Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Movies Media Your Rights Online

MPAA Goes After Its Customers 522

EyesWideOpen writes "The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) is issuing 'takedown' notices to ISP's to alert them that customers are using their internet service to transmit or post copyrighted movies. The ISP's in turn send a letter to the customers threatening to disable their internet connection unless the offending material is removed. The MPAA is using software that 'cruises file-swapping networks like Gnutella to find copyrighted materials, hunts down the IP address of the poster, then discovers which Internet service provider is being used.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

MPAA Goes After Its Customers

Comments Filter:
  • False Positives (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ghostlibrary ( 450718 ) on Saturday July 13, 2002 @08:49AM (#3876732) Homepage Journal
    My first reaction is "so? Sounds fair". I mean, it's going at the source of pirating and illegal sharing, not a problem.

    The article raised the issue of false positives. It had this chilling bit on it:

    "Of all the letters we have sent out, we only had 2 other people who corresponded back who said we were mistaken," Jacobsen said. "And we didn't think we were."

    Oh, wait-- the folks doing the automated search get to decide whether its infringement. This is kinda backwards.

    I mean, someone thinks you stole a coke from 7-11, the cops come and listen and maybe a judge makes a verdict-- not the 7-11 clerk.

    But here, the person making the allegation gets to decide if it's true or not-- and when has any person ever been really psyched to say "Oh, wait, sorry, I was totally wrong, wasted your time, and opened myself up to legal risk by making a false accusation."

    So, neat idea, but the implementation needs some better due process.
    • Re:False Positives (Score:2, Insightful)

      by jdhutchins ( 559010 )
      I really don't know if they plan to go after people in court. It would be a tough case, because you could say
      -It wasn't my computer
      -You didn't listen to the song, it wasn't copyrighted...
      and I'm sure your lawyer could come up with plenty of other excuses. They're just hoping that a letter from your ISP, or them, will be enough to scare you into stopping it. I doubt that their robots will be able to tell if it's you a second time, because your IP will probably be different.
      • by nuggz ( 69912 )
        The MPAA is just being lazy, they can fire off these letters and be done with it.

        I hope someone manages to sue them for falsely accusing them, they shouldn't be permitted to harras people who are doing nothing wrong just because they don't properly verify their accusations.

        That being said the actual infringers will have to accept that what they are doing IS currently illegal.
        • Re:Lazy? (Score:4, Insightful)

          by realdpk ( 116490 ) on Saturday July 13, 2002 @10:36AM (#3877222) Homepage Journal
          I disagree... The MPAA was being lazy going after the software developers before. Now they're moving towards going after the actual offenders. They're getting closer and closer to the actual infringers. Granted, they're doing it slowly, but they're getting there.
      • Re:False Positives (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Mhtsos ( 586325 )
        Can IP adresses be faked? I think it can (i'm no expert, correct me if I'm wrong). So simply because RIAA has an IP address that matches mine that's not proof it was me. It is a bit of a strech now, but if RIAA presses the issue... presto! p2p client complete with built in ip spoofer!
        • Re:False Positives (Score:3, Insightful)

          by IronChef ( 164482 )

          Proof isn't required. This isn't an action of a court, this is Special Interest Group A asking Big Company B to do them a favor and lean on a customer. Not that it doesn't smell like legal action, and it could lead there, but that's not what it is to begin with.

          In a few years I expect the MPAA/RIAA will be IDing pirates and asking all kinds of businesses to cooperate in making their lives hell. Imagine gas stations refusing to serve you because they have a list of license plates that they have been asked (or paid) to check for... or your credit cards being refused at "participating merchants."

          It's a brave new world. I think things will get a lot worse before they get better.
    • by SPYvSPY ( 166790 ) on Saturday July 13, 2002 @09:51AM (#3877006) Homepage
      The DMCA requires ISP's to takedown materials that are alleged to be infringing until the alleged infringer disputes the allegation. There's a whole messy procedure for the back and forth, and it favors the intital claim of infringment.
    • Re:False Positives (Score:5, Insightful)

      by RatFink100 ( 189508 ) on Saturday July 13, 2002 @09:52AM (#3877010)
      All systems have false positives. Cops arrest the wrong person. Innocent people get convicted.

      The important thing is where are the checks and balances. The right of appeal for instance.

      I don't have a problem with the process in principle but I think 24 hours is too short a time to be able to challenge the information.

      They should also have the right to have access to the ISP's logs on their connection.
    • I pay taxes on every CDR and CDRW, and soon every other kind of digital media, because here in Canada I'm allowed to make copies. I think there's an equivalent thing going on in the US and Europe. I'm not sure about the rest of the world.

      So how is it fair, when people have already paid their dues, and are only doing the digital equivalent of trading with each other the tapes they've bought? It's a big swap meet.

      So, does the DMCA apply to me in Canada? Could my ISP get sued by an American judge if they don't comply?
    • Re:False Positives (Score:2, Interesting)

      by blase ( 592627 )
      2 people=BS

      I have received one of these threats through my crappy ISP. It was about a movie file I had never touched on a P2P network I had never used and noted an IP address I had never had. Plus it's not just a case of them getting the details wrong, I don't download or share such files.

      I never received a response to my reply to their threat.
    • Actually this would be like you stealing from 7-11 and then them not allowing you to shop there (or any other 7-11) until you pay for your merchandise or return what you took.

      Overall, I think this is a good thing, if people get threatening leters, take down the falsely identified material, and then fight your case. Personally, this is 100 Times better than them taking down Gnutella and the like.

      RonB
    • Re:False Positives (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      There is nothing positive about the MPAA going after Internet Service Providers. The MPAA is very much like a lot of commercial software companies. With ISP's in their pockets consumers will be the next to suffer. What we have is a shift towards something that will resemble the way Microsoft has released their XP products; consumers will be accountable for everything and our names will be associated with whatever we purchase or use.

      While some people will have no problem having their name attached to software/movies/music, it's time for a reality check. Take Microsoft for example. Microsoft would not have such a strong grip on the software industry if their software was not pirated. How many people have been truly altruistic and never copied any non-free software? Very few. Yes, company X might buy all their software. But is it installed only on machine X as perscribed by the restrictive licensing agreement? Chances are the answer is no. What the means, however, is that more people are exposed to the software. They in turn go out and purchase the software for their home machine. I'm not advocating software piracy, but pointing out that piracy has helped spread the popularity of some (not all) software. I can hear the moans now, but let's move on to the music industry example:

      Consumer X downloads one of Bif Nakked's songs from GNUtella. There is something wrong with the encoding - half the song is missing, or the song is encoded for radio instead of CD. Consumer X likes what they hear and goes out and buys the CD, to rip it for themselves. Or consumer X doesn't like the song and decides not to buy the CD. Chances are that the song will be deleted to make space for something else, new music, a game, etc.

      Video encoding is even worse than music encoding. Why store a pixalated movie when you can buy a high quality DVD? Those who download movies and archive them are not likely to have bought a DVD or VHS tape in the first place. But many people do download movies, watch part of the movie, and end up buying a copy. They then tell friends about the movie (just as they would with good software) and the friend ends up doing the same thing or going out and buying the movie.

      What the real issue is, is that the MPAA wants to entrench their position as monopoly over all movie distribution. They want to be able, just as the RIAA wanted with Napster, to overthrow all free trading, and make money on those spotty, poor quality movies that get traded over GNUtella and other networks. In the process, they are doing the equivalent of a police officer coming up to your home and conducting an illegal search of your house (without a warrant) in order to gain proof of some impropriety.

      Cheers,

      Charles,
    • It's very easy to eliminate false positives. You do a search on the P2P network for songs whose copyright you own. Then you download that song, and check that it is "yours". Whatever IP address you made the TCP connection to is breaking the law.

      As an efficiency step, you can save the checksums of the verified songs which are yours.

  • The RIAA does the same thing with mp3 swappers for some time now.
    And well, trading movies is not legal.
    You shouldn't be surprised that they do such things.
    At least their money is draining etc.
  • Thats the risk... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Heem ( 448667 ) on Saturday July 13, 2002 @08:50AM (#3876743) Homepage Journal
    Well, that's the risk you take I suppose. If someone was distributing something of mine, this is the way i'd handle it. At least this is an up front and honest way to handle this - better than anything like DRM and palladin and all the other back-handed crap that is going on around us. If your going to serve illeagal files from your own machine, you may as well just sign your name and address on the package and invite trouble. Using something more anonymous, like newsgroups, would be much smarter.
    • Nonsense! (Score:3, Insightful)

      "Up front and honest"?! Since when did cease and desist letters count as "up front and honest"? It's a pressure tactic that large corporate bodies can use to intimidate individuals. Yes, it's an improvement over DRM etc (though it's certainly not being proposed as an alternative to DRM), but it's still a rotten, intimidating tactic.
      • Re:Nonsense! (Score:3, Insightful)

        by joshki ( 152061 )
        A cease & desist letter to someone who is breaking the law is not just a pressure tactic. In fact, the corporation is giving them a chance to correct their illegal behaviour before they file a lawsuit against them.

        If you don't like the laws that are on the books, change them -- don't piss and moan when you get called on breaking them.

        All that said, probably the most effective way to stop this is simply to quit buying cd's and quit watching movies. I have purchased one cd in the past two years, and I've probably been to see two movies that my wife dragged me to. If more people would do this it might start having an effect on the movie/record companies' pocket-books, and they may start to change their tune.

        And before anyone asks, I mainly listen to internet radio (digitally imported) and go to concerts vice buying cd's -- I don't copy music, simply because I think it's better in this case to work within the laws.

        • by Fred Ferrigno ( 122319 ) on Saturday July 13, 2002 @09:59AM (#3877037)
          The difference here is that they would never bring a case against an individual on Gnutella to trial. They'd have little hope of winning, and wouldn't get much money anyway.

          Instead, they pressure your ISP to disconnect you, and if your ISP doesn't comply, they sue the ISP, not you, for lots of moolah.

          This is indeed a pressure tactic against people who have committed no crime -- the ISPs. An ISP has no way of validating the MPAA's claims, so they either do what they're told with no proof of wrongdoing, or risk a costly battle in court. The MPAA knows this, and uses it to force their hand. As a customer, you'd like to think that your ISP won't bend over backwards to screw you over for someone with no proof, but sadly this is not the case.
        • It wouldn't be a pressure tatic if they sent a warning letter directly to the person--they were sending the letters to ISPs. They have to do that because they don't automagicly know the person's email address from their IP addr, but it doesn't make it any less fair.

          In fact, reread the section that says "false positives"--one wonders if they are really investigating properly...not to mention their arrogance: "Of all the letters we have sent out, we only had 2 other people who corresponded back who said we were mistaken," Jacobsen said. "And we didn't think we were." (from the article) Who's to say there weren't others that were completely cut off from the internet and couldn't respond because of it...or people who weren't even told why they lost service...

    • Using something more anonymous, like newsgroups, would be much smarter.

      That is wrong. 99% of ISPs put either an IP address or some uniquely identifying number into you headers and info stating where to send abuse complaints. It isn't anonymous at all.

  • by Phaid ( 938 ) on Saturday July 13, 2002 @08:51AM (#3876746) Homepage
    This is what the MPAA and the RIAA should have done all along. Rather than buy blanket laws that ruin digital media for everyone, they should have stuck to going after the actual people violating their copyrights, rather than treating everyone as criminals. Fundamentally, it's still their right to do that, and if ISPs want to cooperate well that's their business.

    Of course, the real reasons behind the DMCA and CBTDPTA and such have a lot more to do with maintaining their tight grip on production and distribution of music and movies, than with protecting their products from being ripped off by consumers.

    Can't say I'm applauding this, but this is the one thing they've done in all this file sharing mess that I can't get too up in arms about either.
    • This is what the MPAA and the RIAA should have done all along. Rather than buy blanket laws that ruin digital media for everyone, they should have stuck to going after the actual people violating their copyrights, rather than treating everyone as criminals.
      Yup, now that (RI|MP)AA are getting comfortable, the record companies can no longer say, "The Internet is evil", they can gradually switch over to it as a distribution medium.

      Almost nobody contests a speeding ticket in court so this is probably their most effective way to go about things. Thing is if ISPs start cutting customers off like they do with warez websites "guilty until proved innocent" there will be a popular public backlash

    • Quoth the poster:
      This is what the MPAA and the RIAA should have done all along.

      <SNIP>

      Can't say I'm applauding this, but this is the one thing they've done in all this file sharing mess that I can't get too up in arms about either.
      I am of the same mind.

      I regard the ??AA as evil grasping (Dare I say it? Courtney Love did [salon.com]!) PIRATES who have little, if any socially redeeming qualities. Their recent business and legislative practices rob the creative community while they seek to destroy the public domain.

      That being said, this is the proper way for them to go about enforcing their copyrights. The DMCA, like it or not, expressly allows them to send a notice of an apparent copyright infringement to a user's ISP. The ISP is them obligated to notify their customer of the complaint or face suit by the copyright holder. The user is allowed to protest their innocence, shifting the burden of proving the infringement back to the original complainer.

      Private enforcement of private rights paid for by private funds is vastly preferable to the alternative.

      When it comes right down to it, all the ??AA is doing is telling the ISP to enforce their own Acceptable Use Policy. It's no different than me e-mailing 'abuse@someISP.tld' about SPAM and/or kiddy porn in usenet.

  • that title is really stupid. Sorry, but if you went into Blockbuster and "lifted" titles you too would be being chased.

    Your no longer a customer if your not paying for the content.
  • Wow they've learned how do use ARIN [arin.net]. Congratulations!
  • This was written up a while back in a piece called, "Fingered by the Movie Cops" [salon.com]. But in that case, the MPAA was mistaken.

  • False negatives? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by crc32 ( 133399 )
    Since the 'False Positives' section seems to make it clear that all the MPAA is doing is looking at filenames, wouldn't it be trivial to use some sort of '133t' type phonetic coding to mess with the search algorithms that they are running?
    • Been done. (Score:2, Interesting)

      by billbaggins ( 156118 )
      IIRC, Napster did this a while ago, while they were still being dealt with piecemeal (eg, everything Metallica must go). Someone wrote a plugin or something (never used it, not sure what it did) that munged filenames in some reversible way. I think the counter-solution was to ban files based on ID3 tags.

      In the battle between better warhead and better shielding, the warhead always wins. But who's got which here?

    • Igpay atinlay. 'Uffnay aidsay.
  • "Tyler was nabbed by an automated program developed by Ranger Online Inc. The software cruises file-swapping networks like Gnutella to find copyrighted materials, hunts down the IP address of the poster, then discovers which Internet service provider is being used."

    I imagine this tracker that they use must identify itself somehow. I've never been heavily in to the whole swapping/p2p thing, but shouldn't it be possible to find a signature of some sort from this thing and tack it on to the front of a swapping program? Honestly asking, I really don't know. Not that I think getting in a pissing match with the MPAA/RIAA is the best solution for the software writers...

    Here's the Ranger Online website [rangerinc.com]. This [rangerinc.com] section provides a very lame explanation of how they do the voodoo that they do.
    • They don't really need a program, you can find out the IP and ISP of anyone on Kazaa as soon as they start sending you a file, just using basic tools on any OS, even Windows. I imagine if they really are using a custom program to do this for some reason, then the program just runs on top of Kazaa/whatever and therefore never is actually connected to the network itself. I'm just speculating, but it doesn't seem like there'd be any reason for them to right an entire P2P client to do this.
  • What customers? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by man_ls ( 248470 ) on Saturday July 13, 2002 @09:05AM (#3876813)
    You're only a customer if you pay for a product, or have a legal license to use the product free of charge. I.e. Windows XP NFR copies...you're a customer even though you didn't pay for it.

    People who are involved in trading music/movies on the Internet are, for the most point in time, either fully aware that it is copyright infringement (I hesitate to say stealing because I don't really believe it is, but it is copyright infringement) or are vaguely aware that there's something "grey" about it.

    It's within the (RI/MP)AA's right to go after the individuals who are responsible for copyright violations, which they are doing--rather than try to increase prices on movies, institute DRM, etc. If a large-scale sharing user knows that if he gets caught, he'll have his bandwidth taken away, that'll be a decent deterrant. Similar to the Windows XP preview editions and Microsoft IRC spiders-anyone running Windows XP and an fserv at the same time was given a nice little message, courtesy NET SEND, warning them not to share software illegally. (I personally know two people this happened to.)

    Besides, the gnutella network isn't all it's talked up to be, anyway. I run a very fast DSL connection (1536/512 up/down) but STILL can't maintain more than 3 Gnutella network connections or pull more than 2kb/sec. I get transfers on IRC over 50kb/sec and direct from web sites in the 150kb/sec range...Gnutella as long since stopped being useful to me.

    Besides, everyone knows the REALLY good movies are found in IRC FServs in the distro group channels, or on FTP servers--not on Gnutella. All you'll find on Gnutella are fakes and porn.

    • Which Gnutella client are you using? I was staying at a university for a week, and so I had about 300k/s of unused bandwidth that I could just play around with, using Gnucleus (1.8.4.0, I think.)

      I scored some pretty good stuff... most of Gowenna's encodes of the Black Adder series, as well as lots of Simpsons episodes, and Ralph Bakshi's animated version of LOTR, which I hadn't been able to find anywhere else.

      What were you looking for that you couldn't find there?

      --grendel drago
    • Re:What customers? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by mark-t ( 151149 )

      People who are involved in trading music/movies on the Internet are, for the most point in time, either fully aware that it is copyright infringement (I hesitate to say stealing because I don't really believe it is, but it is copyright infringement) or are vaguely aware that there's something "grey" about it.

      I've spoken to a number of people who seem to have no qualms about downloading illegal material that someone else has shared -- their view: "Nobody's gonna catch me anyways, so why should I bother obeying an unenforceable law?" Every single person that I have spoken to who does this is FULLY aware of its illegal nature, but don't give a damn because they believe that unless some self-righteous bastard such as myself draws attention to their activities, they'll never get caught -- and even if I did say something to someone, it'd be my word against theirs. Stalemate -- no point in pushing the point any further. But I have yet to find a single person that thinks it's "grey"... Everybody knows it's wrong, but they just don't care.

      It is this attitude of feeling untouchable, I believe, that is the cause of the degree of piracy we see today. Going after the people who illegally share material might do a lot to make it inconvenient enough for such people to stop doing what they are doing, but until we can change the underlying attitude, we won't have really done anything to solve the problem -- only hidden it from public view.

  • In any retail industry there is a certain percentage of profit lost due to "pilferage". The company's objective is to minimize this percentage.

    This strategy by the MPAA employs an inventory control system which doesnt control the original products and may be better suited to a physical product/store. These are all derivatives of the movie from the movie theater or the DVD from Blockbuster, but in fact, none are a physical product complete with 100% of the value.
    How the American people and the government deal with this will obviously set an interesting precedent for the future of media. These methods need a close reality check to see if this is the way to deal with the lost profits.
    • Losses to theft are actually called "shrinkage", as in, the inventory shrinks. I'm not sure if it refers simply to employees stealing, but ask anyone in retail---it's the preferred euphemism for theft.

      --grendel drago
  • by darkonc ( 47285 ) <stephen_samuel@bcgreen . c om> on Saturday July 13, 2002 @09:06AM (#3876818) Homepage Journal
    In terms of the long term fight for the freedom to use P2P networks to distribute Indie works, this may actually be good. I was thinking about the AudioGalaxy takedown, and I think that I came up with a scheme that allowed them to make legit works available by making the people who post the songs responsible for them:

    Before submitting a song to AudioGalaxy, a user has to 'appropriately identify' themselves. Once a user is identified, they can submit songs to the AudioGalaxy universe to be authenticated for distribution.
    When an identified user submits a song for use, the song is fingerprinted, and identified as 'good'. A properly identified song is the responsibility of it's submitter. AudioGalaxy is simply a tranmission medium. If a copyright holder feels that their song is improperly submitted, then they can go to the person responsible for the song for the 'publishing' of it. If a user is identified as consistently submitting unauthorized copyright material, then their entire set of authentications can be revoked.

    user authentication

    Users can be authenticated by any of a set of means -- eg:

    • A credit card authorization (should appear on credit card summaries as something obvious like "ID verification audogalaxy-id.com" with the domain (and www.domain) pointing to a page that precisely describs what the ID was for and about and what the associated person would be responsible for [[in case the ID was the result of a credit card theft]]).
    • Thawte (www.thawte.com) allows all sorts of ways to authenticate the identify a person -- including their 'web of trust' system which is free, and various paid methods.
    • Persons who don't have access to (or don't want to use) other methods, could mail in a notarized copy of personal ID,
    • Pick your favorite other method of verification.
    Once a user is verified, they would be issued an SSL certificate that would allow them to submit songs (automatedly) for authentication.

    SSL certificates allow for repudiation, so if someone's ID was used inappropriately, they would be able to issue repudiation.. It should be possible to issue repudiation starting from a specific date (when the certificate was compromised), generally (e.g. if the identity was issued improperly), or even for specific songs (if a publishing authorization turns out to have been mistaken, or the publisher has second thoughts.).

    Sharing would then be checked for authentication of a song, rather than a record company claim (after the fact) of copyright infringement. If a record company claims copyright on a song, they would identify it by fingerprint (or a fingerprint summary) then DMCA procedures for notifying the 'owner' of the impugned song would follow.

    The point here is that the users are then explicitly responsible for the songs that they post -- combining this with the fact that the RIAA is now proving themselves capable of going after the individual violators, this means that they should have a much harder time going after distribution services like AudioGalaxy for actions that individual customers are really responsible for. (and able to be held responsible for)

    On the other hand, the RIAA's high-handed tactics may backfire on them, and provide a real boost to the indie music industry.

    • This is supposed to be moderated as Funny right...? I hope so...
  • by Grendel Drago ( 41496 ) on Saturday July 13, 2002 @09:07AM (#3876823) Homepage
    Uh-oh.

    Are we now to believe that a form letter generated by Share-O-Stop software can threaten an ISP into cutting off someone's service? Does the MPAA really think they can get away with this?!

    See, the thing about P2P was that it was so incredibly distributed that it would be impossible for the MPAA to sue all of us... but now, it looks like they're trying. As we've learned, the threat of legal action can frequently be as effective as actual legal action, at a fraction of the price.

    I can't believe they're using bullying tactics like this. What bastards. Maybe there's some kind of threatening form letter we can send to something the MPAA depends on, to cause them a great deal of meaningless trouble? Anyone have any ideas?

    --grendel drago
    • Anyone have any ideas?

      Stop going to movies.

      Stop buying DVDs.

      Stop buying CDs.

      If they seem to be telling you they do not like having you as a customer, oblige them. If everyone did this, the MPAA/RIAA tune will change faster than you can say "bankruptcy."

      And if no one but you boycotts them, then everyone one but you will have to live with their restrictions. Boycotting movies and music is drop-dead easy, precisely because no one is going to drop dead from not listening to Eminem or from failing to see Minority Report. This is not like boycotting Monsanto or Exxon-Mobil.
    • The DMCA requires that a binding takedown order swear under penalty of perjury that the file is illegally distributed. Someone who suffers as a result of such a sworn statement ought to have some sort of recourse against them. Share your non-MPAA music exclusively and make them suffer death by a thousand paper cuts.

      If the orders are not sworn under penalty of perjury, they are non-binding and therefore ISPs should give them exactly as much weight as any "ENLARGE YOUR PENIS!!1" spam, because that's exactly what it is.

      -jhp

  • Vigilante Justice (Score:2, Interesting)

    by MarvinMouse ( 323641 )
    Interesting form of vigilante justice I see. They go after and punish everyone that they deem as wrong. And perhaps they are right, but the reason for the justice system is not to punish everyone who commits something wrong, but to avoid punishing those who have no committed wrong.

    I remember hearing a great man say that "it is better to let 30 men go free, then have one innocent man condemned for life."

    Vigilante justice has the problem that while it catches more of the guilty, it punishes more of the innocent, as well if I remember correctly it is illegal in the states (could a lawyer check me on this?)

    I understand the need for the MPAA and RIAA to solve these piracy problems, but becoming the prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner is not the way to go. When you are all four, you are guaranteed to false positives and punish those who don't deserve it.
    • I remember hearing a great man say that "it is better to let 30 men go free, then have one innocent man condemned for life."

      Contrast that to King Herod, who said "It is better to kill the innocent, than to let the guilty go free."

  • Usenet (Score:3, Interesting)

    by warmcat ( 3545 ) on Saturday July 13, 2002 @09:14AM (#3876863)
    There is going to come a moment when the people who get rich off restricting availability of readily copyable content go after Usenet.

    If it becomes impossible to post arbitrary content to Usenet, I believe a line will be crossed.

    It is already the case that the law, especially in the US, is tilted too far away from the consumer and into the hands of copyright holders who figure that by so perverting the system, they can take shortcuts to profit like DVD region coding that spit in the face of their customers.

    As the parasitical feeding frenzy between media owners and our representatives - who fear the disapproval of those media - goes on, at some point there will be a flashover where we realize just how screwed we are.

    Remember these prophetic utterances: Usenet is the tiber, the last stand of liberty.
  • I mean if they automatically hunt down offenders.. and also put bogus files on the network..
    how long until they are accusing ppl of sharing content they put on the network in the first place?
  • by Borealis ( 84417 ) on Saturday July 13, 2002 @09:28AM (#3876910) Homepage
    I can't remember how many times I've said or thought "without the fucking customer, my life would be so much easier". I'm so glad to see somebody finally decided to just say "screw them" to all their customers and live the easy life.

    I wonder if the MPAA is hiring...
  • The MPAA's lapdog (Score:4, Informative)

    by shagoth ( 100818 ) on Saturday July 13, 2002 @09:29AM (#3876916) Homepage
    Unless things have changed dramatically, the MPAA is still using software from Ranger Online [rangerinc.com] to perform their searches exclusively. This software isn't all that technically impressive. Anybody with an understanding of protocols and search techniques can make the searches they do in public forums like gnutella and IRC. So then I imagine that they do a simple traceroute to locate the ISP or hosting provider and then a whois for the contact. THis all publicly available and frankly probably requires lots of human intervention. We're not talking banks of computers here, we're talking about a room full of MPAA flunkies doing jack Valenti's bidding.
  • Someone like bearshare or whoever should create a gnutella extention that will use a proxy service for all the P2P hosts to relay through. It would conceal the sender and could possibly even speed up the network in general.

    It's the lack of source anonymity that makes me hold off on hosting the files I've acquired.
  • bots they have going onto networks to look at the traffic in warez channels? I know of some irc networks including ours that have policies against invading the privacy of users, but what legal grounds do we and other irc networks have? we have a notice on connect that if you stay on the network you agree to our policies, and one of them is not being affiliated with any law enforcement or the MPAA or RIAA we are just trying to keep the users privacy on our network, we dont spy on them... and really dont care what they do. it also says in our notice that you agree not to use the network to break any laws, hence you will be disconnected. (which isnt exactly enforced) is there anything that we can legally do to prevent them from coming onto our network and harassing our users that may be breaking the law? I and many others just dont want the network used for hunting people down. thats not what we are about. can anyone shed some light on this issue as well?
    our message follows as an example:
    "JustIRC.Net is a privately owned and operated network. By connecting to any of JustIRC.Net's servers (including this webserver), you agree to hold JustIRC.Net and its staff harmless from any legal action arising from use of the servers. You agree that you are not using JustIRC.Net's servers for malicious or illegal purposes. You also agree that you are not in any way involved with the RIAA, the MPAA, or any state, federal, or local law enforcement agency. If you fail to meet or disagree with these terms, you must immediately discontinue use of JustIRC.Net's servers. JustIRC.Net and its staff reserve the right to disconnect any user from any of its servers, with or without reason. These terms and conditions are subject to change without notice, and it is your responsibility to maintain a current knowledge of them. Complaints can be mailed to webmaster@justirc.net. "
  • Oh no... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Null_Packet ( 15946 ) <nullpacket@d[ ]her.net ['osc' in gap]> on Saturday July 13, 2002 @09:57AM (#3877030)
    Watch out if you are on 192.168.x.x networks! They'll be coming for you next!
  • Since they are going after people who are sharing movies, if word gets out, I'm sure most people will learn quickly how to not share anything on the P2P networks, thus making them useless for most people. Then the only ones who will get these notices are those who are too clueless to disable sharing. If no one is sharing, then P2P isn't very fun.
  • Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Saturday July 13, 2002 @10:59AM (#3877358)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • This is, in fact, precisely what they are supposed to have been doing all along. The problem with file sharing is not file sharing services, but that individuals would use file sharing to engage in copyright infringement. The proper defendants, if any, have ALWAYS BEEN the persons actually copying the files without consent and not for fair use.

    But MPAA finds this unsatisfactory, because they don't want to actually deal with legitimate defenses that will inevitably crop up from time to time, or spend their energies on judgement-proof defendants. Fair reasons, but quite frankly, these are the checks and balances of the Copyright Act that have worked (to their advantage for the most part) for 200 years.

    Nor is this a fault of the DMCA -- prior to the DMCA, caselaw imposed liability on a provider (the Netcom/Scientology case) only who had been given actual notice of an infringement. Indeed, this is to the advantage of the user -- because the takedown only need go on for ten days, unless MPAA actually sues.

    So I applaud MPAA for doing the right thing. And, I rather like the (tacit) admission that they have been fibbing all these years about how imposible and implausible it would be to actually sue proper defendants instead of those providing viable and valuable new technologies to the public at large, particularly those capable of substantial noninfringing uses.
  • The solution here is to develop anonymous file-sharing techniques. Things where your IP address is masked, for instance. I believe he mentioned a program called "Flyster" which provides downloaders with anonymosity.

    Also, lets get real here. This is a scare tactic which only works if you get scared. The MPAA/RIAA have neither the time nor desire (nor even the money) to actually litigate each one of these 50,000 cases out. You should automatically challenge these rulings, whether they're true or not. Chances are, they won't respond back. ISP's have to give you back access if you challenge the accusation, at least until the dispute has been litigated out. And chances are, the MPAA/RIAA isn't going to respond to any challenges of their accusations. It simply isn't feasable to sue 50,000 people, and increasing.

    So there are two ways to fight this: one technological (anonymosity), the other "legal" (challenging the accusation within 24 hours).

    They have their backwards beliefs about how intellectual property should be enforced draconianly, and how no fair-use should apply, and about increasing its scope, and increasing its duration ad-infinitum.

    We have our ideals about freedom of information, democracy, freedom of speech, privacy, and an open society.

    In other words, they represent fascist nazi values. We represent democratic values.

    P.S. -- Another solution is to get on a broad-band connection with a dynamic IP; thus, IP numbers can't be traced back to a specific user. However, this raises its own problems as dynamics IP's take away users rights. You can't log into your own computer from remote w/ a dynamic IP; can't host a web page; etc etc.
    • dh003i writes:
      The solution here is to develop anonymous file-sharing techniques.
      There are pseudonymous chat and filesharing systems where all transfers go through a central server which masks the end-users IP addresses from one another. In this case, your anonymity is only as good as the strength of conviction of the service operator, and his lawyer's ability to avoid a conviction (for contempt of court, after he refuses to turn over any records).

      Things where your IP address is masked, for instance. I believe he mentioned a program called "Flyster" which provides downloaders with anonymosity.
      The MSNBC story refers to going after the people offering to SEND you the file, not the people who have downloaded it. Masking the true source IP of the sender is not trivial, as any legitimate ISP will have implemented packet filters to prevent IP spoofing.

      To quote the article " Called "Flyster," the program will allow downloading in complete anonymity, according to developer Louis-Eric Simard. However, those who host files for download could still be traced, he said"

      Also, lets get real here. This is a scare tactic which only works if you get scared. The MPAA/RIAA have neither the time nor desire (nor even the money) to actually litigate each one of these 50,000 cases out.
      No, they only need to litigate in the cases where the takedown notice isn't sufficient to cause the offender to cave and pull the content. To quote the MSNBC story "...the music industry has been behind several high-profile arrests of individuals involved in the online music trade. And just last week, The Wall Street Journal reported the industry is planning to step up such individual prosecutions."

      Another solution is to get on a broad-band connection with a dynamic IP; thus, IP numbers can't be traced back to a specific user.
      Wrong. Given an IP number and a timestamp, the ISP can check their RADIUS or DHCP logs and determine who was assigned that IP at that time. Dynamic IP does make it tougher for a random attacker to come after you, but it gives you very little insulation from lawyers who subpeona your ISP for their records.

      However, this raises its own problems as dynamics IP's take away users rights. You can't log into your own computer from remote w/ a dynamic IP; can't host a web page; etc etc.
      These 'rights' you speak of, where were you granted them? If your contract with your ISP says you cannot host servers, you do not have that right. Your desires are not rights, they are wants. If you want to run a server, have a static IP address, ask your ISP how much more you must pay them to be granted these priviledges.
  • by carambola5 ( 456983 ) on Saturday July 13, 2002 @12:27PM (#3877779) Homepage
    My friend who works at the Medical Sciences building of a major university got a call from the U's IT department, who in turn got a call from the U's lawyers, who in turn got a call from the good ol' MPAA. Apparently someone in the building was sharing movies illegally (is there really any other way?). Not sure what the repercussions are yet, since this happened 3 days ago. My friend feels kinda bad about it, seeing as he was the one who suggested installing Kazaa Lite.

Dinosaurs aren't extinct. They've just learned to hide in the trees.

Working...