Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

RIAA Files 532 Lawsuits

Posted by timothy on from the sue-you-sue-anybody dept.

Like2Byte writes "The RIAA is at it again. This time, Yahoo! News is reporting that 532 file sharers' IP addresses are being submitted to the courts instead of their names because ISPs decline to name people and the courts previous blocks. Music lawyers filed the newest cases against 'John Doe' defendants -- identified only by their numeric Internet protocol addresses -- and expected to work through the courts to learn their names and where they live."

632 of 877 comments (clear)

  1. Gee... by ewhenn · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I wonder what good that will do, most ISPs use rotating DHCP based IP addresses.

    1. Re:Gee... by relrelrel · · Score: 5, Informative

      Thats irrelevant. ISPs will know who had what IP and at what times.

      --
      --- any post that takes longer than 20 seconds to write, isn't worth writing
    2. Re:Gee... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      For as long as they keep their logs, anyway. That could be a very important point, depending on how long the cases take to reach the discovery stage.

      Slashdot: Penalizing fast typists (and fast thinkers) since 2000
      ------------
      Slow Down Cowboy!

      Slashdot requires you to wait 20 seconds between hitting 'reply' and submitting a comment.

      It's been 9 seconds since you hit 'reply'!

      Chances are, you're behind a firewall or proxy, or clicked the Back button to accidentally reuse a form. Please try again. If the problem persists, and all other options have been tried, contact the site administrator.

    3. Re:Gee... by i_r_sensitive · · Score: 5, Informative
      In view of that, no ISP could ever have taken action against a spammer, which we know has happened, perhaps it would be resonable to assume that the ISP keeps logs of who get what lease when. Evidently RIAA has reason to believe this, given this tack.

      In point of fact, I know most do. I know several people who work in support or engineering for several ISPs and keeping such logs is not unusual. The existence of a given set of logs can almost be taken for granted, what you can't take for granted is how long such logs might be kept.

      --
      "Talk minus action equals nothing" - Joey Shithead, D.O.A.
      "Talk minus action equals /." -
    4. Re:Gee... by Short+Circuit · · Score: 1

      We were a small dial-up ISP. No way in hell we could afford to keep those kinds of logs. We had to keep clearing error logs off our NT box in order to have enough space for the email.

      --
      tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
    5. Re:Gee... by wawannem · · Score: 1

      i_r is right on here. I used to run an ISP and there are simple reasons that these logs are kept: abuse complaints and billing disputes. In my case, we used a hacked version of RADIUS that told us the username of the user logging on, the CID info (when available), and the IP leased to that user. Each ISP handles abuse and billing problems differently, but they tend to learn pretty quickly (usually by being blacklisted by another ISP) that it is in their best interests to at least keep the information listed above.

    6. Re:Gee... by wawannem · · Score: 1

      so what did you do when someone refused to pay the bill because they claimed not to be using the service? Or, did you ever get abuse@your.small.dial-up.ISP emails? Did you follow up on those? I'm not trying to be a flaming troll here, but the ISP I ran was small time also, and I found out pretty quickly that these logs were more important than other logs (apache access_log, maillog, etc.). I'm not gonna keep harping on this, but claiming you didn't have enough space for the logs and talking about running email on an NT server make me think that your ISP wasn't well-managed / well-planned from the onset.

    7. Re:Gee... by Negatyfus · · Score: 1

      I can't begin to name the problems an ISP will have when they DON'T keep logs in, for example, abuse cases, but wouldn't NOT keeping logs be the perfect way for a rebellious ISP to refuse handing over customer information? Since, hell, they don't HAVE the information the RIAA wants?

      Sadly, I don't think this is viable for ISPs.

    8. Re:Gee... by Short+Circuit · · Score: 1

      We were a pre-pay service. No billing. Dial-up only. We were blacklisted a couple of times, but got it straightened out quickly.

      The ISP was never profitable. It wasn't ever intended to be...it was the continuation of a BBS that started in 1987, and most users stuck around for four or five years at a time.

      The owners beleived in a "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" paradigm, and for a long time we didn't have any sort of spam filtering because we considered it "censorship." And a lot of our customers staid with us for that reason.

      The last owners bought the system in 1998, and fed it the money it needed until it had to fold last month. (They had to fold because SBC had been billing them several times what they should have been for eighteen months. Billing disputes were to no avail, and they couldn't afford to maintain a court battle.)

      --
      tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
    9. Re:Gee... by pyros · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Not keeping certain logs would put the ISP in violation of certain federal laws, of which the DMCA may be one, but most notably the PATRIOT Act, I believe.

    10. Re:Gee... by gnu-generation-one · · Score: 1

      "I wonder what good that will do, most ISPs use rotating DHCP based IP addresses."

      Presumably they have an IP-address and timestamp...

      Plus ISPs in most places are required to record all subscriber data, forever (near enough) so that the courts can use it and the police can abuse it.

    11. Re:Gee... by tljohnsn · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's best to just delete those logs right away so you don't have to deal with fools like the RIAA.

    12. Re:Gee... by eric76 · · Score: 2, Informative

      What laws, for example?

      I have yet to see any requirement to keep any logs. I've asked, but noone has ever had an answer.

    13. Re:Gee... by fandelem · · Score: 1

      I'd be very interested in a link for this statement. Not doubting, just would love to read the fine print .. -k

      --

      --even a broken watch is correct twice a day.
    14. Re:Gee... by i_r_sensitive · · Score: 1

      Dude, if I was looking for a new ISP, I'd ask who you worked for, I don't want an ISP that doesn't log stuff. Well that, and I don't want an ISP that uses NT.

      --
      "Talk minus action equals nothing" - Joey Shithead, D.O.A.
      "Talk minus action equals /." -
    15. Re:Gee... by pyros · · Score: 2, Insightful
      What laws, for example?

      I know an entire sentence is quite a bit to read (my post was only one sentence, btw), but I specifially said I believe the PATRIOT Act is such a law. When working at a company as a vendor to Sprint, on an enterprise instant messaging project, logging features were a huge deal with them to be comliant with the PATRIOT Act. I certainly admit that I don't know for sure myself. I suppose you also don't remember the stories of bookstores trashing customer records rather than risk being forced to turn them over under the PATRIOT Act.

    16. Re:Gee... by golgotha007 · · Score: 1

      wait a sec,

      is there some law that requires ISP's to hold this type of data for a specific period or even at all?

      This reminds me of when I ran a BBS in 1983 or so. Most of my callers were from out of state and used hacked MCI or Sprint codes to make the free calls to my board.
      Months after I quit my BBS, Sprint called and wanted to know who was dialling me from Boston. I told them I didn't have those records.
      At that point, the operator got uppity with me and said, 'but you ARE the system operator of this BBS, right?'
      to which I replied, 'Ya lady, but I'm only 14 years old!'.

      she hung up.

    17. Re:Gee... by N3WBI3 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Do you 24.68.123.57 swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth..

      --
    18. Re:Gee... by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      This is a good question. I don't think the Patriot act does require them to keep logs...but, I don't know for sure.

      Does anyone out there know the answer on this?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    19. Re:Gee... by Awptimus+Prime · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Actually, that is a far worse plan than dealing with the RIAA.

      An ISP can be held responsible in situations where it does not keep records like radius logs. Since the ISP would be unable to prove they didn't do it (they being the ISP), presented with evidence that shows the illegal activity came from their network, it would almost be an automatic loss for them in court. Don't expect any compassion from the court, once the judge points out that your irrisponsibility is borderline deceptive and unethical business practice, you'll probably get either a maximum fine or harsher term.

      This is much like loaning your car to a drunk stranger. You automatically become legally liable for anything he does behind the wheel due to your own irrisponsibility.

      People forget that the Internet is a communications service. It's not like the phone company doesn't keep a log of all the phone numbers you dial, times dialed, duration of call, the date/time in GMT, etc.

    20. Re:Gee... by wawannem · · Score: 1

      wow, let me sum this up...

      You simply inherited a subscribership
      You didn't care about spam-filtering (and this actually *kept* your customers from leaving)
      You didn't have to fix stuff unless mgmt considered it broken

      Where was this that you worked again? Paradise? Utopia? Are there any more openings ;-)

    21. Re:Gee... by adlai · · Score: 5, Informative

      IANAL, of course, but I'm not sure this is right. As far as I know, under common law principles, ISPs cannot be presumamptively liable for the actions of their users...and I doubt the DMCA changes things in this regard.

      Is there someone who actually knows with certainty the answer to this point? It is important for how this whole story will play out, methinks.

    22. Re:Gee... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Your Honor, this is a clear case of mistaken identity. I am not, and have never been, 24.68.123.57. I am, and have always been, 127.0.0.1.

    23. Re:Gee... by Richthofen80 · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure about the patriot act, but I am sure about this:

      Any ISP who did NOT keep IPs of the customers using their sites is setting themselves up to be sued or to have criminal charges laid against them. Since the ISP didn't keep records of johnny downloader, how does the ISP defend itself when the government knocks on its door and says the ISPs internet connection has been routing malicious traffic? The ISP keeps IP logs to prove that it was a customer, not the ISP itself, accessing material. That, and for billing and monitoring purposes.

      --
      Reason, free market capitalism, and individualism
    24. Re:Gee... by BuckaBooBob · · Score: 1

      Atleast They should all change The MAC address on their NIC and hope that the ISP doesn't keep DHCP logs...

      Also on another note... For most high-speed Systems its easy to "Steal" an IP address so that it isn't logged in the DHCP server... Realistically they only thing that a DHCP log show is that the IP Lease was assigned to your Mac Address during the Period they have in question.. I am sure Some ISP's may have some hardware and a customish DHCP server that may log the serial # of the Device your using.. But if there is no Prevtion in place to prevent you from using a IP address that wasn't assigned by the DHCP server then the Logs are worthless and the user is Still anon...

      --
      Who needs WiFi when we can have Packet Over Sheep! http://datacomm.org/PoS-InternetDraft.txt
    25. Re:Gee... by eric76 · · Score: 3, Informative

      I did read the entire sentence.

      Here is a link to the Patriot Act: To deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and around the world, to enhance law enforcement investigatory tools, and for other purposes., but what is not clear is whether that is a preliminary version or the final version.

      In any event, I don't see anything in it mandating that ISPs keep any kind of records of their customer's activity. Section 212 does discuss the disclosure of customer records, but I don't see anything there that mandates that records be kept.

      On a quick reading, the sections referred to don't seem to require any records be kept.

      At TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 121 - STORED WIRE AND ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS AND TRANSACTIONAL RECORDS ACCESS, you can find the sections referring to the records.

      For example, from Section 2709,

      Sec. 2709. - Counterintelligence access to telephone toll and transactional records

      (a) Duty to Provide. -

      A wire or electronic communication service provider shall comply with a request for subscriber information and toll billing records information, or electronic communication transactional records in its custody or possession made by the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation under subsection (b) of this section.

      So, if you are asked for records, you must provide those records in your custody or possession. I don't see anything there mandating that you keep any such records.

      The other sections are pretty interesting, but they seem to be more interested in keeping ISPs from providing confidential records without proper authorization.

      The real question is, "Just what records must be kept?"

      My guess is that you don't have to keep any records unless ordered to keep such records by a court of law.

      In summary, it is very clear that if you have such records, you may be required to provide them under some circumstances. But I don't see anything mandating that you keep such records at all. I suspect that a judge could order the ISP to keep particular records, but what if there is no such order?

    26. Re:Gee... by SnowWolf2003 · · Score: 1

      perhaps it would be resonable to assume that the ISP keeps logs of who get what lease when. Evidently RIAA has reason to believe this, given this tack.

      Well how do you think the RIAA got the names and addresses of all the people they currently have lawsuits against before this latest batch? So they don't just believe this, they know this as a certainty. Granted there may be some ISPs they subpeona'd who couldn't supply this information as they had rotated their logs, but a large number of ISP's could supply this information.

      The question now is whether the delay added by having to go through the court system instead of subpeonaing the ISP directly will mean that more ISP's will of rotated their logs by the time they are asked for the information.

    27. Re:Gee... by the_mad_poster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      .. unable to prove they didn't do it ..

      Critical point of failure in your post. It's not your job to "prove you didn't do it". If someone makes an accusation against you or you're charged with a crime, it's THEIR job to prove you DID.

      And, no, it would not be like loaning your car to a drunk stranger. It would be more like you renting your car to a total stranger who then uses it to run down schoolchildren. You rent the car in good faith that they'll use it right, knowing only that they appear fit to drive and have a license. The ISP rents time and/or space on their network assuming you'll not abuse it, knowing only that you're old enough and appear fit to use it.

      And, IANAL either, but somehow I doubt you could be held responsible for someone else doing bad things in your car just because you loaned it to them. Maybe they could charge you with peripheral items if you were enabling illegal / unsafe behavior (such as giving a drunk person car keys), but I highly doubt they'd be able to stick much on you. Maybe an accomplice charge or aiding and abeiting, but you're not going to be held directly responsible in a criminal court. Civil lawsuits from the victims and their families is a different ballgame.

      --
      Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
    28. Re:Gee... by pyros · · Score: 1

      kudos for doing the research. If I was 'willing to mod' and had points, i'd give them to you. ;)

    29. Re:Gee... by JumboMessiah · · Score: 1

      It is my understanding that you are not compelled to keep logs under the PATRIOT act. What is required is that you have the ability to trace/tap/monitor specific activities at any time.

      So a scenario could be this. FBI walks in and puts down a peice of paper that states they need a trace of information on user XYZ or user currently at IP address 1.2.3.4. You are not required to deliver any information at the time the request is served. What you are required to do is to implement a trace on logs/email/etc for data related to the request. The FBI is then required to deliver a warrant within 60 days to retrieve the requested information. If the warrant isn't delivered withing 60 days, you can halt the tap/trace/whatever and dispose of the data.

      IANAL and the above is just my understanding of the issue.

    30. Re:Gee... by infochuck · · Score: 1

      In view of that, no ISP could ever have taken action against a spammer, which we know has happened, perhaps it would be resonable to assume that the ISP keeps logs of who get what lease when. Evidently RIAA has reason to believe this, given this tack.

      Man, you're soooo off here, I can't even begin to fathom where to start. First aof all, I think it's safe to assume that most major spammers have static IPs associated with T1s or better - easy enough to get THEIR IPs. When it comes to joe-blow home broadband user, his cable/DSL modem likely gets that dynamic IP, which, as the previous poster pointed out, will likely have been rotated out of the logs by the time the slow/long arm of John Law gets around to asking for that info.

      Also, spam, when reported, is generally reported by people relatively tech-savvy, or by using spam-reporting services - something that can take place (and probably DOES take place) almost immediately, or, at worst, within a few days - not the MONTHS that court-orders can take.

    31. Re:Gee... by ad0gg · · Score: 1

      Does anyone read abuse emails? When my company used to provide dialup ISP services, abuse mailbox was loaded with bunch of whiners. People saying that one of our users degraded them on usenet, or they got spammed with a virus(which was forged email address but they weren't smart enough to read the headers) and lot more useless crap. Can't forget the guy complaining that one of users ripped him off on an ebay transaction. We never have problems with email spammers but did have problems with usenet spammers but our usenet uplink provider sent emails to our personal email addresses instead. And if we were a small ISP a recieving a significant amount pointless abuse emails imagine what largers ISPs have to deal with.

      --

      Have you ever been to a turkish prison?

    32. Re:Gee... by jafiwam · · Score: 2, Informative

      EXCEPT: when it is standard operating procedure to destroy those logs.

      I.e. if you have them and get subpoena then and don't produce (or destroy) them it's obstruction of justice, if you dont have them as a matter of course and get subpoenaed its SOL for whomever wants them.

      The only trick is to be able to prove you didn't have them... i.e. have a script running on a schedule or calendar reminder or something. It would suck to have the FBI looking for deleted data on a hard drive... but at least you wouldnt get in legal trouble then.

      {I do the calendar, every month it reminds me to delete extra logs I no longer need, some get archived to CD, but most don't... I do not have hard drive space or time to keep all of them so I don't.}

      The phone company keeps logs so they can BILL you or update services when they get overloaded. (There might be a law for them though...) ISPs don't have a law and may not be billing for time "unlimited" dial-up, so they can delete them if they want.

      The parent poster is projecting way more responsibility on the ISP than there actually is. A gas station is expected to control if a stolen car gets fueled up or that the gas isn't used later to burn kittens or something, they are just expected to safely sell gas to anyone who wants it.

    33. Re:Gee... by Awptimus+Prime · · Score: 1

      Critical point of failure in your post. It's not your job to "prove you didn't do it". If someone makes an accusation against you or you're charged with a crime, it's THEIR job to prove you DID.

      They already have their proof you did it. They have a record indicating that an IP belonging to your business downloaded the pirated material. It then becomes your responsibility, as a business, to prove a particular user did it. Very, very simple stuff, I don't know why all these people miss it.

      And, IANAL either, but somehow I doubt you could be held responsible for someone else doing bad things in your car just because you loaned it to them.

      This is criminal negligence. People are charged with this all the time for letting a drunk friend drive their car.

    34. Re:Gee... by Awptimus+Prime · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This is correct, but that is only if the ISP is an ethical business.

      The flawed logic I am trying to dis-spell is the "I could start an ISP, then my friends and I can hack sites all day long, not keep logs, and be immune from any prosecution." idea.

      Anyone who has followed a few court cases knows that such an asinine concept will result in failure.

      Fact is, I did abuse for a major ISP for 4 years. I also have done several years of Information Security. I've also turned over my fair share of evidence to various agencies. I know what not to do, and not keeping records is one of them.

    35. Re:Gee... by Awptimus+Prime · · Score: 1

      The phone company keeps logs so they can BILL you or update services when they get overloaded. (There might be a law for them though...) ISPs don't have a law and may not be billing for time "unlimited" dial-up, so they can delete them if they want.

      Negative. Let's make up a situation:

      Haxx0rX has a dial-up account with 'unlimited' access. He uses this account to down the store backend to a large shopping website. The admin of this site contacts the feds after locating the originating IP of the attack. He hands the information over to the feds. The fed contacts the abuse department of Haxx0rX's ISP. The ISP responds "Oh, I am sorry, we have already deleted those logs. But, yep, that is one of our IPs. So sorry!". The company who was hacked no longer has any legal recourse against the hacker because you deleted the logs in an unreasonably short amount of time (30 days?! When I did abuse, we held on to everything for a minimum of 2 years to avoid these situations). The only option left is to file a suit against the ISP for whatever damages you incured. This is simple negligence. The ISP will quickly lose the case due to their log deleting policy, and the hacker is never found.

      The parent poster is projecting way more responsibility on the ISP than there actually is. A gas station is expected to control if a stolen car gets fueled up or that the gas isn't used later to burn kittens or something, they are just expected to safely sell gas to anyone who wants it.

      That doesn't fit anywhere in this thread. Quit trolling.

    36. Re:Gee... by the_mad_poster · · Score: 1

      They have a record indicating that an IP belonging to your business downloaded the pirated material.

      Except they WON'T have the material. No material, no crime.

      And, this is excusing the fact that they're suing UPLOADERS who are offering the files, not DOWNLOADERS who are taking them even though stupid news outlets (news outlet: a group of people who couldn't find their own asses with both hands and a flashlight, but have lots of out-of-context statistics that 'prove' otherwise) like Yahoo! keep saying "Suits Against Music Downloaders".

      --
      Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
    37. Re:Gee... by uncoveror · · Score: 1

      I wonder how many of these 532 are children and kindly old grandparents this time. It is the height of hypocricy to sue people and cry to Congress on one hand, but pay Big Champagne to track what's hot among file traders on the other. The RIAA and affiliated labels are a criminal syndicate just like the mafia. Boycott them!

      --
      The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
    38. Re:Gee... by pod · · Score: 1

      There may or may not be laws, but it also depends on the specific ISP on how long they keep logs of various sorts. My ISP keeps raw Radius logs for at least one billing cycle to settle billing disputes and for auditing and revenue assurance purposes. After that I imagine they get backed up to tape, or may sit around compressed for a couple more months, and I know for a fact that they're stored in an Oracle DB pretty much indefinitely.

      DHCP log records are probably much smaller than Radius (standard Radius start and stop records can get quite large), and there is less activity, as many people just leave their computers on.

      --
      "Hot lesbian witches! It's fucking genius!"
    39. Re:Gee... by Ronny+Cook · · Score: 1
      Not necessarily. I can think of several cases where the ISP I used to work for needed to find out somebody's IP address (for spamming or other abuse violations) and we could not.

      (1) RADIUS uses UDP, and as such is a datagram protocol that does not guarantee delivery. This only matters in 0.1% of cases however.
      (2) As others have mentioned, logs are not usually kept indefinitely; they're just too big. We would keep them for around 2 accounting cycles. This was for a smallish ISP (around 90 dialup lines).
      (3) Roaming users. For these the RADIUS server would simply pass the authentication/accounting packets through to a secondary server, which would then pass packets to another ISP. The RADIUS server did not log these entries by default; neither did the passthrough server. (I wound up turning on debugging on the passthrough server to track these.)

      In my opinion global roaming is by far the easiest way to spam and not get caught. Thankfully, roaming is not typically an option for broadband. :-) Unfortunately wireless global roaming looks like changing this.

    40. Re:Gee... by Awptimus+Prime · · Score: 1

      Except they WON'T have the material. No material, no crime.

      Uh, you don't need that in civil court. That's where you lose money over negligence. Trust me, you'll lose that battle if you don't keep logs. Especially when the plantiff's attorney shows documents from every other ISP in the country is retaining the same type of logs for 2+ years and yours is 30 days.

      And, this is excusing the fact that they're suing UPLOADERS who are offering the files, not DOWNLOADERS

      Oh you aren't here to discuss things. You are here to EMPHASIZE any sort of MISTAKE someone makes while typing 80 wpm. Let go, young one.

      who are taking them even though stupid news outlets (news outlet: a group of people who couldn't find their own asses with both hands and a flashlight, but have lots of out-of-context statistics that 'prove' otherwise) like Yahoo! keep saying "Suits Against Music Downloaders".

      Blah blah blah flashlight, blah blah blah Yahoo! we all know the media is an uninformed tool. No point even bringing that up.

    41. Re:Gee... by the_mad_poster · · Score: 1

      Uh, you don't need that in civil court.

      Uh, yes, you do. The point is they won't prove YOU are the one who downloaded it unless they can prove you have or had it. Just having a list of filenames means nothing. Nothing at all. It would be trivial to show a p2p application with maliciously (or, stupidly) mislabeled files thus showing that a filename on p2p means exactly nada.

      Unless you have the content, there's not going to be enough proof for any sensible person to rule in favor of a plaintiff.

      I'm not disputing the logs, that has nothing to do with what I'm talking about and never did. I have no clue what record retention laws might cover that sort of thing and don't care. My point is that I'm disputing your claim that the ISPs could be held responsible in any sane court for the abuses of their users. Whether they can be held responsible for not keeping logs is not something I'm weighing in on.

      ...here to EMPHASIZE any sort of MISTAKE someone makes...

      Touchy touchy. It was a lead-in to the bitch about Yahoo!, but if you think everything has to revolve around you, be my guest.

      --
      Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
    42. Re:Gee... by Guppy06 · · Score: 1
      "what is not clear is whether that is a preliminary version or the final version."

      This is the final version.

      For future reference for anybody who wants to see national bill/law in all its "glory," here are some notes of mine. Bear in mind that IANAL, but I've had need to look this kind of stuff up in recent years.
      1. Always start with Thomas. Being the Library of Congress and all, it makes sense for them to maintain an up-to-date collection of all the legislation floating around on the floor. They keep track of bills from introduction until they die, are vetoed, or become law.
      2. Make sure you have the right Congress. Even though it seems most members of Congress have been where they are for longer than many of us have been alive, a new "Congress" is considred to be formed the swearing in of the winners of a recent election. Our current Congress was sworn in after the last election, January '03. Since we know what we're looking for happened in '01, we have to go back to the 107th Congress.
      3. Know what you're looking for. It sounds simple, but it isn't always. For example, if you're looking for a piece of pork-barrel spending slipped into a bill to complain about, good luck; they tend not to call bills "Act to Buy Votes in my Home District and Keep My Sorry Ass on the Hill" (Bitter? Who, me?). Luckily for us, we know the "proper" name of the bill ("USA PATRIOT Act"). You can also search by things like bill number (they begin with "HR" if they start in the House of Representatives and "S" if they start in the Senate), its status (check out the long list of bills President Bush has vetoed!) as well as other factors. In this example, we see that the USA PATRIOT Act was known as "HR 3162" in the 107th Congress
      4. Make sure you have the right version. For better*cough* or for worse, the USA PATRIOT Act is one of those bills nobody bothered to look at before voting on, but that's a rarity. It's pretty common for the House and the Senate to dicker back and forth over the text before sending it off to the White House. (I hear the White House can even occasionally send it back for yet more revision, but I'm beginning to think that's just a myth.) Once you're looking at one version of the bill you're looking for, you can click on "Bill Summary & Status Info" for a breakdown of what the different versions are, where we ultimately learn that HR 3162 was signed into law as "public law 107-56" (107th Congress, 56th public law) and can view the text of the final version there.

      Unfortunately, the response you get here doesn't have a URL you can easily cut-and-paste for others to look at, so I had to go to The Other Source on federal law: the GPO. It's their primary job to take all these silly laws numbered solely by Congress and law number and organize them into something that's more easily searched (relatively speaking), breaking it down into titles, chapters, sections and so forth. The USA PATRIOT Act doesn't exist in US Code as one monolithic chunk of text but as a whole mess of edits, addendums and footnotes sprinkled liberally throughout the whole thing (which is why you often want to start with Thomas even if it's already become a law). However, since they had to deal with the beast of "public law 107-56" in its original form before digesting it, and since they're in charge of all government publishing to begin with (what's in a name?), they should have the text available in its original form. Sure enough, go to their website, click on "Public and Private Laws," select the 107th Congress, type in "public law 107-56," and you get to see it in ASCII or PDF format with a (relatively) friendly URL. Now if only they can be convinced to use normal double quotes

    43. Re:Gee... by Short+Circuit · · Score: 1

      They wouldn't let me "fix" stuff...

      We never advertised. Our client base grew through word of mouth. We kept a low turnover rate that way.

      I would have gladly written a RADIUS server that did the kind of accounting they wanted. I would have gladly moved the email system from NT to Linux. And the web server.

      About the only thing we ran under Linux was DNS.

      --
      tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
    44. Re:Gee... by wawannem · · Score: 1
      heh, don't get me wrong I wasn't slamming you, I was just musing to myself how nice it would have been to work there, since the very stuff I was sick of doing you seemed unallowed to do :)

      I suppose at the same time, you would have liked to work in the environment I was in a few years back.
      • My choice of serverOS and hardware as long as I could make a legitimate claim that more capacity was needed.
      • My choice of supporting software for taking care of my administrative duties.
      The only problem I had was a severe lack of supporting personnel, these choices were all up to me simply because I was the only one taking care of the stuff.
    45. Re:Gee... by rifter · · Score: 1

      Thats irrelevant. ISPs will know who had what IP and at what times.

      Sometimes they will, or will think they will, based on logs. Of course this is going to depend greatly on the accuracy both of the ISPs' logs and the RIAA's information. Both are historically innaccurate and relying on such data have generally yielded many false results. For instance, the RIAA has sued people who were distributing their own or independant mp3s as well as people who clearly had no capability to run the software needed to distribute them (in the case of several Mac users who were sued based on data from Kazaa).

      Also the logs are ephemeral as several have pointed out. ISPs do not have to keep these logs for any specific amount of time and may end up following suit on libraries if this keeps up. (Libraries responded to USAPATRIOT Act requirements to divulge information on patrons by not keeping that information anymore).

    46. Re:Gee... by rifter · · Score: 1

      The flawed logic I am trying to dis-spell is the "I could start an ISP, then my friends and I can hack sites all day long, not keep logs, and be immune from any prosecution." idea.

      How about the "I run an ISP, and I want to spend time running the ISP and serving my customers, not spending it in court" idea. This alone may motivate ISPs to stop holding information about users because they cannot afford to spend time hunting down logs every time some asshole lawyer finds a reaosn to send them a nasty email.

    47. Re:Gee... by rifter · · Score: 1

      "Critical point of failure in your post. It's not your job to "prove you didn't do it". If someone makes an accusation against you or you're charged with a crime, it's THEIR job to prove you DID."

      They already have their proof you did it. They have a record indicating that an IP belonging to your business downloaded the pirated material. It then becomes your responsibility, as a business, to prove a particular user did it. Very, very simple stuff, I don't know why all these people miss it.

      No, first off they have no proof that anything of the kind occurred. They have evidence which has yet to be admitted into a court of law which they believe suggests a crime occurred, and further evidence which might in their view be used in conjunction with further data which you may or may not have to corroborate their theory. Once a judge has looked at this evidence they may compel by subpoena the disclosure of such evidence as you might reasonably be expected to have.

      It is your job, and everyone's job, to faithfully attempt to comply with orders of the court. It is not anyone's job to make other people's civil cases for them (barring of course the retained attorneys for plaintiff). In any case, no case can have a presumed outcome so there is no absolute proof. Also you have things backwards. Downloading copyrighted material is not a crime. Distributing it without the permission of the copyright holder is a civil offense to be determined by the preponderance of the evidence.

      "And, IANAL either, but somehow I doubt you could be held responsible for someone else doing bad things in your car just because you loaned it to them."

      This is criminal negligence. People are charged with this all the time for letting a drunk friend drive their car.

      There you go bringing that straw man to life again. It is criminal negligence to let a person you know to be intoxicated drive ANY car. It is not criminal negligence to lend someone your car, which they then use to rob a bank or get drunk and run over schoolchildren. There is a very basic legal principle here which as a non-lawyer I do not know the name, but essentially there is a certain level of due diligence required for any transaction. This due diligence cannot extend into the realm of omniscience. It is dictated by what is reasonable to expect business owners to do in checking things out and generally very little is required.

    48. Re:Gee... by rifter · · Score: 1

      Negative. Let's make up a situation:

      Haxx0rX has a dial-up account with 'unlimited' access. He uses this account to down the store backend to a large shopping website. The admin of this site contacts the feds after locating the originating IP of the attack. He hands the information over to the feds. The fed contacts the abuse department of Haxx0rX's ISP. The ISP responds "Oh, I am sorry, we have already deleted those logs. But, yep, that is one of our IPs. So sorry!". The company who was hacked no longer has any legal recourse against the hacker because you deleted the logs in an unreasonably short amount of time (30 days?! When I did abuse, we held on to everything for a minimum of 2 years to avoid these situations). The only option left is to file a suit against the ISP for whatever damages you incured. This is simple negligence. The ISP will quickly lose the case due to their log deleting policy, and the hacker is never found.

      Common carriers are not responsible for the actions of their users. This principle is enshrined in law and conforms firmly to common sense. If the ISP had a negligent policy that allowed HackerX to continue hacking after they had reason to believe this was the case, or they failed to cooperate with the authorities there might be some room to argue negligence or complicity. Otherwise, no.

  2. Here are the IPs in question by krog · · Score: 2, Informative

    If you're worried, check for your IP in this list:

    200.63.21.82, 200.43.100.2, 200.45.71.52, 66.250.69.1, 63.127.197.125, 12.151.51.3, 208.179.83.10, 64.132.153.94, 63.104.199.229, 209.178.203.10, 63.202.129.167, 209.210.176.44, 208.231.174.104, 12.153.122.3, 141.211.110.111, 216.191.3.75, 206.19.38.189, 206.156.87.27, 66.250.69.1, 206.126.128.16, 66.119.33.166, 66.105.98.139, 200.30.106.236, 130.150.174.132, 64.3.176.219, 216.87.64.146, 216.120.43.90, 65.112.203.171, 64.108.32.30, 64.83.129.12, 64.132.64.189, 207.115.74.124, 63.227.161.85, 63.108.93.134, 204.95.155.2, 66.134.30.172, 216.149.228.117, 64.35.162.221, 64.69.108.138, 216.174.249.11, 216.136.13.252, 209.23.191.50, 68.47.170.144, 209.53.200.33, 64.57.216.154, 24.62.41.115, 209.10.154.3, 68.101.180.62, 216.101.213.100, 216.138.115.153, 66.43.149.135, 216.207.208.6, 216.138.115.134, 38.161.171.4, 208.10.115.111, 208.184.53.91, 63.193.141.126, 208.150.224.21, 171.64.107.73, 204.0.181.79, 216.174.248.6, 63.125.180.75, 199.233.75.2, 64.32.251.71, 207.115.79.125, 200.69.218.129, 128.95.39.140, 208.150.224.18, 12.100.15.167, 64.57.216.175, 142.163.125.10, 216.167.47.25, 206.117.78.11, 164.58.80.66, 205.221.82.5, 64.45.149.39, 64.238.119.162, 209.51.224.26, 216.38.33.66, 208.37.238.178, 216.167.48.205, 209.53.201.151, 148.247.5.2, 208.192.111.150, 216.38.33.66, 216.136.111.164, 66.0.72.18, 12.8.36.142, 63.221.31.26, 64.26.96.10, 63.206.200.131, 208.150.224.18, 24.106.27.8, 208.21.172.138, 216.144.199.222, 131.212.59.41, 68.0.113.150, 208.184.53.95, 216.135.194.170, 38.201.184.162, 200.32.75.90, 206.129.0.18, 216.174.249.22, 64.77.84.154, 155.229.77.2, 165.138.50.193, 64.30.216.226, 66.121.16.117, 63.163.68.115, 206.254.36.34, 4.64.63.190, 216.53.197.27, 205.136.164.80, 168.216.25.172, 209.180.49.185, 128.110.142.49, 216.150.218.245, 208.177.156.6, 12.36.210.123, 12.15.32.199, 64.220.125.211, 216.210.194.43, 12.159.43.40, 64.42.21.250, 200.62.194.130, 200.70.37.10, 196.40.60.34, 164.77.247.122, 208.151.246.44, 208.30.40.250, 208.184.53.89, 65.104.48.76, 208.188.209.234, 209.172.13.5, 204.201.220.33, 66.12.24.194, 205.216.125.26, 204.201.220.33, 209.31.173.2, 64.83.129.10, 216.76.114.130, 12.27.205.15, 65.105.125.126, 209.23.81.59, 209.204.71.120, 65.106.228.51, 210.9.199.154, 200.24.214.158, 216.148.246.133, 200.81.64.14, 128.111.80.86, 206.126.128.239, 210.10.86.12, 63.170.241.227, 202.61.211.113, 200.61.6.50, 128.253.145.99, 216.227.111.41, 24.128.140.29, 216.138.5.2, 63.199.63.218, 216.136.13.252, 61.8.23.5, 216.149.228.118, 12.98.160.35, 63.225.211.58, 200.205.174.194, 64.51.242.130, 216.126.11.10, 216.243.206.237, 64.242.223.111, 216.117.110.253, 209.73.13.200, 65.89.79.188, 207.115.71.152, 200.14.237.10, 204.94.195.3, 216.53.197.27, 207.219.2.31, 204.246.74.209, 207.224.50.241, 63.171.197.173, 65.104.156.98, 206.111.235.35, 200.203.240.129, 209.106.163.7, 129.186.12.52, 216.239.0.93, 66.147.2.35, 64.144.240.62, 200.181.107.195, 63.165.92.4, 64.66.106.26, 216.77.173.59, 208.184.53.109, 216.88.32.211, 63.72.18.252, 65.105.125.126, 63.86.165.3, 64.51.98.130, 206.127.251.176, 216.165.222.190, 200.167.215.225, 208.184.53.98, 168.187.123.11, 216.148.244.37, 24.196.41.205, 66.83.10.226, 216.126.11.110, 216.230.87.84, 209.26.191.130, 196.15.241.22, 200.223.188.131, 207.173.172.98, 200.252.127.11, 200.21.225.82, 66.236.70.66, 216.126.11.103, 63.142.64.10, 151.188.13.9, 204.253.56.218, 64.242.223.111, 200.182.86.2, 216.77.97.130, 168.160.251.165, 216.152.166.130, 200.54.149.210, 204.2.60.34, 200.205.68.46, 196.15.183.83, 208.177.156.90, 63.199.63.218, 209.172.13.199, 63.229.15.107, 207.109.229.68, 128.110.187.10, 200.167.215.129, 216.138.115.136, 139.130.93.130, 209.98.3.203, 216.126.28.154, 64.34.192.237, 64.57.216.125, 64.57.216.140, 24.86.121.228, 206.168.157.64, 216.149.228.98, 196.20.31.121, 207.213.248.71, 66.82.81.103, 200.31.26.66, 208.153.192.242, 62.210.132.50, 163.178.136.2, 209.53.200.21, 12.150.206.100, 64.19.148.245, 64.4.114.4, 206.208.62.141, 207.28.160.225, 216.176.223.180, 216.20.135.8, 63.217.167.34, 63.89.181.5, 216.101.117.162, 63.77.37.9, 216.

    --
    Cretin - a powerful and flexible CD reencoder
    1. Re:Here are the IPs in question by SirTwitchALot · · Score: 1

      Very cool, and thanks... but how did you come about those addys? Just making sure this isn't a troll.

      --
      Go away, or I will replace you with a very small shell script.
    2. Re:Here are the IPs in question by a+man+named+bob · · Score: 4, Informative

      You can also check the EFF subpoena datatbase, for existing subpoenas, it's not updated with the new IP's yet but I'd imagine that'll happen pretty soon.

      You can check that here

    3. Re:Here are the IPs in question by Bander · · Score: 2, Funny

      man sort

      -- Bander

      --
      What we need more of is science!
    4. Re:Here are the IPs in question by apoch2001 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Damnit! I'm right there in the middle!!! Can't you see it? Umm.. i will be going into hiding. :) Perhaps we can sue 146.82.174.12 for defamation...?

    5. Re:Here are the IPs in question by ShieldWolf · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Interesting, the ISP's won't give up their names, but try typing in http://128.111.80.86/ which is one of the entries. This leads you to the University of California - Santa Barbara's security we page. So they NAT all their users apparently, how helpful is that? :P

      --
      just = (My)Opinion.toCents();
    6. Re:Here are the IPs in question by djh101010 · · Score: 1

      man sort

      man grep

    7. Re:Here are the IPs in question by Mr.+McGibby · · Score: 1

      mac19.art.utah.edu
      www.finearts.utah.edu
      www.pri nting.utah.edu

      I wonder if they plan on finding the guilty parties on these boxes?

      --
      Mad Software: Rantings on Developing So
    8. Re:Here are the IPs in question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Oh crap. I'm in their twice. I knew I shouldn't have used two network cards in my computer. Now I'll have to defend myself from two lawsuits.

    9. Re:Here are the IPs in question by Bander · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yeah, I guess I could have done:

      lynx -dump http://whateverthedamnurlis | grep my.static.ip.addy

      I still would have liked the OP to have sorted the list before posting.

      -- Bander

      --
      What we need more of is science!
    10. Re:Here are the IPs in question by kiolbasa · · Score: 1

      The first three listed, and some I can see, are 200/8 addresses which, as far as I know, are in south america.

      --

      Beer wants to be free
    11. Re:Here are the IPs in question by Short+Circuit · · Score: 1

      Anyone care to do a reverse dns on all those IPs? I don't have a *nix box handy to do it.

      --
      tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
    12. Re:Here are the IPs in question by bziman · · Score: 1
      Gee, sucks to be them... some of these IPs are in blocks outside the United States -- the first one I looked up was in Egypt... glad I'm not on that list...

      --brian

    13. Re:Here are the IPs in question by dyte · · Score: 5, Interesting

      These are in the list twice

      12.100.15.167
      204.201.220.33
      208.150.224.18
      2 12.198.251.66
      216.136.13.252
      216.38.33.66
      216.5 3.197.27
      38.201.184.162
      63.199.63.218
      64.132.15 3.94
      64.242.223.111
      65.105.125.126
      66.250.69.1

      210.73.74.200 is in 3 times

      I count 518 uniques

    14. Re:Here are the IPs in question by BadBlood · · Score: 3, Informative

      Some IP's end in ".1" which are normally ISP gateways....

      --


      Praying for the end of your wide-awake nightmare.
    15. Re:Here are the IPs in question by be-fan · · Score: 1

      Ha ha, I'm not on it :)

      Apparently, neither is anybody else from GaTech. If any other Tech students are reading this, I say we must redouble our efforts to get on this list! It'd be a shame to let all that perfectly good bandwidth go to waste!

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
    16. Re:Here are the IPs in question by dyte · · Score: 1

      Darn it, 517

    17. Re:Here are the IPs in question by blueorder · · Score: 1

      my ip at home ends in .1 and to make it even more unusual it also has a 0 in there (as in XXX.0.XXX.1)

      --
      blueorder
    18. Re:Here are the IPs in question by ydnar · · Score: 1

      I counted 517?

    19. Re:Here are the IPs in question by ch-chuck · · Score: 3, Funny

      C:\>ipconfig /release
      C:\>ipconfig /renew

      Sorry, you have the wrong person.

      --
      try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
    20. Re:Here are the IPs in question by katre · · Score: 2, Funny

      my ip at home ends in .1 and to make it even more unusual it also has a 0 in there (as in XXX.0.XXX.1)

      Yeah, but 127.0.0.1 doesn't count!

    21. Re:Here are the IPs in question by mix_master_mike · · Score: 1

      What's recommended that one persue if they were to find themselves on such a list ?

      --

      mix_master_mike
      vafrous

    22. Re:Here are the IPs in question by Tatarize · · Score: 1

      Did a quick check on some of the ip addresses, just guessing from a ARIN WHOIS db check, a good number of these aren't from the US.

      1) US, Comment: ADDRESSES WITHIN THIS BLOCK ARE NON-PORTABLE
      2) German.
      3) Latin America.
      4) West Africa
      5) France.
      6) Latin America
      7) US. Unknown static/dynamic.
      Also, doesn't having their set of ip addresses sorta open them up to hacking attempts? Or at least attempts to use the built in messenger service in windows to notify them they are named and should cover their tracks.

      I wonder how it would look if after they file suit against IP addresses those IP addresses having been released get DDoS'd? Don't get me wrong I try to avoid flaunting my ip address for this and other reasons. Publishing the ip addresses in open court could go badly. Although, I can hardly guess what effect this could have. It just doesn't quite seem right.

      --

      It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.
    23. Re:Here are the IPs in question by WoodstockJeff · · Score: 1
      Yep, they're going to have some trouble in court with these... The very first IP listed, 200.63.21.82, is listed as an open mail relay server in Argentina, that may also be an open proxy... And I also recognize dozens of other non-US IPs.

      I wonder if the Korean sites listed are shaking in their boots? B-)

    24. Re:Here are the IPs in question by pimephalis · · Score: 1
      Interesting, they apparently are going after a Canadian this round:

      whois 132.206.101.25

      Country: CANADA

      NOTE: More information appears to be available at MU-ORG-ARIN.

      OrgName: McGill University
      OrgID: GILL
      Address: Department of Electrical Engineering
      Address: 3480 University Street
      City: Montreal
      StateProv:
      PostalCode: Quebec
      Country: CA

      NetRange: 132.206.0.0 - 132.206.255.255
      CIDR: 132.206.0.0/16
      NetName: MCGILL-CA
      NetHandle: NET-132-206-0-0-1
      Parent: NET-132-0-0-0-0
      NetType: Direct Allocation
      NameServer: KONA.CC.MCGILL.CA
      NameServer: MOKA.CC.MCGILL.CA
      Comment:
      RegDate: 1989-06-14
      Updated: 2001-09-26

      TechHandle: MU-ORG-ARIN
      TechName: McGill University
      TechPhone: +1-514-398-3699
      TechEmail: contact.ncs@mcgill.ca

      # ARIN WHOIS database, last updated 2004-01-20 19:15
      # Enter ? for additional hints on searching ARIN's WHOIS database.

      --
      Talk about a blinding glimpse of the perfectly obvious ....
    25. Re:Here are the IPs in question by justins · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It would be infinitely more useful to simply post the link where you got that information. Thanks!

      --
      Now before I get modded down, I be to remind whoever might read this that what I am saying is FACT. - bogaboga
    26. Re:Here are the IPs in question by cmacb · · Score: 4, Funny

      I think I spotted several SCO IP addresses in there. Maybe the best thing to do is let RIAA know that SCO is using their servers as major music sharing hubs and at the same time convince SCO that RIAA has been running unlicensed copies of SCO Unix (what's it called this week?) for years. Let the clueless losers battle one another to death while the rest of us get on with our lives.

    27. Re:Here are the IPs in question by eofpi · · Score: 1

      46 in that range, by my count.

      --
      Y'know, you blow up one sun and suddenly everyone expects you to walk on water.
    28. Re:Here are the IPs in question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      82-21-63-200-ptr.ipbusiness.net.ar host071052.arnet.net.ar server.backendhost.com 64-132-153-94.gen.twtelecom.net adsl-63-202-129-167.dsl.renocs.nvbell.net filter.ikano.com mail.webfolders.net host75.reprografic.com server.backendhost.com web3.clubnet.net proxy.ia4.marketscore.com ip66-105-98-139.z98-105-66.customer.algx.net ip174-132.calstate.edu w219.z064003176.stl-mo.dsl.cnc.net oracle-u235.viawest.net e.bolgerinc.com adsl-64-108-32-30.dsl.bltnin.ameritech.net www.marshinc.com uswb124.isomedia.com h-66-134-30-172.NYCMNY83.covad.net Proxy.ALACT.org wwwdemos.com rancho90.net10.net jesus.maxnetwork.com sushi.lakes.com pcp04959131pcs.westk01.tn.comcast.net Proxy.ALACT.org h000347c39f44.ne.client2.attbi.com mail.barberinc.com ip68-101-180-62.sd.sd.cox.net adsl-216-101-213-100.dsl.lsan03.pacbell.net airband-216-138-216-153.airband.net uslec-66-43-149-135.cust.uslec.net airband-216-138-216-134.airband.net smtp.humanscale.com smtp.humanscale.com 208.184.53.91.available baffle.Stanford.EDU flash.net10.net ip-64-32-251-71.dsl.iad.megapath.net mail.nwmotion.com customer.iplannetworks.net www.uweb.engr.washington.edu 167.mupc.chcg.chcgil24.dsl.att.net ns1.magicom.net ns1.magicom.net isaic.crlibrary.org isaic.crlibrary.org host26.224.51.209.conversent.net w178.z208037238.nyc-ny.dsl.cnc.net w178.z208037238.nyc-ny.dsl.cnc.net dslgw1.cipherkey.com ip164.gtsgateway.com eagle2.caldwellacademy.net adsl-63-206-200-131.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net adsl-63-206-200-131.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net rrcs-west-24-106-27-8.biz.rr.com med162c-lw.d.umn.edu ip68-0-113-150.tu.ok.cox.net 208.184.53.95.available ip68-0-113-150.tu.ok.cox.net user-vc8fgla.biz.mindspring.com mcdonaldhouseelpaso.com 64.30.216.226.lcinet.net 64.30.216.226.lcinet.net adsl-66-121-16-117.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net library.vrjc.cc.tx.us.36.254.206.in-addr.arpa library.vernoncollege.edu tamqfl1-ar3-4-64-063-190.tamqfl1.dsl-verizon.net library.vrjc.cc.tx.us.36.254.206.in-addr.arpa library.vernoncollege.edu samaritanbethany.com www.samaritanbethany.com mail.samaritanbethany.com mac19.art.utah.edu advoda-server01.corp.advoda.com w006.z208177156.sjc-ca.dsl.cnc.net 64-42-21-250.atgi.net dsl-208-151-246-44.dsl.easystreet.com dsl-208-151-246-44.dsl.easystreet.com 208.184.53.89.available w076.z065104048.lax-ca.dsl.cnc.net adsl-208-188-209-234.clgerwick.com adsl-208-188-209-234.clgerwick.com bdsl.66.12.24.194.gte.net 209.31.173.2.ptr.us.xo.net 209.31.173.2.ptr.us.xo.net dial-12-27-205-15.farmerstel.com dial-12-27-205-15.farmerstel.com 65.106.228.51.ptr.us.xo.net 65.106.228.51.ptr.us.xo.net con136404-1.gw.connect.com.au proxy.sj4.marketscore.com proxy.sj4.marketscore.com secure.clubnet.net www.alumni.cornell.edu c-24-128-140-29.ne.client2.attbi.com c-24-128-140-29.ne.client2.attbi.com mamin.net adsl-63-199-63-218.dsl.lsan03.pacbell.net jesus.maxnetwork.com adsl-63-199-63-218.dsl.lsan03.pacbell.net mamin.net 35.muad.nyrk.nycenycp.dsl.att.net 35.muad.nyrk.nycenycp.dsl.att.net 200-205-174-194.customer.tdatabrasil.net.br 200-205-174-194.customer.tdatabrasil.net.br 64-51-242-130.client.dsl.net ip-216-126-11-10.oanet.com mail.sestower.com gteb152.isomedia.com mail.chicotmemorial.com max1-1.lkv.cei.net saturn.littleb.com max1-1.lkv.cei.net mail.chicotmemorial.com ns1.msserv.com www.inlinewarehouse.com 65.104.156.98.ptr.us.xo.net www.inlinewarehouse.com 206.111.235.35.ptr.us.xo.net mac012052.biol.iastate.edu minas-morgul.702com.net minas-morgul.702com.net 64-144-240-62.client.dsl.net 208.184.53.109.available burgundyfarm.org burgundyfarm.org 64-51-98-130.client.dsl.net atm-251-176.pixi.com 216-165-222-190.crescentb.com 208.184.53.98.available proxy.sjc.marketscore.com ip-216-126-11-110.oanet.com 216-230-87-84.client.cypresscom.net 216-230-87-84.client.cypresscom.net ultrapack.gw.intekom.com amplifiedintelligence.com 66.236.70.66.ptr.us.xo.net ip-216-126-11-103.oanet.com 66.236.70.66.ptr.us.xo.net 218.216.56.253.204.in-addr.arpa mail.jkmolds.com sub-166ip130.carats.net sub-166ip130.carats.net sportsres.net w090.z208177156.sjc-ca.dsl.cnc.net sportsres.com mamin.net adsl-63-199-63-218.dsl.lsan03.pacbell.net www.p

    29. Re:Here are the IPs in question by iantri · · Score: 1

      Must be a mistake, considering that one would think that RIAA has no reach outside of the US and would leave this to CRIA.. (Canadian Recording Industry Association)

    30. Re:Here are the IPs in question by coolmacdude · · Score: 1

      I say we must redouble our efforts to get on this list

      Hah, after what happened with Buzzsearch, I think I will pass.

      OIT would probably do something inane like block all nonpriviliged ports.

      --

      -You may license this sig for only $6.99.
    31. Re:Here are the IPs in question by molnarcs · · Score: 1

      nmap -v -sS -T Agressive -O -P0 lets see if port 6699 is open on those machines :))) Just kidding - don't do it ;)

    32. Re:Here are the IPs in question by OniOid · · Score: 1

      I got a good chuckle from your sig quote. :)

    33. Re:Here are the IPs in question by Wakkow · · Score: 1

      I did a reverse dns lookup on the list.. It's kinda funny that University of Utah Printing Services and UC Berkeley Printing Services both come up on the list..

      Take a look at the full list (note: these are only the ones that returned something)

    34. Re:Here are the IPs in question by Fr0mZer0 · · Score: 1


      Hey I can see my house from here!!!

    35. Re:Here are the IPs in question by kenthu · · Score: 1
      It would be infinitely more useful to simply post the link where you got that information. Thanks!
      Perhaps krog didn't want to /. the server where he/she got those IP addresses.
    36. Re:Here are the IPs in question by ScuzzMonkey · · Score: 1

      The Seismological Society of America??!? Scandalous! I'm cancelling my membership immediately!

      Although it does posit an interesting and previously unsuspected relationship between rocks and rock music.

      --
      No relation to Happy Monkey
    37. Re:Here are the IPs in question by ScuzzMonkey · · Score: 1

      Er, yes, preview is a valuable and underutilized option

      --
      No relation to Happy Monkey
    38. Re:Here are the IPs in question by peter_gzowski · · Score: 3, Funny

      I bet it really bugged the RIAA to see 128.210.99.156 on the list.

      --
      "Now gluttony and exploitation serves eight!" - TV's Frank
    39. Re:Here are the IPs in question by bobdotorg · · Score: 1

      Sorted for your convenience:

      12.100.15.167, 12.100.15.167, 12.15.32.199, 12.150.206.100, 12.150.244.9, 12.151.51.3, 12.153.122.3, 12.159.43.40, 12.160.6.230, 12.27.205.15, 12.36.210.123, 12.8.36.142, 12.98.160.35, 128.104.206.86, 128.110.142.49, 128.110.178.13, 128.110.187.10, 128.111.80.86, 128.148.246.2, 128.2.112.6, 128.2.58.100, 128.210.99.156, 128.218.183.95, 128.252.76.18, 128.253.145.99, 128.32.250.11, 128.32.56.100, 128.32.89.31, 128.83.209.120, 128.95.39.140, 129.186.12.52, 130.104.252.20, 130.127.130.253, 130.150.174.132, 130.225.8.117, 130.227.165.103, 131.212.59.41, 131.234.134.25, 132.206.101.25, 134.103.192.22, 134.157.24.10, 138.232.156.6, 139.130.93.130, 141.211.110.111, 142.163.125.10, 142.165.95.206, 142.179.199.242, 142.179.203.154, 148.247.5.2, 151.188.13.9, 155.139.50.14, 155.229.77.2, 158.65.36.60, 161.53.101.228, 163.178.136.2, 164.58.80.66, 164.77.247.122, 165.138.50.193, 165.139.123.34, 168.160.251.165, 168.187.123.11, 168.216.25.172, 168.37.239.1, 169.207.11.153, 169.207.63.200, 169.207.93.174, 171.64.107.73, 193.121.44.245, 193.171.248.65, 193.171.249.98, 193.188.80.128, 193.65.248.188, 194.100.50.237, 194.108.220.97, 194.199.196.7, 194.212.26.25, 194.212.95.34, 194.7.39.179, 194.78.173.143, 194.78.66.66, 194.79.144.102, 195.101.250.212, 195.115.80.193, 195.126.99.8, 195.146.110.6, 195.15.5.125, 195.185.137.251, 195.190.68.190, 195.217.49.193, 195.6.191.35, 195.68.95.209, 196.15.183.83, 196.15.241.22, 196.20.31.121, 196.40.60.34, 198.38.68.1, 199.233.75.2, 199.3.230.86, 199.95.204.45, 200.11.72.146, 200.14.237.10, 200.167.215.129, 200.167.215.225, 200.168.12.189, 200.17.79.42, 200.173.110.140, 200.181.107.195, 200.182.86.2, 200.202.18.34, 200.202.96.10, 200.203.240.129, 200.205.174.194, 200.205.187.66, 200.205.68.46, 200.206.215.27, 200.207.190.174, 200.207.207.240, 200.208.2.164, 200.21.225.82, 200.210.13.134, 200.210.226.130, 200.223.188.131, 200.23.181.19, 200.24.214.158, 200.240.17.4, 200.252.127.11, 200.254.223.136, 200.254.50.32, 200.255.239.130, 200.30.106.236, 200.31.26.66, 200.32.75.90, 200.32.75.91, 200.37.27.25, 200.43.100.2, 200.45.71.52, 200.5.230.188, 200.54.149.210, 200.55.12.136, 200.61.6.50, 200.62.194.130, 200.63.21.82, 200.69.218.129, 200.70.37.10, 200.72.32.242, 200.81.64.14, 202.102.153.17, 202.108.157.43, 202.129.70.206, 202.160.12.27, 202.61.211.113, 202.94.66.126, 202.96.1.225, 203.108.174.141, 204.0.181.79, 204.101.214.6, 204.2.60.34, 204.201.220.33, 204.201.220.33, 204.215.51.129, 204.246.74.209, 204.253.56.218, 204.69.220.164, 204.83.197.253, 204.94.195.3, 204.95.155.2, 205.136.164.80, 205.205.143.254, 205.216.125.26, 205.221.82.5, 205.242.0.91, 206.111.235.35, 206.117.78.11, 206.126.128.16, 206.126.128.239, 206.126.2.171, 206.127.251.176, 206.129.0.18, 206.132.94.168, 206.151.49.162, 206.152.227.35, 206.156.87.27, 206.168.157.64, 206.19.38.189, 206.207.111.144, 206.207.174.242, 206.208.62.141, 206.228.73.9, 206.254.36.34, 206.29.151.226, 206.41.224.117, 206.72.78.224, 206.72.78.226, 207.109.229.68, 207.115.71.152, 207.115.74.124, 207.115.79.125, 207.173.172.98, 207.177.74.225, 207.213.248.71, 207.219.2.31, 207.224.27.9, 207.224.50.241, 207.241.13.3, 207.253.238.14, 207.253.250.242, 207.26.97.71, 207.28.160.225, 207.61.38.67, 208.10.115.111, 208.150.224.18, 208.150.224.18, 208.150.224.21, 208.151.246.44, 208.153.192.242, 208.177.156.6, 208.177.156.90, 208.179.72.162, 208.179.83.10, 208.183.0.10, 208.184.53.109, 208.184.53.89, 208.184.53.91, 208.184.53.95, 208.184.53.98, 208.185.12.2, 208.185.214.7, 208.187.125.6, 208.188.209.234, 208.192.111.150, 208.21.172.138, 208.210.197.82, 208.231.174.104, 208.30.40.250, 208.37.238.178, 208.44.109.136, 208.57.80.209, 208.62.71.210, 209.10.154.3, 209.106.163.7, 209.113.184.98, 209.133.99.131, 209.139.35.2, 209.142.20.4, 209.143.119.210, 209.167.15.11, 209.172.13.199, 209.172.13.5, 209.178.203.10, 209.180.102.114, 209.180.49.185, 209.204.71.120, 209.210.176.44, 209.23.191.50, 209.23.81.59, 209.249.56.178, 209.25.36.37, 209.26.191.130, 209.31.173.2, 209.31.173.33, 209.51.224.26, 209.53.200.21, 209.53.200.32, 209.53.200.33, 2

      --
      __ Someday, but not this morning, I'll finally learn to use the preview button.
    40. Re:Here are the IPs in question by Oscar_Wilde · · Score: 1

      Hmmm, some of these are odd 130.104.252.20 doesn't even seem to be in the USA. Did I miss something?

    41. Re:Here are the IPs in question by Iorek · · Score: 1

      Not sure what this says about my sense of humour, but I laughed out loud. Thanks! :-)

    42. Re:Here are the IPs in question by Kaboom13 · · Score: 1

      I realize thats a joke, but it won't work with most DHCP servers. Most DHCP servers I have worked with try to preserve ips, where possible. Even though you are requesting a new lease, the server just gives you back the same ip.

    43. Re:Here are the IPs in question by Penguinshit · · Score: 1



      Slashdotted now, too... poor bastards...

      --

      I have something in common with Stephen Hawking...

    44. Re:Here are the IPs in question by jea6 · · Score: 1

      Interesting since a bunch of these IPs are assigned to non ARIN registries and presumably quite foreign:

      200.30.106.236:
      OrgName: Latin American and Caribbean IP address Regional Registry
      OrgID: LACNIC
      Address: Potosi 1517
      City: Montevideo
      StateProv:
      PostalCode: 11500
      Country: UY

      200.63.21.82: Uruguay
      200.43.100.2: Uruguay
      200.45.71.52: Uruguay

      Some are in Canada:
      216.191.3.75:
      OrgName: Allstream Corp. Corporation Allstream
      OrgID: ACCA-2
      Address: 200 Wellington Street West
      Address: 16th Floor
      City: Toronto
      StateProv: ON
      PostalCode: M5V-3G2
      Country: CA

      --

      sarchasm: The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the person who doesn't get it.
    45. Re:Here are the IPs in question by offpath3 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Where is this list from and how can we ascertain its accuracy? One of the machines in question is a Unix server in the Center for Materials Research here at Stanford Univ...

    46. Re:Here are the IPs in question by Rob+Simpson · · Score: 1

      Gosh, I wonder how cooperative all these ".fr", ".de", ".au, ".dk", and ".ca" folks will be? (And proxy only showed up 16 times...)

    47. Re:Here are the IPs in question by localhost00 · · Score: 1

      Ok then, But mine is 127.0.168.1

      --

      Calling atheism and agnosticism a religion is like calling bald a hair color.

    48. Re:Here are the IPs in question by The_K4 · · Score: 1

      I also question that there are 2 .edu mailservers on the list. I wonder if they let the admin run p2p on their mail gateway?

    49. Re:Here are the IPs in question by 1in10 · · Score: 1

      203.108.174.141 = an address on ozemail ...

      I wish the RIAA luck in bringing proceedings against an Australian user by filing in the US. I somehow doubt he's going to be extradited over this. ;)

    50. Re:Here are the IPs in question by macdaddy · · Score: 1

      The list of hostnames is most interesting. One of them is a law firm!

    51. Re:Here are the IPs in question by Rufus211 · · Score: 1

      Haha, nice. That game was da shit.

    52. Re:Here are the IPs in question by britneys+9th+husband · · Score: 1

      I've found that the lameness filter likes periods. If I recall correctly, a number of the ASCII art trolls use periods. I'm not sure about commas.

      --
      Hear recorded Slashdot headlines on your phone! New service beta testing. Just call (248) 434-5508
    53. Re:Here are the IPs in question by Kirth · · Score: 1

      Very funny. A Quick lookup turned up Canada, France and Germany. I expect to find some 250 countries more in that list.
      --

      --
      "The more prohibitions there are, The poorer the people will be" -- Lao Tse
    54. Re:Here are the IPs in question by andrewp111 · · Score: 1

      This is almost meaningless. Verizon (and most ISP's) assign their IP's dynamically, which means you need more than the IP address. You also need the time and date. It is however, quite meaningful for those who have fixed IP addresses.

    55. Re:Here are the IPs in question by geschild · · Score: 1

      Well, my argument is, that if this gets through, then you might as well kill off the lameness filter altogether. More people are annoyed by it than it's able to protect the illuminati against the great unwashed masses.

      Anyway, thanks for the enlightening me on the interpunction work-around. Not that I'll be needing it, but it's nice to know that the filter is as faulty as I always thought.

      --
      Karma? What's that again?
  3. hehe, wasn't me.. by TechnoVooDooDaddy · · Score: 1

    ipconfig /release
    wait the IP lease expiration period
    ipconfig /renew
    nope, that's not my IP, see?

    thank you move along....

    1. Re:hehe, wasn't me.. by grub · · Score: 3, Informative


      ISPs keep a copy of what IP was leased to what MAC at what times.

      --
      Trolling is a art,
    2. Re:hehe, wasn't me.. by Perky_Goth · · Score: 1

      hmm, and mac address can't be spoofed...

    3. Re:hehe, wasn't me.. by b0r0din · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but will they freely release it? Verizon fought this one in court, although I believe they lost. But what about smaller ISPs. What about NAT? How far will RIAA go to sue intranet users? What about corporate intranets. When those companies find out they are subject to lawsuits, they'll destroy peoples' careers as well. This is an awful precedent to a music licensing model which is highly outdated. And it's amusing that a lot of people I know now use Apple's iTunes, which funds this. When will people realize the RIAA is a monopoly? When five large corporations control 90% of the music, and they form one large lobbying group/lawsuit group, they are essentially controlling pricing and funding a monopoly. It's disgusting.

    4. Re:hehe, wasn't me.. by tepples · · Score: 1

      Don't they also link the DHCP logs to the central switch's physical ports, each of which corresponds to a unique residential address?

    5. Re:hehe, wasn't me.. by johndiii · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Time to buy a new $10 network card.

      --
      Floating face-down in a river of regret...and thoughts of you...
    6. Re:hehe, wasn't me.. by Newspimp · · Score: 1

      Hmm, cable modem on a residential style network = no dedicated port. Though, generally the cable modem has a MAC and is linked to your account. So theoretically, IP -> MAC -> Cable Modem -> Account -> You IP spoofing and MAC spoofing would have more than enough doubt to make to prosecutable, IMHO. IANAL.

    7. Re:hehe, wasn't me.. by W32.Klez.A · · Score: 1

      ifconfig eth0 hw ether 66:66:66:66:66:66

    8. Re:hehe, wasn't me.. by pegr · · Score: 1

      Or change your MAC address on your windows box with this utility.

    9. Re:hehe, wasn't me.. by j-turkey · · Score: 1
      Or change your MAC address on your windows box with this utility.

      IIRC, the MAC address of your cable/dsl bridge is static. This number is tied to your account, I believe that your IP address may also be tied to this in the logs.

      ...although I could be wrong, I'm not a network guy

      --

      -Turkey

    10. Re:hehe, wasn't me.. by Short+Circuit · · Score: 1

      Assuming you're on ethernet. If you're connected PPP, you still have a MAC addres, but it's software based..

      There're very few ways they could monitor IPs for traffic, so there's a good chance a lot of those are from PPP connections.

      --
      tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
    11. Re:hehe, wasn't me.. by trentblase · · Score: 1

      Except most PPP based service providers require you to log in.

    12. Re:hehe, wasn't me.. by Short+Circuit · · Score: 1

      Well, yeah. But that doesn't mean they record every assignmenent.

      --
      tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
    13. Re:hehe, wasn't me.. by Theatetus · · Score: 1

      My ISP's (Comcast) is I think 24 hours but no matter how many times I release/renew I've had the same address for about a year and a half.

      --
      All's true that is mistrusted
    14. Re:hehe, wasn't me.. by pyros · · Score: 1

      No. I've heard of no service providers with enough physical connections to support every single customer. I worked at a telecom company a couple years ago, and forget what the average concentration was.

    15. Re:hehe, wasn't me.. by dnoyeb · · Score: 1

      A bridge has no more need for a MAC address that a switch. A switch is essentially a set of bridges.

      If your cable/dsl MODEM has a MAC address, then its more than a bridge. Most of them are routers and webservers as well.

      These devices effectively do have MAC addresses on their cable/dsl side though, and likely you can not switch to a new one without contacting your ISP.

    16. Re:hehe, wasn't me.. by j-turkey · · Score: 1
      A bridge has no more need for a MAC address that a switch. A switch is essentially a set of bridges.

      Whoops, I meant modem, not bridge...my bad -- nice catch.

      BTW, FWIW, and completely offtopic, don't managed ports on a switch all have MAC addresses?

      --

      -Turkey

    17. Re:hehe, wasn't me.. by tepples · · Score: 1

      I don't know about cable, but I thought DSL was point-to-point.

    18. Re:hehe, wasn't me.. by pyros · · Score: 1

      most DSL lines are actually just run over unused fractional T1 circuits, so you still get concentration rations there.

  4. Time by Neon+Spiral+Injector · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I wonder how long most ISPs keep their logs linking usernames to IP addresses.

    1. Re:Time by djh101010 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I wonder how long most ISPs keep their logs linking usernames to IP addresses.

      I suspect there may be some policies written very quickly, to say "not long at all".

    2. Re:Time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Of course, then the government will enforce log retention policies for everyone operating any sort of servers anywhere for any reason. Just like companies are legally obligated to retain financial, tax, customer and other business records for three or seven years - they will soon be required by law to retain server logs for as many years, most likely.

      I wonder what will happen when your server crashes or you wipe over a hard drive or you go out of business or you have a drive malfunction or something - and it's out of your hands.

    3. Re:Time by panxerox · · Score: 1

      But alas isp's don't now keep them forever and there are some good legal reasons why they can't be forced too. I guess RIAA boy you will just have to suck it up.

      --
      "It's so convenient to have a system where everyone is a criminal" - A. Hitler
    4. Re:Time by TwitchCHNO · · Score: 5, Informative

      The dhcp servier & radius server (PPP) are separate entities. More accurtately the dhcp Ip is linked to a MAC address - Once a dhcp lease expires (connection is terminated) the arp table is refreshed. I don't know how long other ISP's leave thier arp tables up - but my routers refresh every 20 minutes.

      In order to tie any specific IP to a particular user the connection has to remain active and the lease on the IP cannot expire.

      This is why some macintosh users were accused of running the kazza client - the IP in question was linked to the mac adress currently in the arp tables. I have never encountered an isp that logs thier arp tables. So the customer who gets slapped with the lawsuit may not have been the customer who was originally sharing mp3's.

      The only time usernames would be used at all if some sort of radius authentication is required by the isp before a dhcp address is leased (pap - chap, whatever). The most common broadband technologies that use radius is PPPOE & PPP over ATM.

      The majority of ISP's used bridged ethernet technologies that don't require radius authentication. The only way of matching an IP in that case is via mac address.

      Many firewall / router products allow for mac address cloning - which essentially allows a user to change his or her mac adress. IANAL but if the corresponding mac adress was not found on an offenders network then the RIAA would have no case.

      In either way - due to the fact that most residental broadband services only offer DHCP addresses - the method that the RIAA is using to identify thier victims is highly unreliable.

      --
      ___________________________
      I'm not a geek, but I play one on TV.
    5. Re:Time by mcrbids · · Score: 2, Informative

      I wonder how long most ISPs keep their logs linking usernames to IP addresses.

      I suspect there may be some policies written very quickly, to say "not long at all".

      Actually, I sysad at a few local ISPs, (outsourcing isn't just for Indian workers, y'know) and one of the client ISPs long ago made it clear to keep logs as short as possible to avoid problems like this.

      Most records are deleted automatically (a la logrotate.d) in a month. The only real reason to keep these records is for tech support, which virtually never requires anything more than a few weeks back.

      After that, these logs are just lawyer bait.

      --
      I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    6. Re:Time by Secrity · · Score: 1

      I know of one Network Service Provider (NSP) that keeps call detail records (CDRs) for six months and another ASP that retains CDRs for up to one year. An NSP is a provider that sells dialup services to ISPs, which typically are billed on either a per port basis or per hour. There are NO US laws that specify minimum CDR retention times, the retention times are based upon billing requirements. Some NSPs do not retain CDRs for customers that are billed per port for any longer than a few days to generate reports and to track network abusers (think abuse@whatever.net). The reason that an NSP keeps CDRs is in case there is a billing dispute with one of the customer ISPs. An ISP that provides it's own POPs (which is rare) and does not charge for usage shouldn't need to keep records for more than a week or so (to generate various internal reports and to identify network abusers).

    7. Re:Time by milkman_matt · · Score: 1

      Of course, then the government will enforce log retention policies for everyone operating any sort of servers anywhere for any reason. Just like companies are legally obligated to retain financial, tax, customer and other business records for three or seven years - they will soon be required by law to retain server logs for as many years, most likely.

      Man that's opening up a whole 'nother can o' worms... If you're going to REQUIRE retention times for ANY servers for ANY purpose.. how are they going to keep track of who is and who isn't? audits? Are they going to force people to buy an assload of tapes or hard drives? What if, even if they're able to keep all of their logs on 1 tape per year, a tape dies from some bizarre accident, then are you still charged with refusing to provide the information they're asking you for? What about home users who set up a home server for a hobby? I mean, this isn't a troll, but I just don't see how you would enforce your proposal...

      -matt

    8. Re:Time by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      or fun people like me that has a linux laptop that is set to change it's MAC address on every boot to a random number. It gives the guys at corperate NOC hissy fits but my direct report told them to stuff it, and he is their direct report's direct report.

      it's not hard to do and is great fun for messing with mcse's that think they run the best NOC there is and hate the fact that I have 5 linux servers and a laptop on "their" network.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    9. Re:Time by Myopic · · Score: 1

      When I was in college at Dartmouth there was a policy that the regularly-made backups of the mail servers were deleted after *one week*. They were daily or weekly backups, can't remember. The given reason for the policy was that it was in the college's interests to have nothing to hand over if there were ever a subpoena.

  5. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Informative

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  6. DHCP? by peterprior · · Score: 2, Redundant

    What about those people on DHCP who get a different IP address each time they log on ?

    1. Re:DHCP? by happyfrogcow · · Score: 1

      like my toaster oven! how are they going to prosecute my toaster oven!

      and why is my toaster oven listening to brittney spears anyway?

    2. Re:DHCP? by Petronius · · Score: 1

      DHCP seems to hand off the IP you previously had by default. At least with TimeWarner.

      --
      there's no place like ~
    3. Re:DHCP? by Berrik · · Score: 1

      You must be new here.

      Berrik

      --
      Current karma: Terrible (due to mods without a sense of humor)
    4. Re:DHCP? by pla · · Score: 1

      DHCP seems to hand off the IP you previously had by default. At least with TimeWarner.

      Although they can give you DHCP based on a list of effectively static addresses, for the most part, if you don't renew your DHCP lease beyond its expiration, you won't get that same address next time. So those of us who leave our boxes up 24/7 will have the same IP for months at at time, while those who turn their PCs on once a week will almost always have a different address.

    5. Re:DHCP? by Petronius · · Score: 1

      True. However, I've even tried to release the IP from my router, turn everything off for the night and plug everything back in the next day, still got the same IP. I wonder if by default they sniff out your MAC address and try to assign you the IP you previously had. ???

      --
      there's no place like ~
    6. Re:DHCP? by Red+Alastor · · Score: 1

      The court already ruled that ISPs AREN'T common carrier. It is said in a previous post.

      --
      Slashdot anagrams to "Sad Sloth"
    7. Re:DHCP? by pla · · Score: 1

      However, I've even tried to release the IP from my router

      Check the expiration date - 3 days occurs commonly, and some ISPs actually do set it to never expire (effectively the same as a "real" static IP). Also, if no one else needs an IP in the time that passes, you will usually get first-dibs on your old address (so if you have either a very lightly populated segment, or a segment with almost all people who never turn their PCs off, you'll probably get the same IP no matter how long you stay offline).

    8. Re:DHCP? by acaird · · Score: 1
      I think "sniff out" is a bit strong. In fact, I think they use DHCP, and part of the DHCP RFC says:

      The client's previous address as recorded in the client's (now expired or released) binding, if that address is in the server's pool of available addresses and not already allocated

      So, it's nothing so devious as "sniffing", it's just how DHCP works, as long as the address space isn't over-subscribed.

      --
      Power corrupts. PowerPoint corrupts absolutely. E. Tufte
    9. Re:DHCP? by SnowWolf2003 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      People are obviously still not understanding the whole process. When you connect to your ISP they assign you an IP address, and log the time you leased that address. The RIAA previously was able to subpeona the ISP directly and say "Who was using this IP at this time on this day" and the ISP then had to go through their log and supply the subscribers details who had that IP at that time.

      All this means now is that the process is longer. The RIAA now has to go through the courts and get the courts to issue the subpeona to the ISP.

      Remember, you are never truly anononymous on the Internet.

    10. Re:DHCP? by slamb · · Score: 1
      What about those people on DHCP who get a different IP address each time they log on ?

      That's actually not the only situation in which an IP address isn't enough information to identify the computer - there's also modem pools and NAT. Presumably they actually gave:

      • IP address
      • time of access
      • port number

      Which, in theory, is enough regardless. DHCP servers should keep a logfile of their leases. Modem pools have RADIUS logs, which are similar. And NAT routers could keep a log of what port they assigned to which internal IP at what time for each connection. I don't think that's common practice, but it's at least possible.

      The other question is how long most ISPs keep logs. When the "owner" of an IP address changes often, that's important. The logs linking this information with a real person might already have been purged.

      And then, once they link it to a computer, they have to prove it was actually the owner of the machine who downloaded the file. There's always the "a virus did it" argument.

    11. Re:DHCP? by autumnpeople · · Score: 1

      Check the lease time, its probably set for 24+ hours...

    12. Re:DHCP? by EvilSporkMan · · Score: 1

      You're pretty close when you park or walk outside that handy restaurant with WiFi...

      --
      -insert a witty something-
    13. Re:DHCP? by gnu-generation-one · · Score: 1

      "What about those people on DHCP who get a different IP address each time they log on?"

      They sue the new owner of the DHCP address... you overestimate the intelligence of the music industry ;-)

    14. Re:DHCP? by brocheck · · Score: 1

      And I highly doubt by the time the lawsuit gets to the point where the judge issues a court-order will those logs still exist. For large ISPs, or even moderately sized ones logs are rotated out of existance after a couple of months, sometimes sooner.

      --

      suddenly I feel very tired

    15. Re:DHCP? by shotfeel · · Score: 1

      I'll admit I have no direct knowledge about this, but I thought even after the expiration you would get the same IP address if its not being used -depending on how the DHCP server is set up.

      IOW I thought the DHCP server did its best to always give you the same IP address. Is that wrong?

    16. Re:DHCP? by shotfeel · · Score: 1

      The other question is how long most ISPs keep logs. When the "owner" of an IP address changes often, that's important. The logs linking this information with a real person might already have been purged.

      I really don't think it matters how long they keep logs because :

      1) The RIAA is going after the people they see as the biggest threat -meaning sharing lots of files with a broadband connection that's pretty much up 24x7. I understand the parent basically said if the IP address changes frequently, I'm just pointing out I don't think it will for the people the RIAA is targeting.

      2) I'll give them 2 days to "verify" they want to pursue a given site, then 2 more days to file a lawsuit and get a court-ordered subpeona they can deliver to the ISP.

      I'm guessing they can get a subpeona to an ISP before the computer involved ever gets a new IP address, much less before the ISP purges any logs.

    17. Re:DHCP? by Party_Pack · · Score: 1

      My ISP openly uses the MAC address of the cable modem to authenticate my account so even flushing the modems cache will normally give you the same IP as long as the lease hasn't expired AND the ISP is not pressed for IP's.

  7. Oh my by Orclover · · Score: 4, Funny

    Hell just file against 192.168.0.0-255 and get it over with.

    Then work on 172.16.#.#

    You know they wanna.

    --
    I am Jack's complete lack of surprise. -Fight Club
    1. Re:Oh my by neillewis · · Score: 1

      Can you really sue a 32-bit address?? Bizarre.

    2. Re:Oh my by kidgenius · · Score: 1

      And if SCO decides to join in, they can start suing 127.0.0.1

    3. Re:Oh my by antiMStroll · · Score: 1

      I suggest they start simple and focus the lawyers on 127.0.0.1 . By the time it's sorted out there'll be no money left to litigate anyone else.

    4. Re:Oh my by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      Hell, why not just sue 255.255.255.255 and get everyone at once?

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    5. Re:Oh my by Threni · · Score: 1

      Can't you just deny it and say `prove it was me who was allocated that IP address at the point in time, and that I downloaded what you say I downloaded`? Can you prove `beyond all reasonable doubt` or whatever the US standard of proof in a criminal court is?

    6. Re:Oh my by fluch · · Score: 1

      File against 127.0.0.1. You get em all! ;-)

    7. Re:Oh my by ripleymj · · Score: 1

      Phew, good thing I just switched my network over to 192.168.1.0/24

  8. Sigh... by BigDork1001 · · Score: 1
    I'm sure there are much better things that the court systems could be doing then going through a whole bunch of IP addresses. This is either gonna piss a judge off and have him order the ISPs to release the info or piss a judge off and kick some RIAA ass.

    Any idea which I've got money on?

    --
    "Armed forces abroad are of little value unless there is prudent counsel at home" - Cicero
  9. I see by Joe+the+Lesser · · Score: 5, Funny

    identified only by their numeric Internet protocol addresses

    TK-421! Why aren't you at your post?

    --
    "I only speak the truth"
    Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
    1. Re:I see by xTK-421x · · Score: 5, Funny

      I've got a bad transmitter.

      --
      "TK-421, why aren't you at your post?"
    2. Re:I see by The+Bandit · · Score: 1

      There's something wrong with my transmitter. All I can do is RECEIVE.

  10. RIAA resources by kneecarrot · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This seems ever more expensive than the previous rounds of lawsuits since now there is even more effort required in matching names to IP addresses. My question is when will the RIAA start running out of money to do this sort of thing. Surely it must already be hurting the bottom line.

    --

    I always save my last mod point to mod up a good troll. You people are too serious.

    1. Re:RIAA resources by Naffer · · Score: 1

      532 lawsuits needs an awful lot of lawyer hours. I'm sure that the RIAA is well funded and capable of pressing all these cases, but is it really worth it? Lawyers don't work for free, and running 532 lawsuits at once is probably costing them something in the area of over a million dollars.

    2. Re:RIAA resources by eclectro · · Score: 2, Funny

      My question is when will the RIAA start running out of money to do this sort of thing

      You know the Arnold Schwarzenegger movie "Terminator." It's like that;

      Listen! And understand! That RIAA is out there. It can't be bargained with! It can't be reasoned with! It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are sued!

      All I can say is "May the Schwarz be with you."

      --
      Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
    3. Re:RIAA resources by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

      When people stop buying their music.

      Seriously, it's not nearly as expensive to make a record as they'd like you to believe. Raw equipment costs continue to go down as technology advances (and anyone who says you need a million+ in hardware to produce the latest Britney Spears opus is talking out there so-and-so). Yes, enginneers are expensive, but given the profits involved (and the fact that it's a one time per album expense) that hardly matters. Finally, since bands are basically taking on loans when they sign on with a record deal, risk for the Record company is relatively small (do a little googling for how the record industry works, I'm too lazy right now). Point is, the RIAA has _plenty_ of spare cash for lawsuits, and that isn't going to change anytime soon.

      --
      Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    4. Re:RIAA resources by Nakito · · Score: 2, Insightful

      To the contrary. There were reports that a number of defendants from the last round of lawsuits did indeed pay settlements. Those settlements fund the next round of lawsuits. The pump is primed.

      The cost of litigating these claims is lower than you think. Those 500+ complaints were not custom crafted. Think cookie cutter. Think fill-in-the-blanks.

      So the ISPs respond with names of real defendants, the lawyers contact those defendants, many of those defendants do not want to hire lawyers to fight, so more settlements are paid. Again -- the pump is primed.

    5. Re:RIAA resources by u-235-sentinel · · Score: 1

      " My question is when will the RIAA start running out of money to do this sort of thing. Surely it must already be hurting the bottom line."

      It hasn't stopped SCO so I doubt the RIAA cares either. Of course we all know they (SCO) are bent on committing SCOicide.

      --
      Has Comcast disconnected your Internet account? Same here. You can read about it at http://comcastissue.blogspot.com
    6. Re:RIAA resources by pirhana · · Score: 1

      >> My question is when will the RIAA start running out of money to do this sort of thing

      You have to define what do you mean by "RIAA". If you mean the shareholders(of the individual firms), then "yes" they would get screwed by all these. But who cares ? the top brass who take all these decisions will have absolutely no problem . They will pull as much money as possible by all means and get out of it when the ship starts to sink. Even though Enron was the shining example of this practice, other corporate firms are not much different. Actually RIAA is a bunch of idiots who survive on such crazy law suites and associated media blizzard. Without such things the very existence of RIAA and these idiots are questionable.

      --
      http://www.nasirudheen.blogspot/
    7. Re:RIAA resources by i_r_sensitive · · Score: 1
      How expensive are contingency suits? Really, is RIAA doing this to recoup revenues, or to plug the hole in the dyke? If they are earnest about trying to stop the leaks they can essentially "give away" the suits on a 100% contingency basis.

      What is more important to RIAA is to establish that they have a viable way to extract damages, not so much to extract them right now. Losing the proceeds from 532,000 lawsuits is probably a deal for them, if they get what they are after.

      Besides, what lost revenue, if they accomplish their goals they can recoup most of it in the first round of price hikes.

      People seem to forget, we are talking about A LOT of smegging money here, that drastically alters the formulas. The potential payoff of this justice system roulette wheel is even higher. Don't expect RIAA to stop trying these solutions either, the pay out is too large.

      RIAA, and the worst of the filesharers are both motivated by greed, in and of itself, this is not a good sign, at least not if you want this crap to go away anytime soon. The problem is further exacerbated by a large group of people whose infractions are more in-line with the traditional infractions, that is they are livable, and do not have a signifdicant impact on the situation. They get involved in the issue, for what are on the surface good reasons, but which are beyond the scope of the actual issue. This results in the current mess. The real abusers have been granted a patina of legitimacy be seizing on the concerns of, and hiding within that mass, and RIAA has taken these same comments to mean that the mass is part of the problem.

      --
      "Talk minus action equals nothing" - Joey Shithead, D.O.A.
      "Talk minus action equals /." -
    8. Re:RIAA resources by hackstraw · · Score: 1

      My question is when will the RIAA start running out of money to do this sort of thing.

      When people stop paying the overinflated prices of music CDs. I don't know what or if the RIAA gets for music video dvds, but I think there a much better value. For example, look at the content and cost of the latest Led Zepplin CDs and DVDs. Hint: The dvd has about 2x the footage, it has video, and 3 different sound mixes.

    9. Re:RIAA resources by binarytoaster · · Score: 1

      "only a fool fights a war on two fronts.... only the prince of fools fights a war on 532 fronts"

  11. Just saw an ad from the movie by potat0head · · Score: 4, Interesting

    people yesterday. They said copying movies from the Internet costs them money and puts people out of a job. The ad was well done and would be understood by most anybody. The music folks are just an order of magnitude stupider than the movie people are. Instead of messaging combined with clear product value propositions and additional rewards for buying more product, we get lawsuits, attempts to fix pricing on CD media, media that does not work, trash artists and on and on and on.... No wonder these dumbasses are having such a hard time. Hope each one of those lawsuits cost them a bundle. Maybe they will think back to the early Napster days and a reasonable offer. If they had only taken it, things would be cast in a far different light today. You reap what you sow.

    1. Re:Just saw an ad from the movie by furiousgeorge · · Score: 4, Insightful

      >>The ad was well done and would be understood by most anybody.

      Yeah, unfortunately it's totally missing the point.

      I've seen one of these ads (3 different ones so far) in front of every movie i've seen for the last for months.

      HELLO!?!? I JUST PAID $10 to sit in this theatre and you're preaching to me to not steal off the internet!??! HELLO? WE'RE THE DAMN PAYING CUSTOMERS.

      shit. Talk about missing the point and annoying the wrong people.

    2. Re:Just saw an ad from the movie by tadas · · Score: 3, Funny

      When I made my annual trip to the movies earlier this month (to see ROTK), they showed the same commercial. When it got to the "no copying" punchline, it was booed by the audience.

      --
      This page accidentally left blank
    3. Re:Just saw an ad from the movie by tepples · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I JUST PAID $10 to sit in this theatre and you're preaching to me to not steal off the internet!??!

      The intended market for those ads includes the projectionist and the prick in the nth row with a camcorder.

    4. Re:Just saw an ad from the movie by darkmayo · · Score: 1

      Oh yea too bad those costume designers, stuntmen, gaffers, key grips and whatever already got paid by the time the film is released. They can bite my nut, if I really want to pay an arm and a leg for a trip to the theatre it won't be for alot of the crap that has been released as of late.

      --
      "I am a kernel in the linux army"
    5. Re:Just saw an ad from the movie by pla · · Score: 1

      Instead of messaging combined with clear product value propositions and additional rewards for buying more product, we get lawsuits

      Except, the MPAA can actually justify its costs, to some degree. They really do lose huge sums of money on most movies and only make up for the rest on a few huge hits per year. Not to say I consider their attitude toward consumers' rights as anything but offensive, but economically, they make a good case.

      Now look at the RIAA... They sell 10-cent plastic discs for $15, force their own artists to sue them to get the royalties actually owed, engage in practices that in any other business count as very illegal (payola, price fixing)... Even if you argue that the artists have a right to make a living (with which I fully agree), that has very little to do with the cost of a CD. Quite literally, artists who burn their own CDs and sell them on their website for $5 per CD make a hell of a lot more per CD than any RIAA-member-signed big name band.

    6. Re:Just saw an ad from the movie by Kaenneth · · Score: 1

      Can anyone name bands/labels/whatever that are NOT part of the RIAA?

      I wouldn't mind buying music, but I'm trying to boycott the RIAA until they stop these tactics.

    7. Re:Just saw an ad from the movie by pizza_milkshake · · Score: 1
      They said copying movies from the Internet costs them money and puts people out of a job. The ad was well done and would be understood by most anybody. The music folks are just an order of magnitude stupider than the movie people are

      this may be true, however music trading online is much more prevalent than movie trading due to an average mp3 being 3-4 MB and an average divX version of a theatrical release being several hundred MB. so therefore, the music people have more to lose and faster.

      however, they seem to be unable or unwilling to step down from their earlier hardnose stance on trading. instead of saying "why would people steal our music?" they said "anyone who trades music files on the internet is a criminal". instead of asking how they can change to due better in the digital world, they use old tactics to try to make the digital world conform to their view of the world. they will lose, it's only a matter of time. however, they have a LOT of money, so this kind of thing could drag on for another 10 years, maybe more. they'll change or be replaced by someone more business-savvy.

    8. Re:Just saw an ad from the movie by Loki_1929 · · Score: 4, Funny

      "HELLO!?!? I JUST PAID $10 to sit in this theatre and you're preaching to me to not steal off the internet!??! HELLO? WE'RE THE DAMN PAYING CUSTOMERS."

      My first reaction to seeing that ad for the first time was, "there's going to be some guy, some place, who's going to think to himself, "Holy shit! I can get movies online for free?! What the hell am I doing here then??""

      --
      -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
    9. Re:Just saw an ad from the movie by socialpariah · · Score: 1

      potat0head wrote:

      > The music folks are just an order of magnitude
      > stupider than the movie people are.

      If I recall correctly, the music industry launched an ad campaign awhile ago that just about said the same thing.

      > Hope each one of those lawsuits cost them a
      > bundle.

      Unfortunately, I think they have deep pockets and that it hurts them very little, if not increases public awareness and gives them (negative) publicity.

      furiousgeorge wrote:

      > Yeah, unfortunately it's totally missing the
      > point.

      I couldn't agree more. As echoed by a lot of us hear, they should concentrate on improved means of selling digital copies of movies and music over the Internet.

      People will continue to download movies and music as long as there is no viable alternative. With iTunes and others, things are changing... but we aren't there yet.

      > HELLO? WE'RE THE DAMN PAYING CUSTOMERS.

      Exactly. That would be like before every concert, the band telling us all not to download music or hearing a little commercial before we could listen to a CD we purchased.

      The RIAA has missed the boat entirely, and is just pissing off consumers.

    10. Re:Just saw an ad from the movie by MrEnigma · · Score: 1

      I was watching the State of the Union, and I saw one of the ads right after that.

      It was a nice point ad I thought, not accuses anyone, just showing them real faces behind the scenes and what goes on...basically to guilt trip you..I'm sure it will win some over, and probably have a good impact, well more than the RIAA's take everyone to court and sue them tactics...at least it will gain them more respect.

      --
      GeekWares - Buy and Download Today!
    11. Re:Just saw an ad from the movie by bludstone · · Score: 1

      Youve got to be kidding me. Its a HORRIBLE case.

      They spend billions on mediocre products on the hopes that just ONE of them will be sucessful?

      They lose huge sumes of money on most movies because they make SHITTY movies that cost too much. Thats their own fault. I feel no pity.

      --

      no .sig
    12. Re:Just saw an ad from the movie by hackstraw · · Score: 1

      The music folks are just an order of magnitude stupider than the movie people are. Instead of messaging combined with clear product value propositions and additional rewards for buying more product, we get lawsuits, attempts to fix pricing on CD media, media that does not work, trash artists and on and on and on....

      Nah, the music folks are just pissed that they can't collect big bucks for minimal product anymore. They are trying to scare ppl into thinking their product has value.

      Ads aside, the movie people are pushing a much more viable product. Go shop around, ever notice that video dvds and cds cost about the same? Ever notice that the cds only have 16bit/44.1kHz 2 track audio and most dvds have 5+ channels of audio (often different mixes, extras, etc) plus a video track (again sometimes with alt takes, endings, or angles)?

    13. Re:Just saw an ad from the movie by pla · · Score: 1

      They spend billions on mediocre products on the hopes that just ONE of them will be sucessful?

      On the surface, I agree that looks absurd.

      However, for the most part, the shittiest of the lot tend to make the most money. The movies that actually have some inkling of artistic merit tend to flop badly.

      So, although I certainly wouldn't ascribe such noble aspirations to Hollywood, you could look at the situation and notice that they effectively subsidize the "good" movies with the profits from the popular-but-really-bad ones. ;-)

    14. Re:Just saw an ad from the movie by EulerX07 · · Score: 1

      Well, for starters this kuro5hin story lists a few. Fat wreck chords on there is one of my favorite labels. Good groups include Propaghandi, Strung Out, No Use for a Name, and NOFX, whose singer, Fat Mike, owns the label. NOFX is pretty good, Fat Mike has got to be the worst singer but I'd rather listen about him whining that there's something sticking in his eye (True song : "Sticking in my eye") than whatever American Idol spews up this season with a oh-so melodious voice. That "Simon" judge would probably throw him out at the auditions, and he'd hopefully get a nice skateboard slammed across his face.

      Other, a fav "local for me" non-RIAA band/label is owned by Montreal band "Grim Skunk"who also run indica records and publish albums for roughly 20 non-corporate bands. They also distribute albums from alternative (as in non-commercial) europeans bands. It won't come as a surprise, but the bassist of Grim Skunk was one of the founder of the marijuana partyand the provincial bloc pot party. Their song are in english, french, greek, spanish, some german and arabic thrown in there if I recall. If you like heavy, non mainstream music start with their album "Exotic Blend". Not a cent of what you buy from them goes to the RIAA, but expect some of it to fund pot legalisation and their compassion club where they hand out medicinal marijuana.

      Don't blame me if your government sends the DEA and FBI after you though.

    15. Re:Just saw an ad from the movie by koganuts · · Score: 1

      Back in November, I went to a screening of The Matrix Revolutions (yeah, don't get me started) at Graumann's Chinese Theatre in Hollywood, and this commercial came onscreen.

      At first, no one in the audience seemed to know what it was about, but as soon as the guy started talking about how terrible file-sharing was, the amount of booing that subsequently ensued as the rest of the ad played *really* overwhelmed the few hisses I heard in response. And we're talking about this happening in the moviemaking capital of the world (discounting the San Fernando Valley, which is of course the adult moviemaking capital of the world)!

      After that commercial played, we were subject to a rather large number of trailers, including one for The Missing. And judging by the rather tepid reaction to it, I joked to my friends sitting next to me, "Eh, I'll be watching that online," which generated a good amount of laughter.

    16. Re:Just saw an ad from the movie by Tassach · · Score: 1

      IIRC, Micheal Jackson, at the apex of his popularity, was making the princely sum of $1 per CD, which (at the time) was the *highest* *ever* per-unit royalty paid to *any* major-label act. Even moderately successful bands only get a few cents per unit, and then have to pay most of it back to the record company for promotional fees and what-not.

      --
      Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
    17. Re:Just saw an ad from the movie by PaperJam · · Score: 1

      Unless of course you're the guy in the back of the theatre with a camcorder.

    18. Re:Just saw an ad from the movie by k12linux · · Score: 1

      Check out this non-evil label. The fact that they give exactly 50% of the sale price (not net profit) to the artist is one of my biggest reasons for buying there. That plus no-DRM MP3, OGG, FLAC and CD-quality WAV files (complete with CDDB info.)

    19. Re:Just saw an ad from the movie by sik0fewl · · Score: 1

      My first reaction to seeing that ad for the first time was, "there's going to be some guy, some place, who's going to think to himself, "Holy shit! I can get movies online for free?! What the hell am I doing here then??""

      My first reaction to seeing that ad was "hey, I downloaded that movie they're playing in the background onto my computer at home.. and it's still on there at this moment." (the movie was Enemy of the State).

      --
      I remember when legal used to mean lawful, now it means some kind of loophole. - Leo Kessler
    20. Re:Just saw an ad from the movie by fermion · · Score: 1
      Which simply gives consumers yet another reason to avoid the theatre all together. Why am I paying $10 and then have to sit through 5 minutes of blatant advertising. I have a big screen TV at home. I have surround sound. I can get a week rental for $4, and then loan to three of my friends. Total cost now is $1/family.

      Of course, why I am i spending even $1 for a movie that I then have to sit through 5 minutes of stupid introductory limitations, warnings, and graphics. I can set my computer to download the movie, and watch it without the ads.

      I've said it before and I'll again. Give the people what they want, and they will buy it. I had no problem paying $7 for a movie. I had not problem paying $15 for VHS. I had no problem paying $15 for a CD. Now that movies come with stupids ads, and DVDs have introduced annoyware to the movies, and CDs fund frivolous lawsuits, I am loathe to bring myself to purchase any of these.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    21. Re:Just saw an ad from the movie by Unregistered · · Score: 1

      Yea. I download tons of movies. I also buy DVDs. They make DVDs worth having. CDs aren't.

    22. Re:Just saw an ad from the movie by shadowbearer · · Score: 1

      Booed here, too; very loudly. The theater was mostly filled with younger people (early twenties) but I found it interesting that the late middle aged couple a few seats down were booing as loudly as anyone else...

      I was laughing so hard I almost forgot to boo :) I got some pretty strange looks...

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    23. Re:Just saw an ad from the movie by Myopic · · Score: 1

      oh my god that's so true. i never thought of that. i bet all the hoopla about RIAA lawsuits is starting to reach a class of people who could never figure out a P2P network unless they somehow learned that they could completely stop paying for all their media.

    24. Re:Just saw an ad from the movie by Grym · · Score: 1

      Exactly.

      I'll never forget the time when I was in driver's ed. and the instructor said, "... and NEVER drive with your knees..." Instantly, my friend Tyler and I looked at eachother and said "You can drive with our knees!? Awesome!" And so it was that a menace and numerous knee-driving competitions on the roadways were born.

      While their the MPAA's actions are more admirable than the RIAA, I can't help but think that a similar situation will occur as paying customers are exposed to these ads.

      -Grym

    25. Re:Just saw an ad from the movie by Eivind · · Score: 1
      5 minutes ? You're lucky.

      I went to see Return of the King, thinking it'd be worth it to see it at the big screen. "only" 12 euro, since me and my girlfriend went on a cheap day.

      First, you wait in an overfilled lobby until 5 minutes after the movie should actually have started. (why settle for 4 showings a day when you can *squeeze* 5 showings into the schedule?)

      Then you go find your chair, and are subjected to a FULL HALF HOUR of advertising. Really. I looked at my watch about 25 minutes into it as I was saying to my girlfriend "This is getting ridicolous". (as if that movie ain't long enough for the seats in the cinema as it is ...)

      Doesn't make it better that the advertising chooses to preach to us, the people who have decided to be legal and watch the film in the theatre that we're criminals and jail would be a fitting sentence.

      You can also buy refreshments. Only 2 euro for a half-litre of Coke.

      In comparison, at home I can, legally:

      • Pay 1.50 euro to rent the movie, then watch it with 4 friends, for a total of 30 cents/person.
      • No forced half-hour of advertsing.
      • Pause possible if/when wanted.
      • If someone is thirsty, Coke is available in the fridge at the grand total of eur 0.15 or so for a half-liter. That's like 1/12th of the price in the cinema.

      And then they ask why many don't go to the cinema very often anymore...

      Mind you, I could've downloaded the movie and saved the 1.50, but that seems kinda trivial in comparison.

      Oh, and with both of the latter options I get to hear the actors actually talk with their own voices, like I prefer. If I choose to go to the cinema, I'll be subjected to varying-quality-but-always-annoying "synchronised" german.

  12. ISP records by Alizarin+Erythrosin · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm sure if we could get a list of the IPs and the times they recorded it we could contact our ISP (for those of us on DHCP like myself) and find out if we had that address at the time. I for one am curious to see if I'm on the list since I was looking for an old jazz song last week. Who knows, the RIAA are bastards. They might try to sue me.

    --
    There are only 10 kinds of people in this world... those who understand binary and those who don't
    1. Re:ISP Records by Naffer · · Score: 1

      But I don't use a MAC, I use a PC!

    2. Re:ISP records by mobiux · · Score: 1

      Well, if you were looking or downloading, you would be safe.

      But if you were offering up music to share, that's when you have to worry about it.

  13. hrmm by Judg3 · · Score: 4, Funny

    the newest cases against 'John Doe' defendants -- identified only by their numeric Internet protocol addresses

    Your honor, my client, 216.250.128.12, is innocent. He was coerced to download those files by RIAA's public enemy number 1 - 127.0.0.1. There is also plenty of evidence to implicate his cronies, 192.168.1.1 and 10.0.1.0 as well.

    --
    Looking for hardware (Currently need: Large Etch-a-Sketch) Have one? See my journal!
    1. Re:hrmm by Lord+Bitman · · Score: 1

      I love you. Why won't you tell me your name? :(

      --
      -- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
    2. Re:hrmm by sacrilicious · · Score: 1
      Your honor, my client, 216.250.128.12, is innocent. He was coerced to download those files by RIAA's public enemy number 1 - 127.0.0.1.

      Judge: 127.0.0.1, have you anything to say for yourself?

      127.0.0.1: Yes... one zero zero one zero one one one one zero one one zero zero zero one zero zero one zero.

      Court Recorder: Could you repeat that last part? About the zeroes?

      --
      - First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
  14. This 127.0.0.1 guy sure is in trouble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    He shared over 5000 songs!

    1. Re:This 127.0.0.1 guy sure is in trouble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      d00d, that's nothing!!

      I just h4xx0r3d his b0xx0r, and you would not believe the totally sick pr0n that guy has.

  15. Is this legal? by Teux · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Does anyone know if this is legal? I mean, this is like bringing a shoe into court and saying "I found this shoe on my lawn, I want to sue the person who left it there because I'm pretty sure they crapped on my lawn" Even if logs match up, will an IP address be enough proof, even in a civil case?

    1. Re:Is this legal? by QuijiboIsAWord · · Score: 1
      Yeah, but who'd want to walk around your lawn comparing "logs" and why would they even *have* IP addresses?
      --
      -Hmm...I got a G+ invite, better remember to remove the request from my sig...-
    2. Re:Is this legal? by 88NoSoup4U88 · · Score: 1

      I think the reason behind this courtcase might be for them to see if this is a possible 'solution' to ISP's not wanting to violate the right of their customers.

    3. Re:Is this legal? by Perky_Goth · · Score: 1

      it's not a civil case anymore, is it?

    4. Re:Is this legal? by UsedToCould · · Score: 1

      I didn't know they could match "logs" *wink wink*

      "If had I wanted your opinion, I would have given it to you!"

    5. Re:Is this legal? by Phroggy · · Score: 1

      Yes, it is legal - it's called a "John Doe" lawsuit, and you file it just like you'd file any other lawsuit, except you don't know who you're suing when you file it. The court then does what they can to identify the defendant, and if they're able to do so, the lawsuit can proceed.

      In this case, the court would issue a subpoena to the ISP including the IP address and timestamp and require the ISP to provide information about the customer who was assigned that IP address at that time. The customer is then notified of the lawsuit.

      In your case, you might need a little more connection between the owner of the shoe and the pile of crap to convince a judge that the former was responsible for the latter, but if you are able to do so (and if the judge determines that filing a lawsuit over a pile of crap isn't stupid)... well, then it's up to the court to figure out who's shoe it is. IANAL, and I'm not sure how this part works.

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    6. Re:Is this legal? by Aumaden · · Score: 1
      Yeah, but who'd want to walk around your lawn comparing "logs" and why would they even *have* IP addresses?

      Isn't that a feature of IPv6?

    7. Re:Is this legal? by Hoser+McMoose · · Score: 1

      Why an IP address? So they can provide a link to pictures of their logs?

    8. Re:Is this legal? by Pofy · · Score: 1

      And how would you connect the owner of the account that was connected with the person that actually used it at that time? COuld have been for example someone else in the family/household, a friend and so on. Or do USA have laws that say someone signing up for an account with an ISP also take any legal responsabilities for any person using it?

      In most cases the owner of something does not take legal responsabilities for actions of someone lese using it unless a law specifically says so. An example, at least here in Sweden, is that the car owner is responsible for parking tickets (but not for speed tickets for example). Never heared of such laws when it compes to copyright infringement.

    9. Re:Is this legal? by Perky_Goth · · Score: 1

      so what? the dmca or something makes the crimes... criminal.

      hey, i heard it here!

      oh wait...

  16. They're after the college students again... by Scorpio1 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I work at the my school's computer help desk and just yesterday we got a phone call asking us to shutdown a certain IP address because the user was found to be in violation of copyright law. I have a feeling this is linked to this RIAA lawsuit business.

    1. Re:They're after the college students again... by technos · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Ask them who they represent. Ask them what content is allegedly infringing. Ask them where the DMCA-compliant takedown notice or court order is. If they start getting pissy, I remind them that there ain't squat I'm going to do about it (or am required to do about it) until they at least have the courtesy to write me a real takedown notice.

      Oh, yeah. Then go look and see if the fool actually is infringing, and scream at him.

      --
      .sig: Now legally binding!
    2. Re:They're after the college students again... by MyHair · · Score: 1

      Where's that Ping of Death when you need it?

    3. Re:They're after the college students again... by wolf- · · Score: 1

      A Phone call?
      Shouldn't even acknowledge them unless its in writing, signed, and stamped by a judge.

      --
      ----- LoboSoft specializes in Digital Language Lab
    4. Re:They're after the college students again... by Rob+Simpson · · Score: 1
      I bet it went something like this...

      "That bastard 1337camper got me again! I'd kick him offline, but I don't know how. Hmm..."
      *Looks up ResNet help number*

    5. Re:They're after the college students again... by Myopic · · Score: 1

      more likely this student got a call from his boss, who got a call from the college lawyers, who got a letter from the recording industry.

  17. Rolls eyes. by darkmayo · · Score: 2, Funny

    Will everyone with an IP of 192.168.*.* please proceed to your local RIAA internment camp for processing please.

    Go get em boys....

    --
    "I am a kernel in the linux army"
  18. It seems the forgot an additional 256 IP's by 88NoSoup4U88 · · Score: 4, Funny

    192.168.0.0 to 192.168.0.255 is apparently missing ;-)

    1. Re:It seems the forgot an additional 256 IP's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      not to be nitpicking but that should be 192.168.0.0 through 192.168.255.255

    2. Re:It seems the forgot an additional 256 IP's by billimad · · Score: 1

      omg thats mine. shit i'm outa here...

    3. Re:It seems the forgot an additional 256 IP's by Sexy+Commando · · Score: 1
      Shamelessly copied from shorewall file rfc1918:

      172.16.0.0/12 192.0.2.0/24 192.168.0.0/16 0.0.0.0/7 2.0.0.0/8 5.0.0.0/8 7.0.0.0/8 10.0.0.0/8 23.0.0.0/8 27.0.0.0/8 31.0.0.0/8 36.0.0.0/7 39.0.0.0/8 41.0.0.0/8 42.0.0.0/8 49.0.0.0/8 50.0.0.0/8 58.0.0.0/7 70.0.0.0/7 72.0.0.0/5 83.0.0.0/8 84.0.0.0/6 88.0.0.0/5 96.0.0.0/3 127.0.0.0/8 197.0.0.0/8 198.18.0.0/15 223.0.0.0/8 240.0.0.0/4

    4. Re:It seems the forgot an additional 256 IP's by neko9 · · Score: 1

      out of where? ;-)

    5. Re:It seems the forgot an additional 256 IP's by taernim · · Score: 1

      So is 127.0.0.1! Whew... guess I'm safe! ;)

      --
      "PC Load Letter? What the $@#% does that mean?!"
  19. Good for them. by Phroggy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This is what they should have been doing from the beginning, instead of trying to weasel their way around the law and demanding proprietary customer information from ISPs so they can bully them with settlement offers. This gets the process into the courts where it belongs.

    Sure the RIAA is still evil, but they're improving their tactics, and should be commended for that. Going after P2P sharing services is wrong, demanding proprietary information from ISPs is wrong, filing John Doe copyright infringement suits is NOT WRONG - it's EXACTLY what you should do if you find people sharing binary apps derived from your GPL'd project and you don't have a way to contact them yourself.

    --
    $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
    $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    1. Re:Good for them. by MagicM · · Score: 1

      Imaginary "+1 Insightful" coming your way.

    2. Re:Good for them. by jeffy124 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      hello nail? meet hammerhead.

      You hit the nail on the head, this is how it's should be done. It also opens up an interesting situation for the RIAA that they didnt have before, and not just the money required to file a lawsuit first.

      Before, when they could supoena the ISP directly, the RIAA could review who the person was prior to filing a suit. Thus, if the name of a politician, a music industry exec, or major public figure were to come up, they could just not sue that person because of the PR ramifications. (The idea of perceived income is also possible - the RIAA doesnt want to sue someone with the money to fight it. Easily measured by figuring out what kind home they have, the neighborhood, etc.)

      Now - they risk doing something like that, especially since it's more likely to be the teenage kid of such a person that's doing the P2P'ing.

      Lets say it does happen - ie, the court reveals the name of 'John Doe' to be that of a senator or other significant individual. The RIAA cant exactly drop the suit, because they know that doing so will raise accusations that they're playing favorites.

      --
      The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
    3. Re:Good for them. by MyHair · · Score: 1

      filing John Doe copyright infringement suits is NOT WRONG - it's EXACTLY what you should do if you find people sharing binary apps derived from your GPL'd project and you don't have a way to contact them yourself.

      I thought those were called "Darl Sco" suits now?

    4. Re:Good for them. by UnRDJ · · Score: 1

      ...except the courts declared the RIAA's DMCA subpoena tactics illegal. They've improved their tactics because they were forced to, not out of the goodness of thier hearts.

    5. Re:Good for them. by FroMan · · Score: 1

      Regardless, they are doing it the right way now. But no, this is slashdot. Instead, lets think of highly unlikely situations where someone is sharing their internet connection over wifi, and some neighbor, who has a virus, downloaded a song...

      Geesh folks. If you think copyright is wrong, go to court, try to convince them that you are in the right to download copyrighted material. Try to convince the lawmakers to void copyright. Try to convince the RIAA that you are actually making more sales by downloading. Try taking responsibility for your actions.

      --
      Norris/Palin 2012
      Fact: We deserve leaders who can kick your ass and field dress your carcass.
    6. Re:Good for them. by Metaldsa · · Score: 1

      Your right, a 12 year girl in the projects should have to pay $150,000 for downloading a song off of kazaa. Wait, she won't make that for the next 30 years of her life. Well thats justice for you.

    7. Re:Good for them. by FroMan · · Score: 1

      How does it go? If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

      It is not the RIAA's fault that she cannot purchase their music. Where were her folks? Were they keeping an eye on her downloading and computer usage? Since when is, "I'm poor" and excuse or legal right to download copyrighted music? Justice is done when that little girl, who is supposed to be poor yet still has a computer, goes without the music that she downloads. The music she is downloading is not hers.

      How would you feel if that 12 year old girl started a company using someone's GPL code, and she didn't release it? Would you be so easy to over look a GPL violation? Being poor or being young is no right to viloate the laws that you live under. If she is not held accountable, her folks should be.

      --
      Norris/Palin 2012
      Fact: We deserve leaders who can kick your ass and field dress your carcass.
    8. Re:Good for them. by laird · · Score: 1

      Man, I'm tired of this "12 year old girl" story. The RIAA didn't sue the 12 year old girl, the RIAA sued the person who paid the ISP, which is the mother. The mother's defense was to blame her daughter for the downloading. That doesn't make as dramatic a headline about the evil RIAA.

      --
      Enable 3D printed prosthetics!
    9. Re:Good for them. by TastySiliconWafers · · Score: 1
      "Sure the RIAA is still evil, but they're improving their tactics, and should be commended for that."

      Um, no, they shouldn't be commended for the change in tactics. Commendation is only appropriate when someone has the opportunity to go about something the wrong way and willfully chooses not to take advantage of that opportunity. The RIAA is only pursuing this the right way now because that avenue (which they already tried to exploit) is no longer available to them because the courts put a stop to it.

    10. Re:Good for them. by Metaldsa · · Score: 1

      "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime."

      That is so retarded. With the DMCA and other laws to say everything written in the law is perfect is the dumbest thought ever.

      In MI there was a law about spitting after 2:00am. Should it cost me $100+ to spit on the sidewalk? Or how about a law about sodomy in Texas. Should people go to jail because they had anal sex? Or how about countries that suppress religion. If I lived in another country should I declare myself a muslim or risk going to jail on trumped up charges?

      $150,000 per song is too much. Maybe if it was $20, $100, or even $500 per song with a max number of songs to teach a consumer a lesson. But imagine if you saved up $100,000 for retirement and lost it all on one song? What a horrible law.

      She was 12, she did something wrong, but she didn't deserve to be treated as a criminal.

      Oh yeah, I don't care about the GPL code at all. If I wrote something for free and others used it and didn't share I wouldn't care about it at all. More power to them.

    11. Re:Good for them. by FroMan · · Score: 1

      You know what the coolest thing about MLKJ was? Do you know why we respect, indeed have a holiday honoring the man, which was this week?

      There was a time when black men and women lived in our country who were not treated as equals, who were forced to live separate from white men and women. This, beyond a shadow of doubt was evil, unjust, and horrible. Many states had laws enforcing this separation with bathrooms, busses, jobs, and many other aspects of life. MLKJ set out to change this by forcing the issue, by breaking these laws, and accepting the punishment for breaking these laws. He lived a life of accepting the responsiblity for his own actions, even under an unjust system.

      Now, while I am no fan of the RIAA, what they are doing is exactly what they should be doing. They are going after the people who are breaking copyright laws. To do otherwise would be foolish beyond doubt.

      If you feel so strongly that the laws that the RIAA are enforcing are evil, unjust, and horrible, then do something about it. Here you either have two choices. You can work within the system attempting to get your congressmen to change the copyright laws to a system to more of your liking. Or secondly you can break the current laws in civil disobediance and take responsibility for your actions.

      Instead, you will sit here on slashdot and cry that the law is unjust and unfair. Well, tough. Someone took time out of their lives to create content, that evidently lots of people want, and then someone came along and copied their talent. Just because something is technically feasible does not mean it is fair either.

      Oh yeah, I don't care about the GPL code at all. If I wrote something for free and others used it and didn't share I wouldn't care about it at all. More power to them.

      Spoken like someone who has never produced something. The music artists did not create their songs for free, their copyright is in the hands of the RIAA. That was their choice to sign with the RIAA and have them protect their copyrights.

      --
      Norris/Palin 2012
      Fact: We deserve leaders who can kick your ass and field dress your carcass.
  20. Court costs involved? by Wingchild · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I start to wonder about the sheer cost of pursing this type of legal tactic. It cannot be cheap to field the army of legal weasels that the RIAA keeps throwing at filesharers. The court-order-required process of tracking an IP down to a given user is neither quick nor easy, especially with certain major ISPs refusing to hand out names.

    If you stack the cost of the lawsuits on one side, and the average settlement win from people scared out of their wits on the other... is there a profit being made here?

    I'm betting the answer is 'no'. And all that means is the Recording Industry is attempting to achieve compliance through fear. All authority derives from force, as the old saying goes ... if they can wield enough phantom, borrowed force through the courts, they can give the appearance of having the authority to terrorize the little people who feel the legal system will not deal fairly with them.

    I wonder if that's worth the money they're spending.

    1. Re:Court costs involved? by Acidic_Diarrhea · · Score: 1
      Of course they're not trying to make a profit by suing people. Didn't you read the article? The first paragraph hits the point that the RIAA wants to dissuade others from file-sharing by making an example of a few.

      And since file-sharing was down dramatically recently, before the recent court ruling, it works.

      Is it worth the money they're spending? Gee, I don't know - if this allows them to sustain their dying business model, I would guess that it is worth it to them. Besides, they've got lots of money - the artists under their umbrella are constantly getting ripped off.

      --
      I hate liberals. If you are a liberal, do not reply.
    2. Re:Court costs involved? by Aidtopia · · Score: 1
      And all that means is the Recording Industry is attempting to achieve compliance through fear.

      I'd bet that's only part of it. I think the real goal here is for their lobbyists say to Congress, "We spent $x million trying to stop copyright infringement, and we didn't make a dent, so you need to do something about it."

    3. Re:Court costs involved? by Matrix272 · · Score: 1

      And since file-sharing was down dramatically recently, before the recent court ruling, it works.

      I don't know if I'd say it works. I know a lot of people, like myself, have stopped downloading songs because we simply don't know of any other songs to download. All the songs on the radio right now either suck, or I already have them. Occasionally, I'll download a song, but like a good little son of a bitch, I don't enable Sharing... I just download the one song, and shut Kazaa off.

      --
      "It's better to have a gun and not need it than need a gun and not have it." ~ Christian Slater, True Romance
    4. Re:Court costs involved? by Acidic_Diarrhea · · Score: 1
      "I don't know if I'd say it works."
      Oh no! Random_Slashdot_guy doesn't think it works! Well that must mean it doesn't!

      Thanks for your uneducated opinion but I'll take the PEW Research Center's opinion over yours every day of the week.

      --
      I hate liberals. If you are a liberal, do not reply.
    5. Re:Court costs involved? by CrankyFool · · Score: 1

      One of the things they argued when the question of disclosing people's identities came up was that if they had to go through the courts the settlements were going to have to be larger in order to cover their costs. I have no real doubt that that's likely what will happen here -- we're further down the line and they've invested more effort, so they'll likely ask for more money.

      What happens then is anyone's guess -- I'm hoping someone gets a $20,000 settlement offer and decides "fuck it, I'm going to court." Well, and that they win :)

    6. Re:Court costs involved? by Matrix272 · · Score: 1

      Thanks for your uneducated opinion but I'll take the PEW Research Center's opinion over yours every day of the week.

      I never said that everyone does that, and I never said that it doesn't work... I just said that I don't know if I'd say it works, which means that it's my opinion that there are more factors involved than those being mentioned. One of those factors, I believe, is the fact that over the past 5 years, most people have already downloaded all the songs they care to. To prove my hypothesis, let's conduct an experiment. Let's break into every computer in the country and delete every MP3, Ogg, and WMA file found, then wait a month or so, and see if the number of music downloads increases dramatically.

      Oh, and by the way, I think we could actually discuss my point without the unnecessary sarcasm and insults. I have a valid point that I don't think anyone else has researched to any great extent.

      --
      "It's better to have a gun and not need it than need a gun and not have it." ~ Christian Slater, True Romance
    7. Re:Court costs involved? by damien_kane · · Score: 1

      Nope, it's because the RIAA is losing so much money to the filesharers...
      Wanna know how? That's right, you guessed it...Legal bills

    8. Re:Court costs involved? by Acidic_Diarrhea · · Score: 1
      "I have a valid point that I don't think anyone else has researched to any great extent."
      Did you even read the article I linked to?
      "I never said that everyone does that, and I never said that it doesn't work... I just said that I don't know if I'd say it works, which means that it's my opinion that there are more factors involved than those being mentioned."
      Other factors are mentioned in the article I linked to but, you're a busy guy, no need to actually do a little work, right?
      --
      I hate liberals. If you are a liberal, do not reply.
    9. Re:Court costs involved? by cesspool · · Score: 1

      after reading your link, i think matrix's point about download saturation was and is insightful
      ...as was yours, although the belligerence made it hard to wade through

    10. Re:Court costs involved? by DougWhite · · Score: 1

      Well if you believe that this sort of file sharing is wrong, as the RIAA does, then this really boils down to a matter of principle than anything else. You will find people are quite stubborn when it comes to principle regardless of cost.

      For every person they sue 100 people probably stop sharing music. How much money is this saving them? probably not a whole lot, b/c the people that are going to steal/sample are going to find other places. People that steal weren't going to spend the money on the CD's anyway.

      I really wouldn't call this fear more than I would call it respect. Few people are going to respect a law that isn't going to get enforced. Raise your hand if you would pay the IRS if they weren't going to take your money anyway and throw you in jail.

      At the very least, parents are now asking their kids what they are doing with the internet connection.

    11. Re:Court costs involved? by wedg · · Score: 1

      That's all pretty insightful, but what about the thought that hey, maybe *I'm* a John Doe and don't know it yet? Geez! I better delete all those files before I get dragged into court when they find out that 234.34.19.129 is me! (Or your respective IP).

      *shrug* Who knows what the effect will be?

      --
      Jake
      Dating: while( 1 ){ call_girl(); get_rejected(); drink_40(); } return 0;
  21. This is the correct way to do it by bugnuts · · Score: 4, Insightful

    RIAA first tried to horribly abuse the (horribly abusable) DMCA and issue their own subpoenas.

    Filing against John Does is the correct way to do it (from my armchair lawyer stance), if the ISP's won't voluntarily divulge the information.

    1. Re:This is the correct way to do it by satanicat · · Score: 1

      When reading the article, was mentioned that names and addresses would come through the courts then financial settlements would be made. In this situation, how would a person be able to defend themselves? What if there was a mistake? Couldn't this system be horribly abused as well?

      Also this may be completely irrelivant, but I wonder what they are doing with violators offshore or out of country. I thought that was originally one of the biggest concerns about trying to govern the internet. Who inforces what? Are only Americans a target?

      --
      How Now Brown Cow
    2. Re:This is the correct way to do it by bugnuts · · Score: 1

      The court will order the ISP to divulge the information if the case has merit, and then the person would know when they become penned in as the defendant.

      I've heard of summary judgements due to failure for the defendant (john doe) to show, but the defendant can probably get it heard again.

  22. Hmm... by JoeLinux · · Score: 4, Funny

    That could be a scene in futurama. Especially if IPv6 was used:

    "Your honor, we would like to file charges against 04ef:4326:33d6:13a9......"

  23. more privates the r double dipshit iaa can use by fizz · · Score: 1

    dont forget about 10.x.x.x networks as well :)

  24. This PROVES they are dimwits.... by glomph · · Score: 2, Funny

    Why can't they use multicast for distributing lawsuits? A lot more efficient than hitting hundreds of individual IP numbers with their affidavits!

  25. Actually, your honor, I am not 200.256.49.3 by Pac · · Score: 4, Funny

    I am 192.168.0.23, and I have a transcript of my network log to prove it. But as we are a DHCP shop, I am not always 23. Sometimes I am 17. Other times I am 9. I have even been 2 once. But never 200.256.49.3. That would be the gateway and nobody uses it. Locked down in the server room. No access. Verbotten. Very verbotten.

    1. Re:Actually, your honor, I am not 200.256.49.3 by Geccoman · · Score: 1

      I can prove, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that my PIX has never, at any time, had Kazaa installed on it.

      Case Closed.

      --
      I'm on a chair.
    2. Re:Actually, your honor, I am not 200.256.49.3 by cyberfunk2 · · Score: 1

      Yea, one problem with that... I'd have wiped my drives long ago.

  26. Damn! by kyshtock · · Score: 1

    127.0.0.1???? Damn, they got me!

    --
    Bite my shiny metal... oops... Nevermind!
  27. Re:NAT by i_r_sensitive · · Score: 1
    That's why most companies have an acceptable use agreement in place.

    Hell the company owns the equipment and the gateway, they are responsible for ensuring that the use of such is in keeping with the law and their own policies.

    I won't have any sympathy for a company that failed to take the appropriate actions with their hardware and network. They have no excuse, the tools exist to prohibit most nad audit the rest of such traffic.

    --
    "Talk minus action equals nothing" - Joey Shithead, D.O.A.
    "Talk minus action equals /." -
  28. wireless routers by Petronius · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "Judge, one of my neighbours grabbed an IP from my wireless router and was using KaZaa, not me, I swear..."

    how are they going to address that???

    --
    there's no place like ~
    1. Re:wireless routers by relrelrel · · Score: 1

      with "you live in the middle of the Atlantic"

      --
      --- any post that takes longer than 20 seconds to write, isn't worth writing
    2. Re:wireless routers by Bander · · Score: 1

      I'd like to know about this too.

      I have a static IP, which is connected to an 802.11 router, which I've left open (I think it still believes its name is "Linksys"). If someone gets lost and stops by my house, I feel they should have access to mapquest.com.

      -- Bander

      --
      What we need more of is science!
    3. Re:wireless routers by Petronius · · Score: 1

      true, but from my house, I can see 4 other wireless bubbles... none of which has WEP enabled mind you. :)

      (OK, they could be firewalled by MAC address, I didn't try it).

      --
      there's no place like ~
    4. Re:wireless routers by AKAImBatman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Dear Lord. Don't you think the court already has to deal with these types of problems? It will be up to the prosecutor to prove that you were the one using Kazaa at the time of the incident AND that the actions you were taking were indeed done in an illegal fashion (i.e. You lacked the proper rights to commit the actions you did). If the prosecution has difficulty proving that it wasn't your neighbor, they may try to implicate you by showing that you took insufficient precautions to protect your identity and thus can be held as an accomplice. It's a bit hard to make stick, but it might be enough to keep you in court for quite a long time.

      --
      Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
    5. Re:wireless routers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      These are civil cases, they don't have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. They just have to show that it was probbably you.

    6. Re:wireless routers by johnkoer · · Score: 1

      Well since he is using a linksys it's probably 192.168.1.1
      DUH!!!

      --
      Johnkoerner.com
    7. Re:wireless routers by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      They have to convince a judge. It entirely depends on how skeptical the judge is.

      --
      Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
    8. Re:wireless routers by gnu-generation-one · · Score: 3, Funny

      "one of my neighbours grabbed an IP from my wireless router"

      If plausible deniability works for the government, it damned well ought to work for individuals.

    9. Re:wireless routers by CliffH · · Score: 1

      The wireless question is simple. If your equipment is not secured and someone else uses it for their own activities (illegal or not), it is still your responsibility. If you haven't learned how to lock down your wireless router (and this goes for typical John and Jane Doe users as well) or had it locked down for you (by your ISP when they installed it), you get what you deserve. The whole ignorance thing does not work well in court or else certain companies would use that as an easy out (which they will still probably try).

      --
      sigs are like a box of chocolates, they all suck remove the underscores to email me
    10. Re:wireless routers by Jason+Earl · · Score: 1

      In the U.S. (at least in Idaho), if a kid comes over and jumps on your trampoline, without your permission, and breaks his arm, you are responsible for the medical bills. Never mind that you didn't give the kid permission, and that you would have run the kid off had you known about it.

      That's part of the reason why people build fences.

      If someone uses your wireless link to upload music (it's distributing music that is dangerous) and you end up on RIAA's list, then you will go to court. This will cost you time and money, even if you are innocent. Moral of the story, lock down your wireless routers.

    11. Re:wireless routers by brkello · · Score: 1

      I am not sure if the ISPs log this, but if they log your name, IP, and your MAC address, then they could prove that it was your system. If they don't record MAC address, I suppose the only way to counter that is to prove you don't have a wireless router:P

      --
      Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com
    12. Re:wireless routers by PaperJam · · Score: 1

      I work at the University of Kansas and we have several different forms of logs for MAC address and IP address. All of the MAC's are recorded on each port (like if there was a hub) and we can also detect when people have routers (which we don't allow).

    13. Re:wireless routers by DeathPenguin · · Score: 1

      You're not supposed to lie to a court.

      As you can tell, IANAL.

    14. Re:wireless routers by Vermy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You are responsible for all the actions that occur on your network and it is your responsibility to adequately provide security for your network. You cannot run an open network and not bear responsiblity for it's illegal use. It's called negligence, and I think people who are knowingly letting people use their networks for illegal means are going to be sharply bitten in the arse by in the courts. Feining ignorance isn't going to get you out of hot water.

      For the same reason you can't leave the keys in your unlocked car that gets used by a drunk to kill someone because he knows he has easy access to your vehicle. You were criminally negligent, thus you bear some personal responsibilities. IANAL, but am married to one.

    15. Re:wireless routers by placeclicker · · Score: 1
      how are they going to address that???
      Sue 'em both!
      --

      Browse at -1, because trolls are often the most creative part of /.
    16. Re:wireless routers by panxerox · · Score: 1

      Wow theres alot of Anonymous coward post in this thread, those RIAA cube/sweatshops must be working overtime.

      --
      "It's so convenient to have a system where everyone is a criminal" - A. Hitler
    17. Re:wireless routers by Vermy · · Score: 1

      Um, your prosecutor must not have wanted to mess with you that day, because you got off easy.

      Onto to the legal ease for neglect:

      NEGLIGENCE - The failure to use reasonable care. The doing of something which a reasonably prudent person would not do, or the failure to do something which a reasonably prudent person would do under like circumstances. A departure from what an ordinary reasonable member of the community would do in the same community.

      Negligence is a 'legal cause' of damage if it directly and in natural and continuous sequence produces or contributes substantially to producing such damage, so it can reasonably be said that if not for the negligence, the loss, injury or damage would not have occurred.

      Negligence may be a legal cause of damage even though it operates in combination with the act of another, a natural cause, or some other cause if the other cause occurs at the same time as the negligence and if the negligence contributes substantially to producing such damage.

      So in other words, you could have been found liable for not using reasonable care by leaving your keys in the car as a normal person wouldn't do this. Luckily it was probably only minor property damage and you reported it. Had you not reported it, and someone gotten killed, you more than likely could have been prosecuted. It would have been up to the judge to determine how neglegent you were.

      Thus, this may be the standard of care that the RIAA uses to prosecute those allowing illegal file sharing over an open network. Had you monitored and secured the use of your network from illegal activity, none could have occured. But because you didn't, and a criminal act/harm resulted from it, you have partial responsibility.

      The hacker defense does hold merit for the time being, but it has to be proven that your machine was compromised at the time the acts occured. Simply pleading you didn't know better to let your friends use your connection TO DOWNLOAD wouldn't hold much water when you probably did know they had illegal music from bandwidth logs and just living with the person.

    18. Re:wireless routers by brandonY · · Score: 1

      You could always get your money back by suing him for trespassing, couldn't you?

    19. Re:wireless routers by Myopic · · Score: 1

      mmm hmmm. i have my wireless router open and named Public. when i first moved in i got and used a (weak) signal from the apartment building next door down, and i used gnutella then; now i have my wireless router open and i still use gnutella, and i'm sure my neighbors do, too. sometimes i worry about it, but not too much.

    20. Re:wireless routers by cyberfunk2 · · Score: 1

      Well.. you could always turn WEP on, and just have the BSSID be say 'weppassismoo' and then you could claim you tried to prevent it with encryption, but someone unbeknowst to you 'hacked' in anyways.

    21. Re:wireless routers by cyberfunk2 · · Score: 1

      You will likely have wiped the machine clean long ago.

  29. Yes! Finally.. by mumblestheclown · · Score: 2, Troll
    When this first started, all of slashdot was "don't blame P2P... go after the offenders."

    Ask, and ye shall receive.

    At the risk of being labelled a troll (which is a shame - the slashdot engine should take posts that are modded as interesting AND troll, as some of the best posts invariably are because they challenge some of the geek orthodoxy), I am happy when this sort of thing happens. Why? In my work I spend hours, months, and years producing "intellectual property" output.

    Just because it can be dissementated for a trivial price does not mean that my work is not useful or hard to make or that I need to invent better "market paradigms".

    I can't tell you the number of good things that don't go to market because of piracy* concerns. From software to books to music to even more novel forms of everything that simply can't happen because people break the social contract that is copyright and steal. It's a shame really.

    Don't any of you slashdot anti-IP drones find any irony in the fact that the OSS paradigm is largely based on respect and props for the hard, easily duplicable work of others?


    * "piracy" means "sea piracy" idiots will be ignored.

    1. Re:Yes! Finally.. by pesc · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I agree!

      Distributing others copyrighted works is illegal. And has been for a long time. The internet does not make this legal just because it is simple to do it, or beacuse you can do it more anonymously.

      When people cry that we need new laws to regulate the internet, such as DMCA, I say bullshit! Use the good old copyright laws and go after the offenders (uploaders). Don't attack the technology (napster, P2P). Don't attack the infrastructure (ISPs, censorship). Forget about DRM and all such crap. Go after the real offenders, the ones that actually distribute others copyrighted work.

      This is what they should have done in the first place, years ago.

      --

      )9TSS
    2. Re:Yes! Finally.. by dvdeug · · Score: 1

      I can't tell you the number of good things that don't go to market because of piracy* concerns. From software to books to music to even more novel forms of everything that simply can't happen because people break the social contract that is copyright and steal. It's a shame really.

      If you can't tell us, why should we believe you? You sound like someone waving their hands at the evil of masturbation; oh, it's evil, it's evil! Forget any evidence; it's evil I tell you!

    3. Re:Yes! Finally.. by Red+Alastor · · Score: 1

      You should not use the wording "intellectual property", it is too broad to have a clear meaning. Instead, use the appropriate word from the following : copyright, trademark, patent, trade secret. Do I forgot one ? Man, it is crazy how much seeing SCO bashed by IBM's lawyers can teach you about the legal system ;-)

      --
      Slashdot anagrams to "Sad Sloth"
    4. Re:Yes! Finally.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      The social contract called copyright was broken by copyright owners when they paid Congress to change copyright from a limited-time system to a perpetual system. There is no reason for us to have any respect for it any longer.
      If you want me to respect your copyright, give me a license that says your work is released into the public domain after 15 years.

    5. Re:Yes! Finally.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      In a capitalist system remuneration is not based upon on effort or time spent, rather it is based only on the size of pool of available resources. If everyone can make intellectual property of type x, ip of type x has no value, and nobody gains. If only Mr. M. T. Clown can produce ip of type x, then said ip has value, and MR. M.T. Clown gets the green back he feels he deserves. Honk on, Boozo.

    6. Re:Yes! Finally.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I create "intellectual property" myself. But I get paid by the hour. Copyright law is mostly irrelevant to me.

      Why should I feel sorry for you? In fact, I *hope* you are forced to find another way to make your money. I don't want stricter copyright laws. Your dream world is unsustainable. I can't remember a time in my life when copying wasn't common .. but the difference now is the RIAA can track every IP address, when before they could only see the blank tapes being sold.

      I believe that systems which align themselves with the natural behavior of people will outlive ones that fight it.

      Open source software doesn't "go against the grain". It's pretty natural to share copies, but not so natural to pretend you wrote something you didn't. Maybe for some people, but I bet the millions of people on Kazaa leave Metallica's name on their songs when they swap them.

      So, keep singing your sad song, the rest of us will push forward!

    7. Re:Yes! Finally.. by rjnagle · · Score: 1

      I take a different tack.

      I don't oppose piracy or file sharing technologies. But cracking down on piracy results in listeners more eager to look for music through other avenues. . 8 months ago I've listened to nothing but music that are legal to download and either free or practically free. I haven't been disappointed. For those looking for new music, check dmusic.com, irate radio, iuma, etc.

      Piracy allows people to seek the same old musical shit instead of actually looking for cool music. Piracy is for people too lazy to look for cool music.

      --
      Robert Nagle, Idiotprogrammer, Houston
    8. Re:Yes! Finally.. by Xebikr · · Score: 5, Insightful
      I can't tell you the number of good things that don't go to market because of piracy* concerns. From software to books to music to even more novel forms of everything that simply can't happen

      Yes! Stop producing anything! That'll show those nasty pirates!

      Sorry, but being denied something that hasn't been created is less of a problem for me than being denied something that was created but is now inaccessable because of draconian copyright laws.

      because people break the social contract that is copyright and steal. It's a shame really.

      The social contract was broken a long time ago... by the content producers. When copyright was extended long past absurd lengths the writing was on the wall. The present day piracy was predicted way back in 1841. Here's a quote from that link (Thomas Macaulay speaking against copyright extension):
      At present the holder of copyright has the public feeling on his side. Those who invade copyright are regarded as knaves who take the bread out of the mouths of deserving men. Everybody is well pleased to see them restrained by the law, and compelled to refund their ill-gotten gains. No tradesman of good repute will have anything to do with such disgraceful transactions. Pass this law: and that feeling is at an end. Men very different from the present race of piratical booksellers will soon infringe this intolerable monopoly. Great masses of capital will be constantly employed in the violation of the law. Every art will be employed to evade legal pursuit; and the whole nation will be in the plot.
      Seems to sum it up quite nicely.
    9. Re:Yes! Finally.. by Hobbex · · Score: 1


      The problem is that they are trying to enforce a law that is being broken by millions people by going after a few with a disproportionate punishment, so as to make an example out of them. Yes, people who break the law have to live with the consequences, but in order to scare people a few unlucky people are being punished in a manner that doesn't at all befit the crime.

      Using a P2P app is in every sense a lesser crime then speeding or blowing a stop light, yet the punishment that these people are being subjected to is much worse.

    10. Re:Yes! Finally.. by MyHair · · Score: 1

      (which is a shame - the slashdot engine should take posts that are modded as interesting AND troll, as some of the best posts invariably are because they challenge some of the geek orthodoxy)

      You can alter the scoring and do exactly what you wish. Go to the Comments tab of your Preferences, scroll down to the "Reason Modifier" section and muck around with it. I believe changing Troll to +1 will eliminate the Troll mod penalty and +2 will score a positive mod point for each Troll mod. Perhaps set Troll to +1 and Interesting to +1 or +2?

      For those of you who hate funny mods you can knock Funny down to -6. You can also level the playing field by disallowing the +1 karma bonus for good karma posters and give AC's a +1.

      Actually there's tons of stuff you can do from this page; I'm currently striping sigs, hiding my email and setting a higher default threshold for comments.

    11. Re:Yes! Finally.. by landaker · · Score: 1

      * "piracy" means "sea piracy" idiots will be ignored.

      You're right: piracy could just as easily happen on a lake or a river; maybe even in a swimming pool!

    12. Re:Yes! Finally.. by hackstraw · · Score: 1

      In my work I spend hours, months, and years producing "intellectual property" output.

      In their work, they spend hours, maybe, just maybe months producing "intellectual property" output where the input is some megamillionaire boyband producer's ideas of how these kids that look good in the provided outfit should sing or whatever. And, they expect this effort to launch them into multimillionaire success for their lifetimes.

      I too produce "intellectual property", but when my producing stops, so does my pay. I would imagine your in the same boat.

      I don't know of a talented, hard working musician (ie, one that tours and plays music for a living) that has trouble making a comfortable living. There is E! True Hollywood Story documentaries and "where are they now"s for the others.

    13. Re:Yes! Finally.. by Cyno · · Score: 1

      I am happy this sort of thing happens, too. But for different reasons. I enjoy watching greedy corps shoot themselves in the foot. Unfortunately I work for one of them, but probably not for long. :)

      Nothing but sinking ships, the whole lot of 'em.

      Don't any of you slashdot anti-IP drones find any irony in the fact that the OSS paradigm is largely based on respect and props for the hard, easily duplicable work of others?

      Not at all. For every selfish person there are at least 3 people who want to give and share and help, like me.

      What are you affraid of? Progress?

      "The sad truth is you would rather
      Follow the school into the net
      Cuz swimming alone at sea
      Is not the kind of freedom you actually want."
      -NOFX

    14. Re:Yes! Finally.. by strike2867 · · Score: 1

      The beginning time was 5 years, if I remember correctly. Decided upon by the signers of the Constitution (yes, I do realize it doesnt mean anything anymore). Taken from an earlier post here.

      --

      Vote for new mod!!! Score:-2,Imbecile
    15. Re:Yes! Finally.. by geekee · · Score: 1

      "I believe that systems which align themselves with the natural behavior of people will outlive ones that fight it. Open source software doesn't "go against the grain"."

      So by your own arguemnt GPL goes against the grain, and should be ignored. You claim it's natual to share code, but forcing someone to share source code they don't want to, just because they used some of your source code, is unnnatural by your argument. GPL relies on copyright for a reason. Condemning copyright for one condemns it for all. You can't have it both ways.

      --
      Vote for Pedro
    16. Re:Yes! Finally.. by Ill_Omen · · Score: 1
      The social contract was broken a long time ago... by the content producers. When copyright was extended long past absurd lengths the writing was on the wall.

      If the majority of copyright violations that the RIAA is concerned about involved decades-old music, you'd have a valid point. But unless you're arguing for a 2-week copyright term, I don't think "copyright extension" is relevant to this discussion.

    17. Re:Yes! Finally.. by Xebikr · · Score: 2, Informative

      If the majority of copyright violations that the RIAA is concerned about involved decades-old music, you'd have a valid point. But unless you're arguing for a 2-week copyright term, I don't think "copyright extension" is relevant to this discussion.

      It's just as illegal to download "decades old music" as it is to download music released less than "2-week"s ago. Just for kicks, imagine if everything over 28 years old (original copyright length +14 year extention) was in the public domain -- with new works being added every year. You don't think that would change the face of file sharing? Compare that with now, when nothing(slight hyperbole) created in my lifetime will ever be added to the PD. Plus, we won't get any "new" works (new but over 90 years old)in the PD until the year 2019 or so. And then only if copyright is not extended again.

      I know people would still infringe copyrights and share newer stuff, but at least you could say "Only download music that is over 28 years old and you'll be safe."

    18. Re:Yes! Finally.. by genmanath · · Score: 1

      Perhaps the quantity of good things foregone is ultimately unknowable. While it would help to have some examples of some things which didn't come to market because the creator didn't think the market would pay rather than steal, the real answer may be out in the wilds of abandoned potential.

      Stated as a rhetorical question, his point may be:
      How much potential creative activity was foregone because the creators thought that the market would steal and not pay to gain access to it?

      The answer, probably, is "We don't know". Provided that on considers creative activity a Good Thing in and of itself, the very fact that we don't know what we're missing is a problem.

      However, one would need more specific proof of piracy's tendency to discourage innovation to make this case solidly. There may be (many) other reasons for creators to let their creativity lie fallow.

      --
      G. M. Manath

      Go not to the Elves for counsel, for they will say both 'Yes' and 'No.'

    19. Re:Yes! Finally.. by Hackeron · · Score: 1

      Who owns the works of Bach, Vivaldi, Elgar? Virgin records? their distant relatives? the artists that perform the masterpieces?

    20. Re:Yes! Finally.. by thogard · · Score: 1

      Distributing others copyrighted works is illegal.
      No, the RIAA and friends do it all the time and its how their members make money.

      What is true is:
      Distributing others copyrighted works may be illegal.

    21. Re:Yes! Finally.. by ex-songwriter · · Score: 1

      What difference would 15 year copyright terms make? Most of the music and films people are downloading are new releases. This is one of the weakest justifications for copyright infringement that appear on this board.

    22. Re:Yes! Finally.. by shark72 · · Score: 1

      "Who owns the works of Bach, Vivaldi, Elgar? Virgin records? their distant relatives? the artists that perform the masterpieces?"

      It's a bit off-topic, but since you asked...

      The works themselves are in the public domain. You can whip out your axe of choice and play them to your hearts' content. You may perform them publicly, or you may record your own performance and burn it to a CD, and sell it, or give it away.

      However, if you record yourself playing a public domain piece, you (and perhaps others, if you got help) own the copyright to the recording. Nobody can duplicate that recording without your permission. Typically, a classical music recording is owned by some combination of the performer(s) or conductor, the recording engineer, and the record label that reproduces and distributes it.

      If this seems unfair, remember that in the case of a commercial recording, the person who sits down at the piano or whips the baton around probably has uncommon talent and has worked hard to get where they are. Likewise, they are in a studio which cost money to build, and the recording engineer at the mixing board spent a lot of time and money honing their craft. The record label that distributes the recording, in turn, has spent money in producing, distributing, and marketing the music.

      It might very well be that many people reading this simply don't see the point of buying a CD of, say, Nikolaus Harnencourt conducting the Chamber Orchestra of Europe's performance of Beethoven's Piano Concertos 1 - 5, when a free MIDI file does the job just fine. This is a perfectly legitimate opinion to have. However, not discerning or caring for the difference does not give one the moral prerogative to help themselves to said copyrighted recording for free.

      --
      Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
    23. Re:Yes! Finally.. by mumblestheclown · · Score: 1
      that many people reading this simply don't see the point of buying a CD of, say, Nikolaus Harnencourt conducting the Chamber Orchestra of Europe's performance of Beethoven's Piano Concertos 1 - 5, when a free MIDI file does the job just fine.

      +6 Funny

    24. Re:Yes! Finally.. by KarmaOverDogma · · Score: 1

      I would mod you to a six if i could

      --
      uR iGn0ranc3, Their Power
  30. Re:NAT by zapp · · Score: 1

    And this is why there is a motion to make NATs illegal.

    --
    no comment
  31. So, what's the damage? by Raindance · · Score: 1

    Anyone know how much an average lawsuit like this will cost the RIAA, all told?

    RD

    1. Re:So, what's the damage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      their representation runs in the neighborhood of a grand a billable hour. filing hundreds of nearly-identical cases probably brings the average down, but not to the point that the settlement sums make up the difference.

      they're shaking down people for cash because the money is a meaningful quantity for the victim, not the RIAA. they aren't trying to make money, they're trying to deter an activity they can't stop.

  32. They're trying to assert ownerwship over noise by crovira · · Score: 1

    Most music is execrable. Little more than noise. The ethics of the music industry are among the worst in history. They have absolutely no morals. Today's million seller is tomorrow's has-been and they make sure of that since they make their money on the churn.

    How can you be surprised when the RIAA decides to sue the fringes of their market? They make more money selling elevator Musak. They don't give a rats' ass about the music. They care about their profits and they will kill you to protect 'em.

    --
    MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
  33. Rose colored glasses... by BrynM · · Score: 2, Interesting
    From the article:
    "Our campaign against illegal file sharers is not missing a beat," said Cary Sherman, president of the recording association. "The message to illegal file sharers should be as clear as ever."
    Yes. Obviously it's working since sharing is on the rise again. They must be scrambling to file suits to keep the "file sharing will get you sued" mantra going in the press. I don't think they'll have much success with just IP addresses though. NAT, Dynamic IPs and other such stuff is known for imcomplete or regularly purged logging from what I understand. By the time this gets to the point that a judge orders the names (or however they swing it), the data may be gone to the bit bucket.
    --
    US Democracy:The best person for the job (among These pre-selected choices...)
    1. Re:Rose colored glasses... by TrollBridge · · Score: 1
      Their efforts never slowed, but the circuit court decision against them in their suit against Verizon certainly didn't help them.

      I'd say the increase in file-sharing is a direct result of that court decision.

      --
      There's a Mercedes gap too. I want one and can't afford one, but it's not government's job to do anything about it.
    2. Re:Rose colored glasses... by sangreal66 · · Score: 1

      I don't think they'll have much success with just IP addresses though. Thats all they had to work with before and it seems to have worked for them. The only difference is now they have to issue a _real_ subpoena to ISPs instead of a bullshit DMCA one

    3. Re:Rose colored glasses... by BrynM · · Score: 1

      Point taken, but since these are John Doe lawsuits there isn't a real defendant yet - only a defendant place holder of sorts. This will slow down their "make an offer you can't refuse" tactics that they have been trying to get some revenu... errr... settlements from. Now they will have to play by real court process. It could be quite a while until they can offer any of these folk a "settlement". With any luck, this process may put a few dents into their strong arming of 12 year olds and such if a judge doesn't like how they are presenting these suits or throws the case out for lack of evidence (I can dream, can't I?).

      --
      US Democracy:The best person for the job (among These pre-selected choices...)
  34. um SOURCE for this info? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    not that people dont always tell the truth on slashdot. i mean i work for a VERY well known fortune 500 company and before i go home to my supermodel wife and sail round the world in my airship, i would like to know if im really being sued by the riaa or not.

  35. John Doe warrants for DNA? by purduephotog · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Anyone remember the episode of Law & Order where they had only days to track down a rapist... and tried to use DNA 'fingerprint' to issue a John Doe warrant? Courts rejected it.

    However several new reports allow this and it's still? waiting for supreme court review. I can't find anything about any further challenges- but I don't know what I'm not searching.

    http://www.courttv.com/news/hiddentraces/yalem/s id ebar_dna.html

    https://coldhit.doj.ca.gov/dna/news10.htm

    http://www.denverda.org/html_website/denver_da/D NA _John%20Doe_warrants.html

    http://www.ndaa.org/publications/newsletters/sil en t_witness_volume_7_number_1_2002.html

    1. Re:John Doe warrants for DNA? by oGMo · · Score: 1
      Anyone remember the episode of Law & Order where they had only days to track down a rapist... and tried to use DNA 'fingerprint' to issue a John Doe warrant? Courts rejected it.

      As much as I like L&O, I don't think it sets legal precedent. ;-)

      However several new reports allow this and it's still? waiting for supreme court review. I can't find anything about any further challenges- but I don't know what I'm not searching.

      I hope, however, they disallow it as well. Finding your DNA at a crimescene and using that to issue a warrant? Your DNA just means you were there, once, or had contact with someone who was. Some cases may seem "obvious", but this is open to so much abuse.

      --

      Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage

    2. Re:John Doe warrants for DNA? by lscotte · · Score: 1

      Ummm... Law and Order is a TV show... It's not real.

      --
      This post is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License.
    3. Re:John Doe warrants for DNA? by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Actually, I can easily imagine cases where DNA would be perfectly good grounds to issue a warrant on. Not that it would do much good yet. Right now a quite small portion of the populace has had their DNA sequenced.

      What *IS* necessary is that they use a sufficiently long sequence of genes. 10 short sequences is nowhere close to being sufficient (unless, perhaps, if they specify the MHC, and then I'm not sure...but probably not then either).

      The thing is, DNA is nearly orthogonal to most other kinds of evidence. And it's easy to exclude lots of people based on DNA sequences (although recent work on the frequency of occurance of human chimeras throws that into question, also).

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  36. Re:O thats really gonna work by pirhana · · Score: 1

    >> What are they gonna due, sue the computer? LOL!

    Actually they would, if they could. Throughout their history, they have been fighting technology and trying to stop it. Even though they are suing human beings actually they are trying to stop technology from destroying their outdated and crappy business model. But as Victor Hugo had said, You can stop an invading force but can never stop an idea whose time has come.

    --
    http://www.nasirudheen.blogspot/
  37. Here's another idea!! by TrollBridge · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Stop consuming the RIAA's crap!!!

    Most of you claim to hate the RIAA almost as much (if not more) than Microsoft or SCO, but can't seem to live without their product!

    Downloading the music for free (therefore depriving the RIAA of revenue from the sale of the CD) does nothing but give them ammunition for the press and clueless legislators.

    If you really want to knock the RIAA out, stop listening to their music period!! Don't listen to the radio, don't download songs (of RIAA-signed musicians), and don't buy their CDs.

    --
    There's a Mercedes gap too. I want one and can't afford one, but it's not government's job to do anything about it.
    1. Re:Here's another idea!! by aSiTiC · · Score: 1

      Supposedly lagging sales is forcing them to attack their own customers. However, I agree stop buying the RIAA formula driven pop music. But! Don't stop buying music, go out and buy a new indie artist and support music that's really innovative.

      --

      Where the Music Matters

    2. Re:Here's another idea!! by MikeXpop · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Unfortunately, it's not that simple. They'll equate your "voting with your wallet" as "sales lost due to piracy", because it makes them look like the little guy and it's practically impossible to prove. This always paves the way for legislation such as the one recently made in Canada (tax on all mp3 players/CD-R's).

      Personally I haven't boughten an RIAA CD in years. Now I buy all my music vinyl and download. That way, it's perfectly legal, I get a lot more, I get it cheaper, and $0 goes to the RIAA.

      --
      Etiquette is etiquette. He kills his mother but he can't wear grey trousers.
    3. Re:Here's another idea!! by JZ_Tonka · · Score: 1
      "They'll equate your "voting with your wallet" as 'sales lost due to piracy'"

      Not if those falling sales numbers come with with a similar drop in illegal downloading of RIAA-produced music..

      "Now I buy all my music vinyl and download."

      ...and by downloading, you are arming the RIAA with the only excuse they need to justify laws like the Canadian tax. You're not doing anyone any favors by downloading RIAA-distributed music.

    4. Re:Here's another idea!! by JZ_Tonka · · Score: 1
      "If the downloading of music means more people showing up to a performance, then it is the artist who wins."

      I think you're reaching for some reason to justify illegal downloading of music. I have NO sympathy for the greedy "artists" (puh-lease!) who think an RIAA contract is a big score.

      If they're any good, they'd make much more $$ by submitting their music to places like Magnatunes, where they get 50% of each album sale.

    5. Re:Here's another idea!! by TrollBridge · · Score: 1
      "It is not practical to cease consuption of all things RIAA."

      And what products besides music does the RECORDING Industry Association of America produce that we unavoidably MUST BUY!

      Sounds more like you have an addiction to feeding at the RIAA trough, if you ask me.

      --
      There's a Mercedes gap too. I want one and can't afford one, but it's not government's job to do anything about it.
    6. Re:Here's another idea!! by shystershep · · Score: 1

      Not to mention having to deal with PETA in addition to the RIAA, and maybe the ASPCA and some other acronyms.

      --
      The bigotry of the nonbeliever is for me nearly as funny as the bigotry of the believer. - Albert Einstein
    7. Re:Here's another idea!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You can't be serious. Considering the reach and advertising power the RIAA has versus the reach Magnatunes has, it would be insane for an upcoming artist to turn down an RIAA contract for a Magnatunes contract.

      Furthermore, I don't see Magnatunes lining up to give artists $1,000,000+ to produce and make their albums. Magnatunes will only make an artist profit on works already made, not help produce new works.

      Where are the millionaires that the Magnatunes have made? Anyone?

      I hate to sound like a troll, but everyone who just blindly makes the argument "LOL, JUST DROP THE RIAA THAT'LL SHOW 'EM" hasn't really looked at the big picture. Some people out there legitimately like bubblegum pop, nu-metal, or other genres not prominently found on indie labels. Some people out there like bands enough that they cannot just boycott the RIAA and not check out the new album by their favourite band.

      And finally, if every tech-saavy individual or indie music fan did run away from the RIAA-enslaved music industry, they'd have even more statistics and ammunition in their war against music piracy. The vast majority of music consumers both do not have the time to explore new music independantly and are not tech-saavy enough to do so. I find it hard to believe that you would tell a 70-year old Grandma buying her grandchild a Britney Spears album to "Ditch this RIAA stuff and get your grandchild an indie album! She'd appreciate it much more".

      I'm an uber-nerd as much as any of the other posters here, but sometimes you really need to look at the real world viability of the situation instead of geeking it up.

    8. Re:Here's another idea!! by HrothgarReborn · · Score: 1

      I took this tack with Microsoft and said I would never use their stuff either. But there are some things that they do well and I cannot afford to sacrifice those features until open source comes up with a workable alternative. So I use Microsoft for a (very) few things that they do well (or at least better than others).
      Music is the same. I would love to say I will never listen to another RIAA artist, but they have some very talented people. Indie has a few gems as well, but the ones that have shaped our culture and permenantly changed the way music composition works have mostly been with labels under the RIAA. I for one will not miss out on great music because I disagree with the tactics of the RIAA.
      I believe we need good laws to put them in check and good compromises that give legal options like ITMS.
      We also need to stop the FUD. Piracy is an act of theft on the high seas. File sharing is copyright infringement and is NOT stealing or theft. Downloaders may not be acting properly but are not criminals. They are violators of civil law and not guilty of anything unless the RIAA can establish the damages they have done as an individual (which is probably pretty small). The individual is not responsible for the actions of the entire group.

    9. Re:Here's another idea!! by euxneks · · Score: 1

      Don't listen to the radio, don't download songs (of RIAA-signed musicians), and don't buy their CDs

      If you're in Canada, like your sig implies, you'll know that the CD levy gives us some pretty hefty legal rights for downloading music online. I've stopped listening to the radio, I've stopped buying CDs... well.. 2 outta 3 ain't bad?[/meatloaf]

      --
      in girum imus nocte et consumimur igni
    10. Re:Here's another idea!! by ex-songwriter · · Score: 1

      I'm a musician, and I make money from my recordings. That's because I am a songwriter as well. I, like other songwriters, get 8 cents per song per copy sold in mechanical royalties. So, on one of my albums with 10 songs, I get 80 cents per CD sold, just for having written the songs. Record labels do pay the mechanicals to songwriters, and they tend to pay them promptly. And for the record, major labels tend to be--in my experience (and I have experience with both)--quite a bit more reliable in the cutting-a-check department than independent labels. While I'm not an RIAA apologist, it's patently untrue that musicians get nothing from CD sales, unless they are not songwriters, or have signed 100% of their publishing away (which is very rare). But this line of thinking does seem to crop up quite a bit in people's rationalizations for not paying for music.

  38. Re:NAT by metlin · · Score: 4, Interesting

    You know, at my apt we have a Wireless Network which is shared by 3 other roomies.

    Sometimes, my neighbours use it too when their net is slow. All in all, one DSL shared by ateast 5-6 peple.

    Now, any one person could have used their system for P2P. Are the going to take all 6 of us to court just because one IP has been logged?

    Has anyone had similar experiences? What would the RIAA do in such a situation?

  39. Re:Fight Back, People by mumblestheclown · · Score: 1

    In other words, organize your crime!

  40. This calls for a "The Prisoner" reference: by NeuroManson · · Score: 3, Funny

    I am not a number, I am a free man!

    --
    Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
    1. Re:This calls for a "The Prisoner" reference: by wowbagger · · Score: 1

      whois 192.168.0.1
      ifconfig you 192.168.0.6
      whois 192.168.0.1

      --
      www.eFax.com are spammers
    2. Re:This calls for a "The Prisoner" reference: by keyne9 · · Score: 1

      to expound:

      Number 6: Welcome friend, I'm number 6.
      Number 15: I'm number 15. What number are you?
      Homer: I am not a number! I am a man! And don't you eve... oh wait, I'm number 5. Haha. In your face, number 6!
      Number 6: Myeees... Well done.

      (had to be done :-)

    3. Re:This calls for a "The Prisoner" reference: by TMB · · Score: 1

      MOD PARENT UP!!!!

      I'm in pain I'm laughing too hard...

      [TMB]

    4. Re:This calls for a "The Prisoner" reference: by TMB · · Score: 1

      I think you mean 24.6.0.1... ;-)

      [TMB]

  41. Re:CALEA requires 2 years. by IcEMaN252 · · Score: 1

    Are ISPs legally common carriers?

    I may be wrong, but I thought a court ruled they are not?

    --
    CitrusTV (http://www.citrustv.net): the Nation's Oldest & Largest Entirely Student-Run Television Station
  42. ISP Records by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Most record IP/Customer matches ( via your modems MAC address ) for a period of time....

    Donno how long though.... Im sure it varies from company to company.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  43. Re:CALEA requires 2 years. by sqlrob · · Score: 1

    Except ISP's aren't common carriers, and even the Bells have seperated the ISP from the phone business.

  44. Waves hand.... by LittleGuy · · Score: 4, Funny

    These are not the IP Addresses you are looking for. Move along.

    --
    Mod Karma -1: I sed bad wurds. If I cep my mouf shut, I wud be at riyses.
    1. Re:Waves hand.... by dyte · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, really, these are not the addresses. The post was a troll.

  45. Wow. by einer · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This could be the first time I've ever been happy about not having a static IP address from Time Warner.

  46. Re:NAT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    whoever the 'owner' of the account used to connect will get the subpoena. according to every ISP EULA to date, that person is legally responsible for any and all traffic through that pipe. ...Except in the case of the script kiddie who plead 'hacked'. apparently someone having rooted your system absolves you of responsibility. Though I don't imagine that precedent to last very long.

  47. Intellectual Property theft is still theft... by Surfing+Caddis · · Score: 1, Redundant

    - It doesn't matter if you don't like the owner - It doesn't matter that they charge outrageous prices: this is a free market and you are not force to buy - They still own the property and property ownership rights are fundamental to our society and must be protected. - Just because stealing is easy doesn't mean it is justified If you don't like their tactics, stop supporting their war machine as you do when buying their products which fills their war chest. I haven't bought a new CD in six years. Otherwise: shut up already. You are paying them to harass you.

    1. Re:Intellectual Property theft is still theft... by nate1138 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Every time there is a copyright related case, I have to take the time out of my day to explain to asshats like you that copyright infringement isn't theft. It is copyright infringement. They are different.

      READ A BOOK!

      --
      Where's my lobbyist? Right here.
    2. Re:Intellectual Property theft is still theft... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Intellectual Property theft is still theft

      True... unless you're of the belief that the very concept of "Intellectual Property" itself is morally bankrupt at worst and/or copyright terms have been over-extended at best.

      Basically, the only compelling argument for someone to download the RIAA's music from P2P networks is that they feel that copyright in its current incarnation and/or the draconian penalty for infringing copyright is morally wrong and that they are engaging in civil disobedience in protest of either a morally corrupt length of copyright, the morally corrupt concept of copyright in its entirety, and/or a morally corrupt punishment that is far in excess of the crime. If someone says that one of these things is "morally wrong," that's their opinion and there's not a lot you can do about it - and that opinion justifies civil disobedience (granted, they should be willing to "Do the Time" with their only defense as, "yes I broke the law, but the law is morally corrupt and therefore invalid").

      FWIW, if a person holding such beliefs is ever on a jury in an RIAA case - or ANY Intellectual Property case, for that matter, I fully expect to see them assert the power of jury nullification and let even the most egregious offender off the hook, otherwise they are inconsistent and hypocritical.

      --AC

    3. Re:Intellectual Property theft is still theft... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Many of us disagree with their definition of property rights. We believe that having a copyright is not like having a car. Thomas Jefferson had the same opinion. The legal rights associated with copyright have changed dramatically since the constitution was written, we don't believe those changes are beneficial, therefore we exercise civil disobedience.

      Personally, I'm a libertarian. Property rights are pretty important to me. I just don't see copyrights and patents as regular property...and neither does the law even today, your title to your car will never expire like a patent will.

      Instead, I view "IP" as what it really is: a temporary monopoly, enforced by government at the point of a gun, for the sake of a greater good: promoting the public domain. That greater good is not well-served by the current regime.

    4. Re:Intellectual Property theft is still theft... by nudicle · · Score: 2, Informative
      No.

      You're confusing "real" property with "intellectual" property. The US Const., the document from which all this flows, contemplates what we call "intellectual property" as a separate thing.

      Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 8 of the says: "[Congress shall have the power t]o 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 means that Congress, if it felt like it _could_ set up protections for intellectual property, for limited amounts of time, and for the purpose of promoting sciences and useful arts. It doesn't say "because citizens have a natural right to exclusive rights to their writings and discoveries akin to their rights over, eg, land"

      So Congress created copyright and patent in order to promote the progress of science and the useful arts. Copyright and patent exist, therefore, in the service of *society* with limited benefits flowing to authors and inventors in order to, you guessed it, promote the progress of science and the useful arts.

      Copyrights and patents are infringed. "intellectual property theft" is a misleading phrase flowing from the unfortunate choice of "intellectual property" as the moniker we give to this stuff flowing from Art 1 sec. 8 paragraph 8. It's different from tangible stuff.

      This is all not to say that real people don't lose real money from IP infringement. It's just to say that it's misleading to comingle the language of tangible property with that of IP.

    5. Re:Intellectual Property theft is still theft... by spitzak · · Score: 2, Informative

      No. Legally copyright violation is not theft. It is against the law, but it is under a different catagory than theft.

      The usual explanation is that in fact the original owner did not really lose anything.

      However I think perhaps legally the difference is more that copyright violation can happen and the original owner can be unaware that it happened, while the original owner is obviously aware when theft happens because something of theirs is now missing. This makes the methods of detecting and prosecuting copyright violations different than theft.

  48. Dear RIAA by mm0mm · · Score: 3, Funny


    Music lawyers filed the newest cases against 'John Doe' defendants -- identified only by their numeric Internet protocol addresses -- and expected to work through the courts to learn their names and where they live.

    This type of "I-dunno-but-U-figure-out-Urself-,-judge-!" tactics is already copyrighted by Darl. RIAA will receive a nice letter from ScO concerning potential lawsuit for infringement of their IP in a few days, probably before they lose one of their "I-dunno" cases this Friday. Maybe we should establish RIAA/SCO Survival Funds so we won't lose two of the most entertaining litigation clowns.

  49. Re:NAT by Acidic_Diarrhea · · Score: 2, Informative

    The person who is the billing contact will be sued. No lawsuit has played out in court to know what the result of a lawsuit brought against a person who gave access to someone who shared copyrighted material would be.

    --
    I hate liberals. If you are a liberal, do not reply.
  50. If You Haven't Taken Action Already by Schlemphfer · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Generally, in these kinds of articles, the basic idea is that the RIAA is launching these lawsuits as a deterent against piracy. I think the truth is a little different. I think the RIAA is trying to develop a second revenue stream.

    Basically, our friends at the RIAA are more than happy if you'll keep buying your CD's at fifteen dollars a pop, then every few years they'll try to make what you already purchased obsolete by offering a new release with better packaging.

    Sometimes I wonder if they are deliberately incompetent in issuing their first release. I remember back in 1991, I picked up Miles Davis' "Kind of Blue." Five years later, the record company had re-released it, along with the shocking announcement that one of the original CD's songs had been mastered at the wrong speed -- so the CD I owned had a song that was therefore in the wrong key and at the wrong tempo. And for this incompetence, on their part, I was supposed to shell out another fifteen bucks to get the fixed version.

    Understandably, people are tired of this crap, so they've resorted to downloading music. That's where the RIAA's new revenue generating tactic comes in: they're using their legal department to send letters, coercing downloaders to pay up at about seven grand a pop. That's a lot of shiny CD's.

    So buy CD's or download illegally -- either way the RIAA wins. Unless you decide to get out of the game.

    If you follow the RIAA's tactics at all, you might have decided it's appropriate to not give these bloodsuckers another dime of your money. So here are a couple tips. Don't buy from labels that are affiliated with the RIAA -- and don't buy legally downloaded music from these labels just because they happen to be on the iTunes record store.

    Second, check out sites like Magnatune. Read everything you can about their business practices. These people are cool, their artists' music is awesome, and they deserve our support.

    --
    I'm generally "Interesting," "Insightful," and even "Funny" here. What the hell happens to me at parties?
    1. Re:If You Haven't Taken Action Already by MooCows · · Score: 1

      You can also try the Riaa Radar
      There you can also search per artist or album.

      --
      The path I walk alone is endlessly long.
      30 minutes by bike, 15 by bus.
  51. Re:NAT by metlin · · Score: 2, Informative

    Its interesting you say this, because this seems to be something thats quickly catching on.

    This Register article seems to indicate that the Trojan Horse Excuse syndrome is quickly catching on.

    Do not know how well it would hold against the RIAAs corporate hoodlums, but seems to have some effect :)

  52. Are *YOU* on the list? by PetoskeyGuy · · Score: 4, Funny

    Go to http://whatismyipaddress.com/
    and find out.

    Of course IP addresses are rather pointless without a date and time. I switched from a 208.*.*.* to a 66.*.*.* address just this morning.

    1. Re:Are *YOU* on the list? by KanshuShintai · · Score: 1, Troll

      All of those "what is my ip" sites always seem to give me false info....

      http://checkip.dyndns.org/ works better.

    2. Re:Are *YOU* on the list? by cgenman · · Score: 1

      All of those "what is my ip" sites always seem to give me false info....

      A site with multiple pop-ups, tons of advertisements, and lots of blinking tags giving false information? Say it ain't so!

      Now I'll have to find another way to add 6 inches to my manhood.

      --
      The ______ Agenda
    3. Re:Are *YOU* on the list? by fafaforza · · Score: 1

      http://whatismyip.com/ seems to be accurate, and is simple and has no popups.

    4. Re:Are *YOU* on the list? by Sprite+Remix · · Score: 1

      If you're using Windows just open 'ipconfig' in command prompt.

    5. Re:Are *YOU* on the list? by macgyvr64 · · Score: 1

      or whatsmyip.org, too...there's lots of them.

  53. Clamps... by FerretFrottage · · Score: 1

    Let me clamp em'

    --
    "Look Lois, the two symbols of the Republican Party: an elephant, and a fat white guy who is threatened by change."
  54. What happened to no more settlements? by reidconti · · Score: 1

    Remeber the RIAA bitching about how they would be unable to offer settlements if they couldn't coerce customer info out of ISPs? Guess they lied.

  55. Preventative v. Statutory Damages in Copyright by Iplaw-dc · · Score: 1

    I am interested in finding out if the relief is purely injunctive? Under the DMCA and Title 17 (which is the copyright statute), the RIAA can seek a criminal penalty for knowingly violated Fed (C) law. I hope they only are seeking injunctive relief because people downloading music could be subject to statutory damages based on the intent and I feel that the general public is not well versed in authors exclusive rights...although ignorance is no defense to statutory violations.

    --
    Jax
    1. Re:Preventative v. Statutory Damages in Copyright by nudicle · · Score: 1
      The RIAA isn't going to ask for an injunction. They want to use these cases as a deterrent. Getting news out that people are getting slapped with damages or agreeing to settlements in which they pay some non-trivial amount to the RIAA is what they're going to do.

      Second, any copyright infringement suit is subject to the plaintiff asking for statutory damages. See 17 USCA 504(c). The choice is either statutory damages (the limits of which are determined in the statute but decided by jury) or actual damages. There are stiffer penalties if the criminal (see 17 USCA 506 for the requirements) stuff is invoked.

      In short, the RIAA or any copyright plaintiff can ask for actual or statutory damages irrespective of "willfulness," "knowingly," or whether or not the criminal bits are being invoked (and they almost never are).

      You're completely right that ignorance is not a defense to copyright infringement.

    2. Re:Preventative v. Statutory Damages in Copyright by Iplaw-dc · · Score: 1

      Thanks for your feedback- just got out of a 3 hour copyright law exam and based on the June 2003 injunction, I thought that they might try and come down harder this time. Remeber this: Intellectual Property: "Amicus Brief in Support of RIAA in RIAA v. Verizon" - June 24, 2003 As required by court order, Verizon gave the RIAA the names of four users suspected of illegally downloading digital copies of songs. RIAA then sent letters to these four individuals demanding that they stop their file sharing activities. RIAA also sent a letter to a fifth user identified by Earthlink, which had refused to disclose the identity of its subscriber until the Verizon decision came down. RIAA followed this up with a warning that it will launch a massive campaign to target individuals who offer "substantial amounts" of music through P2P networks.

      --
      Jax
    3. Re:Preventative v. Statutory Damages in Copyright by nudicle · · Score: 1
      The RIAA might decide to come down harder, yeah. Since they can ask for statutory damages and since statutory damages, they can potentially ask for astronomical sums.

      504(c)(1) says in part:

      Except as provided by clause (2) of this subsection, the copyright owner may elect, at any time before final judgment is rendered, to recover, instead of actual damages and profits, an award of statutory damages for all infringements involved in the action, with respect to any one work, for which any one infringer is liable individually, or for which any two or more infringers are liable jointly and severally, in a sum of not less than $750 or more than $30,000 as the court considers just. For the purposes of this subsection, all the parts of a compilation or derivative work constitute one work.

      That means they can potentially get between 750 and 30,000 for each infringement. Every time someone downloaded a song from them that was an infringement. That runs into a lot of money real fast. And the numbers are even bigger if the act was "willful."

    4. Re:Preventative v. Statutory Damages in Copyright by Iplaw-dc · · Score: 1

      What's worse is under the DMCA, there are severe civil and criminal penalties...not to mention any impact WIPO treaties can eventually have for international infringers... Under DMCA the minimum fine is $750 per downloaded file. Criminal penalties, even for first-time offenders can be up to $250,000 in fines and five years in prison. Could you imagine serving 5 years for downloading a song. Well, off to TM class. Hope to run into your comments soon!

      --
      Jax
  56. Funny... by finelinebob · · Score: 1


    I thought Bob Seger said that...

  57. Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I was hoping that subpoena decision wouldn't discourage them. The more people they sue, the more they'll motivate the general populace to turn strong encryption and anonymous networks into mainstream technologies. The RIAA is helping the cause more than the cypherpunks ever did.

  58. Lust like the lottery... by NetDanzr · · Score: 4, Funny

    First three numbers - check.
    Second three numbers - coming closer.
    Third three numbers - danr! Lost once again!

  59. I saw that ad, too by johndiii · · Score: 1

    The ad was well done, except for the fact that, by the time the movie hits the first screen (theater or computer), all of those people have already been paid. The people still waiting for their money are the studios, the producers, and anyone else with "points" (probably includes the director, and maybe some higher-paid actors). The only way that stealing a movie hurts the people in the commercial is when a studio goes our of business, or if fewer movies are produced due to piracy. With their concentration on big-budget special effects showcases, and big-name romantic comedies, the studios have hurt those people a lot more than all net piracy combined.

    I'm not saying that it's right to d/l movies, but let's not be quite so hypocritical.

    --
    Floating face-down in a river of regret...and thoughts of you...
  60. Crossing the border... by Anonymous+Commando · · Score: 1
    At least one of those IP addresses is outside of the US. According to ARIN, 204.83.197.253 is registered to Quill Lake School Internet in Wadena, Saskatchewan, Canada.

    I don't think that's in the jurisdiction of the courts that these lawsuits were filed in (Washington and New York).

    --
    Corporate Jenga: You take a blockhead from the bottom and you put him on top...
    1. Re:Crossing the border... by shepd · · Score: 2, Insightful

      >I don't think that's in the jurisdiction of the courts that these lawsuits were filed in (Washington and New York).

      In fact, in the case of that school, they weren't even breaking the law. It isn't illegal to download pirated music in Canada. Even attempting to sue them for downloading there might get the RIAA in trouble (well, I assume it's illegal to try to file a lawsuit on someone for a non-existant "crime").

      Remember, for all your favourite downloads, alt.binaries.mp3.dance is your legal music source (if you're Canadian)!

      --
      If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
    2. Re:Crossing the border... by spells · · Score: 1

      You're right, but I think that they are going after people sharing rather than downloading, and I'm pretty sure sharing is just as illegal in Canada.

      Of course, I don't think the RIAA will go after them in Canada anyway.

  61. MAC Spoofing and such by Geccoman · · Score: 1

    Is there any way that the RIAA can prove that your MAC was NOT spoofed? In today's envionment on the internet, that's a legitimate concern.

    And in the case that someone HAS spoofed your MAC and/or IP, you have absolutely NO way to defend yourself.

    But will you be able to convince a judge of your innocence?

    --
    I'm on a chair.
  62. Doing As They're Told by gallen1234 · · Score: 1

    It's ironic that the RIAA keeps doing what they're told to do by their critics. When they went after P2P companies like Napster they were told the networks had legitimate uses and they should be going after the users. After some legal wrangling they went after the users. When they went after the users they were accused of circumventing the system by forcing the ISP's to provide them with contact information without actually getting a judge-signed subpoena. After more legal wrangling they're going to court with "offending" IP addresses only so, presumably, a judge will issue a subpoena that gets them the users real-world identities.

  63. BS by H8X55 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's like filing suit against a phone number for a bomb threat.

    1. Re:BS by DeltaStorm · · Score: 1

      Oh great, now we get to see 555-1234 jokes from the same people that made the 127.0.0.1 jokes!

      --
      .sdrawkcab si gis siht
  64. DHCP logs??? by ewhenn · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Everyone is bringing up the question of how long the logs would be kept for. Remember back when the US govt. was (possibly still is) granting itself the power to check out what books you were reading at the library? Remember how the librarians decided to destroy the records because it was legal? How long until ISPs get the idea and follow suit? No records, no court. Remember, ISPs want to keep customers, one way is to have a strong privacy policy.

    1. Re:DHCP logs??? by stubear · · Score: 1

      Reading a book isn't illegal. Distributing copyrighted intellectual property is. ISPs would be on much shakier ground and could possibly wind up being named as defendants themselves if they aren't careful. The Government could just make saving DHCP logs for a specified period of time required by law much like tax forms currently are.

    2. Re:DHCP logs??? by phorm · · Score: 1

      Yes, but then the lack of logs makes it a lot more difficult to track down the kiddy-pornographer, cracker, or the guy sending death-threats by email

      And yes, I've dealt with some of these. In the case of the latter, one of the staff here (schools) got some nasty emails which I traced to an IP, an ISP, and got the police to acquire the necessary information. We caught the person at-fault, and he (a student) was dealt with on several levels.

      Logs are there for a reason. Keeping track of what book a person borrowed (beyond perhaps a few weeks of return, in case of damage) isn't quite as useful except for profiling.

    3. Re:DHCP logs??? by /dev/trash · · Score: 1

      An ISp keeps logs for reasons that libraries don't, such as QoS and the such.

    4. Re:DHCP logs??? by Lumpy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      and smart ISP has been doing this all along. AT&T when I worked for them had a policy that ALL email and logs are to be destoryed if they are more than 30 days old. It was a fireable offense to have printed copies. This came from the days of getting a monoply suit slapped on them. if you dont have anything to be asked for by the court, you dont have to give it.

      I regularly fielded questions from people asking wherer their old email went to.

      there was only 30 days worth of tape backups also. nothing more was allowed.

      before that when I ran my own ISP in my small town I kept logs no longer than 2 weeks after seeing my brother lose his busines because the court snagged his records for a court case over one of his customers told me that NOTHING but financial records are to be kept.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  65. Next stumbling block.. by nolife · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Next hurdle for the RIAA is to PROVE these people were actually offering or distributing actual content the RIAA members own the copyright to. A file name or a list of file names/or mp3 tags is NOT going to stand up in a real court. I would think they should have to prove that person was actually distributing an actual copyrighted file by downloading the whole thing or a major portion of that file from only that one person (not getting it from multiple users either) and have some type of timestamped logs or process of the file transfer to stand behind their evidence gathering. Metallica_-_Ride_the_Lightning_01.mp3 can contain anything. A file name is not a copyright violation and without evidence, you would have to assume what the content was. There is no provision in the DMCA to fall back on that can override actual evidence is there? IANAL but since these RIAA lawsuits are civil and not criminal, I don't believe they can obtain a search warrant to come for your physical equipment either. Who knows.

    --
    Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
    1. Re:Next stumbling block.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I've said it before, I'll keep saying it --

      Someone needs to make themselves a target and actually share MP3s that have the names of actual RIAA 'member' artists, without actually being said artist's work (like a 4 minute recording of you taking a dump or your dog barking). I doubt seriously the RIAA would listen to the offending MP3s before slapping down a lawsuit based on the name alone.

      I'd take the stance, but I'm not independantly wealthy.

    2. Re:Next stumbling block.. by hackstraw · · Score: 1

      Next hurdle for the RIAA is to PROVE these people were actually offering or distributing actual content the RIAA members own the copyright to.

      Actually, its offering illegal content. If I own Metallica's Ride the Lightning album and my friend has already ripped it to mp3 for my player, its not illegal for me to download the mp3 from him.

      If I were a lawyer, I would never take this case.

    3. Re:Next stumbling block.. by nolife · · Score: 1

      There is a big difference between downloading and uploading. If you were offering or posting the file, you are distributing copyrighted material without the owners consent which is illegal. You could argue three football fields in micometers about the rights and legality of the person actually downloading it.

      --
      Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
    4. Re:Next stumbling block.. by 24-bit+Voxel · · Score: 1

      I think you would have to mispell some of the words in the title because the title itself is copyrighted work (I think, IANAL). (Printing the artists name should be ok tho.)

    5. Re:Next stumbling block.. by amyhughes · · Score: 1
      If I own Metallica's Ride the Lightning album and my friend has already ripped it to mp3 for my player, its not illegal for me to download the mp3 from him.

      That's your opinion. It isn't universally accepted. According to the letter of the law you are allowed to make copies of your media for your use. It doesn't allow for your friend to make copies of your media, even if the end result is that only you end up with a copy.

      Your honor, my friend was going to delete it from his machine when he was done copying it for me just isn't very convincing. Remeber, in a civil case the burden of proof is only more likely than not.

      Amy

    6. Re:Next stumbling block.. by MCZapf · · Score: 1

      So what? They could've made those MP3s themselves. Did they have any impartial witnesses on hand?

    7. Re:Next stumbling block.. by shark72 · · Score: 1

      You're confusing the burden of proof for criminal cases with the burden of proof for civil cases.

      With criminal cases, the operative phrase you'll hear is beyond a reasonable doubt, and I think that's what you're applying here. With civil cases, only a preponderance of the evidence is necessary.

      Another important concept that many amateur lawyers miss is the "laugh test." If you're caught sharing the collected works of Metallica and your defense is that those files were really drink recipes and it's a Dickens-like coincidence that the filenames happen to match up exactly with the Metallica oeuvre, it won't fly.

      "Who knows."

      I know that was a rhetorical statement, but there's a clear answer: lawyers do. As in, the highly paid legal team that the RIAA likely consulted for months on end before embarking on the lawsuits. It's a safe bet that they know what they're doing.

      --
      Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
    8. Re:Next stumbling block.. by nolife · · Score: 1

      Is a printed out list of file names and an ip address enough evidence to award thousands or even the millions of dollars the RIAA was shooting for? Anyone who has ever used a P2P application knows for a fact there are tons of fake material floating around. In fact some sources (here,here, and here indicate RIAA represented companies were behind some of the fakes. Don't forget the people that were sued previously that had nothing illegal. The RIAA's tactics of carpet bombing is not an exact science.

      --
      Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
    9. Re:Next stumbling block.. by shark72 · · Score: 1

      "Is a printed out list of file names and an ip address enough evidence to award thousands or even the millions of dollars the RIAA was shooting for?"

      Pretty doubtful. I'm sure the RIAA and their lawyers understand that, too. If I were handed the task of gathering evidence that a particular person were distributing copyrighted material, I'd start by actually downloading and listening to it to confirm that the shared files weren't fakes. The RIAA already made the mistake of not doing this with that "Usher" file name incident. It's not unreasonable to assume that they have since found smarter people to do a better job of gathering evidence. If you and I could put our heads together and come up with a reliable way of nailing somebody for copyright violation, they probably can, too. In short -- don't underestimate the enemy.

      --
      Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
  66. This whole thing is a joke. by canfirman · · Score: 4, Interesting
    This whole "lawsuit" with the RIAA is nothing but a freeking joke. My buddy wrote EMI Music Canada complaining he couldn't download music from his (store bought) CD to his new IPod because of the copy protection. So, EMI Music gave him an unprotected CD and actually told him not to buy copy protected CD's until the technology changes! So, what's he supposed to do if he can't buy CD's? I guess the only thing left is to download them (but then he'll get sued by the RIAA even though the music company told him not to by the CD).

    Like I said, what a joke.

    (If you're interested, I've got the e-mail chain between my buddy and EMI.)

    --
    It is not our abilities that show what we truly are... it is our choices.
    1. Re:This whole thing is a joke. by TheLoneDanger · · Score: 1

      That e-mail chain sounds interesting. But I just wanted to say that downloading music is legal here in Canada, it's only sharing that is illegal.

      Your buddy could always just keep buying the crippled ones and complain, costing them more money every time. That's probably why they told him not to buy any more copy protected cds; they're losing more on the support and mailing of the non-crippled CD than they gain. If so, then good.

      --

      "But I trust in the people's capacity for reflection, rage and rebellion." -Oscar Olivera
    2. Re:This whole thing is a joke. by LadyLucky · · Score: 1

      I contacted EMI after I couldn't play a copy protected CD on my computer. They told me to take it back and get a refund.

      --
      dominionrd.blogspot.com - Restaurants on
  67. Tracking usage by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 1
    Will there be any sites tracking P2P usage in correlation with this latest batch of lawsuits?

    We've seen studies in the past posted that correlated the two, so I am assuming there will be this time.

    --
    Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
  68. with DHCP this doesn't mean much by cdn-programmer · · Score: 1

    yup - dynamic addresses - ya gotta love them.

    Oh - and NAT behind that. I'll suggest that the RIAA has its head up its butt end.

  69. Anyone tried tracing those IPs? by CliffH · · Score: 3, Informative

    I just did a random few. I'd love to see the RIAA sue people in France, Germany, and all of the other countries IPs who are in that list. I saw a couple of 212 addresses and figured, no, they aren't from the states so I did a lookup on them. Low and behold, European address blocks. Have fun RIAA. Something tells me your tactics won't fly as well outside of the US as it does within...

    --
    sigs are like a box of chocolates, they all suck remove the underscores to email me
    1. Re:Anyone tried tracing those IPs? by CliffH · · Score: 1

      I know it's bad replying to your own posting, but, I just tried the very first IP on that list. Are they going to sue Argentinians too?

      --
      sigs are like a box of chocolates, they all suck remove the underscores to email me
  70. It seems they forgot an additional 512 IP's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    198.137.240.0-198.137.241.255

    "Laura! The Twins are using Kazaa again!"

  71. You pay the bill, you're responsible by rueger · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Undoubtedly the RIAA will say that you, as the person who has the account with the ISP, are responsible for whatever data is transmitted.

    And most likely that claim would stick, unless you chose to rat out your room mates.

    --
    Three Squirrels
  72. Re:GNNA sucks by Patrik_AKA_RedX · · Score: 2, Informative
    Why are you guys paying attention to the RIAA when you could be pouring hot grits down your pants for Natalie Portman?
    Never hear of multitasking?
  73. Re:NAT by pla · · Score: 1

    according to every ISP EULA to date, that person is legally responsible for any and all traffic through that pipe

    IANAL, but the extent to which you can accept, even voluntarily, criminal liability via a contract has some limits to it...

    If I loan you a shotgun, with a very clear contract saying that you accept legal responsibility for all uses of it, and your roomate then uses it to shoot his ex, then your roomate, not you, goes to prison.

  74. Don't we already have an anoymous way? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    (Posting anonymous 'cause I don't want trouble)

    It seems to me that we've already got this great big P2P filesharing system that's been around since the early '80s (USENET).

    There are various binaries newsgroups where people request music and other people post it - sure it sometimes gets split into 30 posts (which makes it a pain to deal with), but what if we had some software that made it automatic to go and search out the name of a song, download those 30 posts, remove the extraneous header/footer info, merge the files and uudecode? (and something similar to go the other way -> you want to post a song so it splits the file appropriately and uuencodes.

    The poster in this scenario runs the risk of RIAA lawsuit, not the downloader (I don't think there is anyway to determine who has downloaded a certain set of files).

    Of course, if you don't want to be traced you could use some sort of anonymous email account for posting.

    Would this work?

  75. It still wasn't me... by Pac · · Score: 1

    See, your honour, this MAC address is not mine - come to think of it, it looks like Suzy's card MAC address, the bitch from Accounts Receivable who won't go out with me...

  76. Re:If You Haven't Taken Action AlreadyDEFECTIVE by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 1
    Five years later, the record company had re-released it, along with the shocking announcement that one of the original CD's songs had been mastered at the wrong speed

    So return it as defective and demand a proper copy. You did pay to have all the songs properly presented.

    Of course, how did it take them five years to figure this out? Doesn't the band even listen to their CD's?

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  77. Re:NAT by Orien · · Score: 1
    Now I know a lot of you are going to start saying evil things about this and my opinion isn't going to be very popular, but I don't really think it's all that bad of the RIAA to do this.

    Think about this for a minute. I have always known that making a copy of a cd so that my original doesn't get scratched is perfectly fine to do, but making a copy of a cd so that I can give it away to my friends, it against the law. In fact, forget about the RIAA for a minute, what about the artists? If you pirate music the people who actually made the music don't get paid, and that is just wrong. The internet comes along and then p2p comes along and suddenly music pirating goes through the roof. The RIAA's first line of defense was to try to outlaw p2p which successfully got Napster shut down. That was totally wrong. People were using Napster to illegally trade music, but that doesn't mean that the protocol itself was at fault. I have always said from the beginning of this that the only fair way to do anything about this is to target the people who are actually breaking the law. If someone is pirating music, don't try to outlaw the program that they are using, sue them for copyright infringement! What else is the music industry supposed to do? If you are innocent then you will have the chance to prove it in court. I think working with IP addresses and the ISPs is a great way of handling this. The RIAA says to the court "we have $INCRIMIATING_EVIDENCE evidence that the IP address $IP_ADDRESS was sharing $TOTAL_SIZE gigs of illegal music on $DATE". If they have reasonable evidence then the court orders the ISP to turn over the mailing address so that they can be summoned to court. If they are an 80 year old with no computer then the case will get dismissed. If they are a college kid with a hard drive full of illegal songs then they will be found guilty and pay a fine.

    Personally I feel that p2p song swapping is free publicity and will only help the music industry, but I think the RIAA is well within their rights when they do this.

    --

    SCO.com uses Linux

  78. Like checking my lottery stub by shuz · · Score: 1

    Dang! lost again :-(

    --
    There is or can be built a machine that can simulate any physical object. -Church-Turing principle
  79. Re:NAT by Daen+Kolarin · · Score: 1

    If anyone actually managed to use such a defence in court, I imagine we'd get the RIAA, etc. pushing for IPv6.

  80. Re:MAC Spoofing and such Mac +KaZaA by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 1
    Is there any way that the RIAA can prove that your MAC was NOT spoofed?

    Well, if your Mac is running KaZaA, then you have been spoofed.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  81. heh by ArmenTanzarian · · Score: 4, Funny

    Tom Brokaw: 127.0.0.1 was unavailable for comment.

  82. Re:MAC Spoofing and such Mac +KaZaA by Geccoman · · Score: 1

    Buh Dum Puh - CHING!

    --
    I'm on a chair.
  83. A Plan by cynicalmoose · · Score: 1

    Better, let them tear each other apart.

    Incidentally, SCO's IP is 216.250.128.12
    You can report file-sharers to the RIAA

    What are we waiting for?

    --
    Exercise your right not to vote. thinkoutside.org
  84. What about filesharers in other countries ? by Red+Alastor · · Score: 1

    What can they do about people outside USA ? They can't use the DMCA but copyright laws are present almost everywhere.

    --
    Slashdot anagrams to "Sad Sloth"
  85. Keep it up ass hats! by Luscious868 · · Score: 1

    Keep sueing. Seriously. Keep it coming. Keep pissing off your customer base all the while bringing out crappy pop song after crappy pop song. Then sit back, scratch your big fat stupid greedy heads and ponder why it is that record sales are continuing to plumit.

    I'm loving this shit. I really am. I can't get enough. Between this, SCO, Howard "Yeeeaahhh" Dean, and Wesley "I was a Republican until I decided to run for President" Clark there is a lot too laugh at in the news these days.

    1. Re:Keep it up ass hats! by Luscious868 · · Score: 1

      An you're not man enough to put a name on that post. You must be a liberal.

  86. Wireless Hotspots threatened? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Many areas have good coverage from lots of people installing wireless access points. I have installed one myself. What happens if someone uses it to share files? Does that make me liable? I know there is no way to block specific usage unless I install a server or firewall, which is too expensive. So, if there is liability, I am worried many, if not most, people and companies will shut down their wireless access points and this will mean the end of this very useful technology. I recently ordered several thousand dollars of home entertainment equipment via an open access point after visiting a store. I was about to buy from the store but went out to my car to double check prices and found a great deal, saving my friend hundreds of dollars. It seems the RIAA is threatening the utility of the internet.

  87. Nice... by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 2, Funny

    So nice of the RIAA to give us a big list of IP addresses to go to to download free music!

    --
    Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
  88. Which P2P Network This Time? by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 1

    So which P2P network(s) are they suing this time? Last couple rounds they mostly went after KaZaA and it was obvious. Now who do they want?

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  89. Lawsuits by SnowWolf2003 · · Score: 1

    When are we actually going to start seeing one of these lawsuits tested in court?

    Everyone seems to be settling, but is that because noone can afford to go to court, or the RIAA is too scared to let one of these cases go to court, so are settling very easily.

    I am thinking they are only ever going to want to go to court over this if they are certain they have a big fish and a guaranteed win. If you are just the average joe file trader, how about telling the RIAA you will settle for $10 or you will see them in court.
    Big bluff, but are the RIAA that sure of their case in court?

  90. patriot act by deus_X_machina · · Score: 1

    What I'm wondering is if Bush gets reelected, can they can use the "Patriot Act" to catch file swappers? One of the major points in the "State of the Union" address was renewing the Patriot Act. It'd be pretty easy for the RIAA to manipulate it to catch file sharers, though it's obviously doesn't uphold the "spirit of the law".

    Sounds like things are going to get worse before they get better...

    --
    "In a Democracy, people get the kind of government they deserve." -Winston Churchill
  91. RIAA lawsuit stats? by nukem1999 · · Score: 1

    Have any of these end-downloader lawsuits ever come to a judgement? How many? All I hear about are people getting bullied into settlements, how are things going to turn out now that they're showing up in court before saying "Give us $3k or we'll take everything"?

  92. Re:Court costs involved? (finally) by IBitOBear · · Score: 1

    Next you will see them "justifying" (and then raising) their usuerous prices because they are "losing money on all those law suits." /sigh

    --
    Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
    --"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
  93. Don't forget to use your RIAARadar by capedgirardeau · · Score: 1



    This handy webpage page and bookmarklet will search for songs artists and albums that are produced by RIAA members. That way you can avoid them.

    They also offer searches and collections for NON-RIAA aka Indie music.

    RIAARadar

    --
    Wax on, wax off baby!
  94. I call bullshiat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Here is a partial list of those hostnames:
    Name: 82-21-63-200-ptr.ipbusiness.net.ar Address: 200.63.21.82
    Name: host071052.arnet.net.ar Address: 200.45.71.52
    Name: server.backendhost.com Address: 66.250.69.1
    Name: 64-132-153-94.gen.twtelecom.net Address: 64.132.153.94
    Name: adsl-63-202-129-167.dsl.renocs.nvbell.net Address: 63.202.129.167
    Name: filter.ikano.com Address: 209.210.176.44
    Name: mail.webfolders.net Address: 208.231.174.104
    Name: host75.reprografic.com Address: 216.191.3.75
    Name: server.backendhost.com Address: 66.250.69.1
    Name: web3.clubnet.net Address: 206.126.128.16
    Name: proxy.ia4.marketscore.com Address: 66.119.33.166
    Name: ip66-105-98-139.z98-105-66.customer.algx.net Address: 66.105.98.139
    Name: ip174-132.calstate.edu Address: 130.150.174.132
    Name: w219.z064003176.stl-mo.dsl.cnc.net Address: 64.3.176.219
    Name: oracle-u235.viawest.net Address: 216.87.64.146
    Name: e.bolgerinc.com Address: 65.112.203.171
    Name: adsl-64-108-32-30.dsl.bltnin.ameritech.net Address: 64.108.32.30
    Name: www.marshinc.com Address: 64.132.64.189
    Name: uswb124.isomedia.com Address: 207.115.74.124
    Name: h-66-134-30-172.NYCMNY83.covad.net Address: 66.134.30.172
    Name: Proxy.ALACT.org Address: 64.69.108.138
    Name: wwwdemos.com Address: 216.174.249.11
    Name: jesus.maxnetwork.com Address: 216.136.13.252
    Name: sushi.lakes.com Address: 209.23.191.50
    Name: pcp04959131pcs.westk01.tn.comcast.net Address: 68.47.170.144
    Name: h000347c39f44.ne.client2.attbi.com Address: 24.62.41.115
    Name: mail.barberinc.com Address: 209.10.154.3
    Name: ip68-101-180-62.sd.sd.cox.net Address: 68.101.180.62
    Name: adsl-216-101-213-100.dsl.lsan03.pacbell.net Address: 216.101.213.100
    Name: airband-216-138-216-153.airband.net Address: 216.138.115.153
    Name: uslec-66-43-149-135.cust.uslec.net Address: 66.43.149.135
    Name: airband-216-138-216-134.airband.net Address: 216.138.115.134
    Name: smtp.humanscale.com Address: 38.161.171.4
    Name: 208.184.53.91.available Address: 208.184.53.91
    Name: baffle.Stanford.EDU Address: 171.64.107.73
    Name: flash.net10.net Address: 216.174.248.6
    Name: ip-64-32-251-71.dsl.iad.megapath.net Address: 64.32.251.71
    Name: mail.nwmotion.com Address: 207.115.79.125
    Name: customer.iplannetworks.net Address: 200.69.218.129
    Name: www.uweb.engr.washington.edu Address: 128.95.39.140
    Name: 167.mupc.chcg.chcgil24.dsl.att.net Address: 12.100.15.167
    Name: isaic.crlibrary.org Address: 205.221.82.5
    Name: host26.224.51.209.conversent.net Address: 209.51.224.26
    Name: w178.z208037238.nyc-ny.dsl.cnc.net Address: 208.37.238.178
    Name: dslgw1.cipherkey.com Address: 209.53.201.151
    Name: ip164.gtsgateway.com Address: 216.136.111.164
    Name: eagle2.caldwellacademy.net Address: 66.0.72.18
    Name: adsl-63-206-200-131.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net Address: 63.206.200.131
    Name: rrcs-west-24-106-27-8.biz.rr.com Address: 24.106.27.8
    Name: ip199-222.digitalrealm.net Address: 216.144.199.222
    Name: med162c-lw.d.umn.edu Address: 131.212.59.41
    Name: ip68-0-113-150.tu.ok.cox.net Address: 68.0.113.150
    Name: 208.184.53.95.available Address: 208.184.53.95
    Name: user-vc8fgla.biz.mindspring.com Address: 216.135.194.170
    Name: m001.bess.net Address: 206.129.0.18
    Name: mcdonaldhouseelpaso.com Address: 216.174.249.22
    Name: 64.30.216.226.lcinet.net Address: 64.30.216.226
    Name: adsl-66-121-16-117.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net Address: 66.121.16.117
    Name: nc-02.cdsnet.net Address: 63.163.68.115
    Name: library.vrjc.cc.tx.us.36.254.206.in-addr.arpa Address: 206.254.36.34
    Name: tamqfl1-ar3-4-64-063-190.tamqfl1.dsl-verizon.net Address: 4.64.63.190
    Name: saturn.littleb.com Address: 216.53.197.27
    Name: www.samaritanbethany.com Address: 209.180.49.185
    Name: mac19.art.utah.edu Address:

  95. Missing the target group? by dabadab · · Score: 1

    well, I would expect that DL'ers overlap very much with the moviegoers. I mean, I know a lot of people who download stuff and I do not know about a single one who would not go to the movie at least ocassionally.

    --
    Real life is overrated.
    1. Re:Missing the target group? by tricops · · Score: 1

      Occasionally being the key word. The people really causing a dent are the ones dl'ing dozens of movies and going to see 2 or 3 here and there. It's not like the ad will have any real effect on most of them anyway, while it annoys the rest of us plenty every time we're forced to sit through it.

      --
      (\(\
      (^v^)
      (")")
      This is the cute vorpal bunny virus, copy to your sig or runaway, runaway in fear!
    2. Re:Missing the target group? by danila · · Score: 1

      The people really causing a dent... it's not like the ad will have any real effect on most of them anyway.
      And it's not like they went to theatres a lot or bought many DVDs. Just think - if a new movie is not worth 15$ for them now, was it ever worth it in the past?

      I am not their customer, I can't cause a dent, because I never paid much for movies and music, don't do it now and likely never will. I paid to see TTT, Matrices 2/3 and Kill Bill this year, and I wouldn't pay for anything else, whether it was on P2P or not.

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
    3. Re:Missing the target group? by tricops · · Score: 1

      Oh I wasn't disagreeing with that side of the debate. I understand that and it's pretty much where I stand as well. My point was more that the ads are pretty much pointless for their intended audience, and rather annoying for everyone else.

      --
      (\(\
      (^v^)
      (")")
      This is the cute vorpal bunny virus, copy to your sig or runaway, runaway in fear!
    4. Re:Missing the target group? by tepples · · Score: 1

      I paid to see TTT, Matrices 2/3 and Kill Bill this year

      When you buy Kill Bill, you're buying the Bono Act!

    5. Re:Missing the target group? by danila · · Score: 1

      Good point, but I live in Russia. Here movies pass into the public domain after 30 years. Snowwhite and the Seven Dwarfs, Bambi, Dumbo and Steamboat Willie are in public domain here. I can do whatever I want with them right here, right now, including making a movie where Dumbo rapes Snowwhite (using authentic Disney art).

      If I wanted to set up a paid/free download server with 30+ old films, I can do it right now, and I would do it, if only I had some spare cash (a few thousands dollars would suffice).

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
  96. I'm sort of working on this same problem. by scot4875 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm currently developing a new management system for our university network of ~4000 nodes. It has the ability not only to track every single IP address ever used by any student, but also what hub port/wireless AP they were connected to at the time.

    As an internal debugging/security tool, this is *great* information. We can make sure that people aren't abusing the network. We can find and disable compromised machines with very simple tools. We can easily do tons of other useful administrative tasks.

    However, I *really* worry that the information could be subpoenad and used against individual students by the likes of the RIAA/MPAA. I've been harping on upper management to let us purge the history after roughly a week (tops), which would give us plenty of debugging time, and at the same time not give the legal system enough time to issue a subpoena before the information is gone.

    It's really a wierd situation for me. The tools I'm working on are extremely powerful, and will definitely save our network guys a lot of time. But there's a distinct possibility that the information we gather could be used in ways that I, personally, find abhorrent.

    It makes me wonder about other developers working on software that's used for security: it's a fascinating job, and has tons of really good applications. But at the same time each piece moves us one step closer an Orwellian society becoming possible. Is this something I/we should really be persuing, given the potential outcome?

    --Jeremy

    --
    Jesus was a liberal
    1. Re:I'm sort of working on this same problem. by i_r_sensitive · · Score: 2, Insightful
      The big thinng here is, you have to stop worrying about the student and users rights. They have NONE. The only holder of rights in your situation is the University. If the University chose to hand that information over to RIAA, and no binding agfreement prohibited them from doing so, they can.

      The University owns that network, not the users. I suspect the users sign an acceptable use policy, no? Does that policy specifically prohibit certain conduct?

      Your concern for the rank and file users, while perhaps a bit misplaced is laudable. If you are interested in protecting those users, the pressure you want to apply is to have those activities specifically proscribed in any acceptable use document, not try to convince the University to take actions which are not consistent with the best funcitonning of their property to protect individuals who shouldn't be using the University's equipment in that fashion.

      There are good reasons too. Consider, the plan you advocate could expose the University to charges of destroying evidence, or being an accessory. More importantly, you cite the power and time savings of the tools you have. These inherently are "good things." I would be right pissed at the person who deprived me of the tools I need in order to protect an 18 yr old bimbo who doesn't have the common sense not to use the University network for questionable activites.

      Bottom line, the Univeristy owns the equipment, they can set any restrictions on it's use they see fit. If you want to protect the students, lobby for meaningful data in the acceptable use policy (IE Your activites will be logged, archived with no expectation of privacy.) Or for an acceptable use policy, if one doesn't exist.

      Ultimately, in your shoes, I wouldn't want that traffic in the first place. You aren't a panacea for unethical activity, nor do you need to expose yourselves to some of the related traffic in the filesharing circles (kiddie pron, & malware come immediately to mind...

      --
      "Talk minus action equals nothing" - Joey Shithead, D.O.A.
      "Talk minus action equals /." -
    2. Re:I'm sort of working on this same problem. by 4of12 · · Score: 1

      One possibility is to diffuse the access. If everyone agreed to be part of a P2P router cluster. Packets would bounce around many different inefficient hops, each acting like a proxy server, but auditing would then require pretty much a complete record of packet traffic - more than what is reasonable to keep records of for any length of time.

      --
      "Provided by the management for your protection."
    3. Re:I'm sort of working on this same problem. by FictionPimp · · Score: 1, Funny

      Why dont we all just use proxy's in china?

    4. Re:I'm sort of working on this same problem. by anticypher · · Score: 1

      However, I *really* worry that the information could be subpoenad[sic]

      If you are working in a security environment, there must be a written security policy guiding your efforts. Right? RIGHT???

      Into this written security policy document you will insert a whole section detailing log retention. Place it under the heading of Risk Mitigation From External Legal Threats. Pick a reasonable sounding number, like 30 days, or whatever is the longest you've ever had a problem resolution require. Then code a tool to automagically scrub your logs from all computers and backup tapes (you make regular backups, right? RIGHT?? Thought so.)

      This regular purging of all log files should be a required function of your audit/troubleshooting tool to ensure that later when the excrement comes your way, your ventilation device can deflect it properly. Start coding, and updating that security policy. The log purge code should be finished, tested, and being used before you finish the rest of the tool.

      the AC

      --
      Hemos is like...sci-fi fans;he thinks technology is cool, but he hasn't bothered to understand the science it's based on
    5. Re:I'm sort of working on this same problem. by Planesdragon · · Score: 1

      However, I *really* worry that the information could be subpoenad and used against individual students by the likes of the RIAA/MPAA. I've been harping on upper management to let us purge the history after roughly a week (tops), which would give us plenty of debugging time, and at the same time not give the legal system enough time to issue a subpoena before the information is gone.

      Sounds like the sort of thing that has to pass muster up your University's legal flagpole.

      The last thing that the University needs is to get slapped with a suit from RIAA for destruction of evidence--which, IMNALO, you would be if you destroyed logs just so lawyers couldn't supboena them.

    6. Re:I'm sort of working on this same problem. by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      But, the thing is...how can scrubbing logs be a violations. I mean, you 'could' run a system without any logs. They aren't required to run a system. So, what's the difference in running a system without logs at all...or voluntarily running a logging system with limited time of record?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    7. Re:I'm sort of working on this same problem. by CaptainFrito · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Lets see. You've advocated Supreme Authority, suspension of ALL individual's rights, censorship based on YOUR definition of unethical activity, even assert that students exist to serve universities...glad your not managing my network.

      As for "university property" and whatnot, you clearly have the situation reversed. Universities exist for the benefit of the students, and not vice versa. Networks are student resources, not a Pavlovian carrot to teach them your personal idea of right and wrong. The RIAA is clearly using terrorist tactics, using P2P as sleight-of-hand fake to scare people off even "fair use" applications.

      You seem to have a real "God complex". Us and Them. My guess is that you, for the moment, find yourself on the priveledged side of that divide. If justice prevails, you'll find yourself victimized by someone just like you. Hopefully soon.

    8. Re:I'm sort of working on this same problem. by Planesdragon · · Score: 1

      But, the thing is...how can scrubbing logs be a violations. I mean, you 'could' run a system without any logs. They aren't required to run a system. So, what's the difference in running a system without logs at all...or voluntarily running a logging system with limited time of record?

      The same difference between not having security cameras at all, and erasing your tapes in a "limited time" explicity because you fear they could be used as evidence against you.

      IANAL (in case you missed that), but the above could theoretically be a contributory tort; I'd ask a lawyer before changing policy explicity to avoid prosecution. ("We ran out of disk space noted for logs" might be a better excuse...)

    9. Re:I'm sort of working on this same problem. by roystgnr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The big thinng here is, you have to stop worrying about the student and users rights. They have NONE. The only holder of rights in your situation is the University. If the University chose to hand that information over to RIAA, and no binding agfreement prohibited them from doing so, they can.

      If there's justice in this world, your landlord reads Slashdot and will be installing hidden cameras in your bathroom while you're at work tomorrow.

    10. Re:I'm sort of working on this same problem. by Ulven · · Score: 1

      Surely it depends if you delete the logs before or after the RIAA requests them.

      It was my understanding that before is ok, but after would be destruction of evidence.

    11. Re:I'm sort of working on this same problem. by eric76 · · Score: 2, Informative
      The big thinng here is, you have to stop worrying about the student and users rights. They have NONE. The only holder of rights in your situation is the University. If the University chose to hand that information over to RIAA, and no binding agfreement prohibited them from doing so, they can.

      In short, NO.

      From TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 121 > Sec. 2702. - Voluntary disclosure of customer communications or records:

      (a) Prohibitions. -

      Except as provided in subsection (b) -

      ...

      (3)
      a provider of remote computing service or electronic communication service to the public shall not knowingly divulge a record or other information pertaining to a subscriber to or customer of such service (not including the contents of communications covered by paragraph (1) or (2)) to any governmental entity.

      ...

      (c) Exceptions for Disclosure of Customer Records. -

      A provider described in subsection (a) may divulge a record or other information pertaining to a subscriber to or customer of such service (not including the contents of communications covered by subsection (a)(1) or (a)(2)) -

      (1)
      as otherwise authorized in section 2703;

      (2)
      with the lawful consent of the customer or subscriber;

      (3)
      as may be necessarily incident to the rendition of the service or to the protection of the rights or property of the provider of that service;

      (4)
      to a governmental entity, if the provider reasonably believes that an emergency involving immediate danger of death or serious physical injury to any person justifies disclosure of the information; or

      (5)
      to any person other than a governmental entity

    12. Re:I'm sort of working on this same problem. by Wansu · · Score: 1


      I've been harping on upper management to let us purge the history after roughly a week (tops), which would give us plenty of debugging time, and at the same time not give the legal system enough time to issue a subpoena before the information is gone.

      Unless they were asking questions about this, I wouldn't volunteer any info. I'd just design it to purge after a week and not say anything about it.

      --
      Wansu, th' chinese sailor
    13. Re:I'm sort of working on this same problem. by Planesdragon · · Score: 1

      It was my understanding that before is ok, but after would be destruction of evidence.

      IANAL. (I'm getting tired of saying that, but I don't want to be thrown in jail.)

      As I understand it, there are two parts to every crime or tort--the physical act, and the mental state that led to the act. Think of the difference between planning to kill someone (murder) and killing someone in the heat of the moment (manslaughter.)

      If you take an act (delete file logs) for a legal-related purpose (to escape litigation), you may very well be destroying evidence in-fact.

      Like I said, check with the lawyer before you do so.

    14. Re:I'm sort of working on this same problem. by Ulven · · Score: 1

      And how on earth will they prove that you deleted them to escape litigation?

    15. Re:I'm sort of working on this same problem. by jafiwam · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It isn't evidence until you are subpeonaed for it.

      So if you destroy it, it is not a problem because it wasn't evidence at the time. Until then, it's just data. If you destroy it after you get the subpeona, then it's a problem. Why do you think they have those guys run around and hand out papers for? To make an auditable trail so the court can bitch slap you for not doing what they want because they KNOW you knew what they wanted you to do.

      At worst, the University admins might end up in a long discussion about your network SOP with the FBI or something, but get fucking real. All the shoes I ever wore in my lifetime could be evidence too... but I sure as hell am not going to keep them when they wear out. (If any court wants my shoes, they are welcome to them, my feet sweat like crazy when doing first person shooters.) However any court wanting me to produce shoes from 10th grade won't get them, and I won't get in trouble because I don't have them either.

    16. Re:I'm sort of working on this same problem. by orthogonal · · Score: 1

      The big thing here is, you have to stop worrying about the student and users rights.

      The big thing here is, you have to stop worrying about users' rights. Some users are terrorists, some are Communists, some are dissidents, some are Revanchists, some are Homosexuals, some are Jews.

      These people are Enemies of State, and their activities must be tracked -- minutely tracked -- so that we can learn what other Anti-Social Counter-Revolutionaries these traitors to the Motherland are collaborating with.

      Then we can remove all these Dissident Intellectual Cosmopolitan Terrorists to the Gulag, or KZ Dachau, or to Guantanamo -- or Manzanar -- because it has happened here.

      I'm sure there were some honorable men working at I.G. Farben who never dreamed that Zyklon-B would be used as anything other than an insecticide.

      And the grandparent poster I'm sure never built his network tools to suppress political dissent or to accumulate evidence of users' sexual proclivities. Bit I'll bet these uses have occurred to Admiral Poindexter.

      (Clumsy Soviet-era insults taken from here.)

      --
      Opinions on the Twiddler2 hand-held keyboard?
    17. Re:I'm sort of working on this same problem. by Unregistered · · Score: 1

      Shoulda bought shoes that last in the 10th grade. You would saved a lot of money since then.

    18. Re:I'm sort of working on this same problem. by shark72 · · Score: 1

      "However, I *really* worry that the information could be subpoenad and used against individual students by the likes of the RIAA/MPAA. I've been harping on upper management to let us purge the history after roughly a week (tops), which would give us plenty of debugging time, and at the same time not give the legal system enough time to issue a subpoena before the information is gone."

      Copyright violation is just one illegal act that somebody can commit on your network. There's trafficking in illegal pornography, including child pornography. There's online stalking and harrassment. It sounds to me that you're attempting to create a haven for your users, but you're taking the risk that they will take advantage of this haven only to break the law in "good" ways.

      My experience in managing large online groups is to expect, and prepare for, the worst case scenario. With 4,000 users, copyright violation is not the worst case. Not by far.

      --
      Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
    19. Re:I'm sort of working on this same problem. by Max+Threshold · · Score: 1

      This argument will hold water when there are non-profit universities that anyone can attend for free. As it is, the education industry conspires to extort as much money as possible from students. It's poetic justice when students "steal" and "abuse" "school facilities" in this manner.

    20. Re:I'm sort of working on this same problem. by d34thm0nk3y · · Score: 1

      1: Universities are not-for-profit organizations (in general) The vast majority of Universities are state funded endeavors.

      2: there are provisions in fair use doctrine that SPECIFICALLY support copyright "infringement" for use in an educational setting. I dont know about you, but my university had this one department called the MUSIC department. We could argue all day about whether Britteny is actually music, but i bet a court would side with me.

    21. Re:I'm sort of working on this same problem. by jcoy42 · · Score: 1

      That's a lot of data to be storing. Disc isn't free, and you need to keep a good chunk of it available for data loads, future growth, and of course the 25% free space to prevent fragmentation.

      As you have pointed out, there is value in that data, but it's short lived. In general, you probably never need anything over a few weeks old- network problems show up in a hurry. I'd be surprised if you needed more than a day or two in most cases.

      Set up daily log rotation now, and pick some arbitrarilly useful cut off for keeping old logs. My suggestion would be to store the logs with the date embedded when you rotate (this is incremental backup friendly), and only keep a week or so live on disk. Then things are still available from the backup pool (and easy to find) if you need something older.

      I worked at a fairly large ISP for serveral years. when we did get subpoenad for logs they ask for things from at least a couple of months prior. Usually they were asking for info 4-6 months old. We always complied when we had the logs, but to be perfectly honest, it was fairly rare when we still had them. We weren't trying to avoid turning over logs, we just never had the storage to really keep a lot around. Most of the time when we did, it was because we noticed cracking activity and saved those logs someplace special. The other case was when our mail guru caught a known spammer on our network and asked for the logs to be saved- hell hath no fury like a mail admin who catches the very bane of his existance.

      If you have the logs, you need to turn them over. Get over it, it might be a very bad person that they help convict. Especially if the powers that be are on it like flies on shit. Typical subversive human behavior isn't likely to cause a very fast subpoena. It will probably end up being more in the 3~6 month range. And if it disturbs you greatly that someone could be in the hotseat because you have the logs, you might want to consider another position.. you're quite likely to see a lot of things that end up disturbing you as time goes on.

      Granted- I am no longer doing ISP work, and I don't have recent information on what the turnaround rate is, but I suspect when it goes through civil court, the timeframe will easily exceeding your normal backup strategy/useful data. Heck, the article is talking about data from September.

      --
      Never trust an atom. They make up everything.
    22. Re:I'm sort of working on this same problem. by Planesdragon · · Score: 1

      Through /. posts? Ordinary procedures? Examination of internal e-mail?

      Anything that can convince 6 of 6 people that you did it.

    23. Re:I'm sort of working on this same problem. by i_r_sensitive · · Score: 1
      Actually, I haven't advocated any of what you indicate. What I am against is thoughtless libertarianism, people who equate their own greed with enlightened self interest, and folks who deny the reality of their senses.

      As for a god complex and managing networks - Funny, but the best NAs I've ever worked with did have the God complex. I guess they trained me well. As for your assertion that you are glad I'm not managing your network. First, and foremost, where did you get my CV? Oh, you don't have it, I see, so you're making this statement based not on my skillset, which you obviously know SFA about, but rather on my politics, and quite frankly your post gives me reason to doubt your qualifications to make an accurate assessment of that either. So, if politics is more important than skills and methodology to you when selecting an NA, please don;t even consider me for the job. In point of fact, I no longer am an NA, but when I was none of my employers ever had cause to complain. A god complex is necessarily a bad trait in an NA. After all the stability, useability and health of your network are the first, last and only hallmarks of success in this field. So the traffic we are talking about brings no benefits to any of these indicators, and in point of fact, can substantially reduce all three, why would you allow such traffic needlessly? Why would you allow such traffic without a specific mandate derived from institutional policy?

      On the flipside, if the policy comes down, and the need for the traffic is mandated, then for myself, as an NA in that situation, I have fought my battle and lost, so I implement the requirements in such a fashion as to meet the requirements of that mandate while minimizing the potential impact of such mandates on day to day operations.

      As for University property, it is, period, end of discussion. The invoice from Sun Microsystems doesn't read The student Body of X University. In no way shape or form can the students establish ownership of these systems or rights to determine how such systems are administered without the tacit permission of the body which owns them, IE: the University. Universities exist not only for the benefit of their students, and given the way some are run, that may not even be high on the list of priorities. Many conduct all kinds of research, many own patents, and conduct business based around those (A friend of the family spent years fighting Kent State University over patent issues). They can and do own property, both intellectual and common chattels. In point of fact, I would say Universities exist to educate students, not benefit them. These are two different things, allthough I despair of someone who hires an NA based on his filesharing views making the distinction. In any case, Universities aren't charitable or not for profit organizations, they pursue profit like any other venture, they are not altruistic organizations which you could argue exist for the benefit of students. Universities do pursue profit, one of the primary sources of profit being the monies of stuudents in return for providing a service (educating them). Having said that, liiberal network policies are nothing more than fluff to attract students, not an obligation of the University. Which will become pretty damn apparent if such liberal network policies begin to impact the day to day functioning or profitability of the University.

      Having said all that, I'm surprised that the University in question is in the situation as the original poster described. Very often policies in such organizations are drafted to meet criteria other than soley the practical consequences of such decisions. Truth be told, I would expect Universities to allow such traffic unchecked, if only because Universities have traditionally placed a high value on the unrestricted flow of information (reconciling that with patent ownership is an exercise for the Board of Governors...). Typically I would expect a University to accept greater costs in money, time and complexity to main

      --
      "Talk minus action equals nothing" - Joey Shithead, D.O.A.
      "Talk minus action equals /." -
    24. Re:I'm sort of working on this same problem. by CaptainFrito · · Score: 1
      "To quote you "networks are student resources", but where exactly does Kazaa, etc. fit into that statement? Getting a degree in downloading Britney?"

      Getting a degree doesn't involving "buying" Britney either using my iTune$. Are you advocating censoring paid-for downloads too?

    25. Re:I'm sort of working on this same problem. by CaptainFrito · · Score: 1
      Wow, must have hit a nerve. Easy to do though, you are pretty nervy.

      My comment about your God Complex and being glad you're not a sysadmin for my network has nothing to do with your resume. Frankly, I couldn't care less about your blue-collar skills. My comment was based entirely on your haughty, self-aggrandizing, autocratic postion that everyone exists to serve YOU and that your ideas are good enough for everyone else. Interesting but you never did say that you restricted you own activities like you restrict others'. I suspect you operate outside of the rules you impose on everyone...after all, you admit to the God Complex, and gods have different rules than mortals, after all...

      As for 'training you well', I submit that they trained you 'thoroughly' -- in the art of imposing your will on everyone.

      As for decent sysadmins, I know many that realize sysadmins exist to serve others, not the other way round. This is the kind I surround myself with, not your kind.

      As for the 'business' of Universities, try substituting the name 'Starbucks' or 'McDonalds' or 'Bloomindales' for 'University' into your own diatribe. Unless you're impenetrably dense -- which is entirely plausible -- even you would have to agree that those retail outlets exist to serve their customers. Universities are retail outlets for education. Only a true ignoramous thinks that to get a good education you have to go to the "top" school. Top schools are about 'connections' and prestige and things that largely don't matter except in a financial sense (which has nothing to do with your education -- that's a personal political skill issue). Just another pathetic fraternal order, putting 'who you know' over 'what you know'. For those that just want to learn, they should shop for the school that fisrt seeks to serve them, since they are the paying customer. Otherwise we just put food in the mouths of control-freak bureaucrats looking to further their own interests. I have the same problem with HMO's...they don't understand who the customer is, and wy they exist in the first place.

      For the record I do hold several patents and pending patents, so don't get the idea that you are protecting lawful interests from marauders such as me. I object because your positions are immoral -- transmogrifying lawful activity into unlawful activity to protect pluderers that bully people into paying them becuase it's cheaper than a proper defense and being rightfully exhonerated. In fact, I find it impossible to tell the difference between SCO's and Microsoft's tactics and the RIAA and MPAA, and you fall on their side of the divide, as far as I'm concerned. Your attitude supports censorship and presumption of guilt rather than the rule of law and presumption of innocence. I suggest you read "The Law" by Bastiat so as to aquire some sort of a clue on normal human decency and mutual respect for others.

      Guess the only thing left is to bid you a well-deserved "Heil, i_r_sensitive!" and hope that I never get stuck on your network.

    26. Re:I'm sort of working on this same problem. by i_r_sensitive · · Score: 1
      The point that you are so glibly dancing around, and the only relevant point to this discussion is the customer/service(product/what-have-you) relationship.

      The sysadmin or NA has no such relationship. The sysadmin does not exist to serve the users. The sysadmin is an employee charged by the company to maintain a machine or a network, period. The company or organization owning the hardware, et. al. may decide to task the sysadmin with providing the best user experience possible, or their tasking may reflect other priorities. Compare and contrast the taskings of the NA at your local ISP and the NA at your local College/University. Note the disparities, how many are policy related? How many of those policies were made above the level of the sysadmin?

      Being a sysadmin does not imply that you are in a customer service realtionship with your users. In point of fact, often your responsibilities preclude user wants/needs. Backups, upgrades, disk quotas, firewall port configurations etc. all abridge the 'rights' of the end users, or at least introduce the potential for same, But no sysadmin in his right mind foregoes a backup because it interferes with generic user task. That isn't even a hard and fast rule, I have worked in environs where backups were subordniated to other processes because of BUSINESS REQUIREMENTS, not user discomfort.

      As for your business analogy. Buying coffee from Starbucks doesn't entitle you to access their network. Even buying access in an internet cafe does not give you unnabridged rights like your home computer. So if you buy an education from a University that changes? If it does it is because the University chose to give you some level of access to their network, not because they were obligated to. You seem to assert that Universities have to do this and University sysadmins can;t impinge on what users do with their network. I suggest you head on down to your local McDonalds and try demanding network access just because you are a customer. What a load of hogwash. The Univeristy has the same rights to it's property as McDonalds, each is allowed to set reasonable limits on the use of their property. Buying a burger at McDonalds doesn't give you unlimited rights to their property, neither does buying an education from a University.

      As for not living by the rules I (used to) make my users live with, well let me say, this comment proves more than anything else that you sir lack the ability to understand and apply best practices. No, sorry, I had a regular user account, which I used for day to day work, and to validate the compaints of my users, and because I'm a responsible administrator, and only use administrative access to accomplish a required task, then I shed the extra rights. Anything else is the mark of a poor admin. And, in point of fact, I did not make the determinations on what could and couldn't happen with the servers and network connections, those were dictated to me by my superiors. I certainly got my input into those policies, but once set, like every other employee I was bound by them, the oonly exception being for adminstrative work requiring privileged access. So God complex is right, I had unlmited power, but tempered it with my responsibliities, perhaps benign tyrant is a better descriptor.

      Lastly, you abviously haven;t really read what I've written if you think I support RIAA and MPAA and SCO and M$. I'm a musician as well as a tyrant pal, if anyone on /. has a legitimate beef with RIAA, it is me. However, jsut because I fully believe RIAA is the root of all evil, I don't think that it obviates their rights to their porperty. The truth of the matter is I haven;t bought a single CD/tape or album in almost 7 years that put a single thin dime in the RIAA coffers. Can you say the same? I somehow doubt it, so who supports RIAA, me who gives them no money, or you who does? My issue with RIAA is serious enough that I don't want to see them get any money, period, but even my extreme antipathy to RIAA does

      --
      "Talk minus action equals nothing" - Joey Shithead, D.O.A.
      "Talk minus action equals /." -
    27. Re:I'm sort of working on this same problem. by CaptainFrito · · Score: 1
      You are totally disconnected from reality if you think that universities grant access to their networks and the public Internet simply out of beneficence. They do not. They do it out of commercial imperitive: you show me a university with no computer network and no access to the Internet, and I'll show you an exciting new archaeological dig site.

      I replied to you in the first place because of your obvious God Complex. It just so happened that you were also a sysadmin. My comments about you and your sysadmin career were based on my grouping all people into one of two categories: those that will help others get where they need to be, and all the rest. You fall into "all the rest" group by supporting censorship.

      It is obvious that you will do whatever your paymaster says. That's fine. Stanley Milgram, in a fairly famous experiment, proved that the world is full of people like you. They'll do whatever their masters tell them to do and not think much about it.

      As for university networks belonging to someone other than the students think again. While some are completely private, not even accepting public money for anything whatsoever (including research grants and publicly funded scholarships) most are publicly funded and so ARE owned by the public. So your true boss is really the taxpayer (i.e., me). But I digress...

      Your defense, "my boss told me to censor the material others may examine based on some arbitrary preconceived notion -- like no MP3's of any sort, no P2P networking of any sort, because they are presumed guilty of crimes -- so, I did it" is the SAME defense the Nazis used at Nuremberg, the same as Calley used at My Lai, etc. etc. The fact is that if you are complicit with immoral acts you acting immorally. Censorship is considered a bad thing in most places, and those places that support cencorship are considered bad places. That goes for universities as well as countries. You are as guilty of censorship as if you had written the policy yourself, no matter what you do for a living. It is not your job that convicts you, it is your stated position on censorship that convicts you.

      As for boycotting the RIAA or MPAA or SCO or M$ that's your choice. It's not mine. I have no problem paying them for the value they add. But I do object to them using various legal systems to extort money that is not rightfully theirs. So, when they offer a product that I do not own for sale and I want it, I pay them their due, and I'm happy to do so. What I object to, is not being able to get an MP3 of "Rocky Raccoon" even though I own the album and most jurisdictions (including the one in which I reside) clearly say that under those circumstances I can have it in as many formats as I want and I do not have to be the one to do the format conversion.

      The fact that you boycott the MPAA/RIAA so as not to support them but are proud to support and help carry out a censorship/presumption-of-guilt policy that allows them to stifle lawful activity for their benfit is a personal conflict that only you yourself can rectify.

      Clearly you should go by some CD's -- OR -- stop censring others' lawfully actibvities. But not both. In other words, pick a side and stop shifting blame to your paymasters. You can always find other work that is NOT immoral.

      Those who do not think for themselves possess no advantage over those who cannot think for themselves.

  97. Totally! by PotatoHead · · Score: 1

    You hit the nail on the head. Music is easier to move on the Internet compared to movies.

    THIS MEANS THE RIAA and friends SIMPLY NEED TO MOVE FASTER!

    They are in this mess because they have not done that, even though they were given a damn nice chance to do so. The Napster subscription offer would have made them a ton of money. This combined with more marketing data than they can possibly need makes a hell of a lot more sense than their actions today.

    --
    Blogging because I can...
  98. What's dissementated, mom? by Pac · · Score: 1

    Hope your parents don't know you do things that get dissementated for trivial prices. They told you not to use drugs.

    Anti we are not anti-IP. We are totally pro-IP. We are even pushing for version 6 of IP now.

  99. Re:NAT by larry+bagina · · Score: 1
    Let's say you loan me a gun, someone else borrows/steals it from me. Then gun is then used to commit a crime, and is left at the scene of the crime. Your name was engraved on it. The police will come to you, you say I borrowed it, I say it was stolen.

    Same here. They have an IP address. Prevously, the RIAA could go to the ISP and ask who it was. If someone was stealing wifi signals, hacked in, etc. They have the IP, they're just following it down the line. If it was your gun/ip address, you better have a good excuse for the jury.

    --
    Do you even lift?

    These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

  100. That's what I would do. by werdna · · Score: 2, Informative

    Actually, this is an ordinary application of a fairly common legal point. If you have enough evidence to show that SOMEONE has committed a tort, and some plausible basis for attempting to identify the plaintiff, but not enough to name them in the complaint, you may file a "John Doe" complaint, and then use routine discovery (particularly of third parties) to obtain more detailed information.

    RIAA tried to avoid that process by using the DMCA subpoena provisions, and got rebuffed. Now they are going through the routine process that they would have to have done without the DMCA. In this case they are very likely to prevail, by the way.

    Just another step in the P2P wars. This one is not terribly controversial.

  101. Re:Wrong by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

    ISN'T THAT WHAT I SAID?!

    --
    Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
  102. Infringement via wireless by bbtom · · Score: 1

    How about the RIAA set up a wireless AP in a very public spot. I dunno, Times Square, NY or Oxford Street in London or somewhere. Then set it up so it automatically responds to any HTTP request with a copy of Britney Spears' new album in MP3 format. Then send the thugs out to capture the people under the idea of "copyright infringement".

    Oh, and that idea is MINE. So, you bastards at the RIAA can't use it! DMCA, EUCD, I'll find a way! Wait, I'll put it in Rot-13, and if you try and break that you're an offender. Heh heh.

    --
    catch (HumourFailureException e) { e.user.send("You, sir, are a humourless idiot."); }
  103. Bible Belt by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    When they reach 666 lawsuits, I have an idea for a good southern-states compaign against them.

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
  104. Not irrelevant by Kickstart70 · · Score: 5, Informative

    As a former ISP manager, I know that by the time a lawsuit would have come about our DHCP assignment logs would have been rotated out of storage. Any reasonable sized ISP would have far too much data to keep on hand to store something like that.

    1. Re:Not irrelevant by dnoyeb · · Score: 1

      I saw one of those crime solving specials where Microsoft had IP and times stored back a couple of years. So I have to disagree with you.

      That does beg the question, Did they file their lawsuits with IP addresses AND times, or just IP addresses?

      I expect those suits to be eliminated quickly.

    2. Re:Not irrelevant by shotfeel · · Score: 1

      What do you mean by "come about"?

      As I understand it, the RIAA finds someone who's sharing too many files, they go to the court, file a suit, and get a warrant dictating that the ISP turn over records. At that point the ISP is required to turn over the information. Its not like they wait six months until there's an actual trial date before they go to the ISP for the information, and destroying the "evidence" is a big no-no. I'm assuming it could all be done within a couple days.

      Maybe someone else has a better idea than me of how the system works (I hope someone knows more about it than me).

    3. Re:Not irrelevant by hpavc · · Score: 1

      I saw some news where microsoft also had millions of emails that their fleet of lawyers told them to delete on a regular basis.

      Perhaps they have wised up and stopped archiving everything that can get them in trouble.

      --
      members are seeing something, your seeing an ad
    4. Re:Not irrelevant by strike2867 · · Score: 3, Informative

      The RIAA is not the police. They dont get any warrants, btw IANAL. Guessing it would not take the courts a couple of days to approve some random 532 numbers, more like the usual months after months of appeals and waiting.

      --

      Vote for new mod!!! Score:-2,Imbecile
    5. Re:Not irrelevant by Qrlx · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Microsoft is not an ISP.

      In a relatively static corporate network, you're going to keep renewing the same IP address over and over and over. That's how DHCP works. (After your lease is 50% up, your 'puter asks the DHCP server if it can renew the lease on that IP addy again.) There are people on the LAN at work whose IP hasn't changed in years, despite being DHCP clients.

      I don't know why ISPs mix up the pool of IP addresses, but sure enough I have a new one (though my subnet hasn't chagned) every week or so.

    6. Re:Not irrelevant by shotfeel · · Score: 1

      Oops! Would you believe a subpeona instead of a warrant?

    7. Re:Not irrelevant by WinterpegCanuck · · Score: 1

      The ISP I worked for only had a 4000 modem dialup pool, and even they only kept stats for a week at most.

    8. Re:Not irrelevant by ReTay · · Score: 1

      As someone who has asked the people at work (in the big 5 cable providers) the logs are tossed after two weeks. That is how long they have to get the court order to the company. Even a day later and it is tough they are gone.

    9. Re:Not irrelevant by replicant108 · · Score: 1

      Compulsory retention of logs is coming. It's happened in Europe, and it's about to happen in the States.

      "An early draft of the White House's National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace envisions the same kind of mandatory customer data collection and retention by U.S. Internet service providers as was recently enacted in Europe, according to sources who have reviewed portions of the plan."

      "After delaying for about two years, U.S. President George W. Bush recently asked the U.S. Senate to ratify the Council of Europe Cybercrime Convention, a global agreement apparently created to help police worldwide cooperate to fight Internet crimes."

    10. Re:Not irrelevant by SwissCheese · · Score: 2

      They probably mix up their DHCP pool regularly so they have a reason to sell you a static ip. Since your modem is online 24/7, it would normally always renew the same IP address, effectively giving you a static address for free.

    11. Re:Not irrelevant by macdaddy · · Score: 1

      It's a mostly unsuccessful way of trying to keep you from effectively running a server. If you IP always changes, it's hard to tack an A record on it and use it publicly. Of course this doesn't take into account dynamic DNS. :)

    12. Re:Not irrelevant by Mantorp · · Score: 1

      I've had cable internet for about a year and my IP has not changed yet.

    13. Re:Not irrelevant by euxneks · · Score: 1

      I don't know why ISPs mix up the pool of IP addresses

      I think it's so that people don't serve webpages from their home computer. Anyone want to correct me on this?

      --
      in girum imus nocte et consumimur igni
    14. Re:Not irrelevant by Photo_Nut · · Score: 1
      Parent wrote:
      Microsoft is not an ISP.

      In a relatively static corporate network, you're going to keep renewing the same IP address over and over and over. That's how DHCP works. (After your lease is 50% up, your 'puter asks the DHCP server if it can renew the lease on that IP addy again.) There are people on the LAN at work whose IP hasn't changed in years, despite being DHCP clients.

      I don't know why ISPs mix up the pool of IP addresses, but sure enough I have a new one (though my subnet hasn't chagned) every week or so.

      First off, Microsoft is an ISP (ever heard of MSN?). Second, all corporate networks that I have used have this nifty device called a firewall. One of the properties of a firewall is that the corporation can decide what traffic goes in, and what traffic goes out. Most corporations also have a device called a proxy server.

      If any of these IP addresses come from a corporate environment then they are most-likely the IP addresses of one of the proxy servers. Since the proxy server is constantly providing sanitized network access for several thousand users, one might imagine that it doesn't log much about the gigabits and gigabits used per minute...

      This brings me to an anecdote. I once received an automated email from the network ops people where I work. It noticed that something like 20MB of data was sent to port 22 of a specific off-network machine from my computer by a Windows program called "pscp.exe".

      The report had all the details, including that I was the user running the program. I am sure that this message came to me to make sure that someone hadn't hacked my computer (I was logged in from home), but it did make me feel for a moment like big-brother was watching.

      For anyone who doesn't know, pscp was PuTTY Secure Copy, which uses port 22 (the Secure Shell port) and the entire connection is quite encrypted.

      IP addresses are really only a way of labelling the closest NAT/Router to the network. Once you get off the network with wireless, or go behind a network address translator that doesn't have the storage capacity to remember who owned what when, the game of finding the person who used the IP is over.

      I have a linksys router. It doesn't have a hard drive. It does have a wireless port open (although I do use WEP). If my current IP address was in their list (this is hypothetical), then I would take my legal insurance and counter-sue them for harassment and wasting my time.

    15. Re:Not irrelevant by dnoyeb · · Score: 1

      Microsoft certainly *is* an ISP.

  105. Carefull what you wish for by acomj · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The way it was:
    RIAA got your info- sent a letter telling you to settle. If you didn't you get dragged to court.

    The way it is now:
    RIAA goes to court, gets your info, sues you.

    I'm not saying your ISP should be giving out your info to anyone, but now you name is in public record as a defendent in a lawsuit. Probably won't get off the hook as easy as the first batch of defendents either.

    I'm guess I'm glad I don't distribute..

  106. Re:If You Haven't Taken Action AlreadyDEFECTIVE by nearlygod · · Score: 1

    Of course, how did it take them five years to figure this out? Doesn't the band even listen to their CD's?
    To paraphrase a Greg Dulli song: Miles is dead.

    --
    The Tools Of Ignorance wanna be a tool?
  107. Physical addresses? by coug_ · · Score: 1

    Can I sue physical addresses then?

    I'd like to sue 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. :)

  108. Re:Here are the IPs in question NO WAY!!! by Beautyon · · Score: 4, Informative

    I almost fell off of my chair:

    http://128.111.80.86/

    Points to....wait for it.....

    "Asset Protection at UCSB"

    Too good to be true!!

    --
    ATH0 Bitcoin: 1DnwFLXczVZV8kLJbMYoheUrpqHesjxrSi
  109. Re:MAC Spoofing and such Mac +KaZaA by macmaxbh · · Score: 1

    > Well, if your Mac is running KaZaA, then you have been spoofed.

    hahaha.. but seriously, KaZaA is not the only FastTrack client, and there are several for the Mac, Poisoned ( http://www.gottsilla.net ) is in my humble opinion the best.. :)

  110. Thank God for DSL by Ignorant+Aardvark · · Score: 4, Funny

    When I first got my Verizon DSL, I was annoyed that I didn't get a static IP address. But now I realize the advantages of a dynamically-assigned IP address. Everytime my DSL connection reconnects, I get assigned new IP, and because my connection crashes regularly, I go through up to 10 IP addresses per day. Thank God for Verizon and their crappy connections. Try finding me now, RIAA! Nyaaah Nyaaah!!

    --
    Cyde Weys Musings - Scrutinizing the inscrutable
    1. Re:Thank God for DSL by micq · · Score: 2, Informative

      Doesn't matter, really.. I'm sure they log the ip handouts, and would know who had what ip at what time if they were forced to look.

      The big ISP's wouldn't destroy their logs on their own, and they wouldn't turn off logging, and it's a crime to destroy them after subpeona'd... So you really gain nothing.

      --
      Snooze and you lose your sushi.
    2. Re:Thank God for DSL by Ignorant+Aardvark · · Score: 1

      Verizon respects their customers' privacy. The last time they were asked for logs, they refused, and even sent out their lawyers. My combination of dynamic IP and Verizon's commitment to privacy keeps me pretty safe from the RIAA.

      --
      Cyde Weys Musings - Scrutinizing the inscrutable
    3. Re:Thank God for DSL by sadler121 · · Score: 1

      Could ISP's in the future, as a result of the RIAA law suits, begin to premote that they destroy there logs in an effort maintain the privacy of there customers? Or perhaps have a program anyomizes the IP addy?

  111. DHCP...?? by bodland · · Score: 1

    There are 70 people who have had this address in the last year....all are guilty....

    1. Re:DHCP...?? by 77Punker · · Score: 1

      I think that the ISP's are required to keep a log of who used the address and at what time. The identification for that probably comes from the MAC address of the modem they loaned to you.

  112. Re:NAT by geekee · · Score: 1

    "A company can get totally destroyed for the actions of one person."

    Paying a $20,000 fine isn't going to destroy any company. Since when are companies exempt from responsibility of the actions of their employees, anyway?

    --
    Vote for Pedro
  113. 128.253.145.99 = www.alumni.cornell.edu (!) by 0rbit4l · · Score: 1

    Hilarious. 128.253.145.99 is apparently the alumni website for cornell. Hmmmm, either this list is just as suspect as the previous accusations, someone's been 0wn3d, or they managed to find speeches or something by professor Usher or Dr. Spears. Way to go, guys!

  114. Just do IPv6 by cflorio · · Score: 1
    They don't need to make it illegal, just implement IPv6... that will solve this problem.

    and if they do make it illegal, they will surely need IPv6 very quickly!!!

  115. RIAA Pool! by DrDNA · · Score: 1

    Guess how many deaf children are on the list this time!

  116. question by Rumagent · · Score: 1

    I know nothing about american law, but doesn't that essentially mean that 532 households are being sued?

  117. Southpark Reference by thegoofy · · Score: 1

    Detective "This is the home of Lars Ulrich, the drummer for Metallica. Look. There's Lars now, sitting by his pool."

    Kyle "What's the matter with him?"

    Detective "This month he was hoping to have a gold-plated shark tank bar installed right next to the pool, but thanks to people downloading his music for free, he must now wait a few months before he can afford it. Come. There's more. Here's Britney Spears' private jet. Notice anything? Britney used to have a Gulfstream IV. Now she's had to sell it and get a Gulfstream III because people like you chose to download her music for free. The Gulfstream III doesn't even have a remote control for its surround-sound DVD system. Still think downloading music for free is no big deal?"

    Kyle "We... didn't realize what we were doing, eh..."

    Detective "That is the folly of man. Now look in this window. Here you see the loving family of Master P. Next week is his son's birthday and, all he's ever wanted was an island in French Polynesia."

    Kyle "So, he's gonna get it, right?"

    Detective "I see an island without an owner. If things keep going the way they are, the child will not get his tropical paradise."

    Stan "We're sorry! We'll, we'll never download music for free again!"

    Detective "Man must learn to think of these horrible outcomes before he acts selfishly or else... I fear... recording artists will be forever doomed to a life of only semi-luxury."

  118. Re:Wrong by Petronius · · Score: 1

    yeah, I think it is. :)

    --
    there's no place like ~
  119. Re:NAT by tundog · · Score: 1


    I'm pretty sure that they can't issue a search warrent for a civil complaint...

    --
    All your base are belong to us!
  120. Re:NAT by i_r_sensitive · · Score: 1
    IANAL, but:

    The company owns the infrastructure, the gateway, etc. etc. They are granting you the right to use it, this doesn't remove their onus of responsibility for your actions with their equipment and services. The WiFi analogy fails at this point, since you specifically delimit that permission was not obtained. A corporation does give permission for you to use their network Et. Al. so the analogy fails in logic and in law.

    As for folk not being responsible for the actions of others, I agree, but, you can be held liable for your own actions or inaction if such facilitates the comission of a crime, etc. Commonly referred to as being an accomplice.

    The guy in your analogy may not be affected, but I don't think the corporate folk are getting off so easily.

    --
    "Talk minus action equals nothing" - Joey Shithead, D.O.A.
    "Talk minus action equals /." -
  121. new tactic, the RIAA supports kiddie porn? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful
    by their actions, the RIAA gets more and more ISP's to ditch logs quickly.. this leads to kiddie porn investigations going to the trash can.

    so the RIAA supports kiddie porn!

  122. Well, yes, but... by HiThere · · Score: 1

    I do hope that they are careful that they aren't filing wild accusations. Not that I expect anyone would have much recourse against them even if they were shown to be innocent.

    This doesn't cause me to despise them less, because they only adopted the correct approach when forced into it. And, of course, also because my primary beef with them is their corruption of the legislature. (I know, they aren't alone. But they are among the most egregious.)

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  123. You're a bit off by TubeSteak · · Score: 2, Insightful
    you didn't read the article terribly well did you?
    The RIAA said that after its lawyers discover the identity of each defendant, they will contact each person to negotiate a financial settlement before amending the lawsuit to formally name the defendant and, if necessary, transfer the case to the proper courthouse.
    This is the exact same shakedown tactics they've been using all along, they're just jumping through a few more hoops to do it. Now, John Doe issues aside, why are the filing all 532 lawsuits in Washington and New York? Its the home offices of Verizon, Time Warner etc... so what? If John Doe's I.P. resolves to California, shouldn't you be filing the suit against him/er in California and subpoening the CA division of XYZ ISP? IANAL, but aren't you supposed to file in the proper state (much less courthouse) before sending out subpoenas? Kinda like when the RIAA got slapped by MIT for filing in DC and not Massachusetts.
    --
    [Fuck Beta]
    o0t!
    1. Re:You're a bit off by shystershep · · Score: 1

      As for why they are suing where the home offices of Verizon, etc., are located, its because they are only doing this to get the subpoenas. Once they've issued the subpoenas, and got their info, then they'll probably dismiss these lawsuits and refile wherever the accused lives.

      --
      The bigotry of the nonbeliever is for me nearly as funny as the bigotry of the believer. - Albert Einstein
    2. Re:You're a bit off by Phroggy · · Score: 1

      If John Doe's I.P. resolves to California, shouldn't you be filing the suit against him/er in California and subpoening the CA division of XYZ ISP?

      News flash: IP addresses do not resolve to geographical locations.

      Some large ISPs may indicate which POP a particular IP address is routed through by setting the reverse DNS for that IP to something helpful, if you can decipher the naming convention their admins cooked up. However, this is not always accurate, since IP blocks sometimes get reassigned without DNS being updated.

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    3. Re:You're a bit off by laird · · Score: 1

      "News flash: *all* IP addresses are associated with a geographical location."

      This is technically true, but not in a useful manner, because private networks all map to the location of their internet gateway. For example, all AOL users appear to be in Virginia, even if they're in another country. All employees on a corporate network appear to be wherever the company internet gateway is located. And so on.

      There are also plenty of "edge" cases, like people who live in one city or state, but whose network access is mapped to another city or state.

      So IP to geographical location mapping is good enough for simple marketing analysis (almost always the right country, usually the right state, often the right city), but nowhere near a precise location for use in legal proceedings.

      I'd assume that once they find out people's identifies that they'll refile in the appropriate locations.

      --
      Enable 3D printed prosthetics!
  124. Where the costs will go up by HangingChad · · Score: 1
    Is when people start counter-suing for slander, liable, defamation of character, abuse of process and anything else my lawyer could think up to throw at them. Skip RIAA and go right after the deep pockets backing them. Of course, in the process of discovery we'd need to subpoena every memo between RIAA and their member record labels we could get a judge to go along with.

    But they don't want to pick on people with the means to give them a dose of their own medicine, they want ratty looking sleazebags living paycheck to paycheck. They would have a tough time putting a happy face on their tactics in front of a jury, especially if they sweep the innocent into the net and one of the innocents happens to be articulate, intelligent and wealthy.

    This will go on until they finger the wrong person and lose a big counter-claim. Couple of 10 million dollar settlements will take the wind out of this sail. Actually, there's probably a better chance of that happening going this route than the old way.

    --
    That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
  125. Madness by phorm · · Score: 1

    so can the copyright owner sue you for providing the means for other people to download copyrighted material

    There's a lawsuit madness in the US (and in many other countries, but seemingly to a lesser extent) that bites both ways.

    RIAA sues mother-of-3 for her children downloading tracks of the latest gangster rapper. Mother countersues RIAA in a class action for kids that commit violence by "following the suggestions in lyrics"

    Seriously, musical lyrics are as bad as TV. Popping off cops, pimping hoes. If it's in the tunes they listen to everyday, a lawsuit is bound to occur stating that said RIAA music has idealized a criminal/immoral lifestyle

  126. But not always by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    I've seen some ISPs that, for whatever reason, like to use subnets larger than /24. I noticed this since I am in netowkring and tend to look for addressess that are normally reserved. This threw me for a loop till I did a little investagation. turns out they were using /22 subnets. No idea why you'd want that many hosts in a broadcast domain, but whatever turns their crank.

  127. Re:Wrong by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

    yeah, I think it is. :)

    That's what I thought. Thanks for the confirmation. Now if someone could just tell BSDTroll that. ;-)

    --
    Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
  128. Artists by LowerL · · Score: 1

    If I was an artist I would be seriously investigating the future of recorded music because the RIAA is not. Fortune is dependent on fame. Fame is dependent on how many people can experience your work. The RIAA is preventing this from taking place. Today's artists should be educating themselves or they may be left out of the new spotlight.

  129. i just dont get it by mgoodman · · Score: 1

    why can't we geeks just spread the word that people should claim that their computer was compromised and that a hacker loaded kazaa and all those copyrighted mp3s onto their computer?

    seriously though, it does happen with ftp servers and mp3s and porn and warez...

    then that could press the issue on a higher level of whether or not someone should be held accountable fo r the actions that are taken via their computer, and as the majority of the country (i.e. microsoft) is not ready to implement secure computings, it will all be thrown out.

    so in summary,
    1) hacking victims and copyright breakers get off scott-free and stick it to the man
    2) people are more annoyed with microsofts lack of security and the hammer comes down on them yet again
    3) microsoft pays the court off and everyone is happy

    --
    01100111 01100101 01110100 00100000 01101111 01110101 01110100 00100000 01101101 01101111 01110010 01100101 00101110
  130. Whew! What a relief! by bizitch · · Score: 4, Funny

    I searched for mine .... 127.0.0.1

    Couldn't find it in that list!

    Good thing too - I'd reallly get busted!

    --
    ---- "Logoff! That cookie shit makes me nervous!" - A. Soprano
  131. Re:GNNA sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    We all know multitasking is the tool of the Devil! It's true because Linux rulez and Windows sucks!

    Oh, and BSD is dead, along with Stephen King.

    All your troll are belong to me, you insensitive clod!

  132. Good but bad by Chuck+Chunder · · Score: 1

    They are going after the right people but it still won't "work" in terms of solving the problem of stopping or significantly reducing infringement in the long term.

    These law suits may reduce infringement while people are worried by them but that is only a short term effect while people are scared. For that to continue:
    a) They must keep suing people.
    b) The press must continue to care enough to publicise it.
    Over time the press will get bored of yet another round of lawsuits and it will be out of sight, out of mind.

    Not that I necessarily have any answers but there's a feeling that the RIAA don't really have an idea how to handle it but that they have to be seen to "do something".

    --
    Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
    1. Re:Good but bad by laird · · Score: 1

      "They are going after the right people but it still won't "work" in terms of solving the problem of stopping or significantly reducing infringement in the long term."

      The real goal isn't (IMO) to arrest so many people that people avoid p2p out of fear of arrest -- anyone can do the math and figure out that the odds of getting caught using filesharing is quite low (1,500 divided by 10M is very, very small). The goal (IMO) is to change how people think about file sharing, specifically so that people that thought that file sharing networks were legitimate music services find out that they gave money to scammers who are "selling" someone else's work. And every time people see a headline about someone payuing a settlement, or losing a lawsuit, it reinforces the message that people who share files are criminals. Most people want to be honest, so if the lawsuits make millions of people believe that usnig file sharing networks is wrong, then many of those people leave the networks.

      From that perspective, it seems to be working. Perhaps 1,500 or so people got sued, but around 10M people left the p2p networks. Which number do you think is more important?

      --
      Enable 3D printed prosthetics!
    2. Re:Good but bad by Chuck+Chunder · · Score: 1
      From that perspective, it seems to be working. Perhaps 1,500 or so people got sued, but around 10M people left the p2p networks. Which number do you think is more important?
      I agree. As I said (and you quoted) the goal is significantly reducing infringement.

      I just don't think it's going to work. The media has a notoriously short attention span and the RIAA suing people won't keep making headlines. When it isn't making headlines then for most people it isn't happening. There's still legs in the idea yet. If they stop settling and start really sticking it to people that will get another round of publicity etc etc. But it's not going to last forever. It'll end up being like speeding. It might get you in trouble but 95% of people still do it regularly....
      --
      Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
    3. Re:Good but bad by laird · · Score: 1

      "I just don't think it's going to work."

      Well, I think that people fall into three categories. In terms of your analogy to speeding drivers:
      A) Some drivers want to follow the law,
      B) Some drivers don't want to get arrested, and
      C) Some drivers will speed no matter what.

      So my theory is that the (A) file sharers will stop as soon as they realize that it's illegal, or the same reason that they stop at stop signs even when there aren't any police around. I think that these people are now "permanently" off of p2p (unless there's some radical development making p2p file sharing of copyrighted music legal).

      The (B) file sharers will stop when they're afraid of enforcement, and will start when they aren't. These people will cause p2p usage to bounce up and down based on headlines and court cases.

      The (C) file sharers aren't going to stop. They're the ones switching p2p networks in order to avoid detection, signing up for "secure" networks, etc.

      So I guess the question is how large A, B and C populations are. I'm guessing that A>B>C, but time will tell...

      --
      Enable 3D printed prosthetics!
    4. Re:Good but bad by Eivind · · Score: 1
      "reduced infringement", you say, as if this is the obvious legal goal, and there's no reason to question it.

      But I ask you this, would it not be more logical for the label-companies to worry about *increased*sales* rather than "reduced infringement" ? Sure, if you act like a bully, some people will be bullied and stop downloading music. Question is, will many of those feel positively inclined to *choose* to spend their money buying your music ? Will it actually help your bottom line that a significant part of your core-market hates you like the pest ?

      Offcourse a hypotetical etical music-industry would not even care about increased sales, they would care about finding a model where as many artists as possible could be supported at a reasonable living-standard.

      From the point of view of society, we won't get anything back (as in increased creativity/productivity/variety - the purpose of Copyrigth, remember ?) from rewarding Michael Jackson with $500 million/year instead of $1 million/year. Both sums are more than adequate for a single artist to spend his full energy and time creating music.

      Now, on the other hand, if we could get $499 million/year distributed to say 10000 artists of different kinds which are today unable to make a full-time living of their music, the additional 50K/year would likely enable most of them to be full-time musicians.

      The music-industry is just about the poorest possible imaginable way of distributing the resources of the buyers onto the creators. And not only because "the industry" itself eats something like 95% of the gross before the actual musicians see a single cent.

    5. Re:Good but bad by Chuck+Chunder · · Score: 1

      Certainly. You don't have to convince me that a lot of the record companies actions are self destructive, I'm a living example.

      That said I think anyone reasonable would have to concede that P2P trading must cost them some sales even if the amount is unquantifiable. Of all the people who get stiffed in some way by the industries various hare-brained schemes the illegitimate file traders are the ones I have least sympathy for. I'd rather the industry screw them over than sell me crippled discs.

      --
      Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
    6. Re:Good but bad by Eivind · · Score: 1
      The strange thing is they don't see it themselves.

      I think I'm fairly average. I used to tape the occasional tape of the radio for my own use, (perfectly legal atleast in Norway where I live.) but I also bougth CDs quite regularily, nothing major, a couple a month maybe.

      Then the internet came along, and I didn't really change much. It's true that taping from the radio is obsolete, and replaced by downloading some music, but it didn't really change my habits much.

      Then the RIAA started to push CDs-that-aren't-CDs, along with the idea that threating customers as criminals is a clever thing to do. The immediate result, atleast for me, was that I started to investigate the issue. I came to the conclusion that the record-companies and the music-cartel in general, entities I was hardly aware of existing earlier, are stupid, immoral, criminal, price-fixing, artist-conning idiots.

      These days I Actively avoid buying any CD from the major labels. Atleast in a way they profit from. Yes, I consider it wrong to download and burn music rather than fairly compensate artists, but I consider it MORE wrong to contribute financially to the immoral antics of the music-industry. Still, the better choise is to for example buy the CDs used, or buy music from independent labels, or directly from smaller artists, or for that matter going back to taping from radio.

      In any case the RIAA hasn't gotten a single cent from me for the last 2 years, nor will they get a single cent from me in the future if I can help it.

      How this helps their bussiness is unclear to me.

  133. Ask Dean by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Well lets say a democrat gets elected - are you better off with a party where a huge amount of cash comes from the entertainment industry?

    You might as well be electing Metallica. At least the Republicans are involved in hunting down terrorist witches instead of copyright infringing witches...

    The libertarians don't care either way, as long as government money is not used for the wood to burn the witches.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Ask Dean by dcam · · Score: 1

      I always thought that the Republicans were involved in creating terrorist witches. I don't live in the states so maybe I don't understand, but that is how is appears from the outside.

      --
      meh
    2. Re:Ask Dean by geekee · · Score: 1

      "The libertarians don't care either way, as long as government money is not used for the wood to burn the witches."

      Actually, libertarians believe in copyright. They don't believe in tranpling over civil rights to protect it, however. The manner in which the RIAA is suing copyright infringers now is perfectly acceptable to libertarians, i.e. through the court system with no special subponae power.

      --
      Vote for Pedro
  134. May I recommend by pleasetryanotherchoi · · Score: 1

    www.iuma.org, among other fine sites offering frisbee mp3s of unsigned artists waaaaay better than Britney/Justin/blah.

    Durned lameness filter.

  135. Re:Wrong by CreatureComfort · · Score: 1

    IANAL, however, I believe you are wrong. If that arguement worked, then every ISP could be held liable, and if I recall the ISPs have managed to get decisions in thier favor on this. If you have an unsecured access point you are, in effect, an ISP.

    This probably violates your TOS with your ISP, and they can cancel your service, but you shouldn't be any more liable than they are.

    --
    "Unheard of means only it's undreamed of yet,
    Impossible means not yet done." ~~ Julia Ecklar
  136. Re:NAT by Mike+Hawk · · Score: 1

    AND remember that this would be a civil case, not a criminal case as per your example. The standard of proof is much lower.

  137. Maybe they'll try pulling a CSS on them... by Kjella · · Score: 1

    ...originally, they wanted to sue DVD-Jon in California because the MPAA (the company "damaged" by his actions) was located in California. I don't see much point in filing suits with US courts for non-US addresses otherwise.

    I would hope so, because I'm sure foreign courts will tell them to STFU and file suit where the files where actually shared, not where RIAA were able to download them from. Not to mention what Interpol or other international crime units will say if the RIAA waste their time chasing file swappers.

    Kjella

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  138. Canadian IP by Hexact · · Score: 2, Interesting

    At least 1 IP is Canadian: 205.205.143.254. What do they hope to accomplish? They certainly won't be able to get an extradition on that fact alone so they won't be able to prosecute.

    I guess they're probably going for shock value. A big number of IPs makes for better headlines.

    Clem.

    1. Re:Canadian IP by akejay · · Score: 1

      Hmm, I thought Canadian IPs always ended in ".65"... That's the ASCII code for "A" of course.

      --
      one, two, one two like a duck
  139. Counter legal action by bluepinstripe · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I don't know how accurate the information is, but I just heard that most people who have been sued by the RIAA have settled for an average of US$3,000.

    I understand why this people might settle under the duress of being sued by the RIAA, but I don't understand why they don't all get together, form a class, and file a class action suit against the RIAA. In all honesty, I'm not sure exactly what they would sue the RIAA for.

    One suggestion: harassment.

    Another suggestion: if the RIAA represents the recording labels, and you believe CDs are so ridiculously expensive that some form of price fixing or other anti-trust violation must be taking place -- which I do -- then that might be a possibility. Perhaps for legal reasons you could not sue the RIAA for this, but if you had to sue the individual record labels, a successful class action suit should have a major impact on the RIAA too, as it's money comes from the record labels. I would think this would be especially true if the the amount of the class action suit were consistent with the ridiculous damages the RIAA and record labels are claiming.

    Any thoughts?

  140. Good by cjpez · · Score: 3, Insightful
    This is how it should happen. I'd much rather have identity requests come as a court order rather than via some organization like the RIAA. The DMCA has some very worrying clauses about your duty as an ISP to take care of problems once they've been brought up by the RIAA et al, but damned if I'd just hand out user information. If it's coming in as an actual court order in response to an actual, pending case, that's something different. That's working inside the system, and the RIAA doesn't have any special privileges. That's what's always pissed me off about the DMCA, is that it seems to give the media organizations these godlike policing powers, where a notice from them is just as good as any "official" notice. If the courts are involved, at least you know that The System, such as it is, is getting involved in the process, and you're not just handing information over to some corrupt, money-grubbing organization. This is The Way It Should Be.

    Now, I'll still say that the actual prosecution of filesharers is ridiculous, but at least if they're going through the court system I don't have to be pissed off that they're using police-like activities sanctioned by some piece of horrible horrible legislation.

    --
    Al Qaeda has ninjas!
  141. Reality Check by Crypto+Gnome · · Score: 2, Interesting

    However, I *really* worry that the information could be subpoenad and used against individual students by the likes of the RIAA/MPAA.

    Oviously I'm missing something - why are you worried? If they're breaking the law they deserve to get busted, if they are not, your logs will not point legal accusations at innocent students.

    Yes we all hate the RIAA for their a-moral and insensitive behaviour, but in the end if they're subpoena'ing information it's because they have *some* evidence of violation of copyright.

    I've been harping on upper management to let us purge the history after roughly a week (tops), which would give us plenty of debugging time, and at the same time not give the legal system enough time to issue a subpoena before the information is gone.

    Now that you've gone on public record admitting that you're trying to get the log-storage period reasonably short specifically for the purposed of defeating potential RIAA subpoenas you're just put yourself in the line for interfering with a police investigation if not tampering with the evidence.

    Cearly you've thought this through with the utmost care.

    Whiuch University did you say you worked for?

    --
    Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
    1. Re:Reality Check by eaolson · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Oviously I'm missing something - why are you worried? If they're breaking the law they deserve to get busted, if they are not, your logs will not point legal accusations at innocent students.
      In other words, so long as you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear from this? Great, we'll be installing cameras in every room of your home a week from Thursday. After all, as long as you're not doing anything wrong...
      Now that you've gone on public record admitting that you're trying to get the log-storage period reasonably short specifically for the purposed of defeating potential RIAA subpoenas you're just put yourself in the line for interfering with a police investigation if not tampering with the evidence.
      Nonsense. The grandparent poster said these logs were useful for the maintenance of his network, and network security. After a few weeks, they are no longer useful for that purpose. It is not his university's job to log all network activity, and maintain those logs for all time, in case the RIAA comes up with a subpoena at some undefined point in the future. If that were the case, it would be illegal to throw away any piece of paper, ever, because it might contain copyrighted information on it, or evidence of a copyright violation.
      Now that you've gone on public record admitting that you're trying to get the log-storage period reasonably short specifically for the purposed of defeating potential RIAA subpoenas you're just put yourself in the line for interfering with a police investigation if not tampering with the evidence.
      You can't interfere with a police investigation that doesn't exist. Sure, if he phoned his buddy upstairs with, "The police are on their way up in the elevator with a subpoena. Quick, delete all the logs!" that's probably illegal. But the grandparent poster wants to purge these logs, not necessarily to hide illegal activity, but to protect the privacy of his students. It's a fine distinction, but an important one.
    2. Re:Reality Check by a+whoabot · · Score: 1

      Well, if I'm a fresh high school graduate choosing my future University I may just pass right over that one where half the students got busted for file-sharing.

      Not really good for business to have students sued for an activity that is, really, quite popular among that demographic.

    3. Re:Reality Check by Loki_1929 · · Score: 1

      "interfering with a police investigation"

      Really? What criminal act are the police investigating with regards to university network logs? The RIAA is a private organization launching civil lawsuits. Nowhere do the police get involved in this process. The university cannot be compelled to produce that which it does not have. Nor can a university can be compelled to maintain records which have yet to be subpoenaed. Which brings us to our next point...

      "tampering with the evidence."

      Tampering with what evidence? No criminal act has even been alleged. Now, if the university is subpoenaed for particular records, and they still have them, then and only then are they in trouble if they subsequently destroy those records. The problem in this case is the failure to comply with the subpoena.

      Your argument is tantamount to saying that if I find a shoe on my lawn and decide to sue the wearer for tresspassing, the shoe store that originally sold the shoes would be in trouble if they no longer have records of the sale. That's plainly ridiculous.

      --
      -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
    4. Re:Reality Check by milkman_matt · · Score: 1
      In other words, so long as you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear from this? Great, we'll be installing cameras in every room of your home a week from Thursday. After all, as long as you're not doing anything wrong...

      I don't think this is a very good analogy.. you don't own his house, what gives you the right to put in cameras? Your analogy would work better (I hate analogies) if you owned his house (The ISP's bandwidth) which he (The ISP's customer) was renting from you, and the videotapes (logs) were being stored, and not necessarily watched, just in case someone said something illegal was going on in house #1313 Mockingbird Ln at 2:30pm on January 10th. Then you could get your tapes out, check them, and see what was going on in that house at that time on that day and turn them over as evidence to your innocence and your renter's guilt.

      -matt

    5. Re:Reality Check by Crypto+Gnome · · Score: 1

      "Your argument is tantamount to saying that if I find a shoe on my lawn and decide to sue the wearer for tresspassing, the shoe store that originally sold the shoes would be in trouble if they no longer have records of the sale. That's plainly ridiculous."

      It's not plainly ridiculous when the store owner trashes his records nightly because he knows the police are visiting shoe-store-owners asking for records.

      ie you haven't been subpoena'd for evidence, but you are fully aware that it's only a matter of time, so you get rid of any potential evidence you might have

      The ONLY potential argument here would be the "but there's no current investigation" angle.

      Well, RIAA just filed in court, before you go thrashing logs you'd want to be absolutely certain that none of the IPs mentioned fit in your IP ranges.

      And even if none are currently, now that you've gone public saying you're going to thrash logs specifically with the intent of circumventing potential subpoenas - well lets just say I'm sure their lawyers will have a field-day with you.

      --
      Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
    6. Re:Reality Check by shark72 · · Score: 1

      "What criminal act are the police investigating with regards to university network logs? The RIAA is a private organization launching civil lawsuits. Nowhere do the police get involved in this process."

      This strategy relies on hoping that police don't get involved for some reason in the future.

      Absolutely true story: this week I've spent a fair amount of time on the phone with the FBI and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. I did this because I help run a web site to which somebody posted nasty and explicit child pornography.

      Because we keep IP logs, I was able to provide this information. Taking care of this business has not been pleasant, but providing this information, and thus creating the possibility that the perpetrator will be caught, has made me feel better. If this person is caught, the world will be a better place.

      Now imagine if I'd implemented a deliberately short log purging schedule with the express purpose of protecting my users who might use the site to trade copyrighted MP3 files, as the n-parent poster is apparently doing. I would have been helping the child pornographer.

      I don't see it as my job to take active steps to create a haven for illegal activity which I might happen to find morally acceptable. Instead, I rely on a concept which is in short supply these days: personal responsibility. If the users of my network don't want to be nailed for copyright infringements, the solution is in their hands: don't infringe other people's copyrights.

      --
      Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
    7. Re:Reality Check by scot4875 · · Score: 1

      Honestly, the RIAA doesn't bother me that much. But at the same time, I don't want my tools used to 'prove' their tenuous cases. Let them do their own damn work and track down their infringers.

      What worries me more is that somebody might one day visit a web site -- maybe a site that presents extremist views, dissidents perhaps -- and goons in FBI jackets show up wanting to know who was browsing it from a particular IP address at a given time.

      The tool I'm working on is for network management, not suppressing information dispersal. (that's hardly a university's mission statement...) However, it is *completely* possible to be used that way, since nobody may use the network anonymously.

      --Jeremy

      --
      Jesus was a liberal
  142. Re:NAT by shotfeel · · Score: 1

    IOW, it may be a broken system, but that's no excuse for breaking the law -can't say I disagree. I keep remembering that a couple years ago the mantra was that its bad for the RIAA to go after P2P networks, they should go after the people who are actually infringing copyright.

    So then the RIAA does this with the help of questionable use of the DMCA. Then the mantra is that they should be forced to file a John Doe lawsuit to go after the infringers, not just say hello to a clerk.

    So now, the RIAA is forced to file lawsuits in order to get any information, which is good. So isn't the RIAA now doing what we've been saying they should do for the last few years?

    My biggest beef with the whole process right now is simply the outrageous fines that can apparently be levied without even having to prove any actual harm has been done. IMO there's no way a potential liability in the $millions is acceptable punishment for a teen who's gone overboard with the "sharing" (unless you can prove they've done $millions in damage). That's what's causing people to settle instead of going to court, and IMO that should be the next battle front.

  143. Re:NAT by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

    Separate cases.

    I suspect it would be viewed like the video speed traps which can't positively identify the driver. They usually get dimissed (at least on appeal), because the person at fault can't be identified (am I remembering this right?).

    Your ISP could still stab you in the eye with a red hot poker, but they probably don't care as long as you're not a bandwidth hog and you pay your bill evey month.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  144. 127.0.0.l Music Archive by billstewart · · Score: 1
    They also missed 127.0.0.1, which has a great FTP archive.

    --

    If you don't recognize the reference, the Scientology Mafia's lawyers got taken in by a joking discussion on a.r.s about there being a copy of all the S33kr1t Docum3ntz on ftp://127.0.0.1 and spent a while grilling Keith Henson about it in court (transcript).

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  145. Confusion over how infringing files are identified by PureFiction · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I see a lot of confusion over the way files are identified and whether this will stand up in court or not.

    If you think they are using a method as trivial as "they responded to a search for name label_muzak.mp3" you are mistaken. This would definitely not be credible evidence in court (anything could be in the file) and it's not how the RIAA is going about tracking illegal uploads.

    The method they are using has been described in some of the articles concerning the subpoenas issued to users of the networks and it works as follows:

    1. The RIAA employs modified nodes in the various networks (KaZaa and Morpheous seem to be the big two) to search for known song names or groups.

    2. When they find a match, they attempt to download the entire file from the user. This point is important: if they can't prove you actually uploaded a copyrighted file in its entirety, they don't have a case.

    3. When the upload is complete they perform an MD5 sum on the content and verify that it matches a database of known copyrighted files. If they didn't do this step, they would have to have someone listen to it to be sure its actually what they think it is.

    Given the nature of peer networks, there are a number of common rips (i.e. identical) of songs widely shared among many users. Thus the MD5 sums will match for the same file among many users.

    This is all the information they need to bring a suit against your. They have an IP address and time/date associated with the upload, they have a verified MD5 sum for the upload that matches known copyrighted files.

    This information was covered in a previous article here: Innocent File-Sharers Could Appear Guilty? and the techniques they use are explicitly designed to withstand the scrutiny of a legal proceeding.

    All of the cases of mistaken identity to date (the mac user sent a nasty gram, the grandmother, etc) appear to be mistakes by the ISP correlating a given IP + date into the right account holder, and not a flaw in their methods associated with identifying infringing content traded over the networks.

  146. Re:So what? by netsharc · · Score: 1

    That (the bit about the ISP forgetting who you were) is interesting if it were true, but won't the ISP expect that people might upgrade their computers, with one that has a different MAC address?

    --
    What time is it/will be over there? Check with my iPhone app!
  147. Re:Wrong by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

    Not quite. ISPs have something called "Carrier Status" which basically means that due to the amount of traffic, they can't be held responsible for what their users do. However, they can lose their carrier status if they fail to take action when informed of improper use of the system.

    --
    Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
  148. I agree by spitzak · · Score: 1

    I agree with you, and I think you will find a majority of people here agree.

    Violating copyright (please don't call it "IP") is wrong. The RIAA has every right to locate people who are violating their copyright and punish them. Not just GPL code, but every single visible piece of data that is released for profit or that the author wants to control, relies on copyright, this includes instruction manuals, sample interface code, patches to closed source, ... Without copyright there would be no useful source code published, everything would be closed and secret and nobody would be allowed to program anything without signing NDA's.

    Conversely, violating people's ability to do what they want with hardware they have purchased, and with data they have purchased or otherwise have the rights to, is wrong. They should be able to do anything that does not violate the law (such as copyright law). This is what pisses people off about the RIAA.

    And using "piracy" for copyright infringement is a long-established term, though it originally meant for-profit. "scalping tickets" also has nothing to do with cutting skin off a head, and "computer crashes" do not involve the actual impact of the computer against something.

  149. Re:NAT by PetiePooo · · Score: 1

    The person who is the billing contact will be sued. No lawsuit has played out in court to know what the result of a lawsuit brought against a person who gave access to someone who shared copyrighted material would be.

    I wouldn't be surprised to see search warrants make an appearance in these trials.. After all, its the courts that issue them, and that's where the warrants issued to the ISPs to discover ownership come from.

    Furthermore, if the judge doesn't feel an IP address and a couple log files are proof enough, I'm sure the RIAA is going to try to get the local police to storm down the door and confiscate some hard drives. That would really rile up the conspiracy theorists!

    In completely unrelated news, I hear that sales of wireless fileservers are up...

  150. Here's some questions for you smarties... by teamhasnoi · · Score: 1
    What are the physical locations of these IPs? Does gnutella or other protocols tend to stay regional? (IE - clients from the east connect to more eastern servers, western peers are connected to mostly western servers...)

    I've assumed that since most filesharing software actively looks for the fastest connection, that most of your connections would be relatively near.

    In that case, if the RIAA is based on the east coast, would not most of their 'hits' come from the east coast? (Funny, I thought the RIAA was based in LA, but all the addresses and phone #s I could find were in Washington DC.)

    Gotta be close to the congresswhores, I guess.

  151. This is... by Kjella · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...the right way to go. It should be a requirement for subpoenaing informatino that a lawsuit has been filed first. Why? Because this is private information, and without any case, there is also no reason for RIAA to have it. Once they have done that, I find it acceptable that they can subpoena information from ISPs in regard to that case, and that there shouldn't be much fuzz over just that.

    Now, whether you agree with copyright law, or the RIAAs tactics in particular that's another story. But this is the way the legal process should work.

    Kjella

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  152. Re:Confusion over how infringing files are identif by erick99 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Then...how does this work in reverse? How do they detect a user that only downloads? Or do they?

    --
    http://www.busyweather.com/
  153. LLC and litigation by Casca · · Score: 1

    So I wonder if I could form an LLC, and make it clear that the computer belongs to the company. Then they would be suing my company, which I really hold no personal stake in. So what if I have to shut it down, its just a sham anyway.

    --
    Casca
  154. Re:How To Change Things by Big+Blingin · · Score: 1

    I didn't read a word of this, but I agree with what he said.

    --
    Yah whutevah, you knows i be right foo'!! I PITY DA NOOB!!
  155. Using one bad system to fight another.... by inteller · · Score: 1

    ....I'm sorry RIAA, but I filed a patent with the USPTO on "the method to sue individuals using nothing but an IP address" so I'm afraid I'm going to have to sue to collect royalties on all 532 instances of your patent violations. If you want though I can settle out of court for 532 mill and the DISSOLUTION OF YOUR ORGANIZATION!

  156. Exists by the+grace+of+R'hllor · · Score: 1

    This exists. There are programs out there that maintain lists of posted stuff (either posted by the one reporting it, or else a 'spot'). Names, filenames, newsgroups, type of media, short descriptions, links to the official pages, etc.

    Of course, I'm not going to name them, but Usenet Filled Thread Databases exist.

    Easy as pie, and anonymously doable, unless your ISP is monitoring for the RIAA/MPAA. In which case, passing on that info might be a breach of contract on their part anyway.

  157. WWRIAAD? by lysium · · Score: 1
    What would the RIAA do in such a situation?

    Sue the billing contact. Whomever pays the bill is responsible for the content accessed. The validity of such an accusation would be worked out in court, after you start paying $$$ to defend yourself. So go check the Service Agreement you signed....

    ==========

    --
    Together, we will drive the rats from the tundra.
  158. Kick them while they're done.... by telstar · · Score: 1

    Great, now not only do the users of these IPs have to deal with an RIAA lawsuit, but they've also got to survive a slashdotting.

  159. Re:Hope a Senator's child is at the end of one IP by aderusha · · Score: 1

    the charges would be dropped in a jiffy and a large campaign contribution would be made and the whole issue swept under the carpet. you can't possibly believe that anything else would happen...

  160. Suing... who? by the+grace+of+R'hllor · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Last I checked, IP-addresses were not legal ID, like ID cards or passports are. As far as I know, you can only sue legal entities, like people or businesses. Not abstract concepts (if I could, I'd sue some Back Propagation Algorithm for grievous mental harm)

    So they're bringing lawsuits against unidentified IP-addresses, which could be anything from a NAT router to a university network, a government agency, or whatever. Many of these lawsuits will therefore be against companies which are not liable for their customers' actions.

    This is ridiculous.

    (IANAL, as if it wasn't obvious)

    1. Re:Suing... who? by shark72 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Last I checked, IP-addresses were not legal ID, like ID cards or passports are."

      The feds (of various nations) nail kiddy porn collectors with surprising regularity, often starting with just an IP log.

      "Many of these lawsuits will therefore be against companies which are not liable for their customers' actions."

      This is vastly oversimplifying it, but in many cases service providers are responsible for their customers' actions when it comes to breaking the law. There's one set of laws in the US that states that a service provider is obligated to escalate reports of child pornography (I've had to do this myself). There's another law, called the DMCA, which (again, oversimplifying it) puts service providers on the hook to take action if they get a report of copyright violation by one of their users.

      --
      Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
    2. Re:Suing... who? by Myopic · · Score: 1

      they're john doe lawsuits. they're filed against a legal entity, a person, but the name of the person is unknown. now that there is a lawsuit the court can compel the discovery of the identity of the individual from, for instance, ISPs.

  161. Well, here in Norway... by Kjella · · Score: 1

    ...your privacy is actually quite well defined.

    On the low-end, you are required by law to keep logs for three months. Basicly you allow others to access information through your system, which may include personal information, in which case you are required to log authorized and unauthorized access for that period of time. This doesn't mean that the ISP have to log what the customer is doing, only who (given an IP and a timestamp) so that IPs found in access logs of the actual information system may be followed up.

    Logs beyond three months, as well as any content recording would fall under $28 of the "Personal Information Law", which is extremely clear:

    "The entity responsible shall not store personal information longer than what is necessary to complete the purpose of the handling. If the personal information is not to be stored according to the Archive Law (special archives of historical interest) or other laws, they are to be deleted."

    There is one exception to this law which allows archiving for historical, statistical or scientific reasons, but then the material can no longer identify specific individuals.

    So here, if you no longer need that information for debugging purposes, it would be a crime here in Norway not to delete those logs, or at the very least remove all personally identifiable information. Technically at least.

    I'd say that's pretty good protection of individual freedom and privacy, how's the US doing these days?

    Kjella

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    1. Re:Well, here in Norway... by d34thm0nk3y · · Score: 1

      yet another reason to get out of bushland, they hiring any computer/enviro. compliance types over there?

      ...seriously, any good sites with norway job listings would be great.

    2. Re:Well, here in Norway... by Cid+Highwind · · Score: 1

      "you are required to log authorized and unauthorized access"

      Glad to see that burdening people with unreasonable demands from government isn't limited to the U.S. anymore. Maybe after I set up logging of unauthorized access to my computers, I'll leave a notepad on my car, with a sign asking thieves to sign in before stealing my radio.

      --
      0 1 - just my two bits
  162. Just stop listening to the music from MTV and VH-1 by Oshkoshjohn · · Score: 1

    The music is selective-audience-formatted crap anyway, so why listen to it at all? Open a book and turn on Public Radio.

    --
    Goddamned kids! Get off my lawn!
  163. Re:Civil Court by soft_guy · · Score: 1

    A wireless router is not the same as a gun. Besides, even if you "locked it up" by turning on WEP, it is trivial to hack a WEP key.

    --
    Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
  164. a Senator IS at the end of one IP by teamhasnoi · · Score: 3, Funny
    Yup. All the lists would be one number short. That said, I would be willing to bet all of my future campaign contributions that at least ONE senator has: Pirated Software, Illegal MP3s, Child Porn, the Cure for Cancer, The Missing 8 Frames of the Zapruder Film (in WMP format) and all the invoices for WMD sold to Iraq.

    He probably cheats at CounterStrike too. Fucker.

  165. An Archaic Monopoly by max+born · · Score: 1

    Abolish the copyright laws!

    Why should any of us be prevented from sharing anything?

    I hope I'm not given over to flippancy but if artists don't want their music shared -- they shouldn't record it. It's not our problem.

  166. 534 Lawsuits? by nathanh · · Score: 3, Funny

    This is RIAA maths... so was it actually 27 lawsuits but some of them were really serious?

    1. Re:534 Lawsuits? by MacWiz · · Score: 1

      Actually, there are only four lawsuits. One was filed in Washington DC and the other three in New York.

  167. Demurrer by Penguinshit · · Score: 1



    These folks are just one unsecured WAP away from a successful demurrer. Of course, they need to be sure that the model of WAP they get is old enough to be purchased at the time of the alleged offense (and get rid of the receipt).

    --

    I have something in common with Stephen Hawking...

  168. Re:Wrong by BobSutan · · Score: 1

    Then the case can be made that their WEP or MAC filtering was cracked. In this day and age, its not out of the realm of possiblitiy. Think about it. How many bank robbers use their own vehicles as the getway car?

    --
    "On a scale from 1 to 10, people are stupid"
  169. death of the riaa? by Krafty+Koder · · Score: 1

    who cares about this - i certainly dont. I'm a regular Lopster user,and there are certain Lopster networks that are INVITE ONLY - in other words , private P2P networks. Ok, i'm not invited to these networks, but just seeing them (by trying to connect - "no - its invite only , sorry bye" ) lifts my hope up and gives me cheer.

  170. That's what I said by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Republicans - Terrorist Witches
    Democrats - Copyright stealing witches
    Liberals - hunt the witches you like, but we're not paying for the wood.

    Frankly if I have to choose I prefer people hunter terrorists to copyright infringers - for example, someone hunting terrorists just monitors my compter via Tempest. Someone hunting copyright witches sues me for hosting an MP3 with the word "Metallica" in it. I'd prefer loss of rights over dealing with lawyers. It's a shame, really.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:That's what I said by dcam · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I missed your point, however I'd take copyright witch hunts over terrorists witch hunts any day.

      Hunting terrorist witches involves monitoring your computer. Hunting Copyright witches involves monitoring your computer.

      Hunting terrorists means getting shipped off to Gitmo without any trial, or in the case of one Canadian citizen, off to a 'friendly' nation to be tortured on behalf of the US. Hunting copyright means you get sued in court.

      At least with copyright you remain inside the legal system. At least you can get lawyers.

      --
      meh
  171. burden of proof by amyhughes · · Score: 1
    Metallica_-_Ride_the_Lightning_01.mp3 can contain anything.

    Perhaps, but if it's in a directory with seven similarly-named files, all about the size of 128K rock-tune-length mp3 files, in a directory called "Ride_the_Lightning" with other directories called "Master_of_Puppets" and "Kill_em_All", in a directory called "Metalica", accessed by 421 users through kaaza, it begins to look like you're serving music files.

    IANAL but since these RIAA lawsuits are civil and not criminal

    If these cases are civil and not criminal, the burden of proof is more likely than not rather than beyond a reasonable doubt.

    Amy

  172. Quoting a Constitution for a state... by zealotasd · · Score: 1

    Can you guess what state's constitution is quoted, "...all men are by nature free..."? All of these harmoniously united States of America are quoted as such!

    Who modded up the parent as funny? That should be modded Insightfull! It's about time responsible people took their own initiative and accord between them and God, without a fictitious entity as a state or federal or municipal corporation, and traveled in their car without a Driver's License etc.

    The worse thing they can do is kill you for doing it, so if we were all dead then who would remain? That's right, the people that conspired against your liberty of being naturally free...

    Law and orderly conduct is not naturally dispensed from the barrel of a gun; it is volunteered unto with intention to promote good conduct. According to the Common Law of England (even though it is not my own common law), we are to honor the contracts we make and not offend anyone.

    Reading the Federal constitution, entitled "Constitution for the United States of America", it is said that we are only to be denied of our perons, properties, or effects by due process of the law. In a Republic, as posted unto the various state constitutions, the people are the governors and partake in their own law in the common way. The common law from the people is ever changing, by such merit. When everyone is a Surety for a personage of a corporation, commonly known as a "citizen of the United States", there there are no more "people" of which to uphold the Republic -- you're all re-organized into personages/securities Possesed by one "United States" by the Doctrine of Parens Patriae.

    More people expatriating their corporate "citizen"-hood and proclaiming their unalienable rights is good and profitable. A Republic's boundaries are not on land, they are organic: a Republic is the people, not a state and neither a federal State (State of ENTITY).

    --

    Secured Party, Without Prejudice, UCC 1-207: Creditor
  173. swap network card by Barbarian · · Score: 1

    shutdown

    swap network card

    start up

    Most DHCP servers base the IP on the MAC address of the network card. They won't give 'your' IP to another network card so long as it is still in use. So, do not release, change network card, and startup again.

  174. 24.86.121.228 is in Canada! by p3tersen · · Score: 1

    According to reverse dns, 24.86.121.228 belongs to Canadian cable tv/broadband provider Shaw Communications.

  175. Originally it was by Peaker · · Score: 1

    14 years + Optional 14 year extension

  176. Re:NAT by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 1

    I have always known that making a copy of a cd so that my original doesn't get scratched is perfectly fine to do

    In that case, I would expect that you are about twelve years old.

    The AHRA only passed in 1992, and prior to that (as well as currently, with regards to copies that don't fall within the AHRA, which is actually most of them if you look at it carefully) it was debatable as to whether making such copies would be okay.

    but making a copy of a cd so that I can give it away to my friends, it against the law.

    And ironically, if you're careful about how you do it, again thanks to the AHRA, this can be totally legal. But watch out to not run afoul of section 109 either.

    If you pirate music the people who actually made the music don't get paid, and that is just wrong.

    Why is that wrong? I'm not saying it is or isn't, just that you need to justify your statement. Certainly my neighbor's trees make oxygen and help me to breathe, but it would be pretty stupid for him to try to charge me for it. OTOH, if he had a convincing argument, maybe I would pay him. So just because people aren't getting paid isn't inherently bad -- at least for everyone other than them. (Personally, I'd like to be paid for my witty and insightful /. posts)

    --
    -- 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.
  177. RIAA goes legit by Popageorgio · · Score: 1

    And I thought I'd never appreciate the snail pace of the U.S. court system.

  178. Re:If You Haven't Taken Action AlreadyDEFECTIVE by bfields · · Score: 1
    Of course, how did it take them five years to figure this out? Doesn't the band even listen to their CD's?

    Actually if I recall the story, this mistake was made in the original LP release; so it was more like 30 years.

    Of course through its whole life "Kind of Blue" has been one of the most widely-admired recordings out there. I'm not sure why the OP seems to feel he got a raw deal because the speed was off on one song by a few percent.

    --Bruce Fields

  179. Easy defense. by weeboo0104 · · Score: 1, Funny

    "Who am I? I'm Johnny Cochraine in a class C address."

    "If the octet does not contain the bit, you must acquit!"

    --
    It is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men. -Frederick Douglass
  180. You Have Been Trolled by anticypher · · Score: 3, Informative

    And a good one at that. More than 40 responses as people go off on Krog's wild goose chase. That deserves declaring Krog as either a foe or a friend, hard to decide.

    Probably just a list of pingable addresses generated by nmap -iR 532 -sP. Too many of these addresses are outside the U.S., and too many of them seem to be resolving to hosts that are easily tracked down without needing to go through an ISP. mail.samaritanbethany.com? Come on, that one doesn't require a subpoena, just a whois lookup or a visit to their site. Its a retirement home in Rochester Minn. If the RIAA were going after them, they wouldn't waste their time with Verizon in NY when the provider is Qworst.

    Has anyone else seen a copy of the lawsuit yet? It may show up on some court's website tomorrow, but there isn't a copy of the suit on the RIAA's site. I have written to the press contacts at the RIAA asking for a copy of the lawsuit, but I haven't yet received a response.

    the AC

    --
    Hemos is like...sci-fi fans;he thinks technology is cool, but he hasn't bothered to understand the science it's based on
  181. once again by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

    they're going to try and shakedown the persons after they get names, if that doesn't work, they'll sue. you dig? it says so in the article. like my previous post said, you generally can't file suit in Washington DC against a *john doe living in boston*.

    --
    [Fuck Beta]
    o0t!
  182. Re:Confusion over how infringing files are identif by PureFiction · · Score: 1

    they don't. downloading music is perfectly legal. It is the unauthorized distribution part that they can get you for.

  183. IP addresses do resolve to geographical locations. by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

    read what the AC said. Have you ever run a traceroute?
    How about visualroute? Its in Italian, but the other ones require a registration. Try 66.35.250.150. Unless a level 1 anonymous proxy is being used, you can resolve the IP to the owners geographic location. With some of the more advanced (read expensive) software, you can get street addresses or GPS coordinates... so don't tell me i'm wrong.

    --
    [Fuck Beta]
    o0t!
  184. Re:Confusion over how infringing files are identif by PureFiction · · Score: 1

    I can see it now, next generation P2P networks where only 99% (or whatever) of the file is shared. ... Actually that begs the question, how much of a song do you have to share to cross the line into the illegal

    This is actually similar to the way that the Publius censorship resistant publication network works. They split the file into a number of smaller, encrypted blocks.

    Any block by itself is completely useless and cannot be considered infringing. A user simply requests the various blocks and when all are obtained, recreates the original file in whole.

    Many other peer networks designed for anonymous distribution also use similar methods.

  185. Re:Confusion over how infringing files are identif by BumBiscuit · · Score: 1

    Seems to me, then, that it might not be a bad idea to code up an app to insert a few random bits strategically in your mp3 files before you put them in your shared directory.

    It might not stop the RIAA from suing you -- they could always hire a staff of minimum wage lackeys to verify copyrighted content -- but it would presumably slow them down a bit.

    --
    Ceci n'est pas une sig.
  186. Re:NAT by 1ucius · · Score: 1

    I suspect that the RIAA would sue all six of you. The five 'innocent' people would file a cross-claim against the real pirate.

  187. Re:Moderators! by SirTwitchALot · · Score: 1

    Thank you! My post was certainly not a troll. Thankfully I have some Karma to burn.

    --
    Go away, or I will replace you with a very small shell script.
  188. Re:Confusion over how infringing files are identif by mad_dog3283 · · Score: 1

    Or you could just modify the ID3 tag.

    --
    Reprise the theme song and roll the credits!
  189. Hmm... by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    If you think about, think which is really worse - the DMCA or the Patriot Act. In the end both subtract from our freedoms, but the Patriot Act more allows others to monitor us, eroding the right to privacy - but the DMCA simply removes rights altogether, like reverse engineering in lots of cases and really censors a lot of things. Under the Patriot Act, you can say it and might be hassled - but under the DMCA you can be jailed for things that shouldn't even be crimes.

    A lot more people have been really inconvenienced by the DMCA than the Patriot Act, so I'm still siding with the DMCA as the worse of the two. Both are bad though, no question.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  190. Exactly by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    It seems like people are having trouble understanding what I am saying today. I said exactly what you did, they won't provide the fire (trampling).

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  191. Not PATRIOT by atrader42 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    In my neck of the woods, we've recently had some issues with the parts of the DMCA that allows the FBI to seize library records without anyone getting to know. The solution is that most local libraries now purge their records of your books as soon as you return them. I shouldn't think it would be any different for ISPS if they didn't want it to be.

  192. Protect Yourself by 9812713 · · Score: 1

    Programs that should be more aware to peer to peer network users.

    1: Peer Guardian -> Block ip address Ranges of Riaa
    2: Firewall -> obvious one
    3: Anonymous Proxy -> Tons of free on on the Net
    -- :)

  193. Re:IP addresses do resolve to geographical locatio by Phroggy · · Score: 1

    You're wrong.

    --
    $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
    $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
  194. Re: But who is number one? by WuphonsReach · · Score: 1

    Where am I?
    In the village
    What do you want?
    Information
    Whose side are you on?
    That Would Be Telling. We want information, information, information.
    You Won't Get It!
    By Hook Or By Crook, We Will!
    Who are you?
    The New Number Two
    Who is Number One?
    You Are Number Six.
    I am not a number, I am a FREE MAN!

    (with apologies to the Prisoner)

    --
    Wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?
  195. ipconfig by Frogg · · Score: 1

    ...but that doesn't tell you your externally visible IP, only the PCs local IP.

    The whole of my intranet is private IPs, sitting behind one external public IP.

  196. Safeharbor provisions... by awfar · · Score: 1

    just a S.W.A.G., I think there is document retention schedules mandated by the telecommunications safeharbor rules, which I think made it possible for ISPs to NOT be liable for copyright infringement on their equipment; this however, means that they MUST maintain a certain level of documentation, etc.

  197. Re:Finally... by twiddlingbits · · Score: 1

    There are a couple of "br" IP addy's too. I guess they don't bother to check if an address is within the US or not. You could send all your music via one of these non US domains if you wanted. Just set up the box in the non-US domain as a DMZ server and NAT to the real address of the data somewhere else. However that is hard to do for your average Joe User who swaps songs. Unless they can look at the DNS and NAT setup they can't see the address translation back to a US machine. Of course I could be wrong..and this also requires co-operation by someone in another country. I wonder if thier Gov't would get upset at the help they gave a US citizen to "break" US laws?

  198. Re:Confusion over how infringing files are identif by PureFiction · · Score: 1

    Because if it's true, BitTorrent (or a full-fledged P2P network employing similar concepts) takes care of that.

    You have to be careful to draw a distinction between a protocol that supports multi-source downloading and one that enforces multi source downloading.

    In bittorrent (and any of the other multi-source DL apps) it is possible to download the entire file from a single peer, by altering the client to only use that one peer for the duration of a download.

    The RIAA also has a number of nodes at their disposal, so even a coordinated download among many of them obtaining pieces could collectively obtain the entire file from a peer, without them having the slightest clue what just happened.

    Attack resistance of this nature is difficult to implement. This is a war of attrition, and when the current easy methods are subverted, additional methods will be applied (acoustic fingerprinting for example).

  199. Re:Confusion over how infringing files are identif by PureFiction · · Score: 1

    If this were done (and it's definitely a good idea) they would likely have to switch to acoustic fingerprinting.

    This would require a lot more resources and complexity, but I doubt the RIAA would give up so easily.

    Recall that people were doing the same thing to the napster filters when they were applied. Names of files would have letters swapped around and replaced, all to avoid the strict filtering that was supposed to stem the trade of copyrighted music.

  200. Same thing they do by KalvinB · · Score: 1

    when you loan a drunk friend your car and they get into legal trouble.

    Whoever is paying for the connection is responsible for all the activity that goes on with it.

    If you have a friend downloading child porn using your connection, you're the one who will get a nasty gram from the police. Your best option is to "rat" out your friend.

    Likewise, if someone is downloading MP3s on your connection enough to get noticed by the RIAA you better hand over their name when the authorities ask for it or you will be held responsible.

    At least the RIAA is going through the proper legal channels now. That's one less thing to complain about them doing wrong.

    Ben

    --
    Work Safe Porn
  201. Re:Learn English by MidnightBrewer · · Score: 1

    It *can* also beg the question. Expand your idiomatic usage.

    --
    "Give a man fire, and he'll be warm for a day; set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life
  202. US citizen not living in the USA by ce25254 · · Score: 1

    Is it possible for a US citizen to be pinched on this when living outside the USA and using a non-USA ISP, I wonder?
    (like me)
    (not on the list)

  203. Ad hminen arguments are for losers by Surfing+Caddis · · Score: 1

    Go ahead call me names, but in the "letter of the law" you are right, but in the "practice of the law" I am right. THe FBI and Secret Srevice jsut raided a guys house in suspicion of having Valve property. Htat's WORSE than some theives are treated i.e. Fastow and Lay of Enron. So go F*ck yourself. name caller. You are the a*shat.

    1. Re:Ad hminen arguments are for losers by nate1138 · · Score: 1

      No, in the letter and practice of the law, you are still wrong. The HL2 source code case is related to computer breaking and entering, which is a different crime from simply posessing somebody else's copyrighted material. One of the conditions that has to be met for it to be theft is the deprivation of the lawful owner of his/her property. This isn't possible with intellectual property. You can copy it, but you can't deprive the owner of it. Hence it is called infringement, not theft.

      ASSHAT!

      --
      Where's my lobbyist? Right here.
  204. RIAA owes ISPs huge fees .... by konmaskisin · · Score: 1

    for advertising their songs .... ISPs owe RIAA say 100th of a cent per megabyte for "broadcasting performance" of each download (so 3 cents for 100 downloads of a 3MB song. Free access to music online increases CD sales (it had for me). Thisis largely offset byt the incredibly bad music that is published by the RIAA these days (Cher Xmas albums, etc. bellybutton showing 17 year old virgins who tongue kiss older almost over the hill pop stars, etc etc).

    Consumers are already paying for network access so they owe no $ to anyone. Recording companies are too stupid to figure out who to use new technologies.

    Maybe big file traders (i.e. broadcasters) owe a bit more than average ... 100$ or say the equivalent of a HAM radio license. That oughta be sufficient.

  205. Re:NAT by Punto · · Score: 1
    They'd put all the users in separate interrogation rooms, and offer them deals in exchange for giving up the actual perp.

    Don't you watch NYPD Blues??? :p

    --

    --
    Stay tuned for some shock and awe coming right up after this messages!

  206. Not goin'a do it. by JumperCable · · Score: 1

    "there's going to be some guy, some place, who's going to think to himself, "Holy shit! I can get movies online for free?! What the hell am I doing here then??""

    This may not be a big problem for the movie industry because the they have met user demand. Why would I download a crummy version on-line when I can get high quality DVD rentals throught the mail for ~$20/month.

    I admit that once high quality movies are available on line there might be an issue. But given they are already experimenting with movie on demand/download services. So long as they provide such services at a reasonable rate I think the movie industry is in the clear.

  207. RIAA isn't learning very fast by salesgeek · · Score: 1

    RIAA's problem is that they are trying to use nuclear weapons to solve a problem you need a good hickory stick for. The courts will have little patience for this. Perhaps it's time we start lobbying the government for a "petty infringement" statute that:

    * applies to infringements of copyrights that are of a non commercial nature. Say my daughter copying a couple of tracks for her friend as an expample.
    * Caps damages at say, the cost of a CD for music, the FMV price of a dvd for a movie or the FMV for a software title (yes, if you get caught copying leisure suit larry, it will ding you for $4.00).
    * Eliminates jail time for non-commercial infringements.
    * States that only the owner of IP has standing to sue for petty infringement. (This would lock out RIAA but allow artists to recover)
    * Does not allow for court costs and legal fees to be charged to the defendant under any circumstance.

    In other words, take away RIAA's power - they've abused it. This whole witch hunt they've launched is an infringement of our civil rights and is a drag on the entire economy.

    --
    -- $G
  208. Fair Use by gebbeth · · Score: 1

    So, what about fair use? Under fair use, wouldn't it be legal to download a song if you have already purchased that song in another format? Suppose your cd breaks or some other unforseeable calamaty strikes whatever media type you have...couldn't you just go to court and bring proof that you purchased the song previously and thus have license to use it under fair use.

    --
    A closed mouth gathers no foot.
  209. Re:Copy protected CDs by birdman17 · · Score: 1
    I complained to EMI as well, and they also told me to take it back, but I had bought it online from Amazon.ca - and they wouldn't take it back under any circumstances after it had been opened. (How was I supposed to know it was broken until I opened it??)

    Bastards.

    Oh, and did I mention that both EMI Canada and Amazon.ca are bastards?

    I buy very few CDs as it is, and now none of them will be from EMI. That must be a great marketing tactic on their part.

  210. I am not a number! by Quixadhal · · Score: 1

    I'm a free.... oh, wait.
    Nope, I am not 192.168.49.100, I'm a free 192.168.50.6!

  211. Re:Confusion over how infringing files are identif by BumBiscuit · · Score: 1

    Problem being that it would be far too simple to slice off the bytes at the front of the file reserved for ID3 and run the hash on the remainder. To be effective, such a scheme would have to place noise randomly and at various points throughout the file. It wouldn't be that difficult, I suspect, to do something like this without affecting the perception of somebody listening to the song.

    --
    Ceci n'est pas une sig.
  212. Re:IP addresses do resolve to geographical locatio by Phroggy · · Score: 1

    That server is in Phoenix, but I bet you don't know where in Phoenix. Try webwizardry.net.

    --
    $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
    $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
  213. Re:NAT by DarkSarin · · Score: 1

    This is a case where it comes down to a simple question: do we, as humans, have a "right" to make money off our efforts?

    At the outset, this seems like a simple question, and I think most people would say yes. However, I wouldn't be posing this question if I thought it was that easy.

    You see, copyright law is based on this idea--that ideas are good, inventions are good, and if people are paid for them, then they will be more likely to produce them. Therefore we should protect the ability to make money off of these ideas for the person who creates them!

    This is a simple concept, and I can agree with the basic ideas, but it is VERY different from saying that we have a RIGHT to make money off of our ideas.

    Think about this: the only reason money/barter systems exist is to enable the gathering of materials to those who do not directly produce them. For some, this means that you don't have to grow your own potatos and corn, slaughter your own beef, etc. Others can use this to get clothing, and other items that are useful.

    Now if, as a society, we agree to this system of barter, we should then be willing to give a person these things in return for their contribution to society. In our day and age, this is given as money, and it permits those who come up with ideas to spend their time producing them, and those who labor to use the ideas (ideally speaking of course).

    Now, as to what value we, as a society, place on these ideas, I cannot say that that is right or wrong, only that we do, in fact place a certain value on musical ideas (songs). Therefore, we should recompense those who produce these ideas for their effort.

    Does that mean that it is worth $500,000/year/artist to produce these ideas (or more, or even less)? Perhaps, but the point is that as long as they produce something that we deem worthwhile, then we should try to give back to them, so that they can continue to get the materials they need for survival (and even _some_ comfort).

    Now, just for completeness, let me discuss the concept of copyrights again. The idea is that if we protect intellectual property, it will encourage further development of that property. This is flawed thinking at best. As far as I know, DaVinci didn't have any such benefit. Neither did the bards of several centuries past. Both seemed to manage to find people to pay them for their effort.

    I am not advocating a return to earlier times, but I do suggest that the concept is unnecessary, and in the long run may harm innovation.

    Authors, like musicians, have the right, if they so desire, to earn a living. But just like like everyone else, there is nothing that entitles them to a living that is extravagant.

    I am beginning to ramble, but please think about this.

    --
    "We don't know what we are doing, but we are doing it very carefully,..." Wherry, R.J. Personnel Psychology (1995)