Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Targets LAN Filesharing at Universities
segphault writes "The RIAA has sent letters to 40 university presidents in 25 separate states informing them that students are engaging in filesharing on their campuses using the local network. Apparently, the RIAA wants to get universities to use filtering software on their networks to detect student filesharing. The RIAA did not disclose the methodology they used to determine that filesharing is occuring on those local networks, but it probably didn't involve asking permission. The article goes on to predict that the RIAA will eventually try to get the government to require use of anti-filesharing filtering technologies at universities."
1. Emule - This is one of the best we found out there. Hint (Search for server.met on google to update your server list)
2. Bearshare - Nice Gnutella client, lots of good hits
3. Limewire - Another Gnutella client. It even works on the Mac!
4. Shareaza - A beautiful Gnutella client with no spyware.
5. BitTorrent - Perfect for downloading movies, or that latest linux distro
6. KaZaa - Old favorite. Oh yea - Aussie users, you can't download - Yea Right!
7. Azureus - BitTorrent client that works on Mac, Linux, and Windows 8. Morpheus - Wow. They are still around? Wha happened!
9. Gnucleus - Open source Gnutella for you freeloading open source hippies out there - Yea I am talking about you
10. Napster - Ah, just put this one here to see if you are still reading, and I guess for shits and grins too
So there you have it folks. These are slim pickings. Get um while they still work!
I don't remember, maybe it was Einstein who said the definition of insanity was to repeatedly do something and expect a different result. Is the RIAA insane?
It was Ben Franklin. Ironically, I received a Napster advertisement when I went to the above site.
This isn't anything new. The RIAA has been policing campus network traffic. USC's campus DC++ hub was busted by the RIAA after the RIAA came in and convinced the University to allow them access.
All the RIAA has to do is politely ask (more like......we will hold you harmless if we are given access to investigate) and the Universities usually will bow in and allow access to the campus network.
As for stopping campus filesharing, it's pretty hard to stop as long as it stays within the borders. And moreover, with students in such close physical contact, it's fairly easy to set up rogue networks, or even just swap burned DVDs/memory sticks.
... over my cold festering corpse will I filter out filesharing on the LAN.
There are plenty of legitimate LAN filesharing uses, and we use quite a few of them for perfectly legitimate needs (e.g., we share A/V updates/definitions via filesharing technology, etc.)
Yeah, we "could" simply block stuff like OurTunes and crap like that, but then the developers will just switch to doing things like allowing users to use CIFS or AFS shares, which no campus in the world can simply disallow. They're far too prevalent.
In other words: Fighting it is a pointeless gesture, and I won't commit man-hours -- which are already far too overtaxed in Universities -- to being sucked down that particular black hole.
No offense, but how on earth is that "insightful".
The difference between RIAA and car insurance is that car insurance is designed to protect the public interest. The analogy doesn't hold an ounce of weight. Car insurance is a civil responsability of those who own cars to protect other people on the road from bearing the weight of someone else's liability. And with the odds of getting into a car accident, it makes sense.
A RIAA tax does nothing to protect the public interest.
Car insurance does.
The views expressed are mine own and do not express the views of my employer.
Do a bit of research on Common Carrier status, and you'll see why not only schools shouldn't be liable, if they do any filtering beyond simple traffic shaping, it is actually counter to their interests. (That is, it makes them liable because they lose common carrier status)...
I recognize people by their sigs. Is that a bad thing?
Absolutely! The law has no place here.
Whilst the RIAA shouldn't have jurisdiction over what happens on that private network, there is also that minor matter of the illegal sharing of their work.
What if some "Child Protection" group wanted to prevent child porn being shared across a University LAN... Different? "Criminal"? I mean... I think the RIAA are a bunch of corporate whores and felons of the highest order, but I'm not sure why "it's a private LAN, they shouldn't be able to know what goes on on it" has suddenly become an excuse for why it's alright to undertake illegal activities and try to shield them with a AUP, etc, etc. Again, an example... the child porn ring on a secured VPN - does anyone really think that 'it's a VPN that you had no right to know about' is a valid defense?
Major disclaimer: this is all theorising, apropos of the question of any laws being broken in the process of obtaining such information.
Interesting theory: if disclosure of such network information is against the AUP of a university network, would the operator of said network (or the victim of a lawsuit from the RIAA as a result) have grounds to sue the RIAA for 'tortious interference'? Particularly with the ponderings of inducements being paid to 'inform'. (Tortious interference is where a third party knowingly encourages or induces a party to a contract with a second party to break that contract.)
Strangely enough, I will say I thought about the expression when I typed it. I did a makeshift check on google...
- "could not care less" returns about 321,000 Results
- "could care less" returns about 5,480,000 Results
Check the hit count yourself; there really is that big of difference in results. I merely stuck with the most common usage.Disclaimer: For anyone who did happen to think critically about what I said, I will qualify that "couldn't care less" returns about 3,270,000 Results. That was the original cliche phrase, which over time has evolved for whatever reason to omit the "not" part. The real bottom line is that both versions are almost equally used, and the average person could care less which version you pick.
There are many great examples of abuse in the civil courts, but I don't think the McDonalds coffee lawsuit is one of them.
See this.
I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
The issue here is redistribution. I believe that copyright reform is in order, too, but don't try to cast it as a privacy issue when it isn't.
Enforcement of copyright is most certainly a privacy issue. For comparison, let's say you have a thief and an owner of physical goods. The owner can protect himself by simply protecting his own property. Now let's instead say you have two people that wish to swap copyrighted works, and a copyright holder. In order to know whether or not copyright infringement is happening, the copyright holder will need to know what the other two are doing. There have been several suggestions which basicly boil down to "Let me see everything you're doing, so I can be sure you're not infringing copyright", and that would be a gross violation of privacy. Checking out P2P nets for files people have shared publicly isn't a privacy issue though.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings