Item from CNN

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/TECH/internet/...s.ap/index.html

It's not as if the RIAA are 1337 hackers. Anyone can get an ip address and trace it back to the ISP.
What we need is decent, secure and anonymous file sharing.

And now the main event: "RIAA can suck" in C MINOR. Music Maestro PLEASE!

Moderation: removed vulgar language.

Quoted from article:


Quoted from Undesirable:


What if you use a good firewall + an IP scrambler/proxy? Not that it matters much to me as I don't share much stuff anyways...

EDIT: Sorry, proxies probably only affect web browsing if I'm not mistaken?

I'm not exactly sure what proxies are or how to set them up, but I've noticed that most file sharing programs (e.g. Emule) have proxy options inside them.

I have heared in 1st April of 2005 RIAA will force all audio equipment manufacturers to stop production of speakers. As RIAA says '...the one who have even one speaker can share music in (on) home, on streets, bars, buses, gyms e.t.c. ...' '...anyone seen with even one speaker after 1st April 2005 will be shooted just on the place he is standing...' '...if one want to listen music he has to listen it using headphones (only earbuds allowed)...'


What the hell is doing RIAA!!!???

Don't forget about direct tranfer of music to brain. (probably not in 2005, but...)

Don't worry people. The music industry has had its time. Lets all watch as they clutch for straws. They've bastardised a form of expression so much that its lost its soul. We no longer have musicians, we have "performers", the mainstream is pumped at us 24 hours a day, in its vocoded, pitch fixed, over compressed, marketed glory.

I think the time will come when only true talent will be at the forefront, where music will be free and we'll choose to put a tip in the jar at our own discretion. At the end of the day, if you really care about music in its true performance form, be patient. Otherwise stick with your Jive!/Dre/Timbaland produced pop music and bop till it drops.

There's only so much crap we can all take.

So in other words, you feel your rights as a criminal are being infringed upon, eh? B)

I would just like to say that I think this is an appropriate tactic for them to be taking. When Microsoft or someone goes bustin' heads in Asia in order to curb the distribution of pirated software, no one thinks that is wrong (well, no rational people anyhow).

This is, IMHO, a much better tactic than the one they have been pursuing as of late, which is targetting their PAYING customers with things like copy protection and DRM on SACDs (won't work on my PC? no digital out? piss off!)

Until now, the paying customer has been taking the brunt of their attack, while the freeloaders have gotten off scot free. Don't misinterpret me - I hate the RIAA for their mislead tactics as much as anyone, but this is the right way to go if they insist on protecting their intelectual properties. I'd still like to see these middle men cut out completely though.

looks like only things that one can buy are of any importance this days..., as some1 said, it is about running for stuff to fill your own gaps, so at the end of the day people may thank to riaa and other weirdos like that and maybe gain some (quiet) soul again.

I don't give a flying f%*k what the RIAA does. I don't use file sharing. That is not to say that I am totally honest. I have St. Anger. And thank God I didn't pay for that load of crap.

I still buy CD's. I buy a lot of CD's. I buy a lot of DVD's. But I won't pay $15.99 for a CD with two good songs that came out in 1989. Nor will I pay $15.99 for a CD with one good song that came out in 2003.

The RIAA wants to blame all of their problems on the evil file sharing. BS.

Produce a good product at a fair price and people will give you money for it.

I believe this is just an act... Though technically possible to get the IPs of those who share "substantial" amounts of copyrighted material on p2p networks, what are they gonna do with this information? There are millions of p2p users falling into this category. And even if they really file some "several hundred lawsuits" against some users, what will they achieve? My guess is "decent, secure and anonymous file sharing", like Undesirable said.

I'm getting real sick of reading about all this RIAA acts week after week... is p2p sharing diminishing? The record industry should focus completely in trying to make online music business even more attractive for the consumer. And they can very well forget the fat profits they are used to. I think these can only go down, even if the world economy gets better.

cya

How can you be so sure that someone doesn't just share files they already have in purchased original format with someone else who has the original as well?

Yeah I know that in real life that's not the most common scenario, but it's a possibility...calling everyone a criminal is a hasty conclusion.

No. In other words I want to see fascists like the RIAA up s**t street with no paddle.

It has to be said, that the RIAA are idiots, in every possible way. They can't even correctly make a (fairly simple) logical argument. Let's see: if I download a ripped recording, then I am taking (even stealing) something (from the recording company / the artist). But if I'm providing my ripped collection for downloading to others, I'm not actually taking anything. The easy analogy to the "hardware" thief, is the downloader - the uploader is entirely without parallel in the physical world - after all, they could easily have bought the CD and ripped it themselves. In fact, they don't even become an accessory to a crime until someone else downloads one of their rips. Yet that's who RIAA is targeting. Oh, and if the RIAA downloads someone's music, that isn't illegal, as they already own it, and if one of their employees or a law enforcement agent download something, that's entrapment.
I really wonder how it must feel to go through life being braindead...

For the ethical issue, it has to be said that, technically, downloading music without paying the copyright holders is certainly stealing. On the other hand, it also has to be considered that, not legally, but morally, the record companies are stealing from the artists. The ability to copyright musical recordings was first granted to artists back in the 1920s or 1930s to protect them from being exploited by the record companies, and those same record companies lobbied heavily against its introduction. But now, of course, they have completely perverted the original intent, by granting themselves the copyright. Pick up any major label CD that you own, and look at the copyright. As an example, Radiohead's "OK Computer": © 1997 EMI Records Ltd. Now, somebody explain to me exactly what role EMI Records Ltd played in the creative process of making this album. So the fact that the RIAA (a bunch of proven thieves) is trying to go after those who have decided to take as much creative license with copyright laws as they have, is somewhat amusing, in a sickening sort of way.

And the sad thing is, that the music industry is actually reaping quite significant benefits from p2p file sharing. Consider this - in this currrent recession, music sales have only dropped by about 5% (according to the music industry, though I have it on good authority that those numbers are somewhat faked), whereas the rest of the economy has dipped by somewhat more than 5%. When the upturn comes, it'll be very easy to see how CD sales are now, at least partially, proportional (not inversely) to the amount of music "sharing".

And my final rant is about sites (like the one from Apple) offering music downloads for $1 per track, and offering compressed audio at that! Now, I'm sure that AAC compressed at 128kbps is completely transparent - when played on an iPod over earbuds, when you're on your motorbike going 70 without a helmet on. But I would suggest that most people who frequent this board would agree with me in demanding a lossless version for such a high price!


~mysh

There exists a really secure filesharing system - FreeNet.
But nearly nobody uses is (yet)...

How someone can fine me millions of dollars or put me in the can for just sitting here on my ass and clicking a mouse button while there are people out there smashing people's heads in with hammers or raping little children is utterly beyond me.

I'm no lawyer (ok, disclaimer out of the way), but I think the distinction is that with
entrapment you are inducing someone to commit a crime who hasn't made an offer.
If you have a file listed for share on a service, that woud be an offer.

I don't know if there is any difference when it is a private party (bounty hunter/vigalante) instead of
a legitimate law enforcement agency trying to catch you.

Amen !!!

"I do it, and it's wrong, but THEY DO WORSE wrong things, so therefore what i do is right" is a logical falacy.

There is also filetopia, which using public key encryption to hide IP addresses. It relies on a server-client architecture, though, which may be an exploitable weakness.

And then there is Justin Frankel's Waste for small anonymous groups.

So yes, there are examples of what might gain further advocates if P2P networks like kazaa are seriously hurt by lawsuits against individuals.



Still my favorite "what-if" article on the RIAA stance taken to its logical extreme:

http://www.discover.com/feb_01/featnapster.html

ff123

I haven't said that what I may / may have not done is right or wrong. I was just making a fabricated comparison.

IMHO, this whole thing is a scare tactic designed to sow FUD. Presumably well-researched by some marketing think-tank.

Oh yeah, I can see them suing a bunch of 13 year olds sharing their Eminem collections. Right, uh huh.

-------
"Mike Godwin of Public Knowledge, a consumer group that has challenged broad crackdowns on file-sharing networks, said Wednesday's announcement was appropriate because it targeted users illegally sharing copyrighted files.

"I'm sure it's going to freak them out," Godwin said. "The free ride is over."
-------

Yep, that's the impression the RIAA is going for. The actual lawsuits (if any are actually filed) are really irrelevant to this very-transparent scare tactic.

Think about this: If they really mean to (and were able to) file lawsuits on a wide scale, why make a flowery announcement about it? Why not just start filing the lawsuits?

Not so far off the mark... there were rumors floating around at some point about the RIAA wanting to ban and/or regulate the sale of ADC's (analog to digital converters). These people are pathological control freaks, living in a dream world.

The feature which allows you to know how many files a person is sharing and the ability to directly browse their machine could be disabled easily by the programmers.

Automatic changing of usernames might also make it harder for the dickheads to track who has what.

Just out of curiosity, won.t they also have to prove that someone downloaded the file as well?

I mean, how can you be guilty of trading without proof that someone took the file?

I bet that law doesn't allow them to get your whole internet history from the ISP's, just the address.

Scare tactics.

I would like to share my views too. There are IMO perfectly good reasons to pirate software, music, movies, mechanical spare parts etc... $20-$25 for a CD is OK in North America or Western Europe - it's not too much considering the average income of people. But the same price for people in developing countries is not justified. There are places where the average income is less than a tenth of what it is in USA. But do you think the price on CD:s is a tenth of what it is here? I wouldn't think so. The same goes for software, movies, patents and other things that people should pay for to use. I see piracy as a form of evening out the otherwise growing economic differences a little bit. Call me a socialist or communist if you like - I take it as a compliment.

Okay, so the starving masses in Russia should be allowed to steal mp3s. Fine, okay - whatever. I'd rather them be given food and clothing, but at least they'll have stuff to listen to.

I'm actually surprised I am defending the RIAA in this thead. I firmly believe they are going about this the wrong way. They should encourage the sharing of music as an advertising medium, much like radio. DRM really pisses me off. Having said that, I own all the albums I like. I think you people who steal it all then try to justify it as "the right thing to do" are very clearly deluding yourselves. Face it, you are stealing because you are cheap, and you know you can get away with it! It has nothing to do with "socialism" in some Robin-Hood sort of way, even if you like to tell youself it does.

I doubt any of you who say "the RIAA just steals from artists anyhow, so I'm going to steal from them" actually bother to mail a cheque directly to the artist.

In conclusion, they have every right to hunt down music pirates. I don't think they SHOULD be pursuing that avenue, but they have every right to.

Actually, that's exactly what happens in my country.
There was a time (when I was a kid), when LPs where considered part of the group of items considered "vital supplies" and that have goverment control in price. LPs were cheap enough for a middle-class family.
But first let me tell you about my experience: Today I bought the latest CD from the supposedly best mexican rock band. It was only pre-released in some stores (it will become widely available the next monday), some more expensive than others. My town has one of the more expensive ones. I paid full price, 18 dollars, the highest I have ever paid for a mainstream mexican rock album (even in that store, the new albums from other bands are 12-15 dollars). I love this band, that's why I paid it. But I am still pissed off. I tried to sample some of the tracks on Kazaa, because all the local magazines where raving about the album. Kazaa was full of "fakes", 20-second loops from the middle of the first single repeated until the actual playtime of each song was matched. I never meant not to buy this album, and I felt mistreated by this band and it's new label (Universal). This tactic, mind you, was NEVER used before by any mexican band.
I went to the band's website and dropped an e-mail telling them how I felt. That they should not treat their fans that way (specially considering how they built their fame on word-of-mouth and early bootlegs), and that I would "retaliate" by doing some infringement of my own.
That's my experience.

But, on ErikS' opinion, that's exactly what happens here. Mexico's thirst for music knows no end. But the majority of population has no money to pay retail price for their music. And we have no shortage of one-hit wonders here. There are bands and singers THAT KNOW their largest following is among the less economically capable people, and they still release 15-18 dollars albums, and then have the nerve to complain that people flock to the 1-dollar bootlegs! Respect your audience! There are labels that seem to be learning. Recently Sony re-released a bunch of albums (same artwork and packaging as the originals) that cost 2.50. It isn't that hard when you try, is it?

I will still buy and buy and buy original CDs by my favorite artists, but for how long, I don't know.

Another (imho excellent) article on this:

http://www.wired.com/news/digiwood/0,1412,...2,59392,00.html

You posted this when I was writing my lenghty post, so I decided to post again and try to adress some things you say and maybe you do not know about.
I live in one of those "poor countries". In here, people do not steal MP3. There are organized mafias that mass-copy CDs and sell them for a dollar a pop. They even do their own compilations of the current hits! I do not endorse this activity, nor I think of those mafias as some sort of "Robin Hood"-esque figures. But they do cater to a starving audience (both for food and for music, that nurtures the soul) that would never have access to music. Why is this activity so big? Is it because they love to break the law, for the hell of it? To "delude themselves"? Because "they are cheap"? Are you saying that only the rich should be allowed to listen to music? Do you think that selling music for the same price, regardless of the country, is the right thing to do? Are you even OK with the current prices?

"They could listen to the radio", you might say. But the truth is technology has provided a better/easier way for people to get their music. The music industry has failed to catch on with the times. They are happy theatening people here and there, while they let their profits and credibility get smaller and smaller. As I said in my earlier post (and as it is pretty much general knowledge) there really are ways to bring down costs. Once the costs are brought to reasonable levels, we can talk about contempt for the law.

People like me, that buy 100+ original CDs a year are only willing to support the industry for so long...

You know, in here, bootlegs are getting better, while original CDs are getting worse in quality but, of course, more expensive.

PeerGuardian might be of some help: http://www.methlabs.org/methlabs.htm . At least it seemsto block MPAA on DC channels every now and then.

Has anyone ever thought of how much money the RIAA spends on that idiot's crusade? Now you know where most of the $20 go that you pay for a CD. This is so silly.

AtaqueEG you bring up some good points. I was of course refering to the sharing of MP3 files online (that is, afterall, what the RIAA is talking about here). I agree completely that the price of CDs is artificially inflated. I would go as far as to say that the middle man (who the RIAA represents) should go the way of the dinosaurs. What I don't believe is right is for people to just throw their hands up and say "the whole thing is corrupt, I refuse to pay anyone for the services they provide to me".

I personally am not inclined to give one red cent to the labels, but I pay 1: for the media (booklet, disc, case) and 2: so the artist gets a share.

Stealing outright does NOT help the artists break free of their oppressive contracts. It just takes money from their pockets.

Something does have to be done about the price of music though if they are to curb piracy through bootlegging AND through the internet. This is true. I totally agree with you. Stealing is not a solution at all though; it's a workaround.

I take it you really mean copyrighted MP3's -- that is, MP3's "derived from" a copyright work, in which permission or license isn't granted to distribute (in whatever country it's distributed in).

From here, it's a crucial distinction (and often one which the "trading is stealing" camp completely ignores, as if it were convenient to their arguments to do so).

You see, at least 50% (probably much more) of what's scaring the RIAA is the ability of recording artists to license, sell and distribute their own material, in any way they see fit, without need of a "middleman" like the RIAA to do their marketing. A few lost CD sales mean nothing to them compared to the horrifying spectre of their own uselessness. If they can, they'll legislate themselves into continued existence, and legislate all file trading off the Net (including "incidentally" the legit stuff -- a direct assault on that would be impossible).

Failing that (and I'm convinced they *will* fail), they'll be brought down to size, or they will simply go out of business. Either way, good riddance to bad rubbish. These record labels, as they exist today, are a rotten, stinking leftover from the 1950's and 60's.

I think you must have misread what I wrote. I didn't justify my own illegal copying of CD:s. I live in a fairly rich country: although I'm not extremely rich myself yet, I can afford to buy CD:s, but still I copy CD:s illegally for various reasons. This is not what I was defending.

I was talking about places like for example Mexico as AtaqueEG brought up. It's very easy for you who live in a rich country to yell "THEFT!!!" after the CD copiers. First try and cut your income to a fifth and try to live on that and see how many CD:s you will buy. Of course this copying is a sort of theft legally, but I think it is morally justified in some places in the world. Just think about how much the industrialised countries "steals" legally from the less developed countries with big natural recourses. I think it is ok for them to steal some back. That's just my opinion though...

Freenet is the solution, they just need help.
Freenet, Ready to help them?

It isn't a solution, it is just a workaround

A real solution would be to put companies like RIAA and MPAA out of buisness.

Very true, this is common practice, but then it's perfectly legal.


Well, if you bring this up, then, yes, food and cloths is surely all they need, to heck investments and production development support. They'll be just fine recycling your second-hand.

Hell, I remember early 'perestroika' times, 'humanitarian aid' and those infamous 'Bush's legs'. I heard when Russia refused to buy those anymore, it was threaten to face economical sanctions.
'Eh, wth, we kinda supporting your starving masses with our cheap and delicious steroid-injected chicken? This is your gratitude? Who cares about your domestic agriculture? Keep buying our stuff in huge amounts'.

Then again if food and cloths is all you can do to support developing countries, better don't, let them develop things on their own. Otherweis you get vicious 'resources for food' practice which has less to do with 'support'.

Bring it on! The RIAA is going to dig it's own hole, the way I see it we hold all the cards.

You can't fight technology.

Since quite some time now, the copyright symbol © has no official use anymore. Legally, it doesn't mean anything, and you don't have to put it on your work to receive copyrights. They keep printing the © for tradition, and to remind us of the copyrights. It looks professional too.

By law, the producers of phonograms are entitled to neighbouring copyrights, to protect their investment. Hence, © EMI Records. This copyright allows them some freedom to manufacture and market the work, and to act against abuse of their product (e.g. someone copying a CD and selling it on).

Sadly, in the US, the record companies can demand a whole lot more rights from the artist in the contract. I don't know the details about the US system, but I was taught artists are much better protected in most other countries. In Belgium there are a number of specific "copyrights" than cannot be transferred by contract, away from the artist.

On the subject now, I think people need a mentality change. People, especially record companies, keep seeing filesharing as a competitor to CD. I don't. I see it as a competitor to radio. You download some music, listen to it a few times, if you like it a lot you buy the CD. Same thing as the radio, just the radio sucks lately so no one wants to listen to it. If they keep making the radio suck, people will continue downloading. How else can you sample your music properly? There will always be people taping the radio or burning MP3 to CDR... so what... embrace filesharing as a promotional tool and record sales will go up.

There is a vicious cycle here: smart people download, stupid people listen to the radio, stupid music is played on the radio, record companies ditch the 'downloaded' artists and support the 'stupid radio artists', less people listen to the radio, more people download, sales drop and drop and drop...

I believe Bill Gates pointed out that the record companies' business tactic (= lawsuits) is a failing one. I also believe Bill Gates is the authority, when it comes to business tactics.

One difference is that there are royalties paid on radio play.
THat isn't obvious to the listener since it is the radio station paying the bill.

I think some of the actions and attitudes of some record companies are foolish, but there are several things that we're forgetting in this debate:

Firstly, in real terms, recorded music has never been so cheap. I don't know if this is true in poorer countries (it probably is - just cheaper, not cheap!), but certainly in the UK (and most of the western world), the number of hours you have to work to earn the money to buy one hour of music has never been so low.

Secondly, "professional" music pirates cannot be congratulated for anything. To say that they are showing the record companies where they are going wrong (i.e. high prices) is stupid: the record companies cannot hope to match the prices of the pirates. The pirates do not have to pay the recording artist, the composer, marketing costs, middle men, shops etc etc they just have to duplicate the thing and sell it. They can make 100% proffit and charge $1. If the record companies wanted to make 100% proffit on every release, and then let all other people in the chain take a proportional cut, I doubt any of us could afford some CD releases!

Thirdly, they are few, and we are many. They can't lock up everyone who copies a CD. They will scare some people into stopping, which I'm sure is their aim, but apart from a handful of unfortunate individuals who they "make an example of" this isn't going to affect what people actually do.

Finally, record companies often stick a "copyright" notice on things that they don't own the copyright to. For older recordings, they usually try and "copyright" the remastering or re-issue, or just the digitization. Under both UK and US law you cannot copyright these things - artistic works can be copyrighted - the results of purely technical processes with no artist input cannot. So, for example, the 24-bit remastered tracks on The Beatles "1" will drop out of copyright within the next 16 years, not after the next 50, as EMI would have you believe. I would expect that there will be some interesting court cases and changes in copyright law before then, so that the record companies can keep profiting from old material; but hopefully only in the USA.


Cheers,
David.

Freenet looks a bit confusing at first, and then raises for me some objections. Complete anonymity and giving people the tools to share censored material stinks to me of child-porn rings and other such undesirable material.

Back on-topic.. I see an emerging trend in the users here which I fit into.. I buy most of my music, but download (lossless) single tracks that I like - eg, I download a Maralyn Manson album of which I keep one song, the single here costs £4.. ($6EUR is a stupid price for a single track).

I remember reading a lot about piracy from links on HA, including the writings of Courtney Love (iirc).. I think a "new breed" of artists need to come together and help eachother to manage their own distribution & promotion. A selection of their music can be as free lossy downloads, and have HA's utopian version of iTunes, where the rights to a lossless track/album come at reasonable prices.

This is one of many things I am working towards, I don't have the resources/time/skill to do so, but I'm slowly trying, I hope it is the kind of system which will catch on and save the music industry from itself..

Yes, this does happen. Of course I'm sure there's also people in countries with very oppressive governments posting about the atrocities going on as well.

With Freenet, it doesn't really matter. Content will age itself out of the system if it's not popular enough. On top of that, content will migrate towards areas of the network where it is most popular. If there's enough popular content on the network that you don't find objectionable, the stuff that you don't like will drop off by itself.

Freenet isn't about organized crime or child porn rings, it's about giving people freedom without having to fear (sometimes for their own lives). Yes, this does in some sense mean freedom without responsibility, and maybe there's a better way. Until then, this will work.


I don't know about you, but the only reason this is true for be is because my income levels have increased faster than the raise in price of music.

Personally, I'm glad to see the RIAA making this move. It's what they should have done from the outset. I can see a few likely outcomes: 1. They litigate themselves into infamy and eventually, obscurity. 2. Everyone ignores them, figuring they won't get caught. Much like minor traffic violations. A few people get busted here and there, but most of the time you can safely drive 5 mph over the speed limit and not worry about it. 3. File sharing goes deep underground, and systems like WASTE become the preferred way of sharing copyrighted music.

What do you think of this article?

Will FBI hunt for P2P users?

I don't agree. In that case, you should stop the net and all the things that make child-porn possible (books, camera, ...)


Sure, the majors are losing distribution but they still have the marketing and a lot of contracts with artists.


Don't worry, I'm working hard on it...

I think it's more of their gloated, coated with tons of well written BS. I think they should change their name from RIAA to BSRIAA (you know what the BS stands for).

I remember awhile back where they made a statement that they were going to delete copyrighted songs on peoples computer. Essentially they were saying they were going to illegally break into a computer and physically delete files. I would love to see them do such an act so that there could be a counter lawsuit, "or the possibility that they would break into a really vengeful person's computer that had the knowledge, willingness, and could show them a thing or two about remotely deleting files."

Well, this doesn't justify sharing music files (infringing copyright really..not theft by most classic definitions) but let me give you the scoop on what's going on Canada....:

We pay a levy on blank CDRs that is to compensate artists/record companies for copying for personal use (which is absolutely permitted and legal in Canadian copyright law) of CDs. Right now we pay 21 cents per blank CD and they have a rate increase to 59 cents in the pipeline. I think dinging everyone for 59 cents for a blank CDR that has decent odds of never seeing copied copyrighted music is excessive but....I guess I could live with that.

What burns me is that with this system in place, record labels here in Canada (EMI in particular) are releasing all new CDs in a "copy-controlled" CD format. So they want to collect for personal copying while at the same time releasing CDs that can't be easily copied (don't get em started on their "defectiveness"). Where is the justice in that??

P.S. Note that this levy does not compensate for internet trading of files which is not expressly permitted by Canadian copyright law.

P.P.S. I wish I had enough money to take out a full page ad in a major newspaper. I'd love to inform Canadians that it is perfectly legal to copy (for personal use) every CD you can get you hands on (from libraries, friends, etc.). The record companies sure don't want people to know this, but it's the copyright law and we might as well get our 21 cents worth

To me its all a "fear" campaign, as fewtch has already mentioned. It all seems a last ditch effort by the RIAA to try to slow the take up of P2P among the masses. But if they didn't sit on their fat asses when this was all happening during the Napster days (eg. suing Napster wasted their precious time) they would of came up with a viable business model that would allowed music to be distributed over the Internet. Instead they let P2P software establish themselves as a means of a centralised music download centre from the Internet, thus ruining any chances that they may have converting those users into buyers (who would pay for something that was half assed in quality?!?)

Its all a fear campaign folks... thats all. Cause this is all they have left, is to scare people that they are going to sue you. Remember you got your right to have copies on your computer for personal use, which they are trying to take away from you as of this moment.

Laters

AgentMil