Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

RIAA Obtains Subpoenas Against File Swappers

CowboyNeal posted more than 11 years ago | from the biting-hands-that-feed dept.

Music 1046

SniperPuppy writes "Fox News is reporting that the RIAA has secured 871 subpoenas against suspected file swappers, with 75 more being approved each day. Between this, and the latest versions of FreeNet and Kazaa Lite being released, will technology be able to keep traders away from court?" Apparently, just suing the "major offenders" wasn't enough of a warning shot, so now they're going after people who share as few as eight songs. Wait until the RIAA discovers all the stuff that gets posted to Usenet!

cancel ×

1046 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Shhh! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6477584)

You want them to know about Usenet???

Re:Shhh! (0)

slainfu (528905) | more than 11 years ago | (#6477591)

Somebody tell them it's just another name for Edonkey.

Re:Shhh! (2, Funny)

AndroidCat (229562) | more than 11 years ago | (#6477628)

Don't worry, they'll think it's that GoogleGroups web page thing. And I'm not joking.

Shhhh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6477585)

Hey, man...keep that on the down-low...

Fine (5, Funny)

conteXXt (249905) | more than 11 years ago | (#6477589)

but leave IRC for the rest of us

Anyone living abroad (3, Funny)

Trigun (685027) | more than 11 years ago | (#6477590)

Preferably on a small, non-US influenced island someplace warm?
Want to let a room?

Re:Anyone living abroad (1)

rde (17364) | more than 11 years ago | (#6477617)

Maybe. Are you going to bring your own music?

Re:Anyone living abroad (1)

EpsCylonB (307640) | more than 11 years ago | (#6477647)

Seriously tho, how worried should I be living in the uk ?, have the RIAA any plans to get global with their crusade ?.

Re:Anyone living abroad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6477658)

Are you nuts? If Bush ever hears there is such a place, the bombers will be in the air within the hour. You be putting you life at risk...

How about Aruba? (1)

Trigun (685027) | more than 11 years ago | (#6477741)

From Aruba.com re: their government.
You will find that Aruba is a very safe, stable and friendly Dutch island within the kingdom of the Netherlands.

They live off of tourism and banking. They produce their own electricity (albeit coal fired). They are close enough to S. America that you can make a good run for it should you need to. They are located outside of the hurricane belt, have two seasons (summer and more summer), and have a sufficiently large white population that a cracker like me would not feel out of place or construed as a 'White Devil'.
Anyone farmiliar with Dutch law?

10th post (0)

cockroach2 (117475) | more than 11 years ago | (#6477592)

from a country where the RIAA can f*ck themselves...

This affects me not at all (0)

SkArcher (676201) | more than 11 years ago | (#6477593)

I get most of mine from IRC

mIRC and the IRC protocols are too widespread and too basic for them to monitor all of it accurately

Re:This affects me not at all (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6477613)

Your IP address has been recorded. The SWAT team will be at your house shortly.

Re:This affects me not at all (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6477694)

Oh man! The guy whose box I 0wn3d and installed that proxy on is going to be pissed!

Re:This affects me not at all (1)

Heem (448667) | more than 11 years ago | (#6477623)

You really have no idea what you are talking about.
IRC is about as simple as it gets.First off, mIRC is simply *one* irc client, and has no bearing on this topic at all. and the IRC "protocol" is simply plain text. Unfortunatley, for those who use IRC for such things, it's just as easy, if not easier to track such activities on IRC

Re:This affects me not at all (1)

grennis (344262) | more than 11 years ago | (#6477645)

No, actually when you transfer a file with someone else, the protocol DCC connects directly with the other client, not through the IRC servers.

Re:This affects me not at all (1)

Heem (448667) | more than 11 years ago | (#6477680)

Yes, but the list of files is typically available publically to anyone on the channel in which you are serving. Doesnt take much after that to find out who you are.

Re:This affects me not at all (1)

Ishin (671694) | more than 11 years ago | (#6477684)

How does this help the people running the actual mp3 fservs? If you can find em, so can the RIAA.

Re:This affects me not at all (1)

strider3700 (109874) | more than 11 years ago | (#6477716)

As I pointed out elsewhere on this article. Most of the fserves are hacked boxes. I know because I've had to clean one up. It took a warning from the ISP before my buddy realized what was going on.

Re:This affects me not at all (2, Insightful)

Lusa (153265) | more than 11 years ago | (#6477715)

This does affect you even if you use an IRC server that masks ip addresses. A direct connection will give out your ip address and they can get that by requesting anything from fserve be it the file list, an mp3 or even a dcc chat session.

If a direct connection is not used then you can be protected by a foreign server more. The only way to be truly safe on irc is not to send files and be on a server that masks ip's.

Re:This affects me not at all (1)

irc.goatse.cx troll (593289) | more than 11 years ago | (#6477737)

No, The proper way is to either use a proxy for everything (either an irc proxy(bnc) or just an http proxy that allows connect). Or connect from a shell, either way.

You are not very clever. (1)

Krapangor (533950) | more than 11 years ago | (#6477703)

Honestly.
It's well known that IRC is already monitored by the several law enforcing groups for 31337 haxors and warez kiddies.

I always wonder how people can be that stupid. Every service where they can track down your identity is not save for doing such illegal things. Sometimes they won't get you at once because they have much data to process but they will always get you in long term.

It's quite surprising that so much haxors, warez and mp3 traders use IRC. You would first conjecture a priori that they should know at least a little about security. But they are plainly too stupid to grasp even the elementary facts.

Re:This affects me not at all (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6477714)

mIRC and the IRC protocols

*cough* mIRC is not a protocol.

Re:This affects me not at all (1)

plenTpak (543323) | more than 11 years ago | (#6477729)

I think he knows this: he said "mIRC and the IRC protocols", not "the mIRC and IRC protocols"...

Re:This affects me not at all (1)

Slashdot Junky (265039) | more than 11 years ago | (#6477738)

That sig of your is really funny!
-Slashdot Junky

Sue your customer (3, Interesting)

grennis (344262) | more than 11 years ago | (#6477594)

Sounds like they took a page from DirectTV's [slashdot.org] playbook. And why not? It appears to be working. But how are they going to stop international users?

Re:Sue your customer (2, Insightful)

n0nsensical (633430) | more than 11 years ago | (#6477605)

But how are they going to stop international users?

Most likely by influencing US policymakers to influence EU policymakers to use their increasing power over the laws of individual European nations to change their laws to mirror those of the US. Then start suing in European courts, rinse and repeat on other continents where too many people decide they no longer want to pay for RIAA music for whatever reason.

Re:Sue your customer (0, Flamebait)

benjiboo (640195) | more than 11 years ago | (#6477655)

Even if these guys meet the definition of "customers", (which they don't), if they equal a net loss to the industry then I'm sure they would rather not have these customers around.

Thought of an interesting point. P2P is more damaging than copying a CD for personal use. Copying the CD results in no direct loss to the Industry (though they still have the right to uphold their copyright.) HOWEVER, if you download a song on a P2P network, your actions might result in a direct loss as you are then facilitating piracy for other people who *may* have subsequently purchased the music.

Question (5, Interesting)

beacher (82033) | more than 11 years ago | (#6477600)

Is it okay to download mp3's of songs that I legitimately own on CD? Can I claim fair use if I own the CD? Can I counter sue?
-B

Re:Question (1)

beacher (82033) | more than 11 years ago | (#6477612)

Reread the subject again (I just jumped on the RIAA mp3 sue keywords) I'm not sharing files btw.
-B

You Can Indeed (1)

n0nsensical (633430) | more than 11 years ago | (#6477619)

Can I claim fair use if I own the CD? Can I counter sue?

Well, you can. But that doesn't mean a judge is going to listen to you. :-)

Re:You Can Indeed (4, Insightful)

AndroidCat (229562) | more than 11 years ago | (#6477721)

I saw a nice quote about the Federal court system, but I think it applies to any court system, so I'll mangle it a bit:

Justice is a vending machine that only takes $10,000 coins, usually a lot of them. And sometimes the chocolate bar still gets stuck.

Re:Question (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6477633)

In Canada it's legal to copy a whole CD into an audio media without actually owning the CD. So that means you can borrow your friends' CDs and copy all of them.

That doesn't mean sharing on P2P networks is legal. The Canadian Copyright Act also says you can legally copy your own CDs so you would be covered by fair use (at least in the books but we all know how much that means now).

This should be a given but I'll say it anyways. I'm not a lawyer and this does not constitute legal advice in any form or shape.

Re:Question (1)

Trigun (685027) | more than 11 years ago | (#6477698)

The problem with laws, especially copyright laws, is that they are so convoluted that anything is technically illegal, should a lawyer of sufficient calibre get you in their sights.
What it all boils down to is that if you have enough power, you can do whatever you want, as long as you are not too high profile about it. If GWB shot a person in the White House, not only would he get away with it, he could use the taxpayers money to get the stain out of the carpet, and pay a thousand times the going rate. If he shot a second one a week later, then we'd start asking what the hell he's running around with a gun for.

Re:Question (2, Funny)

AndroidCat (229562) | more than 11 years ago | (#6477742)

I'll have to call bullshit on this one. (Unless you can point to some convincing source other than "some guy...".) You can make copies, yes. For your friend, no.

Re:Question (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6477641)

No, this is strictly forbidden by the RIAA because the mp3 wasn't made from *your* physical copy of the cd.
How they tell the difference, I'll never know, since the cd will be an exact digital copy..
You're also not allowed to obtain mp3's of material you already own on records, tapes, or 8-tracks. They want you to have to buy it *again.*

Re:Question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6477650)

Nope, it was in a interview with someone from the RIAA some weeks ago on slashdot.

Re:Question (2, Interesting)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 11 years ago | (#6477652)

Actually no. If there other guy doesn't own them [and how would you know?] it's still piracy. Even better, if you download an mp3 *then* by the CD you have still pirated the audio.

Making a *private* MP3 copy of a song isn't illegal [despite what contrived BS the zealots will bring up]. Provided you legally owned a copy of the CD/tape/record/media you are entitled to make your own private copies to your heart desires.

The trick, don't download mp3s off P2P networks. Really that simple. If you want to know what a song sounds like request it from your local radio station, if you want a your radiostation to play "indie/newbie" groups petition them [or a NPR station] to play them. There are legal ways to sample a song before buying it.

I mean, for the decades before P2P what do you think people did to hear a song? [This coming from a 21 yr old "kid" should tell you something]

99.999% of all P2P users are pirates. Their benevolent intentions aside there is no excuse for it. /rant

Tom

Re:Question (4, Interesting)

arkanes (521690) | more than 11 years ago | (#6477690)

mean, for the decades before P2P what do you think people did to hear a song?

Um, they listented to what the music industry aligarchy wanted them to listen to. Bands without a label couldn't get widespread exposure (there are perhaps a dozen notable exceptions. Not much over the last 50 years).

This is why the RIAA hates the internet so much, and why they dropped the ball so badly as to allow P2P to start in the first place. If iTunes had been around in 1995, there would have been no Napster. They don't give a shit about piracy (well, now the probably do, it's widespread enough to hurt), because they know all the same things that people post here - people downloading who wouldn't have bought the songs aren't customers. It's the decay of thier distribution network that scares them - if you can hear anything you want on P2P, you don't have to listen to the radio. This means you aren't hearing what the songs they want to hype, and you aren't listening to the commercials for the products they want to sell.

They did this to themselves, though, so it's pretty hard for me to feel sorry for them.

Re:Question (2, Interesting)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 11 years ago | (#6477713)

I'm sorry... what?

I'm fairly certain if you asked your radiostation to play local bands they would. The whole reason why radiostations are in business is because people listen to the BS they put out. So if people don't complain why change it?

"people who pirate aren't customers". What does that have todo with anything? Can I kill your parents if you don't like them?

Admitedly radio sucks [I haven't listened to it in over ten years or so] and admitedly most "popular" music is teeny-bopper. But that isn't the RIAA's fault. Its the fault of all the stupid teenagers who get so utterly wrapped up in the moment that they don't step back to realize it sucks.

I mean how many screaming fans are at a Spears concert? How many of them are so vain, shallow and stupid to fall for that gimmick BS? If people spent 1/10th the money on door fees for local bands we wouldn't be in this mess. But alas people are overwhelmingly stupid. This is also why Intel for example, can get away with selling the P4 and still have "fan users". Or how Nintendo can make a fairly crappy GBA [it has many flaws like a 16-bit data bus], recycle SNES games and still make a profit.

If consumers had an ounce of critical thinking the world would be VERY much different.

Regardless of the motives for the RIAA, pirating is illegal and they have the right to sue them. Tired BS arguments.

Tom

Re:Question (1)

LordNimon (85072) | more than 11 years ago | (#6477665)

Is it okay to download mp3's of songs that I legitimately own on CD?

No.

Can I claim fair use if I own the CD?

No.

Can I counter sue?

No.

Re:Question (1)

mark_lybarger (199098) | more than 11 years ago | (#6477679)

It's ok to download any songs. That's not copyright infringement. It's illegal to distribute the songs, but i don't not to recieve. The law punishes the dealers and not the addicts.

It's also illegal for a store to sell cigarettes to a minor, but it's not illegal for a minor to smoke cigarettes.

i highly doubt any concrete action. (1)

stonebeat.org (562495) | more than 11 years ago | (#6477602)

legal cost of going after individuals is too high.

Re:i highly doubt any concrete action. (1)

aronc (258501) | more than 11 years ago | (#6477606)

Not when you pay your legal team on salary.

Re:i highly doubt any concrete action. (1)

Idou (572394) | more than 11 years ago | (#6477691)

I think you meant, "Not when you pay your legal team on commission."

Yeah, I wonder how many parents are going to be sued for thousands of dollars before an angry mob takes over DC. The RIAA is randomly polarizing people against themselves. And, in a country where power is distributed so unequally, there is a good chance they will cross someone with the money and the will to take political action (either way, the politicians get rich . . .).

However, if you are "little people," I might check out Howard Dean who is getting most of his money from poor slobs like us.

Re:i highly doubt any concrete action. (2, Insightful)

grennis (344262) | more than 11 years ago | (#6477660)

Not when you just send a letter and demand $3500 to walk away. It's called legalized extortion.

Re:i highly doubt any concrete action. (5, Interesting)

djeaux (620938) | more than 11 years ago | (#6477668)

legal cost of going after individuals is too high.

This is probably true. But if RIAA can trot enough "criminals" through a legal mill, then they'll be able to justify a bigger surcharge on recordings, blank media, or even internet access. Like the "recording surcharge" already on blank tapes & CDRs, it would go straight to the RIAA coffers.

And all these surcharges are exactly why folks are downloading instead of buying. Or to quote my 16 yr old daughter, "If new CDs cost five bucks, I'd buy them."

As for me, if Columbia Records (to use a specific sig-related example) would let me purchase an annual subscription to download Bob Dylan concert recordings on a next day basis, I'd be sending 'em my money today!

The real problem that the recording industry faces today isn't downloading, it's lack of imagination.

And what if... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6477607)

...I go buy the CD because I liked the song I downloaded?

Re:And what if... (2, Insightful)

Trigun (685027) | more than 11 years ago | (#6477621)

Then you had better have a hell of a lot of receipts.

And a good lawyer.

They already know (5, Interesting)

in7ane (678796) | more than 11 years ago | (#6477609)

I'm sure they already know about Usenet and IRC and (insert other less prominent distribution methods here). It seems they are more concerned about scaring away the average person (who doesn't even know what Usenet is, or how to operate an IRC client) but just runs Kazaa or another easy to use Windows p2p client.

It's clear that all piracy can not be stopped - the intent few will always pirate through more obscure networks regardless of the level of litigation, this is just a question of going after the most prominent network with the least tech savvy users.

Re:They already know (3, Interesting)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 11 years ago | (#6477727)

That and its a hell of alot easier to get songs off WinMX, Kazaa, etc.. than it is off IRC.

Back in the day I tried to get mp3s via IRC and let me say "in queue, 96 of 115" is a lousy thing to see on dialup.

If they can get people to fear P2P networks there will be fewer sources for those geeks who feel it's their duty to uphold the network. Fewer sources means fewer songs available which in turn lowers the usefulness of the network.

Sounds like they figured it out.

What I can't figure out is Sony is part of this group against piracy but they sell CD-R mp3 players. I guess they assume everyone will mp3'ize their own audio cds? hehehehe.

Let's see, you can cram about 200 mp3s on a 700MB CD. 200 mp3s [of stuff you want to listen to] amounts to maybe 3 songs per CD. That's 66 CDs. How many 12 year olds have 66 CDs lying around?

Tom

Right to bear arms and tiranny of the Corps? (4, Insightful)

Yanna (188771) | more than 11 years ago | (#6477610)

You know, I've been reading all morning the other threads over here about citizen's rights to bear arms.

A pretty good argument is that armed citizens could defend themselves against a tiranny. How is that compatible with the current situation where corporations seem to have totalitarian powers over the US citizens? Granted, these corporations are not the US goverment, but the inaction of said goverment, either speaks of a very high degree of inefficiency or a very ingrained corruption.

Doesn't this permanent attack of personal rights, erosion of privacy and draconian regulations equate a tiranny?

Re:Right to bear arms and tiranny of the Corps? (1)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 11 years ago | (#6477625)

And just think if "file-swapping" [re: piracy] was not so popular there wouldn't be a need for this "tiranny".

When verizon did to PA is just absurd. They should have their business license revoked and be sued for double the amount.

That aside, if the RIAA is legally filing their court documents, more power to them. I hope they sue a dozen pirates [successfully] a day.

Tom

Re:Right to bear arms and tiranny of the Corps? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6477730)

I hate to break it to you, but 'the right to bear arms' doesn't protect your rights anymore. How long to you think a group of citizens armed with firearms would last against the military. Hmm ... not long. Face it you can either be a citizen of the USA, or a captive of it (or perhaps we are all both...).

Re:Right to bear arms and tiranny of the Corps? (1)

in7ane (678796) | more than 11 years ago | (#6477638)

Do you suggest one construct a nuclear reactor using uranium ore purchased online, hook it up to a Gauss gun, and shoot the first RIAA lawyer that comes after you?

Re:Right to bear arms and tiranny of the Corps? (2, Interesting)

LordNimon (85072) | more than 11 years ago | (#6477646)

What tyranny? File sharers (i.e. those that share music to which they don't own the copyright) are breaking the law, and the copyrights owners are filing lawsuits. There's nothing wrong with that all.

People who share their CD collections online know that they're breaking the law, they just think they'll get away with it. They're no different than people who drive over the speed limit.

Re:Right to bear arms and tiranny of the Corps? (1)

Yanna (188771) | more than 11 years ago | (#6477693)

A tiranny is not defined by a single piece of legislation.

The fact that corporations succesfully managed to get every piece of law in their favour is what is scary and totalitarian. The copyrights extension, the DMCA, the banning of encryption... I could go on and on. Now, all they need to do is enforce those laws that they "bought".

I agree with you, copyright violations are wrong, but when the people become criminals for minor violations, one should wonder about the validity of these laws.

Re:Right to bear arms and tiranny of the Corps? (3, Insightful)

anorak52 (665636) | more than 11 years ago | (#6477671)

"ingrained corruption"? The *entire* US political system is for-sale, & doesn't even try to pretend otherwise.

Re:Right to bear arms and tiranny of the Corps? (5, Informative)

aborchers (471342) | more than 11 years ago | (#6477675)

Granted, these corporations are not the US goverment, but the inaction of said goverment, either speaks of a very high degree of inefficiency or a very ingrained corruption.


Inaction? The government is complicit, running a protection racket for the copyright industry. Audio Home Recording Act of 1992, DMCA, and the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, are just three of the most obvious bits of tripe to pass the U.S. legislature in the last decade+1, and more legislation is pending now.

If you are a U.S. citizen, get involved. Write your congressperson and tell him or her it's time to turn copyright protections back into what they were designed to be: a temporary grant of monopoly on the right to reproduce creative works in exchange for an ultimate benefit to the public domain, not a welfare program for multi-billion dollar industries and the great grandchildren of creative people.

Re:Right to bear arms and tiranny of the Corps? (1)

cioxx (456323) | more than 11 years ago | (#6477740)

If you are a U.S. citizen, get involved.

It's too late - don't even bother. The machines have taken over, and there is little citizens can do at this point. All we need is a good bunker to hide in.

Re:Right to bear arms and tiranny of the Corps? (1)

wackoman2112 (685339) | more than 11 years ago | (#6477685)

Unfortunately, the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States (which states the right to bear arms) is hardly recognized anymore.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

That's the exact text (weird capitalization preserved). However, we haven't had a militia for a century, and the government is introducing more restrictive gun control.

Sorry to say it... (4, Insightful)

benjiboo (640195) | more than 11 years ago | (#6477615)

But from the RIAA's point of view, this is probably the best tactics they could adopt (assuming all PR efforts have gone out of the window.) They will always be one step behind trying to compete on technology, and if they stick to the biggest offenders then this gives the smaller guy the idea that they are safe. As P2P networks are constituted of many smaller traders, worrying those seems to be the most efficient way of making a big impact.

Go Indonesia !!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6477618)

RIAA can go fsck themself
Microsoft can go fsck themself
DMCA can go fsck themself

you peeps need to start a revolution nd throw down your greedy regime

Fine. (5, Funny)

Valar (167606) | more than 11 years ago | (#6477626)

If you're going to act like that, see if I ever pirate your music again.

IRC is not a haven (3, Interesting)

strider3700 (109874) | more than 11 years ago | (#6477630)

For all you guys saying IRC is where you'll make your trades, you should know it won't scale and they do monitor it. My buddy received a warning from his ISP that someone had asked he be tracked down due to file sharing on an IRC channel. The kicker is he was sharing and didn't know it, someone had taken over his win 2k box and was running a bot on it to share movies. It's been almost a year so I don't remember the name of the kit but It took about 10 seconds of hunting on google to get info about it once we located it.

On a related note, I've been running Freenet for awhile, and the new version is pretty good. Although the flood of new people thanks to the slashdot post did slow things down for awhile, it's faster then ever now.

Re:IRC is not a haven (0)

seelet (585767) | more than 11 years ago | (#6477678)

im sorry sir but your friend should not be using a computer he is a moron for not monitoring his connection better. hmmm.... why am i transferring 3gigs a day, when im surfing web pages.

Re:IRC is not a haven (1)

strider3700 (109874) | more than 11 years ago | (#6477736)

agreed, he should have noticed. But how many people do you know that have the knowledge to do that? Here in canada everyone I know has dsl or cable connections. Half of them have almost no real capabilities on the computer. They rely on the machine being secure out of the box. It of course isn't and they become easy targets.

I've moved 3 gig a day off my box. With dsl around here you don't get a slow down doing it. unless your watching the lights on the modem flicker you wouldn't notice anything.

"As few as 8 songs" ? (1)

Krapangor (533950) | more than 11 years ago | (#6477631)

I think you fail to realize the fundamental problem there.
The RIAA argues that you have no right to share these songs on P2P networks, which is from a legal point of view 100 percent correct. And they claim that this causes them damages because people downloading wouldn't buy the CDs. With this argumentation you could cause very large damages even with a very small number of file and a suitable big pipe - if the songs are sufficiently popular then you would cause very large "damage" this way. The only problem I see with this argumentation is whether their claim of the damages is correct.

Note that you definitively don't have the right the share song unless you get an o.k. by the copyright holder. "Argueing" that the entertainment industry is "greedy" or "is exploiting the artists" doesn't negate the fact that you commited a crime.

And subpoenas are for securing evidence. The measures here are IHMO ok when you note that evidence on computer systems can be easily forged or deleted. You can't demand that they'll watch their lawsuits die just because some jerks argue that his "IP" was forged etc.

Great business model! (1)

Xebikr (591462) | more than 11 years ago | (#6477634)

So if they go after file sharers with at least 8 songs or more that still translates to a $1.2 million lawsuit. Now all they have to do is get people to cough up the dough and their members will be rolling in it!

Might not be so bad... (5, Funny)

n0nsensical (633430) | more than 11 years ago | (#6477635)

Many of the subpoenas reviewed by the AP identified songs from the same few artists, including Avril Lavigne, Snoop Dogg and Michael Jackson.

Well, if they're going to go after people sharing that kind of crap, they can do it all they want for all I care. :-)

GNUnet anyone? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6477637)

Someone here introduced me to it, and I have dumped Gnutella since (Not that many files yet, but that will change soon . . .).

GNUnet [ovmj.org] : Encryption (RSA), pulls files together from different parts of the network, and since they have incorporated "GNU" into the name, you don't have to worry about putting a "GNU/" or not.

Seriously though.... (1)

ziggy_zero (462010) | more than 11 years ago | (#6477639)

..is it possible for them to monitor Usenet traffic?

Headers (1)

n0nsensical (633430) | more than 11 years ago | (#6477676)

They probably can trace back many postings. I know my news server puts my IP in every message I post, and it's certainly possible to trace a message back to the news server it came from with the NNTP Path header. I'm sure not many ISPs and news server hosts are going to think twice about giving up the user's information in the face of a threatened lawsuit. As regular Slashdot readers know, Verizon tried to fight back, but lost [com.com] .

Re:Seriously though.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6477683)

they don't need to. unless you're signed up with an 'anon' provider they only have to subpoena the logs and it'll say who, what, when, and where

it's what people wanted (2, Insightful)

jkcity (577735) | more than 11 years ago | (#6477642)

Ifor the last eyar I've read countless time on slashdot that they should go after the people and not the technology, now that they do, you still complain.

Keep trying... (2, Funny)

DJ Rubbie (621940) | more than 11 years ago | (#6477643)

871 down, ~40 000 000 to go...

Re:Keep trying... (1)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 11 years ago | (#6477663)

Do you want to be one of those 871?

I'm fairly certain once a couple dozen 15yr olds get sued [re: their parents will get the bill] there will be a bit more apprehension with pirating media.

Tom

Evil warez doodz! (2, Funny)

anttik (689060) | more than 11 years ago | (#6477648)

... known online by nicknames such as "fox3j," "soccerdog33," "clover77" or "indepunk74."

Yes! Finally those famous warez bastardz will be sued and brought down!

Encryption of data streams? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6477649)

OK, here is the paragraph that struck me the hardest:
The campaign comes just weeks after U.S. appeals court rulings requiring Internet providers to readily identify subscribers suspected of illegally sharing music and movie files. The 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act permits music companies to force Internet providers to turn over the names of suspected music pirates upon subpoena from any U.S. District Court clerk's office, without a judge's signature required.
This means that Verizon, Comcast, or whoever wants to ngrep its users might just turn in those people who have lots of MP3 data going across their lines. This wouldn't be stopped by the new versions of Kazaa Lite and such, as the new software is just blocking what can be seen from other users, not the owner of the network itself. Perhaps one step against this trend would be to encrypt the P2P connection between users, with some kind of public key encryption?

Re:Encryption of data streams? (1)

PhotoBoy (684898) | more than 11 years ago | (#6477724)

ISPs have had the ability to do this for quite a while, the reason they don't report their customers for piracy is because they would lose them all to other ISPs who promise privacy when using P2P apps. I know a Small Businesses ISP in the UK that tried blocking Kazaa traffic on their routers using some kind of packet inspection, because nearly 60% of all traffic was Kazaa and it was bogging their infrastructure down. Some customers loved it since it meant they didn't have to do anything to stop their employees from possibly incriminating their company, but many others claimed it was a breach of service contract and threatened to cancel their subscriptions. In the end they had to allow the traffic again or lose loads of business. I can't see many large ISPs shooting themselves in the foot like that IMHO especially the likes of AOL who are losing loads of customers at the moment anyway.

I don't get it... (1)

Call Me Black Cloud (616282) | more than 11 years ago | (#6477653)


First of all, why is illegal to make songs available for download? There are legitimate reasons copyrighted material could be made available for download.

Second, isn't it legal for me to download music if I already own it? For example, I have quite a few record albums. Let's say I get a hankering for ELO's Time. I have it on vinyl but I don't have a record player. Can't I seek out and download cuts from that album legally?

It follows (to me) that if there are legitimate reasons to download then there are legitimate reasons to share, therefore the onus is on the downloader to act appropriately. RIAA should go after those who are downloading illegally (at least within the borders of the US).

Re:I don't get it... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6477701)

"Second, isn't it legal for me to download music if I already own it? For example, I have quite a few record albums. Let's say I get a hankering for ELO's Time. I have it on vinyl but I don't have a record player. Can't I seek out and download cuts from that album legally?"

To be honest, I'd take it back and ask for the vinyl copy to be replaced with a CD pressing for no extra charge. Why? Because by sueing people who download MP3s, they're essentially admitting that medium doesn't matter when it comes to copyright.

You bought the copyright to listen to those songs and a straight vinyl/CD swap isn't really going to hurt them is it? I mean, they sue all these people for downloading stuff, so the value can't possibly be in the plastic they come on... the value is in the artists work...

Hmm. (1, Offtopic)

Valar (167606) | more than 11 years ago | (#6477654)

There were no subpoenas on file sent to AOL Time Warner Inc., the nation's largest Internet provider and also parent company of Warner Music Group.

And now I understand what is really going on. The RIAA is suing to hurt the business of their competitors, not in the music distribution game, but in the internet service providing game. I wonder if verizon could have avoided the hassle by opening an mp3 store ala apple, or maybe buying a small label?

I laughed when I read this (2, Funny)

cecil36 (104730) | more than 11 years ago | (#6477657)

I can't wait for the RIAA to go after all the trading on Usenet. Next thing the RIAA will know is that they are broke, and the lawyers will be demanding their next payment.

Good. (1)

geniusj (140174) | more than 11 years ago | (#6477659)

Seriously. At least they're using the existing legal system to do this and not trying to create all kinds of retarded legislation this time. They might still be trying to do that, but there's no need to. Our existing legislation is fine and supports what they're doing. Therefore, I have no problem with them trying to defend their property.

Cheers,
-JD-

OT: Note to moderators (3, Insightful)

Jon Abbott (723) | more than 11 years ago | (#6477667)

I think we're going to have a lot more anonymous cowards in these types of discussions now, so please set your threshold lower... :^(

Please? (4, Interesting)

mrpuffypants (444598) | more than 11 years ago | (#6477669)

Dear god I hope that somebody indicted will be a congresman's son or daughter off at college. That's exactly what it'll take for these senators and representatives to call for an "Inquiry" into the legality of filing all these lawsuits and hopefully get some of them overturned.

My prediction for the future of file swapping? It'll still be big, perhaps even bigger than now. If a company wants to make money then the first step is NOT to piss off people who are already appreciating the fruits of their labor. All people do then is get an even more renegade attitude about it and keep swapping away, anonomously this time

Well quite simply... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6477670)

If I get sued for swapping music, can I sue them for substandard product, or for manipulating the market (why the fuck can I buy a Beatles album from 1965 but not find an album from 1994?)?

Anyways, I've noticed recently that people I know are back onto swapping MP3s via CD. This is going to kill RIAA and the music industry even more because as soon as you have tangible product in your hands, people then have an excuse to ask for a small fee for it. Kicking music sharing off the internet - or scaring people into doing so - will be the ultimate blow for RIAA.

As I've said before, RIAA are the middlemen. They deserve to die horribly as a kind of 'market correction'. Their golden days are over. You really have to ask yourself why the hell copyrights aren't owned by the artists. I'd have a lot more tolerance if artists I listened to said "yeah, you can share my work online." or "anything older than 10 years is fine to download for nowt". I guarantee that those artists would be more successful in the long run.

Re:Well quite simply... (5, Informative)

djeaux (620938) | more than 11 years ago | (#6477711)

I guarantee that those artists would be more successful in the long run.

The Grateful Dead were/are a good example of this. While they could be vicious pursuing commercial bootleggers, they would happily sell a fan a "taper ticket" that included a place to plug in & a roped-off area near the soundboard to set up the mike stands.

Or for true confusion, visit http://www.bobdylan.com ... the website actually features audience-taped songs from recent shows. Of course, Dylan has gone on record several times decrying commercial bootleggers.

I know there are many other bands & performers that do this kind of thing, but I'm an old mossback & there's about to be a Dylan-Dead tour ;-)

My neighbors (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6477673)

are sure going to wish they had secured that wireless.

RIAA (2, Insightful)

yoder (178161) | more than 11 years ago | (#6477696)

Dont' buy their music and don't download their music. This is the point of no return for the music mafia. If they start going after the small time file swappers they will very quickly begin to alienate themselves from their customers as a whole. As soon as you get Joe Teenager and his mom on the evening news more than a few times a month because they are being sued for having 20 or 30 songs on their box, the real backlash will begin. The vast majority of people out there see file swappers as "those bad, bad other people" because that is the only way you see them portrayed by the mafia and the news. Now, with lawsuits apparently going after the small fish, they will finally begin enfuriating the mainstream public who of course see themselves as law-abiding and virtuous.

Let the mahem begin!!!

How Long? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6477700)

How long until the RIAA has the internet shutdown as a piracy tool?

At least they can't track cd's passed from one person to another.... Or can they?!

just stop buying riaa music (1)

onesandzeros (445024) | more than 11 years ago | (#6477707)

It may be inconvenient to do so, but I suggest buying cds pressed by record labels that aren't under the riaa umbrella. I don't mean a boycott, I mean permanently. Most of it's shit anyway, isn't it?

Sure there are some Smiths cds that I don't have, but I'll live.

Can I... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6477709)

...offset the cost of the pile of shit tracks and album fillers that I have bought and not listened to against the cost of the MP3s I've downloaded that I like?

Questiion: (1)

cybercuzco (100904) | more than 11 years ago | (#6477717)

What is going to happen when this reduces the RIAA's sales figures because people are trying out less music?

Re:Questiion: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6477723)

More likley to reduce their sales because anyone who would buy music is bankrupt after being sued by the RIAA for swapping music!

Mega Corporations and their dying business models (4, Insightful)

Lobsang (255003) | more than 11 years ago | (#6477718)

The RIAA is trying to cling to its old business model, when it clearly does not apply to today's technological/economical reality.

They don't want to stop file-sharing to protect artists. Bullshit! They don't give a rat's ass for the artists. All they want is to protect their business model and, of course, some well paid and obsolete corporate tycoons.

If they really want to stop piracy, or at least reduce it immensely, here's a recipe: Drop the price of a CD to $3.00. I bet you MP3 file sharing will go down the next day. But then... Ah, how's poor RIAA exec going to pay for his BMW? It's Easier to sue everybody.

I almost pity the poor bastards. They're dinosaurs fighting against two formidable foes: Time and Technology...

Wow (1, Insightful)

chrisgeleven (514645) | more than 11 years ago | (#6477728)

Reading these posts, you would think /.'ers have a moral obiligation to download illegal copies of music.

Stop crying. Your stealing and the RIAA is going after you. Your basically shoplifting. How is this any different?

Your free ride is over.

Here's my letter to Congress... (1)

Emmettfish (573105) | more than 11 years ago | (#6477731)

Enjoy [funkbunny.com] .

I'm still surprised to see so much insane stuff in this thread, like 'If you take your music to your local radio station, they'll play it.' I live in Center City Philadelphia, the fifth-largest radio market in the United States. Clear Channel owns everything. Sheesh.

Scary (5, Insightful)

joepa (199570) | more than 11 years ago | (#6477735)

Even if you normally defend the right of the RIAA to try to prevent copywritten music from being stolen, this should seriously scare you if you care anything about your privacy. Just in case there is still anyone who isn't fully aware of this, the RIAA, under the DMCA, is able to file informational subpoenas without the signature of a judge. This particular provision of the DMCA has been unsuccessfully challenged by Verizon in US District Court.

So, even if you have never downloaded a copywritten mp3, the RIAA (if they wake up one morning and decide that they feel like it) can legally demand information about you from your ISP. Your real name, your address, your phone number, and who knows what else. This, my US citizen friends, is unacceptable. And don't get me wrong, I'm all for the enforcement of the law, but when my privacy can be violated for the sake of finding who the person is that stole the latest Justin Timberlake single so that the RIAA can fine them for between $750 to $150,000, then things have gotten out of hand.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?