Slashdot Mirror


Judge Excludes 3 "John Does" From RIAA Subpoena

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In one of the RIAA's 'John Doe' cases targeting Boston University students, after the University wrote to the Court saying that it could not identify three of the John Does 'to a reasonable degree of technical certainty,' Judge Nancy Gertner deemed the University's letter a 'motion to quash,' and granted it, quashing the subpoena as to those defendants. In the very brief docket entry (PDF) containing her decision, she noted that 'compliance with the subpoena as to the IP addresses represented by these Defendants would expose innocent parties to intrusive discovery.' There is an important lesson to be learned from this ruling: if the IT departments of the colleges and universities targeted by the RIAA would be honest, and explain to the Courts the problems with the identification and other technical issues, there is a good chance the subpoenas will be vacated. Certainly, there is now a judicial precedent for that principle. One commentator asks whether this holding 'represents the death knell to some, if not all, of the RIAA's efforts to use American university staff as copyright cops.'"

225 comments

  1. It's obvious that what we need is... by Joce640k · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...a new law requiring better IP tracking built into all new routers and laptops.

    --
    No sig today...
    1. Re:It's obvious that what we need is... by HungryHobo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sad but true. just leaving the problem that I can change my mac address and even with username/pass systems pilfering a login/pass from a com girl or arts student in my uni would be childsplay

    2. Re:It's obvious that what we need is... by Alarindris · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Sad but true. just leaving the problem that I can change my mac address and even with username/pass systems pilfering a login/pass from a com girl or arts student in my uni would be childsplay

      I would like to see more discussion on that actually. I understand that anonymity is sort of the thing that makes the internet great.

      Is having a static home address (123 Cherry Lane) preventing anonymity in the real world? Is that a valid comparison?

      It seems like the point above could/should be a concern to an average user, retaining your identity?

    3. Re:It's obvious that what we need is... by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      Would randomly shuffling IP addresses nightly across the board and purging the previous assignment records fairly quickly be a relatively good defense against the RIAA from an administrative standpoint?

      If you can't associate an IP with a person, you can't sue them. What would they do then, sue the college?

    4. Re:It's obvious that what we need is... by Chaos+Incarnate · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They very well might try, on grounds of their "impeding the investigation".

      --
      Benford's Corollary to Clarke's Law: "Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced."
    5. Re:It's obvious that what we need is... by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How can you be "impeding the investigation" if you took these measures before any such investigation existed? It would be one thing to destroy evidence after being issued a subpoena but I'm not aware of any law that requires IT departments to retain logs of IP assignments.......

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    6. Re:It's obvious that what we need is... by qwertphobia · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You're assuming they apply logic where logic is appropriate. I think you give them too much credit.

      --
      Never ask for directions from a two-headed tourist! -Big Bird
    7. Re:It's obvious that what we need is... by Sancho · · Score: 1

      The problem is that then you have no leads if you really do need to track down the person associated with an IP address for some reason. "Someone hacked into your gradebook? Sorry, no clue who it may have been."

    8. Re:It's obvious that what we need is... by Chaos+Incarnate · · Score: 2

      I didn't say they would succeed, merely that the RIAA is clueless enough to still try to make it the universities' fault.

      --
      Benford's Corollary to Clarke's Law: "Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced."
    9. Re:It's obvious that what we need is... by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Then I suppose you have to decide what's more important -- having the ability to track people down for other purposes or preventing your shop from being used as RIAA's evidence gathering team.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    10. Re:It's obvious that what we need is... by Sancho · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well, gosh, when you spin it that way, who'd let themselves be used?!

      Besides, it's not about gathering evidence. The RIAA and their investigative agencies do that. Universities just provide a name.

    11. Re:It's obvious that what we need is... by SkyDude · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I would like to see more discussion on that actually. I understand that anonymity is sort of the thing that makes the internet great.

      I'm not so sure that total anonymity is such a great thing. It allows too many cretins to make personal attacks on people, essentially convicting someone of a perceived crime, when none may have occurred. Certainly, those who have been the victims would agree.

      Is having a static home address (123 Cherry Lane) preventing anonymity in the real world? Is that a valid comparison?

      When you realize that your home can be seen by anyone via Google Earth or similar service, it does call into question how private is your life. Of course, the view is not real time, but it is a snapshot and who knows what was happening that day? I think a closer comparison might be your landline telephone. It's not completely anonymous, can be traced to an physical address in most cases and there are laws that disallow the use of the phone for certain things such as uttering threats or causing a fraud to be perpetrated.

      I am in no way condoning the actions of the RIAA, but until the failed business model they were assigned to protect is gone, they have the right to stop the unfettered sharing of copyrighted materials. Just like a trace that can be put on a landline phone, and the identity of the phone subscriber found, the RIAA has an obligation to its client to find out who is causing the client to lose revenue and changing one's MAC or IP address may seem like a cool way to beat it, but the law may not be on your side at this time.

      Having said all of that, one has to ask how much longer the recording industry will continue this folly.

      --
      == First cross river, then insult alligator.
    12. Re:It's obvious that what we need is... by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, gosh, when you spin it that way, who'd let themselves be used?!

      Eh, I wasn't spinning, that's how I really see it. My job as an IT person is to make sure that the network is functional for my users. My job isn't to help RIAA build a case that will be used to bankrupt one of my users based on some thin argument like "making available". Not having logs of IP assignments (or keeping those logs for very short periods of time) isn't going to be a huge hindrance to me -- so I choose not to keep them in my shop.

      The RIAA and their unlicensed investigative agencies do that

      Fixed that for you :)

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    13. Re:It's obvious that what we need is... by aadvancedGIR · · Score: 2, Funny

      "Is having a static home address (123 Cherry Lane) preventing anonymity in the real world?"
      As long as you are not required to display it on yourself everywhere you go, no.

      "Is that a valid comparison?"
      Maybe, changing the MAC address of your computer to someone's else (or spoofing an IP address) to do something wrong is similiar to yelling "I am " to the police while running away from the police.

      "It seems like the point above could/should be a concern to an average user, retaining your identity?"
      Absolutely, but there is not much you can do before the police knocks at your door.

    14. Re:It's obvious that what we need is... by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I believe that the last round of funds approved by the U.S. Congress for higher education included a provision requiring any educational institution receiving federal funds to make "all reasonable efforts" to combat illegal file sharing. I am confident that the federal government would regard your suggestion as the opposite of making "reasonable efforts" to combat illegal file sharing.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    15. Re:It's obvious that what we need is... by HungryHobo · · Score: 1

      universities can try to provide a name but if someone spoof my mac address or steals my login for the wireless by one means or another then I could be wrongly accused.

      Ask the university for the name attached to a student ID and you'll get a name, ask them who was using a certain IP on a certain date and you'll get evidence of who it might have been using that IP on that date.

    16. Re:It's obvious that what we need is... by Moryath · · Score: 1

      The MafiAA and their illegal, unlicensed thugs do that

      Fixed it for you. Gotta make sure you use the right terms. An "unlicensed investigative agency" is an oxymoron, call them what they are.

    17. Re:It's obvious that what we need is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are a few laws in the US akin to Sarbanes-Oxley that may require it.

    18. Re:It's obvious that what we need is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I am in no way condoning the actions of the RIAA, but until the failed business model they were assigned to protect is gone, they have the right to try to stop the alleged unfettered sharing of copyrighted materials.

      Fixed that for you.

      Just like a trace that can be put on a landline phone, and the identity of the phone subscriber found,

      This is the same stupid justification that the RIAA uses in all its John Doe suits. The phone subscriber may not be the one using the phone.

      the RIAA has an obligation to its client to find out who is causing the client to lose revenue

      Shouldn't the 'client'(artists) also be receiving their share of money collected? Don't the RIAA have an obligation to work within the law to find the ones responsible beyond reasonable doubt instead of going after anyone with only the flimsiest of evidence and then expecting others to do all the work for them?

      and changing one's MAC or IP address may seem like a cool way to beat it, but the law may not be on your side at this time.

      Changing your MAC or IP is not illegal. In a world where governments are trying to record everything we do, anything that makes it harder for people to track you is a good thing.

    19. Re:It's obvious that what we need is... by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      I didn't want to be accused of spinning again ;)

      But yeah, it is a mafia. Funny thing is that RIAA's antics have made me more likely to purchase music -- from non-RIAA labels. Before I was likely to just download whatever I wanted (yeah, guilty as charged) -- now I check out RIAA Radar and hand over some scratch if I hear a song that I like and discover the artist is signed with an indie label.

      I doubt my purchases matter much in the grand scheme of things but I'm going to vote with my wallet anyway.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    20. Re:It's obvious that what we need is... by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      I am confident that the federal government would regard your suggestion as the opposite of making "reasonable efforts" to combat illegal file sharing.

      Perhaps. But there are other "reasonable efforts" that one can take -- and besides, who said I work for a higher education institution that receives Federal funding?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    21. Re:It's obvious that what we need is... by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I check out RIAA Radar and hand over some scratch if I hear a song that I like and discover the artist is signed with an indie label. I doubt my purchases matter much in the grand scheme of things but I'm going to vote with my wallet anyway.

      They matter a whole lot in the grand scheme of things.

      --
      Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
    22. Re:It's obvious that what we need is... by ACMENEWSLLC · · Score: 2, Informative

      So you assign RSA tokens to the University children, errr, students. When they hook up to the University Network they are given access to a locked down VLAN with a host specific subnet and access only to the RSA login page. This prevents the users from setting a bypass proxy on an multihomed PC.

      The student has to enter their userid, password, pin, and RSA Token. Once this is done then the MAC address is given a short lease on the real student network. The software updates the Cisco CAM tables so that my MAC address is only allowed on the port I am plugged into (OR AP) and the ACL's are adjusted so that my IP address is similarly restricted.

      Now you have an associate of a MAC address, IP address, and Student information. You have automatic tracking. I can't simply change my IP address or MAC address because the Cisco switch has this locked down.

      Every so many hours I have to re-authenticate, as appropriate per University.

      This is NAC. It is doable today. All the RIAA/MPAA needs to do is to bribe *their* representatives in congress to make a law requiring this. Of course, they'll to do this under the guise of protecting the children from terrorist via a 3rd party. Everyone want's to protect the kids.

      (Cynicism, if not apparent.)

    23. Re:It's obvious that what we need is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How easy is it to change my windows address?

    24. Re:It's obvious that what we need is... by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      I hope so. I was actually pleasantly surprised to discover how much non-RIAA music is out there and how often my favorite radio station plays it. That actually surprised me the most -- the radio station in question is owned by Clear Channel yet I've discovered a lot of good indie music through them. Who would've thought?

      Pandora is another good source in my experience, although it seems to take them longer to get new albums up for some reason (licensing issues?)

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    25. Re:It's obvious that what we need is... by HungryHobo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Shh! stop giving them ideas!!!
      Also that sounds expensive... and hell to deal with 10K students who can barely use a mouse trying to understand why they need to remember those passwords and why it wtopped working after they deleted those files etc....

    26. Re:It's obvious that what we need is... by techess · · Score: 1

      I doubt my purchases matter much in the grand scheme of things but I'm going to vote with my wallet anyway.

      I do the same thing. I haven't purchased a non-indie cd in over 5 years Between RIAA Radar and CD Baby I'm always able to find new music. I like to think that all the revenue that the RIAA is claiming it lost due to thieves is actually from people like us voting with our wallet.

      --
      Don't anthropomorphize computers. They *hate* that.
    27. Re:It's obvious that what we need is... by HungryHobo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Really it raises the question: could the total cost of fighting file sharing like special equipment, thousands of lawyers, legally mandated logging at ISP's etc surpass the total wealth generated by music. Would it be cheaper to buy the hardware and hire the people to police/admin your network to avoid litigation or just cut a deal with the mafiaa for protection from their thugs.

    28. Re:It's obvious that what we need is... by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 2, Informative

      I hope so. I was actually pleasantly surprised to discover how much non-RIAA music is out there and how often my favorite radio station plays it. That actually surprised me the most -- the radio station in question is owned by Clear Channel yet I've discovered a lot of good indie music through them. Who would've thought? Pandora is another good source in my experience, although it seems to take them longer to get new albums up for some reason (licensing issues?)

      Yes. And I'm making a collection. I have a list of free links to indie music sources which I call "Liberated Music". And I have advertising links for indie-only music where I and my blog actually get a commission if you buy something.

      --
      Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
    29. Re:It's obvious that what we need is... by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      And I have advertising links for indie-only music [blogspot.com] where I and my blog actually get a commission if you buy something.

      Hmm. I'm poor right now but I'll make a point of hopping over to Amazon through your blog the next time I buy something. I love Amazon's MP3 service -- high-bitrate DRM free music. What's not to like?

      You probably don't get that much off it but I hope you can put what you do get to good use :)

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    30. Re:It's obvious that what we need is... by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 1

      I doubt my purchases matter much in the grand scheme of things but I'm going to vote with my wallet anyway.

      The latter is far more likely than the former to have the desired effect. It seems to me that downloading whatever you want has been proven repeatedly to be used by the RIAA to justify their tactics.

      On the other hand, enough people doing what you are doing now (and I like to think those numbers are growing) sends a very clear message that can't be spun.

    31. Re:It's obvious that what we need is... by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 1

      Every little bit helps. And they pay on anything you buy after visiting the site through the link.

      --
      Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
    32. Re:It's obvious that what we need is... by mpeskett · · Score: 1

      You don't have to tell someone your home address in order to talk to them, so no... not really a good comparison.

      You can generally expect to keep your address private unless you intend to tell someone where you live, but your IP address is known by any server your computer communicates with (unless you spoof it, mask it, go through a proxy or some other method of anonymisation)

    33. Re:It's obvious that what we need is... by Shakrai · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The latter is far more likely than the former to have the desired effect. It seems to me that downloading whatever you want has been proven repeatedly to be used by the RIAA to justify their tactics.

      Oh, I wasn't downloading whatever I want to make a point to RIAA. I was downloading whatever I want because it was free. I think most people would acknowledge on some level that it's wrong to do that -- what I would dispute is that the person who engages in file-sharing deserves to be punished more harshly than the person who shoplifts a CD.

      If somebody got a $222,000 fine for shoplifting a $20 CD I'm fairly certain that it would cause public outrage and probably be ruled unconstitutional. Funny RIAA uses the civil system to accomplish what the criminal system would acknowledge as being completely disproportional to the "crime" that was committed......

      Personally, I hope they all burn in hell.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    34. Re:It's obvious that what we need is... by Mr_eX9 · · Score: 1

      Yes...but if I did that in my dorm, the IT people would still be able to trace traffic back to MY ethernet port...

    35. Re:It's obvious that what we need is... by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Oh, I wasn't downloading whatever I want to make a point to RIAA. I was downloading whatever I want because it was free. I think most people would acknowledge on some level that it's wrong to do that

      Fair enough - I've just seen that used as a justification for it often enough that I tend to jump to conclusions on the matter.

      what I would dispute is that the person who engages in file-sharing deserves to be punished more harshly than the person who shoplifts a CD.

      On the other hand, shoplifting a CD can get you jail time if you do it often enough. At least they haven't successfully reached that point in their lobbying (yet).

      Multiple thousand dollar fines is /extremely/ disproportionate to the act performed - all the more so because they have no proof of damages; no real proof that anything happened (at least on the information we've had in cases so far); nor any proof of amount of distribution that was actually done.

      That being said, there is a difference between shoplifting a CD for yourself, and making copies of that CD and giving them away on a NYC streetcorner. I don't think it's unreasonable to have financial penalties beyond what shoplifting merits. The major stumbling block there is that it should require definitive /proof/ - something that is literally impossible to get given the current architecture of the Internet.

      Conversely, there's an even bigger difference between throwing the book at someone whom you captured stealing CDs on video; and doing the same against someone who happened to be in the store when the theft took place. I think that's a pretty accurate analogy for what RIAA is doing.

      This doesn't even get into the sheer intimidation factor that they are applying with their tactics - whether someone 'made available' or not can be made irrelevant when you scare them into settling because they can't afford to fight you.

    36. Re:It's obvious that what we need is... by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      I've got a question: Why not simply use dynamic addressing? Anything that isn't a server on your network will play just fine with dynamic addressing, and if you change once a week(like many home ISPs) you would still be able to find out "who hacked the gradebook" since that would probably come to light fairly quickly. And since most home ISPs use them at scales much larger than a college I am curious, why not simply go dynamic?

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    37. Re:It's obvious that what we need is... by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      It won't work, as any losses will automatically be blamed on "teh evil piratez" and be used for further draconian measures. Just look at how EA has been blaming their SecuROM losses on "teh evil piratez" even though it has been said loud and clear that many are boycotting them over their tactics. Ultimately I think the only way this is going to be won is in a court of law, by those like NYCL that think this is wrong and are willing to stand up there before the judges and fight them. Because as we have seen with the Sonny Bono bill and the DMCA they will simply add more insane laws when they feel their dying business model is threatened. I mean seriously, 160+ years for a copyright? WTH?

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    38. Re:It's obvious that what we need is... by mortonda · · Score: 1

      The student has to enter their userid, password, pin, and RSA Token. Once this is done

      ... the student withdraws from the university and looks for a campus that is less draconian. Oops, the Uni is out of business.

    39. Re:It's obvious that what we need is... by RobertM1968 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Multiple thousand dollar fines is /extremely/ disproportionate to the act performed - all the more so because they have no proof of damages; no real proof that anything happened (at least on the information we've had in cases so far); nor any proof of amount of distribution that was actually done.

      That being said, there is a difference between shoplifting a CD for yourself, and making copies of that CD and giving them away on a NYC streetcorner. I don't think it's unreasonable to have financial penalties beyond what shoplifting merits. The major stumbling block there is that it should require definitive /proof/ - something that is literally impossible to get given the current architecture of the Internet.

      And one is a civil matter, while the other is a criminal matter. Everyone seems to forget that here. Downloading (or otherwise acquiring) music (whether through legal or illegal means) and then distributing that music en-masse for profit or in a fashion that hurts the profits of the copyright holders (where it can be successfully argued some form of benefit is gained by the person doing it) is a criminal matter (that may also include a civil component).

      Currently, file sharing/P2P/etc is seen as a civil matter.

      The lines between the two are blurry, and the RIAA and MPAA are already trying to get rid of that line so either class of entity can be charged civilly and criminally.

    40. Re:It's obvious that what we need is... by Weaselmancer · · Score: 1

      It's an interesting idea. But I'll bet that if some law got passed mandating this, some kid from the netherlands would hack a way around it next weekend.

      There is no knot so difficult to tie that it cannot be untied. Granted, I don't know off the top of my head how to untie the one you propose. But I do know that every time someone steps up and says "this protection scheme is unbeatable!" some frustrated 16 year old gives them a whole plate of crow to eat. Within the week, usually.

      --
      Weaselmancer
      rediculous.
    41. Re:It's obvious that what we need is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am in no way condoning the actions of the RIAA, but until the failed business model they were assigned to protect is gone, they have the privilege to try to stop the alleged unfettered sharing of copyrighted materials.

      Fixed that for you!

      If it's so obvious that what they're doing is legal but wrong, then why call it right?

    42. Re:It's obvious that what we need is... by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 1

      Indeed; though my understanding is that the criteria for proof is more stringent in a criminal case. I'd hope that the crap they're foisting off as evidence for civil cases would not pass muster in criminal cases. On the other hand, it might encourage them to find real proof before filing thousands of blind lawsuits - since our civil justice system is failing to prevent this so far.

    43. Re:It's obvious that what we need is... by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 1
      It will be more effective than downloading/sharing content we don't have the rights to.

      Safe bet that RIAA is monitoring nearly all of the major P2P networks and trackers. If they see piracy going /down/ at the same time their sales go /down/, they're going to have a hard time convincing their paid congress critters to pass laws for them.

      Presently their sales go down while piracy continues to go up (presumably); it's awfully easy for them to draw a line connecting the two.

    44. Re:It's obvious that what we need is... by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 1

      Is having a static home address (123 Cherry Lane) preventing anonymity in the real world? Is that a valid comparison?

      It certainly is. I once presented an idea that made it up to the director of letter delivery for a certain national postal service (ahh...ahhCHOOAuspost) to address (ahem) that very issue.

      The idea was for a "Virtual Post Office Box". People would subscribe to a VPO Box number, which was treated as a permanent mail redirect.

      You would use your VPO Box number as you would a P.O.Box number, and just keep the postal service appraised of your current street address. You could move house and your mail would follow you, without having to notify everyone else of your new address.

      This would give you the flexibility to move and would provide some privacy for people who wish they were less in the public eye, such as celebrities or simply people who wanted that layer of indirection in their life.

      Ultimately it was turned down, and I was told it was not for the value proposition but because diminishing letter volumes made it inappropriate to invest.

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    45. Re:It's obvious that what we need is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not so sure that total anonymity is such a great thing. It allows too many cretins to make personal attacks on people, essentially convicting someone of a perceived crime, when none may have occurred. Certainly, those who have been the victims would agree.

      So because some people online are dicks (where have you been the last 10 years?) it might be a bad idea? sorry I have a right to be a dick, you don't have a right not to be offended by me. (Your free to ignore me of course)

      Your forgetting one important fact, with anonymous speech, truly free speech is possible, If the voices speaking out against something are nameless it becomes next to impossible to even try to silence them. If your not sure why this is such a good idea look up 'free speech zones'

      Sure some people decide to use their free speech abilities to be dick heads instead of some more meaningful discourse but I think thats a small enough price.

    46. Re:It's obvious that what we need is... by BitterOak · · Score: 1

      The student has to enter their userid, password, pin, and RSA Token. Once this is done

      ... the student withdraws from the university and looks for a campus that is less draconian. Oops, the Uni is out of business.

      Which is precisely why legislation would be needed, which is the point the poster was trying to make. A legislative mandate would level the playing field. (I'm not saying I support such a scheme. I'm just reiterating what I think the poster was suggesting.)

      --
      If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
    47. Re:It's obvious that what we need is... by Nazlfrag · · Score: 1

      I'm not so sure that the lack of total anonymity is such a great thing. It allows too many cretins like the RIAA to make personal attacks on people, essentially convicting someone of a perceived crime, when none may have occurred. Certainly, those who have been the victims would agree.

    48. Re:It's obvious that what we need is... by bzipitidoo · · Score: 1

      For those to whom it isn't obvious (MAFIAA friends? If they have any?), the above scheme wouldn't work anyway. Nor would any similar scheme work.

      For instance, a simple old keyboard and mouse swap would beat all that. You know, the old joke sometimes played in high school computing classes where the prankster takes two adjacent computers and plugs the keyboard of one into the other computer. Or, login credentials are swiped with the age old Trojan ploy-- student uses a lab computer long enough to install and run a program that convincingly mimics the login screen then leaves it for a few hours, collecting login info. That one is why Windows started doing the "press ctrl-alt-del to login" stuff, the idea being that a crude Trojan would not be able to capture that key sequence. Or, dozens of other ways, such as installing a root kit, social engineering, simply checking for computers still logged in because the user forgot to log out before leaving, spoofing and changing MAC or IP addresses and other network foolery, wardriving, etc.

      Many of these don't require any mad hacker skillz, anyone can do them. An innocent student gets framed while the enterprising sharer trades at will.

      --
      Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
    49. Re:It's obvious that what we need is... by RobertM1968 · · Score: 1

      My hope is that such a transition would raise the burden of proof to a realistic level.

      My fear is that the criminal justice system is equally as unknowledgable as the civil system and may fail in that area as well. There are enough reasons these cases should be tossed as it is (even in the civil courts) - and only recently have judges come to such an understanding.

      I guess time will tell...

    50. Re:It's obvious that what we need is... by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Did you read what the president of EA said about those that wrote and said they were boycotting Spore? That they were all pirates or didn't understand the wonderfullness of the DRM. So what are you going to do, send him all your HDDs just to prove to him that you didn't pirate it? And mark my words, if the piracy rate(which last I read hadn't changed percentage wise in years) disappeared then they will just scream "teh piratez are on teh darknets!" .

      Because reading interviews with those retards at blizzardvision and EA it is pretty obvious they think their shit don't stink and you should just be begging them to hand over whatever amount they ask for the awesome DRM. With folks like that there is NOTHING you can do that will convince them that they are wrong, they just won't believe you can't feel the awesomeness. So for them the ONLY answer is they are right and you are wrong, period.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    51. Re:It's obvious that what we need is... by ACMENEWSLLC · · Score: 1

      You are mapping an IP/MAC address to a user. No matter where the user goes, that traffic is tied to him.

      So he hits an anonymous proxy or VPN service. So what? Those IP's are not the University's so RIAA requests will not come to the University.

      He puts on SSL Explorer on his home PC and P2P's through that. Now it's his home ISP's problem.

      How could it be exploited? Anonymous Proxy such as TOR on another users PC. Thing is, if you know you are going to be responsible for what others download from your proxy, would you still run TOR?

      >>... the student withdraws from the university and looks for a campus that is less draconian. Oops, the Uni is out of business.

      That would mean leaving the country. My scenario only works if it's legislated federally.

      I'm not in favor of my idea. It's just that if we want this solution solved, here is how.

      But lets not forget the law of unintended consequences. In this case, it's Ad Hoc/Mesh networks. A second Internet which might be disconnected/disparate from global connectivity.

      Imagine on a campus that I setup my PC onto a Mesh network, and so do 500 other people. But we don't connect this to the University or to the Internet. No more RIAA/MPAA worries. Plus, what about people who just swap out 1TB USB drives over sneakernet?

      The money involved to police this could be considerable.

  2. Odd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't see how piracy charges can ever stick when IPs don't specify identity. I sure as hell wouldn't let that slide if I were being brought to court.

    1. Re:Odd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      How do IPs not specify identity? If you're letting somebody else use your net connection to pirate something, you're an accessory to their infringement.

    2. Re:Odd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Really? Even if they used it without your knowledge?

      That's like saying that if I let my mates take my car and they go commit a crime with it (say a hit and run), I should be punished for it.

      I wouldn't be classified as an accessory to their hit-and-run, so why should I be an accessory to their copyright infringement if I let them use my connection?

    3. Re:Odd by HungryHobo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Most of my neighbours have wireless.
      I could crack into them in minutes and download.
      Are they supposed to be security experts now?
      What about when WPA gets cracked? even the ones with a little knowhow will be open for a time.

      If someone breaks into your house and commits mail fraud while you're away are you guilty because your door wasn't strong enough to keep them out?

      "accessory to their infringement" is bullshit

    4. Re:Odd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

      Really? Even if they used it without your knowledge?

      Yes really. It's your internet connection, therefore it's your responsibility. Claiming you're too stupid to use it properly isn't a valid excuse.

      I love it. Every article about spam and malware is filled with comments crying about idiot lusers with open wireless connections and unpatched windows machines ruining the interweb. But along comes an RIAA lawsuit story, and the same people cry that they simply can't be responsible for their open wireless connections and unpatched windows machines.

      That's like saying that if I let my mates take my car and they go commit a crime with it (say a hit and run), I should be punished for it.

      I wouldn't be classified as an accessory to their hit-and-run, so why should I be an accessory to their copyright infringement if I let them use my connection?

      Protip: In most places you would be charged as an accessory in that case. Unless you can prove they stole it. At the very least you could get charged with negligence.

    5. Re:Odd by Jimmy+King · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You bring up something that I think about somewhat often.

      On the one hand, the Internet is incredibly useful and provides so much information and entertainment which I believe everyone SHOULD be able to access. It would be a huge loss to society, imo, for people lose this.

      On the other hand, computers are complex. Networks are a complex part of computers. Security is a yet more complex part of computer networks. These are things that people spend years learning about and are constantly learning more about, yet here we are encouraging average, untrained people to stick computers which they are basically system administrators for on the largest, most complex, and hardest to secure network in the world? How much sense does that make?

    6. Re:Odd by Artifakt · · Score: 1

      Discussions about people being charged are meaningless. The real questions are: Would there be a conviction? And would a reasonable person interpret the law the way the courts now do? It's always possible to be sued or charged for all sorts of things that aren't really at all likely to result in a decision, at least if you can afford a lawyer.
            Did you know that technically, every single person in the U.S. who has opened a pack of cigarettes and not torn the tax seal across instead of peeling it off, even once, is guilty of a felony?

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    7. Re:Odd by Sun.Jedi · · Score: 2, Funny

      Protip: In most places you would be charged as an accessory in that case. Unless you can prove they stole it. At the very least you could get charged with negligence.

      This is flat out bullshit. Criminally, It doesn't matter if the car was stolen or borrowed.

      This analogy is bad, because it's relatively simple to determine who the operator of the car is (spoofing cars is really hard), where it is not so easy to peer through the ether and see who using a PC, or even if that PC is the one you think it is.

    8. Re:Odd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's like saying that if I let my mates take my car and they go commit a crime with it (say a hit and run), I should be punished for it.

      I wouldn't be classified as an accessory to their hit-and-run, so why should I be an accessory to their copyright infringement if I let them use my connection?

      Protip: In most places you would be charged as an accessory in that case. Unless you can prove they stole it. At the very least you could get charged with negligence.

      Protip: Incorrect. Unless they were drunk and I gave them the keys, I would not be charged with anything, yet alone negligence.

    9. Re:Odd by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      The anwer is simple. The basic rule is: Survive, or die.

      Those that can survive spam, trojans, virii, fraud, rootkits, scams, and the rest of it, will be the those that still use the internet in some decades. :)
      (Unfortunately, this most likely includes the users that are the source of those problems too.)

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    10. Re:Odd by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 4, Informative

      Why don't you get your facts straight?

      --
      Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
    11. Re:Odd by RulerOf · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How do IPs not specify identity?

      They just don't.

      Sure, you can build a system with multiple paths of registration and logging and authentication, but a majority of those processes can be spoofed or socially engineered.

      If you came up to me with a subpoena asking who had IP address 192.168.1.X on this day at this time, even if I still had the logs on my DHCP server, it would take a significant amount of forensics (IE, an audit of every laptop my friends or neighbors own) to determine who the culprit was.

      --
      Boot Windows, Linux, and ESX over the network for free.
    12. Re:Odd by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 1

      How do IPs not specify identity?

      They just don't. Sure, you can build a system with multiple paths of registration and logging and authentication, but a majority of those processes can be spoofed or socially engineered. If you came up to me with a subpoena asking who had IP address 192.168.1.X on this day at this time, even if I still had the logs on my DHCP server, it would take a significant amount of forensics (IE, an audit of every laptop my friends or neighbors own) to determine who the culprit was.

      Thank you. Now if we could only get the judges to realize this.

      --
      Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
    13. Re:Odd by Moryath · · Score: 1

      What, a MafiAA plant get their facts straight?

      Why, if they did that they'd never have a case and even the most dimwitted of judges would laugh them out of court. Their entire strategy revolves around either (a) bribing judges or (b) confusing them by throwing around meaningless technobabble designed to convince people that 1 is 0, red is blue, black is white, and that therefore they should go off and get themselves killed at the next zebra crossing.

    14. Re:Odd by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      We should not expect those users to know all the ins and outs of security. They should only know the basics: keep your password secure, and don't enter your personal details (including credit card info) on unknown sites (a simple google search on the company name is usually enough to get a few references on a company - if no reference it's of course not OK). That's all a user should know, and care about.

      Then the more advanced user starts installing a WiFi network by themselves (as opposed to a TelCo installing it), they should know that there is such a thing as encryption and that it is a good idea to use this.

      All the rest they don't need to know. The implementation of this WiFi encryption and key exchange: leave that to the experts. Protection against cross-site scripting, drive-by downloads, etc: this is the browser developer's task. Preventing rootkits from taking over: the O/S developer. A user should not need to know anything about all this, a computer is first and foremost an appliance, it just has to work.

      If only the software developers were doing their homework and the hardware resellers checking on the software they install and only work with secure stuff, then those computers can be connected to the Big Bad Internet safely.

    15. Re:Odd by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      No user is the source of a rootkit, a virus, or a trojan. A typical user does not have the knowledge to write any of these often very sophisticated pieces of software. By the time they can write a virus they are software developer.

    16. Re:Odd by corsec67 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you came up to me with a subpoena asking who had IP address 192.168.1.X on this day at this time, even if I still had the logs on my DHCP server, it would take a significant amount of forensics (IE, an audit of every laptop my friends or neighbors own) to determine who the culprit was.

      How do you "audit" to find out what a MAC address was temporarily set to?

      DHCP logs only get you from IP to MAC, they don't tell you anything about what that MAC is being used by.

      --
      If I have nothing to hide, don't search me
    17. Re:Odd by tiananmen+tank+man · · Score: 1

      Replace "hit and run" or "download song" with "drug related crime" and you are in for a rude awakening. Even without your knowledge, the police with seize your car (in the usa) if it was used in a crime involving drugs. Once it is seized, it is auctioned off and the money goes the the police. ... then they came for the potheads and i did not care because I did not do recreational drugs ...

    18. Re:Odd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you came up to me with a subpoena asking who had IP address 192.168.1.X on this day at this time

      Oh crap! How did you know my IP address? Did I do something wrong? I've used bittorrent before but I never download any copyrighted material, I swear. I think it was my brother who did it!

    19. Re:Odd by RulerOf · · Score: 1

      That was one of my points. What I'm saying is that assuming no spoofing took place, the amount of investigation required to make an accurate determination (that is, with a reasonable degree of accuracy) on who the culprit is would, as per TFS, drag a disproportionately large number of people into discovery for a case that doesn't even pertain to them (and that's guaranteed... reminds me of a witch hunt).

      The fact that this data can be spoofed very easily only further proves that such data isn't a valid method for identification, and certainly isn't good data on which to base a judgment.

      --
      Boot Windows, Linux, and ESX over the network for free.
    20. Re:Odd by PitaBred · · Score: 2, Insightful

      An IP specifies identity just like a home address does. Sure, the house may belong to me, and you have reasonable suspicion that it's me in there, but it could theoretically be ANYONE in the house. My mom, my wife, a neighbor, a burglar, whoever. That's why an address existing is not enough to positively identify me as the person who, say, crank called.

    21. Re:Odd by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      You can also be charged with a crime if they do not have a driver's license, or do not have insurance.

      In other words, you can be charged if you gave them the keys and legally they should not be driving at all, either because they are drunk or do not have the right to drive at all, if it can be demonstrated you knew that. And sometimes not even that, some states there is a presumption you will check their license before loaning them your car.

      However, yes, you can't be charged with anything if, legally, they are allowed to drive, and they drive criminally once they get the car.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    22. Re:Odd by jonaskoelker · · Score: 1

      These are things that people spend years learning about and are constantly learning more about

      And the Wall of Sheep shows us that even those highly interested who dedicate large amounts of time to perfecting their understanding and know-how fail to get it right.

    23. Re:Odd by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 1

      I love it. Every article about spam and malware is filled with comments crying about idiot lusers with open wireless connections and unpatched windows machines ruining the interweb. But along comes an RIAA lawsuit story, and the same people cry that they simply can't be responsible for their open wireless connections and unpatched windows machines.

      So true. All other points aside, and regardless of what side of the fence you sit, the above is one thing you can count on in security and RIAA stories all the time.

    24. Re:Odd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how is this fucking troll not modded down yet?

    25. Re:Odd by Omestes · · Score: 1

      When I visit my college friends, I let my lap top pick any of open networks floating around (they are all on nice connections they won't mind/notice), since I can't directly access the network lacking a student ID. If I were to start downloading music, the download would look like it was their IP, but they wouldn't be a party, or even knowledgeable.

      When I was in college we were also little commies on my floor, if someone needed my computer I had an account for them already set up. All they had to do was walk in, and use it, the same was true with most other people on my floor, though with less security. I could walk into my neighbors room to print a paper, and instead download the complete works of Engleburt Humperdink, and this download would be on his IP, without his consent or complicity.

      In the common areas of said college there is still a campus wide wifi network, and your IP varies based on what routers your close too, and what connections are open at the time.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    26. Re:Odd by Jimmy+King · · Score: 1

      In an ideal world, yes, that's how it would be. Unfortunately, though, that's not how it is and likely never will be while keeping the level of freedom we have on the Internet today.

      There's also that group of people who will never care about or bother with the very basics of security, such as not giving out personal info, not following links from random e-mails, etc. Just like we have people who drive every day, sometimes for long distances, who can't change their tire to the spare if it blows or do any other very basic car maintenance (my first slashdot car analogy, I'm so excited!). The Internet people are more like the drunk drivers of the Internet - their lack of concern also negatively affects others. Maybe we can bring back WebTV for these people?

      So with all of that in mind, I find it a very interesting and perplexing (I think that may be the first time I've ever used that word) situation we've gotten ourselves into.

    27. Re:Odd by aussie_a · · Score: 1

      Which of those PDFs refutes this claim by the RIAA?

      I'd be glad to hear the RIAA was lying again.

  3. Re:One things for certain in this case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Someone sounds jealous...

  4. There's another clear lesson here by Drakkenmensch · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When file sharing your music and movies, use public wifi points to crush any lawsuit potential from the RIAA!

    1. Re:There's another clear lesson here by Jeoh · · Score: 2, Insightful

      -public+any other than your own

    2. Re:There's another clear lesson here by operator_error · · Score: 1

      What you're suggesting means only criminals would choose to be using public wifi points. The rest of us would need our own.

    3. Re:There's another clear lesson here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry to be a grammar nazi here but the word "only" belongs at the end of the sentence:

      criminals would choose to be using public wifi points only.

      Sorry but you're wrong. I think the intent of the sentence was "nobody but criminals would choose to be using public wifi points" instead of "criminals would choose to use nothing but public wifi points". Thus, the 'only' is in its correct place.

    4. Re:There's another clear lesson here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately thats why I had to turn off public access to my wifi point. I had no problem securing and segregating my home network from anyone who strolled by and needed access. The problem became that it was a liability. Somehow judges have been convinced that an IP address is an indicator that whoever was assigned that IP address at the time the ISP says they had it is now culpable for anything that the *AA says was going one there via their illegal "investigations".

    5. Re:There's another clear lesson here by Brain+Damaged+Bogan · · Score: 1

      that's a great idea, then all the public wifi spots will get shut down for being accesories to copyright infringement and there'll be no more public wifi for anyone. Screw all those people who think they are so cool sitting in cafes using their shiny mac book pros, eh!

      --
      -- Sex is the antonym of pringles. Once you pop it's time to stop.
    6. Re:There's another clear lesson here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But then the RIAA will just sue the owner of the wifi point. Or his deceased grandmother. Or the physical wifi node itself.

    7. Re:There's another clear lesson here by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately thats why I had to turn off public access to my wifi point

      So now a jury can be sure beyond a reasonable doubt that all traffic from your IP was you. Good one.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  5. We can hope... by wild_quinine · · Score: 4, Interesting
    ... but there's little hope to be found.

    The suddenoutbreakofcommonsense shown on this small scale is coming too late, I fear. Because even now, ISPs are caving to big media. Phorm worms its way through many UK ISPs, apparently undiminished. A consortium of service providers have agreed to keep tabs on the situation for the record insdustry, amongst others, and send out warning letters to infringers. Usenet has been all but dropped from the roster of ISP services.

    Unlike the naysayers, I always believed that the internet would remain free. After all, ISPs have always been protected as carriers, just like the postal service - and the postal service is not subject to search and seizure without due process. Nobody can open my private mail (unless it crosses borders) and check for pirated DVDs, without a really good reason to suspect that I'm pirating DVDs.

    But I was wrong, and stupid, and for once in my damn life, too optimistic.

    Because for every smart call like the one above, there are ten stories of companies we need to be able to trust voluntarily caving to pressure. It's too damn late.

    1. Re:We can hope... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      A huge settlement won by an ISP's customer for participation in such kangaroo proceedings would go a long way in halting their cooperation with such proceedings. To prevent it backfiring though the right to anonymousity must come to the forefront and be preserved.

    2. Re:We can hope... by jambox · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You may be right but I don't think it's over yet - it wouldn't be too tough to routinely encrypt most or all traffic. Anyhow, even if the media companies do manage to maim the internet by throwing lawyers at ISPs, I doubt this'll save the record companies, because the internet is only part of their problem. If I want to I can get 100+ free albums just by asking people who sit near me at work, without having to be online at all. Virtually everyone's got a cheap USB hard disk plugged into their laptops, each one of which can store enormous amounts of music.

      --
      You thought you could break the laws of physics without paying the PRICE?
    3. Re:We can hope... by oreaq · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Of course it will not save the record companies. The problem is the damage they do while dying.

    4. Re:We can hope... by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      After all, ISPs have always been protected as carriers, just like the postal service - and the postal service is not subject to search and seizure without due process. Nobody can open my private mail (unless it crosses borders) and check for pirated DVDs, without a really good reason to suspect that I'm pirating DVDs.

      ISP's are not a "carrier like the postal service". The main difference: the postal service must accept mail from anyone, and deliver it to any address within their service area (usually a country). Very few restrictions here. ISP's are not required to just accept anyone as customer, nor are they required to carry any traffic the customer tries to put through them.

      There may be some protections of ISP's, though I doubt it goes as far as the postal service which afaik is even forbidden to open any mail or parcel; I only know about customs officials opening and inspecting in-transit mail when it crosses national borders. I have never heard of any such restrictions on ISP's: forbidden (as in: by law) to read e.g. in-transit e-mail. Injecting ads in web pages for example indicates that they can snoop on in-transit data.

    5. Re:We can hope... by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 2, Informative

      After all, ISPs have always been protected as carriers

      That's one huge stick that can be used against American ISPs who get too aggressive in their traffic monitoring: the "safe harbor" clause of the DMCA.:

      (a) Transitory Digital Network Communications.â" A service provider shall not be liable for monetary relief, or, except as provided in subsection (j), for injunctive or other equitable relief, for infringement of copyright by reason of the providerâ(TM)s transmitting, routing, or providing connections for, material through a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider, or by reason of the intermediate and transient storage of that material in the course of such transmitting, routing, or providing connections, ifâ"
      (1) the transmission of the material was initiated by or at the direction of a person other than the service provider;
      (2) the transmission, routing, provision of connections, or storage is carried out through an automatic technical process without selection of the material by the service provider;
      (3) the service provider does not select the recipients of the material except as an automatic response to the request of another person;
      (4) no copy of the material made by the service provider in the course of such intermediate or transient storage is maintained on the system or network in a manner ordinarily accessible to anyone other than anticipated recipients, and no such copy is maintained on the system or network in a manner ordinarily accessible to such anticipated recipients for a longer period than is reasonably necessary for the transmission, routing, or provision of connections; and
      (5) the material is transmitted through the system or network without modification of its content.

      If an ISP attempts to block specific content, then they violate clause #2. If they pull copies of content out of the pipes for further investigation, then they violate clause #3. If they modify the content in any way, then they violate clause #5. In any of those cases, they are no longer indemnified against claims of contributory copyright violation. In a nutshell, if they mess with it, they're responsible for it.

      I'm not a lawyer. However, I noticed that a large local non-profit organization had a very intrusive clickthrough agreement for their free WAP service (I was bored and read it). I pointed the above out to the organization's lawyer who read it and said my interpretation was substantially correct, and who then recommended that they remove all pretense of monitoring and filtering from their service.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    6. Re:We can hope... by Amazing+Quantum+Man · · Score: 1

      A huge settlement won by an ISP's customer for participation in such kangaroo proceedings would go a long way in halting their cooperation with such proceedings

      A huge settlement won by an ISP's customer for participation in such kangaroo proceedings would go a long way in getting the law changed so they can legally mess with our packets.

      There. Corrected that for you.

      --
      Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
    7. Re:We can hope... by cyclomedia · · Score: 1

      There's another worrying angle to all this, which is the MaFIAA media mogul's ownership of the tubes themselves. If you're unfortunate to live in a place where BigMediaCo is a monopoly ISP and BigMediaCo is also a CableCo, FilmCo and MusicCo you might find one day that you can't get to YouTube, or even OtherMediaCo's online offerings.

      This ties into net neutrality, obviously, but also into the fight for ultimate dominance over not just copyright but your content consumption. Essentially BigMediaCo wants the Internet that you buy from them to work exactly the same way as subscription cable or satellite, if OtherMediaCo doesn't pay carriage charges, or stick within the censorship guidelines they won't get to play. This model also fits nicely with one that the media corps are familar with and governments rely on to control what "news" you are allowed to know (goodbye wikileaks!)

      I've brought a lot of conspiracy theories under one umbrella there, but with the Aussie filter, French Three strikes rules and the RIAA's antics the picture is clear: We need to take back the internet.

      The key, however, is to do it cleanly and legally. To play by the rules in the wide open. My favourite current pet idea for this is an iTunes-alike music/video sync application that takes care of your media files for you (and for people who don't want the scary copying associated with basic Usb-Mass-Storage) but plugs in (via RSS-like feed and includes a background torrent engine) to Creative Commons sites like LegalTorrents and ccTunes. Not only free and legal but also easy to install and run by the non geek masses, (including the seamless re-sync of all your content downloaded to date when you're on holiday at an internet cafe and just bought a new media player).

      People will continue to pirate music, films and tv shows whilst it's the easiest way to get their entertainment, but if the above app exists, and hey: runs from a liveCD on your PC, Mac, laptop and gaming console and it becomes popular the indie TV shows, Music and ultimately movies will begin to be published on it. Some kind of Miro + XBMC mashup but again, usable by non-geeks out of the box and available everywhere.

      The key will be having each and every piece of media on it clearly labelled with the copyright owner and CC license, exactly how to do that and keep the pirate content off it is left as an excersise for the reader. I do, however have the tagline for such a scheme, though I doubt I'm the first to quoth:

      "Entertainment Wants To Be Free"

      --
      If you don't risk failure you don't risk success.
  6. Universities still need to police their networks by MikeRT · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In 2001, my alma mater had 2 45mbps lines for the university and they were consistently hammered by the students doing file sharing. It got to the point that some people in the CS department joked that banging out packets across tin-cans-on-strings would be faster than using the campus network when classes were generally over for the day.

    Then, the university instituted packet shapers across the network and it got usable again. Usable to the point where I didn't feel like I was on a 14.4k modem again.

    If you want to bootleg content, then pay for your own connection.

  7. spoof::poof by lq_x_pl · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The means to spoofing one's variety of e-identities (including MAC, IP, Useragent) are light years ahead of the means of tracking use!
    The RIAA could demand some draconian cerberos system, but I doubt that rendering large campus networks unusable will garner them any support from the already annoyed campus IT admins. Anyway, much like the AV companies vs virus-writers, this battle is an entirely defensive one.

    It's nice to see something logical leaking out of the judicial system, however.

    --
    An internal system operation returned the error "The operation completed successfully.".
  8. Death Knell? by Thyamine · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Isn't every one of these stories tagged as being the death knell for the RIAA? Don't get me wrong, I'm always glad to see the RIAA losing in these types of cases, but 'death knell for the RIAA' is getting to be 'Year for Linux on the Desktop'.

    --
    I will shred my adversaries. Pull their eyes out just enough to turn them towards their mewing, mutilated faces. Illyria
    1. Re:Death Knell? by azgard · · Score: 1, Funny

      'death knell for the RIAA' is getting to be 'Year for Linux on the Desktop'.

      So, in 2009?

    2. Re:Death Knell? by Sj0 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Depends how you define "the year of linux on the desktop", doesn't it?

      The fastest growing segment of the PC market, netbooks, are split between Windows XP and linux. That, along with reaching mature status on important projects like web browsers, office software, media players, and Instant Messagers, is slowly making linux a viable alternative to Windows, as the netbook market is showing.

      Similarly, depends how you define "death knell". I don't think any one of these bad things is going to spell the end of the RIAA crusade against their customers. I do think, however, that the slow build-up of legal ways to avoid being attacked will make their crusade more effort than it's worth. They'll go from being able to sue 3000 people in a single lawsuit to having to focus on a few, then maybe one. At that point, it's not economical to sue potential customers anymore, and they'll just have to figure out ways to make money instead.

      --
      It's been a long time.
    3. Re:Death Knell? by mcgrew · · Score: 2, Funny

      Don't worry, the release of Duke Nukem 4ever will be the death knell for the RIAA and the year of Linux on the desktop!

      And ponies. Can't forget the ponies.

    4. Re:Death Knell? by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 3, Informative

      Isn't every one of these stories tagged as being the death knell for the RIAA? Don't get me wrong, I'm always glad to see the RIAA losing in these types of cases, but 'death knell for the RIAA' is getting to be 'Year for Linux on the Desktop'.

      Well look at it this way. If this case stands for the principle that no John Doe information can be divulged unless the ISP can identify the "alleged infringer" to a "reasonable degree of technical certainty", and that principle is followed by other courts.... very few, if any, "alleged infringers", will ever be identified.

      --
      Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
    5. Re:Death Knell? by chaim79 · · Score: 1

      Also, the fastest growing computer company is Apple, and OS X is based off of BSD (cousin to Linux?). So Linux (BSD) is growing faster then the rest of the industry.

      And just to preempt the trolls, Yes I am a Mac fan/user, own 2 of them, I also have 4 Unix boxes up and running, and Win XP in a VM.

      I would Love to see someone else come up with a really nice desktop system like OS X, simply because competition is good and I don't want Mac to get to monopoly status, ever. (And no, they are not a monopoly because they control what hardware OS X will be installed on).

      --
      DEMETRIUS: Villain, what hast thou done?
      AARON: Villain, I have done thy mother.
      Shakespeare invents 'your mom'
    6. Re:Death Knell? by Thaelon · · Score: 1

      As long as people continue to buy physical CDs and DVDs, the *IAA will never go away, and neither will the labels and publishers or whatever.

      However, they will experience a rather severe drop in profits since their business models for the last hundred years depended on control. Control of the ability to make copies of intangible things and distribute those corporeal anchors of intangible things for a heavy profit. The problem that they've failed to adapt to is the creation of a very easy and very accessible means to do fulfill their business role for them. They've really always been in a very tenuous position, but they were simply never willing to face the music and now they're paying the price.

      Don't get me wrong, they're not going away, but they are looking a greatly diminished role (and profits) if they don't start adapting.

      --

      Question everything

    7. Re:Death Knell? by mr_gorkajuice · · Score: 1

      I would think this is exactly the parents point?
      "RIAA is history!", "Linux beats Windows!", and "Duke Nuke'em Forever goes gold!" are all lies when used in an attempt to describe past/current events. It would suit the (supposedly smart) /. crowd to stop using such claims over and over again. I suppose you've all heard about the boy who cried wolf...

      One thing that should be obvious, in terms of defining "the year of linux on the desktop" should be that there's only one of them. If 2008 is that year, because it's "slowly becoming a viable alternative", then what would you call the hypothetical year where Blizzard and EA decides to write their PC games for Linux instead of Windows? (my own suggestion: "the year after the year of linux on the desktop")
      Just like RIAA will only die once (if at all).

    8. Re:Death Knell? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 3, Informative

      BSD (cousin to Linux?)

      It's pretty hard to class OS X as related to Linux. OS X is UNIX, with code from AT&T UNIX via 4BSD and later via FreeBSD and code from CMU Mach. It is UNIX(tm), as it has passed certification by The Open Group.

      Linux is a clone of UNIX, shares no code with UNIX (except a few small bits taken from BSD, mostly headers), and is not certified as UNIX(tm).

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    9. Re:Death Knell? by chaim79 · · Score: 1

      How exactly is that line drawn? It's something I've always been confused about. It seems like the same code works on either base (maybe requiring a recompile) so they both have gcc, x11, similer libs, ext3, etc.

      Is the difference primarily in the Kernel? Is that the only major difference?

      --
      DEMETRIUS: Villain, what hast thou done?
      AARON: Villain, I have done thy mother.
      Shakespeare invents 'your mom'
    10. Re:Death Knell? by DavidTC · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There isn't any music 'they can face'.

      For copyright to exist, it required a minimal level of effort required to violate copyright, especially at the 'mass production' level.

      That no longer exist. Ergo, copyright no longer works. I'm not saying that as a moral judgment, I'm not saying it's a good thing or a bad thing, I'm not saying whether I like it or not, I have no idea what that will do to the production of creative works.

      Copyright was always aimed more at commercial interests than anyone else, because for the longest time only commercial interests could copy things, or at least could copy them at a high enough quality to effect things, or a high enough volume.

      And then came the internet, where commercial interests are not needed to copy music or TV or movies or books or anything. Perfectly. Forever. Copyright was never designed to stop anything like that.

      'Copyright no longer works' is just a value-neutral statement of fact. I did not make this true, do not blame me.

      Now, the music's industry thrashing around attempting to face this fact could, indeed, cause damage, and thus I'm in favor of altering the laws to recognize this new fact and limit the damage they can do. Not because I feel this new fact is 'morally superior' or anything, but because I feel it is true.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    11. Re:Death Knell? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Linux is just a kernel, nothing more, nothing less. It is coupled with a set of core libraries, such as a C standard library, and a set of core utilities, such as a shell, to produce a basic system. The two most common forms of this are GNU/Linux and uClinux, which use the GNU libc and the uClibc respectively, although there are others.

      If you are comparing Linux to BSD or OS X, then you can only meaningfully compare it to a BSD kernel or the XNU kernel. The BSD and XNU kernels include code from UNIX and have been incrementally developed since the '70s. Linux was started from scratch in 1991. Due to the GPL, no code has gone from Linux to either other project, although some code has gone in the opposite direction (again, not much).

      Comparing GNU/Linux to a BSD makes more sense. The BSDs tend to use a bit of GNU code in their userland, for example the GNU loader (required for running any program with shared libraries), although they have their own libc and shells.

      The Single UNIX Specification doesn't actually describe a kernel at all. All interfaces to the kernel are specified via the C standard library (libc). It does, however, specify a number of utilities and libraries that must exist. If code is written to (a subset of) the SUS it will compile and run on any system that implements (that subset of) the SUS. The BSDs, Linux, OS X, Solaris, and most other *NIX variants all try to conform to this specification, with varying levels of success. You can run GCC on any of them, or X11, or any of a number of other programs.

      For reference, Ext3 is a filesystem that is pretty-much unique to Linux. Other kernels can often access it as ext2 (i.e. without the journal) but they don't use it as their default.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    12. Re:Death Knell? by xbytor · · Score: 1

      > At that point, it's not economical to sue potential customers anymore, and they'll just have to figure out ways to make money instead.

      These lawsuits have nothing to do with making money for the RIAA corps. They probably plan to lose money in this effort. Their intent is to instill fear in the masses to discourage them from even think of copying RIAA content in any fashion whatsoever. It's a scare tactic plain and simple.

  9. Re:Universities still need to police their network by Skye16 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Isn't that what I'm did by paying the obscene "technology fee"? What ELSE is that 1224$ going toward?

    Is it hookers? Hookers and blow? You can tell me the truth. I won't be half as mad if you tell me it's hookers and blow.

  10. Re:Universities still need to police their network by wild_quinine · · Score: 3, Informative

    If you want to bootleg content, then pay for your own connection.

    I have to disagree with your final point; in almost any University environment the students ARE paying for their connections one way or another. The terms under which they can use it, however, are usually a bit more restrictive that your standard ISP.

  11. Change of direction by Kupfernigk · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Is it just my imagination or is there a subtle change of emphasis since the US Presidential election?

    This isn't flamebait (I hope) but a genuine query. I have the distinct impression that, now people know that, specifically, Cheney is on the way out, judges are perhaps slightly more willing to assert the rights of the individual and liberal institutions and politicians are starting to find their backbones. (I'm reminded of Jay Gould's joke about the biologists who discovered a creature with a very small brain and almost no backbone, only it turned out to be a fish not a member of the House.) After all, the President-Elect is an expert on the Constitution, whereas the previous Administration seems to have contained some people who were experts on bypassing it.

    It is not just in the US. Would the British Labor Party have dared to increase taxes on the rich and cut consumption taxes if Obama had not proposed something similar? Would they have dared to have an attack of socialism where the banks are concerned had Bush not had to do exactly the same?

    As Clinton so rightly said, it's the economy, stupid.

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
    1. Re:Change of direction by infalliable · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Doubtful. The president/executive branch has very little influence on the lower courts. They weigh in on matters that will directly affect them, such as national security, but file sharing tends to be pretty low on the list of important things to the executive branch.

      Biden has also a history of being pretty pro-copyright, so that would actually skew it the other way.

      I think it has more to do with the courts (especially specific judges) getting sick of the RIAA.

    2. Re:Change of direction by meringuoid · · Score: 1
      After all, the President-Elect is an expert on the Constitution

      Given the astonishing number of right-wingers usually to be found on /., I give it about ten minutes now before someone demands to see a birth certificate.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    3. Re:Change of direction by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 1

      Given the astonishing number of right-wingers usually to be found on /.

      You're kidding right? Slashdot is overwhelmingly left. Not that that's good/bad, but if you think slashdot is a right-wing haven, then your right/left equilibrium is completely out of touch with reality.

    4. Re:Change of direction by meringuoid · · Score: 1
      You're kidding right? Slashdot is overwhelmingly left. Not that that's good/bad, but if you think slashdot is a right-wing haven, then your right/left equilibrium is completely out of touch with reality.

      Slashdot has a very strong right-wing bias. Seriously. Read any discussion along the lines of 'Unions: good thing or bad thing?' and tell me this crowd's left-wing. The consensus here seems to be 'Unions are a Bad Thing and we should all negotiate individually with the bosses, even if that means programmers end up working 80-hour weeks with unpaid overtime'. That's pretty dedicated right-wing ideology. A left-wing group would be all in favour of workers' collectives striving to secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    5. Re:Change of direction by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Read any discussion along the lines of 'Unions: good thing or bad thing?' and tell me this crowd's left-wing

      I think your mistaking the crowd with pudge and his friends ;) This site isn't Daily Kos by any stretch of the imagination (thank god) but I've never heard it called right-leaning before. Do you have any links to all these anti-union discussions you are thinking about?

      That's pretty dedicated right-wing ideology

      I don't think being skeptical about Unions is automatically a right-wing ideology. I'm a registered Democrat and I'm skeptical about Unions. I think that a lot of them started out with the best of intentions but got corrupted overtime and now value the institution more than the members.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    6. Re:Change of direction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given the astonishing number of right-wingers usually to be found on /.

      You must be new here. Or just illiterate. Slashdot posters are very left-wing on average. Seriously.

    7. Re:Change of direction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "After all, the President-Elect is an expert on the Constitution"

      Uhm... you're joking, right? Have you ever read any of his papers?

      The man is not an "expert" on the Constitution, except that he hates it and has already promised to break the oath of office before he has even taken it.

    8. Re:Change of direction by HungryHobo · · Score: 1

      Slashdot:
      Leaning left for civil rights/privacy
      Leaning right when it comes to money

      also:
      " A left-wing group would be all in favour of workers' collectives striving to secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof."
      I can't believe you said that with a straight face.
      Sure unions are a good thing to the extent that companies will be so afraid of getting a union in their shop they'll treat employees decently. (assuming the right to join a union without getting fired is protected like the right to get married or have gay sex[not in the workplace] without getting fired)

      But they also lead to situations where there are vast numbers of completely useless blobs of fat who can't be fired because the union will kick up a fuss. Unions have a massive fucking downside that some people simply lie back and vegetate rather than work. I've seen some good unions and I've seen some bad unions. Some very very bad unions. Don't get me wrong: I've seen workplaces which really needed a union if only to let the kids working in them know that they don't have to take that kind of shit and that the situation isn't "normal".
      And don't forget that a union can fuck over genuinely good people.
      "WHY DOES HE GET PAID MORE THAN ME!!!! HE'S ONLY WORKED HERE 6 MONTHS!!!! I'VE WORKED HERE 10 YEARS!!! I HAVE SENORITY AND I'M THE SHOP STEWARD!!!"
      "Because he is very very good at his job and all you do is sit on your fat ass playing solitare and gossiping"
      "DISCRIMINATION!!! STRIKE!!!!"

    9. Re:Change of direction by CoopersPale · · Score: 1

      That's an interesting point, but I don't think a left wing view can be characterised purely by opinions on unionisation. The left wing view would include emphasis on more government involvement in social security and healthcare, and perhaps no privatisation of industries which lend themselves toward monopolies (electricity and water supply in my state in australia come to mind - pointless privatisation!)
      Having said that, if you work 80 hour weeks with unpaid overtime, then you've got my sympathies; I'm a programmer and generally don't work more than half that.

    10. Re:Change of direction by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Would the British Labor Party have dared to increase taxes on the rich and cut consumption taxes if Obama had not proposed something similar?

      They did in the '70s, with some pretty disastrous results. Most of the old Labour crowd have gone now, so they've probably forgotten.

      By the way, Obama's rhetoric about change sounds eerily familiar to anyone who lived through Tony Bliar's election bid with 'New Labour'.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    11. Re:Change of direction by Omestes · · Score: 1

      My general anecdotal impression of /. is that there is a massive libertarian front, which represents the ideology of the modern tech industry as a whole. After this there is a moderate liberal streak. The modern Religious Conservative is under represented, though. Then you have perhaps 5% of the population who exists in the pure lunatic fringe (unless you want to put the libertarians there, which I often do).

      For proof, attack Ayn Rand in any random discussion, and count the liters of venom spit in your general direction.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    12. Re:Change of direction by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 1

      Slashdot has a very strong right-wing bias. Seriously. Read any discussion along the lines of 'Unions: good thing or bad thing?' and tell me this crowd's left-wing.

      Try a discussion of the election and witness the Obama slurping. Many here are card-carrying Democrats, though there are many libertarians as already pointed out. There are very few self-described Republicans (nor am I one).

      To tell you the truth, unions are kind of a legacy commitment of the democratic party. Take a poll of typical Americans who aren't union members, and I think you'll find them extremely unpopular over a broad swath of America.

      The consensus here seems to be 'Unions are a Bad Thing and we should all negotiate individually with the bosses, even if that means programmers end up working 80-hour weeks with unpaid overtime'. That's pretty dedicated right-wing ideology.

      I think it's more "we're sick of seeing people with no education, skills, or discernable competence using insane labor laws to strong-arm their empolyer into $30+/hour salaries and sending employers overseas." That and the fact that unions protect even the most incompetent employees, making it impossible to fire anyone for anything short of murder, and typically reward seniority over any merit. Fighting that sort of bloat and corruption isn't "dedicated right-wing ideology"; these days, the *center* doesn't like the most visible unions much (UAW, teamsters, etc), either.

      That's not because unions are bad per se; they could have positive effects for both members and employers. They can make it easier to enact uniform regulations for an entire industry (airlines, for instance). Good unions also serve the role that guilds did in the middle ages. But after a few decades of increasingly anti-employer legislation, union consolidation across discernable trade definitions, and pervasive involvement of organized crime, organized labor in this country have taken a well-deserved black eye.

      Working conditions and hours are something you're perfectly allowed to bring up during a job offer negotiation. Don't like the offer? Don't take the job. It's not like there are so few IT employers that they can actually collude to keep your salary down or working conditions poor. The major difference between now and the 1800s (when unions were critical) is that anti-trust laws have basically kept any employer from having any sort of upper hand in labor negotiations. We don't have those huge trusts like we used to.

      A left-wing group would be all in favour of workers' collectives striving to secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof.

      The central problem to your premise is how one determines what is "equitable". The only thing that could possibly do that is a free labor market. If your employer underpays you relative to your worth, some other will pay you better. The best labor policy is to do whatever necessary to maintain a free market (banning discrimination, nepotism, monopolies, and collusion), not by rigging labor rules such that a particular protected group is guaranteed more than they're worth.

      I do agree with you about one thing - dividing labor laws between so-called "blue collar" employees to which they apply, and "white collar" employees to which they don't, is completely senseless. But I don't feel a pressing need to have to have some organization force me to join, take a cut of my paycheck, intimidate hard workers, tell me when I can show up for work, and shunt me into a seniority-based pay scale. No thanks.

  12. Don't get carried away by The+Second+Horseman · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Via other legislation, it looks like colleges and universities in the US are going to be expected to take active steps - training and education, and likely technical as well - to curb piracy or else risk losing federal funding. It's part of the "Higher Education Opportunity Act". They're now in the "rulemaking" phase, but I find it hard to believe that the Department of Education is going to be particularly accommodating, and I'm not confident that the new administration will be substantially better than the old on this issue. I think this case is going to give the RIAA/MPAA and their allies in congress something to point at to say "See! We need more protection".

    If we're required to do blocking and monitoring, the BU defense won't hold, because we'll have the data. At this point, the biggest factor is the delay. If you're a university buying service through a provider, and the letter goes to them first, it takes at least a week, often more, to get to you. By that point, there's usually not even any reason to look for the torrent they're complaining about.

    1. Re:Don't get carried away by Sun.Jedi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If we're required to do blocking and monitoring, the BU defense won't hold, because we'll have the data.

      I wonder what kind of ridiculous fine structure or penalties there will be for not logging what you monitor?

      How about a well documented disk failure event on the file system containing all the logs? "Sorry, Your Honor, we logged everything, and then the disk failed."

      Are we going to be legislated into complete backup strategies? I doubt it.

      I think the Senate/Obama stance is that bad business models can be allowed to fail (See GM, Ford, Chryseler). It that holds true, the business model of the RIAA/Big 4, which was a sinking ship before Sep08, will certainly have some scrutiny before legislation. Couple that with overwhelming projections of a poor buying season, and I can't see how the RIAA has much of a leg to stand on here.

    2. Re:Don't get carried away by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      active steps - training and education, and likely technical as well - to curb piracy or else risk losing federal funding

      The universities are sending warships to Somalia?

  13. Re:Universities still need to police their network by h4x354x0r · · Score: 5, Informative

    I work at a U, and they charge the students, faculty, staff, departments, and everything else that has any money, an obscene amount of money for a network connection. Students ARE paying, and barely getting their money's worth, even when file sharing.

    --
    They were right - the revolution did not get televised. It was posted on YouTube instead. All in 120 characters. SLOOSH!
  14. Tagged:'Outbreakofcommonsense?!?!?' *needed* by rts008 · · Score: 1

    " One commentator asks whether this holding 'represents the death knell to some, if not all, of the RIAA's efforts to use American university staff as copyright cops.'"

    We can only hope, and keep fighting this kind of tyranny being hoisted upon us by the RIAA.

    I do not think copyright 'law' needs tossed out, as it seems to be the baby in the bathwater, but there is some disruptive changes needed.**

    **Disruptive to current models of music distribution, and if you think the current 'woolly mammoths' won't go to extinction without fighting tooth-n-nail, then you have not been 'out there in the real world' lately!**

    Bring back copyright law/legislation to original/sane levels, and I think that most people will abide/be okay with that.

    On the other hand, it has gone on long enough that I don't know if changes/reform will make a difference anymore....everyone is getting used to the idea that you can go to ThePirateBay* as a last resort, or less painful route....the line becomes more grey and much broader as time goes on.

    *Not to single out TPB, but they are the most 'visible' lately*

    Currently, I am leaning towards the 'cat has been let out of the bag' camp. Ever tried herding cats in a burning barn?
    Ask the RIAA how that works out if you're curious. *hint==NOT!*

    Personally, and for the /. record, the last music I bought was a CD I had to special order through Hasting's Books and Records, and that was the only one out of four that I wanted that was still being published and/or available.

    Out of the other three, one had a *shudder* myspace page, but we could never connect...tried for over 3 months, the other two, well TPB and Ktorrent fixed that. The first, I just finally gave up and scrubbed the mission due to frustration, and moved on.

    Since then, I have avoided any RIAA produced music. I have several friends in indie (not signed to labels) bands that have pointed me to some really kick-butt stuff where I can either pay the artist/band, or it's free-legally and ethically.

    I feel FAR from deprived, especially after listening to the current pop radio stations when riding along with someone else.

    --
    Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
    1. Re:Tagged:'Outbreakofcommonsense?!?!?' *needed* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      ...Since then, I have avoided any RIAA produced music. I have several friends in indie (not signed to labels) bands that have pointed me to some really kick-butt stuff where I can either pay the artist/band, or it's free-legally and ethically.

      I feel FAR from deprived, especially after listening to the current pop radio stations when riding along with someone else.

      I've started doing the same as of late, getting a good bit of my music off of sites like Jamendo, as well as avoiding MAFIAA labels like the plague. (They ignore my favorite genres anyway.) As well, I've turned my friends on to those alternatives, and they've spread the word as well. As a last resort, I just avoid music altogether. If I don't have my mp3 player plugged in while I'm in the car, the radio's tuned to either talk radio or NPR. The same goes for my Linux box's FM tuner. At least the talk radio will rot my brain a little less than MAFIAA-promoted garbage. (Whenever we get an industrial/electro station down here, then maybe my tuner will budge.)

    2. Re:Tagged:'Outbreakofcommonsense?!?!?' *needed* by jonaskoelker · · Score: 1

      Bring back copyright law/legislation to original/sane levels, and I think that most people will abide/be okay with that.

      Really?

      I think most people, when they know that they can copy CDs and they have a friend over with their CDs, they'll say "hey, can I burn a copy of that disc?". They'll agree to burn it, and both will observe that no one is harmed.

      It's been going on with music casettes, with amiga 500 games on floppies, with PC games [though in the pre-burner era you just installed from your friend's disk]. People want to do it, and they probably don't see anything wrong with it.

      I also think the people who know why violating copyright is wrong (according to those who believe it is) but choose to do it anyway will continue to do so. They don't do it because they rebel against the people who make the law, or those who enforce it, or those who use it against them in lawsuits. They do it because it's free and easy. It won't stop being free and easy.

      Thirdly, I don't think it's the copyright term that needs fixing; what should be fixed is the rules and practices surrounding the enforcement of copyright law.

      Eliminate dragnet surveillance, stop spying on people, kill off the DMCA, give the ISPs who want to stand up against the RIAA members a leg to stand on, don't conscript universities into being RIAA members' guard dogs, and so forth.

      Then some of the ill will against the RIAA members will go away, and those who violate copyright law mostly out of spite will lose the motivation to do so.

    3. Re:Tagged:'Outbreakofcommonsense?!?!?' *needed* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Am I the only one that has friends that don't see anything wrong with sharing? They will swap and copy movies/music/games, and then, if they really like what they see/hear they'll go out and buy it.

      I'm the only one of the group that refuses to buy products from the MPAA, the RIAA, and, now, EA, due to moral objections at their business strategies. I will never buy into strict DRM. Sure, I'll go to the theatre with friends, or support my local independent movie rental store, but I won't buy the DVD. Hell, the time that I buy the most music is usually the period I'm heavily sharing with friends or across the Internet.

  15. Slashdot Article #921431008 supporting piracy by mumblestheclown · · Score: 5, Insightful
    This was, by my count, slashdot article #921431008 which slants positively for the "less power for rightsholders" side. I'm still waiting for slashdot article #1 where somebody presents a decent and fair plan that both acknowledges new technologies and the possibilities that they bring AND the rights of the rightsholders to be fairly compensated and to reasonably punish/recover from wrongdoers.

    Of course, it would be so very socially awkward to point out that virtually all policies slashdot have supported so far amount to in effect a regressive wealth transfer from the poor to the wealthy, where the poor who are for whatever reason unable to use a p2p service and thus purchase CDs subsidize the entertainment of those who otherwise generally can afford it. Oh no. Pointing out such things is just not cool.

    1. Re:Slashdot Article #921431008 supporting piracy by mcgrew · · Score: 5, Informative

      I'm still waiting for slashdot article #1 where somebody presents a decent and fair plan that both acknowledges new technologies and the possibilities that they bring AND the rights of the rightsholders to be fairly compensated and to reasonably punish/recover from wrongdoers.

      Sorry bud, but it ain't gonna happen. The "rightsholders" are the labels - this is only one of many reforms that need to be made. The recording artists should own copyright; they should NOT be "works for hire".

      Copyright lengths need to be brought back down to sane levels. I should NOT have to pay for a Jimi Hendrix download.

      Copyrights need to be registered again. Automatic granting of copyright is madness.

      Out of print works should not be covered by copyright.

      it would be so very socially awkward to point out that virtually all policies slashdot have supported so far amount to in effect a regressive wealth transfer from the poor to the wealthy

      I don't know where you got the idea that Sony-BMI executives (who actually own the copyrights) are poor and the downloaders are wealthy.

      I suggest you read Lawrence Lessig's Free Culture. The following quote is abridged:

      File sharers share different kinds of content. We can divide these different kinds into four types.

      A. There are some who use sharing networks as substitutes for purchasing content.

      B. There are some who use sharing networks to sample music before purchasing it.

      C. There are many who use sharing networks to get access to copyrighted content that is no longer sold or that they would not have purchased because the transaction costs off the Net are too high. For content not sold, this is still technically a violation of copyright, though because the copyright owner is not selling the content anymore, the economic harm is zero--the same harm that occurs when I sell my collection of 1960s 45-rpm records to a local collector.

      D. Finally, there are many who use sharing networks to get access to content that is not copyrighted or that the copyright owner wants to give away.

      Whether on balance sharing is harmful depends importantly on how harmful type A sharing is.

      While the numbers do suggest that sharing is harmful, how harmful is harder to reckon. It has long been the recording industry's practice to blame technology for any drop in sales. The history of cassette recording is a good example.

      The fact is, the labels are on the wrong side of history. Independant (non-RIAA) artists have learned to use the internet to their advantage. The RIAA wants to use copyright law to kill the independant competetion, who use Lessig's "D" as a means of promotion.

      It isn't about music lovers "stealing" music -- study after study shows that "pirates" spend more money on music than non-pirates. It's about squashing competetion. The RIAA has radio, the indies have P2P, so the RIAA wants to kill P2P.

      Nobody outside the industry who understands the situation is on the RIAA's side.

    2. Re:Slashdot Article #921431008 supporting piracy by Binestar · · Score: 1

      You suck at counting.

      --
      Do you Gentoo!?
    3. Re:Slashdot Article #921431008 supporting piracy by Tiberius_Fel · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If you have a solution that is a decent and fair plan that both acknowledges new technologies and the possibilities that they bring AND the rights of the rightholders to be fairly compensated and to reasonably punish/recover from wrongdoers, I for one would be interested in hearing it.

      Here's the thing about copyright in the digital age. For software, music, videos, the marginal (per additional copy) cost is zero. Now, given that it takes no effort to copy it, and anybody can do it in his own home (or his parents' I suppose), how can you realistically stop that, without invading everyone's privacy? How can you even really know that they're doing it? Same thing with downloading it: the only way to know is to invade the privacy of the people by monitoring all their transfers. And even then, it's an imperfect system. How do you know what they have the right to down/upload? How do you deal with authorization? What about false positives? False negatives?

      Also, your argument about how it's a regressive wealth transfer from the poor to the wealthy is a bit off-track. If the government(s) imposed a tax on everyone that was used to compensate artists for the creation, it will most likely be nowhere near as draconian as you make it seem. It's not like the government will charge a flat tax on everyone. Presumably, like other "progressive" taxes, it will be charged at a percentage, based on your ability to pay. Thus rich people will pay more and poor people will pay less. There will most likely be a group who pays nothing into this at all, like with income tax. Also, is it really a transfer to the wealthy? I know when you think of artists, you imagine the pop sensation of the day who has millions and millions of dollars, but there are still lots of "starving artists" out there.

      You're making the issue too emotionally charged by using terms like "regressive wealth transfer from the poor to the wealthy", which a lot of people emotionally oppose. But it's not really like that.

      --
      Join the Empire! http://www.empirereborn.net/
    4. Re:Slashdot Article #921431008 supporting piracy by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This was (a) a news report about a judge quashing a subpoena, (b) followed by a quotation of an opinion by a commentator. There was no slant in the news, and it provides a link to the actual document. The expression of opinion was clearly denominated as such. I'm under no obligation to come up with a "plan". I have no training as a "planner", I'm a litigation lawyer. Me coming up with a 'plan' would be like asking me to do your plumbing.... I don't think you'd be very happy with the end result.

      --
      Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
    5. Re:Slashdot Article #921431008 supporting piracy by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Me coming up with a 'plan' would be like asking me to do your plumbing

      Ray the plumber? Is that you? ;)

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    6. Re:Slashdot Article #921431008 supporting piracy by Tiberius_Fel · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, some people just have an axe to grind of some sort, and they will happily throw their opinion into any thread that's even vaguely related to their pet topic.

      Also, far too many people live by "disagree with me = bias". But I guess as a lawyer, you deal with all sorts, so it's probably not necessary for me to tell you that...

      --
      Join the Empire! http://www.empirereborn.net/
    7. Re:Slashdot Article #921431008 supporting piracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      For content not sold, this is still technically a violation of copyright, though because the copyright owner is not selling the content anymore, the economic harm is zero--the same harm that occurs when I sell my collection of 1960s 45-rpm records to a local collector.

      He understates the case: for content not sold, this is actually a positive for society in a way that selling a collection of 1960s 45-rpm records to a local collector is not.

      Consider how many old works have vanished from societal memory entirely or near-entirely, because their original medium (cellulose, paper with acids, ink with a bad lifespan, etc) has withered while they were "stored for safekeeping." Some of these are even technically "within copyright" still. I've seen one estimate that says 10% of the works in the Library of Congress are probably unreadable today, because the paper will have gone too fragile and the ink faded too far due to age.

      Consider all the lost, arguably great works that are technically still "under copyright" even though no known copy exists. Early episodes of Doctor Who for one great example.

      The fix for this is simple:

      (a) make copyright SHORT on par with patent and (b) require copyright to be re-registered on a proper basis (say, every 5 years)
      (c) make works enter the commons, say, 5 years after they are "out of print."
      (d) Respect the rights of Fair Use (time-shifting, space-shifting, backup) in law and practice.

      IF we can make these changes, society benefits because then we do not lose these works. They stand a much greater likelihood of being preserved.

      If I simply sell my old 1960s LP's to a collector, they go into a bin and are never heard again. If I record and digitize those 1960s LP's to a lossless format, and then put them out on a torrent, then there are multiple copies of the experience of the music as originally recorded available to the commons, and the chance of its being lost forever is much, much slimmer.

    8. Re:Slashdot Article #921431008 supporting piracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What an absolutely fantastic bit of the ol' explication.

    9. Re:Slashdot Article #921431008 supporting piracy by Taibhsear · · Score: 1

      And I'm still waiting for a copyright law that presents a decent and fair plan that both acknowledges new technologies and possibilities that they bring.

      Poor people don't purchase cds. If they don't have a computer or can't use p2p they get a copied cd from their friends. Sneakernet. Who do you think seeds these downloads? Someone, somewhere had to buy the cd to begin with. If you ask me it's the exact opposite of what you say. It is robin hood in effect. (minus the fact that there is no money involved and no real harm)

      The RIAA are the wrongdoers. The absurd copyright laws are the wrongdoers. The douchebag artists that still charge $17 (+tax and/or shipping) for a fucking cd (26 year old technology) are the wrongdoers. p2p users are not the wrong doers.

    10. Re:Slashdot Article #921431008 supporting piracy by skeeto · · Score: 3, Insightful

      AND the rights of the rightsholders to be fairly compensated and to reasonably punish/recover from wrongdoers*.

      In the US, where the article takes place, there is no right for writers/artists/developers to be "fairly" compensated**. None whatsoever. In fact, it is quite the opposite: it is our right to share culture freely. The purpose of copyright, as described by the US constitution, is meant to serve the public by encouraging the growth of the public domain. The public temporarily waives their natural rights to freely share their culture in order to encourage writers/artists/developers to write/sing/develop. Before the digital age, this was a right individual people couldn't even exercise in the first place, so they were getting a real bargain out of it.

      The problem is that the temporary part is gone. Copyright terms are way too long, longer than human lifetimes. We really should be legally allowed to freely share everything from (at least) the 80's and before. All these works should be in the public domain by now. This is why you might see this slant on /., because copyright is way out of balance and unconstitutional. It needs to serve the public again. I bet you will find that many, if not most, works on P2P networks would be legal to share if we had reasonable copyright terms.

      * As a side note, you said "wrongdoers" to describe people breaking laws. Please don't mix up right/wrong with legal/illegal. These are completely unrelated.

      ** In other countries authors may actually have rights that don't exist in the US. For example, in the UK there are a set of non-transferable "moral rights" for authors. Since I live in the US I don't have to worry much about this, though.

    11. Re:Slashdot Article #921431008 supporting piracy by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Requiring registration of copyright would cripple open source. cia.vc shows that I've made 40 commits this month, and 49 last month, to a public svn server. Each of these would have to be registered if I wanted it to be covered by copyright, which I would to be able to enforce the license requirements. The same is true of something like Wikipedia - imagine if you had to register every edit in order for it to be under the GFDL.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    12. Re:Slashdot Article #921431008 supporting piracy by db32 · · Score: 1

      Exactly! I mean really now...where are the articles about the rights of slave owners too! I mean we talk about freeing the slaves and all this, but what about the people who paid for those slaves! They have rights!

      Seems to me we have been down this road of the "rights" of the abusive assholes in the past. More often than not it doesn't end well for the abusive asshole. Unfortunately a great deal of people get abused before it ends. Company Towns is another good example...

      --
      The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
    13. Re:Slashdot Article #921431008 supporting piracy by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Requiring registration of copyright would cripple open source

      Not if registration were free. If you can't take ten minutes to log into the Library of Congress site and register your work, how important can protecting it be?

      It need not be like the old days where you had to physically snail-mail your application, two copies of the work and twenty bucks. We just need to know how to contact the copyright holder. I can register an internet domain for two bucks, your government could inexpensively subsidize copyright registration.

      There's another reform needed - any work should be assumed to be public domain unless shown otherwise.

      As to Wikipedia, the actual content creators give up copyright. Why should Jimmy Wales own content that I produce? Wikipedia should be public domain.

    14. Re:Slashdot Article #921431008 supporting piracy by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      Sorry bud, but it ain't gonna happen. The "rightsholders" are the labels - this is only one of many reforms that need to be made. The recording artists should own copyright; they should NOT be "works for hire".

      This is the free choice of the artists: either keep your copyrights and remain poor or have a minuscule chance of actually getting money for it. That's basically how it now stands.

      Copyright lengths need to be brought back down to sane levels.

      Sure.

      Copyrights need to be registered again. Automatic granting of copyright is madness.

      And that is a very bad idea. The idea behind copyright is that anyone producing a work owns the rights to it. Registration is not necessary. And would be impractical anyway. Registering copyright is a nice extra option to make it easier to defend it if necessary.

      Out of print works should not be covered by copyright.

      Why is that so? Copyright expires (after way too long time nowadays), after that the works enter the public domain. Now if I were to write a computer program, publish it, and later decide not to publish it anymore within my copyright period: that is my right. Why should I always have to continue to publish and (in effect) distribute a work that I own?

      Copyright as it was originally devised was good. Later extensions made it worse. Copyright surviving the death of an author is debatable, the length of copyright is debatable. But the core is good, and should stay: copyright is automatic, inheritable/transferable, for a certain period of time, and sales of reproductions of a work fall under the first-sale doctrine (can be re-sold unrestricted - note, that is the original reproduction, no copies of that reproduction).

      The last point however is getting tough for digital files: maybe I can re-sell that MP3 but how is it the original reproduction? Nothing physical is present.

    15. Re:Slashdot Article #921431008 supporting piracy by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Ten minutes, for 49 commits a month, is 490 minutes, or eight hours. Effectively, I would have to spend one entire working day, per month, registering copyright. Plus another ten minutes for each article I write (although possibly my publisher could do that for me), and so on.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    16. Re:Slashdot Article #921431008 supporting piracy by mcgrew · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The idea behind copyright is that anyone producing a work owns the rights to it.

      No, it isn't. The idea behind copyright is to motivate creators to create (see: US Constitution).

      Registration is not necessary.

      Read Lessig's book. If is necessary - if I can't find a work's copyright holder, how can I get use to it?

      And would be impractical anyway.

      Funny, I had no problem registering domains, why should registering a copyright be any harder?

      Registering copyright is a nice extra option to make it easier to defend it if necessary.

      If you're not going to defend it, why do you need a copyright?

      Why should I always have to continue to publish and (in effect) distribute a work that I own?

      Because the very reason for copyright's existance is, as explained in the Constitution, "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;"

      You should have no right to attempt to withdraw a work. You have no legal right to under the US Constitution.

      The last point however is getting tough for digital files: maybe I can re-sell that MP3 but how is it the original reproduction? Nothing physical is present.

      I don't believe bits should be copyrightable. That MP3 as well as the CD it comes from is just a long number, and I don't believe anyone should own any numbers. Numbers should be free; ALL of them.

    17. Re:Slashdot Article #921431008 supporting piracy by Moryath · · Score: 1

      Now if I were to write a computer program, publish it, and later decide not to publish it anymore within my copyright period: that is my right. Why should I always have to continue to publish and (in effect) distribute a work that I own?

      If you decide to no longer publish, the following things are true:

      - You have (in effect) given up your agreed-upon "right" to monetary compensation based upon the temporary monopoly (which is what "copyright" is) over the work. If you're not selling, then nobody is buying from you.

      - You have therefore given up participating in the system and, under the logic that copyright is designed to enlarge the public domain by encouraging the creation of new works based upon old works, the continuance of your work should necessarily follow in the public domain.

      There are two ways to accomplish the goals of copyright. Either requiring registration and renewal to assert copyright, OR requiring that the publication/sale be ongoing, serve the needs of the public from which "copyright"'s temporary monopoly is granted. Either (a) you have to take affirmative action (in the form of easily verifiable publication/sale) or (b) you have to take affirmative action (in the form of renewal), or (c) by failing to take one of these actions you are allowing your work to pass into the public domain.

      The goal is not to grant monopolies to people. The goal is twofold, first that people are encouraged to create new works and second that every work enters the public domain in a timely manner. Assuming that everything is public domain, unless registered otherwise, is the first step in getting the balance back.

      And if you don't believe me that an enlarged public domain increases the likelihood of new works being made, consider the following: Walt Disney Corporation basically made their fortune by raping the public domain. They stole music, they stole characters, they stole stories wholesale, they pretty much never had an original idea in their lives.

      Even for studios you might consider "original", like Pixar, they will freely admit (and insert homages to) their inspirations - for example, the lightning-flash background rat in the beginning of Ratatouille is ripped straight out of The Secret of Nimh. And oh so much more could be done in the commons if we weren't waiting another 80 years for NIMH to become public domain... or Animal Farm... or The Inspector General... and so on and so forth.

      Final point:
      This is the free choice of the artists: either keep your copyrights and remain poor or have a minuscule chance of actually getting money for it. That's basically how it now stands.

      Which is one of the major things that needs changing in copyright contract law (along with the disallowance of "indentured servitude" multi-album MafiAA contracts and their "creative accounting" departments that insist multiplatinum albums somehow lost money and try to bill the artist for "losses"), but that would definitely change if copyright were shortened - the idea of "works for hire" where a big, faceless corporation builds up a portfolio of zillions upon zillions of works that never see the light of day except for what pops up in the occasional "best of" or "Sounds of the XXXX's" compilations, with the other 90% of the music/videos/books vanishing away to nothingness. Make it so that things expire, and you change the dynamic - companies can't just sit on a bunch of old works, they have to seek out, promote, and work with the artists on a fairer basis in order to keep new works coming in.

      Imagine actual competition for the works. Wouldn't that be something?

    18. Re:Slashdot Article #921431008 supporting piracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Requiring registration of copyright would cripple open source.

      That assumption is based on the current high-damage consequences of copyright (ridiculous life, horrible life-destroying penalties, ...).

      If the rules change, concerns change. Copyright might be much less of an issue.

    19. Re:Slashdot Article #921431008 supporting piracy by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      Registration is not necessary.

      Read Lessig's book. If is necessary - if I can't find a work's copyright holder, how can I get use to it?

      The author's name (or a notice of the name of the copyright owner) is normally included with the reproduction of the work.

      And would be impractical anyway.

      Funny, I had no problem registering domains, why should registering a copyright be any harder?

      1) Volume: orders of magnitude more copyrighted works exist than that there are Internet domains registered.

      2) Volume again: a domain is only a handful letters; a song or a book is orders of magnitude larger. And often only in physical format. Of course a copy of the original work will have to be included with the registration to show what is being registered in the first place.

      3) It's impractical. I am writing comments on /., I own the copyright, and don't like the idea that it can be reproduced to other websites than /.. Same for letters that I have written to newspapers and got published: I own the copyright to those letters, however by sending it to the newspaper I grant them an implicit licence to publish them in their paper. But not just anyone else - they will have to ask me. It is impractical to have to register all that, from all people. Let alone make the register usable.

      I don't believe bits should be copyrightable. That MP3 as well as the CD it comes from is just a long number, and I don't believe anyone should own any numbers. Numbers should be free; ALL of them.

      So in your opinion, as soon as a work is created in digital form, it can not be copyrighted - at all? How about computer software, for example? Music on a CD? As soon as an artist makes a digital recording of their songs (no-one uses analogue any more) they lose their copyrights? That's just ridiculous.

    20. Re:Slashdot Article #921431008 supporting piracy by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      If you decide to no longer publish, the following things are true:

      - You have (in effect) given up your agreed-upon "right" to monetary compensation based upon the temporary monopoly (which is what "copyright" is) over the work. If you're not selling, then nobody is buying from you.

      Then I create one more copy, put that for sale for say US$ 1 billion. Happy now?

      The whole rest of your argumentation is moot as the work will eventually end up in the public domain anyway: as soon as the copyright period expires.

      Or imagine I'm in a band, write some cool songs, but don't record them. Only play them live. Those songs are copyrighted by me. Why registering? And do I have to do that in every single country in this world? I'm not an USAian, mind you. My world is bigger. I have the copyright on the song, and have the right to allow you to play it in public as well (or not). Whether or not the song is recorded and sold should not matter. Maybe our band decides against making recordings, doing only live gigs. Live gigs you're also not allowed to record without permission of the artist, even though the gig may be free. The music played at each gig is unique, they are all different, the beauty of live music. Should you register them all? There should not be recordings in the first place - but what if someone illegally makes a recording of your gig? Trouble if registration is required.

    21. Re:Slashdot Article #921431008 supporting piracy by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      That's the point - only a fool would register slashdot comments. They have no monetary value to the person making the comment. A journal maybe, depending on its content. If it's worth taking an hour to writ, it's worth taking ten minutes to copyright.

    22. Re:Slashdot Article #921431008 supporting piracy by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      I didn't mention Slashdot comments anywhere, I mentioned commits to a public subversion repository. The logs on cia.vc show I made 49 commits last month, and each of these would need to be individually registered. At ten minutes per registration, I would need to spend an entire day per month registering copyright on these, which would be a significant amount of the time I spend hacking on open source code.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    23. Re:Slashdot Article #921431008 supporting piracy by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      The author's name (or a notice of the name of the copyright owner) is normally included with the reproduction of the work.

      I see you've never administered a large database. Names are terrible identifiers. Infoseek (before Google existed) found six people in North America on the internet in 1997 with my name.

      So once I have your name, how do I find you to get permission to bropadcast/reprint/sample?

      1) Volume: orders of magnitude more copyrighted works exist than that there are Internet domains registered.

      2) Volume again: a domain is only a handful letters; a song or a book is orders of magnitude larger. And often only in physical format. Of course a copy of the original work will have to be included with the registration to show what is being registered in the first place.

      3) It's impractical. I am writing comments on /., I own the copyright, and don't like the idea that it can be reproduced to other websites than /.. Same for letters that I have written to newspapers and got published: I own the copyright to those letters, however by sending it to the newspaper I grant them an implicit licence to publish them in their paper. But not just anyone else - they will have to ask me. It is impractical to have to register all that, from all people. Let alone make the register usable.

      1. Try registering a one word domain using any word in the dictionary. Of course there are more copyrighted works than domains, but that statement is meaningless. Most of the copyrights are meaningless -- as you pointed out, slashdot comments are copyrighted. Good luck taking someone to court without registration to get damages.

      Which is another reason I want mandatory, free, easy registration with the same kind of contact information as in a domain registry -- at one time one of my web pages was arguably the most plagairized work on the internet. There are still plagairized copied posted ten years later. I had a hard enough time getting the kneebiters to take the shit down, and once down it wouln't stay down.

      No luck at all at collecting.

      2) Volume again: a domain is only a handful letters; a song or a book is orders of magnitude larger

      My budget is only a handful of digits; the defence appropriations are orders of magnatude larger. Internet Archive hosts thousands of lossless CDs, Google archives hundreds of thousands of web pages, the Internet Library hosts thousands of public domain books.

      It's doable. Plus, with a reasonable copyright term (I'd drop it back to the 14 years it was in 1900) after the first fourteen years you wouldn't need much more space every year as data would be purged annually. If it's in the public domain there is no need to keep copyright records.

      3) It's impractical. I am writing comments on /., I own the copyright, and don't like the idea that it can be reproduced to other websites than /.. Same for letters that I have written to newspapers and got published: I own the copyright to those letters, however by sending it to the newspaper I grant them an implicit licence to publish them in their paper.

      Again, you're just lazy. If it's worth copyrighting, it's worth ten lousy minutes. Plus, I think you'll see that the newspaper's letters policy says they own any letters they publish. And unlike you, they DO register the copyrights. Every single day.

      So in your opinion, as soon as a work is created in digital form, it can not be copyrighted - at all?

      Not at all. Tangible works - books, CDs, source code - would be copyrightable. You wouln't lose your copyright by making a digital copy, you would still retain copyright. The digital manifestation would be free to copy.

      Law must follow physics. Just as passing a law saying PI=3 doesn't make it so, like has been said "making bits not copyable is like making water not wet".

    24. Re:Slashdot Article #921431008 supporting piracy by Moryath · · Score: 1

      Then I create one more copy, put that for sale for say US$ 1 billion. Happy now?

      Raw silliness.

      The whole rest of your argumentation is moot as the work will eventually end up in the public domain anyway: as soon as the copyright period expires.

      And how would that work for your bullshit "argument" below?

      Or imagine I'm in a band, write some cool songs, but don't record them. Only play them live. Those songs are copyrighted by me.

      If you play them live with no recording and no other record (sheet music perhaps) then they vanish, poof, into the ether. They are no more meaningful to society than the mad ravings of a street-corner doomsayer. Why should I care about the "copyright" of something that, for all practical intents and purposes, does not exist and has all the societal significance of the random twiddlings done by real musicians who are tuning their instruments?

      Why registering? And do I have to do that in every single country in this world?

      Why registering? Because the difference between a finished and unfinished work is large. The difference between something that should immediately pass into the public domain, and something that someone actually intends to produce and make money off of (what copyright was designed to encourage, again for only a limited time so that content creators would have to keep creating, is different enough that you ought to be able to spare the few minutes to register it just like anyone with an invention ought to be willing to patent it if they think it's significant enough.

      Plus, registering it allows us to check-and-balance the system, like the patent system (prior to the patent-slamming abuse by big companies) was supposed to do.

      I'm not an USAian, mind you. My world is bigger.

      No, your head and/or ego is bigger and undeservedly so. Our "worlds" are the same size, unless you're an extraterrestrial.

      I have the copyright on the song, and have the right to allow you to play it in public as well (or not). Whether or not the song is recorded and sold should not matter.

      So, don't record it. Write down the sheet music and register that. And if you have no sheet music and no recording, why do you care if you have the "copyright" on it?

      Maybe our band decides against making recordings, doing only live gigs. Live gigs you're also not allowed to record without permission of the artist, even though the gig may be free. The music played at each gig is unique, they are all different, the beauty of live music.

      You have fun with that. Why should "copyright" matter to you? You've deliberately decided to try to prevent your work from passing into the commons in any form, which is anathema to the idea of "copyright" (a temporary grant of limited monopoly based upon the assurance that the work will pass to the public domain in repayment later) in the first place.

      You are trying to cheat the system by keeping your work from ever entering the public domain. Your argument's pretty much void here, because we are no longer talking about "copyright" at all.

      If you set out to record a "Jam Session", a freeform and spontaneous musical session, then why would you need a "copyright" on it? If on the other hand you had sheet music or other musical notation you were working off of, then even if your particular "performance" was not supposed to be recorded, you still have something to register and you should be required to do so.

      Should you register them all?

      Again: if you have a one-time "jam session", why would "copyright" need to even be involved? If you have musical notation, yes, you SHOULD be required to register it to assert your "copyright" and other performance rights, partly to protect the limited monopoly you are seeking but also as a protection for society such that when it is time for your music to enter the public domain, a record of it exists.

      There should not be recordings in

    25. Re:Slashdot Article #921431008 supporting piracy by jonaskoelker · · Score: 1

      asking me to do your plumbing

      Yeah, there isn't the same good ring to NewYourCountryPlumber.

    26. Re:Slashdot Article #921431008 supporting piracy by mdmkolbe · · Score: 1

      Copyrights need to be registered again. Automatic granting of copyright is madness.

      I have to disagree on this one. Registered copyright favors the labels and potentially harms Open Source development since labels have the money to throw at registration and Open Source projects generally don't (also getting intermediate versions registered would be a problem).

      Out of print works should not be covered by copyright.

      This one I agree with in principal but practice gets very thorny. How would you quantify "out of print"? What if it's shown in theaters or is the script to a play but not publicly purchasable? Or maybe the rights holder will sell you a copy for nothing less than $50,000. What if the company won't sell the source code at all but sells the binary? Crafting a law on this with no unintended effects would be very difficult.

    27. Re:Slashdot Article #921431008 supporting piracy by Lost+Engineer · · Score: 1

      Um poor people can afford CDs but not the internet? A broadband connection where I live costs $15/mo (if you already have a phone line) and probably 50 for cable if you don't want a phone line. That's not very many CDs.

    28. Re:Slashdot Article #921431008 supporting piracy by Phroggy · · Score: 1

      Copyright lengths need to be brought back down to sane levels. I should NOT have to pay for a Jimi Hendrix download.

      This is the important point right here. If copyright actually expired after a reasonable interpretation of "limited times," under a law crafted with the goal of "[promoting] the progress of science and useful arts," we could put a lot of this madness to rest.

      Yes, with that one simple change, the RIAA and MPAA could still go after people trading the latest Beyonce album or bootlegs of Quantum of Solace, but those items would have to compete against a wealth of entertainment that has been produced during the mid-20th Century which would now be in the public domain and legally available for free or very cheaply. The implications are staggering.

      Copyrights need to be registered again. Automatic granting of copyright is madness.

      Here's where I have to disagree with you. I like the fact that works I create are legally protected by default, and I can choose to license them however I want, or release them into the public domain if I so choose.

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    29. Re:Slashdot Article #921431008 supporting piracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This was, by my count, slashdot article #921431008 which slants positively for the "less power for rightsholders" side. I'm still waiting for slashdot article #1 where somebody presents a decent and fair plan that both acknowledges new technologies and the possibilities that they bring AND the rights of the rightsholders to be fairly compensated and to reasonably punish/recover from wrongdoers.

      You won't find it for the simple reason that after passing a certain asshole threshold any possible legitimate points one party might have is eclipsed by the sheer magnitude of the dickery.

      Nobody cares about their points anymore, their tactics have gotten more press, the harm they cause gets more attention. Society now sees stopping their harmful attacks as more important than addressing their points.

      For a more straight forward example of this in action try this;

      I come to school and you steal my lunch money, this is wrong.

      The next day, I come to school with a baseball bat and go office space on your sorry ass.

      My attack with a baseball bat is now a more important issue than you stealing my lunch money.

      You taking my lunch money is still wrong, its not being disputed, but it doesn't excuse my attack with a baseball bat, and the school is now more interested in stopping baseball bat attacks than lunch money thefts.

    30. Re:Slashdot Article #921431008 supporting piracy by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      I like the fact that works I create are legally protected by default, and I can choose to license them however I want, or release them into the public domain if I so choose

      Yes, not having to register is convenient, but without registration if I want to license your work legally I have no way of finding you, or often even knowing who you are. And without registration, how can anyone prove that your copyright has expired? How can you prove it hasn't?

    31. Re:Slashdot Article #921431008 supporting piracy by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Registration should be free. There's no reason the Library of Congress couldn't inexpensively set up a registration page.

      How would you quantify "out of print"?

      If it's not commercially available it should be in the public domain. Copyright was started in the US, after all, as a means of getting more stuff into the public domain. If I contact you for a copy and you can't provide one, I shouldn't have to worry about your suing me if I get it from the Pirate Bay. Disney shouldn't be able to do that sleazy "available for a limited time only" releasing classic movies that should be in the public domain anyway every seven years.

    32. Re:Slashdot Article #921431008 supporting piracy by alexo · · Score: 1

      Me coming up with a 'plan' would be like asking me to do your plumbing....

      As a lawyer, Ray, you should be familiar with the provisions against cruel and unusual punishment.

    33. Re:Slashdot Article #921431008 supporting piracy by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 1

      Me coming up with a 'plan' would be like asking me to do your plumbing....

      As a lawyer, Ray, you should be familiar with the provisions against cruel and unusual punishment.

      Yeah, it would be pretty tough on my customers. Wouldn't want to be in the vicinity when they tried to flush the toilet.

      --
      Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
    34. Re:Slashdot Article #921431008 supporting piracy by mdmkolbe · · Score: 1

      Registration should be free...

      You realize of course that if that were the case every open source developer out there would add a register-copyright hook to their revision-control check-in scripts promptly leading to an effective DDoS of the LoC. Not a happy picture if you ask me.

      How would you quantify "out of print"?

      If it's not commercially available it should be in the public domain.... If I contact you for a copy and you can't provide one, I shouldn't have to worry about your suing me if I get it from the Pirate Bay.

      That law would be too easy to dodge to be effective. "Sure! You can have a copy of anything you want ... for a billion dollars."

      Don't get me wrong. I would love some kind of publication requirement to keep copyright protections, but you have make it neither to hard for the little guy to satisfy nor to easy to satisfy the letter but not the spirit. Simple purchasablity fails on the latter and anything stronger that I can think of fails in the former.

  16. Re:Universities still need to MANAGE their network by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Please note the change I made to your thread title. A huge difference exists in the concept and implementation of policing vs managing a network.

    Policing the network requires a mindset which assumes the students will do bad things and the administration is determined to catch and punish accused systems perpetrators.

    Managing the network, as your example shows, is the proper implementation of policies and configurations which allow the University community to effectively perform their work.

    Managing the network is more effective and provides a more collegial atmosphere.

    In my CS Department, all the information which could be used by the RIAA to track student usage of systems is NOT logged. Attempts to obtain unauthorized access are logged; but not successful authorized access. [All you security types can take your immediate objections and stuff them in your policy orifice.]

  17. Re:Universities still need to police their network by mcgrew · · Score: 1

    If you're spending $122 for a hooker and her drug habit, you're paying WAY too much.

  18. Re:Universities still need to police their network by Shakrai · · Score: 1

    Tell that to Elliot Spitzer ;)

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  19. If you're paying $1224, you're getting shafted by MikeRT · · Score: 2, Informative

    We paid $125/semester. Granted, our school also didn't feel the need to keep up with the Jones WRT bandwidth.

  20. Aye by Mateo_LeFou · · Score: 1

    This line in particular caught my eye:
    "...the death knell to some, if not all, of the RIAA's efforts to use American university staff as copyright cops"

    I thought, well ... hm. They just got a federal law passed creating those copyright cops, didn't they? Minor setback here, if that?

    --
    My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
  21. Re:Universities still need to police their network by rwwyatt · · Score: 1

    You forgot blackjack. It al goes to hookers and blackjack.

  22. It's libertarian by Nerdposeur · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think the problem here is poor definition of "left" vs. "right."

    Ask a question pertaining to abortion, and most of the answers here are "anything goes," which sounds left-wing. Ask a question about the economy, and the answers are more "government isn't your sugar daddy," which sounds right-wing.

    I think the most common /. viewpoint is best described as "libertarian," which can be summed up as "leave us alone and don't tell us what to do."

    1. Re:It's libertarian by meringuoid · · Score: 1
      I think the problem here is poor definition of "left" vs. "right." Ask a question pertaining to abortion, and most of the answers here are "anything goes," which sounds left-wing. Ask a question about the economy, and the answers are more "government isn't your sugar daddy," which sounds right-wing. I think the most common /. viewpoint is best described as "libertarian," which can be summed up as "leave us alone and don't tell us what to do."

      Precisely. The tendency is towards old-fashioned American rugged individualism.

      Now personally I don't see abortion as a left / right issue at all: 'left wing' to my mind is all about strong unions fighting for the workers' interests in labour relations, and a preference for high taxation to pay for comprehensive state provision of services, with the extreme left favouring wholesale nationalisation of industries. It's purely economics. I would think that a left-wing opinion on abortion might be 'The abortion clinics should be state owned and free at the point of need', while a right-wing opinion might be 'Abortions for all - who can afford them'.

      Whether abortions should be allowed in the first place is a completely different question. I see no particular reason that a Communist should favour abortion, or any reason why an Ayn Rand free market fundamentalist should oppose abortion. I think the fact that the moralistic Christian tendency happens to be aligned with the right wing parties is a quirk of American politics; if you listen to European religious leaders such as the Archbishop of Canterbury or the Pope, they often tend to preach a left-wing message of social justice and collective effort, rather than the individualistic 'devil take the hindmost' philosophy of capitalism.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    2. Re:It's libertarian by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think the problem here is poor definition of "left" vs. "right." Ask a question pertaining to abortion, and most of the answers here are "anything goes," which sounds left-wing. Ask a question about the economy, and the answers are more "government isn't your sugar daddy," which sounds right-wing. I think the most common /. viewpoint is best described as "libertarian," which can be summed up as "leave us alone and don't tell us what to do."

      I think any attempt to distill a prevailing political orientation on Slashdot is doomed to failure. There is, in truth, a great deal of diversity here.

      The only common thread is that each of us is right.

      --
      Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
    3. Re:It's libertarian by Nerdposeur · · Score: 1

      So you're defining "left" and "right" in purely economic terms. And someone else defines it differently, leading to confusion. Which was my point.

      Human viewpoints come in many flavors, and labels are always oversimplifications. A graph like this, which shows dimensions of personal and economic freedom and at least four possible viewpoints, is better, although still a simplification.

      I think the fact that the moralistic Christian tendency happens to be aligned with the right wing parties is a quirk of American politics; if you listen to European religious leaders such as the Archbishop of Canterbury or the Pope, they often tend to preach a left-wing message of social justice and collective effort, rather than the individualistic 'devil take the hindmost' philosophy of capitalism.

      Now that is an interesting point, which I think Christians in the U.S. need to strongly consider.

    4. Re:It's libertarian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only common thread is that each of us is right.

      Not me! I'm convinced that my viewpoints are wrong.

    5. Re:It's libertarian by Phroggy · · Score: 1

      You're absolutely right. Somebody has decided that there are two camps, "left" and "right", and if you care about politics at all, you have to belong to one of those camps. Once you're in, you have to support everything you're told to support on that side.

      You can't support universal health care AND support sending additional troops to Iraq. You can't oppose warrantless domestic wiretaps AND oppose gay marriage. You can't fight for Amendments 1, 4 and 8 AND Amendments 2, 9 and 10. You can't take a stand against the death penalty AND against abortion. Because clearly, that would mean you're undecided, uncommitted, uninformed, or have simply lost your mind.

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    6. Re:It's libertarian by dcam · · Score: 1

      Correction:

      The only common thread is that each of us thinks they are right.

      --
      meh
    7. Re:It's libertarian by PeteABastard · · Score: 1

      The only common thread is that each of us is right.

      I'm not

    8. Re:It's libertarian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who the fuck you calling a libertarian? Fuck you asshole. Why don't you go watch fucking Fox news you brainless piece of shit.

  23. Re:Universities still need to police their network by AmberBlackCat · · Score: 1

    Maybe the money's going toward Package Shaping software...

  24. The (stupid) response to this is ... by Nicolas+MONNET · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The sinister "three strike law" pushed by Sarkonazy and his subordinates creates a new category of "crime", that of "not securing properly one's connection", I shit you not. That way you can't use the defense of having been infected by a virus or having your router hax0red, it's your fault, you should have been a master sysadmin.
    Nevermind that megacorporations themselves can't be fucked to secure all their systems, you, Joe SixPC, are supposed to one up PCI/DSS or FIPS whatever, or you can't be allowed to the interwebs.
    Of course it's a massive pack of FAIL on so many levels, but that's what GWB's BFF has in store for us.

    1. Re:The (stupid) response to this is ... by HungryHobo · · Score: 1

      oh good god...
      Do they even bother talking to anyone who has done more than play minesweeper?

  25. Re:Universities still need to police their network by mcgrew · · Score: 1

    I guess the citizens of New York paid too much!

    (damn, I got penalized for typing too fast again. "Slow down cowboy it's been 19 seconds since you hit reply)

  26. nice to see a U standing up for students by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The remainder of universities that just rolled over and did the RIAA's bidding should be ashamed

  27. Re:Universities still need to police their network by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's so some douche in student government can say they managed a budget of $20m+ on their resume. I was a tech director at my university when the student government schlubs were trying to levy a tech fee. When they proposed it, I told them to compose a list of all the things it's supposed to pay for, and I'd call a special hearing to advance the interests of the tech fee. In front of various deans of the school, most of the student government, and countless regular students, I went down the list and showed that we already provided every single one of those services -- with one exception. They wanted to buy an online voting package for student government. However, we had already bought one a year before I got to the university, and even though we paid for it, student government repeatedly voted against using it.

    The background behind that was that the Greeks ran student government and had made the voting process so obnoxious that virtually no independent would vote (you had a specific time and location to show up to vote, and it was usually on the other side of the campus from where your college was). The Greeks then allegedly hazed any of their members who failed to vote, and it was implied that they'd have to vote for the running Greek party.

    And this was from one of the largest universities in the US (by student count).

    That was one deep rabbit hole of corruption, and I'm glad I got out.

  28. Re:Universities still need to police their network by Shakrai · · Score: 1

    Yeah, we did. It's a shame too because we had really high hopes for him. He won 61 out of 62 counties too so he actually had a mandate to do some of the stuff he promised. Then he burned up his political capital on drivers licenses for undocumented immigrants instead of reforming Albany.....

    Guess you can't win them all. At least we got a funny blind dude who isn't afraid to crack jokes at his own expense out of the deal ;)

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  29. Re:Universities still need to police their network by aztektum · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Simply putting up the money doesn't mean you have the right to impact other peoples use of the same infrastructure they're paying for. Downloaders aren't the only ones using the network.

    I agree that when you pay for something like an iPhone it's yours to do with as you please. A uni, however, is offering you a service for a fee. They're free to dictate terms on the use of that service. Don't like the terms, goto a different uni.

    --
    :: aztek ::
    No sig for you!!
  30. This really deserves to go +5 Insightful. by Moryath · · Score: 1

    I'm serious. It takes a Lessig point and brings it to where it really needed to be: the basis of copyright is supposed to be the preservation and innovation of works, not stifling and killing them off in a vault somewhere.

  31. Re:Universities still need to police their network by wild_quinine · · Score: 1

    Simply putting up the money doesn't mean you have the right to impact other peoples use of the same infrastructure they're paying for. Downloaders aren't the only ones using the network. I agree that when you pay for something like an iPhone it's yours to do with as you please. A uni, however, is offering you a service for a fee. They're free to dictate terms on the use of that service. Don't like the terms, goto a different uni.

    Another post with no relation to the real world.

    Don't like the terms, go to a different uni? I'm sure there's a perfect University out there somewhere, but I've yet to find it. And I've been at, and worked at, a whole bunch of what would be Ivy League institutions, if we had such a thing in Britain. No, you've got to work with what you've got, in the real world.

    If you pay for a service, and that service cannot support you and everyone else using it, then that is only your problem if you are using it wrong. Otherwise, whomever you're paying for the service has a duty, legally, to step up and provide you, and everyone else, with that acceptable level of service.

    This is no different in a University. However as I originally stated the terms of use at a University are usually quite restrictive. Looking to bolster your music collection? Look elsewhere. Bit-torrenting a series of relevant lectures, but can't, because the connection is too shitty? Your institution needs to help you out.

    So, as you can see, we can't just shove some protocol into a black hole. Hell, World of Warcraft uses bit torrent to distribute patches and there are a LOT of students legitimately using that for studies in virtual worlds. It might not be a supported application, and they might not have a right to get their pally up to 80 on our networks for FUN, but trust me, a lot of forwards looking institutions take virtual worlds very seriously and if there's even a HINT of educational benefit, the IT department cannot make a unilateral decision to stand in the way.

    So, welcome to the real world. We have jobs to do, and we have to do right by the people we're doing them for.

  32. Re:Universities still need to MANAGE their network by DavidTC · · Score: 1

    Exactly. You need to police the network and somehow magically tell the difference between someone downloading a torrent of the newest Need for Speed vs. Ubuntu. Good luck with that.

    When you manage a network, you assign priority. At a university, lab HTTP traffic beats out dorm HTTP, and both beat out torrents, and during the day the labs might have a dedicated bandwidth the dorms can't use regardless if the labs are using it, but at night that's turned off...

    Meanwhile, you don't give a damn about what's being shared on the dorm's internal network unless someone's piping high-resolution video from one room to another constantly and swamping the network.

    It sounds more complicated, but in actuality managing a network is much much easier than policing it.

    In fact, the part you actually do have to police or they'll swamp the network, the owned-virus-spamming computers, is probably a bigger hassle than everything else combined.

    --
    If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
  33. Finally by cdrguru · · Score: 1

    What this means is that an IP cannot be connected to a person. It is obvious that this is widely applicable.

    Within a year this should be clear that anything, and I mean ANYTHING, goes on the Internet. You cannot be convicted of anything by leaving an IP address in a log somewhere. You can, of course, be convicted if you put your (real) name, address and such in the same posting as the death threat against your childhood nemesis.

    You wouldn't believe how many incredibly dumb people will do just about that. Or brag openly about how they are "getting away with murder".

    I'd say this is clear justification for appeals based on illegal searches without probable cause for anyone that has been convicted of anything where the original seizure of their computer was based on an IP address.

    1. Re:Finally by shentino · · Score: 1

      I feel I should point out that the 4th amendment isn't meant so much to protect the rights of the accused, but rather, to punish the government and keep it in line when it conducts prosecutions.

      The two are close, but not the same.

      For instance, if you have a habit of stealing, and you get hit by a burglar and your hot goods get nicked, the government can still go after you for stealing, even though it didn't get the evidence through a warrant.

      This is why, even though Palin's (or whoever it was)'s emails were hacked and snooped, she didn't get to keep them a secret even after they were ILLEGALLY hacked.

  34. NewYorkCountryLawyer - precedent??? by religious+freak · · Score: 1

    I'm not going to try to split hairs here, because IANAL...
    ok, I lied, I am.

    I defer to the expertise of an attorney, but unless this was a ruling by a court of appeals or above, there is no precedent set. Trial courts render judgments which can be referenced in litigation, but not cited as "precedent" on other legal cases... is this not correct? Please correct me if I'm wrong.

    On another note, I applaud this decision, because it freggin' makes sense.

    --
    If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
    1. Re:NewYorkCountryLawyer - precedent??? by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 3, Informative

      I defer to the expertise of an attorney, but unless this was a ruling by a court of appeals or above, there is no precedent set. Trial courts render judgments which can be referenced in litigation, but not cited as "precedent" on other legal cases... is this not correct? Please correct me if I'm wrong.

      It's a precedent. It's not 'controlling' or 'binding' but it's a precedent.

      --
      Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
    2. Re:NewYorkCountryLawyer - precedent??? by religious+freak · · Score: 1

      I have just learned something new then. Awesome. Thank you.

      --
      If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
  35. Don't buy (or download/copy) music. by Chris+Tucker · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's as simple as that.

    Buy used CDs and DVDs. Preferably from local independently owned shops.

    The ONLY new DVDs I've purchased in the last year or so have been the FUTURAMA movies, because I want MORE FUTURAMA! And the best way for that to happen is to show Fox that it's to their financial advantage to make more FUTURAMA.

    However, other than those purchases, every DVD and CD I've bought for the past few years has been previously owned.

    I get the movies and music I want, and the MAFIAAs get not one penny of my money in return.

    When I get my newly purchased used discs home, CDs get ripped to iTunes, DVDs get ripped & stripped via MacTheRipper. Discs then get filed away for safekeeping, and my digital copies are used in their place.

    If you MUST download music and video, USENET is a much safer alternative. The alt.binaries hierarchies have just as much digital new content as BitTorrent, and the popular/most used newsgroups have dedicated users who will, if asked politely, take requests for content reuploads.

    Via NZB, downloads are as simple as one or two mouseclicks and are usually faster than BitTorrent.

    Oh, and they are almost completely untraceable. Making life for the MAFIAAs all the more miserable.

    --
    Guaranteed! This comment 100% Anthrax free!
  36. AC here, for obvious reasons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In college I liked to play MUDs. Yeah I know, get off my lawn.

    The sysadmins hated that though. It was against system policy. Nevermind that we were paying for it with our general course fees. *ahem* Anyways...

    I wrote a telnet spoof. It looked just like the dos telnet programs on the PCs. It would give you a perfectly realistic looking logon. It even emulated the clock in the lower right hand corner. You'd type in your name and password, it would hide the info in a file on C: xor encrypted and pretending to be a wordperfect file. Then spit out some gibberish for a moment or two and then reboot the machine. On reboot, the spoof program would restore the original telnet and delete itself. After the reboot, no evidence and everything works correctly. The only clue that something was up was the HD light would flash once, very briefly during the gibberish part. It was a very convincing system crash. I'd load up every PC in the lab with my spoof, and then leave.

    A week later I'd go around in the lab and use my key disk and grab the wordperfect files, un-xor them, and I'd have piles of logons to use for mudding.

    The ethics part: I would only use disposable computer lab accounts, easily identifiable because they'd be a single letter for the class, a number for the level, and three letters for initials. J2RXB is a disposable account, JMORRIS is not. If I got someone's real account I wouldn't use it - I didn't want to get anyone into trouble. And yes, I'd wait until the labs were over so I didn't screw anyone out of their computer time. The temp lab accounts would stay active for up to a year after the lab typically. Plenty of time to mud. Get caught, account is erased. No biggie, I've got a 1.44 full of 'em. Wait an hour and log back on. Ah, those were the days.

    Point being, it is impossible to know exactly who is online. You can know a MAC address, but those can be spoofed. You can know an IP address, but you can spoof those as well. You can even know a Pass/Logon, but I've been all over those too. These days it's even worse with all the wireless gear.

    You never know who is logged on, ever.

  37. Fingers in their ears chanting "lalalalalala" by Nicolas+MONNET · · Score: 1

    Every single relevant administrative authority, consultative board, industry assoc (besides MAFIAAs of course) and independent judicial entities have given it the thumbs down, be it from a technical point of view or a judicial point of view.
    The Conseil d'Etat (~ SCOTUS in some respects) shot most of it down preemptively with respects to due process concerns. CNIL (Data privacy board) shot basically all of it down based on privacy breach concerns, and risks of false positives. The European Parliament has voted amendment 138 which preemptively states the fucking obvious against this fucking nonsense. The European Commission accepted amendment 138 against Sarko's request (that was a nice jab btw, accepting the amendment means that a 2/3 majority at the Council of Ministers would be required to remove it).

    But they're ramming it through. All those advisories can't technically stop the law from being passed. If things keep going this way, the law will be adopted by the parliament, and a EU directive opposing it will also be adopted a few months later. (Note that customarily member states are tacitly supposed to refrain from legislating at the local level while a matter is being handled at the European level, but Sarko's decided THIS is more important than respecting our european partners)

    In the end law would be challenged on at least three front, at the Conseil d'Etat (which, I believe, has the power to change implementation details so as to basically render the whole thing pointless), at the Conseil Constitutionnel (if enough socialist deputes get their head out of their asses and petition), and then at the European level, at the European Court of Justice.

    But they're pushing that shit through so hard, it's some sort of foot-in-the-door in the door technique. And even though it looks like it's going to be quashed from above, they will probably try and try again to pass that crap through. Lobbyists for big media have nothing else to do, basically, and pols want big media's love, esp. an attention whore like Sarko. Whatever they get, they will come back for more. At this point it looks like we have to win every single legal / legislative battle to stop this plan from going forward.

  38. Link to what the University wrote to the Court? by mdmkolbe · · Score: 1

    Anyone got a link to what the University wrote to the Court?

    I would be very interested in seeing what sort of technical grounds were deemed legally sufficient (and comprehensible to a judge) to quash the subpoena.

    1. Re:Link to what the University wrote to the Court? by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 1

      Anyone got a link to what the University wrote to the Court?

      Only the judge. It was submitted under seal.

      --
      Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
    2. Re:Link to what the University wrote to the Court? by k-macjapan · · Score: 1

      If I were to hazard a guess, I would say Harvard.

  39. The rest? by Lost+Engineer · · Score: 1

    What happened to the rest of the students in the case? What was different about the three "Doe"s the University decided it couldn't identify?

    If this is just a case of Media Bigspender making up 3 IPs that the IT department couldn't identify while they roll over and give up the rest of the students' names I don't see how this is special.

    1. Re:The rest? by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 1

      What happened to the rest of the students in the case?

      I don't know. Some of them have probably settled already. Some of them are probably being identified to the RIAA lawyers.

      --
      Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
  40. Re:Universities still need to police their network by onecheapgeek · · Score: 1

    If you are at a public university, your tuition/fees likely don't cover what you get outside of bandwidth. At my small branch campus, the combined tuition/technology fee for a year doesn't cover faculty/staff salaries. Most of our money comes from the state. So...no. Your technology fee does NOT give a right to do whatever you want on my network.

  41. Chronicle of Higher Education by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 1

    Here is what the Chronicle of Higher Education has to say about it.

    --
    Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
    1. Re:Chronicle of Higher Education by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually the correct permalink to the story is here. Sorry about that.

      --
      Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
  42. Re:Universities still need to police their network by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I just modded you up so I'm posting anonymously, but your perspective is quite refreshing. Usually all you hear from IT departments is what you can't do: they tend to forget that their prime function is that of facilitator, not gatekeeper (or enforcer.)

  43. Re:Universities still need to police their network by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well technically downloaders are the only ones using the network, apart from the uploaders. Anyone using the infrastructure affects it. The students pay fees comparable to high-end services, they can reasonably expect to receive high-end service as a result. It's not like the guy disagrees with your shaping idea, a fair and equitable solution which is just part of managing a stable network.

  44. Offtopic RE: Your sig. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Gay Marriage redefines your marriage as "no different than that of a gay couple".

    That's wrong tho' - your gay husband is going to enjoy sucking your cock far more than your straight wife ever will.

    Just imagine that - if your dream of legal gay marriage comes true, then you too, can have quality gay lips wrapped around your todger.

    It's clearly what you want.

  45. Re:Universities still need to police their network by aztektum · · Score: 1

    Please climb down from your high horse, good sir.

    I never said the university didn't have an obligation to provide a reliable network to its students. I know there are a lot of valid uses of bit torrent. What I'm saying is - it is not an obligation of the uni to give you unfettered domain to download movies/music/porn for your personal consumption. I doubt you'll find a uni that has that in their mission statement.

    A universities network is there to aide students/faculty in sharing information and learning. You pay them to provide an environment that encourages such. Simply because you pay, via tuition, for access to the network doesn't mean you can abuse it as you see fit.

    --
    :: aztek ::
    No sig for you!!
  46. Re:Universities still need to police their network by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you want to bootleg content, then pay for your own connection.

    if you want to watch tv series off abc.com, then pay for your own connection. if you want to read slashdot, then pay for your own connection. if you want... you got the idea.