RIAA Attacks Sites Participating in Its Own Campaign

An anonymous reader writes "The RIAA is once again at their old tricks. The band Nine Inch Nails has intentionally 'leaked' songs via USB keys hidden at restrooms during their current European tour. Sites hosting the songs are now being sent cease and desist orders. 'Ironically, with its numerous pirated downloads available, the whole album has not leaked yet. According to a source, the only leaks are the ones Reznor approved himself. And whether he realizes it or not, Reznor may be building a new option for presenting music that augments the existing CD/tour scenario.'"

Comments

may not

[Anonymous Coward]

or may not....
that's the problem when your business depends on customer will to pay....not

inequity....

Huh?

[g051051]

How is the RIAA attacking sites "participating in it's own campaign"? The RIAA isn't an advertising or marketing body. Did anyone check if the USB keys had a distribution license that would permit the songs to be hosted on web sites? Trent Reznor putting music on USB keys is not in itself a blanket license to distribute the songs at will.

Zonk is missing on all cylinders today, why does he still get to be an editor?

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Zonk is missing on all cylinders today, why does he still get to be an editor?

Vapid shit with a technical edge.

Re:Huh?

[rucs_hack]

who owns these songs? I rather suspect it isn't the artists any more.

Re:Huh?

[Crazy Man on Fire]

Exactly. Just because they authorized the distribution of some promo copies of an upcoming release doesn't mean that the people in possession of those promos are authorized to distribute them to others. Yes, it is stupid of them to be killing the buzz around the album by sending these takedown notices, but I don't think they have a choice but to go after the people violating copyright.

Re:Huh?

[BDPrime]

I think Interscope and Reznor knew that if they left a thumb drive in some bathroom so some dude could find songs on an upcoming album, that the music would probably end up being distributed online. They may not have explicitly authorized it, but they knew.

That being said, don't you know that anytime an industry makes its customers actually pay for something, it's a serious crime in these quarters?

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Ironically, with its numerous pirated downloads available, the whole album has not leaked yet."

Actually, there has been a complete recording from a 'listening party' leaked and snatched off torrent sites, as well as a full, cd-quality copy leaked and yanked the following day.

Re:Huh?

[Rob the Bold]

How is the RIAA attacking sites "participating in it's own campaign"? . . .

Zonk is missing on all cylinders today, why does he still get to be an editor?

How is it the editor's or submitter's fault that you disagree with the gist of TFA? The summary pretty accurately describes it. Take your beef up with billboard.com.

Re:Huh?

[theStorminMormon]

More importantly - who steals USB drives from bathrooms?

Re:Huh?

[iminplaya]

who owns these songs?

Once they're released, they belong to the public. The distributors steal from the public. So, yes, copyright is theft. It used to be something that "borrowed" from the public back when distribution costs were an issue. Now it justs takes and hoards and speculates.

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Its entrapment!

People LIKE to share things. If i buy a movie, im not going to say "you cant watch this, buy your own copy if you want to see it", ill let them come see it with me. What we are talking about here, however, is digital information, very different. It requires a computer to be able to read and listen to it. What one thing computers are used for these days? Sharing information over a network? Correct. Thats the only reason anyone has a computer, if they couldent be networked, then really, what good is owning your own computer for 80% of the population? The simple fact is: anyone who would have thought the songs wouldent get shared is a moron. Of course the people who found the songs are going to share them with their friends, but you know what, they are not going to share the USB key, odds are, they would simply send their friends the songs over the internet because its much easier then sending the key itself, and now both of you can listen to the songs. And those friends no doubt have other friends they will send them to, and so on. Its only a matter of time before someone shares the song on bittorrent, or has their entire music collection shared on p2p software, its virtually inevitable that this would happen if the songs where good (which is always debatable)

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, you don't know where they've been.

Re:Huh?

[g051051]

It's not an RIAA campaign, and the sites are not "participating" in the campaign, they're stealing the music. My beef is with the headline the editor in question used. And Zonk in general drags the quality of slashdot down by an order of magnitude whenever he's on editor duty.

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, the fact that the songs were distributed on USB keys and did not contain any sort of "promo license", and were literally USB keys dropped in bathrooms by the artist with no language included about copyright (or even ownership) would clearly imply that the artist was intending for the songs to be reproduced and shared. The real question here is, Why is the artist encouraging sharing of the music while the record company is handing out C&D letters? Answer: Publicity

Re:Huh?

[CowboyJezus]

I'm sure Trent's songs weren't the only things "leaked" on that USB drive if it was found in the bathroom.

Re:Huh?

[Halo1]

but I don't think they have a choice but to go after the people violating copyright

They sure do have a choice. Unlike trademarks, copyright does not become suddenly void because you did not prosecute infringements (except possibly in some fringe situations, but in this case there's definitely no danger of that happening).

Re:Huh?

[Rob the Bold]

It's not an RIAA campaign

At least read TFA:

"These f*cking idiots are going after a campaign that the label signed off on," the source says.

Re:Huh?

[g051051]

Again, how is this an RIAA campaign? The RIAA is not the label, in case you didn't realize that. Regardless of anything else, no one has produced evidence that the distribution to web sites was authorized.

Re:Huh?

[B11]

Did anyone check if the USB keys had a distribution license that would permit the songs to be hosted on web sites? Was there a license that said they couldn't? If NIN, their label, lawyers, etc didn't want these tracks to be leaked out, they should have made it explicitly clear what their wishes were.

Re:Huh?

[iminplaya]

(Score:0, Troll)

Those who "defend" copyright can no longer make a logical argument for it(keeping these laws on the books now requires a certain amount bribery), so now they moderate.

Re:Huh?

[(A)*(B)!0_-]

When lawsuits are brought against copyright violators, the plaintiff is oftentimes the label - NOT the RIAA. The RIAA is acting on behalf of the label. The label signed off on the promotion.

Re:Huh?

[slackmaster2000]

This got me too. I expected to hear something about anti-piracy websites, not a marketing campaign which has nothing to do with RIAA. Yes, in this case the label was ok with the distribution, and therefore RIAA should not have taken any action, but the article summary completely missed this point.

My initial reaction was "huh?", and I laughed out loud when I read the top post subject :)

Re:Huh?

[kamapuaa]

Well, in point of fact you're saying something that simply isn't true, and accusing distributors of being thieves is hot-headed rhetoric and nothing more. Your post was only two lines long and didn't contain any evidence or support arguments. Did you expect to be modded informative?

Re:Huh?

[kingpetey]

Actually, the RIAA is only "an advertising or marketing body." They are essentially a PR firm with one amoeboid client: the recording industry. They aren't a political group or law enforcement agency; they're Ambassadors of Jackassery. That's why their attempts to bully P2P music sharing is so ridonkulous. Nonetheless, I agree with you that just because NIN put some songs on USB keys doesn't necessarily mean that Reznor means for everyone everywhere to have access to them. However, he has given stuff out like this before. He posted GarageBand-ready songs on his site a long time ago and invited users to mash 'em up. And really, if someone puts something like an MP3 out there on the web, the assumption HAS to be that "everyone everywhere" might potentially get access to it. Hmm, so maybe I don't agree.

Re:Huh?

[gregmac]

It's not even necessarily infringing. Case in point, open source. The authors of the work still hold the copyrights, but they've effectively granted a license to distribute it freely (GPL, BSD, etc).

Re:Huh?

[gsslay]

You misunderstand. The article can be used to show once more how the RIAA are the hub of all evil who eat children and crush daisies under hob-nailed boots. Therefore details like logic and facts are irrelevant.

Re:Huh?

[g051051]

The RIAA is a trade group with lots of labels. The RIAA also has rules for dealing with "intellectual property" protection that don't give the labels a lot of leeway. The RIAA sending out notices is based purely on the fact that the music in question is owned by a record company, and probably is done without the label's direct intervention.

Again, if the music on the keys wasn't specifically licensed for fre distribution, that's it, the songs aren't legal to download.

Re:Huh?

[g051051]

Very true, does anyone know if there was some kind of license file on the USB key? Without knowing that, we can't know if the RIAA is acting improperly or not.

Regardless of the licensing issue, the headline is still terrible, and doesn't accurately reflect the article.

Re:Huh?

[flitty]

in TFA there is no mention of who is complaining about this, the source is unidentified. I think this is all just part of the marketing.
If Reznor looks like the "eff the RIAA" character, it will only increase his sales of the album. The RIAA is not going to send this to court.
Am I also incorrect in thinking that because this is released on billboard.com (not really a notable 'news' organization), that they are just putting out a press release for the record label?

Re:Huh?

[It doesn't come easy]

This is correct that the copyright holder gets to dictate how copies are distributed. The funny thing here is that if RIAA does hold the copyright and did not give permission for Trent Reznor to distribute via USB key in the restroom, then they are legally required to sue Trent Reznor for copyright infringement or risk losing their copyright.

On the other hand, if the RIAA *did* give permission and the songs *were* distributed via an anonymous "restroom" posting, they likely lost their copyright at that moment because the distribution would not be able to control who received a copy (no license, no copyright notice, no distribution control, etc.). It would be the same as the copyright holder deliberately posting the song to a public website not controlled by them with no access control nor copyright information, which would effectively put the songs in the public domain.

Interesting problem.

Re:Huh?

[g051051]

They can't be "only an advertising or marketing body", otherwise they'd have no standing to send the takedown notices. As a trade group, they also have powers to "protect" the "intellectual property" of their members.

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

"The funny thing here is that if RIAA does hold the copyright and did not give permission for Trent Reznor to distribute via USB key in the restroom, then they are legally required to sue Trent Reznor for copyright infringement or risk losing their copyright."

No, not really. That is a myth - trademark rights can be lost by lack of enforcement. The ability to stop a particular infraction (Rezner's unauthorized copying) could be lost by failing to act, but not the copyright itself.

"On the other hand, if the RIAA *did* give permission and the songs *were* distributed via an anonymous "restroom" posting, they likely lost their copyright at that moment because the distribution would not be able to control who received a copy (no license, no copyright notice, no distribution control, etc.)."

Again, not really. Each USB represented a single copy of one or more songs. Giving someone a copy does not give with it a license to make additional copies. The rights protected by copyright - copy, make derivative works, perform, display, and distribute - are protected UNLESS the holder grants permission or another exception such as fair use qualifies. The legitimate owner of the USB key (likely the finder based on laws concerning abandoned property) may sell the USB key with the copies. He may not make additional copies.

"It would be the same as the copyright holder deliberately posting the song to a public website not controlled by them with no access control nor copyright information, which would effectively put the songs in the public domain."

Again, wrong. If a copyright holder puts a song up on the web, it is likely implicitly authorizing people to download and listen to it. It is not authorizing that person to further distribute the song.

Re:Huh?

[Rogerborg]

Do you know what an editor's job involves? I mean, the Slashdot editroll squad clearly don't, but I was wondering if you're aware that one of the traditional functions of an editor is to check reported stories for accuracy rather than just republishing them verbatim.

Re:Huh?

[(A)*(B)!0_-]

"The RIAA is a trade group with lots of labels."

Really???

"The RIAA also has rules for dealing with "intellectual property" protection that don't give the labels a lot of leeway."

For some reason, I think the parent company of Interscope (surely you already know this based on your arrogant tone), has quite a bit of pull with regards to how their intellectual property is protected.

"The RIAA sending out notices is based purely on the fact that the music in question is owned by a record company, and probably is done without the label's direct intervention."

Yes, that's the amusing part of the story. The RIAA is so lawsuit-happy that they're not even taking the time to determine if the record company wants a property protected. That is indicative of a lot.

"Again, if the music on the keys wasn't specifically licensed for fre distribution, that's it, the songs aren't legal to download."

Depends on the jurisdiction.

Re:Huh?

[flug]

Trent Reznor putting music on USB keys is not in itself a blanket license to distribute the songs at will.

Uhh, handing out the songs this way is pretty transparently designed to get them uploaded to P2P networks etc, get them widely distributed via the "underground", & start a buzz.

If that's NOT the reason for "leaking" them this way, then what the #$%*#% is?

Re:Huh?

[UtucXul]

...they are legally required to sue Trent Reznor for copyright infringement or risk losing their copyright.

I think you've got trademarks and copyright mixed there. It is only trademarks which have a requirement to defend them. Copyright has no such requirement.

Re:Huh?

[jedidiah]

Current works are built of previous works as a matter of necessity. So calling music distributors thieves is not simply "hot headed". It's simply taking EVERYTHING into account. People build on the works of others and the expect exclusive ownership. Then they interfere with others trying to do the same thing they did (build on the work of others).

That is as much theft as anything that consumer pirates do.

Now the RIAA is trying to interfere with one of it's artists that has realized that pirates are a damn good distribution medium. This situation simply highlights the fact that artists have no real control over their work anymore. Those with the most valuable creative contribution are actually being exploited and abused by the very body that loudly proclaims to protect musicians.

There is also fair use and the actual artists intent to consider.

Re:Huh?

[Rogerborg]

if RIAA does hold the copyright and did not give permission for Trent Reznor to distribute via USB key in the restroom, then they are legally required to sue Trent Reznor for copyright infringement or risk losing their copyright.

That's trademarks you're thinking of. This has been explained many, many times on this very site.

Re:Huh?

[Dunbal]

Knowing slashdot here come the goatse posts.

      Naw, goatse is so old fashioned. Here... stick THIS in your USB slot!

      (NSFW and apologies to anyone who didn't know who tubgirl was! heheheh)

Re:Huh?

[winnabago]

Very true, does anyone know if there was some kind of license file on the USB key? Without knowing that, we can't know if the RIAA is acting improperly or not.

They had a lawyer hanging out in each bathroom, per RIAA orders, handing out waivers to be signed. Duh. Ever heard of a shrinkwrap license?

Re:Huh?

[jedidiah]

This situation highlights why we need to roll the copyright act
back to 1970. Copyright registration needs to be made mandatory
again along with copyright notices. If something is not intended
for distribution, it should say so. Their should be no presumption
that the RIAA can come and bully you.

If a copy isn't sitting in the Library of Congress and copyable by
the Librarian of Congress, then it should be treated as public domain.

Re:Huh?

[Dunbal]

Unlike trademarks, copyright does not become suddenly void because you did not prosecute infringements

      No but it makes it a lot harder for you to convince the judge that you are owed $150,000 (I'll settle for $3500) for each instance of infringement!

Re:Huh?

[jedidiah]

It's an obvious case of the artist trying to generate online
buzz by counting on the fans to do what everyone knows they
will do. They put the cookie jar where the kids could get at
it specificaly so it could get passed around the schoolyard.

This attitude of the RIAA of "if I see it, then it's mine"
needs to stop. If it's their's then they need to say so.

Eventually, theoretically, this pop music is supposed to go into
the public domain. What happens then? Does the RIAA start suing
over recordings of "southern trees bear strange fruit"?

Re:Huh?

[Rob the Bold]

Do you know what an editor's job involves?

"Editing," I guess.

I mean, the Slashdot editroll squad clearly don't, but I was wondering if you're aware that one of the traditional functions of an editor is to check reported stories for accuracy rather than just republishing them verbatim.

I took the liberty of checking this assertion for accuracy (at least in a Slashdot context) and I found this:

http://slashdot.org/faq/editorial.shtml#ed750

Now the Billboard editor's job should have been to check his/her reporter's story. But we're arguing about the accuracy of the Slashdot headline and summary here. To my thinking, they are accurate. The Billboard story really does say what the summary suggests. That makes the summary "accurate". It summarizes that to which it refers.

Re:Huh?

[alfrin]

Not to mention 'somehow' the entire album actually is available for download. Most major torrent networks already have it with many 100kbps seeds uploading since yesterday. This isn't the work of the RIAA. This is Trent Reznor, a man decently known for not following the rules.

Re:Huh?

[focitrixilous P]

Not only that, but the complete album actually leaked sometime in the last 2 days. Aie! Avast! Torrents! The whole Year Zero marketing campaign has been stuff like this, with lots of fake websites and other Alternate Reality Game stuff, including phone numbers listed on websites with recordings of album related phone calls and stuff. The songs found have been all over the internet, and it was assumed that it was part of the game to post them and talk about it.

For the actual album, I heard it at a Minneapolis pre-release event, and it's alright. Too much electronic noise for my tastes on half the tracks, but that's what you get with NIN.

Re:Huh?

[rucs_hack]

eh? Sorry, were you responding to my post? I mean, if so that was a tad vitriolic for no clear reason.

Re:Huh?

[gsslay]

If it worked as you're suggesting then the minute a song was broadcast on the radio, its copyright would vanish. It doesn't, so you must be totally wrong.

Re:Huh?

[Hoi Polloi]

There's gold in them thar terlets!

Re:Huh?

[rucs_hack]

So sorry, The -1 post didn't show up due to my preferences, I thought you were responding to me.

I do apologise.

Re:Huh?

[kamapuaa]

Wow, I've never seen that much inferring, all done in one place! The truth is, the original post was only two lines long, and Trent Reznor didn't say why he did what he did. Regardless, most people really could care less about Trent Reznor's take on the matter. I'd argue that Trent Reznor sold out a long time ago, he doesn't have the right to his songs any more than I have the IP rights to the hard drive technology my company researches...

And I don't really see a logical connection between "artistic works draw inspiration from other artistic works" and "copyright is thievery." It seems like there should be an intermediate step somewhere. Perhaps "2)???"

Re:Huh?

[eMbry00s]

I didn't read the post you responded to, but do you seriously think that posting sources or arguing your point in a proficient manner are requirements for being modded informative?

You must be new here, etc.

Re:Huh?

[Firehed]

Copyright != trademark. You don't lose copyright by not defending it. You merely lose potential lawsuit income. Trademark, on the other hand, is lost if not defended (read: iPhone, first filed in 1993 and registered in 1999, but went unused by Cisco/Linksys until about a week before Apple's product was announced).

So, no, the RIAA has absolutely no obligation to sue Trent, or anyone else that was involved in the leak. And considering how little goodwill they have going for them, it certainly wouldn't be in their best interest to do so.

Re:Huh?

[Just Some Guy]

Did anyone check if the USB keys had a distribution license that would permit the songs to be hosted on web sites?

You're sitting next to a judge. You've been sworn in. The defense lawyer asks: "what other possible motive could you have to hand out these USB keys than to see their contents redistributed? The keys and the paycheck of a person to copy songs onto it are expensive, so it's completely impossible that you distributed them with the sole hope that each finder would buy a copy of the CD. What was your real reason for doing it?"

Your answer, please.

Re:Huh?

[aardvarkjoe]

That's trademarks you're thinking of. This has been explained many, many times on this very site.

The person you're responding to has been a member for years and has made nearly 600 comments. Either he knows that already, and was just trolling, or is a complete idiot, and correcting him again isn't going to help.

Re:Huh?

[multisync]

Again, if the music on the keys wasn't specifically licensed for fre distribution, that's it, the songs aren't legal to download.

They are in Canada.

I don't know about Lisbon, Barcelona or Manchester - the cities the USB keys were left in - and I don't know where the "excited fans" who were sharing the files were located, but your statement reflects a very insulated worldview. Just because it's illegal in the US of A, doesn't make it so in the rest of the world - eh?

Re:Huh?

[shark72]

"Yes, in this case the label was ok with the distribution, and therefore RIAA should not have taken any action, but the article summary completely missed this point."

We should keep in mind that this statement is attributed to "a source." It's important to point out that "Anonymous guy says the label was OK with the distribution" != "the label was OK with the distribution." Anonymous guy might be mistaken, or might even be fibbing in an effort to draw sympathy, make the label look bad, or any of a number of other reasons.

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

How did Trent Reznor sell out? He's got nothing records and nothing studios in New Orleans and he does whatever the fuck he wants with both of them.

Re:Huh?

[shark72]

"who owns these songs? I rather suspect it isn't the artists any more."

I don't know the details of NIN's contract, but generally the people who wrote the words and music own the words and music, and the people who funded and produced the recording own the recording.

There are several record labels for which SOP is for the artists to own the masters, but -- and this is very important -- the artist must pay for and arrange for the production of those masters themselves. Magnatunes comes to mind here, but there are several others.

I think what a lot of Slashdotters would like to see is a record company that provides the cash and the expertise for producing the recordings, and then lets the artist have the rights to the masters to use as they see fit without worrying about the record company recouping its investment. This would be absolutely great for artists... it would be like finding a rich uncle or a bank that would give you a loan and never expect to be paid back.

Re:Huh?

[cliveholloway]

Actually, yes, there is.

Re:Huh?

[Rogerborg]

Wow, they just came out and said it. How they can call themselves "editors" is quite beyond me then. I wonder what their job actually is, beyond being guests at Taco's wedding.

Re:Huh?

[shark72]

"Current works are built of previous works as a matter of necessity. So calling music distributors thieves is not simply "hot headed". It's simply taking EVERYTHING into account. People build on the works of others and the expect exclusive ownership."

They expect exclusive ownership of the recordings which they produce. The artist maintains the copyright on the words and music, assuming that they wrote them. There's a big difference between a piece of paper with some words on it, and a finished recording of same. It often takes a lot of money to turn those words into a complete album, and that's why the record companies insist on having exclusive distribution rights: so they can make their money back.

"Now the RIAA is trying to interfere with one of it's artists that has realized that pirates are a damn good distribution medium. This situation simply highlights the fact that artists have no real control over their work anymore."

A finished CD is the end result of the work of a lot of people.

If Trent Reznor and crew produced and funded the recordings themselves (which they may have) and then signed over the distribution rights to a record company, perhaps that was a mistake -- instead, perhaps NIN should have started their own record company. Lots of established artists do.

I certainly understand that it would work much better for the artists if the record companies were to put up the cash to produce the music, without any sort of agreement that they would get the exclusive rights to distribute that music. It would be tough to make this work as a for-profit business. There are plenty of smaller record companies that don't want to own the masters or even have exclusive distribution rights, but the musicians have to pony up the cash to produce the music themselves.

Re:Huh?

[Rogerborg]

The comment wasn't for his benefit. Apparently other people can read our replies.

Re:Huh?

[baKanale]

Yes, it is stupid of them to be killing the buzz around the album by sending these takedown notices

Unless the news about the takedowns sparks more interest in the album. Especially if they didn't quite get all the sites hosting the songs (and it wouldn't hurt if the band came out against the takedowns, too). You know what they say: there's no such thing as bad publicity.

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

How is the RIAA attacking sites "participating in it's own campaign"?

Exactly. The RIAA is effectively attacking sites that are competing against their clients. The major record labels are merely interested in making a profit, and to do that they need to control the distribution channels. The obvious action for the RIAA to take is to try to shut these sites down. If the "leak" of these songs can be tracked back to a deliberate action from Trent Reznor, I'd be surprised if the RIAA didn't take action against him too. Afterall, they (the RIAA) have no interest in protecting the artists, they only seek to protect the revenue stream of their clients.

All obvious security issues asside (I mean does anyone really plug a USB key found in a bathroom - or anywhere else - into their own computer??), Reznor may be just trying to generate buzz surrounding the upcoming release of his new album, but we all know that the RIAA only sees the "leaked" tracks as potential lost revenue. And yes I realize that NIN is signed to a major record label and some people will be inclined to argue that Reznor is cutting his own income by giving away the tracks for free. I think that most of us understand that the record labels are the ones who make the big money when an album sells and the artist only gets a small fraction of the cut. Reznor probably stands to gain more fans by giving away the tracks for free and the "lost income" is so negligible that he could probable care less.

Just a thought, but... If Reznor was really trying to create "a new option for presenting music that augments the existing CD/Tour scenario", maybe he should record material for his album to fufill his obligation to his record label and record a few more songs that aren't on the album and give those away on CDs at NIN shows or as downloads from his website.

Re:Huh?

[It doesn't come easy]

I vote for the complete idiot choice...

Re:Huh?

[fishbowl]

>Unless the news about the takedowns sparks more interest in the album.

I first heard about it here. It was also the first time I became aware that the artist was represented by RIAA. First exposure was of a character that ensures I will be strongly prejudiced against it.

Re:Huh?

[Xtravar]

Nothing Records and the studio in New Orleans are defunct.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_Records

Re:Huh?

[It doesn't come easy]

Lots of good posts about copyright vs. trademark. I'm not a copyright expert but actually I am thinking copyright, not trademark.

If the copyright holder distributes a copyrighted work without the copyright notice, etc., then they will likely lose the copyright. It's happened before. In this case if they approved the distribution then it is the same as if they distributed the songs themselves. It's difficult to include a copyright notice on a USB stick, although I suppose there might have been a text file included or a sticker put on the outside. If they did not approve the distribution then that is why they *have* to do something related to Trent Reznor, else someone will argue that Trent was acting as their agent. I'll agree that they don't have to sue per se but they very definitely have to defend the copyright (wait too long to issue a "that's my copyright so stop distributing" notice and the copyright can be lost). In the case where someone else copies maybe the copyright holder can wait for a period of time; however, if the copyright holder themselves distributes without the necessary copyright text, etc., then too bad for them.

And playing a song via radio is not distributing, it's a performance (another post mentioned this as an example of why the restroom distribution couldn't possibly cause the copyright to be lost).

Additional comments welcome.

Re:Huh?

[Chandon Seldon]

That being said, don't you know that anytime an industry makes its customers actually pay for something, it's a serious crime in these quarters?

Since when does any industry get to make their customers pay for anything? Especially things that don't even involve the industry?

The Car Industry doesn't get to make me pay when I get my car painted. They don't get to pay when I get my photo taken next to my car. They don't even get to make me tell them when I do these things. Why should the Record Industry get to make me pay for things that don't involve them?

Re:Huh?

[Planesdragon]

If a copy isn't sitting in the Library of Congress and copyable by
the Librarian of Congress, then it should be treated as public domain.

The net effect of which will be a thousandfold increase in the workload of the Library of Congress, and not much else.

Re:Huh?

[EtherMonkey]

It often takes a lot of money to turn those words into a complete album, and that's why the record companies insist on having exclusive distribution rights: so they can make their money back.

Last time I checked, you can't produce, record, edit, manufacture, package, or distribute silence. So, presumably, the words and music are a considerable contribution to "a complete album." And furthermore, the mechanics of turning words and sheet music into a recording that thousands -- hopefully millions -- of consumers will buy begins with the performance of a talented and recognizable group of performing artists and ends with that same group's editing skills and creative vision.

I'm not minimalizing the ongoing investment that music labels make towards marketing, production, distribution, etc. If they pay to produce a particular recording then, by all rights, they are entitled to a fair consideration in return for each and every copy of that recording that is sold, regardless of whether it is on physical media or downloaded from iTunes. But in my mind, fair does in no way approach the 50-80% cut folks claim the labels get today, but I guess that varies by arrangement and is a matter for contracts and agents and lawyers to decide.

Re:Huh?

[Gerzel]

"Once they're released, they belong to the public. The distributors steal from the public. So, yes, copyright is theft. It used to be something that 'borrowed' from the public back when distribution costs were an issue. Now it justs takes and hoards and speculates." --iminplaya (723125)

I really can't agree with you on this. Your argument is completely unsound.

For one, cost still is an issue in producing music, the written word, or any kind of copy-right-able material. To produce good quality works it costs time, as well as the cost of equipment, and not to mention the costs of training. Nearly all artists, even the worst hacks touted by the record labels, have been working for years to be able to produce their work practicing, attempting, and even failing. Sure you could say that artists and creators should be in it for the love but then again you could say quite a lot of things, and the love doesn't fill the belly or pay the bills.

Secondly the concept of ownership is a construct of society. We define what ownership means. Now that does not make the construct invalid. We also define what murder and rape are as well. Thus information is "owned" by whomever society deems it should be owned by.

Because the costs of producing any work are non-trivial, and these works on the whole do enrich and further society as well as our individual lives a system to reward the production of such works should be in place. Now in order for such a system to really be viable it is necessary to have a system that identifies who the creators are and which should be rewarded for their work. In today's society that system of identification is the system of ownership, which mostly is represented as copyright. The concept of copyright is still valid; however the practice has become more and more abused, on both sides of the issue.

As most works are in some form derivative of other works, because all works arguably are derived from the creator's own experiences there also is a need for any system of information ownership to allow for derivation and to differentiate between what works should be considered 'original' and thus completely property of the creator (at least for a time), and what works should be considered 'derivative' and are still at least in part or in whole, property of a former creator. Furthermore because property generally can be bought, sold and given away, a system of transfer must also be provided for information properties. All these parts are fairly necessary and well in and of themselves, it is the implimentation of modern copyright as well as its abuse that is the problem.

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure that this is violating copyright. AFAIK, there has to be a notice of terms to be in violation of. The article didn't say if there was a copyright notice on the keys or not there very well may not have been. If there was no notice then it is tough to prove infringement. Infringement of what? Beyond that the plan was obviously to have people find these keys and share the songs. What would be the purpose of hiding a some keys and the finders just keep the songs to themselves? There is no value in that. Why buy usb keys, pay someone to load them up with songs, get someone to hide them, etc. if you just want a few people to hear the songs?

That said I'm pretty sure the RIAA just sends out letters to any site it finds. I doubt they actually spend time trying to figure out if these songs are related to some campaign or some other silly detail. Some low paid law school student just scans websites, finds songs and ships off the take down notice.

Re:Huh?

[NixieBunny]

I think what a lot of Slashdotters would like to see is a record company that provides the cash and the expertise for producing the recordings, and then lets the artist have the rights to the masters to use as they see fit without worrying about the record company recouping its investment. This would be absolutely great for artists... it would be like finding a rich uncle or a bank that would give you a loan and never expect to be paid back.

I think what we'd like to see is the record companies stop demanding more and more money for the creative work of the artists *after* they're recouped their investment.

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

am i the only one who saw this as saying all lawsuits are RIAA v.s. Not RIAA?
iow, us v.s. them

Re:Huh?

[paeanblack]

"who owns these songs? I rather suspect it isn't the artists any more."

Ownership? That's easy. Everybody who has heard the song shares in joint ownership.

You are probably more interested in who retains the various rights to the song, such as the right to copy, the right to distribute, the right to publish, the right to sell and resell copies, the rights to trancode, transcribe, or translate, the rights to create derivative works, etc.

All of these rights will mostly likely be retained by lots of different holders. You can count them all up and declare whoever has the most as the winner and grant them the title of "owner", but doing so is pretty meaningless.

Real estate serves as a decent analogy to intellectual property. You can't actually own land, only the title to that land. With the ownership of a title comes certain exclusive rights, but don't get fooled into believing you actually own the land itself, or you'll be in for a rude awakening when your city council approves construction of a highway through your kingdom.

IP works in a similar fashion...once something is published, the "ownership" becomes too distributed to be mean meaningful because there is no longer any exclusive possession.

Re:Huh?

[BDPrime]

I don't think the RIAA is going to sue you for painting your CD or posing for a picture in front of it. They'll sue you for obtaining that CD (or its digital equivalent) without paying for it. Trust me, if you bought a car and were able to make an exact replica of it for free so you could hand it to thousands of other people for free, the car industry would be all over you.

Re:Huh?

[billcopc]

Regardless of your opinion of NIN's artistic integrity, Trent Reznor is a self-produced artist. His label, Nothing Records, is in limbo right now over legal woes with his former manager and business partner, John Malm Jr. It is still legally operating, but the owners are going through rough times as Reznor recently won a law suit against Malm for a significant chunk of money. It is speculated that one will buy out the other's half at some point in the near future.

What I'd like to know is what authority does the RIAA have in these matters ? Can they legally "defend" an independent label ? Were they called upon to pursue litigation by either Reznor (unlikely) or Malm (very likely, but I never liked him to begin with) ? Could this be a sign that the RIAA's members release so much filth that they can't even keep track of what's theirs ? It's somewhat common for the RIAA to claim damages on things they don't even own, as many suits have been thrown out of court on such premises.

Re:Huh?

[PPH]

That's never stopped us from sending in the Marines before.

Making the world safe for the RIAA^H^H^H^H commerce^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Democracy. Yeah, that's the ticket.

Re:Huh?

[Gr8Apes]

They expect exclusive ownership of the recordings which they produce. The artist maintains the copyright on the words and music, assuming that they wrote them. There's a big difference between a piece of paper with some words on it, and a finished recording of same. It often takes a lot of money to turn those words into a complete album, and that's why the record companies insist on having exclusive distribution rights: so they can make their money back.

They expect exclusive ownership because they controlled the distribution channels. Think of them as a troll, er, toll, keeper for a bridge crossing a chasm. The artist is on one side of the chasm, their audience on the other. To get their music heard, they have to pay the toll keeper's demands, which are exclusive rights. It has nothing to do with making their money back.

If Trent Reznor and crew produced and funded the recordings themselves (which they may have) and then signed over the distribution rights to a record company, perhaps that was a mistake -- instead, perhaps NIN should have started their own record company. Lots of established artists do.

Trent owns his own record company and every thing he's done since Pretty Hate Machine. To give you an idea of how bad the recording industry is, listen to his music sometime. "StarFuckers" from "The Fragile" should give you an idea, followed by "The Hand That Feeds" from "With Teeth". He sounds like he hates the industry about the same as Prince/The Artist Formerly Known as Prince/Prince does.

Trent also likes to experiment with music. He really appears to like surround sound compositions (With Teeth has a nice surround sound version) and has stated that he'd love to re-release Pretty Hate Machine in surround sound but can't.

p>I certainly understand that it would work much better for the artists if the record companies were to put up the cash to produce the music, without any sort of agreement that they would get the exclusive rights to distribute that music. It would be tough to make this work as a for-profit business. There are plenty of smaller record companies that don't want to own the masters or even have exclusive distribution rights, but the musicians have to pony up the cash to produce the music themselves. Why would it be tough to make it work? You buy shares in the band like any other business, and take a cut of the profit. It'd work precisely like every other damn business in existence. Or even how book publishing works. Even that's better than the current situation with musical artists.

Re:Huh?

[Gr8Apes]

who owns these songs? I rather suspect it isn't the artists any more. In many cases they don't. Trent has stated he'd love to do a surround sound version of Pretty hate Machine, but Island? IIRC won't let him.

Re:Huh?

[shark72]

"I think what we'd like to see is the record companies stop demanding more and more money for the creative work of the artists *after* they're recouped their investment."

Interesting idea! If I understand you correctly, it would be a record company that would aim for zero profitability. The mission statement would be to fund the production of music and earn back the costs, but not to make a profit going forward. This would be a very bold step indeed, as even Magnatune and CDBaby aim for a profit, rather than simply covering costs.

Perhaps some enterprising Slashdotter can set up a non-profit organization to do just that. It could be a foundation, or even an artist-run collective, that would have as its mission statement to give away the music for free, or give the rights to the artists, after the costs had been recovered. However, given the state of the record industry (Warner managed to clear something like three points of net profit last year, and lots of smaller labels are bleeding money) going for zero profit would be a goal, not a step backward for many of them!

Re:Huh?

[kingpetey]

Well, that's sort of the joke: they don't have any standing to send takedown notices, or rather, copyright infringement notices. According to their own website, "The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) is the trade group that represents the U.S. recording industry." They are, at best, a partial shareholder in some intellectual property rights. However, they can't issue subpoenas or adjudicate in any way, which is doubly unfortunate for them since Federal courts seem to be ruling against them a lot as reported here and here and here and here.

Re:Huh?

[pfhlick]

Trust me, if you bought a car and were able to make an exact replica of it for free so you could hand it to thousands of other people for free, the car industry would be all over you.

And they'd be just as wrong.

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

The phrase is "COULD NOT CARE LESS"

Brush up on your grammar and actually think about what you are saying!

Re:Huh?

[RexRhino]

The thing is, record companies LOSE money on most artists. They pay most artists more money than the artist will ever make. They sign 100 artists, and 99 of them are total and complete flops.

That 1 artist who is highly successful, subsidizes all those artists who failed. Profits from NIN recording subsidizes someone who recorded an album, got a big advance, filmed a video, etc., and then only sold a few albums.

The end result of a record company only taking a small cut of the profits on an album would be that record companies would be extremly risk adverse. They would only sign artists that they would be sure would sell millions of records.

It is one thing to claim that there is a moral right for the free exchange of information, and we should be able to trade our mp3s without restriction... YOU or I have not signed a contract and given our word to respect any intellectual property agreement. We should be free to do whatever the hell we want.

But the artists on a record label DID sign an agreement, along with their lawyers, buisness managers, etc. They knew exactly what they were doing, and accepted a big-ass check to do just that. All the people who claim they didn't understand the contract are full of shit - their lawyers will not sign the agreement themselves unless they have fully explained the contract so they can cover their ass. The artist is most likely working a shit job and they are desperate to be a star, sees that $100,000 or $200,000 advance check and record contract, and just doesn't care at the time - then after they go multi-platinum they get pissed off about the deal they signed.

Without a popular artist like NIN making only a fraction of the profits on his work, you wouldn't have the band who gets signed, gets a $200,000 advance, a $200,000 video, $50,000 for recording the album, and then doesn't sell any records and is ahead by $200,000 and the record company is out half a million.

Re:Huh?

[RazorDaze]

Here's my crazy conspiracy theory:

The thumb drives weren't actually left on Reznor's orders, but actually planted by the RIAA as a way to sucker people that listen to their music into distributing copyrighted files, so that the RIAA could then sue them. Brilliant, isn't it? Reznor's probably just trying to cover up the conspiracy by taking credit for a semi-intelligent promotional campaign.

This is probably just the trial run. Soon thumb drives will begin appearing in venue bathrooms everywhere, luring unsuspecting fans into distributing watermarked MP3s that can be tracked back to individuals that can then be sued for thousands in damages. This is really a pretty smart way to make a buck; just trick people into illegally sharing your IP, and then NAIL them with a suit, make a quick $3000-$6000 in an out of court settlement, rinse, repeat.

Now all that's left is for virus/worm designers to copyright their "software," and sue the "users" for distribution. Then you just involve Monsanto somehow, (a USB thumbdrive that also emits pollen perhaps?) and you've got an evil scheme the likes the world has never seen!

Does anyone else hear cackling, or is that just me?

Re:Huh?

[multisync]

True enough. The US Ambassador to Canada - among others - sure seems to think it's his job to rewrite our laws for us.

Re:Huh?

[g051051]

Well, they're obviously not a court of law, but if you read farther down the website:

In support of this mission, the RIAA works to protect intellectual property rights worldwide and the First Amendment rights of artists; conduct consumer industry and technical research; and monitor and review - - state and federal laws, regulations and policies. So, they're empowered to act on behalf of their members to "protect" the "intellectual property" rights of the members.

Re:Huh?

[petermgreen]

the effect would be

1: there would be a copy of any copyrighted work availible without drm encumberments (possiblly from schemes that are no longer availible) if and when the work finally enters the public domain.
2: people wouldn't gnerally copyright trivial things. people would only use copyright if they thought they had a good enough reason too.
3: there would be a lot less fighting over who owned the copyright to something.

Re:Huh?

[aussie_a]

Actually I believe it is true. I don't think I'd go so far as to say they're stealing, but they are hoarding stuff that belongs to society for their own personal financial gain. IMO as a society we give licences to creators of music (among other stuff) to monopolize what they create for a limited time. However with copyright now being perpetual (and it is, just wait and see what happens when Mickey Mouse goes to enter the public domain once more), some feel that creators of music (among other stuff) have broken the social contract.

So yes, I guess they are stealing from us. Seems informative to me.

Re:Huh?

[jasen666]

Last time I checked, you can't produce, record, edit, manufacture, package, or distribute silence.
Well, at the least you can't do that without being sued by John Cage's estate.

Re:Huh?

[jasen666]

Even if a license exists on the USB key, no case exists to support that a license contained on a random object you happen to find is binding to anyone.

Re:Huh?

[cpt kangarooski]

Because the costs of producing any work are non-trivial, and these works on the whole do enrich and further society as well as our individual lives a system to reward the production of such works should be in place.

Almost.

First, many works are trivially produced. Look at the average /. post, for example. Secondly, and more importantly, we should only encourage the production of works where the costs of that encouragement are less than the benefits that those works provide to society (where the types of benefits are 1) having the work created and distributed and 2) having the work be in the public domain so that it can be enjoyed freely). It doesn't make much sense to encourage the creation of works when the costs of doing so would be detrimental to the public even accounting for the benefit of having that work exist. This means that there are limits to how much copyright is best to have, and these limits have nothing to do, really, with where artists or publishers think that they ought to be.

Re:Huh?

[cpt kangarooski]

Actually, that's not really the case with trademarks either. A trademark holder should make sure that there is no customer confusion with regard to his mark, if he wants to keep it, but he can ignore other users of the mark so long as they are not generating confusion.

Re:Huh?

[cpt kangarooski]

Given that deposit was mandatory for a long, long time, they'll have no difficulty being that busy. Hell, how did you think they got such a large collection to begin with? Of course, you'd also see a tremendous number of works enter the public domain, since most works are not felt by their authors to be important enough to be worth taking even the slightest step to get a copyright. And if that's what the author thinks, who are we to go against their judgment and give them copyrights anyway? Authors who are encouraged by copyrights to create works will actively seek out copyrights. Authors who don't care will ignore getting copyrights and would have created the work anyway.

Re:Huh?

[Planesdragon]

1: there would be a copy of any copyrighted work availible without drm encumberments (possiblly from schemes that are no longer availible) if and when the work finally enters the public domain.

No, not really. You'd have at best four years, and then a "digital copy licensed to the library" would be enough.

2: people wouldn't gnerally copyright trivial things. people would only use copyright if they thought they had a good enough reason too.

which would lead to a resurgence of publishers, perfectly legally, ripping off novices. Which would result in every has-been and never-was deluding the copyright office with crap.

3: there would be a lot less fighting over who owned the copyright to something.

Hah! Hahaha. Oh, that's hilarious.

Forcing registration would do nothing to clarify derivitive works, work-for-hire, or licensing agreements. Which is what all the fighting happens over.

Re:Huh?

[iminplaya]

Well, in point of fact you're saying something that simply isn't true...

You say it isn't. I say it is. Where's your evidence? Slashdot posts my evidence in every other article almost.

Your post was only two lines long...

Well, obviously that would make it false then, huh? Interesting logic you got there. Maybe you should make an attempt to understand that some things are very simple and don't require long winded explanations from some stuff shirt philosopher who has his own agenda and needs to justify spending all that money on his diploma.

Did you expect to be modded informative?

(Score:2, Insightful)

Nah, I'm ok with insightful. Good to know I'm not alone :-)

Re:Huh?

[iminplaya]

It often takes a lot of money to turn those words into a complete album...

It also takes a lot of money to make a TV ad, yet the advertiser pays me if they want me to broadcast it. CDs are advertisement. They are to promote an actual performance, live in front of actual people. The broadcast of a reproduction is only a performance by the machine operator. The studio people get paid when they finish their performance. Distribution by the public is free advertisement. The record company can collect a percentage of concert income to pay for the studio time. Everybody will get paid and the fat will be cut out of the system. This isn't the 17th century. Distribution is no longer a technical issue like it used to be. Laws against plagiarism are the only place where IP legislation should stick its nose. It is the only place where a rightful, natural claim can be made.

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ooh, ooh, ooh... So what you are telling us is that if the recording industry paid artists a lot more than they are now, 99% of them would not even get published... Since I think we can all agree that 99% of all songs by the RIAA are crap, this SHOULD work out well for consumers. (Of course, this assumes that 99% of all humans are not idiots, which is a fatal flaw)

Re:Huh?

[RexRhino]

Since I think we can all agree that 99% of all songs by the RIAA are crap, this SHOULD work out well for consumers. Virtually all the music published in the U.S. falls under the auspices the RIAA. If you buy music from iTunes, if you buy music from any sort of chain record store, and 90% of the music they sell at indie record stores, all the music from amazon.com, or cdnow.com, or online retailer, is RIAA music.

Basicly, any album that sells more than say 20,000 records, and the label is most likely RIAA, or the label has a label deal with a bigger label that is connected to the RIAA. (a lot of indie labels release their material through larger record labels, or through distributers who work with the RIAA).

So if you are saying 99% of RIAA music is crap, you are saying 99% of published music is crap. The RIAA pretty much has a monopoly on published music, a much larger monopoly than Microsoft, that is for sure.

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

According to you, if a copyright isn't protected, it would eventually become public domain. However, copyright law clearly states that for a work to become public domain it must A) be created and first published before January 1, 1923, or at least 95 years before January 1 of the current year, whichever is later; B) The last surviving author died at least 70 years before January 1 of the current year; C) No Berne Convention signatory has passed a perpetual copyright on the work; and D) Neither the United States nor the European Union has passed a copyright term extension since these conditions were last updated. There is absolutely nothing in copyright law that says you HAVE to defend your copyright, especially considering unlike patents or trademarks, they don't expire until 3/4s a century after the original author can't benefit from it due to being very dead. And while patents DO expire, a trademark continuously protected AND in use will last FOREVER! To prove my point, I point to Encyclopædia Britannica, which has a few editions (Most notably the Eleventh Edition) IN the public domain. You can do whatever you want with the text of the Eleventh Edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica due to it being in the public domain, however since the trademark of the Encyclopædia Britannica is still valid, you cannot do anything that would break trademark law with the public domain eleventh version of Encyclopædia Britannica. (It's really trademark law, not copyright law that should be the most important to companies, since nearly anything important to publishing entertainment in general is linked to trademark law, including Mickey Mouse, Superman, and Harry Potter)

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah man, cos like all property is theft. No one could possibly sell what they've made, because whenever they make something new they're stealing from everyone else. You should be the grand dictator that determines who gets what. We are all your children now. All praise jedidiah. You should set up a system where no two people could make an agreement between themselves to exchange what they've produced with out you stepping in and taking from both to give to a fourth person whom you deem worthy. O great one we're not worthy of you and your super deep mufti logic. Do you work for the fed?

Re:Huh?

[kingpetey]

Well, yes and no. Technically, when you or I or anyone else - let's say - refrains from speeding or decides not to shoplift, we're "working to protect the rights of those" around us. I know that may sound kind of far-fetched, but from a legal standpoint, it's true. As participants within the framework of our legal system, we're specifically empowered - to varying degrees depending on the state a person's in - to protect property we think we own. Someone breaks into your house, you can protect yourself and your property (esp. if you're in Texas. Yikes.). However, if you see someone walking down the street riding your bike, your technically not empowered to physically stop them and question them, because their protections under the 4th and 6th amendments trump your right to property protection. And really, that's the bigger deal here. When the RIAA tries to get Colleges and ISPs to hand over traffic data, they're exceeding any "investigative" power they may think they have; no gov't agency has issued them warrants towards obtaining that info, and if they had any real law-enforcement power they could simply issue such warrants themselves. Regardless of how it may sound on their website, I can assure you that they aren't legally empowered to go after P2P file-sharers (who, incidentally, I don't exactly support) in the ways they're doing it.

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nepotism.

Re:Huh?

[BDPrime]

Why?

Re:Huh?

[g051051]

I really can't agree with your assement. I really can't stand the RIAA and their tactics, so we're on the same page with that one. However, some of what you say just isn't true. If I see someone riding my bike without my permission, I *absolutely* have the right to stop them (the concept of Citizen's arrest or detainment is frought with peril, so I better be really really sure it's my bike.) The 4th amendment (unreasonable search and seizure) doesn't apply because it's MY bike, and the 6th amendment (right to a speedy trial) doesn't apply at all unless I have the perp arrested. Now, if it wasn't my bike, but one that looked just like it, we'd have a whole other set of problems to deal with.

Regarding the section about the RIAA and colleges, the RIAA, until it files a lawsuit, has no legal standing to request the information, but it certainly has the right to ask for it before filing a lawsuit. There's no garauntee of privacy at college, the school is free to produce and withold the data as it sees fit. Once the RIAA files a lawsuit, it's legally entitled to compel the school to produce the information it needs during the discovery process. And all they need to do to establish probable cause for that is to link the IP address of a suspected P2P sharer with the college network.

Re:Huh?

[Chandon Seldon]

If you want me to stop what I'm doing, tell you about it, and then pay you a fee for some action of mine - you are the one who needs to justify your demand. The default is that my actions are none of your business unless they involve you.

As far as I'm concerned, that includes giving a mixed CD to a friend or creating a perfect replica of my car and giving that away.

Re:Huh?

[mink]

"Trent Reznor putting music on USB keys is not in itself a blanket license to distribute the songs at will."

For some reason when I read this all I can think of is Monty Python's and the Holy Grail.

"Listen, strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony. "

Re:Huh?

[Bimo_Dude]

What I'd like to know is what authority does the RIAA have in these matters ? Can they legally "defend" an independent label ?

I don't know how "independent" a label Nothing Redords is, as this company is a member of the RIAA.

Re:Huh?

[Gerzel]

I agree, I should have said many works. Then again look at the average /. post. There is a cost associated with them, the cost of the computer infrastructure and the time taken to make the post. Such cost I submit is non-trivial as most of the world's population cannot pay it.

Re:Huh?

[cpt kangarooski]

For those who can, it's trivial. Admittedly, it's not as open to the world as it ought to be, but it is a decent example of a work with a trivial cost associated with it. Remember, any original work of authorship fixed in a tangible medium of expression is copyrighted under the present system. A poem chalked onto a rock qualifies.

Re:Huh?

[sjames]

There are several record labels for which SOP is for the artists to own the masters, but -- and this is very important -- the artist must pay for and arrange for the production of those masters themselves. Magnatunes comes to mind here, but there are several others.

The thing is, the artist ALWAYS pays for 100% of the recording and marketing with interest out of their royalties. It's like taking out a mortgage except that once you pay it off, the bank still owns the house. That's how bands can go platinum but never get a check from the label.

It would be OK iff the artist ended up owning the recording and no "very special" accounting was used.

Re:Huh?

[sjames]

The thing is, record companies LOSE money on most artists. They pay most artists more money than the artist will ever make. They sign 100 artists, and 99 of them are total and complete flops.

At one time, there wasn't much way around that. These days they could actually front only a few thousand for a few demo tracks to be promoted on the net. That would help them screen out a good 60 to 80 of those 99 flops before they get in too deep. The ones that were popular could then do the whole album and video thing.

Re:Huh?

[BDPrime]

The record companies would justify their demand by arguing that obtaining an exact replica of a product for free that they have copyright on and are selling for a price is akin to stealing it.

It's obviously a tough issue and I haven't decided where I come down on it. In the meantime, while I anguish over the topic, I continue to download music for free.

Re:Huh?

[g051051]

Read the article you cite carefully, it doesn't mean what you think it means. Basically, it says that it's ok to download music if you're legally entitled to. Canadians get a free pass in that regard because of the tax against digital media and players.

Re:Huh?

[g051051]

For some reason, I think the parent company of Interscope (surely you already know this based on your arrogant tone), has quite a bit of pull with regards to how their intellectual property is protected. Think again. Interscope is a small fish in that big pond. I doubt very much that they have the ability to override RIAA policy in this regard.

Re:Huh?

[(A)*(B)!0_-]

Do you know who owns Interscope?

Apologize for your rude tone.

Re:Huh?

[g051051]

You're missing the point. Interscope's ownership isn't really pertinent. The point is that the distance between any one label's marketing arm and the RIAA's legal hounds is pretty vast. UMG is still just one group in the RIAA mess. I'd be more inclined to think that the membership charter for the RIAA member companies grants the RIAA wide powers to pursue purported copyright violations.

Re:Huh?

[(A)*(B)!0_-]

"Again, if the music on the keys wasn't specifically licensed for fre distribution, that's it, the songs aren't legal to download."

I missed the part where you admitted that this was an incorrect statement on your part.

Re:Huh?

[multisync]

Read the article you cite carefully, it doesn't mean what you think it means

Ok, I've re-read an article I have read on numerous other occasions. I don't know what your point is.

My first comment was a response to you assertion that "if the music on the keys wasn't specifically licensed for fre distribution, that's it, the songs aren't legal to download." I pointed out - correctly - that this is not necessarily the case in places outside the United States, using Canada as an example of a place where it is currently legal to not only download music files off P2P networks, but - in the opinion of Judge Konrad von Finckenstein - to put files in a shared folder accessible on P2P networks as well.

Basically, it says that it's ok to download music if you're legally entitled to

No, it doesn't. From the article you asked me to re-read:

Canada's debate over file swapping flared last December, when the country's Copyright Board, which regulates intellectual property issues, ruled that downloading songs from a peer-to-peer network for personal use--but not necessarily uploading--appeared to be legal.

Then, a bit further down:

With respect to downloading, the judge accepted the Copyright Board's early decision almost without comment. But he went further, citing a recent Supreme Court decision to say that making music available online also appeared to be legal.

In that recent case, the Supreme Court ruled that libraries were not "authorizing" copyright infringement simply by putting photocopy machines near books. The libraries were justified in assuming that their customers were using the copiers in a legal manner, the high court ruled.

Finckenstein said the same rationale should apply to peer-to-peer users.

"The mere fact of placing a copy on a shared directory in a computer where that copy can be accessed via a P2P service does not amount to distribution," Finckenstein wrote. "Before it constitutes distribution, there must be a positive act by the owner of the shared directory, such as sending out the copies or advertising that they are available for copying."

This is not saying it's "ok to download if you are legally entitled to" - that goes without saying. The ruling (which denied representatives from the record labels access to the names of 29 people they wanted to sue for infringing copyright) stated in clear and unambiguous language that downloading songs off P2P networks is legal in Canada.

Re:Huh?

[g051051]

As I clearly stated, Canadians get a free pass on this issue:

The regulators cited a long-standing rule in Canada, in which most copying for personal use was allowed. To repay artists and record labels for revenue lost by this activity, the government imposes a fee on blank tapes, CDs and even hard disk-based MP3 players such as Apple Computer's iPod, and distributes that revenue to copyright holders. You conveniently left this part out: Basically, Canadians have already paid in advance for piracy. So, my comment about it being ok to download if you're legally entitled to still stands.

Ottawa's Geist said this appeared to make uploading itself legal as well, since a peer-to-peer user--like a library--would be entitled to assume that the person on the other side of the connection was acting legally, since downloading was also legal in Canada. Again, Canadian rules specifically allow that, on the assumption that people will be pirates, so they've been charged in advance for it. How many other countries have rules like this?

The article is also poorly worded. The act of putting a file in a directory(or uploading to a shred server) where others can get at it is not a crime. The act of downloading it is a different matter entirely.

Re:Huh?

[multisync]

Well, if you want to call it "getting a free pass" that's your prerogative. You are assuming a cause and effect relationship between the levy applied to blank media (which I recall paying on blank cassette tapes twenty-five years ago) and the judge's interpretation of Canadian Copyright Act that I don't think is accurate or - frankly - relevant. Downloading songs off P2P networks is legal in Canada. This is not some loop-hole or a concession made to justify the (in my opinion deplorable) tax on blank media. It is Canadian law. (From one of those Wikipedia articles everyone loves so much: "Contrary to popular belief, the private use grant can be implemented independent of the levy system, since the rights granted by private use clause is already covered by fair dealing." If you don't think Wikipedia is a reliable source, you are welcome to read the Canadian Copyright Act yourself).

The act of putting a file in a directory(or uploading to a shred server) where others can get at it is not a crime

In the opinion of Judge Finckenstein, this is true.

The act of downloading it is a different matter entirely.

You are correct, downloading a file is a different thing than putting it in a shared folder. That does not change the fact that it is legal in Canada.

Again, Canadian rules specifically allow that, on the assumption that people will be pirates, so they've been charged in advance for it. How many other countries have rules like this?

Quite a few, apparently.

Re:Huh?

[g051051]

You're missing a lot of the point: (http://news.com.com/Canada+deems+P2P+downloading+ legal/2100-1025_3-5121479.html/):

Downloading copyrighted music from peer-to-peer networks is legal in Canada, although uploading files is not, Canadian copyright regulators said in a ruling released Friday.

In the same decision, the Copyright Board of Canada imposed a government fee of as much as $25 on iPod-like MP3 players, putting the devices in the same category as audio tapes and blank CDs. The money collected from levies on "recording mediums" goes into a fund to pay musicians and songwriters for revenues lost from consumers' personal copying. Manufacturers are responsible for paying the fees and often pass the cost on to consumers. So, the reason expressed here is that it's because of the assumption of losses that the blank media and devices will permit.

On the upload side, the ruling is that just because you put a file where people can get at it, doesn't mean you're "distributing" it:

"The mere fact of placing a copy on a shared directory in a computer where that copy can be accessed via a P2P service does not amount to distribution," Finckenstein wrote. "Before it constitutes distribution, there must be a positive act by the owner of the shared directory, such as sending out the copies or advertising that they are available for copying." If you do go ahead and "distribute" it, you're still liable to be in trouble.

Ottawa's Geist said this appeared to make uploading itself legal as well, since a peer-to-peer user--like a library--would be entitled to assume that the person on the other side of the connection was acting legally, since downloading was also legal in Canada. The rationale here is that only people who are legally entitled to download the file will do so. Canadians have essentially paid in advance for the piracy.

I agree that the Canadian blank media and MP3 player levies are reprehensible.

Re:Huh?

[multisync]

Your link didn't work for me, for some reason. It 404'd, but I'm familiar with the article. I find it here. It's headlined "Canada deems P2P downloading legal." Check the date: December 12, 2003. In the article I linked to - dated March 31, 2004 - I quoted the following: "With respect to downloading, the judge accepted the Copyright Board's early decision almost without comment." The "Copyright Board's early decision" they are referring to is the one in the article you just linked to. Yes, the judge agreed with the Copyright Board that downloading is legal, then he contradicted them by saying sharing a folder on a P2P network appeared to be legal as well. Then he denied the record companies the names of the customers of the ISPs they were suing for. None of this does much to make your case that downloading isn't really "legal" in Canada because of the blank media levy.

That seems to be the point you're making. I could be wrong. It would be interesting to see if someone from the recording industry would agree with that sentiment. I suspect they would prefer a system where people paid the levy but were not entitled to "do the crime."

I guess my point is the Copyright Board, like you and me, are entitled to their opinion. They are a regulatory body, not a legislative one. I think the Copyright Act of Canada addresses Fair Dealing, without regard to the levy. The levy, as far as I'm concerned, is no different that Canadian Content requirements that Canadian television and radio broadcasters have had to adhere to for the past - I dunno - 30 or 40 years. They are an artificial - some would say necessary - advantage given to an industry in an attempt to make it competitive. The goal is to ensure Canadians have their own culture, but it's no different than a tax on cigarettes or booze or a lottery. Canadian governments know people will continue to buy these things despite the tax, and the Heritage Minister gets to boast about funding struggling Canadian artists.

I also believe there are a great number of nations that have laws similar to those in Canada, and I wonder if you would say they don't count either.

Anyway ... it's been a fun discussion. Here's a gem I found while googling around (oops, just violated Trademark law): "'User rights are not just loopholes. Both owner rights and user rights should therefore be given the fair and balanced reading that befits remedial legislation.'"

That's from the ruling in this case.

I agree that the Canadian blank media and MP3 player levies are reprehensible.

Hey, there you go. We agree on something 8^D

Re:Huh?

[g051051]

I never said downloading was illegal in Canada. It's legal because the law assumes people will do it anyway, so EVERYONE is charged, in advance, for blank media and players (just like it was for blank tape in the past.)

This discussion came about because I wondered if the music on the USB keys was licensed for distribution on web sites. We've been discussing the specific case of Canadian law where Canadians are allowed to put files on to shared, accessible resources (although NOT to "distribute" them), and are also allowed to download files (on the basis that they've already paid for the right to do so) and in spite of more restrictive licenses promulgated by the record industry.

This applies only in Canada. So unless the USB keys were left in Canada, or physically transported to Canada and uploaded to servers there, then the files are still not necessarily legal there either. The upload AND download needs to occur inside Canada for it to be legal (as far as I can tell from the article.)

Re:Huh?

[jedidiah]

Well, if you decide to squat in Yellowstone and start strip mining the place that would infact be theft. This is why you generally have to BUY a piece of land or secure water or mining rights rather than just wandering out to some random place with a backhoe.

Intellectual Property != Real Property.

Far wiser men than me have realized this, written on this and included this in our fundemental laws.

According to you, they would be communists.

Blam!

[Stanistani]

Thinking there was a rat under the covers, the RIAA has shot their own sock-covered foot...

Re:Blam!

[Afecks]

Ouch, that would be even worse for me because I don't wear socks on my feet.

Re:Blam!

[Stanistani]

I want to buy the brand of socks you wear - are they made of Kevlar?

heh..

[Awod]

It's funny how often the quote on the bottom is relevent when the RIAA is mentioned..

"If you just try long enough and hard enough, you can always manage to boot yourself in the posterior. -- A.J. Liebling, "The Press""

You keep using that word...

[Nasarius]

Ironically, with its numerous pirated downloads available, the whole album has not leaked yet.

Ironically? So the band deliberately released a few songs (albeit in an unconventional way), but the album hasn't yet been illegally leaked. How are these two facts remotely related?

Re:You keep using that word...

[Aladrin]

Maybe they thought it was the first reported case of intellectual property being legally available before it's on the internet? ;)

Re:You keep using that word...

[aadvancedGIR]

I guess you mean "not exactly legally" when using the "unconventional" word, because that promotion method is neither new nor rare. Of course, times change and having a few copies in cool clubs and thousands on the net do not bring exactly the same liabilities.

Re:You keep using that word...

[Rik Sweeney]

Most people don't know how to use the word correctly. Ask Alanis Morissette, her song, Ironic, didn't contain a single ironic incident.

Oh wait, that was the whole point of the song wasn't it?

Re:You keep using that word...

[Dunbal]

So the band deliberately released a few songs (albeit in an unconventional way), but the album hasn't yet been illegally leaked. How are these two facts remotely related?

      Not only that but if the MAFIAA were to be believed, surely the band (and probably the entire music industry) should be out of business by now due to those pesky pirates...

Re:You keep using that word...

[Stormx2]

Here's the real irony: it was leaked yesterday:

1. Hyperpower! 2. Beginning Of The End 3. Survivalism 4. Good Soldier 5. Vessel 6. Me, I'm Not 7. Capital G 8. My Violent Heart 9. Warning 10. God Given 11. Meet Your Master 12. Greater Good 13. Great Destroyer 14. Another Version Of The Truth 15. In This Twilight 16. Zero Sum Extracted from the website (NOT A FUCKING WEBRIP), if you know where to look this is very simple :) Loaded in Audition and has some nice frequency range, too high for a transcode Originally ripped at 256kbps with FhG

Re:You keep using that word...

[Stormx2]

Uhg. I thought slashdot had "pre" tags. I apologise.

Here's the real irony: it was leaked yesterday:

1. Hyperpower!
2. Beginning Of The End
3. Survivalism
4. Good Soldier
5. Vessel
6. Me, I'm Not
7. Capital G
8. My Violent Heart
9. Warning
10. God Given
11. Meet Your Master
12. Greater Good
13. Great Destroyer
14. Another Version Of The Truth
15. In This Twilight
16. Zero Sum

Extracted from the website (NOT A FUCKING WEBRIP), if you know where to look this is very simple :)
Loaded in Audition and has some nice frequency range, too high for a transcode

Originally ripped at 256kbps with FhG

Re:You keep using that word...

[ari_j]

When I realized the possibility that Alanis was actually being ironic, I thought I would have to start respecting her. It turns out that she's still obnoxious as hell, so I'm safe. But you can bet I'll never stop saying "No, Alanis, this is ironic." anytime the opportunity presents itself. (Quote stolen from a lesbian stand-up comedian I saw on Comedy Central years ago. I wish I could remember her name.)

Re:You keep using that word...

[VWJedi]

Uhg. I thought slashdot had "pre" tags. I apologise.

I though slashdot had a "Preview Button". I apologize.

Re:You keep using that word...

[dwpro]

is the line "a no smoking sign on your cigarette break" not ironic? Much of the song seems off target, but that one, to me, seems to hit it.

Re:You keep using that word...

[Danny Rathjens]

On April 4, 2007, the album was made available for streaming on the album's official website, possibly to discourage any possible piracy of downloading the album, which leaked earlier that morning, by allowing free listen sessions. However, the streams could easily be downloaded and high quality MP3 copies of the songs could be extracted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Zero_(album)#Str eaming

Re:You keep using that word...

[ari_j]

No, that's poor planning. At most, coincidental. Unless you care to explain the irony explicitly for us naysayers. :)

Re:You keep using that word...

[dwpro]

I was thinking in the context of being at work and going outside for the routine cigarette break only to see a new sign that says no smoking. Obviously, I'm interjecting a lot, but that seems ironic to me.

Tool did it differently

[Anonymous Coward]

Dang, I saw Tool a year ago and all I found on the bathroom floor was vomit.

Re:Tool did it differently

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you look under the vomit??

Re:Tool did it differently

[mwvdlee]

Did you try inserting it into an USB port?

Re:Tool did it differently

[Anonymous Coward]

haha, very nice!

Re:Tool did it differently

[Anonymous Coward]

Well it's a good thing you didn't try to distribute that vomit to your friends and loved ones, or who KNOWS what legal doo-doo you'd be hip-deep in.

Re:Tool did it differently

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry! I was so excited when I found a memory key that I couldn't hold it down.

Re:Tool did it differently

[FlatLine84]

Did you find their talent as well? They seemed to have lost it.

Re:Tool did it differently

[zolaar]

Oh, jeez, so now everyone's a music critic...

Re:Tool did it differently

[GWBasic]

Dang, I saw Tool a year ago and all I found on the bathroom floor was vomit.

At least some girl didn't vomit ON you. That's what happened to me at a NiN concert.

Security Standpoint

[Jazzer_Techie]

I just can't help but hope this doesn't catch on. Encouraging people to plug in randomly acquired USB keys is not going to be step forward in security. While I can't imagine it would be a viable option for widespread malware distribution, it could have a significant effect on social engineering one's way into closed networks. Want to infect corporation X? Put USB keys in the restrooms of places where their employees eat lunch. (Yes that could already happen and I think I've heard of it being done, and yes unneeded USB ports should be disabled, but one has to imagine that this would increase the chances of successful penetration significantly. )

Re:Security Standpoint

[Anonymous Coward]

It has already been done in penetration testing... liberally sprinkle parking lots with RAT-infested USB thumb drives, sit back and watch the mayhem unfold in the internal networks.

Re:Security Standpoint

[Paulrothrock]

With more and more keyboards coming with an internal USB hub, this is increasingly difficult. The box my employer gave me has six available USB ports, including two on the hub.

Maybe there's a demand out there for a computer that has one USB port on the PC and one USB port on the keyboard.

Re:Security Standpoint

[RainierSnow]

been done already :)

check here http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/06/08/215 1222

Re:Security Standpoint

[delt0r]

And what kind of OS will just blindlty starting excuting the code on the USB? Oh... nevermind.

But then again, its nothing new

Re:Security Standpoint

[Rob T Firefly]

This is not a new concern at all. Back in the days of floppy discs and sneakernet, the major delivery system for viruses was infected removable media.

Re:Security Standpoint

[MMC Monster]

The problem of course is USB keys that autorun on insertion (which shoudn't even be an option on a modern OS) and people clicking on "virus.exe".

Unfortunately, neither one of these is something that can be changed.

Re:Security Standpoint

[vtolturbo]

this would increase the chances of successful penetration significantly so, am i the only one who laughed when i read this? i'm somewhat amazed no one else posted about it. come on, guys! this sort of comment, when taken out of context, could lead to dozens of posts containing off-topic and highly enjoyable witty banter and sexual innuendo.

Re:Security Standpoint

[veganboyjosh]

yeah, but this being slashdot, what do we know about successful penetration?

Re:Security Standpoint

[nine-times]

Really? How many viruses can be transmitted through simply mounting a drive? Of those, how many are very dangerous? Of those, how many will go undetected by antivirus software?

I'm generally pretty cautious, but I think that I'd plug a USB drive into my computer without being sure what was on it. I wouldn't necessarily run any programs on that drive, but I'd be willing to risk plugging it in. You wouldn't?

It just doesn't seem like a great attach vector for spreading malware en masse.

Re:Security Standpoint

[Lumpy]

and yes unneeded USB ports should be disabled,

good plan. problem all HP and DELL computers come with usb only mice and keyboards, oops the keyboards have usb ports on them. Oops the user can plug in a hub, etc...

the solution is to disable removable storage, under windows its far harder to do than under linux or other OS's because windows at it's heart is a Consumer OS that wants to be friendly to you.

I have done it, all usb ports are useable, no USB storage devices work in them and USB boot will not work. It took us a good week to nail down that image only to have it undone by the braindead idiot that is our CTO. He gave out 1 gig thumbdrives to all employees to replace floppies and CD's, then the flood of bitching started they would not work, the executives commanded us to re-enable USB drives.

the BIGGEST threat to network and computer security is the executives.

Re:Security Standpoint

[VWJedi]

The problem of course is USB keys that autorun on insertion (which shoudn't even be an option on a modern OS)...
Unfortunately, neither one of these is something that can be changed.

Darn! If only someone could figure out a way to modify an operating system. They could start a company and make a fortune. Maybe even become the richest person in the country...

I guess we'll just be stuck with our current OS options forever.

Re:Security Standpoint

[abb3w]

The problem of course is USB keys that autorun on insertion (which shoudn't even be an option on a modern OS) and people clicking on "virus.exe". Unfortunately, neither one of these is something that can be changed.

Actually, it's any OS that allows for USB autorun on insertion, which the sensibly paranoid disable in the modern OS stupid enough to still have it. This is correctable by avoiding such stupid OSes (is there more than one?) or disabling this option out of the aforementioned sensible paranoia.

People who click on "virus.exe" fall in (at most) three categories: the ignorant, the uncaring, and the stupid. Attempts at education are the first step in solving all three. The best way to get the undivided attention of any organism is to make it feel pain, but this (unfortunately) is frowned upon these days. However, fear is perhaps the second most effective (all IT staff should read Machiavelli's The Prince). Thus, explain at the beginning of the educational presentations that people need to pay attention and ask whatever questions they need to so that they may learn the basic security material, because any cleanup costs or opportunity costs from their not following it will be explicitly laid at their doorstep at their annual reviews. Note the possible range of such costs as multiples of the average salary. This helps you reduce all the uncaring into the one or the other of the two alternate groups... and ignorance is a changeable state. Those who are ignorant will usually work to fix it at that point; help them.

Those who are stupid will not; carry out the threat and submit the information to be saved for their annual review, and insisting that those responsible for the review send confirmation that the problem was addressed during the review. If confirmation is not received, send that for the reviewers' reviews. Repeat. If employee turnover can be kept down to sane levels, you can help (almost) stamp out ignorance and stupidity within the organization. Of course, then you're only left with users who all have at least a little learning , which presents new and interesting IT challenges.

Re:Security Standpoint

[cdrguru]

How about a specially-crafted USB key that damages the computer physically? Better still, wipes the hard drive and then physically damages the computer?

I suspect you might be able to force a reset with a long enough pulse of -5V on the power supply to the USB port. You might be able to smoke a significant portion of the machine by sending 10,000V through the USB data pins. All it would take would be a capacitor and a charge pump. I think it would end up looking like one of the Memorex 5GB USB devices when you were done because 10,000V capacitors aren't real small.

Never underestimate the wickedness of someone that believes they will not get caught. Especially when there is substantial evidence they are correct in this belief.

Re:Security Standpoint

[TheBig1]

Viruses are not necessarily the concern here. A Trojan horse, disguised as whatever (joke application, music player, image extraction tool, etc) can easily spider a machine and its network drives, and send interesting files to someone who cares (competitor, client, etc). Since it would be custom coded for one site, and there is nothing bad about what it is doing (even assuming reasonable network / OS security - it's just a process reading files, which happens all the time), it would not be seen by virus scanners at all.

Re:Security Standpoint

[nine-times]

Well, like I said, I probably wouldn't run any executables on a found USB drive. It's generally not a good idea to run any executables when you're unsure of their origin. However, I'd probably be willing to plug an unknown USB drive in and see what's on it.

Re:Security Standpoint

[illumin8]

Really? How many viruses can be transmitted through simply mounting a drive?

How about a lot? Did you know that Windows has this thing called "autorun" where BillG, in his infinite wisdom, decided that any removable media placed in your computer should have the ability to automatically EXECUTE software at Administrator level? This is turned on by default on ALL Windows machines since Windows 95.

Re:Security Standpoint

[nine-times]

Yeah, I usually disable it. And I don't run as admin. And, well, to be honest, I avoid using Windows.

Re:Security Standpoint

[TheBig1]

Fair enough - I would probably do something similar too. But far too many people don't understand the difference between executables and documents, and could easily fall for something like this.

Re:Security Standpoint

[Bri3D]

Windows. Autorun. U3.
Look up the U3 SwitchBlade.

Windows runs stuff on mounted drives automatically.
Windows runs as administrator by default.
Some USB key drives even have CD emulators, which bypass Windows autorun protection.

See the drift?

Re:Security Standpoint

[Geoffreyerffoeg]

Really? How many viruses can be transmitted through simply mounting a drive?

Windows will run arbitrary code upon mounting a removable device. I think with some effort and luck, you could convince an OS X or Linux user to run code from the drive unwittingly.

More importantly, a little rectangle with a USB port doesn't have to present itself as a removable disk. It can present itself as, say, an input device, and then type arbitrary strings into the user's computer. I believe it can present itself as a video output device without difficulty, in which case it can be used to spy on the computer. It can probably present itself as a network device and engage in some MitM attacks that way. It can attempt to just exploit a buffer overflow or something in the OS's USB drivers.

Actively malicious peripherals are a serious security problem.

Re:Security Standpoint

[nine-times]

More importantly, a little rectangle with a USB port doesn't have to present itself as a removable disk. It can present itself as, say, an input device, and then type arbitrary strings into the user's computer.

Interesting idea. Has this been done? What's required to make a USB drive present itself as a keyboard and type arbitrary strings? Would that require hardware hacking?

I'm not sure it would be a good attack, though, since it would be highly visible. I mean, you could execute some key sequences to bring up a terminal/command window and execute a command, but it would be pretty easy for a user to see this happening and to interrupt the procedure before it was complete. Even as a video capture device, it would require that the user run some software to push video out to the device. The fake network device mitm attack also seems a bit complex. Would any of these really work?

Re:Security Standpoint

[petermgreen]

assumming the stick has a programmable microcontroller of some kind it would have to be reprogrammed. then it can present itself as anything it wants.

it wouldn't surprise me if modern flash drives use special purpose controller chips though so i dunno if they would have sufficiant programability or not.

i'd imagine doing this kind of hack would require at the very least a development rig for the processor and opening the drive case. You'd then have to work out how to connect to the programming lines.

so not impossible but certainly beyond most people who don't have experiance in the field and a fair bit of time and money.

Re:Security Standpoint

[cpt kangarooski]

It would probably be better to build a new usb device from scratch, which consisted of two devices in the same case, one of them being a drive, and the other being a malware machine. Easier than trying to make a drive into something more.

Re:Security Standpoint

[toddestan]

Did you know that Autorun can also be disabled in all versions of Windows since Windows 95? If I plugged a USB drive into my Windows computer, Windows would automatically attempt to mount it, but would not automatically look for something to execute something on the drive, stopping that attack vector cold.

Now, there is the possibility that a computer could somehow become infected just by accessing the disk. This happened quite a bit back in the Dos days with viruses that spread themselves via floppy disk, usually by putting a payload in the boot sector and similar tricks. However, I haven't heard of a virus spreading this way in a long time.

Re:Security Standpoint

[aybiss]

USB drives autorun on Windows just like a CD when they are mounted. As for detecting the virus, if you have the first and only copy in existence on the USB drive, Norton's ain't gonna detect it. And all that's assuming they haven't just found a new way to comporomise Media Player 11 with an MP3.

So congratulations: You just hypothetically got p0wned by teh hax0r.

RIAA

[Guerilla* Napalm]

There's a special place in Hell for the RIAA. Right next to politicians and people who make reality shows.

Re:RIAA

[Elemenope]

There's a special place in Hell for the RIAA. Right next to politicians and people who make reality shows.

Is that anywhere near the special place reserved for child molesters and people who talk at the theatre?

Re:RIAA

[vandoravp]

Don't forget the child molesters and people who talk in the theater.

Re:RIAA

[vandoravp]

Bah, beaten. The curses of tabbed browsing

I think you're the confused one

[Anonymous Coward]

"Trent Reznor putting music on USB keys is not in itself a blanket license to distribute the songs at will."

If it isn't I don't know what is anymore.

What did he put them on the USB drive for to begin with?
To _not_ get publicity?
To _not_ get the songs distributed and heard?

Seriously, it's like arresting people for taking part in a free give away.

Re:I think you're the confused one

[g051051]

The only pertinent questions here are: did the USB keys include a license granting rights to distribute the songs anywhere to any medium? And if so, was the person "granting" the license legally entitled to do so?

There's a difference between finding a USB key with a song or two on it and letting your friends hear it, as opposed to hosting it on multiple web sites for a free download.

Re:I think you're the confused one

[Scarblac]

There's also a difference between "a USB key with a song or two on it", and a string of left behind songs on USB sticks that are part of a campaign that the label signed off on.

I think that once it's clear that the artist is doing it on purpose, on a digital medium, in 2007, with the label's permission - that's implicit license to share it with everybody over the 'Net to your heart's content.

Re:I think you're the confused one

[UnknowingFool]

"Trent Reznor putting music on USB keys is not in itself a blanket license to distribute the songs at will."

There is a legitimate question of ownership here so the parent is not off base. If Trent owned the songs, he can do as he wishes. But if the record company owned them, he is not allowed to distribute them. The sad reality is that most bands have to give up their copyrights to the record company to get their first record deals. That's why some of the early Beatles songs are owned by Michael Jackson and not the Beatles themselves. These are new songs so I suspect that NiN owns them.

Re:I think you're the confused one

[PPH]

This assumes the label did sign off on the 'found USB' distribution scheme. Its possible that they didn't and that NIN didn't have the right to distribute this material as they desired.

I'm not an entertainment biz lawyer, but from what I understand, writers and performers make exclusive distribution deals with record companies. Had NIN retained the right to distribute some material online, then why didn't they just put the songs up on their own website 'officially'. Leaving a USB key lying around smacks of 'plausible deniability'. In other words, they didn't have the right, but they can claim it was unintentional on their part and therefore not a violation of their contract.

Re:I think you're the confused one

[Grashnak]

think that once it's clear that the artist is doing it on purpose, on a digital medium, in 2007, with the label's permission - that's implicit license to share it with everybody over the 'Net to your heart's content. Um, no. My wife is in the music business, and we're often at shows where artists give away CDs as promos. Since the songs on those CDs are a digital medium, does the act of giving them away entitle the recipients to post those on the web for "everybody" to share? I don't think so.

Re:I think you're the confused one

[Marillion]

From another article I read, Trent obtained permission to conduct this campain from his label. The label had full knowledge, hope and expectation that the few songs on the USB drive would be widely distributed.

Re:I think you're the confused one

[danimrich]

Let's discuss the following aspect: Assume that an USB stick was given to me by a stranger as a gift. Let's further assume that the USB stick contained an mp3, but no mention of the artist who created it, no copyright message, no license, and the stranger didn't say anything about it. Would I be allowed to publish the mp3 on the internet?

Similarly, if NIN intentionally lose USB sticks with some songs from their unreleased album, how could the finder be expected to know or verify that the mp3 is actually a real NIN mp3 and copyrighted? Call Trent?
At what stage does a song that is sung become a copyrighted song?

Re:I think you're the confused one

[BradleyUffner]

Microsoft often gives away CDs / DVDs containing stuff like Office, and Visual Studio at some of thier developer conferances. Does that give the person who received it permission to distribute it over the internet? I don't think so.

Re:I think you're the confused one

[shark72]

"The sad reality is that most bands have to give up their copyrights to the record company to get their first record deals. That's why some of the early Beatles songs are owned by Michael Jackson and not the Beatles themselves."

Not hardly. The Beatles were making too much money on royalties and were losing 90% of their income to taxes (the UK does not, or at least did not, have the caps on personal income tax that US residents enjoy). So, they formed Northern Songs as a corporation to manage the publishing rights, so the revenue would be capital gains, rather than income. This was a tax dodge created by the Beatles themselves well after their first record deal, and the record company had nothing to do with it.

And keep in mind that we're talking about the publishing rights to the Beatles songs, not the recordings. Even when artists do own the publishing rights (and many, if not most, do), artists still typically don't have the right to distribute recordings on their own -- those rights are owned by the record label.

Re:I think you're the confused one

[DarkProphet]

At what stage does a song that is sung become a copyrighted song?

When it is accompanied by a copyright notice? Was copyright information included in the digital audio metatags?

I would think that if the answer is "no", then copyright does not apply.

Re:I think you're the confused one

[644bd346996]

If the person who gives you the USB stick controls the rights to the data contained therein, and unconditionally gives you the drive, complete with the data and no fine print, then you may do pretty much whatever you want with it, except claim that you made it. You've been implicitly given an unlimited license to do what you want, because after all, it is a gift. As long as there is no reason to suspect that you have been given stolen goods, you are not required to look a gift horse in the mouth. In the case at hand, the goods (USB sticks) will not be declared stolen, so that caveat does not apply.

Re:I think you're the confused one

[uhlume]

If those CDs contained DRM-free MP3s, I'd see a much stronger parallel. Making tracks available in an easily redistributable digital format without DRM or copryright notice, and no verbal or written contract, would certainly seem to imply an invitation to redistribute freely, in a way that distributing tracks on a standard audio CD (hopefully bearing a clear copyright notice) does not.

Re:I think you're the confused one

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't all work copyrighted by default, whether accompanied by a notice or not?

It is safest to assume all work is copyrighted and you do not have permission to redistribute unless you are explicitly told otherwise.

Re:I think you're the confused one

[LionMage]

When it is accompanied by a copyright notice? Was copyright information included in the digital audio metatags?

I would think that if the answer is "no", then copyright does not apply.

Not necessarily true. Modern copyright law that is in accord with the Berne convention does not require an explicit copyright notice for copyright protection to be granted. Of course, copyright notices help cement your claim of copyright, but they are not required. Merely publishing something is all that is required, and "publish" is a very broad word that can mean a lot of things. (Distributing some data in just about any medium can constitute publication.)

One of the reasons that explicit copyright notices are no longer required is that it's hard to come up with boilerplate language that will be understandable in all territories, where different languages come into play for example. Another reason is that the internationally recognized C-in-circle copyright symbol is not available in every computer font and on every typewriter and printer in existence; many computer programmers use (C) as an approximation of this symbol, but it is not legally equivalent to the standard C-in-circle symbol.

IANAL, but I am fairly certain of my assertions, at least in regard to United States copyright law. I am pretty sure this understanding extends to the basic laws of aligned nations. See also the Wikipedia entry on the Berne Convention, specifically the section entitled "The content of the agreement." According to this section,

Copyright under the Berne Convention must be automatic; it is prohibited to require formal registration [...] More detailed information is available here, which explains:

Notice was required under the 1976 Copyright Act. This requirement was eliminated when the United States adhered to the Berne Convention, effective March 1, 1989.

Of further interest, I noticed the following from the same source:

The "C in a circle" notice is used only on "visually perceptible copies." Certain kinds of works--for example, musical, dramatic, and literary works--may be fixed not in "copies" but by means of sound in an audio recording. Since audio recordings such as audio tapes and phonograph disks are "phonorecords" and not "copies," the "C in a circle" notice is not used to indicate protection of the underlying musical, dramatic, or literary work that is recorded.

The very next section explains the proper way to apply a copyright notice to a sound recording; again, this is not absolutely required.

Re:I think you're the confused one

[cpt kangarooski]

No.

Re:I think you're the confused one

[SonicSpike]

No - just because you physically possesses the medium containing the material does not give you authorization to reproduce or distribute it. The courts have already determined this.

All creative works are copyrighted the instant that they are "fixed in a tangible medium of expression" which means recorded, drawn, written down, typed up, digitized, etc...

I am an audio engineer, I have a degree in the recording industry, and I took 2 semesters of copyright law in college.

Re:I think you're the confused one

[SonicSpike]

Chances are that unless NiN is on their own label, they don't own the copyright to their own works; the record label does.

Also you are incorrect because possession of the copyrighted work does NOT equal authorization to reproduce or distribute said copyrighted work. Copyright isn't tangible property, its an intangible abstract. Therefore the idea of "if possession equals 9/10th of the law..." doesn't apply.

Iam an audio engineer, I have a degree in the recording industry, and I took 2 semesters of copyright law in college.

Re:I think you're the confused one

[644bd346996]

I'm aware that there are several complicating factors at hand in this case. However, if the copyright owner for a recording outright gives you a copy, with no strings attached, it will be very hard for that person to successfully prosecute you if you redistribute that recording. The creation of derivative works would be a bit easier, but still by no means a clear cut case.

Re:I think you're the confused one

[Anonymous Coward]

At what stage does a song that is sung become a copyrighted song?

Quite simply, it is copyrighted if it is not just the result of mere automatisms. The threshold for copyright is really low, and it's always the distributor's sole responsibility and liability to obtain the necessary permissions. Even in the case where someone claims to be the author and grants permission but really is not the author, the distributor is the culprit. If it isn't your own work, you really have to make sure that you're allowed to distribute the work. Yes, that is fucked up, but it would be just as fucked up the other way around, unless you abandon the copyright concept altogether.

Re:I think you're the confused one

[SonicSpike]

Again, this assumes that he indeed owns the copyright to his own work. Most recording artists signed to a record label indeed do not.

However, if he does indeed own his own work, then just by him handing you the work does not imply that you have authorization to copy or distribute that work unless it is explicitly written in form of a license (think Creative Commons or GPL), or contract.

US copyright law is set up so that only the original author of a creative work retains the exclusive right to copy, distribute, display, reproduce, etc unless one of the above conditions are met. By the way, a verbal "go ahead and upload this onto public P2P" doesn't hold up in court.

Think of it this way...When you hand the valet the keys to your car are you giving him ownership of the car? No of course not. Just because he possesses the keys to the car doesn't give him permission for him to take it out to get groceries, race it at 120MPH on the interstate, sell it to a neighbor, give it away to a friend etc.

Re:I think you're the confused one

[uhlume]

I appreciate the thoroughness of your rebuttal. No what?

Understand that I'm not claiming automatic legal entitlement to the contents of said key, merely that it's much easier to legitimately misinterpret the intent of an unsecured USB key than it would be a typical promotional CD.

Re:I think you're the confused one

[cpt kangarooski]

There is really nothing in the factual scenario to suggest that there is an implied nonexclusive license to make and distribute copies of the song. When someone gives you a promotional copy of something, that's it; they gave you the copy and you can enjoy it. Your argument isn't reasonable, and no court in the world would go for it. 'Legitimate misinterpretation' isn't relevant. Whether there was a license or not is based on what was in the copyright holder's mind. The other party's behavior might shed some light on it, but it's not as probative as you seem to imagine.

Re:I think you're the confused one

[Anonymous Coward]

" Let's further assume that the USB stick contained an mp3, but no mention of the artist who created it, no copyright message, no license, and the stranger didn't say anything about it. Would I be allowed to publish the mp3 on the internet? "

    Absolutely fucking not. No way at all. Not a chance in hell.

" At what stage does a song that is sung become a copyrighted song? "

    The instant it's created. This is complete BS. The one thing you know for absolute sure about this hypothetical song is that it isn't YOUR copyright. This is a completely specious line of argument.

"found" USB keys

[foodnugget]

I frequently take things I've found in bathrooms and put them in corresponding ports.
Seriously, USB key, or, really, anything else, who is taking things they find lying around (in bathrooms!) and putting them in their computers?
This might just give script kiddies the idea of a brand new way to start spreading worms...

I'm not sure if i'm trying to be serious or gross, here, but i do know i would not be putting a found USB key in any box of mine (esp. if it is running windows...)
Similarly, what kind of format are these being left in? MP3? WMA? something with some nasty DRM?

Re:"found" USB keys

[Guerilla* Napalm]

who is taking things they find lying around (in bathrooms!) and putting them in their... George Michael?

Re:"found" USB keys

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

"Seriously, USB key, or, really, anything else, who is taking things they find lying around (in bathrooms!) and putting them in their computers?"

As if you wouldn't. You know, deep down, some little voice is in the back of your head saying "There might be something embarrasing for the owner of this key on here..." ;)

Re:"found" USB keys

[Intron]

No magic is required.

Some OS are so stupid as to perform an action based on file extension, but not to show what the extension is in the file browser. So double-clicking on the name "Trent's New Song" might be expected to launch RealPlayer, but in fact, if the full filename is "Trent's New Song.exe" it could cause an unintended effect.

Re:"found" USB keys

[Dunbal]

dumb enough to think that a program will magically launch itself automatically when you plug something in the usb port ?

      Hey - if it's from SONY, it just might!

Re:"found" USB keys

[foodnugget]

Actually, I would try it out... In someone else's computer.

Re:"found" USB keys

[faloi]

Now that I can boot to Knoppix on a trash machine, I'd be tempted to look at it to see what happens. I suppose, for the truly paranoid, you'd have to provide power to it outside just to be sure... But a CD or DVD, that wouldn't be a problem.

Re:"found" USB keys

[jschrod]

If I attach an arbitrary USB stick to my Linux system, no virus infection happens. It's not as if the attack vector of external storage is existant on any system.

Re:"found" USB keys

[Anonymous Coward]

'Some OS are so stupid as to perform an action based on file extension, but not to show what the extension is in the file browser.'
Some users are so stupid they can't find this is just an option that can be deactivated at will..
I agree that for the autorun, tweakui should be installed by default, but dammit, you have the choice....
If you trust your data, all default choices are good.
Problem is you cannot trust anything now so you have to deactivate anything that could be convenient...

Like having to put locks on everything you have because some dumbass would think its just free for all if there is none....

Re:"found" USB keys

[Lumpy]

who is taking things they find lying around (in bathrooms!) and putting them in their computers?

have you ever been to a NIN concert? It's not exactly full of nuclear physicists and rocket scientists in the audience.

Re:"found" USB keys

[Anonymous Coward]

You are on slashdot, and dumb enough to think that...

There's a joke here somewhere.

Re:"found" USB keys

[Anonymous Coward]

...who is taking things they find lying around (in bathrooms!) and putting them in their computers?

I remember seeing a TV documentary some time last year. A security consultant rigged some 50 USB sticks with a program that just sent him an email as soon as they were inserted and dropped them in the company garage. One key fell under a car and wasnt picked up, all but one of the others were used. The finder later said he had intended to look into the thing but just forgot about it.

USB Flash Drive RISKS

[OzPeter]

When I first read the headline, it reminded me of a story that I saw on the RISKS list (and if anyone can find the exact link please do so) In summary (and from memory only) it was:

1/ A security company was contracted to do a pentration test of a bank.
2/ The employees found out, so were being aware of typical social engineering type situations
3/ The security company loaded up some special USB keys that had had key logger and other software on them
4/ 15 to 20 of said keys were scattered around the door of the bank prior to opening hours
5/ With 3 days something like 75% of the keys had phoned home and were reporting that they were connected to computers inside the bank.

After reading this scenario I realised that if I saw a stray USB key I would just plug it in to see what was on it - and I would have fallen for the same trap as the bank employees

Another scenario I heard of (also on RISKS I think) was to go to the front desk of a company, ask to use the bathroom (or toilet for the rest of us), and leave a CD in a prominant location that was clearly labelled with something like "Staff reductions". It wouldn't take very long before that CD was inserted into someones computer at that company.

Re:USB Flash Drive RISKS

[drinkypoo]

After reading this scenario I realised that if I saw a stray USB key I would just plug it in to see what was on it - and I would have fallen for the same trap as the bank employees

After reading this scenario I realized that if I plugged it into my Linux box, that I would see the contents of the filesystem, and not be infected unless there was a buffer overflow and the USB key's filesystem had been maliciously crafted as well. But that seems unlikely.

You could also disable autorun... But I never do, either. It's too handy. (I use Windows to run a couple programs.)

Re:USB Flash Drive RISKS

[Rob the Bold]

After reading this scenario I realised that if I saw a stray USB key I would just plug it in to see what was on it - and I would have fallen for the same trap as the bank employees

There's a Windows auto-run feature for USB drives? Great. Still, you gotta admire MS's foresight in making computer infection vectors that model the real-world microbe model. It sort of sucks that you can't put a CD or USB key or other medium in your PC to examine it (unless it's been in your possession since it was in raw-material form).

Re:USB Flash Drive RISKS

[freedomlinux]

Yes, Windows will autorun a USB device.
Solution #0: run Linux or Mac OS X
Solution #1: override Windows autorun by holding Shift as the device is inserted.
(Hold it until the device is shown in My Computer)

Re:USB Flash Drive RISKS

[MulluskO]

Hold the shift key to disable autorun.

Fixed.

Re:USB Flash Drive RISKS

[OzPeter]

from what I remember the security team hacked teh drives to achieve what the wanted.

However I recently purchased a USB drive that comes with U3 capability

To me this is just plain evil. By default when you plug it in it runs code on the drive from a separate partition.

Re:USB Flash Drive RISKS

[_xeno_]

I actually looked this up a while ago. The short answer is yes, Windows will indeed auto-run a USB flash drive. The longer answer is that making it auto-run a flash drive involves some special setup of the USB drive, so if you just dump an autorun.inf file onto a USB flash drive nothing will happen.

Windows will only auto-run media that marks itself as "fixed" when it's queried. You can find details in this FAQ from Microsoft. (Note: there's no direct anchor to the question, so you'll need to scroll up two questions from the anchor I linked to.)

I'm not sure if it's possible to make any flash drive into a "fixed" device, but there have to be "special" drives designed to allow autorun, so plugging in random USB flash drives is definitely a bad idea - at least under Windows.

Re:USB Flash Drive RISKS

[GenKreton]

This is why the non-windows using world can mount disks with permissions such as noexec (no execute) and other nice little flags and we can be sure it is safe first. I'm sorry to hear the windows users haven't discovered this yet. Someday the 1970's era technology of the un-security focused Unix guys will break through.

Re:USB Flash Drive RISKS

[Anonymous Coward]

I have been reading your posts, and I think you might be interested in the anonet
Please connect, and say hello. Apologies for the anonymous post.

Re:USB Flash Drive RISKS

[cliveholloway]

Yep, it's so much effort to hold down the shift key when inserting the drive. I get tired fingers too, so I feel your pain.

Re:USB Flash Drive RISKS

[cdrguru]

Windows is supposed to be "user friendly". User friendly implies that when I put the CD for the game I just bought into the computer I do not have to figure out how to install or play the game - I put the disc in, so I must want to play, right?

Previous to autorun, I would have to search the CD, sometimes reading the instructions to find out that I needed to run D:\PC\X86\INSTALL\SETUP\SETUP.EXE in order to actually install the game. Autorun was introduced 12 years ago with Windows 95 and was a significant improvement.

Unfortunately, it is direct conflict with computer security. Microsoft has come down clearly on the side of the "user" and not the "security expert" pretty much for the last 10 years or so making computers a lot easier to use and a lot more vulnerable to malicious attack.

I think giving people non-modifiable appliances for web surfing and email reading which are completely safe from any sort of attack makes sense. The people that can operate extremely user-unfriendly (and safe) programmable general-purpose computers can have them. The rest clearly cannot handle it and shouldn't be burdened with having to figure out what is safe and what isn't.

Re:USB Flash Drive RISKS

[drinkypoo]

Yep, it's so much effort to hold down the shift key when inserting the drive. I get tired fingers too, so I feel your pain.

My problem isn't holding down the key, it's remembering to hold down the key. It's not my fingers that are tired, it's my brain.

Re:USB Flash Drive RISKS

[Anonymous Coward]

The Month of Kernel Bugs a little while back revealed quiet a few ways to break a linux kernel with a malformed filesystem. Hopefully those have all been found and fixed...

Re:USB Flash Drive RISKS

[Anonymous Coward]

Would it be so hard for the OS to remember serial numbers and ask you if it's trusted or not when you plug it in? That's how I have my XFCE do it in Linux, with a little bit of help from udev. Pretty user friendly if you ask me. If I change my mind and want to trust it, I can right click and hit a check box.

Re:USB Flash Drive RISKS

[MarkRose]

You're still not entirely safe, however: it could be possible to construct a buffer overflow in the mount/filesystem detection process. Granted, the chances of that are greatly lower than autorun naughtiness.

This is a matter of point of view

[RaigetheFury]

These songs were given out on USB keys freely. The point is that the RIAA knew the keys were being given out for free, but are trying to say "Only those people that found the keys can have the music".

Since noone purchased the music they did not subsequently agree to any copyright agreement. There was no stipulation to picking up the keys and finding the music on them.

Another example of this would be someone leaving the code to chemical equation to Cold Fusion on a napkin and then the owners who knowingly put it there say "You can't share that with anyone!". I know that's a stretch of the example but I think the RIAA fighting this is self defeating and wrong to be honest

Re:This is a matter of point of view

[Anonymous Coward]

"Only those people that found the keys can have the music".

That would be a pretty stupid marketing campaign.

Re:This is a matter of point of view

[Dachannien]

Since noone purchased the music they did not subsequently agree to any copyright agreement.

Actually, you don't have to agree to a copyright agreement to be bound by copyright law. The law serves as a sort of default set of rules that you must follow if, for example, you don't agree with the EULA on your newly-purchased software. That's what makes the GPL work, because if you don't agree to abide by the terms of the GPL, then the default - that being copyright law - applies, which forbids you from making copies in most situations.

Now, I'm not saying that the RIAA (rather, the particular record label at issue here) is doing the right thing. In fact, I yearn for the day when artists can make their living off of concerts and give away their recorded music for cheap/free, all without requiring the "services" of the record labels. But they're well within their rights to demand that other folks not create more copies of the music they hold the copyright on outside of fair use.

Re:This is a matter of point of view

[Dunbal]

the RIAA knew the keys were being given out for free, but are trying to say "Only those people that found the keys can have the music".

      Funny - if leaving something in a public bathroom doesn't constitute putting it in the public domain, I don't know WHAT does...

      They should be careful with that marketing thing...!

Re:This is a matter of point of view

[jonnythan]

Copyright doesn't depend on any kind of license agreement.

If I find a copy of a book, I can't distribute copies of it. If I find a CD, I can't distribute copies of the CD.

Copyright is coded into law and does not depend on any sort of contract.

Who modded this interesting??

Re:This is a matter of point of view

[gsslay]

Nonsense. Say I attend a convention (let's say it's a Linux convention) and hear a great presentation by a Linux guru, full of great tips and insights. At the end he gives me a signed free copy of his new book! Sweet! I did not buy this book. I did not enter into any contract in obtaining this book. Does this mean I can scan the book and put it up on my website? No, because the writer retains copyright and I'd be depriving him of sales. I guess what he was saying when he gave me his book was "Only those people at this convention get a publicity copy of my new book for free. It doesn't mean you can give it to everyone else a copy too so that I never make any money from it". Now, explain to me why music is different?

Re:This is a matter of point of view

[Trailer Trash]

Since noone purchased the music they did not subsequently agree to any copyright agreement.

There is no "copyright agreement". Something may be copyrighted whether you agree or not.

Re:This is a matter of point of view

[Jaysyn]

There is no such thing as copyright "agreement". Maybe you're getting confused with licensing. Copyright is bestowed upon creation of a work.

Re:This is a matter of point of view

[Jaysyn]

Wow, everyone & their brother beat me to the point. I should refresh before responding I guess.

Re:This is a matter of point of view

[j00r0m4nc3r]

If I find a copy of a book, I can't distribute copies of it. If I find a CD, I can't distribute copies of the CD

Just because it's a book or CD does not necessarily mean it is copyrighted, and if it's not, you are free to distribute copies to your heart's content.

Re:This is a matter of point of view

[Kjella]

Since noone purchased the music they did not subsequently agree to any copyright agreement.

Just like when you get a piece of GPL software?

"5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. (...)"

Whatever the mods are smoking today, it must be good.

Re:This is a matter of point of view

[linhux]

If isn't clearly marked as being not copyrighted, then it is. In general, everything copyrightable is copyrighted by default, unless the author puts it into the public domain (or the author could attach a license to it (such as Creative Commons), but then it'll still be copyrighted, just with some extra freedoms).

Re:This is a matter of point of view

[nine-times]

As much as people have tried to confuse the issue, "copyright" is pretty much exactly what it sounds like: the right to copy. If I own the copyright to a work, I can copy it all I want, and I can give out all the free copies that I want. However, the people who receive these free copies do not have any copy right, and so they are not allowed to copy those copies.

Re:This is a matter of point of view

[cparker15]

The big difference is that the book contains copyright notices in it. AFAIK, there was no such copyright notice on on the USB drive or as a disclaimer recorded in the beginning or end of the track(s).

If I give you the source code of a program I write, and that source code is not accompanied by a copyright notice or a license, that would essentially put that source code in the public domain. I would be distributing the source code to which I hold the copyright (NIN distributed the keys with their own songs on them) without any mention of what may or may not be done with the code.

Here's a question for those more in the know: Were these songs distributed via the USB keys before or after they were released on an RIAA label? My guess would be before, which would have placed them in the public domain before the RIAA held any supposed rights to them.

Re:This is a matter of point of view

[blueskies]

You are not up-to-date on US copyright law. You don't have to put notices to get copyright protection--it it automatically granted upon creation. from http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.htm

Notice of Copyright The use of a copyright notice is no longer required under U.S. law, although it is often beneficial. Because prior law did contain such a requirement, however, the use of notice is still relevant to the copyright status of older works. Notice was required under the 1976 Copyright Act. This requirement was eliminated when the United States adhered to the Berne Convention, effective March 1, 1989.

Today anything affixed to media is automatically copyrighted (if it is possible to be copyrighted ie: not facts or other such things)

Re:This is a matter of point of view

[ubuwalker31]

Nonsense. Say I attend a convention (let's say its a Linux convention) and hear a great presentation by a Linux guru, full of great tips and insights. He gives me a usb key with a 'tape' of his lecture in ogg format, with the expectation that I will pass around the USB to my friends and let them listen to the great one's insights on GNU/Linux. I did not enter into any contract in obtaining this USB key. Does this mean that I can make a copy of the ogg file and put it up on my web site? I think that it is IMPLIED that the answer is YES!

Re:This is a matter of point of view

[Anonymous Coward]

If I give you the source code of a program I write, and that source code is not accompanied by a copyright notice or a license, that would essentially put that source code in the public domain. I would be distributing the source code to which I hold the copyright (NIN distributed the keys with their own songs on them) without any mention of what may or may not be done with the code.

I have no idea where you live, but around here you need to have the author give you a license to redistribute. A public domain license does just that.

A work without a license is off limits. You can't redistribute it.

Re:This is a matter of point of view

[radish]

If I give you the source code of a program I write, and that source code is not accompanied by a copyright notice or a license, that would essentially put that source code in the public domain

Rubbish - for someone who proudly states his FSF membership you should be more knowledgable about copyright issues. In general, everything which is copyrightable is automatically copyrighted at creation. The music I write and record is under my copyright regardless of any (c) messages I might write on the label. The source I distribute on my website is copyrighted regardless of whether I put any headers on the files. The copyright messages often included in commercial (and non-commercial) works serve several useful purposes, including telling you who owns the copyright (so you may contact them for licensing) but they are not required to assert a claim.

Re:This is a matter of point of view

[vimh42]

Following your example I would say there is no difference. That book however contains a copyright notice. If those USB drives did not come with a copyright notice, then there is none, implied or otherwise. Who knows, maybe they're just songs from guy who sounds like Reznor (maybe that's a stretch).

Furthermore, there is absolutely no reason the people who released the songs should have expected the songs not to be distributed. Absolutely none. If they expected people to keep the songs to themselves, the whole stunt serves absolutely no purpose.

If they did want people to keep the songs to themselves, they should have realized it would be very much negative publicity to take legal action against sites hosting the songs.

While I'm wearing my Tin Foil hat...maybe this is part of the marketing ploy. Reznor wants the Riaa to take action becuase it gets press. People might make more of an effort to get his songs because they get to "stick it to the man". More want to buy Reznors album becuase he's a rebel leaking songs under his Labels and the RIAA nose. Nobody really cares that the RIAA looks bad, the Label makes money, Reznor gets more people listening to his music, everybody is happy except for a couple of sysops who got pesky take down notices from the RIAA goon squad.

All said and done, I hope NIN and other bands drop labels who are affiliated with the RIAA. They are killing you.

Re:This is a matter of point of view

[Anonymous Coward]

If I find a copy of a book, I can't distribute copies of it. If I find a CD, I can't distribute copies of the CD. Maybe you can't, but I can.

Who modded this insightful??

Re:This is a matter of point of view

[Anonymous Coward]

Now, explain to me why music is different?

Um, perhaps because their intention WAS to "leak" it and people figured it out using their awesome mind-reading capabilities?

Re:This is a matter of point of view

[qzulla]

Who owns the music?

If you scanned the book who would come after you, the author or the publisher?

qz

Re:This is a matter of point of view

[Anonymous Coward]

"Just because it's a book or CD does not necessarily mean it is copyrighted" - No, it means exactly that. Copyrightable things (say, novels or songs) become copyrighted as soon as they are "fixed in a tangible medium" - and the book or CD is that medium.
    If you found a piece of scrap paper with a four line poem, with no title, no mention of author, just the four lines - it would still copyrighted, and you would be breaking the law if you would distribute it.

Re:This is a matter of point of view

[gsslay]

Are other members of the Free Software Foundation equally misinformed about copyright law? Cos I don't think they should be.

Re:This is a matter of point of view

[gsslay]

Does this mean that I can make a copy of the ogg file and put it up on my web site?

The answer is no.

Besides, there is a difference between a lecture, which can't be mass marketed in its primary format, and a book, which may be the guy's primary way of earning a living. How about if your guru was a "self-help" guru and made a living selling audio tapes? Do you still think it would be ok to put a copy of the lecture online?

I don't think any of our supposed examples, or the band in question, would be overly worried about sharing the material with a few friends. Putting it online for the world to access is a whole other matter.

Re:This is a matter of point of view

[j00r0m4nc3r]

So what you're saying is that if I found a piece of paper on the street with this poem on it, I would be breaking the law by distributing it?:

Tyger! Tyger! burning bright
In the forests of the night,
What immortal hand or eye
Could frame thy fearful symmetry?

Re:This is a matter of point of view

[cparker15]

First off, donating money to a worthy cause doesn't automatically mean I have to be an expert in every field in which that particular organization is active. I think they fight a good fight, and I support them. I hardly think that making others aware of my support suddenly means I must be assimilated, so you need to back off.

Second, you can't tell me that if an Anonymous Coward posts their own solution to a complex problem as a comment on /. without attribution, then it wouldn't be public domain code. The very act of distributing the code without claim of authorship would, as far as I know, essentially create a public domain license. You hosting code on your Web site is different in that people are entering your domain to get the code. They know you're the author and they know who to contact to get permission to redistribute your code. If you, on the other hand, printed your copyrightless, authorless source code up as flyers and posted it all over your city square, you'd have a hard time defending your intellectual property rights over it when someone then decided to go a step further by photocopying it and further distributing it throughout all of your neighboring cities' squares. If you can honestly prove otherwise, I'd like to see a rebuttal, and will readily admit that I am wrong.

Re:This is a matter of point of view

[cparker15]

A public domain license does just that. A work without a license is off limits. You can't redistribute it.

Maybe I'm just misinformed, then. I was of the understanding that distributing your work out to the public without attribution or a set of "here's what you can do with this work" rules would place your work in the public domain. Sort of like if an Anonymous Coward answered someone's question on Ask Slashdot with code and didn't specify that the code may not actually be used for anything. Is there documentation somewhere that states otherwise? I'm looking, but I'm not able to find anything.

Re:This is a matter of point of view

[cparker15]

I'm looking, but I'm not able to find anything.

The closest I can come up with is this: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_States_Code/T itle_17/Chapter_3/Sections_302_and_303

Specifically:

(c) ANONYMOUS WORKS, PSEUDONYMOUS WORKS, AND WORKS MADE FOR HIRE.--In the case of an anonymous work, a pseudonymous work, or a work made for hire, the copyright endures for a term of 95 years from the year of its first publication, or a term of 120 years from the year of its creation, whichever expires first. If, before the end of such term, the identity of one or more of the authors of an anonymous or pseudonymous work is revealed in the records of a registration made for that work under subsections (a) or (d) of section 408, or in the records provided by this subsection, the copyright in the work endures for the term specified by subsection (a) or (b), based on the life of the author or authors whose identity has been revealed. Any person having an interest in the copyright in an anonymous or pseudonymous work may at any time record, in records to be maintained by the Copyright Office for that purpose, a statement identifying one or more authors of the work; the statement shall also identify the person filing it, the nature of that person's interest, the source of the information recorded, and the particular work affected, and shall comply in form and content with requirements that the Register of Copyrights shall prescribe by regulation.

This doesn't really take modern forms of distribution into account. Using the AC example, how could this be possible? Based on what I'm reading, an anonymous work would be in the public domain until the author claims the work. How would authorship be proven?

Hmm. You know what? I just realized something. Even though the tracks on the USB keys were distributed without stipulations, the files most likely were tagged with the author's name, so according to what I've read so far (far from an expert), NIN would legally hold the copyright. They weren't anonymous contributions. However this doesn't explain how the label can legally sue even though these tracks hadn't been released through the label yet. The band holds the copyright, and they were obviously (at least, it's obvious to me) intending for the tracks to be widely distributed, otherwise they would've used some other distribution medium, or they would'nt have distributed/leaked the tracks in the first place.

This would be like a label going after fans who independently host The Smashing Pumpkins' "Machina II", despite the band independently releasing and distributing the whole album at no cost via the Web. It just wouldn't hold ground. Why should this case with the NIN tracks?

Now, if someone decided to sell the tracks, that's an entirely different matter, although it would be up to the band to sue, not the RIAA (unless the band asked the RIAA to sue on their behalf).

Don't mind me. I'm more or less just thinking out loud. Feel free to rebut, explain, etc., though.

Will you bite the hand that feeds you?

[IndustrialComplex]

Does anyone else find it sad (ironic, funny, etc) that they chose to 'distribute' these songs at tour venues? In essence they distributed this song to the fans who were going to see them perform and very likely paid for their tickets/swag/CDs. Only then to turn around and use them as targets in their campaign?

Re:Will you bite the hand that feeds you?

[gsslay]

Hmm, targeting your own fans in a publicity campaign??? Outragous!

I don't find it sad, ironic or funny. Who better to give free giveaways too than your paying fans? Who better to prevent obtaining free giveaways than P2P freeloaders?

Re:Will you bite the hand that feeds you?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see it as ironic at all. they are giving the fans a treat to get to have an mp3 (i'm assuming) of the new songs coming out before the cd is released. its not uncommon for bands to put out a single from their upcoming CD before release, and its sure as hell not uncommon for them to perform songs from an up coming release to get people excited about it. giving fans who like your band enough to buy a ticket for a show is just a treat. its what people should actually look at mp3 as a marketing tool. you hear a song or 2 from the new album and like it so you go buy it. only the RIAA thinks that if you have access to one song from it for free you're never going to give an artist money again. i think its brilliant (security issues are still there tho) to give it away free to get people excited.

USB key in bathrooms

[Johnny Mnemonic]

The article didn't say, but I'm guessing that these were just random USB keys in a bathroom, perhaps with a band label on it. I'm afraid that you wouldn't get me to stick such a thing in my computer, NIN or not. I'm reminded of an old hacker trick: put floppies (old trick, right?) with the label "Executive Compensation Program" on them, leave them in the public place in a building of the company you're trying to get into. Who could resist putting that in their machine and taking a look, right? But whoops! On double-clicking the .xls it doesn't work, must be corrupted. Instead, you just got trojaned, behind the network firewalls and on the intranet. Maybe I'll take some USB sticks to the next NIN concert. (Better get some black ones, I guess.) And install them with a keylogger and I can get all the MySpace passwords I want.

Re:USB key in bathrooms

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's another old hacker trick: use the USB key on an old or test computer that is not hooked up to your network. Any old hacker has at least one old system lying around. If you infect that computer, who cares, wipe the drive, throw it away, or donate to your local library.

Re:USB key in bathrooms

[Hatta]

The article didn't say, but I'm guessing that these were just random USB keys in a bathroom, perhaps with a band label on it. I'm afraid that you wouldn't get me to stick such a thing in my computer, NIN or not.

Why not? Is your computer configured to automatically start executables it finds on removable media? What harm can there be in just mounting it and viewing data?

Re:USB key in bathrooms

[toddestan]

Why not? Is your computer configured to automatically start executables it finds on removable media? What harm can there be in just mounting it and viewing data?

You're still trusting it's a normal USB thumdrive, and not something else entirely.

Re:USB key in bathrooms

[Hatta]

Such as?

Re:USB key in bathrooms

[toddestan]

Every plug in play OS I have ever seen will automatically configure a USB keyboard for use automatically. So instead of a simple USB key, make it look like a USB key, but it presents itself to the computer as a keyboard, and starts sending down keystrokes. For example if I wanted to take down a Windows computer, I could have it do:

[windows key] + R
cmd [enter]
format c: [enter]
y [enter]

Of course, I could have it do anything I want. A more clever hack would be to have it present itself as a USB hub with USB drive and a keyboad attached. The keyboard would not know where Windows mounts the USB drive, but it could send down keystrokes like

[windows key] + R
cmd [enter]
d:\virus.exe [enter]
e:\virus.exe [enter]
f:\virus.exe [enter] ...

until it finds it. It would happen so fast that you'd be owned before you even realized what happened.

Of course, a more crude hack might be to put a couple of capacitors in the USB casing, and after a few seconds of charging up, the key sends a multi kV spike down the USB port and fries the computer.

Reminds me a rabid dog

[HangingChad]

RIAA reminds more of a rabid dog: Biting at friend and foe alike. An unreasoning animal with no clear objective.

I'm not sure what strategy they're pursuing, but it's not working. One wonders why member companies continue funding an organization that frequently acts against their membership's best interests and frequently paints them in a bad light. It's just astounding to me how poorly RIAA performs their task and how ineffective in achieving their objectives. And they don't seem to learn anything from past failures. It's like a corporate version of the Bush administration.

Re:Reminds me a rabid dog

[Zontar_Thing_From_Ve]

I'm not sure what strategy they're pursuing, but it's not working. One wonders why member companies continue funding an organization that frequently acts against their membership's best interests and frequently paints them in a bad light. It's just astounding to me how poorly RIAA performs their task and how ineffective in achieving their objectives. And they don't seem to learn anything from past failures. It's like a corporate version of the Bush administration.

I'd say it's because they're always been opposed to new ways of doing business because they're not smart enough to see new opportunities as a way to make money. To them, change=bad. People that run record labels are rarely all that bright. Clive Davis, who people think is some kind of genius I guess because he kind of ran Whitney Houston's career in the 80s, is a perfect example. He ran Arista Records at one time. Arista was the home of The Monkees. At the time of the Monkees revival in 1986 when they became popular all over again, the only LP/CD/tape available of their recordings were a couple of compilations. Their original LP releases had been out of print for over a decade because Davis and his cronies thought nobody would buy them. Rhino Records had the foresight to license (and eventually buy outright) the rights to re-issue the old LPs and they made multi-millions of dollars on them as almost all the re-issues entered the LP charts. These are the kinds of people you are dealing with in the recording industry. These are the people the RIAA represents. So it doesn't surprise me at all that the RIAA acts in ways that are against the members best interests because the members aren't bright enough to even know what their best interests are anyway. Record companies were opposed to radio playing records in the 1940s because "then nobody will buy records". Then they opposed audio cassettes ("nobody will buy LPs - everyone will just copy them") and so on.

Oh Not Again

[mpapet]

As other posts have already mentioned some aspects of the nonsensical summary, another one is feeding the rabid fans with a USB key is somehow a new business model.

There's no new business model selling music at shows. It's already been done. Some acts even sell the show the audience _just_ saw. (as in right off the sound board with no post-production)

Even when an act does the hard work of getting in the van and doing shows at small venues for decades, you can be pretty much assured if you want the CD in Walmart, it's coming through one of the major labels. The media conglomerates operate as a cartel (have been prosecuted as such) when it comes to traditional physical media distribution.

Oh, the irony

[Anonymous Coward]

"Dystopian, apocalyptic themes are pervasive on the album...Interscope reps would speak to Billboard about the campaign, which has encompassed everything from cryptic phrases on T-shirts to Orwellian Web-Sites"

Railing against Orwellian-ness when you're represented by one (RIAA).

Don't sell Rez short - he knows his marketing...

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

According to a source, the only leaks are the ones Reznor approved himself. And whether he realizes it or not, Reznor may be building a new option for presenting music that augments the existing CD/tour scenario.

Um...you really think Rez's leaking songs for something other than to augment his gravy train (CD/tour)? No, like most people trying to make a living in entertainment, he's picked up some marketing savvy along the way, and is using the same "try before you buy" technique that also works when selling software, illegal drugs and laundry detergent.

The story about dropping USBs in the shitter is just a brilliant way to get even more free press: a band putting their B-sides on its web site is already quite common and won't get its story...

Has anyone

[Floritard]

heard the new songs? I'll check later when I get home, but I love nin and was just wondering the other day if trent might be near to releasing some new music. Granted nin has been downhill since downward spiral but here's hoping music released on stray USB keys on the piss covered floor of a filthy concert toilet is indicative of a "return to glory" for the band whose sound of late has had a little too much 80's sap and synth for my taste.

Re:Has anyone

[Anonymous Coward]

too much synth in a nin song? what the fuck are you talking about?

Re:Has anyone

[operagost]

Granted nin has been downhill since downward spiral

That seems logical.

Re:Has anyone

[Anonymous Coward]

80's sap and synth? I take it you've never listened to Pretty Hate Machine. And The Downward Spiral was probably about 80%-90% synth and samplers.

If you go to their website....

[RockoTDF]

Yeah, and if you go to nin.com or check their RSS feed you can listen to the whole album there. I'm a huge NIN fan and I'm kind of disappointed, but that is beside the point. How is going online and listening to them there any different from downloading them when the album isn't actually out yet? Makes no sense to me.

Re:If you go to their website....

[UncleTogie]

How is going online and listening to them there any different from downloading them when the album isn't actually out yet?
...and what if your internet connection is down, or you don't HAVE a 'net connection?

Re:If you go to their website....

[kusanagi374]

Well, when you listen to something online it has to be stored somehow offline so that the computer can play it. And if you can play it, you can save it. And if you can save it... well, you get the idea.

Trent leaked his album himself.

Nothing new

[jlcooke]

The Barenaked ladies did this in their last tour to support their "Barenaked for the Holidays" album.

USB + MP3 + concert.

Not to take away from Trent, big fan of his and the 'Ladies.

Is this a War ?

[The Media Mechanic]

What is really going on here?

The more articles I read about this lawsuit campaign by the RIAA mafia against individual citizens, and I read about counterattacks and people pooling their resources to mount an effective legal defense, the more I realize that there is a very real and very serious WAR going on. It is a War of Attrition between the recording industry and you and me. They are hoping that we will eventually cave in and resign ourselves to paying twice or thrice for something we already own.

The body count of this war are the grandmothers and senior citizens who are being sued for having a zombie botware PC.

The collateral damage in this war are our freedoms and civil liberties and the concept of private property and ownership.

Perhaps it is time to stop the battle and make peace.

Steve Jobs made a good step in the right direction by asking the music industry to stop using DRM. He's the right person for this important task. (He's sort of like a diplomat or ambassador between , to continue my analogy between warring nation-states). Basically he's one of the few high-profile individuals who has enough street cred in both the Computer Tech industry and the Media / Entertainment industry, to make REAL CHANGE HAPPEN.

I propose that we support Mr. Jobs as our peace ambassador to cease the hostilities between us (individuals) and them (RIAA).

Because really we all just want to be happy and reach a reasonable balance and enjoy good music and new media content.

Re:OMG copyright makes no sense

[Headcase88]

Or maybe, just maybe, it's because people won't spend millions of dollars producing a movie / video game / etc. just so they can distribute it for free and make no money off of it, effectively wasting the millions of dollars they spent producing it.

Just maybe.

Something to chew on.

Actually, I think all stores should just give away all of their products for free. Then we wouldn't have to worry about that pesky "money" at all, everyone will have what they want, and the world will be perfect! Damn, can you believe no one else has thought of that? I must be a genius or something.

Ummm

[thanksforthecrabs]

How was the person who found the music to know it WAS NOT a public domain song??

Re:Ummm

[BradleyUffner]

How was the person who found the music to know it WAS NOT a public domain song??

Riiiiight, so just to be on the safe side they should upload it to the internet for everyone to copy.

Re:Ummm

[Russ Nelson]

There is no such thing as a public domain song unless the song is older than 1920 (or some such number, and some newer works may also have gone into the public domain). Everything is copyrighted by default now.

But that's just what the legislation says. The law may differ.

You can cut the sarcasm with a knife

[Headcase88]

Oh shit, sorry for responding to my own post, but I just realized that if everything was free, people would just take advantage of the system, not do any work whatsoever, take as much shit as they possibly can, and all of human civilization would crumble in a matter of days.

Sorry about giving so many of you guys false hope.

Re:You can cut the sarcasm with a knife

[veganboyjosh]

i think that if everything were free, then people wouldn't tend to hoard. a big reason people buy so much crap now is that they're bombarded with ads. not that (most) people see an ad and immediately go into "must-go-buy-consumer-product-655321" mode, but they hear ads, their friends hear ads, they want to be like their friends, etc. sort of a one-ups man ship type thing.

if everything were free, i'm sure we'd see a glut of "gimme gimme gimme" right away, but then it would taper off as people realize they only have enough space for so much.

i found myself in a similar situation in regards to pirated music. when i first got introduced to bit torrent, i went nuts downloading everything i might ever be interested in having the ability to listen to. then i filled up my hard drive. then another. then i was faced with buying more storage, or tapering off my consumption of "free" music/movies/whatever. it started to cost something to store it all.

the other issue is that i don't need to download it all, since it's mostly all available anytime i want it. it's just a matter of finding a source for it.

people won't be in such a rush to get the latest greatest thing once it's all available for free, cos they can get whatever they want, whenever they want. there'd be no false sense of scarcity, etc.

i'm not saying that everything should be free, nor that there wouldn't be a slew of problems inherent in such a system. i'm just saying that i don't think the current consumer mentality would transfer over if all of a sudden every product and service were all of a sudden free. as in beer.

Re:You can cut the sarcasm with a knife

[Anonymous Coward]

So basically you're saying music artists who want to be rewarded for the effort they put in should start investing heavily in storage media companies and provide all their songs for free! Genius!

Re:You can cut the sarcasm with a knife

[HolyCrapSCOsux]

At the risk of sounding retarded, I don't believe money can be done away with. Here's why:

If money were outmoded, how could anyone be "better" than anyone else? There will be no "have-not"s. The "have"s can't allow that sort of thing to happen.

Re:You can cut the sarcasm with a knife

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly, the shitdot sheeple love communism. Why do you think linsux is so fucking popular with the shitdot sheeple. They want everything given to them.

Shitdot sheeple are a group of dumb and lazy fucktards who should save darwin the trouble and end it all by slitting their fucking wrists.

GO AHEAD, FUCKING FLAME AWAY OR
WASTE YOUR GODDAMNED MOD POINTS
FUCKTARDED SHITDOT SHEEPLE!!!!!

Re:You can cut the sarcasm with a knife

[Anonymous Coward]

Genius!

Goddamn right! Now STFU!

Any Publicity is Good Publicity

[qigong]

It seems like the marketing brilliance of this entire scenario is being missed by a lot of people here. How much publicity would NIN gotten without the RIAA enforcement? Would we be having this discussion, for instance? This seems like a well-orchestrated stunt, and color me impressed.

1. NIN scatter these songs around to their fans
2. Predictably, the fans post the songs
3. Somehow RIAA discovers this "infringement"
4. NIN looks like the good guy, RIAA makes the news
5. ...Profit!

How do you suppose the RIAA discovered this infringement?

Re:Any Publicity is Good Publicity

[saintory]

If you take a look at the site and the story behind the album, one could correlate the behavior of the RIAA to "the man" in the story. Pretty cool how the RIAA attack really helps Trent's cause.

Re:Any Publicity is Good Publicity

[dlim]

Additionally, the revenue from the out-of-court settlements could offset the cost of the USB Keys.

Ownership?

[Anonymous Coward]

"There is a legitimate question of ownership here so the parent is not off base."

a) the label signed off on the campaign
b) the RIAA doesn't own the songs, either the artists or the labels do

If they didn't like the marketing campaign...

[dfay]

What do you think they'll make of this?

Trent Reznor has put the full album up on the official website for promotional purposes.
http://yearzero.nin.com/

(no reg: http://yearzero.nin-thespiral.com/FLJoi4gjw2f/play er.html?reg=no)

This is the first RIAA-produced album I'm considering breaking my boycott for. First, because it's very good, and secondly, because even if they may get some profit from it, the message to them should be very clear.

Re:If they didn't like the marketing campaign...

[Basilius]

Coincidentally, the only band I break my RIAA boycott on also has their entire album up on their website. The Tragically Hip. (http://www.thehip.com)

Re:If they didn't like the marketing campaign...

[TubeSteak]

I don't know why anyone would be interested in saving/listening to audio in flv format, but here they are anyways:

http://http.vitalstreamcdn.com/sparkart2_vitalstre am_com/sparkart/nyz/01Hyperpower.flv
http://http.vitalstreamcdn.com/sparkart2_vitalstre am_com/sparkart/nyz/02TheBeginningoftheEnd.flv
http://http.vitalstreamcdn.com/sparkart2_vitalstre am_com/sparkart/nyz/03Survivalism.flv
http://http.vitalstreamcdn.com/sparkart2_vitalstre am_com/sparkart/nyz/04TheGoodSoldier.flv
http://http.vitalstreamcdn.com/sparkart2_vitalstre am_com/sparkart/nyz/05Vessel.flv
http://http.vitalstreamcdn.com/sparkart2_vitalstre am_com/sparkart/nyz/06MeImNot.flv
http://http.vitalstreamcdn.com/sparkart2_vitalstre am_com/sparkart/nyz/07CapitolG.flv
http://http.vitalstreamcdn.com/sparkart2_vitalstre am_com/sparkart/nyz/08MyViolentHeart.flv
http://http.vitalstreamcdn.com/sparkart2_vitalstre am_com/sparkart/nyz/09TheWarning.flv
http://http.vitalstreamcdn.com/sparkart2_vitalstre am_com/sparkart/nyz/10GodGiven.flv
http://http.vitalstreamcdn.com/sparkart2_vitalstre am_com/sparkart/nyz/11MeetYourMaster.flv
http://http.vitalstreamcdn.com/sparkart2_vitalstre am_com/sparkart/nyz/12TheGreaterGood.flv
http://http.vitalstreamcdn.com/sparkart2_vitalstre am_com/sparkart/nyz/13TheGreatDestroyer.flv
http://http.vitalstreamcdn.com/sparkart2_vitalstre am_com/sparkart/nyz/14AnotherVersionOfTheTruth.flv
http://http.vitalstreamcdn.com/sparkart2_vitalstre am_com/sparkart/nyz/15InThisTwilight.flv
http://http.vitalstreamcdn.com/sparkart2_vitalstre am_com/sparkart/nyz/16ZeroSum.flv

Re:If they didn't like the marketing campaign...

[jeffeb3]

don't break your ban, download it, and sent trent the $0.25.

Re:If they didn't like the marketing campaign...

[Anonymous Coward]

Got his PayPal address? If so, I'd gladly send him $1, which is more than the record company is paying him. Hell, if the album's any good, I'll send him $5.

But as long as he is signed to an RIAA member label, there isn't a chance in hell I will buy the new NIN album in the customary way.

Re:If they didn't like the marketing campaign...

[Anonymous Coward]

Because maybe they could strip the .flv container to end up with the creamy 256k MP3 goodness inside?

me, i'm not

[Anonymous Coward]

Trent is not a fan of the RIAA, I doubt he or anyone affiliated with nothing/interscope (his label) was involved in this. Their lawyer is probably chewing out a RIAA lackey at this very moment telling them not to fuck with Trent's fans or his efforts to promote his new album using unconventional means. Trent is actually quite the geek and may very well be reading this Slashdot story.

Re:me, i'm not

[TheCRAIGGERS]

If Trent was really "not a fan of the RIAA" then his label wouldn't be a fucking member of it. I wish it wasn't; my love for NiN is not as strong as my hatred for the RIAA.

Re:me, i'm not

[Anonymous Coward]

RIAA is the only game in town at the moment. Since nothing records is in limbo because Trent's former manager tried to screw him he has to release under interscope. Chances are the RIAA is involved because Trent's former manager contacted them.

Re:me, i'm not

[TheCRAIGGERS]

From what I remember, Nothing was still owned by Interscope Records. Granted, it was run by Trent, but it's just a vanity label, and still owned by Interscope. This would leave me to think that Nothing was therefore part of the RIAA as well.

While it may be true that Trent doesn't like the RIAA (I wouldn't know, never talked to him) it still remains true that he's funding their coffers. I don't know his entire situation, but I'm thinking that he's big enough that if he wanted to leave Interscope and do his own thing on his own terms, he could do it easily.

Also, what you said about RIAA being the "only game in town" you are ABSURDLY wrong. Go look at the RIAA-radar and you'll see that there are PLENTY of other labels that don't belong to the RIAA, some other them even big enough to have some decent distribution. And all of them would eat their own shit for a chance to sign NiN.

Re:OMG copyright makes no sense

[Lemmy Caution]

The fact that you aren't being charged for the air you breathe is putting a huge crimp in the oxygen-distribution-management industry. Your sense of entitlement is costing jobs!

Really, if it becomes so ridiculously difficult to turn a service into a commodity, maybe it isn't viable to try to create an unenforceable and counter-intuitive legal fiction to make it so. Which means that you shouldn't bother making videogames, software, or music if your only model for getting supported for it is a unit-sales one. You'll notice that comedy and cooking remains viable industries, even though jokes and recipes are not treated as salable commodities.

Multi-tracks available for Download

[rd]

Trent also puts some of his songs on his site for re-mixing http://yearzero.nin.com/ & http://www.nin.com/downloads/index.html

You can download the complete multi-track songs to re-mix.

He definitely understands the audience and marketing!

so you can distribute found copyrighted material?

[192939495969798999]

So it should be legal to distribute copyrighted material how you see fit, so long as you didn't pay for it? WTF?

Question:

[Pojut]

Doesn't Reznor own his own music label? Wouldn't that make it his perogative if he wants to give away the music on HIS LABEL for free? What could the RIAA possibly have to say about this if Reznor owns the label?

Re:Question:

[Anonymous Coward]

even a cursory look at wikipedia or google would tell you he is on Interscope records

Re:Question:

[Pojut]

Wasn't aware that he no longer released stuff on his own...Reznor started Nothing Records with his manager...in fact, I think Marylin Manson was signed on to it for a time.

That's even mroe bizzare...what's the point of owning your own record label if you are just gonna whore yourself out to another one?

Re:Question:

[Maluvin X]

A lot of artist labels are really just subsidiaries of larger record labels. While some of them might have some room to negotiate for differences from the standard contracts present by the parent company at the end of the day they are not going to allow a subsidiary to deviate too far from the parent's interests and policies. In this particular case I'm not sure whether or not Trent or any of his immediate people actually signed off on (or were aware) of the RIAA's action. It's highly likely that there's a clause in his contract that allows the parent company to take action on their own and the present situation probably arises from the legal departments and marketting departments not communicating promptly or adequately.

Re:OMG copyright makes no sense

[networkBoy]

you wouldn't happen to be from planet spaceball are you?
-nB

I can see the future !

[alexhs]

I saw it last week :)

Both are just weird tactics...

was part of an alternate reality game

[SLot]

The USB keys were left at concert scenes as clues for the viral promotion/alternate reality game for the upcoming Year Zero album.

The leaked tracks contained hidden messages/images/phone #'s as well as the tracks themselves.

see Here and here for loads more info.

All in in it was a rather creepy little ARG, and clues are still being discovered.

Re:was part of an alternate reality game

[Rob T Firefly]

Yeah, for a few weeks my inbox was peppered with email from friends along the lines of "there's this weird NIN thing, I think it's computer hacker stuff, you're a nerd right?"

Much of it is actually fairly brilliant, the Wikipedia article is worth a once-over if you haven't been following things. I'm especially impressed with the fact that they hid a picture in the spectrogram of one of the songs.

Which brings me back to this article.. NIN wasn't just leaking music tracks, they were distributing clues which were part of this whole ARG thing. As such, they were obivously counting on the tracks being further distributed, unless they really believed that the one person who picked up the USB stick in the bathroom would just happen to be a steganography buff or whatever. People were supposed to throw these tracks around and analyse the crap out of them.

Re:was part of an alternate reality game

[chris_eineke]

I'm especially impressed with the fact that they hid a picture in the spectrogram of one of the songs.

I know for certain that Aphex Twin has done that before. Can somebody identify more artists that have done that?

Re:was part of an alternate reality game

[Icculus]

There are a few others: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrogram#Creating_ sound_from_a_spectrogram

it's leaked

[Anonymous Coward]

it leaked two days ago and they placed the flash stream up to combat it according to Spiral Spokesman Rob Sheridan.

Re:OMG copyright makes no sense

[rucs_hack]

Your post isn't as silly as you thought. people in south America had to pay north American corporations for clean drinking water not so long back. If they refused to pay, their water was just cut off.

I don't recall the company, or country involved, I saw a documentary on it last year.

WHAT?!

[Anonymous Coward]

What nonsense. By your logic:

You find a device with songs on it for FREE, that gives you the right to distribute.

You buy a device with songs on it for a cost, that does not give you the right to distribute.

Explain to me why being given a gift gives you the right to copy it with impunity for the rest of the world?

Formal request

[ab0mb88]

I am writing you to request that you change your beliefs immediately. Please do not even joke about putting the RIAA and reality television producers in the same room. Every time anyone did anything that was entertaining that was not broadcast on television this new group would sue for potential loss of revenue. The legal system and civilized society would be destroyed over night.

Re:OMG copyright makes no sense

[Lemmy Caution]

Well, delivering clean drinking water is, in fact, an important service, and needs to be paid for somehow, and it usually is. Now, if those North American companies were charging for the right to collect rainwater, then the same reductio ad absurdum applies.

Bad article

[cwilly]

The article does a horrible job of explaining the campaign. Here are http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070402/music_nm/ninei nchnails_dc;_ylt=AgIXkKsEUNycFRi_5MtSiIeVEhkFtwo http://www.rollingstone.com/rockdaily/index.php/20 07/02/22/year-zero-project-way-cooler-than-lost/si tes that do a better job. This "new thing" everyone is talking about has less to do with the fact that he's giving music away on USB keys and more to do with the series of sites that are linked together and help promote the album. The first site's address to be "discovered" by fans was given in highlighted letters on a tour t-shirt. From there, further "codes" were solved and those lead to other sites, all related to NIN and the album. The keys/songs are just bonus material for fans at the concerts. The sites, with the USB keys, with the tour, with the album is what they are buzzing about, not just the USB keys.

Re:Bad article

[dr_eaerth]

The first site's address to be "discovered" by fans was given in highlighted letters on a tour t-shirt. From there, further "codes" were solved and those lead to other sites, all related to NIN and the album.

I was reading about this the other day, and it's pretty cool. Usually when a company makes one of these fictional promo websites, it's lame, but somehow Trent and friends have caught the rabid fan interest. The clues are involved and difficult (running an MP3 from a USB drive through a spectrograph, WTH), and if anyone else had done it, no one would have even noticed that the promo campaign existed.

All for what seems to be a concept album (normally derided by everyone but progrock fans) (but not me, I like them).

Here is the site I came across that describes it, gives links to the various sites, and shows how the sites were discovered: http://ninwiki.com/Year_Zero_Research.

And some of the sites are pretty neat timecuberrific web design.

Throwing away karma that I never had...

[bannerman]

In Windows Vista, autorun is not a danger. Not any more than browsing a web site, anyhow. It asks you before it lets you do anything. Maybe rather than bashing the seemingly endless requests for administrative access, people should realize that the applications they're running shouldn't need it anyway.

Re:Throwing away karma that I never had...

[argent]

In Windows Vista, autorun is not a danger. Not any more than browsing a web site, anyhow. It asks you before it lets you do anything.

And this has been proven time and time again NOT to be sufficient protection. In my job as a system and network administrator, I have time and time again had people come to me and tell me that they accidentally approved one of these annoying dialogs AGAIN and now their computer was acting funny. When you have to approve some action repeatedly as part of the normal use of your computer, then approving that action and any other dialog similar to the one that you acknowledge to approve that action become reflex.

On the other hand, I have never had the same person come to me twice and say "I downloaded a file to my desktop and opened it AGAIN and now my computer is acting funny".

Because there's no automatic stimulus-response loop created by downloading a file and then, at a later time, at your own convenience, opening it.

Therefore, when a computer system seems to require the use of an approval dialog, that should be taken as a sign that the user interface may need to be modified to make the dialog irerelevant.

Whether that is "running an activeX object on visiting a web site" or "running an autoloaded applicaction when plugging in an unknown memory stick".

Re:Throwing away karma that I never had...

[bannerman]

You missed my point. It's the software that you're running on your computer that is requiring administrative approval and thus training you to click the "whatever" button. Obviously it can't be enough. The only way to really secure a computer is to pull the plug. We all know that. We can at least give people the tools they need to protect themselves. Whether they use them or not- that's up to them.

Idiots are suing McDs for making food that they HAVE to eat that isn't healthy. I say, take the warnings off the coffee cups. Give people a little respect. Expect them to behave responsibly and they will. Treat them like sheep and they will become sheep.

Re:Throwing away karma that I never had...

[argent]

I'm still missing your point.

My point is that "it's no more dangerous than browsing the web" is too dangerous already if you're using Internet Explorer, and the reason is that the "should I do something stupid" dialog box doesn't actually provide much protection.

If your point was that browsing the web with a Microsoft browser is already too dangerous, of course I agree, but if so you didn't exress yourself terribly well.

Ironically, the album did leak..

[cliveholloway]

...(probably) between when this article was submitted and now (here).

But, because Trent GETS IT, it looks like they had a player already lined up, and you can legally listen to the album here (I bet Rob can't wait to get slashdotted :)

Of course the album will leak before it hits the shops. The RI(fucking)AA haven't a clue how to use this to increase sales, so they run around like a headless chicken. Trent decided that since it was going to happen anyway, he might as well be in control as much as possible as to what gets released and when. Makes perfect sense to me from a marketing perspective.

Not only all that, but this album is the best in over a decade (IMHO) - look out for "Vessel" and "The Great Destroyer" (complete with a token nod to The Prophet's Song by Queen :) I think that TGD can best be summed up by (stolen from ETS), "I AM THE GREAT DESTOYYYYYYYYEEEEEEEEEER-BOOOM-ZOING-BOOOOM-ZOING- BOOOM, CUURr OAOOOOWWW TING TING BOW!" - yep, the noise is back :)

Google did it first

[Comboman]

The band Nine Inch Nails has intentionally 'leaked' songs via USB keys hidden at restrooms . . . . . Reznor may be building a new option for presenting music that augments the existing CD/tour scenario.'"

Google already has a plan for distributing files via restrooms

One Key...

[neersign]

One Key To Rule Them All...Starring the RIAA/MPAA as the All Seeing Eye and their lawyers as Dark Knights.

I feel like I've read/seen this before...

Re:OMG copyright makes no sense

[rucs_hack]

That's actually the main point that was made, they banned the collecting of rainwater.

Ironically x 2 - Pirates Will Out

[JackSpratts]

The whole album has leaked. Its being traded in its entirety now. - js.

The RIAA... a mad dog biting itself for sympathy

[swschrad]

and finding none.

Year Zero already released for free

[rHBa]

Assuming that the album in question is Year Zero, they have already released it for free on their own site @ 256kbps (in an .flv container) for the princely sum of... your/an email address.

A leak?

[dkoulomzin]

The band Nine Inch Nails has intentionally 'leaked' songs via USB keys hidden at restrooms during their current European tour. Excuse me guys, I gotta go take a 'leak'.

Re:A leak?

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod parent up LOL :)

Choice? Certainly, yes.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure they have a choice.

Copyright is not like Trademark law, where if you don't actively protect something you loose the rights to it. Copyright holders can opt to allow whatever they choose, and still retain their rights to it. (The RIAA, by the way, doesn't have any rights whatsoever in relation to the material in question. They're just the jackbooted thugs who claim to be protecting the rights of the artists *cough*, and Labels.)

In this instance, if Trent Reznor and/or Nine Inch Nails retain(s) rights to the songs, then yes, they would be within them to distribute such USB drives, and to dictate how that material was disseminated, as long as that conformed to the terms of right of distribution outlined in their agreement with any other holders of copyright interest (that is, if it isn't violating the terms of their agreement with the Label).

As has been pointed out, however, even if that falls within the category of promotional copies, that doesn't automatically extend further rights of distribution by other extended means.

It doesn't follow from that that the RIAA is required to pursue the matter, even if they may have an interest in doing so. If the Label has a problem with the distribution, however, it may well be within their bounds (the Label's and possibly by extension the MAF^H^H^H^H RIAA's) to have it pursued.

Keep it up RIAA

[Anonymous Coward]

I haven't bought a retail CD in 10 years. About the same time I became aware of the beast in the shadows and where my money was REALLY going. Before that I gave way too much money to these goons who leech off of real talent and skill.(for the most part - a lot of these bands just suck, that's why no one buys it)

Trent's marketing campaign is cool but it's not like it's the first time someone has done this.

Copyright forever!

[glgraca]

Copyright should be granted for eternity and Bach's descendents should receive royalties for all songs based on the pentatonic system.

Hum

[matt me]

Successful penetration in the restroom? Maybe we should worry about our vulnerabilities.

Copyright notice?

[mengel]

So was there a copyright notice on these thumb drives?

If not, too darned bad. It's the problem of whoever made the thumb drive images.

We are the RIAA Execs who say NiN!

[krbvroc1]

Arthur: Who are you?
RIAA Execs of NiN: We are the RIAA Execs who say..... "NiN"!
Arthur: (horrified) No! Not the RIAA Execs who say "NiN"!
RIAA Execs of NiN: The same.
Other RIAA Execs of NiN: Who are we?
RIAA Execs of NiN: We are the keepers of the sacred music: NiN, Ping, and Nee-womm!
Other RIAA Execs of NiN: Nee-womm!
Arthur: (to Bedevere) Those who hear them seldom live to tell the tale!
RIAA Execs of NiN: The knights who say "NiN" demand..... a royalty!
Arthur: RIAA Execs of NiN, we are but simple travelers who seek the musician who
lives beyond these woods.
RIAA Execs of NiN: NiN! NiN! NiN! NiN! NiN! NiN! NiN! NiN! NiN!
Bedevere: No! Noooo! Aaaugh! No!
RIAA Execs of NiN: We shall say "NiN" to you... if you do not appease us.
Arthur: Well what is it you want?
Knight of Ni: We want.....Royalties! All your music belong to us.

Re:We are the RIAA Execs who say NiN!

[illumin8]

Knight of Ni: We want.....Royalties! All your music belong to us.

Ugh... 1999 called and they want their jokes back.

Re:We are the RIAA Execs who say NiN!

[Anonymous Coward]

Come on, you know it was hilarious! Just admit it...

Re:OMG copyright makes no sense

[Lockejaw]

The fact that you aren't being charged for the air you breathe is putting a huge crimp in the oxygen-distribution-management industry. Your sense of entitlement is costing jobs!

I'm terribly sorry! I wasn't aware of all the money that goes into producing and distributing oxygen. Silly me, I thought it was generated by natural processes and sent all over the world by diffusion.
Since it costs so much, maybe we can negotiate a fair compensation. Show me all the hard work done by oxygen producers and distributors, and I'm sure we can agree on a reasonable fee.

If they've given it away?

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you pass something in to the PD? Give it away. So far as I know, there isn't any specific way of doing so...

Re:OMG copyright makes no sense

[broohaha]

Your post isn't as silly as you thought. people in south America had to pay north American corporations for clean drinking water not so long back. If they refused to pay, their water was just cut off.

I don't recall the company, or country involved, I saw a documentary on it last year.

Company was a subsidiary of Bechtel. Country was Bolivia.

Here's a link to a piece by PBS.

Re:OMG copyright makes no sense

[broohaha]

I don't recall the company, or country involved, I saw a documentary on it last year.

The company was a Bechtel subsidiary. And the country was Bolivia. Check out this piece that PBS did on the water crisis in Bolivia.

call me crazy but...

[EdelFactor19]

IANAL but well the way i see it, if all that was left behind was a usb key with a file on it that was this NIN song, and lets presume that it was just an mp3; the person who discovers the usb key could do whatever they like with it including posting it on the web as he/she pleased. Why? Better question why not! Did the person sign a license, no (unless there is some legalese file on the usb key as well, or extremely visible copyright mark in the file name). The person would have every right to do what they please with the file. They have no reason to believe that is copyrighted or anything. Heck they could call distribution of it fair use in intent to discern the authenticity of the recording and what it actually really is. Assuming there was no license of any sort that was visible to the user I dont see what the RIAA can do, other than ask for the person to stop sharing it if they go and produce the copyright and demonstrate that the file is indeed the copyrighted recording..

here's my parallel analogy. I walk into a hotel bathroom and find a hand written piece of paper with some code on it which I read and decide I have a use for in my product. There is no name or copyright info of any kind on the paper. I then share the code with people from my website as an interesting utility. I have no way of knowing who wrote it or what it is. Does due diligence require me to google the whole internet to find a verbatim reproduction of this code? Do I have to google for utilities that might do what this thing does despite not knowing if the code is the same? And furthermore even if someone complains and says that it is their code how can they prove that that code is theirs.

What if it was an unmarked cassette, can I rip that and through any other means copy/sell/publish (perhaps on a compilation of awesome songs or such? If someone were to actually have the rights to it would they be entitled to collecting money from me? Or would I just have to stop.

I am most definitely not a lawyer but the question of due diligence seems to be a very complicated one. Not to mention possible contamination of knowledge that has occurred.

All in all this just seems like a pretty stupid thing.
and if there is some hidden way to verify copyright info on an mp3 that should probably be published in a highly visible place... but in these cases how can you be sure that they werent just set as copyrighted without actuallybeing copyrighted.
point in question: if i write a piece of code and then simply write "copyright x/x/2007" on it, does that actually make it copyrighted? I didn't think so..

Re:call me crazy but...

[Anonymous Coward]

if i write a piece of code and then simply write "copyright x/x/2007" on it, does that actually make it copyrighted? I didn't think so..

Not as such, it would be copyrighted anyway without the notice. Proving you own the copyright is a different matter that might be more difficult, though I think sufficient proof of this is posting a copy to someone (it might be okay to even post it to yourself) using recorded delivery and keeping the envelope sealed, although there may be better ways to do this.

It is best to assume something is copyrighted unless you know it definitely isn't.

Web Sites Center Around Campaign

[rollinthunda0ne]

Here are the sites in the Year Zero Campaign, and their respective pages on the NinWiki:

1. I Am Trying To Believe
2. Another Version of the Truth
3. Be the Hammer
4. 105th Airborne Crusaders
5. Church of Plano
6. Consolidated Mail Systems
7. U.S. Wiretap
8. Art Is Resistance
9. Hollywood In Memoriam
10. Secure Broadcast Informatics
11. The Water Turned To Blood
12. Judson Ogram Correctional Facility
13. Cedocore
14. Operation Swamp 0000
15. Operation Chip Sweep
16. The Mailstrom
17. The Price of Treason
18. Open Source Resistance

The album might have leaked ;]

[emAugust]

From the writeup.... "Ironically, with its numerous pirated downloads available, the whole album has not leaked yet."

Well, i'm not saying I have the full album ;] - or that infact anyone does - but I do know that the full album has been leaked to one of the largest Pro Audio companies in the country on the employee level... A very cool way to impactfully leak a record as people in general love to promote and talk about music in the audio industry! And in most likelihood, also done as a thank you because people like Trent Reznor usually require a great deal of support with their high end studio systems. Or prototype models. Or discounts and sponsorships...

Re:Don't sell Rez short - he knows his marketing..

[FlatLine84]

Talk about free publicity, look at our posts and attention we're giving it. Not to mention the other places posting this story. It seems today, that the best way to sell an album, is to get RIAA involved....

Re:Don't sell Rez short - he knows his marketing..

[mehself]

Mix one part guerrilla marketing (the USB keys), one part viral marketing (the online alternative reality campaign), an RIAA uprising and then multiply that by the number of media outlets covering this/before and you hopefully get a decent selling album in this long-tail age.

Trent has done media-inducing things like this before. Last year right before the previous album came out he was slated to play on that "music" tv channel in front of an un-doctored picture of the president. MTV denied him that right, he pulled out, gave a witty soundbite, and then the media swarmed.

Re:OMG copyright makes no sense

[Lemmy Caution]

Well, I planted a bunch of trees that are generating much of the oxygen. That took me a few hours, so I think $600 should cover it.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Don't badmouth them!

[Anonymous Coward]

Child molesters are people too.

Trent leaked the music and data he WANTED out

[Anonymous Coward]

According to this site: http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/0,,2 044599,00.html

Partway down the page, the quote that's relevant:

"The USB drive was simply a mechanism of leaking the music and data we wanted out there," he explained. "The medium of the CD is outdated and irrelevant. It's really painfully obvious what people want - DRM-free music they can do what they want with. If the greedy record industry would embrace that concept I truly think people would pay for music and consume more of it."

This according to Trent Reznor.

Do with what they want. WHAT THEY WANT. Trent seems to want to embrace his fans.
Heck, he "leaked" a Torrent of the Closure DVDs that have been in limbo for years, he leaked a Torrent of the Broken movie, and he's offered up elements of his songs for remixing so far 3 times, and he said he'd do it for the entirety of the new album Year Zero. THAT is a band that likes its fans!

Art is Resistance

[happyfrogcow]

The album is already available. RIAA be damned.

Art is Resistance

Re:OMG copyright makes no sense

[Anonymous Coward]

Cool. $600 divided by 6 billion people.... We each owe you .00001 cents, not to be confused with .00001 dollars.

This is also Trent's last album with Interscope

[Solr_Flare]

Unless he decides to re-negotiate his contract(although all indications seem to be he doesn't plan to), this is Trent's last album under his contract with Interscope. This, of course, means that it's the last album his label and the RIAA will have their current level of control over, because certainly he is going to keep total conrol over his music whereever he goes next. Keeping that in mind, I wouldn't be surprised at all if a lot of this scrambling by the RIAA is an attempt to lock down the songs from this album so they can squeeze as much money as possible out of it.

i fuly expect to see a ton of best of albums done with little or none of Trent's consent in the future as well, as his current label and the RIAA tries to milk every dollar they can. A good example of this happened recently, in fact. When PJ quit Epic they went independant. While they did release their next album through Sony, it was more or less a matter of distribution convenience, they held complete control over the music. As soon as PJ quit Epic, the first thing that hit the market was a "Best of" Pearl Jam album, released by Epic in order to cash in on the songs they did hold rights to.

Anyway, I'm sure Trent's current contract status is playing a large role in the RIAA's motives right now.

Universal Music

[Anonymous Coward]

I (obviously) didn't read all comments here but some +5 posts missed the point. Universal (the label) hired the services of a famous viral marketing company which was also responsible for the marketing campaign of Halo 2. Their plan included a bunch of websites and releasing new songs on USB pens and phone calls. This had an amazing effect on the fans and made its way to the press really quickly with articles all over the world. Now, some days ago, Universal (not the RIAA) sent some letters to site owners who made what Universal want in the first place. This just seems like a pretty stupid move from different parts of the label. You can read those Universal letters online too.

Re:OMG copyright makes no sense

[jasen666]

That sounds a bit more like fascism than corporate greed.
Who banned the act of drinking unapproved rainwater, the local (likely paid off) government, or corporate contract?
I can't even fathom how one would suggest enforcing such a rule.

Re:OMG copyright makes no sense

[kennygraham]

We each owe you .00001 cents, not to be confused with .00001 dollars.

Do you have a calculator? I still don't see the difference. I'm going to have to escalate your call.

Re:OMG copyright makes no sense

[rucs_hack]

someone else replied to me with a link to the documentaary I was referring to, and it did fail...

Re:OMG copyright makes no sense

[iminplaya]

Bolivia. And yes, the government claimed the rain water was for all people and did prohibit collection for personal use. All this relevant because it shows exactly the same kind of business model the distributors of entertainment and information wish to maintain. However, in the case of entertainment, it is far better to simply ignore them and keep your money, as opposed to starting a riot and getting people killed.

Re:OMG copyright makes no sense

[DjRenigade]

Bechtel - They suck ass!! They engineered the "Big Dig" in Boston and see where that got them... That shithole leaks water like a screen door. I used to live in Taxachusetts and all the roads were shit. Bechtel also got kicked off a job in Beaumont texas as the contracot in an oil refinery. I think that NIN were smart to generate a big fuss over the tracks. That makes me want to purchase the new album to hear all of it. Http://renigade.blogspot.com

Beatles trivia

[Anonymous McCartneyf]

Northernsongs predates Beatlemania; it was founded in '63. The record deal was in '62. There are only four Beatles songs that predate Northernsongs--the first two singles and their B-sides.
The Beatles allowed Northernsongs to be founded because, in theory, they would own it. It wasn't to avoid taxes, but to gain control. Collectively, John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison, Ringo Starr, and their manager ended up owning 49% of it, with Dick James & friends owning the other 51%. Not real control for the Beatles, but they weren't business-savvy. The actual tax-dodges started a year later.
I do not understand why the Beatles sold their stakes in '69 when everyone else did. I don't know if anyone does.