The RIAA's Hit List Named 1008
Carpoolio writes "TechTV is the first I've seen to name names in the fight between the RIAA and music downloaders. Using an online court records search service, they've found a number of the subpoenas served by the RIAA to ISPs, which will ultimately end in lawsuits for the people named on this list. Right now, they've published a number of the P2P user names filed with the US District Court in Washington, DC, mainly Kazaa users. Are you on the list?"
oooh scary... (Score:2, Insightful)
When are they going to learn that we wont stop sharing files, we'll just keep switching to more obscure networks.
Always referred to as theft (Score:5, Insightful)
Frankly, I'm surprised (Score:3, Insightful)
Second, where is kazaalite? There is only one entry for that, but I know there are more users of kazaalite than that...
I guess I'm also shocked that anyone actually hasn't heard of Klite and/or isn't running it instead of Kazaa.
hmm. Glad my name isn't on there - HillaryBlowsMonkeys@Riaa.com
Re:k-lite users.. (Score:2, Insightful)
I really like the Lite software but I think that feature is total bullshit... it makes absolutely no sense. The only way to stop RIAA from getting who you are is by using FreeNet or something like that.
Re:last name on the list: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know if... (Score:2, Insightful)
Disclaimer: I am not in any way associated with trading copyrighted material online, and even if I am you can not catch me :).
Highly doubtful. (Score:3, Insightful)
An eerie feeling… (Score:5, Insightful)
In this case I'm not a P2P'er, but I did find one of my boxes was hacked [slashdot.org] and turned into an FTP server / port scanner the other week. With the way this week has gone so far...
Re:What about people who don't live in the US? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well... Since the last "A" in RIAA stands for America, you probably wouldn't get sued by the RIAA. But I wouldn't put it past an internationally focused recording industry group to try legal maneuvers in other countries to establish a precedent similar to the "Verizon" one here.
Re:IP's (Score:5, Insightful)
Try to claim you are innocent after doing that... because after all, you didn't explicitly say that they could.
In that situation, you are providing the enabler to steal the content. Just like when you use a p2p app, you have to specify what content to make available, and whether you would like to make it available, and then respond to search queries.
Hope this helps clear your mind.
Re:Why don't they just put up tip jars? (Score:2, Insightful)
After all scare tactics and thick-headedness the RIAA has shown with this issue, I wonder how much in 'tips' they would actually pull in. I know I wouldn't contribute. They would probably keep 99% of the donations for their own expenses anyway (ala the CDR tax). I would like to see individual artists with some way to donate and bypass the RIAA middle-men.
Re:Proof of User at the Keyboard (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Why not say you're behind a wireless router? (Score:5, Insightful)
This could have a chilling effect on the public access WAPs.
Re:Let us know if you're on the list & the low (Score:5, Insightful)
Ummm, a quick piece of a dvice, first, for those of you whose user names are listed: Don't. Or, if you really want to, get a lawyer and ask him for advice. If this does get to trial, you don't want something that you posted to slashdot to be used against you and torpedo any of the defenses you and your lawyer develop.
The effort expended by the Court in the processing and issuing of these subpoenas is probably insubstantial. The court's and judges duties are largely ministeriel. Of course, if these cases are actively prosecuted then the court's workload would of course increase. But, if my understanding of how the federal court's work is correct, the impact will only be on the civil side of things, not criminal; generally speaking, criminal cases are given priority in matters of scheduling, etc.
Re:Interesting that (Score:5, Insightful)
"Name = www.k_lite.tk_Kazaa_Lite@Kazaa"
or
"Name = Mr Foo Z Barr a.k.a. www.k_lite.tk_Kazaa_Lite@Kazaa"?
(IANAL, and I've never seen a subpoena so . . )
Username selection pattern... (Score:3, Insightful)
I seriously doubt we'd see "RIAA vs. FuckRIAA@Kazaa" on the news, or "RIAA vs. YourGoatsAssFuck@Kazaa".
I don't see any usernames on that list that have R-rated language in them. The worst appear to be "pimp", "booty", and "hot", in whatever self-serving context the user thought would be exciting.
Average Age? (Score:4, Insightful)
Its Over (Score:2, Insightful)
One has to kinda feel bad for the recording industry, poisoned by the P2P, we watch this dinosaur breath it's last few breaths. Sympathy aside; do we need record labels? What need or demand do they fulfill? They take artists, produce their albums, then distribute the album (radio/CDs.TV) - their revenue is generated from record sales of which 1-2 percent ends up going to the artist. Artists make money by touring and endorsements.
Recording equipment used to be extremely expensive - thus making bands dependent on record labels to front the money needed to make an album. This is not the case anymore. One can make a professional recording studio for under 30,000 dollars, and this number keeps shrinking every year. Bands can produce/fund their own albums. Technology has brought 'Recording' to the individual - eliminating the 'Industry'.
What about distribution? Well, it is evident the Internet is a pretty effective medium for distributing music. No longer are people limited to being exposed to new music solely by what they hear on the radio or see on tv; rather millions of people can be exposed to your music via the internet. Radio and TV were easy for the RIAA to control/influence - but the internet is to decentralized.
No more mass marketed music? Sounds like a good idea to me. No more boy bands, brittany spears, linkin park, etc. What does marketing have to do with art?
History will explain the recording industry as merely a phenomina fueled (and destroyed) by the development of digital technology. IMHO
Re:Muahaha i thought of a wicked idea. (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you really to paint a big red target on yourself for an onganization that has more money -- and less ethics -- than you do?
Re:Oh man! (Score:3, Insightful)
KFG
Re:Interesting that (Score:3, Insightful)
"Name = www.k_lite.tk_Kazaa_Lite@Kazaa"
or
"Name = Mr Foo Z Barr a.k.a. www.k_lite.tk_Kazaa_Lite@Kazaa"?
So the question remains, do they track sharing by username or by IP address. If they track by username and then resolve that username to an IP address and then to a person, then process is flawwed. Under this scenario, one person could be charged for the files that other people shared.
If they did do it properly, then why are usernames even listed? Usernames are not identifiers to a user, since many users can have the same name and anyone can change their name at anytime.
Theft != infringement (Score:5, Insightful)
By accepting the word "theft", the seed of the notion that this is about tangible property, not distribution rights, is planted. Tangible property has an intrinsic value, while distribution rights over something non-tangible are more difficult to relate to, especially for non-techies.
By calling it "theft", the RIAA avoids the whole issue of their being distributors of goods that are so easily shared as to be a commodity. By making it seem as though it were about the theft of property, the RIAA avoids justifying their role and the possible subsequent questions about the value and validity of copyright and IP laws.
Most non-techies can not relate to digital data. The RIAA, by calling it "theft", brings to mind books. Books are copyrighted, and they cost money. When people buy a book, they "feel" that they pay for the medium. The "unauthorized reproduction" clause is there, and most people understand it because text isn't easily divorced from paper.
Digitalization makes the separation of content from medium very possible (obviously) and this is where the confusion by the public comes in. "What do you mean I can't share this? I didn't make a physical copy. It's digital, not REAL".
Calling it "theft" is the RIAA's way of making it feel real, but it is a misrepresentation of what it is. It's not theft, it is unauthorized reproduction and redistribution; and the ugly side of that is that people who didn't properly buy the right to access the content now do not need to give the RIAA money.
Were the RIAA to put this whole issue in semantically correct terms, they would come across to Joe Public as running a racket, which, really, they are. Joe Public would then, at the next election, likely influence legislation in a direction unfavorable to the RIAA. So they're calling it what it's not, to stack public opinion in their favor.
Re:Always referred to as theft (Score:5, Insightful)
You see, that's what you're saying. That the media is allowed to lie and misuse terms if we "know what they mean." This is untrue. It's a form of the type of subtle spin and bias that big media conglomeration promises us it won't do. "Copyright theft" in this context is as much a misnomer as "Consumer Broadband Protection Act."
Besides, it has yet to be proven that trading mp3s is truly copyright infringment, let alone theft. We're merely assuming it is, because lower courts have said so. The same lower courts that readily ignore supreme court judgments on flag burning and abortion. The supreme court, the only court that really matters in terms of what's constitutional, has yet to speak definitively on the matter. Probably because it hasn't had reason to yet...people's constitutional rights aren't really being infringed upon to the point that they had to include that in their busy schedule.
But they will be. Probably with this case.
You see, the RIAA would like us to believe that copyright means only they have the right to "copy." That's not what the word means -- "Copy" refers to lyrics, similar to the words "ad copy." Copyright gives a person the rights to performance and production of a song. I copyright my songs so others won't turn them into hits and not give me a cut. I copyright them so they can't be used in movies without my permission (and a cut).
It doesn't necessarily give me a right to control home users who are putting my songs on a mix CD. And I shouldn't (and don't) care, because that doesn't infringe on my rights as a musician. And since I'm a self promoting independent artist, who needs all the exposure he can get, I appreciate this kind of publicity. Mix makers are a musician's best friend. Which is why so many labels give out their singles on mp3s for free...sub pop and coup de tat are two off the top of my head.
The main reason the RIAA wants to abolish file trading is that it gives users a medium to learn about new artists that their members (who include the same labels involved in payola scams, price fixing and very few independent labels) can not control. Which means people will be spending their money not on RIAA albums, but on independents. Activity we've alreadt seen. And as radio becomes EVEN LESS diverse, and members scale back their releases EVEN FURTHER to please shareholders who don't like the libertine Rolling Stone idea of funding albums that might lost money, file sharing will (and has) become a primary way for people to discover new music. New music which doesn't have a big SONY label glued to the back. And that's apparently a Bad Thing. Because if artists jump to the indies, they'll be making 3, 5, even 7 dollars per album sold instead of 1 dollar kept to offset production costs and held in case of returns. They'll be impossible to control by corralling them into a culture of drugs and debt to ensure their willingness to sign shockingly one sided contracts. And then there will be no money to pay the worthless A&R men to manufacture singles!
Re:What if I do own the music I downloaded? (Score:3, Insightful)
Some people maintain such activities fall under the copyright law's fair use clause, but Frackman believes that isn't true: "Fair use has become a real buzzword, but it's a phrase that's often misused. [It] grew up to permit people to do things like criticism or scholarship.a?| In my view, it was never intended to permit copying of copyrighted material for purposes of just making a copy or moving it to a hard drive."
In other words, the RIAA really doesn't want anyone to copy usic, even if it's from independant artists, even if it's from old analog sources like a record, cassette, or 8-track. To the RIAA, if you want to listen to it, play it on it's original media and equipment, and your equipment and can't replace the media, if you media fails, or if you would just like to listen to it on your4 cd player, then purchase it on CD, if you can't then tough luck. In a few years, I woudn't doubt it if they go after companies Like Ahead Soft, Roxio, Goldwave, Syntrillium, etc, for writing software that allows people to copy music from any source.
Not a bad idea BUT (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Oh man! (Score:5, Insightful)
The RIAA is suing file sharers. I know this doesn't get much play on the news, but it's the unauthorized distribution, i.e. sharing, that is in "violation".
So they don't have a log of you downloading something, they have a screenshot of all the files you are letting other people download.
Re:Average Age? (Score:3, Insightful)
Copyright is a strict liability regime under which any infringer, whether innocent or intentional, is liable for infringement. [loyno.edu] This link is from an abstract of a paper arguing that this is bad policy. But it is the law; bad policy is not necessarily unconstitutional.
Re:Oh man! (Score:5, Insightful)
When they came for the Grokster users, I said nothing because I wasn't a Grokster user;
When they came for the Gnutella users, I said nothing because I wasn't a Gnutella user;
When they came for me there was no one left to speak for me.
Re:Any good ISPs out there that destroy records? (Score:3, Insightful)
An ISP is not liable for infringement committed by their customers. But if they have not records, how can they prove an infringement was by a customer? This is not clearcut, but if an ISP were to lose their potential liability could be enormous.
Re:Oh man! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Always referred to as theft (Score:5, Insightful)
Hey, you're welcome to your opinion, no matter how wrong it is. But the fact is that the argument supporting your opinion depends on the file trading being an infringing activity, which is a legal statement that has yet to be proven.
I mean, if you want to get REALLY technical (and by trying to make a distinction between "sharing" and "copying" when in the digital world the only difference is a change of state, you ARE trying to get technical), MP3s may fall under a different area of fair use: that protecting the right to establish works in the style of other works. A 128 kbit ogg file is not a "copy" of the copyrighted work on CD -- it's a digital interpretation of it which eliminates at least 90% of the original and bears as much resemblence to it on the data level as a cassette does to a record. The RIAA says it doesn't matter, but they're kind of an interested party, aren't they? Maybe we should let the courts decide, though that will never stop us from freely trading our opinions -- no matter how wrong they are. No, those are protected in the constitution, and are subject to fair use
The RIAA doesn't care... (Score:5, Insightful)
10 years ago few people had even heard of the RIAA. Sometime in the last decade the industry decided to start utilizing the organization as their hired muscle; the guys they let loose to do the dirty work none of the individual companies want to be associated with. But let's not forget who the RIAA really is. It's as much Andrew Lack and Tommy Mottola as it is Hilary Rosen.
The RIAA is sitting back and reading all this and saying "bring it on". They're happy if they get bad PR, because that's bad PR deflected away from the real names behind the RIAA.
Of course, I'm not arguing that the RIAA's strategy is sound in the long run, I'm just saying I understand it. Many of the things they're doing will still turn people off buying CD's even without people associating those actions with Sony or BMG or EMI or Universal. What the RIAA is doing is still stupid, but it's at least a better thought-out strategy than most of us here seem to give them credit for - and our tactics in trying to belittle them in whatever small ways we do here seem to miss the point completely. The RIAA knows exactly what they're doing and the reaction they'll get to it, and they don't care.
It ain't civil disobedience if you hide (Score:3, Insightful)
Fortunately for me, this was before the days napster and file sharing, so I never had to professionally deal with that.
But some of the cop nature has worn off on me. Despite my hatred of the RIAA and the structure of the music industry as a whole, I do oppose those who engage in copyright violation. And just because the RIAA is a bunch of feckheads, doesn't make such copyright violations right.
There are cases where I would be more sympathetic to copyright violators:
- The item was originally published more than
17 (or maybe 34) years prior, and so would be in
the public domain under a founders copyright scheme.
- The item is out of print and the used market
is bare. (I would take the music publishers
claims of trying to serve the artist more
seriously if they released the rights back
to the artist when they took things out of
print.)
- The violator is (as in civil disobedience)
willing to commit their copyright violation
act publically and under their own name.
When a law or structure is bad enough that
one feels it is legitimate to violate it, you
need to be willing to take the consequences.
Otherwise we all just merely would be obeying
laws when it is convenient to do so.
Without that last condition being met, bad laws and a bad publishing industry does not make you a good guy for violating copyright.Now I am currently enganged in a compaign of "civil obedience". This term was coined to complying strictly and obnoxiously to bad laws in order to highlight how bad the laws are.
I made some home videos (which I'll be sending to maybe half a dozen relatives) to which I've added a soundtrack using things I legitimately have copies of. I am slowly trying to work through the procedures to be allowed to distribute six or so copies of VHS tapes of my daughter's trip the an aquarium to which I've added a soundtrack. So far it seems difficult to get useful responses to my email requesting permissions or license terms.
Re:Oh man! (Score:5, Insightful)
I disagree, the more serious the alleged offense the more important due process becomes. I don't mind ticketing for parking offenses but there'd better be a proper trial in a murder case, and so on.
If someone is being accused of owning kiddie porn then that's an extremely serious matter, the case had better stack up and all the proper steps had better be followed. I agree that's true in the cases of alleged copyright infringement too but if you have to rate it in order of importance then it's the serious charges where it's most crucial to get it right.
Am I the only one that sees a difference between a police agency with a warrant in hand asking who's who and the damn 'copyright holder'?
The difference is the warrant, not who the person is. I agree that proper court orders should be required in all cases.
Shouldn't there be a burden of proof before my privacy is violated?
Yes, there should. I'm just worried that you seem to think that that stops being an issue if they accuse you of something more serious, when the consequences are highest.
Re:Not a bad idea BUT (Score:2, Insightful)
It's not a good idea to destroy evidence (Score:3, Insightful)
Perjury is also not a good idea. You better be a damn good liar before you pull a stunt like that.
Format your harddrive BEFORE they collect evidence against you from it and stop downloading pirated material.
Ben
Re:Oh man! (Score:3, Insightful)
If someone is accused of downloading kiddie porn, then there should be solid evidence of this before any action is taken. How many people have had their lives ruined because of false charges? I can think of quite a few cases raised in the media, as well as others that didn't get the chance to clear themselves in public.
It is disturbing to see that people almost defend certain criminal acts "because they don't have any real victims", while at the same time almost calling for a witch hunt against certain other groups of criminals - or even suspected criminals.
I agree completely with your comments, AC, and only wish you were logged in and had a karma bonus so more people would read it :)
Kiddie porn might be bad, but people who are willing to throw away people's rights just because they are accused of a serious crime are dangerous to us all.
Re:Interesting that (Score:3, Insightful)
it would be a very bad case for riaa if they just argued that they had screenshot of person thats sharing only identified by user name, some people don't use an username at all(or use just blank ' ')! of course just a screenshot sounds very shoddy evidence at all, since i'm not familiar with the usa court system i don't know how hard it would be to turn this down in court because the evidence isn't exactly much, what i know is around here you would basically make a request of investigation for the police (because it's a crime you want investigated, that needs evidence to stay up in court and pre-investigation that suggests so to even make that far) which would in turn investigate the matter, get a permit to confiscating the computer(s), searching the harddrive, possible isp logs that proved you to be online at a given time(these require permit too and wouldn't be really available to just 'anyone', not even the possible 'victim'), question the suspect and so on, basically in a p2p i would say that unless you plea guilty straight a way you could get out like a rat easily, especially if you kept all the shared stuff on encrypted partition and never admitted to anything, though i suspect they wouldn't even confiscate computers if they went after p2p users in mass simply because they don't have time for that. this at least is the 'normal' way warez bbs's and warez ftp's are busted, when they are busted (confiscate everything, question the suspect, have expert fiddle through the files, question the suspect again & so on, hoping the suspect pleas guilty, it really easens up things for them).
Re:Oh man! (Score:4, Insightful)
People have shared their music with their friends since the compact cassette was invented. It's a great thing to do.
Now people are doing it on the internet: the great thing that brings people together accross the world.
That means it's happening on a WIDER scale. That's all. It's not imoral. It's "big issue" status seems to be solely to do with it's transparancy.
The original quote... (Score:3, Insightful)
Let not the quote wither in perpetual disuse. No one is getting killed in this issue, Use of this quote neither kills anyone nor cheapens the tragedy of its original subjects.
*honk*
Re:Oh man! (Score:2, Insightful)
Christ, this is the tiredest argument of them all.
Do you believe it's legal to sneak into a movie theater or concert without paying? Those seats would have been empty anyway, so nobody's losing any money.
Do you steal cable? If you spend the money to buy the equipment to tap into the line and a descrambler off eBay with your own money, then Time Warner or Comcast or whoever isn't losing any money, so it's got to be okay, right?
Just because you can't afford something doesn't give you the right to take what you want. Maybe the solution is to do what I did in college and GET A JOB.
Whether you think music downloading is morally ok or not doesn't matter. Bottom line is that it is illegal. I thing levying hundred-million dollar suits is excessive, but if you get caught, you deserve what you brought upon yourself.
Does this sound legit? (Score:2, Insightful)