perhaps I am wrong here but "Unreasonable search" suggests they actually went and searched something physical as in hard disk. If this was just a case of monitoring the connection the proper term would be "Unreasonable monitoring of traffic".

    4. Re:Immunity??? by Savage-Rabbit · · Score: 1

      "the RIAA violated state and federal laws by tracking what was passing through the woman's internet connection"

      Even the FBI needs a warrant to search or bug anything and that sure sounds like bugging to me. So who died and made the RIAA a government agency more powerful than the FBI? Why does the FBI need a warrant to bug the Mafia's telephones but these guys are:

      ..immume from rules on unreasonable searches on the internet, because it [RIAA] did not have links with law enforcement agencies

      If this quote is a stement of fact and in vew of the above claim that the RIAA intercepted this girls internet traffic; this dude is claiming that anybody who is not a cop is for all pracical purposes allowed to bug anybody eles telephone line with impunity because pesky annoyances like search warrants only apply to cops.

      --
      Only to idiots, are orders laws.
      -- Henning von Tresckow
    5. Re:Immunity??? by cens0r · · Score: 1

      Even the FBI needs a warrant to search or bug anything and that sure sounds like bugging to me. So who died and made the RIAA a government agency more powerful than the FBI? Why does the FBI need a warrant to bug the Mafia's telephones but these guys are:

      You're missing a fundamental difference. If you were transfereing these files to friends over a VPN, or a secure FTP server, or some other secure method they would need a warrant. In the case of P2P you're broadcasting what you own to the whole world. As soon as you sign on to the public network, you've lost all expectation of privacy. The FBI needs a warrant to tap your phone or your house, however they don't need a warrant to follow you around and listen to what you say.

      --
      Jack Valenti and Orrin Hatch will be first up against the wall when the revolution comes.
    6. Re:Immunity??? by sailor420 · · Score: 1

      The problem with this assumption is that the RIAA is looking for files that people are sharing, and openly allowing others to look at. By using that SubSeven kit (or any other such approach) you are accessing information that the owner of the computer had deemed as private (to a degree at least). These files that these people are being sued for are openly and publicly available for others to look at and download.

    7. Re:Immunity??? by Savage-Rabbit · · Score: 1

      They did not listen in on something that was broadcast to the entire internet. What the article stated was that the RIAA had been:

      "tracking what was passing through the woman's internet connection"

      That implies that they intercepted a packet stream one computer to another, meant for nobody other than the people at each end, and scrutinised the content. This sure sounds similar to intercepting an analog audio stream from one phone to another since this is also only intended to be witnessed by the people operating each telephone unless of course a Judge gives permission for bugging.

      --
      Only to idiots, are orders laws.
      -- Henning von Tresckow
    8. Re:Immunity??? by cens0r · · Score: 1

      That's just ignorance on the part of who ever wrote the article. The RIAA is not listening to random packets floating along the internet and finding file traders that way. That would be illegal, and not only that it would be nearly impossible. They're doing it the simple way, logging on to Kazza and searching for a file.

      --
      Jack Valenti and Orrin Hatch will be first up against the wall when the revolution comes.
    9. Re:Immunity??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would a disclaimer stating to the effect of "Anyone barring employees, agents or servants of the RIAA may examine and download the mp3 contents of this hard drive..." provide a privacy invasion defense?

  37. and here comes the exodus by linzeal · · Score: 1

    RIAA dodgers, where can they go Europe? I don't like Canada, save BC.

  38. "Futile" by barryfandango · · Score: 3, Insightful

    While I applaud nycfashiongirl's stand, it appears to me that it may indeed be "shallow." The RIAA is not a law-enforcement agency, so is not bound to regulations regarding surveillance. And more importantly, she chose to share her many pirated files on a file-sharing service. How could they have violated her privacy when she decided to publicly display the files to the world? They didn't have to violate anything.

    --
    In all matters of opinion, our adversaries are insane. -Oscar Wilde
    1. Re:"Futile" by Twanfox · · Score: 1

      It's not the files that are in question or that she is attempting to withhold from the RIAA, in so far as I am aware. Her resistance is more on the matter that, without so much as a 'just cause', the RIAA is requesting personal information from a third party without first showing and gaining a court order to do it.

    2. Re:"Futile" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am not associated with law enforcement. Can I get personal information on people I spy on too? Without negative consequences for me, at least beyond bad publicity?

    3. Re:"Futile" by gammoth · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I couldn't agree more. When the framers of the constitution limited government's ability in search and seizure, I doubt very much they meant for private organizations to take up where the government had to leave off.

      Bypassing 'due process' by legislating the behaviour to private organizations is an abuse. Violating copyright is wrong, but it pales in comparison to the undermining of 'due process.'

      To understand the mindset of those opposed to 'due process', may I suggest "Les Miserables" by Victor Hugo. (Off-topic, but Kennith Starr and John Ashcroft need to familiarize themselves with this book.)

    4. Re:"Futile" by barryfandango · · Score: 1

      From the article:

      "Her defence is that the RIAA is not properly affiliated with law enforcement agencies and thus its search of music files was a violation of her legal protection."

      I agree that extracting personal information from ISPs is the most legally precarious part of this whole situation. But it appears that nycfashiongirl is taking issue with the RIAA's Kazaa surveillance activities.

      Of course here in Canada it's legal to distribute copyrighted content over file sharing networks, so we don't have to worry about such things.

      --
      In all matters of opinion, our adversaries are insane. -Oscar Wilde
    5. Re:"Futile" by liquidsin · · Score: 1

      Of course here in Canada it's legal to distribute copyrighted content over file sharing networks, so we don't have to worry about such things.

      Just out of curiosity, could you point me to some documentation on this? If I'm legally allowed to do so, I think it's high time I started to indulge!

      --
      do not read this line twice.
    6. Re:"Futile" by barryfandango · · Score: 1

      You can spy and get any personal information you want, as long as you collect it from a public source. Ask the papparazi who are there to snap photographs every time a starlette takes off her top at the beach, or Steven Seagal steps out on his front porch to get the paper.

      Why can't they just leave Mr. Seagal alone?

      --
      In all matters of opinion, our adversaries are insane. -Oscar Wilde
    7. Re:"Futile" by barryfandango · · Score: 1

      You may recall that the Canadian Government created a "Recordable Media Levy" a few years back to reimburse the recording industry for the costs of "private copying." $0.77 for each blank CD and $0.29 for a blank audiocassette. Over $70 million has been taxed out of us since then.

      The logical extension of this is that by paying this tax we make "private copying" acceptable and legal. Hell, we're paying for it - we'd be stupid not to do it!

      For a more detailed examination, check out this article:

      http://techcentralstation.com/081803C.html

      --
      In all matters of opinion, our adversaries are insane. -Oscar Wilde
    8. Re:"Futile" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not convinced. Those blank media taxes have been enacted over here in Europe too, but as far as I understand it, they're supposed to be a way for the music industry to get payed back for the damages they incur when their stuff gets copied, not a way to give people the right to copy stuff. It was my understanding that it was still illegal to copy music.

      Also, the RIAA is going after people who share copyrighted music, not people who copy it. There is a difference. Even if copying is legal (in canada), sharing is not.

    9. Re:"Futile" by barryfandango · · Score: 1

      If you read the article, or the Candian Copyright Act, you'll see that our recordable media levy was accompanied by an exemption, explicitly defined in the act. It allows for Private Copying, whose definition very neatly encompasses online file sharing.

      --
      In all matters of opinion, our adversaries are insane. -Oscar Wilde
    10. Re:"Futile" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even if they're not a law-enforcement agency, they've at least broken the license agreement" "What you can't do under this license agreement"

      "2.11 Monitor traffic or make search requests in order to accumulate information about individual users;"

      http://www.kazaa.com/us/terms.htm

    11. Re:"Futile" by Speare · · Score: 1
      The RIAA is going to say that they're "immune to the Fourth Amendment" for search and seizure. As far as that goes, they are correct. They are not the government, and they are not limited by those same restrictions.

      However, the Congress, in passing the DMCA, should be found in violation of the Fourth Amendment, because they have authorized non-governmental agents (such as the RIAA) to do an end-run on those restrictions for the purposes of criminal investigations. If the Justice Department cannot search those things, and the Congress cannot search those things, then they cannot accept any such evidence brought to them.

      This is not a court accepting two private entities' discovery motions for a civil action. This is a court faced with criminal charge as raised by the government, brought by a private entity against another private entity. The accuser is not filing civil suit, but is directly associated with the government as a witness on a criminal felony charge.

      Cops cannot search the home of a suspected bank robber, even after seeing the suspected robber on the bank cameras, without the due process of requesting a warrant from a judge on the available evidence and reasonable suspicion. This is on the government's affidavit that the evidence is accepted and accounted. If the evidence is in error, or manipulated, the government must answer to that with wrongful search or wrongful arrest.

      In the DMCA case at hand, a wrongfully accused "robber" has no affidavit of the government on the evidence. This uses and abuses the power of the government without the impetus of the government's own agents. The government is forced to bring criminal charges and subpoena discovery on the benefit of no evidence, with no oversight, with no accountability, in fact, with no at all, just because the RIAA mentions the phrase "DMCA" in a letter to a third party like an ISP.

      While RIAA is immune to the Fourth Amendment, Congress is not. The DMCA is Unconstitutional on these grounds, as the government becomes RIAA's agent without offering the citizen any due process, in check of those powers.

      --
      [ .sig file not found ]
    12. Re:"Futile" by mad_dog3283 · · Score: 1

      Her privacy (and 4th amendment rights) were violated because the RIAA was able to obtain her information from her ISP. They have to do this in order to file a lawsuit. Being able to merely see the files she has available (which, as you pointed out, anyone can do) doesn't help the RIAA since they can't sue an IP address. Why were they able to obtain this information? Four letters: D-M-C-A. Who passed the DMCA? Well, the RIAA did indirectly, but directly it was the US Government. Last I checked, all laws passed by the US Government must comply with the Constitution. So, what the RIAA did is irrelevant. The fact is, the DMCA (and vicariously the US Government) and not the RIAA are in violation of the 4th amendment because, through the DMCA, the Government granted the RIAA the ability to "seize" the ISP's DHCP logs.

      --
      Reprise the theme song and roll the credits!
    13. Re:"Futile" by Chartreuse_Zergling+ · · Score: 1

      That levy sounds absolutely absurd. How could anyone in their right mind enact something like that? Why not levy blank paper, since it can be used to photocopy books & artwork, and publishers could lose money?

      "Corporate greed. Coming soon!"

    14. Re:"Futile" by barryfandango · · Score: 1

      Oh, it's absurd alright. I remember being rather pissed off about it when it was passed a few years back. Fortunately now the joke is on the CRIA (Canadian RIAA), who lobbied for the levy and acquiesced to its accompanying exemption. Now that P2P is a reality they're the ones getting screwed instead of us, and personally I'm going to take full advantage of it.

      --
      In all matters of opinion, our adversaries are insane. -Oscar Wilde
    15. Re:"Futile" by CentrX · · Score: 1

      How is the RIAA immune from the fourth amendment? I have a right to be secure in my persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. That doesn't mean that any non-governmental entity has the right to search my stuff and take it. Any non-government entity has less rights to search and seize anything of mine. The government is only allowed to do so when in the course of a reasonable criminal or civil investigation. Anyone else is just trespassing, invading my privacy, and committing theft.

      --

      "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." - Thomas Jefferson
  39. Go after the real source of profit-loss by Supero100 · · Score: 5, Funny

    RIAA Strategist #1: Wait! I got it! Let's put our future customers in financial ruin!
    RIAA Strategist #2: Brilliant! Then they'll have more money to buy from us!
    RIAA Strategist #1: What should we do about the rampant piracy in eastern europe and asia?
    RIAA Strategist #2: Sorry, repeat that? I was listening to the satisfying sound of ruining everyone's lives.

    1. Re:Go after the real source of profit-loss by aliens · · Score: 1

      RIAA Strategist #1: Dude, I got it! Follow me here, we want all the money right? Ok so if we sue everyone now we get all the money for the next 25 years and not have to do a damn thing to get it!
      RIAA Strategist #2: Brilliant! But we'll have to make annoying pop music that will pacify the masses, we can't have any intelligent rebel music again like those damn 60's
      RIAA Strategist #1: Quite right, inform King Bush of your plans.
      RIAA Strategist #2: I'll order us a Pizza too.

      --
      -- taking over the world, we are.
    2. Re:Go after the real source of profit-loss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      $50k is their estimate of what they think they would get out of everyone, on average, in each consumers lifetime of purchasing music. So from that point, they could care less if you're bankrupt once they've extracted that money.

      Same thing goes for shipping jobs to third world countries and the response of 'but they're going to kill of the us'. The bigwigs won't care, because at that point, they'll already have all the money with the whole world as their slaves/servants(ie. no middle class. just masters and slaves).

  40. "RIAA Prepares Legal Blitz Against Filesharers" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    RIAA Prepares Legal Blitz Against Filesharers

    You must be new here...

  41. shared public files by reptilicus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    But the RIAA isn't invading anyone's house or computer, they're just going through the public directories of shared files that people put up on p2p networks. I'm not a fan of the RIAA, but this is not an invasion of privacy.

    1. Re:shared public files by Politburo · · Score: 1

      The invasion of privacy arguments aren't coming from the fact that they're looking on your computer. They come from the fact that the RIAA doesn't know who "l33tkid392" is, and has to subpoena his ISP (which may also be his uni) to get real details about a nickname. Subpoenas must be approved by a judge.

    2. Re:shared public files by shotfeel · · Score: 1

      Depends.

      As I've said in other posts, making some information publicly available does not automatically mean all personal information is forfeit. Having files publicly available should not be an open door for any third party to obtain information that is otherwise not public (name, address,...).

      The caveat being if that public information indicates unlawful activity is taking place. But even that requires a judge signing a subpoena. Unless you're the RIAA, which is the real crime IMO.

    3. Re:shared public files by dbc001 · · Score: 1

      the point is that cops cant search you without good reason. Kazaa or whatever p2p app is like leaving the window open on your computer (anyone can see inside). in this case, the RIAA has walked in, searched the place, and then moved to the court system. the RIAA has taken vigilante action, and it should be illegal to do so, otherwise we would live in anarchy. we have safeguards in place to prevent this sort of thing in the real world, but since this is digital the RIAA is skipping over those safeguards.

      if Wal-Mart thinks you are stealing, they can't just go search your car, or search your house. they have to get the police involved. that's what the RIAA should have done when they thought they were wronged: they should have gotten the police. The police would tell them to fuck off. but they have perverted the system and have become vigilantes.

    4. Re:shared public files by reptilicus · · Score: 1

      "Subpoenas must be approved by a judge."

      Not so in this case, at least according to the DMCA. The RIAA is (although it is distasteful to say so) just executing their legal rights. The DMCA removes the need for judicial oversight. Which is frightening, but legal.

    5. Re:shared public files by reptilicus · · Score: 1

      "But even that requires a judge signing a subpoena. Unless you're the RIAA, which is the real crime IMO."

      Under the DMCA, any copyright holder can get a subpoena issued with no judicial oversight. It's not just the RIAA (although they, and the MPAA, paid for this particular law).

    6. Re:shared public files by reptilicus · · Score: 1

      Your metaphors are way off. Putting files in a public shared file on a p2p network is different from leaving a window open. It's more like taking the items from your house and putting them out in the middle of the street for all to see. Or publishing a list of them in the newspaper. Putting your files out on a p2p network is an invitation for other network members to browse. It's not a violation of anyone's privacy.

      --- the RIAA has taken vigilante action---

      How exactly is issuing a subpoena and filing a lawsuit "vigilante action"?

      --- we have safeguards in place to prevent this sort of thing in the real world, but since this is digital the RIAA is skipping over those safeguards---

      In my real world, we have something called the DMCA, a poorly written and dangerous law that allows copyright holders to skip over those safeguards.

  42. RIAA missing the point by ALecs · · Score: 1

    I, personally, have never used any P2P file sharing.

    I've never shared my music with anyone over the 'net.

    I also haven't bought a record (CD, vinyl, etc.) in over 2 years. (Seriously - I know 'cuz I haven't had to reorganize my CD shelf since I moved in 2001)

    Thank goodness my honesty has made the RIAA so much money.

  43. What about other activies? by Dr.+Bent · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why are they just going after P2P filesharing? Why not vigorously prosecute those who download music off of Usenet? Or those who copy CD's from friends? How about people who make bootlegs?

    I'll tell you why. It's because P2P is an alternative distribution model that threatens their business (in the long term) much much more than a little music piracy by college students who wouldn't be able to afford to buy the thousands of songs they steal anyway.

    This is, and has always been, about controlling music distribution and not about stopping piracy. Piracy is a side effect of the real problem: Loss of Control.

    1. Re:What about other activies? by Microlith · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They're going after P2P because it's far wider reaching than Usenet, people who make CDs for friends, and yes even bootlegs.

      On Kazaa one person can reach many millions. Usenet isn't nearly as user friendly and bootlegs, well, when was the last time you saw a bootleg in a store that most people you know trafficked regularly (IE Wal-Mart?)

      They deserve control over works the RIAA member companies own. You have no right to take that.

      Certainly non-signed artists can do what they please, but you have no right to drag others along a path they may not want to venture down.

      And there's nothing that P2P that screams to me "valid distribution model." Every time I look on most any P2P service it's warezed music, movies, software, games and porn.

      A smart artist would put mp3s on their own website, where advertising is exclusive.

    2. Re:What about other activies? by Snaller · · Score: 1

      ...a little music piracy by college students who wouldn't be able to afford to buy the thousands of songs they steal anyway.


      Except they don't steal songs - you can't steal something intangible, they are violating copyright law.

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    3. Re:What about other activies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is NO MUSIC ON USENET!!!

      Stop trying to bring usenet into the fray and GO AWAY!!!

      NOTHING TO SEE HERE!!!

    4. Re:What about other activies? by BobSutan · · Score: 1

      Wow! I made a post about this a while back that was almost word for word the same as yours. Good to know there are people out there the see things for what they are.

      --
      "On a scale from 1 to 10, people are stupid"
  44. Related defense that might work - comments? by Nels · · Score: 1

    Does the DMCA prevent the circumvention of encryption schemes that even *might* reveal copyrighted information?
    If so, WASTE, simply by virtue of being encrypted, might be a legally impenetrable way of running file sharing.
    However, even if that is true, does the law provide any safeguard against people who are privy to copyrighted information who decrypt it and supply it to law enforcement agencies? If it does, well obviously you have to keep things closed off to the public, but on the (extremely unlikely) chance that it doesn't, one could create a program with a deliberately facile encryption feature and the info would be legally protected.

  45. Boycott!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most people on Slashdot are probably already doing this, but if the RIAA continues to use such heavy-handed tactics, they will see a consumer revolt that has never been seen before.

    Suing college students, teenagers and their parents has to be the worst way to get their point across that I've ever seen. The music industry is dying, and its death throes are being felt by everyone as their evil tentacles lash out at anyone and anything on their way down.

    I like how the article notes that the RIAA is trying to get us to use even more expensive things such as SACD, when the high cost is the very reason that everybody is moving to P2P networks. Rather than work on saving themselves through a reinvention, they would prefer to die.

    They could eliminate just about all of the middle men, and just have digital downloads similar to Apple for Macintosh users, which will still give them plenty of profit. But they have been fighting the future, instead of joining it. Die, Dinosaurs, Die!!!

    1. Re:Boycott!! by cens0r · · Score: 1

      SACD is not inherently more expensive than CD. DVD-A and SACD also offer features above and beyond what is on an MP3 or CD (high quality sound, multi-channel music, music videos, etc). The only reason that SACD and DVD-A are expensive now, is that they are new. If they take off they soon will be the same price as a CD (not that they aren't over priced). I remember paying $600 for my first DVD player... but no one bought DVD players because they were more expensive than VHS and that format died didn't it.

      --
      Jack Valenti and Orrin Hatch will be first up against the wall when the revolution comes.
  46. They KNOW how the Internet works? by YetAnotherName · · Score: 2, Insightful

    RIAA vice-president Matt Oppenheim...added that the claim about violating the woman's internet address "reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of how the internet works".

    Sorry, pal. You're a VP. I'm an engineer. I've had an email address since 1988, and I was using ed to write homework papers formatted with roff in 3rd grade on an ancient Unix system. You do not know how the Internet works.

    1. Re:They KNOW how the Internet works? by Effugas · · Score: 3, Insightful

      He seems to be saying IP addresses aren't private, in the way credit card numbers and even telephone numbers are.

      Is he wrong?

    2. Re:They KNOW how the Internet works? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What do you want? A peanut?

    3. Re:They KNOW how the Internet works? by Tenebrious1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sorry, pal. You're a VP. I'm an engineer. I've had an email address since 1988, and I was using ed to write homework papers formatted with roff in 3rd grade on an ancient Unix system. You do not know how the Internet works.

      And apparently you don't either. By sharing files, she allowed the Kazaa to publish her location and the files available. By sharing files, she immediately removed the cloak of anonimity.

      That's how the "internet" works, and Oppenheim is correct, nycfashiongirl is mistaken if she though her nick would keep her anonymous.

      My MP3s sit behind a firewall. There's no link to those files on the internet, no way for the RIAA to find them without hacking through my firewall and into my system. If I share files with my friends through an encrypted VPN, there's no way for the RIAA to know I've shared those files. If the RIAA were snooping in on that VPN traffic, then yes, that would be illegal because there's no reasonable cause for the RIAA to be sniffing my private communications. That is what nycfashiongirl is trying to claim, and that is truly shallow. If you can't see the difference between the two examples, then you don't know how the internet works.

      --
      -- If god wanted me to have a sig, he'd have given me a sense of humor.
    4. Re:They KNOW how the Internet works? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reorwww!

    5. Re:They KNOW how the Internet works? by YetAnotherName · · Score: 1

      Thanks for ripping me a new one, and good points, all. What I meant was on a technical level. Get it? He's a VP, I'm an engineer? (Honestly, I didn't mean for it to get modded as insightful.)

      Toodles.

    6. Re:They KNOW how the Internet works? by sTalking_Goat · · Score: 1
      In a morbid way I'm actually hoping someone lets that "Destroy their computers if they infringe" Bill slip past Congress. I'd like to see someone plant a bunch and of fake MP3's on Microsoft or a big Private Uni like Stanford's network and RIAA start burning their computers with impunity.

      The truth of it is as lo0ng as they're going after the littlest guy (College and High Schoolers who are old enough to be liable, and young and broke enough to be intimidated) not much is going to change, but could you imagine them burning the computers in Orin Hatch's office.

      Shit meet Mr. Fan.

      --

      My days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle...

    7. Re:They KNOW how the Internet works? by RobertKozak · · Score: 1

      And apparently you don't either. By sharing files, she allowed the Kazaa to publish her location and the files available. By sharing files, she immediately removed the cloak of anonimity

      Here the solution: Add a file to your list called README or Copyright Notice. In it you say:

      The following list of files are Copyright (C) 2003 [your name]. All rights reserved. You may not distribute this list to anyone without prior permission. You may not make any copies of this list in any form. Failure to comply will result in criminal and civil prosecution.

      --
      Bet this .sig looks familiar.
    8. Re:They KNOW how the Internet works? by Snaller · · Score: 1

      So how does it work?

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    9. Re:They KNOW how the Internet works? by Ieshan · · Score: 1

      This isn't legal, it's abuse of copyright.

      I fail to understand why this is such a difficult concept. For instance, by definition, when your browser reads this webpage, it copies the text of my comment into your cache.

      If I put --

      Copyright (2003) by Ieshan - any system designed to copy this post without my express permission is using my intellectual property illegally.

      -- this doesn't give me the right to sue slashdot because they've made a system to copy my posts to your browser.

      Likewise, you cannot sue for other frivolous copyright.

      An *interesting* application would be to encrypt names of files with a system put in place by Kazaa, an End User Agreement which stated that no information gained from use of the Kazaa System was admissible in the court of law as they cannot control names of files or encryption schemes, and a bunch of users. In this case, the only way to sue would be to jump the DMCA hurdle.

    10. Re:They KNOW how the Internet works? by SheepHead · · Score: 1
      It's not the IP address, it's the translation from IP address into Name, Phone Number & Physicial Address that is the problem. RIAA gets this by getting a form stamped by a clerk, rather than getting approval from a judge, using provisions of the DMCA, which has not been tested in court.

      So the "illegal search" part happened when they skipped the "approval from a judge" part, which is what would be contested in court under 4th amendment grounds.

      --
      7d9e63e9501751ff4bf9307989d5623d *SheepHead
    11. Re:They KNOW how the Internet works? by SheepHead · · Score: 1
      That is what nycfashiongirl is trying to claim, and that is truly shallow.

      no, she's trying to claim that turning her IP address into her real name and address (when the RIAA requests this information from her ISP) without approval from a judge is an illegal search.

      certainly her IP is not private, and you can figure out what her ISP is based on her IP, but you're still pretty far from peering directly into the ISP's records to figure out which subscriber was using that IP at that time. demanding that the ISP turn over that information without a warrant would be the illegal part. well, technically it is currently legal, but that would be what s/he is contesting. i hope.

      --
      7d9e63e9501751ff4bf9307989d5623d *SheepHead
  47. Replies per post compared to RIAA stupidity level by Genjurosan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I would venture that the number of posts on /. concerning the RIAA is directly driven by the level of stupidity that the RIAA touts to the world. As the stupidity goes up, the amount of posts should go down, as there really isn't much else to do these days other than shake your head with the silent understanding that the RIAA is killing those that they represent.

    Don't they understand that college students and high school students download songs because they are broke? Now with the continued slash and burn method; once the college student graduates and finds a job, this new generation of 'pissed off at the RIAA' simply are not going to purchase music legally simply out of hate, spite, etc...

  48. Death to RIAA. by HanzoSan · · Score: 3, Insightful



    Since they have declared war on us with this scare and awe bullshit, this only will speed up their own demise. There was once a time when the RIAA had a chance to actually take their piece of the pie and keep some market share by selling music to consumers embracing the new technology, but the RIAA has totally fucked it up and ruined their chances of actually surviving this.

    So here is what will happen, the RIAA meaning record companies will cease to exist. I dont know how they figure they can sue people into buying music, or scare people into buying music, all this will do is make us boycott. I was not boycotting the RIAA until they started doing this, now I will never buy another RIAA CD. I will buy used CDs from ebay, I will pirate, I will do whatever it takes to keep from ever supporting the big record companies again.

    I will support small record companies. I see it like this, why support someone who wants to sue me? Why should I support someone who is damaging the music industry for the musicians as well as the consumer?

    --
    If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
    1. Re:Death to RIAA. by fafaforza · · Score: 1

      When they do go out of business they'll just cite piracy as the reason. They've a'ready been doing that to explain their decreasing revenues the past 2 or 3 years.

      Either way they'll be portrayed as victims and filesharers online as the ones who killed a benevolent organization. Either way, they win.

    2. Re:Death to RIAA. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Of course. The RIAA is obsolete, everyone knows it. We should destroy their effective method of providing music to everyone via widely available CD vendors and replace it with a mechanism that only allows a tech elite with access to broadband Internet connections to listen, with all new music being recorded and produced in people's garages using the very highest quality Radio Shack $10 microphones, by performers who get a chance to compose music about once in a blue moon given they work nine hours a day doing "real" work - presumably on something much more useful and enriching to society than music, say, lawyering, or providing tax advice.

      That'll make the world a much better place.

      You know, if the RIAA and the anti-RIAA weren't being such destructive, pointless, vengeful, nutjobs, maybe something sane and wonderful in the world of music might happen.

    3. Re:Death to RIAA. by letxa2000 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      When they do go out of business they'll just cite piracy as the reason... Either way they'll be portrayed as victims and filesharers online as the ones who killed a benevolent organization. Either way, they win.

      No, if they go out of business they lose. I could care less what an expired, non-existant bankrupt recording industry cites as the reason for their demise. They can say whatever they want. If they no longer exist, they lost.

    4. Re:Death to RIAA. by Angostura · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Your logic is, unfortunately predicated on belief that the RIAA's policy will trigger a large scale consumer backlash, an anti-record company jihad, if you like. Well, it may, but it may not. I suspect that the wider non-Slashdot-reading audience, the small-scale downloaders already feel uneasy about the morality of 'stealing music' they've done it because: (a) it has appeared to be a victimless crime (b) they have had a feeling of invunerability to capture. The RIAA's tactics are designed to eat away at both of these perceptions. I suspect that they will work well enough to make a goodly proportion of file-swappers more nervous and reduce activity on the networks. So far so good for the RIAA. I'm dubious about there being a widescale backlash, however I'm also very very dubious about any consequent increase in music sales. The RIAA believes that filesharing is the main culprit slowing industry sales, I think it is wrong. It needs to realise that the idea of packaging artists works into monolithic albums was an accident of format, and not something that its customers really want.

    5. Re:Death to RIAA. by og_sh0x · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Hey! If you want to buy music but don't want to give the RIAA any money, go to one of those used CD stores. The RIAA hates them more than they hate you, because RIAA can't do anything about them... They're 100% legal! As an added bonus, you don't have to feel the slightest bit guilty or worry at all about being sent to a federal, p2p-me-in-the-ass prison.

    6. Re:Death to RIAA. by Red+Pointy+Tail · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Hey, why don't someone set up a CD exchange facility? We can all swap CDs, and of course, relinquish all rights to what we had previous owned, and of course swear that we didn't make a copy of it first? ;)

    7. Re:Death to RIAA. by krb · · Score: 1

      here -- this should help :

      http://www.magnetbox.com/riaa/bookmark.asp

      the bookmarklets available here will scan an Amazon product page and tell you if the record listed there is a RIAA product or not.

      --
    8. Re:Death to RIAA. by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      I stopped supporting those little bloodsuckers before the first CD was released. These people make the Luddites look positively progressive.

      At least in the days when the 45 RPM single was popular, I could spend a couple bucks on the song I wanted, and only what I wanted. I was not, at that time, aware of the RIAA's illegal and abusive activities or I wouldn't have spent even that much. But the truth is that the single was a better bargain than the LP or the Compact Disc have ever been.

      So far as I'm concerned, anyone that buys a Compact Disc loaded with one or two tolerable tunes plus a dozen filler tracks for twenty bucks and feels good about it is an idiot. Furthermore, he or she deserves to have his or her wallet extracted by a bunch of moneygrubbing attorneys masquerading as an "industry trade association." Anyone that patronizes an RIAA member corporation is throwing good money away.

      The RIAA is ultimately doomed, if they persist in this madness. They have survived as long as they have by remaining in the shadows. In spite of the abuse they heap upon the artists they claim to represent, and the monopolistic behavior that resulted in music lovers being overcharged billions of dollars, they have reigned supreme for a very long time. However, the buying public and the legal system have always remained largely ignorant of the way the music "industry" operates. The rise of Napster, and the publicity (and popularity) it generated has put the RIAA squarely in the limelight, and most of us don't like what we see. Even Judge Marilyn Hall Patel, who (in my personal opinion) permitted her poor grasp of technical and cultural issues to destroy Napster, correctly pointed out that the RIAA's hands were equally as dirty.

      Their days are numbered. As I've said before on Slashdot, the RIAA will exist only so long as their member companies perceive them to have value, to have relevance. If the music industry's market share continues to fall, I suspect that relevance will rapidly reach zero. It doesn't matter why sales are off (file sharing, lousy music, piracy, whatever) but if the trend continuous the RIAA will find itself in a bit of a pickle.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    9. Re:Death to RIAA. by jsebrech · · Score: 1

      One small detail: they're only going after people who are (surprise!) breaking the law. Sharing RIAA-owned music is illegal. Plain and simple. And it's even rightly so illegal, because without copyright, the GPL wouldn't exist. If you don't want trouble with the RIAA, then don't break the law.

      Now, if you want to criticize them for breaking the CD format (with their shitty copy-protected CD lookalikes), overcharging, minimising the possibility for people to make money off of making good music and keeping music off the internet (in a legal AND usable form), then be my guest. They suck, and you're right to boycott them. But don't boycott them because they're going after people who break the law. They're not wrong doing that.

      As an aside, to everyone interested in boycotting the RIAA, but unsure whether they'll still get satisfied musically, I suggest visiting cdbaby.com. It solved the problem for me.

    10. Re:Death to RIAA. by schnits0r · · Score: 1

      Theres' a website. http://www.swappingtons.com.

      You can trade books, DVDs and CDs as well as other media.

      Remember, if yu sign up say you were refered by schnits.

    11. Re:Death to RIAA. by AdamD1 · · Score: 1

      I know so many people who made this decision months ago. Even major magazines (Entertainment Weekly and Wired, most recently) have had little sidebars about how ridiculous this situation has become.

      My favorite quote of the year:

      Perhaps on the rare occasion pursuing the right course demands an act of piracy, piracy itself can be the right course?
      -- Governor Swann
      Pirates of the Caribbean

      And that movie had a trailer before it about not pirating movies. :)

      At the rate their sales are dropping, no matter whether anyone thinks it's 100% due to downloading or not, they will be seeing 50% loss of sales inside of the next five years. As far as I'm concerned: if the labels keep allowing the RIAA to represent them by spending their dues on lawsuits like these, they won't be able to afford the mass release (already decreasing) of major label dreck that we've all become so tired of. I look forward to the day when a completely independent artist is able to have a successful single completely without the need of a label or that whole system.

      ad

      --
      Because I can! [Brainrub.com]
    12. Re:Death to RIAA. by NeverReminder · · Score: 1

      So, we should thank RIAA for gave us such a wonderful music as Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, Doors and others. God lord, I mean, RIAA, thank you, thank you, for your existence

    13. Re:Death to RIAA. by Blue+Stone · · Score: 1
      "I could[sic]* care less what an expired, non-existant bankrupt recording industry cites as the reason for their demise. They can say whatever they want. If they no longer exist, they lost."

      Nice plan. Except for one thing: what makes you think even in your wildest dreams, that the government would let a major capitalist organisation be snuffed out like that?

      We're not talking ship-workers, or miners, or other manufacturers, we're talking pure-evil capitalism with the RIAA, and as I recall, they're the types the government numbers as "one of their own."


      *Off Topic: I could love someone and care less, since there is an abundance of care that I have. So I could look at my loved one and say, "I could care less," and it would be true, since there is so much care that I have.
      If I couldn't care less, there is no level of care below which I could sink. I could not say that of my beloved, but I could say that of someone I disliked, hated, or was utterly indifferent to.

      Therefore "[sic]" "I couldn't care less about this; I care nothing whatsoever."

      --
      Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
    14. Re:Death to RIAA. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As long as it's a slow death; the whole pliers and a blow torch thing I mean. And lets make a recording of them screaming and begging for their lives too, that way we can post it on p2p services free for download. maybe we should underscore it with some of their crappiest music just for kicks.

      In all seriousness though, if the RIAA continues to abuse the courts in this way; ala filing suite against people who cannot afford to defend themselves, how long will it be before people actually start breaking into the RIAA offices intent on putting them out of buisiness in not so legal and painless ways? No tyrant can rule forever.

      Which raises another point I've been considering.... why don't they file criminal charges? Simple, then the state has to provide you with a lawyer to defend yourself, and you might have a chance of winning. Perhaps the best approach would be to force criminal trials; thousands of them, on these bastards. After all, who says they have a legal right to charge $50k (or more) after the fact? That stinks of usury to me.

      But then again, IANAL, and I doubt I would be able to inflict any physical harm on the quasi-human creatures that run the RIAA. Guess it's the old rock and hard place for the time being.

    15. Re:Death to RIAA. by FussionMan · · Score: 1

      CD sales have been going down not because of file sharing but because of high prices and poor quality.

      CD are much cheaper to produce than tapes and yet they are priced 200-400% times higher.

    16. Re:Death to RIAA. by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Another small detail: the RIAA has abridged and bypassed our Constitutionally-protected right to due process. Furthermore, this group has abused both the letter and intent of the law by using gangster-like tactics to intimidate and terrorize individuals whose only crime (if any) is at best a relatively minor civil matter. Please read the applicable copyright law. The RIAA has absolutely no intention whatsoever of actually giving any of these alleged infringers their day in court, nor do they care one whit whether they are targeting actual infringers or innocent bystanders.

      This is simply a lesson in intimidation on a near-Biblical scale, one which has nothing to do with right, wrong or justice. It has to do with money, lots of it, and they apparently don't care who they destroy in the process. They like to pretend that they are enlightened capitalists doing what is right for those they supposedly serve and protect, but in fact they are thugs!

      If they really wanted to be reasonable about it (and they do not) they would just ask people to fork over the cost of the songs they have illegally copied or to erase said files from their computers. Forcing out-of-court settlements that extract a person's life savings are hardly a just response, and as most of these cases will never get near a courtroom our traditional judicial protections simply don't apply. The RIAA's whole approach to this matter is untenably grotesque and twisted, and simply should not be countenanced by a supposedly civilized legal system.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    17. Re:Death to RIAA. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ummm...they better step up the propaganda a bit. Ask the average person what the RIAA is and I doubt they'll even know. "What's the RIAA ?" is hardly "Oh, they're that kind and benevolent organization I heard about."

    18. Re:Death to RIAA. by Lodragandraoidh · · Score: 1

      I have known some pretty awsome musicians who played gigs on the weekend while pulling down a full time job. They not only played covers, but wrote their own music - and recorded it (actually I did alot of recording for them on my 8 track tascam reel to reel- then mastering onto digital audio or reel to reel, depending on what they wanted - using the same mixer I would use for gigs - and I used to play keyboards [Yamaha], and compose myself).

      Equipment - how about top of the line Sennheiser mics with fully shielded din connectors, Bose, Infinity, or Cerwin Vega monitor speakers for stage or studio, Marshall Stacks, Mesa Boogie amps, in an anachoic foam insulated 'garage' recording studio with acoustic baffles and seperate configurable acoustically isolated 'rooms'. The recordings were as good as anything I heard on the radio before or since.

      Don't assume non-professional means incompetent. (Part time music geek in my 20's - got rid of the equipment after I got married to pay some bills)

      Currently learning guitar in my spare time (scale hell).

      Just because it doesn't have the record label's stamp of approval doesn't mean its crud; conversely, that stamp does not obviate crud either, having listened to Britney Spears album lately...

      mv "AC's Argument" /dev/null;

      --

      Lodragan Draoidh
      The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
    19. Re:Death to RIAA. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clever. They've chosen to ignore this new "mechanism" as you put it. And when they have "embraced" it, they cripple it. This is not our fault. Business' throughout history have prevailed in arena's such as this without attacking it's customer base... in this case those that wish to listen to a lot of music.

      Your $10 microphone bit is laughable. If you mean they don't follow the 3/5 minute "formulated" bullshit being forced down our throats via bought out radio waves, then good riddance. I only purchase indie bands and small label bands and they sound wonderful, eclectic... actually great music. Most of these bands fully enjoy sharing because they realize the marketing blitz it creates for them. Does it cut sales? Not if no one has ever heard of you... Music to the artist and the listener shouldn't involve greed. It's art. Should the artist be compensated? Hell yeah! But all the RIAA has done is corner the market by which they are able to sqeeze the entire industry. Do not suggest that small labels couldn't bring the same amount of quality and even add diversity to this industry, because the could. They may even bring the joy of listening to music back. I remember taping radio music and making tapes for all of my friends. I/we were buying tapes like our life depended on it. Music was FUN. We shared it, embraced it, it was part of our life. Now... it's a business that emboddies ugliness. Nice job RIAA...

      Some of us actually list the creative media we call "music" as a much more life enriching device than lawering and accounting believe it or not. Yikes...

    20. Re:Death to RIAA. by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      I'm NOT a lawyer, however under current copyright law you have to basically be a true pirate (i.e., profiting by your illegal activities) and exceed some rather decently large financial limits before your transgressions can end up in criminal court. Up 'til that point, it's a civil matter. From what I've been able to put together, the reason the RIAA hasn't been filing criminal charges against alleged illegal copiers is that they can't: it's not a criminal matter. It seems that the law wasn't intended to punish individuals that may have some illegally copied material in the homes, but to punish those that actually duplicate and sell copyrighted material for profit. I doubt the majority of P2P users fall into that category.

      If there are any actual copyright attorneys out there please correct me if I'm off base. I'm very interested in this and would like to learn more.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    21. Re:Death to RIAA. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Clever. They've chosen to ignore this new "mechanism" as you put it. And when they have "embraced" it, they cripple it. This is not our fault. Business' throughout history have prevailed in arena's such as this without attacking it's customer base... in this case those that wish to listen to a lot of music.
      Indeed. So you agree with me that both the RIAA and the anti-RIAA are pathetic, extremist, scum?

      Or are you soooo far off the rails you don't see criticism of the RIAA, only criticism of the anti-RIAA nutjobs?

      Some of us actually list the creative media we call "music" as a much more life enriching device than lawering and accounting believe it or not. Yikes...
      And some of us understand sarcasm and irony. Take a look at the context in which that comment was written.
    22. Re:Death to RIAA. by 3terrabyte · · Score: 1
      If the music industry's market share continues to fall, I suspect that relevance will rapidly reach zero.

      I absolutely agree. In today's corporation where the stock value is the almighty driving factor, nothing else matters. These companies don't actually have to reach $0 dollars to fail. If their stock seems to be heading south, while other stocks are heading upwards, then investors will bail. Unfortunately we've been in a recession, so everyone has gone down (unfortunately our 11% decrease in sales last year we couldn't blame on piracy!)

      It's too bad that these record companies are actually so huge. For instance -- Sony. Music is hardly their only income. This allows this to buffer these so called piracy losses.

      But I agree, every division needs to make money or else why bother with that division. Truth be told though, the music industry is making shitloads of money. They simply aren't INCREASING as fast as they once were. Ah the horror of it all.

      --

      Why are there only 19 people folding@home for slashdot?

    23. Re:Death to RIAA. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A few weeks ago I talked with a guy who sets up websites for independent musicians. He said all his clients love filesharing, and encourage fans to share their stuff. They still make tons of money selling CDs...the key is to provide extra value with the CD - good insert, etc. Make your fans happy, and they're happy to support you.

      Some of these bands used to have major-label contracts, and were barely scraping by. They're doing much better on their own.

      Most of them do their own recording...a decent room, good mikes, and a computer with good software makes for a very capable studio. If you insist on actual studio time, take a look at the recent history of Marillion, which got their fans to directly advance them $300,000 to record a new album.

    24. Re:Death to RIAA. by 3terrabyte · · Score: 1
      Hmmm, I never thought of that before. Is it possible to request or prove that what you've done is criminal instead of civil?

      Nah, I doubt it. I guess the only thing to do is make sure you sold one of your mp3's for $1. Then you'd be in criminal territory.

      Of course, I've always stated that you could get in less trouble if you just shoplifted the CD instead!

      --

      Why are there only 19 people folding@home for slashdot?

    25. Re:Death to RIAA. by silicon_id · · Score: 1

      Anyone know of a cheap offshore hosting site, one where I could anonymously upload my 10G of mp3s and offer them to everyone for free? We could start a collective where people could anonymously donate for the cost of the hosting... Maybe what we need to do is get pro-active in bringing about their destruction. And for those who want to argue that it is only going to hurt the artists, I would say what will really happen is we will be forcing those artists to look at what they are doing in signing with record lables under the RIAA. If that is what they choose to do, then they have to be responsible for their choices - as do we all, but that is another rant all together...

    26. Re:Death to RIAA. by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      Therefore "[sic]" "I couldn't care less about this; I care nothing whatsoever."

      Sir, your pedantry is showing.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    27. Re:Death to RIAA. by fuzzix · · Score: 0

      A fine sentiment, but what about not listening to their shit at all? I gave up buying major label/overtly commercial music a long, long time ago.
      My record collection is far more ecelectic & interesting and has a greater collection of talented musicians (as opposed to whores) within as a result.

    28. Re:Death to RIAA. by Nucleon500 · · Score: 1

      Oh, you mean like a library? Borrowing a CD and returning it, while making sure never to make a copy, which would be wrong? It does require going outside, though.

    29. Re:Death to RIAA. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for mentioning The Doors! :)

      One of my favorite all time bands!

    30. Re:Death to RIAA. by letxa2000 · · Score: 1
      Nice plan. Except for one thing: what makes you think even in your wildest dreams, that the government would let a major capitalist organisation be snuffed out like that? We're not talking ship-workers, or miners, or other manufacturers, we're talking pure-evil capitalism with the RIAA, and as I recall, they're the types the government numbers as "one of their own."

      Let's get off your "government is evil and only loves corporations" pedestal for a moment and think... The "government" is NOT a single person. It doesn't even have a mind of its own. The "government" is you, me, and everyone that is employed on our behalf. Those people are mostly just making a living working 9-5. It's not the Borg. We don't have a few million federal employees that have somehow been brainwashed into doing corporate bidding.

      That said, if you think even the government can keep certain things from happening, you're wrong. The government tried prohibition and failed. The government tried to prevent terrorism and failed. The government tried to maintain segregation and failed. The government has failed many times. If you think the government can "will" the RIAA to survive or somehow protect it from technology I think you're quite mistaken.

    31. Re:Death to RIAA. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Better yet, go to the public library and borrow the cd and "listen to" it

    32. Re:Death to RIAA. by Sphere1952 · · Score: 1

      Every CD I've bought in the last five years has been purchased at the table in (or just outside of) the hall where the artists were playing. I kind of doubt that any of the CDs were produced by an RIAA member.

      I'm really happy with these CDs. Aside from being well produced and having good songs, they bring back good memories.

      --
      Big Brother Bush is doubleplus ungood.
    33. Re:Death to RIAA. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah, cause there was no music before the glory of the Record Industry.

    34. Re:Death to RIAA. by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Yes ... the relatively poor rate of growth is what is bothering them so much. Some analyses I've seen, however, indicate that the music industry, as a whole, has been far less affected by our recessive economy than many other major businesses, in spite of the purported depradations of peer-to-peer file sharing. In other words, I take their claims with one large grain of salt.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  49. Re:But they have to USE law enforcement, don't the by Planesdragon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You're thinking of criminal law. When the government is brining a case against you, there are far stricter rules.

    When it's a private party, the rules aren't _quite_ as tight.

  50. Cribs by JeepingNET · · Score: 2, Insightful

    How are we susposed to take this all serious that ohhh they are loosing so much money when they put shows like cribs on tv... I hardly afford rent yet I go and spent $20 on a CD.. Go over to my parents (cause i cann't afford cable) and see the show cribs... see the artist who's cd i just bought in this big huge house just blowing away all this cash.. Ya sure.. he certainly needed my money.. I understand he only even gets a fraction of what I pay for the record so if he has say 20 million then the record company must have made like 100 million... hard to feel sorry for them when they live much better than I

    1. Re:Cribs by Snowspinner · · Score: 1

      OK. Yes. Very good. You have successfully identified, through your judicious watching of MTV, how a very small percentage of musicians live.

      Now flip over to VH1 and watch Behind the Music, and you'll see what happens to them in two years when they cool off, and their income subsides to more normal levels.

      Then go find an indy band, even one that's signed to a fairly major indy label, and ask them how much profit they made on their last tour. I know my friend's band, which is signed with one of the biggest goth/industrial labels around, made an amazing $10 off of his six week tour this summer.

      When you're done with all of that, come back and try posting again, with a little less of the stupid, and a little more of the productive discussion.

    2. Re:Cribs by JeepingNET · · Score: 1

      I agree with you guys totally have very good points and yes it is just a small majority of them but I'm just saying what I think alot of todays kids see. Show them artists living on the streets and they might feel different

  51. One word - Precedent by moldar · · Score: 1

    We have seen lots of other corporations that go for the easy targets. Sure, the folks the RIAA are targetting have no dough. However, this establishes the desired long arm of the RIAA. If they get this to happen (and 'let the students off easy' by lowering the $$ sued for) then they think they can come off in a better position.

  52. Take Up Arms? by mwarps · · Score: 1

    Is the RIAA prepared do defend itself against the eventual uprising that's coming its way? Torches and pitchforks aren't quite what they're going to get if they keep this up. They're stupid enough to start persecuting (yes, persecuting) family members of the wrong people and then it's going to get very ugly, very fast.

    Stop supporting these extortionists. Stop buying labeled CDs. Stop buying DVDs. All you're doing is giving them more power.

    1. Re:Take Up Arms? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i wish the heads of this council of evil would start to disappear.

      why don't serial killers target corprete asses?

  53. What happens when we stop buying from the RIAA? by HanzoSan · · Score: 4, Interesting



    You should check out the site http://downhillbattle.org/ and see what the RIAA is doing. They are only making the revolution more organized and more powerful. The more people they sue, the more who will join the boycott, the more hated the RIAA will become.

    And for them to DARE use the "scare and awe" crap, thats like declaring we are all terrorists!

    "Buy our music or else you are supporting terrorism!"

    --
    If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
    1. Re:What happens when we stop buying from the RIAA? by RickHunter · · Score: 3, Informative

      The problem is that its hard, if not impossible, to stop your money from flowing to the RIAA, especially if you want to compete with them. Blank media taxes, recording device taxes, professional recording device taxes, and a few dozen other hidden fees go straight to their coffers.

    2. Re:What happens when we stop buying from the RIAA? by linkdead · · Score: 1

      It's not about a total stop to their income, since that's just not oging to happen. It's more about hurting their bottom line so badly that they either have to close shop and make money on lawsuits alone (and get sued to hell by investors, etc), or to drop all lawsuits and get back to making music. Think of it as the proverbial smacking of the hand.

    3. Re:What happens when we stop buying from the RIAA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm Look at the stuff on iTunes.. the MASSIVE decline in sales.

    4. Re:What happens when we stop buying from the RIAA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Dana Edwards was feeling a little disheartened. It had been nearly a week since he'd contacted Peacecorp and applied for a tour of duty in the Congo. He had hoped all week that his weight problem, chronic acne and asthma would not discount him from the program. Dana had been in some financial strife for a couple years now, with those tuition fees from Massachusets Bay Community College piling up. This was particularly stressful for him because, despite having taught himself to read and posessing an impressive intellect, he could not find a decent slack-off job with internet connection that would support his slashdot posting habit. Dana belched while he tapped his cordless phone and stuffed his hand into a bag of Cheetos. Dana, a Jack of All Trades had also been unsuccessful for several years in his attempts to get a night DJ position at a local AM radio station within walking distance of his mother's house. This distressed him, because being a DJ would be such a natural part-time job for him, being a skilled musician on the side. Alas, he waited still and finished the last fluid ounce of his Mountain Dew.

      Peacecorp was going to change that. Where his business sense would have failed him in the Merchant Marines and his poor physical condition were not up to snuff for the military, he felt Peacecorp would welcome him with open arms and take his student loan burden off his hands.

      "Education equals genius. Genius is good for society. I'll show them, I'm going to buck the status quo. I'm going to make a difference, I'll show them what a poor kid from the ghetto is capable of." Dana thought to himself.

      Dana had not shaven for five days, but his greasy facial hair never became very thick, even after weeks of neglect. It grew in a thin, spotty Fu Manchu pattern. Best described, his whiskers resembled soot smeared on his greasy jowels. He scratched at his armpit and pulled the tightening fabric of his pajama pants out of his groin and sighed with relief.

      "Aaaah."

      Dana was glad that the weekend had finally come around. His Computer Repair Fundamentals and Sociology classes were starting to really dig in. He blamed the teacher for sucking, and was utterly convinced that his superior intellect would reward him with first in his graduating class of 40. He was certain that the same outcome would happen if he got into MIT, but that would never happen. The rich bastards would never give him a fair chance on a level playing field. The MIT bastards hate nerds, just like everybody else. That was alright though, Dana already knew he was superior to most of them anyway. Their facilities were only useful to the superficial.

      Dana loosened up a bit by putting some music on the 'juke. He got a free MP3 jukebox from his mother and slapped an "RIAA SUCKS" bumper sticker on the side of it. Dana was vehemently opposed to the ownership and licensing of intellectual property, especially music. Dana downloaded all his favourite Pink Floyd tracks off the internet and onto the jukebox, and this brought a small amount of joy to his empty life.

      "Damn the man!" he exclaimed, raising a fist as his gut flopped out of his oil-stained ThinkGeek t-shirt.

      Ice T and Fred Durst alone had practically paved the way to justified downloads of all music ever created and served up on KaZaa. And so, Dana sat in in front of his monitor listening to The Wall, waiting for a reply from Peacecorp.

      His mother slipped in to his room briefly to set down a balogna and cheese sandwich in front of him while he fired up a beta version of Transgaming on his Pentium 166 with MMX.

      "Mom, why don't you hate the RIAA?"

      She shrugged, rolled her eyes and closed the door to his room on the way out.

      "She forgot to cut off the crusts." Dana held back the tears and ate the sandwich anyway.

      [montemplar] wuzzup hanz0?

      A privmsg came up on his IRC client. Dana had adopted the "handle" HanzoSan after his Japanese cla

    5. Re:What happens when we stop buying from the RIAA? by Jonner · · Score: 1

      I think what you're trying to say is: "The more you tighten you grip, Bainwol, the more consumers will slip through your fingers."

  54. Use RIAA Radar by reptilicus · · Score: 4, Informative

    Here's a free and easy tool that will let you know if a cd is from an RIAA affiliated company:

    http://www.magnetbox.com/riaa/

  55. Pushing a rope by cybermace5 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I've neither downloaded nor bought music for years. I don't want to drain my savings on the off chance I'd win the lawsuit lottery, and I don't want to pay the RIAA members any money to fund their racket.

    They live in a dream world, thinking that all business problems can be solved by legal force. Bright idea! If they won't buy our stuff, let's sue them to get the money anyway! Whatever happened to studying the consumers and trying to develop a product they will buy?

    The problem is this: they don't want to study the consumers. They want to control them. They are terrified that they are losing the ability to make and break artists, and define what is popular and what is not. Their whole business model revolves not around creating a quality product, but creating a slightly different product and brainwashing the consumers to buy it.

    --
    ...
    1. Re:Pushing a rope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Their whole business model revolves not around creating a quality product, but creating a slightly different product and brainwashing the consumers to buy it.

      Actually, it revolves around creating a small number of widely marketable products. It's a lot more profitable for them to sell 10 million Britney Spears CDs than it is to sell 10,000 CDs each from 1,000 different artists. So that's what they do, they create a product they think the most people will buy, they market the hell out of it, sell 10 millions of them, then move on to the next one. It's more efficient that way.

    2. Re:Pushing a rope by bitrott · · Score: 1

      you don't buy and you don't download. do you only get music from mix tapes your friends make? Radio? Honestly, it's hard to be a fan of any kind of music if you don't put down the cash once in a while. And if you aren't that "big" of a fan, why are you posting?

    3. Re:Pushing a rope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    4. Re:Pushing a rope by cybermace5 · · Score: 1

      I found that I don't actually need music to get through my day. It can be a big distraction, especially if the object of the music is to garner as much attention for the artist as possible. Why buy it? It doesn't have any intrinsic value, just something that makes a box produce highly processed vibrations in the air.

      A live performance is much better, because the artist is actually there and speaking to the audience through their music. It's the difference between a home-cooked meal and a squished, lukewarm McDonald's cheeseburger.

      --
      ...
    5. Re:Pushing a rope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's put it this way: if you were in a position where every enterprising young Britney Spears (or Justin Timberlake, if that's what floats your boat) wanna-be had to give you a blow job to have their fame 'n' fortune dreams come true, would YOU wanna give up that control just 'cause some kids didn't want take the time to walk down to their neighborhood Tower Records and pay $18.99 just to get the one song on an album they like? Look, we're talkin' BLOWJOBS here!

    6. Re:Pushing a rope by El · · Score: 1

      I already have over 600 CDs. Some I've never listened to. I can only listen to a few a day. I live in a town where there's live music every night, and most independent musicians will sell you a CD at their gigs -- cheap! How many more RIAA CDs do I need?

      --

      "Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney

    7. Re:Pushing a rope by bitrott · · Score: 1

      Ok, why did you post? You're clearly not a music lover, and you don't even sound like a casual music appreciator. I'd venture to guess that most music -lovers- can't get through the day without listening to something, and would most likely have several selections of music at the ready that wouldn't "distract". "especially if the object of the music is to garner as much attention for the artist as possible" Unusual to say the least. I'm guessing that you're talking about pop music and stardom, but I can't think of why anyone would make music without indending to draw attention to it. Noone makes music to be ignored. Why buy it? To own it and listen to it anytime and as often as you like. Don't be daft. I think you're trying to be witty or deep but you sound like a luddite whose proud of his ignorance.

    8. Re:Pushing a rope by bitrott · · Score: 1

      Uh. You're statement doesn't have much to do with my response to the parent. He's claiming to be a music fan that ostensibly won't buy music. You do buy music and will buy more. What's your point?

  56. Time for a Campaign of Shock and Awe Ourselves by Phoenix666 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Just who do these people at the RIAA think they are? Trying to extort money from 60 million people? They want to use laws they've bought to push us around, tag us as criminals, and take our freedom away?

    Well, folks, I think it's time to put the fear of god, or rather us 60 million people, into the record execs and heads of the RIAA. If they think it's cute to illegally root through our files and information, then let's see what they think about some payback. Let's put our considerable skills to work and dig up all the dirt (tax evasion, fraud, marital infidelities, etc.) we can on them. Let's expose them for the criminals they really are. Shoot, we could nail them on violating payola laws alone.

    On the political front, let's get our acts together and start making the politicians who do their bidding feel the heat. We've seen how the Howard Dean campaign has been able to raise money over the net and sign up armies of volunteers, so let's do likewise. Imagine how quickly the tables would turn if a thousand protesters showed up in a flash mob in front of our representatives' family homes every time the RIAA turned the screws like this.

    Enough whining and doublethink on Slashdot. Let's DO something about this.

    --
    Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
    1. Re:Time for a Campaign of Shock and Awe Ourselves by Snowspinner · · Score: 1

      You know they're not so much "illegally digging through your files" as "logging onto KaZaA, using the 'browse all files user shares' command to find users with a bunch of files, grabbing their IP address, and subpoenaing their name", right?

      I mean, I'm not disagreeing that the RIAA is in the wrong here, but the basic fact of the matter is that they are legally sound, and we are in fact criminals.

    2. Re:Time for a Campaign of Shock and Awe Ourselves by DdJ · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Just who do these people at the RIAA think they are?
      Oh, I don't know, maybe just the people who actually own the intellectual property that's being routinely pirated...?

      My hope is that they succeed at this. My hope is that they manage to squash file sharing, and build up a huge amount of ill will from the public, and end up destroying the popularity of all the material that they own. In the best of all worlds they'll succeed at this until they drive themselves utterly out of business.

      Then we can start over.
    3. Re:Time for a Campaign of Shock and Awe Ourselves by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1

      It's not illegal, I agree.

      On the other hand, jerking the collective chains of 60 million people tech savvy enough to file share is not exactly safe.

      I personally don't go in for showy digital attacks, but I admit that it pleases me when other people do, especially when the target deserves it. Therefore, I propose that everyone who fileshares throws in ten cents or a dollar into a "Fuck the RIAA" prize fund. If the numbers are accurate, we could get a nice pot of between 6 and 60 million dollars, for those who best convey our collective annoyance to our RIAA overlords.

      Just a thought.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    4. Re:Time for a Campaign of Shock and Awe Ourselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about a chain disc distribution protest:

      1. Wait until we find out which artist is the most prolific litigator (remember, RIAA supposedly sues on behalf of the artist). Let's say it's Madonna.

      2. Go buy a spindle of 100 CD-Rs (don't forget to send in the rebate forms!).

      3. Burn 100 copies of Madonna's latest album. On each disc, write "Copy me 100 times!!" in black Sharpie.

      4. Give one to everyone you know. Leave them as tips in restaurants. Put them under windshield wipers. Leave them in the canned goods aisle at the supermarket... you get the idea. Burn more as needed.

      5. Encourage everybody else to do the same.

    5. Re:Time for a Campaign of Shock and Awe Ourselves by charliedog · · Score: 5, Interesting

      What the community needs is to organize along the lines of the take no prisoners and scorched earth policies of the NRA and ABATE-IL. The NRA, with a few million committed members has managed to hold onto the Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights. ABATE of Illinois, with only a handful of members has maintained a no-helmet law for the state. Whether you agree with these grass-roots organizations or not, they are extremely effective. Both have legislative alerts (here and here) and the NRA has a "contact your lawmaker" page. Does anyone know of similar organization(s) that fight for sanity for file sharing ($150,000 per song is not sane)? Am not sure if the Electronic Freedom Foundation is focused enough. I would like to join and support an effective organization. Alternatively, I would be happy to join with others to found such an organization. Instead of whimpering and complaining, it is time that we joined (or formed) a strong counterbalance to the RIAA. It is, in fact, time to do something both with our time and money. Until we do, the RIAA or the MPAA will simply do what they want.

    6. Re:Time for a Campaign of Shock and Awe Ourselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      My hope is that they succeed at this. My hope is that they manage to squash file sharing, and build up a huge amount of ill will from the public, and end up destroying the popularity of all the material that they own. In the best of all worlds they'll succeed at this until they drive themselves utterly out of business.

      It's not going to happen so go buy the new Britney Spears CD like a good little consumer and STFU. The RIAA cartel has such a stranglehold on the industry that 9 out of 10 songs you'd hum off the top of your head are owned by one of its member companies. It's just futile to resist them without changing the law.

    7. Re:Time for a Campaign of Shock and Awe Ourselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes, the issue is the absolutely ridiculous penalties that "our" representatives have put into place.

      What is needed is to direct the attention against the Senators, and Representative that have been drafting these Bills. Some names:

      Senator Conyers (Michigan)
      Senator Berman (California).
      Senator Hatch (Utah)
      Senator Biden (Delaware),
      Senator Sensenbrenner (Wisconsin),
      Senator Scott (Virginia),
      Senator Coble (Nth Carolina),
      Senator Feinstein (California)
      Representative Lamar Smith (R-Texas)

      The proposed Conyers-Berman bill for example, would mean you could be put in jail for up to five years for sharing a single file or for giving false information in a domain name registration.

      If the next time these wonderful fellows are up for election they face grass roots action over this there may be some hope to get the message across.

      Maybe the first place to start would be a targetted publically announced campaign to ensure that John Conyers and Howard Berman never get elected to so much as a dog-catcher job ever again. That would get the attention of the others.

    8. Re:Time for a Campaign of Shock and Awe Ourselves by ralphclark · · Score: 1
      The most effective way of dealing with this, and possibly the *only* way (given the RIAA's stranglehold on the law) is just to stop buying new CD's, to stop going to concerts by RIAA artists and stop listening to commercial music radio stations and to get as many other people as possible to do the same.

      Cut off their oxygen, and they'll die. It's that simple.

      The problem is, people on slashdot generally do very little other than preaching to the choir, posting indignant rants full of tough talk about what they dream of doing to the RIAA. What little energy they have for actual combat is soon exhausted from pointlessly arguing with trolls planted by the RIAA (yes, they're here now; they learned this trick from Microsoft).

      Me, I stopped buying retail CD's and going to big concerts long ago.

      And I regularly wear teeshirts with provocative RIAA slogans like "CD: Corrupt Disc", which many people then ask me to explain.

      The next step, for the truly brave, is to sell off your entire CD collection without replacing it. Because every extra second hand CD that's sold represents the potential loss of a new CD sale for RIAA members. And get as good a price as you can; divert as many of those disposable dollars as you can away from the commercial music economy.

      Most of this is optional depending on how motivated you are to stick it to the Man. But the bottom line is: If you're not happy with the product, learn to live without it.

      It's not as if it's that hard; as many people have pointed out there are many sources of non-RIAA music. But even if there weren't, what's worse: living entirely without music until the beast is dead, or continuing to feed the beast and being its bitch forever?

    9. Re:Time for a Campaign of Shock and Awe Ourselves by goon+america · · Score: 1
      Somebody should put together a web-based screw-the-RIAA legal fund to help people recover the damages imposed on them or even fight the charges in court, thus pulling the rug out from underneath their "threat and extort" business strategy.

      Just think, if everyone they sued was actually able to take it to court then there would no way they could afford to keep it up.

    10. Re:Time for a Campaign of Shock and Awe Ourselves by salesgeek · · Score: 1

      Am not sure if the Electronic Freedom Foundation is focused enough.
      The results aren't there. I think it's time for an organization that can get nasty with RIAA. Suing high school kids is pathetic.

      --
      -- $G
  57. $150K by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    .. and it could be even more if you have Britney Spears' files on your HD

  58. Bankruptcy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Here's a thought:

    Can the individuals being sued, the majority of whom I'm betting are
    college age or near college age, just give the old one-finger salute to
    the RIAA and declare bankruptcy in response to having these penalties
    levied on them?

    Granted, that's 10 years of bad credit, but it's gotta be better than
    a lifetime of debt, right?

    I say if you can't win, go for a draw.

    1. Re:Bankruptcy by Perl-Pusher · · Score: 1

      You can't file bankruptcy against a judgement unless a judge specifically releases you from the judgement. Bankruptcy itself usually doesn't cover judgements or secured debt. If you could there would be alot of people filing bankruptcy for to get out of alimony, back child support etc. Creditors have 90 days to respond after the bankruptcy filing and must be notified of your filing. The RIAA would have their bloodsucker with a law degree there to fight it.

    2. Re:Bankruptcy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for the info; didn't know any of that.

      Gotta pity the poor students getting stuck with these lawsuits ... even $15,000 ain't a fun amount to be stuck paying ...
  59. question by stephenry · · Score: 1

    They're fining $150k per song downloaded! How can they possibly, morally and legally, justify this? Not only can the song in question be bought on CD for $15 but more than likely now being offered over services such as iTunes for a couple of dollars. Surely, any such fine would have to resemble any such damage caused to the record companies; and, in any case, how do they plan to prove that the person being sued would have actually bought the song in the first place had it not been freely available. IANAL, but I would sure like to here their "reasoning" that would give them a claim to such amounts. And, more importantly, would that actually hold up in court? Why not just let the defendants buy the music, instead?

    1. Re:question by elflord · · Score: 1
      They're fining $150k per song downloaded!

      No they're not. It's per song uploaded.

      How can they possibly, morally and legally, justify this?

      It's based on the expectation that the song will be downloaded several times.

      And, more importantly, would that actually hold up in court? Why not just let the defendants buy the music, instead?

      Because they are redistributing to others, not just themselves.

  60. I'd like to remind them that ... by burgburgburg · · Score: 1

    as a trusted TV personality, I can be helpful in rounding up others to toil in their underground vinyl caves.

  61. Mp3.com, remember? It got sued. by HanzoSan · · Score: 1



    The RIAA wont allow you to make a site that doesnt support their artists. If you get too profitable or if you become too popular they sue you, they will find any excuse to do so.

    Ask Mp3.com.

    But I like your Idea, you should also allow people to buy used CDs from popular RIAA bands to keep people from buying new CDs.

    --
    If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
    1. Re:Mp3.com, remember? It got sued. by Malic · · Score: 1

      I'm not necessarly saying a store or anything like that. Just place to go and find out about new music you might like and read/search reviews. The whole idea would to NOT make money off of it.

      Of course that bandwidth cost is always a sticky point.

      It wouldn't be "anti-RIAA" per se, but pro-"non RIAA". Probably an awful lot of European music.

      To be honest, if SomaFM.com had an IkonBoard going, I wouldn't ask the question. =)

      --
      I swear by MacOS X. Although I use to swear *at* MacOS 9...
    2. Re:Mp3.com, remember? It got sued. by rowanxmas · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I am down with SomaFM. I even contributed some money. Maybe we should offer to implement a BB for them? They must already have solved the bandwidth problem.

    3. Re:Mp3.com, remember? It got sued. by henele · · Score: 1
      They must already have solved the bandwidth problem.
      . As much as I dig SomaFM, you should remember that if you check their main stream source it is 205.188.209.193, which if you WHOIS is AOL-TimeWarner, who most /.'s would probably have an issue with...
    4. Re:Mp3.com, remember? It got sued. by Malic · · Score: 1

      That's just gotta be a connectivity provider. Roadrunner business or something.

      I can't believe that Rusty has something to do with AOL/TimeWarner.

      --
      I swear by MacOS X. Although I use to swear *at* MacOS 9...
    5. Re:Mp3.com, remember? It got sued. by Malic · · Score: 1

      Gee, that's a REALLY good idea! We should look into that... =)

      --
      I swear by MacOS X. Although I use to swear *at* MacOS 9...
    6. Re:Mp3.com, remember? It got sued. by henele · · Score: 1
      (This could be totally wrong, someone please correct me if I am, but I believe)...

      If you read the shoutcast user forums, there was a flurry of activity a while ago when AOL bought into Winamp/Shoutcast.

      To promote the technology AOL offered free bandwidth, worth tens of thousands of dollars yearly, to the most popular stations (hence most of the Shoutcast top ten originating from AOL IPs).

      If they were to offer me a few T3s I would certainly take them, but it dulls all the 'alternative' claims a bit :/ Again, soeone please chime in if I have my wires crossed...

    7. Re:Mp3.com, remember? It got sued. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Dana Edwards was feeling a little disheartened. It had been nearly a week since he'd contacted Peacecorp and applied for a tour of duty in the Congo. He had hoped all week that his weight problem, chronic acne and asthma would not discount him from the program. Dana had been in some financial strife for a couple years now, with those tuition fees from Massachusets Bay Community College piling up. This was particularly stressful for him because, despite having taught himself to read and posessing an impressive intellect, he could not find a decent slack-off job with internet connection that would support his slashdot posting habit. Dana belched while he tapped his cordless phone and stuffed his hand into a bag of Cheetos. Dana, a Jack of All Trades had also been unsuccessful for several years in his attempts to get a night DJ position at a local AM radio station within walking distance of his mother's house. This distressed him, because being a DJ would be such a natural part-time job for him, being a skilled musician on the side. Alas, he waited still and finished the last fluid ounce of his Mountain Dew.

      Peacecorp was going to change that. Where his business sense would have failed him in the Merchant Marines and his poor physical condition were not up to snuff for the military, he felt Peacecorp would welcome him with open arms and take his student loan burden off his hands.

      "Education equals genius. Genius is good for society. I'll show them, I'm going to buck the status quo. I'm going to make a difference, I'll show them what a poor kid from the ghetto is capable of." Dana thought to himself.

      Dana had not shaven for five days, but his greasy facial hair never became very thick, even after weeks of neglect. It grew in a thin, spotty Fu Manchu pattern. Best described, his whiskers resembled soot smeared on his greasy jowels. He scratched at his armpit and pulled the tightening fabric of his pajama pants out of his groin and sighed with relief.

      "Aaaah."

      Dana was glad that the weekend had finally come around. His Computer Repair Fundamentals and Sociology classes were starting to really dig in. He blamed the teacher for sucking, and was utterly convinced that his superior intellect would reward him with first in his graduating class of 40. He was certain that the same outcome would happen if he got into MIT, but that would never happen. The rich bastards would never give him a fair chance on a level playing field. The MIT bastards hate nerds, just like everybody else. That was alright though, Dana already knew he was superior to most of them anyway. Their facilities were only useful to the superficial.

      Dana loosened up a bit by putting some music on the 'juke. He got a free MP3 jukebox from his mother and slapped an "RIAA SUCKS" bumper sticker on the side of it. Dana was vehemently opposed to the ownership and licensing of intellectual property, especially music. Dana downloaded all his favourite Pink Floyd tracks off the internet and onto the jukebox, and this brought a small amount of joy to his empty life.

      "Damn the man!" he exclaimed, raising a fist as his gut flopped out of his oil-stained ThinkGeek t-shirt.

      Ice T and Fred Durst alone had practically paved the way to justified downloads of all music ever created and served up on KaZaa. And so, Dana sat in in front of his monitor listening to The Wall, waiting for a reply from Peacecorp.

      His mother slipped in to his room briefly to set down a balogna and cheese sandwich in front of him while he fired up a beta version of Transgaming on his Pentium 166 with MMX.

      "Mom, why don't you hate the RIAA?"

      She shrugged, rolled her eyes and closed the door to his room on the way out.

      "She forgot to cut off the crusts." Dana held back the tears and ate the sandwich anyway.

      [montemplar] wuzzup hanz0?

      A privmsg came up on his IRC client. Dana had adopted the "handle" HanzoSan after his Japanese cla

    8. Re:Mp3.com, remember? It got sued. by rowanxmas · · Score: 1

      The one problem is that I don't really like the ikonboard thing. It is always hard for me to find what I am looking for.

      I think that a /. style page, with the Latest Reviews + Downloads, Area concert listings, or at least links, would work better.

      Maybe ikonboard is a godd way to start though. If you ( Malic ) have experience setting an ikonboard up, or we can recruit someone, I will e-mail the SomaFM guys.

  62. RIAA, MPAA, SCO by KlaatuVN · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Geez, with the RIAA trying their best to alienate consumers, the MPAA blaming the consumers for crappy sales, and SCO trying to intimidate people into paying for what is essentially in the public domain, I have never felt more like moving out of the USofA.

    You Canadians have any room up there for me?

    --
    echo .sig
  63. not download, sharing by KalvinB · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They aren't going after people for what they download. They're going after people for what they're sharing.

    Technically it's illegal to even make copies for your friends but the RIAA (or anybody for that matter) can't feasibly do anything about it. But when you share your CDs (whether you own a legal copy or not is irrelavent) for millions of your closest "friends" then no duh you're looking to get in trouble.

    It's idiotic that people think they can put CDs on the black market for the whole world to see what they're doing and then expect that their ISP is going to act as some kind of security guard to prevent them from being arrested.

    Putting copyrighted materials on Kazaa is no different than firing up a burner and setting up at a street corner selling or even giving away copies except that your production costs are practically $0 with Zazaa.

    You have no legal grounds to aquire anything you own from an illegal source. It doesn't matter if you own the CD. If you buy (or are given something) from the black market you've just committed a crime. Unless a company gives you a Lifetime Warrenty you haze ZERO expectations that what you bought is going to last forever. And if it becomes unusable then you have no legal recourse but to buy another if you didn't have some form of backup that you made yourself from your legal copy that you originally purchased.

    Ben

    1. Re:not download, sharing by HanzoSan · · Score: 1

      "Putting copyrighted materials on Kazaa is no different than firing up a burner and setting up at a street corner selling or even giving away copies except that your production costs are practically $0 with Zazaa."

      Copying and then selling is illegal, its profiting, and it means direct RIAA profits were lost.

      Giving away stuff for free means no profits were lost, so nothing was stolen, just alot of sharing and copying.

      There is a legal way around this though, if you are afraid of breaking the law, just sell used CDs.

      Its legal to re-sell cds, and guess what, unlike on the P2P networks, you actually ARE taking direct profits from the RIAA. People who pay you $5 would have likely paid $10, you directly stole from the RIAA LEGALLY.

      This is what I advise everyone to do. Steal direct profits from the RIAA, dont share music, steal!

      --
      If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
    2. Re:not download, sharing by hardcnxn · · Score: 1

      if it becomes unusable then you have no legal recourse but to buy another if you didn't have some form of backup that you made yourself from your legal copy that you originally purchased.

      And if they put copy protection on the CD to make backups impossible (and didn't advertise such facts clearly)?

    3. Re:not download, sharing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Giving away stuff for free means no profits were lost

      Tell that to Netscape. I wonder sometimes how slashdotters come up with this stuff. If I give away something that somebody else is selling then I sure am going to dent their profits. That is assuming that they would have sold the item in the first place, of course. Also, copyright laws don't care about whether you make a profit or not. They cover any form of distribution - including giving it away.

      As for you resell cd's. You do realize that YOU have to buy the cd before you can resell it. You can't just make copies of the one you have. I am sure the RIAA would love if you paid $15 for the CD and then resold it for $10.

    4. Re:not download, sharing by proj_2501 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Wrong.

      Direct profits are taken from the record label's hands because a downloader decides to NOT buy a item and INSTEAD snag it for free.

      Don't believe that anyone who downloaded the album was too poor to buy it in the store.

    5. Re:not download, sharing by geekoid · · Score: 1

      unfortunatly, all evidence point to file sharing increasing sales.

      The record companies have faired better then most companies in the economy. yes they ahve a 'loss' on there projected sales, but its not as much as most companies.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    6. Re:not download, sharing by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Downloading is not the crime here, the re0distribution is. according to the record company I am not buying anything except the right to lisen to a specific set of music, i.e. a liscense. If I am buying a liscence to listen to that music, then I do have a reasonable expectation to be able to listen to it however and when ever I like.

      "If you buy (or are given something) from the black market you've just committed a crime."
      no. only under very certian circumstances is this true. If you but a computer from dell, and it turns out the purchaser from dell knowingly purchased stolen parts, you would not be committing a crime.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    7. Re:not download, sharing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, the difference would be that the RIAA got money from each CD you burned (depending on if the country you live in has a "piracy tax" of course.

    8. Re:not download, sharing by wirelessbuzzers · · Score: 1

      You have no legal grounds to aquire anything you own from an illegal source. It doesn't matter if you own the CD. If you buy (or are given something) from the black market you've just committed a crime. Unless a company gives you a Lifetime Warrenty you haze ZERO expectations that what you bought is going to last forever. And if it becomes unusable then you have no legal recourse but to buy another if you didn't have some form of backup that you made yourself from your legal copy that you originally purchased.

      This is just plain Not True. The recording industry makes it very clear that when you buy music, you are doing two things:
      1) You are buying the physical CD from them.
      2) You are buying a personal license to the copyrighted material on the CD.

      Together, this means that you can make backups, rip/encode the songs, etc. Selling or giving the content of the CD to someone who does not have a license to it is copyright infringement. You can, however, transfer your license to them, but then you can't retain a copy yourself.

      Sharing music on KaZaA is illegal only because downloading it (without owning a license) is copyright infringement, and therefore making it available for upload to people who don't have licenses is contributory copyright infringement.

      Downloading music/movies from KaZaA is perfectly legal if you have a license to the copyrighted material (i.e., you bought the CD). I don't know about buying things from pirates, this might fall under some other crime, but it is not copyright infringement either if you own the CD already.

      IANAL, but I got this information from lawyers, and from copyright license agreements.

      --
      I hereby place the above post in the public domain.
    9. Re:not download, sharing by proj_2501 · · Score: 1

      That does not matter. Filesharing is still illegal. In my eyes, it's immoral as well, but this is not a moral argument.

    10. Re:not download, sharing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I wonder sometimes how slashdotters come up with this stuff.

      Don't worry, HanzoSan is always being a dumbass troll. Or just a dumbass. I still haven't decided. Probably both.

    11. Re:not download, sharing by MushMouth · · Score: 1

      Give me a break. There is very little real statistically meaningful evidence to back this up.

    12. Re:not download, sharing by Stultis+the+Fool · · Score: 0

      Geekoid is right. You only commit the crime if you KNOWINGLY buy the thing from the black market. If you bought it from the black market, but didn't know it, you're innocent. The same applies to music files. Downloading music files is not necessarily a crime. However, downloading music files that you know you should not download is a crime.

    13. Re:not download, sharing by enckwanzer · · Score: 1

      What happens once we start talking about torrents? Say I download a CD torrent that I own the license to. In the process of downloading, though, I am uploading bits of information to different peers. At no point in the download process do I ever posess a complete copy of the CD to share; nor am I ever (at any point, unless I seed it for quite some time) sharing cumulatively the entire contents of the CD. Assuming I never act as seed (always a leech), would the RIAA have grounds to sue? Given the truly distributed nature of the torrent system, in what situations *would* they have grounds to sue, if any?

      Just some random questions....

      EW

    14. Re:not download, sharing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't need a license to listen to any music. Like the GPL, you only need to obey the redistribution license when you are redistributing. And you have no redistribution license, of course, with music you buy, meaning you have no legal right to redistribute. Not that it matters. People do not in general do anything simply because it is a law. Laws per se are very weak. People are happy (morally content, etc.) just following the Golden Rule, and doing that allows me to download a great deal of music, music that I know I would not have otherwise purchased.

    15. Re:not download, sharing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heh reminds me of when me and some friends were briefly in the fake ID business in college. My friend decided that selling them would make it way more illegal so we ended up just giving them away to everyone...But in reality (I believe) distribution is distribution. It might be more illegal to charge money, but doing it for free doesn't make it legal.

      And since I mentioned this, I have to say DO NOT TRY THIS AT HOME. It becomes an obsession, striving for the perfect copy. Then comes the paranoia of the sheriff kicking in your door and the inevitable stressed-out late-night shredding/burning/dumping/computer wiping when you finally realize the scope of what you're doing...

    16. Re:not download, sharing by Alsee · · Score: 1

      The recording industry makes it very clear that when you buy music, you are doing two things:
      1) You are buying the physical CD from them.
      2) You are buying a personal license to the copyrighted material on the CD.


      The the copyright industry certainly tries to CLAIM #2, but it is flat out false. US copyright law title 17 chapter 1 section 106 defines the exclusive rights of copyright holders. It lists 6 such rights, but you'll see it only amount to 3 different rights. The right to make copies. The right to distribute copies. The right to public performance.

      A licence does not exist unless they sell you one or more of those three rights. Ordinary CD purchases involve no licence at all.

      Together, this means that you can make backups, rip/encode the songs, etc.

      No, you have those rights in the absence of any licence whatsoever. There are countless exceptions and limitations on the copyright holder's exclusive rights.

      downloading it (without owning a license) is copyright infringement

      Downloading is never copyright infringment. The only one who could be comminiting infringement is the person sending the copy.

      not copyright infringement [] if you own the CD already.

      Myth. Wheather or not the downloader owns a copy has no effect on anything. MP3.com lost a court case where they were sending the songs to people who already owned the CD.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    17. Re:not download, sharing by Alsee · · Score: 1

      Say I download a CD torrent that I own the license to.

      You own the CD. There is no licence at all unless you sign a contract and pay many thousands of dollars for the right to make more copies / the right to distribute copies and/or the right to public performance. The entire concept of a licence to listen or licence to use is pure fiction with no basis in law (US law). You bought a copy. You don't need any licence to play it. You don't need any licence to make a backup copy. You don't need a licence to copy it to your MP3 player, cassette, or computer.

      [torrent] nor am I ever [] sharing cumulatively the entire contents of the CD... would the RIAA have grounds to sue?

      Yeah, and they'd probably win. You are distributing it without a licence to do so, and it does not fall within the current interpretation of fair use.

      I'd say that result is a perversion of the original intent of copyright law. US copyright has undergone creeping growth since it first created, and it has grown like a cancer in the last several years. It was never intended to apply to individual non-commercial activities.

      Copyright law could return to being a good thing if they trim it back. Some people would scream bloody murder at "lost rights" and "lost profits", but it would merely be a return to "traditional" copyright. Some profits would be less, but copyright would still be effective and creators would still make money. It would also be a huge boon to technology and the internet and it would have enormous benefits to society.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    18. Re:not download, sharing by HanzoSan · · Score: 1



      You are right, but theres also very little evidence to back up the RIAA's claims. Its about having a counter arguement to the claim that file sharing hurts sales.

      It proves that depending on your stats you can come to any conclusion you want.

      --
      If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
    19. Re:not download, sharing by Cederic · · Score: 1


      hmm. my total income from all sources since January is $10.40. And that's in $ cheques which cost me money to convert into my home currency.

      So any album I download I _am_ too poor to buy in the store.

      Of course, there's no music out there I want to download, let alone buy, so the point is pretty moot.

      ~Cederic

  64. Nycfashiongirl -- ridiculous by Moridineas · · Score: 1


    I don't see how she even came up with the idea to claim the RIAA's actions are wrong. If someone shares files, publically, on a public peer2peer network, how can they then go complain when someone sees what they're sharing?

    1. Re:Nycfashiongirl -- ridiculous by WildBeast · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well then I guess, how can you complain if you send non-encrypted emails and I read them? Afterall you're on a public network sending a non-encrypted email. How about I follow all your online activities? Does that bother you?

    2. Re:Nycfashiongirl -- ridiculous by Moridineas · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is why the RIAA calls her arguments (and those like them) "shallo" -- because they show no knowledge of how the law works, and scant common sense as well.

      When I sent an email, just as when I send a (snail mail if you will) letter to someone, I have the expectation of privacy. Tampering with mail is an offense. Intercepting email likewise is not acceptable.

      But were I to create a website...a PUBLIC website...and put messages to people on there, I would have no reason to complain if I left private information there that somehow got out.

      Likewise, when I'm sharing my files, WITH THE INTENT that other people both view and download them, when someone takes me up on that, I have no room to complain. This is very, VERY simple logic folks.

    3. Re:Nycfashiongirl -- ridiculous by WildBeast · · Score: 1

      In short, it's okay with you if I have a program that follows your steps while you're surfing the web because the sites you're visiting are public.

    4. Re:Nycfashiongirl -- ridiculous by Moridineas · · Score: 1

      Let me ask you this--is it illegal for me to follow you around, to see what stores you go to, where you live etc?

    5. Re:Nycfashiongirl -- ridiculous by scharkalvin · · Score: 1

      That could be considered 'stalking'.

    6. Re:Nycfashiongirl -- ridiculous by Moridineas · · Score: 1

      I know you're not WildBeast, but I'll respond to you instead :)

      Right--stalking. It's behavior that CAN be illegal in real life, so what's different about online?

      But, even bringing up stalking is obfuscating the issue. If I put a bulletin board in front of my house saying "I have the following drug paraphanelia, and a pot garden in my house. Come check it out!" can I then complain when someone turns me in, or the police come?

      The second you share your files publically on a peer2peer network you have NO EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY. It's that simple.

    7. Re:Nycfashiongirl -- ridiculous by WildBeast · · Score: 1

      I tell you what's different. I'm sharing porn, yet the RIAA is still spying on me though. It's scanning the whole network to see if I or anyone else is sharing and downloading any songs even though I have yet to do so. This slows down the network and punishes those of us who use Kazaa legitimately.
      Can you imagine if everyone did the same as the RIAA? Can you imagine some people always patrolling your neighbourhood making sure there's nothing illegal around? It won't make you feel uncofortable?

      But hey fucke'm, they'll be the ones loosing customers, oh they already are :)

    8. Re:Nycfashiongirl -- ridiculous by Moridineas · · Score: 1

      What, so sharing porn is LEGAL now. That porn isn't supposed to be free you know :) How on EARTH is using kazaa to pirate porn "legitimate" ?!

      Have ever run gnutella? I haven't in awhile, but in the older version I used, you could watch all the incoming search terms. There's some pretty crazy stuff being searched for. should I be enraged because that search query is coming to me, even though I might not have what is being searched for?

      Oh, and the people that patrol around neighborhood making sure everything is ok--they're called the police.

    9. Re:Nycfashiongirl -- ridiculous by WildBeast · · Score: 1

      It's licensed content which I have legal rights to share. So yeah, what I share is perfectly legal and it's not piracy.

      If you feel enraged just delete it. On the other hand, can you tell the RIAA to stop scanning the network? No.

      Oh the cops are patrolling your neighborhood 24 hours a day? Where do you live? I thought Saddam was gone.

    10. Re:Nycfashiongirl -- ridiculous by Razor+Blades+are+Not · · Score: 1

      Privacy issues aside - the people patrolling the neighourhood, the police you say... well they're trained and employed by the government, and accountable to the people.

      Roving private gangs bringing their own brand of "justice" to the streets are called vigilantes.

    11. Re:Nycfashiongirl -- ridiculous by Moridineas · · Score: 1

      Neighborhood watch vigilantes. Gotta watch out for them!

      The RIAA isn't taking law into their own hands like vigilante groups, so I fail to see the relevance.

    12. Re:Nycfashiongirl -- ridiculous by Moridineas · · Score: 1

      Wow, you have the licensed legal right to share porn? Can I have it? :p

      Delete what? I just got in search request for "Xxx asian bukkake" which I most definitely do NOT have. How dare they search my computers for files I don't have when I'm logged into the public p2p network. That's terrible, and they should be stopped from searching for any files that I don't have.

      Cops patrol 24/7 .. criminals don't take vacations ;)

    13. Re:Nycfashiongirl -- ridiculous by Razor+Blades+are+Not · · Score: 1

      There's the rub.
      Vigilantes or just the Neighbourhood Watch ?

      If all the RIAA did was report crimes they observed to the authorities and then let them handle it, then that might sit better with me.

      Even the Neighbourhood watch knocks on your door and asks to come in, before they leap to any conclusions.

      This whole comparison is, of course, flawed. There isn't an internet equivalent of a front lawn with a big sign on it saying "Pirate MP3's Here". No matter how you wish to make the correlation to prove your point, there is a distinct difference.

  65. Break the law... by no_opinion · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As far as I know, *no one* with any legal sense (including the EFF, Lessig, etc.) thinks that distributing copyrighted files is legal. If you have evidence to the contrary, please post it. The people the RIAA are going after are making hundreds of files available - they're not just downloaders. So I have no sympathy for these people, especially since they were warned. It's like hearing the cops say "we're going to set up a speed trap here" and then complaining when you get pulled over for going 90mph.

    1. Re:Break the law... by WildBeast · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Neither do I but then again I have even less sympathy for the RIAA who are even worst criminals.
      In short, I side with the lesser evil.

    2. Re:Break the law... by TopShelf · · Score: 4, Insightful

      While I might equate the severity of the crime with speeding, the severity of the punishment that's currently being meted out is hugely excessive. To extend your analogy, people would be (justifiably) upset if they got pulled over for doing 90 and were fined $150,000...

      --
      Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
    3. Re:Break the law... by sacrilicious · · Score: 1
      As far as I know, *no one* with any legal sense (including the EFF, Lessig, etc.) thinks that distributing copyrighted files is legal. If you have evidence to the contrary, please post it. The people the RIAA are going after are making hundreds of files available - they're not just downloaders. So I have no sympathy... It's like hearing the cops say "we're going to set up a speed trap here" and then complaining when you get pulled over for going 90mph.

      But what about when the laws are unjust? There was a time when black people couldn't vote, and a time when women couldn't vote. There were times and places where it was legal to come into your house and kill you because you weren't Christian. Being legal doesn't make it right.

      --
      - First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
    4. Re:Break the law... by Eamon+C · · Score: 1
      The people the RIAA are going after are making hundreds of files available - they're not just downloaders.

      Wait a minute... are you saying that it's okay to be a leech, and only the people making P2P possible deserve to get punished? If anything, the people the RIAA are going after are the least guilty.

      Sure, they're breaking (stupid) laws, but they're the ones paying for the bandwidth that makes it possible for them to share hundreds of songs. I'm sure any one of them would rather spend that same money on a comparible, legitimate service. I know I would.

    5. Re:Break the law... by Sphere1952 · · Score: 1

      Slashdot distributes copyrighted materials constantly. This post is copyrighted.

      There. I posted evidence to the contrary.

      --
      Big Brother Bush is doubleplus ungood.
    6. Re:Break the law... by rbird76 · · Score: 1

      While you are correct, the police aren't out enforcing speed traps at $50,000 per ticket. Justice requires that the penalties be just, not just that the act being punished be wrong. Part of justice is proprtionality (the penalty for committing a crime should be in line with the consequences of the act). The violations that the RIAA is threatening to prosecute are unlikely to have cost them anywhere near the amounts they are suing for or attempting to extort from their targets. This doesn't meet proprtionality in any meaningful way.

      Of course there are lots of other (legitimate) reasons for anger at the RIAA (reasons other than "they're taking my free music away") such as their unilateral rewriting of copyright law (and nearly unilateral modification of law with the DMCA), the intentional targeting of people by ability to pay rather than by damage to the record companies, and a business model which can be summarized as "Play music endlessly until your customers have no choice but to like it, sue a few so they don't copy your stuff, then restrict playability of your product and raise its prices and sue some more if your profits don't increase". What reasonable points the RIAA has in arguments over the control and use of their copyrighted material are lost in the tactics the RIAA has chosen to enforce those rights and the overly broad rights that the implementation gives the RIAA.

    7. Re:Break the law... by An'Desha+Danin · · Score: 0

      I have a grudge against indie labels, and it is thus: indie labels are the reason I can't find a copy of Evanesnence's earlier CDs without paying $300 for them on eBay. It may mean wading through pop crap, but mass distribution has its advatages.

      --
      Anything you might ever need to say about anything has already been said better by Penny Arcade.
    8. Re:Break the law... by deblau · · Score: 1
      I am not misinformed about the law. I choose to break it, because it is unjust. I learned the lessons of the rights movements of the 1910's and the 1960's. Following the RIAA's logic, neither women nor blacks should have the right to vote. Whites had derogatory words for black people, just as the RIAA and MPAA now have derogatory words for copyright infringers. Those groups were and are wrong, and shame on them for resorting to name-calling.

      The point isn't that I'm breaking the law -- I know it, you know it, everyone knows it. The point is that the law is wrong, and I will fight it any way I know how.

      --
      This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
    9. Re:Break the law... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The RIAA would like to keep the leeches around. They're going to be the labels' bread and butter once they figure out how to turn the internet into an old radio.

    10. Re:Break the law... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While I might equate the severity of the crime with speeding

      The whole idea of having speed limits is the fact that higher speeds endanger more lives. The faster people drive, the more people get killed - and I don't care how good a driver you are, you still will not be able to stop a car faster than physics allow when a kid runs out in the street.

      So, in other words, you think sharing files is as severe as endangering lives. Interesting, that.

    11. Re:Break the law... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Be grateful you don't live in Finland. Traffic fines are indexed to your income there, and six-figure US$ fines are indeed possible.

    12. Re:Break the law... by TopShelf · · Score: 1

      Actually, studies conducted after the speed limits were raised from 55 showed that higher speeds didn't lead to higher fatality rates.

      Besides, is your point that the speeder should be fined $150,000 as well? Hmm... I guess that would certainly solve the budget crisis (and result in a nice turnover amongst the legislature, to boot).

      --
      Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
    13. Re:Break the law... by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      " While I might equate the severity of the crime with speeding"

      I've yet to hear of a death due to copyright violation however...

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    14. Re:Break the law... by trmcdougle · · Score: 1

      Actually it is not distributing copyrighted files that is illegal, it is distributing copyrighted files THAT THE LICENSOR HAS NOT ALLOWED YOU TO DISTRIBUTE that is illegal, there is a difference. Not that that applies in these cases, but the distinction should be made.

  66. Kazaa Backup Software by TheZax · · Score: 5, Funny

    I use this so called Kazaa backup software to back up all my mp3s. I just put them in my "to be backed up" directory, also called "My Shared Folder", and automagically they get backed up (sometimes quite a lot!). In fact, it is so secure, there are multiple copies, redundancy as I like call it. There's even stuff I don't remember backing up! Anyway, I don't know what all the commotion is over this peer to peer backup software, I'm SOLD (ok, it didn't cost me a thing...sshhh).

    --

    JWall: GUI client for IPTables
    1. Re:Kazaa Backup Software by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > In fact, it is so secure, there are multiple copies, redundancy as I like call it.
      > There's even stuff I don't remember backing up!

      As I understand it, this is because in the current implementation, the backups of everybody in the world who uses this software are stored in the same megafolder called "the innernet", or something. I hope they fix this bug soon, because this is very insecure. Unknown vandals have overwritten some of my files with things filled with noise, or comments like "what the f*ck
      do you think you're doing?".

  67. How to fix this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Lessig just posted a good comment on the draconian fees.

    Anyway, there's an easy solution: quit downloading RIAA stuff and go for independent music instead. Artist-approved downloads. If you absolutely must have an RIAA tune, buy it, but otherwise ignore their stuff entirely. They'll be bankrupt in no time, with no legal recourse whatsoever.

    And the best part is, we don't need any special boycott campaign. The RIAA is taking care of that for us. All we need to do is publicize the alternatives, as vigorously as possible.

    Want to do your bit? Link to independent music on your weblog. If the RIAA isn't completely braindead (which is an open question), then this is what they're afraid of more than anything. Piracy is nothing compared to irrelevance.

    1. Re:How to fix this by txtracer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      One tiny problem. The independent music I've heard so far is all garage-band crap. There's nothing to compare with Seal, or Juno Reactor, or Pink Floyd. The Doors, Styx, and The Police aren't releasing their material on independent labels.

      Independent music is still the minor leagues. I don't want to pay money for it.

      --

      -=+>txtracer<+=-
      -Those who do not learn from history are doomed.
    2. Re:How to fix this by ralphclark · · Score: 1
      If you absolutely must have an RIAA tune, buy it, but otherwise ignore their stuff entirely.

      This is absolutely the problem with you people. That's like telling an alcoholic: "Well, OK, if you really must have a drink then go ahead and have one but otherwise keep off the stuff".

      You're either in this or you're not. If you want to change the way the world works you need to make it part of your way of life today, and let others see your example and question why. You won't get far, as part of a relatively small and obscure politically disaffected minority already, in harming the RIAA economically if you can't even live up to your own principles. Nor will you succeed in recruiting others to your cause except in the most ineffective and half-hearted way. It that's the best anybody can do then we've already lost.

    3. Re:How to fix this by goon+america · · Score: 1
      No, this isn't enough. There needs to be a full-scale media campaign to let mainstream media outlets know that alternatives exist.

      Every time you read a story in the paper quoting piracy, it should contain a line beginning "But opponents say..." and the info of some centralized anti-RIAA independent music movement.

  68. 50,000$ by Sophrosyne · · Score: 5, Funny

    So for $50,000 I get unlimited downloading of all music past, present and future....
    I guess that seems like a fair deal given the price of CDs.

    1. Re:50,000$ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I calculate that's between 3000 and 3500 CDs.

  69. Its official, I hate the RIAA. by HanzoSan · · Score: 2, Interesting



    And what is my response to "scare and awe"?

    My response is, Boycott and Copy.

    --
    If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
    1. Re:Its official, I hate the RIAA. by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 1

      boycot and copy!!! then pay the RIAA 150,000 in fines per song!!!!!

      --



      I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
    2. Re:Its official, I hate the RIAA. by Frymaster · · Score: 4, Insightful
      from the article:

      Mr Oppenheim also said the RIAA was immume from rules on unreasonable searches on the internet, because it did not have links with law enforcement agencies.

      so, because i'm not linked to law enforcement does that mean i'm immune from rules on searching the internet... say for some rolling stones songs?

    3. Re:Its official, I hate the RIAA. by BLAMM! · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Mr Oppenheim also said the RIAA was immume from rules on unreasonable searches on the internet, because it did not have links with law enforcement agencies.

      So if you aren't affiliated with a law enforcement agency, you can do whatever you want online? Seems to me they could be charged with a real crime then. What's the on-line equivilant of being peeping tom?

      Reminds me of the story (urban ledgend?) about the lawyer who insured his cigars, smoked them, and won the insurance claim in court because the contract didn't specify what kind of fire. Then the dumb bastard was charged with multiple counts of arson and fined 10x what he got from the insurance.

      You're never as smart as you think you are.

    4. Re:Its official, I hate the RIAA. by HanzoSan · · Score: 1



      Its legal to boycott and copy, its illegal to distribute.

      Think before you post next time Mr. wise joker.

      --
      If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
    5. Re:Its official, I hate the RIAA. by The+Unabageler · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This is similar to a U.S. Supreme Court case, Gouled vs. U.S. Army, from the 1921. Some dude went into Gouled's office and took some papers without asking. He turned them over to law enforcement, then criminal charges were made against Gouled based on the stolen documents. They were ruled inadmissable because the man who took them at the time was not acting as a government agent, but when he handed them over he became one. Gouled (my great uncle) was found not guilty.

      IANAL but I'd say that RIAA, by the terms of the DCMA, becomes an agent of the government and therefore is violating the fourth amendment.

      --
      perl -e '$_="\007/4`\cp%2,".chr(127);s/./"\"\\c$&\""/gees; print'
    6. Re:Its official, I hate the RIAA. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sadly, it's an urban legend. Great story, though.. :)

    7. Re:Its official, I hate the RIAA. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I quit buying music about 3 years ago.. (except for vinyl records) it's silly the lack of good music in the stores and the high prices for thouse crap cds..

      The RIAA only made my distaste for the music industry run deeper..

      Really what I like are obsucre bootled DJ sets from long time ago anyway

    8. Re:Its official, I hate the RIAA. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Out of curiosity, what was Gouled accused of having done - what were the papers considered evidentiary toward? Had they been admissible, would he have been convicted of something?

    9. Re:Its official, I hate the RIAA. by rosewood · · Score: 1

      Very Very very interesting, thank you

    10. Re:Its official, I hate the RIAA. by 3terrabyte · · Score: 1
      ...IANAL but...

      Obviously.

      Gouled's case was criminal. There are different laws and facts that have to be presented. But let's say you're right. Oh well. The only goal the RIAA has here is to scare P2P users from sharing files. Do they really lose $150,000 per song traded? No. But the fine is a deterrant. They want to make a bloody example out of people this first round, and it's not going to be pretty.

      --

      Why are there only 19 people folding@home for slashdot?

    11. Re:Its official, I hate the RIAA. by The+Unabageler · · Score: 1
      from the first paragraph of the link I provided:
      In a joint indictment the plaintiff in error, Gouled, one Vaughan, an officer of the United States Army, and a third, an attorney at law, were charged in the first count with being parties to a conspiracy to defraud the United States, in violation of section 37 of the federal Criminal Code ( Comp. St. 10201), and, in the second count, with having used the mails to [255 U.S. 298, 303] promote a scheme to defraud the United States, in violation of section 215 of that Code (section 10384). Vaughan pleaded guilty, the attorney was acquitted, and Gouled, whom we shall refer to as the defendant, was convicted, and thereupon prosecuted error to the Circuit Court of Appeals, which certifies to this court six questions which we are to consider.
      --
      perl -e '$_="\007/4`\cp%2,".chr(127);s/./"\"\\c$&\""/gees; print'
    12. Re:Its official, I hate the RIAA. by The+Unabageler · · Score: 1

      if you're interested more, this case is the constitutional basis for the exclusionary rule, explain in brief here again, IANAL I just like to read legal docs.

      --
      perl -e '$_="\007/4`\cp%2,".chr(127);s/./"\"\\c$&\""/gees; print'
    13. Re:Its official, I hate the RIAA. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like what a lot of people are doing today. I went to 15 or so gnutella servers I usually use and all of them were FULL. Doesn't sound like the scare tactics are workings.....or maybe just on Kazaa??

    14. Re:Its official, I hate the RIAA. by kalidasa · · Score: 1

      I don't remember what it's called, but something to the effect of "unauthorized access of a protected computer system".

    15. Re:Its official, I hate the RIAA. by Sphere1952 · · Score: 1

      Then again, it's being a peeping tom. The laws out there didn't just go away.

      --
      Big Brother Bush is doubleplus ungood.
    16. Re:Its official, I hate the RIAA. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what they are trying to say is that i can just wander about the files on someones personal computers and since im not a cop its legal if i happen upon some some financial reports on someones computer im not a cop so hell ill go download these

    17. Re:Its official, I hate the RIAA. by Eric+Damron · · Score: 1

      "My response is, Boycott and Copy."

      Some people never learn. Boycott, yes... Copy, no...

      --
      The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
    18. Re:Its official, I hate the RIAA. by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "Mr Oppenheim also said the RIAA was immume from rules on unreasonable searches on the internet,"

      The Fourth Amendment simply says that people will be secure in their affects from unreasonable searches and seizures. It does not specifiy from whom.

      And in the end, it doesn't matter what Mr. Oppenheim thinks the amendment says. He's not a federal judge.

    19. Re:Its official, I hate the RIAA. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about doing something useful and "boycott and buy some indie music"

    20. Re:Its official, I hate the RIAA. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      methods reminiscent of the erstwhile Soviet Union?

      Its like someone discovers a great market but sue all the customers because they cant develop a system for it? What all banks had a open door into the vault, and no guard where there but a store where you could buy shovels and backpacks for all the nickles and pennies?

      Making examples like this is unethical. the consumer agency (if any) should step in and kindly ask RIAA/US ISPs/CD-R producers/CD burners etc to fix this "problem" (if it really is a problem!) on the technical level. or else we sue.

      There are no words for the concept of trust and honor, but there are more than 300 words for the concept of profit. No whonder RIAA is so hated, they've got wrong attitude, no mother to spank them when they where children?

    21. Re:Its official, I hate the RIAA. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > What's the on-line equivilant of
      > being peeping tom?

      Kevin Mitnick.

      Sun: Oh! My nude code! [Wraps shower curtain around self.]

  70. This *must* be illegal, right?? by asdfasdfasdfasdf · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "Furthermore, in one recent case, a college student was told that just by filing an answer in court, the cost of any final settlement would rise by $50,000. "

    I understand this is a civil case, not a criminal case, right? So-- if this isn't extortion, what is??

    Honestly, I want to see one of these go to a jury trial. If 50+ million Americans really are filesharers, then it's going to be DAMNED tough to find a jury that's not chock full of EM!

    Seriously, this is such a travesty. People should be liable for the actual damages (ie the cost of the CDs) not the "potential" losses. You can sell a gun to a minor that's used in a murder and only get a year in jail, but if you make a file available, they charge you more than the loss could ever possibly cost them. We need some balance here.

    1. Re:This *must* be illegal, right?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, it would be fairly easy to pack a jury with people who never use computers, let alone file sharing programs. Juries are usually drawn from lists of registered voters, who are disproportionately older women. It might take a little work, but one could put together a jury of older people who are downright afraid of the word "computer." Start throwing around phrases like "computer pirate" or "music terrorist" and the case becomes a slam dunk for the RIAA and a valuable precedent for future actions.

      Disclaimer: I know that your grandmother is the baddest hacker around. But she's an exception to the rule.

    2. Re:This *must* be illegal, right?? by Sphere1952 · · Score: 1

      Older women have been just about the fastest growing population of computer users in recent years. Even my wife is addicted to her Weight-watchers group.

      Of course, you might get a better hearing from her if you were planning on burning a spammer at the stake, but even with filesharing I think you'd get a fair hearing.

      --
      Big Brother Bush is doubleplus ungood.
  71. oderint dum metuant by Tackhead · · Score: 4, Interesting
    > Machiavelli:
    >
    > It is good if your subjects love you.
    > But better if you can make them fear you.
    >
    > But you do *NOT* want them to hate you...

    I'm a Machiavelli fan, but the Prince and I would part company on that last line about not wanting to be hated.

    I believe history sides with Lucius, who was reputedly quoting Caligula when he penned the line "oderint dum metuant". Let them hate, so long as they fear.

    1. Re:oderint dum metuant by Snowspinner · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And Caligula had such a long and prosperous reign.

      Oh, wait, no, he was assassinated by the entirety of the Praetorian Guard when they revolted.

      Maybe it's not a good idea to take political advice from him after all.

    2. Re:oderint dum metuant by Ubergrendle · · Score: 1

      Correct me if I'm wrong, but Caligula was killed by his own guards if I'm not mistaken.

      Score one for Machiavelli.

      I think people at this point would rather not buy music in general than capitulate to the labels. I can't think of anyone I know who would defend the RIAA at this point. MPAA maybe (need to protect actors, screenwriters, production crews, etc), but the RIAA serves NO purpose.

      --
      John Maynard Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"
    3. Re:oderint dum metuant by DickBreath · · Score: 1

      Let them hate, so long as they fear.

      This may work fine when you can have someone boiled in oil or beheaded with the motion of your hand.

      It might not work so well for customers. It also might not work so well when you cannot have the aforementioned things done at your behest.

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    4. Re:oderint dum metuant by PollyJean · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Oh, wait, no, he was assassinated by the entirety of the Praetorian Guard when they revolted.

      Not only that - they killed his wife and bashed his young daughter's head open.

      People will only put up with fear and hatred for so long. Then they tend to get angry.

      --
      Think like a person of action, act like a person of thought. --H. Bergson
    5. Re:oderint dum metuant by Glonoinha · · Score: 1

      Dude shush!
      You are giving away all our good secrets.

      Those RIAA fsckers are going to be the first ones up against the wall when the revolution starts!

      --
      Glonoinha the MebiByte Slayer
    6. Re:oderint dum metuant by PCM2 · · Score: 2, Funny
      And Caligula had such a long and prosperous reign.
      Well, let's see. The unrated version clocks in at 156 minutes ... but jeez, it sure seems like it went on forever ...
      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    7. Re:oderint dum metuant by pascalb3 · · Score: 1

      The major difference here is that Caligula and Machiavelli were speaking of the political spectrum, whereas the RIAA falls into economics and capitalism. The main point of capitalism is profit, pure and simple. The RIAA is not immune and relies on this (thus the whole suing people because of loss of revenue).

      I think there is a fine line between fear and hatred, where hatred becomes a threat in the political spectrum when the majority of people are against you, no longer cowering in fear -- of course, critical mass depends on how iron-fisted a ruler is as to when the masses can overpower him, his police, his supporters, AND his army.

      The RIAA, on the other hand, can only lose from hatred. People already have file-sharing, indie labels, independent artists, and other means to obtain music, hurting the RIAA at the pocketbook. The more the RIAA feels the strain on the coffers, the more it'll try to squeeze until (hopefully) nothing is left. This is because of the free market, the fact that consumers have alternative (perhaps legal) choices for obtaining music -- that, or found more nefarious ways of hiding their online identity. This is classic cause and effect, kind of like the Israelis and Palestinians...

    8. Re:oderint dum metuant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm a Machiavelli fan, but the Prince and I would part company on that last line about not wanting to be hated.

      maybe i missed something, but what's that skinny motherfucker prince got to say about this whole thing again? :p

    9. Re:oderint dum metuant by mathemaniac · · Score: 1

      Caligula ruled from 37 A.D. until 41 A.D. when he was murdered by a tribune of the guard. Hatred didn't afford him a long reign.

    10. Re:oderint dum metuant by Armaphine · · Score: 1
      You should remember though, that in Machiavelli's time being hated generally meant that you had an angry mob coming with pitchforks and torches. And generally these people came in numbers that greatly dwarfed whatever guard detail you had.


      So really, ol' Nick was right about the not wanting to be hated part.

    11. Re:oderint dum metuant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd like to see the schedule...

    12. Re:oderint dum metuant by kalidasa · · Score: 1

      Lucius Accius. Who was quoted by Caligula, not quoting Caligula: Accius died in 86 bc, while Emperor Gaius Caesar Augustus Germanicus "Caligula" was born in ad 12. Lucius is a praenomen - a first name. Calling someone "Lucius" would be like calling the president of the United States "George" - noone is likely to figure out which "George" you mean - Lucius Iulius Caesar, Lucius Cornelius Lentulus?

    13. Re:oderint dum metuant by sketerpot · · Score: 1
      At first when I read your comment, I though about the ethics of murdering someone who has not killed anyone else, but who has done a much lesser crime instead. The I realized that it would just be making an example of the RIAA fsckers, so it's okay. Plus, it will be great to see them trapped by their own rationalization.

      After all, what's so unjust about going after poor college students for $50000-150000 if you're just making an example of them?

    14. Re:oderint dum metuant by sketerpot · · Score: 1
      No, but I know some things that might have helped.

      Example: "I will make sure I have a clear understanding of who is responsible for what in my organization. For example, if my general screws up I will not draw my weapon, point it at him, say 'And here is the price for failure,' then suddenly turn and kill some random underling."

    15. Re:oderint dum metuant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, I'd say history sides with Machiavelli.

      Fear does not bring revolution. Hate, however, does.

      If your subjects love you, they won't get rid of you very easily. They will get rid of you if they feel that you are ineffective as a leader, though. They might love you, but they want to live the good life, and if you don't seem capable of providing it..

      Now, if they fear you, they're less likely to try to get rid of you. After all, they don't fear you because of your multicolored hippie wagon and your habit of insisting everyone should love one another, groovy man!

      The best combination, of course, is love and fear, which is entirely possible. If they love you, they will not wish to get rid of you easily. And if they also fear you, further thoughts of revolution are discouraged, because they will believe it ain't happening.

      Now, hate, of course, is the problem. If they hate you, they will not mind sacrificing themselves. As long as you go down with them, you filthy bastard!

      Of course, it is arguable that hate and fear can make a valid combination (To tie in to current events, look at how long Saddam's regime lasted - it took an external force to bring it down), but I'd argue that love + fear gives more security to a ruler.

      Again, look at Iraq - due to the hatred of Saddam, the majority of the populace is not rising up against the foreign invaders. (Argue casulties all you want, but there is resistance, and then there is resistance!)

      Imagine if the majority of Iraqis had loved Saddam. By now, we wouldn't have any troops left in Iraq that weren't in boxes.

    16. Re:oderint dum metuant by Glonoinha · · Score: 1

      -At first when I read your comment, I though about the ethics of murdering someone who has not killed anyone else, but who has done a much lesser crime instead.

      Hah - welcome to my world. In Texas it is ethical (and eagerly encouraged by the legal system / law enforcement) to kill someone for keying your car, spraypainting (tagging) the exterior of your house, bitch-slapping your girlfriend, or stealing the radio out of your pickup truck (in all these cases you must be able to show that killing them happened in the process of making them stop, no revenge killings after the fact.)

      Life here is pretty black and white, and a thief in a $3,000 Armani suit is still fair game (ie, a valid kill target) if he is stealing from you.

      The question becomes - can we interpret the actions of the RIAA as unlawfully depriving you of your money. If the search / wiretap was unlawful then in a roundabout way ... yes. Up against the wall kokgobbler!

      --
      Glonoinha the MebiByte Slayer
  72. Funny stuff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now I see a new virus being created to connect itself to kazaa and start downloading music to unwilling peoples computers, just to prove a point.

  73. RIAA In Other Countries? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does any one know if the RIAA are (or may be) going for people outside of the US too?

  74. Re:But they have to USE law enforcement, don't the by gl4ss · · Score: 1

    well, yeah i would think so too but that's just because i'm european (and really, giving away telecommunications logs to 3rd parties _is_ a big deal).

    it seems that they can subpoena(under dmca?) the names(from ip addresses from isps) without even the intention of going to file a court case ultimately, and then just start direct 'negotiations' with the alleged infringer.

    -

    or something, i don't even care that much.. not that this helps them at all anyways, because if they start going after fileswappers bigtime then they will just move to earthstation5/freenet/waste /iip or another network that allows enough obfuscation on where the date is coming from for it to not stand on court very well.

    --
    world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  75. I say good luck to them by Andy+Smith · · Score: 1

    People you steal from have a right to defend themselves.

  76. artists are often in debt by reptilicus · · Score: 1

    Most of that fancy stuff (no, I just can't bring myself to call it "bling-bling") you see on Cribs is bought by artists using the advance money a record company pays them. The artist now owes that money to the record company, and it is taken out of their royalties. Should the cd fail to sell, they still owe the money to the record company. A nice breakdown of how contracts work can be found here http://www.negativland.com/albini.html

  77. How to Not Get Sued By the RIAA by Gareman · · Score: 4, Informative
    Go here now: http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/howto-notgetsued.php

    Read. Sign up. Send email to your representatives.

    1. Re:How to Not Get Sued By the RIAA by Cyno · · Score: 1

      How about just don't steal.

      If you don't already own the content you're downloading don't download it. If you do its called stealing.

      Property theft is the black market that is created by capitalism and property rights. I know there's more than enough to go around. Everyone knows that. But until they acknowledge it and make everything free you can't have any of it. Its not yours.

      The only thing I can suggest is love your neighbor and share with your friends and family and vote to get rid of the system that would rather put you in prison than take care of you or give you things.

    2. Re:How to Not Get Sued By the RIAA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go here now: http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/howto-notgetsued.php
      Re ad. Sign up. Send email to your representatives.


      Although I find some of the suggestions on that link are good (such as not participating as a supernode), most of them are fairly obvious to the average user, such as not sharing copyrighted stuff (duh?). I have a decent sized collection of music, about 25GB worth. While I never shared it on Kazaa (since I never had to), I used to share the whole collection (mainly classic rock, rock and rap) on other sharing programs such as Direct Connect. This was until I got a warning from someone who said the RIAA had bots on the hubs I was sharing my collection in - and this happened right around when the RIAA said they were going to start suing sharers.

      Anyways, I decided to stop sharing just about everything except for live music. I have about 5GB of live shows from artists who support sharing. Thats a great thing to share if you are worried about getting sued. I am pretty sure the live music is owned by the artists (I know the contracts vary from one artist to the next) so if anyone is going to be suing you over sharing live music, it will be the artist, which is very doubtful - unless its Metallica.

      Just a suggestion.

  78. RIAA needs to embrace it, not alienate it by SnowWolf2003 · · Score: 1

    With CD's going the way of vinyl according to research by Forrester reported on cnn the RIAA needs to seriously relook at their strategies. Defending a dying business model and product is a sure way to go the way of the Dodo.

    "If the trend continues, three years from now digital music sales could account for $1.4 billion of the music industry's $12.8 billion in expected revenues"

    1. Re:RIAA needs to embrace it, not alienate it by cens0r · · Score: 1

      If CD's are infact going the way of vinyl... that means we've got 20+ more years of cd's... I still buy vinyl on occasion and turntables are still easy to find.

      --
      Jack Valenti and Orrin Hatch will be first up against the wall when the revolution comes.
  79. Speaking of whinning... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How many times do we need some person karma whoring by claiming that slashdot is hypocritical?

    For those who can't read the fucking faq, Slashdot does not consist of all people having the same opinions and views.

    Now if you quit yelling "HYPOCRITES!!!!!!!1111!" and read the fucking posts you would notice that some people here have no problems with the law suits. For example, while I object to the absurd prices the RIAA is suing for, I have no problem with them dealing with this issue by going through the legal process.

  80. Most of you have this bass-ackwards by scharkalvin · · Score: 1

    They are NOT suing people who have downloaded music, they are going after people who have POSTED music TO BE DOWNLOADED by others. That is if you have downloaded music from others you are probably safe since you have NOT exposed your disk directory on the web via an ftp or web site. BUT IF you have your disk on a PTP network so others may access it, then you ARE a target. 'Course most people that are downloaders also are sharers. But there ARE a lot of .mp3 files on open public FTP sites. Is the RIAA going after them too?

  81. Who cares? by WhiteKnight07 · · Score: 1

    It really doesn't matter how many people they sue, they can never sue enough to have any significant impact on a network of millions of users. They fail to understand that it is totally impossible to enforce copyrights on the internet with any degree of real effectiveness. The reality of a medium of exchange where technical limitations and sheer numbers combine to make copyright inforcment impossible simply hasn't hit them yet. They're just flailing around like a pissed off little kid expecting the legal system to come and save them like an overprotective parent. The trouble is, this time the legal system can't really help them. The only thing it can do make it seem like they are making progress when nothing significant is really happening.

    --


    We're going to make information free Mr. Anderson, whether you like it, or not.
  82. So what you're saying is, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    is that's illegal for me to have a cd rack AND people in my house at the same time?

    wow

  83. You are nothing by alex_ant · · Score: 1

    A million people around the world could boycott and the RIAA would barely feel it. And nobody is scaring people into buying music. They're scaring people into not infringing on copyrights. There is a difference. (You have the option of not listening to, and not paying for, the RIAA's music)

  84. "fear and awe" my ass by Rumagent · · Score: 1

    More like "Let us make sure that projects like Freenet, gets a lot of support"

  85. Yes. by No+Such+Agency · · Score: 1

    Yes they will. The current climate of cold-hearted neo-fascism surrounding corporate "rights" allows large entities (companies or multi-company trusts) to obtain pointlessly harsh judgements against small entities (us), while elected public officials either do nothing or watch with glee. A few college "kids" (really: adults with potential to contribute to society... unless they're financially ruined at the age of 22) will make no difference, especially once the corporate-owned media are through twisting the story around. I say it's time to start the killing.

    --
    Freedom: "I won't!"
    1. Re:Yes. by Peterus7 · · Score: 1
      Well, what I fear is the RIAA somehow harnessing the patriot act, claiming that P2P is a terrorist act...

      When will they realize that the biggest damn terrorists are the fat cat CEOs who ruin people's lives! I mean, seriously, who's more dangerous: the raisethefist.com guy, or a CEO who is going to sue hundreds of hapless college students and destroy their lives? Think about it.

      So, it is for this reason that the patriot act, though stupid, should go after the RIAA.

    2. Re:Yes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
      We're talking about illegally sharing MP3s. Anyone who thinks there's "terrorism" involved on either side (let alone "the biggest damn terrorists") is an imbecile.

      I had two friends murdered two years ago next week when some real terrorists crashed a plane full of civilians into their offices. "Terrorism" isn't just some magic word you sprinkle on anything you don't like.

    3. Re:Yes. by sTalking_Goat · · Score: 2, Insightful
      "Terrorism" isn't just some magic word you sprinkle on anything you don't like.

      Tell that to John fucking Ashcroft.

      --

      My days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle...

    4. Re:Yes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Yeah, these days, with the patriot act, a psycho anarchist who made a few mistakes and put up a link to a bomb on his website is a terrorist. A misguided youth who says he wants to kill the president is a terrorist. An arabic man who was at the wrong place at the wrong time is a terrorist. Maybe sometime soon, P2P users will be known as terrorists.


      Then the patriot act would have a lot of fun cleaning out college campuses...

  86. Just for musing... by MickLinux · · Score: 5, Funny

    Has anyone considered the possibility that NYCfashiongirl may really not want to be found out? I mean, suppose NYCfashiongirl was really Madonna or Brittany Spears, or someone else with more to lose from file sharing than they could possibly gain... ...this could be really embarassing. Especially if it was Justin Timberlake.

    --
    Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
    1. Re:Just for musing... by exhilaration · · Score: 1
      suppose NYCfashiongirl was really Madonna or Brittany Spears

      I don't think that either Madonna and Ms. Spears are quite up to the MIT standards. Unless, of course, choreographed dancing has recently been added to the entrace exam.

    2. Re:Just for musing... by dokutake · · Score: 1

      The name not being released isn't because she's famous and doesn't want to be found out, it's because they're not allowed to release children's names in situations like these. Occam's razor, man!

      --
      - Peter
    3. Re:Just for musing... by ahfoo · · Score: 1

      Well with all the hype that this case is getting ---jeez 300 posts and it's only been up for a few minutes-- all I know is this chick better be hot and have a hell of a wardrobe with a nic like that because she's going to be getting some major media attention either way and if she's even halfway decent looking and willing to wear some revealing or suggestive outfits this could rather ironically be the beginning of a huge media career. Pick those nics carefully. It could be the most imporant thing you ever do.

    4. Re:Just for musing... by upt1me · · Score: 1

      I think the RIAA would overlook it, if it was Brittany Spears or Madonna, considering those artists bring in alot of money for the RIAA.

    5. Re:Just for musing... by eddy+the+lip · · Score: 1

      What, being Justin Timberlake isn't embarrasing enough?

      --

      This is the voice of World Control. I bring you Peace.

    6. Re:Just for musing... by Molina+the+Bofh · · Score: 1

      You didnt watch the movie "Legally Blonde", did you ?

      --

      -
      Roses are #FF0000, Violets are #0000FF, find / -name '*base*' |xargs chown -R us && mv zig greatjustice
    7. Re:Just for musing... by sacrilicious · · Score: 1
      I mean, suppose NYCfashiongirl was really Madonna or Brittany Spear

      Her being Wynona Rider would be way funny. Martha Stewart a tad less so, but still amusing.

      --
      - First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
    8. Re:Just for musing... by MickLinux · · Score: 1
      Actually, in a way it isn't funny. I think there is something in each of us that *wants* to be a public icon, but if you look at their lives, they are way messed up. There's no balance.

      Retrospectively speaking, a garbage collector may well have had a better life than most of these stars.

      I rather suspect that Wynona Rider knows this, which is why she's been shoplifting [psychological problem, as opposed to poverty problem], but she just doesn't know the way through her life to a real life.

      That said, there are a bunch of stars who have managed to get through to such a real life, including the Star Wars actor who played Luke Skywalker (got back into theatre, a relatively private career and hasn't left it) and possibly Princess Leah (went through some drug problems, if I remember correctly, but then got into writing, which is also relatively private). Harrison Ford, interestingly, seems to have found some kind of a balance with stardom, doing no more than one film a year, spending the rest of his life involved with his family (*gasp*), and not going to the extreme implosion that most stars go to -- but that's rare, and I could be wrong, too.

      Yet others, simply attempt to live a real life later, but really have to struggle. I think you'd put Bobby Brown and Whitney Houston into that class; Madonna seems to have begun such an attempt, but not completely; there are others, too.

      --
      Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
  87. hypocrasy? by fluxrad · · Score: 1

    You people have no idea what it takes to create something and try to make money on it.

    Perhaps you should put more effort into correctly spelling things.

    "OMG d00d! 7h1s s0ng 1s g01ng 70 s3ll m1ll10nz 0f 4lbumZ0rZ d00d!"

    Call me when you graduate and we'll talk.

    --
    "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
  88. I don't care by KalvinB · · Score: 1

    Why should the public care?

    Kazaa is being used as an on-line black market and companies are now going after the "sellers." Giving away illegal copies on the black market is illegal in itself. Selling illegal copies just carries additional fines.

    Bitching that the RIAA is going after people who share their music on-line is as rediculous as bitching about companies that shut down the people who sit on street corners and sell bootleg DVDs or whatever.

    Just because it's "on the internet" doesn't make it any less than the same.

    Now, shutting down Kazaa because there are people who participate in the black market using it, is another thing. That's as silly as closing down every business on main street because somebody
    has an illegal business on the same street.

    Ben

    1. Re:I don't care by MCZapf · · Score: 1
      It's only illegal until the law is changed. I think the more the RIAA acts like this, the sooner the people will organize to get copyright law changed to match what they actually want.

      I still say a 5 year copyright period would be plenty of time.

  89. Make a P2P application. by HanzoSan · · Score: 1



    Dont make it a site thats client/server based, it should be a P2P application I think. Make it distributed so its harder for the RIAA to sue you.

    Allow people to purchase music through it, also allow people to sell used RIAA music through amazon.com or ebay.

    --
    If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
  90. One thing to learn about the court system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Those sued should do what every large corporation does when faced with court dates... delay, delay, delay. Eventually, you'll run into a judge who is sympathetic to your cause, or the RIAA will realize that they're wasting too much money chasing you down and look for a better settlement.

  91. Copyright law is civil not criminal by cyber_rigger · · Score: 1

    At least the last time I checked.

  92. The reason why they said it was shallow by GoofyBoy · · Score: 4, Informative


    The defendent is claiming their 4th Admendment right was violated (unreasonable search etc...). RIAA is saying that they are not a goverment body so it does not apply to them.

    --
    The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
    1. Re:The reason why they said it was shallow by Ubergrendle · · Score: 1

      Would this mean that RIAA is liable for some form of electronic version of trespass? I guess the problem would be that if you make your files available as 'open' shares it's hard to argue RIAA wasn't allowed to index your collection.

      --
      John Maynard Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"
    2. Re:The reason why they said it was shallow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So following their logic - any private citizen has a right to conduct unreasonable searches?

    3. Re:The reason why they said it was shallow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      IANAL.

      Doesn't she have a stronger claim under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2701-2711? (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2701.html).

      If I'm not mistaken, under 2701(a)(1), unless a user gives the RIAA permission to snoop his/her computer, the RIAA's investigative actions constitutes a privacy violation. And since the RIAA is not a government agency (as they have pointed out), they are subject to civil action, per 2707(a) and have no applicable defense under 2707(e), nor exception under 2701(c) or 2702.

    4. Re:The reason why they said it was shallow by revmouse · · Score: 1

      Then why don't they consider it breaking and entering? If I go to the local wal-mart and "steal" a big screen tv, does that give wal-mart the right to break into my house to see if I stole it, and then file a sepeona? No. It requires them to go through the law, showing proof that I stole it from the STORE, as the company not allowed on my property, no matter how big the company is. IMHO, it is the same with computers. No one has the right to break into my computer to see if I stole anything from them, without the proper authority given to them by the law. The RIAA has not been given this authority. Even if they used a sniffer or something like that, the Internet is not considered their network. Would this not be an interception of a communication and considered line tapping, which is illegal as well? The RIAA needs to do things "legally" to make a case. So far I haven't seen this happening. They have been acting like the mafia, trying to make their own law.

    5. Re:The reason why they said it was shallow by viking099 · · Score: 1

      wouldn't installing and making the files available to others using the sharing software be implicit permission for those people to browse the files made available?

      The RIAA isn't installing any kind of software on these people's computers to get the file lists. They are using the sharing software itself to get the lists.

    6. Re:The reason why they said it was shallow by WhytTiger · · Score: 1

      But, as it's been said many times, the files were being shared, so it is more like you breaking into wal-mart, stealing a TV, and then driving around public streets with the TV strapped to the roof of your car, and with a big sign (kazaa/P2P) saying that you stole the TV.

      --
      My Sig Beat up your Honor Roll Sig
    7. Re:The reason why they said it was shallow by in7ane · · Score: 1

      "They are using the sharing software itself to get the lists."

      Although they are not installing anything on the sharer's computers they are using automated bots to do their indexing (unless a thousand lawyers at a thousand keyboards running a thousand version of Kazaa, not lite, generating millions in advertising revenue for... oh, wait...)

      This may or may not make a difference, but remember that Kazaa got Google to remove results for Kazaa Lite under the DMCA... so... just how do those automated indexing bots work again? (is there a potential lawsuit by Kazaa in there somewhere? especially since the bots must be putting some load onto the network (I know it's decentralized, but still)).

    8. Re:The reason why they said it was shallow by 3terrabyte · · Score: 1
      Thanks Uber, A lot of people seem to be missing that point!

      If you run a public web site... you can't then bitch that a certain person read that information as a breach of privacy!

      --

      Why are there only 19 people folding@home for slashdot?

    9. Re:The reason why they said it was shallow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What if they can see the big screen tv through your window?

    10. Re:The reason why they said it was shallow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As others pointed out, the information gathered by the RIAA was done in a public place, and they are not a governmental agency, so 4th does not apply.

      However, the subpoena is a court order, it is from a governmental agency. The 4th does apply to the subpoena, and any information gathered as a result of the subpoena could be considered a violation of it, especially considering the manner that it was issued (almost no judicial review, etc.)

      The article does not go into much detail, but this sounds like what the issue is.

    11. Re:The reason why they said it was shallow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speaking of bots .. wouldn't any non-Kazaa tools that the RIAA employs also violate the DMCA (presumably they reverse engineered the P2P protocol)?

    12. Re:The reason why they said it was shallow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not really... there's a subtle difference between the authority to access (read) private information, vs. private information that may be readable.

      Consider a Windows box where the user has accidentally (or some malicious virus has) enabled world readable shares on all disk volumes. This doesn't change one's right to privacy.

    13. Re:The reason why they said it was shallow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According to nycfashiongirl's counsel at McDonough, Holland & Allen PC, the ECPA will play a part in their motion to quash the subpoena.

  93. Re:Replies per post compared to RIAA stupidity lev by Xenothaulus · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Bravo, I agree, to a point. Myself, the main reason I use Kazaa or something like it is because the majority of albums suck, imo. If I here a song I like, I'm not going to by an album of crap for that one good song. I would, however, purchase or pay to download, a single .mp3 version. I believe the real reason RIAA is doing this is because they realise that, "if the technology takes off" (re: IT ALREADY HAS STUPID RIAA,) they won't be able to conscience making consumers purchase a $15-20 cd. Instead, it'll be cents per song. Personally, I'm gravitating toward the independent artists, some of whome produce much better music than the studio monkeys create, and charge a fee to download or even allow free downloading because their reward is appreciation for their music, and hopes that people who enjoy them will attend any events if they are close enough. I'm an ambient fan, and a lot of the music I listen to is available for free from the get go, just for the recognition factor. And if said artist would have a show, concert or what-have-you close enough to my location, I'd most certainly attend. /ramble

  94. What If I Just Don't Pay? by the_mad_poster · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I've always been amused by this sort of thing and a thought that goes with it:

    If I already have nothing to lose, what if I just continually refuse to pay? The court can TELL you to pay up, but it can't really MAKE you do it. The worst they can do, IIRC, is ruin your credit and whatnot. Could they actually repo things to try and recover the "damages" the plaintiff was seeking? I got sued for a couple hundred bucks. Ultimately, the nasty little JP upped it to 1200, but from what I was told, it sounded like if I never paid it I could just be reported to collections if the plaintiff so desired. If 15000 RIAA victims all refuse to pay, what are they going to do, send 15000 people to collections? That's a pretty big group of people. Big groups engaged in active civil disobedience can get media attention... but then, I could be wrong about that - maybe they CAN make you pay up somehow.

    I used to be one of those people who came on /. and argued that stealing songs was wrong regardless, but as the RIAA abuses got worse, so did my attitude. Frankly, I don't give a fuck anymore. Put all of them, "artists" and all out on the street. If the RIAA wants war, they can have it. And it's time people got off their high horses about 'not going down to their level' and fought it.

    --
    Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
    1. Re:What If I Just Don't Pay? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you don't pay a fine that you have been ordered to pay by the court then you can be found in contempt of court and sent to jail.

    2. Re:What If I Just Don't Pay? by Peyna · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This isn't a fine that is being handed down by the government for a criminal offense; it is damages being awarded in a civil lawsuit. Thus, the burden of recovery of the money is on the plaintiff; not the government.

      --
      What?
    3. Re:What If I Just Don't Pay? by taustin · · Score: 1

      If they get a judgement, and you have anything of value, then yes, they can take your property and sell it at auction. If you have a job, they can garnishee your paycheck.

      It's possible to be judgement proof, but it involves eating a lot of 29 cent macaroni & cheese.

      On the other hand, if you're willing to change jobs every few months, you can easily make it more expensive to collect than how much they get.

    4. Re:What If I Just Don't Pay? by jpmorgan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A civil court is not a credit card company. There are a number of things a judge could do to you if you refused to pay, including garnashing your paycheque and any capital gains for the rest of your life, or until you pay off your debt, whichever comes first.

    5. Re:What If I Just Don't Pay? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are so wrong, I laugh. Ha ha. Been watching too much courtroom dramas and not studying the law enough, me thinks.

    6. Re:What If I Just Don't Pay? by Peldor · · Score: 0

      They could petition the court to garnish your wages or put a lein against any property you hold the title to. If you don't mind being jobless and homeless, or perhaps emigrating then you're good to go. Unfortunately, the law is probably on the RIAA's side on this one. And not for any nefarious evil-megacorp-controlling-the-gov't reasons, but rather that filesharing really is frequently a violation of copyright law. Remember, the RIAA is not suing individuals to make money. It's to put a stranglehold on filesharing. Their lawyers are likely costing them more than they would ever collect.

    7. Re:What If I Just Don't Pay? by hellfire · · Score: 1

      That won't help. Any expenses that are incurred in collection of the debt are entitled to the plantiff and can be attached to the current judgement as collections or you can be sued for them in another case. This includes court and lawyer fees.

      The .29 macaroni and cheese idea is pretty good though ;)

      --

      "All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"

    8. Re:What If I Just Don't Pay? by lobsterGun · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Here's what they will do.

      Step 1: win in court. you owe them $15000

      Step 2: you decide not to pay.

      Step 3: they send you a threatening letter.

      Step 4: you ignore it.

      Step 5: they hire a collection agency that gets to keep half of what they connect.

      Step 6: they ruin your credit. They send you letter after letter. They call you every day, sometimes multiple times a day. Sometimes they call you at work.

      Step 7: you ignore them

      Step 8: you grow up and decide to get married/buy a house. But you can't because your credit has been destroyed.

      Step 9: you call them and agree to settle. You pay the fine, but only at a few cents on the dollar, so instead of $15000 you only pay $4000.

      Step 10: they annotate your credit report to indicate that you paid up. Your credit still sucks, but you can now get on with your life (but with high risk interest rates).

    9. Re:What If I Just Don't Pay? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Been there, done that. You left out a few details:

      Step 6: It is illegal for them to call you at work. It is illegal for them to call abusively, i.e. multiple times a day. It is illegal for them to call before 9 am or after 9 pm. If you tell them to stop calling, they MUST stop. If they break any of these rules, you can sue them. Look at the fair credit collection act for details.

      Step 7: more than 7 years go by, and the credit reporting agencies, by law, must delete those bad entries. Your credit is clean once again.

      Step 8: last time I checked, you don't need credit to get married.

      Step 9: If you have ignored it this long, they will be settling for 10% or less. Of course, at this point, I would simply ignore them completely.

      Learn your rights, folks.

    10. Re:What If I Just Don't Pay? by in7ane · · Score: 1

      Just move to Canada, you get free DirecTV there too.

    11. Re:What If I Just Don't Pay? by taustin · · Score: 1

      The key thing to being judgement proof is to simply not have any assets that can be taken. Generally speaking, they can't take any tools you use for your profession, they can't take your last vehicle, they can't take your primary residence, and they can't reduce your income below a certain level.

      It isn't tough to be judgement proof, but you'll be living well below the poverty line if you are.

    12. Re:What If I Just Don't Pay? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no the judge can not make you pay for a private lawsuit.

      learn your law buddy. Get sued for 2.2 million dollars? whoopdety doo.. I aint gonna pay it and unless it's owed to a government agency the judge has no power to force you to pay it.

    13. Re:What If I Just Don't Pay? by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      "The court can TELL you to pay up, but it can't really MAKE you do it."

      Actually, they can. They will start by taking your tax refund. Then they will garnish your wages. Then they will seize your assets and sell them at auction, just like they do for tax evaders, corrupt televangelists, and casual marijuana smokers.

      After that, they might actually find a way to bring contempt of court charges against you for not paying... which could conceivably give you prison time...

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
  95. Friday is D-Day by 3terrabyte · · Score: 2, Informative
    Keep your eyes peeled on Friday.

    That is the day that the RIAA will be sueing some of the people they subpoena'd. According to this article.

    I can't *wait* to see what happens. Of course, this is only because I'm not on the list.

    --

    Why are there only 19 people folding@home for slashdot?

  96. Might work for governments by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 5, Insightful

    But not for corperations. People are free to not buy you products. They don't buy your stuff, you don't make money. You don't make money, you go out of bussiness. Companies must be careful about not making their consumers angry enough to start a serious boycott. Thus far, the RIAA has been fine, the geeks boycott and everyone else goes about their merry way. However if they anger the public at large, they'll quickly find they have no market to sell to.

    Will this do that? I don't know, but it is somethign they have to consider.

    1. Re:Might work for governments by mike77 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      But not for corperations. People are free to not buy you products. They don't buy your stuff, you don't make money. You don't make money, you go out of bussiness.

      Unfortunately, in the united corporations of america, all you have to do is go to your local congresscritter, tell them, we're losing money becuasse people are downloading songs instead of buying them, and they prop up your failing business model.

      you've heard of subsidies for farmers? welcome to the world of subsidies for failing corporations

      --

      --Keeping the flame wars alive, one post at a time

    2. Re:Might work for governments by Sphere1952 · · Score: 3, Informative

      "Thus far, the RIAA has been fine, the geeks boycott and everyone else goes about their merry way."

      You seem to be totally unaware of the major labels' sales figures verses the sales of the Independent labels over the last year.

      While the RIAA members are whining about poor sales the independents are having a banner year.

      My daughter uses Kazaa to hunt down really strange stuff from individual artists, and has been doing this for years now. (Why not Kazaa Lite, I ask?) I'd guess that she has an occasional song the RIAA would have claim to, but the ratio is certainly less than 1 in 10.

      Furthermore, how are you to tell if the author is asserting their free speech right to be heard or is asserting some obscure federal statute?

      If Joe Filesharer needs a lawyer then the words "no law" have become meaningless.

      --
      Big Brother Bush is doubleplus ungood.
    3. Re:Might work for governments by 3terrabyte · · Score: 1
      Yea, but food, steel, (and the others) were considered to be a necessary commodity for the USA. I doubt music will be.

      Don't get me wrong, you're right to a point. And the congresscritters have already fallen all over themselves for a piece of the money pie to pass laws that obviously were written by the RIAA/MPAA. But it's not like the U.S. government is going to purchase bulk copies of Britney just to keep the RIAA afloat.

      --

      Why are there only 19 people folding@home for slashdot?

    4. Re:Might work for governments by mike77 · · Score: 1
      But it's not like the U.S. government is going to purchase bulk copies of Britney just to keep the RIAA afloat.

      agreed, but as long as corporations are the largest means of election funding, that's who the politicians will cater to. And it may not be in the form of purchasing, I'm sure they'd rather just have some kind of cash handout where they don't actually have to produce anything. They've taken a giant step in that direction by pulling an SCO, suing/extorting money from anyone and everyone they can. And the next step is, when people stop buying cd's, and they have no one left to sue, help us Uncle Sam! All so a couple of suits can keep their house in the Hamptons, and their ferarri (sp?) insured.

      --

      --Keeping the flame wars alive, one post at a time

    5. Re:Might work for governments by glenrm · · Score: 1

      Targeting kids is going to destroy the RIAA. I will tell you right now that Congress will not stand for it, you can already tell that with Senator Coleman gettting involved. It is all well and good to go after a few 'poster children' cases, but when you start blanket attacks you are in trouble big time. It is wrong to steal music and other peoples works but you also have to come to an acceptable agreement with your customers and throwing them in jail usually doesn't get the job done, it should be the last resort not the first.

    6. Re:Might work for governments by lynx_user_abroad · · Score: 0, Flamebait
      People are free to not buy you [sic] products.

      Oh get off it. The only people the RIAA is targeting are those losers who are so addicted to RIAA music that they'll lie to themselves and steal to get their fix of "American Crap" tunes.

      If any of them had any sense of right-and-wrong, half a clue, and any taste at all in music, they'd be downloading free and clear music from independent artists that doesn't sound like the same old blah blah blah the AM pop stations overplay.

      The RIAA is targeting people who are addicted to their product and too cheap to pay. They have no fear of a boycott occurring, because these people obviously can't live without RIAA music and can't stop paying for it because they're already freeloading.

      --

      The thing about things we don't know is we often don't know we don't know them.

    7. Re:Might work for governments by iceperson · · Score: 2, Informative

      Can you show me where you get your stats when you say "corporations are the largest means of election funding"? You may be right, but I find that hard to believe. Also, who runs these "corporations"? I'm not sure that I know of one sentient "corporation". Corporations 'give' about as much money to campaigns as they pay in taxes. The truth is that all campaign donations, just like all taxes, are paid by people (whether it's through a corporation or not.)

    8. Re:Might work for governments by mike77 · · Score: 1
      let me rephrase:
      corporations are the largest means of campaign donations.

      I need more caffiene.

      --

      --Keeping the flame wars alive, one post at a time

    9. Re:Might work for governments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      God what is it with Geeks.

      Just because our boycot isn't successful doesn't mean we aren't making a revolution.

      The introduction of new software and new programs will cause more havoc to the RIAA than boycotts ever could

    10. Re:Might work for governments by tlianza · · Score: 1
      Unfortunately, in the united corporations of america, all you have to do is go to your local congresscritter, tell them, we're losing money becuasse people are downloading songs instead of buying them, and they prop up your failing business model.

      The RIAA should not have to go to any lawmakers to prop up their "failing business model." Laws about copyright infringement have been on the books for years. I dislike the RIAA as much as anyone, but the fact of the matter is that people are making *illegal* copies of their product and spreading them around. It just so happens that a digital product (much like software) has zero marginal cost so it doesn't cost anything to reproduce. That doesn't mean that the product itself is worth $0, or that they should look the other way when they see people still enjoying all the benefits of it without paying for it.

    11. Re:Might work for governments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      YEAH LETS BOYCOTT! Everyone right now start by downloading all the music you can get online!

      Oh wait, people have been doing this form of "boycotting" for quite some time now. Maybe "consumers" should do some real boycotting of RIAA labels by not downloading or listing to the stuff.

    12. Re:Might work for governments by ThePeices · · Score: 1

      no major boycot will ever happen. the RIAA's main target audience is the pre-teen and early teen market. Just look at typical radio play pop trash (brit, justin, any other boy bands blah blah blah). This market is not concerned with the RIAA's online activities and other shady deals, all that market is concerned about is whos the hottest boy/girl on the radio/tv. And thats the market which sells better than all others. eg, Bratney Spears has sold millions and millions of albums, and all because shes so talented? Laughable.

    13. Re:Might work for governments by Rhone · · Score: 1

      But not for corperations. People are free to not buy you products.

      Can you explain, then, why some of the most hated corporations in America (Microsoft, record companies, etc.) are also the richest?

    14. Re:Might work for governments by mike77 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      you have a point about people making illegal copies and getting their product for nothing, but...

      1) The recording companies have been convicted of pricefixing and keeping the cost of cd's inflated.
      2) Their numbers are suspect at best. I can't remember where it is, but I've read several reports that shows similar declines in "sales numbers" for other industries since the bottom fell out of the economy.
      3) Mp3's are not perfect copies. They're pretty good, but not perfect.
      4) Many people use file trading services to determine if an album is any good before they go buy it.
      5) Many customers only want the music, not the CDs (I myself fall into this category) and until recently (iTunes) there have been no good online music content providers.
      6) Why do consumers have to pay a tax on CD-Rs, to "combat online piracy", when they may use the media for anytything, not necessarily on burning copies of illegally downlaoded songs?

      My point being there are always going to be pirates, Always, but they are not doing themselves any good with the methods they have chosen to combat it. They're in the digital age, they need to figure that out, and give theit customers what they (the customers) want, and not try to shove what they want us to have down our throats.
      \end rant


      did I make any sense, or am i still suffering from lack of caffienation?

      --

      --Keeping the flame wars alive, one post at a time

    15. Re:Might work for governments by vsprintf · · Score: 1

      But it's not like the U.S. government is going to purchase bulk copies of Britney just to keep the RIAA afloat.

      Don't be so sure. The feds could buy up the CDs and send them to the dairy farmers as subsidies. I read that cows produce more milk when music is played. Hmm, wait a minute . . . Britney and music . . . never mind -- bad plan.

    16. Re:Might work for governments by vsprintf · · Score: 1

      4) Many people use file trading services to determine if an album is any good before they go buy it.

      That is enough reason right there for the RIAA to want file sharing dead and buried. They make their money by selling albums with one good song on them to customers who are expecting more. I know, I own quite a few.

    17. Re:Might work for governments by The+Original+Atrox · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up! I first heard the Evanescence, Fallen, album online, DLed it from the OpenFT network, and positivly loved it. So much so that I went down to the local Barns & Noble and got it. Partly for better quality sound, partly for those nice album graphics and booklet. And of course, re-riped it at a higher bitrate for my own private computer-listening. The hard cold fact is, small time bands (like Evanescence pre-daredevil) -love- MP3 tradeing, it gets thier name out there. And they know, that a large enough percentage of the listening audiance (those who DL the MP3s) will probably end up buying thier stuff if it strikes a chord with them (like Evanescence did with me). The RIAA is just the alpha-dinosaur on the block, and due to the money they have, they seem to control the laws... -for now-. Anyway, thats just my 2euro cents.

      -Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master.

      --
      -Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master.
    18. Re:Might work for governments by The+Original+Atrox · · Score: 1

      Thats simply because a large enough percentage of people dont 'hate' M$. Take for example that before mentioned little tidbit:

      Things are good if the people love you,
      But things are better if they fear you,
      But you dont want them to -hate- you.

      M$ is still safely (when it comes the the majority of people) still in the 'fear' category. Yes, there is a minority of us who hate M$, equally, there is a minority that swears by M$ and loves the devil. The majority still only fears M$, but doesent 'hate' them.

      --
      -Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master.
    19. Re:Might work for governments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i read a statistic somewhere that said near a 3rd of people who download music buy the CD
      besides they will never be able to totally shutdown filesharing there are many legal uses for P2P services Computers can be used for illegal purposes but is the government isn't going to ban them they have a multitude of legitimate uses the same applies to file sharing only on a much smaller scale

    20. Re:Might work for governments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a large donation can also help copmpanies get strings pulled it isn't technically a bribe that is why the government limits the amount you are allowed to donate to a campaign

      by the way fox is running a show called who wants to be governor of california where the obscure canidates (all 100+ of them) compete to win win the largest donation allowed by law

    21. Re:Might work for governments by Rimbo · · Score: 1

      "you've heard of subsidies for farmers? welcome to the world of subsidies for failing corporations"

      I agree with you in principle. They're similar in that the government is propping up a basically bad business model. Farming is a bad business model because you're selling a commodity product (which limits your margins), you're subject to the whims of nature every year (which can destroy your entire production line), and if you raise prices someone will undercut you and you won't sell anything.

      If all of the major music labels fail, artists, promoters, etc. will find other jobs, or create new ways to get music into the masses' ears. If all of the farmers fail, everyone in the country starves to death. Food production is a bad business, but if we don't have a food production industry, we don't have food, y'know? That's a moderately significant distinction, there.

      Given that difference, I feel the government is plenty justified in supporting farmers as much as possible. Farmers are the exception. Generally, subsidies are bad things, but everyone's gotta eat.

    22. Re:Might work for governments by mike77 · · Score: 1
      I agree completely w/ subsidies for farmers, don't get me wrong.

      --

      --Keeping the flame wars alive, one post at a time

  97. Let them. by HanzoSan · · Score: 4, Insightful



    I mean they already blame piracy for the recession, so who cares? Lets actually give them a reason to blame it on piracy! Lets directly take their profits away.

    "Either way they'll be portrayed as victims and filesharers online as the ones who killed a benevolent organization. Either way, they win."


    They just declared war on us!!! Does it matter? In a war only one side can survive. The side which survives usually writes the history books, not the loser.

    --
    If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
  98. I'll pay the artists direct, not RIAA by BestNicksRTaken · · Score: 1

    OK, so if I download a CD full of songs, I'll pay the artist directly $15 and I'll give 50c for the production of the CD.

    I'm not paying RIAA anything, in fact this has stopped me buying CD's now, even though I don't download MP3s.

    I think a few modern-thinking artists should setup an iTunes-like site where 100% of the money goes to them, not 11%, they could totally cut out the record companies.

    --
    #include <sig.h>
  99. And thats the exact problem. by HanzoSan · · Score: 3, Insightful



    You cannot scare a person into buying music, you can scare them into not listening to your music anymore, but hey if they dont listen to your music anymore they wont buy your music.

    So its a lose lose situation for the RIAA. They wont have any customers left to sell to. In the end their industry will die and be replaced by internet companies like Napster, Kazaa, Mp3.com, etc.

    --
    If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
  100. I'M RICH! I'M RICH!! by Jafafa+Hots · · Score: 4, Funny

    Wow!
    According to RIAA accounting methods, I have almost 2.5 BILLION dollars worth of music on my hard drive!

    $2,434,950,000.00 to be exact.
    Good thing I haven't shared them, I don't think I could scrape up that kind of coin easily.

    --
    This space available.
    1. Re:I'M RICH! I'M RICH!! by barryfandango · · Score: 1

      I wonder if you could borrow against that equity?

      --
      In all matters of opinion, our adversaries are insane. -Oscar Wilde
    2. Re:I'M RICH! I'M RICH!! by Ieshan · · Score: 1

      If every one of those 60 million filesharers had this much, it would equal:

      150,000,000,000,000,000

      150 Quadrillion dollars. Supposing they can sue for this much money, they could purchase the earth. =P

    3. Re:I'M RICH! I'M RICH!! by chazzf · · Score: 1

      Rougly 16,000 mp3's by my count. At an average of 3 MB / song (assuming a decent bitrate), that's well over 45 gigabytes of hard disk space consumed by your highly valuable music collection. Taking this a step further, we can say that each gigabyte (since that is the actual data), is worth $54,110,000. Judging from pricewatch, the average sale value of a gigabyte (IDE 7200 rpm drive) is about $1.10.

      Simply by putting music on your drive, you've increased its value 49190909 times! Damn, there's money to be had here...

      --
      No statement is true, not even this one.
    4. Re:I'M RICH! I'M RICH!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn, I only have $919M in music. I have never been so ashamed.

  101. getting settlement $$ isn't the point by rhombic · · Score: 2, Insightful

    They could care less how much money they actually get from the student(s) they target. If they destroy a few kids' lives for uploading (not downloading), far more people will turn into leeches on the p2p networks. By increasing the number of leeches and simultaneously flooding the networks with false files, they're in effect causing a massive DOS on the p2p networks, making them far less useful than they had been. Their goal is to make it cost more (in terms of time and frustration) to download the song than it does to buy the album-- if you're making $10 an hour and it takes you more than 2 hours to download an album, then they've won.

    --
    1984 was supposed to be a warning, not an instruction manual.
    1. Re:getting settlement $$ isn't the point by blink3478 · · Score: 1

      if you're making $10 an hour and it takes you more than 2 hours to download an album, then they've won.

      Nah - I mean, I make about $30 an hour, and I'm here at work, and it's really boring, but I have to be here anyway right? Might as well download music.

  102. It's STEALING darn it by MhzJnky · · Score: 1

    While I don't agree with the punishable amount ($150k for 1 song, come on) no one can tell me that file trading is not stealing. Just because it's easy dosn't make it not wrong.

    People, pay for your music. Music is a product, it takes time and energy to create, people deserve to be able to make money at it.

    And don't give me any crap about "Well if I like the MP3 I got from Kaaza, I'll go by it". I'm sorry, I don't think so.

    You may disagree with how the Record and Movie companies spend the money they take from you, but welcome to capitalizim. People charge what the market will bare. What they do with that money after they have it is there business. If they want to we wastefull, let them. And with a lean mean company comes out and kicks there butt in price, they'll learn.

    Everyone wants to be spoon fead there entertainment. You want to hear it on the radio, deside you like it, and then buy the CD. Well theres a price to that, and it's the RIAA. There are tons of independent bands out there selling there CD's for $5 and giving away thier MP3's. But people don't want to put the work in to find them.

    You can't have it both ways. Either go find the cheap and (legaly) free music, or put up with what your being spoon fead. Take some responsiblilty on yourself and stop blaming evil corperations that couldn't exisit with out your dollars feeding them.

    (no I can't spell, and no, I'm not sorry about it)

    --


    "Failure is not an option, it's part of the standard package"
    1. Re:It's STEALING darn it by newizod · · Score: 1

      This is a PRIME example of what the "market will bear." It's obvious that the market cant bear the record industrys current pricing structure and has resorted to file-sharing for access to music. Sorry buddy, I own a TON of CDs, each costing from $15-$20. I also own a TON of indie CDs collected from local concerts, etc. Times change, and just because the record industry won't change doesnt mean the people wont. I've recently started using the Apple Music Store. It rocks. Thats the way music should be sold. They need to take a hint, and get proactive instead of defending ancient distribution techniques.

    2. Re:It's STEALING darn it by Sphere1952 · · Score: 1

      How do I know whether I'm stealing or whether I'm assisting someone to express their free speech rights?

      There is plenty of music out there where the band is more than happy for me to download it, but I can't tell the difference. It certainly isn't the responsibility of the band which wants to be heard to give notice. This would be an intollarable imposition upon their free speech rights.

      If you take, for instance, Joesph Wecker's descramble, how are you to decide whether you are helping him or hurting him?

      --
      Big Brother Bush is doubleplus ungood.
    3. Re:It's STEALING darn it by MhzJnky · · Score: 1

      Thats one of the issues that makes this tricky. If the band wants thier work out there, it's there right to do so.

      Unfortunantly, the responsibility falls to you, the consumer, to make sure everythings ligit. If some gives you a free car and it turns out to be stolen, you don't get to keep the car.

      In most cases this is just common sence. If your using a Napster like service, your taking a risk. If you go to a bands site where they offer downloads your not taking as much of a risk.

      --


      "Failure is not an option, it's part of the standard package"
    4. Re:It's STEALING darn it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      (no I can't spell, and no, I'm not sorry about it)

      Well... you should be. An occasional typo is one thing, but your creed below has so many examples of bad spelling and poor grammar that your level of intelligence is brought into question. I mean, did you make it past 6th grade? It is hard to take your opinion seriously when your words are so poorly proofread as to be almost unreadable. It's not like you're messing up hard words either. You're messing up words like "fed" and "buy".

      Sheesh. Proofread your work, man.

      (at least you didn't say "loose" when you mean "lose" like half of slashdot does.)

      While I don't agree with the punishable amount ($150k for 1 song, come on) no one can tell me that file trading is not stealing. Just because it's easy dosn't make it not wrong. People, pay for your music. Music is a product, it takes time and energy to create, people deserve to be able to make money at it. And don't give me any crap about "Well if I like the MP3 I got from Kaaza, I'll go by it". I'm sorry, I don't think so. You may disagree with how the Record and Movie companies spend the money they take from you, but welcome to capitalizim. People charge what the market will bare. What they do with that money after they have it is there business. If they want to we wastefull, let them. And with a lean mean company comes out and kicks there butt in price, they'll learn. Everyone wants to be spoon fead there entertainment. You want to hear it on the radio, deside you like it, and then buy the CD. Well theres a price to that, and it's the RIAA. There are tons of independent bands out there selling there CD's for $5 and giving away thier MP3's. But people don't want to put the work in to find them. You can't have it both ways. Either go find the cheap and (legaly) free music, or put up with what your being spoon fead. Take some responsiblilty on yourself and stop blaming evil corperations that couldn't exisit with out your dollars feeding them. (no I can't spell, and no, I'm not sorry about it)

    5. Re:It's STEALING darn it by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "eople, pay for your music. Music is a product, it takes time and energy to create, people deserve to be able to make money at it."

      Charge me a fair price for it. I ain't paying $15 for a CD because the one song I like on it is on the radio all the time.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    6. Re:It's STEALING darn it by Bendebecker · · Score: 1

      "Music is a product, it takes time and energy to create, people deserve to be able to make money at it"
      In law that is known as 'sweat-equity'. It was argued before (in fact I believe the supreme court made a ruling dealing with it) and it was thrown out. Copyright does not promise you profits from your idea, only the possibility of profits. Whether you deserve it is highly debatable. Just becuase a person works does not mean they will be sucessful. Is it unfair? Welcome to earth.

      --
      There's a growing sense that even if The Future comes,
      most of us won't be able to afford it.
      -- Lemmy
    7. Re:It's STEALING darn it by MhzJnky · · Score: 1

      Unfortunantly your not just paying for that Band's CD... your paying for all the Bands that the label has signed that don't make any money (and there's lots).

      However, if you only like one song, go to buymusic.com and buy just the song you like. THe more successfull that business is, the more services like it will see. Vote with your money.

      --


      "Failure is not an option, it's part of the standard package"
    8. Re:It's STEALING darn it by Razor+Blades+are+Not · · Score: 1

      While what you said is true, it's not the point he was making.

      Perhaps it might be better said as "Music takes time and energy to create. If what is produced has value as entertainment to some people, then that value ought to be recognized through some sort of compensation by those people."

      This is more of an ethical statement than a legal one, however.

    9. Re:It's STEALING darn it by MhzJnky · · Score: 1

      Yes, and thats why I said: "people deserve to be able to make money at it". I never said it was a promise, just that your protected from uncompensated distribution of your work.

      --


      "Failure is not an option, it's part of the standard package"
    10. Re:It's STEALING darn it by Sphere1952 · · Score: 1

      "Unfortunantly, the responsibility falls to you, the consumer, to make sure everythings ligit. If some gives you a free car and it turns out to be stolen, you don't get to keep the car."

      "Amendment I

      Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

      "Article I. Section 8. [some paragraph]

      To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;"

      Sorry, but speech is a right. Copyright isn't even property.

      I'm stating my concerns entirely in terms of the author's fundamental rights verses a strictly statutory congressional grant to the author. It is not my responsibility as a comsumer to protect the author's fundamental right to speak, nor his statutory copyright. Forget me in terms of determining what is legally/morally right, and consider only the author. I am merely a hapless bystander who is caught in the middle and cannot determine what to do.

      --
      Big Brother Bush is doubleplus ungood.
    11. Re:It's STEALING darn it by MhzJnky · · Score: 2, Informative

      I agree with you. It's the authors right to publish his works (speech) how he sees fit. He can put it on T-Shrits, the web, or hand out CD's like AOL. Go to town, this is America after all, have fun.

      However, by downloading files from a file trading service you are no longer an "hapless bystander", you are part of a transaction. The transaction is between you and the person you are downloading from. Someone has to be responsible for that transaction as far as copyright issues are concerned.

      Now is it you, or the person your downloading from? Honestly, I'm not sure. However, the reality is, the person providing the file can't possibly know if all the many downloaders actually own a license to the tracks they are providing. So practacly, it falls to you to make sure all is well.

      --


      "Failure is not an option, it's part of the standard package"
    12. Re:It's STEALING darn it by Sphere1952 · · Score: 1

      Wrong. It clearly must be the copyright holder's responsibility. Otherwise it is government interferance with the right to free speech and free association (with the potential of petitioning the government for redress of grievances).

      I guess the only choice is for the copyright holder to start every song with a copyright notice telling us we weren't supposed to download it. Anything else would be an unacceptable interferance with the right to speak and to be heard.

      It is not the public's responsibility to even care about copyright. This is completely a commercial speech issue with which we ought to be completely uninvolved.

      If Joe Filesharer needs a lawyer then the words "no law" have become meaningless.

      --
      Big Brother Bush is doubleplus ungood.
  103. Question about purchasing music by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Okay, with everybody yapping about filesharing I have a question about purchasing the music. I haven't bought a CD since '97 but Kazaa is honestly getting to be too much trouble. So I've moved on to purchasing it. I found a really extensive site that has a great interface and is unbelievably cheap. Most entire albums are under 60 cents. If I buy my music offshore and don't share it to anyone, have I legally purchased the music? I buy from Russia and their laws dictate that they can sell the music after paying licensing fees. So, is it legal to purchase it from there for so cheap?

  104. Downloading vs. sharing by prostoalex · · Score: 3, Insightful

    We should really charge you $150,000 per song you have downloaded.

    Ok, correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think anyone has been charged with a RIAA lawsuit on dowloading alone. Downloading digital music might be a legal activity under so many circumstances (you have a legal CD, the file is not copyrigthed, etc.)

    All of the RIAA lawsuits in the US are targeted towards file sharers, not downloaders, but uploaders, if you will.

    Why? Simple as it is, the companies belonging to RIAA are the sole entities allowed to distribute and license distribution of their music. The label has indeed a shallow argument if it tries to sue anyone for downloading, but sharing music with others is violation of this exact premise, and the law is clearly on RIAA's side in any country where the property laws are upheld.

    1. Re:Downloading vs. sharing by swordgeek · · Score: 1

      Uploading? There IS no uploading in a P2P network. I put my files on my machines. If I make them available on my machines through Kazaa or Gnutella or NFS or CIFS, then suddenly what others do becomes my responsibility?

      That's a very tricky bit of law--not nearly as clear as you make it out to be. I'm not distributing, I'm not giving away, I'm not disallowing access to my own material.

      --

      "People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
    2. Re:Downloading vs. sharing by Sphere1952 · · Score: 1


      How is the filesharer, in principle, supposed to know whether they are sharing something which is released by the author in a free speech attempt to be heard or something which the author wishes to sell?

      Sure, there may be specific items which the filesharer does in fact know are intended for sale, but all I have to do in order to not know is be oblivious to mass media; which I am. I wouldn't know the difference between the latest boy band and an underground revolutionary group.

      --
      Big Brother Bush is doubleplus ungood.
    3. Re:Downloading vs. sharing by prostoalex · · Score: 1

      According to the US Copyright Law (the case might be different if your home country is not US), everything is copyrighted, unless otherwise specified. Unless you see an explicit message that something is to be distributed under specific license (GPL, BSD, Creative Commons, etc.), assume it to be copyrighted with the author or dostributor owning the rights. Period.

      I am not saying Copyright Law is great, I just state what it says. If you assume different things, that might not hold up in court.

    4. Re:Downloading vs. sharing by prostoalex · · Score: 1

      I totally agree with you, the issue of uploading is shady. Well, technically term 'uploading' is not appropriate, 'sharing' is what they use in subpoenas and court documents.

      Your statement above describes a case, where sharing a file is accidental, or non-intentional. The goal of RIAA in court is to show that you were distributing the music intentionally. As long as the files appear in the 'My Shared Folder' out of nowhere, you are cool.

      However, that very thing is very unprobable, since every sharing application you install on your machine asks you to specify the folder you want to share. If you have the files, for which you do not have the distribution rights, I'd say it's 90% guarantee that the court will deem your behavior as willful attempt to break the law. If all you have in your shared folder is Linux distros, and creative works explicitly licensed to be distributed freely (I mentioned that above, Creative Commons license, or whatever) you're fine.

      However, you will have a tough time proving in court that the copyrighted files appeared in that shared folder without your permission. The issue is not even copyright as much, it's that you don't have distribution rights, and that's what violates the current law, and that's where music companies can catch you.

    5. Re:Downloading vs. sharing by Sphere1952 · · Score: 1

      Getting it to hold up in court is exactly the point. Yes, I am only considering U.S. law here, but the monopolies have to be broken in the U.S. or nobody else has a chance in Hell.

      The way to break crap like the DMCA is to put it into direct conflict with the 1st Amendment in such a way that the weakest points of IP are put up against the strongest points of Free Speech and Free Association. If we, the consumers, are just hapless confused victims of a messed up legal system and it is conflicting authors rights which are being considered that is exactly what happens.

      So, as a hapless confused consumer, how am I to tell whether I am furthering the author's fundamental right to free expression or infringing the author's statutory copyright?

      --
      Big Brother Bush is doubleplus ungood.
    6. Re:Downloading vs. sharing by swordgeek · · Score: 1

      Hmm.

      Here's a scenario. I have rips of CDs at home, on my file server (although in real life, my RAID5 volumes are reconstructing itself as I type). I also have my skanky old corporate laptop which doesn't have the disk space for more than three tunes. I feel it's reasonable to set up a way of sharing that folder to myself, when I'm on the road.

      Now I've got a friend who's a musician. He routinely sends me copies of songs he's written and recorded. I've already got a shared folder, and so I just give him access to it, rather than setting up a second share. Now if he downloads a song that he doesn't have the CD of, then have I just become a criminal?

      For that matter, if I use gnutella to download music that I already own (much easier than making my own rips, when the stuff is out there) into a shared out folder, why am I not justified in assuming that other people will do the same--download songs from my server that they already own on CD?

      I don't think the courts can legally presume to know why I set my computer up the way I have, nor what I intend to do with files. Furthermore, what if someone gives me a Brittney Spears album, and I'm so disgusted with it that I rip it, and share it out to the world so that no one will ever have to pay for her lack of talent. Well it's likely that no one will ever download any of it, and so what then? I've made songs avaiable that have never been downloaded--am I still 'distributing illegally?'

      And one last point. I don't think there's anything on the lawbooks in most of the western world that makes attempting to break the law a crime in and of itself. (note that attempted murder is explicitly a separate crime)

      Ah well. I might be able to claim that it's all just negligence. Hell, half of the people sharing stuff out through Kazaa don't understand it anyways.

      --

      "People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
    7. Re:Downloading vs. sharing by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 1
      "All of the RIAA lawsuits in the US are targeted towards file sharers, not downloaders, but uploaders, if you will."

      That is because they figure if they get rid of all the uploaders, the downloaders won't have anything to download. I know that for now, I just download and will not share. Yes I know it sucks for me to be a leech, but there's a lot of much stupider people out there who have a much greater chance of being caught. I suspect people who know how to turn off sharing do because it not only wastes your bandwidth but also puts you at risk.

      I'd also like to mention that scaring the sharers away has had a noticeable affect. That coupled with all the broken songs makes it quite frustrating to get a new RIAA-label song. This just makes me frustrated, so I just jump on a lesser known (or more complicated) P2P system, where the bar is raised for computer experience. These people know enough about computers to delete that damn broken file with the piercing noise, instead of just spreading it all over the network.

      --
      Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
  105. It's not like nobody had notice by csimicah · · Score: 1

    Welp, the $150k number is a bit high, but nobody didn't know this was illegal.

    Everybody screams when the RIAA goes after the _services_ because "they can be used for legitimate purposes", so now the RIAA goes after individuals that knowingly broke the law, and everyone acts all shocked. Uhhh, sorry, I know you weren't expecting to get caught, let me shed a tear for you.

    1. Re:It's not like nobody had notice by Sphere1952 · · Score: 1

      How did they knowingly break the law? How can they tell if they've broken the law or they've just participated in our fundamental right to free association?

      --
      Big Brother Bush is doubleplus ungood.
    2. Re:It's not like nobody had notice by csimicah · · Score: 1

      I guess I'm not up on the law enough to understand how putting a copyrighted piece up for the public to partake in for free, has to do with 'free association'.

    3. Re:It's not like nobody had notice by Sphere1952 · · Score: 1

      First off, everything written is copyrighted, so this message I am writing now will be copyrighted as soon as I submit it. Given the confusion many people have about what a "copyrighted piece" is, I'm not sure I understand your question -- even in its direct form.

      Second, we have the fundamental right to get together and discuss amongst ourselves that which might lead to petitioning our government for redress of grievances. There might be something within music freely found in the public sphere which will induce us to get together for the purpose of petitioning our government.

      Third, and most important, since we have the right to get together any law which interfers with that right for any reason is at best highly suspect. With P2P we have found a new way to organize, and I demand my right to use that way to organize. If there is some silly problem with copyrighted material also being available via that route then my answer is: tough. Mark your monoplist crap clearly such that I can avoid it and then I shall avoid it. What I will not accept is any sort of constraint upon my right to use this medium to speak freely and organize in free association. The copyright monopolies just have to find some other way to solve their problem.

      --
      Big Brother Bush is doubleplus ungood.
  106. Just out of curiosity... by billyradcliffe · · Score: 0

    Are the RIAA lawyers named Knuckles and Low Blow by any chance? These names seem fitting.

  107. These guys aren't dangerous. by MickLinux · · Score: 1

    These guys are not really dangerous. If you don't want to be nabbed, don't share their music. Shoot, don't listen to it. I don't, and I still have a sense of music.

    The really dangerous guys are anyone who's involved in financial transfer, without a true, legal, product. Those people are essentially offering no service, and have to do something to keep their racket going. I don't care if it's insurance (such as Prudential, or Lloyd's), banking (BCCI), gambling (Las Vegas), or get-rich-quick spammers (Nigerian spam); those are the people you really want to worry about.

    These people make it easy enough to stay out of their way. And if they make a mistake, you can let them know via the media, and they'll even apologize. They might be dangerous, but they're not really dangerous.

    --
    Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
  108. Another Volley by mugnyte · · Score: 2, Interesting


    [scroll overlay against dark space to Pink Floyd's "Signs Of Life"]

    And so, with the passage of time, we find the landscape changing in the outer worlds. The heyday of digital smuggling began to change as the RIAA overloads rachetted up the penalties for those caught. Eventually, entire square parsecs were left empty, encircled by only the empty hulls of caught offenders. Husks of empty steel that once held a fortune in content formed a warning sign to those entering the fray.

    But the rebels of the age were smart. They turned to deeper methods, encrypting their content, running private servers, and WAR driving. The random element of physical contact reduced the smuggler's domain to a fraction of his former, but the overlap of these small circles kept fresh booty flowing. Content was still open to move, simply the transfer couldn't be without extra steps to know the receiver and secure the path.

    Meanwhile, the RIAA replaced the existing law enforcement for tracking and penalizing those still foolish to appear on the public channels. No judge, no jury was required as the cost for including them in your defense were too high for all but the wealthiest. Given that smuggling was done on the cheap, for the masses, suffice it to say no one could pay for such accutrements. Although the Creators approved of the tactics, they continued to fight for slimmer traditional channels.

    As the Age Of FAIB (Free As In Beer) came to a wane, the inner worlds continued to bustle with mass marketing and pop culture. The outer worlds succumbed to the MPAA/RIAA stormtroopers' patrols. Surprise searches and constant paranoia crept up on those who stayed too long in the toughest zones. Eventually, the smuggling became "wiped out" publicly, and the inner worlds no longer sent the curious making the journey to grab a piece of the action along the rim. But for those who knew the newest tricks, adventure and discovery continued to be the drug that filled their libraries with the Creators' best output...

    [fade to black]

    1. Re:Another Volley by Sphere1952 · · Score: 1


      Check out Freenet. The anonymous network, not any of serveral companies around the world with the same name.

      --
      Big Brother Bush is doubleplus ungood.
  109. That's right moron... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That means you're not allowed to look into private data at ALL.

    So, then by that I take it one can't search for files on a P2P network because it allows you to find and see "private data."

    And we all know how "your" N*SYNC albums you have downloaded and left in your SHARED folder are your "private data."

  110. Re:Kill them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If we start targetting RIAA executives for execution, we may start seeing results.

    These RIAA executives seem to be under the mistaken impression that can harass anyone they like with impunity and risk nothing but a hard day at the office.

    We must start spilling blood.

    I hope someone spends the time tracking down some personal info and posts it on slashdot. The sooner we get some home addresses, the sooner we can start sending letter bombs and getting snipers in position.

  111. The DMCA is the whole point and will be the crux by ahfoo · · Score: 1

    If it's not this particular case, it will be one of the other 1300. The DMCA was written by a Congress and approved by an Administration who stated in the press at the time that there was nothing to fear about the elements of the DMCA, in particular the highly questionable subpeona elements coming to the fore at this point, because they would be revised when the courts got ahold of it.
    This will go to the Supreme Court in one form of the other because it's well known that the DMCA was not a strong piece of legislation and it was particularly the subpeona parts that were problematic.
    If the Supreme Court was to take the surprising and unlikely stance that the subpeona provisions of the DMCA don't violate the right against unreasonable search and seizure then I suspect that broadband adoption in the US will continue to remain far behind that of other countries resulting in a long term competitive disadvantage.

  112. No ma'am, we're musicians by elviscious · · Score: 1

    "Mr Oppenheim also said the RIAA was immume from rules on unreasonable searches on the internet, because it did not have links with law enforcement agencies."

    Reminds me of a part from the Blues Brothers:
    Are you the police?
    No ma'am, we're musicians.

    As much as I'd like to say that this is bullshit, I fail to see how a search would be illegal when the entire medium is based upon it being searchable. People can't just walk in off the street and look in your refridgerator and see if you have some corona. But this is based on being searchable.

    To put it bluntly, she's fucked

  113. Foot in Mouth Disease by Sumbody · · Score: 1

    Mr Oppenheim also said the RIAA was immume from rules on unreasonable searches on the internet, because it did not have links with law enforcement agencies.
    Does this guy know what he said? Because he's not the police he can do illegal things like what is tantamount to a wiretap? What a hoser.

  114. They have actually been doing this in Denmark .... by Savage-Rabbit · · Score: 1

    .... for a while now. A couple of years ago the Dansish verson of RIAA set up a sting in the Student village where I lived. They nabbed one of the MP3/FTP site operators and cut him a deal. Then they monitored the traffic on the net for a few months in kahoots with the local net admins whom they also had by the balls. When they were good and ready people got billed. Some of these bills ran into the hundreds of thousands of Danish Krona. Of course it had no real effect on music piracy in Denmark, but it did cause a very sharp sore in the sales of USB hard disk adaptor boxes. Cheap and easily hidden!!

    --
    Only to idiots, are orders laws.
    -- Henning von Tresckow
  115. Comrads.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The RIAA can kiss my a$$. I've made many CD purchases after pulling a song or two off the internet to get a feel of a CD. Too many CD's are put out just to push a single while the rest of the tracks are just filler. It's the RIAA and the radio station giants that are molding what we hear. If only one song is good, then you can bet that the rest of the crap on a CD will never see the light of day on commercial radio. If an album is good, you will hear several cuts from the same CD. I'd rather not spend $18 on a CD only to find it blows and I could have just taped the single off the radio (like I did back in 1985).

    As for the Stalin-esque tactics used by the RIAA against file swappers, it is nothing less than blackmail. Whatever happened to malicious litigation? Pay me $15,000 now and I won't sue you? Sounds like protection money to me. I think the mafia should be concerned, cause the RIAA is muscling in on their racket.

  116. 4th Amendment on Findlaw... by Caeda · · Score: 1

    Well, if some more people actually bother to get up the guts to fight this, it's really possible they could win, partially. If you browse through FindLaw.com on their fourth amendment rights and case examples, it seems, really, the RIAA is in serious breach of everyone's rights. From past case example, on probably cause searches, they are really only allowed to check an IP for illegal matterials if the person comes right out and shows them what they have! Its easy to come to this conclusion, Take a peak at the footnotes and cases on non-telephonic survellience. Passivle watching, or listening, if perfectly allowable, as it allows really stupid people to get caught doing bad things. But the moment you take action to be in a listening position, you violate someone's rights... Wouldnt trying to download a file, without being able to prove they dont legally own the file and have it on display by accident, be the same as drilling a hole in someone's wall and popping in a microphone?

    --
    ~~ Please keep your arms, legs, and outright stupidity inside the ride at all times. Thank You ~~
    1. Re:4th Amendment on Findlaw... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they are really only allowed to check an IP for illegal matterials if the person comes right out and shows them what they have!

      So that is why they are looking through shared directorys people have made public.

      Besides a few slashdoters and trolls, I really doubt that people would have lots of fake named audio files of them taking a crap. While their bots are dumb, it doesn't take a genious to look to see if you have a whole lot of albums that a valid and popular checksum.

  117. put your money where your mouth is.... by zarniwhoop · · Score: 1

    look ./ers - there millions of us (not only /.) who disagree with all this bollocks.

    Lets stop pissing around, set up a central fund, cough up $10 each and fight the bastards in the law courts - all the way.

    Now - whos up for it? Replies below please as to HOW we get started. Not when, not if, but HOW

  118. Oh wow... by mcgroarty · · Score: 1

    My school loan just went from $70k to 2.6 million... and that Metallica CD didn't even turn out to be that good. :-(

  119. Heres another good one: by bl1st3r · · Score: 1

    editfreedom.com has another good article about the RIAA.

    Its called Why the RIAA hates Al Gore. I thought it was interesting.

    --
    hrrm.
  120. Try to beat them at their game... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why not set up a great P2P system with thousands of files, text files or viruses that you own the copyright to, then make the files look like copyrighted materials so that the RIAA downloads just one file to see if it is a copyright violation and sue them for a trillion dollars for violating your copyright and your P2P EULA, let them settle for several billion, then buy as many CDs as you can and burn them in a mass bonfire in front of RIAA headquarters.

    Or take all those damn AOL CDs and melt them down and form them into a huge dildo, then ship it to the RIAA headquarters with a nice note telling them that they can go fuck themselves.

  121. Why do people give a shit about music? by WildBeast · · Score: 0, Troll

    I mean seriously. What's so good about music? I for one find it quiet boring and I don't download nor buy music. How exciting can a bunch of idiots screaming like morons be? Really, it's quiet pathetic in my opinion. Wake up, why would you want to waste time downloading or buying crap?

  122. Legal system DOS attack by toriver · · Score: 1

    Can someone find out which criminals have tricked the RIAA into trying to overload the legal system?

  123. This played out in Denmark in 2002 by resprung · · Score: 2, Informative

    This exact thing took place in Denmark in November 2002.

    Here is what happened:

    'Antipiratgruppen' (Danish RIAA organisation) scoured KaZaA for Danish users sharing files and took to court a database of IPs and the contents of shared directories.

    Danish court granted them a per-case order forcing ISPs to resolve IPs into real names.

    The ISPs coughed up, and the anti-piracy group sued 100 kids for their illegal MP3s.

    Each sharer was offered a deal - pay a substantial fine, or be dragged through court and be hit with serious financial ruin.

    A few people got nailed pretty hard, and the story got the large amount of press that had been planned. One college dorm settled at $15.000 per user on the network.

    (...and one friend of mine stayed up one night, destroying 150 CD-Roms in his possession with a rotary sander *hehe*).

    The Anti Piracy Group did NOT get what they have been campaigning for all along - vigilante powers: They still obviously have to go through court every single time they want ISPs to resolve an IP number into a user name.

    This ruckus has just had the effect that people turn off sharing and turn to the encrypted P2P clients.

    --
    Now is the winter of our disco tent
  124. The RIAA=Terrorists? by Peterus7 · · Score: 1
    Infernal RIAA, don't they realize that what's hurting them the most is foreign CD piracy,(Insert previous /. article here) not some poor college student pirating in his dorm room (where s/he naturally doesn't have any money to buy CDs...)

    It's time they stopped using college students as scape goats.

    Still, this makes me want to do some detective/conspiracy theorist work, and link the RIAA and Hilary Rosen to Al Quida, then tell the patriot act and watch the fireworks... (Well, I consider evil corporations like the RIAA, GM, Nike, the tobacco industries, and Boeing to be a much larger threat than terrorists...)

    Yes, Mr. Rummsfield/Patriot act agent, I saw Bin Laden and Saddam Hussain sitting in a green stationwagen, and driving it was Hilary Rosen!

    Also, who says college students don't fight back? I'm just waiting for someone to post Hilary Rosen's personal address, or any of the other RIAA execs addresses on the web, then watch the fireworks. It'll be just like the shit sent to the spammer, but worse hopefully. Seriously, they need to wake up and smell the asphalt: Their little world and the way it works isn't going to work just because they have massive amounts of money... The reason they have money is people support them, but if they actually start suing people, they'll start losing money. (What college student could pay that much? If I were sued like that, I'd take a gun to my head. Plus, after a while, the boycotts would kill them.)

  125. NBC Announces Law and Order: RIAA Series by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    NBC Announces Law and Order: RIAA Series "Another episode features an NYU freshman who rips several tracks from a CD he owns and burns them in a "mix CD" for his girlfriend. Country stars Brooks and Dunn help Detective Smoker, played by Lars Ulrich apprehend the copyright violator." Quality :)

  126. Bill of rights - Amendment VIII by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Excessive bail shall not be required, NOR EXCESSIVE FINES IMPOSED, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

  127. Escalation by Perl-Pusher · · Score: 1

    How long do you think it will be before some kids parent gets this huge bill and beats his kid silly. Then the kid goes into the RIAA offices with an uzi because he now has no home and this huge legal problem giving him nothing to live for?

  128. Caligula, not a good role model by nedwidek · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Ruled for just 4 years and murdered by two of his closest advisors.

    --
    Post anonymously - For when your opinion embarrasses even you!
  129. BBC bias by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Has anyone else noted that virtually all BBC coverage of this issue is almost completely one-sided (very pro-establishment). Hmm ... I don't suppose they have worries relating to protecting their own content??

  130. RIAA calls the Constitution "shallow" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fucking more crazy bullshit. The Constitution is supposed to protect us from these types of this bullshit.

    This is bullshit. Bullshit bullshit bullshit.

    I have a good mind to a kill kill kill.

  131. Censorship is just a technical problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    the Riaa vs Napster case have "generated" serverless gnutella-like P2P system.
    This "war" against filesharers will "generated" anonymous freenet-like filesharing systems.
    The new systems will be stronger and stronger.
    Great !!!
    RIAA is dead (MPAA aswell)

  132. No... by mrscott · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That's not what they're saying and you know it. It's more like putting a kiosk up in a mall with your CD rack with a burner and blank CDs sitting next to it.

    1. Re:No... by Blue+Stone · · Score: 1
      "Kiosk in a mall" makes it sound commercial.

      How about, a public list of everyone's music in the town square, and you with your CD rack and a player in your front yard, and they bring their connectable cd burner and blank CDs?

      --
      Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
  133. There both wrong. by geekoid · · Score: 2, Insightful

    there both wrong.

    If someone fears you, they will do what you want, for a time. When they have nothing left to loose, they will come after you.

    If someone hates you, they will do what they can to get you.

    If someone loves you, they will stop at nothing to protect you. That includes looking the other way or making excuses for you.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:There both wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      your system appears to have trouble with the word lose.

    2. Re:There both wrong. by SlamMan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Being loved it good But its damn hard to get most people to love you for a while, and impossible to keep it up. Fear lasts a damn long time, and bullets and lawyers are cheap.

      --
      Mod point free since 2001
    3. Re:There both wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you have a good point in that both bullets and lawyers may be plentiful, but i don't remember lawyers being cheap.

    4. Re:There both wrong. by geekoid · · Score: 1

      nope, love is easy to get to last, when were talking about the people, in mass.
      If they can eat, be entertained, and believe they are being protected, they'll love you.

      Cults are built upon the manipulation of love.

      And it is easy to control someone who loves you.

      bullets are cheap, but they work both ways.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    5. Re:There both wrong. by Blue+Stone · · Score: 1
      "If someone loves you, they will stop at nothing to protect you. That includes looking the other way or making excuses for you."

      So that's Apple's business plan!

      --
      Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
  134. Make a P2P app which only hosts independent labels by HanzoSan · · Score: 1



    Make a P2P app which hosts indie labels and has reviews

    you could make a site but then you have bandwidth issues, why not use P2P technology?

    --
    If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
  135. BOYCOTT MAJOR LABELS by nooboob · · Score: 3, Informative

    BOYCOTT MAJOR LABELS Boycott major labels, please please please please please.

    http://www.boycott-riaa.com/artists/

    PLEASE!

    1. Re:BOYCOTT MAJOR LABELS by nooboob · · Score: 1

      http://www.boycott-riaa.com/membership.php url of members in the RIAA, as mentioned by the poster above. Do not give them your money. Please mod up!

  136. I think it is the penalities that have people mad by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    I mean $150,000 for a song? Are you out of your fucking mind? That is completely unreasonable. Here in the US we have a concept taht the punsihment should fit the crime. Well the crime is making a copy of a song (not stealing, theft requires depriving someone of something) which has a value, at most, of $1 when looked at in the context of the album on which it is sold. For that they want $150,000. If that isn't excessive I don't know what is.

    I can want the RIAA to go after the file shareres but not want the punishment ot be excessive. Can you imagine if the punsihment for speeding was $150,000 per offence? It wouldn't be hypocritcal to say that is unjust.

  137. Countersue! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    IANAL but it is my understanding that the RIAA's actions are violate the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2701-2711/. http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2701.html

    Aggrieved parties whose privacy have been violated should be taking civil action against the RIAA since the RIAA is not exempted by the Act as it is not a government agency (more specifically, a law enforcement agency).

    1. Re:Countersue! by fault0 · · Score: 1

      If you are affiliated with any government, anti-piracy group or any other related group, or were formally a worker of one you CANNOT enter KaZaA, cannot access any of its files and you cannot view any of the media files. If you enter this site you are not agreeing to these terms and you are violating code 431.322.12 of the Internet Privacy Act signed by Bill Clinton in 1995 and that means that you CANNOT threaten our ISP(s) or any person(s) or company storing these files, and cannot prosecute any person(s) affiliated with this page which includes family, friends or individuals who run or enter KaZaA.

  138. Re:Bill of rights - Amendment VIII by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 3, Informative

    And remember thats part of CRIMINAL law.

    I could sue you for unlawful access to a website (slash). It's civil then, and bill of rights does not apply.

    --
  139. The Virus Did It! by Red+Pointy+Tail · · Score: 1

    Well, time to fight back...

    I recall reading somewhere that it is possible to get off the hook legally by claiming that you were not responsible for the music that is found shared or downloaded on your pc, if say, the folder was shared unbeknownst by the program or someone hacked into your pc or some excuse like that.

    I propose *someone* write a 'virus' that will mimic the behaviour of a file-sharer by downloading and uploading songs in patterns indistinguishable from a normal user. Then propagate it so that lots of pc gets infected! If RIAA sues us, we can claim the virus did it ... it can also be engineered in a way such that only upon getting sued, we retroactively apply the 'virus' and claim that it did it (tricks with timestamping and all)! This way, the RIAA will not successfully be able to sue you successfully... whatdayaall think? :)

    1. Re:The Virus Did It! by HanzoSan · · Score: 1



      I already thought of that idea a long time ago, the reason I didnt go through with it is, well if I wrote THAT virus they'd lock me up forever, label me a terrorist, and treat me worse than mitnick.

      I want to fight the war, but not like that.

      --
      If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
    2. Re:The Virus Did It! by cdrudge · · Score: 1

      You sir have no clue do you. You are responsible for the content on your PC. "Honest Judge, I don't know how the 20 Gigs of MP3s became organized and shared on Kazaa".

    3. Re:The Virus Did It! by Red+Pointy+Tail · · Score: 1

      If some mobster broke into your house without your knowledge and permission, conducted a drug deal in your living room, and got busted, would you be charged for being an accessory to the crime?

      Also to HanzoSan: most virus writers don't get caught (Nimda, CodeRed, Blaster orig.... ), not unless they are dumb enough to put their frigging web-address in their code and brag all over the chatgroups! However, if what you meant is from a moral viewpoint about spreading viruses (want to fight the war, but not like that) then ya I accept what you are saying... but then filesharing and copyright violation will also be deemed 'immoral' by some.

    4. Re:The Virus Did It! by CentrX · · Score: 1

      Maybe not (although due to the RAVE act, you could be charged, or at least fined, if you were having a public gathering, like a concert, protest, etc. and someone did that), but what might happen is your house would get "confiscated" by the police, and you wouldn't be able to get it back. That sort of thing happens a lot.

      --

      "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." - Thomas Jefferson
    5. Re:The Virus Did It! by 0x12d3 · · Score: 1

      Great idea!! Or better yet, with all the spyware that you get with Kazaa anyways why not just distribute the silly thing with kazaa!! Not a virus mind you (ie does not propagate). But something like Xupitar, bonzai buddy, gator, etc. That "randomly downloads (into your 'uploads' folder) based on patterns detected in your 'downloads' folder (where you keep the backup copies you lawfully ripped from cd :).


      Why hasn't somebody modded "the virus did it" up yet??

  140. Re:Enough Said by Eric+Ass+Raymond · · Score: 1

    I haven't bought any music CDs since they started selling crippled ("copy protected") CDs. Thanks to that campaign, I now P2P all my music.

  141. Re:IN CAPITALIST AMERICA... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So let's switch to Communist America, where no one is allowed to start their own business, no one is allowed to innovate, and the government has final say over everything you can legally read, hear and see. That would make sense.

  142. You can't judge that. by MickLinux · · Score: 1
    They're the ones who deserve the cash.



    On two counts, you can't judge that. Remember Milli Vanilli? They were lip syncing all the time. They had no real skill; they were made by the RIAA.



    In such a case, the artist is the advertiser; it is the RIAA themselves. I'd contend the same is true for any of the RIAA artists. If you're going to listen to their trash, therefore, pay your money to them. Shoot, pay double!



    If you want to send your money to the artist for their music, then find an artist with whom you can do that, which you like. There are tons of such artists around; if you want to see any such artists, I suggest you go to a few of the New Years' "First Night" events. One that I found, which I loved, was the musical group Trapezoid. Even better, their lead singer's wife was also a master storyteller.



    Anyhow, if you want to give your money directly to the artists, please do. Just go find your own. But if you're dealing with RIAA songs, the RIAA *is* the artist. And yes, they do suck, which is why I don't listen to their songs, except when a radio has to be playing (and sometimes it doesn't).

    --
    Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
  143. How can the gov't sit by so idly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Think about this. For a minute. The RIAA wants to sue everyone who trades copyrighted songs over the internet. Let's just low-ball that number at 1 million. These are average Joe Blow citizens. They want to sue them for $50,000 on average. Since no one can afford to fight them off, they have to fork up the cash.

    How many people can afford to willy nilly give some organization fifty thousand dollars for trading a few songs?

    As such, these people have no choice but to pay. Since 99% of people sued can't afford it outright but can't afford to have their paycheck docked either, they declare bankruptcy.

    Bankruptcy declared by hundreds of thousands of people.

    All at the same time.

    How can the government sit by idly when one organization wants to put all of their citizens in the poor house, and more importantly, collapse an already unsturdy at best economy?

    1. Re:How can the gov't sit by so idly? by Zhe+Mappel · · Score: 1
      Although one of the chief jobs of the US government is ensuring that industry is free to get away with its gouging, this is actually a case where you'll soon see some blowback for the RIAA.

      Even nasty little bootlickers like Minnesota Sen. Norm Coleman have started to squeek about the possible unfairness of the RIAA's actions. Dig up the AP article from earlier this summer where he bleats about the possibility that the accused didn't know they were hurting anyone; can you imagine a right wing senator saying this about, say, urban black kids scooped up by the voracious war on drugs?

      All it will take is for the wide net of these subpoenas to scoop up several kids from the plutocracy, whose parents can afford both lawyers and politicians, and then our elected representatives will leap into action. Meanwhile, if the RIAA has any sense, its suits will target those who can't afford to fight them.

  144. different crime, different punishment by fullmetal55 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    the $150,000 number is the fine for piracy, stealing a CD is a different crime, that is larceny. burning free copies would net you the $150,000 fine. different crimes come with different penalties. and Property theft is different than copyright infringement. regardless of what the RIAA says. with stealing the CD you're not hurting the RIAA just the record store. the record store has paid for that cd already, and the crime is against the record store not the RIAA. hence the different crime.

    1. Re:different crime, different punishment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except the penalty for getting caught stealing a CD from Walmart is likely to be less than the penalty for getting caught downloading one song from that CD. That's twisted and if you can't see it just because of the civil vs criminal thing, take a step back and stop thinking like a lawyer.

    2. Re:different crime, different punishment by fullmetal55 · · Score: 1

      Just explaining it. if every crime had the same penalty, that would be twisted. plus the chances of you getting the maximum fine for downloading one song off the internet is slim. it would have to go to court and a judge would have to administer the sentence. but you missed a major point i was making. With piracy, be it copying a cd, or downloading a song, as the law sees it you are hurting the creator of that product. Its not much different than corporate espionage or patent theft. you are preventing that person from earning money from their hard work by your greed. now, theft from a store is an entirely different crime. the creator has been paid for the copy already, the store is out that money until they get paid by the consumer for that product. thus physical theft of a cd is a different crime. the artist and the RIAA have been paid for that cd, you're hurting the record store owner. not the RIAA or the artist. Now burning multiple copies of that cd for friends aquantences and people off the street is hurting the RIAA and the artist. it is the difference between copyright law and criminal law. copyright law has stiffer penalties because if you steal chances are its not hurting them a lot, if so then its grand larceny which has a stiffer penalty. however by sharing a cd, you're costing the RIAA and artist lost profits from many cds, which could raise the cost from anywhere from $10-$100,000. depending on how many people get a copy. where stealing from walmart puts walmart out $10 bucks. Now any judge worth his salt wouldn't give anyone the maximum charge per offence for downloading one song. it depends on a lot of factors which I really don't want to get into. but regardless, they are both illegal, they are both "harming" someone, whether you like them or not you are harming the RIAA by downloading songs, I don't like some people I meet that doesn't give me the right to loot through their wallets. copyright infringement is illegal, its not theft, its a different crime and thus the punishments are different. just like stabbing a guy is a different crime than just beating him with your fists.

  145. MOD PARENT UP: It makes the best point... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...in showing we're not hypocrites. Most if not all of us aren't against the RIAA going after individuals who violate these little copyrights. We just don't agree with the way they are doing it. I mean, $150 000 per MP3? As if they don't already have such huge amounts of cash.

  146. What can they possibly do to a student? by mark-t · · Score: 1
    If they are targetting students (easily the greatest infringing demographic), how are they expecting to collect?

    A student's net work is often, oh... somewhere in the negative range (thanks to student loans), and it could be several years before they are making enough that it is viable to garnish their wages. If they aren't living on campus then their internet may not be from the institution that they go to, so there's nothing that even the school that the student goes to would be able to do.

    It is interesting to note that most of the people that engage in media piracy are the people with relatively little to lose if they should happen to be caught.

    I have yet to hear of a workable solution to this problem that doesn't involve re-legalizing slavery.

  147. Halt, in the name of the law! by Keighvin · · Score: 1

    So the RIAA, now acting as a self-appointed (though I'm sure soon to be ratified in congress) legal authority is trying to litigate it's way into survival in a slump economy. I'm willing to bet that if all the funds being poored into that litigation and threat of litigation, all the marketing campaigns delivering that "fear and awe" message and so on were counted up they would far out-weigh their income from the effort. But of course, that being the case as well they can claim it's part of the cost of "music piracy."

    Worst of all, anything which *does* come in will do so under the labels of "legal costs" and "recouping of damages from lost revenues." Since the music itself was never sold, the artists will never receive a portion of the royalty - thus by charging for the music they're not selling the RIAA gets to keep the lion's share.

    @#$* that.

    --
    Any spoon would be too big.
  148. Except... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your analogy would be more apt if they dragged you into the gutter and beat you to death for going 90mph.

  149. Free College Education by mustangsal66 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Actually, you cannot add student loans in a bankruptcy. Your stuck with them. The govn't won't forgive loans from them.

    --
    Why worry? Each of us is wearing an unlicensed "nucular" accelerator on his back.
    Sig changed for readability by G.W.
  150. However, they invoke legal power by Kjella · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ..to get access to information they would otherwise not possess, through the DMCA.

    To take the classic car trunk analogy. In this case, the police officer would open the trunk for the RIAA, but not actually look into it himself. Would that be legal? If so, the 4th amendment is basicly worthless.

    Then you can simply create a force that is not officially a part of the government, but that would be able to inspect your trunk at whim and report whatever they find to the legal system (or worse). But it's still government force that facilitates this.

    There is no doubt in my mind that the 4th Amendment should apply to a DMCA invocation like this. Whether that stamp from a judge's clerk is sufficient to be allowed under 4th amendment is a more complex problem, but the amendment itself applies. IANAL, but that's how I read it at least...

    Kjella

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  151. Hypocrasy? by Bendebecker · · Score: 1

    "First, when the RIAA went after Napster, and the p2p software makers, you people were crying for them to go after the individual pirates, instead of the technology that facilitates the piracy." Yeah, go after the pirates. But this is ridiculous. $150,000 a song? For that much, I could buy a whole record store and still have tens of thousands left to spare. I could buy the rights to the song itself for that much! Even the rights to use a song (non ownership) are less than $150,000. This is insane. An equivalent scenario is if the business your working for is paying your insurance out of your paycheck, they become tardy for a month, and you say 'hey, I'll pay that one month of insurance myself' and so the insurance company decides to take your home, your car, and your children as payment. "It's wrong, it's bad, or, or something." It's extortion (pay up now or we'll suee you for more later), its unjust, its a violation of the spirit of the law, it is against just about everything this country is for. When the founding fathers drafted the bill of rights, they wrote an admendment that prohibitted cruel and unusual (and excessive) punishments. That is basically what the RIAA is doing. Going into debt for the rest of your life becuase of something that you did when you were 14 is ludicrous. In ancient Mesopotamia, if you went into debt to a certain degree, the government supported a system that allowed your creditor to make you a slave in compensation for the debt. It would be nice to think we have become more civilized in the last 5,000 years. It seems the RIAA is out to prove that thought wrong. "What's the deal here? Do you people just don't care about copyright infringement? You people have no idea what it takes to create something and try to make money on it." They are picking on the weakest cause they think no one will care. The RIAA in this situation is guilty of a far greater injustice than copyright violations. Copyright was created in the mid-1500's in England becuase it served the public good (actually the 1700's version did, the 1500's version was a form of royal censorship but you get the idea). It was a balance between the good that the private ownership of writing would faciliate and the good of the public as a whole. This balance has been broken and this was never so obvius as it is now with these suits. These suits harm the public far more than it gains from copyright. The government, as all democratic governments are, are obligated to serve the public good over the good of and even at the expense of the indivisual (with the exception of the given rights of the constitution - I could get into a long phisophical argument as to how taking away those rights from one indivisual harms the public good as a whole far more tahn any could possibly gain but I won't. And if you think copyright is a right, you need to go read a book on it - its a policy, not a right.) These suits by far serve the private indivisual at the expense of the public good. The good results that society gains from such authoritarian copyright persacution is far outweighed by the negative effects. A few rich executives can act like fools and live as kings in exchange for 10,000s if not 100,000s living in poverty and in debt for the rest of their lives cause of what they did before they were old enough to vote... can anyone say 'french revolution'? "You people have no idea what it takes to create something and try to make money on it." Put the word 'legally' or 'ethically' or 'fairly' or (my personal favorite) 'honestly' before the word 'make' and the RIAA has no idea either. Persoanlly, I think there needs to be a maximum limit any person can be sued and especially one for the young. They are not adults. they do not have the maturity or the mental faciltiies of an adult. They cannot be expected to make adult decisions. Treating them like adults for any action, especially a legal one, is so positively ridiculous that it boogles the mind how sane adult would allow it to continue. What's next? Being put in debt for multiple generations? M

    --
    There's a growing sense that even if The Future comes,
    most of us won't be able to afford it.
    -- Lemmy
  152. Re:Extortion by GigsVT · · Score: 2, Informative

    Under some circumstances they can dock a big percentage of your pay for the rest of your life.

    Seriously. I know a guy that was accused of a hacking type crime by a large company, he will be paying off that $2 million for the rest of his life most likely.

    --
    I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
  153. $150,000 per song!!?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess I'll just tell my kid just to shoplift at BestBuy. The penalties are smaller, so it must not be as big of an offense.

  154. Not quite correct. by MickLinux · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They are not doing this because P2P is an alternative distribution model that threatens their business. If that were all there were to it, they'd probably quickly change business models, and be done with it.

    Rather, our system of law has set up a structure for their sales, and they were following it. Yes, the structure, known as copyright, is flawed, but it is the structure that they, as a legal business entity, have to deal with.

    Now, P2P is not following the law. They are breaking the law. (rewind) Bzzewwwpt (Vol up) THEY ARE BREAKING THE LAW (Vol down). So the RIAA is going after them in the only way that they can.

    Now, if you want to bring in a better business model, which is legal, then please go ahead and do so.

    BTW, I've posted in my journal under "Public Domain", one idea on how to do just that. Since I did PD it, you can use it, without paying me anything.

    --
    Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
    1. Re:Not quite correct. by Dr.+Bent · · Score: 1

      They are not doing this because P2P is an alternative distribution model that threatens their business. If that were all there were to it, they'd probably quickly change business models, and be done with it.

      To what? What business model is going to allow an organization like your average modern recording company to remain relevant and profitable in an era where musicians can sell directly to thier fans? There is no such thing.

      The reason these large record comapnies can't change is because change equals death. If they are forced to give up control of the distribution channels for music, things like and value-based pricing *Gasp* will be possible. Why do you think that every CD in a store is either the standard rate (about $16) or a bargian rate (about $9)? It's because those prices are fixed by the record companies.

      Is copyright violation illegal? Yes. Do these companies have the right to sue violators of thier copyrights? Yes. But lets not get confused as to the purpose of these lawsuits. Stopping piracy is just a beneficial side effect, the real goal here is to kill P2P by making everyone scared to use it.

  155. Nice capitalization! by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 1

    Crappee and Goode, Attys-at-Law. Specializing in copyright and intellectual property law.

  156. Hypocrasy? - Easier to read by Bendebecker · · Score: 1

    First, when the RIAA went after Napster, and the p2p software makers, you people were crying for them to go after the individual pirates, instead of the technology that facilitates the piracy."
    Yeah, go after the pirates. But this is ridiculous. $150,000 a song? For that much, I could buy a whole record store and still have tens of thousands left to spare. I could buy the rights to the song itself for that much! Even the rights to use a song (non ownership) are less than $150,000. This is insane. An equivalent scenario is if the business your working for is paying your insurance out of your paycheck, they become tardy for a month, and you say 'hey, I'll pay that one month of insurance myself' and so the insurance company decides to take your home, your car, and your children as payment.

    "It's wrong, it's bad, or, or something."
    It's extortion (pay up now or we'll sue you for more later), its unjust, its a violation of the spirit of the law, it is against just about everything this country is for. When the founding fathers drafted the bill of rights, they wrote an admendment that prohibitted cruel and unusual (and excessive) punishments. That is basically what the RIAA is doing. Going into debt for the rest of your life becuase of something that you did when you were 14 is ludicrous. In ancient Mesopotamia, if you went into debt to a certain degree, the government supported a system that allowed your creditor to make you a slave in compensation for the debt. It would be nice to think we have become more civilized in the last 5,000 years. It seems the RIAA is out to prove that thought wrong.

    "What's the deal here? Do you people just don't care about copyright infringement? You people have no idea what it takes to create something and try to make money on it."
    They are picking on the weakest cause they think no one will care. The RIAA in this situation is guilty of a far greater injustice than copyright violations. Copyright was created in the mid-1500's in England becuase it served the public good (actually the 1700's version did, the 1500's version was a form of royal censorship but you get the idea). It was a balance between the good that the private ownership of writing would faciliate and the good of the public as a whole. This balance has been broken and this was never so obvius as it is now with these suits. These suits harm the public far more than it gains from copyright. The government, as all democratic governments are, are obligated to serve the public good over the good of and even at the expense of the indivisual (with the exception of the given rights of the constitution - I could get into a long phisophical argument as to how taking away those rights from one indivisual harms the public good as a whole far more tahn any could possibly gain but I won't. And if you think copyright is a right, you need to go read a book on it - its a policy, not a right.) These suits by far serve the private indivisual at the expense of the public good. The good results that society gains from such authoritarian copyright persacution is far outweighed by the negative effects. A few rich executives can act like fools and live as kings in exchange for 10,000s if not 100,000s living in poverty and in debt for the rest of their lives cause of what they did before they were old enough to vote... can anyone say 'french revolution'?

    "You people have no idea what it takes to create something and try to make money on it."
    Put the word 'legally' or 'ethically' or 'fairly' or (my personal favorite) 'honestly' before the word 'make' and the RIAA has no idea either.

    Persoanlly, I think there needs to be a maximum limit any person can be sued and especially one for the young. They are not adults. they do not have the maturity or the mental faciltiies of an adult. They cannot be expected to make adult decisions. Treating them like adults for any action, especially a legal one, is so positively ridiculous that it boogles the mind how sane adult would allow it to continue. What's next? Being p

    --
    There's a growing sense that even if The Future comes,
    most of us won't be able to afford it.
    -- Lemmy
  157. American Rules and Laws by kardar · · Score: 1

    Again, this is all about the US we are talking here. In many countries, sharing and copying for yourself are just fine.

    Just like SCO - all that SCO is going to do is affect the implementation of superior technology here in America, while Germany and other countries that don't create such a wild wild west business atmosphere will move ahead.

    Music fans in other countries will build their collections, share music with their online countrymen, and enjoy the music while smoking something pleasant.

    Meanwhile, here in the US individuals will be busy incarcerating one another. The real loser in this situation is the United States.

    RIAA and SCO are two of the most unpatriotic organizations right now. They could easily defined as terrorists - in fact, they are legal and financial terrorists.

  158. My favorite quotes: by swordgeek · · Score: 1

    RIAA vice-president Matt Oppenheim called the arguments "surprisingly shallow". ...

    Mr Oppenheim also said the RIAA was immume from rules on unreasonable searches on the internet, because it did not have links with law enforcement agencies.


    You know, you just can't make this stuff up! This statemtn has got to be the shallowest of the shallow, and they call Jane Doe's defense shallow?

    --

    "People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
  159. Does no one have a concept for FAIR anymore? by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    $150,000 per file is NOT a fair punishment for the crime, espicaly given the non-injury of it. It would be perfectly reasonable to complain if the cops said "we're going to set up a speed trap here" and then had an M60 gunner killing anyone who sped in that zone. When someone infringes on copyright in this manner, it causes no one (the labels included) any serious harm. It is therefore totally unreasonable and unjust to demand fines like this.

    We not only have a concpet of fair punishments in the US... IT'S IN THE DAMN CONSTITUTION.

    Amendment VIII

    Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

    1. Re:Does no one have a concept for FAIR anymore? by bennomatic · · Score: 3, Informative

      This ammendment only applies to CRIMINAL cases. I don't think there are any such limitations on civil cases, as that might be inviolation of the first ammendment.

      --
      The CB App. What's your 20?
    2. Re:Does no one have a concept for FAIR anymore? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But wouldn't a copyright violation be a criminal case? Maybe not.

      In any event, doesn't there have to be some sort of stipulation of damages?

      I have a relative who's a lawyer, and I remember having a discussion about related issues with her at one point in time. It wasn't about this, but rather about civil cases involving similar issues. I remember being very upset about it, and she was trying to reassure me that showing damages was very important in civil cases. She essentially said, "your ability to sue someone depends on your ability to make an argument for damages."

      So it seems to me that there should be some limitation on fines due to the fact that a single filesharer really isn't causing that much damage. In any event, it seems that it would be extrordinarily difficult to prove in a well-adjudicated court of law.

      But if you're really as mad as I am, I suggest you send a letter or email to my state senator, Norm Coleman, who is beginning a formal investigation of the RIAA for their activities. I really was unhappy about Norm being elected, especially after the death of Paul Wellstone, but I may have some recouped respect for him depending on how he handles this RIAA thing.

      I heard a rumor that he was once a roadie for some band, and has some personal affection for the music vocation (note the comment about Bob Dylan on his home page).

    3. Re:Does no one have a concept for FAIR anymore? by goon+america · · Score: 1
      No, that only applies to criminal law. In a criminal case you get "penalties"; in a civil case you get "damages".

      That being said, suing only those who you know can't pay and threatening to triple the damages if they don't settle out of court is fucking extortion.

    4. Re:Does no one have a concept for FAIR anymore? by scifiber_phil · · Score: 1

      This is not bail. This is not a fine. This is not "cruel and unusual" punishment. It is a claim of civil damages. $150,000 may or may not be excessive, but I don't think any of this violates the eighth amendment. Indeed, if I am the songwriter, and I get $1 royalty per sale, and if you allow my song as a fileshare, and 150,000 people get my music from you for nothing, civilly, I probably have a good case against you that you owe me $150,000.

    5. Re:Does no one have a concept for FAIR anymore? by CentrX · · Score: 1

      How is this not a "pecuniary penalty...for an offense or breach of law" or a "payment of money imposed upon a party as a punishment for an offense" (Webster 1913: "fine")?

      How is it not cruel to exact monetary damages on someone that are many times that person's net worth, and even many times the net worth they will probably have within the next few years? How is it not cruel that someone's life will be, quite simply, ruined, due to extreme debt and a negative net worth for possibly decades to come? How is it not unusual that such a punishment far exceeds punishments someone might recieve for actual theft? I don't know exactly how many people these defendants are uploading to, but under the law the $150,000 is a maximum statutory damage, which means that the RIAA doesn't have to prove that there was actually a conceivable "loss" of sales of $150,000. This is especially important considering that most of the songs that people download would not have been paid for even if they could not have been downloaded.

      --

      "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." - Thomas Jefferson
  160. remembers me riaa vs napster case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The riaa vs napster case made kazaa and other gnutella-like serverfree systems to emerge from the internet.

    This "war" will boost freenet-like systems (http://freenetproject.org/). Anonymous file sharing systems already exist.

    RIAA is dead ... but they dont know that bcoz they dont know how internet works

  161. The States by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Has it always been like this in the States and does this kind of rubbish now surface to the rest of the world via Internet?

    Or are the States rapidly going downwards wrt. common sense?

  162. Is there a statute of limitations on this? by Lawrence_Bird · · Score: 1

    As there case seems to be based upon their claimed records of you downloading or uploading files, is there any limit on how long they have to file a claim?

    Also, would they not need to also prove that the person who uploaded a file from you did not already have a copy of the song on cd? I suppose the fair use thing is tricky, but doesn't it allow for having a coyp for personal use? I'm not sure it says you need to be the one to *make* the copy.

  163. Draft Dodgers, File Sharers.. Come to Canada! by ledbetter · · Score: 1

    All you File Sharers come to Canada, like the previous generation of Draft Dodgers did during the Vietnam war. In Canada you're safe from the RIAA. You can stand on our side of the border and send them all the nasty "you can't catch me" e-mails you want. Not to mention, that we pay a levy on every CD-R we buy that goes back to the record companies, so it can technically be argued that copying CDs is LEGAL. Plus smoke some pot when we soon make it legal too! Did I mention the other benefits, like free health care, cheap broadband, and a $1.38 exchange rate!

    Ok, it gets cold in the winter, but big deal, sit around in front of your computer on Kazaa Lite the entire time, downloading away!!!

  164. Well I do hate them. So I just joined the EFF by FileNotFound · · Score: 1

    So alright, maybe $50 won't make that much difference...but hey its' something.

    If everyone on /. gave 1/10th of that EFF would have a lot more to fight with.

    I'm shivering about RIAA finding out about things like eMule..

    --
    In Soviet Russia, the television watches YOU!
  165. Our school bans PtoP - Flame ON! by Chordonblue · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Yeah, I know you'll flame me for this but, we ban all PtoP activity here - now more than ever.

    I used to allow it - sorta. Basically, if a girl here could figure out how to get her PtoP app to work through our proxy I let them do it - until last year. Last year, I received a cease and desist order from the RIAA. Apparently one of our girls had left Bearshare on all day... Uh... For two weeks! And had transferred some 2.6 GB of music (mostly Blink 182).

    After studying the order I also thought about how slow the net had seemed lately. :P So, in the general interest of the school and bandwidth, we now block where we can and bandwidth limit the rest. This isn't college mind you, this is a 6-12 boarding school, so we do have a little more control here.

    But imagine this scenario for a second. Imagine being subpoenaed by the RIAA. I keep logs because I HAVE TO. While we might be able to avoid direct litigation with the RIAA and parents, it would sour relationships - not good for a reputation. The girls hate the ban, and I'm not too happy about it either, but we simply have to play it safe.

    --
    "...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
    1. Re:Our school bans PtoP - Flame ON! by BJZQ8 · · Score: 1

      I watch my network like a hawk, and nothing like a 2-week download session will be allowed to occur. I like to play safe as much as the next person...but I don't think that killing an entire emerging technology is worth that.

    2. Re:Our school bans PtoP - Flame ON! by Chordonblue · · Score: 1

      Well... I suppose if I had nothing better to do I could do that. Unfortunately like so many others of my kind I am the sole admin in a 200+ user network. Even that wouldn't be so bad if it weren't for the fact that fully half of these machines are student owned.

      --
      "...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
    3. Re:Our school bans PtoP - Flame ON! by BJZQ8 · · Score: 1

      Well I've got 600 users on 220 client machines in my network...none of the machines are student-owned, of course, which would definately complicate things too. I don't believe that free and unrestricted downloading in a school environment is correct or good, either...but I just chafe at the thought of the RIAA beating down my door and asking for my "logs" (your papers PLEASE!) without the least bit of proof beforehand other than their "word." It is for that reason I will continue getting rid of any logs that might or might not contain anything like P2P connections. I also bristle at people banning a technology just because some organization thinks it should be banned, for some obscure and unprovable reason.

    4. Re:Our school bans PtoP - Flame ON! by Chordonblue · · Score: 1

      Well, I suppose that if I actually own3d this network and paid for it with my own dollars I'd have to agree with you. Unfortunately, I can't possibly indemnify every student that uploads a Justin Timberlake song, nor can I distinguish between that activity and a student trying to upload a GPL'd document. As it is, Internet filters are a blunt instrument - often it is all or nothing, but it's all I have to work with.

      Another issue is, organizations like the RIAA can spend the money to simply monitor my network (and others) for me - whether I want them to or not. Like many others in my field, I am caught in the middle of it. This is a battle I cannot possibly win with the meager resources I have, and I'm certain that Linden Hall is not interested in directly challenging a billion dollar industry either.

      But this type of debate has happened here before. When I arrived here in 1999 the students were not allowed to use any sort of Instant Messaging. Both the students and the parents complained because it is, after all 'free' communication and we do have international students here.

      However, I opened the biggest can 'o worms when I allowed it because I realized that other than shutting down the entire Internet, I had no real way to adequately control it. I mean sure, you could shut down ports, but could you do it by time? And even if you could, would that stop the girls from using Java-based clients and chatting on Port 80?

      Keep in mind that some of these girls would stay on all night, every night if we let them. This is not what parents have in mind when they send their girls to school here. It is only this year that a suitable solution has arrived for us (ImMarshal).

      Nonetheless we are making some progress. At least we've gotten beyond the stage of using coffee timers on the hubs (as it was when I first arrived), or scripting the web/firewall proxy services to shut down at XX:XX times for study hall and lights out. Sheesh. Believe me, the boarding school environment is in some ways more demanding than corporate.

      --
      "...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
  166. Re:Extortion by jpmorgan · · Score: 1
    The thing is, even if a court does rule that you owe the RIAA $100 000 000, what would happen? It's not like they could ever collect. I never expect to own that much money.

    They'll take everything they can, and garnish your paycheque for the rest of your life.

  167. Breaking Free From the RIAA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    An interesting thing happened on 30 Aug, 2003 at the Sleep Train Amphitheatre in Marysville, California. A band called Ironmaiden's lead vocalist, Bruce Dickenson had some shrewd words of wisdom that he felt the music industry basically isn't friendly to music, and the big bully's in the front can Bring him their Maiden CD's he'd BUY them back, and then told the Bully's never to come to another concert ever again. Then he said that they've got a new album coming out. (something something something Death Something - I forgot the name now) And that if you want to record this song and upload it or download it or send it to all your friends to just start recording right now and go for it.

    He was Angry with the idiot's in the Concert, and Angry with the music industry, and stressed quite a bit about freedom and how it's all in OUR hands to get it.

  168. No, it won't... by drakaan · · Score: 3, Insightful
    The main problem about these discussions (and I'm as guilty in this as any other slashdotter) is that we get so caught up in being (rightfully) pissed at the price-gouging bee-atches at the RIAA, that we forget that most people don't do the following:

    a) read slashdot and have the benefit of all this occasionally thoughtful discussion

    b)think about much other than "DAMN!!! Christina Aguilera is HOT!"

    (feel free to substitute the pop idol of your choice in b. above...christina does it for me, personally)

    That said, there appears to be a market for overpriced CD's. Probably not as much of a market as there once was, but a market nonetheless.

    In my personal perfect world, I'd hope for the following: If they knocked, say, $5.00 off the price of the average CD (make 'em an even $10.00 and I'd be happy) and went to a higher-quality, more data-hungry format, they might accomplish something.

    They'd make average consumers happy on price, and audiophiles happy on quality, while making it more of a pain in the ass to download your favorite song in all of its nice, high-quality, multichannel, holographic, blah, features, glory.

    They're not doing that now, which is irritating a lot of people, but that doesn't mean they're not making plenty of money, just that they're not making as much as they'd like. Don't count on the RIAA going away while there's a commercial radio station in your neighborhood that plays top 40 "hits".

    --
    "Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
    1. Re:No, it won't... by HanzoSan · · Score: 1



      Thats why we promote the sale of "used" cds. Meaning re-sale of CDs, or even the renting of music CDs.

      It will be a slow process, but once people find out how much money they can save buying used they wont buy new, and once they stop buying new the RIAA gets hit in the pocket.

      Also we slowly using the power of the internet hype up musicians who arent signed to big record companies yet who have lots of talent, over time the small labels and internet companies will gain more money and marketshare until eventually the whole music industry is online.

      Just like CDs replaced cassettes.

      --
      If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
    2. Re:No, it won't... by drakaan · · Score: 2, Informative
      And I fully support that. The thing is, you can't buy a used copy of a new CD (in most cases), and that's what the RIAA makes money on (duh).

      Using the internet to hype musicians that haven't made it yet is a great thing too, but it has a problem. The RIAA's members spend unbelievable sums of money to promote the artists that they think they can make the most money off of. They're good at it, and they have managed to stack the deck pretty well in their favor (just investigate who controls the top-40 stations in any given city).

      They promote the artists, advertise them, merchandise them, overplay their music until people get used to it and decide it's good, and then send them on tour so they can squeeze a bit more money out in ticket sales.

      THAT is a pretty efficient money-making scheme, and it helps to keep most small labels and most talented but unknown artists (at least those that aren't a sure bet) off the air and away from the money.

      Buying used CD's is a good step, albeit a small one in fighting this. Figure out how to battle the big Labels' advertising machines, and we might make some real headway.

      --
      "Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
    3. Re:No, it won't... by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately per 17 USC 109, in the US, rental of computer software (other than console games, basically) and and sound recordings is illegal.

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    4. Re:No, it won't... by slipgun · · Score: 1

      read slashdot and have the benefit of all this occasionally thoughtful discussion

      You might find some of the comments on the BBC website given in the story text quite interesting.

      --
      SpamNet - a spam blocker that really works
    5. Re:No, it won't... by HanzoSan · · Score: 1

      And why is that?

      Maybe we should focus on getting around that ridiculous law.

      --
      If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
    6. Re:No, it won't... by drakaan · · Score: 1

      How does renting factor into it? Buying and then selling a CD is not a rental arrangement.

      --
      "Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
    7. Re:No, it won't... by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 1

      Because RIAA (and software developers) lobbied for the change. CD rental stores are hardly unknown in the world -- they have them in Japan, IIRC. We would have them here as well, had there not been lobbying for that.

      Feel free to try to get it changed. I won't stop you.

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    8. Re:No, it won't... by drakaan · · Score: 1

      Read it already (I'm one of the rare few who refuses to post before reading), which comments?

      --
      "Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
    9. Re:No, it won't... by HanzoSan · · Score: 1

      Yes you can buy a used copy of a new CD.

      Say someone buys a CD, and they copy it for themselves on CDR, then they put the brand new CD back in the case and sell it on Ebay, and everyone who gets the CD does this for infinity.

      Technically the RIAA wont make shit, it will be completely legal, and you'll be selling used CDs which are used yet so close to being like new that no one will care.

      Also you can set up a CD exchange network too so people can exchange CDs.

      --
      If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
    10. Re:No, it won't... by HanzoSan · · Score: 1



      Because if you can rent CDs, you can reduce the profits of the RIAA even more than if you sell used CDs. If you can listen to rented music for $1 that will kill the RIAA's profit margins. Not to mention, the more people who rent it, the more it will be copied and in circulation, it will be a huge domino effect.

      --
      If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
    11. Re:No, it won't... by drakaan · · Score: 1

      Is it legal to retain a fair-use copy if you sell the original? I'm not trying to get a rise out of you, I just haven't ever heard this scenario discussed before. It sounds obvious, but it had never occurred to me as something to do before you mentioned it

      --
      "Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
    12. Re:No, it won't... by HanzoSan · · Score: 1



      Of course not, but theres no way for the RIAA to EVER know if you made a copy or not.

      So its legal due to the fact that its impossible for them to know who copies and who just sells.

      --
      If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
    13. Re:No, it won't... by drakaan · · Score: 1
      Well, them not knowing doesn't make it legal any more than downloading MP3's that you don't already own in another form is legal. I would say search and seizure and a quick listening to your copied CD's would tell them...a bit too much work to be worth it, I imagine, though.

      Not to mention the fact that this same method can be easily applied to the small-time artists you mentioned, too. Taking a bite out of their wallets seems pretty low, IMHO.

      --
      "Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
    14. Re:No, it won't... by MushMouth · · Score: 1

      Maybe so, but at some point ALL CDR's (and any other recording media) are going to have a piracy tax added to their price.

    15. Re:No, it won't... by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 1

      The previous poster specifically mentioned CD rental.

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    16. Re:No, it won't... by slipgun · · Score: 1

      Read this. The number of anti-RIAA comments is huge. Could almost be slashdot. Ok I realise that the people who post on BBC website aren't a representative sample, but it's still interesting to see such hostility to the RIAA on a mainstream website. (Oh and I'm slightly drunk so excuse me if I'm not making much sense).

      --
      SpamNet - a spam blocker that really works
  169. A lil bit on privacy; unfortunately by aliens · · Score: 1

    Since we live in an open democracy we sacrifice a certain amount of privacy. Because these people are sharing files in a public place, and the RIAA tracked their activities on their own they can bring that evidence they have gathered to a court.

    A gov't would have been required to get a warrant before tracking your activities.

    They RIAA did not break into the person's computer, and broke no laws. The countersuit will hold little weight.

    Now if she had her files on a private VPN that required authencation, the RIAA would have had to break into the system to gather the information, in which case I'm not sure how it would be ruled on.

    --
    -- taking over the world, we are.
    1. Re:A lil bit on privacy; unfortunately by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The thing is, the files are only publicly visible. They exist on a person's computer, and technically, are a "remote computing service" as defined in 2711(2), i.e., " the term ''remote computing service'' means the provision to the public of computer storage or processing services by means of an electronic communications system".

      The Act is quite clear in its terminology. It doesn't have to be a break-in, per se. Under 2701(a)(1), it reads "intentionally accesses without authorization a facility through which an electronic communication service is provided".

    2. Re:A lil bit on privacy; unfortunately by M$+Mole · · Score: 1

      Exactly. If she's trading music over some P2P network that doesn't require membership of some sort, or have a terms-of-use forbidding the tracking of users, then her argument IS weak.

      IANAL, but it seems to me that if her files were publicly available, then there can be no expectation of privacy.

      --
      Karma: Non-existant. Due mostly to the fact that you smell funny and nobody likes you.
    3. Re:A lil bit on privacy; unfortunately by in7ane · · Score: 1

      A server is not secure, the password file is publicly accessible, from that the server is publicly accessible, from that the company's insecure internal network/ customer credit card data is accessible...

      I think it's clear that this would not be OK under the law, and don't give me the argument that you 'choose' to share via Kazaa/Gnutella/etc. but an insecure server/network 'just happens' (what about all those people with open windows file sharing, am I ok to scan them?).

    4. Re:A lil bit on privacy; unfortunately by 3terrabyte · · Score: 1
      Exactly how does publicly displaying files for download to the whole world... turn into... "oh but not the RIAA".

      That would be like publishing a public weblog about yourself, and then saying the RIAA broke your privacy when they read it.

      --

      Why are there only 19 people folding@home for slashdot?

    5. Re:A lil bit on privacy; unfortunately by aliens · · Score: 1

      I think you raise a good point.

      You are free to scan them, if they have documents in shared folders well, that's like laying them all out on your front lawn. You can take all the info, read it absorb it. But if you absorb a CC# and use it? Well that's illegal.

      The server with the passwd file accessible is strange. Is it just sitting there on www.somecompany.com/passwd ? Or is this www.somecompany.com/cgi/crappyscript?allyourpw=min e ?

      I would think that it would require a concious act to get the passwd the second way. It would be like going up to a door to a building, you know it's supposed to be locked, but if you giggle the lock just the right way you can get in. I think the court would find you guilty because you went through their security measures no matter how poor they were.

      --
      -- taking over the world, we are.
    6. Re:A lil bit on privacy; unfortunately by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's whether or not the RIAA's access was "authorized". It can be argued that authorization in this case is based on either permission or trust. No one gave the RIAA explicit permission. And certainly, their actions are contrary to any common trust that exists between the users in the file sharing community -- i.e., their actions are clearly hostile with malicious intent towards users.

    7. Re:A lil bit on privacy; unfortunately by 3terrabyte · · Score: 1
      Lol. That's a great imaginary world you live in.

      If you publicly announce your illegal activities,.. ah screw it. I can't believe I'm responding to this crap.

      No one gave the RIAA explicit permission

      Hmmm, I think the MAIN point of all this is that the RIAA didn't give you explicit permission to distribute their copyrighted works.

      --

      Why are there only 19 people folding@home for slashdot?

    8. Re:A lil bit on privacy; unfortunately by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is that the same imaginary world where SCO is suing IBM over Unix code in Linux? ;)

    9. Re:A lil bit on privacy; unfortunately by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope, it's the world where Amazon patents the one-click shopping!

  170. It's worse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My public library has a copy machine with unrestricted access to copy any materials within the library.

    These are copyrighted materials.

    In fact the library makes a profit by charging $.10 per copy.

    1. Re:It's worse... by 3terrabyte · · Score: 1

      Oh, I didn't realize Kazaa made you download a song, one note at a time. Idiot.

      --

      Why are there only 19 people folding@home for slashdot?

  171. Thugs by Stumbles · · Score: 0
    This statement here is exactly why the RIAA is nothing more than mobsters, carpet-baggers, thugs and vigilanties. They are nothing but hypocrites. They cite the "illegality" of file sharing and yet resort to mobster tactics all the while beleiving they are immune to US law and the Constitution.

    For a lawyer to state in effect they will follow those laws that only support their position is typical of vigilanties. He over looks one fact. What they are doing in no more and no less than hacking into anothers system. It matters not at all what they do once inside. The fact remains they have hacked into someones system.

    "Mr Oppenheim also said the RIAA was immume from rules on unreasonable searches on the internet, because it did not have links with law enforcement agencies."

    --
    My karma is not a Chameleon.
  172. The war has begun... by MoeMoe · · Score: 1

    The RIAA are now well and truly gathering their forces for a financial onslaught on file sharers in the US, with a "fear and awe" campaign
    I didn't know that Dubya was working for the RIAA... Seriously though, after all the warning, and complaining, and advertising, and threatening they've thrown together, does it make their "Seek & Destroy" effort any more effective? Really all that they're doing is making you worry, they can't try harder to find you because if they pushed just one more inch it would already be crossing the line to invasion of privacy in our "fine" legal system (the parking ticket kind, not the proud type).

    --
    Business \Busi"ness\, n.;
    A scam in which all people involved perceive as beneficial...
    1. Re:The war has begun... by sabat · · Score: 1

      I didn't know that Dubya was working for the RIAA

      And I expect that the RIAA's "fear and awe" campaign will work about as well as our government's "Shock and Awe" plan worked in Iraq. (Meaning: no one was very impressed.)

      --
      I, for one, welcome our new Antichrist overlord.
  173. flawed argument by mblase · · Score: 1

    Saying that it's foolish to sue people who don't have any money is like saying it's a waste of time to imprison robbers who have no job or family. The intention, obviously, is to let the news get out and deter other students from doing the same thing.

    The flaw in their reasoning, of course, is that high school and college students read newspapers about as often as they read the law.

  174. gotta love this line... by Archfeld · · Score: 1

    "Mr Oppenheim also said the RIAA was immume from rules on unreasonable searches on the internet, because it did not have links with law enforcement agencies."

    By that logic I too am immune to search and seizure rules, I produce licensed music in MP3 format and have reason to beleive the RIAA is illegally in posession of said music...does that mean I can start searching away at their traffic, site and PC's ? or should I just file a subpoena...

    --
    errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
  175. nycfashiongirl is running out of excuses by geekee · · Score: 1

    nycfashiongirl has claimed she was simply using kazaa as an mp3 player, and had ripped the songs herself. Of course the RIAA "CSI" team showed that the files had signatures identical to file that had been traded online going back to the napster days. So now she's trying to claim the RIAA had no right to look at the files on her computer, files that she was sharing with everyone else. Give me a break. What a lame defense. It's not like they broke into her computer. She offered the songs. They copied them. Nothing illegal there. What's your next excuse nycfashiongirl?

    --
    Vote for Pedro
  176. I'm already in fear and awe by Snaller · · Score: 1

    Every time I make the mistake of watching a film from Hollywood I'm in awe and fear that they'll release more!

    --
    If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
  177. Release.. the Hounds! by pope1 · · Score: 1
    Everyday the **AA's get closer and closer to a certain Power Plant in Springfield.

    (burns) *sniff* smithers *sniff* did i kill all those filetraders?

    (smithers) errm yes sir, it would appear you did.

    (burns) *sniff* excellent *sniff*

    --
    /* * pope1 */
  178. If I decide not to buy something. by HanzoSan · · Score: 0



    Its suddenly robbing you of profits? Thats assuming that I'd buy something before I decided!!!

    Cant you see the flawed logic? This is like Microsoft saying all Linux users are thieves because they decided not to buy Microsoft Windows!

    I mean its assuming every PC purchased must include a copy of Windows because everyone just has to buy Windows.

    Its bullshit, when people choose not to buy something, they arent going to buy it because it costs too much or because they just dont want it, this is not going to change if they get access to it for free, or not, because they already know they arent buying it.

    I may hear Britney Spears CD on the radio, but I'm not going to buy it no matter how many times I hear her music, I will listen to it, but I wont buy it.

    --
    If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
    1. Re:If I decide not to buy something. by proj_2501 · · Score: 1

      If you decide not to buy something, you don't have it.
      If you decide to get something for free, instead of buying from me, you have it, and I don't have my money.

      Radio stations have licenses to distribute their content. They pay royalties to the songs' creators. Filesharers do not.

    2. Re:If I decide not to buy something. by HanzoSan · · Score: 1

      " If you decide not to buy something, you don't have it.
      If you decide to get something for free, instead of buying from me, you have it, and I don't have my money."


      Point is, I decide what to do with my money, period. You dont decide what I do with my money, you cannot sue me for deciding not to spend my money on your products, and if I can get your product for free thats your problem not mine.

      Look, if someone gives away free food I'm taking it, if someone gives away free clothes I'm taking it, I'm not rich so I take stuff thats free, this should be pure logic here, anything creature or human usually takes whats free.

      This does not mean the same person will pay for whats free, or that whats free is valueable. I will take whats free because those are the rules of the game, you take what you can, I dont care about the company, never did, I only care about what value that company has to offer me.

      Look, I'd never buy Photoshop, but I will use photoshop if someone lets me sit at their computer and use it.

      I will also use gimp the free alternative to photoshop and I will promote gimp the free alternative, simply because its free.

      When you are poor, and your friends are poor, you use whats free first, even if it provides less value, because when you dont have a million dollars, sometimes its free or nothing.

      In the case of photoshop, if you are an artist, and you can get access to photoshop, TAKE IT, dont be the idiot who decides not to use photoshop and who cant find a job, be the smart person who takes advantage of the situation. Believe me if you dont someone else will, so get yours before they get theirs.

      --
      If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
    3. Re:If I decide not to buy something. by n.wegner · · Score: 1

      >If you decide not to buy something, you don't have it.
      >If you decide to get something for free, instead
      >of buying from me, you have it, and I don't have
      >my money.

      Where I work we give out books of matches to people who want them. Some try to give us 25 cents in return, but most just want them for free. As it is now, less people would want one if we started selling them.

      Maybe the number of takers would go up if we had always charged them for matches, but there are some people who still wouldn't pay though they want matches.

      There are some people who would only download and listen to something if they can get it for free. Some of those people might then buy or delete the files, but the rest won't. It's illegal, and you say it's immoral, but that doesn't change the fact that one download doesn't mean one lost sale.

    4. Re:If I decide not to buy something. by Gilgaron · · Score: 1

      Listeners to radio stations pay nothing. File sharers pay nothing. The radio station licensed the music. Somewhere along the line, some of the sharers bought the CD to rip it for sharing. It is fairly parallel from that standpoint, although it could be said that the industry makes more from radio stations.

    5. Re:If I decide not to buy something. by proj_2501 · · Score: 1

      "I decide what to do with my money, period."

      But you don't decide whether your money is enough for me to give you something.

      Do you really have the complete misunderstanding of copyright that you seem to?

    6. Re:If I decide not to buy something. by proj_2501 · · Score: 1

      "the fact that one download doesn't mean one lost sale."

      You're correct, but the opposite extreme isn't true either. Strangely enough, it seems to be bandied about constantly.

    7. Re:If I decide not to buy something. by proj_2501 · · Score: 1

      Some of the sharers may have indeed bought licenses for personal use, NOT redistribution.

    8. Re:If I decide not to buy something. by HanzoSan · · Score: 1



      You are right I dont decide if my money is enough to give you something, the problem exists only when what you are giving me is impossible for you to contain or control, meaning its not tangible, such as information.

      You do not have complete control of information, its impossible to control it, or contain it.

      I understand copyright as it applies to physical objects and it makes since when you have a copyright on something physical, this however stops making sense when we move beyond the printing press to the digital world, where you can make unlimited copies for no cost, with no physical limitation, with no physical limitation to copying, copyright becomes impossible to enforce.

      --
      If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
    9. Re:If I decide not to buy something. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Dana Edwards was feeling a little disheartened. It had been nearly a week since he'd contacted Peacecorp and applied for a tour of duty in the Congo. He had hoped all week that his weight problem, chronic acne and asthma would not discount him from the program. Dana had been in some financial strife for a couple years now, with those tuition fees from Massachusets Bay Community College piling up. This was particularly stressful for him because, despite having taught himself to read and posessing an impressive intellect, he could not find a decent slack-off job with internet connection that would support his slashdot posting habit. Dana belched while he tapped his cordless phone and stuffed his hand into a bag of Cheetos. Dana, a Jack of All Trades had also been unsuccessful for several years in his attempts to get a night DJ position at a local AM radio station within walking distance of his mother's house. This distressed him, because being a DJ would be such a natural part-time job for him, being a skilled musician on the side. Alas, he waited still and finished the last fluid ounce of his Mountain Dew.

      Peacecorp was going to change that. Where his business sense would have failed him in the Merchant Marines and his poor physical condition were not up to snuff for the military, he felt Peacecorp would welcome him with open arms and take his student loan burden off his hands.

      "Education equals genius. Genius is good for society. I'll show them, I'm going to buck the status quo. I'm going to make a difference, I'll show them what a poor kid from the ghetto is capable of." Dana thought to himself.

      Dana had not shaven for five days, but his greasy facial hair never became very thick, even after weeks of neglect. It grew in a thin, spotty Fu Manchu pattern. Best described, his whiskers resembled soot smeared on his greasy jowels. He scratched at his armpit and pulled the tightening fabric of his pajama pants out of his groin and sighed with relief.

      "Aaaah."

      Dana was glad that the weekend had finally come around. His Computer Repair Fundamentals and Sociology classes were starting to really dig in. He blamed the teacher for sucking, and was utterly convinced that his superior intellect would reward him with first in his graduating class of 40. He was certain that the same outcome would happen if he got into MIT, but that would never happen. The rich bastards would never give him a fair chance on a level playing field. The MIT bastards hate nerds, just like everybody else. That was alright though, Dana already knew he was superior to most of them anyway. Their facilities were only useful to the superficial.

      Dana loosened up a bit by putting some music on the 'juke. He got a free MP3 jukebox from his mother and slapped an "RIAA SUCKS" bumper sticker on the side of it. Dana was vehemently opposed to the ownership and licensing of intellectual property, especially music. Dana downloaded all his favourite Pink Floyd tracks off the internet and onto the jukebox, and this brought a small amount of joy to his empty life.

      "Damn the man!" he exclaimed, raising a fist as his gut flopped out of his oil-stained ThinkGeek t-shirt.

      Ice T and Fred Durst alone had practically paved the way to justified downloads of all music ever created and served up on KaZaa. And so, Dana sat in in front of his monitor listening to The Wall, waiting for a reply from Peacecorp.

      His mother slipped in to his room briefly to set down a balogna and cheese sandwich in front of him while he fired up a beta version of Transgaming on his Pentium 166 with MMX.

      "Mom, why don't you hate the RIAA?"

      She shrugged, rolled her eyes and closed the door to his room on the way out.

      "She forgot to cut off the crusts." Dana held back the tears and ate the sandwich anyway.

      [montemplar] wuzzup hanz0?

      A privmsg came up on his IRC client. Dana had adopted the "handle" HanzoSan after his Japanese classmate Ohta nick

    10. Re:If I decide not to buy something. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Dana Edwards was feeling a little disheartened. It had been nearly a week since he'd contacted Peacecorp and applied for a tour of duty in the Congo. He had hoped all week that his weight problem, chronic acne and asthma would not discount him from the program. Dana had been in some financial strife for a couple years now, with those tuition fees from Massachusets Bay Community College piling up. This was particularly stressful for him because, despite having taught himself to read and posessing an impressive intellect, he could not find a decent slack-off job with internet connection that would support his slashdot posting habit. Dana belched while he tapped his cordless phone and stuffed his hand into a bag of Cheetos. Dana, a Jack of All Trades had also been unsuccessful for several years in his attempts to get a night DJ position at a local AM radio station within walking distance of his mother's house. This distressed him, because being a DJ would be such a natural part-time job for him, being a skilled musician on the side. Alas, he waited still and finished the last fluid ounce of his Mountain Dew.

      Peacecorp was going to change that. Where his business sense would have failed him in the Merchant Marines and his poor physical condition were not up to snuff for the military, he felt Peacecorp would welcome him with open arms and take his student loan burden off his hands.

      "Education equals genius. Genius is good for society. I'll show them, I'm going to buck the status quo. I'm going to make a difference, I'll show them what a poor kid from the ghetto is capable of." Dana thought to himself.

      Dana had not shaven for five days, but his greasy facial hair never became very thick, even after weeks of neglect. It grew in a thin, spotty Fu Manchu pattern. Best described, his whiskers resembled soot smeared on his greasy jowels. He scratched at his armpit and pulled the tightening fabric of his pajama pants out of his groin and sighed with relief.

      "Aaaah."

      Dana was glad that the weekend had finally come around. His Computer Repair Fundamentals and Sociology classes were starting to really dig in. He blamed the teacher for sucking, and was utterly convinced that his superior intellect would reward him with first in his graduating class of 40. He was certain that the same outcome would happen if he got into MIT, but that would never happen. The rich bastards would never give him a fair chance on a level playing field. The MIT bastards hate nerds, just like everybody else. That was alright though, Dana already knew he was superior to most of them anyway. Their facilities were only useful to the superficial.

      Dana loosened up a bit by putting some music on the 'juke. He got a free MP3 jukebox from his mother and slapped an "RIAA SUCKS" bumper sticker on the side of it. Dana was vehemently opposed to the ownership and licensing of intellectual property, especially music. Dana downloaded all his favourite Pink Floyd tracks off the internet and onto the jukebox, and this brought a small amount of joy to his empty life.

      "Damn the man!" he exclaimed, raising a fist as his gut flopped out of his oil-stained ThinkGeek t-shirt.

      Ice T and Fred Durst alone had practically paved the way to justified downloads of all music ever created and served up on KaZaa. And so, Dana sat in in front of his monitor listening to The Wall, waiting for a reply from Peacecorp.

      His mother slipped in to his room briefly to set down a balogna and cheese sandwich in front of him while he fired up a beta version of Transgaming on his Pentium 166 with MMX.
      "Mom, why don't you hate the RIAA?"
      She shrugged, rolled her eyes and closed the door to his room on the way out.
      "She forgot to cut off the crusts." Dana held back the tears and ate the sandwich anyway.


      [montemplar] wuzzup hanz0?

      A privmsg came up on his IRC client. Dana had adopted the "handle" HanzoSan after his Japanese classmate Ohta nicknamed him s

  179. Great! by Gnaythan1 · · Score: 1

    Now lets use their tactics against them. Set up websites and get lawyers.

    Join support groups, get online advice, demand a trial by jury, and delay... delay... delay.... change venues when you can, demand they appear in court, and play the system for all its worth. If they do finally get a settlement out of you, Take THAT to court, and delay... delay... delay...... then declare bankruptcy.... you're college kids. you'll recover.

    thousands of us ought to eat into their money pretty significantly.

    Now that they are targetting individuals, we can really hit them hard... Bleed those bastards dry.

    Donate money to help pay other peoples lawyers. Millions on defense, not one cent for tribute.

  180. Duh! by alecto · · Score: 1
    Usage of top pirate service Kazaa has fallen 22% this summer, says analyst Phil Leigh of research firm Raymond James. But it's "a hollow victory," he says, noting that summer CD sales have fallen more than 9%.

    (emphasis mine)

    Perhaps the RIAA has pissed off more people who were buying music than they've scared people who were copying it. I sure as hell haven't bought any new CDs from RIAA labels lately. But I have bought a number of second hand and independent label CDs, and will continue to. I have no plans to give any of my money to jackbooted copyright thugs.

    1. Re:Duh! by Zed2K · · Score: 1

      I get a kick out of how they call Kazaa (and other p2p networks) a pirate service. Hasn't the courts passed judgement saying Kazaa and p2p software and their networks are not illegal?

      I haven't bought a cd in probably a year. I haven't downloaded much in that year either...its mostly crap anyways.

  181. If you thought they were stopping there... by musicman2059 · · Score: 1

    I'm quite sure you guy's have heard of this already, but they're pressing for legislation that allows copyright holders to hack into suspicious computers and delete anything with their copyright on it. That's just wrong... 2 wrongs don't make a right. (Maybe in math they do, but not here.)

    --
    When you need great justice, take off every zig.
  182. Re:They're both wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You noticed that but not that he mixed up there and they're, twice?

  183. How do I know? by Sphere1952 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Let's assume that I want to be a nice law-abiding consumer. (quit snickering) When I find a file on Kazaa Lite how do I know whether the copyright holder wants to express their free speech right to be heard or they want to assert some obscure federal statute preventing me from hearing what they have to say?

    You can't expect those who wish to use their free speech rights to put up notice. That would chill their rights to free expression in an intollarable way -- especially if what they wish to express is a political condemnation of the notion of IP.

    I am put into a legal quandery. Even assuming I wish to do the right thing both morally and legally I cannot do it. Not only I, but the author have a constitutional right to free speech and assocation. The author also has a statutory right to copy. But there is no way I can distingush between the author who is asserting their constitional right and the author who is asserting their statutory right.

    If Joe Filesharer needs a lawyer then the words "no law" have become meaningless.

    --
    Big Brother Bush is doubleplus ungood.
  184. RIAA also reponsible for recent massive blackout.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    ...at least according to Denounce Newswire :-)

    http://www.denounce.com/blackout.html

  185. use the DMCA against them by nocent · · Score: 1

    Is there a way to create a program with a trivial encryption scheme so that all users would need to break that encryption scheme in order to obtain access to shared files? This would mean that all users would be in violation of the DMCA which wouldn't be a problem as regular users wouldn't be sued for that but it would also mean that in order for the the RIAA to investigate these cases, they too would be breaking the encryption unlawfully, violating the DMCA and thus opening themselves up to prosecution.

    Is such an idea possible/has it already been done?

    1. Re:use the DMCA against them by ciphertext · · Score: 1

      An interesting notion. The only problem with encryption is distribution. The encryption of a publicly available file trading system is a very daunting task. The largest hurdle would be the key distribution. Who gets keys to what encrypted transmission and (more importantly) who decides who gets the keys? The latter note has implications of who could potentially get sued, subpoenaed, etc...

      However, assuming you've worked out all the technical issues and created a system that encrypts your transmissions how do you keep the RIAA from downloading your sharing software? Assuming that the software handles the encryption/decryption and comes with the keys, the RIAA has only to download your client and begin trading. If your software requires you to download keys from some location how do you prevent the keys being distributed to an RIAA representative? In either case, it would appear that there was no circumvention of the encryption method.

      It might be possible to create a client that strips identifying information from the transmission, however, the RIAA could conceivably reverse engineer your product and develop a solution whereby the identifying information was captured prior to being erased. Logically, you would want your solution to do both, encrypt and strip. It would possibly be the first of its kind however. In the end, there is always a data trail to your PC. The best way to keep from getting caught, is to not trade copyrighted music in the first place.

      --
      To know is to have knowledge....to understand is to be enlightened.
    2. Re:use the DMCA against them by Luminous · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't it be easier to set up a private p2p network that only 'trusted' sources can trade files.

      So essentially, you could access the p2p, but if no one trusts you, you won't see any files to download.

      --
      This is not the way to build a lasting empire.
  186. Reply from Senator Carl Levin by Slashdolt · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I recently received the following letter from my Michigan Senator Carl Levin. It shares his views on this matter. Unfortunately, I was writing to him about the "Public Domain Enhancement Act", which has nothing to do with the RIAA or P2P. Nevertheless, it was at least enlightening to hear a government official respond, so I'm posting it here, even though he is an uncaring dolt.

    Dear Friend:

    Thank you for contacting me with your concerns about the Recording Industry Association of America's (RIAA) recent decision to issue subpoenas to gather evidence for potential lawsuits against Peer-to-Peer (P2P) file sharing software users. I appreciate hearing your views on this matter.

    The P2P exchange, also referred to as swapping, of certain types of files over the internet poses serious questions regarding existing copyrights. Digital media files, such as MP3s, e-books, and digital pictures, often contain copyrighted material. As a result, the free exchange of these files raises concerns among copyright holders. Meanwhile, some consumer rights groups and civil liberties organizations argue that P2P software promotes free expression and is capable of substantial non-infringement uses.

    The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) announced on June 25, 2003, that it will file suit against people who use P2P file-sharing systems to create unauthorized copies of copyrighted materials. Since then, the RIAA is reported to have won hundreds of subpoenas in order to collect information for civil lawsuits that could be filed against individuals who are alleged to have illegally used file sharing programs.

    I believe the recording industry has raised legitimate concerns about copyright infringement and, of course, that they have the right to take appropriate steps to protect their legal rights. However, I also believe that the privacy rights of individuals should not be compromised.

    I will continue to carefully review this matter as the Courts and Congress further addresses these issues. Thanks again for writing.

    Sincerely,

    Carl Levin

    1. Re:Reply from Senator Carl Levin by vegetablespork · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That is an excellent example of a politician talking out of both sides of his mouth. I got the same thing from former Sen. Jean Carnahan when writing about the CBDTPA--she didn't come out and say she supported it or didn't, but a wishful thinker could have read it either way. Her "non-reply reply" cost her my vote, though she lost by a landslide anyway.

      --

      Call (206) 338-5780 COLLECT for information about a genuine BA, BS, MA, MS, MBA, or Ph.D.

    2. Re:Reply from Senator Carl Levin by Bendebecker · · Score: 1

      Its a form letter. Levin's PR guy probably wrote it and Levin just glanced at it before he signed it. In all liklihood, he didn't even read the whole thing let alone understand it. At least we know Levin's PR guy knows something...

      --
      There's a growing sense that even if The Future comes,
      most of us won't be able to afford it.
      -- Lemmy
    3. Re:Reply from Senator Carl Levin by Zed2K · · Score: 1

      That looks an awful lot like a letter I got from a Texas Rep I wrote to a few months ago. I don't have it anymore but some of the wording looks extremely familiar.

      Those monkeys don't care about anything but keeping their jobs anyways. So they'll follow the money instead of the people.

    4. Re:Reply from Senator Carl Levin by FreshFunk510 · · Score: 1

      "..so I'm posting it here, even though he is an uncaring dolt." I don't follow politics much but I believe this was the Senator who was fighting vigorously against Bush's tax cut and for more benefits to help the middle and lower class. Maybe you know him better but I physically saw him on TV fight valiantly against the Republicans who still managed to ram the bill through.

      Actually he was one of the few democrat senators who seemed to know what he was talking about and put things in a way that were intelligent and made sense.

      --


      "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
  187. This sucks... by MP3Chuck · · Score: 1

    As much as I believe the RIAA (and any copyright holder for that matter) has the right to defend their copyrights and the copyrights of the people they represent, they know damn well that these kids don't have $50,000. Hell, that amount of money could well ruin people's lives, especially when in college. At the same time, that doesn't justify such blatant copyright infringement but shit ... send a C&D, or have their internet turned off or something.

    1. Re:This sucks... by sabat · · Score: 1

      As much as I believe the RIAA (and any copyright holder for that matter) has the right to defend their copyrights

      Sorry, that dog don't hunt. The constitution of the U.S. is being abused. The law obviously never intended the intangible to be treated as some sort of pretend-property.

      • copyright law was intended for original authors only (see the constitution + letters and other discussion from the founding fathers)
      • copyright was meant to last only a short time -- in order to encourage creation, and for no other reason! Read the constitution.
      The emperor has no clothes on, pal. It doesn't matter how many lawyers use how many big words ("intellectual property"); as long as the constitution says otherwise, then that's the law -- even if that law is being ignored.

      You cannot own the intangible, especially when it's so un-scarce as to be worthless anyway. Copying songs is legal. Sure, you can circumvent laws with money, and the lawyers can pretend, and so can the complicit courts -- but let's not join the charade.

      --
      I, for one, welcome our new Antichrist overlord.
  188. Cowardice. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Have a little backbone in your postings. I can almost hear the piss dripping down your trousers.....

  189. You don't need a link for that by Frac · · Score: 1

    Q: How to Not Get Sued By the RIAA?

    A: Don't break the law.

    You might have enough opinions to write a book on why copyright infringement is wrong, why DMCA is evil and unconstitutional, why RIAA is literally extorting the filesharers. Copyright infringement won't exactly advance whatever cause you're trying to pursue.

    Don't share copyrighted works that you do not have permission to share. And you won't have to pay.

  190. Little Known Fact about RICO by kenp2002 · · Score: 1

    Hey lawyers answer me this:

    After 3 months of digging, now where in the US law nor inherited common law does it state that the methods of extortion and racketeering must be illegal. Even if the methods used are perfectly legal the outcome, if it falls under the definitions of extortion and\or racketeering, is not protected.

    Extortion is just that, regardless of the methods used.

    IF not please feel free to correct me, I couldn't find anything after 3 months.

    --
    -=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
  191. Welcome aboard by 3terrabyte · · Score: 1

    Enjoying your new anonymizer account yet?

    --

    Why are there only 19 people folding@home for slashdot?

  192. Technical Legality? by Esion+Modnar · · Score: 1
    I'm downloading AC/DC's Back in Black. My first one got stolen out of my car, and my second one is so scratched up as to be unlistenable. So, yeah, I'm downloading it; I'm not paying another "RIAA tax" for music I already own.

    Let's say you buy an original copy of Back in Black on CD. Then you back it up to MP3 or CD-R, whatever. Now think about the following, assuming backups to be legal of course, is it legal or not?

    Scenario #1: Your dog chews up your original CD, but you still have the chewed fragments (as proof of ownership); is your backup legal?

    Scenario #2: Someone steals your original CD. Now is your backup legal?

    Scenario #3: You sell your CD to someone else. Now is your backup legal?

    In all three scenarios (destruction, theft, or sale of original), the RIAA's member companies receive no additional income for the CD, you've already paid for the CD, and you still have a playable copy.

    So, as long as you can prove your original purchase, what would be the problem?

    --

    They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
    1. Re:Technical Legality? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only problem is with #3.

      #1 makes it clear that there's only one (paid-for) copy in use at any time.

      #2 has two copies in use when only one was paid for. But the other guy is the thief, so it's his ass.

      #3 has two copies in use when only one was paid for. You have regained your loss (the money you paid to get the CD was regained when you sold it), so you have the unpaid-for disc. Why does it matter? Because the person you sold to isn't going to buy that CD from the copyright holder. And you won't either, because you retained a backup. They should've had two sales, but only had one. That's what copyright law is meant to combat. Sure, they're not really out any money, but they should've* gotten more compensation than they actually did.

      * Don't argue about the word "should". I don't care to hear your illogical hippie-esqe whinings. I don't like the RIAA's recent tone, but I do think that since they made the damn thing, they deserve to be compensated.

    2. Re:Technical Legality? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The one that had me wondering was:

      Say you back up your entire cd collection, and use them to play in your car(my car cd player scratches disks and I am NOT going to play originals in it). The copies you play in your car are then stolen but you still have the originals. Undoubtedly you're probably shielded from prosecution buy not having in your possession copied disks, but I could almost see the RIAA trying anyway. After all, if your originals were stolen you'd have to replace them all....seems like you owe them a bunch of money now.

    3. Re:Technical Legality? by timmy+the+large · · Score: 1
      While scenarios 1 and 2 would be legal, Scenario 3 would be illegal.

      When you sell the CD you give up the license thus giving up your right to back up the copyrighted material.

    4. Re:Technical Legality? by TClevenger · · Score: 1
      In all three scenarios (destruction, theft, or sale of original), the RIAA's member companies receive no additional income for the CD, you've already paid for the CD, and you still have a playable copy.

      So, as long as you can prove your original purchase, what would be the problem?

      Exactly. My stolen CD was stolen with the CD player, so I still have the insert (I use a CD wallet and chuck/reuse the jewel cases.) Therefore, I consider every insert without accompanying CD to be a proof of purchase. (Sure, sure, you can get just the CD liner from somebody, but by the same token, you can get just a "certificate of authenticity" from a corporate PC to validate the Windows that you swiped. That's just a consequence of digital content.)

    5. Re:Technical Legality? by nitpick1 · · Score: 1

      Actually, all of them are legal. It's Sony v. Betamax time. These are all examples of fair use. What has the RIAA hacked off is making your digital copies available to anyone who wanders by your P2P connection. It's use, but they don't (reasonably so) think it's fair. The fact that they are greedy weasels doesn't actually change that.

  193. SCO source code put to music. by QuackQuack · · Score: 1

    The RIAA found an MP3 on my hard drive from I major recording artist, that is basically SCO source code put to music. I swear I didn't even know I had it, and they won't tell me where on my hard drive it is unless I sign an NDA. All they'll tell me is I'm in "Big Twouble".

    Anyone have any idea how much money I'll owe?

    --
    By reading this sig, you agree to the terms of my sig license.
  194. No, it isn't stealing... by Alizarin+Erythrosin · · Score: 1

    ...It's copyright infringement. That isn't stealing. Theft is a criminal offense, copyright infringement is a civil offense.

    And another thing from your post...
    "People, pay for your music. Music is a product, it takes time and energy to create, people deserve to be able to make money at it."

    Which people deserve to be able to make money, the artists? Too bad some (most?) recording industry contracts end up barely making the artist anything unless they can put out something like 5 super ultra mega platinum albums in a row.

    --
    There are only 10 kinds of people in this world... those who understand binary and those who don't
    1. Re:No, it isn't stealing... by MhzJnky · · Score: 1

      In response to the first reply, yes, Apple's music store and buymusic.com is how these things should be sold. However, neither of these is anything remotely like Napster or Kaaza. They are different animals all togther.

      To the second person. You say tomato I say tomato. Call it what you will, it's wrong. Someone worked very hard to create the music, someone spent money on production and advertizement.

      Yes, the artist don't make as much as the label. However, The label is the one taking all the risk. They foot the bill to have the record made and promoted. They deserve the lions share. If an expensive album goes nowhere, who's out millons??? The label.

      Ye who risks reaps the reward.

      Oh, they may only be getting 5 cents on the dollar (if that) but if you download it instead of by it, there not even getting that.

      Give the industry time, it will adapt. It adapted to VCR's and DVD's and it will adapt again. If consumers demand it, it will happen.

      Vote with your money, buy things from buymusic.com or the apple store.

      --


      "Failure is not an option, it's part of the standard package"
  195. Empire Strikes Back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Darth Bainwol under order from Darth Rosen

  196. Might not be that bad by siskbc · · Score: 1
    I really can't see anything positive coming out of this, people are going to be screwed (pay up because they can't afford the lawyer), the pblic won't care, and the RIAA will just gain more momentum.

    I think they're trying for too much with $50k. DirecTV is doing it the smart and sleazy way - get $3000 out of each person and they don't fight it. Ask for $50k, and they'll pool resources and fight back. I dunno how it will shake, but if they try this they might have a group of defendents tangle with them.

    --

    -Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat

  197. and then the by geekoid · · Score: 1

    lawyer in back,
    said everyone attack,
    and it turned into a lawsuit blitz.

    lawsuit blitz.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  198. In the UK... by henele · · Score: 1

    I'd recommend Overplay - A company which provides online services to unsigned bands. Their charts can be quite interesting...

  199. Extortion by SampsonSimpson · · Score: 1
    I fully acknowledge and understand that file sharing is copyright infringement, and (as much as I hate to say it) the RIAA is legally entitled to recover the costs of me impeding that property right.

    However, the "punishment" that they are exacting on the infringers is way too excessive.

    Assuming that a CD costs from anywhere between $15.00 and $18.00, with typically 10-15 songs per CD, that's between a $1.00 and $1.80 per song that they might be earning. Based on the article's figures that a particular boy was sharing 150 songs, the collection that was shared is worth at most $270. If the court wanted to punish me by providing the RIAA with treble damages, the boy would owe them $810. This is the limit of what I would consider "reasonable."

    I'm not sure whether each download of a particular song is considered an infringement, (it's difficult to say how many times each song was downloaded) or if each instance of sharing is an infringement.

    Assuming that each download is an infringement, in order for the RIAA's "go away money" to be reasonable, each song would have to be downloaded 18 times. If the song was the average MP3 size of 3.5 megabytes, that's 9.4 gigabytes in uploads that this boy supposedly made.

    I strongly doubt that the average user uploads that much, which is why I think this RIAA tactic is excessive, and does not fit the nature of the offense inflicted upon the RIAA. I would go as far to say that by extorting this much, the RIAA is receiving one heck of a windfall, bordering on the inequitable.

    SampsonSimpson

  200. Yes, but when I speed my ticket is not 150,000$ by Vicegrip · · Score: 1

    People aren't mad about the principle for the RIAA pursuing file-sharers of none-free copyrighted materials. They're mad about the extortionist fear-mongering tactics used and absurd penalties the RIAA is requesting.

    Levying the same fine that they impose on commercial copyright violators at these kids whilst at the same time leveraging the fact these children can't afford to defend themselves properly smacks of the kind of bullying that should make the blood rise in any reasonable person.

    --
    Do not spread "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0" over the internet, thank you.
  201. Re:Inevitable backlash? by forkboy · · Score: 1

    You know why nobody gives a damn? Because the government agencies in charge of keeping shit like this from happening don't do a goddam thing when it does.

    Remember Enron? There wasn't a person in this country that wasn't calling for Kenneth Lay's severed fucking head on a pole, but did he do any jail time? Fuck no. He had to sell one or two of his 4 mansions to pay some fines.

    It's shit like that that is jading us, making us realize that people in high places are going to pretty much remain untouchable no matter what they do or who they fuck over...just because they have some influential friends. You're living in modern feudalism, buddy. Get used to it or start capping these rich arrogant bitches, because there is no in-between anymore.

    --
    This message brought to you by the Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People.
  202. Not true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    This is complete crap. The US does not, and has never had debter's prisons.

    All that happens in court is that a judge will enter a judgement against you. This just says that you do indeed owe the money. That's all. It is the debter's problem to collect, and they are fairly restricted under the law.

  203. This is a good thing...kick p2p to hard anonymity by braddock · · Score: 1

    This may be a good thing in the long haul. The idea that Gnutella provides any amount of real anonymity has always been laughable, but it is a commonly held misconception. In reality, Gnutella provides little more anonymity than putting your files on a web page, except that google doesn't search Gnutella.

    Hopefully this will move the p2p community to more hardened anonymity technologies like Freenet et al. The community has gotten complacent in recent years.

    It is essential that these privacy-protecting technologies are developed and widely deployed. Not for sharing music, but for protecting the anonymous whistle blower, the political dissident, and the right of assembly and communication without prejudice for oppressed communities everywhere.

    -braddock

  204. That's when you get the new ID. by lysium · · Score: 1
    That is what a second social security number is for. Ruin the first one, then just switch identies for the fresh start. Your life won't exactly be normal, but....who wants to breed in the suburbs for life, anyway?

    ===========

    --
    Together, we will drive the rats from the tundra.
  205. Give This Reporter a Medal by Mortanius · · Score: 1

    From the article,

    Many students seem to think, apparently, that the internet is a law free zone.

    There seems to be some belief on campus that taking music without paying for it is not quite breaking the law because the big, bad record companies charge high prices - they rip us off so we can rip them off, might be the general tenor of the argument.


    It's great to see someone putting forth into the mainstream news services the pathetic argument by many file sharers. Bravo, I say.

    1. Re:Give This Reporter a Medal by sabat · · Score: 1

      I also enjoyed how he opened the story by stating bluntly that copying something is somehow the same thing as stealing. I don't understand the logic, as usual:
      • You have something
      • I make a perfect copy
      • You still have the original in perfect condition
      How is that stealing, again? You've lost ... what?
      --
      I, for one, welcome our new Antichrist overlord.
    2. Re:Give This Reporter a Medal by Mortanius · · Score: 1

      Because you've taken away the author's right for compensation to the product. See, in the LEGAL manner, the author has (this is in theory, so don't bother pointing out my oversimplification) the only true copy of the work. The only way you, or anyone else, can legally get a copy of that is through the author, who will make a perfect copy for you pending compensation on your part, typically the exchange of money.

      Now, in the new case, someone purchases an authorized copy by the author. This person makes a perfect copy, and then begins either reselling the work without the author's permission or simply begins giving away the work for free. In both cases the author does not get compensated for their time and effort in creating said work, bypassing the traditional controls.

      What you are stealing from the author is money that they would otherwise have made. If the author sells 5,000 copies of their work for $14.99 a copy, that's $74,950 they will have made. If 2,500 of those copies are perfect copies distributed by someone else, however, the author loses out on $37,475 they should have been given. Thus, in effect, 2,500 people have stolen a combined amount of $37,475 from the author.

      Now, I admit, making a perfect copy for YOURSELF and only yourself should be all right. In the past it has been, today it's slightly questionable though, but mostly by only the YRO folk and they get their panties in a twist for fun anyway.

    3. Re:Give This Reporter a Medal by sabat · · Score: 1

      Because you've taken away the author's right for compensation to the product

      According to the U.S. Constitution, the author has no such right, except for a limited monopoly, and only to encourage creation. Even if he did have the right, it isn't stealing, because I wouldn't have "bought" the work in the first place.

      But here's the big problem: if copying = stealing, then all copies are either purchased or stolen, right? Ok, so I have not bought the new Madonna album, because I think she's played out. But I have heard one of the songs -- maybe in the mall. Now, I don't have a copy of the song, so it's ok -- no, wait, I still remember it, crystal clear. That's a copy of the song. Yes, it is. I remember the whole thing and can play it back in my head any time I want.

      Do I owe Madonna (or rather the publishing house that actually "owns" the "rights") money? You bet I do. Why not? How is what's in my head not a copy? I owe money even if I make an imperfect copy (on a crappy cassette, let's say -- it's still "infringement"), and I might argue that the copy in my brain is imperfect, but even so, it's still a legal copy. We shouldn't pretend it doesn't exist, because it does.

      Thing is, if that copy is her "property," then what we're really saying is that Madonna/publishing-house owns the section of my mind that remembers her song. I'm just paying a license fee for it being there.

      Wait, Madonna owns part of my brain! My god -- humans are property, all over again.

      Yep, this is a good way of interpreting the law. It's what the founding fathers clearly intended. Intangible things are property and copying is theft.

      --
      I, for one, welcome our new Antichrist overlord.
    4. Re:Give This Reporter a Medal by dlb · · Score: 1

      "According to the U.S. Constitution, the author has no such right,..."

      Could you quote the section of the Constitution that you interpreted this from?
      I'm betting that you can't.

    5. Re:Give This Reporter a Medal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      now that has to be the stupidest thing ive ever read.

    6. Re:Give This Reporter a Medal by sabat · · Score: 1

      Could you quote the section of the Constitution that you interpreted this from? I'm betting that you can't.

      Oh, c'mon, you couldn't give me anything harder than that? I was hoping for a real mind-cooker. This was easy:

      1. direct my browser to www.google.com
      2. enter keywords: "united states constitution copyright"
      3. pick out a good entry: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/ar ticle01/
      4. zip on down to Section 8
      5. copy and paste

      Now, I'll restate what I said before, and then you can see the actual wording of the constitution.

      I said: "According to the U.S. Constitution, the author has no such right, except for a limited monopoly, and only to encourage creation." This was in response to someone saying "... you've taken away the author's right for compensation to the product".

      The constitution sez: " The Congress shall have Power ... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries".

      All the stuff I'm leaving out with the elipses (...) is a bunch of other provisions about how the govt can print money and establish post offices -- in case you were wondering.

      The point here is that there is no mention about anyone having a right to compensation, just a limited exclusive right to promote the progress of science and useful arts. No "intellectual property" here, sorry.

      --
      I, for one, welcome our new Antichrist overlord.
    7. Re:Give This Reporter a Medal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >> now that has to be the stupidest thing ive ever read.

      And you can say that, because you know about complicated things like capitalization and punctuation.

  206. Who downloaded what? by arth1 · · Score: 1
    This isn't an issue because they are targeting users who share MP3's, ie make them available for upload. Though one can argue that downloading an MP3 is legal and fine if you already own a CD with that song on it, but it's hard to argue that it's legal for you to make that freely available for download on the assumption that whoever downloads it is doing so legally.

    Unless they actually downloaded the file from the user, they don't know whether it's downloadable just because it's on a list. Quite a few people on p2p networks have much longer lists than what is actually available -- people freeze the queue to prevent uploads, or block 0.0.0.0/0 from downloading. There's even plugins that do that for you, so you can choose who downloads what even though the LIST is provided to everyone.

    Of course, if RIAA downloaded something they thought was illegal to download, they obtained evidence by breaking the law. If they didn't think it was illegal because they own it, why, then there's no crime committed by THEM downloading it.
    They need to prove that OTHERS could download the songs they had right to.

    Regards,
    --
    *Art
  207. Just a Thought by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the reason for targeting uploaders is based on the premise that they are contributing to piracy, then shouldn't the RIAA have to prove that at least one song downloaded from an alleged infringer (uploader) was done so illegally. It is possible (thought highly unlikely) that a person could share a file and it be downloaded exclusively by people who allready own the CD.

    Then again, the burden of proof in a civil case is 'more probable than not'. Ask a silly question. . .

  208. Carrot and stick? by Dyolf+Knip · · Score: 2, Interesting
    The RIAA says, "Do what we want or we'll beat you up and force you to do it anyway", and the author calls that 'carrot and stick'? I only see a big stick and a another, bigger stick.

    If the RIAA was even remotely interested in using a carrot, it would say, "Keep using KaZaA and we'll sue you. Stop using KaZaA and switch to our new high-speed online distribution service and'll be able to download low-quality versions of our products for free to sample and also buy individual songs for chump change or get whole albums, complete with cover art, behind-the-scenes documentaries, and interviews with band members for a couple of dollars."

    And of course, the article totally misses the point that it's not really possible to track down downloaders, only uploaders.

    --
    Dyolf Knip
    1. Re:Carrot and stick? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The RIAA says, "Do what we want or we'll beat you up and force you to do it anyway", and the author calls that 'carrot and stick'? I only see a big stick and a another, bigger stick.

      Actually, I think thats a big stick and a hole.

    2. Re:Carrot and stick? by n8_f · · Score: 1

      Why can't you track downloaders? All you need are some honeypot clients that keep track of who downloads from them. You won't get all downloaders and it isn't as easy as tracking uploaders, but it is certainly possible. Neither uploading or downloading is safe if you don't want the RIAA to come knocking.

  209. Solution: Play legal backup, Escrow CD's by bstadil · · Score: 1
    One possible solution is to play the legal ripped backup MP3's and have the physical media in a pooled Escrow.

    When you buy the CD you make a legal high quality backup with a unique ID attached to each file. Then you send the physical media to a clearing house for storage and future handling. When you get ready to "sell" you CD you upload the MP'3 and destroy them on your computer.

    The CD can now be "sold" and the buyer that takes legal title leaves the physical media at the clearing house and downloads the Uniquely identifiable Mp3.

    Rinse and repeat.

    It could be a subscription model with say $2 monthly fees and a deposit of $30. The Deposit will be the "money" used for the transactions. Buy a CD at standard price of $10 or whatever and you deposit is now $20 and you have one named CD on your balance sheet.

    --
    Help fight continental drift.
  210. No, *you* are not immune... by Kjella · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So if I hack Mr. Oppenheims computer and "unreasonably" search it (i.e. rifle through his private data) I am immune to rules on unreasonable searches because I am a hacker and not a cop? Nice to know.... Now where did I put that SubSeven kit.....

    There was this case, where a hacker posted trojaned applications to kiddie porn newsgroups. He then gathered evidence on those stupid enough to install it, and provided the information to law enforcement agencies. Even after he told them that the information came from hacking, it was not thrown out on the 4th amendment defense. I tried to submit it to slashdot but it was rejected.

    So, if you hack Mr. Oppenheims computer (and/or torture him until he provides you with the password for any containers, appearantly), you can submit it to the police, and Mr. Oppenheim can't use the 4th Amendment defense. However, nothing prevents you from being prosecuted under any hacking/torture law though...

    Kjella

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    1. Re:No, *you* are not immune... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mod parent up! scary stuff!

  211. Sue for Downloading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why can't they sue for downloading? The burden of proof in a civil case is more liekly than not.

    If the RIAA shares a bunch of BS MP3 files, then they could claim Joe Downloader attempted to get a pirated copy. Of course this does not indicate success (i.e. infringement), but it may be enough to get the ISP to fork over his name, or for a subpoena to actually check if he has any pirated content on his PC.

    If Joe Downloader attempted to get Britney Does Las Vegas.MP3, is it more likely than not that he has pirated that song or others. May be enough to bring suit and force a settlement.

  212. fear (dis)affection by 10am-bedtime · · Score: 1

    love and hate are two sides of the same coin, a coin less pretty than fear. why is this? fear is deeper: less controllable, less rationalizable, and mostly, extremely personal.

    expressions of love and hate are the currency of social discouse, but cognition of fear cannot be shared, cannot be amortized, cannot be assuaged by anyone except the one feeling the fear. thus, fear is more valuable because it cannot be parlayed once planted.

    these things everyone knows, some people use, and some some people abuse.

  213. agreed by fullmetal55 · · Score: 1

    agreed 100%

  214. Wile E. Coyote.... by Anita+Coney · · Score: 1

    A friend of mine analogized the RIAA's attempts to stop file sharers to Wile E. Coyote's attempt to catch the Road Runner. It seems like every month they have a new tactic that utterly fails.

    I see the RIAA's attempts as trying to stop a speeding freight train by laying on the track.

    Either way the RIAA will fail. Peer-to-peer sharing is a fact of life. I'm not saying it's legal. I'm not saying it's moral. I'm just saying it's here to stay for the foreseeable future.

    --
    If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
  215. Are you being deliberately obtuse? ;-) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >Now that they are actuallly employing this strategy, the cry is noo!! It's wrong, it's bad, or, or something.

    You almost have a valid point.

    You are partially correct in that there *are* people doing exactly what you state: complaining now that the RIAA is going after offenders.

    Where your argument breaks down is it seem MOST people are upset about the PENALTIES. Penalties must fit the crime somehow... something about "cruel and unusual punishment".

    The law is WAY out of control if a kid sharing 100 songs is liable for "up to US $15,000,000 and/or 500 years in jail" ($150,000 & 5 years per "work" is what the law says).

    It does not matter one bit that the RIAA/MPAA actually get fines and jail time at those levels... these are tools used for extortion.

    Put it another way... if a driver speeds over the legal limit and is caught, he gets a ticket he has to pay. *Threatening* a few selected speeders with 15 million dollar fines *might* have a global effect of reducing the number of speeders, but by an ever larger margin you will convince people the law is foolishness and corporate fascism. You would actually encourage disrespect of the law in the long term because it will be seen as not legitimate.

    Hell, they don't even have these kind of penalties for REAL crimes... if a priest rapes 100 underage boys, where is the government advocating 500-year maximum sentances. Of course, that is ridiculous... there is no large wealthy organization advocating harsh penalties for molestation.

    Faced with potential of $15,000,000 and 500 years in jail, you bet your ass *I* would settle for $10,000!

    Even if they made a mistake and I had a 99% probability of proving my innocence. Call me a coward. I'd also pay off the mob if they kidnapped my daughter. Why gamble your life on shitty odds and being right??

    Only capital punishment on a few individuals, highly publicised, will really REALLY curtail file sharing.

    Off on a rant here (not sure if you were trolling), but all the RIAA/MPAA can do here is lose. They can all get in line behind the millions of unemployed factory workers the government cares a lot less about.

    iTunes is a sign that at least SOME people in the industry "get it". Now when I can get unlimited streaming downloads for a fixed fee -- kind of like radio on demand -- then I'll buy (subscribe) my first music in over 10 years.

  216. That is perverted capitalism! by HanzoSan · · Score: 1



    What is this? Soviet Union? Why should companies be able to live on tax money?!

    Thats absolute bullshit, even for Canada.

    --
    If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
  217. same as iraq war by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Fear and Awe campaign will be a dud- many filesharers will stop sharing but many more will go underground for a while to reorganize and strike the RIAA again- this time using Freenet. These guerilla file sharers will remain untraceable and untouchable until the RIAA finally gives up.

    1. Re:same as iraq war by vegetablespork · · Score: 1

      Or until Freenet use is outlawed in the U.S.--or considered prima facie evidence of intent to commit a crime, which would be tantamount to being outlawed.

      --

      Call (206) 338-5780 COLLECT for information about a genuine BA, BS, MA, MS, MBA, or Ph.D.

  218. Jealous? (was Re:Cribs) by Software · · Score: 1
    It's a sad day for /. when a ramble that can be summed up in three words, "I am jealous" is modded "Insightful".

    If you can't afford to buy music, then don't buy it.

  219. Write the software and lets do it. by HanzoSan · · Score: 1



    Write the software or find a way to do it through amazon. Call it the CD exchange network.

    --
    If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
  220. The way I see it... by Danomatic2k · · Score: 1

    They way I see it is that the people being accused by the RIAA have no case against unlawful search. The fact is they used a application such as Kazza, or another p2p file sharing client. These applications allow the PUBLIC to veiw any file you share without authourization from you or anyone else. It's the same as someone walking past your dorm room window, glancing in and seeing a big sack of weed on your table. They then have the right, and the duty to report you to the proper authourities. Now, what needs to happen is for people to switch from open p2p services to closed Server/Client sharing programs that require authourization and legal agreements to even VIEW the shared information. Let alone download it. At the moment the community as a whole needs to ban together against entities like the RIAA and SCO, and boycot their products, spread information about their dealings, and put preasure on the governing bodies to halt the actions of these feinds. The only way we will win this "WAR" is to FIGHT. The RIAA had it's chance to suceed in a changing market, instead they chose to stand mute. Now that they are losing profits thanks to their own inaction, they are going after the people who are a product of the digital music revolution rather than the cause. The cause is the fact that there was no alternative to buying their ninteen eighties technology (CDs) at it's original price. Now, they have yet to come up with a viable alternative to music piracy, and they are suffering form their own lack of imagination.

    1. Re:The way I see it... by Dijital · · Score: 1

      I think your example is kinda flawed in this though...

      Let's say someone walks by your room, and sees a bag of what they percieve as weed on your table. They report you, and you summarily are punished. Now, say that bag wasn't weed at all, but basil, or oregano, or just plain grass from the front yard... something that looked almost like weed, but wasn't it. So you were just punished for something you didn't do.

      One of the points I took from this is that the RIAA has no REAL proof that the things that were shared were copyrighted materials, just the appearance thereof. The RIAA wants to quickly try people without giving them a chance to fire back... I think its kinda underhanded myself... whether the person is right or wrong. If they are proven wrong, meaning proven to actually have copyrighted materials and sharing them... then hey, punish them... the law allows it. Now if its proven that nothing was done wrong, then drop it and move on to some other schumck. At least give them the chance to prove themselves.

      --
      Diji
      "I came, I saw, I WTF'd!"
    2. Re:The way I see it... by Danomatic2k · · Score: 1

      Ok, but you can't be charged for a bag of oregano, a person can call you on it, but without the physical evidence nothing can legaly happen to you. I think you need to think about the legal aspect of this case a little bit more. Of course the mp3's that theses people were sharing are copyrighted. The songs are the intelectual property of someone, and unless your the artist, it sure as hell isn't you. I am a supporter of copyrights on intelectual property, they have served us well so far, and make sure people get the proper credit they deserve for their work. I, on the other hand, do not agree with the RIAA or the Record industry as a whole. Copyright laws are there to protect artists not these greedy pop-culture pushers. What the RIAA is doing is wrong. I agree we should let these people fight the charges against them, but I think they are taking the wrong direction when it comes to their legal defense the Unlawful search argument WILL NOT hold up in a modern court because someone is going to bring up the fact that the files these people where sharing were displayed publicly, on a public network. The only way to fight the RIAA is if ALL of the people who were accused come forth, ban together and fight this thing as a whole. The RIAA has so much money to burn scaring the public with these cases, that an individual WILL NOT be able to fight against them. It needs to be brought into the attention of the public that the record industry has caused this problem by not policing their own market, and not stopping electronic piracy before it began. These people are not the cause of music piracy, but a product of it. The problem doesn't exist in the minds and computers of these people but in the Entertainment market itself. If there had been an alternative to overprice CD's and Piracy in the beginig of this fiasco, the RIAA would still be making money, and a lot less people would be pirating music. Lastly, let me say that NOBODY NEEDS MUSIC!!!!!! It is entertainment, not food, shelter, medical care, or education, and is NOT required for everyday life. You can do without music, so DO WITHOUT IT. If you want to stop the RIAA, protest, boycot, write your senators, don't sit here bantering with other /.'s who already see it your way. Let's star a movement, let's fight, lets make sure our freedoms are protected, because you can be sure nobody else will.

  221. Re:Ah yes, just like 911. by jfelix1010 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    follow the trends, when Americans are attacked they always fight back, they never just give up, it didnt happen during the Tea Party in Boston, it didnt happen on 911, why would it happen now?

    Sorry to get OT, but how can you endorse these views and support a big-government tax-and-spend liberal like Howard Dean in you sig? If anything, these views are much closer to libertarian.

  222. Re:Non-RIAA Music Reviews? (actually...) by Malic · · Score: 1

    I just remembered - Chilledbeats.org is VERY much like I suggested. But very specific in it's focus. I was thinking more general.

    --
    I swear by MacOS X. Although I use to swear *at* MacOS 9...
  223. Because they can by PetoskeyGuy · · Score: 1

    Technology just isn't up to the point that they can track that stuff you've mentioned yet. Not as easy as they can P2P. Search for song, browse hosts, log IP for future lawsuit. Hell they could be running bots to do their hunting now. Once encryption gets implemented and the darknet is truly anonymous, they are going to be SOL. Catch em while you can.

    The RIAA seem to forget the basic economics "LAW OF DEMAND". As price goes up demand goes down. Their lost sales figures are very imaginative, on par with SCO lawsuit demands.

    They are not losing billions or trillions in sales because not everyone would buy the crap they produce at the prices they demand. But toss it in with my existing bandwidth costs and cost of my hard drive space and the song costs me about 3 cents plus download time. I don't even count my time because I work while it downloads. At that price why not download Madonna, NSync and the other crap. Sometimes you need a good laugh.

  224. stogie urban legend by gosand · · Score: 2, Informative
    Reminds me of the story (urban ledgend?) about the lawyer who insured his cigars, smoked them, and won the insurance claim in court because the contract didn't specify what kind of fire. Then the dumb bastard was charged with multiple counts of arson and fined 10x what he got from the insurance.


    Snopes is your friend

    --

    My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

    1. Re:stogie urban legend by BLAMM! · · Score: 1

      Ah, well. It's a good story anyway. Since its got something of a moral lesson to it, let's attribute it to Aesop and call it a fable.

  225. Re:IN CAPITALIST AMERICA... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If I consider your definition of Communism, then America is the first Communist Capitalistic country in the world !

  226. At least... by macshune · · Score: 1

    He made a cool movie before he died, right?

  227. Woohoo! by CaptIronfist · · Score: 1

    Magna Carta, Delirium are not on the list! Woohoo! I'm happy!

    I was just looking at the 'who to boycott' list to see if i was helping or not. =) Thanks for the link, very useful indeed. If anyone else know some good progressive rock labels not on that list, please let me know. I'm pretty ashamed to see Elektra in there, specially since Dream Theater signed with those bastards!

  228. Re:Extortion by Tmack · · Score: 1
    To figure out the maximum number of times the songs could be shared, just use the bandwidth of the connection the supposed violator had. IE: most cable modems have a capped upload at 256kbps or so, so estimate a saturated upload stream for however long they estimate the files were available for sharing. You could even come up with a rate in $$/Sec for sharing files, estimating most mp3's are around 4MB. So, 256kbps/8=32KB/s=~.032MB/s, or 125Sec per 4MB song. Using the estimate of $1.80/song, you get $1.80/125 or 1.455 cents/sec., which can be expanded to $51.84/hr.,$1244.16/day, $454,118.40/year. Granted this doesnt account for protocol overhead, assumes you have a perfect connection and assumes you are sharing 24/7 and do nothing else, and manage to keep the link saturated, but thats still a very large number.

    TM

    --
    Support TBI Research: http://www.raisinhope.org
  229. How to defeat the RIAA by nightsweat · · Score: 1
    Pick three major labels who contribute to the RIAA.

    Organize a large-scale six month long boycott against those three labels.

    Profit! As in, they don't. Hit them in the wallet and let them know why.

    --

    the major advances in civilization are processes which all but wreck the societies in which they occur - A.N. White
  230. Not possible by attackiko · · Score: 1

    nycFASHIONGIRL - shallow ? That's unpossible!

  231. Can we go through their computers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the RIAA says that they can go through our computers, then I hope they dont mind while I do the same through theirs.

    I was told that they have a copy of a 1995 CD we produced, so Im just checking to make sure theyre not violating my copyrights.

    zack

  232. File Sharing by m1kesm1th · · Score: 1

    Maybe I'm missing something but...

    The RIAA are going after people sharing songs. Surely they'd have to download the entire song to prove that it was a real copy? Well by that point I hope they have an original version of their song, otherwise haven't they broken the law?

    As for other people downloading the songs, how do they know they don't own the cd?

    With digital radio out, I don't see the service as any different, you can probably record music tracks off of the radio at the same quality. So sure p2p offers the same kind of service for music, albeit possibly copying faster than real time playback.

  233. Kazaa Lite Bad IP Blocker by MicroBerto · · Score: 1
    I wonder how the Kazaa Lite RIAA IP Blocking is working...

    It seems that they're updating the IPs frequently, and have even created an automatic bad ip updater. Good for them... it's better than nothing!

    --
    Berto
  234. I leave my CD's out all the time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    On the desk, table, everywhere.

    People come and listen to my CD's at my desk and stuff.

    I did not give them permission to make a copy of that CD and if they did they are violating copyrights. They would be liable, not me.

    So what's the difference between putting it up on Kazaa and leaving my CD out for anyone to listen to? Nothing other than it's easier to copy but that doesn't mean I gave permission to copy it.

    Copying songs you don't own is illegal and should be stopped but I don't think the RIAA/MPAA is in a position to say who is doing what illegally. It wouldn't be hard to fix that if they were a little educated but it seems they're hard-set on going down the route they've chosen.

    1. Re:I leave my CD's out all the time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And futher, exactly what law am I breaking by putting up a song on Kazaa?

      That's like saying if I leave a CD out in the open for people to copy then I'm breaking some law.

      Arn't the people who download it illegally responsible?

  235. Solution is obvious... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sure there are many responses like this.... Don't buy any RIAA stuff.... Duh!
    They've been raiping us long enough. I stopped buying CD's the day I got out of the Army and had to wake up to the realiaty of the prices of the "outside world" many, many years ago.
    On the rare occasion I hear something on the Corporate Public Address System (CPAS copyright)... I mean Radio.... that I actually like, I MIGHT actually buy the CD used someplace.
    We need to stop feeding the machine that is trying to kill us.
    All of us.
    Now.

    TJ

  236. RIAA is the Lesser of two Evils? by acomj · · Score: 1

    The artists do get paid by the recording industry.. Yeah its a raw deal for musicans (some lose money), and the RIAA tatics are not entirely ethical.... but the music pirates aren't paying the artists dollar one.

    Ask any artists trying to get publicity what the backing of a major label can do..Actually, even better look at the crap that gets on the radio to see what major label backing can do.

    The RIAA looks out for the recording industry ,not the consumer or the artists..

    Unfortunetly they (RIAA) kinda have a monopoly, but if you have a better way you should start an indie label!

    1. Re:RIAA is the Lesser of two Evils? by WildBeast · · Score: 1

      Read about Wilco and see what the major labels can do.

      The RIAA looks out for the recording industry and the consumer looks out for himself. So I would go with the latter.

      The better way is to stop bothering consumers with nonsense, lower the prices or offer something worthy (extra-content) on CD. Just a suggestion from someone who rarely even listens to music. I find myself buying more and more DVD's instead of renting movies. A good movie with extra content is worth purchasing.

  237. Re: OT Lose/Loose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i can't believe everyone screws up lose and loose.

    and you are the first person i've seen actually point it out. It's not like the mistakes that people make with homonyms, lose and loose don't even sound the same.

    lose (rhymes with zoos)
    loose (rymes with Zeus)

  238. Move along, nothing new here by altek · · Score: 1

    This is old news - RIAA sending out threats to college students - nothing new. They were doing it last year too.

    And, if the editors would read the story, they'd see that it says "Then when the poor student has picked himself up from the floor and the blood returns to his face, the lawyers will say broadly: "OK, we'll let you off the fine if you agree to pay, let's say, a mere $15,000".

    Not exactly the $50,000 that it says in the posting. In all fairness, the article does mention one instance of someone having to settle for $50k.

    --
    THE MAGIC WORDS ARE SQUEAMISH OSSIFRAGE
  239. Just my two cents. by syukton · · Score: 1

    The RIAA is suing the same people who buy their music. I'm sure that will drive record sales up, oh yeah, totally. What the fuck?

    If you sue the people who buy your products, they're going to stop buying your products. You can't screw somebody over once and expect them to come to you for anything other than getting screwed over.

    So after a few thousand lawsuits, I'm sure the RIAA's short-sightedness will continue, and when CD sales drop again they'll say it's because of file sharing. When in reality, they're a bunch of fuckwits who don't know how to run a business, who have totally alienated their entire userbase by SUING THEM.

    Seriously, what do they hope to accomplish? Hey, wait a second! This is terrorism! They're using fear as a means to accomplish a goal other than fear itself; they're using these lawsuits to scare people into stopping file trading and buying more records. The said it themselves, "fear and awe" ... It's simple domestic terrorism, purported from an industry association. I wonder if we can get them under the patriot act... some kind of class action lawsuit involving lots of fear and emotional distress...

    --
    Reinvent the wheel only at either a lower cost, greater effectiveness, or your own personal enrichment and satisfaction.
  240. Canary in a Coal Mine by Lonath · · Score: 1

    Oh wait, that's probably copyrighted or trademarked or something isn't it?

    I called this months ago.

    Are you still giving them money? Stop doing it and stop downloading ok? And don't listen to the people who say "but if we stop buying they'll assume we're steaing so we'll be screwed anyway so we may as will keep downloading." Those people are wrong. Politicians are not all that stupid, and I'm pretty sure that you know that there's nothing "noble" about not paying for something but using it anyway. There is something noble about wanting something but refusing to buy it because you don't want to support the people who make the product. Do the right thing. Don't do the easy, thing.
    Stop buying/renting/downloading and never give them money ever again.

  241. Don't Bet on it by 0xA · · Score: 1
    I read the article you linked to and I'm not really sure I'd want to bet on that line of reasoning.

    The act specifically allows you to make a copy of a recording for yourself. I am allowed to borrow a CD from someone and make a copy for myself. The author of the article reasons that

    a) Downloading a song is the same as making a copy of the song from a CD you have in your hand.

    b) The person sharing the song is simply "loaning" it to you so you can make a copy.

    Now I think you might be able to sucessfuly argue A but B is the kind of pushing it. I don't think you'd have much luck with that kind of defence if you ever ended up in court over it. Could be that is why the RIAA's local stooge hasn't tried this in Canada yet however. Tough call.

    The CD levy is $.21 btw.

    1. Re:Don't Bet on it by liquidsin · · Score: 1

      I live in a border town, so I just buy my blanks in the U.S. (I work over there, so I don't get hosed on exchange). A couple months ago I went into Best Buy and grabbed a couple boxes of 75 blanks that were marked $15.99 and came with a $15.00 mail-in rebate. When I got to the counter they told me the rebate period was over, but since they were tagged that way on the shelf they gave me the rebate right there. I got 150 blanks for $1.98.. I'll continue to buy my blanks from the U.S. since I *refuse* to give the RIAA any of my money for the *privelege* of writing linux isos and putting MY OWN BAND'S MUSIC on cd.

      --
      do not read this line twice.
  242. The person providing the download didn't. by AzrealAO · · Score: 1

    It is COPYRIGHT law afterall. It reserves the rights of distribution to the copyright holder.

    It doesn't matter if YOU have the CD and are downloading a copy of the song. What matters is that someone is distributing a copy of a song they do not own the Copyright to.

    That's all there is to it. It really is THAT simple. If you do not own the copyright of a work, or if you do not have the express permission of the copyright holder, it is illegal for you to distribute copys of that work.

    1. Re:The person providing the download didn't. by neoform · · Score: 1

      this is were fair use comes into play. as well as the concept of backing up files.

      --
      MABASPLOOM!
  243. RIAA Vs. USA by dont_stand_so_close_ · · Score: 1

    It would amuse me to see them try to sue every person in the country.

    Do your part and visit: zeropaid.com to load up on ammo.

    --
    Silence Bossy Meat Creatures!
  244. oh no! It can't be! by The+Lynxpro · · Score: 1

    I'd love to see the RIAA claim that the MP3's of the late Wesley Willis I downloaded the other day are worth $150k per violation. I think they'd [the RIAA] would be laughed out of the courtroom if the Judge allowed me to play "Rock n Roll McDonalds" or some of the artist's other charming ditties...

    --
    "Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
  245. I'm idealistic about this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trying to put people into crazy fear over sharing songs might make them realize how manufactured and corporate pop culture is.

    Big artists might escape the RIAA.

    Less litigious labels might gain popularity.

    People may turn on to the growing public domain pool of artists that seems to be totally ignored by media. (not surprising, why give air time to a product that will never buy advertising space)

    Maybe there really is a artistic revolution (evolution?), and the RIAA is just speeding it up.

  246. Source for royalty-free music by mabu · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There are obviously bands out that allow taping of their shows and release royalty-free music. I'm curious if there are any web sites that specialize in distributing high-quality versions of songs that are free of the copyright issues?

    I think a very effective backlash against the RIAA would be to support sites and artists who make their songs available without the restrictions. I firmly believe that free trade of music in many cases is more beneficial to the artists than otherwise. This is especially true in times such as now where big corporations own a lion's share of media.

    If you look at a band like the Grateful Dead, who chose not to follow the path of rabid control over their publishing, that looks to be a major contributor to their success.

    Most people are sympathetic to the artists, but not the corporate entities which end up getting most of the money and taking advantage of the artists.

    If we all rally around sites, companies and artists who abandon the traditional extreme proprietary nature of their material, this would send a clear message to the RIAA that their acts will hurt them more than us, and we could care less about the next major-label-boy-band.

  247. Why don't we all just by Schreckgestalt · · Score: 0

    Why don't we all just change our p2p nicknames to "nycfashiongirl"?

  248. If RIAA-protected labels/artists are reading this, by bennomatic · · Score: 1
    I have an idea for you.

    Make it a policy that any songs on an album which has gone platinum are open for free file trading. Likewise any song which has been licensed for enough commercials, TV shows or movies such that it has brought in over $1,000,000 in revenues. Likewise, any song that has achieved over $1,000,000 in radio-play revenues.

    You can still charge your licensing fees for commercial use, but at this point, you'll do more for your popularity by letting go, Luke, and letting your fans trade and build up their fan bases.

    For example: I have bought Dark Side of the Moon in three different formats, and multiple copies of the CD (gifts, etc). That album has generated so much revenue for Pink Floyd, Inc. that it would not hurt them or their families one bit to give it away for free. Same thing goes for Jewel's "Intuition", which is on a Shick razor commercial. And any Metallica song. And the list goes on...

    That's my $0.02

    --
    The CB App. What's your 20?
  249. Re:fear (dis)affection by ahfoo · · Score: 1

    Although I appreciate your poetic manner of expressing yourself, I doubt what you've stated. If fear cannot be shared between people and serve as a form of social discourse then the horror genre would be nowhere near as important as it is. I've heard a similar assertion about pain. Wittgenstein uses it as an example in discussing literacy among other things. But even then there are problems because the division between physical and emotional pain are not clear at all and emotional pain can certainly be shared. Grief is a commonly shared emotional pain.
    I admire your expressive ability though. We don't get a lot of thoughtful writers on /..

  250. Re:Extortion by Mike+Hawk · · Score: 1

    Actually, you should probably recalculate those numbers assuming a standard connection coming out of a university. I'd imagine their up would blow away a cable modem.

  251. I'll believe it when I see it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    but it is something they have to consider...

    I can't remember the last time the American people successfully boycotted a product on principle. For the RIAA to consider this a possibility to be considered there must be at least a reasonable probability of a possibility that such a thing could happen. That the RIAA summarily dismisses the possibility and forges ahead without regard to the potential ramifications of their actions, underscores the position that any significant backlash as a result of their actions is merely a remote possibility of infinitesimal probability and therefore something safely ignored.

    That the bulk of the American population have been exposed as ignorant sheep people that allow themselves to be exploited unwittingly at every turn is no longer a matter of repressed internal suspicion. It is a fact and the world knows it. A fact not lost on global music conglomerates in membership using the RIAA to tap into the profit pool of extortion over the allegation of copyright infringement which seems the more lucrative business model than attending to the monopolized profiteering from the product of the contractually exploited producers of that product.

    1. Re:I'll believe it when I see it. by 3terrabyte · · Score: 1
      Some successful boycotts

      --People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is calling a halt to its Burger King boycott, which reached over 800 restaurants across the U.S. and prompted the burger mogul to enforce stricter standards for the handling of its food animals.

      --In the UK: Last December, the ExxonMobil Corp., known as Esso in Europe, indicated that an activist boycott is hurting its U.K. sales at the pump.

      Hmmm. Not very impressive, huh? I guess you're right.

      --

      Why are there only 19 people folding@home for slashdot?

    2. Re:I'll believe it when I see it. by Meat+Blaster · · Score: 1
      Admittedly, Divx (the obsolete thin plastic wafer) fell not because of a boycott but because it cost too much for the level of convenience the customer could expect. But rather than setting themselves up for a boycott on principle, perhaps the treadmill being built out of DRM in hardware and obnoxious 'protection' mechanisms in the music, whether purchased in downloadable form or plastic wafer, will be enough to get people fed up with the stuff from a simple "I want to play this album I bought for $16 but blue screens keep popping up" point of view.

      Then again, with Divx there was already a more popular alternative: DVD. What would have happened if the industry had gone straight to Divx, no longer offering movies on laserdisc, VHS, or DVD? What if a Divx wafer had been priced slightly under the cost of a new VHS movie to own at the outset, so that the industry could point at the cost benefit for the consumer to accept this new form of pseudo-ownership? (Historical note: when a Divx movie was purchased, the machine still needed to phone home to prove you had a license to the movie... you couldn't bring a movie you 'owned' to a friend's house and expect to play it and after the whole scheme went under Divx discs were worthless.) How many similar failures could paying customers be expected to put up with should the music industry adopt a similar scheme, as is currently popular with many current legal music download sites?

      My point is that while we won't be able to rely on the public for a boycott on altruistic purposes, the selfish ones may very well do.

  252. RIAA = Best Band Ever? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This person thinks so.?!
    http://noneinc.com/RIAAEM/RIAAEM.html

  253. You are distributing copies. by AzrealAO · · Score: 1

    Jesus, this isn't difficult. Copyright law reserves ALL rights of distribution for the copyright holder. Period. That's it.

    If you are distributing copies of a copyright work, which you do not hold the copyright to, or have not recieved the express permission of the copyright holder, you are illegally distributing a copyrighted work.

  254. wait and see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wait and see how DirecTV fares vs. the 10,000 or so victims of its racketeering style "fear" treatment before freaking out.

    http://directvdefense.org/files/Sosa_v_Directv_C om plaint.pdf

    I don't know about you, but those damn pirates infected my machine with the latest RPC worm variant and used it to download terrible communism. I had no idea .

  255. try this reworded approach... by deathcow · · Score: 2, Funny

    IANAL.. but

    One of our corporate lawyers, who have won many cases against the dark forces in our companies industry (telecommunications), once read a cease and desist letter that a local bank had their lawyers send me. The bank wanted to seize a domain name I owned, which they said was confusing with their business name.

    His response, and obviously the proper form for lawyers, judges and juries, was "I would tell them FUCK YOU VERY MUCH".

    1. Re:try this reworded approach... by Peaceful_Patriot · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Furthermore, in one recent case, a college student was told that just by filing an answer in court, the cost of any final settlement would rise by $50,000."

      This is perhaps the most disturbing quote for me. Translated: "If you dispute this in any way, it will cost you another $50,000.00."

      Who could afford to fight this, even if you were innocent?

      --
      There is nothing so powerful as an idea whose time has come.
    2. Re:try this reworded approach... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2 words--file bankruptcy

    3. Re:try this reworded approach... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bankruptsy doesn't get you out of such legal debts unless you are a corporation.

    4. Re:try this reworded approach... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bankruptcy, at least in this state, gets you out of such debts---taxes & fines, no, but virtually everything else,including "damages". It may not be a great option for Joe Richguy, but for a poor student, it's definitely the way to go.

  256. It's the artists that are to blame, not RIAA by Morgaine · · Score: 1

    I think you're right to be pessimistic about where things are going. The blame is being appportioned incorrectly to the RIAA though.

    The RIAA is basically a bunch of amoral (not immoral) lawyers and their hacks, going about their daily business of bleeding the population dry to fill studio coffers. Lawyers are always amoral like this, that's why they can represent the most evil and violent scum of humanity in court.

    The scum in this case are the studios, but who can blame them. In many ways, they're mandated to do everything in their power to bring in cash by their obligation to their shareholders. So where does the blame lie?

    Simple. If artists did not hand over rights to their music to the studios, this issue would not exist at all. Almost all of them continue to do so though, albeit with some high profile and very worthy exceptions. It's a drop in the ocean though. The rest are not idiots, oblivious to the plight of their fans and the strong-arm tactics of studios and RIAA. They're simple money-grabbing, full stop, or else they'd do something about it, make a noise about not wishing their fans to be persecuted like this, at the very least.

    Yes, many artists signed contracts way back and can't get out of them immediately, but most of them aren't even trying, and new bands are still trying to get signed up daily. Blame the artists for the current situation.

    --
    "The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
    1. Re:It's the artists that are to blame, not RIAA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that's because the open source type of revolution never happened in music. programmers gave up control of their code in exchange for community maintenance, but it never caught on with bands to give up control of their product in exchange for fame. they prefer fortune, even though not many of them make any decent money from the studios.

  257. You'll have evolved before you finished paying! by Bendebecker · · Score: 1

    According to the RIAA, that means you have more valuable assets than their entire industry! Hmm... the average person makes let's say $40,000 a year. That means that if your an average person, it will take you only 60,873 years and 9 months to pay off a suit (assuming you give them 100% of your paycheck.) If you started when modern humans first evolved, you would nearly have payed it off by now. Start today, and in all likelihood humanity will have evolved into a whole new species before you finished. Better pray for hyper inflation ...

    --
    There's a growing sense that even if The Future comes,
    most of us won't be able to afford it.
    -- Lemmy
  258. Thus the RIAA's contention that her... by AzrealAO · · Score: 1

    claim of unreasonable search is "shallow".

    They looked at her publically available music/movie shares, and determined that she was distributing copyrighted works, which she did not have permissions to do.

  259. Why doesn't somebody just put them out of business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just like everything else within capitalism, the RIAA is a business, too - why doesn't someone raise a little venture capital to create an ultra-competitive legal firm that's filesharing-friendly and does things the *right* way?

    Besides, lawyers are known for being pilfering grabasses who worship money - IMHO, they'd jump at the chance!

  260. Too bad the CRIA is on the case up here.... by Mashiki · · Score: 1

    They are already working on shafting us up here. Try the CRIA.

    http://www.globetechnology.com/servlet/story/RTG AM .20030801.gtjack0801/BNPrint/Technology/?mainhub=G

    The CPCC was a nice idea, it was only a short time before they found away around it tho.

    --
    Om, nomnomnom...
  261. CDs - Worthy Investment or Worthless Coaster? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I used to run an online newspaper, and one of the writers wrote this article about one year ago, I just felt it applied to the subject. It's kinda long, but a gooder.

    I'm sure all of you know what the fuck the internet is. If you don't, get your brain checked because there's tons of free shit on here that no one can control. One of which is mp3s. MP3S are DOWNRIGHT illegal under certain copyright laws; don't let anyone try to tell you otherwise. But really, if you're like me, who fucking cares? Most of the shit I find myself listening to I'll be lucky if I can find it on the internet never mind your local HMV. There was a recent publication on RTigger.com about the "practically legal mp3s" because they make decks with "mp3 capability" and "mp3 walkmans." Well, here is a quick retort: All companies that deal with mp3 reading products specifically "assume" that people who do use their products will actually buy the CD, encode it and then put many CD's onto a CD-R and play that (who the fuck buys CD's to make them mp3s?!?). Do you know why they assume this? They say this because they don't want to get in serious shit. Now, record companies can't sue companies who make this shit for supplying a means for people to rip off music more conveniently. It's like the fat ass called the record industry was trying to sit at the public toilet to take a big crap but instead slipped and fell down with their head crammed in the spot where everyone 'accidentally' pissed. I don't care either? You want to know why?
    "Hey! I'm at the fucking mall. Lets go play with our balls at HMV and see what kind of gay shit I can spend all my hard earned demi-taxed money on! Wow! I can buy some enri-gay e-gay-sius for a 'measly' twenty four." Wake up and smell the lack of your cold hard earned cash because it's gone to the record companies!
    Sure, the RIAA pleads that they are taking a record hit in loss of money for record sales. Well the big record companies have taken what artists produce and turned it into a commodity to be bought and sold to make profit on. I'm all up for buying discs from independent/smaller bands on small to half assed record labels (CD's that I like anyways). They are the ones that deserve our money.. The people who make music as music, not the ones who strive to go platinum and write their songs solely for that purpose. I can tell when a song was meant to hit chords with fans, it just lacks that raw emotion that music is supposed to convey. And none of this "we'll grab a poppy band, take their raw talent and hammer it out to what we want it to be like. Then we'll make a couple million CD's, pay a national music video station to play it over and over and then everyone just flocks to stores to buy that CD for that one song!" Christ. Movies cost hundreds of millions of dollars to make and produce and will usually sell AS MUCH or LESS THAN a CD! Don't give me any sort of crap that they make it back in theatres because a lot of decent movies that cost a pretty penny (more than a CD) doesn't even hit the theatres.
    I wrote the following a while back, but not on RTigger.com. I present a breakdown for your entertainment:
    (italicized bold face quotes are quotes from the RIAA page)

    "Then come marketing and promotion costs -- perhaps the most expensive part of the music business today. "
    Why do you have to promote music when fanatical fans already know about it? if your band is good enough, why do you have to push it? Is it to make money? (Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding!)

    "Because some consumers don't understand why the sales tag on a CD is so much higher than the cost of producing the actual physical disc, a cost, which in fact, has decreased over the years."
    What about tapes? I'm sure a tape costs 3x more to make than a CD, but yet when CD's came out (and the prices have NOT dropped that much) tapes remained the same price and CD's were higher. Now tapes are almost gone but CD's still cost the same? What? That's like getting 1 buck for every CD they make (cheaper cost)

    "That's probably why most co

    1. Re:CDs - Worthy Investment or Worthless Coaster? by Bendebecker · · Score: 1

      I agree.
      In addition:
      Sure consumer prices have risen, but look around! The products the movie industry is selling are a hell of a lot better than the crap they were producing in 1983! Just about every product in every industry is better! Sure, I'll pay $800 for a computer now. why? Cause it is a hell of a lot better than the $500 1983 model. Cd's haven't gotten better. If anything, Cd's are actually worse. If Cd's improved as much as the other products like movies, we would get not only the songs but the videos to each and every song, a video about the making of the music videos, a behind the scenes interview with the band, the producers, and the guys who actually made the cd, a video of a live performance of each of the songs, and a book written by the band detailing their entire creative process in the making the songs. Instead we are getting the same old crap. Would you pay $800 for a TRS-80 or $300 for an atari 2600? You are doing the equivalent each time you buy a cd.

      The music industry for the last two years seems to be trying to raise the prices of cds without anyone noticing. In 2000 I could get the newest cd for 20. By 2002 it costs me 22. Now I routinely see them selling at 24. At this rate, by 2010, cds will cost 36 dollars a piece. And they aren't getting any better. Enhanced cd's? All of em should already be enhanced. In fact, even then cds would still be behind.

      --
      There's a growing sense that even if The Future comes,
      most of us won't be able to afford it.
      -- Lemmy
    2. Re:CDs - Worthy Investment or Worthless Coaster? by sabat · · Score: 1

      The products the movie industry is selling are a hell of a lot better than the crap they were producing in 1983!

      Uh, who the hell actually thinks that? I hope you're talking about DVDs or something, and not fabulous new blockbuster innovations like Gigli.

      --
      I, for one, welcome our new Antichrist overlord.
  262. sorry stupid, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't believe that anyone who downloaded the album was too poor to buy it in the store.

    I am. Besides I would never have bothered to search through all the crap at the store to find the stuff that I like,( it isn't sold much anymore ) and to find out I liked it in the first place!

    In short, I listen to music because I could get it(and preview it) free off the internet. I probably wouldn't even listen to the radio much.

    1. Re:sorry stupid, by proj_2501 · · Score: 1

      Errrr, that was supposed to be 'everyone', not 'anyone' above.

      Although the namecalling really does make you look smart, coward.

  263. La RIAA est morte, vive la RIAA ! by turista · · Score: 1

    I agree.

    But the RIAA is committing suicide and will not be killed by any boycott.
    The "fear and awe" war will probably kill KaZaA. The users will, in fear, quit KaZaA. Just to start using systems like freenet that hide IP addresses and make filesharers really anonymous.
    Chinese cyberdissidents are already using freenet.

    Remember the RIAA vs Napster case. Napster was server based. The RIAA killed Napster (shutting down the server(s)) and eventually, gnutella-like, server free systems, (KaZaA and other) emerged.

    The RIAA is dead.

    The copyright laws on music, that were invented a hundred years ago as a response to a new technology: the gramophone, are dead. The Internet have made these laws obsolete. So the business based on these laws...

    Vive la musique !!

  264. Why not freenet? by siddhartha03 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Why don't we just use freenet? As far as I understand each person has a segment of the collective on their computer. Sort of like a gigantic RAID 5 array. Think about it, according to copywrite law it's fair use to only have small segments of copywrited material to use. Examples, you can use something like 30 seconds of a second or so many lines from a book. Because each person would only have that part everyone would get of scot free? Or no?

    --
    Sock puppets stole my sig.
  265. That would be Harvard, not MIT. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    BIG DIFFERENCE!!!

  266. Not, necessarily, hypocrisy.. by fallen1 · · Score: 1
    ...you people were crying for them to go after the individual pirates, instead of the technology that facilitates the piracy.

    First, I believe that the majority of the cries from the /. crowd were not to go after the individuals (as in teenagers, college students, and grandma) but the guys who do serious harm such as the Chinese/Hong Kong/etc/etc black market who are not only eroding the RIAA profit margin by a significant amount (much more than little Johnny down the street - even all the little Johnnies put together) but are themselves profiting in large amounts. The individual college student is, very likely, making jack shit from his downloading other than getting a college education without having to spend significant portions of his loans to put Mr. RIAA in a Ferrari.

    --

    Dream as if you'll live forever.
    Live as if you'll die tomorrow.
    ~Anonymous~

  267. Well, of course they target students by dacarr · · Score: 1
    Do you know any students with that kind of money?

    ...Bueller?

    --
    This sig no verb.
  268. Re: OT Lose/Loose by hesiod · · Score: 1

    > and you are the first person i've seen actually point it out [Lose v. Loose]

    Are you on crack? I've seen that pointed out hundreds of times. What site are YOU reading?

  269. At Least Call the Crime What It Is by serutan · · Score: 1

    This article makes some good points, but as usual it is permeated with the false notions of copyright as property and copyright infringement as theft. Nobody "owns" copyright; there are only copyright "holders," who have certain temporary rights granted by the government. Infringing those rights is not "stealing" even though it can cause financial loss. Arson, drunk driving, physical assault and a host of other things can cause financial loss, but we don't mislabel them as theft.

    This may seem like semantic nitpicking, but equating copyright with property makes it easier for RIAA members and others to miscast themselves as little old ladies chasing down purse snatchers. Purging those images is important if we ever hope to see the copyright system improved. The various arguments for copyright reform will get very little public sympathy if they are equated with legalizing stealing.

  270. Re: OT Lose/Loose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In most dialects of English, those sounds are the same. In fact, dictionary.com's and Merriam-Webster's phonetical representation of the two words are the same, except for the s-sound, which is said to have tone (i.e. it's z) in lose. Granted, that gives a slight shift in vowel as well, but it depends on the degree of tone in your z's, and non-native English speakers (like myself) usually don't hear any differance.

    By the way, you probably meant homophones (same pronounciation), not homonyms (same spelling and pronounciation).

  271. Re:Ah yes, just like 911. by d34thm0nk3y · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    because if the lefties start dividing the vote again GW friggin Bush will get his ass re-elected!

  272. What if you have an imperfect/incomplete copy? by Torqued · · Score: 1

    Is there a way to "split" MP3 files so that you don't have a "complete" copy of the song in one file?

    Then can we have software seamlessly play these "audio clips" by buffering the next file so you don't audibly perceive the "break" between the files?

    Could you be sued for having "audio clips" or pieces of a song?

    If I only have half of a Britney mp3, does that mean it's only "worth" $75,000? :)

  273. Universal Music Group LOWERS music CD prices by adsl · · Score: 1

    While the RIAA waste time and effort chasing the little people that the music industry have been overcharging for years, for their illegal music file swapping, we finally have a REAL Step forward. The music industry was already found guilty of overcharging for CDs and had to announce rebate procedures, but it seemed CDs still did not fall in price so their appeared to be no genuine effort to correct the real wrong. Well UMG (Vivendi) just announced they will lower the MSRP on all their music CDs to a max of $12.95 across the board. Finally we will have a price war and a more reasonable source of music as actual Sales prices will fall below the $12.95 especially is other companies are forced to act. And maybe this will help legal CD Sales climb. SO RIAA forget the little people and MAKE you owners join in pricing CDs as more regular prices.... Time for peace and more Sales of legal music.

  274. 150,000 for Petty Theft? by 1stflight · · Score: 1

    I you figure song swapping amounts to theft, then all the swappers are liable for is damages. Roughly 1.00 per song.... a far cry from the 150,000 the RIAA is demanding.

  275. In the UK by t_allardyce · · Score: 1

    Its fair enough for universities to be strict on this afterall it is their network/property. Its a shame though. Where i am in a UK university theres allot of filesharing but its in that stage where no-one really stops anything but at any moment it could all change and people could start making a fuss and id loose my mega-fat bandwidth ;) Im worried the RIAA or someone similar will start their crap in this country too.

    --
    This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
    1. Re:In the UK by nagora · · Score: 1

      If anyone needs proof education in the UK is at an all time low, your spelling and punctuation is it.

      --
      "Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
    2. Re:In the UK by t_allardyce · · Score: 1

      Lol tell me about it. I cant even be bothered to start up a spell check or OpenOffice because it takes so damn long on my crappy system. - Lazy and bad at english!

      --
      This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
    3. Re:In the UK by RATBOON · · Score: 1

      there is nothing to "worry" about. if u had half a brain you would realise that britain/europe doesnt have copyright legislation remotely similar to the dmca/other riaa-written laws. im going to uni in sept, and my 7gig ogg collection will be available to all.

      --
      ---- oh no - it's the RIAA and their $100000000 fine. I'm gonna take that so seriously...
    4. Re:In the UK by t_allardyce · · Score: 1

      Yes but someone in the government signed that tready to allow America to extradite any citizen without question. And seeing as we're becoming part of america and their crap we're gonna be following their rules sooner or later. Not to mention that everything america does britain copies (we should be sued for that copyright infringement).

      --
      This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
  276. Two words by TLouden · · Score: 1

    GOOD LUCK

    I'm having trouble believing that they'll sue millions of people for using file sharing clients. Just identifying them would be hell. To then track down and bring them to court. Yeah right.

    Let's see here, say 5 million U.S. file swappers (probably more but who really knows) and if they all drag it out in court we we see atleast 2 days per person and then say we use 5 judges in each state (is that possible, 250 lawyers each side and then the judges and juries) so that's 175 cases a day and say 5 days a week so... we'll all be dead before this is through.
    I didn't really research these numbers so they may not be quite right but still.

    --
    -Tim Louden
  277. Shouldn't flushing logs be very important now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can't we make a lot of these lawsuits against individuals go away just by making sure that logs get flushed?

    I know that flushing won't help in every case, but it would help anyone behind a NAT box with a large number of users (typically: students and employees). It would be a start.

    I know that the destruction of lending records is now an important issue for librarians -- because of potential abuses by the so-called "Patriot act". Shouldn't flushing logs become just as important for network administrators?

  278. DMCA vs. RIAA by AllynM · · Score: 1
    so why doesnt that kazaa maker (the one who just got kazaa-lite links banned from google), sue the RIAA based on their violation of the DMCA by reverse engineering kazaa to show the IP addresses of the connected users?

    --
    this sig was brought to you by the letter /.
  279. And What If She was a Proxie -- or Hijacked? by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 1
    And what if this woman's machine was only a conduit for a proxie that responded to KaZaA requests? Or her IP was hijacked?

    My point is that they have not inspected her hard drive and proven the files are on it. They have likely not even downloaded the files themselves. (Can you imagine a P2P user serving up 900 files to the same queue hog?)

    All that the RIAA has going for them so far is the contention that, at the other end of this IP address, were copyrighted files being offered for download that belong to our members. We never downloaded them ourselves -- just the hashes. We trust that her client KaZaA program was telling us the truth. (Hah!) We trust that the IP address we have truely identified this user.

    Unless they really did hack into her computer not using the information provided by the KaZaA client. Then she does have a case.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  280. No, the ammendment applies to the LAW by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    The law, in this case, states that damages can be up to $150,000 per song. That is excessive and hence unconstitutional.

    1. Re:No, the ammendment applies to the LAW by bennomatic · · Score: 1

      Don't forget, these are classified as "damages", not punitive fines. IANAL, but I believe that this is why it's not covered by the constitution.

      --
      The CB App. What's your 20?
  281. Question by SB5 · · Score: 1

    Is the RIAA really this stupid? They are now going after high school and college kids for money. ...

    Isn't that like trying to bleed water out of stone? Or more importantly pulling matter from a vacuum?

    --
    If what you are reading sounds funny, or sarcastic, lame, or stupid
    it is because it is supposed to be. just laugh
  282. A Couple Corrections... by AgentTim3 · · Score: 1
    Normally I wouldn't reply, but when an AC gets modded this high...
    their effective method of providing music...
    They've effectively inflated prices artificially and then fixed them in place. By having virtually 100% control over CD vendors they force everyone to pay 15-20 bucks for the latest cookie-cutter crap that barely qualifies as music, let alone art.

    ...tech elite...
    Real cute. I'm assuming the reverse of that would be the people that are so poor as to not have computers or have any friends with access to computers. You would have this non "tech elite" scrape together their cash in order to pay for albums that are priced at least 10x what they're worth? I call foul. Perhaps you're a bit worried that the "tech elite" could reproduce and burn CD's and maybe sell them to the non-elites for 3 or 4 dollars instead?

    ...doing "real" work...
    The RIAA quite arrogantly presumes that all artists are entitled to insane amounts of money regardless of the artistic or musical value of their work. Do you think Britney Spears truly cares about music as an art form? It's an artificially created market whose only purpose is to rake in cash. A true musician spends as much of their own time as they need to and focuses on music, not on making money.

    The fact that we even have a term "music industry" just shows how much we've shifted focus from actually creating innovative new art over to greedily making as much cash as possible. In 50 years what will this have done to our culture?

    Yes, destroying the RIAA and the mind-boggling greed that it stands for might actually make the world a better place. Hard to imagine, isn't it? Think about it.

    1. Re:A Couple Corrections... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Of course. Because the only music that's ever been successfully published by RIAA members are from people like Brittney Spears. It's not as if I can walk into Borders and have a selection of hundreds of artists, recorded at top quality, paying only for the music rather than $50 a month to some telco with no revenue at all going to the musician.

      If you're going to use extreme examples, expect to be treated as an idiot. And you, sir, are an idiot. Simply because Spears, Spice Girls, etc, are heavily promoted does NOT mean that these artists are the only ones published. They are the money spinners, the "artists" used to keep the industry afloat and make it less dangerous to subsidize less popular artists.

      Yes, destroying the RIAA and the mind-boggling greed that it stands for might actually make the world a better place. Hard to imagine, isn't it? Think about it.
      It would make the world a worse place. For better or worse, everyone in the country has access to a massive library of music that they wouldn't have if it wasn't for the music publishing industry. Limiting music to some high-tech elite and patrons of bars isn't going to make the world a better place.

      Extremists like you and the current RIAA need to get a grip and realise that blind moronic hatred of "the enemy" doesn't do anyone any good. Want free music? Create it. The RIAA isn't stopping you. The reason people rarely do isn't because the RIAA will not let them, it's that affective music distribution mechanisms are thin on the ground. The music publishing industry is probably the only one that exists at the moment. Rather than try to pointlessly and destructively wreck it, you might want to set up viable alternatives first: that means not merely creating mechanisms to distribute the music, but also fund the artists who create it.

      Not easy is it?

      All you achieve by destroying the music publishing industry before setting up an alternative is destroying the ONLY current viable mechanism for distributing music. How the FUCK does that make the world a better place?

    2. Re:A Couple Corrections... by Sj0 · · Score: 1


      He who says "I'm surrounded by idiots" often finds himself in a hall of mirrors.

      Welcome to slashdot, home of anti-RIAA. Unless you are ready to defend the sleaziest bunch of scumbags out there, I'd quit while I'm ahead if I were you.

      --
      It's been a long time.
    3. Re:A Couple Corrections... by AgentTim3 · · Score: 1
      And you, sir, are a fool. If I may, allow me to attempt to pull your key points out of this morass of filth.

      -- Everone in the county has access to a massive library of music...

      Completely, 100% untrue. I'd go so far as to say that I know of NO ONE that has true access. For every ONE song I want to actually listen to repeatedly, I have to give your wonderful Borders 20 bucks for a CD that is filled with songs that I didn't want. Suppose I want to go home with the day's Top 100 Hits after hearing them on the radio. Your incredible mythical massive library of music is gonna charge me around TWO GRAND for that. You're gonna have to work a heck of a lot harder to convince me how this is possibly good. Don't sit there and make up terms like high tech elite when your own system caters to the economically elite. Or perhaps you'd like to tell me how exactly the Borders in your middle-class suburban neighborhood is distributing this massive library of music to inner-city kids that may have trouble just scraping up lunch money?

      -- There's no viable alternative...

      Hello?? Well golly gee then what are all these lawsuits from the RIAA about? For a completely nonviable alternative, they sure seem to be awful worried about the INTERNET. Why don't you go tell them it sucks for distributing music and they can quit spending all this money on their lawyers trying to get people to quit using it?

      -- Only the tech elite will have access...

      I'll even answer this one for you. Everybody in America more or less has access to a public library right? Let me spell this out: Computer. Internet connection. CD Burner. Blank CD's, 3 or 4 bucks a pop. Want music distributed to everyone? There ya go. Profits from the blanks can help support the library or go to the starving artist fund since you seem to concerned about them.

      -- Last one, funding the artists.

      I know I just mentioned an answer to this, but your point isn't even valid. Artists don't need any extra funding. The ones that are actually good get by just fine. The ones that aren't can damn well get a second job. Besides, even that is FAR better than signing their life away with a greedy record company. Have you seen the terms of those contracts?? All those little strings attached do nothing but fund the greed of the whole industry. It's astonishing to me that anyone thinks the actions of the RIAA are defensible. How can you possibly talk about a need to fund artists when the existing industry solution to fund them practically forces them into slavery?

      So let's see, we'll destroy the old, corrupt, greedy system and replace it with one that truly does provide music for free to everyone. Yes my friend, that does make the world a better place.

    4. Re:A Couple Corrections... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For every ONE song I want to actually listen to repeatedly, I have to give your wonderful Borders 20 bucks for a CD that is filled with songs that I didn't want.

      Ooooh, not content with pretending that the ONLY music ever published by the recording industry is Brittney, you now go for the "It costs $20" argument. $20 eh? I think the most expensive CD I've bought recently that wasn't, say, a complete Opera, was about $14. That, to me, is a pricy CD.

      But, ok, so you have to pay $10 for a bunch of songs of which only one you like (hey, that's nothing, back in the days of singles - oh wait, they still exist - I had to pay $1 for a whole three minutes of music when it was only the guitar solo I liked!), so what? Does this change the fact that the music you wanted was produced, published, and delivered to you? Does the fact that you had to buy a few songs you didn't like - you do know though that there's a "skip track" button on your CD player don't you? - mean that the music wasn't available to you?

      No? Oh, you're *exaggerating*. Well, I'm not, Bucko.

      Hello?? Well golly gee then what are all these lawsuits from the RIAA about? For a completely nonviable alternative, they sure seem to be awful worried about the INTERNET. Why don't you go tell them it sucks for distributing music and they can quit spending all this money on their lawyers trying to get people to quit using it?

      Are we talking about the same Internet? I mean, the one I use:

      • Requires equipment costing hundreds of dollars to connect
      • Requires a regular payment of about $40, minimum, a MONTH to connect to get speeds reasonable enough to consider using to download music.
      • Is ONLY a distribution mechanism. It doesn't fund the creation of music, and it's a rare work indeed that exists because the Internet made it possible.

      You know, before the RIAA were on the backs of file traders, they were on the backs of criminal groups of mass CD and tape duplicators who'd mass copy a copyrighted work and sell the copies at markets. Are you going to argue that that's a viable alternative to the music publishing industry as well?

      I know I just mentioned an answer to this, but your point isn't even valid. Artists don't need any extra funding. The ones that are actually good get by just fine. The ones that aren't can damn well get a second job. Besides, even that is FAR better than signing their life away with a greedy record company. Have you seen the terms of those contracts?? All those little strings attached do nothing but fund the greed of the whole industry. It's astonishing to me that anyone thinks the actions of the RIAA are defensible. How can you possibly talk about a need to fund artists when the existing industry solution to fund them practically forces them into slavery?

      Jesus Christ on a Pogo-stick. You're not Hanzo San by any chance are you?

      Artists who get on fine because they're good get on fine because they're paid because they're good. And don't come up with any "But they can make all their money from live performances" BS either, because the last thing I'm going to do is go to a Fat Boy Slim or Orb concert.

      As far as the contracts with record companies go, no, it's not "slavery". They're occasionally unfair, though by and large the recording industry is the group taking most of the risks. They have to fund the production of the music, the duplication, the publicity, the passing it on to record shops - oh, and the latter tend to take a hefty chunk of the CD price anyway.

      Congratulations, you've now repeated four of the most assinine arguments of the "anti-RIAA" mob ("They're screwing the artists!", "The Internet! The Internet!", "CDs cost $20!", "All the RIAA members ever publish is crap Brittney Spears rubbish!"), and you even included "It's astonishing to me that anyone thinks the actions of the RIAA are defensible.". Given I described the RIAA itself as a bunch of extremists, and

    5. Re:A Couple Corrections... by AgentTim3 · · Score: 1
      If you want to stop spewing rhetoric, then consider actually answering the following points:

      Your money argument simply does not hold up. Let's say every CD only does cost 10 dollars. I'm happy to give you the benefit of the doubt on this. Now, minus an initial cost an Internet connection costs 40 bucks. For 40 bucks a month therefore I can have:
      1) 4 CD's with tracks that have been arbitrarily chosen for me.
      2) True availability of all music that's ever been digitized and uploaded to the net.

      Isn't it obvious which one makes more sense?

      You also keep claiming it doesn't fund the creation of music. Please explain to me how exactly we require either the existing music industry or a "viable alternative" in order to keep having music created.

  283. Terrorism and Police Chase Videos by t_allardyce · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Instead of resorting to terrorism, maybe the RIAA should leave catching criminals to the police, then we can see how much the local law enforcement agencies actually care that some 19 year-old is downloading music. I think you'll find they dont give a shit.

    If not then sometime in the future "The Worlds Wildest Police Videos" will have some kid who has taken to his car because the police smashed his door down at 6am to confiscate his computers and arrest him - not for terrorism, child-porn, or drugs but for mp3's. Then he drives off and ends up causing numerous crashes and deaths as the police tail him before the police flip his car, drag him to the ground and beat him into submission (and smash his ipod). I'll be laughing my ass off as that retired sherif presenter Bunel? says with complete seriousness "This young criminal thought he could listen to music without paying... but after crushing 3 kids to death and causing 1000's of dollars worth of damage and millions of dollars worth of record company loss... he is shown, that music pirates, always end up in jail!" and at that moment, i will know that the US has completely lost the plot.

    --
    This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
  284. Sure it will by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    Pre-eairly teens generally have no external income. For a number of reasons it isn't easy to get employment at this age. There are exceptions, but by and large they don't have jobs. So the money comes from mom and dad. Well, if mom and dad decide the RIAA is evil and don't let their kids buy music, that is that.

    also don't underestimate the university crowd. they spend plenty on music. A boycott doesn't have to be 100% to be effective. If they loose 50% of their sales, that would probably be enough to drive them out of bussiness.

    1. Re:Sure it will by Prior+Restraint · · Score: 1

      Well, if mom and dad decide the RIAA is evil and don't let their kids buy music, that is that.

      You're making the assumption that Mom and Dad won't cave when their child throws a temper tantrum. These days, that assumption isn't an especially safe one.

    2. Re:Sure it will by ThePeices · · Score: 1

      yeah i see your point, but kids at that age will constantly pester their parents into buying them that CD, and never underestimate the power of a screaming tantrum throwing kid at that age... The parents arguments on how the reality is that the RIAA is just plain evil will fall on deaf ears, the kid will neither really understand nor care. And of course, parents would always want their kids to have the latest and cool in product/music of the month. Just look at how popular those Tamagotchies (sp) got (those little keyring virtual pets)..they were a huge late 90's fad, and no kid was cool without one (just an example). Its the same with the current fad of pop trash that gets played on mainstream radio. Kids, especially at a very impressionable age, are a huge market, and easily swayed by advertising.

  285. Put on an appropriate disclaimer/charges warning.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Pop up a warning on any P-to-P server/client to the effect that "Employees of the RIAA, their servants, contractors and affiliates or former such may only upload or download using this program but on condition of a $250 000 payment for initial use of this program and $150 000 per song title examined prior to download.. to *both* the authors of this program and to the person they are P-to-P ing with. Furthermore, by installation of any such program, the above said RIAA employees, servants, contractors, affiliate or former such may only run this P-to-P software after payment of $1 000 000 to the authors/programmers of said P-to-P software..." This not only solves the previously mentioned "problem" of "authority to search" because "we are not a law enforcement agency", but also provides a significant financial disincentive for the RIAA to go rummaging through the hard drives of others.

    So, get in on the best act in town.. fill your hard drive with Peruvian flute players playing tunes with names like "Satisfaction" and "Like a Rolling Stone" and church choirs with names like "Madonna"... then cash in, or watch the RIAA take a step backwards.

  286. She can't possibly be using that defense.... by SiliconJesus101 · · Score: 1
    Basically, they do not have to illegally search your machine. As I understand, in a P2P environment you are offering up files for the whole world to see and download. This would be similar to someone setting up a strret corner kiosk to trade pirated copies of CD's. If the RIAA happens to stop by your publicly open kiosk and see what you have I would most definitely think that they would be free to pursue it however the felt necessary. Now, if you had pirated CD's in your home...and they kicked the door down and searched your premises, this would be called burglary.

    Basically, if you are offering to the public anyone can swing by and take a little look to see what you have. This is not intercepting and monitoring her internet activity...this is simply walking into her shop that is open to the public.

    --

    "The strong will do what they want, the weak will do what they must."
    -Thucydides

  287. new pirating technique by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ive just heard of this new pirating technique, maybe you all would like to try it. Ive heard that there are companies that send songs out into the air, and all you need to recieve it is something called an antenna? Well apparently you can recieve all of this media FREE OF CHARGE. Ive also heard that if you attach what is known as a "tape recorder" you can then transfer this signal over to a "cassette tape" From this "cassette tape" you can listen to this song as much as you want. Shh!, dont tell anyone, it can be our little secret.

  288. Additionally... by LordK2002 · · Score: 1

    "nycfashiongirl" will be instructed to pay a fine of USD 10000 for having a bloody crap screen name.

    Honestly, can you get any more cliched and unoriginal than having BOTH "fashion" AND "girl" in your nickname? Unless you are a bloke, of course.

    K

  289. CD recovery by Doug+Neal · · Score: 1

    my second one is so scratched up as to be unlistenable.

    Have you tried wearing down the scratches with a toothpaste and toothbrush, and then running the whole disc through cdparanoia on full paranoia mode? With a decent drive you'll be absolutely amazed at what it can recover. I bet you'd be able to get full CD quality audio out of it. And then re-burn it of course. Then you won't have to put up with everyone else's crappy 128kbps Xing-encoded rips :)

  290. How to sell more CD's in an era of filesharing by Art_Vandelai · · Score: 1

    Simple - just release more songs (a greater variety) more frequently and for a shorter duration. Who said that "singles" had to have a run of 6 months up and down the Top 40. Put the song in your playlist for a month, and then slowly decrease its availability. Then next month, issue another song from the same album. People then won't have an excuse - if I have heard and like 5 or 6 songs off an album, I'd be far more likely to purchase it, instead of downloading that one single. One of the biggest complaints about the industry today is the lack of variety. Every day, the same 30 songs get repeated over and over on most stations. It's gotten to the point where you can almost set your watch by the time that Linkin Park is going to be on the air.

  291. So, why not create a viable alternative ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I mean, implement some kind of P2P software which will ensure (to some extent) that no illegal (RIAA owned) music nor illegal metadata (filenames and locations of illegal files) will go through user's machine ?
    For example, use certificates to control from which machines user can mirror files and/or listings. User can suck a set of certificates for sites he will trust. Eventually get his own cerificate (from somewhere) and be able to publish his works.
    Software itself doesn't need to block anything. It needs to which music files are 'unsafe' and clearly maintain responsibilities and remember origins of all music files distributed.
    Technically it's perfectly possible. Legally - at least better than current P2P implementations. Such architecture and some notes in readme and/or license should take away at least some arguments from RIAA thie^H^H^H^Hlawyers.

  292. some musicians don't deserve the money by seriv · · Score: 1

    Music isn't about the money, it should be about the music. The true musicians don't care who downloads, but be happy their music is being listened to. The RIAA is just proving what some "musicians" really care about, the Money. -Seriv

  293. Re:brockman - well played by 514x0r · · Score: 1

    2 simpsons quotes in one post. well done my man.

    for my fealings on the riaa, i'll stick with my .sig

    --

    !(^((ri)|(mp))aa$)
  294. Possible strategy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The 8th ammendment is against cruel and unusual punishment and excessive fines. I wonder if the charges could be called unconstitutional from the perspective that a felony and 150K is excessive. This especially might hold true when multiple counts get brought forward for insane totals (22 Million, etc)
    Just a thought...

  295. Re:fear (dis)affection by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

    fear is deeper: less controllable, less rationalizable, and mostly, extremely personal.


    I don't believe this. Actually, I think the opposite. Fear is more controllable, and more rational. A person who is afraid if shown why they should not be afraid may be convinced. Show a person who is in love why they should not be in love, and you will get a range of reactions between denial and outright aggression against you.

    Fear is fundamentally more rational because fear is nothing but the emotional expression of the survival instinct. When survival is assured, then fear is minimal. When survival is in question, then fear increases. People are afraid of things because they believe those things may damage their ability to survive. It's cause and effect, and if you can prove to someone that the cause they are concerned about won't cause the effect they fear (death), then that fear can be assuaged.

    Even fear of the unknown follows this (if you don't know what it is, how do you determine whether it will kill you?) and is the easiest for others to use because maintaining the fear merely requires maintaining the ignorance of the fearful. But educate the ignorant fearful and they might not be afraid anymore.

    Fear can be irrational, of course, just as everything humans do can be. But we have a word for irrational fear: Phobia.

    Irrational love, however, is redundant. Love is also extremely personal because each person's reasons for loving are different. Most people have a difficult time explaining why they are in love, beyond poetic metaphor.

    expressions of love and hate are the currency of social discouse, but cognition of fear cannot be shared, cannot be amortized, cannot be assuaged by anyone except the one feeling the fear. thus, fear is more valuable because it cannot be parlayed once planted.

    Fear is the currency of social discourse. When do love and hate even come up? Fear is what drives the news, the issues, and the debates. The economy, unemployment, terrorism, Saddam Hussein's WMDs, Texas redistricting. It's all fear.

    Cognition of fear can absolutely be shared, since fear almost always has a "cause" that leads to an undesired "effect" which is what the person fears. These are the real-world foundations of fear that we can discuss and rationalize about. Since everyone has a common basis for our fears (survival instinct) it is a uniquely shareable emotion.

    these things everyone knows, some people use, and some some people abuse.

    The reason fear is abused is because it is the easiest thing to share, and thus the easiest thing to use on the masses. Causing fear is as easy as convincing someone that something will likely kill/harm them. It has nothing to do with the difficulty in removing fear. In fact, the abusers know how fragile fear can be in the face of knowledge. This is why we hear only vague threats of danger and hints of proof, and why the "Terror Alert" does nothing but provide an abstract "fear level" rather than any specific, useful information.

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
  296. Watching the Watchers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am interested by the part from the article:

    Mr Oppenheim also said the RIAA was immume
    from rules on unreasonable searches on the
    internet, because it did not have links with
    law enforcement agencies.

    Does this mean if there was an organization to conduct surveillance of RIAA member activites on the internet, it would also be immune from unreasonable search "rules", so long as it is not associated with law enforcement?

    I wonder if all of their on-line activities are saintly...

  297. Meanwhile in Canada... "nyah nyah" by EvilAlien · · Score: 1
    What about "bite" and "me"?

    Here is an interesting article on Canadian copyright: Will Canada become THE file sharing nation?

    Here is what the Copyright Board's decision stated in regards to "Private copying":

    On March 19, 1998, Part VIII of the Copyright Act dealing with private copying came into force. Until that time, copying any sound recording for almost any purpose infringed copyright, although, in practice, the prohibition was largely unenforceable. The amendment to the Act legalized copying of sound recordings of musical works onto audio recording media for the private use of the person who makes the copy (referred to as "private copying"). In addition, the amendment made provision for the imposition of a levy on blank audio recording media to compensate authors, performers and makers who own copyright in eligible sound recordings being copied for private use. The Copyright Board's decision issued today sets a levy for this purpose.

    - from Copyright Board's Decision Private Copying 1999-2000

    This is something else entirely from distribution of someone elses' protected works. To deal with that angle, the government appears to be engaging in a misguided attempt to go after ISPs.
    --
    perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5, (41*2), sqrt(7056), (unpack(c,H)-2), oct(115), 10)'
  298. People are generally stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    (Read subject line). This whole RIAA industry thing will simply go away if people completely stop buying music and going to concerts (oh my God! what a crazy suggestion). Dont download illegally...listen to the radio and/or support independant artists. YOU DONT NEED TO HAVE THAT BRITINY SPEARS CD (yuck!) or go to her concerts and YOU DONT NEED TO DOWNLOAD MP3s of her music. You can bet the RIAA will fade away into non-existance if they start feeling it in the pocket book. Until such a protest the RIAA will continue with their tactics.

  299. DOSE ANYONE SEE WHERE THIS IS GOING?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is just the RIAA trying to get the $$$ up this year so that they don't have to report a loss again.

    "What do you MEAN people won't pay $19 for a CD?! It cost at LEAST $1.00 to make for christssake!"

  300. The RIAA, the file sharers and poor suckers.... by GeekedyGeekGeek · · Score: 1

    The truth is, both sides are somewhat in the wrong here, trying to stand up and be strident about the right to download and share something that is copyrighted, wether you bought a copy or not is a bit silly, I don't for one instant think I have the "right" to download music, software or anything else that I would normally have to pay a fee for, regardless of the reasons, has the internet made it possible and fairly easy to obtain software, music and movies without actually purchasing it? Obviously, does the fact that untill recently you had to bascially call the owner of the copyright and tell them you downloaded something of theirs without permission in order to get caught make it wrong for the RIAA to say it's wrong of us to do it?? No. The RIAA is not wrong (much as it pains me to say it) when it says that it's illegal to distribute freely copyrighted materials, period, where they are wrong and make themselves look like fools is that they try to tell us that their sagging sales are due to piracy, that is patent nonsense, their sagging sales is due to the immense ammount of peurile crap that they spend money promoting and distributing, net pirates are not the reason that the audio equivallent to an enema that Sony just spend 5 million marketing hasn't sold more than 10,000 copies, the music industry got used to putting whatever they thought was "sellable" on the fast track, print some t-shirts, some posters, put 'em on TRL and send them across the country for different banal and vapid DJ's to fawn over and hey presto, we got a winner, well the music listening public has stopped swallowing the rancid pap that the music industry extrudes and we're forcing people who have no talent or taste or vision to decide what might or might not be good music, that's why their sales are lagging, the fact that their heads are so hideously driven into their own rectums and they are so out of touch with modern tastes and sensibilities. Period, the other reason the RIAA is making themselves look the fool is their draconian scare tactics and bullying techniques, sueing and threatening children who have very little idea what the consequences to their actions are is simply stupid, kids today don't realise that file sharing is a crime and their parents don't have the knowledge to educate them about net ettiquette and laws, this technology was nowhere near as prevalent for people in their late 30's and 40's. As for the folks doing the deed, plain and simple, it IS illegal, it may be convenient and we may have gotten used to the ease of doing it, but that doesn't make it right or legal. Much as I have participated, and most likely will continue to participate, I do not go forward thinking I am blameless or innocent of a crime, I know damned well that I am doing something illegal and if caught well, grab my ankles I suppose. Anyway.. them's my two bits.. like it matters.

    1. Re:The RIAA, the file sharers and poor suckers.... by GeekedyGeekGeek · · Score: 1

      God get me on a soapbox and my grammatical sense goes right out the window eh?? Ah well, 'least I had my bitchfest.

  301. FreeNet ?? by Bucci.com.br · · Score: 1

    Your problems are all solved : http://freenet.sourceforge.net/

  302. Re:Crappie Music by acxr+is+wasted · · Score: 1

    Linkin Park SUCKS!!!!!

    --
    "Come on, let's go drink till we can't feel feelings anymore."
  303. Re:Bill of rights - Amendment VIII by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The amendment does not say "nor excessive fines imposed in criminal cases." It merely says that no excessive fines may be imposed, period.

  304. The Trials and Tribulations of HanzoSan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Dana Edwards was feeling a little disheartened. It had been nearly a week since he'd contacted Peacecorp and applied for a tour of duty in the Congo. He had hoped all week that his weight problem, chronic acne and asthma would not discount him from the program. Dana had been in some financial strife for a couple years now, with those tuition fees from Massachusets Bay Community College piling up. This was particularly stressful for him because, despite having taught himself to read and posessing an impressive intellect, he could not find a decent slack-off job with internet connection that would support his slashdot posting habit. Dana belched while he tapped his cordless phone and stuffed his hand into a bag of Cheetos. Dana, a Jack of All Trades had also been unsuccessful for several years in his attempts to get a night DJ position at a local AM radio station within walking distance of his mother's house. This distressed him, because being a DJ would be such a natural part-time job for him, being a skilled musician on the side. Alas, he waited still and finished the last fluid ounce of his Mountain Dew.

    Peacecorp was going to change that. Where his business sense would have failed him in the Merchant Marines and his poor physical condition were not up to snuff for the military, he felt Peacecorp would welcome him with open arms and take his student loan burden off his hands.

    "Education equals genius. Genius is good for society. I'll show them, I'm going to buck the status quo. I'm going to make a difference, I'll show them what a poor kid from the ghetto is capable of." Dana thought to himself.

    Dana had not shaven for five days, but his greasy facial hair never became very thick, even after weeks of neglect. It grew in a thin, spotty Fu Manchu pattern. Best described, his whiskers resembled soot smeared on his greasy jowels. He scratched at his armpit and pulled the tightening fabric of his pajama pants out of his groin and sighed with relief.

    "Aaaah."

    Dana was glad that the weekend had finally come around. His Computer Repair Fundamentals and Sociology classes were starting to really dig in. He blamed the teacher for sucking, and was utterly convinced that his superior intellect would reward him with first in his graduating class of 40. He was certain that the same outcome would happen if he got into MIT, but that would never happen. The rich bastards would never give him a fair chance on a level playing field. The MIT bastards hate nerds, just like everybody else. That was alright though, Dana already knew he was superior to most of them anyway. Their facilities were only useful to the superficial.

    Dana loosened up a bit by putting some music on the 'juke. He got a free MP3 jukebox from his mother and slapped an "RIAA SUCKS" bumper sticker on the side of it. Dana was vehemently opposed to the ownership and licensing of intellectual property, especially music. Dana downloaded all his favourite Pink Floyd tracks off the internet and onto the jukebox, and this brought a small amount of joy to his empty life.

    "Damn the man!" he exclaimed, raising a fist as his gut flopped out of his oil-stained ThinkGeek t-shirt.

    Ice T and Fred Durst alone had practically paved the way to justified downloads of all music ever created and served up on KaZaa. And so, Dana sat in in front of his monitor listening to The Wall, waiting for a reply from Peacecorp.

    His mother slipped in to his room briefly to set down a balogna and cheese sandwich in front of him while he fired up a beta version of Transgaming on his Pentium 166 with MMX.

    "Mom, why don't you hate the RIAA?"

    She shrugged, rolled her eyes and closed the door to his room on the way out.

    "She forgot to cut off the crusts." Dana held back the tears and ate the sandwich anyway.


    [montemplar] wuzzup hanz0?

    A privmsg came up on his IRC client. Dana had adopted the "handle" HanzoSan after his Japanese c

  305. Abolish copyrights. by Thinkit3 · · Score: 1

    And the RIAA can just do publicity for shows.

    --
    -Libertarian secular transhumanist
  306. The Trials and Tribulations of HanzoSan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Dana Edwards was feeling a little disheartened. It had been nearly a week since he'd contacted Peacecorp and applied for a tour of duty in the Congo. He had hoped all week that his weight problem, chronic acne and asthma would not discount him from the program. Dana had been in some financial strife for a couple years now, with those tuition fees from Massachusets Bay Community College piling up. This was particularly stressful for him because, despite having taught himself to read and posessing an impressive intellect, he could not find a decent slack-off job with internet connection that would support his slashdot posting habit. Dana belched while he tapped his cordless phone and stuffed his hand into a bag of Cheetos. Dana, a Jack of All Trades had also been unsuccessful for several years in his attempts to get a night DJ position at a local AM radio station within walking distance of his mother's house. This distressed him, because being a DJ would be such a natural part-time job for him, being a skilled musician on the side. Alas, he waited still and finished the last fluid ounce of his Mountain Dew.

    Peacecorp was going to change that. Where his business sense would have failed him in the Merchant Marines and his poor physical condition were not up to snuff for the military, he felt Peacecorp would welcome him with open arms and take his student loan burden off his hands.

    "Education equals genius. Genius is good for society. I'll show them, I'm going to buck the status quo. I'm going to make a difference, I'll show them what a poor kid from the ghetto is capable of." Dana thought to himself.

    Dana had not shaven for five days, but his greasy facial hair never became very thick, even after weeks of neglect. It grew in a thin, spotty Fu Manchu pattern. Best described, his whiskers resembled soot smeared on his greasy jowels. He scratched at his armpit and pulled the tightening fabric of his pajama pants out of his groin and sighed with relief.

    "Aaaah."

    Dana was glad that the weekend had finally come around. His Computer Repair Fundamentals and Sociology classes were starting to really dig in. He blamed the teacher for sucking, and was utterly convinced that his superior intellect would reward him with first in his graduating class of 40. He was certain that the same outcome would happen if he got into MIT, but that would never happen. The rich bastards would never give him a fair chance on a level playing field. The MIT bastards hate nerds, just like everybody else. That was alright though, Dana already knew he was superior to most of them anyway. Their facilities were only useful to the superficial.

    Dana loosened up a bit by putting some music on the 'juke. He got a free MP3 jukebox from his mother and slapped an "RIAA SUCKS" bumper sticker on the side of it. Dana was vehemently opposed to the ownership and licensing of intellectual property, especially music. Dana downloaded all his favourite Pink Floyd tracks off the internet and onto the jukebox, and this brought a small amount of joy to his empty life.

    "Damn the man!" he exclaimed, raising a fist as his gut flopped out of his oil-stained ThinkGeek t-shirt.

    Ice T and Fred Durst alone had practically paved the way to justified downloads of all music ever created and served up on KaZaa. And so, Dana sat in in front of his monitor listening to The Wall, waiting for a reply from Peacecorp.

    His mother slipped in to his room briefly to set down a balogna and cheese sandwich in front of him while he fired up a beta version of Transgaming on his Pentium 166 with MMX.

    "Mom, why don't you hate the RIAA?"

    She shrugged, rolled her eyes and closed the door to his room on the way out.

    "She forgot to cut off the crusts." Dana held back the tears and ate the sandwich anyway.

    [montemplar] wuzzup hanz0?

    A privmsg came up on his IRC client. Dana had adopted the "handle" HanzoSan after his Japanese classma

  307. Safe song uploading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Last year I uploaded ~20,000 songs on Gnutella. It is fun to look on Gnutella now and still see some in circulation. I have downloaded ~30 songs max from gnutella. I am into P2P to attack the music industry, not to get music. I would much rather get compressed music from my CD's, CD's from freinds, and CDs from the library. I know where songs come from, and I can record them in higher quality compression. I could distribute the songs through giving CDs away, but P2P is the killer app that will hurt the music industry.

    It seems to me that part of the key is staying under the radar of the RIAA. Using Gnutella makes it possible to avoid all the attention being paid to the Kazaa site right now. Also, I only upload Oggs. Not only do they sound better, they are less likely to raise the hackles of the RIAA who focus on mp3s. Also, I can say in a court of law that I don't trade mp3s. Also, I don't use my own computer to do the trading. We use win98 computers at my university, and I installed gnucleus on them. Also, the computers are hooked up through dynamic IP, so it will be harder to trace which computer was actually trading. Finally, I have extensive blocking hopefully denying the RIAA and it's minions access to my files. This may cut out some legitimate users, but it is better overall. I also have my deny file as one of the files I share so that other users can pick it up.

    I hope this is helpful to others who want to upload files without having a police record. The security is obviously not good. What we really need is a secure P2P network among invitation-only members. You will be more likely to get music that you like, and it is much less likely that the RIAA will be able to snoop.

    Go Share!

  308. The Trials and Tribulations of HanzoSan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Dana Edwards was feeling a little disheartened. It had been nearly a week since he'd contacted Peacecorp and applied for a tour of duty in the Congo. He had hoped all week that his weight problem, chronic acne and asthma would not discount him from the program. Dana had been in some financial strife for a couple years now, with those tuition fees from Massachusets Bay Community College piling up. This was particularly stressful for him because, despite having taught himself to read and posessing an impressive intellect, he could not find a decent slack-off job with internet connection that would support his slashdot posting habit. Dana belched while he tapped his cordless phone and stuffed his hand into a bag of Cheetos. Dana, a Jack of All Trades had also been unsuccessful for several years in his attempts to get a night DJ position at a local AM radio station within walking distance of his mother's house. This distressed him, because being a DJ would be such a natural part-time job for him, being a skilled musician on the side. Alas, he waited still and finished the last fluid ounce of his Mountain Dew.

    Peacecorp was going to change that. Where his business sense would have failed him in the Merchant Marines and his poor physical condition were not up to snuff for the military, he felt Peacecorp would welcome him with open arms and take his student loan burden off his hands.

    "Education equals genius. Genius is good for society. I'll show them, I'm going to buck the status quo. I'm going to make a difference, I'll show them what a poor kid from the ghetto is capable of." Dana thought to himself.

    Dana had not shaven for five days, but his greasy facial hair never became very thick, even after weeks of neglect. It grew in a thin, spotty Fu Manchu pattern. Best described, his whiskers resembled soot smeared on his greasy jowels. He scratched at his armpit and pulled the tightening fabric of his pajama pants out of his groin and sighed with relief.

    "Aaaah."

    Dana was glad that the weekend had finally come around. His Computer Repair Fundamentals and Sociology classes were starting to really dig in. He blamed the teacher for sucking, and was utterly convinced that his superior intellect would reward him with first in his graduating class of 40. He was certain that the same outcome would happen if he got into MIT, but that would never happen. The rich bastards would never give him a fair chance on a level playing field. The MIT bastards hate nerds, just like everybody else. That was alright though, Dana already knew he was superior to most of them anyway. Their facilities were only useful to the superficial.

    Dana loosened up a bit by putting some music on the 'juke. He got a free MP3 jukebox from his mother and slapped an "RIAA SUCKS" bumper sticker on the side of it. Dana was vehemently opposed to the ownership and licensing of intellectual property, especially music. Dana downloaded all his favourite Pink Floyd tracks off the internet and onto the jukebox, and this brought a small amount of joy to his empty life.

    "Damn the man!" he exclaimed, raising a fist as his gut flopped out of his oil-stained ThinkGeek t-shirt.

    Ice T and Fred Durst alone had practically paved the way to justified downloads of all music ever created and served up on KaZaa. And so, Dana sat in in front of his monitor listening to The Wall, waiting for a reply from Peacecorp.

    His mother slipped in to his room briefly to set down a balogna and cheese sandwich in front of him while he fired up a beta version of Transgaming on his Pentium 166 with MMX.

    "Mom, why don't you hate the RIAA?"

    She shrugged, rolled her eyes and closed the door to his room on the way out.

    "She forgot to cut off the crusts." Dana held back the tears and ate the sandwich anyway.

    [montemplar] wuzzup hanz0?

    A privmsg came up on his IRC client. Dana had adopted the "handle" HanzoSan after his Japanese classmate

  309. The Trials and Tribulations of HanzoSan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Dana Edwards was feeling a little disheartened. It had been nearly a week since he'd contacted Peacecorp and applied for a tour of duty in the Congo. He had hoped all week that his weight problem, chronic acne and asthma would not discount him from the program. Dana had been in some financial strife for a couple years now, with those tuition fees from Massachusets Bay Community College piling up. This was particularly stressful for him because, despite having taught himself to read and posessing an impressive intellect, he could not find a decent slack-off job with internet connection that would support his slashdot posting habit. Dana belched while he tapped his cordless phone and stuffed his hand into a bag of Cheetos. Dana, a Jack of All Trades had also been unsuccessful for several years in his attempts to get a night DJ position at a local AM radio station within walking distance of his mother's house. This distressed him, because being a DJ would be such a natural part-time job for him, being a skilled musician on the side. Alas, he waited still and finished the last fluid ounce of his Mountain Dew.

    Peacecorp was going to change that. Where his business sense would have failed him in the Merchant Marines and his poor physical condition were not up to snuff for the military, he felt Peacecorp would welcome him with open arms and take his student loan burden off his hands.

    "Education equals genius. Genius is good for society. I'll show them, I'm going to buck the status quo. I'm going to make a difference, I'll show them what a poor kid from the ghetto is capable of." Dana thought to himself.

    Dana had not shaven for five days, but his greasy facial hair never became very thick, even after weeks of neglect. It grew in a thin, spotty Fu Manchu pattern. Best described, his whiskers resembled soot smeared on his greasy jowels. He scratched at his armpit and pulled the tightening fabric of his pajama pants out of his groin and sighed with relief.

    "Aaaah."

    Dana was glad that the weekend had finally come around. His Computer Repair Fundamentals and Sociology classes were starting to really dig in. He blamed the teacher for sucking, and was utterly convinced that his superior intellect would reward him with first in his graduating class of 40. He was certain that the same outcome would happen if he got into MIT, but that would never happen. The rich bastards would never give him a fair chance on a level playing field. The MIT bastards hate nerds, just like everybody else. That was alright though, Dana already knew he was superior to most of them anyway. Their facilities were only useful to the superficial.

    Dana loosened up a bit by putting some music on the 'juke. He got a free MP3 jukebox from his mother and slapped an "RIAA SUCKS" bumper sticker on the side of it. Dana was vehemently opposed to the ownership and licensing of intellectual property, especially music. Dana downloaded all his favourite Pink Floyd tracks off the internet and onto the jukebox, and this brought a small amount of joy to his empty life.

    "Damn the man!" he exclaimed, raising a fist as his gut flopped out of his oil-stained ThinkGeek t-shirt.

    Ice T and Fred Durst alone had practically paved the way to justified downloads of all music ever created and served up on KaZaa. And so, Dana sat in in front of his monitor listening to The Wall, waiting for a reply from Peacecorp.

    His mother slipped in to his room briefly to set down a balogna and cheese sandwich in front of him while he fired up a beta version of Transgaming on his Pentium 166 with MMX.

    "Mom, why don't you hate the RIAA?"

    She shrugged, rolled her eyes and closed the door to his room on the way out.

    "She forgot to cut off the crusts." Dana held back the tears and ate the sandwich anyway.

    [montemplar] wuzzup hanz0?

    A privmsg came up on his IRC client. Dana had adopted the "handle" HanzoSan after his Japanese classmate O

  310. Yep, I read an earlier post.. by Kjella · · Score: 1

    ...which took P2P download numbers, and calculated that the RIAA can sue for more than the total GNP of the world, not only for one year, but the total GNP of the entire world since the beginning of time (since GNP on average grows, adding it up backwards in time it's a converging series and so a finite sum).

    The numbers are simply so mind-boggling high it defies all logic.

    Kjella

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  311. Yes and then Ill move to china by HanzoSan · · Score: 1

    I mean at that point China will be more free than the USA, when capitalism rules over government theres no democracy left to protect.

    --
    If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
  312. A hypothetical by Mike+Hawk · · Score: 1

    Disclaimer: Personally, I don't buy or infringe music because I don't find the medium very entertaining. Many posters here have argued that they share files because the RIAA member's business model is outdated. There have been arguements that one shares files because the money from your CD purchase does not go to the artist. Basically, this hypothetical is for anyone who is arguing they share because it is the right thing to do. Here it is: Imagine a system in which the artist negotiated directly with an online distributor to give them copyright. This distributor then would post the song for sale on their site for a nominal fee. No new rights would be created for the end-user, however. (Yeah, I know this sounds alot like Apple's system and others, but with the important difference in artist direct involvement and no RIAA in the picture at any stage.) This seems to get all the "evil corporation" stuff out of the picture leaving the relationship up to the artist to decide. If this all came to pass, would you stop sharing? If not, is there a viable system to profit the artist that would convince you to cease copyright infringement?

  313. To Helms Deep! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Take only provisions, Nothing that will slow us down.

  314. I'll explain by HanzoSan · · Score: 0, Offtopic



    Because my option is Big Gov with Dean, or even bigger Gov with Bush.

    We dont have any conservatives running for office right now.

    Also unlike Bush, Dean is actually intelligent, So this is the choice of the lessor of two evils.

    Third, Big Gov, or big Corporations, its the same result in the end, giving the RIAA more power and supporting big business = big corporate government.

    Bush wants a corporate controlled government while
    Dean wants a democracy.

    This is not about liberal vs conservative, because there are no conservatives running, you know Bush isnt, gov is bigger under Bush than it has ever been, Bush has spent us into a deficit, Bush supports corporate welfare.

    IF you fear Big Gov vote Bush out,if Dean is the one most likely to get Bush out, well then vote for Dean you fool.

    Its all about getting the current trash out.

    --
    If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
  315. The Trials and Tribulations of HanzoSan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Dana Edwards was feeling a little disheartened. It had been nearly a week since he'd contacted Peacecorp and applied for a tour of duty in the Congo. He had hoped all week that his weight problem, chronic acne and asthma would not discount him from the program. Dana had been in some financial strife for a couple years now, with those tuition fees from Massachusets Bay Community College piling up. This was particularly stressful for him because, despite having taught himself to read and posessing an impressive intellect, he could not find a decent slack-off job with internet connection that would support his slashdot posting habit. Dana belched while he tapped his cordless phone and stuffed his hand into a bag of Cheetos. Dana, a Jack of All Trades had also been unsuccessful for several years in his attempts to get a night DJ position at a local AM radio station within walking distance of his mother's house. This distressed him, because being a DJ would be such a natural part-time job for him, being a skilled musician on the side. Alas, he waited still and finished the last fluid ounce of his Mountain Dew.

    Peacecorp was going to change that. Where his business sense would have failed him in the Merchant Marines and his poor physical condition were not up to snuff for the military, he felt Peacecorp would welcome him with open arms and take his student loan burden off his hands.

    "Education equals genius. Genius is good for society. I'll show them, I'm going to buck the status quo. I'm going to make a difference, I'll show them what a poor kid from the ghetto is capable of." Dana thought to himself.

    Dana had not shaven for five days, but his greasy facial hair never became very thick, even after weeks of neglect. It grew in a thin, spotty Fu Manchu pattern. Best described, his whiskers resembled soot smeared on his greasy jowels. He scratched at his armpit and pulled the tightening fabric of his pajama pants out of his groin and sighed with relief.

    "Aaaah."

    Dana was glad that the weekend had finally come around. His Computer Repair Fundamentals and Sociology classes were starting to really dig in. He blamed the teacher for sucking, and was utterly convinced that his superior intellect would reward him with first in his graduating class of 40. He was certain that the same outcome would happen if he got into MIT, but that would never happen. The rich bastards would never give him a fair chance on a level playing field. The MIT bastards hate nerds, just like everybody else. That was alright though, Dana already knew he was superior to most of them anyway. Their facilities were only useful to the superficial.

    Dana loosened up a bit by putting some music on the 'juke. He got a free MP3 jukebox from his mother and slapped an "RIAA SUCKS" bumper sticker on the side of it. Dana was vehemently opposed to the ownership and licensing of intellectual property, especially music. Dana downloaded all his favourite Pink Floyd tracks off the internet and onto the jukebox, and this brought a small amount of joy to his empty life.

    "Damn the man!" he exclaimed, raising a fist as his gut flopped out of his oil-stained ThinkGeek t-shirt.

    Ice T and Fred Durst alone had practically paved the way to justified downloads of all music ever created and served up on KaZaa. And so, Dana sat in in front of his monitor listening to The Wall, waiting for a reply from Peacecorp.

    His mother slipped in to his room briefly to set down a balogna and cheese sandwich in front of him while he fired up a beta version of Transgaming on his Pentium 166 with MMX.

    "Mom, why don't you hate the RIAA?"

    She shrugged, rolled her eyes and closed the door to his room on the way out.

    "She forgot to cut off the crusts." Dana held back the tears and ate the sandwich anyway.

    [montemplar] wuzzup hanz0?

    A privmsg came up on his IRC client. Dana had adopted the "handle" HanzoSan after his Japanese classmate Oht

  316. Re:Ah yes, just like 911. by HanzoSan · · Score: 0, Offtopic



    You are a smart guy. You explained PERFECTLY.

    Can we all join forces for once, left and right and vote Bush out? We know Bush is not a conservative or a liberal so hes pissing off both sides here. He spends way too much money, and he cuts social programs at the same time.

    Dean is the most electable of the people running, hes a moderate, meaning no matter what side you are on, you can at least admit Dean would be better than Bush.

    I dont support Dean on everything, hes alittle bit too fiscally conservative, but thats what our country needs right now after Bush wasted all our money.

    --
    If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
  317. The RIAA pays radio stations actually. by HanzoSan · · Score: 1



    Its the radio station who profits actually. The RIAA is paying the radio stations to play their music, thats exactly why the radio stations wont play indie label music.

    Dont you get it, the RIAA pays for radio and treats it like marketing, because they can control radio, they do the same with TV, the internet and P2p however they cannot control.

    --
    If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
  318. So let us buy redistribution licenses by HanzoSan · · Score: 1



    Ok, I can go along with that. How much would it cost for a redistribution license instead?

    Oh wait we arent even given the option!

    We arent even given the option to be legal distributor! Why? Because if we were the RIAA wouldnt be useful anymore.

    Wake up, its not about profits its about power.

    --
    If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
  319. Philanthropy by failedlogic · · Score: 1


    If Bill gates, or Microsoft for that matter, truly believe in the future of the Internet than they should offer to pay everybody's fines.

    With that amount of money, filesharing should last at least another 20 years.

  320. How do they know? by HanzoSan · · Score: 1



    How do they know you dont already own it?

    You see this is the exact situation we want to put the RIAA legally. We want it to be he said she said situations where they cannot prove a damn thing.

    So yes, this could be illegal but it could also be legal, meaning its legal, just like the VCR.

    Yes it could hurt small time artists, and I never said I had the cure for piracy, I do think people would pay for music if it were cheap enough, I'd pay 50 cent per song, maybe $5 per CD, you know ,something reasonable.

    --
    If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
  321. Does anyone remember radio? by donnyfire · · Score: 1

    You know, the ancient technology of music being broadcast FOR FREE over the airwaves?
    I can even hook up a recording device and copy 'till my little heart's content, RIAA be damned.
    And there's no way they could ever touch me for this!!!

  322. How to help with Jane Doe's legal fees by mikeswi · · Score: 2, Informative

    For those interested, I contacted nycfashiongirl's attorney and asked how to help pay her legal fees. He sent this information. I'm going to send $50.

    Please note that donations are not tax deductible.

    McDonough Client Trust Acct. f/b/a Jane Doe
    McDonough Holland PC
    555 Capitol Mall
    Sacramento, CA 95814.

  323. The answer is easy people... by Eric+Damron · · Score: 1

    Don't copy copyrighted music without paying for it.

    If you don't like the RIAA boycott the artists that are under labels that are members of the RIAA. A major boycott could bring these bastards down in just a couple of years.

    The RIAA lobbying for unjust laws to do what they are doing really sucks. But so does stealing music. And don't give me any shit for saying stealing instead of "infringing on their copyrights." You know what I mean.

    Go ahead mod me down. I've got karma to burn and someone has to say it.

    --
    The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
  324. Well... by Decameron81 · · Score: 1

    Well in that case all they know is that someone with the nick nycfashiongirl is sharing certain files but... how did they know who this person was?

    How did they link the nickname to the real person? I don't think the RIAA has the right to ask a provider for any info regarding their client's logs.

    And honestly, how can they ever prove you were sharing files at the time? One could argue that any kind of logs they keep regarding your files on the net is no more than something they wrote themselves. Screenshots can be faked too.

    My few thoughts,
    Diego Rey

    --
    diegoT
    1. Re:Well... by Chartreuse_Zergling+ · · Score: 1

      Quick, everybody log on to KaZaA++ Lite and change your user ID to nycfashiongirl! Fsck the system!!! ^^

  325. Who can the RIAA go after? by iamghetto · · Score: 1

    Is the crime downloading music, sharing music, or both?

    and...

    Is the RIAA just going after file-sharers in the USA, or are they trying to target people in Canada, the UK, etc?

    I'm thinking countries with more progressive governments, even the ones with friendly extradition policies towards the US, would be a lot more willing to protect their citizens. I mean, what interest does the Canadian gov't have in the RIAA? I don't know, but I hope not much. :)

  326. some help to avoid the RIAA by schapman · · Score: 1

    in case anyone here doesnt read [H]ardOCP.. this was up on there: http://www.techtv.com/screensavers/story/0,24330,3 511270,00.html

    --
    Wouldnt you like to be a pepper too?
  327. Newspapers... by Cyno01 · · Score: 1

    Great point about newspapers, they're an industry that has rapidly embraced the digital age. With my new wireless setup, every morning i can sit down at the breakfast table with my laptop, check my e-mail, read the news, read my local news, and even read the comics that would come with the pulp and ink morning roll. I'm sure i'll apreciate this situation even more come winter when i can spare myself going out on the porch in my boxers(i live in WI *shiver*). Newspapers already make most of their money from advertising, the internet just saves them on materials and distribution.

    --
    "Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
  328. Take action now here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Buy music from this list:

    http://www.magnetbox.com/riaa/zeitgeist_topamazo ns afe.asp

    And use Magnetbox's RIAA search tool. Reward those artists who stear clear of the RIAA.

  329. Suppose I Share An Encrypted File by B3Geek · · Score: 1

    And even if such an encrypted file were an RIAA controlled music file, is the RIAA guilty of a DMCA violation by decrypting the file to determine whether its contents are RIAA controlled? Even if the key somehow made it on to the p2p network? What is required, wrt the DMCA, for a file to be declared "encrypted"? Would an encrypted zip file with a password qualify?

  330. This strategy works as long as it gets publicity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    If you support file-sharing and want to cripple the music industrym the best thing you can do is to not make a big deal out of the RIAA scare tactics. I have a friend who used to work for RIAA and they tell me that this legal blitz has been in the works for several years. It's a last ditch effort, which won't work as long as people don't get scared by the threats. The folks inside the RIAA are of the opinion that they have lost the file-sharing war, but are continuing this fight to please the companies which give money to the RIAA. In fact, it wasn't uncommon to see RIAA employees several years ago wearing Napster t-shirts around the office.

    This legal terrorism by the RIAA will only work if people get scared and change their file-sharing activities. I'm a webmaster who has gotten cease and desist letters from companies over alleged intellectual property violations. After consulting with lawyers, I took these stupid legal threats and filed them in the trash.

  331. Suit is not the answer by trolman · · Score: 1

    These people are just going to send out invoices much akin to the IRS and the income tax. They do not have to sue.

  332. I know who nycfashiongirl is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, it is not Madonna, or Brittany Spears.

    Nor is it Justin Timberlake.

    The real person behind nycfashion girl is...

    you ready for this?

    the long lost slashdotter formerly known as...

    Jon Katz!!!

  333. The Trials and Tribulations of HanzoSan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Dana Edwards was feeling a little disheartened. It had been nearly a week since he'd contacted Peacecorp and applied for a tour of duty in the Congo. He had hoped all week that his weight problem, chronic acne and asthma would not discount him from the program. Dana had been in some financial strife for a couple years now, with those tuition fees from Massachusets Bay Community College piling up. This was particularly stressful for him because, despite having taught himself to read and posessing an impressive intellect, he could not find a decent slack-off job with internet connection that would support his slashdot posting habit. Dana belched while he tapped his cordless phone and stuffed his hand into a bag of Cheetos. Dana, a Jack of All Trades had also been unsuccessful for several years in his attempts to get a night DJ position at a local AM radio station within walking distance of his mother's house. This distressed him, because being a DJ would be such a natural part-time job for him, being a skilled musician on the side. Alas, he waited still and finished the last fluid ounce of his Mountain Dew.

    Peacecorp was going to change that. Where his business sense would have failed him in the Merchant Marines and his poor physical condition were not up to snuff for the military, he felt Peacecorp would welcome him with open arms and take his student loan burden off his hands.

    "Education equals genius. Genius is good for society. I'll show them, I'm going to buck the status quo. I'm going to make a difference, I'll show them what a poor kid from the ghetto is capable of." Dana thought to himself.

    Dana had not shaven for five days, but his greasy facial hair never became very thick, even after weeks of neglect. It grew in a thin, spotty Fu Manchu pattern. Best described, his whiskers resembled soot smeared on his greasy jowels. He scratched at his armpit and pulled the tightening fabric of his pajama pants out of his groin and sighed with relief.

    "Aaaah."

    Dana was glad that the weekend had finally come around. His Computer Repair Fundamentals and Sociology classes were starting to really dig in. He blamed the teacher for sucking, and was utterly convinced that his superior intellect would reward him with first in his graduating class of 40. He was certain that the same outcome would happen if he got into MIT, but that would never happen. The rich bastards would never give him a fair chance on a level playing field. The MIT bastards hate nerds, just like everybody else. That was alright though, Dana already knew he was superior to most of them anyway. Their facilities were only useful to the superficial.

    Dana loosened up a bit by putting some music on the 'juke. He got a free MP3 jukebox from his mother and slapped an "RIAA SUCKS" bumper sticker on the side of it. Dana was vehemently opposed to the ownership and licensing of intellectual property, especially music. Dana downloaded all his favourite Pink Floyd tracks off the internet and onto the jukebox, and this brought a small amount of joy to his empty life.

    "Damn the man!" he exclaimed, raising a fist as his gut flopped out of his oil-stained ThinkGeek t-shirt.

    Ice T and Fred Durst alone had practically paved the way to justified downloads of all music ever created and served up on KaZaa. And so, Dana sat in in front of his monitor listening to The Wall, waiting for a reply from Peacecorp.

    His mother slipped in to his room briefly to set down a balogna and cheese sandwich in front of him while he fired up a beta version of Transgaming on his Pentium 166 with MMX.

    "Mom, why don't you hate the RIAA?"

    She shrugged, rolled her eyes and closed the door to his room on the way out.

    "She forgot to cut off the crusts." Dana held back the tears and ate the sandwich anyway.

    [montemplar] wuzzup hanz0?

    A privmsg came up on his IRC client. Dana had adopted the "handle" HanzoSan after his Japanese classmate Ohta

  334. The Trials and Tribulations of HanzoSan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Dana Edwards was feeling a little disheartened. It had been nearly a week since he'd contacted Peacecorp and applied for a tour of duty in the Congo. He had hoped all week that his weight problem, chronic acne and asthma would not discount him from the program. Dana had been in some financial strife for a couple years now, with those tuition fees from Massachusets Bay Community College piling up. This was particularly stressful for him because, despite having taught himself to read and posessing an impressive intellect, he could not find a decent slack-off job with internet connection that would support his slashdot posting habit. Dana belched while he tapped his cordless phone and stuffed his hand into a bag of Cheetos. Dana, a Jack of All Trades had also been unsuccessful for several years in his attempts to get a night DJ position at a local AM radio station within walking distance of his mother's house. This distressed him, because being a DJ would be such a natural part-time job for him, being a skilled musician on the side. Alas, he waited still and finished the last fluid ounce of his Mountain Dew.

    Peacecorp was going to change that. Where his business sense would have failed him in the Merchant Marines and his poor physical condition were not up to snuff for the military, he felt Peacecorp would welcome him with open arms and take his student loan burden off his hands.

    "Education equals genius. Genius is good for society. I'll show them, I'm going to buck the status quo. I'm going to make a difference, I'll show them what a poor kid from the ghetto is capable of." Dana thought to himself.

    Dana had not shaven for five days, but his greasy facial hair never became very thick, even after weeks of neglect. It grew in a thin, spotty Fu Manchu pattern. Best described, his whiskers resembled soot smeared on his greasy jowels. He scratched at his armpit and pulled the tightening fabric of his pajama pants out of his groin and sighed with relief.

    "Aaaah."

    Dana was glad that the weekend had finally come around. His Computer Repair Fundamentals and Sociology classes were starting to really dig in. He blamed the teacher for sucking, and was utterly convinced that his superior intellect would reward him with first in his graduating class of 40. He was certain that the same outcome would happen if he got into MIT, but that would never happen. The rich bastards would never give him a fair chance on a level playing field. The MIT bastards hate nerds, just like everybody else. That was alright though, Dana already knew he was superior to most of them anyway. Their facilities were only useful to the superficial.

    Dana loosened up a bit by putting some music on the 'juke. He got a free MP3 jukebox from his mother and slapped an "RIAA SUCKS" bumper sticker on the side of it. Dana was vehemently opposed to the ownership and licensing of intellectual property, especially music. Dana downloaded all his favourite Pink Floyd tracks off the internet and onto the jukebox, and this brought a small amount of joy to his empty life.

    "Damn the man!" he exclaimed, raising a fist as his gut flopped out of his oil-stained ThinkGeek t-shirt.

    Ice T and Fred Durst alone had practically paved the way to justified downloads of all music ever created and served up on KaZaa. And so, Dana sat in in front of his monitor listening to The Wall, waiting for a reply from Peacecorp.

    His mother slipped in to his room briefly to set down a balogna and cheese sandwich in front of him while he fired up a beta version of Transgaming on his Pentium 166 with MMX.

    "Mom, why don't you hate the RIAA?"

    She shrugged, rolled her eyes and closed the door to his room on the way out.

    "She forgot to cut off the crusts." Dana held back the tears and ate the sandwich anyway.

    [montemplar] wuzzup hanz0?

    A privmsg came up on his IRC client. Dana had adopted the "handle" HanzoSan after his Japanese classmate Ohta ni

  335. The Trials and Tribulations of HanzoSan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
    Dana Edwards was feeling a little disheartened. It had been nearly a week since he'd contacted Peacecorp and applied for a tour of duty in the Congo. He had hoped all week that his weight problem, chronic acne and asthma would not discount him from the program. Dana had been in some financial strife for a couple years now, with those tuition fees from Massachusets Bay Community College piling up. This was particularly stressful for him because, despite having taught himself to read and posessing an impressive intellect, he could not find a decent slack-off job with internet connection that would support his slashdot posting habit. Dana belched while he tapped his cordless phone and stuffed his hand into a bag of Cheetos. Dana, a Jack of All Trades had also been unsuccessful for several years in his attempts to get a night DJ position at a local AM radio station within walking distance of his mother's house. This distressed him, because being a DJ would be such a natural part-time job for him, being a skilled musician on the side. Alas, he waited still and finished the last fluid ounce of his Mountain Dew.

    Peacecorp was going to change that. Where his business sense would have failed him in the Merchant Marines and his poor physical condition were not up to snuff for the military, he felt Peacecorp would welcome him with open arms and take his student loan burden off his hands.

    "Education equals genius. Genius is good for society. I'll show them, I'm going to buck the status quo. I'm going to make a difference, I'll show them what a poor kid from the ghetto is capable of." Dana thought to himself.

    Dana had not shaven for five days, but his greasy facial hair never became very thick, even after weeks of neglect. It grew in a thin, spotty Fu Manchu pattern. Best described, his whiskers resembled soot smeared on his greasy jowels. He scratched at his armpit and pulled the tightening fabric of his pajama pants out of his groin and sighed with relief.

    "Aaaah."

    Dana was glad that the weekend had finally come around. His Computer Repair Fundamentals and Sociology classes were starting to really dig in. He blamed the teacher for sucking, and was utterly convinced that his superior intellect would reward him with first in his graduating class of 40. He was certain that the same outcome would happen if he got into MIT, but that would never happen. The rich bastards would never give him a fair chance on a level playing field. The MIT bastards hate nerds, just like everybody else. That was alright though, Dana already knew he was superior to most of them anyway. Their facilities were only useful to the superficial.

    Dana loosened up a bit by putting some music on the 'juke. He got a free MP3 jukebox from his mother and slapped an "RIAA SUCKS" bumper sticker on the side of it. Dana was vehemently opposed to the ownership and licensing of intellectual property, especially music. Dana downloaded all his favourite Pink Floyd tracks off the internet and onto the jukebox, and this brought a small amount of joy to his empty life.

    "Damn the man!" he exclaimed, raising a fist as his gut flopped out of his oil-stained ThinkGeek t-shirt.

    Ice T and Fred Durst alone had practically paved the way to justified downloads of all music ever created and served up on KaZaa. And so, Dana sat in in front of his monitor listening to The Wall, waiting for a reply from Peacecorp.

    His mother slipped in to his room briefly to set down a balogna and cheese sandwich in front of him while he fired up a beta version of Transgaming on his Pentium 166 with MMX.

    "Mom, why don't you hate the RIAA?"

    She shrugged, rolled her eyes and closed the door to his room on the way out.

    "She forgot to cut off the crusts." Dana held back the tears and ate the sandwich anyway.

    [montemplar] wuzzup hanz0?

    A privmsg came up on his IRC client. Dana had adopted the "handle" HanzoSan after his Japanese classmate Ohta nickna

  336. The Trials and Tribulations of HanzoSan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Dana Edwards was feeling a little disheartened. It had been nearly a week since he'd contacted Peacecorp and applied for a tour of duty in the Congo. He had hoped all week that his weight problem, chronic acne and asthma would not discount him from the program. Dana had been in some financial strife for a couple years now, with those tuition fees from Massachusets Bay Community College piling up. This was particularly stressful for him because, despite having taught himself to read and posessing an impressive intellect, he could not find a decent slack-off job with internet connection that would support his slashdot posting habit. Dana belched while he tapped his cordless phone and stuffed his hand into a bag of Cheetos. Dana, a Jack of All Trades had also been unsuccessful for several years in his attempts to get a night DJ position at a local AM radio station within walking distance of his mother's house. This distressed him, because being a DJ would be such a natural part-time job for him, being a skilled musician on the side. Alas, he waited still and finished the last fluid ounce of his Mountain Dew.

    Peacecorp was going to change that. Where his business sense would have failed him in the Merchant Marines and his poor physical condition were not up to snuff for the military, he felt Peacecorp would welcome him with open arms and take his student loan burden off his hands.

    "Education equals genius. Genius is good for society. I'll show them, I'm going to buck the status quo. I'm going to make a difference, I'll show them what a poor kid from the ghetto is capable of." Dana thought to himself.

    Dana had not shaven for five days, but his greasy facial hair never became very thick, even after weeks of neglect. It grew in a thin, spotty Fu Manchu pattern. Best described, his whiskers resembled soot smeared on his greasy jowels. He scratched at his armpit and pulled the tightening fabric of his pajama pants out of his groin and sighed with relief.

    "Aaaah."

    Dana was glad that the weekend had finally come around. His Computer Repair Fundamentals and Sociology classes were starting to really dig in. He blamed the teacher for sucking, and was utterly convinced that his superior intellect would reward him with first in his graduating class of 40. He was certain that the same outcome would happen if he got into MIT, but that would never happen. The rich bastards would never give him a fair chance on a level playing field. The MIT bastards hate nerds, just like everybody else. That was alright though, Dana already knew he was superior to most of them anyway. Their facilities were only useful to the superficial.

    Dana loosened up a bit by putting some music on the 'juke. He got a free MP3 jukebox from his mother and slapped an "RIAA SUCKS" bumper sticker on the side of it. Dana was vehemently opposed to the ownership and licensing of intellectual property, especially music. Dana downloaded all his favourite Pink Floyd tracks off the internet and onto the jukebox, and this brought a small amount of joy to his empty life.

    "Damn the man!" he exclaimed, raising a fist as his gut flopped out of his oil-stained ThinkGeek t-shirt.

    Ice T and Fred Durst alone had practically paved the way to justified downloads of all music ever created and served up on KaZaa. And so, Dana sat in in front of his monitor listening to The Wall, waiting for a reply from Peacecorp.

    His mother slipped in to his room briefly to set down a balogna and cheese sandwich in front of him while he fired up a beta version of Transgaming on his Pentium 166 with MMX.

    "Mom, why don't you hate the RIAA?"

    She shrugged, rolled her eyes and closed the door to his room on the way out.

    "She forgot to cut off the crusts." Dana held back the tears and ate the sandwich anyway.

    [montemplar] wuzzup hanz0?

    A privmsg came up on his IRC client. Dana had adopted the "handle" HanzoSan after his Japanese classmate Ohta nickname

  337. The Trials and Tribulations of HanzoSan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Dana Edwards was feeling a little disheartened. It had been nearly a week since he'd contacted Peacecorp and applied for a tour of duty in the Congo. He had hoped all week that his weight problem, chronic acne and asthma would not discount him from the program. Dana had been in some financial strife for a couple years now, with those tuition fees from Massachusets Bay Community College piling up. This was particularly stressful for him because, despite having taught himself to read and posessing an impressive intellect, he could not find a decent slack-off job with internet connection that would support his slashdot posting habit. Dana belched while he tapped his cordless phone and stuffed his hand into a bag of Cheetos. Dana, a Jack of All Trades had also been unsuccessful for several years in his attempts to get a night DJ position at a local AM radio station within walking distance of his mother's house. This distressed him, because being a DJ would be such a natural part-time job for him, being a skilled musician on the side. Alas, he waited still and finished the last fluid ounce of his Mountain Dew.

    Peacecorp was going to change that. Where his business sense would have failed him in the Merchant Marines and his poor physical condition were not up to snuff for the military, he felt Peacecorp would welcome him with open arms and take his student loan burden off his hands.

    "Education equals genius. Genius is good for society. I'll show them, I'm going to buck the status quo. I'm going to make a difference, I'll show them what a poor kid from the ghetto is capable of." Dana thought to himself.

    Dana had not shaven for five days, but his greasy facial hair never became very thick, even after weeks of neglect. It grew in a thin, spotty Fu Manchu pattern. Best described, his whiskers resembled soot smeared on his greasy jowels. He scratched at his armpit and pulled the tightening fabric of his pajama pants out of his groin and sighed with relief.

    "Aaaah."

    Dana was glad that the weekend had finally come around. His Computer Repair Fundamentals and Sociology classes were starting to really dig in. He blamed the teacher for sucking, and was utterly convinced that his superior intellect would reward him with first in his graduating class of 40. He was certain that the same outcome would happen if he got into MIT, but that would never happen. The rich bastards would never give him a fair chance on a level playing field. The MIT bastards hate nerds, just like everybody else. That was alright though, Dana already knew he was superior to most of them anyway. Their facilities were only useful to the superficial.

    Dana loosened up a bit by putting some music on the 'juke. He got a free MP3 jukebox from his mother and slapped an "RIAA SUCKS" bumper sticker on the side of it. Dana was vehemently opposed to the ownership and licensing of intellectual property, especially music. Dana downloaded all his favourite Pink Floyd tracks off the internet and onto the jukebox, and this brought a small amount of joy to his empty life.

    "Damn the man!" he exclaimed, raising a fist as his gut flopped out of his oil-stained ThinkGeek t-shirt.

    Ice T and Fred Durst alone had practically paved the way to justified downloads of all music ever created and served up on KaZaa. And so, Dana sat in in front of his monitor listening to The Wall, waiting for a reply from Peacecorp.

    His mother slipped in to his room briefly to set down a balogna and cheese sandwich in front of him while he fired up a beta version of Transgaming on his Pentium 166 with MMX.

    "Mom, why don't you hate the RIAA?"

    She shrugged, rolled her eyes and closed the door to his room on the way out.

    "She forgot to cut off the crusts." Dana held back the tears and ate the sandwich anyway.

    [montemplar] wuzzup hanz0?

    A privmsg came up on his IRC client. Dana had adopted the "handle" HanzoSan after his Japanese classmate Ohta nicknamed

  338. The Trials and Tribulations of HanzoSan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Dana Edwards was feeling a little disheartened. It had been nearly a week since he'd contacted Peacecorp and applied for a tour of duty in the Congo. He had hoped all week that his weight problem, chronic acne and asthma would not discount him from the program. Dana had been in some financial strife for a couple years now, with those tuition fees from Massachusets Bay Community College piling up. This was particularly stressful for him because, despite having taught himself to read and posessing an impressive intellect, he could not find a decent slack-off job with internet connection that would support his slashdot posting habit. Dana belched while he tapped his cordless phone and stuffed his hand into a bag of Cheetos. Dana, a Jack of All Trades had also been unsuccessful for several years in his attempts to get a night DJ position at a local AM radio station within walking distance of his mother's house. This distressed him, because being a DJ would be such a natural part-time job for him, being a skilled musician on the side. Alas, he waited still and finished the last fluid ounce of his Mountain Dew.

    Peacecorp was going to change that. Where his business sense would have failed him in the Merchant Marines and his poor physical condition were not up to snuff for the military, he felt Peacecorp would welcome him with open arms and take his student loan burden off his hands.

    "Education equals genius. Genius is good for society. I'll show them, I'm going to buck the status quo. I'm going to make a difference, I'll show them what a poor kid from the ghetto is capable of." Dana thought to himself.

    Dana had not shaven for five days, but his greasy facial hair never became very thick, even after weeks of neglect. It grew in a thin, spotty Fu Manchu pattern. Best described, his whiskers resembled soot smeared on his greasy jowels. He scratched at his armpit and pulled the tightening fabric of his pajama pants out of his groin and sighed with relief.

    "Aaaah."

    Dana was glad that the weekend had finally come around. His Computer Repair Fundamentals and Sociology classes were starting to really dig in. He blamed the teacher for sucking, and was utterly convinced that his superior intellect would reward him with first in his graduating class of 40. He was certain that the same outcome would happen if he got into MIT, but that would never happen. The rich bastards would never give him a fair chance on a level playing field. The MIT bastards hate nerds, just like everybody else. That was alright though, Dana already knew he was superior to most of them anyway. Their facilities were only useful to the superficial.

    Dana loosened up a bit by putting some music on the 'juke. He got a free MP3 jukebox from his mother and slapped an "RIAA SUCKS" bumper sticker on the side of it. Dana was vehemently opposed to the ownership and licensing of intellectual property, especially music. Dana downloaded all his favourite Pink Floyd tracks off the internet and onto the jukebox, and this brought a small amount of joy to his empty life.

    "Damn the man!" he exclaimed, raising a fist as his gut flopped out of his oil-stained ThinkGeek t-shirt.

    Ice T and Fred Durst alone had practically paved the way to justified downloads of all music ever created and served up on KaZaa. And so, Dana sat in in front of his monitor listening to The Wall, waiting for a reply from Peacecorp.

    His mother slipped in to his room briefly to set down a balogna and cheese sandwich in front of him while he fired up a beta version of Transgaming on his Pentium 166 with MMX.

    "Mom, why don't you hate the RIAA?"

    She shrugged, rolled her eyes and closed the door to his room on the way out.

    "She forgot to cut off the crusts." Dana held back the tears and ate the sandwich anyway.

    [montemplar] wuzzup hanz0?

    A privmsg came up on his IRC client. Dana had adopted the "handle" HanzoSan after his Japanese classmate Ohta nicknamed

  339. The Trials and Tribulations of HanzoSan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Dana Edwards was feeling a little disheartened. It had been nearly a week since he'd contacted Peacecorp and applied for a tour of duty in the Congo. He had hoped all week that his weight problem, chronic acne and asthma would not discount him from the program. Dana had been in some financial strife for a couple years now, with those tuition fees from Massachusets Bay Community College piling up. This was particularly stressful for him because, despite having taught himself to read and posessing an impressive intellect, he could not find a decent slack-off job with internet connection that would support his slashdot posting habit. Dana belched while he tapped his cordless phone and stuffed his hand into a bag of Cheetos. Dana, a Jack of All Trades had also been unsuccessful for several years in his attempts to get a night DJ position at a local AM radio station within walking distance of his mother's house. This distressed him, because being a DJ would be such a natural part-time job for him, being a skilled musician on the side. Alas, he waited still and finished the last fluid ounce of his Mountain Dew.

    Peacecorp was going to change that. Where his business sense would have failed him in the Merchant Marines and his poor physical condition were not up to snuff for the military, he felt Peacecorp would welcome him with open arms and take his student loan burden off his hands.

    "Education equals genius. Genius is good for society. I'll show them, I'm going to buck the status quo. I'm going to make a difference, I'll show them what a poor kid from the ghetto is capable of." Dana thought to himself.

    Dana had not shaven for five days, but his greasy facial hair never became very thick, even after weeks of neglect. It grew in a thin, spotty Fu Manchu pattern. Best described, his whiskers resembled soot smeared on his greasy jowels. He scratched at his armpit and pulled the tightening fabric of his pajama pants out of his groin and sighed with relief.

    "Aaaah."

    Dana was glad that the weekend had finally come around. His Computer Repair Fundamentals and Sociology classes were starting to really dig in. He blamed the teacher for sucking, and was utterly convinced that his superior intellect would reward him with first in his graduating class of 40. He was certain that the same outcome would happen if he got into MIT, but that would never happen. The rich bastards would never give him a fair chance on a level playing field. The MIT bastards hate nerds, just like everybody else. That was alright though, Dana already knew he was superior to most of them anyway. Their facilities were only useful to the superficial.

    Dana loosened up a bit by putting some music on the 'juke. He got a free MP3 jukebox from his mother and slapped an "RIAA SUCKS" bumper sticker on the side of it. Dana was vehemently opposed to the ownership and licensing of intellectual property, especially music. Dana downloaded all his favourite Pink Floyd tracks off the internet and onto the jukebox, and this brought a small amount of joy to his empty life.

    "Damn the man!" he exclaimed, raising a fist as his gut flopped out of his oil-stained ThinkGeek t-shirt.

    Ice T and Fred Durst alone had practically paved the way to justified downloads of all music ever created and served up on KaZaa. And so, Dana sat in in front of his monitor listening to The Wall, waiting for a reply from Peacecorp.

    His mother slipped in to his room briefly to set down a balogna and cheese sandwich in front of him while he fired up a beta version of Transgaming on his Pentium 166 with MMX.

    "Mom, why don't you hate the RIAA?"

    She shrugged, rolled her eyes and closed the door to his room on the way out.

    "She forgot to cut off the crusts." Dana held back the tears and ate the sandwich anyway.

    [montemplar] wuzzup hanz0?

    A privmsg came up on his IRC client. Dana had adopted the "handle" HanzoSan after his Japanese classmate Ohta nicknamed

  340. The Trials and Tribulations of HanzoSan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Dana Edwards was feeling a little disheartened. It had been nearly a week since he'd contacted Peacecorp and applied for a tour of duty in the Congo. He had hoped all week that his weight problem, chronic acne and asthma would not discount him from the program. Dana had been in some financial strife for a couple years now, with those tuition fees from Massachusets Bay Community College piling up. This was particularly stressful for him because, despite having taught himself to read and posessing an impressive intellect, he could not find a decent slack-off job with internet connection that would support his slashdot posting habit. Dana belched while he tapped his cordless phone and stuffed his hand into a bag of Cheetos. Dana, a Jack of All Trades had also been unsuccessful for several years in his attempts to get a night DJ position at a local AM radio station within walking distance of his mother's house. This distressed him, because being a DJ would be such a natural part-time job for him, being a skilled musician on the side. Alas, he waited still and finished the last fluid ounce of his Mountain Dew.

    Peacecorp was going to change that. Where his business sense would have failed him in the Merchant Marines and his poor physical condition were not up to snuff for the military, he felt Peacecorp would welcome him with open arms and take his student loan burden off his hands.

    "Education equals genius. Genius is good for society. I'll show them, I'm going to buck the status quo. I'm going to make a difference, I'll show them what a poor kid from the ghetto is capable of." Dana thought to himself.

    Dana had not shaven for five days, but his greasy facial hair never became very thick, even after weeks of neglect. It grew in a thin, spotty Fu Manchu pattern. Best described, his whiskers resembled soot smeared on his greasy jowels. He scratched at his armpit and pulled the tightening fabric of his pajama pants out of his groin and sighed with relief.

    "Aaaah."

    Dana was glad that the weekend had finally come around. His Computer Repair Fundamentals and Sociology classes were starting to really dig in. He blamed the teacher for sucking, and was utterly convinced that his superior intellect would reward him with first in his graduating class of 40. He was certain that the same outcome would happen if he got into MIT, but that would never happen. The rich bastards would never give him a fair chance on a level playing field. The MIT bastards hate nerds, just like everybody else. That was alright though, Dana already knew he was superior to most of them anyway. Their facilities were only useful to the superficial.

    Dana loosened up a bit by putting some music on the 'juke. He got a free MP3 jukebox from his mother and slapped an "RIAA SUCKS" bumper sticker on the side of it. Dana was vehemently opposed to the ownership and licensing of intellectual property, especially music. Dana downloaded all his favourite Pink Floyd tracks off the internet and onto the jukebox, and this brought a small amount of joy to his empty life.

    "Damn the man!" he exclaimed, raising a fist as his gut flopped out of his oil-stained ThinkGeek t-shirt.

    Ice T and Fred Durst alone had practically paved the way to justified downloads of all music ever created and served up on KaZaa. And so, Dana sat in in front of his monitor listening to The Wall, waiting for a reply from Peacecorp.

    His mother slipped in to his room briefly to set down a balogna and cheese sandwich in front of him while he fired up a beta version of Transgaming on his Pentium 166 with MMX.

    "Mom, why don't you hate the RIAA?"

    She shrugged, rolled her eyes and closed the door to his room on the way out.

    "She forgot to cut off the crusts." Dana held back the tears and ate the sandwich anyway.

    [montemplar] wuzzup hanz0?

    A privmsg came up on his IRC client. Dana had adopted the "handle" HanzoSan after his Japanese classmate Ohta nickname

  341. The Trials and Tribulations of HanzoSan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Dana Edwards was feeling a little disheartened. It had been nearly a week since he'd contacted Peacecorp and applied for a tour of duty in the Congo. He had hoped all week that his weight problem, chronic acne and asthma would not discount him from the program. Dana had been in some financial strife for a couple years now, with those tuition fees from Massachusets Bay Community College piling up. This was particularly stressful for him because, despite having taught himself to read and posessing an impressive intellect, he could not find a decent slack-off job with internet connection that would support his slashdot posting habit. Dana belched while he tapped his cordless phone and stuffed his hand into a bag of Cheetos. Dana, a Jack of All Trades had also been unsuccessful for several years in his attempts to get a night DJ position at a local AM radio station within walking distance of his mother's house. This distressed him, because being a DJ would be such a natural part-time job for him, being a skilled musician on the side. Alas, he waited still and finished the last fluid ounce of his Mountain Dew.

    Peacecorp was going to change that. Where his business sense would have failed him in the Merchant Marines and his poor physical condition were not up to snuff for the military, he felt Peacecorp would welcome him with open arms and take his student loan burden off his hands.

    "Education equals genius. Genius is good for society. I'll show them, I'm going to buck the status quo. I'm going to make a difference, I'll show them what a poor kid from the ghetto is capable of." Dana thought to himself.

    Dana had not shaven for five days, but his greasy facial hair never became very thick, even after weeks of neglect. It grew in a thin, spotty Fu Manchu pattern. Best described, his whiskers resembled soot smeared on his greasy jowels. He scratched at his armpit and pulled the tightening fabric of his pajama pants out of his groin and sighed with relief.

    "Aaaah."

    Dana was glad that the weekend had finally come around. His Computer Repair Fundamentals and Sociology classes were starting to really dig in. He blamed the teacher for sucking, and was utterly convinced that his superior intellect would reward him with first in his graduating class of 40. He was certain that the same outcome would happen if he got into MIT, but that would never happen. The rich bastards would never give him a fair chance on a level playing field. The MIT bastards hate nerds, just like everybody else. That was alright though, Dana already knew he was superior to most of them anyway. Their facilities were only useful to the superficial.

    Dana loosened up a bit by putting some music on the 'juke. He got a free MP3 jukebox from his mother and slapped an "RIAA SUCKS" bumper sticker on the side of it. Dana was vehemently opposed to the ownership and licensing of intellectual property, especially music. Dana downloaded all his favourite Pink Floyd tracks off the internet and onto the jukebox, and this brought a small amount of joy to his empty life.

    "Damn the man!" he exclaimed, raising a fist as his gut flopped out of his oil-stained ThinkGeek t-shirt.

    Ice T and Fred Durst alone had practically paved the way to justified downloads of all music ever created and served up on KaZaa. And so, Dana sat in in front of his monitor listening to The Wall, waiting for a reply from Peacecorp.

    His mother slipped in to his room briefly to set down a balogna and cheese sandwich in front of him while he fired up a beta version of Transgaming on his Pentium 166 with MMX.

    "Mom, why don't you hate the RIAA?"

    She shrugged, rolled her eyes and closed the door to his room on the way out.

    "She forgot to cut off the crusts." Dana held back the tears and ate the sandwich anyway.


    [montemplar] wuzzup hanz0?

    A privmsg came up on his IRC client. Dana had adopted the "handle" HanzoSan after his Japanese classmate Ohta nickna

  342. The Trials and Tribulations of HanzoSan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Dana Edwards was feeling a little disheartened. It had been nearly a week since he'd contacted Peacecorp and applied for a tour of duty in the Congo. He had hoped all week that his weight problem, chronic acne and asthma would not discount him from the program. Dana had been in some financial strife for a couple years now, with those tuition fees from Massachusets Bay Community College piling up. This was particularly stressful for him because, despite having taught himself to read and posessing an impressive intellect, he could not find a decent slack-off job with internet connection that would support his slashdot posting habit. Dana belched while he tapped his cordless phone and stuffed his hand into a bag of Cheetos. Dana, a Jack of All Trades had also been unsuccessful for several years in his attempts to get a night DJ position at a local AM radio station within walking distance of his mother's house. This distressed him, because being a DJ would be such a natural part-time job for him, being a skilled musician on the side. Alas, he waited still and finished the last fluid ounce of his Mountain Dew.

    Peacecorp was going to change that. Where his business sense would have failed him in the Merchant Marines and his poor physical condition were not up to snuff for the military, he felt Peacecorp would welcome him with open arms and take his student loan burden off his hands.

    "Education equals genius. Genius is good for society. I'll show them, I'm going to buck the status quo. I'm going to make a difference, I'll show them what a poor kid from the ghetto is capable of." Dana thought to himself.

    Dana had not shaven for five days, but his greasy facial hair never became very thick, even after weeks of neglect. It grew in a thin, spotty Fu Manchu pattern. Best described, his whiskers resembled soot smeared on his greasy jowels. He scratched at his armpit and pulled the tightening fabric of his pajama pants out of his groin and sighed with relief.

    "Aaaah."

    Dana was glad that the weekend had finally come around. His Computer Repair Fundamentals and Sociology classes were starting to really dig in. He blamed the teacher for sucking, and was utterly convinced that his superior intellect would reward him with first in his graduating class of 40. He was certain that the same outcome would happen if he got into MIT, but that would never happen. The rich bastards would never give him a fair chance on a level playing field. The MIT bastards hate nerds, just like everybody else. That was alright though, Dana already knew he was superior to most of them anyway. Their facilities were only useful to the superficial.

    Dana loosened up a bit by putting some music on the 'juke. He got a free MP3 jukebox from his mother and slapped an "RIAA SUCKS" bumper sticker on the side of it. Dana was vehemently opposed to the ownership and licensing of intellectual property, especially music. Dana downloaded all his favourite Pink Floyd tracks off the internet and onto the jukebox, and this brought a small amount of joy to his empty life.

    "Damn the man!" he exclaimed, raising a fist as his gut flopped out of his oil-stained ThinkGeek t-shirt.

    Ice T and Fred Durst alone had practically paved the way to justified downloads of all music ever created and served up on KaZaa. And so, Dana sat in in front of his monitor listening to The Wall, waiting for a reply from Peacecorp.

    His mother slipped in to his room briefly to set down a balogna and cheese sandwich in front of him while he fired up a beta version of Transgaming on his Pentium 166 with MMX.

    "Mom, why don't you hate the RIAA?"

    She shrugged, rolled her eyes and closed the door to his room on the way out.
    "She forgot to cut off the crusts." Dana held back the tears and ate the sandwich anyway.


    [montemplar] wuzzup hanz0?

    A privmsg came up on his IRC client. Dana had adopted the "handle" HanzoSan after his Japanese classmate Ohta nicknamed

  343. The Trials and Tribulations of HanzoSan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Dana Edwards was feeling a little disheartened. It had been nearly a week since he'd contacted Peacecorp and applied for a tour of duty in the Congo. He had hoped all week that his weight problem, chronic acne and asthma would not discount him from the program. Dana had been in some financial strife for a couple years now, with those tuition fees from Massachusets Bay Community College piling up. This was particularly stressful for him because, despite having taught himself to read and posessing an impressive intellect, he could not find a decent slack-off job with internet connection that would support his slashdot posting habit. Dana belched while he tapped his cordless phone and stuffed his hand into a bag of Cheetos. Dana, a Jack of All Trades had also been unsuccessful for several years in his attempts to get a night DJ position at a local AM radio station within walking distance of his mother's house. This distressed him, because being a DJ would be such a natural part-time job for him, being a skilled musician on the side. Alas, he waited still and finished the last fluid ounce of his Mountain Dew.

    Peacecorp was going to change that. Where his business sense would have failed him in the Merchant Marines and his poor physical condition were not up to snuff for the military, he felt Peacecorp would welcome him with open arms and take his student loan burden off his hands.

    "Education equals genius. Genius is good for society. I'll show them, I'm going to buck the status quo. I'm going to make a difference, I'll show them what a poor kid from the ghetto is capable of." Dana thought to himself.

    Dana had not shaven for five days, but his greasy facial hair never became very thick, even after weeks of neglect. It grew in a thin, spotty Fu Manchu pattern. Best described, his whiskers resembled soot smeared on his greasy jowels. He scratched at his armpit and pulled the tightening fabric of his pajama pants out of his groin and sighed with relief.

    "Aaaah."

    Dana was glad that the weekend had finally come around. His Computer Repair Fundamentals and Sociology classes were starting to really dig in. He blamed the teacher for sucking, and was utterly convinced that his superior intellect would reward him with first in his graduating class of 40. He was certain that the same outcome would happen if he got into MIT, but that would never happen. The rich bastards would never give him a fair chance on a level playing field. The MIT bastards hate nerds, just like everybody else. That was alright though, Dana already knew he was superior to most of them anyway. Their facilities were only useful to the superficial.

    Dana loosened up a bit by putting some music on the 'juke. He got a free MP3 jukebox from his mother and slapped an "RIAA SUCKS" bumper sticker on the side of it. Dana was vehemently opposed to the ownership and licensing of intellectual property, especially music. Dana downloaded all his favourite Pink Floyd tracks off the internet and onto the jukebox, and this brought a small amount of joy to his empty life.

    "Damn the man!" he exclaimed, raising a fist as his gut flopped out of his oil-stained ThinkGeek t-shirt.

    Ice T and Fred Durst alone had practically paved the way to justified downloads of all music ever created and served up on KaZaa. And so, Dana sat in in front of his monitor listening to The Wall, waiting for a reply from Peacecorp.

    His mother slipped in to his room briefly to set down a balogna and cheese sandwich in front of him while he fired up a beta version of Transgaming on his Pentium 166 with MMX.

    "Mom, why don't you hate the RIAA?"
    She shrugged, rolled her eyes and closed the door to his room on the way out.
    "She forgot to cut off the crusts." Dana held back the tears and ate the sandwich anyway.


    [montemplar] wuzzup hanz0?

    A privmsg came up on his IRC client. Dana had adopted the "handle" HanzoSan after his Japanese classmate Ohta nicknamed hi

  344. Please don't feed the trolls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can people stop replying to and feeding this paranoid lunatic?

  345. MOD PARENT UP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most fucking crybaby slashbots just want free shit. There's nothing wrong or illegal (i.e. it is not extortion) with enforcing copyright laws. Get a clue, fuckwits: don't steal stuff. This includes downloading music you do not own. Don't contribute to copyright violations: this means don't share copyrighted materials.

    Fucking duhhhhh!

    Oooooh! That RIAA!! They're so bad for enforcing their rights under the law and for getting back at the people that are stealing from them. Set some examples on various college campuses, and maybe you fucking kids would actually work, save up some cash, and buy the damned CDs. It's not like you can't go to Amazon and buy most stuff used for $5, anyway. Don't like that? Then too fucking bad. It's not like any of the music you want is any good anyway.

    When I was a kid, we didn't swap player piano rolls -- we memorized the sheet music! Hah! Try doing that today with sampling and all that "yo nigga" shit music.

  346. How about radio stations? by mauthbaux · · Score: 1

    The Library analogy I do understand. However, a radio station does basically the same thing that these filesharers are doing, and likely on a much larger scale. AFAIK, people downloading these shared files are really only doing the same thing as pressing the record button when they listen to the radio. I don't think that many people, (or the RIAA for that matter) would see this as being 'wrong'. If they then turned around and tried to sell those recordings, then there's obviously a problem, but free distribution would act as a form of advertisement in favor of the said station.

    As a point of interest, we can all look back to the 1950s of Radio where the payola scandals were going on. Record companies were actually paying the radio stations to play certain songs. Last time I checked, there was still quite a bit of this going on. So, would filesharers stop getting so many threats if they added annoying commercials to the MP3s they're sharing? How is filesharing different than a radio broadcast?

    At this point, the best move that I think the RIAA can make would be to create freely available low quality versions of the music and use it as a way of advertising. Most people wouldn't be willing to burn it to a CD if the sound quality was bad, and they could still have the 'try before you buy' bennefits.

    Just a thought
    ~mauthbaux

    --
    "Operating systems suck: you're better off using only the BIOS" --trainsaw.com
  347. Poor poor RIAA by Anthrem · · Score: 1

    Perhaps, like most of those whose income decreases due to bad times or a poor economy, the RIAA and the MPAA ought to apply for public aid. After all, this has been a effective solution for many in the corporate world:

    • Microsoft enjoyed more than $12 billion in total tax breaks over the past five years.
    • Ford enjoyed $9.1 billion in corporate tax welfare over the past five years.
    • GE received $12 billion in corporate tax welfare.
    • Over the past five years, IBM enjoyed a total of $4.7 billion in corporate tax welfare.
    • Colgate-Palmolive paid no taxes at all in three of the past five years, despite $1.6 billion in reported U.S. profits. Colgate's total tax rate over the five years was negative 1.3 percent, due to $595 million in corporate tax welfare.[*]

    From 1996 through 2000, just ten large profitable companies enjoyed a total of $50 billion in corporate tax breaks. Almost makes you feel sorry.....almost.... because I am sure they could belly up to the corporate welfare bar, and leave us all alone!



    * - According to Citizens for Tax Justice in their article Surge in Corporate Tax Welfare Drives Corporate Tax Payments Down to Near Record Low
  348. What about the old "click-click-BLAM!!" argument? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd like to see them try to get money out of me.

  349. Ok so here's what you do: by rune2 · · Score: 1

    1) Tell the RIAA that SCO is downloading music.
    2) Tell SCO that the RIAA uses Linux.
    3) Stand back and enjoy the show
    4) Profit?

  350. Let's go buddies...READ!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If I got it right, this should be the e-mail of RIAA vice-president Matt Oppenheim: moppenheim@riaa.com
    If that doesn't work then try these 1-800-BAD-BEAT badbeat@riaa.com.
    RIAA Contact:
    Lydia Pelliccia, 202.775.0101, lpelliccia@riaa.com
    I think we should all start sending our comments to the RIAA directly and see what response we get. If anyone else has any RIAA contact info please post it, and get the word out. If we want to stop this fiasco we're gonna have to act. Email or phone in your complaints to the RIAA lets bog them down with so many calls and emails that they realize they are messing with the one thing that keeps them alive, THEIR CUSTOMER BASE!!!!!

  351. Hire some PIs to watch them by Kernel+Kurtz · · Score: 1

    It would be nice if we could get enough money together as a group to hire some private investigators to follow Rosen, Valenti, and thier thugs around for a while. Take pictures, document thier lives, go through their garbage. Maybe make it a regular thing. This would be perfectly legal as long as there was no direct harassment.

    Let them feel their own privacy violated and their behaviour being put under the microscope for all to see.

    Some pictures of Matt Oppenheim with that gay prostitute would be really good for file-sharers morale......

  352. Suits based wholly on private claims? by 0x12d3 · · Score: 1

    In a court of law the RIAA is presenting the evidence that _they_ collected, to file charges against the general public?? WHAT?!? Stop and think about that. Anyone who's ever had their car towed, and then gotten it back with huge scrapes marked down as "pre-existing damage" knows that this doesn't work. Anyone who's argued to they're blue in the face with a telephone company over ld charges that were wholly unfounded, knows this doesn't work. The whole ordeal is completely unexceptable. I name my file something that looks like one of they're artist's names and I'm charged?? I have to take the henchmen of 5 fortune 500 companies to court to argue the case?? They've downloaded and verified it was they're song-- they promise?? There _has_ to be an unafilliated 3rd party to verify that this company's claims are true with these kinds of fines on the line. I found one of my songs on kazaa, I contacted the isp and the ip.addr was in use by one "R.I.A.A"; I was selling the song for 50mil a pop. I except cash, cc, and american express.

  353. RIAA is parasite. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think the one possible way for the artists to go is concerts. If you are an artist and you want to make money make a concert every 2-3 months, get off your butt, go on the scene and cut a sweat for your buck.
    And for all those who say if people swap artists' songs the artists would lose interest in producing music, all I have to say to this is: prove it! However, don't describe to me in hypothetical terms how artists get hurt, I've already heard that thousands of times. Show me, give me a historical example that proves just this: how artists get hurt by music "piracy". There are many, many ways for musicians to make money and selling their works rights to the RIAA is just one of them.
    In my opinion, RIAA is an unnecessary attachment to the whole music business. They are parasites who suck on artists and music fans and they are the ones making the biggest bucks while the artists themselves should be the ones with the big bucks coming. The fact of the matter is, musicians don't need the RIAA to make money.
    It may not come this time but one day in the future RIAA as we know it will be dead. History repeats itself and the RIAA case reminds me of some events of the past.
    The same holds for MPAA - the twin parasite. I remember being only once in a movie thater where I had 3D sound, round screen and seats before me that were so low down that I didn't have the problem of leaning left and right trying to view the screen without having the person in front of me blanking out the screen. I was watching a documentary about whales, the sound and video effect were so impressive that at one point I felt like I was in the middle of the ocean next to that whale. Nowadays, there are still lots of poorly designed movie theaters out there that would make many movie fans go home and watch their movie on the VCR or DVD. This needs to change. The guys at MPAA need to get people to prefer watching the movie at the theater rather than at home and so far they have failed to do so. If they manage to get people to watch the movies in the theaters because they can offer a better value and experience, then that's going to boost their bottom line.

  354. If I have songs on an encrypted drive... by g.a.g · · Score: 1

    ... would gathering evidence then break the DCMA?

    Obviously not for wiretapping, but for using the hard disks in court? Just wondering.

    --
    Hurricane Application Group, Dept of Meteorology Control, Ministry of Proactive Defense
  355. hm.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You have just read a comment by I'm a racist.
    Other comments by this poster:

    #1 Kill all niggers and jews!!!
    #2 I'm an athiest, and all religions are inherently stupid. But the jew, as a breed, is filth.
    #3 All the dirty skins must fucking die!!!!
    #4 I hate[..] dirty skins that are fucking up my country
    #5 The USA. This land that we took from the featherheads, with just a bit of alcohol and smallpox, and turned into the most powerful nation the world has ever seen. This country was founded through the intelligence, will, strength, and resourcefulness of white people. The principles that define this country were laid down by white people. It's sad to see them being twisted to suit the nigger-lovers.
    #6 In a kind of unrelated topic, why are so many vocal /.ers against racism? Is the collective IQ around here really that low?

    I'm really puzzled about the smart thing to do here - ignore everything else and just moderate the comment or moderate him down because he would probably kill thousands of people when given the chance to?

  356. how can they say....? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    how can they say $150,000 for each song??? especailly when you can go into a music store
    and legitimately buy the CD for $10

    If they said..."you downloaded/shared 400 songs,
    at $1 a song thats $400" its 'reasonable'

    to me this just stinks of the usually ridiculously high US Court damages rates. $1m for cutting
    tree down which on your car? come on. car
    must have been some very fancy auto!!!

  357. Re:Bill of rights - Amendment VIII by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 1

    Then explain why OJ Simpson was found GUILTY after his criminal hearing that concluded (probably badly) that he was "Not Guilty".

    That should have been caught under Double Jeopardy clause of the Bill of Rights. Now's the time to go re-read your briefs and summarys from the Supreme Court about civil and criminal court seperation.

    --
  358. Boycotts... by LilJC · · Score: 1
    the geeks boycott and everyone else goes about their merry way.

    I'm so broke, I am currently boycotting all domestic and imported products except food and gasoline to get to work.

    Sure it's not organized, and I'm not really sure what the sacrifices of my boycotts are really changing, but hey...I'm broke. Sometimes the weight of circumstances outweigh potential ideals.

    --

    The only thing more dangerous than a file named -rf is renaming it -rf\ /
  359. OK... how much is your music bill? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    According to the RIAA figures... I would owe approximately $919,200,000 US in fines for illegal music.

    Anyone else pushing the $1B mark?

  360. No privacy? by royalblue_tom · · Score: 1

    And by its very definition, you can't expect privacy if you do things in public. But the constitution is a contract between the people and its government - it is basically a guarantee of "privacy" from unreasonable government behaviour. No right is absolute, as politics and law are about compromise. But the default assumption is that you derive a basic right to privacy, and the government needs "probable cause" as a reason to disturb you. And there are no other reasons in the constitution to allow the government to disturb your home (except the billeting of troups, in time of war, with fair recompense).

    Outside of government searches and seizures, it is a property matter - and the constitution expects our government to mediate between parties on comercial disputes (regulate trade). Privacy is also ensured here, through the right to use your property - namely you own it, and someone else doesn't.

    This applies to the case two fold. The RIAA do not own your machine, and so do not have the right to use it without your permission. Secondly, the RIAA do not own your ISP's infrastructure, and so don't have the right to confidential information held in it, without your ISPs permission. The only justification then, would be to go to the government, and request a warrant issued as per your quotation above.

    And of course, if the lady in question publishes the files (that the RIAA represent the rights for) for all to see, then she's guilty of copyright infringement, as per your quote about information in public.

  361. PETA Patriots Impressive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not exactly Boston Tea parties we're talking about here. Personally I wouldn't cite delusional disorder eco-terrorist miscreants as meritorious examples of self righteous indignation in action as though they were the template for saving this dying Republic and its citizens from the crushing jackboot of Empire. On the other hand these spastic spearheads of the lunatic fringe are able to strike a deciding contrast to the average slack jawed American herd animal exercising all the objectivity of television relativism and the corresponding lessons of mindless obedience.

    But your champions of enthusiasm, toasting to their lip service victories, are far to miniscule in number to impinge upon the collective consciousness of a large, lethargic and bloated population of indifference who in their crushing mental numbness, have developed an extreme tolerance to the absurd as a defense mechanism that shields their inner peace in blissful ignorance from the harsher realities of the day.

    Perhaps in this instance, enough remains of the Nader Nation to mobilize a populace and strike a blow against the abuse of consumers with boycotts, pickets and protests, but it is results that matter and I will believe it when I see it.

    What I am seeing now is a declining American culture of witless wage and tax slaves awash in the garish baubles of their ignorance and foolishness. Once proud but now reduced to children of the state in a debilitating welfare society of communal exploitation by decree of the lecherous. By the guiding hands of their fathers they are pressed to their knees to taste the humility of their destiny, while told in their subservience the future will be divine. And so they suck the bitter nectar from the lecherous egomaniacal monopolist and dictators of a failing democracy, to grin through the dripping puddles of sticky spittle having learned to savor the flavor. Dead eyes peering up through matted lids half closed, grasping for signs of approval from the distorted face of a perverted master. But then fathers didn't expect things would turn out this way. They lived in different times.

    Such is the ideology of compliance when freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose.

    Of course we are hardly on the same page here. Tell you what.... In the run up to "American Revolution II: The Restoration", why don't you foist the fact that you once helped get a fast food restaurant to promise to ask their suppliers to give their meat chickens three more inches of cage space up the flag pole and see if they make you a fucking general.

    1. Re:PETA Patriots Impressive? by 3terrabyte · · Score: 1

      4". Get it right.

      --

      Why are there only 19 people folding@home for slashdot?

  362. The Trials and Tribulations of HanzoSan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Dana Edwards was feeling a little disheartened. It had been nearly a week since he'd contacted Peacecorp and applied for a tour of duty in the Congo. He had hoped all week that his weight problem, chronic acne and asthma would not discount him from the program. Dana had been in some financial strife for a couple years now, with those tuition fees from Massachusets Bay Community College piling up. This was particularly stressful for him because, despite having taught himself to read and posessing an impressive intellect, he could not find a decent slack-off job with internet connection that would support his slashdot posting habit. Dana belched while he tapped his cordless phone and stuffed his hand into a bag of Cheetos. Dana, a Jack of All Trades had also been unsuccessful for several years in his attempts to get a night DJ position at a local AM radio station within walking distance of his mother's house. This distressed him, because being a DJ would be such a natural part-time job for him, being a skilled musician on the side. Alas, he waited still and finished the last fluid ounce of his Mountain Dew.

    Peacecorp was going to change that. Where his business sense would have failed him in the Merchant Marines and his poor physical condition were not up to snuff for the military, he felt Peacecorp would welcome him with open arms and take his student loan burden off his hands.

    "Education equals genius. Genius is good for society. I'll show them, I'm going to buck the status quo. I'm going to make a difference, I'll show them what a poor kid from the ghetto is capable of." Dana thought to himself.

    Dana had not shaven for five days, but his greasy facial hair never became very thick, even after weeks of neglect. It grew in a thin, spotty Fu Manchu pattern. Best described, his whiskers resembled soot smeared on his greasy jowels. He scratched at his armpit and pulled the tightening fabric of his pajama pants out of his groin and sighed with relief.

    "Aaaah."

    Dana was glad that the weekend had finally come around. His Computer Repair Fundamentals and Sociology classes were starting to really dig in. He blamed the teacher for sucking, and was utterly convinced that his superior intellect would reward him with first in his graduating class of 40. He was certain that the same outcome would happen if he got into MIT, but that would never happen. The rich bastards would never give him a fair chance on a level playing field. The MIT bastards hate nerds, just like everybody else. That was alright though, Dana already knew he was superior to most of them anyway. Their facilities were only useful to the superficial.

    Dana loosened up a bit by putting some music on the 'juke. He got a free MP3 jukebox from his mother and slapped an "RIAA SUCKS" bumper sticker on the side of it. Dana was vehemently opposed to the ownership and licensing of intellectual property, especially music. Dana downloaded all his favourite Pink Floyd tracks off the internet and onto the jukebox, and this brought a small amount of joy to his empty life.

    "Damn the man!" he exclaimed, raising a fist as his gut flopped out of his oil-stained ThinkGeek t-shirt.

    Ice T and Fred Durst alone had practically paved the way to justified downloads of all music ever created and served up on KaZaa. And so, Dana sat in in front of his monitor listening to The Wall, waiting for a reply from Peacecorp.
    His mother slipped in to his room briefly to set down a balogna and cheese sandwich in front of him while he fired up a beta version of Transgaming on his Pentium 166 with MMX.
    "Mom, why don't you hate the RIAA?"
    She shrugged, rolled her eyes and closed the door to his room on the way out.
    "She forgot to cut off the crusts." Dana held back the tears and ate the sandwich anyway.


    [montemplar] wuzzup hanz0?

    A privmsg came up on his IRC client. Dana had adopted the "handle" HanzoSan after his Japanese classmate Ohta nicknamed him some

  363. The Trials and Tribulations of HanzoSan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Dana Edwards was feeling a little disheartened. It had been nearly a week since he'd contacted Peacecorp and applied for a tour of duty in the Congo. He had hoped all week that his weight problem, chronic acne and asthma would not discount him from the program. Dana had been in some financial strife for a couple years now, with those tuition fees from Massachusets Bay Community College piling up. This was particularly stressful for him because, despite having taught himself to read and posessing an impressive intellect, he could not find a decent slack-off job with internet connection that would support his slashdot posting habit. Dana belched while he tapped his cordless phone and stuffed his hand into a bag of Cheetos. Dana, a Jack of All Trades had also been unsuccessful for several years in his attempts to get a night DJ position at a local AM radio station within walking distance of his mother's house. This distressed him, because being a DJ would be such a natural part-time job for him, being a skilled musician on the side. Alas, he waited still and finished the last fluid ounce of his Mountain Dew.

    Peacecorp was going to change that. Where his business sense would have failed him in the Merchant Marines and his poor physical condition were not up to snuff for the military, he felt Peacecorp would welcome him with open arms and take his student loan burden off his hands.

    "Education equals genius. Genius is good for society. I'll show them, I'm going to buck the status quo. I'm going to make a difference, I'll show them what a poor kid from the ghetto is capable of." Dana thought to himself.

    Dana had not shaven for five days, but his greasy facial hair never became very thick, even after weeks of neglect. It grew in a thin, spotty Fu Manchu pattern. Best described, his whiskers resembled soot smeared on his greasy jowels. He scratched at his armpit and pulled the tightening fabric of his pajama pants out of his groin and sighed with relief.

    "Aaaah."

    Dana was glad that the weekend had finally come around. His Computer Repair Fundamentals and Sociology classes were starting to really dig in. He blamed the teacher for sucking, and was utterly convinced that his superior intellect would reward him with first in his graduating class of 40. He was certain that the same outcome would happen if he got into MIT, but that would never happen. The rich bastards would never give him a fair chance on a level playing field. The MIT bastards hate nerds, just like everybody else. That was alright though, Dana already knew he was superior to most of them anyway. Their facilities were only useful to the superficial.
    Dana loosened up a bit by putting some music on the 'juke. He got a free MP3 jukebox from his mother and slapped an "RIAA SUCKS" bumper sticker on the side of it. Dana was vehemently opposed to the ownership and licensing of intellectual property, especially music. Dana downloaded all his favourite Pink Floyd tracks off the internet and onto the jukebox, and this brought a small amount of joy to his empty life.
    "Damn the man!" he exclaimed, raising a fist as his gut flopped out of his oil-stained ThinkGeek t-shirt.
    Ice T and Fred Durst alone had practically paved the way to justified downloads of all music ever created and served up on KaZaa. And so, Dana sat in in front of his monitor listening to The Wall, waiting for a reply from Peacecorp.
    His mother slipped in to his room briefly to set down a balogna and cheese sandwich in front of him while he fired up a beta version of Transgaming on his Pentium 166 with MMX.
    "Mom, why don't you hate the RIAA?"
    She shrugged, rolled her eyes and closed the door to his room on the way out.
    "She forgot to cut off the crusts." Dana held back the tears and ate the sandwich anyway.


    [montemplar] wuzzup hanz0?

    A privmsg came up on his IRC client. Dana had adopted the "handle" HanzoSan after his Japanese classmate Ohta nicknamed him something tha

  364. The Trials and Tribulations of HanzoSan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Dana Edwards was feeling a little disheartened. It had been nearly a week since he'd contacted Peacecorp and applied for a tour of duty in the Congo. He had hoped all week that his weight problem, chronic acne and asthma would not discount him from the program. Dana had been in some financial strife for a couple years now, with those tuition fees from Massachusets Bay Community College piling up. This was particularly stressful for him because, despite having taught himself to read and posessing an impressive intellect, he could not find a decent slack-off job with internet connection that would support his slashdot posting habit. Dana belched while he tapped his cordless phone and stuffed his hand into a bag of Cheetos. Dana, a Jack of All Trades had also been unsuccessful for several years in his attempts to get a night DJ position at a local AM radio station within walking distance of his mother's house. This distressed him, because being a DJ would be such a natural part-time job for him, being a skilled musician on the side. Alas, he waited still and finished the last fluid ounce of his Mountain Dew.

    Peacecorp was going to change that. Where his business sense would have failed him in the Merchant Marines and his poor physical condition were not up to snuff for the military, he felt Peacecorp would welcome him with open arms and take his student loan burden off his hands.

    "Education equals genius. Genius is good for society. I'll show them, I'm going to buck the status quo. I'm going to make a difference, I'll show them what a poor kid from the ghetto is capable of." Dana thought to himself.

    Dana had not shaven for five days, but his greasy facial hair never became very thick, even after weeks of neglect. It grew in a thin, spotty Fu Manchu pattern. Best described, his whiskers resembled soot smeared on his greasy jowels. He scratched at his armpit and pulled the tightening fabric of his pajama pants out of his groin and sighed with relief.

    "Aaaah."
    Dana was glad that the weekend had finally come around. His Computer Repair Fundamentals and Sociology classes were starting to really dig in. He blamed the teacher for sucking, and was utterly convinced that his superior intellect would reward him with first in his graduating class of 40. He was certain that the same outcome would happen if he got into MIT, but that would never happen. The rich bastards would never give him a fair chance on a level playing field. The MIT bastards hate nerds, just like everybody else. That was alright though, Dana already knew he was superior to most of them anyway. Their facilities were only useful to the superficial.
    Dana loosened up a bit by putting some music on the 'juke. He got a free MP3 jukebox from his mother and slapped an "RIAA SUCKS" bumper sticker on the side of it. Dana was vehemently opposed to the ownership and licensing of intellectual property, especially music. Dana downloaded all his favourite Pink Floyd tracks off the internet and onto the jukebox, and this brought a small amount of joy to his empty life.
    "Damn the man!" he exclaimed, raising a fist as his gut flopped out of his oil-stained ThinkGeek t-shirt.
    Ice T and Fred Durst alone had practically paved the way to justified downloads of all music ever created and served up on KaZaa. And so, Dana sat in in front of his monitor listening to The Wall, waiting for a reply from Peacecorp.
    His mother slipped in to his room briefly to set down a balogna and cheese sandwich in front of him while he fired up a beta version of Transgaming on his Pentium 166 with MMX.
    "Mom, why don't you hate the RIAA?"
    She shrugged, rolled her eyes and closed the door to his room on the way out.
    "She forgot to cut off the crusts." Dana held back the tears and ate the sandwich anyway.


    [montemplar] wuzzup hanz0?

    A privmsg came up on his IRC client. Dana had adopted the "handle" HanzoSan after his Japanese classmate Ohta nicknamed him something that c

  365. The Trials and Tribulations of HanzoSan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Dana Edwards was feeling a little disheartened. It had been nearly a week since he'd contacted Peacecorp and applied for a tour of duty in the Congo. He had hoped all week that his weight problem, chronic acne and asthma would not discount him from the program. Dana had been in some financial strife for a couple years now, with those tuition fees from Massachusets Bay Community College piling up. This was particularly stressful for him because, despite having taught himself to read and posessing an impressive intellect, he could not find a decent slack-off job with internet connection that would support his slashdot posting habit. Dana belched while he tapped his cordless phone and stuffed his hand into a bag of Cheetos. Dana, a Jack of All Trades had also been unsuccessful for several years in his attempts to get a night DJ position at a local AM radio station within walking distance of his mother's house. This distressed him, because being a DJ would be such a natural part-time job for him, being a skilled musician on the side. Alas, he waited still and finished the last fluid ounce of his Mountain Dew.

    Peacecorp was going to change that. Where his business sense would have failed him in the Merchant Marines and his poor physical condition were not up to snuff for the military, he felt Peacecorp would welcome him with open arms and take his student loan burden off his hands.

    "Education equals genius. Genius is good for society. I'll show them, I'm going to buck the status quo. I'm going to make a difference, I'll show them what a poor kid from the ghetto is capable of." Dana thought to himself.

    Dana had not shaven for five days, but his greasy facial hair never became very thick, even after weeks of neglect. It grew in a thin, spotty Fu Manchu pattern. Best described, his whiskers resembled soot smeared on his greasy jowels. He scratched at his armpit and pulled the tightening fabric of his pajama pants out of his groin and sighed with relief.
    "Aaaah."
    Dana was glad that the weekend had finally come around. His Computer Repair Fundamentals and Sociology classes were starting to really dig in. He blamed the teacher for sucking, and was utterly convinced that his superior intellect would reward him with first in his graduating class of 40. He was certain that the same outcome would happen if he got into MIT, but that would never happen. The rich bastards would never give him a fair chance on a level playing field. The MIT bastards hate nerds, just like everybody else. That was alright though, Dana already knew he was superior to most of them anyway. Their facilities were only useful to the superficial.
    Dana loosened up a bit by putting some music on the 'juke. He got a free MP3 jukebox from his mother and slapped an "RIAA SUCKS" bumper sticker on the side of it. Dana was vehemently opposed to the ownership and licensing of intellectual property, especially music. Dana downloaded all his favourite Pink Floyd tracks off the internet and onto the jukebox, and this brought a small amount of joy to his empty life.
    "Damn the man!" he exclaimed, raising a fist as his gut flopped out of his oil-stained ThinkGeek t-shirt.
    Ice T and Fred Durst alone had practically paved the way to justified downloads of all music ever created and served up on KaZaa. And so, Dana sat in in front of his monitor listening to The Wall, waiting for a reply from Peacecorp.
    His mother slipped in to his room briefly to set down a balogna and cheese sandwich in front of him while he fired up a beta version of Transgaming on his Pentium 166 with MMX.
    "Mom, why don't you hate the RIAA?"
    She shrugged, rolled her eyes and closed the door to his room on the way out.
    "She forgot to cut off the crusts." Dana held back the tears and ate the sandwich anyway.


    [montemplar] wuzzup hanz0?

    A privmsg came up on his IRC client. Dana had adopted the "handle" HanzoSan after his Japanese classmate Ohta nicknamed him something that coul

  366. The Trials and Tribulations of HanzoSan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Dana Edwards was feeling a little disheartened. It had been nearly a week since he'd contacted Peacecorp and applied for a tour of duty in the Congo. He had hoped all week that his weight problem, chronic acne and asthma would not discount him from the program. Dana had been in some financial strife for a couple years now, with those tuition fees from Massachusets Bay Community College piling up. This was particularly stressful for him because, despite having taught himself to read and posessing an impressive intellect, he could not find a decent slack-off job with internet connection that would support his slashdot posting habit. Dana belched while he tapped his cordless phone and stuffed his hand into a bag of Cheetos. Dana, a Jack of All Trades had also been unsuccessful for several years in his attempts to get a night DJ position at a local AM radio station within walking distance of his mother's house. This distressed him, because being a DJ would be such a natural part-time job for him, being a skilled musician on the side. Alas, he waited still and finished the last fluid ounce of his Mountain Dew.

    Peacecorp was going to change that. Where his business sense would have failed him in the Merchant Marines and his poor physical condition were not up to snuff for the military, he felt Peacecorp would welcome him with open arms and take his student loan burden off his hands.

    "Education equals genius. Genius is good for society. I'll show them, I'm going to buck the status quo. I'm going to make a difference, I'll show them what a poor kid from the ghetto is capable of." Dana thought to himself.
    Dana had not shaven for five days, but his greasy facial hair never became very thick, even after weeks of neglect. It grew in a thin, spotty Fu Manchu pattern. Best described, his whiskers resembled soot smeared on his greasy jowels. He scratched at his armpit and pulled the tightening fabric of his pajama pants out of his groin and sighed with relief.
    "Aaaah."
    Dana was glad that the weekend had finally come around. His Computer Repair Fundamentals and Sociology classes were starting to really dig in. He blamed the teacher for sucking, and was utterly convinced that his superior intellect would reward him with first in his graduating class of 40. He was certain that the same outcome would happen if he got into MIT, but that would never happen. The rich bastards would never give him a fair chance on a level playing field. The MIT bastards hate nerds, just like everybody else. That was alright though, Dana already knew he was superior to most of them anyway. Their facilities were only useful to the superficial.
    Dana loosened up a bit by putting some music on the 'juke. He got a free MP3 jukebox from his mother and slapped an "RIAA SUCKS" bumper sticker on the side of it. Dana was vehemently opposed to the ownership and licensing of intellectual property, especially music. Dana downloaded all his favourite Pink Floyd tracks off the internet and onto the jukebox, and this brought a small amount of joy to his empty life.
    "Damn the man!" he exclaimed, raising a fist as his gut flopped out of his oil-stained ThinkGeek t-shirt.
    Ice T and Fred Durst alone had practically paved the way to justified downloads of all music ever created and served up on KaZaa. And so, Dana sat in in front of his monitor listening to The Wall, waiting for a reply from Peacecorp.
    His mother slipped in to his room briefly to set down a balogna and cheese sandwich in front of him while he fired up a beta version of Transgaming on his Pentium 166 with MMX.
    "Mom, why don't you hate the RIAA?"
    She shrugged, rolled her eyes and closed the door to his room on the way out.
    "She forgot to cut off the crusts." Dana held back the tears and ate the sandwich anyway.


    [montemplar] wuzzup hanz0?

    A privmsg came up on his IRC client. Dana had adopted the "handle" HanzoSan after his Japanese classmate Ohta nicknamed him something that could b

  367. I Beleive the BSA already fulfills this role by IBitOBear · · Score: 1

    Isn't that essentially what the Business Software Alliance does today? They launder "anonymous" tips that woudln't pass muster before a judge. Then the BSA passes that muster as a reputable organization.

    Search Warrents are issued and premises are invaded.

    Pretty much illegal search and seizure, laundered through the "respecitable source" of the BSA without regard to the legitimacy of the original claims.

    --
    Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
    --"Code Complete" Microsoft Press