IFPI Employee Describes P2P Sabotage Activities 431
Maxwell'sSilverLART writes "From The Reg: Matt Warne, an employee of the international version of the RIAA, admitted that he helped the organization spread garbage and random noise on the P2P networks. Apparently, they used multiple DSL connections to present the appearance of separate users, disguising the origins of the files. His group has stopped, but he claims several of the big record companies are still doing it themselves. And here I thought all of their garbage came on CD."
Whats wrong with garbage?? (Score:4, Funny)
Garbage isn't so bad...their lead singer is hawt... Mee-yow!
Cheers,
Shirley Manson is all that (Score:2, Offtopic)
Make that two bags of potato chips.
Re:Shirley Manson is all that (Score:3, Funny)
Her sister Marilyn is really hot too.
Just block 'em at the firewall. (Score:5, Informative)
OverPeer:65.174.255.255
OverPeer:65.160.0.0-65
Ranger:216.122.0.0-216.122.255.255
MediaForce:65.
MediaForce:65.223.0.0-65.223
MediaForce:4.43.96.0-4.43.96.255
MediaD
RIAA:208.225.90.0
RIAA:12.150.191.0-12.150.191.255
MPAA:64.166.187.
MPAA:198.70.114.0-198.70.114.2
MPAA:209.67.0.0-209.67.255.255
NetPD:207.155.
NetPD:128.241.0.0-128.241.2
UnknownC&DCop:64.106.170.128-64.106.170.19
BayTSP:209.204.128.0-209.204.191.255
Vidius:20
GAIN(spyware):64.94.8
GAINCME(spyware):66.35.247.0-66.
GAINCME(spyware):66.35.229.0-66.35.229
MediaDefender:64.225.292.0-64.225.292.127
R
Xupiter.com:63.23
Xupiter.com(mirror):63.208.235.30
I get dozens of hits to each IPchains rule everyday when I am using P2P.
Re:Just block 'em at the firewall. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Just block 'em at the firewall. (Score:4, Informative)
How can I verify its legitimacy?
nslookup
Re:Just block 'em at the firewall. (Score:5, Informative)
PeerGuardian has this list too. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Just block 'em at the firewall. (Score:2)
Re:Just block 'em at the firewall. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Just block 'em at the firewall. (Score:3, Insightful)
I've figured out a way this can happen and is happening on p2p just now. Here's the sequence:
Unless everyone deletes the fake file at the same time, it's going to be there forever. This works best for large files, so you'll see a lot of mp3 singles that need overburning to fit on one disk. A lot of users don't know what to expect as a filesize, so they can and are caught out by this.
I've been aware of this for sometime now. I didn't want to post it anywhere, in case it gives someone any ideas. This thread has kinda mucked that up though, so it doesn't matter anymore.
Now, the question is, what to do to avoid this issue:
What really floats my boat is the evential outcome of this. The industry is shooting itself in the foot in this arms race between them and the world, that they cannot possibly hope to win.
Think of it this way. Soon, no one will trust filenames in p2p and the searches will become redunant. One of two things will happen: People will start remortgaging their homes again to buy CDs. Or, people will create better systems that allow ratings of files, like the sig2dat system.
This is fantastic for the p2p user. Not only do you know that you are getting the right file; you'll also have reviews and comments on it's quality and listings of other files you wouldn't have normally thought of searching for. Entire albums can be queued in one click (the question is, will Amazon sue?!? ;-)
What I envisage happening long term is p2p being more of a service on the PC, with little user interaction. To send someone a file, you send them a "link" to that file on the network, and your client seeks it out itself. Just like the birth of Napster, the record/movies industries choice of action (or inaction) will ultimately bite them. Evolution doesn't work well unless someone is hacking away at the weak links.
Re:Just block 'em at the firewall. (Score:4, Informative)
Um. 292?
I presume that's a typographical error, but you might want to double check those numbers... especially with the hordes of people incorporating them into their IPChains/IPTables rulesets right now. :^)
Re:Just block 'em at the firewall. (Score:4, Insightful)
Umm... isn't one of the "strengths" of P2P that this would only be effective if everybody refused to peer with these addresses? Even if it were effective, wouldn't the parties involved just call up the phone company and order a DSL line--- with an address from the phone company's IP address block?
The same anonymity which P2P promises cuts both ways. Installing filters like this is a big waste of time. Now, accepting the connections but keeping them occupied via a fake "honeypot" network might at least be interesting...
Yeah (Score:4, Funny)
They find their way into my playlist if I am not careful, and when I am using it for background music while intensively coding I usually don't notice when one comes up, but it scares the shit out of me if a really loud song comes on after it.
Re:Yeah (Score:3, Funny)
That's what you get for pirating John Cage!
slowdowncowboyslowdowncowboyslowdowncowboyslowdo wncowboyslowdowncowboyslowdowncowboyslowdowncowboy slowdowncowboyslowdowncowboyslowdowncowboyslowdown cowboy
Re:Yeah (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Yeah (Score:5, Funny)
They'd better be careful with this. Remember that last year John Batt got into trouble for including a silent track on his CD. John Cage's estate charged him with copyright infringement.
If a recording company is responding to copyright violations by sending around unauthorized copies (or derived works) of John Cage's copyright on his famous 4'33" composition, they deserve to be punished to the maximum extent of the law.
--
Re:Yeah (Score:3, Insightful)
Moral: Don't dick with the credits.
Re:Yeah (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Yeah (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Yeah (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Yeah (Score:4, Interesting)
The basterds! (Score:4, Funny)
Nothing wrong with it (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is there no great uproar when a private user puts misnamed files on the network? Or when software goes online? Why do we save our complaints for when the legal owners do something against the spirit of the system, rather than when someone else does something against the law?
copyright infringement is illegal (Score:2)
This is called civil disobedience.
Though I'd rather take from people willing to give.
Re:copyright infringement is illegal (Score:5, Insightful)
OK, so you're refusing to obey the law (meaning that yes, you admit that it's illegal but you don't think it should be). Here's where I don't beleive that you're practicing civil disobedience. See, you're breaking the law from the privacy of your own home. This means that the government doesn't see that you're doing it, so you're not making much of a statement. You're not going to acheive anything doing it this way, and you know it. This makes it not civil disobedience, but regular lawbreaking.
If you really feel that it's civil disobedience, get a bunch of people together, set up a network in a public place (rented hall, maybe), and download there. Make sure the media is there, and hand out pamphlets telling what you're doing. Get your message out there. Face the risks of being arrested.
Until you do something like this, I say you are not practicing civil disobedience, but plain old lawbreaking.
Re:copyright infringement is illegal (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not that simple, buddy (Score:5, Insightful)
Hmmm, not quite. When it comes to those who care more people use P2P than don't.
See this is the internet and everything is distributed (not the hippie generation where your approach might actually work). Millions upon millions of people disobeying the law is infinitely more formidable than getting a couple hundred to take a fall for millions.
You see, if the civil disobedience came only from a few people in this situation they would be squashed and become an example, not a martyr for the cause.
By effectively eluding the government and **AA people are out rightly defying the law in masses. Meaning, if the government does not change its policies it will be forced to imprison its population. Because this cannot occur and have the government still exist, the masses will win over the few.
It's only a matter of time and determination.
Re:Nothing wrong with it (Score:5, Insightful)
Simple. In all cases of them being deceptive, it's just that, pure deception. With the assumption of guilt on the part of everyone who might download. Not all cases of downloads are illegal however.
Re:Nothing wrong with it (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Nothing wrong with it (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Nothing wrong with it (Score:2)
Re:Nothing wrong with it (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Nothing wrong with it (Score:2)
Not all deceptions are illegal or actionable. Using a P2P network for receipt of material lacks several necessary conditions to establish a contract.
Even if it was deemed actionable, what would one do? They are using P2P networks exactly the way they were intended, they are hiding the identity of the source of the transmissions.
When you are using black market channels for distribution, it's difficult to make accountable those who might make misrepresentations.
Who's complaining? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Nothing wrong with it (Score:4, Interesting)
I actually prefer listening to those versions now over the stock ones.
Enigma (Score:2, Insightful)
And the money spent on this music funds the company putting random noise on this medium instead of producing more, better music.
What happends when more money is spent on protecting the music than actually producing music?
Just random thought noise.
Re:Enigma (Score:2)
Re:Nothing wrong with it (Score:2)
Easy to Believe (Score:2)
It's pretty easy for me to believe.
I use P2P primarily to check out new bands. Often I will just download the song that most people have available, hoping it will be a representative tune.
As often as not, however, the most widely available tune has some problem, like being misnamed for example.
This can't be caused by intentional poisoning. Rather, people are lazy and just leave the crappy files sitting in their download folders.
I don't see anything wrong with this. (Score:5, Insightful)
They have a right, in a way (Score:5, Insightful)
What, you are not able to pirate a copy of some new album? Poor baby. Pay for it. You _really_ are ripping off the artist if you steal it. Yes, you are also ripping of the RIAA (which I don't care about). But don't complain that your organized theft ring is being hampered by the rightful owners of that property.
I despise the RIAA and how it treats their artists. But for the love of all that is right, don't *steal* in reaction. That is certainly not going to make the artists lives better.
Buy from alternative record labels. Go see your friends bands live. Write your own music. Read a book. Play with your computer. Make out with your girlfriend. Or, if you really want that album, pay for it. Or don't and boycott the bad labels. *That* choice is yours.
Re:They have a right, in a way (Score:2)
Suppose for a moment that I already have. What is the justification now?
Re:They have a right, in a way (Score:3, Insightful)
just do what I do and rip the audio data to mp3. depending on your computer, it'll take 3-10 minutes, whereas tracking down all the tracks for your cd and finding someone that's not being a file whore to get them from will take 1 minute- weeks. that way you don't even have to worry about mislabeling or low bitrate, because with a decent CD ripper, it'll connect to a CD database and put in the correct label for you and let you choose what bitrate you want.
everything you want, none of the hassles of trying to pull it off a peer to peer network.
back to your question, if you have a copy of the CD on hand, then you probably do have the right to seek out a backup copy for personal use. after all, the end state is the same as if you had ripped it yourself. but my way's a lot better
Re:They have a right, in a way (Score:5, Interesting)
If I buy a CD and find I'm totally unable to rip it, I can and will go searching for the tracks on p2p. If/when every "CD" that comes out (including from the smaller dance music labels I like) is similarly mangled, a few people will manage to rip it (carefully via analogue, or whatever) and the music will still proliferate over p2p.
If, in order to get the music I've paid for into a format I regard as usable (mp3s or oggs) I have to go get them off p2p networks then I've gained no *actual* value from the purchase of the "CD".
Re:They have a right, in a way (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:They have a right, in a way (Score:2)
Re:They have a right, in a way (Score:2)
And we have every right to take note of their actions and implement countermeasures. And so it goes.
Re:They have a right, in a way (Score:2, Funny)
Your new here aren't you?
Re:They have a right, in a way (Score:3, Interesting)
Now what about those of us that do actually own a valid copy of a song?
I have a large collection of LPs (remeber those? the large, circular vinyl disks with the small hole in the middle?). I take loving care of my albums, buy the best stylus I can and clean them when needed. I used to record onto cassette so I could listen to my albums in my car (perfectly leagal time shifting-- if I am driving in my car, no one is back at home listening to my albums).
Now, I have a car with a CD player, but no cassette. I want to listen to my albums, but I don't want to pay for them all over again when I already own a legal copy. So, I can try and get the output from my turntable to my computer (not easy!) or I can check out a P2P network and download copies of those songs I already leagally own.
Why should the RIAA have any problem with that?
Reality check (Score:4, Funny)
For a minute there it looked like you were making some serious points. Then I got to this line:
Make out with your girlfriend.
That kind of delusional thinking just wiped out any semblance of reality that your post might have had. :)
GMD
Re:They have a right, in a way (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, it is true that they did not lose a sale. However, how can you say that it is not theft?
- Something costs money to get.
- You get it without paying any money
- Therefore, you have committed theft.
It doesn't matter that they didn't lose money on it. It does matter that they didn't get the money that should have come to them for the transfer of property.Let me put this a different way.
- You buy the rights to download something digitally
- You download said item
- You steal the money you used to buy the rights
Is this theft? The owner can still sell more copies of the digital item. However, they are now out the money you originally paid them. Where is the difference between these two scenarios?Metallica is in on this too... (Score:5, Funny)
Isnt this what we were expecting all along? (Score:3, Insightful)
What choice are we leaving them? They're spreading corrupted files. It's not like they're ping flooding every user. They're just sending what the USER REQUESTS.
I'm relieved that's all the Riaa are doing. After all, protecting the groups' rights are what they're about.
EULA? (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, IANAL, but it seems like the outcome of such an action would be positive for the geek community:
Anybody see why this wouldn't work (unless some clients failed to put the clause in)?
Re:EULA? (Score:2, Informative)
The RIAA/MPAA/xxAA could just write their own client that connects to the network. They are not bound under any EULA, as it is their software.
As the companies releasing P2P lean towards, there is no owner of the network, and as such, there is no EULA to enforce for the network.
Funny and true story (Score:5, Funny)
My question was whether disguising pro-GNU songs (such as these [gnu.org]) as Billboard Top 40 hits and sharing them on Peer 2 Peer networks was a "right" thing to do.
He suggested that I not do it, but did thank me for a good laugh.
This reminds me.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Has anyone run into this with any of the other P2P clients, or is it just limewire specific?
(I would think that would be a better way to tie up the services anyway.. just have a remote server that responds to incoming searches with a couple of crap files. Get enough of them doing it, and the S/N ratio will get so screwed people will stop using it.)
Maeryk
YES!!. Virus also, i think. (Score:2)
Re:YES!!. Virus also, i think. (Score:4, Informative)
The dummy results always come from the same few machins; they say they're running Gnucleus, and I believe it - access to the source code helps if you mean to screw with Gnutella in this way.
The .exe files in the !!_YEEHAA_!! zip files probably hijack Internet Explorer - going by what comes out of running 'strings' on them, they also add a whole lot of porno bookmarks - venusseek.com in particular. This is just a guess as I'm not planning to actually run this thing on Windows :-) The images and mpgs just show an ad for some porno site.
The .vbs viruses... they seem to have come from Columbia. A look at the source of one of them reveals
rem "Plan Colombia" virus v1.0
rem by Sand Ja9e Gr0w (www.colombia.com)
rem Dedicated to all the people that want to be hackers or crackers, in Colombia
rem This program is also a protest act against the violence and corruption that Colombia lives...
rem I always wanting that all this finishes, I have said...
rem Santa fe de Bogotá 2000/09
rem I dedicate to all you the song "GoodBye" of Andreas Bochelli
It relies on user stupidity and Windows' habit of hiding file extensions. Instead of 'virus.mp3.vbs' the user sees 'virus.mp3' and thinking all is well doubleclicks to play it. VB script promptly scans the whole hard disk and creates a copy of itself under the name of every MP3 it finds. That's why you tend to get double results - maybe Quadrophenia.mp3 and Quadrophenia.mp3.vbs from the same user. It also seems to redirect IE's start page to a FortuneCity site, and has a bunch of other stuff going on related to script kiddie life and Colombian politics.
Compared to this sort of malevolence, a Coral song that craps out after five seconds and continues in silence is positively benign.
What I want to know, though, is why I keep getting back 'Free Bird' by Lynyrd Skynyrd no matter what I search for?
Re:This reminds me.. (Score:5, Informative)
Right on (Score:3, Interesting)
Back in 1997 and 1998, the industry had the chance to develop online music services, he says. It saw what was coming. Which is true: at that time, the major labels were paralyzed by fear of online music and were downsizing accordingly, but refused to alter their business models, or extend into new areas.
"Once Napster came along," says Warne, "people got used to getting stuff for free. They've introduced Emusic but people just ask 'why isn't it free?' If they'd introduced it in 1998, they wouldn't have this problem,' he thinks.
Well at least they hired some real engineers (Score:2, Funny)
I certainly didn't see it coming.
Next thing you are going to tell me is that those free weekly newspapers have lots of ads. Or that admins will put patches on their servers to protect them. Or that there are lots of naked pictures on the internet. Or that I am not the 14 girl I play in some chat rooms. (maybe I should use a different name?)
Another obviously stupid story about how anyone who can guess the end of most movies can guess about 75% of the stories that are going to be written on any subject or 75% of the stupid things that big organizations are going to do. Please something fresh. Please something that is news or that matters.
Avoid it with MD4 hashes to identify files (Score:2, Insightful)
I think all P2P apps should at least use MD4 hashes.
technology can beat this.... (Score:4, Interesting)
It's so much easier ... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:It's so much easier ... (Score:2)
Each time I see a commerical on TV for a collection of songs I think to myself, "The labels are losing money all the time."
If they sold them online, made them portable for me and priced them reasonably I'd buy them.
For instance, when I buy an online book for my palm it encrypts my credit card information. That is a great idea as I don't share it with anyone. It keeps my portability as I can read it on my PC or palm. It is priced right as they make a little money, but pass on the savings to me.
This is the model the music and movie industry needs to adopt. Allow me to move my downloads to other mediums and make it cheap. I'd buy more.
How and why do they do it? (Score:3, Funny)
Avalanches.jpg
Avalanches.mpg
Avalanches.mov
Wait, I did get snookered once. I was searching for "Camaflouge" the old Depech-mode sounding 80's band, which I haven't found a way to purchase the CD anyway. One of the files I pulled down turned out to be a really sweet rendition of "I Know that My Redeemer Lives". I suspect it was a fellow mormon reminding me of my values. But I liked the rendition so much that I kept it and play it.
(By the way, I own the Avalanches CD)
________________________
OnRoad: [onlawn.net] Hacking that which costs more money and is more deadly. (Its just a car-enthusiast site really)
OT: Camouflage (Score:2)
And here I thought .... (Score:3, Funny)
For the N'th time NO Record Company Garbage does not just come on CD, it comes on Video Tape, on DVD, Over cable, Over satelite and TV channles, Radio, The Internet
It's a waste of time in the end (Score:5, Insightful)
Eventually the people who get 'into' it figure out who enjoys the same sort of music they do, and who tends to have quality mp3s on their sites. So the metalheads migrate together, and the hip hop fans, etc.
If they stray outside their 'clique' and get a garbage tune or two, they delete them and move on.
They also 'poison' newer, profitable releases, and I've found that a huge chunk of the P2P'ers are there for older or more obscure music. The fact that there's a garbage version of Britney Spears' latest floating around doesn't bother a Deadhead or someone looking for underground punk tunes in the least.
So, I suppose it could discourage a handful of 13 year old newbies if by luck they manage to get the garbage files the first time they try it. But it won't 'kill' the networks.
be careful what you say about the riaa here (Score:5, Funny)
wait... garbage posts on slashdot!? it's already begun! how much are those trolls getting paid?!
Not enough. (Score:3, Insightful)
Ever met a rich whore? Neither have I. People who sell out like that are always pawns and never have anything.
The wistle blower should not be trusted. If he had left while the effort was ongoing instead of after it was shut down, his credibility would be much greater. I don't believe him when he says that he did not engage in cracking and other illegal activity. We have several posts here that attest to the fact that people are using the P2P networks to spread viruses. All we can be sure of is that the RIAA and friends are doing everything in their power to eliminate fair use music sharing.
They hate music sharing because they don't control it. If people are free to share what they realy enjoy instead of being forced to listen to programs designed to sell 40 albums a year, the recorded music world will once again regain the diversity the real music world still has and we will start to see more recording lables than you can shake a stick at. The RIAA will be ruined, of course. Oh well.
A quote from a Honest Artist (Score:5, Interesting)
Nice try.. but (Score:2)
Garbage on CD? (Score:2)
And here I thought all of their garbage came on CD
No, most of their *REAL* garbage comes out of the politicians they've bought over the years. That would probably be on Legal Paper I guess, but (hopefully!) not on CD.
Advertising. (Score:5, Insightful)
sabatoge away RIAA! (Score:2)
nothing below 128kbps and users regularry weed out the crap so that you are used to getting a good copy the first time.
I know I'm not the first to organize a private P2P but I do know that's where the RIAA can do a damned thing... and unless you are on the invited list you cant get in it to spoil it.
"I thought all of their garbage came on CD." (Score:2, Insightful)
You're essentially saying that every single band from the last 40 years that has any kind of name recognition is garbage. That's a lot of bands to be smacking down with one offhand comment. Sure, there's a lot of crap out there like Creed and Mariah Carey, but if you put together a list of all good bands that have had major label deals *ever*, then that's a mighty long list.
The Cost of "Disinformation" (Score:5, Insightful)
Now to the immediate fight: the RIAA and record labels have decided to invest time and money into producing counterfeits and disinformation. The problem is that the very structure of P2P networks makes this overtly pricey:
1. The RIAA must proactively produce 'bad' Britney Spears
2. Some dope must download this 'bad' track-- but once they find it's bad, they delete it. The track never gets past that first copy.
Whereas 'legitimate' tracks get copied and passed around by everyone, because the legitimate tracks are keepers, and they expand virally.
Eventually, the RIAA will come under such heavy costs to maintain their disinformation campaign, that it would be cheaper to start using the P2P system to their advantage (theoretically)
I disagree -- on both counts (Score:3, Insightful)
2. Some dope must download this 'bad' track-- but once they find it's bad, they delete it. The track never gets past that first copy.
Ah, if only p2p networks were so efficient. Most people just aren't as deligent as you about cleaning up corrupted stuff they download as you are. With harddrives in the tens of gigabytes these days, there's no pressing need for the average user to get rid of every single junk file. Most people are lazy, lazy, lazy. They download a whole chunk of mp3s at once and figure they'll sort through them later. Maybe that won't happen for a few days. In the meantime, others do the same thing and download it off him before he gets a chance to delete it.
I don't quite understand your arguement about why creating bad mp3s is so pricey for them. I'm sure they can whip up a short program that will automate the process. Then they just pay some intern minimum wage to run batch jobs and create a huge amount of corrupted files. They can repeat this process over and over.
I'm not saying that the RIAAs tactic is sound. But I also think that your conclusion that "Eventually, the RIAA will come under such heavy costs to maintain their disinformation campaign, that it would be cheaper to start using the P2P system to their advantage" is flawed. I think this is a dirt cheap and easy way for them to feel like they are doing something about the p2p problem.
GMD
Packrat P2P users do save garbage. (Score:5, Insightful)
The Register dropped the ball on this. There is a non-trivial number of peer-to-peer users who just download things because they can. Much like the core of packrat warez traders they're not so much interested in the specifics as trying to have the largest collection. (And when you get warez from one of these packrats, you'll often get software that's seriously broken.) They're not really going to listen to the two months of continious music they have, just a small subset. Clearly they're rather have real songs, but they never bother to check. It only takes a few of these people to create the impression that the network is full of garbage.
Trust (Score:2)
Interesting infringement arguments from this (Score:2)
Since they are placing the garbage up there themselves, wouldn't that imply that they were approving download and listening of the garbage files? The real files got in the way, and you were busted before you had a chance to delete them.
Seems to me that they were better off before, simply sueing the file distributors as they find them. *shrug* Just thought I'd share that little thought.
Not much of news, is it? (Score:2)
What I find amusing in these articles is they often ignore what goes on beyond P2P - people trading WITHOUT the networks, or using them together to find non-garbage songs, or ripping CDs, then sending songs to each other via non P2P methods.
The only way the RIAA can mess everything up is if they force ISPs to monitor every transaction and get access to every computer . .
. . . which sort of seems to be their goal. THAT'S the important news. We already know they're scum.
Good idea of the day... (Score:2)
The alternative is the eDonkey 2000 model, which is have trusted sites that publish the hashes of known good content, and then just search the network for that content. Of course, eDonkey2k is so atrociously hard to use and cranky that it will never gain too much popularity (this is based on using it some 6 months to a year ago, maybe it's changed since then - of course, I think that is part of the point - make it only for |33+ folks, keep out the llamas so it doesn't get shut down).
Yawn... MD5 Checksums (Score:5, Insightful)
There are already networks out there that incorporate MD5 checksums in order to avoid bad files (example [sourceforge.net], example [overnet.com]). Couple that with a simple checksum repository (example [filenexus.net], example [sharereactor.com]). Or maybe even a search engine (example [jigle.com]), and you never have to download another bad file again.
Re:Yawn... MD5 Checksums (Score:3, Informative)
Fuzzy checksums would detect this but now we are getting off track. This supposed checksum database would have literally hundreds or thousands of valid checksums for each ripped file.
So,.. yawn. Learn what you are talking about before posting.
--Aaron
I've done this for the Labels too... (Score:2, Interesting)
At the same time, I wrote an influential paper for the NY chapter of NARAS disputing all of the RIAA's claims (much of the support used in the paper came from articles posted on
A part of that paper said this:
Record labels are confused and contradictory. They use mp3s in private while they deride it in public. If they're promoting a new band, they'll post the band's songs on p2p networks (often in a covert manner) with the hopes that they'll be traded and talked about in chat rooms. If it's an established act with a history of sales, they'll "spoof" the p2p networks with fake files. It's just another way of using mp3s, albeit in a subversive and anti-customer way, which is par for the course.
Kazaa Lite 2.0+ anyone? (Score:2)
Ever since Kazaa has put out their 2.0 and onward line of clients (and Kazaa Lite as well by extension of it) there is a Quality Vote feature for all of your files. If a file is shared by 58 users and they all gave the file Excellent rating, you can feel self-assured that the file is what it says it is. I doubt 58 people would go out of the way to vote a garbled/garbage file as Excellent to propogate an RIAA/IFIA spoof file (note that the rating does not follow the copy of the file to your computer).
As long as people are honest about the file's integrity in their voting (what motive would 3/4 of those serving the file have to lie?), then this sort of RIAA/IFIA subterfuge will be sunk.
That was almost witty... (Score:2)
If it did, their wouldn't be a P2P network to worry about, now would there?
Idiots... (Score:3, Interesting)
I love(d) Norah Jones' Music... (Score:5, Interesting)
misnamed files - dangerous material (Score:3, Insightful)
Some of said clips (or those somewhat ambiguously named), contain content of somewhat dubious legality as well (not copyright legality, I'm referring to the content itself being very very wrong). It's bad enough that I see such things when browsing my kazaa cache... but it's worse when I think that somebody may have sniffed my (static) IP and associated me with it - or others have downloaded it off my PC.
The messaging feature is nice... I can let people know when I find bad, or immoral, downloads - and hopefully help filter the crap-files.
Minimal Techno (Score:2)
Re:Why haven't I noticed? (Score:4, Insightful)
Huh... (Score:2)
Re:Fighting Fire With Fire (Score:5, Insightful)
No, file sharing is _NOT_ illegal. Copying and distributed copyrighted works is illegal. There's a world of difference between the two.
Re:Fighting Fire With Fire (Score:3, Insightful)
Not quite- copying and distributing copyrighted works... without consent of the copyright holder... is illegal.
Re:Fighting Fire With Fire (Score:3, Funny)