RIAA Files 532 Lawsuits

Like2Byte writes "The RIAA is at it again. This time, Yahoo! News is reporting that 532 file sharers' IP addresses are being submitted to the courts instead of their names because ISPs decline to name people and the courts previous blocks. Music lawyers filed the newest cases against 'John Doe' defendants -- identified only by their numeric Internet protocol addresses -- and expected to work through the courts to learn their names and where they live."

Time

[Neon Spiral Injector]

I wonder how long most ISPs keep their logs linking usernames to IP addresses.

Re:Time

[djh101010]

I wonder how long most ISPs keep their logs linking usernames to IP addresses.

I suspect there may be some policies written very quickly, to say "not long at all".

Re:Time

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, then the government will enforce log retention policies for everyone operating any sort of servers anywhere for any reason. Just like companies are legally obligated to retain financial, tax, customer and other business records for three or seven years - they will soon be required by law to retain server logs for as many years, most likely.

I wonder what will happen when your server crashes or you wipe over a hard drive or you go out of business or you have a drive malfunction or something - and

Re:Time

[mcrbids]

I wonder how long most ISPs keep their logs linking usernames to IP addresses.

I suspect there may be some policies written very quickly, to say "not long at all".

Actually, I sysad at a few local ISPs, (outsourcing isn't just for Indian workers, y'know) and one of the client ISPs long ago made it clear to keep logs as short as possible to avoid problems like this.

Most records are deleted automatically (a la logrotate.d) in a month. The only real reason to keep these records is for tech support, which vir

Re:Time

[TwitchCHNO]

The dhcp servier & radius server (PPP) are separate entities. More accurtately the dhcp Ip is linked to a MAC address - Once a dhcp lease expires (connection is terminated) the arp table is refreshed. I don't know how long other ISP's leave thier arp tables up - but my routers refresh every 20 minutes.

In order to tie any specific IP to a particular user the connection has to remain active and the lease on the IP cannot expire.

This is why some macintosh users were accused of running the kazza client - the IP in question was linked to the mac adress currently in the arp tables. I have never encountered an isp that logs thier arp tables. So the customer who gets slapped with the lawsuit may not have been the customer who was originally sharing mp3's.

The only time usernames would be used at all if some sort of radius authentication is required by the isp before a dhcp address is leased (pap - chap, whatever). The most common broadband technologies that use radius is PPPOE & PPP over ATM.

The majority of ISP's used bridged ethernet technologies that don't require radius authentication. The only way of matching an IP in that case is via mac address.

Many firewall / router products allow for mac address cloning - which essentially allows a user to change his or her mac adress. IANAL but if the corresponding mac adress was not found on an offenders network then the RIAA would have no case.

In either way - due to the fact that most residental broadband services only offer DHCP addresses - the method that the RIAA is using to identify thier victims is highly unreliable.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:NAT

[metlin]

You know, at my apt we have a Wireless Network which is shared by 3 other roomies.

Sometimes, my neighbours use it too when their net is slow. All in all, one DSL shared by ateast 5-6 peple.

Now, any one person could have used their system for P2P. Are the going to take all 6 of us to court just because one IP has been logged?

Has anyone had similar experiences? What would the RIAA do in such a situation?

Re:NAT

[metlin]

Its interesting you say this, because this seems to be something thats quickly catching on.

This Register article [theregister.com] seems to indicate that the Trojan Horse Excuse syndrome is quickly catching on.

Do not know how well it would hold against the RIAAs corporate hoodlums, but seems to have some effect :)

DHCP?

[peterprior]

What about those people on DHCP who get a different IP address each time they log on ?

Re:DHCP?

[SnowWolf2003]

People are obviously still not understanding the whole process. When you connect to your ISP they assign you an IP address, and log the time you leased that address. The RIAA previously was able to subpeona the ISP directly and say "Who was using this IP at this time on this day" and the ISP then had to go through their log and supply the subscribers details who had that IP at that time.

All this means now is that the process is longer. The RIAA now has to go through the courts and get the courts to issue

Oh my

[Orclover]

Hell just file against 192.168.0.0-255 and get it over with.

Then work on 172.16.#.#

You know they wanna.

I see

[Joe the Lesser]

identified only by their numeric Internet protocol addresses

TK-421! Why aren't you at your post?

Re:I see

[xTK-421x]

I've got a bad transmitter.

RIAA resources

[kneecarrot]

This seems ever more expensive than the previous rounds of lawsuits since now there is even more effort required in matching names to IP addresses. My question is when will the RIAA start running out of money to do this sort of thing. Surely it must already be hurting the bottom line.

Re:RIAA resources

[eclectro]

My question is when will the RIAA start running out of money to do this sort of thing

You know the Arnold Schwarzenegger movie "Terminator." It's like that;

Listen! And understand! That RIAA is out there. It can't be bargained with! It can't be reasoned with! It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are sued!

All I can say is "May the Schwarz be with you."

Just saw an ad from the movie

[potat0head]

people yesterday. They said copying movies from the Internet costs them money and puts people out of a job. The ad was well done and would be understood by most anybody. The music folks are just an order of magnitude stupider than the movie people are. Instead of messaging combined with clear product value propositions and additional rewards for buying more product, we get lawsuits, attempts to fix pricing on CD media, media that does not work, trash artists and on and on and on.... No wonder these dumbasses are having such a hard time. Hope each one of those lawsuits cost them a bundle. Maybe they will think back to the early Napster days and a reasonable offer. If they had only taken it, things would be cast in a far different light today. You reap what you sow.

Re:Just saw an ad from the movie

[furiousgeorge]

>>The ad was well done and would be understood by most anybody.

Yeah, unfortunately it's totally missing the point.

I've seen one of these ads (3 different ones so far) in front of every movie i've seen for the last for months.

HELLO!?!? I JUST PAID $10 to sit in this theatre and you're preaching to me to not steal off the internet!??! HELLO? WE'RE THE DAMN PAYING CUSTOMERS.

shit. Talk about missing the point and annoying the wrong people.

Re:Just saw an ad from the movie

[tepples]

I JUST PAID $10 to sit in this theatre and you're preaching to me to not steal off the internet!??!

The intended market for those ads includes the projectionist and the prick in the nth row with a camcorder.

Re:Just saw an ad from the movie

[Loki_1929]

"HELLO!?!? I JUST PAID $10 to sit in this theatre and you're preaching to me to not steal off the internet!??! HELLO? WE'RE THE DAMN PAYING CUSTOMERS."

My first reaction to seeing that ad for the first time was, "there's going to be some guy, some place, who's going to think to himself, "Holy shit! I can get movies online for free?! What the hell am I doing here then??""

Re:Just saw an ad from the movie

[tadas]

When I made my annual trip to the movies earlier this month (to see ROTK), they showed the same commercial. When it got to the "no copying" punchline, it was booed by the audience.

ISP records

[Alizarin Erythrosin]

I'm sure if we could get a list of the IPs and the times they recorded it we could contact our ISP (for those of us on DHCP like myself) and find out if we had that address at the time. I for one am curious to see if I'm on the list since I was looking for an old jazz song last week. Who knows, the RIAA are bastards. They might try to sue me.

hrmm

[Judg3]

the newest cases against 'John Doe' defendants -- identified only by their numeric Internet protocol addresses

Your honor, my client, 216.250.128.12, is innocent. He was coerced to download those files by RIAA's public enemy number 1 - 127.0.0.1. There is also plenty of evidence to implicate his cronies, 192.168.1.1 and 10.0.1.0 as well.

This 127.0.0.1 guy sure is in trouble

[Anonymous Coward]

He shared over 5000 songs!

They're after the college students again...

[Scorpio1]

I work at the my school's computer help desk and just yesterday we got a phone call asking us to shutdown a certain IP address because the user was found to be in violation of copyright law. I have a feeling this is linked to this RIAA lawsuit business.

Re:They're after the college students again...

[technos]

Ask them who they represent. Ask them what content is allegedly infringing. Ask them where the DMCA-compliant takedown notice or court order is. If they start getting pissy, I remind them that there ain't squat I'm going to do about it (or am required to do about it) until they at least have the courtesy to write me a real takedown notice.

Oh, yeah. Then go look and see if the fool actually is infringing, and scream at him.

Rolls eyes.

[darkmayo]

Will everyone with an IP of 192.168.*.* please proceed to your local RIAA internment camp for processing please.

Go get em boys....

Good for them.

[Phroggy]

This is what they should have been doing from the beginning, instead of trying to weasel their way around the law and demanding proprietary customer information from ISPs so they can bully them with settlement offers. This gets the process into the courts where it belongs.

Sure the RIAA is still evil, but they're improving their tactics, and should be commended for that. Going after P2P sharing services is wrong, demanding proprietary information from ISPs is wrong, filing John Doe copyright infringement suits is NOT WRONG - it's EXACTLY what you should do if you find people sharing binary apps derived from your GPL'd project and you don't have a way to contact them yourself.

Re:Good for them.

[jeffy124]

hello nail? meet hammerhead.

You hit the nail on the head, this is how it's should be done. It also opens up an interesting situation for the RIAA that they didnt have before, and not just the money required to file a lawsuit first.

Before, when they could supoena the ISP directly, the RIAA could review who the person was prior to filing a suit. Thus, if the name of a politician, a music industry exec, or major public figure were to come up, they could just not sue that person because of the PR ramificat

You're a bit off

[TubeSteak]

you didn't read the article terribly well did you?

The RIAA said that after its lawyers discover the identity of each defendant, they will contact each person to negotiate a financial settlement before amending the lawsuit to formally name the defendant and, if necessary, transfer the case to the proper courthouse.

This is the exact same shakedown tactics they've been using all along, they're just jumping through a few more hoops to do it. Now, John Doe issues aside, why are the filing all 532 lawsuits in Wa

Court costs involved?

[Wingchild]

I start to wonder about the sheer cost of pursing this type of legal tactic. It cannot be cheap to field the army of legal weasels that the RIAA keeps throwing at filesharers. The court-order-required process of tracking an IP down to a given user is neither quick nor easy, especially with certain major ISPs refusing to hand out names.

If you stack the cost of the lawsuits on one side, and the average settlement win from people scared out of their wits on the other... is there a profit being made here?

I'm betting the answer is 'no'. And all that means is the Recording Industry is attempting to achieve compliance through fear. All authority derives from force, as the old saying goes ... if they can wield enough phantom, borrowed force through the courts, they can give the appearance of having the authority to terrorize the little people who feel the legal system will not deal fairly with them.

I wonder if that's worth the money they're spending.

This is the correct way to do it

[bugnuts]

RIAA first tried to horribly abuse the (horribly abusable) DMCA and issue their own subpoenas.

Filing against John Does is the correct way to do it (from my armchair lawyer stance), if the ISP's won't voluntarily divulge the information.

Hmm...

[JoeLinux]

That could be a scene in futurama. Especially if IPv6 was used:

"Your honor, we would like to file charges against 04ef:4326:33d6:13a9......"

Actually, your honor, I am not 200.256.49.3

[Pac]

I am 192.168.0.23, and I have a transcript of my network log to prove it. But as we are a DHCP shop, I am not always 23. Sometimes I am 17. Other times I am 9. I have even been 2 once. But never 200.256.49.3. That would be the gateway and nobody uses it. Locked down in the server room. No access. Verbotten. Very verbotten.

wireless routers

[Petronius]

"Judge, one of my neighbours grabbed an IP from my wireless router and was using KaZaa, not me, I swear..."

how are they going to address that???

Re:wireless routers

[gnu-generation-one]

"one of my neighbours grabbed an IP from my wireless router"

If plausible deniability works for the government, it damned well ought to work for individuals.

Rose colored glasses...

[BrynM]

From the article:

"Our campaign against illegal file sharers is not missing a beat," said Cary Sherman, president of the recording association. "The message to illegal file sharers should be as clear as ever."

Yes. Obviously it's working since sharing is on the rise again [slashdot.org]. They must be scrambling to file suits to keep the "file sharing will get you sued" mantra going in the press. I don't think they'll have much success with just IP addresses though. NAT, Dynamic IPs and other such stuff is known for imcomplete or regularly purged logging from what I understand. By the time this gets to the point that a judge orders the names (or however they swing it), the data may be gone to the bit bucket.

John Doe warrants for DNA?

[purduephotog]

Anyone remember the episode of Law & Order where they had only days to track down a rapist... and tried to use DNA 'fingerprint' to issue a John Doe warrant? Courts rejected it.

However several new reports allow this and it's still? waiting for supreme court review. I can't find anything about any further challenges- but I don't know what I'm not searching.

http://www.courttv.com/news/hiddentraces/yalem/s id ebar_dna.html

https://coldhit.doj.ca.gov/dna/news10.htm

http://www.denverda.org/html_website/denver_da/D NA _John%20Doe_warrants.html

http://www.ndaa.org/publications/newsletters/sil en t_witness_volume_7_number_1_2002.html

This calls for a "The Prisoner" reference:

[NeuroManson]

I am not a number, I am a free man!

Wow.

[einer]

This could be the first time I've ever been happy about not having a static IP address from Time Warner.

Dear RIAA

[mm0mm]

Music lawyers filed the newest cases against 'John Doe' defendants -- identified only by their numeric Internet protocol addresses -- and expected to work through the courts to learn their names and where they live.

This type of "I-dunno-but-U-figure-out-Urself-,-judge-!" tactics is already copyrighted by Darl. RIAA will receive a nice letter from ScO concerning potential lawsuit for infringement of their IP in a few days, probably before they lose one of their "I-dunno" cases this Friday. Maybe we should establish RIAA/SCO Survival Funds so we won't lose two of the most entertaining litigation clowns.

If You Haven't Taken Action Already

[Schlemphfer]

Generally, in these kinds of articles, the basic idea is that the RIAA is launching these lawsuits as a deterent against piracy. I think the truth is a little different. I think the RIAA is trying to develop a second revenue stream.

Basically, our friends at the RIAA are more than happy if you'll keep buying your CD's at fifteen dollars a pop, then every few years they'll try to make what you already purchased obsolete by offering a new release with better packaging.

Sometimes I wonder if they are deliberately incompetent in issuing their first release. I remember back in 1991, I picked up Miles Davis' "Kind of Blue." Five years later, the record company had re-released it, along with the shocking announcement that one of the original CD's songs had been mastered at the wrong speed -- so the CD I owned had a song that was therefore in the wrong key and at the wrong tempo. And for this incompetence, on their part, I was supposed to shell out another fifteen bucks to get the fixed version.

Understandably, people are tired of this crap, so they've resorted to downloading music. That's where the RIAA's new revenue generating tactic comes in: they're using their legal department to send letters, coercing downloaders to pay up at about seven grand a pop. That's a lot of shiny CD's.

So buy CD's or download illegally -- either way the RIAA wins. Unless you decide to get out of the game.

If you follow the RIAA's tactics at all, you might have decided it's appropriate to not give these bloodsuckers another dime of your money. So here are a couple tips. Don't buy from labels that are affiliated with the RIAA [boycott-riaa.com] -- and don't buy legally downloaded music from these labels just because they happen to be on the iTunes record store.

Second, check out sites like Magnatune. [magnatune.com] Read everything you can about their business practices. These people are cool, their artists' music is awesome, and they deserve our support.

BS

[H8X55]

It's like filing suit against a phone number for a bomb threat.

DHCP logs???

[ewhenn]

Everyone is bringing up the question of how long the logs would be kept for. Remember back when the US govt. was (possibly still is) granting itself the power to check out what books you were reading at the library? Remember how the librarians decided to destroy the records because it was legal? How long until ISPs get the idea and follow suit? No records, no court. Remember, ISPs want to keep customers, one way is to have a strong privacy policy.

Next stumbling block..

[nolife]

Next hurdle for the RIAA is to PROVE these people were actually offering or distributing actual content the RIAA members own the copyright to. A file name or a list of file names/or mp3 tags is NOT going to stand up in a real court. I would think they should have to prove that person was actually distributing an actual copyrighted file by downloading the whole thing or a major portion of that file from only that one person (not getting it from multiple users either) and have some type of timestamped logs or process of the file transfer to stand behind their evidence gathering. Metallica_-_Ride_the_Lightning_01.mp3 can contain anything. A file name is not a copyright violation and without evidence, you would have to assume what the content was. There is no provision in the DMCA to fall back on that can override actual evidence is there? IANAL but since these RIAA lawsuits are civil and not criminal, I don't believe they can obtain a search warrant to come for your physical equipment either. Who knows.

This whole thing is a joke.

[canfirman]

This whole "lawsuit" with the RIAA is nothing but a freeking joke. My buddy wrote EMI Music Canada complaining he couldn't download music from his (store bought) CD to his new IPod because of the copy protection. So, EMI Music gave him an unprotected CD and actually told him not to buy copy protected CD's until the technology changes! So, what's he supposed to do if he can't buy CD's? I guess the only thing left is to download them (but then he'll get sued by the RIAA even though the music company told him not to by the CD).

Like I said, what a joke.

(If you're interested, I've got the e-mail chain between my buddy and EMI.)

Anyone tried tracing those IPs?

[CliffH]

I just did a random few. I'd love to see the RIAA sue people in France, Germany, and all of the other countries IPs who are in that list. I saw a couple of 212 addresses and figured, no, they aren't from the states so I did a lookup on them. Low and behold, European address blocks. Have fun RIAA. Something tells me your tactics won't fly as well outside of the US as it does within...

heh

[ArmenTanzarian]

Tom Brokaw: 127.0.0.1 was unavailable for comment.

That's what I would do.

[werdna]

Actually, this is an ordinary application of a fairly common legal point. If you have enough evidence to show that SOMEONE has committed a tort, and some plausible basis for attempting to identify the plaintiff, but not enough to name them in the complaint, you may file a "John Doe" complaint, and then use routine discovery (particularly of third parties) to obtain more detailed information.

RIAA tried to avoid that process by using the DMCA subpoena provisions, and got rebuffed. Now they are going through the routine process that they would have to have done without the DMCA. In this case they are very likely to prevail, by the way.

Just another step in the P2P wars. This one is not terribly controversial.

Carefull what you wish for

[acomj]

The way it was:
RIAA got your info- sent a letter telling you to settle. If you didn't you get dragged to court.

The way it is now:
RIAA goes to court, gets your info, sues you.

I'm not saying your ISP should be giving out your info to anyone, but now you name is in public record as a defendent in a lawsuit. Probably won't get off the hook as easy as the first batch of defendents either.

I'm guess I'm glad I don't distribute..

Thank God for DSL

[Ignorant Aardvark]

When I first got my Verizon DSL, I was annoyed that I didn't get a static IP address. But now I realize the advantages of a dynamically-assigned IP address. Everytime my DSL connection reconnects, I get assigned new IP, and because my connection crashes regularly, I go through up to 10 IP addresses per day. Thank God for Verizon and their crappy connections. Try finding me now, RIAA! Nyaaah Nyaaah!!

Re:Thank God for DSL

[micq]

Doesn't matter, really.. I'm sure they log the ip handouts, and would know who had what ip at what time if they were forced to look.

The big ISP's wouldn't destroy their logs on their own, and they wouldn't turn off logging, and it's a crime to destroy them after subpeona'd... So you really gain nothing.

Good

[cjpez]

This is how it should happen. I'd much rather have identity requests come as a court order rather than via some organization like the RIAA. The DMCA has some very worrying clauses about your duty as an ISP to take care of problems once they've been brought up by the RIAA et al, but damned if I'd just hand out user information. If it's coming in as an actual court order in response to an actual, pending case, that's something different. That's working inside the system, and the RIAA doesn't have any special privileges. That's what's always pissed me off about the DMCA, is that it seems to give the media organizations these godlike policing powers, where a notice from them is just as good as any "official" notice. If the courts are involved, at least you know that The System, such as it is, is getting involved in the process, and you're not just handing information over to some corrupt, money-grubbing organization. This is The Way It Should Be.

Now, I'll still say that the actual prosecution of filesharers is ridiculous, but at least if they're going through the court system I don't have to be pissed off that they're using police-like activities sanctioned by some piece of horrible horrible legislation.

Confusion over how infringing files are identified

[PureFiction]

I see a lot of confusion over the way files are identified and whether this will stand up in court or not.

If you think they are using a method as trivial as "they responded to a search for name label_muzak.mp3" you are mistaken. This would definitely not be credible evidence in court (anything could be in the file) and it's not how the RIAA is going about tracking illegal uploads.

The method they are using has been described in some of the articles concerning the subpoenas issued to users of the networks and it works as follows:

1. The RIAA employs modified nodes in the various networks (KaZaa and Morpheous seem to be the big two) to search for known song names or groups.

2. When they find a match, they attempt to download the entire file from the user. This point is important: if they can't prove you actually uploaded a copyrighted file in its entirety, they don't have a case.

3. When the upload is complete they perform an MD5 sum on the content and verify that it matches a database of known copyrighted files. If they didn't do this step, they would have to have someone listen to it to be sure its actually what they think it is.

Given the nature of peer networks, there are a number of common rips (i.e. identical) of songs widely shared among many users. Thus the MD5 sums will match for the same file among many users.

This is all the information they need to bring a suit against your. They have an IP address and time/date associated with the upload, they have a verified MD5 sum for the upload that matches known copyrighted files.

This information was covered in a previous article here: Innocent File-Sharers Could Appear Guilty? [slashdot.org] and the techniques they use are explicitly designed to withstand the scrutiny of a legal proceeding.

All of the cases of mistaken identity to date (the mac user sent a nasty gram, the grandmother, etc) appear to be mistakes by the ISP correlating a given IP + date into the right account holder, and not a flaw in their methods associated with identifying infringing content traded over the networks.

Suing... who?

[the grace of R'hllor]

Last I checked, IP-addresses were not legal ID, like ID cards or passports are. As far as I know, you can only sue legal entities, like people or businesses. Not abstract concepts (if I could, I'd sue some Back Propagation Algorithm for grievous mental harm)

So they're bringing lawsuits against unidentified IP-addresses, which could be anything from a NAT router to a university network, a government agency, or whatever. Many of these lawsuits will therefore be against companies which are not liable for their customers' actions.

This is ridiculous.

(IANAL, as if it wasn't obvious)

534 Lawsuits?

[nathanh]

This is RIAA maths... so was it actually 27 lawsuits but some of them were really serious?

Re:hehe, wasn't me..

[grub]

ISPs keep a copy of what IP was leased to what MAC at what times.

It seems the forgot an additional 256 IP's

[88NoSoup4U88]

192.168.0.0 to 192.168.0.255 is apparently missing ;-)

Re:Here are the IPs in question

[a man named bob]

You can also check the EFF subpoena datatbase, for existing subpoenas, it's not updated with the new IP's yet but I'd imagine that'll happen pretty soon.

You can check that here [eff.org]

Re:Here are the IPs in question

[apoch2001]

Damnit! I'm right there in the middle!!! Can't you see it? Umm.. i will be going into hiding. :) Perhaps we can sue 146.82.174.12 for defamation...?

Re:Here are the IPs in question

[ShieldWolf]

Interesting, the ISP's won't give up their names, but try typing in http://128.111.80.86/ which is one of the entries. This leads you to the University of California - Santa Barbara's security we page. So they NAT all their users apparently, how helpful is that? :P

Re:Here are the IPs in question NO WAY!!!

[Beautyon]

I almost fell off of my chair:

http://128.111.80.86/ [128.111.80.86]

Points to....wait for it.....

"Asset Protection at UCSB"

Too good to be true!!

Re:Here are the IPs in question

[Anonymous Coward]

82-21-63-200-ptr.ipbusiness.net.ar host071052.arnet.net.ar server.backendhost.com 64-132-153-94.gen.twtelecom.net adsl-63-202-129-167.dsl.renocs.nvbell.net filter.ikano.com mail.webfolders.net host75.reprografic.com server.backendhost.com web3.clubnet.net proxy.ia4.marketscore.com ip66-105-98-139.z98-105-66.customer.algx.net ip174-132.calstate.edu w219.z064003176.stl-mo.dsl.cnc.net oracle-u235.viawest.net e.bolgerinc.com adsl-64-108-32-30.dsl.bltnin.ameritech.net www.marshinc.com uswb124.isomedia.com h-66-1

Waves hand....

[LittleGuy]

These are not the IP Addresses you are looking for. Move along.

Are *YOU* on the list?

[PetoskeyGuy]

Go to http://whatismyipaddress.com/ [whatismyipaddress.com]
and find out.

Of course IP addresses are rather pointless without a date and time. I switched from a 208.*.*.* to a 66.*.*.* address just this morning.

Lust like the lottery...

[NetDanzr]

First three numbers - check.
Second three numbers - coming closer.
Third three numbers - danr! Lost once again!

Re:Here are the IPs in question

[dyte]

These are in the list twice

12.100.15.167
204.201.220.33
208.150.224.18
2 12.198.251.66
216.136.13.252
216.38.33.66
216.5 3.197.27
38.201.184.162
63.199.63.218
64.132.15 3.94
64.242.223.111
65.105.125.126
66.250.69.1

210.73.74.200 is in 3 times

I count 518 uniques

Re:Here are the IPs in question

[BadBlood]

Some IP's end in ".1" which are normally ISP gateways....

Re:Here are the IPs in question

[katre]

my ip at home ends in .1 and to make it even more unusual it also has a 0 in there (as in XXX.0.XXX.1)

Yeah, but 127.0.0.1 doesn't count!

Nice...

[HTH NE1]

So nice of the RIAA to give us a big list of IP addresses to go to to download free music!

Re:Here are the IPs in question

[ch-chuck]

C:\>ipconfig /release
C:\>ipconfig /renew

Sorry, you have the wrong person.

Re:Here are the IPs in question

[justins]

It would be infinitely more useful to simply post the link where you got that information. Thanks!

Re:Here are the IPs in question

[cmacb]

I think I spotted several SCO IP addresses in there. Maybe the best thing to do is let RIAA know that SCO is using their servers as major music sharing hubs and at the same time convince SCO that RIAA has been running unlicensed copies of SCO Unix (what's it called this week?) for years. Let the clueless losers battle one another to death while the rest of us get on with our lives.

Whew! What a relief!

[bizitch]

I searched for mine .... 127.0.0.1

Couldn't find it in that list!

Good thing too - I'd reallly get busted!

Re:Here are the IPs in question

[peter_gzowski]

I bet it really bugged the RIAA to see 128.210.99.156 [128.210.99.156] on the list.

You Have Been Trolled

[anticypher]

And a good one at that. More than 40 responses as people go off on Krog's wild goose chase. That deserves declaring Krog as either a foe or a friend, hard to decide.

Probably just a list of pingable addresses generated by nmap -iR 532 -sP. Too many of these addresses are outside the U.S., and too many of them seem to be resolving to hosts that are easily tracked down without needing to go through an ISP. mail.samaritanbethany.com? Come on, that one doesn't require a subpoena, just a whois lookup or a visit to their site. Its a retirement home in Rochester Minn. If the RIAA were going after them, they wouldn't waste their time with Verizon in NY when the provider is Qworst.

Has anyone else seen a copy of the lawsuit yet? It may show up on some court's website tomorrow, but there isn't a copy of the suit on the RIAA's site. I have written to the press contacts at the RIAA asking for a copy of the lawsuit, but I haven't yet received a response.

the AC

Re:Gee...

[relrelrel]

Thats irrelevant. ISPs will know who had what IP and at what times.

Re:Gee...

[Anonymous Coward]

For as long as they keep their logs, anyway. That could be a very important point, depending on how long the cases take to reach the discovery stage.

Slashdot: Penalizing fast typists (and fast thinkers) since 2000
------------
Slow Down Cowboy!

Slashdot requires you to wait 20 seconds between hitting 'reply' and submitting a comment.

It's been 9 seconds since you hit 'reply'!

Chances are, you're behind a firewall or proxy, or clicked the Back button to accidentally reuse a form. Please try again. If the pr

Re:Gee...

[Awptimus Prime]

Actually, that is a far worse plan than dealing with the RIAA.

An ISP can be held responsible in situations where it does not keep records like radius logs. Since the ISP would be unable to prove they didn't do it (they being the ISP), presented with evidence that shows the illegal activity came from their network, it would almost be an automatic loss for them in court. Don't expect any compassion from the court, once the judge points out that your irrisponsibility is borderline deceptive and unethical business practice, you'll probably get either a maximum fine or harsher term.

This is much like loaning your car to a drunk stranger. You automatically become legally liable for anything he does behind the wheel due to your own irrisponsibility.

People forget that the Internet is a communications service. It's not like the phone company doesn't keep a log of all the phone numbers you dial, times dialed, duration of call, the date/time in GMT, etc.

Re:Gee...

[adlai]

IANAL, of course, but I'm not sure this is right. As far as I know, under common law principles, ISPs cannot be presumamptively liable for the actions of their users...and I doubt the DMCA changes things in this regard.

Is there someone who actually knows with certainty the answer to this point? It is important for how this whole story will play out, methinks.

Re:Gee...

[Awptimus Prime]

This is correct, but that is only if the ISP is an ethical business.

The flawed logic I am trying to dis-spell is the "I could start an ISP, then my friends and I can hack sites all day long, not keep logs, and be immune from any prosecution." idea.

Anyone who has followed a few court cases knows that such an asinine concept will result in failure.

Fact is, I did abuse for a major ISP for 4 years. I also have done several years of Information Security. I've also turned over my fair share of evidence to various agencies. I know what not to do, and not keeping records is one of them.

Not irrelevant

[Kickstart70]

As a former ISP manager, I know that by the time a lawsuit would have come about our DHCP assignment logs would have been rotated out of storage. Any reasonable sized ISP would have far too much data to keep on hand to store something like that.

Re:Not irrelevant

[strike2867]

The RIAA is not the police. They dont get any warrants, btw IANAL. Guessing it would not take the courts a couple of days to approve some random 532 numbers, more like the usual months after months of appeals and waiting.

Re:Not irrelevant

[Qrlx]

Microsoft is not an ISP.

In a relatively static corporate network, you're going to keep renewing the same IP address over and over and over. That's how DHCP works. (After your lease is 50% up, your 'puter asks the DHCP server if it can renew the lease on that IP addy again.) There are people on the LAN at work whose IP hasn't changed in years, despite being DHCP clients.

I don't know why ISPs mix up the pool of IP addresses, but sure enough I have a new one (though my subnet hasn't chagned) every week or so.

Re:Gee...

[N3WBI3]

Do you 24.68.123.57 swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth..

Re:Gee...

[i_r_sensitive]

In view of that, no ISP could ever have taken action against a spammer, which we know has happened, perhaps it would be resonable to assume that the ISP keeps logs of who get what lease when. Evidently RIAA has reason to believe this, given this tack.

In point of fact, I know most do. I know several people who work in support or engineering for several ISPs and keeping such logs is not unusual. The existence of a given set of logs can almost be taken for granted, what you can't take for granted is how long such logs might be kept.

I'm sort of working on this same problem.

[scot4875]

I'm currently developing a new management system for our university network of ~4000 nodes. It has the ability not only to track every single IP address ever used by any student, but also what hub port/wireless AP they were connected to at the time.

As an internal debugging/security tool, this is *great* information. We can make sure that people aren't abusing the network. We can find and disable compromised machines with very simple tools. We can easily do tons of other useful administrative tasks.

However, I *really* worry that the information could be subpoenad and used against individual students by the likes of the RIAA/MPAA. I've been harping on upper management to let us purge the history after roughly a week (tops), which would give us plenty of debugging time, and at the same time not give the legal system enough time to issue a subpoena before the information is gone.

It's really a wierd situation for me. The tools I'm working on are extremely powerful, and will definitely save our network guys a lot of time. But there's a distinct possibility that the information we gather could be used in ways that I, personally, find abhorrent.

It makes me wonder about other developers working on software that's used for security: it's a fascinating job, and has tons of really good applications. But at the same time each piece moves us one step closer an Orwellian society becoming possible. Is this something I/we should really be persuing, given the potential outcome?

--Jeremy

Re:I'm sort of working on this same problem.

[i_r_sensitive]

The big thinng here is, you have to stop worrying about the student and users rights. They have NONE. The only holder of rights in your situation is the University. If the University chose to hand that information over to RIAA, and no binding agfreement prohibited them from doing so, they can.

The University owns that network, not the users. I suspect the users sign an acceptable use policy, no? Does that policy specifically prohibit certain conduct?

Your concern for the rank and file users, while p

Re:I'm sort of working on this same problem.

[CaptainFrito]

Lets see. You've advocated Supreme Authority, suspension of ALL individual's rights, censorship based on YOUR definition of unethical activity, even assert that students exist to serve universities...glad your not managing my network.

As for "university property" and whatnot, you clearly have the situation reversed. Universities exist for the benefit of the students, and not vice versa. Networks are student resources, not a Pavlovian carrot to teach them your personal idea of right and wrong. The RIAA is clearly using terrorist tactics, using P2P as sleight-of-hand fake to scare people off even "fair use" applications.

You seem to have a real "God complex". Us and Them. My guess is that you, for the moment, find yourself on the priveledged side of that divide. If justice prevails, you'll find yourself victimized by someone just like you. Hopefully soon.

Re:I'm sort of working on this same problem.

[jafiwam]

It isn't evidence until you are subpeonaed for it.

So if you destroy it, it is not a problem because it wasn't evidence at the time. Until then, it's just data. If you destroy it after you get the subpeona, then it's a problem. Why do you think they have those guys run around and hand out papers for? To make an auditable trail so the court can bitch slap you for not doing what they want because they KNOW you knew what they wanted you to do.

At worst, the University admins might end up in a long discussion about your network SOP with the FBI or something, but get fucking real. All the shoes I ever wore in my lifetime could be evidence too... but I sure as hell am not going to keep them when they wear out. (If any court wants my shoes, they are welcome to them, my feet sweat like crazy when doing first person shooters.) However any court wanting me to produce shoes from 10th grade won't get them, and I won't get in trouble because I don't have them either.

Reality Check

[Crypto Gnome]

However, I *really* worry that the information could be subpoenad and used against individual students by the likes of the RIAA/MPAA.

Oviously I'm missing something - why are you worried? If they're breaking the law they deserve to get busted, if they are not, your logs will not point legal accusations at innocent students.

Yes we all hate the RIAA for their a-moral and insensitive behaviour, but in the end if they're subpoena'ing information it's because they have *some* evidence of violation of copyri

Re:Gee...

[pyros]

Not keeping certain logs would put the ISP in violation of certain federal laws, of which the DMCA may be one, but most notably the PATRIOT Act, I believe.

Re:Gee...

[eric76]

What laws, for example?

I have yet to see any requirement to keep any logs. I've asked, but noone has ever had an answer.

Re:Gee...

[pyros]

What laws, for example?

I know an entire sentence is quite a bit to read (my post was only one sentence, btw), but I specifially said I believe the PATRIOT Act is such a law. When working at a company as a vendor to Sprint, on an enterprise instant messaging project, logging features were a huge deal with them to be comliant with the PATRIOT Act. I certainly admit that I don't know for sure myself. I suppose you also don't remember the stories of bookstores trashing customer records rather than risk being f [google.com]

Re:Gee...

[eric76]

I did read the entire sentence.

Here is a link to the Patriot Act: To deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and around the world, to enhance law enforcement investigatory tools, and for other purposes. [epic.org], but what is not clear is whether that is a preliminary version or the final version.

In any event, I don't see anything in it mandating that ISPs keep any kind of records of their customer's activity. Section 212 does discuss the disclosure of customer records, but I don't see anything there that mandates that records be kept.

On a quick reading, the sections referred to don't seem to require any records be kept.

At TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 121 - STORED WIRE AND ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS AND TRANSACTIONAL RECORDS ACCESS [cornell.edu], you can find the sections referring to the records.

For example, from Section 2709,

Sec. 2709. - Counterintelligence access to telephone toll and transactional records

(a) Duty to Provide. -

A wire or electronic communication service provider shall comply with a request for subscriber information and toll billing records information, or electronic communication transactional records in its custody or possession made by the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation under subsection (b) of this section.

So, if you are asked for records, you must provide those records in your custody or possession. I don't see anything there mandating that you keep any such records.

The other sections are pretty interesting, but they seem to be more interested in keeping ISPs from providing confidential records without proper authorization.

The real question is, "Just what records must be kept?"

My guess is that you don't have to keep any records unless ordered to keep such records by a court of law.

In summary, it is very clear that if you have such records, you may be required to provide them under some circumstances. But I don't see anything mandating that you keep such records at all. I suspect that a judge could order the ISP to keep particular records, but what if there is no such order?

Here's another idea!!

[TrollBridge]

Stop consuming the RIAA's crap!!!

Most of you claim to hate the RIAA almost as much (if not more) than Microsoft or SCO, but can't seem to live without their product!

Downloading the music for free (therefore depriving the RIAA of revenue from the sale of the CD) does nothing but give them ammunition for the press and clueless legislators.

If you really want to knock the RIAA out, stop listening to their music period!! Don't listen to the radio, don't download songs (of RIAA-signed musicians), and don't buy their CDs.

Re:Here's another idea!!

[MikeXpop]

Unfortunately, it's not that simple. They'll equate your "voting with your wallet" as "sales lost due to piracy", because it makes them look like the little guy and it's practically impossible to prove. This always paves the way for legislation such as the one recently made in Canada (tax on all mp3 players/CD-R's).

Personally I haven't boughten an RIAA CD in years. Now I buy all my music vinyl and download. That way, it's perfectly legal, I get a lot more, I get it cheaper, and $0 goes to the RIAA.

Re:Yes! Finally..

[pesc]

I agree!

Distributing others copyrighted works is illegal. And has been for a long time. The internet does not make this legal just because it is simple to do it, or beacuse you can do it more anonymously.

When people cry that we need new laws to regulate the internet, such as DMCA, I say bullshit! Use the good old copyright laws and go after the offenders (uploaders). Don't attack the technology (napster, P2P). Don't attack the infrastructure (ISPs, censorship). Forget about DRM and all such crap. Go after

Re:Yes! Finally..

[Xebikr]

I can't tell you the number of good things that don't go to market because of piracy* concerns. From software to books to music to even more novel forms of everything that simply can't happen

Yes! Stop producing anything! That'll show those nasty pirates!

Sorry, but being denied something that hasn't been created is less of a problem for me than being denied something that was created but is now inaccessable because of draconian copyright laws.

because people break the social contract that is copyright and steal. It's a shame really.

The social contract was broken a long time ago... by the content producers. When copyright was extended long past absurd lengths the writing was on the wall. The present day piracy was predicted way back in 1841 [baen.com]. Here's a quote from that link (Thomas Macaulay speaking against copyright extension):

At present the holder of copyright has the public feeling on his side. Those who invade copyright are regarded as knaves who take the bread out of the mouths of deserving men. Everybody is well pleased to see them restrained by the law, and compelled to refund their ill-gotten gains. No tradesman of good repute will have anything to do with such disgraceful transactions. Pass this law: and that feeling is at an end. Men very different from the present race of piratical booksellers will soon infringe this intolerable monopoly. Great masses of capital will be constantly employed in the violation of the law. Every art will be employed to evade legal pursuit; and the whole nation will be in the plot.

Seems to sum it up quite nicely.

Re:Intellectual Property theft is still theft...

[nate1138]

Every time there is a copyright related case, I have to take the time out of my day to explain to asshats like you that copyright infringement isn't theft. It is copyright infringement. They are different.

READ A BOOK!

a Senator IS at the end of one IP

[teamhasnoi]

Yup. All the lists would be one number short. That said, I would be willing to bet all of my future campaign contributions that at least ONE senator has: Pirated Software, Illegal MP3s, Child Porn, the Cure for Cancer, The Missing 8 Frames of the Zapruder Film (in WMP format) and all the invoices for WMD sold to Iraq.

He probably cheats at CounterStrike too. Fucker.