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."

Comments

Download while you still can

[IntelliAdmin]

Well it has been almost 6 years since Napster made its way into our lives? 6 Years Really? Lets look around and see what file sharing programs are left after the music and movie biz nuked the crap out of most of them.

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!

Re:Download while you still can

[topical_surfactant]

Don't forget MUTE

MUTE functions in such a way that it is excessively difficult to tell what user is sharing which files, but is still possible to get reasonably fast downloads.

The MUTE project: http://mute-net.sourceforge.net/

Re:Download while you still can

[paulius_g]

I think that FrostWire deserves a mention aswell.

Essentially, it's a open source Limewire client which connects to Gnutella. It looks like the "pro" version of Limewire, so it's easy to use but it's free and open source.

Also, uTorrentdeserves a mention to be wicked-small and fast Torrent client for Windows. It only takes 155 KB of space!

Re:Download while you still can

[ECELonghorn]

Correcty me if I'm wrong, but providing a link to a bitTorrent client doesn't really have anything to do with the article. Or the summary. Or the Headline. FTFS - 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.

I am a student at one of the Universities that had our local DC++ file sharing hubs shut down. The hub was up 24-7, sharing roughly 20TB of pretty much everything. Students loved it because you could get almost any file that was available on BitTorrents with up to 1.5Mbps transfer speeds, and almost always at least 300Kbps. On BitTorrents, similar first release movies on public trackers often peaked at about 30Kbps download speeds. Now students still download the movies, using BitTorrent, it's just much slower because they can't utilize the LAN. As far as "download while you still can," these is no reason universities are going to stop BitTorrent downloads. Additionally, I don't think the RIAA even thinks it is significantly curbing piracy by shuting down LAN networks, it just knows the student have to go out into the more public file sharing arena, and RIAA at least theoretically has the ability to catch them then.

Re:Download while you still can

[l3prador]

You mean you downloaded her?

Re:Download while you still can

[audacity242]

There have been rumours for many years of women who read slashdot. And I have come to tell you the truth, yes, in fact, we do exist.

And, yeah, the ex-boyfriend reads slashdot. So yeah, those rumours about male slashdot readers having girlfriends? Also occasionally true.

Re:Download while you still can

[scotch]

Boo hoo, slashdot is not some homogenous group of people who think just like you do.

Re:Download while you still can

[Schemat1c]

Correcty me if I'm wrong, but providing a link to a bitTorrent client doesn't really have anything to do with the article.

Okay I'll correcty you, it's called irony and it does have to do with the article. It illustrates the futility of the ongoing efforts of the RIAA to shut down file sharing by showing that options have actually increased which is the opposite of their intended results.

Lighten up a bit and laugh, trust me it will feel good.

Re:Download while you still can

[Ex-MislTech]

LAN oriented simple VPN that could be shared between known friends .

http://www.hamachi.cc/

Very simple, works well, even clear across the world network neighborhood works
if you tweak your firewall and port forwarding requirements if using NAT .

Ex-MislTech

Re:Download while you still can

[smidget2k4]

At a lot of uni's (mine included) they throttle BT for the sole reason that BT was taking up 50-60% of their total traffic for a while, so they throttle it down to make sure that it doesn't affect other uses. The Uni I go to has told me that they don't care less about what you download so long as the RIAA/MPAA/Microsoft doesn't come a-knockin' (some Microsoft fellas were watching a BT tracker and sent nice notices to two of my friends for downloading some MS Game, the Uni just said "don't do it again").

Re:Download while you still can

[Anonymous Coward]

The days of just being able to 'throttle' (Otherwise known as QoS or Quality of Service) based on port numbers is over. Almost any Cisco router (Even the older 2500 series) with the latest IOS can map QoS shaping (Throttling) to traffic signatures using a feature called NBAR (Network Based Application Recognition) then you can police traffic based on the signature of the payload (i.e. bittorrent, and many other P2P software) and set it down to 64Kbps (or lower) regardless of the port it is running on. Firewalls and routers are too smart now to play the 'I'll just use another port" game. I have set this up on MANY networks over the past 6 months. Hate to be the one to give bad news!!

How do they know

[phorm]

but it probably didn't involve asking permission

Despite the implications of this statement, what it probably really involves is paying off a student or two to sniff out and inform on filesharing activity, either by running RIAA apps or just manual searching. It wouldn't be the first time they've used this method.

Re:How do they know

[darkmeridian]

That's probably unauthorized use of the University's information systems. Running a third-party application meant to spy on students? Accessing the system with the intent of providing sensitive information on other network members to third-parties? The Universities should demand proof via IP packets, the source of that proof via the student-spy, and then expel the student for misuse of the computer systems. Repeat as necessary.

Re:How do they know

[SeaFox]

Despite the implications of this statement, what it probably really involves is paying off a student or two to sniff out and inform on filesharing activity, either by running RIAA apps or just manual searching.

I think you're giving them too much credit. That sounds like something that would involve too much work for the RIAA. I imagine they just assumed the sharing is going on and are waiting for the univeristies to prove them wrong.

Re:How do they know

[StingRay02]

C'mon, now, let's face facts. There are really only three possible ways they decided who to send their threats to.

1. They took a list of all the universities in the country and, using a complicated algorithm and selection process, chose every tenth one from it.

2. They said screw the algorithm and just took the first forty names. I didn't RTFA, but it wouldn't surprise me if all the school's names started with A.

3. They chucked darts at a map.

My money's on number 3.

Enforcement?

[MadUndergrad]

Really, what are they going to do to enforce this? It's not as if they have a way to snoop on lan traffic, and if they did it would be illegal. I know that for one, my university has a "don't know, don't want to know" attitude about filesharing, so long as you keep the traffic below about 1.5GB per day. I really don't think they have the muscle to do anything about lan sharing.

Seems Reasonable To Me

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

And it's really no big secret if you just ask either. Having just finished school, probably almost all of the filesharing is in copyrighted material which they have no right to "share". Therefore it is illegal and should be stopped. It was disgusting to me how much people were trading movies, games, and music which didn't belong.

The schools probably will realize they could be liable if they don't try to put a stop it or slow it down. I like how the article and slashdot makes no mention of the copyrighted nature of the material, as if everybody is just sharing Linux distributions. At least be honest about this, guys.

Re:Seems Reasonable To Me

[raoul666]

You don't get it. The whole damned point is that it shouldn't be illegal. That the law itself is immoral. Your reactions are themselves disturbing to me.

You think copyright law is immoral? Do you mean the current laws on the books, or the idea itself that people can own the rights to copy things they produce? If it's the first, I (and most here) would agree; if it's the second, you need to do a reality check. You honestly think that if I produce something, through honest means and hard work, you should be able to copy and sell it without my permission? That attitude is damn disturbing to me.

Please note that I don't believe the current system is good. Copyright lasts far too long, has become monopolized by companies like the RIAA, and definately needs an overhaul. But I believe someone who creates something should have their work protected to some degree. If I write a novel, why should anyone with a printing press be able to turn out copies unless I allow them?

Re:Seems Reasonable To Me

[theLOUDroom]

If it's the first, I (and most here) would agree; if it's the second, you need to do a reality check.

Maybe you need to chill.

Just because things are the way they are today, doesn't mean they have to be. Works of art were produced before copyright and they would continue to be produced afterwards.

People seem to have this crazy idea that no books would get written if copyright were to suddenly disappear. It's just not true.

Maybe you'd have less ghost-written autobiographies, but things like Newton's Principia Mathematica were not written to make a quick buck.

Think a little bit more, there is a real issue here, especially ethically. Copyright restricts what consenting parties do behind closed doors. Free societies should try to aviod such restrictions in all but the most extreme cases.

Then there's even an arguable benefit to society because, even if there were less books written, you would be able to afford to own more of them.

I'm not saying this viewpoint is the only correct one, but thinking that someone is a nutcase for not liking a law that hasn't existed for most of human civilization and has many points against it is what's really going off the deep end. Everyone who does not agree with you is not crazy.

Re:Seems Reasonable To Me

[hunterx11]

Think a little bit more, there is a real issue here, especially ethically. Copyright restricts what consenting parties do behind closed doors. Free societies should try to aviod such restrictions in all but the most extreme cases.

Nobody cares about you making copies of something you already own for personal use or private exhibition. In fact, that's probably already covered by fair use. 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.

Re:Seems Reasonable To Me

[KevinIsOwn]

Because it's somewhat difficult to write more novels if you cannot afford a new pencil and paper, since you haven't made any money due to everybody else stealing your work and profiting off of it themselves.

Re:Seems Reasonable To Me

[arkhan_jg]

Copyright law hasn't existed for much of human history. If I write a novel, why should anyone with a printing press be able to turn out copies unless I allow them? - why shouldn't they? After all, they own the printing press. Copyrighted works are supposed to eventually end up in the public domain, which is where the inspiration for much new work comes from. Human culture - stories, histories, myths and art, in all their many forms - is a shared process. The artist needs the audience as much as the audience needs him. We tell ghost stories round the fire, we discuss our opinions around the watercooler, we listen, watch and read other people's stories. They enrich us. The same with scientific ideas, they are largely small increments built on the progress of those before.

Before copyright, art and written works were created, but it was expensive to make and copy, so the wealthy paid for artists to go round doing their thing, recognising the value of culture. This attitude still survives today, with corporate and foundation grants and government subsidies. Copyright was a way to increase the amount of works produced, by giving the creator a cut of the reproduction money long after the printing press was invented. It was supposed to be a trade, you get to be sole source of your work for a time, so we have more products in the public domain as a result. This was never meant to be a new form of property right, so that wealthy companies could lock up culture in digital prisons, and never release it to the public domain from which its inspiration came.

Yes, artists should be paid something - but to produce new material. The idea that culture can be parceled up into someone or some companies exclusive property, that it can restricted for hundreds of years, that artists get to make one big hit and they and their families get to live on royalty paychecks for ever-more - that's wrong. I don't get paid repeatedly for the work I've already done, why should an artist have a special right? My work is an expression of my skill and knowledge, but I only get paid the once for doing it. Why shouldn't artists? Why should my free speech in sharing what I know, what I've heard, be restricted for someone elses profit? Why shouldn't I have my fair use ability to make my own copies for my own use? At the very least, content creators should have a choice between DRM and copyright, if you use DRM, you also lose copyright protection. DRM'd works will never enter the public domain.

Now, I recognise that copyright is one way to increase the amount of culture and art, when it works (which is another question, now we have DRM). There are others, such as recurring opt-in flat fees to join broadcast streams and collections (online or in the RF spectrum) - e.g. TV licence fees or an addition to your ISPs bill. We can ask that music artists get most of their money from concerts, touring and generally performance work, rather than a tiny percent getting big bucks from exclusive CD contracts. Hell, nobody says that people can't still be a copy-provider of their own works, iTunes and bottled water shows people will pay for convenience and perceived quality.

About the only thing from copyright law I agree with is the moral rights, specifically the ability to be exclusively known as the creator of a work. Passing someone elses ideas off as your own, should still be prevented. Other than that? I see a legal fiction, a government created artificial monopoly that those who've got theirs are trying to codify into a permanent exclusive ownership on our culture that was never intended.

Re:Seems Reasonable To Me

[Kjella]

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.

I have my own network

[Virtual Karma]

I have more than one computer on my home network and I share music between all of them. Are they going to get me too? What is the law regarding file sharing on a private network? What if my girl friend copies my music from my laptop? Is that piracy?

Re:I have my own network

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, your girlfriend funds terrorism

What's next...mandated sniffing?

[Ritz_Just_Ritz]

So are the universities (and all networks, by extension) supposed to sniff every packet and look for "copyrighted material" so it can take whatever action the industry think is "appropriate"?

Perhaps every car should also have a sensor to detect speeding and automatically cut the gas?

Fuck the music industry. Their ever more desperate measures only mean they are painfully aware of how irrelevant they are about to become.

what next is the RIAA going to do

[has2k1]

It looks like they will soon send messages to parents informing them that their kids are engaging in filesharing amongst themselves at their homes using the home network.

who defined insanity

[yagu]

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?

This is cutting their (RIAA/Entertainment industry) future profits off at the source on a number of levels.

1. The university demographic is probably one of the least likely to be their cash cows, i.e., many, if not most students aren't living fat and happy on exorbitant budgets (I know, some are). They don't have tons of money to fill the RIAA and cohort's coffers.
2. Throwing the college campus dragnet may result in catching file-sharing but it sets the tone for how these students perceive the industry for the rest of their lives, and it's going to be adversarial in this light.
3. In addition to poisoning their future audience, the RIAA misses a great opportunity to expose students to a wealth of music. Sure they're going to share, sure it's technically illegal, but they're going to graduate with some illegal tunes, and likely an appetite to get more music, and with real jobs and real money, most would pay fair prices.

Also, it is so problematic to try and institute filtering in an academic arena. There are probably any number of legitimate ways and reasons to see file sharing on a college campus that would not be legal outside. This will force universities to layer artificial distribution mechanisms they otherwise could have handled with firewall policies. (All this at an added expense to universities, and eventually to the cost of an education.)

So, once again the music industry goes to the "we don't know for sure, but to be safe we're going to assume you're a crook" mentality. The RIAA needs to listen to clue.mp3.

Re:who defined insanity

[DrEldarion]

The university demographic is probably one of the least likely to be their cash cows, i.e., many, if not most students aren't living fat and happy on exorbitant budgets (I know, some are). They don't have tons of money to fill the RIAA and cohort's coffers.

IIRC (don't have sources, but I remember it from somewhere...), college-age people are historically the second highest spending group on music, only after early to mid/late teens. They may not have a lot of money, but they also don't have a lot of responsibilities for what money they do have. Music is one of their top purchasing priorities.

Re:who defined insanity

[theJML]

The university demographic is probably one of the least likely to be their cash cows, i.e., many, if not most students aren't living fat and happy on exorbitant budgets (I know, some are). They don't have tons of money to fill the RIAA and cohort's coffers.

I agree with all of what you say, however, I'd have to say that if anything the RIAA is shooting themselves in the foot even more in this crowd due to one overlook in the statement you made above. Kids in Universities (I know, I was there once) may not have tons of money, but a higher percentage of what they do have is disposible. They have student loans, they have parents assistance, they have federal grants, etc... and they have lots of free time and not as much forsight as some like to believe... Not to say they're stupid, they're spending habbits are just different. Go to an average college campus and check out the kids in the dorms for instance, they have more CDs, Game Systems, Up to date PCs, and are probably the single largest demographic for purcahsing many genre's CDs. All the people I knew in college had lan parties, got the latest CDs, watched movies all the time when not at class, etc... By sueing these people they're taking the money right out of their own mouth.
They're also one of the most technologically impresionable group out there. If it's cool and high tech they'll go for it, however the RIAA seem to want to punish them for that because they don't know how to use it to their own potential.

Off that topic, but part of the main article, I've noticed people saying that we should just not buy CDs to boycott the RIAA. Sounds like a good plan except when you notice that CD sales are down according to the RIAA and they don't blame it on themselves or crappy CDs, they blame it on piracy. So the more we boycott, the more it shows they're right. Maybe they should go back to school...

And just for the record, I've been sharing files since 8" disks. I guess it was harder to sniff those, maybe I should go back to them... or atleast USB Drives. This may be the perfect time for a group of students to put up some WAPs and start sharing over that instead.

sure, sure

[digitalsushi]

That won't work very well.

If I can get onto the same network as 10 of my buddies, chances are very high that they have stuff I want to steal.

There's no way you're going to lock down to layer 7 filtering (looking at the program data itself, very intensive to comute) at a layer 2 scope (your local IP subnet, or close enough). So you either block SMB ports (file sharing altogether, the lifeblood of a computer network with actual users), or pay $$$ to filter it, poorly.

Rumor has it that if I have my laptop at the library, and so do some other people, that we can magically create a network between us that has no juristiction by the University. Or maybe they *do*, but they have no idea about it.

Any way it gets sliced up, the dollars can't keep up with the ways to get around it.

Re:sure, sure

[Large Green Mallard]

Three words: private vlan edge.

It's a Cisco config option that says client stations can't speak to each other except via a router. Firewall rules in the router to only allow access to a proxy server, mail server and dns server, problem solved.

Then you'd need to leech via wireless, or physically co-located systems plugged into a seperate hub/switch, but at which point it isn't the University's problem, which is what the RIAA is looking at.

Disclaimer: I'm an IT Security Manager for a University. Not one of the ones the RIAA has talked to (we're not in the US). The only way I'd consider those sort of restrictions on residentials networking is due to force-majeure in the form of a competant legal body or management direction. Residential networks are what contributes today to the collegiate atmosphere in on-campus living. These sort of restrictions impact that far too much for my liking.

The RIAA should just cut to the chase

[miskatonic alumnus]

and demand that Congress pass a law requiring every person with a social security number to purchase 5 DRM loaded cd's per month, and staple their receipts on form 1040 come April 15th. After all, the government requires us to support the insurance companies by purchasing auto insurance. Why not entertainment too? I mean, EVERYBODY is guilty of pirating music anyway, right?

When last i heard from the majority of congressmen

[plasmacutter]

When interviewed, the majority of congressmen said point blank that person to person "dormroom" sharing of music was fair use and in no way objectionable.

Further, the DMCA's notice and takedown only applies to the internet, not local area networks.

Any university complying with these bs "complaints" has to have the stupidest administration ever, and any claims made by the RIAA are now utterly specious.

What next.. "illegal sharing through car radios"? .. "in the news today the RIAA demanded that automakers comply with new requirements to prevent passers by and non-drivers from "illeagally hearing" music from car stereos which "by law" is only entitled to the owner/operator of the vehicle alone."

And next...

[Transcendent]

The RIAA will be going after Microsoft for allowing people to share files on their computer over a "network neighborhood". After which, hard drive manufactures will be sent letters informing them that their products are used in the distribution of copyrighted material and must include anti-file sharing technologies. Tesla will be woken from the grave and bitch-smacked for his accomplishments in electro-magnetism, and finally they will sue God for giving humans ears in which they can listen to stolen songs.

Wow, that slope was slippery...

WASTE

[FLaSh SWT]

Am I wrong to think that a program like WASTE (http://waste.sourceforge.net) is the easy fix if they started sniffing the local traffic?

admissable in court?

[a_greer2005]

How can any LAN data be admissible in court? There are two ways that the RIAA can get the data:
1: gain unauthotized access to the network: a crime
or
2: pay off students, who are not experts, or potentialy worse, students with know-how and malis to collect the data, so how can they prove that the data is valid, and not tamperd with?

Any lawyers in the house? Care to give it a shot?

Re:admissable in court?

[thepotoo]

you don't undersand their tacitcs. It's all about fear. They are trying to scare you into thinking that if you pirate music, you'll get caught.

This happend to me..

[Ichigo Kurosaki]

About two weeks ago the direct connect hub at the university of texas was shut down due to outside pressure from the **aa. Our ITS department already imposed strict bandwidth restrictions on amount of bandwidth used (4gb-12gb a week with more bandwidth costing more money). We used the hub to share files (primarily new tv shows) so everyone could get what they wanted without runnign out of bandwidth. Before the letters, ITS looked the other way because the hub accually saved them money on bandwidth. The owner of the hub had his internet revoked and was orderd to shut down the hub a facebook group and serve 40 hours of community service in exchange for not turning his name over to the copyright holders for prosecution.

First Gonzales, now the RIAA

[Gary Destruction]

Gonzales wants to track users on the Internet for the sake of "fighting porn". This in of itself is scary because it's not difficult to imagine the potential for abuse. Now the RIAA wants to monitor college networks for "file sharing". This could easily be manipulated to filter out certain ideas and beliefs as a means to suppress freedom of speech. It could also be used to target students for their beliefs.

The RIAA..?

[wingman358]

First of all, why is the RIAA monitoring colleges' LANs? Is that even legal? Secondly, I fileshare on my LAN all the time. The sharing of my clients' orders and bills is necessary to the survival of my business. Don't flame me for asking this because I honestly don't know the answer: does the RIAA have any authority or legal right to be monitoring students and their actions on private college's LANs? Where does the Recording Industry Association of America get off thinking that they have any authority over the sharing on local networks?

Re:The RIAA..?

[Randall311]

This all depends on if the students are sharing inside the school LAN privately like the i2hub did, or if students are hooked up to the outside world sharing illegal files via bittorrent and gnutella protocols. I'm willing to bet that it's the latter I have grown sick and tired of the RIAA coming after everything and everyone they feel are hurting their precious bottom line. They are alienating future cursomers with their scare tactics. I could give a shit if they have a legitimate argument or not, I am so sick of them beating this dead horse to a pulp. When the hell are these MFers going to learn to adapt to the times. If you can't beat 'em join 'em. I like Microsoft more then I like the RIAA.

Does anybody remember when the MPAA was bitching and moaning about VCRs back in the day? Ohhhh nooo peple aren't going to buy movies any more. Guess what, people still buy movies because they're superior format and quality. The RIAA should be imbracing file sharing instead of trying to squash it. If they had brain one over there then they would be trying to spin this to their advantage. Good business adapt to survive. Bad ones try to muscle everyone into doing what they want, and die trying.

From a college student at an effected University

[ECELonghorn]

Most of the time when I read the modded up comments below the summaries, someone has already said everything worth saying... but for this paticular article it seems like even a lot of the the +5 comments are, well, crap.

I am a student at the University of Texas. One week ago our DC++ hub was shut down. This was unexpected and unprecedented. A few months earlier the school news paper even interviewed people with ITS who basically said they could care less about the hub. After the university received some type of a cease and desist letter, our school's ITS contacted the primary HUB admin, and long story short within less than 24 hours the hub had to shut down forever. Amoung other obscure sidenotes, they even ordered that the facebook group "Direct Connect Users Group" be deleted. My friends at Texas A&M have told me their hub is down right now too, similar story.

Both our colleges had hubs constantly sharing about 20TB of data, 24-7, with net download speeds of 1.5Mbps. Every TV show was on our hub within 4 hrs of airing. Adobe Acrobat 7 and Office 2007 were both readily avaialable before I could, not that I ever would of course, download them from private bittorrent trackers. The files were never corrupted, there was no risk of getting caught, and everything mainstream you could ever want was on the hub.

One huge appeal of the hub also was it's simplicity of use. 5GB share minimum was pretty much the only barrier to entry. I know friends who downloaded from DC++ who never heard of BitTorrents in their life, and for that matter, have asked me for help reinstalling windows. It was so simple and easy to use to the average non-geek that now that it has gone down people ask me what to do and give me blank looks.

So in response to every post about other alternatives to file sharing or otherwise really miss the significance of this, I think it is quite a significant win for RIAA.

Re:When last i heard from the majority of congress

[Jerf]

When interviewed, the majority of congressmen said point blank that person to person "dormroom" sharing of music was fair use and in no way objectionable.

Sounds interesting. Link?

Who Will Pay?

[CodeBuster]

If the RIAA wants the university to filter their network to protect their copyrights and their bottom line then they should pay the university for all of the network equipment, bandwidth, employee/consultant hours, and any other expenses necessary to conduct the filtering. The mission of any university is to provide higher education and policing the student body so that a private industry organization, which is entirely external to the mission of the university, will not suffer from potential loss of profits is NOT the responsibility of the university. The question is not whether file sharing is legal, but rather to what extent the university can be compelled to shoulder the cost of protecting the intellectual property of someone else, especially in the expensive and escalating arms race between the RIAA and the file sharers. If the university makes a good faith effort to inform students in their acceptable use policy what is and is not acceptable use and complies with reasonable and specific subpoenas (subject to reasonable charges for research, copies, and other legal expenses that any other civil plaintiff would have to pay) the I would say that they (the university) have satisfied their obligation under the law. If the RIAA et al wants more extensive monitoring then they can shell out the $100,000+ for extra servers and network monitoring gear along with the consultants to operate it all and the university employees' time (billed at least $100 per hour for interruption of normal university related duties). They cannot compel us to pay to protect THEIR property, only the government has the power to tax. Anyway, no other private business gets anywhere near the cooperation from law enforcement at the expense of the tax paying public and still they complain. The FBI should be traking down the identity thieves, terrorists, serial killers, and other really nasty criminals...not wasting their time busting copyright infringers on behalf of the entertainment industry. The RIAA should get off our campuses and they should take their craptastic "music" with them.

Re:From a college student at an effected Universit

[ECELonghorn]

Stay in school kid. The phrase is "could not care less" not "could care less." If you were in school learning something you would have the critical thinking skills to not sound so stupid.

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. ;-)

Re:Your legislators say they do.

[ArsenneLupin]

but declaring that said laws don't apply to software makers looking for illegal or unauthorized activity.

Ok. I am a software maker (author of a couple of open source programs). And I occasionally like hacking (sorry, cracking), especially where I can prove that Windows security is lacking... So, if caught, I'll just claim my hacks were just probes to check whether there wasn't any kiddie porn on those company networks that I "tested". After all, as a software maker, it's my RIAA-given right to probe third parties for unauthorized activity!

If one thing needs to be shut down

[Opportunist]

it's the RIAA. A dinosaur whose right to exist has expired.

In my capitalism books, what is obsolete has to vanish to the market can concentrate on material that is valuable. Now, capitalism has been turned upside down. Obsolete companies and market structures are kept artificially alive with laws.

Roll back about 100 years, when the automobile came into existance and hackney coaches became obsolete. Remember the laws that look so stupid today? The "man waving a red flag that has to walk in front of automobiles" and similar rubbish? Same shit.

What did it serve? It was annoying then, and it's something we can only shake our heads at today. Who'd come up with a STUPID law like that?

Well, now you have it all over again. Instead of traffic laws, now it's copyright laws that come up with harebrained ideas to protect a business that is essentially dead.