RIAA Obtains Subpoena To Expose 'Infringing' Cloudflare Users (torrentfreak.com) 84
The RIAA has obtained a subpoena from a Columbia federal court ordering Cloudflare to hand over the IP and email addresses and all other identifying information related to several allegedly infringing users. The RIAA notes it will use the information it receives to protect the rights of its member companies. From a report: The RIAA has a long history of going after, what it sees as, pirate sites. The problem, however, is that many owners of such sites operate anonymously. The group, therefore, often has to turn to third-party intermediaries to find out more. While some services may be willing to voluntarily share information with the music industry group, many don't. Cloudflare falls into the latter category. While the CDN service does voluntarily reveal the true hosting locations of some of its users, it doesn't share any personal info. At least, not without a subpoena. Luckily for rightsholders, getting a subpoena isn't very hard in the US. Under the DMCA, copyright holders only have to ask a court clerk for a signature to be able to demand the personal information of alleged copyright infringers. That's exactly what the RIAA did last week. In a letter sent by Mark McDevitt, the RIAA's vice president of online anti-piracy, the music group informs Cloudflare that it requests personal details including names, addresses and payment information relating to the operators of six domains, which are all Cloudflare users.
Piracy is such a strong word (Score:5, Funny)
I prefer the term 'free full version demo'
This is why I don't listen to mainstream music (Score:1)
Every time you download one of their songs, go to a venue playing their songs, etc, you're helping to fuel their lawyers. There is so much music available to us nowadays, why do we have to put up with these megacorps pushing people around and demanding vast sums of money for something even a bird can do?
Re: (Score:2)
I've been downloading music and other 'shitty works of art' since the 90's. I have never even once seen one of these letters they claim to send or any of that bullshit.
Same here and I've also never seen a letter. I don't doubt people get them but I'd just chuck it in the shredder if I ever received one.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
The venues already licenses the music. They don't need specific permission per artist. Just because they are sad their music is used for something they don't like doesn't mean it is illegal.
Re: (Score:3)
Not true really. A venue may occasionally have concerts, but it does not mean that they have a continual license for any music that any candidate decides to play on any day. Campaign managers of either party are not necessarily well versed in how to get the proper licenses in order, though some are, and it's the responsibility of the campaign to get this permission if necessary. And not all campaign stops are at traditional music venues; they campaign at high schools, in front of businesses, etc.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Why be ignorant when a simple google search can fix it. Yes, you can license pretty much all major music.
"venue music license"
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
First of all why are you bringing politics into this?
Second, LOL, even Trump doesn't claim there are "millions of people at each rally"? Like how big do you think an NBA stadium is? Really, the fact this came out of your mouth, made it to the keyboard, AND you hit the Preview button, is the best indication of mental retardation modern medicine has invented thus far.
Re:Trump (Score:4, Insightful)
Indie bands which perform cover music by other artists, and organizations which move around to multiple venues (like campaigns) frequently purchase their own license as well. Because occasionally a venue doesn't have a license, and you don't want to be dragged into a legal fight between the RIAA and the venue. So in most cases the music is double-licensed. If you really wanted to be fair, the band probably owes the Trump campaign (and numerous indie bands and organizations) a partial refund.
And step back and think for a minute about what you're saying. Do you really think businesses (musicians in this case) should have the right to refuse their services to customers based on the customer's political positions? I can understand refusing to take a gig to perform at a politician's campaign. But refusing to sell the right to use pre-recorded music (which takes no additional effort on the musician's part)? Do you really want Walmart and Target to have the right to refuse entry to customers who hold political beliefs they disagree with? Something which takes no additional effort on their part? The whole point of our democracy is that we live together despite our differences, not try to tear each other down because of them. The latter was the philosophy of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao.
Re: (Score:3)
god help you though if you refuse to bake a fucking wedding cake.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
First, because legally a business can refuse customers based on political affiliation.
I refuse to serve anyone who holds the political belief that homosexuals or blacks deserve human rights.
See how bad your reasoning is?
Re: (Score:2)
First, because legally a business can refuse customers based on political affiliation.
I refuse to serve anyone who holds the political belief that homosexuals or blacks deserve human rights.
See how bad your reasoning is?
In the USA we have a concept called "protected classes" which include (not limited to) race, national origin (real or perceived), gender, and others. There's a debate currently at the federal level as to whether this should include gender identity (largely as regards transsexual folks) and sexual orientation, though several states have protection for those in their own state laws (California has notably led the way on this).
That said, political affiliation has never been considered a protected class. So
Re: (Score:2)
Do you really think businesses (musicians in this case) should have the right to refuse their services to customers based on the customer's political positions?
The party in question is actively trying to make it law to discriminate against anything they don't like on "religious freedom" grounds.
Being that you don't choose to be gay but you DO you choose your "faith" I find this question seems to espouse a hilarious degree of a lack of self-awareness if this was meant to be a Trump defense post; which it seems to be.
Re: (Score:1)
Being that you don't choose to be gay but you DO you choose your "faith"
Not if you're born a Muslim. Renouncing the faith assigned to you by your parents can lead to death. Apostasy in Islam can confer the death penalty in some cultures.
Re: (Score:2)
Walmart censors and pulls items pretty regularly:
http://mentalfloss.com/article... [mentalfloss.com]
The issue is the political nature. How is my music being used? Am I allowed to control that?
Would The Who be happy to be paid for "Don't Get Fooled Again" to be played at Trump rallies? (it would be pure satire, but against the democrats - it would actually be a perfect move).
Re: (Score:3)
Do you really think businesses (musicians in this case) should have the right to refuse their services to customers based on the customer's political positions?
Yes. Political views are not, and should not be protected. They are a choice that an individual makes and others should be free to react to those choices as they choose.
The latter was the philosophy of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao.
Quite the opposite, they all insisted that everyone agree with their political views or face severe consequences. Refusing to let them use your song at their rally would land you in prison or worse.
It's vital that we allow people to have different political views, and to express them freely, which includes criticism and not wanting to associ
Re:Trump (Score:4, Insightful)
It's vital that we allow people to have different political views, and to express them freely, which includes criticism and not wanting to associate with people on political grounds.
Well said. The kind of speech that must be protected is the kind we detest, not the kind we agree with.
Nazis and alt-right fucktards absolutely have the right to express their views, and I absolutely have the right not to have anything to do with them.
They're not a protected class. I don't have to accommodate them or give them a platform. I don't have to take their money or provide any services to them, period. I can opt not to do business with them, and they're still free to sing their chants and march with their little tiki torches all they want.
They're still doing this crap? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They're going after web sites, similar to TBP, not individual users.
Re: (Score:2)
Try reading it right side up?
They're going after the people who control 6 domains. Those websites use Cloudflare. Therefore, the operators of those websites are the Cloudflare clients, aka, users of the Cloudflare service.
We don't actually know if they are "individual" users or corporations, but they're most likely individuals. But that isn't what you imply, is it?
Re: (Score:1)
Find the ip and find the users?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
How long does an average ISP keep its retention logs AC?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Tangentally appropriate (Score:1)
We got 'em (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
"Allegedly" infringing. United States, land of the free. where an accusation equals a sentence.
Only if the accuser has lots and lots of money
Wow (Score:3)
For such a bunch of inbred dickless weasels, the RIAA has demonstrated a profound lack of learning ability.
They'll win the War On Piracy right about the time the government wins the War On Drugs.