Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Reddit Tells Label It Won't Cough Up IP Address of Prerelease Music Pirate (arstechnica.com)

Posted by msmash on from the right-or-not dept.

David Kravets, writing for Ars Technica: Reddit says it won't give Atlantic Records the IP address of a Reddit user who posted a link on the site of a single by Twenty One Pilots a week before the song's planned release. The song, "Heathens," was originally uploaded on June 15 to the file-sharing site Dropfile. That same day, the file landed on Reddit. According to a lawsuit (PDF) in New York State Supreme Court, the file was posted to the Twenty One Pilots subreddit with the title âoe[Leak] New Song -- 'Heathens'. The Poster submitted the link under the username "twentyoneheathens," according to Atlantic. Atlantic and its subsidiary label, Fueled by Ramen, want the IP address of the Reddit leaker. The company said the file fell victim to "widespread distribution" on the Internet, so the company released the single June 16, a week ahead of schedule; the label also said the early release hindered a planned rollout on Spotify, iTunes, and other platforms. Atlantic says the leaker must be an Atlantic employee who was contractually obligated not to leak the track, which is featured in the movie Suicide Squad that debuted earlier this month. Reddit, however, said that Atlantic "has failed to show that its claims are meritorious." Reddit claims Atlantic has embarked on "an impermissible fishing expedition."

131 comments

  1. Who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I'm assuming the lawsuit is covered by the labels publicity budget and funded through the band's share of the profits. Win-win for the label.

    1. Re:Who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have 2.25 pounds of Albanese Gummi Bears. Thank you Walmart.

    2. Re:Who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pretty much all anti-piracy cases end up wholly divided between the lawyers and the label/distributors/various copyright organizations (the protection fee).
      The artist gets a piece of paper or e-mail informing them at best. Most artists have figured this out and don't endorse anti-piracy because they get more from befriending and leaving a good rep, than striking further animus with people whose money would in that case still never go to the artist.

      The funniest thing? Watching the stupid idiots in articles like these talk about how artists should be paid, ignorant and moronically daft about the actual mechanisms and results behind the whole scheme.
      If they cared about artists, they'd be talking about artist independence and calling on the end of 3rd parties and contractors uninvolved in the creation process itself beyond operating on an outdated business model, which was outdated by the Internet, and setting up this anti-piracy protection racket contract to cash in on the ignorance of artists or the more idiotic fans.

    3. Re: Who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Racketeering?

  2. They disrupeed our plans! We want blood! by wierd_w · · Score: 1, Informative

    Because this is not about the fans, nor is it about the music, nor about the artist. No, this is about the exclusivity deals and big plans for all of those to make lots and lots of money.

    They demand blood, because somebody wanted to give the fans what they wanted, sans the liberal bloodletting, and bundling with bads.

    That cannot be tolerated. No sir. Money is at stake here.

    1. Re:They disrupeed our plans! We want blood! by smooth+wombat · · Score: 2

      As well it should be. There was plenty of time, effort and someone else's money expended to produce this product which will not be recouped. The artists, who took time from their lives to produce the music, won't get paid.

      This is absolutely no different than if you were writing software for a company and someone released the software before it went on sale. You don't paid.

      But that would be a travesty, wouldn't it, when you don't get paid for the work you did, but when someone else doesn't get paid for the work they did, fuck 'em, right?

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    2. Re:They disrupeed our plans! We want blood! by hackwrench · · Score: 1

      No, no it would not be a travesty. Your whole argument presumes too much.

    3. Re: They disrupeed our plans! We want blood! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry though: everyone else will still get paid.

    4. Re:They disrupeed our plans! We want blood! by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Yep so they should go after THEIR employee that THEY HIRED who turned out not to be trustworthy - probably because he wasn't being paid SHIT. You cannot blame "the internet" for doing what the internet is doing - making stuff worldwide once it's out there.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    5. Re:They disrupeed our plans! We want blood! by Obfuscant · · Score: 2

      Yep so they should go after THEIR employee that THEY HIRED who turned out not to be trustworthy

      That's what they're trying to do. They need something called EVIDENCE that can help them identify the employee. That could be the IP address used to post the song.

      Reddit claims it is a fishing expedition. Sorry, not. The song was posted, it was pre-release and in violation of copyright. There is no doubt of that. The only part that is relevant to "fishing" is that the music company wants to be allowed to pull up the right line which already has a fish attached.

      You cannot blame "the internet" for doing what the internet is doing - making stuff worldwide once it's out there.

      That's not what is happening.

    6. Re:They disrupeed our plans! We want blood! by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 3, Insightful

      AN IP address is not an identifiable to a person. It may not even be legitimate (think TOR or Proxy Service).

      It is a fishing expedition. The ocean is big, they know its a fish, they are hoping to catch the right fish.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    7. Re:They disrupeed our plans! We want blood! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In a normal world where corporations aren't the government the company would ask a court to subpoena reddit to release the info rather than trying to act as the law. If I were reddit that's exactly what I would tell them. You know, tell them to follow standard legal procedure. Doesn't seem all that unreasonable to me.

    8. Re:They disrupeed our plans! We want blood! by sabri · · Score: 1

      Because this is not about the fans, nor is it about the music, nor about the artist. No, this is about the exclusivity deals and big plans for all of those to make lots and lots of money. They demand blood, because somebody wanted to give the fans what they wanted, sans the liberal bloodletting, and bundling with bads.

      No, they demand blood because someone decided to give the fruits of their labor away to random people who think they have the right to get it for free.

      A true fan supports the artist.

      I despice RIAA/Rightscorp etc, but in this case I totally see why they want to see blood. You're not talking about someone pirating a dvd and posting it on TPB.

      However, they should go after Dropbox, not Reddit.

      --
      I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
    9. Re:They disrupeed our plans! We want blood! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      The artists, who took time from their lives to produce the music, won't get paid.

      Everyone is going to get paid. The song is still going to get sold. Hell, it might even make MORE money because of the early leaked release.

      In case you wanted actual evidence that everyone is going to get paid, here you go!

      Twenty One Pilots’ new single “Heathens” picks up where the duo left off with the music from its album Blurryface, debuting big on multiple Billboard charts dated July 9, including No. 2 on Hot Rock Songs.

      The song, the act’s contribution to the Suicide Squad film soundtrack, reaches the No. 2 spot on the chart after a potent combination of sales, streaming and radio airplay following its June 17 release.

      Sorry, but nobody is being ruined here, and everyone is still going to get richer, and even richer.

    10. Re:They disrupeed our plans! We want blood! by BronsCon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What was posted to Reddit was a link to the file that was uploaded to Dropfile. The Reddit user who posted the link may not be (and, in fact, likely isn't) the same person who uploaded it to Dropfile; the Reddit user is, most likely, someone with whom the untrustworthy employee who needs to be prosecuted shared the download link.

      They need to go after the uploader and only Dropfile can identify the IP address from which the file was uploaded.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    11. Re:They disrupeed our plans! We want blood! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The artists, who took time from their lives to produce the music, won't get paid.

      Oh don't worry, Atlantic Records will still send the artist their bill, just like before the leak.

    12. Re:They disrupeed our plans! We want blood! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course the artist won't get paid, the majority of their pay goes to the labels and 3rd parties listed in the contract. HHAHAAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAHA

    13. Re:They disrupeed our plans! We want blood! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dropfile.

      go after the correct site

    14. Re:They disrupeed our plans! We want blood! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You misuse "fishing expedition" and you mistake the relevancy of evidence for its weight. An IP address may not always be determinative of a single person, but it sure as hell can point you in the right direction a lot of the time.

      In fact, the ocean is pretty damn small here- I doubt they're talking about more than a hundred people who were supposed to have access to the file. If the time and IP address work back to a Vancouver hotel where one of the authorized radio field staff was staying, are you really saying they should be able to avoid being fired by saying "hey, you know 'AN IP address is not identifiable to a person,' right?"

    15. Re:They disrupeed our plans! We want blood! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now you're getting it.

      I don't get this model, where you work a couple hours to write one fucking song and get paid for every single copy of it for the rest of your life and then some. Explain to me why you think that makes sense.

      So you can write a song - big fucking deal. I bagged groceries when I was in high school and believe me, I was a pretty good fucking bagger in my day. How come my children aren't set for life?

    16. Re: They disrupeed our plans! We want blood! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are legal processes in place to determine whether or not disclosing the information is required. Atlantic can either go through those channels or not. There is no obligation to voluntarily turn over the information.

    17. Re:They disrupeed our plans! We want blood! by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      AN IP address is not an identifiable to a person. It may not even be legitimate (think TOR or Proxy Service).

      I didn't say it was. Please don't put words in my mouth. What I wrote was "EVIDENCE that can help them identify the employee. That could be the IP address". "Help them identify", and "could be the IP address." Not "prove beyond a reasonable doubt".

      It is quite possible that the IP address will point right at the employee. Not everyone uses TOR or is smart enough to remove all traces from their uploading activity. It may be a neighbor's access point, which also points to a specific employee. It might be his phone, it might be something else.

      they are hoping to catch the right fish.

      And the IP address could help them do that. If they're supposed to go after the employee, then why is there a problem with them finding the right one?

    18. Re:They disrupeed our plans! We want blood! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But that would be a travesty, wouldn't it, when you don't get paid for the work you did, but when someone else doesn't get paid for the work they did, fuck 'em, right?

      Sure, that sucks, but it still happens in all industries.
      You know what sucks even more? When someone hijacks a law to ensure profits for themselves.
      Copyright was never intended to be applied to music to begin with.
      When it finally was the purpose was to promote the creation of art.
      You know what isn't involved at all in creating art? A producer.

    19. Re:They disrupeed our plans! We want blood! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Holy crap! The days of RTFA are over, we won't even read the summaries anymore!

    20. Re:They disrupeed our plans! We want blood! by ComputerInsultant · · Score: 1

      They need to go after the uploader and only Dropfile can identify the IP address from which the file was uploaded.

      But dropfile doesn't log IP addresses of uploaders or downloads, so that's a dead end. Reddit does log IP address, so you go after logs that exist.

      --
      engineers are all basically high-functioning autistics who have no idea how normal people do stuff
    21. Re:They disrupeed our plans! We want blood! by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      the Reddit user is, most likely, someone with whom the untrustworthy employee who needs to be prosecuted shared the download link.

      Then getting his IP address will help them identify the employee, just like I said. And did I say anything about prosecution? I don't think so.

      The point remains, asking for the IP address is not "accusing the Internet", it's an attempt at identifying the source of the leak. Which is what the poster I replied to said Atlantic should be doing. They're doing what he said they should be doing.

    22. Re:They disrupeed our plans! We want blood! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you don't get any money for your product it means precisely one thing: your product is shit. Stop trying to find scapegoats and accept the fact that you aren't entitled to money just because you made something.

    23. Re:They disrupeed our plans! We want blood! by MitchDev · · Score: 1

      And if it was uploaded from an iunternet cafe or open WiFi (or even a hacked WiFi) location?

      The IP is useless, fishing expidition

    24. Re:They disrupeed our plans! We want blood! by harrkev · · Score: 0

      Real fans WILL support the artist. I would expect that a real fan would download the track to get it first, and then pay for it later. Real fans don't want to rip off one of their favorite artists.

      I actually saw 21 pilots a few years ago before they really became popular. It was a small venue that only held a couple hundred people. Funny, there were only two of them. I wonder where the other 19 were? (yes, that's a (not very good) joke)

      --
      "-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
    25. Re:They disrupeed our plans! We want blood! by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      Yup and without a court order it would likely also get Reddit sued by said user. So no, they're not doing what he said they should be doing, which was "go after THEIR employee", not someone who got a link from a representative of the label holding distribution rights over the music in question. From the perspective of the link poster, they got the link from an authorized distributor.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    26. Re:They disrupeed our plans! We want blood! by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      I would expect that a real fan would download the track to get it first, and then pay for it later.

      How do you pay for an unauthorized track you've downloaded when you download it, much less "later"? Of what value is a "first" the day after the track is released officially? Do you brag to other fans that you got a free copy the week before they did, and does that get you any credit with them? I know I would not be impressed with someone who thought it was a badge of pride to admit he pirated a copy of something I thought was worth paying for.

      I wonder where the other 19 were?

      I wonder why you used a question mark on that statement. And I would suggest you don't waste your time going to a Barenaked Ladies concert. You'll be horribly disappointed.

    27. Re:They disrupeed our plans! We want blood! by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      You go after logs that exist and contain the data you're actually seeking, which is who uploaded the file. Literally anyone could have posted the link and it was almost certainly not the uploader. In fact, as the uploader is most likely an employee (read: representative) of the label (which has distribution rights to that song), the link was legitimately provided by the label, from the legal perspective of the link poster. They should be left out of this entirely without a court order and Reddit recognizes that handing over their info with said court order potentially opens them up to legal issues, so they're not going to do it.

      I hate to say it (really, I do) but... Reddit is in the right here. If there was a court order, I might feel differently.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    28. Re:They disrupeed our plans! We want blood! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I did in fact read the summary, but not the article. In the summary it sounded as if Atlantic had sued Reddit because Reddit wouldn't supply them with the information. In fact reading the article it still wasn't clear that they were petitioning the court. It wasn't until I actually opened the filed lawsuit itself. Granted there's still info missing that I just don't care enough to look up as to why is this being heard by the state supreme court. Surely something so mundane as discovery would be handled by lower courts.

    29. Re:They disrupeed our plans! We want blood! by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

      That or someone from the label was sharing it with someone authorized in a very unauthorized manner and it was just picked it up off a scraper and posted all over reddit and youtube...

    30. Re:They disrupeed our plans! We want blood! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That isn't Reddit's problem in any way, shape or form. The file was uploaded to Dropfile allegedly by an Atlantic Records employee. Reddit had nothing to do with it and are taking the right action by telling Atlantic to go get screwed.

    31. Re:They disrupeed our plans! We want blood! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't listen to the song then. This isn't hard.

    32. Re:They disrupeed our plans! We want blood! by spire3661 · · Score: 0

      "No, they demand blood because someone decided to give the fruits of their labor away to random people who think they have the right to get it for free."

      True fans go to shows and by merch, not pay for promo material. Musicians need to support themselves through LIVE PERFORMANCE, not copies of songs. IP is fucked, dont pretend its the moral high ground.

      --
      Good-bye
    33. Re:They disrupeed our plans! We want blood! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure the group had some financial stake there too - exclusive pre-releases, etc, generate money for all involved, no matter how little.

      scum like the reddit poster essentially prevented that tidbit of money making it to the group.

      time for watermarking to hit everything.

    34. Re:They disrupeed our plans! We want blood! by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Yup and without a court order it would likely also get Reddit sued by said user.

      Sued for what?

      So no, they're not doing what he said they should be doing, which was "go after THEIR employee",

      Since they have gone after nobody else, and are asking for information that could help them identify the employee involved, yes, that is what they are doing.

      From the perspective of the link poster, they got the link from an authorized distributor.

      the file was posted to the Twenty One Pilots subreddit with the title "[Leak] New Song -- 'Heathens'. "

      The link poster knew it was a leak. Try again.

    35. Re:They disrupeed our plans! We want blood! by wierd_w · · Score: 2

      Quite right. There are all kinds of sales for this track, stemming directly from the release.

      This is not about "not being paid".

      This is about the artificial scarcity and exclusivity agreements the label had in mind, and their not getting them.

      Did the leaker break the law? Maybe. Hard to say. Could have been a sound room worker trying to get the file to some exec who can't be arsed to use company email while they are out gething hookers and blow, which was just picked up by a user that uses reddit, and linked.

      The story here is this:

      Somehow, the song leaked on dropfile.
      Somebody on reddit posted a link.
      Recording album "forced" to release early, cries bitter tears over the piles of money they didn't get while wallowing in the piles of money the leak generated; demands the data on the reddit user who posted the link so they can burn them at the altar of capital finance, actual guilt be damned.

    36. Re: They disrupeed our plans! We want blood! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Both you and The label are assuming the same thing.
      Are the leaker and the reddit link poster the same person?
      Can you prove that they are? If not then shutup and fuckoff.

    37. Re:They disrupeed our plans! We want blood! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is absolutely no different than if you were writing software for a company and someone released the software before it went on sale. You don't paid.

      Back the truck up a minute. If I was writing software for a company, I would have a salary or an hourly rate. I get paid. I'll admit that, if the company actually goes under, I wouldn't get paid anymore. But if just one software title was leaked nothing stops me from getting paid.

      This is about work that was not for hire where the artists get "residuals" or whatever - a pittance for each copy sold. They signed that contract instead of a work for hire contract knowing that the market has a lot of copyright violation. Besides, the suit isn't about the artists. It is about the rights holder who stands to make real money (as opposed to the artist who gets very little and is often stiffed - read up on the industry and you will see).

    38. Re:They disrupeed our plans! We want blood! by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      In fact, as the uploader is most likely an employee (read: representative) of the label (which has distribution rights to that song), the link was legitimately provided by the label,

      Oh, please. You can't be seriously arguing that every employee of a company is an official public representative of that company able to decide when it is appropriate to release the company's product. That's just lunacy.

      from the legal perspective of the link poster

      The "link poster" doesn't have the authority to approve the release of a music track for a company he may or may not work for. The link poster had no way of identifying the original leaker as an employee of Atlantic and can therefore make no assumptions based on that knowledge. And where your argument fails is in the title of the link: "LEAK". The link poster knew it wasn't an authorized copy.

      I hate to say it (really, I do) but... Reddit is in the right here.

      This changes nothing about whether Atlantic is correct in asking for the information as a way of tracking down the employee they need to deal with.

    39. Re: They disrupeed our plans! We want blood! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Download the song, enjoy it before it comes out, then pay for it once it does.
      What is so fucking hard to understand there?
      You must brag about the most stupid shit ever. Did you brag about your retarded post above?

      And stfu about bands with funny and/or misleading names, we get it, you're a killjoy and a dickhead, enough already.

    40. Re:They disrupeed our plans! We want blood! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sued for what?

      Handing out said user's personal information without there being an actual due cause to do so.

      Since they have gone after nobody else, and are asking for information that could help them identify the employee involved, yes, that is what they are doing.

      Since they are not going after who they have reason to believe is the uploader, no, that is not what they are doing.

      The link poster knew it was a leak. Try again.

      Knowing that the link points to a leak does not make the link poster the uploader of the leak.

      As you so eloquently (not really, but I like the word) said: Try again.

      You are digging the whole you are standing in ever deeper with every post. You might want to consider backing off a bit.

    41. Re:They disrupeed our plans! We want blood! by lgw · · Score: 2

      No, they demand blood because someone decided to give the fruits of their labor away to random people who think they have the right to get it for free.

      This is about marketing, not product. Almost every song ever released is available free to anyone who care to steal it - this "leak" doesn't change that in any way. This was all about building the marketing hype for the new album, giving/selling exclusivity deals to first radio play, that sort of thing. Sometimes "leaking" the album this way is a deliberate part of the marketing strategy, as some people will listen to it just because of the manufactured scandal who would never have heard of the album otherwise.

      iTunes has proven people will pay for music they like. All else is marketing.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    42. Re:They disrupeed our plans! We want blood! by mandark1967 · · Score: 1

      I was unaware it was an Indian record label.

      How dare they be disrupeed!

      --
      Sig Follows: "Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." -- Mark Twain
    43. Re:They disrupeed our plans! We want blood! by CrashNBrn · · Score: 1

      AN IP address is not an identifiable to a person

      Not Yet. We just need to wait until IPV6 replaces IPV4.

    44. Re:They disrupeed our plans! We want blood! by harrkev · · Score: 1

      How do you pay for an unauthorized track you've downloaded when you download it, much less "later"?

      For fans that have to have music the same day, download it illegally, and then purchase that track/album when it becomes available. That is a "win/win." Fans get music ASAP, labels and artists get money.

      And I would suggest you don't waste your time going to a Barenaked Ladies concert. You'll be horribly disappointed.

      Thanks for the laugh. I could use one today.

      --
      "-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
    45. Re:They disrupeed our plans! We want blood! by macs4all · · Score: 1

      I wonder where the other 19 were?

      Too soon.

    46. Re:They disrupeed our plans! We want blood! by mrbester · · Score: 2

      Posting a link on reddit isn't illegal and as there is absolutely no evidence that whoever posted it has anything to do with whoever uploaded the file to a completely different site, only a supposition, Reddit are right to tell Atlantic to fuck off.

      --
      "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
    47. Re:They disrupeed our plans! We want blood! by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      This changes nothing about whether Atlantic is correct in asking for the information as a way of tracking down the employee they need to deal with.

      And they're fully in the right to seek a court order for that information if they can prove that it will be useful. Without one, Reddit is at risk of being sued by the user whose information is being sought should they release it; they're literally asking Reddit to take on legal liability for their fishing expedition.

      Think I'm off base? Get yourself a few hundred million dollars, buy Reddit, and release the user's details without a court order requiring you to do so. If the user doesn't sue you as a result, I'll reimburse you.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    48. Re:They disrupeed our plans! We want blood! by flopsquad · · Score: 2

      In other news, a burglar the authorities are calling the "Basil Bandit" has made off with dozens -- perhaps hundreds -- of spice containers stolen from the offices of the Recording Industry Association of America. Security footage shows a hooded figure carrying armloads of cumin, paprika, onion powder, and thyme.

      A facilities manager was seen staring blankly at a long row of empty cupboards, lamenting, "They... they took it all! Every last spice!"

      No word yet on the thief's identity or motive, but a psychological profiler working with law enforcement paints a stark picture. "Adult male, 25-40, anger issues, filled with bitterness and salty rage. Possibly a former employee who left on bad terms. Poorly educated; certainly no sage or scholar. I'd treat this suspect gingerly -- someone who'd attempt this kind of caper likely has a criminal history peppered with major thefts and violent assaults."

      The Basil Bandit also left a chilling message that has authorities scrambling to prevent his next heist. That message, written in what appears to be chili powder, reads: "I despice RIAA/Rightscorp etc"

      We'll keep you updated as the investigation unfolds.

      --
      Nothing posted to /. has ever been legal advice, including this.
    49. Re:They disrupeed our plans! We want blood! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you don't believe that the music is worth the money being asked, you can easily decline to purchase it.

      And if you don't think it's worth paying for, then you should have no problem with not listening to it.

      Given that - why do you need or want a copy of a song you have no interest in listening to? Or, if you do want to listen to it, what makes you think that you should be entitled to the fruits of someone else's labor just because you really want it, with no fair consideration being given to the creator's needs and wants?

    50. Re: They disrupeed our plans! We want blood! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's because NYS is stupid and decided to call their regular trial courts the supreme court.

      Cite if you care -- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Supreme_Court

    51. Re:They disrupeed our plans! We want blood! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is how I view so many ad-funded websites as well. If their content was worth a fuck, people wouldn't mind paying for it in some way. Patreon has taken off, and smaller deals like Gittip and Flattr generate a little bit of revenue for people. The key is to make or do something that's in demand; and ultimately that's also the hard part.

    52. Re:They disrupeed our plans! We want blood! by marka63 · · Score: 1

      Even with IPv6 it doesn't identify a person. Modern stacks use short lived addresses, by default, for outgoing connections. All you get from IPv6 is a household the same as with IPv4.

      IPv6 allows you to be able to uniquely address every machine. It doesn't require that every machine be reachable. It doesn't require that every machine uses there same address forever.

      And by the way IPv6 is here. There is no need to wait.

    53. Re:They disrupeed our plans! We want blood! by youngone · · Score: 0

      The artists, who took time from their lives to produce the music, won't get paid.

      The artists were never going to be paid.

      Releasing a single gets them into more debt with their label, and as noted by an AC above, they will probably have to pay for this suit, which they will have no say about either.

      You should read this it explains pretty well how labels screw bands.

    54. Re:They disrupeed our plans! We want blood! by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      IPv6 allows you to be able to uniquely address every machine.

      It's far beyond that. The IPV6 address space is so large that it's hard to comprehend. For example, IPv6 could provide roughly 5,000 assignable IP addresses for every square micrometer of the Earth's surface.

      To put it another way, let's assume every single one of the 100 billion stars in the galaxy is inhabited, and each star has a population of 10 trillion humans in orbit around it, and each human has 1 billion devices that need IP addresses.

      In that case, only 1/340,282nd of the possible 128-bit IPv6 addresses would need to be assigned.

      Yeah, we ain't gonna be running out of IPV6 space any time soon.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    55. Re:They disrupeed our plans! We want blood! by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Without one, Reddit is at risk of being sued by the user whose information is being sought should they release it;

      Sued for what? Releasing an IP address (which is not identifying information as we all know) that was the source of a link that the poster KNEW was not authorized? Because it allows Atlantic to determine who the employee was who broke his contract? Wanna bet that Reddit doesn't have a TOS that prohibits what happened? You think they want legal liability for any illegal use of their system that happens?

      Think I'm off base?

      Yep. Know it, in fact.

      Get yourself a few hundred million dollars, buy Reddit, and release the user's details without a court order requiring you to do so.

      That arguing technique is so obsolete and meaningless that it's not even funny. I can't buy Reddit so you must be right. Yeah. And I'd trust you to reimburse me when you find out you are wrong. Yeah.

    56. Re:They disrupeed our plans! We want blood! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So this Will this harm the music industry then

      Oh good

    57. Re:They disrupeed our plans! We want blood! by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      For fans that have to have music the same day, download it illegally,

      Nobody HAS to have music "the same day". They want the music first, and when they pirate it they accomplish the goal. They can't go back and pay for it -- they've already pirated it. And paying for another copy doesn't change that.

      This wasn't an issue of "the same day", it was weeks before the release. If nobody needs it "the same day", then they certainly cannot need it "weeks before everyone else who gets it legally".

      Fans get music ASAP, labels and artists get money.

      Maybe, if they remember to go buy a real copy, or they don't decide that the track wasn't that good and decide not to buy it. I've already read someone posting here about how the piracy was justified because 21 Pilots is a crap band and there are others that are much better.

      It ignores the fact that pirating the track supports the people who leaked the track and are illegally distributing it, even if it is nothing more than moral support. Hey, if 100,000 people downloaded this track, they must like what I'm doing, so I'm going to keep doing it! People who do this knowing they won't get money for it can only be doing it for the psychological "profit".

    58. Re:They disrupeed our plans! We want blood! by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      Sued for what? Releasing an IP address (which is not identifying information as we all know) that was the source of a link that the poster KNEW was not authorized?

      If that IP address leads them to contact a person, that IP address did, then, identify that person. Whether the link poster knew the source they linked to was unauthorized really doesn't come into play, as merely posting a link is neither a civil nor criminal offense. Uploading may be either or both, but then we have no proof (nor reaonable cause to believe) that the link poster and uploader are one in the same.

      Because it allows Atlantic to determine who the employee was who broke his contract?

      Well, for starters, by your own claim an IP address does not identify an individual, so no, it does not identify the uploader, even if the uploader and link poster were one in the same. Which brings me to point number two: the uploader and link poster are most likely not one in the same. Points three and four: the link poster broke no laws in posting that link and has no civil liability for doing so (that's #3), which means Atlantic has no leverage with which to coerce the link poster to give up his source (and there's #4).

      Wanna bet that Reddit doesn't have a TOS that prohibits what happened?

      You're on, how's $100M sound? USD, of course. Also, pay up.

      reddit is designed and supported for personal use only. You may not use reddit to break the law, violate an individual's privacy, or infringe any person or entity’s intellectual property or any other proprietary rights.

      Seems the clause does exist. In fact, it's the 6th paragraph of the ToS and the 2nd term listed after the preamble. But, a violation of that ToS does not absolve Reddit of their responsibilities laid out in theor own Privacy Policy. It does seem as though they've got that covered:

      We will not share, sell, or give away any of our users’ personal information to third parties, unless one of the following circumstances applies: [...] We may share information if we believe your actions are inconsistent with our user agreements, rules, or other Reddit policies, or to protect the rights, property, and safety of ourselves and others;

      However, as this is a legal document, the legal definition of certain terms applies. Reddit, being an internet-based business, reasonably understands that it is unlimely that the link poster and the uploader are one in the same and, so, while they may reasonably believe that the link posted violated their ToS and may take action against him for that (by way of deleting the post containing the link and possibly banning the account, as laid out elsewhere in the Terms), they do not reasonably believe that this user is the uploader, nor that the user will lead Atlantic to the uploader, so the above does, in fact, not apply.

      A court order, on the other hand, would provide such reasonable belief. If Atlantic has a case, they should seek one.

      You think they want legal liability for any illegal use of their system that happens?

      Well, no, they don't, that's why the above-linked ToS clause exists. You think they want legal liability if the IP address they hand over leads to the prosecution of, or a lawsuit against, the wrong person? Of course they don't, that's hwy they won't do it without a court order, which Atlantic can easily obtain if they have actual proof that the IP address they seek will help them track down the uploader. We have legal due process in this country for a very good reason.

      Yep. Know it, in fact.

      And yet you can't back that state

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    59. Re:They disrupeed our plans! We want blood! by harrkev · · Score: 1

      They can't go back and pay for it -- they've already pirated it.

      I am not sure that I agree with this -- it is a bit of a gray zone.

      If you pirate a track or an album, and then later pay for it, then who is the victim? Who is out their money? One customer still equals one sale of one track/album. Where is the loss?

      --
      "-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
    60. Re:They disrupeed our plans! We want blood! by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      If that IP address leads them to contact a person, that IP address did, then, identify that person.

      No. It led them to contact someone. It did not identify them as the user of the IP or the poster. We ALL KNOW THAT IP ADDRESSES ARE NOT PERSONAL IDENTIFIERS. Don't argue otherwise, it's unbecoming and hypocritical. That person could be the neighbor, it could be the owner of a stolen cell phone, it could be the administrative contact for a domain the IP address is in. "Someone" is not "the person who posted the link", but that someone could help identify who that really was, using other information in addition to the IP address.

      Well, for starters, by your own claim an IP address does not identify an individual, so no, it does not identify the uploader,

      Knock it off. I didn't say it proved who the uploader was, it CAN HELP THEM IDENTIFY who it is. "Helps". As in, other information will be necessary. And "CAN", as in might.

      Seems the clause does exist.

      So I would have won the bet, had it been made. Should I demand that YOU pay up?

      But, a violation of that ToS does not absolve Reddit of their responsibilities laid out in theor own Privacy Policy.

      But as you helpfully quote for us all, they have a lot of "unless" clauses in that policy, some of which cover the rights of others, and one of which covers TOS violations.

      If Atlantic has a case, they should seek one.

      Like they have.

      You think they want legal liability if the IP address they hand over leads to the prosecution of, or a lawsuit against, the wrong person?

      Is there evidence it will? And what legal liability? IP addresses are not personal information. We've already dealt with that canard. You cannot argue both ways. From the Privacy Policy: "We will not share, sell, or give away any of our users' personal information to third parties, unless ...".

      How about some case law or legal code that backs your position?

      You've quoted the TOS and Privacy Policy. I don't need more.

      You mean "put your money where your mouth is"?

      No, I mean "unless you do something that I know you cannot do I will assume victory."

      You don't have to trust me to reimburse you,

      Were I stupid enough to take you up on your bet, yes, I would have had to trust that you could perform your side of the bargain when you lose. You wanted me to take an action based on your promise to reimburse me when I was shown to be correct; that empty promise tells me more about your position than anything else.

    61. Re:They disrupeed our plans! We want blood! by wierd_w · · Score: 1

      By this twisted bit of logic, would you classify the following situation as piracy?

      Say I am walking down the street to the bus stop. I stand next to a 2 something man with arm sleeve tatoos, who is listening to music on his music player, tured up so loud his ear buds are on the verge of rattling out of his ear canals. I am standing there, waiting for the bus, like all the other people there. I have not purchased a license to listen to this music but am listening to it anyway.l, because I can't physically turn off my ears. Despite my misgivings, I find I like the music. I decide to buy it later.

      Is this advertising, or is it piracy?

    62. Re:They disrupeed our plans! We want blood! by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      If you pirate a track or an album, and then later pay for it,

      Who do you pay for a pirated copy of an album?

      Who is out their money? One customer still equals one sale of one track/album.

      I think I covered that under the positive feedback aspect of supporting the original pirate.

      I can provide a personal anecdote in this area. Kind of close. Many years ago I asked a company for the API for one of their devices so I could write code for my own use to connect their hardware to my linux system. (There was no linux software available.) They refused. They didn't give out that information as a way of protecting the software vendors they were already working with. So, easy enough, I reverse engineered it and put it on the net for anyone who wanted a copy. I got paid in "thanks".

      Now, had that company come back later and said "I'll sell you the info", would I have paid? (Of course not.) And would it have prevented the free version from spreading? (Of course not.) So, in the long run, their software vendors lost sales because I let the secret codes out of the bag, and it is impossible to know how many they lost. It is impossible to know how many sales some other company made based on my code. And it's not an issue of sales only for linux systems so the Windows vendors lost nothing; I wrote the code in a system-agnostic way, and the documentation of the protocol itself would allow Windows implementations anyway.

      Pretending that the original poster wasn't looking for that feedback, and wouldn't consider it the next time such an opportunity arises, is naive at best. And assuming that someone who is ripping off an evil capitalist record company that is enslaving the artists and stealing their skills is going to turn around and pay that same record company when a legal copy becomes available is also naive.

      But, the point I was making is, the claim that people have to have it on the first day is a juicy rationalization, and not true in the first place. And since this was a "weeks early" situation and not "first day", the rationalization is even less applicable.

    63. Re:They disrupeed our plans! We want blood! by nanoflower · · Score: 4, Informative

      All too true. If the record company really wanted the person responsible they would be going to Dropfile and try to get the address of the person who uploaded. That very well could be an employee. The person who posted the link to Reddit could have just read about the song elsewhere and thought it would be great to share the link and have no connection to the company at all.

    64. Re:They disrupeed our plans! We want blood! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you don't believe that the music is worth the money being asked, you can easily decline to purchase it.

      And if you don't think it's worth paying for, then you should have no problem with not listening to it.

      Given that - why do you need or want a copy of a song you have no interest in listening to?

      Given what? It's a false premise. Who said I had no interest in listening to the song?

      Or, if you do want to listen to it, what makes you think that you should be entitled to the fruits of someone else's labor just because you really want it, with no fair consideration being given to the creator's needs and wants?

      Needs and wants . . . hmmm. We'll for starters, let's take wants and toss them right out the fucking window. I don't care about what an artist want's, I only care about an artist's needs. I agree they need to make a living, but I don't consider $15-$18 per album copy for the rest of the artists life + 70 years anywhere near fair consideration for a couple hours worth of work. I don't feel that $multi-millions/hour is a fair salary for anyone, no matter what they do for a living. I don't feel that I should have to support the artist and the next three generations of their family for the rest of their lives, just because the artist took a few minutes to write one song that I happened to like. But hey, that's just my insanity.

      We no longer need physical copies. We've eliminated the cost of manufacturing and distributing CDs all around the country. Youtube provides free word-of-mouth advertising (which, by the way, is proven to be the best kind of advertising). Since we have a much more effective method of distribution and advertising, we don't need record companies any more. There is absolutely no reason any band should contract with a record company to perform these functions and take the lions share of the over-inflated profits. Today's technology has reduced the cost of distribution and advertising to almost nil.

      All this puts artists back into their place, where if you want to make money, they have to go out and work for it, just like everyone else. There is still plenty of money to be had, and plenty of artists the I gladly go to see play live every time they come around. They make enough money off of me. It doesn't have to be a complete money grab.

      It's time for a new business model.

    65. Re: They disrupeed our plans! We want blood! by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 1

      I prefer the Brooklyn Supreme Court. Sounds much classier

    66. Re:They disrupeed our plans! We want blood! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you pay for an unauthorized track you've downloaded when you download it, much less "later"? Of what value is a "first" the day after the track is released officially? Do you brag to other fans that you got a free copy the week before they did, and does that get you any credit with them? I know I would not be impressed with someone who thought it was a badge of pride to admit he pirated a copy of something I thought was worth paying for.

      Don't give a shit about any of that and you must be an incredibly insecure person to even think of such trivial things. If I pirate something and I like it, I will buy it.

      I wonder why you used a question mark on that statement. And I would suggest you don't waste your time going to a Barenaked Ladies concert. You'll be horribly disappointed.

      Why would anyone with musical taste ever go see a shit band like Barenaked Ladies?

    67. Re:They disrupeed our plans! We want blood! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who do you pay for a pirated copy of an album?

      You are a fucking moron.

      I think I covered that under the positive feedback aspect of supporting the original pirate.

      You mean like how the original pirate promotes the musician? I would not even know about, let alone own, much of my music library if it weren't for the _FREE ADVERTISING_ that pirates do for musicians.

    68. Re:They disrupeed our plans! We want blood! by SvnLyrBrto · · Score: 1

      To be fair, people who've been here since the days of goatse.cx and tubgirl tend to be fairly hesitant to click on outside links from slashdot; for very good reason, especially if they're on a work machine.

      And yes, it has been the case that links in the summary had redirects to goatse.cx. The editors aren't exactly careful or competent themselves.

      --
      Imagine all the people...
    69. Re:They disrupeed our plans! We want blood! by SvnLyrBrto · · Score: 1

      If you are a subscriber to Apple Music, Spotify, or one of the also-ran services; the RIAA gets its 30 pieces of silver regardless of whether you have the DRM-free mp3 or not. Also, legitimization of peoples' "pirated" music was part of the deal the RIAA made years before when iTunes Match was released.

      --
      Imagine all the people...
    70. Re:They disrupeed our plans! We want blood! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We'll for starters, let's take wants and toss them right out the fucking window.

      Funny you start with that, and then proceed to rant about YOUR wants and YOUR feelings, as if they should hold some sort of universal imperative governing how people should act and behave.

      Were you born sociopathic, or is it learned?

    71. Re:They disrupeed our plans! We want blood! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We'll for starters, let's take wants and toss them right out the fucking window.

      Funny you start with that, and then proceed to rant about YOUR wants and YOUR feelings, as if they should hold some sort of universal imperative governing how people should act and behave.

      I'm merely using my wants to demonstrate why their wants are so unreasonable. Geez, did I really have to explain that to you? Regardless, it is quite apparent they don't give a shit about them anyway.

      They were able to get all they wanted for decades. Now it's my turn.

      Were you born sociopathic, or is it learned?

      Well, using the definition from the Oxford English Dictionary, let's see:

      sociopath
      noun
      a person with a personality disorder manifesting itself in extreme antisocial attitudes and behavior and a lack of conscience.

      I am doing nothing to demonstrate antisocial behavior, so you couldn't possibly be referring to that part, and I am helping someone to satisfy their needs, so I'm not sure why you might think I would be suffering from a lack of conscience. Hmm, I guess the answer is neither.

      Learn to use a dictionary.

    72. Re:They disrupeed our plans! We want blood! by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      That person could be the neighbor, it could be the owner of a stolen cell phone, it could be the administrative contact for a domain the IP address is in. "Someone" is not "the person who posted the link", but that someone could help identify who that really was, using other information in addition to the IP address.

      The chance that "someone", not being whoever posted the link or uploaded the file, could identify who did either of those things is exceedingly small.

      Fishing Expedition
      noun 1 : a legal interrogation or examination to discover information for a later proceeding
      2 : an investigation that does not stick to a stated objective but hopes to uncover incriminating or newsworthy evidence

      Well, this isn't a legal interrogation or examination, so definition #1 is right out. Definition #2, on the other hand...

      Now, if you want a legal definition, I've got that covered, as well.

      Also known as a "fishing trip." Using the courts to find out information beyond the fair scope of the lawsuit. The loose, vague, unfocused questioning of a witness or the overly broad use of the discovery process. Discovery sought on general, loose, and vague allegations, or on suspicion, surmise, or vague guesses. The scope of discovery may be restricted by protective orders as provided for by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

      Emphasis mine, pay special attention to the italicized bold. In this case, they're not using the courts, but they are seeking information based on suspicion, surmise, and vague guesses. Once they seek a court order, their actions will be converted from a dictionary-defined fishing expedition to a legally-defined fishing expedition. Either way, it is what it is.

      Does that mean I'm supporting the uploader of the file, or the link sharer? Certainly not. Nor does the preceding statement mean I'm not supporting either, or both; I'm simply calling things what they are. None of this means, either, that I am attacking Atlantic or their efforts. Yes, this is a warranted fishing expedition, they were harmed (and here I am pro-copyright-reform) and have every right to seek restitution; however, they also have a responsibility to do so within existing legal frameworks.

      That is to say, they must seek a court order for the information. Reddit is under no obligation to cooperate without one and would be irresponsible to do so; and, as we're talking about Reddit, I'm honestly surprised they've done the right thing here. Once Atlantic obtains a court order, which they very certainly should do and I fully believe they can do very easily given the evidence they have already, they'll get the information they seek through legal means.

      This framework is in place for the protection of all parties, not just the accused. It certainly benefits the accused, especially when the accused is actually innocent, which is a primary reason for it. However, it also protects the accuser and any parties who provide them information or services; that court order essentially says "a Judge agrees that we have a case here" and shields the accuser and their sources from liability should their investigation lead to the wrong person.

      While Atlantic certainly can try to press forward without a court order, it would be unwise to do so, just as it was unwise to approach Reddit without one in the first place. It shows disregard for the legal system, which is not a position you want to be in when you intend to prosecute someone in the near future. Judges tend not to appreciate disrespect.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    73. Re:They disrupeed our plans! We want blood! by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Is this advertising, or is it piracy?

      Neither, but I suspect you know that are are throwing up a deliberate red herring.

    74. Re:They disrupeed our plans! We want blood! by wierd_w · · Score: 1

      Look at the basic facts:

      I heard a song without paying for it. I bought the song later.

      Suppose this guy is a soundman for a company, and i got to hear a song before release. Does that magically make the situation different?

      I dont consider it a red herring at all. The major factor that the pro copyright goons claim is that listening without paying is piracy. In the situations i painted, that is what happens. I listen without paying, then buy a copy later.

      That is what most fans who pirate do. They listen first, then buy later.

      Now, lets throw a monkey wrench. I heard the song, and decided i didnt like it, and chose not to buy it.

      Does my decision to not buy the album/single constitute one of these magical lost opportunites for sale that the statutorh damages get calculated from? Because this is basically what a leaked theater cam feed does for shitty hollywood movies that arent worth the money to go see. If the movie is good, it is worth seeing in the theater. If not, the cam footage lets you know not to waste your money. For a good movie, cam footage promotes ticket sales.

      The applicability of the situational roleplay i painted is plain as day. The red herring is your claims that it does not.

    75. Re:They disrupeed our plans! We want blood! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But dropfile doesn't log IP addresses of uploaders or downloads

      And? I fail to see how that makes it Reddit's responsibility.

    76. Re:They disrupeed our plans! We want blood! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As the person with the money, what the customer wants _is_ more important than what the seller wants. You better remember that if you ever decide to move out of your parents' house.

    77. Re:They disrupeed our plans! We want blood! by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      "Releasing an IP address (which is not identifying information as we all know)"

      Even if it's not directly identifying information, it can be used to derive the identity of the poster - and that is enough ot make disclosure without a court order problematic in a lot of jurisdictions.

      This is the same connundrum that releasing anonymised data comes with - if you have enough such datasets you can use to very accurately identify people. Think about the incentive that insurers have to do that kind of analysis on anonymised medical data.

  3. Begs the question by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

    What would Slashdot do?

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    1. Re:Begs the question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      First, a grammar nazi would respond with a three paragraph long post with numerous insults for you not knowing that "begging the question" is a descendant of an old local expression that indicated something was a case of circular reasoning.

      This would then be followed by replies from a different faction of grammar nazis who hold the interesting balance that the meaning of words is mutable, but things like punctuation and sentence structure are sacred above all.

      Eventually, someone responds with a car analogy about the crash safety records of the Robin Reliant, confusing most readers even more than the original debate.

      In a final culmination, someone who meant to click 'post anonymously' but forgot will post a link to the new iOS app: cow.hosts

    2. Re:Begs the question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speaking of grammar nazis, your use of the word "balance" seems utterly nonstandard to me.

  4. "The file landed on Reddit." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That same day, the file landed on Reddit.

    To be clear, The link landed on Reddit, where as the file was only on dropfile... important because posting links and referring to things is not illegal, otherwise this news might as well be illegal.

  5. Consumer Report by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

    Twenty One Pilots is awful music. I mean, really really bad. If you really find the need to listen to white boy rapping, go listen to Action Bronson or (if you must) Post Malone, who actually have a little bit of talent (AB has a lot of talent). Better yet, go listen to Chance the Rapper's new album. I don't even like rap, but I can hear that there's a talented guy working at a high level.

    I'll bet that whoever at Atlantic Records released this music ahead of schedule on Reddit did so hoping that it would mess up the release so that the band would go out of business and they wouldn't have to hear their horrible music any more. His next move is to steal the master tapes Mission Impossible-style and incinerate them and bury the ashes like radioactive waste.

    But I guess your mileage may vary if you have absolutely no taste.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re:Consumer Report by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Twenty One Pilots is awful music. I mean, really really bad. If you really find the need to listen to white boy rapping, go listen to Action Bronson or (if you must) Post Malone, who actually have a little bit of talent (AB has a lot of talent). Better yet, go listen to Chance the Rapper's new album. I don't even like rap, but I can hear that there's a talented guy working at a high level.

      I'll bet that whoever at Atlantic Records released this music ahead of schedule on Reddit did so hoping that it would mess up the release so that the band would go out of business and they wouldn't have to hear their horrible music any more. His next move is to steal the master tapes Mission Impossible-style and incinerate them and bury the ashes like radioactive waste.

      But I guess your mileage may vary if you have absolutely no taste.

      Perhaps this is just a MASSIVE free advertising campaign, and the little boys at the top of the music industry are laughing that they're a.) proving that someone refuses to give up data and is asking for (unrealistic) trouble *GASP*, b.) Someone supposedly stole something and put it out there, so why not find out how many people get the little typical 'fuck the man' feeling and go looking for this (free advertising), and c.) GET FREE ADVERTISING about something few have heard of before......and we're all playing in to it. Huzzah.

    2. Re:Consumer Report by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good sir, I take issue with your comment. Music is completely subjecti.....oh, who am I kidding. Twenty One Pilots genuinely fucking suck.

    3. Re:Consumer Report by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lil Dicky. If you're looking for a White Rapper that is...

  6. Three little maids from school by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Three little maids from school are we
    Pert as a school-girl well can be
    Filled to the brim with girlish glee
    Three little maids from school

    Everything is a source of fun
    Nobody's safe, for we care for none
    Life is a joke that's just begun
    Three little maids from school

    Three little maids who, all unwary
    Come from a ladies' seminary
    Freed from its genius tutelary
    Three little maids from school
    Three little maids from school

    One little maid is a bride, Yum-Yum
    Two little maids in attendance come
    Three little maids is the total sum
    Three little maids from school
    Three little maids from school

    From three little maids take one away
    Two little maids remain, and they
    Won't have to wait very long, they say
    Three little maids from school
    Three little maids from school

    Three little maids who, all unwary
    Come from a ladies' seminary
    Freed from its genius tutelary
    Three little maids from school
    Three little maids from school

    Click here to submit corrections.

  7. Do they have legal authority? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

    They have legal authority for a DMCA takedown notice. Do they have legal authority to demand records of personal information from Reddit?

    An IP address is not personally-identifying information; maybe he posted from Panera or a neighbor's wifi.

    Why don't they just ask Dropbox? Afraid their lawyers are bigger and will bend them over the witness stand?

    --
    Support my political activism on Patreon.
    1. Re:Do they have legal authority? by tomhath · · Score: 1

      Do they have legal authority to demand records of personal information from Reddit?

      No, but the judge hearing the lawsuit does.

    2. Re:Do they have legal authority? by arth1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, but the judge hearing the lawsuit does.

      What lawsuit? This is the label requesting the information, not a judge.

    3. Re:Do they have legal authority? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it's not personally-identifying information, what would their basis be for be for refusing to provide the IP address? Even if it were, what sort of protected relationship would a Reddit user and Reddit have that would prevent its disclosure?

      I understand that prior plaintiffs were abusive to the process, but I'm not sure that asking for one specific IP address based on one specific post comes anywhere near abusive. You're not asking for months' worth of security camera footage from the bar, you just want to know who keyed your car.

    4. Re:Do they have legal authority? by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

      Dropfile is an anonymous upload that claims it doesn't log ip addresses... it also showed up on youtube the same day

    5. Re:Do they have legal authority? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it's not personally-identifying information, what would their basis be for be for refusing to provide the IP address?

      How about it's nunya bidness? Is a website supposed to give out log data just because some company asks?

    6. Re:Do they have legal authority? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. Unless you think different rules should apply because internet.

      There are really only 2 bases for quashing a subpoena that are even vaguely relevant here:
      1) requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter
      2) disclosing a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information.

      I think it's pretty clear the requested IP address does none of these things.

    7. Re:Do they have legal authority? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why don't they just ask youtube, since they would be asking the wrong people anyways?
      dropfile==dropbox??

    8. Re:Do they have legal authority? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TFS doesn't mention any subpoena.

    9. Re:Do they have legal authority? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oops, sorry, there I went and clicked a few links.

      http://arstechnica.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/redditsub.pdf

      See where it says "subpoena duces tecum"?

    10. Re:Do they have legal authority? by cdrudge · · Score: 1

      What lawsuit? This is the label requesting the information, not a judge.

      The lawsuit that was filed in New York State Supreme Court, Manhattan Justice Joan Kenney presiding, that is linked to in the 2nd paragraph of the article with bright orange letters is what lawsuit.

    11. Re:Do they have legal authority? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cool, Please post your IP address then... Hmm you posted as AC? Wonder why?

  8. They did not ask Dropfile for the IP of that user? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    They did not ask Dropfile for the IP of that user? That would make more sense because that guy definitely is guilty. The Reddit poster, although guilty of bad taste, just posted a link to something already on the internet. Good luck proving he actually uploaded it to Dropfile.

  9. In Canada, this is a special request to the court by davecb · · Score: 4, Informative

    It's an extraordinary remedy called a"Norwich Order", and to oversimplify, the requester has to swear they're suing someone, and the suit has to have a "prima facie case of" an offence and the claim has to appear to be reasonable and made in good faith. See also http://www.canlii.org/en/on/on...

    Ordinary suits are filed against John Doe, and the courts asked to issue a order to third parties to help identify the defendants.

    --
    davecb@spamcop.net
  10. has something changed? by nimbius · · Score: 0

    Reddit claims Atlantic has embarked on "an impermissible fishing expedition."

    For the uninitiated, the past 60 years of audible media both digital and otherwise has largely been a fishing expedition, ever since Edison records started carving untalented midwestern baritones into the side of a wax cylinder. policing thoughtcrime is the name of the game.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
  11. Trying to save face by SumDog · · Score: 1

    Reddit has already been served a National Security Letter (we think .. the Canary is dead). At least they're not giving into commercial stuff, but remember they are owned by Conde Nast. It's like Google pulling out of China to symbolically show they give a shit about censorship.

    1. Re:Trying to save face by macs4all · · Score: 1

      but remember they are owned by Conde Nast

      Most people here probably don't understand why that is relevant. I do; but I'll let you inform the others.

      You tell it bettter anyway... ;-)

  12. give it a rest!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    give it a rest!! there are millions of record labels that only wish they had this problem.

  13. Re:They did not ask Dropfile for the IP of that us by Falos · · Score: 1

    TINY SMASH. TINY BREAK FURNITURE AND HOUSES UNTIL PROBLEM FIXED.

    Actually me not care who we sue, just sue somebody and appease upstairs.

  14. Can you really call it a leak... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the music was featured in a movie that has already been released? People have already heard the song...

    1. Re:Can you really call it a leak... by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Movie was out August 5th. The leak happened in JUNE.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  15. Idiotic by Lieutenant_Dan · · Score: 1

    Linking doesn't mean crap; in many (rational) places that wouldn't constitute infringement. If the label really cared they should be contacting DropFile as who UPLOADED the actual file, or perhaps they are clueless. Or both.

    --
    Wearing pants should always be optional.
    1. Re:Idiotic by Lieutenant_Dan · · Score: 4, Informative

      Ah, from the TFA:

      What's more, Reddit suggests that Atlantic is targeting the wrong website. "Notably, Atlantic has failed to describe its efforts, if any, to obtain such information from Dropfile.to, the website to which the song was uploaded," Reddit's brief said. It also said that "a petition for pre-action discovery should be granted only if a petitioner demonstrates that he has a meritorious cause of action and the information sought is material and necessary to an existing and actionable wrong."

      At least someone at Reddit is on the ball.

      --
      Wearing pants should always be optional.
    2. Re:Idiotic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Linking doesn't mean crap; in many (rational) places that wouldn't constitute infringement. If the label really cared they should be contacting DropFile as who UPLOADED the actual file, or perhaps they are clueless. Or both.

      Just testing to see what they can get to establish (they hope) legal precedent. That and free advertising.

  16. How music contracts work by Topwiz · · Score: 0

    In most cases the band's contract has the music company giving them an advance and then the music company charges them for expenses. Then as payments come in from sales, the band is paid their percentage once any unpaid expenses are subtracted. The music company percentage in the contract is pure profit.

    1. Re:How music contracts work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      an awesome and entertaining internet novel series that covers this topic (the sham that is the typical music contract), and quite a bit more (NSFW)
      http://storiesonline.net/s/452...
      http://storiesonline.net/s/497...

    2. Re:How music contracts work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The music company percentage in the contract is pure profit."

      That's generally because virtually EVERY expense towards producing and releasing the album is extracted from the band's -tiny- percentage. This is why it typically takes the selling of millions of CDs before the band starts to see any potential revenue at all.

    3. Re:How music contracts work by Zak3056 · · Score: 1

      You missed the gem where the music company also comes out of this owning the copyrights to the music. It's like paying off a mortgage, and instead of the bank giving you clear title, they tell you "thanks for the house." instead.

      --
      What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
    4. Re:How music contracts work by macs4all · · Score: 1

      Then as payments come in from sales, the band is paid their percentage once any unpaid expenses are subtracted.

      Or, IOW, never.

  17. again, who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    a what? by whom?

  18. PRESUME IT'S A LIE (FBI) (FBI) (FBI) [singing] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This must be disturbing news for Slashdot FBI.

  19. News for nerds, stuff that matters TO SLASHDOTTERS by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

    The outcome of this case has relevance to the debate we have been going in here about whether AC posting should or should not continue. If Reddit ends up being required to divulge personal information for a registered user, this would obviously strengthen the case for allowing AC.

  20. Suicide Squad by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Insightful

    All these weird stories about the movie Suicide Squad.......it makes me wonder if someone is trying some kind of astro-turfing thing to give support to the movie. The studio themselves probably leaked the soundtrack. Maybe they hired people with sock-puppet accounts to complain about Rotten Tomatoes. The whole thing is weird.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    1. Re:Suicide Squad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Suicide Squad is basically a very very very elongated MTV music video, where the focus is the giant jumble of music primarily, and the crap happening on the screen secondarily.
      It doesn't even deserve to be given credit by calling it a "musical".

  21. Link by no1nose · · Score: 1

    Anyone have the link? I want to hear the song,

    1. Re:Link by Anomalyst · · Score: 1

      Given the postings here designating the genre of requested Imaginary Property as being cRAP. I don't think it can qualify as a "song", indeed, given prior examples, I would be hard pressed to label it a performance,does it even reach the bar of Shatner's cover of "Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds"?

      --
      There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
    2. Re:Link by tacroy · · Score: 1

      This is what the google found me. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

  22. You're putting the cart before the horse. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Doing x might give them evidence" is not the same thing as "doing x is justified by the evidence".

    If they legally need to show that there is a contractual or fiduciary relationship between themselves and the Reddit user before they can get a court order to have Reddit give them the IP address, then they /actually need to do that/, it doesn't matter if the IP address might be something they could use to prove it.

  23. Can't blame them but I can call them out on it by Mystiq · · Score: 1

    Some suits at Atlantic are probably pissed at whatever money they lost from the song leaking early due to deals with other companies for digital or physical distribution rights. Are they right to be? Probably. They probably got paid or paid out for exclusivity or something. And, now that the song is out in the wild, some suits at some other companies are probably suing for breach of duties about piracy. As it is, some people won't bother buying it from iTunes/Spotify/Amazon/etc. They will try any way they can to find out who did it to please the parties involved so they can say it will never happen again -- or they may not be able to strike deals with those parties in the future on risk of lost money.

    What money lost? It's probably mostly artificial: some clause probably said they owe money if it gets leaked; someone will probably cancel their contract due to lack of trust; lost sales due to "piracy"; they are no longer among the "exclusive" distributors, etc.

    Someone correct me if I'm wrong; do I have all that right?

    And do I ultimately feel bad for the label? No. Probably none of this puts money into the artist's hands, just the people at the label, and these kinds of deals are never what the customer wants anyway.