Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

RIAA To Subpoena Univ. of Michigan Names

Posted by timothy on from the when-privacy-and-copyright-beams-cross dept.

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."

42 of 503 comments (clear)

  1. How? by BWJones · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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?

    --
    Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
    1. Re:How? by finkployd · · Score: 5, Informative

      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

    2. Re:How? by bcolflesh · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    3. Re:How? by agentZ · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.)

    4. Re:How? by mdfst13 · · Score: 3, Informative

      "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.

    5. Re:How? by InsaneGeek · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    6. Re:How? by Doesn't_Comment_Code · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.
    7. Re:How? by baudilus · · Score: 5, Interesting
      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?
    8. Re:How? by Eskarel · · Score: 4, Informative
      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.

  2. Don't turn off sharing! by TheSpoom · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    --
    It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
    - E. Debs
    1. Re:Don't turn off sharing! by turnstyle · · Score: 4, Insightful
      "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...

      --
      Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda
    2. Re:Don't turn off sharing! by jwthompson2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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
    3. Re:Don't turn off sharing! by glassesmonkey · · Score: 3, Informative

      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"

    4. Re:Don't turn off sharing! by deman1985 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

      --
      KappaStone :: Constant Innovation
    5. Re:Don't turn off sharing! by SillyNickName4me · · Score: 4, Informative

      > 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.

    6. Re:Don't turn off sharing! by theLOUDroom · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.
  3. I call "BS" by fair_n_hite_451 · · Score: 4, Funny

    "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...

    --
    Reason why there is hope for the future generation #364:
    "I wish my grass was emo so it could cut itself."
  4. Virus Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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!

  5. #!/bin/bash by Lord+of+Ironhand · · Score: 4, Funny

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

  6. Re:This is going on and on and ...... by goldspider · · Score: 3, Insightful
    "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.

    --
    "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
  7. wow... by Korgrath · · Score: 3, Funny

    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!

    --
    Theory of flight?! I'll teach you the theory of fist!!
  8. It's the university they're after by Chief+Technovelgist · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:It's the university they're after by mrwonton · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

      --
      Not more than you need, just more than you want
  9. Re:The submitter said... by m.koch · · Score: 5, Funny
    By replying to this post you agree that you're wrong

    You are right.

  10. Legal Services by Daeyin · · Score: 5, Informative

    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!

  11. The real goal by deman1985 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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"

    --
    KappaStone :: Constant Innovation
  12. when I want to by WormholeFiend · · Score: 3, Funny

    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.)

  13. Re:new approach by Nugget · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Congratulations. You've just invented Freenet.

  14. When are we going to learn? by kryonD · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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
  15. Is allofmp3.com A Legal Alternative by jestill · · Score: 3, Informative
    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?

    --
    "Asleep at the switch? I wasn't asleep, I was drunk!" -- Homer
    1. Re:Is allofmp3.com A Legal Alternative by hackstraw · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

  16. Just a matter of time by tblease · · Score: 3, Interesting
    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.

    --
    huzzah
  17. FERPA by BJZQ8 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  18. Re:The submitter said... by glassesmonkey · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  19. Reinvent the Industry by gregoryb · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  20. What about the DMCA? by Grym · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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

  21. you make their case for them.. by glassesmonkey · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

  22. Cant get ISP users, so lets try schools by nurb432 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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 ----
  23. I completely reject that this is illegal by Simonetta · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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

  24. RIAA apologies by dbc001 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:RIAA apologies by flosofl · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yes, they actually did apologize:

      CNET.NEWS.COM:RIAA Apology

      --
      "This calls for a very special blend of psychology and extreme violence" - Vyvyan "The Young Ones"
  25. Re:DHCP???? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.