Slashdot Mirror
RIAA To Subpoena Univ. of Michigan Names
uofmtech writes "This morning's Michigan Daily is reporting that the RIAA will be subpoenaing the University of Michigan for the names of nine students suspected of file-sharing. University General Counsel Jack Bernard has said 'We are waiting to receive them ... (t)hese are very difficult subpoenas to refuse.' The RIAA had previously notified the University they were looking into this, but the University has tended to handle such matters internally."
Or (gasps!) don't copy unauthorized work, and instead share works by artists who welcome it.
I should also note that most of these "anonymizers" don't actually work, and using them might wind up with consiracy type penalites...
Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda
I agree -- would it be an illegal search in court? For example, in order to search my house you have to get a court order, does the same apply to my hard drive? Also, does the RIAA have to download a song that I'm sharing to prove that it is an infringement (it could be another song or incomplete...)?
~SpermanHerman
Or you could not distribute stolen/pirated material that you have no legal right to distribute in the first place. I don't share my personal music collection which I have paid for so that someone else can benefit from my expense. I have no fear of the RIAA because I own every song on my machine not to mention I'm not sharing them in the first place.
Why do we have to discuss how to hide yourself from the prying eyes of those trying to protect their legal property? Privacy is important and if you want to be anonymous that is your own perogative, but to advocate trying to hide one's self instead of advocating simple honesty is dangerous in so many ways to all societies.
Even if I knew that tomorrow the world would go to pieces, I would still plant my apple tree. -Martin Luther
I'm afraid you're confusing "wanting free shit" with "essential liberty". Your rhetoric is as inaccurate as it is tiring.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
Well, it's not exactly stated explicitly in the story (although it should be), but it's pretty clear from the context that RIAA is doing this scanning over Kazaa and other p2p networks.
And since users of these networks are voluntarily making this stuff public, I doubt there are any legal ramifications. But it is rather embarassing for the people being taken to court that they allowed themselves to be traced this way.
Trust no one, hide your IP address ... or else 'they' will get you!
I hear there's rumors on the Slashdots
Turn off Kazaa, turn on SSH and call your friends.
there's no place like ~
I don't think they care about the 8 students, or the fines - it's the University of Michigan they are after. If they can convince large lawsuit-averse institutions like the UM, with networks serving tens of thousands of students, faculty and staff, to outlaw music-sharing, then they will have achieved their end. More bang for the buck - know what I mean?
CD prices are determined by the record companies and not the artists... So yes, you are probably getting ripped off _BY THE RECORD COMPANY_ (note that this is not the same thing as the artist) when you buy a CD. Stealing music hurts both the artist and record company when really only the record company is your enemy when it comes to price fixing; perhaps your righteous anger could better be directed towards investigating artist-supported distribution channels, instead of directed towards KaZaa and other lameass warez shite.
Congratulations. You've just invented Freenet.
Sorry folks, I hate the RIAA just as much as everyone else here, but this simply needs to be said.
The whole music stealing thing....they're right. Does anyone seriously think they can stand up in a court of law and convince the judge that they deserve to have music for free. It's not like the musicians or the hundreds of people who somehow touch the music (even the janitor who sweeps the recording studio) are out there working for free. Are the studios charging way too much?...yes, a bit. Can you just record it off the radio?...yes, but royalties were already paid.
I'm a 29 year old has been trombone player (played professionally in the Marines for a bit), but I still pay for every piece of music I have on general principal. I know those musicians put in some long hard work to get as good as they are and I don't mind rewarding them...even if it is being laundered and embezzled by the industry. But I haven't even spent $3000 in my whole lifetime on CD's. Everyone who is out there giving away copies of music they likely never even paid for themselves in the first place are risking a $3000 law suit plus legal fees. And for what? I seriously doubt most people doing this even understand the concept of civil disobedience. And I don't think the judge will accept excuses about being a poor college student, or that the CD's are over-priced. If you want cheap music, sign up for one of those streaming services that let you listen to whatever you want for like $6 a month. If you want free music, either stream your favorite radio station off the internet, or get really nostalgic and actually learn how to work the FM tuner on your stereo system.
Again, I'm not saying the RIAA is this innocent victem of abuse. I'm just saying it's stupid to risk a $3000 law suit when you can likely purchase every CD you will listen to for the next year for less than $500 (that's about 50 CD's for the slow in math...practically a new disc every week), or just listen to the radio for free.
</RANT>
I've dirtied my hands writing poetry, for the sake of seduction; that is, for the sake of a useful cause. --Dostoevsky
...Knee...jerking....must...stop...too LATE!
The argument is more nuanced, and is rarely so cut and dried.
It is not like stealing. Your song on Kazaa is being distributed as surely as it would be on a radio station, except you get no performance payments. THAT'S the real difference.
Record companies did not adjust quickly enough to a new technological model of distribution, and so the marketplace came up with a free alternative. Bummer. That genie is out of the bottle...
Options? Well, suing the crap out of everyone is one way to curb file sharing, but that has the detrimental effect of keeping the music out of the hands of the fans, and pissing off the most ardent enthusiasts of music.
Trying a performance fee such as online radio stations might work, and ISPs would be required to collect the fee from all users, based on the amount of music files shared per ISP.
The really, REALLY difficult part of all this is the fact that the internet is GLOBAL, and radio stations, and even television really isn't! So any payment scheme legislated in the US wouldn't apply overseas without some really serious negotiation. But hey, at least SOME income is better than nothing. Perhaps the US fees would be enough to keep these musicians off the streets...
It's going to take time to adjust to this "new" (cough) phenomenon of the internet, and how it flattens the distriubtion model to just one layer (the producer to the consumer!), with no place in the middle to take a cut of the action.
Other big ideas? I'm sure there's VC out there for someone who can make music pay...
Joe G.
Bishop, CA
Don't Die Wondering
I'm just thinking out loud here...
Suppose you implemented an encryption on the network such that all files and filenames were encrypted before being sent. It would be very simple and provide little actual security. Every client would have a "patented" decryption process. It would be the same on every client and not involve actual passwords. Whoever controlled the rights to this encryption/decryption process could controll the network. Kazaa can use the method in it's clients for free for example. RIAA... no, you may not use it.
Now if the RIAA, or anyone else, tries writing a bot to search the network, they either get encrypted data, or they break the encryption... DMCA ALERT
I'm sure some better minds could improve on it. But that's my idea.
Slashdot Syndrome: the sudden, extreme urge to correct someone in order to validate one's self.
> This is just another example of the slow erosion of the fountain this country was founded on.
Yep, our country was founded on medicare and illegal copyright violation. I sure hope you're either a) joking, or b) seriously have no idea about the history of the USA (in which case you should stop babbling as if you do)
I wonder what the political landscape would look and act if they outlawed legal bribes from lobby groups. Shouldn't politicians be listening to the individual voters instead of whoring themselves off to deep pocketed corporations?
The University is ignoring FERPA, the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act... Link It protects idle release of such information. In my position in a school district, they can ask all they want...but records of who was doing what on which computer are protected by that statute. I would be waiting for a court order, and not just a "give us the goods!" letter.
I'm really starting to wonder just exactly how long the RIAA intends to keep on their rampage of lawsuits against their own would-be customers.
The answer to this one is simple. They will continue to do so as long as 1) people continue to redistribute without permission mass amounts of copyrighted material, 2) as long as regular consumers continue to buy products that provide the RIAA's legal offense fund coffers. At this point, I think we can all stop complaining about this. There isn't going to be a federal law that outlaws the music industries, or forces them to work for free. There aren't going to be any major overhauls to copyright law (copyright extension isn't a major overhaul). So, just drop it.
When the price of music reaches the cost which a consumer is not willing to play, the problem will take care of itself. Obviously consumers are either unaware of what's going on, don't care what's going on, and think that the price is fair. We can bitch and moan all we want, this issue has had sufficient time to mature, and sufficient news coverage to raise awareness. Obviously it was not important enough for the consumer to remember.
If it still bothers you and you want to do something about it, then stop buying CDs/tapes/whatever, and don't use illegal copies either. If you're still downloading copies, then that tells us you actually want the product. At that point we'll know that you don't oppose the current state of copyright on principle, but are actually just looking for a handout.
Fred
"A fool and his freedom are soon parted"
-RMS
I am confused, how is this Unbalanced?! How are you Insightful?!
(bold is submitter and italics for the article)
the RIAA will be
the record industry will soon
subpoenaing the University of Michigan
subpoena the University
for the names of nine students
for the names of students
suspected of
allegedly
file-sharing.
sharing music illegally.
> That isn't the legality of it though, and as long as these laws are in place to protect IP and digital, or any other form of property for that matter, we have civic obligation to respect those laws or face the penalties associated with violating them.
Sorry to say but that is utter and complete bullshit.
You have the civic obligation to protest and fight unfair laws, not respect them. Ever wondered why civil disobedience is a recognized form of protest? Ever wondered why the 2nd amandment to the US constitution actually attempts to counterbalance the government by allowing the creation of armed groups outside government control?
Your 'we must obey the government and law regardless what' is the exact excuse that has been used by many many people in Nazi Germany, want to have more examples of why it is utterly wrong and dangerous to think like that?
I really wish that instead of wasting effort trying to get around the RIAA and legalize the sharing of music copyrighted by RIAA artists, people would change their focus and just abandon the music industry! Then, put the effort and energy into reinventing a new way to create, distribute, and listen to music! One that gives that gives the artists what is due to them for their creativity and provides for the promotion and distribution needs as well.
I mean seriously, how many of the top 40 artists actually put out creative music that isn't just a rehash of the last material that made the record company millions? Very few! (If you answered spears, timberlake, or others of their breed, leave now!) :)
How much do you really care about the music you listen to? Do you search for music you really enjoy? Quality music? original music? Bands that pour themselves into their projects? Or do you just buy the next thing the record companies and MTV shoves in your face?
I really hate the fact that the industry is controlled by the pre-teens who could care less about wether the music they listen to is any good. The drones that buy the next spears look-a-like or the latest Creed cover band.
Ok, enough ranting. :) Unfortunately, I have no idea *how* the industry should be rewritten. But, IMHO, we should completely abandon the current industry and start something new from scratch. A system that would work, that would be fair, and that would not be controlled by the corps.
Or (gasps!) don't copy unauthorized work, and instead share works by artists who welcome it.
I think you're confusing "artists" with "owners". I don't think Jimi Hendrix minds if you share his work. The problem is that big nasty corporations have managed to "own" a large part of our cultural history.
While in some cases it's possible to aviod RIAA music, in other cases, you would be missing out on a large part of our musical history and national identity.
I think everyone should listen to "American Woman" at least one, and I don't see a GOOD reason why they should have to pay for it. That money surely isn't going as an incentive for Hendrix to produce new music.
Life is too short to proofread.
If I would rather directly pay artists than go through the industry, I should have the option to do so. It is not the RIAA's work which I am purchasing, but rather the work of the artist. They deserve my compensation if I like and want their music, and I am prepared to offer them appropriate compensation, but not at the rate the industry has arbitrarily set. Hence, people will continue downloading and in order to compensate artists, they go to concerts, where they get their real money. I don't see the problem here.
KappaStone
"This is a slight misrepresentation, the works are NOT their property, never have been, and never will be. An idea, nor the expression of an idea can ever eb property."
Crack Cocaine, right? That's what you're smoking isn't it? I'm going to tell a story and see if you agree with it.
You are a student and just spent two weeks reading through articles and six books for a research paper on the history of the computer. Your room mate is a lazy, dishonest moron who consideres pot to be the secret to graduating. Well..., that and copying your research paper because he has the same assignment from a different professor. He at least has the decency to spend five minutes changing around a few sentences to make himself feel like he made some effort. Now you both have A's. He's still high, and you're still tired from lack of sleep. Tell me that paper wasn't YOUR idea and that he didn't just STEAL it!
I hate to break this to you, but most musicians spend YEARS getting to be as good as they are. The product they produce based on that experience and usually some long hours with a piano and an eraser is nothing more than their IDEA of what sounds good. Note the use of the pronoun THEIR. It's THEIR idea, they made it, and they damn sure do own it and deserve to be compensated for making something that gives you pleasure whan you listen to it.
Why do so many people on this site believe it is their divine right to have anything that makes them happy be given to them free?....unless it has to do with never growing up since as a kid, your concept of property is that everything is given to you for free. Too bad parents aren't there to bend you over and spank you for being a moron.
I've dirtied my hands writing poetry, for the sake of seduction; that is, for the sake of a useful cause. --Dostoevsky
Why? Because the problem is people are trying to make fresh fucking air "their property"!!!
Here's my question: What about the DMCA? Doesn't it make reverse engineering a patented process illegal?
The RIAA's "webcrawler" is presumably looking for people hosting material via kazaa, but here's the problem with that--FastTrack, kazaa's protocol is patented. In order for them to see the songs that somebody is hosting, wouldn't they have to reverse-engineer the protocol to make it? IANAL, but isn't this illegal, especially since the RIAA is arguably making a profit from said program?
Maybe it's just me, but it seems like patents and intellictual property is only important or enforced when it profits the big companies best. When people distribute a couple songs, it's theft or "piracy." When the RIAA steals intellectual property, it's justice.
-Grym
This post IS WHAT THE RIAA is trying to convince you of. Heck, this trombone playing marine probably is a subcontractor of RIAA.
Why sue 15 yr olds & grandmothers & college kids?? ? Why keep going to court with supoenas in the 1000s??? They are hoping you think like this self-titled ranter. They are hoping you think, well $3000 just isn't worth it, I'll go to the store & give those bastards who charged me $22 for a CD for two decades even more money.
They all missed the paradigm shift. Digital content & easily available media is a disruptive technology. The shift has already happened and it already is the future of music, tv, movies. You can't sue people into going back to the old ways anymore than getting people to not use walkmans or personal computers or to google instead of using a phonebook.
Cassette tapes & VCRs came along and threatened everything once before. But, YES you were *eventually* (yes, even legally) allowed to RECORD the radio or RECORD the tv broadcast.. Oh, and replay it. And you could do it at your convenience and even fast forward through commercials. Digital just became too good at quality and portability and along with the internet, too easily reproduceable.
Imagine someone listening to an iPod-like device to some streaming digital broadcast who hears a new song they like & presses 'save'... later that same day, they beam the song to their friend to listen to. How is this such a threat? Compare this to your walkmans. This is exactly what took place in the 70s & 80s and they made millions & millions & millions.
Never forget that RIAA & MPAA & Clear Channel & studios are producing crap and have been for at least a decade. Music is really bad now. Go listen to how good indie music is. Go look at the fact that American Idol produces the new top of the billboards. This is why they are seeing massive losses in revenue. The only solution whether you p2p or not, is to NOT buy RIAA products or spend money at Clear Channel venues or listen to their stations.
You do read NYTimes online? Why shouldn't you be able to surf over to your favorite band's website and pay them $1 to download their new single? Ask yourself why you haven't downloaded an ISO's for a music CD? Ask yourself why video game makers have not supoena'ed anyone yet?
Sounds like a desperate attempt to attack another entity that hasn't been granted a judgment on their demands for peoples names at a drop of a hat.
Sort of like a child, when mom says no, go ask dad.
These people need to go away. they are only shooting themselves in their own foot.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
> Civil disobedience has never invloved property laws however, at least not that I am aware of.
There is a first time for everything. Civil disobedience has involved laws or areas of law for the first time repeatedly, and once it has been applied succesfully there is often little reason to apply it again.
> By your reasoning if a group of individuals, say native americans, were to disagree with laws regarding land title and ownership then they should just go an destroy people's homes and take back the land that they claim should not be 'ownable'?
By copying music you are not destroying anything. Record companies will argue (and if you were going to buy the music if you couldnt copy it, rightfully so) that you deprived them of some proffit.
Civil disobedience also means accepting that you can get punished for it btw, it is as much about pointing out the absurdity of the situation.
If native americans have an issue that has a good chance of broad support in society but were denied other ways to fight the laws to cause those issues, then they could indeed try to take this into their own hand, have a chance to get caught, end up in prison and let society judge the situation.
> Your solution is much more absurd. It is every persons duties to respect the laws that are in place and to work peacfully to change those which they disagree with.
Respect the law? yes, for as long as I have a decent assurance that that law has been created in a fair way.
Violence is definitely a last means to defend such a thing, and peacefull means should be used. Also, the means should be proportional to the goal. Having said that, and on danger of re-invoking Godwins law, the outcome of things like the Neurenburg trials definitely says that you have a responsibility to not just blindly follow the laws of your country, and that in extreme cases it may be a crime to do so. (and fo course copyright is not such an extreme case)
So, respecting the law? yes. Following it in all cases? definitely not. Being critical with regards to the law making process and the outcome of it? A rather healthy idea imho.
For some reason there seems to be a bunch of people on /. who are unfamilar with how p2p's work. I am not going to go into all the details but I will explain how the RIAA might be acurately identifying songs owned by a member on a student's hard drive without actually downloading anything but the shared list.
Just about every P2P uses hashes to uniquely identify files on the network. So if you rip Nirvana's smells like teen spirit from the orginal cd into mp3 and then put it into your share directory for your P2P client it gets a unique hash assigned by your P2P client. Now lets say a friend of yours does the exact same thing but his mp3 will have a different hash than yours because his P2P client creates a unique hash for his rip. Now a third person has no mp3's on thier computer and does not own any original albums but instead leaches music from P2P's. So this third person searches from the P2P client for smell's like teen spirit and gets a huge list of results. Each song in the list represents a separate rip or some modification of a previous rip. Along comes RIAA or an agent for it. They catalog a list of all the known hashes for the song smell's like teen spirit(downloading a portion of each file to verify that is does represent the original copyrighted work) and put it into thier database. Now the RIAA does not need to download the song from your machine but only needs to download the list of songs shared and the hash id's. End result is you are busted if you have a file with a hash of a known pirated song and will be paying the RIAA some money or going to court to explain to a judge why a file on your machine had a hash that had been previously identified as a pirated song. So how evil is the RIAA? Sounds pretty fair to me.
The truth suffers more from convictions than from lies.
>Regarding the legalities, unless there is some agreement that most folks unknowingly consent to, having the RIAA looking through "material" on someone's computer should be illegal whether or not they are engaging in illegal theft of intellectual property......right?
Actually, if your information is visible to the world, and you are running a server to make it visible to the world, it's public; you are sharing it. It isn't private information if you share it with the world. No one is hacking your security to see it. If you password protect the shared directory, it is no longer public.
If you make copyrighted materials available to the public, in this manner, you are violating copyright by giving copies of the work away. Only the copyright holder is allowed to do that.
This is like taking a book, going to kinkos, making a zillion copies of the book, then leaving the copies on the sidewalk in front of your house for anyone who wants one to take one. This is also a copyright violation. The guy walking down the street who sees it and takes one is only guilty of curiosity. If this guy takes his copy to kinkos and does the same thing, he is also guilty of copyright violation.
If one doesn't want the RIAA to look at his files, he shouldn't share them! If he does, he's guilty too.
> I suppose the software bots could simply be looking for material that is left wide open to the Internet which would obviate many of the legal concerns, but why would someone host any significant (especially illegally obtained) collection of software wide open?
Because they are warez/mp3 pirates, or just plain stupid. It's one or the other. In the eyes of the law, ignorance is not a defense. They let people download copies of stuff that they don't have the legal right to distribute. Call it theft, filesharing, piracy, whatever you want, fact is, you aren't allowed to do it. This goes for p2p, ftp, websites, whatever. If you give away copies of what you don't own, or the material isn't public domain, you are guilty of a crime defined by the copyright laws.
The fact that these files aren't solid material, doesn't change the fact that it is illegal distribution.
The RIAA is simply trying to protect it's members from copyright violation. Since the governmen't won't enforce the laws, they have taken civil action, hence the lawsuits. Technically, the FBI could arrest all of these people tomorrow on criminal charges.
l8,
AC
And so all they have to do is replace the bot with a person using the client software. Since the vast majority of stuff on the major file sharing networks is stuff that violates copyrights, this would have a negligible impact on their ability to find violators.
Plus, a simple reward program could be offered to get third parties to turn in violators for them. E.g., turn in someone who is sharing more than 500 songs that violate copyrights of RIAA memebers and you get a free iTMS download.
Why do so many music distribution companies that have no part in creating music believe it is their divine right to have anything that makes them a profit? Too bad their concept of property is that everything must have a profit margin. Too bad parents aren't there to bend them over and spank them for being greedy, stupid, and bastards.
The parent poster might have had other points, but I lost them amidst the self-righteous whining.
====---====
Together, we will drive the rats from the tundra.