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."

Comments

How?

[BWJones]

RIAA uses a simple technology called webcrawler to scan IP addresses for copyrighted material, but if a student is not sharing or uploading files, then RIAA cannot view the material on a person's computer.

I would actually be curious as to 1) how this technology works and 2) what the legalities of it are.

From the wording, one would guess that the algorithm goes through IP addresses of files shared on common p2p networks, and based upon that, do they assume you are automatically sharing copyrighted material and thus are subject to search? Or is the algorithm simply correlating those copyright material uploaded to shared databases with an IP address and then assuming the offending computer contains "ill gotten booty"? Or is that ill booten gotty? :-)

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? I suppose that if the RIAA were looking for narrowly defined "signatures" of IP or copyright protected data, they would have to scan the entire contents of hard drives and without a subpoena, I have to wonder if this is legal at all? 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?

Re:How?

[finkployd]

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?

Wrong, you are publishing them for all the world to see. It is no more illegal for the RIAA to look at what you are publicly sharing than it is for you to look at their website.

I don't think the RIAA remotly scanning all the contents of people's harddrives (if they are, I want to know what horrible OS vulnerability is allowing THAT), just the materials they are making available for download.

Finkployd

Re:How?

[bcolflesh]

RIAA uses a simple technology called webcrawler

It's actually just "a webcrawler" - I can't find any actual name or further info - probably just libwww-perl w/mods.

Re:How?

[SpermanHerman]

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

Re:How?

[spellraiser]

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!

Re:How?

[finkployd]

I'm not sure how encryption would change anything. My understand is that the RIAA just has a client like any other on this network and is searching for copyrighted material, not packet sniffing.

Finkployd

Re:How?

[agentZ]

You're getting mixed up here. In the US, the government must have a search warrant if they want to search your personal effects that are not in plain view. The fourth ammendment does not apply to private entities such as the RIAA.

Next, no search authorization is needed for anything on public display (e.g. anything visible outside of your house, things you've published in the newspaper, and IMHO, anything you're publishing on the Internet.)

Re:How?

[mdfst13]

"in order to search my house you have to get a court order"

Not if you invite them in (at least in the US).

Assume you murder someone and set the bloody murder weapon on the coffee table. The police come by and you invite them into the living room to talk. They see the bloody murder weapon in plain sight. They can then take posession of the weapon and later use it as evidence.

If you publish the contents of your hard drive over the internet (e.g. by sharing your files in a P2P network), then they can certainly come by and check them out. They can use that as evidence later. No invasion of privacy at this point, they are just using information that you chose to make publicly available.

Re:How?

[InsaneGeek]

Essentially all they are doing is they've written their own client for Kazaa, etc. Once they find someone running one of these programs they do ask the equivalent "right click, show all files shared by user" question and it then tells them all that they are sharing. Nothing really legally nefarious going on, basically doing what the programs are meant to do. It's not like they are cracking your box and going through the entire system, just whatever you have shared out in the P2P program you are using.

As to your point of having a collection of software/music wide open: how do you think you get to download those songs & programs to begin with? People do leave collections of songs & software completly wide open to the pubilc, that's basically the cornerstone of filesharing. If you aren't sharing then all you are doing is leaching, if everybody's leaching than nobody's downloading at all anymore. Contrary to the "I'm downloading songs from the Internet legally" commercials which make it seem like the download is what get's you. Nobody has been hit for the act of downloading, it's all about the sharing them out.

Re:How?

[Doesn't_Comment_Code]

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.

Re:How?

[SillyNickName4me]

Well, if you want to make this stick, putting up a banner on the kazaa or whatever port explicitly denying anyone workign for or on behalf of the recording industry or law enforcement, together with a somewhat trivial acess protection might just be enough, provided you also share somethign to which you own the copyright, so you can actually claim a DMCA infringement (they circumvented an access control mechanism in order to access copyrighted material without permission)

Just a bit of encryption won't be enough really.

Re:How?

[baudilus]

I don't think the RIAA remotly scanning all the contents of people's harddrives (if they are, I want to know what horrible OS vulnerability is allowing THAT), just the materials they are making available for download.

Do you really have to ask? *ahem*windoze*ahem*

In all seriousness, what they were doing was looking at what people are sharing and based on the filename (and possibly the mp3 tags) they were going after people sharing files that matched certain keywords (i.e. Metallica, etc.)

I seem to remember a case where they sent a cease and desist to a University because someone on their network was sharing some music with 'Usher' in the name. Turns out it was one of their professors whose name actually happened to BE Usher. The RIAA had to send them an apology letter.

What is not known is if they changed that method. Perhaps someone can enlighten us?

Re:How?

[Jaysyn]

Sure, but if he catches you inside you'll probably find out if he believes in the 2nd Amendment or not.

Jaysyn

Re:How?

[Eskarel]

This is only vaguely true. It's true in the sense that evidence obtained by a private entity is not barred from courtroom use(under certain strictures as I recall IANAL, but I believe that if the government or one of the lawyers involved etc ask you to do it it can't be even if you're a private citizen).

However should a private entity do this you are fully within your rights to call up your local branch of law enforcement and charge them with breaking and entering or whatever the equivilant crime is for computers(I knew I just forget). Both of which are felonies. So the RIAA could charge you with IP theft, and even send you to jail, but you could do the same thing.

As has been noted however that this does not apply to things which are within plain sight/the public domain. Which is to say that if they log on to kazaa/bittorrent/etc and find you sharing their stuff they can probably do something about it, especially with the somewhat loose strictures on subpoenas for account information these days.

Re:How?

[dnoyeb]

I don't think the RIAA remotly scanning all the contents of people's harddrives (if they are, I want to know what horrible OS vulnerability is allowing THAT), just the materials they are making available for download.

Uhh yea! You didn't know? There is an organization out of either California or Washington that does this dirty work for the RIAA. So probably the RIAA claims ignorance on how the info is obtained, but certainly this organization is getting it one way or another. Not saying the info is legit, only that the organization has stated their business in the past.

Personally I'd like to know when the RIAA became capable of issuing subpoenas. I thought those were only issued by courts.

Re:How?

[darkfire5252]

In an earlier story about this, someone made an excellent point: If the RIAA is searching the Kazaa networks for people sharing copyrighted materials, then they ARE breaking the law, AFIAK. The Kazaa EULA states: 2. What You Can't Do Under This Licence ... 2.11 Monitor traffic or make search requests in order to accumulate information about individual users; ... 2.14 Collect or store personal data about other users. Unless I am mistaken, Kazaa is the only legal way to access the Kazaa network. That would lead me to believe that unless Kazaa gave RIAA explicit permission to break the liscense, then the RIAA is accessing the private network of Kazaa without permission, and breaking the law. IANAL or anything, so someone please correct me if I am wrong.

Re:How?

[scorpioX]

Kazaa seems to think so too. They sued the RIAA for breach of this clause in the EULA. Don't know how far they got with the suit though.

Re:How?

[harlows_monkeys]

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

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.

Re:How?

[mog007]

While you're right, I find it sad that the whole purpose behind the bill of rights is to protect the citizens of the country, if they RIAA is able to circumvent the fourth amendment because they're not a government body, then it seems strange that they can liberate you of life, liberty, or the persuit of happiness without due process. That's the sixth amendment.

If a government entity violates someone's fourth amendement rights, then fines them, the person can challenge the fine because of the violation of the fourth amendment, if the challenge is held up, then the fine is dropped. That doesn't work with the RIAA because they're immune to the fourth amendment.

Don't turn off sharing!

[TheSpoom]

I've said it before and I'll say it again... Please don't disable sharing on Kazaa or other networks. It degrades the quality of the network and makes you a leech, and many people will simply refuse to let you download from them because you're not sharing anyway. If enough people refuse to share, the network becomes *useless* because nobody is there from which to download. It kills the point of peer to peer file sharing.

If you're looking to be protected from the RIAA, there are other ways to give you a layer of security. Kazaa Lite K++ (download at OldVersion.com, v2.4.3 is likely the one you want) includes an IP Blocker extension built on the PeerGuardian database of blocked (read: RIAA) IPs, so the RIAA under normal circumstances cannot scan you. Admittedly it's not perfect, but it's better than using the spyware-filled, vulnerable official version.

Re:Don't turn off sharing!

[turnstyle]

"If you're looking to be protected from the RIAA, there are other ways to give you a layer of security. Kazaa Lite K++ (download at OldVersion.com, v2.4.3 is likely the one you want) includes an IP Blocker extension built..."

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...

Re:Don't turn off sharing!

[jwthompson2]

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.

Re:Don't turn off sharing!

[Petronius]

Turn off Kazaa, turn on SSH and call your friends.

Re:Don't turn off sharing!

[glassesmonkey]

so the RIAA under normal circumstances cannot scan you. Admittedly it's not perfect

This is just wrong & irresponsible to say something like this. Most of the datamining (to select your IP address as the next lucky winner) is done by subcontractors or other goons of the RIAA. They all know about the IP block list. How hard is it to gather IP addresses from a new IP address?? How hard is it to order a cable modem?? Hypothetically, if enough people used the PG database, they'd HAVE to find a new IP address in order to look for victems.

First of all, the PeerGuardian method is just plain silly IF you are already running a firewall. Why not just import the list of blocked-IP into ZoneAlarm, etc? Why have this code built into KaZaA? Do you have a special eDonkey version with the same functionality? Trust me, your firewall is much more efficient at doing this.

I'd recommend getting a wireless AP & leaving it wide open & hope that's good enough to say you "didn't know"... better yet, fake a MAC address & record the log of that computer "wirelessly using all your bandwidth"... Maybe, if everyone used bittorrent, it would be too much work for them to gather all the torrents (which are time limited) then sit on all the trackers to record all the IP & then all they get from you is one FILE (or CD)... This is still a few $1000 per song though, but they have claimed not to go after the person who d/l's "just a few songs"

Re:Don't turn off sharing!

[deman1985]

The thing is, the vast majority of artists really do welcome it, whether they say it explicitly or not. The RIAA just strongarms or bribes them into using their public image as a means to gain sympathy for the "poor recording industry". If more of the big artists really started endorsing filesharing, what do you think would happen to their contracts? I would bet that the industry tries to keep the p2p supporters pretty hush-hush by threatening to pull their music or even filing lawsuits over breach of contract (seeing as how they're already suing their customers).

Once you've signed with one of the big labels, you've practically signed your soul over to the devil. You no longer control your music, and if you don't put out so much music over a certain period, you either lose your contract or you're fined. Yes, there are a few big artists who have come outright and spoken against filesharing, but on an overall scale, how much of the artist pool do they cover?

Now, you may say that I don't know what I'm talking about because it's different when you're in the position of the artist, but guess what? I'm an alternative rock artist, I fully support P2P filesharing, and in fact I allow people to download entire albums for free off of my website. How do I make my money, then? Performances, and I also do other things than just write music.

Re:Don't turn off sharing!

[netglen]

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?

Re:Don't turn off sharing!

[SillyNickName4me]

> prying eyes of those trying to protect their legal property

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.

What they do have is exclusive distribution rights. Note that those are RIGHTS, not PROPERTY.

Those rights are granted in behalf of the society by the government.
Now, due to cluelessness of politicians, the music and even more so movie industries have been able to hijack copyright law. Don't be surprised if society no longer supports the grantign of those exclusive rights as a result, the RIAA, MPAA and all their friends only have themselves to blame for that due to:
1. hijacking copyright law as mentioned.
2. refusing to deal with the wishes of their customers
3. trying to get rid of fair use.

The balance tipped completely to the side of the movie and recording industries and that needs a correction before they can go around screaming about how people dont comply.

Re:Don't turn off sharing!

[theLOUDroom]

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.

Re:Don't turn off sharing!

[kryonD]

"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.

Re:Don't turn off sharing!

[m.h.2]

As a musician, I strongly dislike the way that the music industry is run and think that anything bad that happens to them is just desserts, however, when it comes down to it, stealing is stealing. The fact that we know that they're ripping us off doesn't give us the right to do the same. Furthermore, if you choose to cross that line and obtain illegal copies of music (or software for that matter), you ought to be smart enough not to advertise that fact by making your illegal wares available to everybody else (including the folks from whom you stole).

Think about this for a second, everybody laughs when they read the newspaper story about the guy who gets pulled over for speeding and ends up with 15 years in prison because he has a trunk full of dope. Sharing illegal music and software is the same thing. So when you get busted by RIAA or the SIIA, why do you expect sympathy rather than laughter?

Now, getting back on topic, the fact that Universities/Corporations are getting dragged into this mess is a serious issue. The real problem here is that the University is being put in a no-win situation. By surrendering the information, they are made to look like bad guys in the eyes of many. Oh, and has anyone considered the expenses that the university will incur because of issues like this? Implementing policies, procedures and technologies to hinder (note that I said "hinder" and not "prevent") illegal file sharing isn't cheap. How about legal costs?

I wonder why the cost of education continues to rise...

I call "BS"

[fair_n_hite_451]

"We want to be fair and reasonable. The intent here is not to make money, nor is the intent to win a lawsuit," Lamy said.

Since when do lawyers file lawsuits they don't intend to win? ..... Oh wait. Never mind...

Virus Solution

[Anonymous Coward]

How soon until someone writes a virus that makes your machine share files? Once a virus like it gets out, any user can deny culpability. Come on virus writers, do some good!

#!/bin/bash

[Lord of Ironhand]

for i in All these comments; do
ln -s "$i" .
done

Re:This is going on and on and ......

[goldspider]

"As the terrorism is stepping up worldwide seems that our freedom is in the line of sight from major companies."

I'm afraid you're confusing "wanting free shit" with "essential liberty". Your rhetoric is as inaccurate as it is tiring.

wow...

[Korgrath]

RIAA could possibly come to campus to speak about file-sharing

I can only imagine the volume of students who would attend such and informative and exciting speech!

Re:As a sucessful musician

[flea69]

Maybe if you didn't charge ridiclous amounts of money for a CD, people wouldn't steal music. CD's cost between 12-20 bucks which is an absolute ripoff, they should be sub 10 bucks...oh but wait then P. Diddy wouldn't be able to buy that new Escalade with the 24K grill and built in "Hide the gun the police are pulling us over!" compartment.

It's the university they're after

[Chief Technovelgist]

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?

Re:It's the university they're after

[MCZapf]

Disclaimer: I'm just an alumnus. I don't speak for the University of Michigan.

The UofM has intelligent people in charge. They haven't blocked file sharing yet (as far as I know) because they believe in running an open, noncrippled network. I don't think they will block anything anytime soon either.

The UofM also believes in the personal responsibility and integrity of its students and staff. For several years now they've required students to agree not to share copyrighted material without permission. (I think it was a click-through deal, I don't quite remember.) So, they won't condone blatent copyright violations.

Re:It's the university they're after

[mrwonton]

I am currently a student at the University of Michigan. I also work for their Engineering Network (not the organization involved in this case).

I think that so far the UofM has handled itself quite well as far as file sharing is concerned. It's true that they have refused to block ports or obtrusive firewalls, and have refused to give up the names of students so far...

Sharing copyrighted material is of course covered in the AUP for the campus network, the main points of which are highlighted when every student registers to use the network.

The current way complaints about file sharing are handled is: 1) for the first offense, student is warned and forwarded the complaint. Student has 24 hours to reply to the University claiming they have stopped their illegal activity. 2) for the second offense, student is temporarily banned from the network for a week and fined $20. 3) third and subsequent requests result in longer bans and larger fines.

Perhaps

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps this is punishment for not signing a deal with Napster and completely firewalling the campus dorms like SOME universities have done to appease the RIAA.

*cough*Penn State*cough*

RIAA exportion tactics, plain and simple.

Re:The submitter said...

[m.koch]

By replying to this post you agree that you're wrong

You are right.

Legal Services

[Daeyin]

I wonder how many will fight these suits in court? All enrolled students as UM get free access to a law office (Student legal services http://studentlegalservices.dsa.umich.edu/) who have helped me successfully sue two slumlords in Ann Arbor (and got helped resolve a work dispute at my non-U job). I know if I were sued by the RIAA (not that they would have any reason to) I would be totally f*%^ed since I've graduated and cannot afford a major legal battle on my crappy IT wages. But, if I had 4 trained lawyers for free, I might consider fighting for a bit of fun!

The real goal

[deman1985]

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. Sure seems to be like these lawsuits haven't really hurt filesharing one bit, aside from scaring away the few people who didn't understand the implications.

If you look at the figure given, a few articles back, that's a significant amount of money that the RIAA is receiving as a result of the settlements-- in the range of a several million, I believe? Is it not so much their goal to boost their CD sales but to make up for it with the settlements from a couple thousand people? Of course, they claim the purpose behind the lawsuits not to be the money, but honestly, what else do they think they are accomplishing?

Since it's obvious P2P is here to stay, maybe this is their way of "adapting". Instead of making money through legitimate business, they've shifted their business model to something of a mobster hierarchy: "pay us not to break your legs"

Re:The real goal

[ThisIsFred]

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.

Re:The real goal

[deman1985]

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.

when I want to

[WormholeFiend]

when I want to do some serious filesharing, I bring a large spindle of CDRs to a LAN party. :P

(note to RIAA: not really. just kidding.)

Re:new approach

[Nugget]

Congratulations. You've just invented Freenet.

When are we going to learn?

[kryonD]

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>

Re:As a sucessful musician

[biffnix]

...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

Is allofmp3.com A Legal Alternative

[jestill]

I've been a subscriber of Emusic.com for a few months now, but I don't like the limit of 90 songs per month. I am also not willing to pay $0.99 per song from iTunes, or even $0.88 a song from Walmart.

I've recently discovered the Russian website www.allofmp3.com that allows downloads from $0.01 per meg of mustic and it appears on the surface to be legit. You can even pay for content using paypay so you don't need to worry about the Russian mafia hijacking your account number. (Just your regular paypal problems).

A recent interview with the content manager makes it appear that this site is legal, and it looks like RIAA has nothinng to say about the site. A search on the RIAA web site for allofmp3.com returns zero hits, and doing some searching for the RIAA view of all0fmp3.com also gives no results.

Have other slashdotters had experience with this site? What is your opinion of its legality?

Re:Is allofmp3.com A Legal Alternative

[hackstraw]

I've done it and its not really worth it. I was drawn to it because it appears to be legal, there were whole albums, and I could pick my encoding. Well, I found that its not significantly different than going the "file sharing" route. I have a number of incomplete tracks (missing a few seconds, they are not incomplete downloads), I got some mislabled tracks, it was (relatively) difficult to download tracks. To download tracks, I got a mail confirming the encoding was complete. I wrote a perl script to parse these mails, and retrieve them with 5 concurrent wgets at a time. Their webserver limits donloads to 5 concurrent downloads at a time. I've also found the system to be really busy and it says to come back later.

Also, I felt really sketchy giving my credit card to a russian, questionably legal, site. And when I hit the "Yes" button to commit my order, my browser (Safari) said that it was about to give insecure data over the line, and asked me if I wanted to continue. I clicked NO, and tried it again with IE just to make sure it was not Safari being anal or somehing. Well, IE did the same thing. The funny part, is that I got billed both times? Aparently, the secure page redirected to an insecure or something, but my order went through (twice).

If the quality was better, I would continue the service. I think the price I paid for what I got is fine by me.

Just a matter of time

[tblease]

It's really too bad that this is becoming more and more frequent. I'm surprised most college campuses haven't taken to blocking most peer-to-peer file sharing apps. The school where I'm at has blocked everything from Kazaa to BitTorrent. Even DCC file transfers over IRC are severely throttled to make file sharing with the outside world a bit tougher (and beyond that the default IRC port 6667 is blocked).

Initially, I was rather discouraged by the university's policies on this issue, but anymore I'm somewhat glad that they've blocked a good deal of the file sharing applications. I'm sure there are people who tunnel out of the university network to use file sharing, which is completely understandable.

I hate the concept of 'censoring' or 'restricting' the Internet, but when it's a matter of personal security -- I suppose I'll let it go for now.

Re:Goverment = Proxy for Big Corps

[abh]

> 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)

no psu students

[Anonymous Coward]

I doubt you will see any Penn State students being sued since Penn State President Spanier worked hand in hand with the RIAA to get the students to subsidize the PSU Napster service from their activity fee. Now, all psu students support the RIAA regardless if they listen to music or not.

FERPA

[BJZQ8]

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.

Re:The submitter said...

[glassesmonkey]

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.

Re:You can't own Data.

[SillyNickName4me]

> 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?

Reinvent the Industry

[gregoryb]

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.

Go RIAA!

[asv108]

I hope the RIAA steps up the subpoenas against file sharing users at universities and elsewhere. While a few people may suffer the injustice of an RIAA settlement in the long term, there could be quite a few benefits.

• P2P Developers start moving towards anonymous encrypted file sharing networks.
• The Legality of the RIAA methods could be struck down.
• Federal and State governments could get fed up with the RIAA attacks and actually do something about it. (unlikely)

Since the original suits last year, we have seen a slight move towards security in file sharing networks with smaller specific projects but the larger players leave users prone to the same harvesting attacks that the RIAA used last year. Really, nothing is going to change until Shaman networks makes Kazaa an anonymous system. From what I have seen, the RIAA has subpoenaed Kazaa users exclusively. That doesn't mean other networks like Gnutella are not harder spider.

One of the easiest ways around the technique the RIAA is using, is to disable the browse host feature in your file sharing app. This doesn't prevent them from suing a file sharing user but it does make it a little bit harder for the RIAA to get a laundry list of all the files a user is sharing. They could only find songs that match specific queries.

Read it closer

[Ogive17]

The link you provided states: "FERPA gives parents certain rights with respect to their children's education records" I do not think a student's internet usage falls into this category. "However, FERPA allows schools to disclose those records, without consent, to the following parties or under the following conditions (34 CFR 99.31): To comply with a judicial order or lawfully issued subpoena;"

Re:Read it closer

[BJZQ8]

I have read it and have had conversations with our lawyers about it. The RIAA calling us up and saying "Let us have a gander at your logs!" is not a valid judicial order or lawfully issued subpoena. Logs of computer usage are legally similar to attendance records, which fully meet the definition of "education records" and cannot be lightly handed over. The University is caving much too easily.

Re:Read it closer

[Galvatron]

Not anymore. They used to do that, but after losing a court case, they are now filing lawsuits agains "John Doe" defendants, and getting actual subpoenas.

Similar story at Indiana University

[Pr0Hak]

The Indiana Daily Student is also reporting that Indiana students' names have also been subpoenaed.

The article also mentions that the university has recently revised its' policy for dealing with copyright infringement complaints. Students are required to take delete offending material and 'filesharing quiz' or face losing network access.

The article metions that these subpoenas have gone out to 21 universities.

What about the DMCA?

[Grym]

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

Re:What about the DMCA?

[SiliconEntity]

What about the DMCA? Doesn't it make reverse engineering a patented process illegal?

No, you're wrong three ways. First, the DMCA says nothing about patents. Second, the DMCA criminalizes defeating measures that protect copyrights, which file sharing networks do not do. Third, and most surprising, the DMCA has an exemption for reverse engineering! That's right, the DMCA's treatment of reverse engineering is exactly the opposite of what most people think. It specifically says that defeating a copyright protection measure is legal if it is part of a reverse engineering effort aimed at creating a compatible product.

But that part's not even relevant here since KaZaa's technology cannot be reasonably construed as a copyright protection measure.

DHCP????

[THESuperShawn]

How can they prove this? Most Cable companies, and some DSL providers (using PPPOE) assign addresses dynamically. My cable modem IP changes every three days. Who's to say the IP address 'sued' was used by 'whom' and 'when'? I highly doubt they are keeping year old DHCP logs with MAC addresses (which can be chaged as well) around. I mean, if 20 people had access to the same murder weapon, and there are no fingerprints, you can't just pick one person and call them 'guilty'. How can they sue a dynamically assigned address?

Re:DHCP????

[Anonymous Coward]

Because the University of Michigan typically uses year long DHCP leases that are associated to your MAC address. This happens when you register your computer to get ethernet access in the residence halls, after you sign the IT environment usage policy document, which by the way states that although they don't have a technical barrier to any network protocol, you are not allowed to do anything that breaks the law while on their network.

From: http://rescomp.umich.edu/Residential.Ethernet/NetG uide/Registration/Conditions.of.Use.php

I understand that the security of my computer system is my responsibility, and that I am responsible for all activity originating from my computer system, including but not limited to: a) traffic generated by viruses; b) the sharing of music or other media files; and c) other users who have gained access to my computer.

you make their case for them..

[glassesmonkey]

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?

Cant get ISP users, so lets try schools

[nurb432]

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.

I completely reject that this is illegal

[Simonetta]

First let me state that I completely reject the idea that giant media corporations own music. They don't make it, they don't compensate the people who do make it, and culture is not something that owned by a corporation anyway.

I will conceed their 'right' to an exclusive sales agreement on pre-pressed media for the recordings of 'artists' that sign contracts with their corporation, but only for a period of ten years. Downloads remain no one's 'property'. After the traditional period of seventeen years, the recording becomes public domain for anyone's use and reuse, commercial or private.

But I don't the ability to legally enforce my position.

I suggest that people prepare themselves for the hard and painfull process of removing their cultural consciousness from the global media corporation product. It's painfull because they infect every part of our cultural consciousness from the time that we are born.

I suggest studying music and filmmaking. And then getting inexpensive equipment such as musical instruments and camcorders and making your own personal audio-visual product. The instruments could be MIDI music synthesizers which desperately need new and exciting ways to create sounds and music through creative programming. The whole MIDI scene is stuck in a deep rut. There hasn't been a new programming idea in this field in ten years. The synthesizers cost one tenth of what they did ten years ago and it is possible to get powerful equipment for less than $100US.

The more that you get away from global media corporate product, the more that you begin to find topics like literary crititism, plotting, and writing revelant and important. Study in these subjects is completely wasted on people saturated in global media corporate product and should be dropped from school requirements. No more need for Cliff Notes and Anthology of English Lit books (at $150 a pop). Stupid and worthless.

Please do not concern yourself about the ethical and moral issues of copywrite legalities. There are none. The global media corporations STOLE the public domain by bribing the American legislators to pass laws extending copywrite to infinity minus a day.

No civilized person has any need to respect these copywrite laws. And you should pay attention to them only to the extent that you keep yourself from being imprisoned by them.

Anything that you do to undermine or superceed the copywrite laws is morally and ethically valid. Remember, these people stole the public domain. They have no right to call ANYONE thieves, nor do they have a right to claim any cultural content as their property.

Thank you,
Simonetta

Re:Sharing

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, unless the 'network' is FedEx/UPS/USPS etc., by 'lending' it over a network, you have made a _copy_ of it.

"If I buy a book from the store, and I want to go watch TV, and my friend wants to borrow the book, but I don't want to give the actual book to him, so I photocopy each page and give him that."

Takes longer, more resources, etc. But effectively the same.

Unless you have permissions from the _copyright holder_ (Read carefully - 'Holder of the right to copy'), you have infringed upon the holder's copyright.

That, currently, is illegal.

Morality notwithstanding.

trm

Penn State & Napster

[KimJ721]

As a Penn Stater, I noted that our student newspaper opined today that the trustees are spending WAY too much time congratulating themselves over the deal with Napster. File sharing may be important (or may not be), but universities are starting to focus on it above other concerns. The RIAA targeting college students through their institutions only helps to give these universities something to focus on other than their real problems.

RIAA apologies

[dbc001]

I think if there was an RIAA apology letter out there someone would probably publish it. From what I understand, in this type of situation they just drop the lawsuit - I doubt that there is any apology involved. Can anyone else comment on this?

On a side note, this is the same thing that Blizzard/Vivendi did to Bnetd - after they fucked everyone, then they just drop the lawsuit. No apology, plaintiffs still have to pay for lawyers up to that point. It's called the "Chilling Effect". The fact that they dropped the lawsuit is irrelevant, because the damage was already done.

Re:RIAA apologies

[flosofl]

Yes, they actually did apologize:

CNET.NEWS.COM:RIAA Apology

Univ. of Michigan not only one

[ionpro]

The Vanderbilt Hustler reports that nine "notifications of intent to subpoena" were submitted there, as well.

Re:You can't own Data.

[SillyNickName4me]

> 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.

Be careful of the source

[GPez]

As a University of Michigan student, I always read these articles with a bit of skepticism. The Daily isn't exactly a reputable journal of opinion. After all, they still believe that academic integrity is a problem.

How? Fairly and justly.

[old-lady-whispering-]

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.

People are still downloading music

[poofyhairguy82]

Every decent downloader with a fat pipe got everything they wanted illegal music-wise back in the napster days. Come on people! Its 2004! Get opensource programs faster, download independent movies, get dj mixes streamed from the best clubs in the world. Cheap Porn for cring out loud! Or my new favorite- old Playstation games that I bought back in the day but they got eaten by my PS1 before I could finish them! With modern emulators they look better that some PS2 games. I can finally see the ending to Final Fantasy 9. All great stuff- Get all your music and get out. Your connection is better spent in other ways.

Switch some key terms, and:

[lysium]

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.

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.

====---====