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."

142 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 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.

    5. 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.

    6. 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.

    7. 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.

    8. 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..

      --
    9. 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.

    10. 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.

    11. 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?

    12. 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!
    13. 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.

    14. 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.

  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 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

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

      man sort

      -- Bander

      --
      What we need more of is science!
    3. 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...?

    4. 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();
    5. 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.

    6. 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!
    7. 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

    8. 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.
    9. 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); }
    10. 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!

    11. 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
    12. 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.

    13. 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

    14. 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
    15. 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...

  3. 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 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.
    4. 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.
  4. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Informative

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  5. 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 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.

  6. 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
  7. 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?"
  8. 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 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"
    2. 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.

  9. 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,
  10. 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 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."
  11. 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
  12. 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!
  13. This 127.0.0.1 guy sure is in trouble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    He shared over 5000 songs!

  14. 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?

  15. 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!
  16. 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"
  17. 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 ;-)

  18. 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 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.
  19. 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.

  20. 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.

  21. 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......"

  22. 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!

  23. 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.

  24. 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 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
    2. 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.

    3. 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.

  25. 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 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!

    3. 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.
    4. 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."

  26. 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...)
  27. 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.

  28. 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

  29. 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 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.
  30. 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?

  31. 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...
  32. 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!
  33. 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.

  34. 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.

  35. 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.

  36. 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.

  37. 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.
  38. 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?
  39. 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 :)

  40. 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.

  41. 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!

  42. BS by H8X55 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's like filing suit against a phone number for a bomb threat.

  43. 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 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.
  44. 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.
  45. 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.
  46. 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
  47. 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.
  48. 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!"

  49. 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?
  50. 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?

  51. 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

  52. heh by ArmenTanzarian · · Score: 4, Funny

    Tom Brokaw: 127.0.0.1 was unavailable for comment.

  53. 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?
  54. 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.

  55. 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 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.

    3. 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.

    4. 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

    5. 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.

  56. 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.

  57. 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 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
    2. 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.

    3. 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.

  58. 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..

  59. 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
  60. 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
  61. 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.
  62. 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!

  63. 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!
  64. 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
  65. 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.

  66. 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.

  67. 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?

  68. 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!
  69. 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.
  70. 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.

  71. 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
  72. 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.

  73. 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/
  74. 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.
  75. 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.

  76. 534 Lawsuits? by nathanh · · Score: 3, Funny

    This is RIAA maths... so was it actually 27 lawsuits but some of them were really serious?

  77. 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
  78. 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.