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."

71 of 131 comments (clear)

  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.

  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 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.
    4. 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.

    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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?

    9. 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
    10. 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.

    11. 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

    12. 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.
    13. 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.

    14. 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.
    15. 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...

    16. 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.

    17. 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.

    18. 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.

    19. 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.

    20. 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.

    21. 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.
    22. 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
    23. 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.

    24. 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."
    25. Re:They disrupeed our plans! We want blood! by macs4all · · Score: 1

      I wonder where the other 19 were?

      Too soon.

    26. 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!"
    27. 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.
    28. 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.
    29. 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.

    30. 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...
    31. 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.

    32. 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".

    33. 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.
    34. 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."
    35. 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.

    36. 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?

    37. 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.

    38. 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.

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

      I prefer the Brooklyn Supreme Court. Sounds much classier

    40. 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...
    41. 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...
    42. 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.
    43. 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.

    44. 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.

    45. 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

  4. 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.
  5. 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 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

    4. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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
  8. 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... ;-)

  9. 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.

  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.

  13. 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?
  14. 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."
  15. 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?...

  16. 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. 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.