RIAA To Subpoena Univ. of Michigan Names 503
uofmtech writes "This morning's Michigan Daily is reporting that the RIAA will be subpoenaing the University of Michigan for the names of nine students suspected of file-sharing. University General Counsel Jack Bernard has said 'We are waiting to receive them ... (t)hese are very difficult subpoenas to refuse.' The RIAA had previously notified the University they were looking into this, but the University has tended to handle such matters internally."
How? (Score:5, Interesting)
I would actually be curious as to 1) how this technology works and 2) what the legalities of it are.
From the wording, one would guess that the algorithm goes through IP addresses of files shared on common p2p networks, and based upon that, do they assume you are automatically sharing copyrighted material and thus are subject to search? Or is the algorithm simply correlating those copyright material uploaded to shared databases with an IP address and then assuming the offending computer contains "ill gotten booty"? Or is that ill booten gotty?
Regarding the legalities, unless there is some agreement that most folks unknowingly consent to, having the RIAA looking through "material" on someone's computer should be illegal whether or not they are engaging in illegal theft of intellectual property......right? I suppose that if the RIAA were looking for narrowly defined "signatures" of IP or copyright protected data, they would have to scan the entire contents of hard drives and without a subpoena, I have to wonder if this is legal at all? I suppose the software bots could simply be looking for material that is left wide open to the Internet which would obviate many of the legal concerns, but why would someone host any significant (especially illegally obtained) collection of software wide open?
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:How? (Score:5, Interesting)
Do you really have to ask? *ahem*windoze*ahem*
In all seriousness, what they were doing was looking at what people are sharing and based on the filename (and possibly the mp3 tags) they were going after people sharing files that matched certain keywords (i.e. Metallica, etc.)
I seem to remember a case where they sent a cease and desist to a University because someone on their network was sharing some music with 'Usher' in the name. Turns out it was one of their professors whose name actually happened to BE Usher. The RIAA had to send them an apology letter.
What is not known is if they changed that method. Perhaps someone can enlighten us?
RIAA apologies (Score:4, Interesting)
On a side note, this is the same thing that Blizzard/Vivendi did to Bnetd - after they fucked everyone, then they just drop the lawsuit. No apology, plaintiffs still have to pay for lawyers up to that point. It's called the "Chilling Effect". The fact that they dropped the lawsuit is irrelevant, because the damage was already done.
Re:RIAA apologies (Score:3, Informative)
CNET.NEWS.COM:RIAA Apology [com.com]
Re:How? (Score:3, Interesting)
Uhh yea! You didn't know? There is an organization out of either California or Washington that does this dirty work for the RIAA. So probably the RIAA claims ignorance on how the info is obtained, but certainly this organization is getting it one way or another. Not saying the info is leg
Re:How? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:How? (Score:5, Interesting)
It's actually just "a webcrawler" - I can't find any actual name or further info - probably just libwww-perl w/mods.
Re:How? (Score:2, Insightful)
~SpermanHerman
Re:How? (Score:5, Informative)
Next, no search authorization is needed for anything on public display (e.g. anything visible outside of your house, things you've published in the newspaper, and IMHO, anything you're publishing on the Internet.)
Re:How? (Score:5, Informative)
However should a private entity do this you are fully within your rights to call up your local branch of law enforcement and charge them with breaking and entering or whatever the equivilant crime is for computers(I knew I just forget). Both of which are felonies. So the RIAA could charge you with IP theft, and even send you to jail, but you could do the same thing.
As has been noted however that this does not apply to things which are within plain sight/the public domain. Which is to say that if they log on to kazaa/bittorrent/etc and find you sharing their stuff they can probably do something about it, especially with the somewhat loose strictures on subpoenas for account information these days.
Re:How? (Score:2, Funny)
Jaysyn
Re:How? (Score:4, Informative)
Not if you invite them in (at least in the US).
Assume you murder someone and set the bloody murder weapon on the coffee table. The police come by and you invite them into the living room to talk. They see the bloody murder weapon in plain sight. They can then take posession of the weapon and later use it as evidence.
If you publish the contents of your hard drive over the internet (e.g. by sharing your files in a P2P network), then they can certainly come by and check them out. They can use that as evidence later. No invasion of privacy at this point, they are just using information that you chose to make publicly available.
Re:How? (Score:2)
Re:How? (Score:2)
This way we'll either keep the bastards out of our computers... OR... have the RIAA lobby against the DMCA!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:How? (Score:5, Insightful)
Suppose you implemented an encryption on the network such that all files and filenames were encrypted before being sent. It would be very simple and provide little actual security. Every client would have a "patented" decryption process. It would be the same on every client and not involve actual passwords. Whoever controlled the rights to this encryption/decryption process could controll the network. Kazaa can use the method in it's clients for free for example. RIAA... no, you may not use it.
Now if the RIAA, or anyone else, tries writing a bot to search the network, they either get encrypted data, or they break the encryption... DMCA ALERT
I'm sure some better minds could improve on it. But that's my idea.
Re:How? (Score:3, Interesting)
Just a bit of encryption won't be en
Re:How? (Score:3, Insightful)
And so all they have to do is replace the bot with a person using the client software. Since the vast majority of stuff on the major file sharing networks is stuff that violates copyrights, this would have a negligible impact on their ability to find violators.
Plus, a simple reward program could be offered to get third parties to turn in violators for th
Re:How? (Score:2)
Re:How? (Score:2)
Answer: Depends. If you are law enforcement, then no. If you are a private citizen, then again, it depends. In this instance, with judges being as stupid as they are with computer crimes, I would guess they would take a very dim view of anybody doing anything illegal to gain computer evidence.
Re:How? (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, it's not exactly stated explicitly in the story (although it should be), but it's pretty clear from the context that RIAA is doing this scanning over Kazaa and other p2p networks.
And since users of these networks are voluntarily making this stuff public, I doubt there are any legal ramifications. But it is rather embarassing for the people being taken to court that they allowed themselves to be traced this way.
Trust no one, hide your IP address ... or else 'they' will get you!
Re:How? (Score:5, Informative)
As to your point of having a collection of software/music wide open: how do you think you get to download those songs & programs to begin with? People do leave collections of songs & software completly wide open to the pubilc, that's basically the cornerstone of filesharing. If you aren't sharing then all you are doing is leaching, if everybody's leaching than nobody's downloading at all anymore. Contrary to the "I'm downloading songs from the Internet legally" commercials which make it seem like the download is what get's you. Nobody has been hit for the act of downloading, it's all about the sharing them out.
Re:How? (Score:2)
-dk
What about the DMCA? (Score:4, Insightful)
The RIAA's "webcrawler" is presumably looking for people hosting material via kazaa, but here's the problem with that--FastTrack, kazaa's protocol is patented. In order for them to see the songs that somebody is hosting, wouldn't they have to reverse-engineer the protocol to make it? IANAL, but isn't this illegal, especially since the RIAA is arguably making a profit from said program?
Maybe it's just me, but it seems like patents and intellictual property is only important or enforced when it profits the big companies best. When people distribute a couple songs, it's theft or "piracy." When the RIAA steals intellectual property, it's justice.
-Grym
Re:What about the DMCA? (Score:3, Informative)
No, you're wrong three ways. First, the DMCA says nothing about patents. Second, the DMCA criminalizes defeating measures that protect copyrights, which file sharing networks do not do. Third, and most surprising, the DMCA has an exemption for reverse engineering! That's right, the DMCA's treatment of reverse engineering is exactly the opposite of what most people think. It specifically says that defeating a copyright prot
I completely reject that this is illegal (Score:5, Interesting)
I will conceed their 'right' to an exclusive sales agreement on pre-pressed media for the recordings of 'artists' that sign contracts with their corporation, but only for a period of ten years. Downloads remain no one's 'property'. After the traditional period of seventeen years, the recording becomes public domain for anyone's use and reuse, commercial or private.
But I don't the ability to legally enforce my position.
I suggest that people prepare themselves for the hard and painfull process of removing their cultural consciousness from the global media corporation product. It's painfull because they infect every part of our cultural consciousness from the time that we are born.
I suggest studying music and filmmaking. And then getting inexpensive equipment such as musical instruments and camcorders and making your own personal audio-visual product. The instruments could be MIDI music synthesizers which desperately need new and exciting ways to create sounds and music through creative programming. The whole MIDI scene is stuck in a deep rut. There hasn't been a new programming idea in this field in ten years. The synthesizers cost one tenth of what they did ten years ago and it is possible to get powerful equipment for less than $100US.
The more that you get away from global media corporate product, the more that you begin to find topics like literary crititism, plotting, and writing revelant and important. Study in these subjects is completely wasted on people saturated in global media corporate product and should be dropped from school requirements. No more need for Cliff Notes and Anthology of English Lit books (at $150 a pop). Stupid and worthless.
Please do not concern yourself about the ethical and moral issues of copywrite legalities. There are none. The global media corporations STOLE the public domain by bribing the American legislators to pass laws extending copywrite to infinity minus a day.
No civilized person has any need to respect these copywrite laws. And you should pay attention to them only to the extent that you keep yourself from being imprisoned by them.
Anything that you do to undermine or superceed the copywrite laws is morally and ethically valid. Remember, these people stole the public domain. They have no right to call ANYONE thieves, nor do they have a right to claim any cultural content as their property.
Thank you,
Simonetta
Don't turn off sharing! (Score:4, Informative)
If you're looking to be protected from the RIAA, there are other ways to give you a layer of security. Kazaa Lite K++ [zeropaid.com] (download at OldVersion.com [oldversion.com], v2.4.3 is likely the one you want) includes an IP Blocker extension built on the PeerGuardian [methlabs.org] database of blocked (read: RIAA) IPs, so the RIAA under normal circumstances cannot scan you. Admittedly it's not perfect, but it's better than using the spyware-filled, vulnerable official version.
Re:Don't turn off sharing! (Score:2)
Re:Don't turn off sharing! (Score:2)
Re:Don't turn off sharing! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Don't turn off sharing! (Score:5, Insightful)
Or (gasps!) don't copy unauthorized work, and instead share works by artists who welcome it.
I should also note that most of these "anonymizers" don't actually work, and using them might wind up with consiracy type penalites...
Re:Don't turn off sharing! (Score:5, Interesting)
Once you've signed with one of the big labels, you've practically signed your soul over to the devil. You no longer control your music, and if you don't put out so much music over a certain period, you either lose your contract or you're fined. Yes, there are a few big artists who have come outright and spoken against filesharing, but on an overall scale, how much of the artist pool do they cover?
Now, you may say that I don't know what I'm talking about because it's different when you're in the position of the artist, but guess what? I'm an alternative rock artist, I fully support P2P filesharing, and in fact I allow people to download entire albums for free off of my website. How do I make my money, then? Performances, and I also do other things than just write music.
Re:Don't turn off sharing! (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you're confusing "artists" with "owners". I don't think Jimi Hendrix minds if you share his work. The problem is that big nasty corporations have managed to "own" a large part of our cultural history.
While in some cases it's possible to aviod RIAA music, in other cases, you would be missing out on a large part of our musical history and national identity.
I think everyone should listen to "American Woman" at least one, and I don't see a GOOD reason why they should have to pay for it. That money surely isn't going as an incentive for Hendrix to produce new music.
Re:Don't turn off sharing! (Score:5, Insightful)
Why do we have to discuss how to hide yourself from the prying eyes of those trying to protect their legal property? Privacy is important and if you want to be anonymous that is your own perogative, but to advocate trying to hide one's self instead of advocating simple honesty is dangerous in so many ways to all societies.
Re:Don't turn off sharing! (Score:2)
Why does
My 2cents is that everyone who pulls music or video off kaza without a legal license to have a copy is a "leech".
Re:Don't turn off sharing! (Score:5, Informative)
This is a slight misrepresentation, the works are NOT their property, never have been, and never will be. An idea, nor the expression of an idea can ever eb property.
What they do have is exclusive distribution rights. Note that those are RIGHTS, not PROPERTY.
Those rights are granted in behalf of the society by the government.
Now, due to cluelessness of politicians, the music and even more so movie industries have been able to hijack copyright law. Don't be surprised if society no longer supports the grantign of those exclusive rights as a result, the RIAA, MPAA and all their friends only have themselves to blame for that due to:
1. hijacking copyright law as mentioned.
2. refusing to deal with the wishes of their customers
3. trying to get rid of fair use.
The balance tipped completely to the side of the movie and recording industries and that needs a correction before they can go around screaming about how people dont comply.
Re:Don't turn off sharing! (Score:3, Insightful)
Crack Cocaine, right? That's what you're smoking isn't it? I'm going to tell a story and see if you agree with it.
You are a student and just spent two weeks reading through articles and six books for a research paper on the history of the computer. Your room mate is a lazy, dishonest moron who consideres pot to be the secret to graduati
Switch some key terms, and: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why do so many music distribution companies that have no part in creating music believe it is their divine right to have anything that makes them a profit? Too bad their
Re:Can you own a number? (Score:2)
I knew it! Hippie! Communist! You are the minority and if you don't like it leave. You green party card carying little weasle, take another hit off your water bong and bug out. Leave discussions on this level to people who appreciate their brain cells.
..btw, for the record - the anonymous post was not me. I'm an honest man and the only time I post anonymously is to protect karma not identity, which is a personal prefe
Re:You can't own Data. (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry to say but that is utter and complete bullshit.
You have the civic obligation to protest and fight unfair laws, not respect them. Ever wondered why civil disobedience is a recognized form of protest? Ever wondered why the 2nd amandment to the US con
Re:You can't own Data. (Score:3, Insightful)
There is a first time for everything. Civil disobedience has involved laws or areas of law for the first time repeatedly, and once it has been applied succesfully there is often little reason to apply it again.
> By your reasoning if a group of individuals, say native americans, were to disagree with laws regarding land title and ownership then they should just go an destroy people's homes and take back the
Re:Don't turn off sharing! (Score:2)
Not to mention you who are lower than pond scum, the ones who put fake files in. Nothing worse than getting an episode of stargate sg-1, and when watching it discover it is really a GWAR concert from an age i'd rather not talk about. Losers.
Re:Don't turn off sharing! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Don't turn off sharing! (Score:2)
Well, to be honest, anyone with half a brain in the US that is looking to trade copyrighted material has stopped sharing. It's simply not worth ruining your life over a bunch of crappy songs. There's still plenty to leech from Europe and morons in the US who think they are untouchable though so keep downloading.
Re:Don't turn off sharing! (Score:2)
I personally got hooked on the Napster days of downloading a hundred totally random songs overnight, picking out what you like, then buying a few CDs. It's sad that the RIAA would prosecute me for this were I still doing it... but there is a lot of good music out there that the artists don't mind sharing.
Re:Don't turn off sharing! (Score:4, Informative)
This is just wrong & irresponsible to say something like this. Most of the datamining (to select your IP address as the next lucky winner) is done by subcontractors or other goons of the RIAA. They all know about the IP block list. How hard is it to gather IP addresses from a new IP address?? How hard is it to order a cable modem?? Hypothetically, if enough people used the PG database, they'd HAVE to find a new IP address in order to look for victems.
First of all, the PeerGuardian method is just plain silly IF you are already running a firewall. Why not just import the list of blocked-IP into ZoneAlarm, etc? Why have this code built into KaZaA? Do you have a special eDonkey version with the same functionality? Trust me, your firewall is much more efficient at doing this.
I'd recommend getting a wireless AP & leaving it wide open & hope that's good enough to say you "didn't know"... better yet, fake a MAC address & record the log of that computer "wirelessly using all your bandwidth"... Maybe, if everyone used bittorrent, it would be too much work for them to gather all the torrents (which are time limited) then sit on all the trackers to record all the IP & then all they get from you is one FILE (or CD)... This is still a few $1000 per song though, but they have claimed not to go after the person who d/l's "just a few songs"
I call "BS" (Score:4, Funny)
Since when do lawyers file lawsuits they don't intend to win?
Virus Solution (Score:4, Interesting)
#!/bin/bash (Score:5, Funny)
ln -s "$i"
done
wow... (Score:3, Funny)
I can only imagine the volume of students who would attend such and informative and exciting speech!
It's the university they're after (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's the university they're after (Score:2, Informative)
The UofM has intelligent people in charge. They haven't blocked file sharing yet (as far as I know) because they believe in running an open, noncrippled network. I don't think they will block anything anytime soon either.
The UofM also believes in the personal responsibility and integrity of its students and staff. For several years now they've required students to agree not to share copyrighted material without permission. (I
Re:It's the university they're after (Score:5, Informative)
I think that so far the UofM has handled itself quite well as far as file sharing is concerned. It's true that they have refused to block ports or obtrusive firewalls, and have refused to give up the names of students so far...
Sharing copyrighted material is of course covered in the AUP for the campus network, the main points of which are highlighted when every student registers to use the network.
The current way complaints about file sharing are handled is: 1) for the first offense, student is warned and forwarded the complaint. Student has 24 hours to reply to the University claiming they have stopped their illegal activity. 2) for the second offense, student is temporarily banned from the network for a week and fined $20. 3) third and subsequent requests result in longer bans and larger fines.
Perhaps (Score:2, Interesting)
*cough*Penn State*cough*
RIAA exportion tactics, plain and simple.
Legal Services (Score:5, Informative)
The real goal (Score:4, Interesting)
If you look at the figure given, a few articles back, that's a significant amount of money that the RIAA is receiving as a result of the settlements-- in the range of a several million, I believe? Is it not so much their goal to boost their CD sales but to make up for it with the settlements from a couple thousand people? Of course, they claim the purpose behind the lawsuits not to be the money, but honestly, what else do they think they are accomplishing?
Since it's obvious P2P is here to stay, maybe this is their way of "adapting". Instead of making money through legitimate business, they've shifted their business model to something of a mobster hierarchy: "pay us not to break your legs"
That's funny (Score:2)
People that are stealing their property (oh sorry, "infringing on their copyrights") don't strike me as potential customers.
Re:The real goal (Score:3, Insightful)
The answer to this one is simple. They will continue to do so as long as 1) people continue to redistribute without permission mass amounts of copyrighted material, 2) as long as regular consumers continue to buy products that provide the RIAA's legal offense fund coffers. At this point, I think we can all stop complaining about this. There isn't going to be a fede
Re:The real goal (Score:3, Insightful)
when I want to (Score:4, Funny)
(note to RIAA: not really. just kidding.)
Re:when I want to (Score:2)
wow, a necrophile. no wonder you post as an AC.
When are we going to learn? (Score:3, Insightful)
The whole music stealing thing....they're right. Does anyone seriously think they can stand up in a court of law and convince the judge that they deserve to have music for free. It's not like the musicians or the hundreds of people who somehow touch the music (even the janitor who sweeps the recording studio) are out there working for free. Are the studios charging way too much?...yes, a bit. Can you just record it off the radio?...yes, but royalties were already paid.
I'm a 29 year old has been trombone player (played professionally in the Marines for a bit), but I still pay for every piece of music I have on general principal. I know those musicians put in some long hard work to get as good as they are and I don't mind rewarding them...even if it is being laundered and embezzled by the industry. But I haven't even spent $3000 in my whole lifetime on CD's. Everyone who is out there giving away copies of music they likely never even paid for themselves in the first place are risking a $3000 law suit plus legal fees. And for what? I seriously doubt most people doing this even understand the concept of civil disobedience. And I don't think the judge will accept excuses about being a poor college student, or that the CD's are over-priced. If you want cheap music, sign up for one of those streaming services that let you listen to whatever you want for like $6 a month. If you want free music, either stream your favorite radio station off the internet, or get really nostalgic and actually learn how to work the FM tuner on your stereo system.
Again, I'm not saying the RIAA is this innocent victem of abuse. I'm just saying it's stupid to risk a $3000 law suit when you can likely purchase every CD you will listen to for the next year for less than $500 (that's about 50 CD's for the slow in math...practically a new disc every week), or just listen to the radio for free.
</RANT>
Re: (Score:2)
Re:When are we going to learn? (Score:2)
As long as the artists aren't being tools about the whole issue, I'm more than happy to buy their CDs if I like them. From an ideal standpoint, I would actually prefer if I could directly pay the artists rather than going through the entire
you make their case for them.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Why sue 15 yr olds & grandmothers & college kids?? ? Why keep going to court with supoenas in the 1000s??? They are hoping you think like this self-titled ranter. They are hoping you think, well $3000 just isn't worth it, I'll go to the store & give those bastards who charged me $22 for a CD for two decades even more money.
They all missed the paradigm shift. Digital content & easily available media is a disruptive technology. The shift has already happened and it already is the future of music, tv, movies. You can't sue people into going back to the old ways anymore than getting people to not use walkmans or personal computers or to google instead of using a phonebook.
Cassette tapes & VCRs came along and threatened everything once before. But, YES you were *eventually* (yes, even legally) allowed to RECORD the radio or RECORD the tv broadcast.. Oh, and replay it. And you could do it at your convenience and even fast forward through commercials. Digital just became too good at quality and portability and along with the internet, too easily reproduceable.
Imagine someone listening to an iPod-like device to some streaming digital broadcast who hears a new song they like & presses 'save'... later that same day, they beam the song to their friend to listen to. How is this such a threat? Compare this to your walkmans. This is exactly what took place in the 70s & 80s and they made millions & millions & millions.
Never forget that RIAA & MPAA & Clear Channel & studios are producing crap and have been for at least a decade. Music is really bad now. Go listen to how good indie music is. Go look at the fact that American Idol produces the new top of the billboards. This is why they are seeing massive losses in revenue. The only solution whether you p2p or not, is to NOT buy RIAA products or spend money at Clear Channel venues or listen to their stations.
You do read NYTimes online? Why shouldn't you be able to surf over to your favorite band's website and pay them $1 to download their new single? Ask yourself why you haven't downloaded an ISO's for a music CD? Ask yourself why video game makers have not supoena'ed anyone yet?
Re: (Score:2)
Oh great. (Score:2)
What a bunch of morons.
Is allofmp3.com A Legal Alternative (Score:3, Informative)
I've recently discovered the Russian website www.allofmp3.com [allofmp3.com] that allows downloads from $0.01 per meg of mustic and it appears on the surface to be legit. You can even pay for content using paypay so you don't need to worry about the Russian mafia hijacking your account number. (Just your regular paypal problems).
A recent interview [museekster.com] with the content manager makes it appear that this site is legal, and it looks like RIAA has nothinng to say about the site. A search on the RIAA web site for allofmp3.com returns zero hits, and doing some searching for the RIAA view of all0fmp3.com also gives no results.
Have other slashdotters had experience with this site? What is your opinion of its legality?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Is allofmp3.com A Legal Alternative (Score:4, Informative)
Also, I felt really sketchy giving my credit card to a russian, questionably legal, site. And when I hit the "Yes" button to commit my order, my browser (Safari) said that it was about to give insecure data over the line, and asked me if I wanted to continue. I clicked NO, and tried it again with IE just to make sure it was not Safari being anal or somehing. Well, IE did the same thing. The funny part, is that I got billed both times? Aparently, the secure page redirected to an insecure or something, but my order went through (twice).
If the quality was better, I would continue the service. I think the price I paid for what I got is fine by me.
Just a matter of time (Score:3, Interesting)
Initially, I was rather discouraged by the university's policies on this issue, but anymore I'm somewhat glad that they've blocked a good deal of the file sharing applications. I'm sure there are people who tunnel out of the university network to use file sharing, which is completely understandable.
I hate the concept of 'censoring' or 'restricting' the Internet, but when it's a matter of personal security -- I suppose I'll let it go for now.
no psu students (Score:2, Interesting)
I guess we can look forward to.. (Score:2)
FERPA (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Read it closer (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Read it closer (Score:3, Informative)
Not only in the US (Score:2)
A 60 year old has been brought before justice because he offered 137,328 music files in MP3-format. The man also offered CD cover copies.
The Computer Crime Unit tracked the man after a complaint of IFPI (the local equivalent of the RIAA). The man risks a fine from 100 to 100,000 euro.
Reinvent the Industry (Score:5, Insightful)
I really wish that instead of wasting effort trying to get around the RIAA and legalize the sharing of music copyrighted by RIAA artists, people would change their focus and just abandon the music industry! Then, put the effort and energy into reinventing a new way to create, distribute, and listen to music! One that gives that gives the artists what is due to them for their creativity and provides for the promotion and distribution needs as well.
I mean seriously, how many of the top 40 artists actually put out creative music that isn't just a rehash of the last material that made the record company millions? Very few! (If you answered spears, timberlake, or others of their breed, leave now!) :)
How much do you really care about the music you listen to? Do you search for music you really enjoy? Quality music? original music? Bands that pour themselves into their projects? Or do you just buy the next thing the record companies and MTV shoves in your face?
I really hate the fact that the industry is controlled by the pre-teens who could care less about wether the music they listen to is any good. The drones that buy the next spears look-a-like or the latest Creed cover band.
Ok, enough ranting. :) Unfortunately, I have no idea *how* the industry should be rewritten. But, IMHO, we should completely abandon the current industry and start something new from scratch. A system that would work, that would be fair, and that would not be controlled by the corps.
Go RIAA! (Score:3, Informative)
- P2P Developers start moving towards anonymous encrypted file sharing networks.
- The Legality of the RIAA methods could be struck down.
- Federal and State governments could get fed up with the RIAA attacks and actually do something about it. (unlikely)
Since the original suits last year, we have seen a slight move towards security in file sharing networks with smaller specific projects but the larger players leave users prone to the same harvesting attacks that the RIAA used last year. Really, nothing is going to change until Shaman networks makes Kazaa an anonymous system. From what I have seen, the RIAA has subpoenaed Kazaa users exclusively. That doesn't mean other networks like Gnutella are not harder spider.One of the easiest ways around the technique the RIAA is using, is to disable the browse host feature in your file sharing app. This doesn't prevent them from suing a file sharing user but it does make it a little bit harder for the RIAA to get a laundry list of all the files a user is sharing. They could only find songs that match specific queries.
Cant get ISP users, so lets try schools (Score:5, Insightful)
Sort of like a child, when mom says no, go ask dad.
These people need to go away. they are only shooting themselves in their own foot.
Univ. of Michigan not only one (Score:3, Informative)
Re:This is going on and on and ...... (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm afraid you're confusing "wanting free shit" with "essential liberty". Your rhetoric is as inaccurate as it is tiring.
Re:This is going on and on and ...... (Score:2)
P2P could be an important way of distributing information in the future, but if these type of scare tatics continue P2P won't be able to develop into that.
Re:This is going on and on and ...... (Score:2)
Maybe so, but today it's mostly used to engage in illegal distribution of copyrighted works. But then, this isn't about getting rid of P2P either.
The RIAA knows they can't successfully eliminate P2P because of its legitimate uses. However they are well within their right to go after individuals who break the law.
Re:WoooHooo (Score:2)
Please.
Thank you.
Re:As a sucessful musician (Score:2, Informative)
Re:As a sucessful musician (Score:2, Insightful)
The argument is more nuanced, and is rarely so cut and dried.
It is not like stealing. Your song on Kazaa is being distributed as surely as it would be on a radio station, except you get no performance payments. THAT'S the real difference.
Record companies did not adjust quickly enough to a new technological model of distribution, and so the marketplace came up with a free alternative. Bummer. That genie is out of the bottle...
Options? Well, suing the crap
Re:The submitter said... (Score:5, Funny)
You are right.
Re:The submitter said... (Score:5, Insightful)
(bold is submitter and italics for the article)
the RIAA will be
the record industry will soon
subpoenaing the University of Michigan
subpoena the University
for the names of nine students
for the names of students
suspected of
allegedly
file-sharing.
sharing music illegally.
Re:new approach (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:new approach (Score:2)
Re:new approach (Score:2)
-
The RIAA doesn't care (Score:2)
You act as if their goal were to identify all the players. That's not it. They want people to stop sharing their songs. This gives them an extra set of people to prosecute: those acting as proxies fo
Re:The RIAA doesn't care (Score:2)
Re:new approach (Score:2)
Re:new approach (Score:2)
Re:I propose that you stop stealing (Score:2)
Re:Goverment = Proxy for Big Corps (Score:3, Insightful)
Yep, our country was founded on medicare and illegal copyright violation. I sure hope you're either a) joking, or b) seriously have no idea about the history of the USA (in which case you should stop babbling as if you do)
Re:DHCP???? (Score:3, Informative)
From: http://rescomp.umich.edu/Residential.Ethernet/Net G uide/Registra