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

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?

[rucs_hack]

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

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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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.

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?

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

[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

[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

[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.

RIAA

[Guerilla* Napalm]

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

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

[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:Tool did it differently

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you look under the vomit??

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.

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: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: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: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.

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 :)