Slashdot Mirror
Massive Increase in RIAA Copyright Notices
According to Wired, universities in the US are experiencing a "20-fold increase" in the number of takedown notices from the RIAA in the last ten days. Indiana University reports 80 notices a day, but they say their traffic hasn't increased significantly over the same time period. It will be interesting to see if the affected schools join the legal battle against the RIAA, or cave under the increased pressure.
"University of California at Berkeley's chief information officer Shel Waggener confirmed he'd heard of the spikes and suggested there was a political purpose driving them. 'Public universities are in a unique position since the industry puts pressure on us through state legislatures to try to impose what are widely considered to be draconian content monitoring measures and turn us into tech police forces in support of a specific industry,' Waggener said. The RIAA is also backing legislation in states such as Illinois and Tennessee that would require schools that get a certain number of notices to begin installing deep packet monitoring equipment on their internet and intranets, according to Luker."
... that they are shooting themselves in the foot. The more they annoy the Universities, the more likely they'll believe the effort and cost is too great. Hopefully they will then be forced to defend themselves.
I do hope they call the RIAA's bluff. What's happening now is modern-day extortion!
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Perhaps because of the recent legal blows they've received in court they're trying to hasten their tactic. Maybe if they make it look like piracy is sky rocketing all of a sudden the legislators will hastily pass some laws to help them out. The courts are onto them, so the legislators might wise up next. If that happens the RIAA may be screwed.
Or perhaps I'm reading too far into this, meh.
legislation in states such as Illinois and Tennessee that would require schools that get a certain number of notices to begin installing deep packet monitoring equipment
Meaning, the RIAA can send a bunch of fraudulent notices, and then have added pressure on the overworked IT guys.
"Nice network youse gots here... pity if something should... HAPPEN... to it..."
MafiAA can rot in hell along with the assholes who put up red-light cameras and then drop the yellow light time below the state safety requirements to increase their ticket count.
If you can read this sig, congratulations, you have your glasses on!
The actions of the RIAA are becoming increasingly desperate in my opinion. Taking a look at the utter failure of suing individuals for infringement, they are turning to these organizations where they can use pressure from the public to get their way.
Its time for the rest of the universities to step up and put and end to this extortion.
If sharing a song makes you a pirate, what do I have to share to be a ninja?
"Death Throws?"
Calling all geeks, It's time to see kout and target these lawyers specifically as well as all RIAA management.
We need to TP their houses, put up banners on their homes proclaiming they HATE AMERICA, and let the air out of their tires on their cars.
Harmless prank them to the point they back off or stop. If a big time RIAA lawyer is the laughingstock of his neighborhood he will quit. Because lawyers hate it when they dont have someone to sue they will emotionally implode.
P.S. be sure to use organic Toilet paper and solvent free paint on your banners. A large number of harmless pranks over and over will drive them insane and will do the job.
Come on guys, get off your ass, and do some good for the world. Start fighting back.
The RIAA is also backing legislation in states such as Illinois and Tennessee that would require schools that get a certain number of notices to begin installing deep packet monitoring equipment on their internet and intranets, according to Luker."
I'll be scribbling a note to my legislators today, and maybe another one to the Illinois Times, too. Oh yeah, the Trib and the St Louis Post Dispatch. Might be nice if someone would post a comprehensive list of states so other slashdotters can slashdot their congresscritters' email servers.
Why is it that we never heard about this crap in the Trib or the Post? Never ascribe to incompetence that which can be explained by malice.
-mcgrew
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
Freedoms laid down by our bill of rights protect us all from such "draconian" attempts, such as the right to assemble peacefully. Given the state of Indiana University's near tranquility, I would have to say, that anything the students do there should fall under these rights. At what point could a company sue governmental institutions of higher learning, and have everyone turn a blind eye? Well, they passed their point. Their time is gone. Now, people see what the RIAA is doing. Imagine I drive onto a car lot, all of the sudden, 20 used car sales men try to jump me. They all claim that by bringing the car on their lot, that I provided access to an option that might be competitive to their cars. Now at this point, I haven't even said that I wanted a car, (I could be here to talk to my niece in accounting) rather, I've just stepped on the lot, and "made available" some other alternative than anything they could come up with. Now I'm getting sued for bringing an "alien" car onto the lot, but not to get it off of the lot. Instead, they're suing me to get me to buy another car that makes it so I can come onto their lot whenever I want. This isn't the best analogy I could come up with, but part of my soul is happier today, now that I've equated RIAA goons with used car sales men, in their pathetic attempt to blackmail government institutions into buying their product when their own customers won't even buy their product anymore. Furthermore, the music "industry" was the single worst idea of the 20th century. Top 40? was that the best they could come up with? I have to apologize to a whole group of great artists who got hit by that bullet, but the rest of "one hit wonders," can go back to b-movie pornos. Oh yeah, right here, this poster right here, NEVER BUYING ANOTHER CD, DVD, BLURAY, ONLINE MOVIE, ETC, EVER AGAIN. DON't FUCK WITH THESE UNITED STATES. SERIOUSLY.
The simplest explanation I have is that we're coming up on the end of the (US) college academic year. Most universities are just about to start finals week. If the "bounty hunters" are on commission, then it makes all the sense in the world that they'd want to get a batch of complaints in now, before the summer doldrums.
Hey, and let's make laws that compel the phone companies to install deep conversation inspection equipment just in case all these criminals start talking about file sharing ...
innocent of the allegations, I expect that the RIAA will get a HUGE black over this. I hope those kids along with their colleges sue the shit out of the RIAA!
Help start up a public service: make sure to spread the word to every high school student you know, telling them exactly which schools are eavesdropping on all of their Internet traffic. Broadcast it via every means possible. Let them know that if they decide to attend that school, every IM conversation, every email, every website they visit while on campus will be scrutinized by the administration for possible "illegal behavior."
How many prospective college students are going to choose a university that is actively spying on them 24/7?
Maybe it is being already done, but why not just encrypt the info as it is being sent? It appears to me that the RIAA made a mistake blaming their lack of sales on pirating. Once they asserted the idea that pirating is equivalent to lost sales, they now feel compelled to defend their incredible position by becoming the bully. This tactic would only work if they could somehow show that by being a bully sales are returning to "normal." Of course they could have produced better music which would have boosted sales while being a bully and then they would have some circumstantial evidence that the decline of sales is related to pirating. Since they only wanted to bully and extort money from people who have no means of paying the high price they demand, they are not seeing sales jump.
insert inflammatory comment here!
1. I get a huge kick out of this Shel person quote. Since when is plain-speaking rewarded or even sanctioned in big-school politics? Shel must be planning to move onto a much smaller school.
2. Shel's got it right in the sense that public-ish universities like Berkeley are the softest target for the RIAA. It's the public money and accompanying political pressure the media conglomerates can easily exert that will win the RIAA another battle.
3. If the RIAA's behavior is so offensive, then what exactly will anyone do about it? You'll keep buying their movies, keep buying their media with rare exceptions, keep watching their entertainment spew on the rented cable/satellite device.
Bottom Line: The moral indignation is ridiculous. Grow a pair and stop consuming their products.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
It seems to me that with the BROAD deffinition laid out in the Patriot Act for the term "Terrorist". What the RIAA is doing is not only Extortion but they could also be labeled "Terrorists" IMHO. Now that woudl have more "bite"! Ricco Act charges obviously mean nothing to them although they NEED to brought up those charges. But I think if they were charged as Educational Terrorists then MAYBE the government would bite them hard! Send all the RIAA management to Guantonimo!
I am suspicious of RIAA, not because of Music, but because the things they are pushing for only tangentially have anything to do with Music.
RIAA is supposed to be a watchdog for a "for profit" business/industry. OK, but all studies conclude that file sharers buy music more than those who do not. File sharing is the new way for people to discover new music. Its replacing the radio. Nothing RIAA is doing is actually helping the industry for which it is supposed to be working.
If one were to don their tin-foil hat, and look at a broader view, the motives of RIAA andd MPIAA.
It looks to me, more than protecting music or movies, the *IAAs are more politically motivated to disrupt the democratization of communication. Never before in human history has the ability to share and disseminate information been as easy and accessible. Almost anyone with access to a computer can share information with anyone else with a computer.
The politics of "real" democracy where corporations and governments can't control who says what to whom or what dirty secret is made public is terrifying to the powers that be. RIAA, MPIAA, et. al are making what can only be a desperate fictitious but plausible argument in an effort to shut down the internet. Comcast, in a similar vein, wants it to be more like cable TV where we pay to "read" the wire, and entities pay to "write" to the wire.
*IAA, politicians, and corporate america HATE the best part of the internet. They want it to be a controlled delivery system, not a free conduit of communication.
How do these posts get past the dumbass filter?
So, here is the plan as I see it:
1. Support legislation that requires deep packet monitoring.
2. Once that is passed, target those universities with tons of takedowns. Start now, so it doesn't seem as if they are ramping it up due to the law.
3. Make them install packet monitoring software.
4. Here is the interesting part. Doesn't their "star" IT witness provide this software and/or hardware?
5. Get kickbacks from star witness' company for the extra software they sell.
6. Start on the next state, using the existing state as "proof" of how bad it is, and how much "piracy" is being detected by the deep monitoring.
8. Profit on the kickbacks, plus any additional lawsuits.
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out -
because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out -
because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out -
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak for me.
this corollary is getting more and more true by the day.
1) Lobby legislature to pass laws requiring deep packet inspection and content monitoring if a school receives a large number of take-down notices.
2) Engage in a junk mail campaign to send massive numbers of take-down notices.
3) Profit!!!
That was the previous step.
... well, it sounds like they're going to hurry things up - before the tactics they use are declared illegal.
They're so good at distracting the testosterone-filled youth who used to fight for real causes, so the government can get on with usurping control. In the '70s, activists fought for an end to a pointless war fought by drafted peers. In 2008, activists fight for the right to listen to music they haven't bought and no-one's forcing anyone to listen to.
The hobby horses of the moment seem to be RIAA and OOXML - and, again, the anti-Microsofties are missing the point entirely. Microsoft couldn't give two hoots whether OOXML is a standard - but what it does want to do is get everyone to lose faith in standards bodies.
Recalling the ruling by the Ninth Circuit recently that states enjoy sovereign immunity from copyright infringement suits, why don't the state colleges and universities extend their umbrella of protection to their students? For instance, what if they hired each student, for $1 a year, to be an "Associate Data Archivist"? Then, in the course of that employment, under the protection of sovereign immunity, each student would be empowered to review and collect any data relevant to his or her broad duties as archivist for the state's premier cultural and educational institutions?
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
Let it rip. http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/cc-top-universities/
Absolutely no sympathy here.
The RIAA motto: "What can we do wrong now..."
Disclaimer: I am not god.
We may not be created equal
But we can be treated equal.
Umm, the same way you did :-)
...the only stuff I'm downloading from the BBC. Seeing as I've already asked them to provide their content to aliens for a fee, and they refused, I'll cite "No damages" for my defense should I ever be prosecuted.
Who's still downloading music, anyways? There's been so very little music that's come out in the past 5 years that's actually worth listening to that you have no reason for not being able to afford buying the album. Besides, you would've thought that people have amassed enough music via downloads by now. Hell, I used to have 30+ days of music on my computer before I thinned it down, and now I still have an unwieldy 10 days of music....
Their actions may be legal, but I don't understand what they're trying to accomplish. It's true that I have completely ceased any unlawful downloads (that I ever, ahem, hypothetically performed). It's also true that I have completely ceased all lawful purchases of music. Why would I want to do business with an industry like this?
"Not an actor, but he plays one on TV."
we read yesterday about the PRO-IP act passing the house judiciary committee. Maybe the RIAA is jumping the gun here and trying to get their suit on.
They're using their grammar skills there.
Not just the public universities--I work at a small liberal arts college and we've had a few dozen notices in the last few weeks, which constituted a definite spike.
like
University of Oregon,
Marshall University,
University of Maine Law School,
University of San Francisco Law School, and
Harvard University Law School.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
I run a fairly large private university network and I have seen a big uptick in RIAA notices lately. Personally I think it has to do with them targeting end of semester/year for some reason.
However, the increased pressure on me to "do something" about it goes way up when higher ups start seeing 4-5x the amount of notices coming in. They panic because they are a private university and can't stand up to "the man" like these public ones do.
The bigger problem is that student IP's are NAT'ed so I get notices with our Internet facing NAT addresses, not a student IP or MAC, so there is no way to properly find the student responsible. It is a silly game being played with no winners, just a ton of headaches.
RIAA if you are listening, look into the concept of Network Address Translation, because it seems to me you don't get it. Better yet, offer me a software or hardware tool to place on my side, I'd be just as happy to gain back the wasted bandwidth as you would to extort these college kids over nothing.
http://teasphere.wordpress.com - A little spot of tea
universities. After all, as we recently discussed on Slashdot, in a story also posted by Soulskill, they sued an ISP in Ireland for not using Doug Jacobson's "Audible Magic" software.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
I suppose that they just really need more money to mount a defence against all the legal battles they are losing.
they took down napster, so file sharing became decentralized. now they go after identity via ip. so identity obfuscation is the next software step
anyone caught via ip identification is simply collateral damage that drives the development of the next cycle of cryptic clients. and also drives users to the next software cycle out of fear as well
so thank you riaa, for providing the motivation to develop battle-scarred, robust, secure identity-hiding file sharing
(rolls eyes)
you can't win this game, riaa morons. you just provide incentive to beat you. you really think your lawyers can defeat an army of tech savvy music hungry poor teenagers?
when you send a college kid into bankruptcy, you don't teach him a lesson. you don't teach anyone else a lesson. you just make people fear you. and that's not what law and order is based on: law enforcement doesn't work out of fear. law and orde ris based on ethics and morality. law enforcement works out of a necessity to teach respect for a moral and ethical position, to people who have no morals or ethics. law enforcement does NOT work by teaching moral and ethical people that fear is more important than morals and ethics. capisce? understand the difference you fucktards?
all you do when you sue a college kid for thousands, is you give him and anyone else aware of the fear-based punitive damage, incentive to beat you at your game of strong arm tactics. you think now he is going to buy a $15 cd? no! he's just going to use a russian proxy you stupid fucking twits
why doesn't he "fall in line"? because there is no moral or ethical validity to what you are doing. you don't create compliance, you create resentment, because there is no morality you are teaching with your violence. your tactics only work when there is a moral position behind them. THERE IS NONE
the money you leverage from music sales does not go to the artists. you give them pennies. those artists are better off financially putting out a tip jar and distributing for free and not getting involved with you parasites. all you are doing with the money you leverage from music sales is shore up a dead business model with your lawyer goons
you're a weed. you have no moral or ethical reason to exist. and so you are there to be vanquished and beaten. we must spray you with herbicide and yank up your roots as you howl until you are surely dead. listen up riaa: THE BUSINESS MODEL YOU PROTECT IS DEAD ALREADY. THE INTERNET KILLED IT. WAKE THE FUCK UP. MOVE ON
so bring on your legions of lawyers, you asswipes. you're going down. we welcome the fight. you can't win this game. you're too fuckign stupid not to see that you are on the losing end of progress
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
it's not their styles to pick on people who can fight back. And colleges and universities are people who can fight back.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
"violating copyrights" sounds about as harmless as "looting"
"stealing labor without payment" is far more effective. Like the phrase "breaking-into stores and stealing".
The government is not your daddy. Its purpose is not to raid middle-class neighbors' wallets and give it to you.
"Deep packet inspection" is spying. Deep packet inspection is COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT! You are basically looking at, reading, and logging copyrighted e-mails and copyrighted files, no matter what extensions those files end with, including .mp3. Fight fire with fire. These programs may also be violating the Patriot Act by "inspecting" sensitive or classified information.
.mp3 discussions on topics including your musings on pop_song.mp3 are copyrighted, including fair use excerpts in those files.
/. posts, etc.
Hear ye! Hear ye! Students reduce your tuition costs to ZERO! Get a free house paid for by your university when you graduate! Sue them for $150,000 per copyright infringement. Your emails, your papers, your
The thing is, if these "deep packet inspection" programs are legal, then they are legal for EVERYONE! And P2P programs are nothing more than "deep packet inspection" programs. Downloading and listening to files to determine whether they are copyright violations is LEGAL activity. I'm sure the NSA, CIA, DOJ will be thrilled to know that we as citizens can infiltrate their networks with "deep packet inspection" programs. Such progress will avoid future embarrassments such as the White House losing its emails as it's perfectly ok for private entities to inspect, log, and back up that information, in order to discern that the Government and RIAA are not violating your copyrighted material, including email writings,
So everybody, fire up those P2P applications and download/upload EVERYTHING, and then look at those files to make sure these entities like the RIAA are not violating your copyrights. Uploading is legal because you are merely enlisting assistance from your fellow citizens for the purpose of "deep packet inspection", which is LEGAL! "Deep packet inspection" programs are nothing more than wholesale uploading of files which do not belong to you, which may or may not be copyright violations. We can't be 100% sure until we download and look and listen. And our peers need to download and look and listen too, just in case we missed something.
"From DNA to P2P, we are all Copycats now. Go Go Copycat Power! Copycat Powers activate! Form of, a Copycat." --monxrtr
As a former IU student -- I graduated in December -- I must say that Indiana really doesn't do much to help the RIAA. They get a notice that you're pirating an insane amount of illegal music, they cut you off the network, tell you that you're infected with a virus, then ask you to format your computer. All you do is email them back in 24 hours, say you've complied, and they restore your access and go back to normal. They don't verify you've actually done this; they'll just take your word for it. This happened to me three times when I lived on campus freshman year, and probably 1/3rd of my dorm floor received similar notices throughout the year. The university will comply just enough to shut the RIAA up, but they won't go out of your way to make sure you're making every possible effort to listen to the RIAA. That's not their job. I'm glad big universities like IU aren't putting up with the MAFIAA's crap.
imeem.com
last.fm
spiralfrog.com
deezer.com
qtrax.com
And that's even before we get to the ones of questionable legality like muxtape and projectplaylist Yet p2p sharing of music is still huge, youtube and its clones seems to have made a big difference in the amount of movie sharing via p2p, why haven't the music sites done the same?
You and I might have no use for it, but it sounds just like music to some.
The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Wow, Devil's Advocate much?
This is what makes me a copyleft purist. You can do whatever the hell you want with any code I've ever written.
Steal:
1.) To take (the property of another) without right or permission.
2.) To present or use (someone else's words or ideas) as one's own.
3.) To get or take secretly or artfully: steal a look at a diary; steal the puck from an opponent.
4.) To give or enjoy (a kiss) that is unexpected or unnoticed.
Copy:
1.) To make a reproduction or copy of.
2.) To follow as a model or pattern; imitate
Funny how those two words are pretty much nothing alike in real world definitions. I even double checked each word's synonyms and, to no one's surprise but yours, neither showed up on the other's list.
Perhaps you'd like to restate your silly little RIAA bullet point without trying to equate a copied version of a song to actual physical theft. It's funny and quite ironic that you mention self inconsistency given that the act of theft is a criminal offense punishable in a criminal court of law; which does not apply at all to copyright infringement. Inconsistent much?
Now, I do not condone downloading of songs illegally. I'm well past my college days where this sort of thing was cool and I was so broke that it was my only option for most of my music. That said, I think the rampant idiocy in this argument by folks like you deserves to be shot full of holes with sound logic and reason. Trying to equate 1 download = 1 lost sale is foolish and is an exercise in complete and total illogical bullshit. If copying songs were theft, these people would have subpoenas to criminal trials for theft of goods and services.
I'm at the point where I feel that the RIAA has made their bed. They have given the population at large absolutely zero acts of good faith and have even, very recently, lobbied to REDUCE the money that the actual artists receive. In light of such irrational, greed-fueled detrimental behavior, I'm willing to look the other way as people pilfer the shit out of their "property". Hell, I even applaud them.
They've been given a thousand different chances to show they are a legitmate business in today's world and have literally thrown every single ounce of good will out the window and resorted to the bottom barrel extortion tactics.
Do you see the MPAA taking as much flak as the RIAA? No. Do you know why? Two very simple reasons really.
A) They, by and large, put out a product that people want at a price that consumers are willing to pay. There's absofuckinglutely zero reason why a DVD of a full length feature film is within a few dollars of a single artist's 60 minute audio recordings on CD.
B) The MPAA is spending their resources and lawyers going after the actual pirate problem, namely large foreign bootleg traficking which results in very real and very detrimental effects on the industry as a whole. Something Johnny Suds the college kid does NOT do to the music industry. And yes, I know the MPAA has made some bad decisions in the past, (i.e. the PirateBay fiasco) but overall they are MUCH better behaved then their RIAA cousins).
The more they continue down this path of self destruction, the more normal (I use that word very loosely!), honest, upstanding guys like myself start to cheer for the "bad guys" in this argument.
That's my long winded take on the situation anyways.
It may be illegal now but the point is that laws won't change unless people make an effort to change them. P2P downloading of copyrighted music could be considered a protest against corporate greed, coupled with the statement that the Internet allows artist the possibility of profiting directly from their efforts, rather than going through contracts that leave them with fractions of there true potential.
It's the beginnings of a new way to market and profit from music. As more sites become available to artists for marketing and selling their music, the power and influence of the RIAA will wane (but also adapt). But things won't change without people saying "We can't have it this way anymore."
I was a big time courier and distro at IU back in '98 before Operation Buccanner and I actually got a takedown notice from them my first week in school for running a pub FTP in #mp3 on Undernet. If it wasn't for another guy coming in with an @indiana.edu whois I would have never been cool and learned what was up!
Here is what I think the RIAA is up to and why:
The RIAA "knows" that there are thousands of students on the university's networks, and many of them may be sharing files "illegially." So, they say that they see a large amount of illegal traffic from the university's network, and the university then does the work to shut down file sharing. So, the RIAA accomplishes what they set out to do, and they didn't even have to get their hands dirty.
And if that doesn't work, then they subpoena IP addresses and other records so they can charge the students with a crime. The universities typically will comply (due to administration pressure) and turn the student information over to the RIAA. The students don't want a black mark on their record before starting their career, and the students don't have money to begin with (remember eating all those ramen noodles so you could buy books?), and the RIAA gets either a settlement or a conviction. Win-win for the RIAA.
So why doesn't that model work for the general public? Because the ISPs are much more protective of their information, willing to fight the RIAA to protect the privacy of their customers. They can't get the same information from major ISPs, or not as easily. Major ISPs take great pride in thumbing their noses at the RIAA, and in many instances, at the PATROIT Act.
So, it is survival of the fittest. Colleges and universites are easy targets, and the RIAA gets to add momentum with every settlement or conviction.
Huh, I read in our student newspaper last week that the university had received a bunch of notices from the RIAA recently.
They had the obligatory inane quote from some kid in student government (where do they find these people?) and said that due to the intense red tape associated with copyright procedures, it probably would grind to a halt. Whatever! It's nice to know that I didn't trigger it personally, I guess.
I was wondering why it seemed myself, two of my three roommates, and a bunch of my other friends had all gotten notices within a short time period. It looks like the RIAA is giving a nice hefty push, as if maybe that'll make them less crooked in the eyes of everyone with a brain and a sense of legitimacy. Yeah, I was downloading something I didn't buy. Yeah, it's illegal. I got caught. I got a written warning, had to take an online quiz on "Good Cybercitizenship", and have my computer scanned for illegal music. I wiped everything that wasn't legit, uninstalled my torrent client, and called it a day.
I'm glad my university (Penn State) is how it is about this. Basically, I lost my network connection for a few days and got a slap on the wrist, but there's definitely a cloud hanging over me about possibly committing the same crime again. Then the troubles really begins.
With all this said, I don't know what the RIAA is getting at. Perhaps 'legally' harassing the schools will cause them to change their minds and help you convict students who are already worth a negative dollar amount anyway? Sure, make some examples. It's worked so well so far.
is because they are losing the legal end of the war they started and are trying anything to not lose the rich lifestyle they have, at the expense of consumers and musicians.
The next step for the RIAA will be to try to get direct sales by the artists outlawed.
With all the goings on in the media lately about the RIAA; would this not be the equivalent of the swimmer who is drowning, flailing about in a last ditch effort of rescue?? Maybe this is a sign that the end of this nonsense is eminent.
All content in this message is copyright (c) 2008. All rights reserved. RIAA is prohibited here.
The semantics argument is ALSO getting old, mind. We all know what copyright violation is, it doesn't matter if we append "stealing" to it or not, the issue remains the same.
That said, it isn't really theft, even if it costs someone money. No one is deprived of property, due to the nature of the beast. Someone might be denied a small portion of their revenue stream though.
What we really need is a new term to describe the (arguable) bad effects of copyright violations, to end this silly debate.
I would, personally say, that its a bunch of stodgy companies fighting for a dying business model. If a VERY large group of people are violating your business model, perhaps its time to change, since obviously you are now divorced from your user base. The whole Record Company model is broken, and completely unnecessary now, and the behavior of the people bear this out. There is no reason why artists can't self distribute, and maintain control of their IP now.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
If everything could be multiplied and copied as easy as ideas, we would live in Utopian Paradise where rich and poor alike would be equal and have anything they wanted whenever they wanted. It would literally be Heaven on Earth (or multiple EarthZ for that matter). Only the Selfish and the Evil would cause his neighbor to go hungry because he prohibited him from copying his loaf of bread even though his own loaf of bread would not be diminished in the slightest. In terms of Biblical mythology, copyrights would have been the work of Satan.
But thank you for bringing this up. I would very much like to Unite the Religious Right and Churches into the cause of banishing artificial scarcity caused by copyright and patent.
"From DNA to P2P, we are all Copycats now. Go Go Copycat Power! Copycat Powers activate! Form of, a Copycat." --monxrtr
Now, someone please correct me if I'm wrong here, but how is DPI going to help the RIAA? As long as people run encrypted Bittorrent connections, and most clients do, DPI won't tell them anything, right? How can you prove that I'm downloading music, not FOSS if my packets are encrypted?
Fear the penguin.
Might they simply have found a more efficient way to process their data? Or have started mining a new source, aside from Bittorrent and gnutella, that gets more traffic? Or have they gone back over their old records and pulled out records of actually copied items, instead of making available items, and are going after people in order of how many items they copied? (Since their making available bit was thrown out recently.)
SPAM!! :-)
Since the Russian Business Network moved out, and the Storm botnet subsided, there was nobody to uphold the core function of evil on the internet!
Else, how do spam fighting companies survive?
So, this noble beginning by the RIAA.
They're, in reality, good people, ya know
Hackers have long memories. It works both ways.
Wont do much if we all encrypt.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
How about putting the spammers to good use and have them send out a billion fake takedown notices so that the ISPs will be overwhelmed and just start ignoring them, or the Bayesian filters will start filtering out the takedown notices so that people don't even get them.
Frankly, I'm surprised everyone is so pissed off.
First, people complain when the RIAA takes people to court, claiming, "We didn't get a cease and desist notice!", and so forth.
Furthermore, the vast majority of end users say, "I would quit media piracy if I received a cease and desist notice".
The RIAA notices this. They try to play by the rules that other people have set for them.
Now it's back to the wailing and gnashing of teeth, but instead the issue is that they're draconian and terrible and so on.
The term "stealing" is used here for good reason — it explains, what's happening perfectly well. The "Occam's razor" principle says, we don't need a new term...
My point exactly. Whether the portion is "small" or large is really irrelevant — the deprived will try to inflate the figures, the depriving will aim for the opposite. The fact remains — somebody (the victim) is getting deprived of something valuable by others (thieves).
My original post is now "-1 Troll"... Apparently, grasping the parallel between stealing music and stealing source code is too difficult for most Slashdotters...
Some of them can — but it is their decision and is nobody else's business. If a musician (or any creator of something hard to create but easy to copy) wants to be able to sell their creation via an intermediary (rather than directly to the public), they ought to be able to do so. Treating such intermediaries as somehow undeserving of legal protection simply debases the original creations... It does not change the immorality and illegality of unauthorized copying one bit (pun intended) — Metallica, for example, which owns its own distribution AFAIK, has been quite outspoken against piracy. So let's not change the subject.
This is all plain and simple. The Slashdot groupthink (muzak — kooool, RIAA — baaaad) is simply clouding the judgment... Once again, had this been about, say, Linksys and their use of GPL code, the term "stealing" and the appropriate indignation would've been everywhere — and highly moderated — without anybody even being deprived of any revenue.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Explain how the argument is wrong instead of just dismissing it.
An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
They've been given a thousand different chances to show they are a legitmate business in today's world and have literally thrown every single ounce of good will out the window and resorted to the bottom barrel extortion tactics.
The people that run these organizations are likely made up of mostly lawyers and MBA-types. These are both categories not known for their concern for customers. An MBA is typically one who jumps on the latest management fad bandwagon and tries to suck out a percentage of money "saved" and (attack, corporate, at least) lawyers are quite often people who are similar in their motivations.
Neither one creates anything (as opposed to artists and entrepreneurs) and are part of the crowd that take a cut of the "largesse" for doing nothing or next to nothing. It's easy money if you have the credentials and can weasel your way through life without feeling guilty about it.
Read: this is RIAA's deliberate and now publicly documented attempt to commit state-level fraud: overnight they artificallly increase the number of notices, by an order of magnitude, in order to produce faux 'evidence' of the required X number of notices to state legislators. That's gotta be a Federal offence. Fraud, and conspiracy to commit fraud, ought to be illegal, really, Oh wait, they already are! It's time the Justice Department stepped in.
"The RIAA is also backing legislation in states
such as Illinois and Tennessee that would require schools that get a
certain number of notices to begin installing deep packet monitoring
equipment on their internet and intranets, according to Luker."
OK. Being the practical person that I am, who's going to pay for it?
Who's going to pay for the time, materials, and personnel necessary
to accomplish this goal? The RIAA? The University? The civil service
branch that runs each university? The students?
The RIAA wants this, they want that, they don't want to PAY for the
information they claim they need. So what's the problem? If they, as
if they were a company, wants to see particular data collected, then
they, as a company, are required to PAY for it. And that includes,
among other things, the hardware and software necessary to collect
and coallate the information, the h/w & s/w necessary to handle the data
in whatever form is necessary, and the salaries of the folks involved in said
production. As well as the legal fees to protect all of the aforementioned
data from the various laws that prohibit the collection of said data.
In other words, the RIAA MUST be held accountable for the gathering
of the data, the consolidation of the data into a database (perhaps Oracle),
the fees associated with such an enterprise for each and every school of
learning for each state. Yes, we know there is much duplication of effort,
but each effort should be separate so as to not contaminate the data of each
institution of higher learning. Yes, the RIAA MUST PAY for all of it. And
be held financially and legally accountable for the data.
I wonder how much overhead this would bring to their request? Enough to
permanently discourage such a brazen act for a very long time? Enough for
all the result of the world to enjoy this great soap opera? Enough to show
the ruling party of the RIAA how stupid they appear to be? Or enough for
the legal entities of each state/school to ask "why are you prosecuting the
downloaders as opposed to the uploaders, the REAL crime-inducing folks?
Why are you wasting OUR time, OUR resources, and causing OUR reputations
to look as bad as yours?"
I wonder.
The term "stealing" is used here for good reason â" it explains, what's happening perfectly well. The "Occam's razor" principle says, we don't need a new term...
t
I don't think Occam's razor has much to do with this, since it is a question of literal accuracy. The term "stealing" isn't the simplest, its just inaccurate. Many people who pirate something might not have ever bought it, and thus are not "stealing", since no one is deprived of a product. For example.
I'm not condoning or condemning piracy, I'm just stating that the term is misused for impact.
My original post is now "-1 Troll"... Apparently, grasping the parallel between stealing music and stealing source code is too difficult for most Slashdotters...
You must be new here. A wee bit more seriously, I don't think you deserve the -1, for what its worth. I'm getting annoyed at how the moderators increasingly use their points for censorship, and not to increase the quality of the discussion. (People with opposite opinions can express them well, as well)
Some of them can â" but it is their decision and is nobody else's business. If a musician (or any creator of something hard to create but easy to copy) wants to be able to sell their creation via an intermediary (rather than directly to the public), they ought to be able to do so. Treating such intermediaries as somehow undeserving of legal protection simply debases the original creations... It does not change the immorality and illegality of unauthorized copying one bit (pun intended) â" Metallica, for example, which owns its own distribution AFAIK, has been quite outspoken against piracy [wired.com]. So let's not change the subject.
I agree, the choice is theirs, that doesn't change the fact that it is becoming increasingly unviable. We must refrain from painting the record companies in a positive light, since they screw the artists as well. Music is a big business, no one wins besides the business men.
I'm guessing independent artists would make more money per album without the companies, even including piracy. But you are correct, this is a different discussion.
This is all plain and simple. The Slashdot groupthink (muzak â" kooool, RIAA â" baaaad) is simply clouding the judgment... Once again, had this been about, say, Linksys and their use of GPL code, the term "stealing" and the appropriate indignation would've been everywhere â" and highly moderated â" without anybody even being deprived of any revenue.
The difference here is that people view GPL as more a ethical construct than, say, Metallica, or Virgin Records. The GPL is about freedom, while copyright is about restriction. Freedom is more impressive. Even if the average slashbot suddenly agreed with that (copyright violation is wrong), abusing the various free licenses would still be a more important topic to them, for this reason.
I for one think that music IS cool (muzak not so much, I try to limit my stay in elevators), and that the RIAA is bad. No matter what stance you have on piracy, you must admit that the RIAA is going about it the wrong way, and is alienating their customer base. They ARE abusing the justice system, and hurting people, this is wrong no matter if their ends are not. The ends never justify the means.
I'm guessing that the RIAA could think of a better way to curb piracy, this would, though, involve updating their various business models.
Or they could keep on the course, and breed more people like me. I regularly deprive them of their revenue stream. But not through piracy, I haven't bought a CD on a major label (or RIAA affiliate) for years. They generally don't produce anything that is even worth wasting my bandwidth on.
Though if I didn't own them from long ago, I WOULD pirate things such as The Beatles, and old Jazz (Ella, Satchmo, and Parker, oh my!), since I think it absurd that I need to give Micheal Jackson money for something he didn't do, or someones
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
The semantics argument is ALSO getting old, mind.
Exactly the comment I was looking for.
Yes, the semantics argument is getting old, but it pales in comparison to the tediousness of the RIAA's legal approach.
They've filed 40,000 lawsuits over the last 5 years, according to BusinessWeek, and only 100 or so have bothered to contest them in court. This would seem to leave the RIAA with almost $120 million (at $3000 per settlement -- your lawsuit may vary) to fight those 100 troublemakers.
We all know what copyright violation is
No, we don't. We all think we know, and many of us will eventually be proven wrong.
Since the copyright law, as written, does not acknowledge the existence of the internet, file-sharing, uploading or downloading, each case allows complete litigation of every facet of what the RIAA thinks it might say.
Fred von Lohmann of EFF thinks that the digital files in your shared folder do not even meet the copyright law's definition of a copy as a "fixed, material object." Your hard drive or flash drive might be a material object, but the contents of your shared folder are certainly not fixed. A CD is "fixed." You can't take the music off and put something else there; you can't edit, delete or change the pitch. The fact that the RIAA spends a lot of time trying to track down who used an IP address at a particular point in time is, in and of itself, a valid argument that what they're looking is not fixed, but transient, volatile and fluid.
Then we go to things like "making available," whether the infringer is the person with a shared folder or the person who downloads it and makes a new copy, whether an IP address is an identification, and all those semantic arguments.
The RIAA's continued income from this enterprise depends on the lack of legal definitions. Every case starts at square one. After 40,000 cases, not a damn thing has been cleared up from a legal point of view, which is certainly in the RIAA's best interests, because every defendant has to pay an attorney to counter every theory the RIAA dreams up, no matter how distanced from reality. Now they're pushing them into the system faster than ever, exploiting this for maximum financial gain while making no attempt whatsoever to get a binding decision on the underlying issues.
If the law was clear, those on both sides of the issue would have to pack up the semantics and adapt to reality. Either the settlements are a reasonable fine for violating copyright law and there is now such a thing as "illegal music," or they are baseless accusations based on a flawed perspective.
The RIAA wants people to stop sharing their music on p2p because the RIAA thinks the p2p folks are stealing their stuff. Those of us who think the RIAA is comprised of idiots also want p2p users to stop sharing RIAA music because you're the only thing keeping them alive at this point and if you had stopped sharing their stuff five years ago, they'd already be gone instead of being busy trying to figure out how to get $5 from every internet connection to "compensate" for their "loss."
If the RIAA starts proving their points and legal definitions are made, maybe people will finally catch a clue and stop sharing RIAA music, get that "illegal" music off their iPods, and find something else.
Carrying on the fight against the internet "pirates" (not to be confused with those involved in making physical counterfeit copies for sale) is much more profitable than winning. If there were no pirates, they might be forced to acknowledged that the video game industry has intercepted a big pile o' dollars that adults would have spent on music a decade ago. You can listen to a CD for about 40 minutes. You can play a video game for weeks, if it's a good one. Highly superior investment of the shrinking entertainment budget.
Suing a million people won't change that.
Yes, the semantics argument is getting old, but it pales in comparison to the tediousness of the RIAA's legal approach.
Not debating that. I do think that they are performing egregious abuse of the legal system, and this is ignoring their lobbying and law making efforts. You won't find me telling anyone that the RIAA is the good guys.
Since the copyright law, as written, does not acknowledge the existence of the internet, file-sharing, uploading or downloading, each case allows complete litigation of every facet of what the RIAA thinks it might say.
This was the crux of my argument. We're in completely new territory, since the law, our ethics, and of behaviors, change much slower than the current pace of technology. Hence copying not equalling "theft", "piracy", or any other term we've decided to attach to it yet. It is a wholly new entity.
The fact that the RIAA spends a lot of time trying to track down who used an IP address at a particular point in time is, in and of itself, a valid argument that what they're looking is not fixed, but transient, volatile and fluid.
For the sake of argument, and bad slashdot analogy, this could be see as akin to someone selling (or, oddly, freely distributing) illegal copies of books at swapmeets or such. You never know where they will show up, but it is the same entity doing the distributing. Remember swap meets in the 80's, where there was always that one sleazy looking guy selling commercial software with handwritten labels?
Then we go to things like "making available," whether the infringer is the person with a shared folder or the person who downloads it and makes a new copy, whether an IP address is an identification, and all those semantic arguments.
Again, no argument there. Many of these tactics are based on... odd... semantics. Or at least very vague, and indefinite, ideas applied as invariable truth.
Carrying on the fight against the internet "pirates" (not to be confused with those involved in making physical counterfeit copies for sale) is much more profitable than winning. If there were no pirates, they might be forced to acknowledged that the video game industry has intercepted a big pile o' dollars that adults would have spent on music a decade ago. You can listen to a CD for about 40 minutes. You can play a video game for weeks, if it's a good one. Highly superior investment of the shrinking entertainment budget.
I agree that the Joe Sixpack "pirates" are really not that much of a threat, as compared to the diligent Chinese and Russian organized ones. Though I do get more enjoyment out of my music than 40 minutes. I spend FAR more time listening to music than playing games (and often when playing games I turn off the music, and replace it with my own). To me music is a better "investment", tastes and mileage may vary.
Though here is a question... Who's right? I really don't agree with unfettered sharing and access of free songs, nor do I agree with the RIAA behavior. I especially don't agree with the RIAA's treatment of artists, which, to me, would be the most valid (and powerful) argument to go out and buy music instead of finding it for free. There has to be a compromise that allows money to the artists, and stops the endless abuse of their customer base.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
To me music is a better "investment", tastes and mileage may vary.
Looking at it objectively, last year's best selling CD sold 4.6 million copies. I believe the new version of Grand Theft Auto did six million copies in the first few week. Ten years ago, video games were not even valid competition. Now the video game industry's income has surpassed the music industry. It is a factor.
Though here is a question... Who's right? I really don't agree with unfettered sharing and access of free songs, nor do I agree with the RIAA behavior.
There's another side to be considered, namely that of the musician who sees the Internet as a promotional tool and actively encourages the sharing of their music in hopes that more people will hear it.
I especially don't agree with the RIAA's treatment of artists, which, to me, would be the most valid (and powerful) argument to go out and buy music instead of finding it for free.
Not trying to pick a fight over this tiny point, but if I want to see the artist get paid, I'll buy a concert ticket.
The most valid and powerful argument for buying a CD is that you heard a song and loved it. The most powerful argument not to buy it is the RIAA.
There has to be a compromise that allows money to the artists, and stops the endless abuse of their customer base.
An equitable solution for compensating artists whose work is used on the Internet would mean that the 3 million bands on MySpace ought to be paid something, too, at least those which generate traffic. The RIAA will not generate any solution which recognizes their existence.
The Internet Archive has offered to be a repository for every song ever recorded (at least the ones we can find) and count the downloads. If there were a pile of money to distribute, all artists, songwriters, etc. could be paid fairly based on what music was downloaded.
The RIAA doesn't want a solution unless they own it and dictate the terms. They do not represent artists; they represent the record labels. They are not interested in compromise. As a result, no solution for compensating artists will be reached unless it is forced upon them or the RIAA ceases to exist.
Judging from their sales figures, the latter seems to be more likely to occur first.
Your argument against the validity of the word "stealing" is missing the point. Even if you don't mean it as such (and I think you do), it looks is as if an act being "not quite stealing" justifies the act — it does not. Whatever quibbles may exist about "rational" copyright law and/or "rational" approach to violations, the violations are wrong.
How wrong? In our modern society, where actually making physical things (be they CDs, books, medicines, or designer purses) is much easier than designing them, it is just as wrong as stealing. The effects are the same, and the immorality is the same — hence my (and *AA's) insistence on the term "theft". Single download — petty theft. Massive reproduction — major heist...
Stealing food by a hungry person may be explained away by their hunger. Theft of music by a bored teenager (hi, modder) is unjustifiable. Especially if the stolen stuff is subsequently derided for "poor quality", as happens on Slashdot all the time (to moderators' cheer), completely ignoring the absurdity of stealing something, that sucks.
None of our business.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
I don't disagree with you as much as you think I do.
:) But damages should also be calculated accordingly. If I download on item, I should be punished accordingly. In the real world, stealing $9000 (or whatever the *AA things a single four minute song is worth these days) is NOT petty theft, which just highlights how stupid all the parties involved are. P2P kids are better off stealing from Best Buy, than downloading, which is absurd. As stated, the loss of a physical object is greater than the loss of some bits.
Your argument against the validity of the word "stealing" is missing the point. Even if you don't mean it as such (and I think you do), it looks is as if an act being "not quite stealing" justifies the act â" it does not. Whatever quibbles may exist about "rational" copyright law and/or "rational" approach to violations, the violations are wrong.
I'm not saying that my semantic quibble validates copyright violation, just that it muddies the water. Just because it is not literally theft does not validate the act, it just makes it not theft. I disagree with you here though; reason is the precursor of determining wrong. If the law is irrational, violating it isn't wrong, just illegal. Wrong, in the moral sense, and legality are often different things. The violators ARE wrong, as are those who prosecute them, no real intellectual issue there.
Here comes the semantics again. Unauthorized use of an idea is literally not akin to removing a physical object, and thus does not fit the definition of theft per se. Again, I'm not justifying the act. The effects are different as well, since in physical theft each item stolen is a physical loss (and measurable loss in revenue), but with IP there is no guarantee that the "thief" would have actually paid money if theft wasn't possible, thus the economic impact is harder to calculate. Again, I'm still not condoning the act.
Single download â" petty theft. Massive reproduction [danwei.org] â" major heist...
I agree with the severity, if not the terminology.
I generally ignore the mentality of Slashdot, especially the modders. Life is so much more bearable that way.
The *AA's actions are my business. Even if I don't pirate music or movies, I prefer to have a functioning legal system, where the punishment fits the crime. I prefer not to have monolithic corporations try to cannibalize the law for their economic benefit. Misuse of the legal system is everyone's business, on that level.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey