Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Government United Kingdom Music Your Rights Online

UK Law Enforcement Starts Seizing Music Blogs 310

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This discussion has been archived.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

UK Law Enforcement Starts Seizing Music Blogs

Comments Filter:
  • Darknets (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 14, 2012 @07:37PM (#39039179)

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

    • Re:Darknets (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Penguinisto (415985) on Tuesday February 14, 2012 @07:51PM (#39039333) Journal

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

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

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

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

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

      • Re:Darknets (Score:5, Interesting)

        by History's Coming To (1059484) on Tuesday February 14, 2012 @08:08PM (#39039505) Journal
        I actually found it rather useful to test a IP/user-agent switching plugin. (I use it to test environment sensitive sections of websites I write). All works fine, which IP address would they like me to come from?

        The irony with this whol thing is I'm anti-piracy, I'm one of those weirdos who thinks artists deserve to get money for what they produce, however easy it is to copy bit for bit. But that SOCA message strikes me offensive and wildly accusatory that I'm starting to think my anti-piracy crusade needs to go on the back burner while I deal with the important thing, keeping the internet free.
        • Re:Darknets (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Nethemas the Great (909900) on Tuesday February 14, 2012 @08:16PM (#39039589)
          You're not weird. Most people believe artist should be compensated for their work. The trouble is the MPAA/RIAA, their ilk and their members do not.
          • by flyneye (84093)

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

            • Re:Darknets (Score:5, Interesting)

              by whoever57 (658626) on Tuesday February 14, 2012 @08:34PM (#39039733) Journal

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

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

              • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

                by Anonymous Coward

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

            • Re:Darknets (Score:5, Informative)

              by sugarbomb (22289) on Tuesday February 14, 2012 @09:02PM (#39039995)

              Complain away!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

              • Re:Darknets (Score:5, Interesting)

                by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 14, 2012 @10:11PM (#39040621)

                I sent this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                Sincerely,

                A pissed off Canadian.

              • Re:Darknets (Score:5, Insightful)

                by fatman22 (574039) on Tuesday February 14, 2012 @10:33PM (#39040763)

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

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

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

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

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

              • Re:Darknets (Score:4, Interesting)

                by Builder (103701) on Wednesday February 15, 2012 @04:40AM (#39042277)

                I just sent the following complaint to the ipcc

                ---
                To whom it may concern,

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

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

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

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

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

                • Re:Darknets (Score:4, Insightful)

                  by AmiMoJo (196126) <mojo @ w orld3.net> on Wednesday February 15, 2012 @08:32AM (#39043131) Homepage

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

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

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

        • Re:Darknets (Score:4, Insightful)

          by wbr1 (2538558) on Tuesday February 14, 2012 @08:37PM (#39039773)
          You'r not strange at all. I beleive artists should be paid. However, as the music industry stand most get paid a pittance while corps rake in huge money and spend it on ways to make more with lobbying, and pay execs self congratulatory fortunes. The record company model made far more sense when tney had to fund expensive studios, and actually manufacture a physical product. Now it has morphed into simple greed, and inertia and money keep it moving.
          • Re:Darknets (Score:5, Insightful)

            by nbauman (624611) on Tuesday February 14, 2012 @09:21PM (#39040185) Homepage Journal

            It wasn't just expensive studios and physical product.

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

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

            • Re:Darknets (Score:5, Informative)

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 15, 2012 @07:09AM (#39042789)

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

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

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

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

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

        • Re:Darknets (Score:5, Interesting)

          by gmack (197796) <gmack@NOsPAM.innerfire.net> on Tuesday February 14, 2012 @08:42PM (#39039823) Homepage Journal

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

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

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

          • Re:Darknets (Score:4, Interesting)

            by gnasher719 (869701) on Tuesday February 14, 2012 @11:33PM (#39041059)

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

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

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

        • False dichotomy (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward

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

        • by Fned (43219)

          ...I'm one of those weirdos who thinks artists deserve to get money for what they produce, however easy it is to copy bit for bit.

          Artists produce copies? Weird, I thought they produced creative works.

          Maybe if copies were still worth something, charging for them would still make sense.

        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          by interkin3tic (1469267)
          There is NOTHING ironic about it! Don't muddy the waters even a little bit. None of us fighting against censorship and government control are pro-piracy. The people stealing music who can't be bothered to cough up a dollar for that pop song they like don't give two shits about the long-term damage they're causing to freedom of expression. They're not on our side, they're one side of the war of greed, the mafIAA is on the other. Our rights and the artists are stuck in between.

          A thousand times: bein
          • by Anonymous Coward

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

            Actually this is a false. If we legalized piracy, a lot of people would still pay because like me, they'd understand it's important to support artists if we want them

            • Re:Darknets (Score:5, Informative)

              by AngryDeuce (2205124) on Tuesday February 14, 2012 @10:33PM (#39040761)

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

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

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

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

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

          • by Znork (31774)

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

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

        • by russotto (537200)

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

          Didn't work for me. My operating system came out as "unknown", despite being bog-standard Safari on a Mac running Snow Leopard.

          • These guys are into Serious crime. They don't want to deal with small volume, unknown Operating Systems run by petty criminals.

            • by Cinder6 (894572)

              Their name is actually a really good description: Serious Organized Crime Agency. From the description of what they do, it does sound like they're criminals, organized, and an official agency. And their wording is very serious.

              Oh wait, they say they're the good guys? They might have wanted another word in there. "Prevention" right before Agency, or some such. Just a thought. They're monitoring my Internet activity now, so I don't need to write them a letter. They already saw this post. Right? Right

        • "I'm anti-piracy, I'm one of those weirdos who thinks artists deserve to get money for what they produce"

          It's not about piracy, it's about control. I think that has become quite clear.
        • by Lost Race (681080)
          There's no way any plugin can hide your actual IP address from whatever HTTP server you connect to. Remote anonymizing proxy, yes; plugin, no.
      • Re:Darknets (Score:5, Insightful)

        by EdIII (1114411) on Tuesday February 14, 2012 @09:44PM (#39040393)

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

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

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

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

    • by arisvega (1414195)

      Indeed.

      "Your IP: xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx" (note: not my IP)

      "Your Browser: Unknown"

      "Your OS: Unknown"

  • Tee-hee (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 14, 2012 @07:39PM (#39039211)

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

  • Thanks SOCA (Score:5, Insightful)

    by viperidaenz (2515578) on Tuesday February 14, 2012 @07:40PM (#39039223)
    for assuming you have jurisdiction in my country.

    "About SOCA"

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

    ftfy.

  • by microbee (682094) on Tuesday February 14, 2012 @07:41PM (#39039231)

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

    • by jamstar7 (694492)
      Like there's a difference these days?
  • Looks Fake (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Olipro (1531021) on Tuesday February 14, 2012 @07:45PM (#39039287)
    whois indicates the original owner still controls the domain, the server itself is Rackspace owned whereas SOCA's own website is run themselves via Connect Internet Solutions Ltd. - throw in the fact that SOCA haven't made any announcement or press release regarding the alleged takedown and the whole thing looks like a setup, I call shenanigans.
    • by Kalriath (849904)

      Actually, the server's hosted by Private Layer in Switzerland. But I still don't think this is actually seized by SOCA at all (especially since SOCA would have no jurisdiction to seize a domain held by Godaddy, an American company).

      • by whoever57 (658626)

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

        Doesn't look like it to me. Looks like Rackspace in the UK:
        traceroute to rnbxclusive.com (83.138.166.114), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
        ....
        4 nyk-b2-link.telia.net (213.248.83.105) 0.621 ms 0.601 ms 0.581 ms
        5 nyk-bb2-link.telia.net (80.91.245.246) 0.560 ms 0.554 ms 0.537 ms
        6 ldn-bb2-link.telia.net (213.248.65.93) 70.682 ms 70.634 ms 70.836 ms
        7 ldn-b4-link.telia.net (80.91.251.13) 71.043 ms 71.016 ms 70.986 ms
        8 racks

    • Re:Looks Fake (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Olipro (1531021) on Tuesday February 14, 2012 @07:54PM (#39039381)
      according to a commenter elsewhere, they apparently phoned SOCA's press office and asserted it to be genuine, so, perhaps I stand corrected.
    • To add to your suspicions... the blog in question is not one I've ever heard of. Now, I make no claims about being any sort of authority on the entire content of the Internet, but the first question that occurred to me on reading the summary was "does anybody here follow the blog in question, and if so, does it actually advocate piracy or promote the theft of property in any way?"

      UK police are... special... at times. But they're not stupid. They wouldn't make a move against a website unless that website was

  • by mosb1000 (710161) <mosb1000@mac.com> on Tuesday February 14, 2012 @07:46PM (#39039293)

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

    • They were planning on adding the Plus to the upcoming Super Serious Organized Crime Agency name that they're about to put into effect, but their CEO, ManBearPig, said that was going a little over the top.
    • by Hentes (2461350)

      I would like to live in England if music piracy is the most serious crime over there.

    • by Jay L (74152)

      They work with the SAS - that's Super Army Soldiers!

    • by xaxa (988988)

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

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

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

  • Everyone should visit the site with the threatening message. It's time to put the Slashdot effect to good use! :-)
    • by pla (258480)
      Everyone should visit the site with the threatening message. It's time to put the Slashdot effect to good use! :-)

      Unfortunately, they don't have a feedback form.

      Fortunately, if they mean that page at all threateningly, they will probably at least take a glance at the logs - So make sure to not just go to the base domain, but also
      rnbxclusive.com/fuck_off_and_die_fascist_pigs
      rnbxclusive.com/superinjunction_THIS_filth
      rnbxclusive.com/couldnt_find_anyone_jaywalking_eh_thats_some_mighty_fine_police_work_t
      • by Mitsoid (837831)

        TERRORISM http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/terrorism [merriam-webster.com]
        1: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

        Governments using terrorism to control people then claiming we (the world) need to fight terrorism...

        Looks like we need to fight our governments then... I'm not a fan of anarchy though, so I'd recommend simply writing a strongly worded letter to the government to inform them they are engaging in acts of terrorism.
        It's actually a funny joke..... Our governments are using what we are f

    • by medv4380 (1604309)
      hmm... what would happen if a bot net instead of doing a DoS just had every user "browse" that site?
    • by Blue Stone (582566) on Tuesday February 14, 2012 @08:26PM (#39039683) Homepage Journal

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

      Hilarious.

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

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

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

    • by bmo (77928)

      while true ; do
      wget "http://rnbxclusive.com/suck.my.large.cock.you.wankers/" > /dev/null
      sleep 0
      done

      Change the message and sleep to whatever value you want.

  • by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Tuesday February 14, 2012 @07:53PM (#39039371) Journal
    I get the impression that, no matter how rosy the state of the industry or how sweeping the existing state powers, the push for harsher 'anti-piracy' legislation will continue until such time as the primary task of the world's security forces will be the summary execution of those suspected to be guilty of insufficient music purchase during the preceding fiscal year.
    • by jamstar7 (694492)
      Dingdingding. Got it in one, mushroom. Add to that, taxpayer money to make up the difference between what they got and what they claim they should be getting, and you got yourelf a law.
    • *Shrugs* Content-enforcement does not, over the long run, keep the economy afloat. It's unfortunate, but that's part of the reason for the limitations on Intellectual Property -> "We will back up your monopoly on this set of works that you have created for a set period of time with all our might, but after that, it's public domain." The copyright owners, however, have gone a little insane here, and have repeatedly changed those terms through successful lobbying. This poses something of a problem, as gree

  • by Necroman (61604) on Tuesday February 14, 2012 @08:02PM (#39039437)

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

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

  • by bmo (77928)

    This is one Soca that I won't dance to.

    --
    BMO

  • by kyrio (1091003) <slashdot@@@lurkmore...com> on Tuesday February 14, 2012 @08:09PM (#39039513) Homepage
    It's a good thing it's legal for me to download music in my country because I pay a tax on all blank media and that money goes to all of those poor artists (no it doesn't) that had their careers ruined by my [lack of] downloading their music.
  • Blatantly fake. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by gallondr00nk (868673) on Tuesday February 14, 2012 @08:15PM (#39039579)

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

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

  • Analysis (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 14, 2012 @08:20PM (#39039627)

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

    • by JPMH (100614)
      Wrong. The owner is Rackspace.com of San Antonio, but the server itself is located in the UK, which is why SOCA could indeed have been able to get to it.

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

      person: IP Admin
      address: Rackspace Managed Hosting
      112
  • They have a law with "Serious" in the title as a descriptor? It must be Serious Business!
    • It's not a law, it's some stupid government agency.

      According to soca.gov.uk web site: "SOCA tackles serious organised crime that affects the UK and our citizens. This includes Class A drugs, people smuggling and human trafficking, major gun crime, fraud, computer crime and money laundering."

      Yep. You wouldn't smuggle people, you wouldn't traffic humans... sending that mp3 to your friend is just as horrible! Imagine the poor industry executives that can't afford to fill their luxury yacht with cocaine and h

  • They're really cracking down on those evil music downloaders, aren't they? This is surely a worthy cause and we need to spend twice the amount of taxpayer money going after these most heinous of criminals.

  • SOCA's arms [rnbxclusive.com] depict a predatory animal mauling the globe. What an appropriate and refreshingly honest emblem for a state agency.

  • by koan (80826)

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

  • by dnewt (2457806) on Tuesday February 14, 2012 @09:25PM (#39040207)

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

    Indicentally, The Register has picked up the story [theregister.co.uk]. I hope they checked their facts first.

    • by PPH (736903)

      So, how did a non law enforcement group get hold of someone's domain? I mean, I can see law enforcement taking it, following some judicial action (injunction, trial, etc.). And posting a page to that effect. But if this is the doings of pro-music.org, it just underlines the legitimate fears we all have about things like SOPA/PIPA.

      Its not a case of having a violating site pulled down. We are getting dangerously close to a situation where the recording industry (or anyone else with political power) can grab

  • by mykos (1627575) on Tuesday February 14, 2012 @10:53PM (#39040861)
    If people can't enforce copyright without rushing headlong into a police state, I think we should take away that privilege of copyright which society has afforded them. And this isn't some extreme slippery slope argument. We are on that slippery slope and we are sliding down it right now.

    I'm sure there are defeatist pedants who will come along and say "Good luck taking it away! They're too powerful and they have too much money!", but you have to start somewhere. And having that attitude means they have one less person to fight.
  • by Tastecicles (1153671) on Wednesday February 15, 2012 @04:16AM (#39042195)

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

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

One good reason why computers can do more work than people is that they never have to stop and answer the phone.

Working...