Re: The scare tactics currently being employed by the RIAA

[cletus]

So the RIAA has decided to go after the individual users now? They (http://www.whbc.com/skin/blurb.php?sectionId=129&contentId=30089) even (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,96797,00.html) sued (http://news.com.com/2100-1027_3-5073717.html?tag=lh) a 12 year old girl for downloading music. I guess making a example of a 12 year old is now a acceptable practice. Do they really expect to stop piracy this way? The only result they will achieve is angering and alienating their customers. It is unbelievable to me that they would employ these scare tactics. It's not like they have the money to sue every single person they have subpoenaed (261 and counting). Besides, most people will stop once they are informed they are doing something wrong, it’s not even necessary to sue them (http://entertainment.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4459,7223092%255E7484%255E%255Enbv,00.html). But no, these asshats are determined to smite the immoral masses with their flaming sword of justice. They have a long, hard battle ahead.

This article (http://news.com.com/2100-1027-5073786.html?tag=nl) states Kazaa traffic has gone down. Guess what? People will simply find ways of filesharing without being detected. While on the surface it seems like the RIAA is winning, the more likely reason is the tech-savvy users have relocated to other programs. They know kazaa is being watched so they have moved. End result? RIAA is still losing ground everyday.

Even if a case does make it to court, the ability to prove any copyrighted content was ever on the offending computer is tenuous at best. What’s to say they were even able to acquire the whole file? In THIS country people are innocent until proven guilty but it seems like the justice system is letting the RIAA have their way (http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/30943.html). We can’t turn a blind eye to what is going on around us. I can’t help but feel most people are too scared or apathetic to fight back. At least there are a few people (http://netscape.com.com/2100-1104-5069019.html?tag=nl) willing to stand up for themselves.

Let me digress a little to explain how the RIAA is finding people. Here is a very informative post from another forum I visit.I'll give you a hint, the servers in most file-sharing applications discussed by typical users here are for all
highly promiscuous, what that means is every file you have available for upload and even for that matter ever file you request to download is transmitted from:

A) User to: B) Server

alerts all other users to determine who either has what u want or wants what u have.

Then, in various manners the servers provides "matches" and transmits the following information between parties:

For all practical purposes, once the following information specific to an infringing file has been identified to your computer, then you've been "Bagged and Tagged" as they say.

username
IP address
port number
file name

The above, when matched with a connection time (time logged) is all the information need to complete a (C&D notice)to your ISP, and I doubt the Subpoenas will be much different, but they have yet to be made available for the public to view.

In the Fast Track Network Architecture effective it is apparent the supernodes provide this information between the clients.

As you can see in the very top of this message, the posted image is the file details from whom the user is downloading, and all of this info is available immediately upon the user connecting and joining the queue before a part-transfer port connection has even been initiated.

The basic information thats transmitted via the server is all thats needed except for the timestamp.

Just be aware, whatever you make available for upload and basically request to download can be obtained or viewed by other computers on a public p2p network, and the information is sent to and fro by the same server which you use for your connection.

As I was saying, the RIAA can show that you were trying to download a file but not that you still have it in your possesion or even downloaded the entire file. There is no actual proof, just circumstantial evidence. What if I downloaded a song first to decide if I wanted the cd then erased it when I bought it? Would I get sued too?

So how can they get away with this (http://www.wired.com/news/digiwood/0,1412,60345,00.html)? Because none of these people have the time and resources to get involved with a lengthy court battle. Your average 12 year old doesn’t have the money to hire a team of lawyers. The RIAA is targeting the end users because of the relative ease compared to targeting Kazaa or Grokster (http://news.com.com/2100-1027-998363.html).

I’m going to have to call bullshit on this amnesty (http://journalism.berkeley.edu/projects/biplog/archive/001040.html) program (http://netscape.com.com/2100-1105_2-5071880.html) they have initiated too. So they want people to admit to a crime and send in a notarized letter when they haven’t even been proven guilty of committing said crime? How can this be considered amnesty when they collect all your information and start monitoring your every online movement? What are they going to do, start a database of ‘loyal’ and ‘non-loyal’ customers? This sounds like an asshole tactic to net more people then they have already discovered. Scare and guilt your buyers into buying your stuff!

Here (http://www.chillingeffects.org/piracy/notice.cgi?NoticeID=344) is a sample of a C&D from a isp as well as some information on copyright law. Here (http://www.dotcomscoop.com/article.php?sid=39) is a internal RIAA memo regarding kazaa. They might be of interest for anyone who expects to get sued.

I don’t think they realize what a big mistake they are making. Piss off enough people and your screwed. Is there anyway I can state that simpler for them? This story about the little girl was the final straw for me. I’ve decided to never buy another cd again until the RIAA wakes up. Not only that but I will actively encourage anyone who listens not to buy another cd either. I’ll go to local shows and buy the cds from the band themselves. I’ll make cassettes of friends’ stuff or record off the radio if necessary, just like the days before the internet. It, in essence, may be the same as filesharing but I didn’t see the record companies suing me back then or shutting down radio stations. This over reacting by the RIAA is just going to far. I'll show them what I think with the only thing that they recognize, my wallet.

So, who’s with me?




I’m not trying to encourage or justify filesharing. I’ve seen the futility of debating whither it is stealing or not so I’ll like to try to avoid it if possible. I just don’t believe it’s right for the RIAA to establish suing their customers as the new business model.

PS I’ve posted this at a few of the forums I frequent but I wanted to post here too. This site has many intelligent people who can discuss something from both angles. Most forums seem to turn into a group knee-jerk reaction of ‘hell yeah!’ or ‘damn straight!’. If I’m being ignorant about something then please help me out.

[cletus]

I just realized this is my first pit thread. :cool: To bad I had to be motivated by this much anger. I just keep thinking about what that poor little girl had to go through because of those callous bastards.

[manhattan]

Oh, dear ghod, won't somebody please think of the children?

[Delly]

Or alternatively

Wont somebody think of the hampsters??

Why the need for a new thread slating the RIAA when theres already one open?

[cletus]

When I started writing this thread I wasn't aware of the other one. I didn't notice it until after I posted this one.

[Bricker]

And, like other threads, the OP seems to miss the distinction that the RIAA is suing file sharers, rather than downloaders. In other words, they will sue you not if you've downloaded all or part of a song, but if you're sharing a copyrighted song for others to steal.

[Rashak Mani]

I think they are trying to break the myth that sharing files is impossible to track. Its scare tactics for sure... their aim probably getting regular Joe to stop sharing.

Most tech savy and computer kids will keep doing it thou. Others will disregard it as heavy handed. I doubt that those scared away from KAZAA will go running to record stores thou.

[Wesley Clark]

Originally posted by Bricker
And, like other threads, the OP seems to miss the distinction that the RIAA is suing file sharers, rather than downloaders. In other words, they will sue you not if you've downloaded all or part of a song, but if you're sharing a copyrighted song for others to steal.

that is what i'm confused about, it was always my understanding they just went after the sharers. i'm 99% certain that after a while they will start targeting downloaders someday though but i dont know how. maybe decoy downloads.

[Bricker]

Originally posted by Wesley Clark
that is what i'm confused about, it was always my understanding they just went after the sharers. i'm 99% certain that after a while they will start targeting downloaders someday though but i dont know how. maybe decoy downloads.

I certainly can't speak for the RIAA< but I suspect that their intent is to upset the ecology, if you will, of music piracy. By targetting sharers, they encourage pirates to stop sharing music. Even though there's no dearth of willing downloaders out there, the downloaders will have comparatively little content to download. File-swapping will seem less valuable, and diminish.

As I say, this is my speculation only.

- Rick

[cletus]

The RIAA figures if they can stop the uploaders they can stop filesharing. Logically, they are making their way from top to bottom. They are also scaring people away at the same time. As of now most people are unwilling to challenge their methods in court.

[Merijeek]

Originally posted by cletus
The RIAA figures if they can stop the uploaders they can stop filesharing. Logically, they are making their way from top to bottom. They are also scaring people away at the same time. As of now most people are unwilling to challenge their methods in court.

Of course, don't most P2P programs tend to take the files you've downloaded and put them into a directory that is shared by default?

Personally, I'm surprised that the major labels and RIAA haven't been pounded by hackers so far.

-Joe, who would feel bad for the labels if they weren't the ones selling the black CD media....okay, not really. But still...

[Mr2001]

Originally posted by Merijeek
Personally, I'm surprised that the major labels and RIAA haven't been pounded by hackers so far.
They have.Why RIAA Keeps Getting Hacked (http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,57048,00.html)
02:00 AM Jan. 03, 2003 PT

The Recording Industry Association of America may not want people to share digital files, but the organization certainly seems to be in favor of open access to its website.

On Monday, the RIAA site was hacked for the sixth time in six months.

This time, the defacement resulted in bogus press releases on the front door, touting the joys of cheese and interspecies romantic relationships.

[capacitor]

The numbers of CD sales are still down, down, down. It will be a sale-less crackdown, to borrow a term.

[Cervaise]

Originally posted by Bricker
I suspect that their intent is to upset the ecology, if you will, of music piracy. By targetting sharers, they encourage pirates to stop sharing music.Just like targeting drug dealers has been so effective at reducing the number of pot smokers.

Hey, I'm not saying I disagree. I've never downloaded a music or other file from a sharing site, ever. It just seems kind of pointless, like they're trying to empty the Mississippi with those magic growing dinosaur sponges.

[msmith537]

hm..60 million downloaders and the've sent out about 1000 subpeonas. I like those odds.

[cletus]

Originally posted by Merijeek
Of course, don't most P2P programs tend to take the files you've downloaded and put them into a directory that is shared by default?The programs do it automatically but you can always move the music files into another folder.

Well, I'm decided the best way for me to fight this is to try to dispel some of the mystery surrounding file sharing. I was surprised by how little most people know about how filesharing programs work and the legality of it. Like I said earlier, ignorance is the RIAA's greatest strengh.

Just thinking about those fuckers now is pissing me off. It would be so much simpler for them to just create a levy like the canadians (http://www.dotcomscoop.com/article.php?sid=39). But no, they would rather scare everyone into obeying them.:mad:

[cletus]

Oops. Let me try this again.

canadians (http://techcentralstation.com/081803C.html)

[Blalron]

Originally posted by msmith537
hm..60 million downloaders and the've sent out about 1000 subpeonas. I like those odds.

Watch out, you might get struck by lightning.

[Sublight]

According to research firm Nielsen/NetRatings, Kazaa usage has dropped precipitously since May.
I wonder just how indicative this is of RIAA success. There's a hacked version of Kazaa out that has no ads or popups, which I know a lot of people (including myself) have switched to. Those numbers wouldn't be counted in the Nielsen figures, would they?

[catsix]

Bricker said:
By targetting sharers, they encourage pirates to stop sharing music. Even though there's no dearth of willing downloaders out there, the downloaders will have comparatively little content to download.

Before there was IRC and xdcc, there was FTP.
And then came Scour, and a lot of people stopped using IRC and xdcc.
When Scour was shut down, Napster was developed.
When Napster was shut down, Kazaa was developed.
As Kazaa is falling off, IRC and xdcc are becoming popular again.
There are hundreds of FTP sites with thousands of files, and there are encrypted FTP sites so nobody can tell what the traffic actually is, and there are BitTorrents. And if those things disappear, there are still CD burners, which now make exact copies in under 10 minutes.

The RIAA may get rid of one specific technology, but others will fill in where that one died, and they will be bigger. For every "white hat" the RIAA can manage to employ, there will be 10 "black hats" who hate them. So yes, you'll hear of less people using Kazza, but not because they all gave up file sharing.

Many of them just found another way that has not attracted the RIAA's attention.

[cletus]

Sublight, AFAIK Kazaa Lite is logging on to the supernodes as Kazaa. Therefore to NetRatings it would appear as a regular Kazaa user. So it would still be counted.

Catsix, I think your onto something. The casual user will be scared away but the more determined/tech savvy user will find another way of acquiring files. Perhaps the RIAA realizes it can't win and wants only to stop the casual people?

[Una Persson]

There are other ways to share files. And you don't need to be a super-genius to do it.

Take my own application, UnaChat, which I have written to avoid the mess of IRC and other chat programs. It is a full-fledged client-server and peer-to-peer system that includes, among its many features, the ability (not implemented yet) to transfer files AND to encrypt all messsages and data streams on the fly to prevent chat from being monitored by corporate IT weenies, and to protect the security of logfiles. The only thing an observer sees is data traffic from port/IP to port/IP. And since I made UnaChat work on any Port it wants to to be firewall friendly, I can sit it on Port 80 and it looks at first monitoring like standard web traffic.

It's still a work very much in progress, but it's been tested with as many as 9 simultaneous people on three continents. And the thing is - I'm not some elite uber hacker like some of my friends like Dr Theopolus. I'm just a gal with some decent programming skills (OK, at 2,000,000+ lines of code lifetime I'll hazard I'm in the top 1% here...but on the RoD Board I'm practically a nobody). If I can get as far as I have, then I imagine someone can do something a whole lot more secure and better than I can ever come up with. File sharing will always be there for the people who have skills and lack of moral issues with sharing and/or distributing copyright violations.

[catsix]

And that is what Anthracite is doing all by herself. (I don't mean this as a slight against your skills, just to illustrate a point.)

Wonder what else could be done if it were several geeks banded together to build up a well hidden and encrypted means to enable the sharing of all types of information through TCP traffic?

Add in a few more geeks who are encryption and/or networking experts to Anthracite's coding skills, and no longer do you have Kazaa, you have something way harder for the RIAA to spy on. Most of the geeks (not sure whether this covers Anthracite or not) are absolutely thrilled if their current means of beating the system lasts a year or two, during which time they're already working on the next way to get around the prying eyes of RIAA, the MPAA, or the IT weenies in their own company.

It's never going to stop.

[Mr2001]

Originally posted by catsix
And that is what Anthracite is doing all by herself. (I don't mean this as a slight against your skills, just to illustrate a point.)

Wonder what else could be done if it were several geeks banded together to build up a well hidden and encrypted means to enable the sharing of all types of information through TCP traffic?
It's already been done. Anthracite's program sounds a lot similar in function to the one Nullsoft had on their web site for less than a day.

There are at least three other large networks designed for "freedom of information", which are used by political dissidents in areas like China and the Middle East (as well as by paranoid kooks around the rest of the world), but whose encryption and anonymity also suggests that the RIAA will be worrying about them in the future.