Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Music Media Your Rights Online

The RIAA's Hit List Named 1008

Carpoolio writes "TechTV is the first I've seen to name names in the fight between the RIAA and music downloaders. Using an online court records search service, they've found a number of the subpoenas served by the RIAA to ISPs, which will ultimately end in lawsuits for the people named on this list. Right now, they've published a number of the P2P user names filed with the US District Court in Washington, DC, mainly Kazaa users. Are you on the list?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The RIAA's Hit List Named

Comments Filter:
  • phew. (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @07:19PM (#6516636)
    kazaaliteuser@Kazaa isn't on there! I was really worried for a second.

    kazaaliteuser@Kazaa vs. RIAA

    RIAA: Please disclose any and all information about kazaaliteuser@Kazaa to us!

    Comcast: Um, we're and, sorry.


  • Oh man! (Score:4, Funny)

    by Jacer ( 574383 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @07:19PM (#6516643) Homepage
    My name is up there! I'm screwed...
    • Re:Oh man! (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @07:30PM (#6516752)
      So are you munkeyspanker21@Kazaa or Ghettobootybabe8@Kazaa?

      (You only have yourself to blame for this).

      • Re:Oh man! (Score:5, Funny)

        by BadSpellar ( 691016 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @07:38PM (#6516843)

        I'm not sure which is more disturbing: The name itself, or the fact that more than one person uses it.
        • Re:Oh man! (Score:5, Funny)

          by ArsonSmith ( 13997 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @07:47PM (#6516923) Journal
          yea and why did they skip munkeyspanker1-20 and go right to 21?
          • Re:Oh man! (Score:5, Funny)

            by Loki_1929 ( 550940 ) * on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @08:47PM (#6517384) Journal
            " yea and why did they skip munkeyspanker1-20 and go right to 21?"

            Because munkeyspankers 1 - 20 restricted their copyright infringement activities to pornography, obviously. Jesus, did you even look at the name?! :)

            "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you will hear testimony during this trial regarding the complete disregard for the law shown by Mr Munkeyspanker. His total disrespect for the rule of law is shown further by his attempts to hide his identity; but I assure you, this law-breaker, this ... Munkey spanker, will face justice at your hands! Ladies and gentlemen, we intend to prove hands-down, that Mr Munkeyspanker is indeed guilty of far more than self-gratification. We have substantial evidence that this spanker of monkies is in fact a serial violator, far beyond what any decent person could even imagine!"

            • Re:Oh man! (Score:5, Funny)

              by Blue Stone ( 582566 ) on Thursday July 24, 2003 @06:24AM (#6519678) Homepage Journal
              I have revised my opinion on how to defend against the RIAA when using p2p. Previously I suggested the use of user names such as "sunflowergrrrl_13@kazaa" and the like, betting that the RIAA would not be foolish enough to prosecute sweet little photogenic girls, and suffer the negative publicity.

              Since they are prosecuting the likes of "Lisweet@Kazaa" "ktgurl13@Grokster" and the like, however, (the heartless bastards) I now am of the opinion that "cuntfuckcunt@kazaa" might be the way to go.

              Lets see them file papers against that.

    • Re:Oh man! (Score:5, Interesting)

      by dubious9 ( 580994 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @08:47PM (#6517387) Journal
      Actually, I have a solution.

      Get a wireless router

      Reformat and securely erase your harddrives

      Claim that somebody taped into your wireless router and was using it routinely
      How could they prove you were lying?

      • Not a bad idea BUT (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Sycraft-fu ( 314770 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @10:00PM (#6517800)
        These are civil suits, the burden of proof is lower. In a criminal trial, a good lawyer could probably get anoyone off based on the fact that there computer might have been hacked, ore records forged, etc. There is reasonable doubt that it was actually this person downloading (unless they catch you with the songs). However a civil suit is a much lower burden. BAsically they have to just argue their side better than yours. There may still be some doubt, but they can still win.
      • Re:Oh man! (Score:4, Informative)

        by Zork the Almighty ( 599344 ) on Thursday July 24, 2003 @03:51AM (#6519243) Journal
        Check out this site [] and skip down to 1993.

        1993: Playboy Enterprises Inc. v. Frena
        The Florida Northern District Court held that Frena, an electronic bulletin board operator, had violated Playboy's copyright when one of their photographs was digitized and placed on the bulletin board system by one subscriber and downloaded by another subscriber. According to the decision, "it does not matter that Defendant Frena may have been unaware of the copyright infringement. Intent to infringe is not needed to find copyright infringement. Intent or knowledge is not an element of infringement, and thus even an innocent infringer is liable for infringement; rather innocence is significant to a trial court when it fixes statutory damages, which is a remedy equitable in nature."
  • by Omicron32 ( 646469 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @07:21PM (#6516653)
    I live in the UK, can these lawsuits be filed over here from the RIAA?
  • Interesting that (Score:5, Interesting)

    by stevezero ( 620090 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @07:21PM (#6516660)
    They named the default username given to those who install Kazaa Lite...

    So I wonder how many people that covers?
  • by jpetts ( 208163 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @07:22PM (#6516666)
    The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) has now issued more than 911 subpoenas

    Reckon the RIAA's trying to make a point here?
  • This guy... (Score:5, Funny)

    by blackmonday ( 607916 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @07:22PM (#6516667) Homepage
    I hereby give my blessing to anyone who wants to sue a guy with the balls to be known as: hottdude0587@Kazaa.

  • hmm... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by KoalaBear33 ( 687260 ) <> on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @07:23PM (#6516680)
    I wonder how all this is going to play out... I'm guessing most will settle out of court like that guy they cite (who paid $12000).

    RIAA will probably make more out of lawsuit settlements than through their music ;) What's the lifetime value of a consumer to RIAA? I imagine it is less than $12000...

    • Re:hmm... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by madmancarman ( 100642 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @10:01PM (#6517801)
      RIAA will probably make more out of lawsuit settlements than through their music ;) What's the lifetime value of a consumer to RIAA? I imagine it is less than $12000...

      Yes, but I want to know what their long-term sales (and losses) will be like when people like me, who used to buy music regularly, decide never to buy it again. For example, Jane's Addiction's new album came out yesterday and even though I have three of their previous albums (all legit), I have no intention of buying this one simply because it was put out by a member of the RIAA. It's painfully clear that music purchases support a draconian industry with utter contempt for its customers more than they feed "starving artists".

      As the RIAA starts suing individuals for even minor infractions, it won't be a stretch for them to be perceived by regular customers as 'evil', and when you attack and alienate customers, your overall business model is doomed. You can't tell me that every one of those people sharing mp3s has stopped buying music completely, and once they're sued, you know all their family & friends are going to stop buying music too.

      It's really too bad that it would be impossible to figure out how many people have stopped buying music because of the actions of the RIAA. Any poll on Slashdot would be heavily slanted. Maybe at a concert they should ask people as they're standing in line whether or not they plan on buying music in the future if the RIAA will sue them for sharing 10 mp3s over p2p.

      First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Gandhi

  • True Names (Score:5, Interesting)

    by PotatoMan ( 130809 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @07:24PM (#6516682)
    It's been well established that I'm paranoid, but is anyone else bothered by the number of (apparent) True Names in the list?
  • Check out PACER!!! (Score:5, Informative)

    by Kr3m3Puff ( 413047 ) * <me@kitsonkelly. c o m> on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @07:24PM (#6516690) Homepage Journal
    Everyone should check out PACER []. It is free to register and if fairly cheap to access, and only costs $.07 a page and you will only get billed if you access over $10 worth of information. You can get access to TONS of information about US Court cases.

    I never knew there was such easy accesible tools to information that the government owes us anyways. Takes about a week for them to e-mail you a password, and you are free to register as a individual citizen!
  • by McQuaid ( 524757 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @07:25PM (#6516699)
    First line of the techtv story...
    The recording industry has launched a sweeping effort to identify and shut down individual song swappers, making good on recent threats to expand its legal battle against copyright theft.

    Why not say copyright infringement? If I go to your house and steal your cd, call the cops. If I am over at your house and copy your cd, theft has not occurred. It's copyright infringement or commonly referred to as piracy. But the media and latest barrage of commericals would have you believe it's still theft.

    I know everyone here know's this, but it's always bugged me.

    And in true ./ fashion, that's all I've read of the article.
    • by Jafafa Hots ( 580169 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @07:35PM (#6516810) Homepage Journal
      I guess if I'm guilty of copyright theft, that means I now hold the copyrights and THEY owe ME money??
  • by teamhasnoi ( 554944 ) * <> on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @07:26PM (#6516710) Journal
    at two things. First, there aren't any first and last name combos. "AngelaMikesell@..." might be one, but I see them all the time on urm...screenshots of Kazaa lite running.

    Second, where is kazaalite? There is only one entry for that, but I know there are more users of kazaalite than that...

    I guess I'm also shocked that anyone actually hasn't heard of Klite and/or isn't running it instead of Kazaa.

    hmm. Glad my name isn't on there -

  • Now what? (Score:4, Funny)

    by tedDancin ( 579948 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @07:27PM (#6516720)
    What are we all going to do now that 100% of the people actually sharing files have been named? (:
  • Oh no! (Score:5, Funny)

    by cliffy2000 ( 185461 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @07:28PM (#6516728) Journal
    Joan Jett is going to jail! "joanjett@Kazaa"
  • by GillBates0 ( 664202 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @07:28PM (#6516731) Homepage Journal
    What happens if you registered on Kazaa, logged in once, and then forgot to log off? You don't have to relogin again, if the password is "remembered". What if you logged on a public computer, used by thousands of users (in a school or library), who subsequently downloaded stuff without relogging in.

    Not that I'm on the list, but do they intend to catch the person who actually created the account, but may not have downloaded any copyrighted material, but inadvertently forgotten to log off? Failing to log off isn't a crime by itself, nor should you be responsible if your account was used for illegal activity, unknown to you.

    • in the navy ... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by s20451 ( 410424 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @07:57PM (#6517000) Journal
      Failing to log off isn't a crime by itself

      At the risk of telling boring old war stories, I attended a military college where one sad soul forgot to log his machine off. Someone found the machine and used it to send a vulgar message to the universal e-mail alias, including the commandant, director of cadets, and professors, on down to the lowliest first year. In true military fashion, they made no attempt to find the real author of the e-mail, but instead threatened to court martial the guy who left the computer logged on, for violating security rules. Eventually he avoided court martial, but was given a severe administrative punishment.
  • by felonious ( 636719 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @07:28PM (#6516734) Journal
    If you are on the list do everyone a favor including yourself and let us know here. Keep us up to date on what's occuring and how you intend to fight it. Maybe the community here can help or atleast offer solid advice on how to proceed.

    If I were to end up on the list I'd damn sure let everyone know and I'd fight it with everything I have.

    Remember don't fund an entity that will only sue you into financial ruin. We can hurt them where it hurts them the wallet. This is the only way to make a statement. Once these lawsuits start then the shit is really going to hit the fan and the backlash will be severe.

    Think of it this way...what's more important violent crime or copyright violations? Well the RIAA is sending out so many subpoenas without judicial oversight I might add that court systems are having to redistribute their workers to cover the overwhelming workload. That means less work on violent, horrible crimes and more work on copyright infractions? This is beyond ridiculous!

    Join the boycott starting August 1-30th and do not buy any music in this period.

    Here's a list of who to boycott Boycott List []

    Here's the products to boycott Products to Boycott []
    • by geoff2 ( 579628 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @08:09PM (#6517086)

      If you are on the list do everyone a favor including yourself and let us know here. Keep us up to date on what's occuring and how you intend to fight it. Maybe the community here can help or atleast offer solid advice on how to proceed.

      Ummm, a quick piece of a dvice, first, for those of you whose user names are listed: Don't. Or, if you really want to, get a lawyer and ask him for advice. If this does get to trial, you don't want something that you posted to slashdot to be used against you and torpedo any of the defenses you and your lawyer develop.

      Think of it this way...what's more important violent crime or copyright violations? Well the RIAA is sending out so many subpoenas without judicial oversight I might add that court systems are having to redistribute their workers to cover the overwhelming workload. That means less work on violent, horrible crimes and more work on copyright infractions? This is beyond ridiculous!

      The effort expended by the Court in the processing and issuing of these subpoenas is probably insubstantial. The court's and judges duties are largely ministeriel. Of course, if these cases are actively prosecuted then the court's workload would of course increase. But, if my understanding of how the federal court's work is correct, the impact will only be on the civil side of things, not criminal; generally speaking, criminal cases are given priority in matters of scheduling, etc.

    • I am on the list (Score:4, Interesting)

      by flikx ( 191915 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @09:01PM (#6517483) Homepage Journal

      What am I going to do about it? Nothing. They can keep sending legal threats, but I will simply ignore them. Arrest warrents?? Pfft. Most cops will not even bother to take someone in for something so stupid. I don't have the time to download movies and music, I simply have plenty of server space and fast connections. I'm doing a public service, and a major disservice to the RIAA/MPAA by moving 100+ Gb a month. Half the stuff that moves through is junk that I would never even want to watch or listen too.

      I'm not going to go on about how unfair it all is, I don't even care. I know that what I'm doing is wrong, and I will continue to do it because I know it pisses people off. This is an ideal hobby, especially since it's lower risk, and less time-intensive than pushing dope to kids.

      And boycott . Ha! Sounds just like that stupid 'don't buy gas on April 23rd and we'll show those rich fat-cats who's in charge'. Even if such a boycott took off, the RIAA would simply absorb the loss, then attribute it to more filesharing. Way to go! That'll show 'em!

  • by Shack95 ( 115571 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @07:31PM (#6516763)

    1) Boycott the RIAA - Since they've cranked up their customer attacks, Ive stopped buying their product (6 months and counting).

    2) Shop via used cd's if you must. It will help show their loss in the upcomming year (used sales are Not tracked). Ebay/Amazon/Local stores/Whatever.

    Vote with your wallets people! Stop being hypocritical and buying their stuff while complaining how they stink!!
  • Hah (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Alizarin Erythrosin ( 457981 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @07:31PM (#6516768)
    My old apartment complex at the college (I've since graduated and last weekend moved) had a firewall that showed everybody as from the same ip address... good luck to them trying to figure out why some of their top sharers were all from whatever ip we showed as (if there were anybody from there on that list).

    I'm sure some other places are similar too. The college itself recently changed their network to do a similar thing for all their dorm connections.

    Suck on that, RIAA!
  • Since www.k_lite.tk_Kazaa_Lite@Kazaa is listed, is anyone that used Kazaa Lite gonna get sued? Or is it the company KazaaLite that they are going after?
    I'm pretty sure that they ruled that since the filesharing services could be used for other things, they can't really go after KazaaLite... but what about the users?

    Are there (accurate) logs of everyone who has ever used KazzaLite? Should we worry?

  • by NetDanzr ( 619387 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @07:37PM (#6516831)
    Not surprising, though. After all, it's the RIAA that's suing, not the porn industry.
  • by kwertii ( 305902 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @07:37PM (#6516834) Homepage
    • 1. Sue your customers, and make a bunch of penniless college kids into martyrs in the media.
    • 2.
    • 3. PROFIT!!!!
  • by (H)elix1 ( 231155 ) <> on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @07:38PM (#6516842) Homepage Journal
    Gah, isn't that an eerie feeling to look for your name on the list. Reminds me of the AIDS tests we were required to take while working in the infectious disease labs. I could rule out most of the normal ways a person could become HIV+ (a pretty dull life) and most of the work was pretty routine, but there always that worry in the back of your mind.

    In this case I'm not a P2P'er, but I did find one of my boxes was hacked [] and turned into an FTP server / port scanner the other week. With the way this week has gone so far...
  • Jack-O says NO (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Evets ( 629327 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @07:39PM (#6516849) Homepage Journal
    A little off topic, but on the subject of the RIAA.

    Michael Jackson [] has denounced the RIAA

    couple o' quotes:

    "I am speechless about the idea of putting music fans in jail for downloading music. It is wrong to download, but the answer cannot be jail,"

    "Here in America we create new opportunities out of adversity, not punitive laws ...," he said. "It is the fans that drive the success of the music business; I wish this would not be forgotten."

    It's not surprising that I actually had to do a search to find the story, although it was on the front page yesterday. It's not even on the entertainment page anymore.
  • by CanadaDave ( 544515 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @07:44PM (#6516896) Homepage
    I'm not on there! My username is kazaalite@Kazaa. Haha, RIAA suckers!
  • Legit names (Score:5, Funny)

    by mrpuffypants ( 444598 ) * <mrpuffypants AT gmail DOT com> on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @07:44PM (#6516898)
    I'm suprised that people actually use "real" usernames for kazaa...when I use it do download my gigs of pr0n I alwsy have a username like sfg0dfgaheow4$%#$T3g35^%h45@Kazaa just because I don't need anybody wondering why "mrpuffypants" really needs that college cam video forthe nth time...
  • by recondite ( 591297 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @07:51PM (#6516955) Journal
    If everybody on kazaa used a user name like riaasucks@kazaa or riaaisacriminalorganization@kazaa or this_is_a_bullshit_court_cast@kazaa you know they wouldn't pick you. imagine the news coverge, even better the day in court. I would like to call riaaisabunchoffaggots@kazaa to the stand.
  • by stienman ( 51024 ) <[moc.scisabu] [ta] [sivada]> on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @07:57PM (#6517001) Homepage Journal
    "A total of 253 RIAA subpoenas were listed as of July 22 through the federal court system's paid online database, PACER."

    Subpeonas 0 and 255 are reserved for networks (whole ISPs - all your user list are belong to us) and broadcast subpeonas (first use of SPAMMED Subpeonas) respectively.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @07:59PM (#6517018)
    Although it doesn't suprise anyone, they're capitalizing on KazzaLite to drive their scare tactic machine. How many people do you think that were using KazzaLite (and stupidly using the default name) are scared shitless now? Quite a few thousand I would venture to say.

    The RIAA basically just knocked out thousands (possibly millions) of glass houses with a pebble rock.
    • Not only Kazaa (Score:4, Informative)

      by arth1 ( 260657 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @08:50PM (#6517412) Homepage Journal
      On TechTV tonight, they showed some interesting information from the company that collects the information for the RIAA. It showed that they do not only go after Kazaa, but other networks as well, and you saw harvested IP addresses from Gnutella, eDonkey and other networks as well.

      The reason why the Kazaa users were LISTED is that you can reverse look up their "screen names" more easily, and that's more interesting to publish for TechTV than a list of IP addresses.

  • by OverlordQ ( 264228 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @08:24PM (#6517199) Journal
    Download this [] handy list of network ranges that the MPAA/RIAA use.
  • by dietlein ( 191439 ) <(dietlein) (at) (> on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @08:32PM (#6517253)
    If you really need to stray from kazaaliteuser@kazaa, add some profanity to your username.

    I seriously doubt we'd see "RIAA vs. FuckRIAA@Kazaa" on the news, or "RIAA vs. YourGoatsAssFuck@Kazaa".

    I don't see any usernames on that list that have R-rated language in them. The worst appear to be "pimp", "booty", and "hot", in whatever self-serving context the user thought would be exciting.
  • by gui noir ( 524973 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @08:41PM (#6517324)
    A full subpoena may be examined courtesy of Cryptome:


    Or, for the lazy:

    This is one of several hundred similar subpoenas issued by RIAA recently under the DMCA. Most have been filed in US District Court in the District of Columbia.
    US District Court in the District of Columbia


    Unassigned, presiding

    Date filed: 07/02/2003 Date of last filing: 07/02/2003
    Entered 07/17/03
    (310) 312-2000
    FAX: (310) 312-3100
    June 30, 2003
    Sir or Madam
    Comcast Cable Communications, Inc.
    3 Executive Campus
    Cherry Hill. NJ 08002

    Re: Notice of Copyright Infringement (17 U.S.C. 512(c)(3))

    Dear Sir or Madam:

    We are counsel to the Recording Industry Association of America, Inc. ("RIAA") and its member record companies. The RIAA is a trade association whose member companies create, manufacture, and/or distribute approximately ninety percent (90%) of all legitimate sound recordings sold and distributed in the United States. Under penalty of perjury, we submit that we are authorized to act on behalf of the R1AA and its member companies in matters involving the online infringement of their copyrighted sound recordings.

    A user, customer, or subscriber of your system or network, identified by the IP address, date, and time on the attached document, is offering tbr download over the Internet files containing copyrighted sound recordings owned by RIAA member companies. The attached document also includes a representative list of the recordings the identified user is offering for download. We have a good faith belief that such activities are not authorized by the copyright owners, their agents, or the law, and assert that the intbrmation in this Notice of Copyright Infringement is accurate, based on the data available to us.

    Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. Should you have any questions, please contact me at (310) 312-3297 or at


    Yvette Molinaro
    MITCHELL SILBERBERG & KNUPP LLP on 6/26/2003 at 11:49:00 p.m.(EDT)

    The user at the above-identified IP address, using the screen name Tyler@KaZaA, has offered for download through the online media distribution system known as KaZaA copyrighted sound recordings owned by RIAA member record companies, including the following representative recordings:

    Michelle Branch - All You Wanted
    Avril Lavigne - Complicated
    Radiohead - Just
    Incubus - Nice to Know You
    Busta Rhymes - Pass the Courvoisier
    Sheryl Crow - Soak Up The Sun
    Incubus - Stellar
    Guns N Roses - Sweet Child O' Mine
    A PERFECT CIRCLE - Three Libras ...etc
  • suddenly (Score:5, Funny)

    by hpavc ( 129350 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @08:41PM (#6517325)
    suddenly i feel so safe with 'ashcroft@kazaa'.
  • Average Age? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by crass751 ( 682736 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @08:41PM (#6517329) Homepage
    If I was to guess the average age of all of the listed users, I'd have to guess around 16 or 17. They're going after people who do not have the disposable income to purchase music on the RIAA's terms. (Read: give them arm and/or leg). What they fail to see is that by suing these kids, and probably settling out of court for their life savings, (read about 500 bucks) they are going to alienate the next generation of music buyers. These kids are going to turn to indie labels who aren't going to sue them at the drop of a hat.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @08:43PM (#6517344)
    ...will there still be Kazaa left? I still need to download a dozen of songs and a movie.
  • by Angry Pixie ( 673895 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @08:43PM (#6517349) Journal
    First off, the entire list of potential defendents should be public record and available for free. But that's another story...

    But who the hell is being sued? Is the RIAA suing downloaders or sharers -- or both? Is the RIAA really selectively choosing defendents based on the particular songs? If I download an MP3 of an unsigned local band or an independent whose music is not owned by the RIAA, will the RIAA sue me anyway?

    I'd like to see these details. They speak to the ultimate motive of the lawsuit, especially if it appears that the RIAA is intentionally trying to flatten the independent music scene or prevent artists from choosing production/distribution by an entity other than the RIAA and its members.

    Incidentally, Munkeyspankers 1-20 can hide out at my place until the heat blows over. #21 is SOL.
  • by geddes ( 533463 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @10:48PM (#6518079)
    Does anyone know of any good ISPs that have a policy of destoying thier records of who connected with what ip daily?

    I know that many librarians, after the Patriot act was passed, started to destroy circulation records daily - it wasn't illegal for them to do it, and they felt very strongly that the government shouldn't be able to see what books people were getting. (Incidentally, this is a tragedy in some literary circles since a popular field of study in literature now is examining old library records from the 18th century onward to see which books were popular during eras past).

    These big ISPs, comcast, earthlink, etc. offer unlimited plans, and have no need to record which account is mapped to which IP for anything longer than a day (just to ensure bandwidth usage isn't being abused or something). If they were to have a policy of discarding the records every day at midnight, it would save them hassle (what a pain in the neck it must be to recieve 200 lettes from the RIAA in the morning) and protect thier user's rights. How can they go wrong?

  • by badasscat ( 563442 ) <basscadet75@y a h o o . com> on Thursday July 24, 2003 @12:54AM (#6518638)
    The RIAA doesn't care if this is bad PR, or if the media turns these guys/girls into "martyrs" or any of that. Don't you see? The RIAA exists to be the bad cop in the music industry's good cop/bad cop routine. Here you've got companies like Sony whose bread and butter is home electronics, including a sizable interest in the MP3 player market. They're also, of course, a member of the RIAA. Which face do you think they put on when they go after file traders? They'd never do that under the Sony brand name - they'll let the RIAA take the brunt of the backlash.

    10 years ago few people had even heard of the RIAA. Sometime in the last decade the industry decided to start utilizing the organization as their hired muscle; the guys they let loose to do the dirty work none of the individual companies want to be associated with. But let's not forget who the RIAA really is. It's as much Andrew Lack and Tommy Mottola as it is Hilary Rosen.

    The RIAA is sitting back and reading all this and saying "bring it on". They're happy if they get bad PR, because that's bad PR deflected away from the real names behind the RIAA.

    Of course, I'm not arguing that the RIAA's strategy is sound in the long run, I'm just saying I understand it. Many of the things they're doing will still turn people off buying CD's even without people associating those actions with Sony or BMG or EMI or Universal. What the RIAA is doing is still stupid, but it's at least a better thought-out strategy than most of us here seem to give them credit for - and our tactics in trying to belittle them in whatever small ways we do here seem to miss the point completely. The RIAA knows exactly what they're doing and the reaction they'll get to it, and they don't care.
    • by alizard ( 107678 ) <> on Thursday July 24, 2003 @04:28AM (#6519352) Homepage
      The RIAA doesn't sell records. So an anti-RIAA boycott [] sort of has to be directed at the major labels that tell the RIAA what to do.

      Of course the reason why the RIAA is being out front and public and is making itself hated is to take the heat off the major labels.

      A record industry music boycott sticks the heat right where it belongs.

      To destroy them, just do all your music spending on independent artists [] and tell everyone else you know to do the same.

      Most people don't appreciate just how fragile the position of the major labels is. They're all losing money, and so far, the music label CEOs have not only gotten away with using PIRACY!!! as an excuse with Congress, but with the multinationals that own them..

      Simply refusing to buy music plays into their hands, they'll say "People refuse to buy our products because THEY'RE ALL STEALING THEM VIA P2P AND WE NEED NEW LAWS TO PROTECT US!!!"

      Buying from independents will send exactly the right message both to Congress and to the companies that own the major labels.

      Enough of us do this and the companies that own the major labels will be forced to dump them... lest their own stock prices follow their record companies value straight into the toilet.

      Just a few percentage points of major record company sales transferred into the profit margins of independent artists and the war will be over, settled over the smoking corpses of the Big 5.

      This should only take getting 1M people on board.

      And the person who observes the RIAA boycott as I advise will get chances to find a lot of good new music of whatever kind you like that hasn't been dumbed down for the faceless masses RIAA product is aimed at.

Someday your prints will come. -- Kodak