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."
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
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.
Not to side with the RIAA and similar, but wouldn't you figure, if they have the power to use a copyright of a given item to sue you, that they also have the legal right to "distribute" said copyrighted material?
"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
IANAL, but I believe that they would only be able to if that particular method is laid out in the contract with the band. Otherwise, the bands could sue them for breaking the contract AND copyright infringement.
I just can't wait until all artists start their own publishing
That's the real reason behind these suits. They can't possibly be afraid you'll hear top 40 crap, because if they did they wouldn't let the radio (easily sampled to better than iTunes or MP3 quality) play them.
It isn't Britney they want to keep out of your ears, it's the indies. Note they don't say "illegal downloads" except when the context infers that all downloads are illegal? Their aim, mostly met, it to make you think they do indeed have a monopoly (or rather, cartel) and that all music is RIAA music. it worked on you, didn't it?
"Piracy" isn't hurting their sales and they know it. The indies (and the gasoline and food companies) are eating their lunch. Most of us have only so many dollars to spend. If I buy four $5 CDs from the band that plays at the bar (professionally recorded and duplicated, with art and packaging) that's twenty dollars I don't have to buy an RIAA CD.
Their only hope for survival is to kill the internet. Good luck with that.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
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.
Does that mean you could legally obtain free content using a P2P client with a script that only downloads from RIAA IP addresses?
they do, but mediasentry and other agents operating on their behalf might not.
Is it exhausting to constantly assume that large groups of people are motivated, competent and organized?
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
By what I've seen of the RIAA, they could make good use of the choke on a bucket of cocks function.
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
Yes, but if they do, then downloading the copy they distribute within their rights is not illegal. If I offer you something I own for free, then it is legal for you to take it.
Doesn't matter, though. That's not how they're using LimeWire (or other P2P clients), as the GP would've known if he'd RFTA.
They're not making the music available; they're using the client to search for others who are making the music available.
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.
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
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."
I agree. In addition, this is one big reason why their "lost sales" calculations are huge stinking loads of bull manure. The RIAA figures that 1 song downloaded (regardless of the legality of the download) equals one sale not made which means that much revenue not put in their pockets. You could easily use the same reasoning to prove that Indie labels cost the record labels money. Or that food store sales cost the record companies money. Or that oil companies cost the record companies money.
Hey, there's an idea. Pit the Big Oil companies against the Big Record Companies/RIAA. Two Companies Enter! One leaves! We won't really be cheering for a winner so much as cheering for one of the companies to be beaten to a pulp.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
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.
Well the RIAA claims in TFA that they only download.
The RIAA, in so far as they are also "making available", are making available with no clear demarcation of copyright, further complicating their liability well beyond mere "entrapment". So all those downloads from RIAA hosted files are perfectly legal. Making available man_on_the_moon.mp3 is no different than making available kennedy_moon_speech.mp3 whilst sneaking in a secretly copyrighted song into a title of a public domain presidential speech about putting a man on the moon.
Could you imagine the copyright liability which could be created if you put your own copyrighted files into titles of public domain works and then sued everybody who downloaded or viewed those files? You could get rich off the RIAA by putting your own homemade songs into file titles the RIAA deep packet inspects, by definition copies and views, as they check to see whether the files are copyrighted, and sue for statutory copyright damages. It would be absolutely no different then suing everybody who clicked on or linked to your webpage.
In fact if you download and upload every single file on the internet and "deep packet inspect" those files by viewing or listening to them, you are doing exactly what the RIAA is doing and clamoring to be done with "deep packet inspection" software. It's no different if it done automatically by a program or manually by individual eyes and ears.
So I was correct all along, the RIAA is indeed downloading and "deep packet inspecting" based on file titles alone, even attempting to submit "evidence" of screenshots of file titles. No doubt the RIAA is legally liable for $100s of BILLIONS for mistaken inspection and downloading of content that is not the copyright of RIAA members. If anybody were to subpoena the RIAA download and deep packet inspection records in a countersuit, those record companies will be BANKRUPT from distributing consumer copyrighted parodies and commentaries!
All hail the the arrival of the Era of the Copyright Troll! Time to parody the hell out of everything that is copyrighted, and get paid outrageous legal sums for doing so! You will soon find that the RIAA is the biggest P2P "pirate" in the world (and they have tens of billions in assets -- go get your piece!).
"From DNA to P2P, we are all Copycats now. Go Go Copycat Power! Copycat Powers activate! Form of, a Copycat." --monxrtr
"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!
.....to search for others who are making the music available.....
Recent court cases indicate that "making available" is not against the copyright law. The **AA would certainly like that to be the case, so they and they alone are able to "make available" and nobody else. To violate copyright, there has to be an actual copy made by someone.
All theory is gray