RIAA Chats With Song Swappers 796
einer writes "Orignally seen
on Drudge; in reaction to their recent loss in court, an IM was sent to 'hundreds of thousands' of grokster and Kazaa users by the RIAA warning that they were NOT anonymous and that they could face legal consequences if they did not stop sharing copyrighted material. The IM was sent to users hosting copyrighted songs for download. Is this a scare tactic or an honest attempt to reform the p2p user community, or both?"
Irony (Score:5, Interesting)
Not really ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Now corecion, and harrasing people after a judge said that what was going on wasn't illegal ? that is another matter
Re:Not really ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not really ... (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't believe this guys have given the basis to dismiss all future lawsuits against p2p services. They themselves have shown that the p2p services have, at least, the legal use of contacting ppl breaking the law and "warning" (ok, threaten) them.
Even funnier perhaps... (Score:5, Funny)
I find it even more amusing that the RIAA has replaced their people with bots. Heres why:
We all claim the RIAA mainly is a representative for music-distributers that are no longer necasery. And then they start doing their dirty work (which is all they do, apperantly) with bots!
They have thus proven our claim is correct, by employing technology to do their work, instead of doing it themselves :)
Oh. And this is meant to be moderated funny, not insightfull, if anyone cares to spend modarator points on such a lousy post.
Re:Not really ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Now corecion, and harrasing people after a judge said that what was going on wasn't illegal ?
No judge said anything like that. Rather, he held that distributing software which can be used for illegal purposes does not hold you liable when it is used for those purposes.
Re:Not really ... (Score:5, Interesting)
He didn't say the user's actions were not illegal.
The best point made in this article was that the RIAA was stressing that they could NOT contact the users themselves, therefore Verizon had to give up confidential information. By doing this {messaging scare tactic} they invalidated their own arguments, and weakened their position overall...
Re:Not really ... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Not really ... (Score:5, Interesting)
It seems to me that Verizon providing encrypted logs to the riaa would not actually be providing anything. I doubt if a judge would agree that providing even trivially encrypted logs is making them available.
What struck me as really weird was that, in the Verizon case, the SAME judge that found for the RIAA also found for them again in the appeal. I thought the appeal would go to another judge.
Re:Not really ... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Not really ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Not so. They're IMing people at their IP addresses -- they don't know who those people are, just where they happen to be right now. To file a suit to stop someone from sharing music (illegally), they have to know who the person actually is, which is something that only their ISP would know.
Re:Not really ... (Score:5, Interesting)
I haven't actually read the Verizon case (and so could be very wrong) but I've always assumed that they're trying for the middle ground of being able to send formal cease-and-desist letters to the users instead of having to file actual lawsuits to get names and addresses.
There's also an important quirk of the law, here. The DMCA makes it pretty clear that, for the big awards, the violations need to be "willful," which means that you knew you were breaking the law when you did it. Proving willfullness is notoriously difficult - this is a case where ignorance of the law is an excuse, and most people can plausibly claim that they had no idea that they were breaking the law. Unless, of course, you got a cease-and-desist letter from the RIAA telling you it was illegal...
If the cease-and-desist letters are then ignored, the RIAA would then obviously have the option of formally filing suit. But, I believe, even if they lose the Verizon case, the RIAA can still sue the sharers as "John Doe" defendents and probably get the court to force Verizon to give the information up, anyway, in that context.
It's going to be interesting to see how this plays out. I've been predicting this phase for years. As on a lot of other things ($.99 major-label downloads) I was a bit ahead of the curve, but I think this is an inevitable development. Copyright law pretty clearly shows that what the users are doing by sharing is illegal. Napster and the first round of p2p were easy to shut down because they ran services, and were clearly complicit in the legal violations. The next round, as the RIAA is finding, are decentralized enough that they can reasonably claim they have no check on their users' behaviors, which means that the creation of those tools is not a violation of the law.
That doesn't, of course, eliminate the problem that what users are doing is a clear violation of copyright law. And not just the much-hated DMCA; what users do under Naptser would've been perfectly illegal in 1992 (albeit the penalties would've been insignificant since it was not-for-profit). The big change in the DMCA was to make it clear that violating copyrights even when you didn't personally profit from it was still something you could get a big damage on.
Anyway, I've been saying for years that the RIAA's attacks against providers were going to run out and the were going to have to go after individual users. If they have the stomach for it, that'll solve the problem - after a few dozen people declare bankruptcy after receiving multi-million dollar damage awards, people will really begin to understand that when they share music, they're breaking the law, and they're not anonymous.
The real question mark in all of this is what the political ramifications of this will be. Will there be enough public outcry to decriminalize the sharing of music? Personally I doubt it; there is too much money arrayed on the other side, and the long history of copyright in this country is an expansion of copyright. It's hard for me to imagine it going the other way.
One way or another, though, this is finally moving to endgame. I see three possible outcomes:
1) The RIAA fails to have the backbone to prosecute individual end-users. If this happens, the world as we know it today will exist indefinitely - lots of bluster from the RIAA and MPAA while users continue to ignore the law. This is the least likely outcome, in my opinion.
2) The RIAA actually sues people and wins. Enourmous public outcry forces Congress to revisit the issue. Despite heavy lobbying from entertainment (and software!) interests, the portions of the DMCA that made not-for-profit distribution of copyrighted material punishable by large cash fines is rolled back, effectively decriminalizing fil
Re:Irony (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Irony (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Irony (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, and yes.
Re:Irony (Score:5, Informative)
No, because Madonna owns the copyright of that "song" she can distribute however she wants. It still remains her copyright, which means no one else could publish it -- though she would have a hard time getting any damages if she tried to sue anyone after intentionally releasing it to P2P.
Re:Irony (Score:3, Informative)
In that case, it'd be her problem, not anyone who passed it on after she'd released it. If harassed, people would be able to claim a defence that they had the reasonable expectation that it was freely downloadable (here we talk about "free as in beer" only, though) as the artist herself had released it.
And remember, we're talking about the "Fuck you" mp3, not an actual track from her album.
The GPL *is* a copyright. (Score:4, Insightful)
Both the GPL and music licensing are forms of copyright, they are just very different uses of copyright.
The GPL isn't a copyright. (Score:5, Informative)
The GPL not a copyright, it is a license, and a non-exclusive one at that. A person who makes use of the GPL to redistribute or modify software doesn't have a copyright for the software, they have permission from the copyright holder to do certain things under certain conditions. The GPL makes use of copyright law, but that doesn't make it a copyright.
Music licensing is more complicated. Sometimes a license is given to redistribute a work, or to use a sample in a recording; sometimes music is licensed en masse [ascap.com]. Sometimes copyright is assigned to various parties, sometimes it isn't, sometimes it is assumed as part of a "work-for-hire" contract. Sometimes the copyright is split, the songwriter having copyrights for the lyrics, the band having copyrights for the score, the producer having copyrights for the studio recording, and these can get licensed in whatever ways. But, again, the license is not the copyright.
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, the above should not be interpreted as legal advice. Determining which parties own which copyrights can be a complicated issue demanding professional legal help.
Re:Irony (Score:5, Funny)
Trust me, *those* got deleted... I think Madonna cursing into a microphone would have been much better then what I recieved.
There aught to be warning labels on this stuff...
Re:Irony (Score:5, Informative)
If the RIAA has a license with the right parties to redistribute this work without restriction, then I would think it would be perfectly legal for them to put up a Grokkster node and distribute it. Users downloading the file would be downloading it legally. The legality of such users redistributing it is a complex legal question that I'm not going to try to properly answer. I would presume that the RIAA would say redistribution was illegal, but your argument that under the circumstances, sharing was assumed and therefore allowed might hold real water here. If the RIAA is working in certain ways with the police, Entrapment may also be a defense.
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, the above should not be interpreted as legal advice. Redistributing copyrighted works over the internet without a license carries with it a high risk of legal complications, I suggest getting professional legal advice before considering it.
Re:Irony (Score:5, Insightful)
I wonder if Madonna got an IM from the RIAA for this?
Joking aside, this does bring up an especially interesting question: How many of you have been using p2p to distribute your own music? Let's see a show of hands from people who have received warnings from the RIAA after using p2p to share your own music.
This isn't a trivial point. One of the recording industry's real fears is that they are being made obsolete. In the past, they've had a stranglehold on music distribution channels. You and I couldn't distribute our own music; we had to sign it over to the corporations that control the distribution. This is ending, now that we can make our music available via the internet.
This is what has the RIAA and MPAA running scared. They want monopoly control over this new distribution medium. The only way they can get this is if they can prevent you from distributing your own copyrighted material via the internet. Then you'll have to sign your files over to them, and they'll take all the profits and stick you with a bill like they do with commercial recordings.
What we really need now is a few test cases in which the RIAA has threatened people who are putting their own music online. A few such cases could make for very useful legal precent
Re:Irony (Score:5, Funny)
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Irony (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Irony (Score:3, Funny)
a/s/l/n (Score:5, Funny)
i couldn't figure out what the n stood for until they asked me for a name!
Re:a/s/l/n (Score:5, Funny)
Baz
don't reply (Score:5, Funny)
I'm always getting IM's on kazaa that go something like:
'is this a working copy of matrix 2?'
and I think to myself:
'nice try john ashcroft'.
Re:don't reply (Score:5, Funny)
'is this a working copy of matrix 2?'
and I think to myself:
'nice try john ashcroft'."
What's scary is when you think that and you suddenly hear a booming voice all around you that yells, "I'll get you! You just wait! Ahhhhh!"
Re:don't reply (Score:5, Insightful)
...except narcs.
oh yeah kazaa should consider incorporating checksums.
Re:don't reply (Score:4, Funny)
Eh? (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't think I have a sig.
Re:Eh? (Score:4, Interesting)
It seems to me (Score:5, Insightful)
Scare tactic. Next question please.
Re:It seems to me (Score:3, Interesting)
True enough, but a pretty good scare tactic for 95%+ of the population. The average computer user knows little or nothing about how their online activities can be tracked and prosecuted.
And it must have been disturbing as hell to get one of those messages, at your own computer, in your own office or bedroom, from a weird quasi-government body who may or may not have the wherewithall to arrest you/fine you/harass you.
The anonymity of the internet is what empowers p
Legality issues aside, (Score:3, Funny)
I know a lot of ppl who would stop trading songs online and be a bit scared after that. Specially if they live in the us where personal liberties are not in an all time high, and the riaa/mpaa hold a lot of sway.
I guess that after a few days of reading online how the courts ruled agaist them and yadda yadda trading would resume.
I use kazaa for trading of tv shows because as i am not in the us i can't enjoy the pleasures of PVRs and building my own for a few shows is not worth it. I used audiogalaxy for music as i could find there the stuff i like, but not kazaa so i don't have a normal paramater with which to check against. But i bet that similar searches on popular music a few days ago and tomorrow will show significant difference in found sources
Re:Lets make it anonymous! (Score:3, Interesting)
Besides that, although FreeNet may have more anonymity built-in than other P2P services, it's far from anonymous... It only provides a measure of deniability ("No, *I* didn't download that movie, FreeNet did that automatically for some reason"), which is just as possible with Gnutella ("No, I was searching for something wholesome and just accidentally downloaded that because it was embedded with tons of other perfectly legal fil
Re:Lets make it anonymous! (Score:3, Interesting)
Rosen's Last Stand... (Score:5, Insightful)
They simply cannot subpoena Grokster or KaZaA (thanks to the recent ruling) for users' names -- let alone actually find their e-mail address to send a nastier C&D 'letter'.
By doing this, the RIAA is basically admitting to the fact that they have lost their stranglehold on the music industry's implementation of non-DRM (or DRM lite) technology.
Re:Rosen's Last Stand... (Score:5, Informative)
Forgetting the Verizon rulings so quickly? They just wanted to sue the companies that make the software out of business. In terms of going after the users, they've got court backing on that one - they simply go to the ISP. Heck, they don't even need a warrant, judge's order, or even probable cause.
Re:Rosen's Last Stand... (Score:3)
Even if the information is so readily available (sigh), RIAA still has to do something with it. I think the point the grandparent post was trying to make is that even the RIAA isn't about to send snailmail C&Ds to - much less file lawsuits against - hundreds of thousands of people. Using the messaging systems of the filesharing
Sadly (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Sadly (Score:3, Funny)
Canadian terrorists? (Score:5, Funny)
my response (Score:5, Funny)
Me: "Man the desperate things you try... How does it feel to be obsolete? Artists don't need you anymore. Consumers don't need you anymore. I hear your industry fading. Better brush up on your customer service skills, your gonna need them in your new job at Mcdonalds. If they hire form scum sucking executive types. ah... I hear the clock... tick tick tick tick"
Oh BS (Score:5, Insightful)
What part of P2P makes the industry obsolete exactly? Just because P2P makes possible blatant violation of copyright that was previously much harder does not make the industry any less necessary. What you are trying to imply is sort of like arguing that because I can steal from, say, Nordstrom's that clothing retailers are no longer necessary. Even if we completely ignore the (misleading) distinction between these two forms of theft, you're taking still does not answer the tough questions, namely, what is going to secure the continued production by the originators (read: artists or clothing makers) or what is going to replace the marketing and publicity function that both you and the artist ultimately depend on.
I have no problem if you wish to completely cut RIAA out of the loop. However, the fact of the matter is that you're not. You're trying to have your cake and eat it too--you want to enjoy the services without paying for them. You're taking music for which RIAA owns the copyright, which they own because they perform a multitude of functions and which is the reason why you're downloading the music in the first place. If you want to do P2P and claim that neither you nor the artist "need" RIAA, then do it without misappropriating copyrighted material.
You guys assert that P2P can somehow replace the current function of RIAA. Maybe, but probably not in the form that it exists today on Kazaa and numerous other networks, and you certainly have not demonstrated it. P2P has been around for a couple years now and yet you'd be hard pressed to point to a single major artist that can really credit their success to these services. Record sales may be slumping today, but up and coming artists are still signing with major record labels by and large, despite the existance of the P2P that you claim makes the industry irrelevant. The proof is in the pudding, or should I say...NOT?
This is the right way for the RIAA to do it (Score:3, Insightful)
FreeNet (Score:5, Insightful)
-completely anonymous users, file transfers, hosts, etc.
-reliable and stable structure
-decentralized topology
-efficient data management
-and complete deniability (I didn't host that file, or I didn't download that file, as member's cant control content on the network)
Well, I don't work for FreeNet, or their developers, but I did have to read a paper on FreeNet for school, and FreeNet does do all that.
I guess it's time to make the switch to FreeNet [freenet.org].
Link (Score:5, Informative)
-completely anonymous users, file transfers, hosts, etc.
Freenet is still suseptable to a man-in-the-middle attack. Your ISP could log everything you insert. Also, it won't protect you from your own software. For example if you publish a word document with your name and LAN address embedded in it, you've pretty much given up your privacy.
Re:FreeNet (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:FreeNet (Score:4, Informative)
-completely anonymous users, file transfers, hosts, etc.
-reliable and stable structure
-decentralized topology
-efficient data management
-and complete deniability (I didn't host that file, or I didn't download that file, as member's cant control content on the network)
We do. We have several.
- FreeNet [freenetproject.org], and similar projects (Publius [nyu.edu], FreeHaven [freehaven.net]) for distributing anonymous files
- The Invisible IRC Project [invisiblenet.net] for anonymous, deniable instant messaging
- InvisiBlog [invisiblog.com] for blogging
- MixMaster [sourceforge.net] and Hushmail [hushmail.com] for email
- Anonymizer [anonymizer.com] and Peek-a-booty [peek-a-booty.org] for browsing
Anyone care to add to this list? I've only put the ones that immediately spring to mind, but I know there are more distributed anonymous deniable chaffed encrypted file-share programs that I've not tried.
Idle threat (Score:5, Insightful)
The RIAA will continue the only possible strategy for prosecuting illegal music-swappers: hammer a few "extreme offenders" college students to set an example for the many.
IM warning notwithstanding, Joe Blow from Iowa who downloads a few Celine Dion songs has as good a chance of being prosecuted as he does replacing Rene Angelil. The RIAA must prosecute copyright violators individually, and out of necessity they will focus on the select few worst abusers, at least those who are easy targets.
Real Irony (Score:5, Interesting)
The Verizon lawyer just said: "Wait a minute. You just contacted millions of people."
Also, about "the messaging": it appears that the RIAA is "logging on" to popular file sharing services and using simple scripting to message users through the system. Kazaa provides this functionality.
See, the thing I don't understand, is that to do this sort of thing *legitimately* - that is, prove the user who they're messaging IS distributing copywrited content - the RIAA must log on, search, download, and play a potentially infringing file. Then, the RIAA has to send out the message.
No matter what the speed of the RIAA connection, something tells me that it's going to be very difficult for them to download millions of songs, check them by hand, and then send out messages - since it simply isn't possible. Perhaps they could hash files, sure, but they're STILL downloading thousands of songs. In other words, this is what this says: "I just used this file sharing service to illegally copy a song - and if I want to, I can sue you for it." In previous suits, the RIAA has said things to the tune of: "Since you didn't own copyright to this and my computer made a copy, regardless of whether or not I own copyright, the file isn't legally mine." Or, translation: "I committed a crime to prove your guilt."
I'm pretty sure that isn't legal.
Blacklist RIAA/MPAA? (Score:3, Interesting)
I've been building up a fairly large blacklist of hosts returning bogus search results, but that only works so well. If there was a good blacklist, P2P programs could include it, and deny all connections from those ``nasty" hosts.
Re:Blacklist RIAA/MPAA? (Score:3, Informative)
Unfortunately, this will get you nowhere. I can tell you for a fact (alas as an AC) that much of the "scanning" that takes place on P2P networks on behalf of copyright owners happens from ordinary ISP accounts. Don't expect to see, e.g. copyrightspider41.riaa.org or dmcabot.columbiarecords.com crawling Kazaa looking for shared files. Network traversal is done primarily from DHCP DSL connecti
Peer Guardian (Score:3, Informative)
OverPeer:65.174.255.255
OverPeer:65.160.0.0-65. 160.127.255
Ranger:216.122.0.0-216.122.255.255
R anger:204.92.244.0-204.92.244.255
MediaForce:65.1 92.0.0-65.192.0.255
MediaForce:65.223.0.0-65.223. 255.255
MediaForce:4.43.96.0-4.43.96.255
MediaDe fender:66.79.0.0-66.79.255.255
MediaDefender:64.2 25.292.0-64.225.292.127
RIAA:208.192.0.0-208.255. 255.255
RIAA:208.225.90.0-208.225.90.255
RIAA:12
MPAA:63.199.57.96-63.19 9.57.128
MPAA:64.166.187.128-64.166.187.192
MP
Scared of scaring... (Score:5, Interesting)
Both...
The RIAA are treading a thin line. They want music trading to go away but they're also very aware they run the risk of alienating their customers.
Commercial music's success comes from it being something "cool". The last thing they want is for it to be seen by the masses as Big Brother's tool. And before anyone says it, yes, fair enough it already seems like that to most of us on Slashdot but then Linux seems like an easy OS to us - we're not the general public.
So far the RIAA has gone after the companies. They've been trying to tread the thin line of "These companies are evil. We know it's just them leading you astray. So we'll kill them off and we can all be friends again." Except that's not really all that legally enforcable a position as this week's ruling pointed out. Just as you don't go after the gun makers for a murder, they're being told they can't go after the software makers for what their users do with it.
Whether you agree that it should be illegal or not, sharing music with thousands of strangers isn't personal use and isn't currently legal. If the RIAA want to use the law to stamp out online sharing, they have to go after the users. They're just scared shitless of what'll happen to them if they really do.
So, is this a scare tactic or an honest attempt at reforming the p2p community? I think it's a bit of both. They're desperately trying every last ploy to get their way before they have to come down as the evil big brother. If they can simply reform the p2p community, they'd love that. If not, they're going to be forced to use scare tactics and then, after that, be forced to back up their threats.
At the moment they're suing for insane amounts (what was it, $90billion?) against a few isolated, publicised cases, hoping they can leave people with the feeling that "they're not really evil and don't really go after everyone - but I can't take the risk, so I'll stop."
It may not seem like it's working to us but then, like I said earlier with the Linux example, we're not the masses. Most music buyers are teens and pre-teens (Don't believe me? Try explaining N-Sync). They're nowhere near as well informed as the slashdot crowd and, who knows, maybe it is working with them.
Re:Scared of scaring... (Score:5, Funny)
K.
N-Sync is merely a front whose true intentions are to get Lance Bass into outer space [cnn.com].
Do I win?
Soko
Another thin line (Score:4, Informative)
That's not the only thin line they're treading. The biggest obstacle to becoming popular is getting exposure. Exposure is what the major record labels offer to artists.
Right now, p2p networks are swamped with music from the major labels. If the major labels manage to remove their own music from the networks, their competitors will become far more salient.
What the RIAA really needs to do, is guilt people into buying the music they download, or guilt people into not posting any music, including music from their competitors. The last thing the RIAA wants is for independent artists to get all the attention.
did you receive the message ? make $$ ! (Score:5, Insightful)
You agree not to use the Software to:
2.1 Transmit or communicate any data that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, invasive
of another's privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise
objectionable.
Isnt that basis enough to sue the RIAA ?
Re:I doubt Kazaa would sue (Score:3, Interesting)
Battery? (Score:5, Interesting)
The term is Barratry (Score:3, Informative)
Probably an unpopular opinion, but.... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is not the answer. I'm not saying that the RIAA is right in claiming that the MASSIVE amount of pirating is hurting their business, but if this is the response we all start taking eventually it will. We do have to realize that it is the recording industry that signs artists, produces and records their work, and markets them to a vast audience. In a round about way, pirating music is eventually going to end up hurting us. I'm not exempt, nor do I plan to stop downloading free music period, but we can't just fight back by stealing more music. IF we continue to ramp up our efforts in a big "fuck you" to the RIAA and recording industry we'll end up with a world FULL or DRM and Longhorn/Itanium like shit. I, for one, shiver at that thought.
from the articel: 'The RIAA argued that Verizon is obligated under the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act to help the music industry protect its copyrights. Verizon says it is willing to help, but argued that the law only applies to Web pages stored on its computers, not traffic on the "peer-to-peer" networks that merely travel across its wires.'
Here we see the DMCA being wielded again. We have to face it, the law is here now and they're going to use it. We have a couple of choices: accept it and learn to play by the rules it outlines, or band together (there's a hell of a lot of people that read Slashdot) and strike it down, or AT LEAST reform it. The DMCA is pure evil and until we change or destroy it we're not going to make any progress in regards to the current state of affairs. It was a way of treating a symptom (like so many things in America) and NOT a solution to the problem. BUT all of us bitching about it online and on Slashdot DOES NOTHING. We have to take action on this.
"I think a small number of users will be deterred by this effort. It's not going to come as a surprise to them the RIAA finds it unlawful," said Jonathan Band, a copyright lawyer for Morrison & Foerster.
I have a fifteen year old sister. Think about it, these kids start getting online around 10-12 and all they've EVER known is FREE MUSIC. Most of them don't know or even consider that it IS stealing. DON'T STEAL MUSIC was part of the message sent buy the RIAA (Apple is still innovating the industry, in more ways than one. Remember when the iPod first came out....) and this is something we should really think about. Are we justified in demanding lower prices? Yes. How about calling foul on the DMCA? Yes. Figuring out a new model that is beneficial to artists, consumers, and the corporations providing the content? Yes. As the law stands though, downloading music from p2p IS ILLEGAL. Are we justified in stealing? No.
Look at the new service from Apple, iTunes Music Store. I don't think Apple got it 100% correct but they've come a HELL of a lot closer than anyone else so far. Unlimited burns of tracks to CD, burn a playlist 10 times, register 3 Macs to play purchased files and be able to change which 3 Macs you have registered, unlimited ability to put your music on as many iPods as you like, and Rendezvous streaming of your entire library both on your network and across the internet. I feel the price points are pretty damn close to right....and maybe we'll see them get a little better.
I don't know exactly what point I'm trying to make but it just seems like we're all screaming "foul" on this and maybe we should re-examine the whole situation. Escalating this to an epic battle of theft, rights infringement, lawsuit, counter lawsuit, destruction of an industry just doesn't seem like the only option.
The Slashdot community could have a lot of power and a lot of voice if we could agree on something that was fair to BOTH sides and then get out in the real world and make that voice heard.
Re:Probably an unpopular opinion, but.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Figuring out a new model that is beneficial to artists, consumers, and the corporations providing the content?
Artists? Definitely. Consumers? Absolutely. Corporations? WHY?!
The RIAA isn't fighting P2P because of lost record sales. They're fighting it because it hints at a new model, where artists bring their music directly to their fans. No "breakage" clause in record contracts. No payola to Clearchannel. Just musicians making music and consumers supporting them while they do it.
Just wait until Apple
!! This is what is coming NEXT !! (Score:3, Funny)
A transcript of the conversation (Score:5, Funny)
<l4m0rman2000X> omg wtf
<RIAA> Please remove all copyrighted material from your shared folder and refrain from downloading copyrighted material in the future.
<l4m0rman2000X> gimme the new limp bizkit faggot
<l4m0rman2000X> fuck u
<RIAA> I am attempting to converse in a civil manner. You have been given a warning to cease your illegal activities. Failure to do so could result in legal action being taken.
<l4m0rman2000X> shut up b4 i ddos u!!!!!1 take ur jewish lawyer crp back 2 israel!!!!1
*** Quits: l4m0rman2000X (Leaving)
"reforming a community"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:"reforming a community"? (Score:3, Funny)
i've said it before, and i'll say it again... (Score:5, Insightful)
Justin Timberlake, Christina Agularia, Kelly Clarkson, 50 Cent, and Linkin Park are being shoved down the throats of their listeners with their preprocessed, $18 garbage, its no goddamned wonder CD sales are down! In one quick swoop, Napster made available all of the "good" music people want to hear AND made the CD format obsolete.
I'm sorry, but I believe it's time for the RIAA to buckle down and try and change their business model if they want to stick around.
Plausible denyability !!!!!!!! (Score:5, Interesting)
Make CDs more affordable (Score:5, Insightful)
I am from Cape Town, South Africa and I personally think one of the many reasons why people p2p for music is because of the price of CDs nowadays. Here, we are paying about R130-R150 a CD which averages about $17. It may not sound much for the Americans out there, but for us here in SA, it is a lot of money to spend on a CD.
Compare to a Large McDonalds Big Mac meal, fries and a Coke for R22.
Many people out there would rather own the original CD because of the quality advantage and CD sleeve, etc, but people are only prepared to pay for CDs rather than to p2p if they were cheaper. Doesn't the RIAA realise this? Don't they think that if they had to bring the price down by 50% or so that they would sell more CDs, and so in turn make more money?
But nowadays commerce doesn't think like this. For example, bring the price of plasma television screens down by a huge amount and BELIEVE ME, people will storm each and every Circuit City, Best Buy, etc and buy them.
I would love to hear your comments on this.
Thanks
seems OK to me (Score:5, Insightful)
I shudder to think on what legal basis the RIAA could be prohibited from doing this. If anything like that existed, it would probably be sweeping and be a threat to P2P and IM in general. However, the creator of the P2P software might be able to do something if it bugs enough users.
If you aren't offering copyrighted songs and they still keep bothering you, maybe you can sue them for some kind of harrassment. If you are offering copyrighted songs, just live with it, or, alternatively, perhaps you should just stop.
RIAA keepsake! (Score:3, Funny)
Maybe it'll be worth something twenty years from now on ebay.
---
"Dude, I'll trade you a cease-and-desist by Harry Fox for that"
"Deal!"
Maybe this is the way? (Score:3, Insightful)
On the flip side--if they set up downloads and people bite can't they also find you and send nasty letter?
I don't see that as a problem. Kazza is a publik network after all! No one really has any "protection" for their actions using their network. If they want to look you up they are more that right to do so. Try kiddy pr0n on Kazza and I'll guaranty you'll have someone at your door in a hurry! The only problem is that going after every music downloader is time consuming. Again, go after the kids at home-upset the parents and you'll get results. A little sabotage of the CDDB would be good too. If they embeded a tracker number in the database tags everyone would download them to their mp3's! You could track at least the stupid users back home with it.
As for college students, they need to offer a more reasonable alternative. If the college gets a kick-back for sharing the network they'd be more likely to keep the kids straight too! Funny how a little money in Deans hands fixes lots of things! [Take a page from the MS playbook here!]
To throw some more fuel on the flames I'll be a-getting [but that's OK, I've got marshmellows!]..I use AOL DSL and love it. They've got radio stations that play just about anything you'd want. [Music videos too] or you can go to the other legal music sites at decent bandwidth too. There's enough stuff on there you don't have to steal to get it! More ISPs need to follow that example. [and AOL needs to support Linux!]
Recurring Problem (Score:4, Insightful)
Geez, what's the matter with everybody? (Score:5, Insightful)
I am no fan of the RIAA. But the reactions here are surprisingly hostile for what they're doing. If I'm reading this article correctly, they're sending instant messages to people who are offering files to upload (based on song titles), warning them about their traceability and legal liability.
So what?
This is rotten behavior but it is an improvement. Remember, these are people who would much rather communicate with you via certified mail on legal letterhead. If I get an instant message on Kazaa I don't start pacing around in a sweat wondering if I should contact a lawyer.
Presumably, anyone using Kazaa for non-infringing uses shouldn't get one of these instant messages anyway (unless the RIAA is lying about examining song titles first, or there's a name collision with a copyrighted work in a user's upload directory). Running a file sharing node doesn't expose you to liability unless you've got copyrighted stuff on it. We always emphasize how file sharing networks have non-infringing uses. I don't see how this would have a chilling effect on such use unless the messages are sent to people in error, are used for DoS attacks, or are indiscriminately sent to all users of the network whether their node contains copyrighted content or not.
Frankly I would almost give them points for cleverness. Compared to their typical antics this is quite tame. It will probably be more effective for them, too. Most people probably don't care enough about file sharing to risk liability, and it's only natural for the average user to presume his own anonymity on Kazaa. In fact I bet most people who use Kazaa aren't even conscious of the fact that their IP is exposed and traceable to them, and might very well stop using Kazaa once they realize it. The message is clearly targeted at such people. The RIAA might just effect a greater dent in file sharing with this stupid instant messaging than they have so far with all their lawyers, lobbyists, and hired network saboteurs. If so, we should only hope the lesson sinks into their thick heads. This is the best behavior we can realistically expect from them. They don't understand anything but threats and intimidation. Let's all hope they stick to instant messaging.
Yes they're corporate vultures, cultural parasites, etc., and this is clearly an act of a desperate industry that just lost a huge court case and has sunk to the point of threatening individual file traders, but the shrill tone and accusations of hypocrisy is a bit much for what they're doing here. It's a frigging instant message. What do you expect from the RIAA, a love letter? You should already be aware of the risks you're taking. If you didn't know before, now you do. Just click OK and keep downloading.
RIAA vs Eliza (Score:5, Funny)
Eliza> What makes you think You are not anonymous?
RIAA> Eh?
Eliza> Please go on.
RIAA> Are you kidding me?
Elia> Has it something to do with your childhood?
RIAA> Oh.. now as you said that I recall my parents being very cruel to me. They refused to buy me a Walkman for my 13th birthday..
RIAA is cutting off thier toes to run faster. (Score:5, Interesting)
Why do you think we have such corporate sponsored pop-music travesties such as Britney "Pepsi" Spears? Because people actually buy their garbage! With file-sharing only the strong will survive, and the RIAA and Music labels cannot continue to put one or two good songs on a CD with 16-17 "filler tracks" and make billions. The crap will not get listened to. People will download and burn only the good stuff and this will force the no-talent pop-stars on the shortbus back to Creative Inspiration special education school.
If you want people to pay 15 bucks for a CD you had damn well better put $15 worth of decent music on it. In the end we must realise that we have created this monster. We, the consumers, financed and permitted these people to build this empire and in the end we can only strive to take back what we have allowed them to annex from us. filesharing is one way of telling these people that enough is enough.
I am now off to download all of Madonna's work just for the hell of it. In the end she, and the greedy alcoholic neanderthals of Metallica have shown us the depths of greed that a person can sink to once you give them a taste for money and popularity.
NOT anonymous, eh? (Score:5, Informative)
What about the Audio Home Recording Act? (Score:5, Interesting)
Since 1992, the U.S. Government has collected a tax on all digital audio recorders and blank digital audio media manufactured in or imported into the US, and gives the money directly to the RIAA companies, which is distributed as royalties to recording artists, copyright owners, music publishers, and music writers:
In exchange for those royalties, a special exemption to the copyright law was made for the specific case of audio recordings, and as a result *all* noncommercial copying of musical recordings by consumers is now legal in the US, regardless of media:
The intent of Congress was clear when this law was passed (http://www.cni.org/Hforums/cni-copyright/1993-01From House Report No. 102-873(I), September 17, 1992:
From House Report No. 102-780(I), August 4, 1992: Therefore, when you copy an MP3 the royalties have already been paid for with tax dollars in accordance with the law. If you are a musician whose recordings are publicly distributed, then you are entitled to your share of these royalties by filing a claim under Section 1006 (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/1006.html [cornell.edu])Napster tried to use this law to defend their case, and the court ruled this law did not apply to them because they are a commercial company. But as a consumer it seems to me you are perfectly within your rights when you make a copy for noncommercial private use.
Re:What about the Audio Home Recording Act? (Score:5, Informative)
That is why there are separate music CD-Rs and data CD-Rs. The music CD-Rs have the built-in tax, the Data CD-Rs do not.
The original basis of the AHRA was because the record companies were so scared of DAT (how prescient of them). The compromise was the Serial Copy Management System which is built into consumer digital recorders. You can make any number of copies of an original CD. But you can't make a digital copy of another copy. Because SCMS is not built into computer CD-recorders, it is not included in that definition.
To protect the software (Score:5, Interesting)
Damnit! Corrected version... Re: Hi! CtC? (Score:5, Funny)
<user> Uh, no.
<RIAA> ASL plz
<user> get lost
<RIAA> plz talk 2 me!
<RIAA> plz talk 2 me!
<RIAA> plz talk 2 me!
<RIAA> plz talk 2 me!
<user> fsck off!
<RIAA> y r u so mean?
<RIAA> wats your name?
<user> damnit! leave me alone!
Re:Damnit! Corrected version... Re: Hi! CtC? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Ya... (Score:5, Funny)
Your logic is all twisted. As we all know, the only conceivable way for the RIAA to lose money is from people pirating the high quality, reasonably-priced music they offer.
I'm sorry, but I must now inform you that you are too far from reality.
Re:Ya... (Score:3, Flamebait)
The other tactic they can use is threats of "pay us a penalty of double what we say it is worth or we will sue you for the maximum fine of $50k and some jail time. Most people in that situation will pay the few hundred dollars fine rather than risk spending a lot
Re:Ya... (Score:4, Interesting)
But this isn't going to work anyway. Most people buy CDs of artists they have heard before. If I don't like the 100 songs that are in play on radio and MTV (and I don't), I'm not going to buy any CDs.
P2P networks allow people to hear a lot more different kinds of music, which is more likely to lead to CD sales. Probably a particular CD will sell less copies, but overall numbers should go up.
Instead, the RIAA is killing it's free marketing and promotional channel. Stupid, stupid, stupid...
Re:Ya... (Score:4, Insightful)
If they used a carrot, i.e. allowed crap compression like 64kps without restriction but charged for decent compression like 256kps people like me would follow their arguement. As it stands I would not buy something I do not know. So when someone says "hey, get that album", I want to hear it. So I download it. If it really is as good as it should be I will want to buy the real thing. I hardly ever get a mp3 that is that good that I would not want the real CD if it is really good. MP3s are not perfect copies whatever anyone says. If I could download a poor copy from a good source I would much rather do that and if it is worth buying I would buy it. Then that brings me to the next point... would I take out a mortgage on my house to pay what they ask? Be real!!! it is only a 50 cent item and the rest is mark up. It is fair that they make a heathy profit and get back their development. 3.00 would be fair, 5.00 would be OK but 15.00 ????
Re:How was this I,M. sent? (Score:3, Informative)
I wonder how long it'll be before they start doing pop-up spam [wired.com]
Re:Spamming (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, and 20 years later, after costing the public $50million in legal fees, the RIAA will finally win one of their 10 appeals and we'll be right back where we started. When you ask a question like that, you need to qualify it.
To me, it's the same as someone asking, "Can't Microsoft be prosecuted for illegally maintaining a monopoly?".
Massive multinational conglomerates have outgrown our justice system. Simply put, they're bigger than we, the people, could ever hope to be.
Re:How is RIAA != mafia/Triad? (Score:3, Insightful)
Not the effect
big difference there.
Concept is the same. You are virtually SCARING someone into doing something.
To some people, going to jail is equal death. So you end up the same. And that doesnt mean that person's got issues, it just means that his vision of jail is different from yours.
Re:"Stealing music" ? (Score:3, Interesting)
Maybe not -- but if you deprive them of the income they might otherwise have earned by way of sales -- there's a case to argue that piracy is a theft of money even if it's not the theft of music itself.
The problem we face here is that until recently, the only way the market could express its dissatisfaction with the quality or price of a product was not to buy it.
Thanks to P2P networks, digital duplication and the like, that
Re:RIAA's response (Score:3, Interesting)
Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
I really don't see the problem with the RIAA trying to limit piracy, it's their tactics that suck. Kazaa for example has a lot of stuff traded on it that has absolutely nothing to do with the RIAA, yet they try to shut the whole thing down, and they're terrible hyocrites and can't see that they need to change their business model. I hardly even use cds anymore, and if I do they're mp3 cds. I have the means to use more convenient methods than having hundreds of cds laying around (and I HAVE hundreds, legally bought over the years.. not many from recent years, but hundreds nonetheless) so why the hell should I stick to overpriced media in a format I don't even like anymore?
They don't get with the times... people adapt, they're not. Tough shit if nobody wants to do business with the RIAA anymore. You might as well sue me if I grow food in my garden because I've decided it's nicer than paying for all my food already pre-grown. Not the same thing, sure, but it's a similar situation...
Of course I'm preaching to the choir here.
I think pay music can and should exist. They're obviously not learning how to SELL it though. Update the business model, get with the times, stop screwing over the bands (I won't get into that here, but they certainly do), and realise that most people don't want to spend nearly $20 for an hour's worth of content when there's so many hours of content out there to listen to.
Support your favorite bands by seeing them live. You'll probably even discover a lot of new music that way too.
Re:A Question (Score:4, Interesting)
Make your own record company that sells hour-long, $5 CDs, and have $1 (or more) of each sale go to the artist. No copy protection is really needed, because 99% of people will just buy the CD.
Re:Use GNUNet! (Score:4, Interesting)
And here [ovmj.org] is a paper (PostScript) describing what GNUNet means by anonymity.
From the official [ovmj.org] GNU page for GNUNet:
Sounds good to me. According to the docs, the final version should be ready in time to ship with HURD 1.0!
(That last bit was a bad joke. I hope.)
Re:Not anonymous? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Any ISP gurus out there? (Score:5, Interesting)