|
|
theseeker
Joined: 25 Jul 2000
Posts: 3403
Location: Damnit...I'm a doctor jim |
another group of pigs
 Wed Apr 30, 2003 7:06 am
|
 |
|
the RIAA...this issue cracks me up...some folks have taped music from radio for a long long time...are they gonna get them after they get the file-sharers ?
the part about the judge demanding that the names of file sharers be released is pretty damn sickening...
Wednesday April 30, 9:45 AM
Music Industry Sends Warning to Song Swappers
By Sue Zeidler
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - The record industry opened a new front in its war against online piracy on Tuesday by surprising hundreds of thousands of Internet song swappers with an instant message warning that they could be "easily" identified and face "legal penalties" for their actions.
About 200,000 users of the Grokster and Kazaa file-sharing services received the warning notice on Tuesday and millions more will get notices in coming weeks, said Cary Sherman, president of the Recording Industry Association of America, the trade group for the music companies.
The message said in part: "It appears that you are offering copyrighted music to others from your computer. ...When you break the law, you risk legal penalties. There is a simple way to avoid that risk: DON'T STEAL MUSIC either by offering it to others to copy or downloading it on a 'file-sharing' system like this. When you offer music on these systems, you are not anonymous and you can easily be identified."
The mass messaging came after a federal judge on Friday delivered a setback to the music industry's efforts to shut down song-swapping services, and a day after Apple Computer Inc. unveiled an online music store aimed at wooing users from the free networks.
U.S. District Court Judge Stephen Wilson on Friday ruled the Grokster and Morpheus services should not be shut down because they cannot control what is traded over their systems.
Trade groups for the movie studios and record labels said they would appeal the ruling, the first significant legal setback for the entertainment industry in its battle against the popular "peer-to-peer" services that allow users to download files for free.
The RIAA's Sherman said that while the messaging effort was planned long ago, the timing was fortunate since some song swappers might misinterpret Friday's ruling to mean that copyright infringement was legal.
The move immediately angered some Internet users.
"Way to go, RIAA. Sue and threaten the public, your customers. I think I'll go and download," one posting on Yahoo said.
Sharman Networks Ltd, the Australian firm that owns Kazaa, said in a statement, said that rather than cooperating with the file-sharing network "the RIAA continues to choose to attack some of its most loyal customers."
Sharman said it objected to any effort to enforce copyrights that violated the law, its own user agreements or that would "indiscriminately spam, mislead or confuse."
Meanwhile, Verizon Communications, embroiled in a separate copyright infringement suit with the recording industry, said the move undermined the RIAA's argument in that case.
Last week, Verizon suffered a setback when a U.S. court said the phone company must reveal the names of customers suspected of downloading copyrighted songs from the Internet without permission.
The RIAA argued that Verizon is obligated under the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act to help the music industry protect its copyrights. Verizon says it is willing to help, but argued that the law only applies to Web pages stored on its computers, not traffic on the "peer-to-peer" networks that merely travel across its wires.
Sarah Deutsch, an attorney for Verizon on Tuesday, said that the RIAA has said they could not contact users on their own.
"I think this undermines their case because now they are acknowledging they can contact the users on a massive scale," she said.
Its not the first time the recording industry has targeted individual users. In April, the RIAA sued four students who were operating networks on three college campuses where it claims the networks were being used to illegally trade copies of music files.
The warning on Tuesday was sent by the RIAA on behalf of the world's big record labels owned by AOL Time Warner, EMI Group Plc, Bertelsmann AG, Vivendi Universal and Sony Corp .
DON'T STEAL MUSIC
The RIAA said that by using song titles, it was identifying users who were posting copyrighted songs for others to download as targets for the messages, which were sent through the peer-to-peer networks' own systems.
Sherman said the trade group did not plan to take further action against the users it had contacted for now. "There is no next step. We are just letting them know it's illegal and they are not anonymous," said Sherman.
"We're not going to change behavior overnight. The only way we can measure this is to see if fewer people are offering files on Grokster and Kazaa," he said.
Some experts doubted the effectiveness of the campaign.
"I think a small number of users will be deterred by this effort. It's not going to come as a surprise to them the RIAA finds it unlawful," said Jonathan Band, a copyright lawyer for Morrison & Foerster.
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/030429/3/3akqc.html
[Edited 1 times, lastly by theseeker on 04-30-2003] |
| |
|
|
theseeker
Joined: 25 Jul 2000
Posts: 3403
Location: Damnit...I'm a doctor jim |
|
Sun May 04, 2003 6:30 am
|
|
|
maybe most of you are to illiterate to have ever downloaded music.....
Software Bullet Is Sought to Kill
Musical Piracy
By ANDREW ROSS SORKIN
Some of the world's biggest record companies, facing rampant online piracy, are quietly financing the development and testing of software programs that would sabotage the computers and Internet connections of people who download pirated music, according to industry executives.
The record companies are exploring options on new countermeasures, which some experts say have varying degrees of legality, to deter online theft: from attacking personal Internet connections so as to slow or halt downloads of pirated music to overwhelming the distribution networks with potentially malicious programs that masquerade as music files.
The covert campaign, parts of which may never be carried out because they could be illegal under state and federal wiretap laws, is being developed and tested by a cadre of small technology companies, the executives said.
If employed, the new tactics would be the most aggressive effort yet taken by the recording industry to thwart music piracy, a problem that the IFPI, an industry group, estimates costs the industry $4.3 billion in sales worldwide annually. Until now, most of the industry's anti-piracy efforts have involved filing lawsuits against companies and individuals that distribute pirated music. Last week, four college students who had been sued by the industry settled the suits by agreeing to stop operating networks that swap music and pay $12,000 to $17,500 each.
The industry has also tried to frustrate pirates technologically by spreading copies of fake music files across file-sharing networks like KaZaA and Morpheus. This approach, called "spoofing," is considered legal but has had only mild success, analysts say, proving to be more of a nuisance than an effective deterrent.
The new measures under development take a more extreme — and antagonistic — approach, according to executives who have been briefed on the software programs.
Interest among record executives in using some of these more aggressive programs has been piqued since a federal judge in Los Angeles ruled last month that StreamCast Networks, the company that offers Morpheus, and Grokster, another file-sharing service, were not guilty of copyright infringement. And last week, the record industry turned a "chat" feature in popular file-trading software programs to its benefit by sending out millions of messages telling people: "When you break the law, you risk legal penalties. There is a simple way to avoid that risk: DON'T STEAL MUSIC."
The deployment of this message through the file-sharing network, which the Recording Industry Association of America said is an education effort, appears to be legal. But other anti-piracy programs raise legal issues.
Since the law and the technology itself are new, the liabilities — criminal and civil — are not easily defined. But some tactics are clearly more problematic than others.
Among the more benign approaches being developed is one program, considered a Trojan horse rather than a virus, that simply redirects users to Web sites where they can legitimately buy the song they tried to download.
A more malicious program, dubbed "freeze," locks up a computer system for a certain duration — minutes or possibly even hours — risking the loss of data that was unsaved if the computer is restarted. It also displays a warning about downloading pirated music. Another program under development, called "silence," scans a computer's hard drive for pirated music files and attempts to delete them. One of the executives briefed on the silence program said that it did not work properly and was being reworked because it was deleting legitimate music files, too.
Other approaches that are being tested include launching an attack on personal Internet connections, often called "interdiction," to prevent a person from using a network while attempting to download pirated music or offer it to others.
"There are a lot of things you can do — some quite nasty," said Marc Morgenstern, the chief executive of Overpeer, a technology business that receives support from several large media companies. Mr. Morgenstern refused to identify his clients, citing confidentiality agreements with them. He also said that his company does not and will not deploy any programs that run afoul of the law. "Our philosophy is to make downloading pirated music a difficult and frustrating experience without crossing the line." And while he said "we develop stuff all the time," he was also quick to add that "at the end of the day, my clients are trying to develop relationships with these people." Overpeer, with 15 staff members, is the largest of about a dozen businesses founded to create counterpiracy methods.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/04/business/04MUSI.html?ex=1052625600&en=dadf74c45d5ecb89&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE |
| |
|
|
theseeker
Joined: 25 Jul 2000
Posts: 3403
Location: Damnit...I'm a doctor jim |
|
Mon May 05, 2003 8:54 am
|
|
|
you know it has not been decided that downloading mp3's is illegal...where's the outrage from "constitutionalists" on this one...
your connection can be interupted,IM's sent to you saying you could go to jail,TROJAN HORSE programs *illegally* running on your machine...
the patriot act says this kind of action done by a idividual is TERRORISM....
yet the big music companies RIAA are doing it now...
everyone that enjoys music is crook...
the RIAA is breaking the law....
liberties are being infriged on...
and no one says a word... |
| |
|
|
increase 1776
Joined: 07 Oct 2000
Posts: 3097
Location: Bizzaro World |
|
Mon May 05, 2003 4:04 pm
|
|
|
Now people are seeing that this piece of garbage legislation called the Patriot Act is not about terrorism at all.Mess up your computer over recording some mp3s.From one extreme to the other.Patriot Act II "is coming to a theater near you."What Adolph Bush and associates didn't take from us in round one they will get it now.The neighborhood snitches will be Goose Stepping down main st. in your towns next parade,oh but they are not sure they should be "Victory" parades.Excuse me while I go PUKE.Contact your U.S.Senators and Reps. and let them know how you feel,e-mail ,phone ,reg. mail,only takes a few minutes and results could last a lifetime. |
| |
|
|
theseeker
Joined: 25 Jul 2000
Posts: 3403
Location: Damnit...I'm a doctor jim |
|
Thu Jul 03, 2003 3:49 am
|
|
|
from another board....
oscinis
Joined: 26 Jul 2002
Posts: 4
Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2003 2:11 am Post subject: Are court decisions consistent?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
P2P related court decisions leave us in an ambiguous position as to what strategies to use to moderate or eliminate our risk.
Grokster received a favorable decision because they maintain no index of files and hold or pass no files themselves. It is also possible that the decision will be overturned.
In another decision related to Madster, http://www.zeropaid.com/news/articles/auto/07012003b.php the court basically said ignorance is no defense.
In the case of Freenet if you are the IP (which is what RIAA, etc are interested in and must be present in every packet) that does the sending, even if it is just relaying, they could nail you. Similarly they could attack a general purpose proxy server (you act like a proxy if you relay), but there is a substantial difference between a general purpose proxy server and a file sharing program node which just proxies program traffic.
More generally, hiding your user id is of dubious value, and generally it is bots that act and look like users that we need to worry about so encrypting traffic is of modest value. Monitoring packets and reconstructing traffic is a lot more trouble than just using the facilities of the P2P "net" to betray it. Encrypting (stored) content is of value primarily if the user must reference some key that you control so you can decide whether or not to allow decryption. Again ignorance of what you are holding, sharing or relaying may be no defense.
Look I don't know the details of Freenet and it seems a step in the right direction, but if RIAA sees your IP associated with even a piece of a copyright file, potentially you could be in trouble. Certainly if you transfer an entire copyright file to them, the Madster decision seems to indicate that ignorance of the fact may be no defense.
But then again I am not clear that the Grokster decision is consistent with the Madster decision. I even less clear what future court decisions will be. It is quite possible that they will be inconsistent.
I believe that in the light of the Madster decision whether or not you know about the files you are sharing puts you in the same legal position. The difference is that knowing lets you better understand your risk. Whether sharing small pieces and not whole files gives you a better defense, I do not know. It may just give RIAA a bigger net. It is possible that just showing copyright files even if you do not share them (which basically lets you be a leech but not appear so) may even get you in legal trouble (I find this hard to believe, but it does appear to get people in trouble with their ISP's). Hopefully time will inform us of the legal standing of these strategies.
I think that we can count on RIAA to expand their attacks to new grounds over time, so what is safe now may be dangerous later. I am also confident that if they think that they are winning they will attack with even greater vigor.
For the moment I am keeping a low profile, sharing only a few files and keeping careful control over who downloads from me, although I download without worrying about it. If the RIAA terror attacks look to be a real danger I will pay for an independent proxy server until such a time as some other technological approach is proven to shield USERS from detection and/or liabilty.
|
| |
|
|
Mech
Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 8237
Location: THE 4th REICH USA |
|
Thu Jul 03, 2003 4:47 am
|
|
|
The music industry record companies are a bunch of moneygrubbing scumf^^ks who could care less about the artist as long as he/she turns a profit.
Thus the pumping out of vast quantities of horrible pop music.Or "fast food" music.
At the same time I sympathize with the STRUGGLING artist who can barely pay the bills...File sharing and online pirating of their songs can ruin
these peoples living. That is why I have no problem BUYING their CD's..to help put food on their tables..because I know it's going to THEM...not the industry CEO's.
[Edited 2 times, lastly by Mech on 07-02-2003] |
| |
|
|
Lulu
Joined: 22 Dec 2000
Posts: 2501
Location: right here |
|
Thu Jul 03, 2003 4:59 am
|
|
|
To whom it may concern ~ I had a momentary lapse of reason, and the next time the bad man makes me join p2p I will say NO  |
| |
|
|
theseeker
Joined: 25 Jul 2000
Posts: 3403
Location: Damnit...I'm a doctor jim |
|
Thu Jul 03, 2003 5:10 am
|
|
|
cd's are too expensive...bottom line...the music industry instead of finding a way to capitalize on filesharing is attempting to eliminate the competition...
that's not the American way...
anyway the RIAA crap is to only effect the U.S...
the supreme court has yet to rule on filesharing....
and if you already own the music or have purchased it before...how is it a copyright violation ?
aren't radio stations guilty of copyright violation too ?
also, it is estimated that over 51 million people downloaded music on a regular basis last year...more people than voted for my boy G.W....
some of those men are bad...bad...men...murders rapists and terrorists out there and our "system" is worried about filesharing...
 |
| |
|
|
msu94
Joined: 16 Feb 2002
Posts: 207
Location: Tucson, AZ |
|
Thu Jul 03, 2003 6:56 am
|
|
|
RIAA love to criticize people for downloading music, but seem to forget that the music industry puts out so much unmemorable crap, burns it on a 10 cent blank CD, puts on there maybe 1 okay song and and rest is filler, and then want to charge 15-20 dollars for it.
Why would anyone want to pay that much money for one or two songs, that will be forgotten shortly afterwards.
People do not mind paying money for quality music, but quality today is rare. Its more about some bubble gum music talent show, that satifies the tastes for that particular week. |
| |
|
|
Fastwalker
Joined: 26 Mar 2003
Posts: 832
|
|
Thu Jul 03, 2003 7:55 am
|
|
|
I agree MSU. It completely irritates me to turn on the radio to a popular station and hear the same tired crap being played that was being played five years ago by the same idiot artists (not to sound like a bitter cookie monster). I mean, how many times are they going to repeat that damn Landslide, Dixie Chix song...or that REALLY stupid "paved paradise to put up a parking lot” song. There is very little new or original music on the radio today. It's just some dusty old tape with about 10 to twenty lame songs that sound like tunes written for commercials, which keep getting looped and played over and over again. It's completely maddening and idiotic. Is it any wonder I listen to talk radio when I drive?
Every single day it's the same damn repetition of songs. You mean to tell me there are no new artistes out there? There are no better composers of music than that completely lame whining group called Matchbox 20? Come on!...There's something fishy going on here with the music industry and it's really disturbing. When you buy a CD that can hold 250 songs and only get two songs you like, because the rest are mindless filler crap that indicate the REAL talent of the artist, and you pay 15 bucks for the privilege of owning two songs that will quickly get old, there is something wrong here. The public is getting ripped...
I'm for that Microsoft idea of paying a nominal amount such as a dollar a tune to download the songs I want on an mp3. While I agree that the musicians deserved to be paid, I think it is so disproportionately unfair to real talent that is being suppressed by the radio industry, and it's a tremendous insult to the consumer at the same time. The music industry has essentially become a rip-off scam that alienates emerging artists. The ones with real talent need to get their music out there too and since the radio industry is not doing the job, the internet seems to be the way to go. Paying a reasonable amount like a dollar per MP3 song download over the net...seems like a great idea to me.
|
| |
|
|
theseeker
Joined: 25 Jul 2000
Posts: 3403
Location: Damnit...I'm a doctor jim |
|
Thu Jul 03, 2003 9:07 am
|
|
|
I heard there was a new compression method that enables you to record so many songs on one of the 10 cent disc...that you couldn't finish it in 6 months...miles beyond data recording...
F/W brings up an interesting point about radio...I get FM from 3 states sometimes 2 all the time...the classic rock stations all play essentially the same thing skynard in the morning on one then you'll hear the same song at noon on the one here...and go to commercial at the same time...the local station (owned by a bigger one) here owns the pop,rock and country...plus AM...
almost forgot...the tulsa pop station during the last school year played nelly's "hot in here" at 3:05 everyday...
you don't think they are targeting the 16 and up's with that content ?
of course...
there is something fishy in the music industry...
(btw, for those of you that never heard nelly, lucky you, let's just say the content of the song ain't about basket weaving)
[Edited 1 times, lastly by theseeker on 07-03-2003] |
| |
|
|
theseeker
Joined: 25 Jul 2000
Posts: 3403
Location: Damnit...I'm a doctor jim |
|
Sun Jul 20, 2003 9:00 am
|
|
|
RIAA nails 1,000 music-lovers in 'new Prohibition' jihad
By Andrew Orlowski in San Francisco
Posted: 19/07/2003 at 11:26 GMT
The Recording Industry Association of America's attack on US culture has escalated at an alarming pace this week.
On Friday the lobby group that works on behalf of the large, mostly foreign-owned, music conglomerates that own the music copyrights and distribution channels confirmed that it was serving subpoenas at the rate of 75 a day on US citizens for the crime of sharing the music they love.
This signals a change of tactics for the RIAA: as now each individual file sharer is potentially responsible for thousands of dollars in damages. Once they were shielded by ISPs, but in the wake of the Verizon case, individuals are now exposed to direct intimidation. The RIAA is beside itself with glee: and boasted that a thousand music-lovers had already been busted.
The escalation in violence threatens to bring the US criminal justice system to an impasse: although the prison industry is already full to the brim, the RIAA's actions make new criminals out of tens of millions of ordinary US citizens. As Boycott-RIAA's founder Bill Evans notes, "there are more file-sharers than voters for either candidate at the last Presidential Election".
When Evans dubs the 'Recording Incarceration Industry of America' he's only half-joking. If the RIAA was to be indulged in its whims, the statistics suggest that the USA would rapidly become a vast, continent-wide penal colony. And that's hardly a beacon of liberty to shine on the rest of the world. Particularly when, with the backing of the much-maligned US military, the RIAA is ripping up liberal social copyright laws and replacing them with its own.
Not surprisingly, this has provoked a deep counter-reaction which is finally, and belatedly, taking to the streets. On August 1 and 2, Boycott-RIAA and affiliated groups will be holding anti-RIAA rallies across the country.
Well, here's your alarm call. While it may seem to be invincible, the RIAA is desperately vulnerable: and it knows it. It's under threat of anti-competitive lawsuits, its key DC placemen are under fierce scrutiny ... and the mass criminalization of innocent US citizens is a most coercive step citizens have seen since the Prohibition era.
But can you compel your neighbor to give up lawnmowing, or weblogging, for long enough to make a real difference? Well, read them this attack on family values
I cannot accept that the "Land of the Free" is accepting the nonsense propounded by the RIAA.
This desire to fine and litigate is becoming pervasive and foolishly assumes that you can modify normal human behaviour with LAW.
Firstly - all art forms are like children in that the creative urge is similar to the urge to reproduce. If we accept this analogy then it follows that as you do not own your children for their entire life you cannot expect to own your art for it's entire life. In fact, if the rules currently in force where in place in the earlier part of the last century then many films could not have been made and much music could not have been produced. Music belongs to us all.
... so wrote Jean Barnard.
From: Gene Mosher
To: ashlee.vance@theregister.co.uk
Subject: RIAA
My great grandfather was born in 1870. He learned to build crystal radio sets to listen to the earliest radio broadcasts in the 1920's. He would invite the whole town of about 500 over to listen to them.
My grandfather was born in 1899. He purchased one of the earliest tape recorders to make copies of radio broadcasts for his friends in the late 1950s.
My dad was born in 1924. He had a collection of 78's that he passed around for many years until he died last year.
And now I am using the Internet to assemble an MP3 collection of all the tunes on all those LPs, cassette tapes and CD's that I've been buying since 1959.
I'll be damned in hell before I accept the notion that I and my ancestors who love to listen to the audio arts are in any sense guilty of anything that is illegal, wrong, evil, immoral or improper.
Gene Mosher
With so much at stake, I can't see how Americans can fail - except through apathy. But can you and your neighbor make a difference? ® |
| |
|
|
theseeker
Joined: 25 Jul 2000
Posts: 3403
Location: Damnit...I'm a doctor jim |
|
Sun Jul 20, 2003 9:06 am
|
|
|
forgot the linky other related information as well... |
| |
|
|
KNOW-THIS
Joined: 14 Jul 2003
Posts: 3694
|
|
Sun Jul 20, 2003 9:30 am
|
|
|
People aren't buying cd's these days for one simple reason. To put it bluntly, the music sucks a fat one . Blame the artist for lacking talent, not the discerning consumer that knows better. One cd in the stores costs almost twenty dollars anyway, for a piece of plastic. You can buy fifty blanks for $10 and customize it yourself. Greed blows up in the face of the suit and tie guy always. I hope that people boycott the record industry as a result. |
| |
|
|
the professor
Joined: 10 Jan 2003
Posts: 1164
Location: heartland USA |
|
Sun Jul 20, 2003 3:47 pm
|
|
|
I'm happy to see the record companies are taking a heavy loss about time. They screw the artist royally. Your lucky to make 25 cents per cd and out of 19 bucks it's easy to see who's making the profit, them SOBS who think we like to listen to Britney or the same rehashed s!@# over and over and over again. They can go to hell! I have about 40 cds from downloading and the good bands I like I'll go see, buy a shirt and their cd but most profits are the tour merchandise.
[Edited 1 times, lastly by the professor on 07-20-2003] |
| |
|
|
 
|
|
 Goto page
1, 2, 3 Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Sat May 26, 2012 12:07 pm
|
|
|
|
|
Login
