UK Law Enforcement Starts Seizing Music Blogs

Grumbleduke writes "From Dajaz1 (a site that is no stranger to unjustified copyright takedowns) we learn that the popular R&B website rnbxclusive.com (warning: threatening message on site) has allegedly been seized by the Serious Organized Crime Agency, a UK law enforcement agency, and its operators arrested on fraud charges. Not only does the replacement message contain a number of factually dubious claims, it also shows the visitor's IP address, browser and operating system, and threatens to track and monitor them. At a time when copyright lobby groups are strongly pushing for even greater powers through laws such as SOPA and ACTA, one is left wondering why they think they need them, when police can shut down websites such as this at will."

Comments

Darknets

[Anonymous Coward]

Time to switch to the darknets. At least until their generation dies off and some reason returns.

Re:Darknets

[Penguinisto]

A nice thought, but the problem lies in the fact that it isn't just a single generation soaked with this particular poison.

If it were just a matter of waiting until Orrin Hatch died off, that would be easy. OTOH, the MPAA and RIAA likely employs an awful lot of 30-somethings, as well as a lot of duped people out there who swallowed their propaganda... and that's going to take at least half a century before they die off.

I'm afraid we're stuck with either fighting, or watching the whole thing get strangled.

There is no reliable means or method to hide anymore - no matter how many TOR nodes you traversed to get your packets here. If they cannot reach you now, they will find ways to insure that they can (a heavily-modified and enforced TPM on all devices, anyone?)

Better to fight them now than suffer under their burdens later.

Re:Darknets

[History's Coming To]

I actually found it rather useful to test a IP/user-agent switching plugin. (I use it to test environment sensitive sections of websites I write). All works fine, which IP address would they like me to come from?

The irony with this whol thing is I'm anti-piracy, I'm one of those weirdos who thinks artists deserve to get money for what they produce, however easy it is to copy bit for bit. But that SOCA message strikes me offensive and wildly accusatory that I'm starting to think my anti-piracy crusade needs to go on the back burner while I deal with the important thing, keeping the internet free.

Re:Darknets

[Nethemas the Great]

You're not weird. Most people believe artist should be compensated for their work. The trouble is the MPAA/RIAA, their ilk and their members do not.

Re:Darknets

[AaronLS]

The manipulators, and the manipulated. The biggest problem with this world.

This woman I worked with got a hoax email saying mars would appear the next night as big as the moon, supposedly from NASA(which had themselves published an article saying they were not the source of the email and that it was hoax). I told her it was a hoax, to save her the disappointment of taking her kids to stare at the bland city lit sky all night. She got pissed off at me, like I was some horrible person who must be an idiot because she was convinced the email was originated by NASA.

This is the typical hostile response of these gullible idiots across the full spectrum of bullshit, from meaningless trolling hoaxes to political deception and corruption. How dare you try to make them aware that they are idiots.

It was no surprise to me at the time that as an army reservist(not saying this is typical of all reservists, just a side note of her perspective) she bought into the whole "We have to kill 3000 Iraqis to make up for 9/11 and stop them from making weapons of mass destruction" as well as the "If you oppose the war then you are a treasonous bastard and you must hate America". She was also the one coworker who required my help more than anyone else. Almost constantly I was rolling over to her desk in response to her mind boggling failure to do her job independently and apply problem solving skills to the hurdles she encountered.

Re:Darknets

[whoever57]

Yeah, well I noticed the U.K. serious sissy patrol neglected to leave any contact information so I could ridicule them about tracking me and offer them a taste of my stool

So leave a message in their logs, go to: http://rnbxclusive.com/SOCA_Are_Wankers or some similar URL

Re:Darknets

[wbr1]

You'r not strange at all. I beleive artists should be paid. However, as the music industry stand most get paid a pittance while corps rake in huge money and spend it on ways to make more with lobbying, and pay execs self congratulatory fortunes. The record company model made far more sense when tney had to fund expensive studios, and actually manufacture a physical product. Now it has morphed into simple greed, and inertia and money keep it moving.

Re:Darknets

[gmack]

I understand your offense but I wonder if anyone has considered that this whole thing could be a hoax.

  Domain servers in listed order:
        SK.S7.ANS1.NS103.KLCZY.COM
        SK.S7.ANS2.NS103.KLCZY.COM

If a government agency had grabbed the domain wouldn't they have changed the hosting to something they control rather than some cheap name service whose homepage seems to only be an ad portal?

Re:Darknets

[sugarbomb]

Complain away!

http://www.soca.gov.uk/contact-soca/complaints

Complaints
We do our utmost to provide the public with the best possible service, and to act professionally and courteously at all times. However if you want to complain about SOCA or a SOCA officer, first please look at our complaints process

Then, if you wish to make a complaint, you can contact:

SOCA Counter Corruption Department
PO Box 58396,
London
NW1W 9SB

Telephone: 020 7238 2626
Email: publiccomplaints@soca.x.gsi.gov.uk

If you would rather complain to the Independent Police Complaints Commission or you are not happy with the way your complaint about a SOCA officer has been handled, you should contact:

The Independent Police Complaints Commission
90 High Holborn
London
WC1V 6BH

Telephone: 08453 002 002
Email: enquiries@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk

Re:Darknets

[Anonymous Coward]

Not if the government finishes its work on the Trace-Buster-Buster-Buster-Buster-Buster-Buster-Buster-Buster.

Re:Darknets

[nbauman]

It wasn't just expensive studios and physical product.

They used to spend a lot of money developing new talent and marketing. They might pay an upcoming star $100,000 for a year while they wait for her to take off (if ever). Living expenses, travel, ads in Variety and Rolling Stone, and cocaine are expensive.

I'm not sure whether these were productive expenses or whether they were just the cost of positioning themselves on the top in a competitive market. *Somebody* is going to have a hit, whether it's a corporate-promoted work or not. We had music before the days of big corporations, and we'll still have music if they go.

Re:Darknets

[Anonymous Coward]

while true; do wget -O /dev/null http://rnbxclusive.com/England_Can_Suck_My_Cock; done

Re:Darknets

[EdIII]

I agree that we need to fight now. Darknets would be a step towards that.

TOR does reliably hide people. I have seen white papers on trying to analyze TOR networks, but I am not convinced that it would work on a large scale. Too many nodes to monitor. TOR is by no means the most advanced technology out there. You have Freenet and other Darknets being developed as we speak.

The real war will be stepping up with rampant civil disobedience on enforced TPM. Refuse to purchase the devices, go to underground markets to get your equipment, etc.

That is the end game, the final battlefield. Encryption. All roads lead to it. It will either be controlled, which means freedom died, or it will remain uncontrolled, and enable freedom to survive.

Re:Darknets

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally I turned pro-piracy because of draconian laws and the abuses committed for the defense of artists.
No, I don't want music at the expense of the artists. I realize if artists don't get paid, they'll stop making the music I like. Same with games, movies, etc.
But between giving up on art or giving up on my rights, I'd rather give up art.

Actually this is a false. If we legalized piracy, a lot of people would still pay because like me, they'd understand it's important to support artists if we want them to make art. And some artists would find other ways to make money with their music, for example by selling t-shirts and doing concerts. Artists might earn less money, but I don't think they'd all go bankrupt. Art would remain alive and well.

Again, I value my freedom, rights and privacy much more. I'd rather legalize piracy than make those sacrifices. I wish I could stay in the middle, but the battle between pirates and music industry keeps on going and those of us who don't want to take sides are caught in the crossfire. Are rights are taken away one by one.
So I think the sooner the battle ends, the better it will be for us. And so I feel I need to pick a side to make it end faster, and I choose pirates because again, I'm not willing to make the sacrifices the music industry is demanding.
Sorry music industry, but that's what you get when you decide to be a dick to everyone.

Re:Darknets

[Anonymous Coward]

I sent this:

Un. Fucking. Believable. That pro-music site is registered by the IFPI, and therefore the MAFIAA.
http://who.is/whois/pro-music.org/

Regarding the Domain Seziure at http://rnbxclusive.com/,

This is a complaint about whatever SOCA officer decided acting as a personal enforcer for the IFPI and RIAA was a remotely reasonable use of taxpayer’s dollars. I honestly don’t expect you to take this email seriously, but hey, miracles happen.

I am a Canadian Citizen. You are a British agency, and apparently logging information about my visit to that site and threatening prosecution, an unlimited fine and a 10 year prison sentence. . I have never been to this site before. I saw a news article about the seizure and clicked on a link. I am not happy to see your agency is logging (read spying) on other countries citizens.

I have a strong ethical issue with the notices on that site, so much so that I’ve wasted twenty minutes of my life to tell you how I feel.

The line “As a result of illegal downloads young, emerging artists may have had their careers damaged” That statement is anecdotal at best, and an outright lie at worst. The fact that you link to a page(pro-music) who’s whois information lists ross@ifpi.org as a tech and admin contact absolutely disgusts me. The IFPI, as I’m sure you’re aware is a global front for the RIAA. Has Sony, Warner, etc under guise of RIAA and IFPI bought out the British government too? See here for a list of RIAA members: http://www.riaa.com/aboutus.php?content_selector=who_we_are_board.

A government agency should absolutely not be promoting a private corporation in any way shape or form. To imply the only way to get “legal” music is from IFPI members is not only extremely dishonest, but completely untrue.

I think a few things need clarified about the nature of computerized data. Data is not “stolen,” it is copied. No physical or tangible object is taken, the owner is not deprived of anything. If anything it would be a copyright issue, which is a civil issue not criminal. Unfortunately the RIAA and IFPI have decided it’s a better strategy to litigate rather than innovate.

What these sentences imply is that it’s more damaging to society to download a copy of a copyrighted song than walking up to a random stranger and beaning them in the head with a baseball bat (a cricket bat for you English folks). I’m not well versed in British law, but in Canada at least it’s only a two year maximum for assault with a weapon.

But honestly, good luck with your “unlimited fines” and outrageous prison sentences. I’m sure any well informed member of the public appreciates your agency’s dedication to Corporate America.

Last but not least, a right-justified page, really??

Sincerely,

A pissed off Canadian.

Re:Darknets

[icebraining]

Studies show that pirates pay (and often pay a lot) for songs too. The dichotomy (pirate, buyer) doesn't exist.

Re:Darknets

[AngryDeuce]

After buying tons of CDs where it was obvious that the production quality was vastly different on the radio singles compared to the rest of the $20-fucking-dollar CDs a lot of the time (especially bad during the 90's), when Napster came around, I was done throwing money at the record industry.

That's not to say I don't support artists, I just refuse to give them money through their label. I've gone to many live shows, bought a lot of merchandise, even donated directly to some. I'll support an artist in any way that is possible without some Record Industry vampire fuck standing in between us.

Granted, my musical tastes have completely changed and I listen to very little major label music anymore, and thanks to the internet, there are tons of people out there giving great music away completely for free; you have to wade through some shit to find it, but then again, most of the stuff coming out of major labels these days is shit anyway. The RIAA is quickly becoming irrelevant, not because of piracy, but because artists don't need them anymore. People are getting huge online due to word of mouth. A friend forwarded me a video of a duo doing a cover of a Chris Brown song 9 months or so ago, and they were the musical guests on Saturday Night Live this past weekend. In less than a year they've gone from Youtube to NBC...it's not really my kind of music but it's impressive regardless.

Humanity was making music for thousands of years before the concept of a fucking record label even existed. I have a feeling that people will continue to make music long after they're gone. The only people terrified of a MAFIAA-less future is the MAFIAA itself.

Re:Darknets

[fatman22]

"We do our utmost to provide the public with the best possible service, and to act professionally and courteously at all times."

I beg to disagree with you. Have you read the nonsense on that replacement web page?

"... were stolen from the artists" - nothing was stolen. The authors and publishers still have possession of their property. They were only deprived of profits they had not yet earned. That is not a proper thing to do, but it is also not stealing. Change the text to read "were being distributed without the owners' permission".

"As a result of ... young, emerging artists may have had their careers damaged. If you have ... you will have damaged the future of the music industry." - The publishers have done far more to ruin or hinder the careers of young emerging artists than any illegal downloaders could have caused. Aim your sites in the right direction please.

Most of the Internet community already understand this. You apparently do not or do not want to. Do your credibility a favor and reword that page.

Re:Darknets

[Thing 1]

This would be similar to "borrowing" a cow, using it to produce calves, then returning the cow and keeping the calves.

No. It's not like taking livestock and forcing them to reproduce and keeping the offspring. Unfortunately, it's not like anything we've experienced in the real world. It's making a copy, and not depriving the owner of any part of their property, including the temporary ability for their property to create offspring. It's completely different. There is no car analogy (apart from "you wouldn't download and copy this car" -- but you would; otherwise, you would be operating at a non-optimal efficiency, and who but the masters would want that in the general public?!!?!?).

Re:Darknets

[gnasher719]

I understand your offense but I wonder if anyone has considered that this whole thing could be a hoax.

A Google search for the site name shows that it comes up with search results for "free mp3 files" with music that is most likely not there legally (assuming that Kanye West and Lady Gaga haven't given them permission to distribute their music for free). So the site is real; and it doesn't make "free mp3 files" available anymore.

Three possibilities: 1. The site owner made a very strange joke. 2. Some hacker has taken over the site. 3. It's real. Which one? You decide.

Re:Darknets

[Zontar The Mindless]

I'm a pissed-off American, so I'll go with a cheery Track THIS! from a real American hero. :)

Re:Darknets

[Lost Race]

There's no way any plugin can hide your actual IP address from whatever HTTP server you connect to. Remote anonymizing proxy, yes; plugin, no.

Re:Darknets

[Anonymous Coward]

purple monkey dishwasher, why are you in my brain
have i gone insane or am i totally lame?
the answers to these questions are also filled with song
no need to sing along, sit right back and smoke that bong



that sounds a lot better than 99.9% of the top 40 garbage out here, man.

Re:Darknets

[TapeCutter]

I'm a pissed-off American

Is there any other kind these days?

Re:Darknets

[TapeCutter]

Yes, but how can I write a song with "purple monkey dishwasher"?

Talent! - The Beatles managed to get 'custard', 'walrus', and 'egg-man' all into one song.

Re:Darknets

[Znork]

No. The easiest way to demonstrate why is to examine what happens to the copies when copyright expires. There is no transfer of property at that point. The copies are and have always been the property of their respective possessor.

The monopoly right is more like a taxation right on the act of copying.

Calling it 'property' and trying to think about it as 'property' inevitably muddies your thinking. Which was the whole point of trying to call it 'property' in the first place.

Re:Darknets

[Znork]

Due to the corruptive nature of copyright I regard it as unethical to give any money to the industry. While I support independent productions, I regard anything that starves the corrupting agencies of funding as a positive thing; intellectual monopoly laws have to go, the rent seeking that damages freedom of speech and free markets follows naturally by the nature of the laws.

Of course there are other ways to ensure extra funding for creative endeavours that don't have the built-in flaws of the monopoly systems.

But until then, depriving the industry of money is one of the better ways to reduce their ability to buy legislation.

Re:Darknets

[Builder]

I just sent the following complaint to the ipcc

---
To whom it may concern,

As part of reading an article on the efforts to reduce music piracy, I visited http://rnbxclusive.com/

The message on this page advises "The above information can be used to identify you and your location. " It goes on to say

"SOCA has the capability to monitor and investigate you, and can inform your internet service provider of these infringements.
You may be liable for prosecution and the fact that you have received this message does not preclude you from prosecution."

This is completely heavy handed abuse by a police organisation. I should not be threatened with tracking and prosecution merely for visiting a web site from a news article. Please can you investigate why I have been threatened in this manner for simply following a link from a legitimate news website.
---

Flood them with similar complaints and maybe someone will get a talking to :)

Re:Darknets

[Boscrossos]

Why should the International Panel on Climate Change care about our online rights?

Re:Darknets

[Anonymous Coward]

err... they don't actually pay the upcoming star $100,00 for a year... its called an "advance" and that money would be spent on production (studio time / musicians / song writers ) and promotion (travel / hotels / record company execs / record company promos / in store posters / record company execs / pre-release cd's for radio stations / record company spruikers / music video / record company execs ). It's really just a loan. The artist see'd none of it.

As part of the advance the record company usually then own the copyright to the work (because they contracted the star to perform it for them).

The reason the record companies give advances is they then charge interest and fees on top of that (remember most of that money was spent by the record company doing things in house). Then with every sale the record company repays the advance (and charges more management fees on top for accounting). A tiny portion of what is left makes its way to the artist in cash.

The best part of it is, if that upcoming star becomes popular and tours, the record company still gets a cut as they own the copyright (just like a musical licenses its songs/music from the original writers).

Believe me an artist never really wants an advance - a up coming start can be extinguished with the debt. I have a friend who sold over 100,000 albums and ended up with $1,000,000 debt to the record companies and is still touring 4 years later trying to make any money.

Re:Darknets

[AmiMoJo]

I'm drafting a similar complain, but will focus on the blatant lies and scaremongering.

They say you can get 10 years for downloading music. That is a lie. It is copyright infringement, a civil matter, no jail time possible unless you start doing it on a commercial scale for profit. They say they can identify and track you from an IP address. That is also a lie, IP addresses do not identify individuals, computers or even internet connections.

They also make a big deal out of how the operators were arrested for fraud. Arrested, not even charged yet? Convicted? Maybe they are innocent. I might as well shout from the rooftops about how SOCA are all murderers and terrorists. Accusations are meaningless until proven in court and a law enforcement agency, of all people, should not try to make out otherwise.

Tee-hee

[Anonymous Coward]

Does anyone else giggle when they read "Serious Organized Crime Agency" with a deep voice?

Re:Tee-hee

[ColdWetDog]

Does anyone else giggle when they read "Serious Organized Crime Agency" with a deep voice?

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!

Re:Tee-hee

[Hoi Polloi]

Sounds like something a 10 year old came up with. "I'm the head of the Very Important Government Stuff!!"

Re:Tee-hee

[AaronLS]

They would be arrested and tried for copying the ideas of Monty Python.

Thanks SOCA

[viperidaenz]

for assuming you have jurisdiction in my country.

"About SOCA"

SOCA tackles serious organised crime that affects the UK and our citizens. This includes Class A drugs, people smuggling and human trafficking, major gun crime, fraud, computer crime and money laundering. and downloading american music

ftfy.

Re:Thanks SOCA

[jamstar7]

Like that ever stopped the MAFIAA before. Get accused of downloading any American 'intellectual property' anywhere on the planet and expect to get put on a 'deport to the US please' list forwarded to your local national government.

I'm thinkin mebbe we oughta move offplanet, make it more expensive to come after us...

Re:Thanks SOCA

[Kalriath]

They still haven't even filed the request to do so. And they have only until March 3 to do that.

Serious Organized Crime Agency

[microbee]

One wonders what that means: is it an agency against serious organized crime, or is one to commit the crime itself?

Looks Fake

[Olipro]

whois indicates the original owner still controls the domain, the server itself is Rackspace owned whereas SOCA's own website is run themselves via Connect Internet Solutions Ltd. - throw in the fact that SOCA haven't made any announcement or press release regarding the alleged takedown and the whole thing looks like a setup, I call shenanigans.

Re:Looks Fake

[Olipro]

according to a commenter elsewhere, they apparently phoned SOCA's press office and asserted it to be genuine, so, perhaps I stand corrected.

Re:Looks Fake

[whoever57]

Actually, the server's hosted by Private Layer in Switzerland.

Doesn't look like it to me. Looks like Rackspace in the UK:
traceroute to rnbxclusive.com (83.138.166.114), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
....
4 nyk-b2-link.telia.net (213.248.83.105) 0.621 ms 0.601 ms 0.581 ms
5 nyk-bb2-link.telia.net (80.91.245.246) 0.560 ms 0.554 ms 0.537 ms
6 ldn-bb2-link.telia.net (213.248.65.93) 70.682 ms 70.634 ms 70.836 ms
7 ldn-b4-link.telia.net (80.91.251.13) 71.043 ms 71.016 ms 70.986 ms
8 rackspace-ic-132020-ldn-b4.c.telia.net (213.248.85.202) 72.684 ms 70.921 ms 71.109 ms
9 vl912.core5a.lon3.rackspace.net (92.52.76.245) 73.318 ms 73.291 ms vl911.core5a.lon3.rackspace.net (92.52.76.203) 73.002 ms
10 aggr310a-core5a.lon3.rackspace.net (92.52.76.111) 72.219 ms 71.905 ms 72.352 ms
11 S82574.clubonside.dk (83.138.166.114) 74.882 ms 75.357 ms 75.543 ms

# whois 83.138.166.114
...
% Information related to '83.138.166.64 - 83.138.166.127'
inetnum: 83.138.166.64 - 83.138.166.127
netname: RSPC-UK-RACKSPACE-INTERNAL
remarks:
descr: Rackspace Managed Hosting
country: GB
admin-c: IA247-RIPE

Is that a real thing?

[mosb1000]

I can't believe there's actually a crime fighting organization called the Serious Organized Crime Agency. It's hard to imagine how they could have a sillier name, or who would feel threatened by something called that. Maybe they should upgrade it to the Super Serious Organized Crime Agency, or maybe even Super Serious Organized Crime Agency Plus.

Re:Is that a real thing?

[kurzweilfreak]

They were planning on adding the Plus to the upcoming Super Serious Organized Crime Agency name that they're about to put into effect, but their CEO, ManBearPig, said that was going a little over the top.

Re:Is that a real thing?

[xaxa]

I can't believe there's actually a crime fighting organization called the Serious Organized Crime Agency. It's hard to imagine how they could have a sillier name,

They could be called something like the the Department for Homeland Security, or the National Bureau for Investigations.

(Seriously, the American names sound silly to me. Far too self-important and pretentious.)

Time to Slashdot them...

[lancelet]

Everyone should visit the site with the threatening message. It's time to put the Slashdot effect to good use! :-)

Re:Time to Slashdot them...

[pla]

Everyone should visit the site with the threatening message. It's time to put the Slashdot effect to good use! :-)

Unfortunately, they don't have a feedback form.

Fortunately, if they mean that page at all threateningly, they will probably at least take a glance at the logs - So make sure to not just go to the base domain, but also
rnbxclusive.com/fuck_off_and_die_fascist_pigs
rnbxclusive.com/superinjunction_THIS_filth
rnbxclusive.com/couldnt_find_anyone_jaywalking_eh_thats_some_mighty_fine_police_work_there_lou.

Get creative.

Re:Time to Slashdot them...

[Blue Stone]

As a result of illegal downloads young, emerging artists may have had their careers damaged. If you have illegally downloaded music you will have damaged the future of the music industry. [emphasis mine]

Hilarious.

A perfect union of government law enforcement and lying, deceitful, dishonest, morally corrupt shysters (called the music industry) in operation. Zero facts. Zero credibility and destroying the credibility of SOCA's serious work with the alienating, dishohonest hyperbole the seized website now displays.

Every major study published independently has suggested that the opposite of what they say is true. So where the hell do they get off nakedly lying like that? I guess all pretence at independence is gone and they don't mind being seen to be little more that RIAA, BMI (et all) shills.

Makes you realise who's really running government and their institutions in this day and age.

It is my understanding...

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

I get the impression that, no matter how rosy the state of the industry or how sweeping the existing state powers, the push for harsher 'anti-piracy' legislation will continue until such time as the primary task of the world's security forces will be the summary execution of those suspected to be guilty of insufficient music purchase during the preceding fiscal year.

Archive.org to the rescue

[Necroman]

So, I wanted to see what was so bad about this site, so I checked out the latest cached version of it from archive.org. It looks like the site wasn't hosting anything that was copyrighted, but provided links to copyrighted content (their downloads from June 2011 seem to use HulkShare.com, but those links are dead).

It's hard to say if he was just providing linking to illegal content or if he was uploading the files to the file sharing sites himself and then providing a link.

Re:Archive.org to the rescue

[pbhj]

You know about this? http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/13/us-filesharing-extradition-idUSTRE80C15C20120113

A UK subject is being extradited for actions that his lawyers say are not illegal in the UK (I'm inclined to agree, immoral as they are).

Basically US media companies are currently somehow managing to own worldwide formerly-democratic states to the extent of enforcing US law in, for example, Australia and the UK.

Phew

[kyrio]

It's a good thing it's legal for me to download music in my country because I pay a tax on all blank media and that money goes to all of those poor artists (no it doesn't) that had their careers ruined by my [lack of] downloading their music.

Blatantly fake.

[gallondr00nk]

Come on, it doesn't even look real. Anyone can relay back browser information. Look at the language. "Arrested for fraud", "damaged the future of the music industry". Official notices don't look like this. They don't go off on stupid tangents about destroying the music industry.

There's some corporate shilling going on here, almost certainly.

Analysis

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, apparently the agency does care about IP href="http://http://www.soca.gov.uk/threats/intellectual-property-crime"> [soca.gov.uk]
The Whois shows it's still owned by 'Suheil Saiyed'; last update Jan 4.
The IP address the domain currently points to (83.138.166.114) is in San Antonio, Texas, and is owned by Rackspace.com, an American company.
The wording on the adver..erm..warning is over-the-top, and is unlikely to have originated from a real governmental agency.
also, it specifically references a commercial site (something a real government agency wouldn't do).
Here's an article on Ars Technica about a similar incident IP href="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/06/no-the-feds-didnt-seize-your-domain-youve-just-been-punked.ars"> [Ars Technica]
All in all, I'm pretty sure it's a hoax.
And I'm suspecting the folks behind pro-music.org (the site referenced in the 'warning').

Re:Analysis

[JPMH]

Wrong. The owner is Rackspace.com of San Antonio, but the server itself is located in the UK, which is why SOCA could indeed have been able to get to it.

inetnum: 83.138.166.64 - 83.138.166.127
netname: RSPC-UK-RACKSPACE-INTERNAL
remarks:
descr: Rackspace Managed Hosting
country: GB
admin-c: IA247-RIPE
tech-c: IA247-RIPE
remarks: rev-srv attribute deprecated by RIPE NCC on 02/09/2009

person: IP Admin
address: Rackspace Managed Hosting
112 E. Pecan St. Suite 600
San Antonio, Texas 78205
phone: +1 210 892 4000
fax-no: +1 210 892 4329
e-mail: ipadmin@rackspace.com
nic-hdl: IA247-RIPE
remarks: ### Rackspace Abuse Department
remarks: ### Please send any complaints to the following:
remarks: ### abuse@rackspace.com
mnt-by: RSPC-MNT
source: RIPE # Filtered

False dichotomy

[Anonymous Coward]

Opposing artificial scarcity is not the same thing as preventing artists from being paid for their work. It just means the artists need to adapt their business model to one that better monetizes the production of an abundant good. Those who think this can't be done are either lying or intentionally ignorant.

Terror

[koan]

This is terrorism 101, scare the crap out of everyone because the laws and filters aren't going to work, yeah I know calling ti terrorism is hyperbole and dilutes the meaning but it's so timely. =) (smiley on /. infidel!)
Check this out: http://pastebin.com/pVmAZqWY
How many factual errors can you find?

Surely it's a hoax?

[dnewt]

I have a strong suspicion this is a hoax. The wording just doesn't seem like something SOCA, or any other law enforcement agency would say in this situation. For a start, the statement "stolen from the artists" suggests they're already guilty. That's for a jury to decide. The statement regarding "damaged careers" really doesn't seem like something SOCA would say. It's not SOCA's place to say something like that, and strongly doubt they ever would. The link to pro-music.org seems to be pushing the agenda of the music business too. Why would SOCA endorse what is effectively a campaign to push the music industry's agenda? I'm really not convinced.

Indicentally, The Register has picked up the story. I hope they checked their facts first.

Re:My favorite part

[PPH]

I'm on Linux with lynx and all I get is 'Unknown', 'Unknown'.

[Sniff] We just don't get any respect. What's a guy got to do to get arrested around here?

Time to take their toys away

[mykos]

If people can't enforce copyright without rushing headlong into a police state, I think we should take away that privilege of copyright which society has afforded them. And this isn't some extreme slippery slope argument. We are on that slippery slope and we are sliding down it right now.

I'm sure there are defeatist pedants who will come along and say "Good luck taking it away! They're too powerful and they have too much money!", but you have to start somewhere. And having that attitude means they have one less person to fight.

Music sales had their best year ever

[Anonymous Coward]

"No, they don't. They have possession of _one_ copy. They have lost possession of all the other copies"

*All* other copies? If the existence of 1 pirated version was enough to kill all sales, then there would be no sales of music, none. US music track sales had their best ever year last year, again showing strong growth:

http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/consumer/cue-the-music-driven-by-digital-music-sales-up-in-2011/

RIAA's share of that market continues to plummet, now 30%. I don't subscribe to the idea that piracy drives sales, but it certainly doesn't prevent *all* sales as you claim. The technology that make pirating possible, also more than *doubled* sales of music tracks since 2005, and strongly increased the profit made on those tracks by artists.

It's not theft, its copyright infringement. It's the reduction in potential earnings from selling the work under copyright. A different lesser law. It's less than theft, because if they stole the master copy, then all potential sales would be lost, including all those 1.5 billion tracks *sold* in the US last year.

SOCA could not propagandize like that, it would make them appear to be a political campaigning group, not a police enforcement group. It would also undermine their own case. So this must be a joke or spoof.

Really the two extreme views are the problem here, copyright could easily be fixed if RIAA & MPAA didn't keep lobbying for extreme laws, and SOCA can't possibly be at the fringe of legality (or illegality in this case since if they seized the site outside of the law then they themselves would be doing an illegal act).

Shockingly enough...

[Tastecicles]

...they got my WAN IP wrong (the page showed me the IP of my proxy), they got my OS info wrong (I spoof the identifier just because I can), and they got my browser info wrong (ditto).

If they can't get basic information like that right, what the hell hope do they think they have in prosecuting (not me, my proxy service!)?

Email to publiccomplaints@soca.x.gsi.gov.uk

[dud83]

I emailed publiccomplaints@soca.x.gsi.gov.uk the following: To whom it may concern, The message on rnbxclusive.com states the following: Your IP Your Browser Your OS Time / Date my_ip Firefox10.0.1 WinNT 09:00:26 15/02/2012 "The above information can be used to identify you and your location. SOCA has the capability to monitor and investigate you, and can inform your internet service provider of these infringements. You may be liable for prosecution and the fact that you have received this message does not preclude you from prosecution." According to Norwegian laws it is illegal for you to store personal information about me, outside Norway, without my consent and due reason for storing such data. I have never visited rnbxclusive.com before today so you cannot possibly have any proof that I have committed a criminal offence. Secondly, you operate under UK law which does not apply to me as a Norwegian citizen. In summary: I demand that you immediately remove all data you have collected in regards to my person. Please confirm as soon as this has been done. Failure to comply may result in SOCA being liable for criminal prosecution under Norwegian law. Regards, my_name