Slashdot Mirror
How the RIAA Targets Campus Copyright Violators
jyosim writes "The Chronicle of Higher Ed got a briefing at RIAA headquarters on how the group catches pirates. They just use LimeWire and other software that pirates use, except that they've set up scripts to search for songs, grab IP numbers, and send out notices to college officials. They claim they don't target specific colleges, though many feel that they do."
I doubt they are 'targeting' any specific school, but I strongly suspect IPs resolving to unilag.edu.ng are handled differently then those resolving to yale.edu , where the students are more likely to just pay a settlement rather then wipe their arse with the notices...
Judging from the number of elderly, children, blind people, dead people, etc. that the RIAA labels have targeted, I'd say most likely they do it with a random number generator.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
If these dolts continue the net loss that also gives them bad media, they'll topple their own monopoly. I just can't wait until all artists start their own publishing so that they don't have enough money to buy their kids a Phantom to drown the tantrum they threw when they only got a BMW.
Help fight spam
Sounds like entrapment to me, like the mafRIAA is "making avaible" the same mp3s they are accusing people of downloading... bastards.
If you risk getting hate mail simply because you work at a certain company, perhaps it's time to look for a different job?
On the other hand, if this guy actually stuck his neck out and shared how the RIAA really finds their suckers, he'd probably get thank you letters rather than hate mail.
In either case, he probably needs to do some deep self-examination to see why he stays at this job.
Like article says, they ensure that the infringer is in the US before bothering to send a notice, but I'd be willing to bet there are some US schools too that they try to avoid spamming with notices. Not so much selective targeting, but selective non-targeting.
Prohibit using LimeWire to harvest tracking and identifying information!
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
... for making available the IP addresses and tracking information.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Since when can a person be held directly responsible for activity that occurs on their IP address? The RIAA is throwing charges for crimes without sufficient evidence that the person they are charging committed the crime. There are a million ways an IP is shared or used by multiple persons. Without substantial evidence, the RIAA is merely throwing litigious paperwork around at tons of innocent people. When will our government establish a recourse for recurring wrongful litigious activity? The ability to sue, blame, and then settle out of court is being so heavily exploited because lawyers know that most people would rather settle than pay the $$$ to prove themselves innocent. We need to either: 1) Not allow settling, thus making false accusations apparent, and thus the obvious waste of our judicial resources. This would be the cause of an impending need to reform and disallow repeat false accusers. or 2) Allow individual accusers or accusing bodies (such as the RIAA) a limited amount of legal cases, for which an appeal must be done to be allowed more.
The article details MediaSentry's tactics but wasn't there a bunch of fuss earlier this year on how MediaSentry may actually be illegal in some states because they don't have an investigator's license? Does this mean MediaSentry is filtering out schools from states where they can't investigate people from? Or are they still collecting everything they can and forwarding it on to the RIAA, which still seems illegal on their part.
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/03/11/1427257
http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/04/10/1542222
Reviewing just the first hour of video games.
After all Azerus has a section where you can see who is seeding and leaching. It shows IP info if I'm not mistaken. Can they not do this with Torrents? How does that differ from Limewire?
The greatest revenge in life is massive success.
1) Why does ANYONE even use Limewire? Its been a lame client for more than a few years.
2) I understand the RIAA doesn't "get" the internet etc but still, this seems like an approach so primitive and poorly devised that unless it is specifically to comply with some byzantine legal requirements the RIAA is being robbed by incompetent consultants at best. I guess Media Sentry could be sabotaging, but thats just wishful thinking.
Peerguardian. http://phoenixlabs.org/pg2/
Use it or dont whine about getting nailed by the RIAA,MPAA,BSA,NAACP,etc....
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
FTFA:
"The LimeWire software allows users who right-click on any song entry and choose "browse host" to see all of the songs that a given file sharer is offering to others for download. The software also lists the IP address of active file sharers."
There have been cases where RIAA sends out notices to individuals in these institutions. If they are behind the school network and the IP address shown is of the school's public IP, how can the individuals be targeted?
Help a man when he is in trouble and he will remember you when he is in trouble again.
I assume the RIAA are already polluting filesharing networks with fake files, so why not do the same?
Create an audio file with the same name as a popular song, have the first 7-8 seconds or whatever is legal be the same as the song, followed by an oral essay that critiques the song.
Now, when they sue, not only will you have a bulletproof argument that the suit is without merit, you will have a good counter-suit on the grounds that they are trying to suppress legitimate free speech.
At the very least, this will force the RIAA to listen to songs before filing suit.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
So which is it?
And do Slashdot readers know what the legal term "estopple" means?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Small music venues are being targeted in Chicago; it appears that the city wants to make sure the only live music shows are in large arenas. Who benefits? Let's see. No more opportunities for independent artists to perform. Hmmm, guess the only way to hear live music is to go to a huge arena to see some crappy pop act produced by riaa minions. So are laws like this being proposed in other cities? Is Chicago just the start? Is this the next step in music industry dominance?
Run and catch, run and catch, the lamb is caught in the blackberry patch.
There is some other reason they are targetting universities with this automated business. Maybe because they know students don't want to get in trouble with the administration, or because the universities are more risk-averse and less likely to fight than the commercial ISPs, which would lose business if they tried to stop piracy. The RIAA said it does not single out particular academic institutions to be "made examples of."
"We have no capability of targeting any school at all," said the RIAA representative, who argued that there is a large "misperception" among university administrators that individual colleges are being picked on. "Technically we can't do it. We find what we find with this process, and that's what we send to schools." They don't have the capability??? Of course they do. He's just outlined how easily they could target particular universities. It's one thing to say that they don't do it. To say that they are incapable of doing it is a bold-faced lie.
RTFA
This is why the RIAA has no legal case, and why they must resort to bluffs, threats, extortion, smoke, mirrors, and press releases.
The song file has to be downloaded by another unauthorized person (RIAA investigators don't count) for it to be infringement. The RIAA itself admits here that they have no way of knowing if anybody else has ever downloaded this song. To properly win in court they have to convince judges and/or juries that despite this complete lack of proof that they were infringed anyway.
It's all the Big Lie on their part.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
1) Figure out what music is currently quite popular.
2) Make your own covers of it without instruments. Sing both the lyrics and the melody with interpretive musicianship. The worse it sounds, the better.
3) Host as the file name.
4) ????
5) Waste their time!
IANAL but I don't think you could get in trouble for posting fake songs up. Technically, you could claim you're helping fight piracy while making Mediasentry's job harder. I imagine the in worst case they ask you to cease and desist. Perhaps someone more versed in law can say if this is valid.
Another option could be to simply use the band's name and make up fake songs with similar names to original songs with fictitious lyrics. This would replace step 2. Granted I believe they are solely looking for song titles.
Ben Folds - Rocking the Penguin
Beastie Boys - Ubuntu in Effect
Whitney Houston - OSX will save the day
So I put a song labeled "4 minutes", like the article said. And instead of it being the song, i have some song i created, then they can be fined for the maximum per song because they downloaded it from me? Sounds like they infringed on all the false positives they download. How is this legal?
RIAA> "Judge, i was able to catch these infringers by downloading songs off of their computer. When i hit the 20th song, i found one they infringed on"
Judge> "And what about the first 19?"
RIAA> "Those were songs the defendant made in his own studio.... oh wait."
Defendent> "Judge, i move to charge the RIAA for copyright infringing on my 19 songs"
Thats why they have been avoiding messing with Harvard like the plague.
Read radical news here
I seem to recall reading somewhere that Harvard has never been hit with one of these RIAA money grabs. Most probable reason being that there is enough talent there to rip the RIAA to tiny ribbon sized shreds in front of the judge, which would pretty much end their extortion racket.
So, does that still hold true? Anybody at Harvard ever been hit with one of these?
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Is it reasonable to assume that if a search for a particular song returns hits that it has probably been downloaded?
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
1) record your own song
2) rename it as a popular song: eg. Madonna - 4 Minutes
3) they download it after it fails hash check
4) sue them for copyright infringement
5) ?
6) Profit!
01110000 01010111 01101110 00110011 01100100
But isn't the order of events impossible according to the article. Now I haven't looked at limewire, but does it display the hashs before the download? Even then they talk about comparing the sound waves and say this happens before the files are downloaded. And then they open a TCP link? I may only be working on my master's in computer science but this is pretty much counter-intuitive to most of my understanding of networking. If Limewire is displaying the files hash it would be possible for them to search. But then there's the problem that Hash's aren't unique and you could find a collision. I'm not sure how large of a false positive there is but it exists. And comparing the sound waves there's no way to look in the file before downloading. So the question is, is this BS being fed by the "anonymous source" or an author who didn't do thier research.
if (student)
{
guilty = true;
}
else
{
guilty = true;
}
Acto TFA:
=======
If there is a match, Media Sentry investigators will then engage in a so-called TCP connection, or an electronic "handshake," with the computer that is offering the file to verify that the computer is online and is ready to share the song.
=======
If they're going so far as to verify that the "computer is online and is ready to share the song", then explain to me how they can make the sort of mistakes they do, what with some targets having not engaged in filesharing at all?
Remember, if they are targeting 'em live and in action, like TFA says, this should give them a firm timestamp for when Filesharer X was using IP-address nnn.nnn.nnn.nnn
In other words, either their catch-a-thief-in-the-act system is broken (should not be making the kind of mistakes it does), OR they are lying outright about checking all of the targets for actual sharing activity.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
It would be best if you didn't share at all, but if you feel you have to...
Place an annotation clearly stating that this folder is only available to individuals that are in no way, shape, or form affiliated with the RIAA, one of it's member companies, clients, or third-party company acting on behalf of said RIAA.
Then if they try to come at you, sue them for criminal trespass.
Who is general failure, and why is he reading my hard drive?
Put your own copyrghted material up, but name it the same as something that they are looking for. Let their cronies download it in their "validation" sweep (the article didnt actualy say that they validate??) Immediately have someone else download your copyrighted material from them. Instant lawsuit against the RIAA, am I right?
"His name was James Damore."
Although some kids may need to reign in their activities, the RIAA methods' technological and litigation basis are unsound and dangerous. RIAA and their overlords need to be made recipocally accountable with the colleges taking more responsibility too.
I wouldn't be surprised if they "leaked" this article to misinform people to their detection methods. If you think this is their whole routine, then you let your guard down on other levels. Or it could be directed at Limewire. What better way to take out adversaries than "focus fire them"? "We find people using scripting methods mining Limewire data". People shy away from Limewire. /dust off hands
Well one down.
The article states:
"We have no capability of targeting any school at all," said the RIAA representative, who argued that there is a large "misperception" among university administrators that individual colleges are being picked on. "Technically we can't do it. We find what we find with this process, and that's what we send to schools."
If an institution has a Class B IP address range that they distribute to their students (as the college I went to does), can't Media Sentry just build in their little script to target known institutions?
Say Pirate University has a class B range 155.50.0.0 - 155.50.255.255, shouldn't they be able to flag when they find an IP in that range?
Once they've found out the IP range through their WhoIs search, I think they technically COULD target institutions, under specific circumstances.
... because I hate all current music! That's the last thing I'd download, the latest pop or rock song! The MPAA, however.........
The targeting of higher education networks is for the most part an automatic thing and they know it. Why? Higher ed usually has higher bandwidth available for uploads/downloads. This makes the serving of files from higher ed primary sources as the data can flow faster and quicker for them to pick up on for detection purposes. Simple is always better...
Don't know how they treat repeat violators, but here's one my university got (sorry for the redactions, but we're dealing with the MAFIAA here)
From: RIAA [mailto:XXXX@riaa.com]
Sent: XXXX
To: XXXX
Subject: Case ID XXXX - RIAA Infringement Notification
VIA EMAIL
XXXX, 2008
Re: Copyright infringement
Dear Sir or Madam:
I am contacting you on behalf of the Recording Industry Association of America, Inc. (RIAA) and its member record companies. The RIAA is a trade association whose member companies create, manufacture, and distribute approximately ninety (90) percent of all legitimate sound recordings sold in the United States. Under penalty of perjury, we submit that the RIAA is authorized to act on behalf of its member companies in matters involving the infringement of their sound recordings, including enforcing their copyrights and common law rights on the Internet.
We believe a user's account on your network was used to reproduce and/or distribute unauthorized copies of one or more copyrighted sound recordings. We have attached below the details of the infringing activity.
We have a good faith belief that this activity is not authorized by copyright owners, their agent, or the law. We are asking for your immediate assistance in stopping this unauthorized activity. Specifically, we request that you remove or disable access to the infringing sound recording.
We believe it is in everyone's interest for music consumers to be better educated about the subject of copyright law and music. In addition to taking steps to notify this network user about the illegal nature of this activity, we encourage you to refer him/her to the MUSIC Coalition's website at www.musicunited.org. The site contains valuable information about what's legal and what's not when it comes to copying music.
You should understand that this letter constitutes notice to you that this network user may be liable for the infringing activity occurring on your network. In addition, under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, if you ignore this notice, your institution may also be liable for any resulting infringement. This letter does not constitute a waiver of any right to recover damages incurred by virtue of any such unauthorized activities, and such rights as well as claims for other relief are expressly retained. Moreover, this letter does not constitute a waiver of our members' right to sue the user at issue for copyright infringement.
Thank you in advance for your prompt assistance in this matter. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me via e-mail at XXXX@riaa.com, via telephone at XXXX, or via mail at RIAA, 1025 F Street, NW, 10th Floor, Washington, D.C., 20004. Please reference Case ID XXXX in any response or communication regarding this infringement.
Sincerely,
XXXX
Online Copyright Protection
RIAA
List of infringing content:
Flo Rida Low
INFRINGEMENT DETAIL
Infringing Work: Flo Rida Low
First Found: XXXX 2008 XXXX EDT (GMT -XXXX) Last Found: XXXX 2008 XXXX EDT (GMT -XXXX) IP Address: XXXX IP Port: XXXX
Protocol: BitTorrent
Torrent InfoHash: XXXX
Containing file(s):
XXXX Flo Rida feat. T-Pain - Low.mp3 (XXXX bytes)
No, Mr. Troll! The song that a search returns could have gotten on that computer by many other methods (ripped from CD, loaded from a memory stick, downloaded from an authorized on-line music store, copied from a previous hard drive, placed there by a trojan) than being illegally downloaded.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
What is this all about? It makes it sound like they have a checksum for the digital recording of each RIAA song, and compare it against the files on the P2P system. But there are an unlimited number of files that a given song might be made into, by using different formats, bitrates, encoders settings, ID3 tags, and so on. What exactly are these hashes of?
>The song that a search returns could have gotten on that computer by many other methods
>(ripped from CD, loaded from a memory stick, downloaded from an authorized on-line music store,
>copied from a previous hard drive, placed there by a trojan)
And then just happened to get put into the shared directory of a P2P client.
Riiiiiight. I have this bridge here for sale...
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
And this is why I stick to bittorrent and Peer Guardian.
"In collecting evidence for those takedown notices, Media Sentry investigators do not usually download suspect music files. Instead, the company uses special software to check the "hash," a sort of unique digital fingerprint, of each offered file to verify that it is identical to a copyrighted song file in the RIAA's database. In the rare cases in which the hashes don't match, the investigators download the song and use a software program sold by Audible Magic to compare the sound waves of the offered audio file against those of the song it may be infringing upon. If the Audible Magic software still doesn't turn up a match, then a live person will listen to the song."
In other words, they do not engage in unauthorized downloading and copyright infringement. Except when they do. Because they what sounds to them like a really good rationalization for their behavior.
Which is exactly what their victims do.
If the RIAA being straight arrows, they'd forego the downloading in those "rare" cases. Why is it so important to nail these "rare" that they will compromise their own principles?
Perhaps, if the truth were known, those "rare" cases aren't really all that rare.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
Want to royally fuck over RIAA members?
.mp3 extension. Just play _short_ sound clips and talk about the composition, the performance, sound quality, etc. and make the song review the same length (in minutes and seconds) as the original track. Throw it up on torrent sites, share it out on limewire, etc.
Share out music reviews with the
Remember: the sound clip does not contain a substantial amount of their "IP" -- just sound clips which are very brief, used as samples for the purpose of a review that a music or movie critic might use. The fact is you are presenting this as a music critic, and you are WELL within fair use guidelines to use short sound clips in your reviews.
When they come a-suing present the evidence and then countersue, citing harassment, libel, extortion, and fraud (abusing copyright law). Also complain about the frivilous lawsuit as they obviously are just trolling for people who will just settle rather than fight their ridiculous claims.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
"many feel" is news? More importantly, "news that matters"? Aha.... How about "just the facts, ma'am"? What happened to that?
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
So if you just put your files in encrypted zips, with manual instructions on the filename on how to get the password they have to check every file manually. Or am I missing something?
i wonder if soulseek gets targeted...
I work in the office of IT at my university, and we have a ticketing system used by almost every department on campus. There's a guy who's list of tickets is about 30 letters a day from the RIAA. Whether they act on this information or not, I do not know...
Since many viruses/trojans out there work to turn boxes into IRC or relay bots, why can't there be ones that turn it into p2p bot. If the people that RIAA/MPAA sue have said viruses it can end up helping to get public to see about how absurd some of these suits and laws really are.
Heck a virus that shares just say the top 10 songs on the RIAA hit list and using only 10kbs up, will go unnoticed by most people.
The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive
1. MediaSentry is a customer of Audible Magic software, the software in which Dr. Jacobson has an indirect financial interest, and uses Audible Magic software as part of its investigation. So when Dr. Jacobson testifies about how reliable MediaSentry is, he's talking about his customer, and when he testified that he doesn't know what their procedures are, he was lying.
2. The software process used by MediaSentry differs markedly from the way Richard Gabriel has sought to describe it in his representations to various courts.
3. Cara Duckworth, the RIAA's spokesperson, admits that
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
This might sound a little strange but if the p2p networks are polluted with RIAA music then providing a list of tracks and artists would help prevent the accidental download of RIAA member music. Honestly how are you supposed to know whats legal and what isn't?
Riaa members don't produce all music and if they can provide lists for the investigators for automatic searches then the same list could be used to filter search results. I wouldn't want to accidentally infringe on their members copyrights would you?
There must be millions of unsigned bands or bands out of contract or recordings out of copyright I could download and listen too legally.
Blarney Quality Restaurant, Plants
IANAL, so I have no idea about the answer to this question/comment, but they (the RIAA) are proceeding wholly on an arbitrary characteristic: file name. How can they prove that my Godzilla.mp3 is not an empty four MB file I've created? Answer: they can't. Without a hash, how on earth can they prove copyright infringement? I work for a fairly large US University that capitulates blindly to these claims (much to my frustration). It staggers me that these issues haven't brought up, ut maybe it is because IAJASSANAL.
I really should preview.
I meant it does happen.
Slashdotter, ID #101. UIDs are in binary, right?
For Chicago to pass an ordinance like that would be like bulldozing a building with a historic marker out front!
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
I may just be one of them simple laymen, but something strikes me as funny with this whole business. Maybe it's been decided already and I'm just down at the bottom of the hill. But... If they are just making a TCP "Handshake" at what flag do they kill the connection attempt? Because if they just make a connection and browse the system without any intention of using the program for what it was designed to do, isn't that considered circumventing the security of a computer? Also by crafting a script to use the program in a way that it wasn't intended to be used constitutes a violation of the DMCA, correct? Maybe I'm just way off base or not following this enough, but why not charge media sentry with circumventing the computer's security. the excuse of "well it was open to the world" doesn't work when trying to justify using a unsecured wireless connection, why shouldn't limewire be the same way ? the program was designed to download songs, not track users of the program who actively download. Sure, its an easy thing to do, but so is stelaing a pack of gum. who knows maybe I'm wrong, its happened many times before. But i suppose this is why I work in the computer industry, I'm far too smart to be a lawyer. :-p
http://indiemusic.meetup.com/127/boards/thread/4701023
The City of Chicago is trying to pass an ordinance this Wednesday (May 14th, 2008) that could severely damage the live music and theater scene.
In summary:
The "Event Promoters" ordinance requires any event promoter to have a license from the city of Chicago and liability insurance of $300,000, but that's just the start:
* The definition of "event promoter" is so loosely defined it could apply to a band or singer-songwriter that books their own shows or a theater company that's in town for a one-week run.
* "Event Promoter" must be licensed and will pay $500 - $2000 depending on expected audience size
* To get the license, applicant must be over 21, get fingerprinted, submit to a background check, and jump over several other hurdles .
* This ordinance seems targeted towards smaller venues, since those with 500+ permanent seats are exempt
* Police must be notified at least 7 days in advance of event.
If you lend someone $20 and never see that person again, it was probably worth it.
Helps you identify what albums / bands / label are on RIAA associated labels. There's also a BPI Radar for all of you non-USA folks.
Disclaimer: I don't run the site, but I just use the site to make sure that my entertainment dollars are *not* spent supporting 'trade organizations' that I don't agree with.
I've been buying CDs since about 1992. At various times since then, my purchasing has dropped off due to:
- DVDs. I never bought VHS movies, but if I can get a DVD for $10, or a CD for $12, the CD doesn't win out often.
- Video Games. This market has exploded. Money is being diverted from somewhere to spend on these.
- Cell phone. A 'utility' that I choose to pay for monthly.
- Broadband. Another utility that I choose to pay for monthly. It's no $9.95 a month dialup.
How dare they try and enforce laws about stealing. This is America people should be able to get away with injustices!
The only reason I can see for that distinction is that if you're entrapping someone and you're not government/law enforcement then you're aiding and abetting a criminal act.
However, since the cases pursued are all civil cases, and the claimant is the one giving away the product (or saying they will), then they can hardly complain that someone tried to take them up on the offer, can they?
PS: With AllOfMP3, they are accusing them of letting people break copyright by downloading. It can't be because of AllOfMP3 uploading, because that is done in Russia, where it is legal.
And you sit there with the sting ready.
Note their IP.
Sue.
Profit!!!
This is why I'd like the reverse of peerguardian. I'd make available their songs, they copy and either this is legal (they have the right), illegal (I didn't do anything though, so it must be them, remember I've blocked anything BUT RIAA IP addresses) so they did wrong.
And I add a few of my own creations in there. when they take them up, I don't have to hunt them down because
a) peerguardian has already told me it's a RIAA site
b) they'll come to get me for "sharing" their stuff with them
Moustache twirling engaged...
... do the sharing connections through relay proxying. That way, the IP that has the shared content is not the same one connected to, to get it. In reality that's oversimplistic and the RIAA could pose as a relay to track the real source. But it would make things harder.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars