Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

How the RIAA Targets Campus Copyright Violators

Posted by timothy on Tue May 13, 2008 12:23 PM
from the lures-them-in-with-jim-hawkins-dolls dept.
jyosim writes "The Chronicle of Higher Ed got a briefing at RIAA headquarters on how the group catches pirates. They just use LimeWire and other software that pirates use, except that they've set up scripts to search for songs, grab IP numbers, and send out notices to college officials. They claim they don't target specific colleges, though many feel that they do."
+ -
story

Related Stories

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • Jeoparody (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 13 2008, @12:26PM (#23392832)

    How the RIAA Targets Campus Copyright Violators
    I'll take "with Lawyers" for $200 Alex.
  • by gentimjs (930934) on Tuesday May 13 2008, @12:27PM (#23392844) Journal
    I doubt they are 'targeting' any specific school, but I strongly suspect IPs resolving to unilag.edu.ng are handled differently then those resolving to yale.edu , where the students are more likely to just pay a settlement rather then wipe their arse with the notices...
  • How (Score:5, Funny)

    by sm62704 (957197) on Tuesday May 13 2008, @12:31PM (#23392898) Journal
    Judging from the number of elderly, children, blind people, dead people, etc. that the RIAA labels have targeted, I'd say most likely they do it with a random number generator.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 13 2008, @12:33PM (#23392924)
    Sounds like entrapment to me, like the mafRIAA is "making avaible" the same mp3s they are accusing people of downloading... bastards.
    • by TheRealMindChild (743925) on Tuesday May 13 2008, @12:45PM (#23393116) Homepage Journal
      Not to side with the RIAA and similar, but wouldn't you figure, if they have the power to use a copyright of a given item to sue you, that they also have the legal right to "distribute" said copyrighted material?
      • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 13 2008, @12:56PM (#23393272)
        Does that mean you could legally obtain free content using a P2P client with a script that only downloads from RIAA IP addresses?
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        Not to side with the RIAA and similar, but wouldn't you figure, if they have the power to use a copyright of a given item to sue you, that they also have the legal right to "distribute" said copyrighted material?

        In which case, if you download the music from them (the RIAA), then it would seem (IANAL, etc.) that they couldn't possibly charge you with copyright infringement since they, the copyright holder, offered the MP3 for download. Or am I missing something?
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          You're correct, but they're not suing people for downloading from the RIAA. It's the unauthorized people who are uploading that are illegally distributing the files.
        • That isn't how the whole music industry works. When any random band signs a typical contract with the "Big Nasty", they essentially own your soul. They own the music, possibly the band name, and likely the logo and art that go along with it... and they have the right to do pretty much anything they want with it. They are a predatory bunch. Imagine all of this, and THEN finding out that YOUR on the hook for production costs of your albums too. It should be a crime. Unfortunately, they have more money than Go
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          Yes, but if they do, then downloading the copy they distribute within their rights is not illegal. If I offer you something I own for free, then it is legal for you to take it.

          Doesn't matter, though. That's not how they're using LimeWire (or other P2P clients), as the GP would've known if he'd RFTA.

          They're not making the music available; they're using the client to search for others who are making the music available.
    • by Danse (1026) on Tuesday May 13 2008, @12:54PM (#23393248)

      Sounds like entrapment to me, like the mafRIAA is "making avaible" the same mp3s they are accusing people of downloading... bastards.
      You can't entrap someone unless you're a government agent. They aren't suing people for downloading anyway, they're suing them for uploading.
  • Hate Emails (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TheRedSeven (1234758) on Tuesday May 13 2008, @12:34PM (#23392938) Homepage

    The demonstration was given by an RIAA employee who would speak only on condition of anonymity because of concern that he would receive hate e-mail.

    If you risk getting hate mail simply because you work at a certain company, perhaps it's time to look for a different job?

    On the other hand, if this guy actually stuck his neck out and shared how the RIAA really finds their suckers, he'd probably get thank you letters rather than hate mail.

    In either case, he probably needs to do some deep self-examination to see why he stays at this job.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      The hate mail would read:

      "You're fired"
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      In either case, he probably needs to do some deep self-examination to see why he stays at this job.

      I often question why people would work at companies that have questionable business practices. I assume that it is similar to the reason why I work at a company that doesn't. (a) They gave me an job offer, and (b) they consistently provide me with a paycheck.

      Sadly, there are not enough jobs to go around within companies who have strong morals and upstanding business practices. It is Supply/Demand... and when the demand for employees is highest in immoral organizations, it is no wonder why people end

  • Target selection (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Walpurgiss (723989) on Tuesday May 13 2008, @12:34PM (#23392940)
    Like article says, they ensure that the infringer is in the US before bothering to send a notice, but I'd be willing to bet there are some US schools too that they try to avoid spamming with notices. Not so much selective targeting, but selective non-targeting.
  • by 140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) on Tuesday May 13 2008, @12:36PM (#23392970) Journal
    Prohibit using LimeWire to harvest tracking and identifying information!
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Change LimeWire EULA now!
      And you think that the RIAA would follow the new EULA? Remember that they us a PI company that is not even licensed to practice in many of the states they do "investigations" in. Interestingly, they have not suffered any repercussions for breaking the law. Conclusion: They are above the law.
  • by 140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) on Tuesday May 13 2008, @12:37PM (#23392986) Journal
    ... for making available the IP addresses and tracking information.
  • by joocemann (1273720) on Tuesday May 13 2008, @12:37PM (#23392994)
    Since when can a person be held directly responsible for activity that occurs on their IP address? The RIAA is throwing charges for crimes without sufficient evidence that the person they are charging committed the crime. There are a million ways an IP is shared or used by multiple persons. Without substantial evidence, the RIAA is merely throwing litigious paperwork around at tons of innocent people. When will our government establish a recourse for recurring wrongful litigious activity? The ability to sue, blame, and then settle out of court is being so heavily exploited because lawyers know that most people would rather settle than pay the $$$ to prove themselves innocent. We need to either: 1) Not allow settling, thus making false accusations apparent, and thus the obvious waste of our judicial resources. This would be the cause of an impending need to reform and disallow repeat false accusers. or 2) Allow individual accusers or accusing bodies (such as the RIAA) a limited amount of legal cases, for which an appeal must be done to be allowed more.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      The sad likelihood is that IP's will become tied to our identities by laws pushed by RIAA and MPAA interest groups.

      They will stand on the side of Hollywood, not the side of the citizens. Just like they always have.
  • by hansamurai (907719) <hansamurai@gmail.com> on Tuesday May 13 2008, @12:40PM (#23393044) Homepage Journal
    The article details MediaSentry's tactics but wasn't there a bunch of fuss earlier this year on how MediaSentry may actually be illegal in some states because they don't have an investigator's license? Does this mean MediaSentry is filtering out schools from states where they can't investigate people from? Or are they still collecting everything they can and forwarding it on to the RIAA, which still seems illegal on their part.

    http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/03/11/1427257 [slashdot.org]
    http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/04/10/1542222 [slashdot.org]
  • by Drakin020 (980931) on Tuesday May 13 2008, @12:41PM (#23393064)
    After all Azerus has a section where you can see who is seeding and leaching. It shows IP info if I'm not mistaken. Can they not do this with Torrents? How does that differ from Limewire?
    • by number11 (129686) on Tuesday May 13 2008, @02:23PM (#23394500)
      Azerus has a section where you can see who is seeding and leaching. It shows IP info if I'm not mistaken. Can they not do this with Torrents?

      Easily.

      How does that differ from Limewire?

      With a torrent there isn't any way to "see all of the songs that a given file sharer is offering to others", just that one. And in fact, most people only do a few torrents at a time, so even if the RIAA could detect them, it wouldn't sound very impressive. They'd prefer to be able to go into court and say, "Look at this list! This criminal mastermind was distributing 2000 files! But we're only asking money for the five that we actually downloaded."
  • by DodgeRules (854165) on Tuesday May 13 2008, @12:47PM (#23393140)
    From the article:

    "We have no capability of targeting any school at all," said the RIAA representative, who argued that there is a large "misperception" among university administrators that individual colleges are being picked on. "Technically we can't do it. We find what we find with this process, and that's what we send to schools."
    Technically we can't do it? BULL***T! A simple filter that throws away all schools not A, B or C is very easy to create. It is possible that they CHOOSE not to do it, but it is technically possible.
  • by Nom du Keyboard (633989) on Tuesday May 13 2008, @01:15PM (#23393574)

    ...according to RIAA spokeswoman Cara Duckworth. She also acknowledged that the RIAA can tell only when a song is being offered for users to illegally download; investigators have no way of knowing when someone else is actually downloading the song.

    This is why the RIAA has no legal case, and why they must resort to bluffs, threats, extortion, smoke, mirrors, and press releases.

    The song file has to be downloaded by another unauthorized person (RIAA investigators don't count) for it to be infringement. The RIAA itself admits here that they have no way of knowing if anybody else has ever downloaded this song. To properly win in court they have to convince judges and/or juries that despite this complete lack of proof that they were infringed anyway.

    It's all the Big Lie on their part.

  • A humorous solution (Score:5, Interesting)

    by dyslexicbunny (940925) on Tuesday May 13 2008, @01:25PM (#23393734)

    In collecting evidence for those takedown notices, Media Sentry investigators do not usually download suspect music files. Instead, the company uses special software to check the "hash," a sort of unique digital fingerprint, of each offered file to verify that it is identical to a copyrighted song file in the RIAA's database. In the rare cases in which the hashes don't match, the investigators download the song and use a software program sold by Audible Magic to compare the sound waves of the offered audio file against those of the song it may be infringing upon. If the Audible Magic software still doesn't turn up a match, then a live person will listen to the song.
    So they have to check popular songs audibly if they don't match their automated tests. It is quite likely that RIAA pays Mediasentry for work hourly or files searched. So I had an idea and propose we need the following tools: microphones, bored people, and lots of computers to host.

    1) Figure out what music is currently quite popular.
    2) Make your own covers of it without instruments. Sing both the lyrics and the melody with interpretive musicianship. The worse it sounds, the better.
    3) Host as the file name.
    4) ????
    5) Waste their time!

    IANAL but I don't think you could get in trouble for posting fake songs up. Technically, you could claim you're helping fight piracy while making Mediasentry's job harder. I imagine the in worst case they ask you to cease and desist. Perhaps someone more versed in law can say if this is valid.

    Another option could be to simply use the band's name and make up fake songs with similar names to original songs with fictitious lyrics. This would replace step 2. Granted I believe they are solely looking for song titles.
    Ben Folds - Rocking the Penguin
    Beastie Boys - Ubuntu in Effect
    Whitney Houston - OSX will save the day
    • by Thelasko (1196535) on Tuesday May 13 2008, @02:18PM (#23394418) Journal
      That would only play right into their hand. The network would become useless because someone searching for songs by Amy Winehouse will receive thousands of hits for files of idiots humming the song "Rehab" instead.

      You are correct that the easiest way to defeat the methods they deploy is to flood them with garbage, but how is the casual user supposed to filter out the garbage without The Man doing the same?

      The closest analogue I can think of would be currency. The Treasury Department changes the design every few years because it takes a while for counterfeiters to, reverse engineer, develop copy techniques, and perfect methods for mass production. By the time that's complete a new bill is in circulation.
  • Make your own song (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ninjapiratemonkey (968710) on Tuesday May 13 2008, @01:39PM (#23393880)
    1) record your own song
    2) rename it as a popular song: eg. Madonna - 4 Minutes
    3) they download it after it fails hash check
    4) sue them for copyright infringement
    5) ?
    6) Profit!
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      It's not copyright infringement if you're distributing your own material.
  • by harvey the nerd (582806) on Tuesday May 13 2008, @01:54PM (#23394092)
    "We find what we find..." suggests that many schools do a better job of protecting their students from predators like RIAA, either by IT means, enforcement or policies. Perhaps we should be posting such valuable insights about IT safety at places like CollegeConfidential. e.g. "College X had 14 students mugged by the RIAA last year." Also it would be interesting to find out if any of the suicides or beserkers had RIAA extortion letters.

    Although some kids may need to reign in their activities, the RIAA methods' technological and litigation basis are unsound and dangerous. RIAA and their overlords need to be made recipocally accountable with the colleges taking more responsibility too.

  • by dpbsmith (263124) on Tuesday May 13 2008, @03:20PM (#23395242) Homepage
    "In collecting evidence for those takedown notices, Media Sentry investigators do not usually download suspect music files. Instead, the company uses special software to check the "hash," a sort of unique digital fingerprint, of each offered file to verify that it is identical to a copyrighted song file in the RIAA's database. In the rare cases in which the hashes don't match, the investigators download the song and use a software program sold by Audible Magic to compare the sound waves of the offered audio file against those of the song it may be infringing upon. If the Audible Magic software still doesn't turn up a match, then a live person will listen to the song."

    In other words, they do not engage in unauthorized downloading and copyright infringement. Except when they do. Because they what sounds to them like a really good rationalization for their behavior.

    Which is exactly what their victims do.

    If the RIAA being straight arrows, they'd forego the downloading in those "rare" cases. Why is it so important to nail these "rare" that they will compromise their own principles?

    Perhaps, if the truth were known, those "rare" cases aren't really all that rare.
  • To my mind the key points in the article [blogspot.com] are:

    1. MediaSentry is a customer of Audible Magic software, the software in which Dr. Jacobson has an indirect financial interest, and uses Audible Magic software as part of its investigation. So when Dr. Jacobson testifies about how reliable MediaSentry is, he's talking about his customer, and when he testified that he doesn't know what their procedures are, he was lying.

    2. The software process used by MediaSentry differs markedly from the way Richard Gabriel has sought to describe it in his representations to various courts.

    3. Cara Duckworth, the RIAA's spokesperson, admits that

    the RIAA can tell only when a song is being offered for users to illegally download; investigators have no way of knowing when someone else is actually downloading the song.
    • by sm62704 (957197) on Tuesday May 13 2008, @12:54PM (#23393246) Journal
      I just can't wait until all artists start their own publishing

      That's the real reason behind these suits. They can't possibly be afraid you'll hear top 40 crap, because if they did they wouldn't let the radio (easily sampled to better than iTunes or MP3 quality) play them.

      It isn't Britney they want to keep out of your ears, it's the indies. Note they don't say "illegal downloads" except when the context infers that all downloads are illegal? Their aim, mostly met, it to make you think they do indeed have a monopoly (or rather, cartel) and that all music is RIAA music. it worked on you, didn't it?

      "Piracy" isn't hurting their sales and they know it. The indies (and the gasoline and food companies) are eating their lunch. Most of us have only so many dollars to spend. If I buy four $5 CDs from the band that plays at the bar (professionally recorded and duplicated, with art and packaging) that's twenty dollars I don't have to buy an RIAA CD.

      Their only hope for survival is to kill the internet. Good luck with that.
      • The indies (and the gasoline and food companies) are eating their lunch. Most of us have only so many dollars to spend. If I buy four $5 CDs from the band that plays at the bar (professionally recorded and duplicated, with art and packaging) that's twenty dollars I don't have to buy an RIAA CD.


        I agree. In addition, this is one big reason why their "lost sales" calculations are huge stinking loads of bull manure. The RIAA figures that 1 song downloaded (regardless of the legality of the download) equals one sale not made which means that much revenue not put in their pockets. You could easily use the same reasoning to prove that Indie labels cost the record labels money. Or that food store sales cost the record companies money. Or that oil companies cost the record companies money.

        Hey, there's an idea. Pit the Big Oil companies against the Big Record Companies/RIAA. Two Companies Enter! One leaves! We won't really be cheering for a winner so much as cheering for one of the companies to be beaten to a pulp.
        • I don't see why anyone would make that assumption. The larger the group, the more intelligent people will be in that group, and the higher the likelyhood that some of them will be exceptionally intelligent.

          But by the same token, the larger the group, the more idiots will be in that group, and the higher the likelyhood that some of them will be exceptionally stupid.

          That also follows for competence.

          The larger the group, the greater the need for organization. Above a certain critical limit, the bureaucracy bogs the effectiveness down.

          But I don't see how this applies to evolution.
      • Small music venues are being targeted [suntimes.com] in Chicago; it appears that the city wants to make sure the only live music shows are in large arenas. Who benefits? Let's see. No more opportunities for independent artists to perform. Hmmm, guess the only way to hear live music is to go to a huge arena to see some crappy pop act produced by riaa minions. So are laws like this being proposed in other cities? Is Chicago just the start? Is this the next step in music industry dominance?
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        Why exactly is it nontaxable? Any income that isn't specifically excluded by code is considered to be taxable. Just because the income is illegal or of dubious legality does not exempt it from taxation. Perhaps the most famous case being Al Capone being toppled by the IRS.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      You must've missed the part in the article where they describe how they determine if it's actually one of their songs or not.

      Hint: neither file name nor first few seconds being the same will do it.
    • by Kjella (173770) on Tuesday May 13 2008, @01:09PM (#23393470) Homepage
      PeerGuardian is to protection what "safe periods" are to prevention. If they have any clue at all, they've got IP blocks under some unknown subsidiary, rented boxes in colos or using anonymizing whois registrars. Maybe they're happy to target the 90% easiest targets, but it's by no means safe as such.
    • Ahh, Peerguardian. Once they have a Vista client out...
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      Peerguardian

      Peerguardian is better than nothing. But not by a lot. It maybe keeps the MafIAA from spotting you from their own IP address, but sometimes they neglect to inform PG when the IP numbers change. The MafIAA is perfectly capable of getting online via their local cable system (or one in Russia, for that matter, the tubes go everywhere), or registering a domain under an assumed name, or doing it from their mom's basement.