Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Admits ISPs Have Misidentified "John Does"
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The RIAA has sent out a letter to the ISPs telling them to stop making mistakes in identifying subscribers, and offering a 'Pre-Doe settlement option' — with a discount of '$1000 or more' — to their subscribers, if and only if the ISP agrees to preserve its logs for 180 days. Other interesting points in the letter (PDF): the RIAA will be launching a web site for 'early settlements,' www.p2plawsuits.com; the letter asks the ISPs to notify the RIAA if they have previously 'misidentified a subscriber account in response to a subpoena' or become aware of 'technical information... that causes you to question the information that you provided in response to our clients' subpoena'; it notes that ISPs have identified 'John Does' who were not even subscribers of the ISP at the time of the infringement; and it requests that ISPs furnish their underlying log files, not just names and addresses, when responding to RIAA subpoenas."
...the more star systems will slip through your fingers.
It's a justified analogy to what the RIAA is doing, but I welcome the work they spend trying to button up music "piracy." For one thing, the costs of the RIAA are pushed onto the consumer -- leading to higher prices of the music they're trying to protect, giving consumers more reason to work with alternative distribution mechanisms. This will also hopefully lead to more anonymous forms of file sharing, or even file-piece sharing, where you're only hosting a tiny portion of a specific songfile. At what point would a "pirate" not really be guilty of much if they're only sharing a small portion of a particular songfile, say 0.01%?
ISPs are being financially harmed, too, because they're going to have to keep these logs, and also keep them consistent. DHCP makes things more difficult since it increases the amount of tracking they have to do. What all will they track? Port usage, IP address, data transfer totals and rates, etc? As the ISPs have to spend more for legal aid and log data stores, their costs will go up. I can see a market for third party services off-shore that allow you to transfer all of your data through their proxies for a given price -- especially as bandwidth prices fall as bandwidth becomes a commodity.
Consider this: most of us demand fast (low latency) response to websites we browse. We need less response time for some use -- e-mail, file sharing, software patches. The RIAA is powerful in the US, and its power is growing internationally, but it is impossible for a cartel to control everything -- we even see that in the energy market as alternative forms of energy are a barrier to the oil cartel increasing their costs beyond a certain price point. All the RIAA can do is make their overhead so expensive that artists find reason to pick alternative distribution mechanisms.
I'm noticing that medium-level artists are finding more ways to produce an income without the sale of recorded music. I received an e-mail about David Martin, an artist I never heard of, offering a free T-shirt if you pre-buy his album. That's value added incentive to buy HIS album, rather than bootleg it. Good idea. His downloadable music is right from his site, a great way to get music without worrying about the RIAA. What will the RIAA do when their legal costs outweigh their collections, which then creates a high overhead for their artists in the form of lowered commissions?
Are these "early settlements" financially profitable for the RIAA? Lawyers aren't cheap, and settlement lawyers even less so. Even if you agree to a settlement, they still need collections agents to process the payment and make sure it is done in full.
This form of cartelization can't last forever, not with the Internet changing faster than the law can control. I'm surprised the RICO act doesn't cover an industry where 90% of published music is controlled by one cartel. The law fails us in both cases, as the law always does. If you're in a band that isn't in the top 1% of music sales (the long tail is appropriate here), do you find that you make most of your music from ticket sales, beer sales percentage, and T-shirt/sticker/button sales? Why would you need the RIAA?
When will artists start appearing with logos imprinted on their merchandise that says "0% of the proceeds of this CD/t-shirt/sticker goes to the RIAA cartel"? If you're in a band, maybe that time is now. Maybe it is time for small to medium artists to be the ones to inform the customers that there is NO reason to buy a CD or a download from a distributor affiliated with the RIAA?
I can't wait for the day when the RIAA goes back to what they started doing -- making sure that music sounds good across all playback systems through equalization and consistent sound modification.
Why don't the American people storm their buildings with pitchforks?
okinawa japan
So the RIAA argument of "well, your ISP says you downloaded 100 movies, we don't care if you don't have access to or own a computer, or perhaps even died a few years ago, you did it and our records are infallible" maybe won't fly anymore?
If you agree that the RIAA is correct in its lawsuits (which is an if on the order of magnitude If you believe the earth is flat), then this makes sense. I think we can all assume that the RIAA believes that it is correct in its lawsuits, which means it should persue means to make the law suits more effective. This is just a another means to do so. Really, it helps consumers in that the RIAA is less likely to sue innocent people, and only sue those people who are actually violating the law. I don't condone the activities of the RIAA, nor it methods in general for reaching its goals, but at least this one is based on making its lawsuits more accurate, and its willing to pay to do so, rather than just going back to courts and attempting to get contempt charges against the ISPs, which it may be able to do. That said, there will be fewer instances of the RIAA suing grandmothers for filesharing that people can use to illustrate the futility of the overall RIAA campaign.
http://bgcommonsense.blogspot.com
If you go out of your way to make it easier to harass your customers, we'll be happy to give you a little something extra... Wonder if we can get a list of ISP's that are volunteering to comply with this.
"It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." -Albert Einstein
Sue customers
Blame ISP's for suing wrong customer and try to make them do your job
?????
PROFIT!!!!
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Is there a service that I can subscribe to that aliases my IP_address? Preferably one outside of the US, that has a reputation for not keeping logs. I wouldn't mind paying for storage hosting and SSH access either.
Thank you for visiting our new p2p lawsuit settlement site.
By reading this text you acknowledge your interest which implicates your guilt.
Your ISP has been notified of your crimes - expect a bill.
Love,
RIAA
When you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras
IANAL, but isn't this "pre-lawsuit settlement opportunity" plain-old extortion? "We know you did something illegal. Pay now and we won't bring it to light."
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
I get a kick out of the fact that www.p2plawsuits.com currently points to a GoDaddy placeholder page filled with ads for P2P software and instructions for streaming satellite signals to your computer.
When you have nothing left to burn you must set yourself on fire
So when do these start?
Geesh..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
...John Doesn't is still SOL.
So who's going to coordinate the DoS attack on their band new website first? Beuller?... Beuller?...
Ars Technica has some really in-depth coverage on the letter.
Nothing like having the *AA park their domain on godaddy, complete with such relevant ads as "Gnutella P2p: Download free MP3 music" or "eDonkey Free Downloads: Unlimited music, movies and games. 15 billion files". Also listed are ads for "American Legal Funding: pre-settlement advance, pay only if you win" and "Illegal Downloading: Experienced, aggressive criminal attourney in Texas"
On top of that, two separate ads for "The Beacon Review" and "The Download Guide", which were amusing to compare side-by-side.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
I'm certainly no lawyer and I don't know for a fact that this idea could work, particularly since I'm not sure what the terms of settlement may be but...
Why doesn't each and every person who has settled their case with RIAA counter-sue, providing this letter as evidence that they have been co-erced into their agreement with evidence that has now proven by RIAAs own admission to be suspect. Sue for damage to reputation, hardship caused by the settlement etc. Sue individually, not as a class action. Even if the cases weren't won, I'd imagine the number would keep the RIAA legal team tied in a knot for some time. Use the same frivolous tactic back against them.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Isn't that some kind of breach of privacy for all the other users listed in the log files?
On the flip side, I'm waiting to see one of the spambot systems start churning out e-mails that copy the text of the "Dear Customer" letter at the end of the RIAA's missive... wouldn't it be funny if all the spam filters became trained to mark such mail as spam? (read the actual letter here)
$nice = $webHosting + $domainNames + $sslCerts
Why don't the American people storm their buildings with pitchforks?
Have you ever tried stabbing a vampire with a pitchfork? it doesn't work!
Wizard Needs Food, Badly
Can you sue for libel?
I was wondering why old grandmas where getting sued for sharing music... Why didn't they do this in the first place?
WulframII - Free Online Mutiplayer 3D Tank Shooting Game
The RIAA is now offering a pre-settlement discount of 100% for customers of ISPs who agree not to keep DHCP logs beyond the current leases.
Giving the RIAA a real presence on the internet beyond their press release regurgitating main site will give everyone the world over a big red bullseye on which to lock their sights.
I can't wait to hear about the hilarious exploits of various hackers having their way with those servers.
FIRST LETTER TO ISP's
Dear Sir or Madam:
It has come to the RIAA's attention that our requests for subscriber information has not been........ blah blah blah.
Please correct this matter at once.
Best regards,
RIAA Legal Hack
SECOND LETTER TO ISP's
Dear Sir or Madam:
It has come to our attention that our requests for subscriber information has not been corrected... blah blah blah...
Be prepared for further strongly worded documents sent via Next Day Delivery!
Best regards,
RIAA Legal Hack.
Wash. Rinse. Repeat.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
Extortion. Plain and simple.
A government with laws written by the businesses for the businesses.
The laws that support this don't help us at all, yet we support the government that makes the laws. I don't see a way out of this. You're not going to be able to coordinate the masses to do anything about this. This is the result of corporations pursuing the maximum return to its shareholders under our current legal constructs.
We're screwed from both ends.
Networks, as we know, are designed to work around the problems. New technologies and equipment will very soon make it possible to establish citywide dark mesh networks such that your packets of a torrent will be shared among hundreds or thousands of IP addresses across multiple ISP's. Now run those packets through an anonymizer like Tor and things get more difficult for the *AA by orders of magnitude.
Even if the ISPs were required to keep logs, the logs will show nothing. This is the exact opposite of what the *AA and governments actually want. It is possible to make it incredibly difficult for them to track who does what. The FBI will find it even more difficult to find purveyors of child pornography. Don't think that I support child pornographers, but I certainly won't sacrifice my rights to privacy in order to catch them, or rather make catching them possibly easier for the police.
With all the post 9/11 rhetoric, I'm certain that any would be terrorists are already encrypting their communications. Its really not difficult to do. There are tons of ways currently to hide or encrypt data communications that make it impossible for the FBI/governments to efficiently make sense of it. That means that the ONLY reason for tracking and logging is to control honest citizenry. George, you were right.
The *AA can log all they want to, and try to sue anyone they want. In the same fashion that DRM is worked around, darknets will appear and ruin all the lawyer's fun. They are fighting a losing battle on all fronts. Eventually they will either capitulate and sell it cheaper and without DRM, or they will go out of business because more artists start selling their art without using the *AA.
What we have to ask ourselves is WHY do we continue to elect politicians that support this type of active spying on the citizenry?
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
See the post ahead of yours.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
IANAL, but if an ISP "cooperates" with the RIAA as they suggest, doesn't the ISP become an agent of the RIAA? As an agent, wouldn't the ISP be liable in any lawsuits initiated by the defendant. It's one thing for the ISP to answer a subpoena or supply the RIAA with information that the courts have ruled they legally can request. It's another thing to help the RIAA with enforcement.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
See, here's the thing. The RIAA is filing affidavits and suits based on the information they get from the ISP's. And the information that the ISP's have is fallable.
Contrary to the RIAA's apparent claim, it is NOT a legal requirement for ISP's to collect information to which they can swear on a stack of bibles is true to track all customer activity. Even if the RIAA subpoenas them. They are obligated to provide what information they have. It's the RIAA that's turning around and swearing before a court of law that what they have is true, without verifying it.
Basically, the RIAA has discovered it's overstated the evidence that they have before them, and have potentially committed perjury or at least violated procedural rules. So now they want to say it's all the ISP's fault, apparently for not collecting information they're not obligated to collect, and which RIAA has used in court as "proof" without knowing what it entails.
I don't buy their music. I don't download their music. I hope to educate my daughter to do the same (I know what a challenge that will be, with her friends pushing the 'drug' the RIAA creates, peer pressure, etc.).
Bottom line, I am not a consumer of RIAA music, so I don't care. Eventually they will die off, and we'll all relegate this to a footnote in history.
and then make all of their products free. so everyone enjoys free unfettered access to music. and if every once in awhile you get sued, you just have to pay your share plus the share of 100,000 other people. oh well. i'll call it "music distribution by reverse lottery"
the riaa knows it will get paid, and every once in awhile, some random joe you hardly know becomes bankrupt and homeless. if it's you, well the rest of will try to remember you fondly for providing a copy of "meet the fokkers". just stop trying to squeegee my car windows please. and take a bath
sure you laugh, but i'm going to the riaa right now with my master plan, and since it actually makes more sense then what the riaa is doing now, you'll just have to gnash your teeth at me as i throw a nickel out the window at you in your cardboard box on the curb from my big black ri-fu-aa provided limosine with nellie furtado and christina aguilera. sorry
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
This is nothing more than an attempted end-run around the courts. Having proven that they are willing to go to court in a few thousand cases (out of a few million, and rising, number of filesharers), the RIAA wants to dispense with the courts altogether. Before they couldn't get their message to you that they knew who you were, and were gonna get you if you didn't fork over thousands of $$$s first, without a court subpoena. And a few million [Who is] John Doe lawsuits weren't going to fly there. Now they claim their victims are crying out for this solution, and it is a "favor" for the ISP's to offer it. And oh, if you RTFLetter, they don't want the ISP help desk employees directing any of these victims to other web-sites any longer. Sites that might tell them what their actual rights truly are, or where lawyers can be found. That's verboten.
So this becomes a quick, cheap route to shake out those willing to settle at the first whiff of danger, and a great time and money saving opportunity for the RIAA. Anybody think that this won't just increase the number of threats they make? Like to maybe everybody Media Sentry and their still questionably secret methods can point a finger at (and we know which finger they're pointing). The record companies are certainly trying to find a way to collect their due from everyone in the entire country who they believe has infringed their copyrights, under their own expansive and untested definition of what constitutes infringement!
All this on the same day a report has come out saying that filesharing, at least back in the 2002 timeframe when the record industry claimed they were being "devastated" by P2P users, say that the effect of P2P filesharing was "statistically insignificant" in causing the drop in CD sales.
So where do I find ISP's who don't keep logs?
But what really pisses me off about this is the continual recording industry refrain of: "We doing it for the (starving) artists." What I hear is that the record companies are trying to reduce the royalty payments from digital sales -- sales that occur at virtually no cost at all to the record companies themselves -- to the artists themselves.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Now let's look at it another way, and say I'm in a related business. Let's make me a writer, musician, or other professional independent artist, self-publishing my own work out of my basement for burger money. I'm slightly suspicious that all of you people are illegally trading my copyrighted work, and depriving me of my burgers. I want to investigate this. Can I have the underlying logs from all of your ISPs as well, or is the shitload of money a requirement?
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
A black list of ISP's that actively sell out to the MPAA/RIAA companies would be effective. I'd certainly glance at that list before committing to an ISP in my area. In fact, I'd change my provider in a heartbeat if it ended up on that list. Money talks.
George W. Bush: "Yes, I'm sure, there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq! I swear!"
:-/
The RIAA: "Yes, we're sure, these are the people stealing our intellectual property!"
(time passes...)
George W. Bush: "Oops, sorry. It wasn't my fault! I didn't know the reports were wrong!"
The RIAA: "Oops, sorry. It wasn't our fault! The ISPs were wrong in identifying people!"
In inverse order from your post.
I can't wait for the day when the RIAA goes back to what they started doing
You will be waiting forever then.
When will artists start
1. Is a starving artist is going to bite pretty much the only hand that has the potential (note phrase carefully) of feeding them? The economics of being an independent artist are depressing.
2. There are bands doing this. I have a feeling you want the music to show up at Walmart/Worst Buy. RIAA members control retail outside of a handful of indie stores. No, they won't tollerate someone cutting into their business.
This form of cartelization can't last forever
Yes, it has and it does. Music distribution is simply one of many cartels who have been prosecuted many times over in the U.S. to no effect.
Are these "early settlements" financially profitable for the RIAA?
Yes. They've got a fleet of full-time lawyers who have probably turned this into a cookie-cutter operation with low paid admins doing most of the work. Strike fear into the consumer's heart and demand the highest price possible for their goods. Sounds like standard operating procedure for any business to me.
This issue's been around for years now and there's no coordinated political reply to any of it. No call to action, just moral outrage. I hope you feel better because it's only going to get worse unless _you_ do something about it.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
I wonder how long before they have to change the phone numbers and emails listed in that letter?
Have any of you actually PERSONALLY know someone who has been sued as a result of downloading music/movies? I sure dont, and no one I have ever met either in real life, or on-line has. To be honest, the scope of these RIAA actions seems to be over-hyped and overblown, unjust as they may be...
Absolutely (and on all accounts). More than one person can be guilty of a single crime, whether that crime is murder, theft of a single object, or even copyright infringement of a single object. Do not think that being only 0.01% responsible for a crime will mean that you will be only 0.01% responsible for the penalty associated with that crime. It's not how our justice system works. Of course, IANAL.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
I don't agree with your logic here at all. Making suits more expensive makes you be more selective about whom you pursue. This makes them very much less expensive because they are now -- or will be under this -- able to send you settlement demands directly without having to file in court. They can't lose on these, be awarded court costs when they do lose, or worry about setting any legal precedents. I feel this makes them more likely to pursue alleged filesharers, not less likely. Also, nothing in here says anything about making the process more accurate in identification. Every log in the world doesn't say who was sitting at the computer, or coming in over an unsecured wireless connection.
In fact, I feel the reason they want the complete logs is a Trojan Horse. If you say you never uploaded any data, except to their Media Sentry lapdog, and they come in with logs showing gigabytes of uploads along the way, you'll now have to defend on a new front of just what your other activities are -- which may be completely legal and none of the RIAA's, or public court's business. All the same, you may find yourself in hot water for running a completely legal Tor server, or anything else that utilizes all the unlimited bandwidth you thought you purchased. It's bad all around.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
After all, this is what top of the range direct mail houses do to ensure that their clients do not send the same letter to the same household under two different names, or that the new Porsche brochure is addressed to the father and not the 15-year-old son, so an equal standard should obviously apply to cases where a lawsuit might be involved. They could reasonably argue that a judge in a court does not have access to the necessary technical skills to make a proper judgement on correct identification, so it would be improper to release data that could not be fairly assessed by a court.
Assuming one dollar per record, the ISPs could be entirely funded by the "music industry" in short order.
Pining for the fjords
This is a civil, not criminal, matter. You're not innocent until proven guilty. The standard is the presumption of guilt. And they presume a lot.
If she had somehow hidden her act (which was impossible of course), then her act would have had little impact. Civil disobedience does not mean breaking the law without being caught. It entails breaking the law to bring about change. "Pirating" music is about breaking the law in order to save yourself some change. Two very different things. Please, don't demean Rosa Parks by the comparison.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
ISPs should remain neutral and not identify anyone to private parties or organizations demanding information without a valid court order. After all, YOU PAY the ISP for an account - the least they can do is avoid double dipping, especially with those vultures from RIAA.
Having been employed at an ISP a few years ago, there are a few typical reasons that a "John Doe" gets misfingered:
1.) The time is off on the RAS, radius server, or other networking gear during the timeframe the RIAA asks records to be preserved for.
2.) The admin is having a bad day and messes up the time zone shift from RIAA's request to UTC or whatever time zone the records are kept in.
3.) (Rarely anymore...) The request from RIAA fails to indicate an IP or time or some other piece of information to clearly identify what account / user was responsible is being targeted.
Requests from the MPAA, FBI, and local law enforcement can be even worse. Many were still giving timeframes of HOURS, when you could point to 10-30 or more possible infringers.
Anyway, this sort of recordkeeping is trivial for any ISP - just plunk the accounting information in a database and (depending on the size of the ISP) you know who had what IP address where up to a year ago with a simple query in a matter of seconds.
Before this post becomes flamebait, let me just say that the best course of action I found was to simply relay the notice to the customer if that's what the requester wanted, as the ISP itself has no quarrel with RIAA or the customer. ISPs simply provide a series of tubes - what comes out of your straw is your own business.
Oh yeah, and ISPs don't like getting sued. So they follow the law.
But misidentification happens rarely. Good admins do their best because they know what's at stake for a customer.
I was skeptical until I actually saw it with my own eyes. What kind of genius works for them and pulls a bonehead move like that? Switch your nameservers and set up your own placeholder you lazy bastards. I wonder if the idea of pre-lawsuit settlement violates a GoDaddy TOS...
Registrant:
RIAA
14 8th Street NE
Washington, District of Columbia 20002
United States
Registered through: GoDaddy.com, Inc. (http://www.godaddy.com)
Domain Name: P2PLAWSUITS.COM
Created on: 23-Jan-07
Expires on: 23-Jan-10
Last Updated on:
Administrative Contact:
Lamy, Jonathan lkennedy@riaa.com
RIAA
14 8th Street NE
Washington, District of Columbia 20005
United States
(202) 775-0101
Technical Contact:
Lamy, Jonathan lkennedy@riaa.com
RIAA
14 8th Street NE
Washington, District of Columbia 20005
United States
(202) 775-0101
Domain servers in listed order:
PARK9.SECURESERVER.NET
PARK10.SECURESERVER.NET
Who'd have thought it?
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
What you suggest is both unreasonable and illegal. They may act like assholes, but there's absolutely no reason to stoop to that level and become an asshole yourself. If you really want to voice your displeasure, why not talk things out with them and explain why you disagree with them and what they're doing? It's not like it's impossible to contact them, I mean, if you read the letter:
National Coordinating Counsel for the Litigation
Ms. Katheryn Coggon
Holme Roberts & Owen LLP
katheryn.coggon@hro.com
Phone: (303) 866-0408
Note: The letter was from Steve Marks, also with this law firm. These are the people the ISPs are being instructed to deal with.
Record Company Representative
info@SettlementInformationLine.com
http://www.p2plawsuits.com/
Phone: (913) 234-8181
Fax: (913) 234-8182
Note: The website is a GoDaddy parked domain without any content just yet. These are the people the folks getting sued are supposed to contact.
Just remember to be civil; it's not like you'll convince someone they're wrong by acting like an asshole, and you'd probably get in well-deserved trouble. However, if you politely make it clear to them just how many people think what they're doing is wrong, they just might reconsider their actions.
You and the moderators who blessed this rant are part of the problem.
We all have the tools to stop this. I can think of two right now: voting and legislation;
Go ahead, get involved in politics if you are so angry. We have a system. Learn it and use it. Other small groups have done so to great effect. Prohibition is one example. No gun-toting rants necessary. Not one.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
Hmmm. Spam, spam, spam, SPAMMITY-SPAM!
ISPs simply provide a series of tubes - what comes out of your straw is your own business.
The internet is a sort of truck you can just dump stuff on, not a series of tubes.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Dear victim My name is Prince Umlecki and if you Pay me $1000 usd to www.p2plawsuitsolved.com then i will pray to god that that the riaa won't sue you.
Regards Prince Umlecki the third of Nigeria
If the RIAA is pushing forward with criminal cases, shouldn't they be brought forward by the local district attorneys?
If the RIAA is pushing forward with civil suits, what gives them the legal right to subpoena information from other entities?
There's already been cases that have thrown out ISP responsibility for copyright infringement cases, so they don't have that *handle* to hold onto with ISPs anymore.
I'd say, make the RIAA file charges with a REAL law enforcement agency and wait for trial.
If they choose to make civil cases, make them come up with the identities on their own - they should not have the right to force ISPs to hand over any information whatsoever.
Why do they think they have a right in (and seem to have gotten away with) asking for this information so far?
Who is general failure, and why is he reading my hard drive?
They went without the tea.
They sure as hell didn't take the tea home without paying for it.
Surely given that the RIAA have now admitted that mistaken identities are common enough to warrant such an announcement, half of their cases are going to fall apart.
Biomech
So do I get extra civil disobedience points if I ride in the front of the bus, dressed up as an Indian, and downloading illegal tunes?
This is about people believing that they should be able to illegally download shitty music. It isn't about economic survival or basic human rights. Illegally downloading music isn't 'civil disobedience', and just because you don't like their business model doesn't make you some kind of hero.
The RIAA is offering up the ability for you to go to a website.. pay a "pre-settlement" and then not be libel if they get around to suing you. Is that it?
Wait... Does this mean I'm clear of future lawsuits?
How about they just be more up front and sell a $250 "Get out of lawsuit free" card. Then you buy that, download all you want, if/when they sue you, you hand them the card, and it's done? Or is that too close to the "we know you're a criminal" iPod tax?
We could have drive thru courts!
I'm a fiscal conservative, it's a pity we don't have a political party anymore
Also,if the RIAA wants ISPs to retain log files, they should have to PAY for the disk and tape storage to cover this retention. Depending on the size of the ISP, this could be terabytes of data to keep.
Who is general failure, and why is he reading my hard drive?
They're already unveiling a website? It seems as if to the RIAA, these lawsuits are becoming not just a tool to scare their clients into submission, but rather a business model in and of itself. A "$1000 discount?" being offered to clients of certain ISPs?! What's next, 2-for-1 specials? How long are we going to sit quietly, while the RIAA unrolls a new wave of ecommerce - information superhighway robbery...
The RIAA should be forced to retain permanent logs of every song, cd, cassette, music dvd purchase so that when the defective by design media is damaged and or destroyed, they can provide a FREE replacement of the music we purchased.
Who is general failure, and why is he reading my hard drive?
The hallmark of civil disobedience is willingness to accept the consequences of breaking the law as part of making your point. After all, if you escape punishment at any level then there is no need to change the law. The Boston Tea Party was not civil disobedience - it was outright protest. There's a difference, and one way to look at it is this: the Boston Tea Party injured the government's revenues to tell the government that the taxes were unjust. Rosa Parks did not injure anyone's interests but her own.
The last concert I went to I saw Thursday...After the show the lead singer -encouraged- fans to download their music. Why? The question is...are you going to spend $12-20 on CD that you may or may not like? I know I'm not...If I download the music and hear them and like their music I will buy their merchandise (shirts) or see them in concert when I have time (which gives them more of a profit anyway).
When will the music industry realize this is beyond me. For now I will still pirate my music...
Bite my shiny metal ass.
Look at how much trouble a loosely-organized rag-tag group of people willing to die for their agenda can cause an organized military machine orders of magnitudes more powerful than them.
Do you really not understand me? First, the comment was a play on words. I assume you caught that. Secondly, I'm referring back to my earlier statement that (unlike the Boston Tea Party), I do not believe that people are downloading music primarily to make a political statement or to motivate social change. They're doing it to get free music. Whether or not you think that's right, it ain't the Boston Tea Party and it certainly isn't Rosa Parks.
Obviously, the "implication that if it's possible to pay money for something one is ethically obligated to do so" is absurd. That's why I made no such implication or anything halfway close to it. No more than you're implying that if it's possible to violate copyright law one is ethically obligated to do so.
If you really didn't understand me, I have no idea why. How could I have made my point any clearer? (Of course, I'm assuming that you understand me now, and no, understanding!=agreeing.)
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Actually, it could be in the public interest that ISPs accidentally misidentify customers when the **AA asks for information.
It allows people to see the **AA for what they really are. They represent corporations and not the interest of the individual artists. I have never heard of any artist being paid extra revenue as a result of money recovered from these prosecutions.
If some online music store allows independents to promote their products without any **AA partner taking the lion's share of the revenue, it would be to the benefit to the whole world. I would much rather buy a track knowing that at least half of that money is going to the real artist. Right now, they perhaps get less than 3% if they are lucky after all the deductions they get charged (WTF with restocking fees and breakages with an internet download?)
Make music cheap enough that it becomes economically impractical to 'pirate' them and the whole piracy thing would die out. To do this and give a much better livelihood to the artist requires that the middle man be cut out.
-- The universe began. Life started on a billion worlds...
-- Except on one where stupidity was there first.
and requests the user information from ISP's on everyone who has ever spoken out against them on Slashdot.
I won't disagree with your comments on civil disobedience, as I don't want to get on Thoreau's bad side. However, I do think that one has to believe that what they're doing is fundamentally right for it to be civil disobedience. My opinion (and of course there's no way to back this up) is that most people who break copyright laws do not think it's the right thing to do. They just think it's not that bad. It's no big deal, etc. I imagine it's hard to keep a straight face and claim that it's the right thing to do.
Are copyright laws broken? Absolutely. However, I don't know how anyone can think a two-year rule is unreasonable. (By that I mean at least two-years. I've set it below where I think it makes sense.) I suspect that most downloaded music violates even that simple two-year "rule". Should people be able to copy music they've bought to other devices for their own listening, or even for playing at parties, etc.? Sure. Again, that's not what I think we're talking about here. I hear these excuses trotted out, but I suspect they're just that. Excuses.
You mention that people misconstrue civil disobedience to mean that it has to involve getting arrested or cited. Well, I think people also misconstrue civil disobedience to mean doing the wrong thing because I feel like it and I don't think I'll get caught. That's what it sounds like to my ears, anyways.
Again, I'm not defending the RIAA. I'm just defending Rosa Parks, the Boston Tea Party, and I'm trying to defend civil disobedience (perhaps imperfectly).
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
So of course out of curiosity I check out http://www.p2plawsuits.com/ and I'm graced with advertisements for e-Donkey and "The top 6 P2P Network Sites"
Seems like the RIAA needs to sue themselves for promoting illegal P2P music downloads.
The claimant must prove their case to a preponderance of evidence. The defendant doesn't have to prove innocence to a preponderance of evidence. They merely have to pick holes in the evidence of wrongdoing.
So still "innocent" except there is no "guilty" possible. But then what do you call it? "Not innocent"? Hmm. How about "guilty"?
Oh...
*cough*
The RIAA doesn't track what you download. They don't even track what you upload. They use MediaSentry to find IP addresses which are allegedly making copyrighted material available for download.
So, in theory, you're safe as long as you don't make available for distribution copyrighted material. Download allllll you want....just NEVER upload. Don't even make it POSSIBLE for you to upload. Even if no one downloads from you, their argument is that you made the material available, and that is infringement, even if no one downloaded the file from you.
:(){
Exactly, and as the expression of our disagreements become more "civilized" our tolerance grows. It's one thing to suffer through a lawsuit and quite another to lose a limb.
Reminds me of the Star Trek episode A Taste of Armageddon where the war between two planets has been going on for centuries as it's all computerized. Only once Kirk defies their orders to get vaporized and the *real* bombings are to ensue do they return to the negotiating table.
OK, I'm a geek...
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
It's not as improbable as one might think.
- "History shows again and again how nature points out the folly of men" -- Blue Oyster Cult, 'Godzilla'
Come.. pay us now.. why wait to see what we can do to you later.
-GiH
But, from your own guesses, what fraction of "illegal" downloads do you think that accounts for? Also, do you think these acts are beneficial towards changing the laws? If the goal is to change the laws, could time be better spent towards that goal? (Not asking you to convince me, just asking for your opinion.)
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
How else can artists afford solid-gold humvees? Or diamond-studded swimming pools? These things don't grow on trees! So all I'm asking....
sue the RIAA for impersonating a law enforcement agency? Its a crime for me to impersonate a law enforcement officer, should it be illegal for a corporation to impersonate a law enforcement agency?
If a duck flies north over the Golden Gate Bridge at 2pm on the first Sunday in March, they'll offer a $1000 discount!
What a deal!
Maybe that should be a pig. Or a RIAA executive.
Yes. Yes, I do. Read up on the details around this event. It was no decision made on the spur of the moment.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Try asking the IRS what the salaries (plus benefits) of the executives and directors are. Everyone gets all caught up in corporate profit margins and stock prices. Those aren't the numbers that the RIAA is interested in. The RIAA/MPAA are interested in the numbers which land in the executives pockets, the numbers which pay the greens' fees for the executive board members, the numbers which allow the attorneys to purchase newer Bentleys.
The RIAA/MPAA does not give a good gosh darn golly gee what the price of a CD is. It does not matter to them how much it costs a local band for studio time. Those numbers are convenient for PR releases and nothing more.
the NPG electrode was replaced with carbon blac
Anyone with law expertise here who can tell at what point they cross the line to criminal extortion in the US?
Over here in Germany, the line is clear: Threatening someone with unlawful consequences. A threat of bringing a lawsuit isn't illegal. A threat like this one could be, because they're interfering with the suit before it has started. Don't they?
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
I guess now any defendant can point to this as a way of showing that the prosecutor's case is *not* beyond a resonable doubt.
Now you could argue that they cops may have actually been looking at someone else instead of you:
"Judge, the cop was actually looking at the other guy's ISP, not mine!"
That excuse, I'm certain, has been used as effectively as "My dog ate me homework." when given by people in speeding cases. But now, thanks to the RIAA, they proposed doubt for you.
Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
The thing is that laws, unlike the tooth fairy, exist even if you DON'T believe in them.
I hope you're talking about my nationality and not my age!
Seriously, your comparison is more apt than the one to Rosa Parks. A major difference is that copyright infringement was illegal before large numbers of people started downloading songs. However, the very real possibility that the horse is already out of the barn makes this a decent analogy.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
I was wrong on the first point, but not the second (i.e., we agree). And the Underground Railroad is another fine example of civil disobedience. Downloading songs illegally, however, is not (in most cases), as has been discussed elsewhere in this thread in more detail.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
The RIAA, an American lobby group, represents what is a bunch of companies that are mostly owned by European super companies. The government seems to be bending over for them, making the DMCA and enforcing this BS. The artists certainly aren't being protected. It's the giant corporations that make their money from record sales. If anything the artists, benefit from music sharing, more people hear their songs and go to their concerts.
Read my short stories - You won't regret it.
He received a love letter from his ISP, stating the accusation and his IP address. Problem was, it wasn't his address at that time, and HE had the logs to prove it. As an added bonus, this guy was a foreign national -- a citizen of China. Lotsa luck collecting a judgement against him. As a double-added bonus, his father was a multi-millionaire and could afford whatever amount of lawyering it would take to "spend RIAA under the table".
:-)
:-)
YOU should keep logs of the date/time of all your DHCP assignments. The ISPs are doing a miserably poor job of this -- God bless 'em
Anyone confronted with IP address-based infringement should consider challenging the accuracy of the ISP DHCP logs. They suck, and there is plenty of evidence to prove it.
At last, an application where a Windows server would be ideal. If the ISPs run DHCP via a Windows box, the assignments will be logged via the Windows Event Log. Then the ISPs can let the RIAA search for the needle in the haystack as they wrestle with the Windows event log viewer
I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice. Your actual mileage may vary.
Let the RIAA scumbags and their Holme, Roberts, & Owen LLP lackeys know how you feel about the RIAA "actively protecting the copyrights of its members.
From the letter:
HRO contact:
Katheryn Coggon
303-866-0408
katheryn.coggon@hro.com
"record companies' representatives"
913-234-8181
FAX 913-234-8182 You can voice your opinion in fax form too!
info@SettlementInformationLine.com
I'm not judging anybody's actions here, I'm just saying that's not civil disobedience. I'm assuming you don't consider what you're doing civil disobedience, right?
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Why else would they call it the Ghandi Old Party?
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
1) Send out legal threats to Joe Randoms from EVIL organization claiming something
2) Offer to settle out of court for significant discount
3) Wait for poor, stupid & scared people to settle
4) Profit $$$$$$$$$$$
well after reading this http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/13/133221 4 and yet again confirming what we all already know, I think that the RIAA should stop this B.S. I mean who believes them at this stage?...
"Stallman says add to this code and you are one of us. Gates says use this code and you belong to us."
I'd think you would attack it like they do breathalysers; subpoena the ISP and their logs, attack their collection methods, and if proven unreliable, that'd leave an opening to sue them for implicating you. There'd have to be a standardized logging system to make these cases reliable and indemnify the ISP's from liability if they misidentified you, meaning more legislation.
Most ISP's wouldn't want to deal with more than a handful of lawsuits, with the RIAA's system of mass suits, they'd be finding resistance pretty fast.
vi? Who's that?
Funny how the RIAA goons are making mistakes, and want the ISPs to give them more information so that somehow this will prevent them from making so many mistakes.
We keep arresting innocent people. If the criminals' parents would just turn in all the criminals we wouldn't have to arrest so many innocent people.
Isn't this how nazi germany took care of crime? Convinced people to turn each other over at the slightest hint of disobedience, in the name of reducing crime?
It's so stupid it's funny. It's so true it's ironic.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
But I hope you realize you are the exception and not the rule.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
The feds banned pitchforks.
Unless the RIAA offers to keep the records for them. That might be even worse.
In Elektra v. Barker, where the RIAA was arguing that merely 'having the song files available' in a shared files folder was a copyright infringement, the Government distanced itself from that position by specifically stating in its brief that it had NEVER prosecuted anyone for "making available". See Statement of Interest of United States of America (pdf) at page 5, footnote 3.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
And perhaps we'll be greeted as liberators? I think one has to assume quite a bit to think your "plan" will work.
Again, don't use the phrase "civil disobedience" unless it's actually being done with the intent of helping society. I highly doubt that's the motive in the vast majority of cases. I strongly suspect that most people are downloading music because (a) it's convenient, and (b) it's cheap (and/or free). (Of course, you did use scare quotes yourself, so perhaps you were just being euphemistic.)
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
... that some ISPs have deliberately fingered non-subscribers? :-)