Grokster Launches Fear Campaign 443
An anonymous reader writes "Slyck is reporting on Grokster's new scare tactic. Suddenly it's become taboo to head over to Grokster.com. In a transparent attempt to scare potential P2P users, Grokster.com has reinforced its anti-P2P sentiment. The visitor's IP address is clearly displayed in large font on the Grokser's homepage while indicating the address was logged."
Common Action? (Score:2, Insightful)
The Warning Is Misleading (Score:5, Insightful)
It should read...
The way they worded it makes it sound like it is even illegal for people to distribute their own materials that they have created themselves via P2P. So, I guess according to the powers that be, I'm now a criminal for using Gnutella to distribute my own stories and animations that I have created, and to which I own the copyrights.
Of course, it isn't illegal, but the way these warnings are worded can sometimes make it seem that way.
"Your Computer Is Broadcasting an IP Address" (Score:3, Insightful)
Another thing that I've noticed is that a lot of the same people who would be freaked out that a site knows their IP address ALSO tend to not realize that downloading stuff via P2P networks is not exactly legal.
I remember recently (like within the last couple of weeks) my aunt expressed amazment that all of the music downloading they had done was considered piracy. She'd also never heard of iTunes or any other way of buying music legally online.
It might be nice if they at least provided some links to places to legally get music for the people who genuinely don't know. For everyone else the whole thing is pointless anyway.
Re:Predictable joke: (Score:3, Insightful)
In other words: what-evah!
Re:All youre IP are logged by us (Score:3, Insightful)
And the other 1% is in the USA and still could not care less.
Re:Predictable joke: (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Get a sense of proportion (Score:5, Insightful)
It's about sending lies and propaganda to the uneducated users.
We do know that visiting a site tells them about the IP address -- your, your proxy's or a random TOR server's; and also your browser's ID string which usually mentions your operating system.
But we, users who are knowledgeful about how this works, are not those who are the intended target of this scare campaign. Just as those who know how a washing powder works are not a target of most TV adverts.
People who are knowledgeful about washing powders balk at nonsence spewed in adverts, but this doesn't stop the nonsense from affecting 99% of the society.
Re:Get a sense of proportion (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Get a sense of proportion (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Whoopie (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Common Action? (Score:3, Insightful)
More to the point, don't you have to work quite hard not to log it with Apache (and I suspect, most other web servers)?
Re:OH NOES! (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Gotta love the XXAA (Score:3, Insightful)
I used to have a music teacher who would spend the first half of each orchestra practice complaining about how many people weren't turning up to orchestra practice. Guess how popular her orchestra was?
Re:Umm which computer (Score:5, Insightful)
The whole point of the exercise is for you to realize you'll spend the least money by settling, no matter what the facts of the case are. Lawyers like settlements, since they don't have to do as much work and they still get paid.
In the end it costs you minimum a couple grand to be sued even if you win, unless you can prove that was the intent of the suit. Good luck on that one - judges, former lawyers all, are in no hurry to discourage the filing of lawsuits. You'll pretty much need a memo that says "let's sue them until they run out of money, even though we don't have a case." Anyone who can pass the bar exam is too smart to write a memo like that.
In more civilized countries they have "loser pays" systems to discourage this sort of thing, but that's why lawyers donate millions to political campaigns, isn't it?
A Much more effective approach (Score:4, Insightful)
It is. Wouldn't their approach be much more effective if, in addition to logging your IP, they also installed a rootkit [wired.com] on your machine? That's legal, right? (And maybe they could make it so you're violating the DMCA if you remove it. Excellent.)
Re:Get a sense of proportion (Score:3, Insightful)
Agreed and this tactic is hardly new. I remember back when I saw a popup one of them used to say "WARNING YOUR MACHINE MAY BE BROADCASTING YOUR IP ADDRESS!" or something like that.
Grokster IP log + Slashdot Effect... (Score:5, Insightful)
Slashdot story posting that mentions said scare-tacting: 182,395,483 unique clicks in 8 hours
102mb log file and an $8000+ bandwidth overage charge: priceless
There are some things scare-tactics can do. For everything else, use Google.
(I'll laugh when they try to open that log file in notepad before checking it's size...)
Re:Predictable joke: (Score:1, Insightful)
I agree with you and never said otherwise. The analogy was born of the idea that visiting a defunct web page that once hosted a p2p client was tantamount to downloading a p2p client for the express purpose of committing copyright infringement. Perhaps, if the client were still available from the site and one tried to download it, it might be more like buying a handgun.
Or, to modify your analogy a little, this "evidence" is tenuous because it is similar to presenting as evidence at this same murder trial a blurry video recording (since IP addresses aren't good evidence) of someone who resembles you looking at a broken firearm left over from WW1 that was on display at the side of the road, and then leaving empty-handed.
Re:The Warning Is Misleading (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:quick followup... (Score:5, Insightful)
We're the MPAA. Our profits are slipping. What's the problem?
Maybe $10 for a movie ticket, $7 for a tub of popcorn, $5 for a soda or candy bar is a little much. Nah, couldn't be it.
Maybe laser pointers, cell phones and chatty kathies are ruining the experience. Nah, couldn't be it.
Maybe big-screen TVs make watching movies at home more enjoyable. Nah, couldn't be it.
Maybe showing 15 commercials before the movie starts is a little obnoxious. Nah, couldn't be it.
Maybe we're putting out absolute drivel that no one in their right mind would sit through. Nah, couldn't be it.
Maybe it's the online pirates, sucking down our profits over high-speed Internet connections. Yes, that's it! That's why no one goes to the movies anymore!
Call the lawyers!
What Aholes (Score:5, Insightful)
I remember creating a list of CDs I wanted. They'd be prioritized. Some CDs would have multiple songs on them I liked; I'd buy those first. Others would have only one song.
Every once in a while, I'd splurge. I'd create a "mix tape", which was in fact a cassette tape with several singles recorded on it (yes, I'm old). This would require plunking down $15 on several CDs with only one song on it I like. Creating a mix tape like that would require somewhere in the neighborhood of $300. That was the only option to get those singles I enjoyed.
The RIAA had it good for years by monopolizing the means of distribution. Then the Net stepped in and I haven't forked down a penny for a CD in years. It started with FTP servers and search engines (remember share ratio?), migrated to Napster, then to the other P2P networks that operate without a central authority. I don't feel a speck of a guilt. The RIAA has been paid in full, as far as I'm concerned. In fact, they owe me.
This loathesome bullying is typical of an industry that was jerking the public around for years and now is getting it back in spades. I'm glad. Let us eat cake.
Re:Umm which computer (Score:2, Insightful)
That is a direct result of big government. In the US there are now so many laws, and the system is so complex and ambiguous, that it is literally impossible for an innocent man to defend himself. What's more, it is literally impossible for a man to be 100% law-abiding.
Imagine that -- an innocent man cannot possibly defend himself without hiring a professional to decipher the law. A system where there are so many laws that everyone is a criminal in one way or another. Call me a conspiracy theorist, but I reckon we're looking at the holy grail of "justice" for the power elite.
Re:What press? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Won't you be my neighbor (Score:4, Insightful)
Not really - if everyone uses, say, three proxies at a time and your proxies represent 1% of the available ones (this would be a very generous estimate), that would mean only one in every million connections was only using your proxies. Not really worth waiting for.
Even this isn't strictly accurate as most people with any brains would not pick two proxies with similar IP addresses. This means you'd have to get accounts with dozens of different service providers, probably in different countries, which would make it extremely hard to operate even 1% of the anonymous proxy resource.
Re:Won't you be my neighbor (Score:2, Insightful)
~UP
Re:why.. (Score:1, Insightful)
If so I think it should now be obvious.
If they can't be the ONLY one's making money off music then NO ONE can.
Think about it. The internet allows for a new distribution channel.
The RIAA's members *CAN* utilize this new distribution channel instead of
or along side their current physical distribution channel but now they
have to, *OH MY GOSH*, compete on value and price. Those who can now
distribute via the internet via P2P, web, bittorrent, etc... can't just go
distribute physically like the RIAA's members can.
What has the RIAA been doing for years now? Going after ***EVERY*** online
distribution channel until they kill it or bring it over to the dark side.
Selfishness, Greed, and lust for control and power.
The only outwardly virtuous thing (from the perspective of anyone but them) about them in my opinion is their hubris. Great thing about them is they probably have no ability for reflection and so won't ever be able to say hindsight is 20/20.
Re:Common Action? (Score:3, Insightful)
The first rule of bluffing is not to bluff anything you can't follow through on. Right now, how to use proxies is not common bus and pub conversation. But the more threats like this get bandied about, the more people will be popping up saying - "do this and your safe." You and I probably both know how easy or hard it is to move from IP address to prosecution. Quite possibly we both know how to find good proxies too. This knowledge is not everywhere not because it is difficult to learn, but because few people care. But rubbing people's faces in these issues does my job for me. Next time I talk to someone about privacy, there's a greater chance they'll have an interest.
I view it like the ridiculous anti-drug campaigning. That was very harmful. They say 'Taking an E will destroy your life' and then someone does it and is fine, then they lose credibility when they say that cocaine is harmful. They bluffed, they were called out, people lost respect.