Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Internet

The War Between p2p and Record Companies Heating Up? 562

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the escalating-arms-race dept.
the-dude-man writes "Securityfocus.com Reports that there may be a new nasty turn to the battle between the p2p networks and the RIAA/MPAA. recently, the RIAA has been trying to flood kazza with files that appear to be valid copyrighted material (movies,mp3s, ect) but are empty or, in one case, of Madonna Louise Veronica Ciccone, contain a voice file asking, "What the f*ck do you think you are doing?". The p2p networks are considering a possible move agianst the RIAA in response to this by using recently enacted anti-spam laws."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The War Between p2p and Record Companies Heating Up?

Comments Filter:
  • A pity... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TopShelf (92521) on Sunday May 11, 2003 @12:18PM (#5930997) Homepage Journal
    Almost sad to see a portion of such a large industry going through its death throes. I imagine the horse & buggy manufacturers acted much the same about 100 years ago...
    • Re:A pity... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 11, 2003 @12:27PM (#5931039)
      Indeed. P2P networks may be largely used to facilitate copyright infringing distribution of music, movies, books etc but lately I use it for downloading legitimate files such as game demos, movie trailers, and free software updates (whether those updates are for free software, or games and other software I have paid for). P2P is incredibly useful in this regard. I don't have to register with gamespy or wait in a long queue for my download. Long live P2P. RIAA - grow up, evolve, or die.
    • by freeweed (309734) on Sunday May 11, 2003 @12:27PM (#5931043)
      Now, I know how to make a buggy. But wouldn't the horse manufacturers be.. horses?

      Some mass horse extinction 100 years ago? :)
    • Yeah, hope so. There is a big downside - if it 'wins' we will have much more potent versions of the DCMA, etc...

      But isn't flooding P2P networks fraud? Although I am not legitimately acquiring a file, my usage is at some cost so could I charge for lost bankwidth, is it entrapment (which is a method to fool someone to break the law, giving them an opportunity they otherwise would not have?) otherwise?

      This: >>> may add some perspective on this angle.

      • Took away my link... here is the link:

        http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/05/08/ 15 18247&mode=nested&tid=99&tid=123

      • Re:A pity... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by grahamlee (522375) <iamleeg@[ ]il.com ['gma' in gap]> on Sunday May 11, 2003 @01:37PM (#5931424) Homepage Journal
        But isn't flooding P2P networks fraud?

        So your legal case would be what? I was trying to steal a file from the record label, but the file I stole wasn't the file I thought I was going to steal because they labelled it wrong?

        You could try doing what I do, and buy your music...

        • Re:A pity... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by agentkhaki (92172) on Sunday May 11, 2003 @02:57PM (#5931853) Homepage
          I whole-heartedly agree - trying to take up legal action against the RIAA because they are 'flooding' P2P networks with misrepresented data will never lead anywhere. Why?

          The P2P networks stay alive because they have always maintained a hands-off approach - they argue that they are merely providing a service, and what the users do with it is beyond their control and responsibility, much like gun manufacturers. This open attitude - that anyone can trade anything without the P2P network itself interfering - is exactly what allows the RIAA to post nonsense files. They are merely sharing files of their choosing on an open network - legal files.

          Attacking the RIAA with anti-spam laws will never work either. When I get junk-mail, it has come to my inbox (most of the time) without my doing anything to request such junk. My email address is attained using crawlers, and added to lists and sold world-wide. When that spam crosses into my mail-box, it is unsolicited, and has wasted my bandwidth, time, etc.

          On the other hand, were I to go out onto a P2P network and request a music file, and upon downloading, find that it's just white noise, I've taken action to acquire something. What I have received is in fact solicited, and what I have requested is in fact illegal. In short, attacking the RIAA for this sort of thing is no different than the poor shlubs on 'Cops' who admit they went into the ghetto to buy drugs, were subsequently robbed, and go to the police demanding they do something about this crime. They get laughed out of the station - just as a suit of this nature would be laughed out of court.
      • by egburr (141740) on Sunday May 11, 2003 @03:38PM (#5932061) Homepage
        First off, IANAL. With that said...

        Entrapment is more than just "giving them an opportunity they otherwise would not have". Entrapment includes enticement to take advantage of that opportunity.

        For example, if someone fills their trunk with gold bricks, and leaves the trunk lid open so the bricks are visible, that is not entrapment (that's just plain stupid!). If they put up signs on the side of the car saying "gold brick delivery vehicle" to call you attention to it, that is still not entrapment. However, if someone comes up to you, points out the vehicle and the open trunk, and says how easy it would be to walk away with one, and then you do it, and that someone "catches" you doing it, then that is entrapment.

        It is entrapment because without their active involvement you would not have done it (and they can't prove otherwise once they actively call your attention to it and suggest it). If you had gone over and picked up a gold brick before they approached you with the suggestion, that is not entrapment.

        With that in mind, I don't think this file sharing fraud they are doing could be considered entrapment.

        Judge: You placed this file on your server and connected it to the P2P system and made it available for download, right?
        RIAA: Yes.
        Judge: And you want to prosecute him for downoading it?
        RIAA: Um, well, he thought it was the real song, not our false copy.
        Judge: So, he downloaded a file that was freely offered by yourselves, and you want to prosecute him because he thought it was a different file which included copyrighted material. Did he in fact download copyrighted material without the copyright holder's permission?
        RIAA: We don't know. Not from us.
        Judge: Did he have your permission to download the file that he downloaded?
        RIAA: No, he thought it was a different file.
        Judge: You placed the file on the P2P system yorselves. That seems to be implied permission to download it from you. Did you have the authority to do so? Are you the copyright owner of that file?
        RIAA: Yes.
        Judge: Case dismissed.

    • Re:A pity... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 11, 2003 @12:29PM (#5931055)
      I am so sick of this same comment on every story even remotely about music. Nearly everyone who puts music on a p2p network is providing a product of this 'dying' industry. How the fuck is cheapening a product of an industry killing it? They still hold contracts of the vast majority of good musicians in the world. Even Phish, Bob Dylan, and Pearl Jam have major label deals. There is no easier way to become a professional pop musician than by working with the RIAA. For every Courtney Love there are a thousand White Stripes.

      Also, horse and buggy manufacturers were mostly local business-people. There was no Ford of the horse and buggy world, just blacksmiths and carpenters. That analogy blows.
      • Re:A pity... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by arvindn (542080) on Sunday May 11, 2003 @12:55PM (#5931182) Homepage Journal
        The RIAA's well being (and in the long term, existence) is dependent on its tightly controlling the channels of music distribution. p2p is something that they can never hope to control. Which is why they seek to destroy it. Unless they succeed in this, there is a significant chance that the RIAA will eventually become irrelevant. So while I wouldn't say "death throes", their future is not very bright :-)
      • Re:A pity... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by silverhalide (584408) on Sunday May 11, 2003 @02:12PM (#5931598)
        The industry isn't dying, their distribution channel is. And since they are failing to embrace it quickly (except Apple, who just now got around to it and is making mad dough off of it), they are suffering the consequences. Yeah, it's not RIGHT for users to be sharing the stuff, but here's a shocker: It's ALWAYS been happening, just now more than in the past. As soon as a reliable, reasonably priced online distribution is established (If Apple's catalog grows sufficently or the other labels get online), then the levels will eventually fall down to background noise.

        You'll never stop hard-core college-aged media pirates no matter what, it's simply impossible. What is really hurting the industry is the casual sharing that's going on--users who wouldn't normally go out of their way to pirate something but do so because it's more convienent than going to the record store. That WILL gradually go away once online services are established and reasonable. It is simply a symptom of a greater problem, that of a sluggish top-heavy industry failing to adopt new technology in time.

    • Re:A pity... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Wyatt Earp (1029) on Sunday May 11, 2003 @12:59PM (#5931197)
      Of around 4,000 wagon/buggy/coach makers in the 1890s only one survived to be building cars in the 1930s.

      Studebaker

      Other coach makers survived to build chasis and other systems for Automakers, like Fisher
  • by jo_ham (604554) <joham999&gmail,com> on Sunday May 11, 2003 @12:21PM (#5931013)
    Is there a EULA for the various p2p clients/protocols?

    Does it say "do not intentionally share files that you know to be broken or files that have filenames that misrepresent their contents, doing so will result in your account being suspended/you being sued for spam" or the like?

    If they have something like this then they'll have at least something to challenge the RIAA with in court (the legality of 99% of the content on p2p networks nonwithstanding). If the judge choses to ignore the terms in the EULA then it calls in to question the legality of all software EULAs.
    • Interesting thought that.

      Though I beleve it's been mentioned before that the courts haven't decided if EULA's actualy count as legal contrects anyway.
      After all minors can agree to an EULA by clicking "I Agree" but its not legal to enter into a contract with a minor. Therefore making an EULA agreed to by a minor invalid.
      • After all minors can agree to an EULA by clicking "I Agree" but its not legal to enter into a contract with a minor. Therefore making an EULA agreed to by a minor invalid.

        That's why I make sure one of my cats clicks the mouse button.

    • by mdfst13 (664665) on Sunday May 11, 2003 @12:29PM (#5931056)
      If the p2p networks claim that they have the ability to restrict what files are shared, then they will open themselves up to countersuits from the RIAA saying that they should use that ability to keep copyrighted material from being shared.

      A spam charge is easier, since it says that they can't restrict files. Therefore, they need the help of the law to crack down on offenders.
  • by eet23 (563082) <eet23@@@cam...ac...uk> on Sunday May 11, 2003 @12:22PM (#5931014) Journal
    I download a fake mp3.

    I sue the RIAA for $1.00 or something

    I have to spend it quickly, because the RIAA is about to sue me for $17,000.

    I'm not going to be the one who simultaneously antagonises the RIAA and admits in court that I tried to pirate music.

    • by feldsteins (313201) <scott@nOSPam.scottfeldstein.net> on Sunday May 11, 2003 @12:27PM (#5931037) Homepage
      No shit. Let's not forget that our major problem with the RIAA is the fact that they are enacting laws and introducing DRM technologies that destroy our fair use as consumers. Our problem with them is not that they are trying to prevent us from stealing music.

      Granted, they need to be in compliance with the law as they take swipes at pirates...but c'mon, they're still pirates.
      • Let's not forget that our major problem with the RIAA is the fact that they are enacting laws and introducing DRM technologies that destroy our fair use as consumers.

        Too many people don't get it. They are doing far more than just "destroying fair use." If they gain control with these laws and technologies, they will destroy free speech as we know it. If they can use a censorship system to stop someone from redistributing their copyrighted data, they can also stop someone from redistributing independently

      • by tmark (230091) on Sunday May 11, 2003 @01:32PM (#5931395)
        ...DRM technologies that destroy our fair use as consumers. Our problem with them is not that they are trying to prevent us from stealing music.

        You're wrong. *Some* people are legitimately considered with fair use issues. A lot of other people aren't. A lot of people seem to think that record companies "need to adapt", which seems to be a shorthand for "sell things to us in the manner we want them sold, all terms dictated by us, and the price we want them sold at". If the record companies don't give in on all terms, these people think it's OK for them to do whatever they want.

        "fair use" is getting thrown around a lot, but I bet a good portion of people crying "fair use" have downloaded music they have no claim to fair use for.
    • But really officer, I wasn't pirating anything. I mean, if someone put a song up to be shared, they obviously hold the copyright, or are authorized to distribute the file.
    • by Fastolfe (1470) on Sunday May 11, 2003 @12:53PM (#5931170)
      In most countries, it is not illegal to download copyrighted music. It's illegal to redistribute copyrighted music against the wishes of the copyright holder.

      The RIAA can't come after you just for downloading music. You have to be actively re-sharing that music out again to break a law.

      On the flip side, though, you are not procuring that music through legal/legitimate means, so you may not be granted certain protections and warranties that you might otherwise be granted, so your law suit might be tricky.

      Your jurisdiction may differ, though.
    • "I'm not going to be the one who simultaneously antagonises the RIAA and admits in court that I tried to pirate music.

      No, and let's face it, neither is anyone else. What this could be used for, however, is as a countersuit by someone who's already being sued by the RIAA, and who's trying to fight them... maybe.

  • by stevezero (620090) on Sunday May 11, 2003 @12:23PM (#5931018)
    Most courts in an illegal contract will just leave the parties as they stand, unless one party can show less culpability such that they should be allowed some relief. The court could construe that by advertising a copyrighted work on a P2P network, that in itself is illegal, and therefore, whoever recieves that file would not be able to claim that they were defrauded by getting a fake file. While it's a nice conflict of law here, I don't think it will fly.
    • Must agree (Score:3, Insightful)

      Unlike spam, you solicit your downloads by choice. If they used a bug in a P2P network to fill people's hard drives with crap unsolicited, the anti-spam angle would seem workable. As it is you solicit their system to engage in obvious copyright infringement. Your claim for relief against fraud for an for an 'unpaid' service while attempting to break the law is going to be seriously weak.

      I think you'd have a better chance asking the judge to prosecute someone for selling you a joint filled with oregano.
    • The court could construe that by advertising a copyrighted work on a P2P network, that in itself is illegal, and therefore, whoever recieves that file would not be able to claim that they were defrauded by getting a fake file. While it's a nice conflict of law here, I don't think it will fly.

      However, from the article:

      Moreover, there is nothing in the FTC Act that says "deceptive trade practices" are permitted if done for a good reason, or against people we don't like.

      Imagine if a person was in midto

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 11, 2003 @12:24PM (#5931021)
    I spent ages on KaZaA looking for the fuck off Madonna track, filling my computer with propert Madonna material.
  • The historians can't seem to settle whether to call this one "The Third Net War" (or the fourth), or whether "The First P2P War" fits better. We just call it "The **AA War." Everything up to then and still later were "incidents," "patrols" or "police actions."...
  • Don't need Kazaa (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 11, 2003 @12:26PM (#5931029)
    RIAA members are going to see their sales shrink again this year. Kazaa is only one manifestation of the mp3 trading that will doom them. Many I know, don't use Kazaa, they just trade with friends via CD-R, DC++ and S-FTP.

    I was driving near the airport in SF in Feb. I looked at the car next to me. I saw a teenage girl leafing through a 3-ring binder full of CD-R's with band/album names drawn on the CD-R with a black marker. With or without Kazaa and public p2p, these guys are going to lose another 10% this year.

    Musicians will have to make a living from live performances.
    • by glitch! (57276) on Sunday May 11, 2003 @12:37PM (#5931099)
      I saw a teenage girl leafing through a 3-ring binder full of CD-R's with band/album names drawn on the CD-R with a black marker.

      And that means what exactly? Could it be that she is smart enough to leave her originals at home where they are safe? That's what I do. If my car CD-R's get damaged by sun or careless handling, I just burn a new one from my original. I'm sure a lot of people do this for exactly the same reason.
    • I saw a teenage girl leafing through a 3-ring binder full of CD-R's with band/album names drawn on the CD-R with a black marker.

      Yes, but the real question is, did she respond to the "Show me your boobs" sign that you have in the rear window of your car?
    • by keirre23hu (638913) <j2k4realNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Sunday May 11, 2003 @01:20PM (#5931293) Homepage
      I hope that the lawyers for Kazaa etc... can find some means to sue.. the reason the recording industry is losing money (if thats even true) is because they have a broken marketing model... want to make money? give customers what they want and adapt to market and economic trends.. want to lose money? criminalize your customers and piss them off with "features" like DRM and CD's you can copy/play in all CD players..
  • by Cerlyn (202990) on Sunday May 11, 2003 @12:26PM (#5931031)

    IEEE Spectrum Magazine's [ieee.org] topic for the month of May is "Invasion of the Music Snatchers." A number of copying and filesharing attacks and counterattacks are discussed.

    Many of this month's articles are online [ieee.org], but if you are not an IEEE member you are limited to the "publicfeature" URL's.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 11, 2003 @12:26PM (#5931033)
    Flooding networks with spam files will just result in networks becoming smarter to route around the garbage. Suppose for example that new p2p networks use a weighted reputation system where individual content files can be rated by the users of the network. Of course, positive ratings by users who have good reputations would indicate that the file is good, likewise negative ratings for a file by reputable individuals would indicate that the file is garbage. Similar to how these comments are rated on Slashdot.
    • After all, it now tells the RIAA which users are supplying "the best dope" to the p2p system.

      Then now have an awfully good system to find just who to target... the users that are providing the best goods.

      Imagine (bear with me) that all drug users had an online survey to report just who their favourite dealers were. Don't you think the Drug Czar would pay attention, and go after the providers of the best smack first?
    • Gnutella's use of SHA1 checking seems to work well; unless the Dark Powers set up a large number of servers with the bogus files, most people will delete the fake tracks. If what you got doesn't match up with the SHA1 of most of the hosted copies, you've probably got a garbage file.
    • by TheKey (465831) on Sunday May 11, 2003 @01:35PM (#5931417) Journal
      Soulseek [slsk.org], the P2P client, doesn't really have problems like that because of its more community-oriented nature. I have about 10 users that I download albums from who I know always have real mp3s ID3ed correctly at 192kbps.
  • ... I'd have to say that this is the right way to do it. That is to say, without destructively draconian legal maneuverings, and without illegally unauthorized access of other's machines. Besides, at worst, all this does is make it take longer to find what you want. If they want to fight back this way, more power to them. If they want to take away my right to fair use in order to prevent so-called piracy, then they're seriously mistaken if they think I'll support them in it.

    It's their own customers they'r

  • This isn't new. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by /dev/trash (182850) on Sunday May 11, 2003 @12:27PM (#5931042) Homepage Journal
    I used to do this a lot when you had to upload 2 songs for every one you downloaded via ftp.
  • Verified downloads (Score:5, Informative)

    by Knacklappen (526643) <knacklappen@gmx.net> on Sunday May 11, 2003 @12:28PM (#5931046) Journal
    KaZaA Lite has a webpage with verified downloads [kazaalite.host.sk] (seems to be under construction, right now). Or just google [google.com]. That simple.
    Despite this, there is a rating system in KaZaA Lite.
  • by defile (1059) on Sunday May 11, 2003 @12:29PM (#5931048) Homepage Journal

    ...P2P trust model infrastructures.

    It looks like the RIAA/MPAA are driving innovation, for a change.

  • "What the f*ck do you think you're doing?"???

    I guess when the RIAA doesn't have any arguments, insults are the next best thing.
  • Dude... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Faust7 (314817)
    "What the f*ck do you think you are doing?"

    Isn't that harassment? Kazaa is so far a legal program. Until it's declared otherwise I don't think I should have to deal with obscenities screamed at me by one group that doesn't like what I'm doing.
    • Re:Dude... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by egomaniac (105476) on Sunday May 11, 2003 @01:13PM (#5931251) Homepage
      Until it's declared otherwise I don't think I should have to deal with obscenities screamed at me by one group that doesn't like what I'm doing.

      Ironic, isn't it, how quickly we forget about the First Amendment when it's somebody else's speech being protected instead of our own?

      Asking somebody "What the fuck do you think are doing?" is not in any way, shape, or form illegal. So yes, you do have to deal with them saying that. Why is this country so hellbent on destroying the idea of free speech?
  • Remixed (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 11, 2003 @12:33PM (#5931074)
    The "what the fuck" clip has already even been remixed. The site with the links for that is here [anti-dmca.org].

    A screenshot of madonna's hacked site can be found here [curlio.com].
  • Equitable Estoppel (Score:5, Insightful)

    by cperciva (102828) on Sunday May 11, 2003 @12:33PM (#5931075) Homepage
    Any legal action taken by the P2P companies against RIAA would fail under equitable estoppel (aka. the "clean hands doctrine").

    If the networks were simply being flooded with random garbage, they might have a case. But since the complaint is one of misrepresentation -- that the files appear to be valid copyrighted material -- the P2P networks clearly do not have "clean hands" with respect to people searching for those files.
  • by santos_douglas (633335) on Sunday May 11, 2003 @12:33PM (#5931078) Journal
    I just can't feel bad for anyone who intentionally tried to download Madonna 'music'.
  • by SurgeonGeneral (212572) on Sunday May 11, 2003 @12:38PM (#5931102) Journal
    I was watching Celebrity Justice of Fox (I know, I know) and apparently the person saying that line on the music files is Madonna herself.

    Its dissappointing that people in the music industry dont seem to understand the concept of free advertising...

  • I'm torn.... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Bobman1235 (191138) on Sunday May 11, 2003 @12:39PM (#5931107) Homepage
    On the one hand, you really can't FAULT the RIAA for trying to do something, but on the other hand the route they're taking amounts to essentially vigilante justice. Whether you think people SHOULD be allowed to share music or not, they AREN'T at the moment, so (technically) should be "punished." It is not up to the RIAA to dole out this punishment, however. What they're doing is also wrong. Two wrongs don't make a right (my mommy taught me that, happy mother's day to her).
  • Madonna... (Score:3, Funny)

    by jeffy124 (453342) on Sunday May 11, 2003 @12:42PM (#5931119) Homepage Journal
    Madonna Louise Veronica Ciccone

    Wow ... you mean to say someone has figured out her last name?
  • by jpellino (202698) on Sunday May 11, 2003 @12:43PM (#5931128)
    The RIAA should stick to legit services like Apple has started and stop the electronic goosing - it's hardly the high road.

    The P2Ps should 'fess up, at least to themselves, lose the weak arguments (95 percent of what they claim as justification) and realize they are in fact trading in illegal-by-contract goods and should be grateful they're around this long.

    Theyre really just treading water in "it's-only-illegal-if-you-get-caught land. Silly basis for an industry.

    And remember, for the most part, you get what you pay for. It doesn't matter how scammed the traders get, and it doesn't matter what the RIAA does, it won't stop them.

    A fair and well-managed system will. When it's reasonable, people will pay and use just like books. The VCR didn't kill the video rental or sales industry, and the copier doesn't stop a single sale at Borders or B&N. Granted digital copying makes things easier, and the ecoonomics helps, but that's what needs to be in the new model. Most people with most traditional media would rather have a legit copy than a pirated one.
  • First of all, the RIAA has been doing this (flooding Kazaa with fake music files) for ages, at least a year, so this is not new news. Anyone who uses Kazaa a lot knows this. Secondly, what they are doing is not spam. It has nothing to do with email, and besides, it is solicited. When you search for "dave matthews band" and you get all sorts of "dave mathews band.exe" and "dave matthews band.html" which are all 16kb in size, you asked for it. And really, if someone else wants to create such a file and s
  • by jred (111898) on Sunday May 11, 2003 @12:44PM (#5931131) Homepage
    I loathe Madonna's music, but I really wanted a copy of her saying that, I don't know why. I looked, and I couldn't find a fake song of hers on the Kazaa network.

    Does anyone have a file name & size to look for?
  • by Snork Asaurus (595692) on Sunday May 11, 2003 @12:45PM (#5931135) Journal
    1) What the F*ck Do You Think You Are Doing? - Madonna
    2) F*ck Off and Buy the %$#^*@! CD - Metallica
    3) We Don't Want Your P2P - Hillary and the Shylocks
    4) ...

    In other entertainment news, a startling shift has occurred in Madonna's music style as the lyrics to her latest #1 single are found to be far less offensive than usual and the song far more musical in general.
  • Is it just me... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by teutonic_leech (596265) on Sunday May 11, 2003 @12:46PM (#5931142)
    ... or is the RIAA getting real desperate? It amuses me that their broad 'onslaught' of lawsuits against P2P networks, downloaders, uploaders, etc.. as well as more 'creative' activities such as these envisioned to battle illegal copying of shared digital media had almost zero effect on its proliferation. P2P file sharing is alive and kicking and I just bought myself a brandnew Sony car radio that - big surprise - also plays MP3s (what irony I might add). UPS is also in the process of delivering my shiny new KISS DP-500 from Europe, which plays DVDs and - you probably guessed it - DivX and Xvid files as well (and it has an Ethernet port - droool ;-)
    So, I really wonder what the RIAA's vision of the future is - obviously they are paying a lot of people (i.e. lawyers) very high consulting fees to come up with something to preserver their 'interest' (pun intended) - and this is the BEST they can come up with? LOL
    Seriously - a friend of my and I came up with a working, commercial P2P digital distribution model 3 years ago, that would kick illegal copying to the curb since it actually rewarded people for downloading. We actually pitched it to the usual suspects and got laughed at. I'm actually surprised that noone has replicated our effort up to this point - maybe I'll pick up on it when I'm done with my current company.
    Maybe Rosen should buy herself a copy of 'Sun Tsu' (a book about the art of warfare which predates the bible) - and I quote: 'fighting a protracted war against an overwhelming and resourceful enemy should be avoided at all cost.' It is time that the RIAA fesses up to its evils and relinquishes these silly stabs against P2P downloaders - they just wind up pissing off their greates asset - the kids willing to pay good money for concerts and 'affordable music' (Rosen: re-read the last sentence three times).
  • IT IS ON!!! (Score:2, Funny)

    by oaf357 (661305)
    Hell yea, use the anti-spam laws to counter the effects of the DMCA. That would be so ironic. The RIAA can choke.
  • Maybe, in the long run, instead of wasting money on P2P control (in the short-run they should continue it), they could bring all the participating record labels together and make purchasing music easier. At the same time, they should push a campaign about how morally wrong it is to pirate songs. (Of course, they are already doing it, but this should go together).

    Music labels working together could make custom CDs and, maybe, even DRMed music downloads (for MS Win and Mac users at least) from across music l

  • Fair enough? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by WanChan (548461)
    To be honest, I can't see how the RIAA is acting wrongly in this instance.

    But if they're allowed this solution, they shouldn't be allowed legal redress as well, or their response would be disproportionate. I would hope that the courts would and will recognise this in their considerations.

    But seriously, I can't see how this does anything other than shift the rules of the game back to the way they were: copying between friends was fine (and will still be better - and faster - than it was in the cassette

  • Why is kazaa spelt as kazza in the story? Is it an honest spelling error, or is it the result of being indoctrinated by reading slashdot that "*AA is evil" ?

    Sorry, couldn't resist :)

  • What about the movies that are family titles that are actually cheap pornos, maybe they are behind that as well!
  • They MIGHT pull out of this slump and not be a dying breed.

    It would help out the starving artists too.

    For better or worse, the world is changing, and they need to adapt, and not just piss on their customers every chance they can get if they want to survive..
  • What ever happened to "It's ALL about the music maaaan..." ?

    I want to say something to the selfish artists: you guys are greedy. You used to be cool, but now you want money and to "make it big." If you want to do that, fine. But you are sell-outs. You are not genuine anymore. You instantly become phony-balony manufacturing tools the moment you sign away your heart and soul.

    Not when you take the stage to rap against eminem, but the VERY INSTANT you sign! You hesitate before signing your name, the
  • old news (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Cheeze (12756) on Sunday May 11, 2003 @01:25PM (#5931337) Homepage
    This was news about 2 weeks ago. Even the security focus article was posted on May 04, 2003. TechTV had stuff about it last weekend.

    TechTV had an interview with one of the guys at one of the P2P companies and he said something like, "They are free to connect to our P2P network, but when they start using fradulant claims, flooding, and sending out unsolicited messages, they start to break user agreements."

    It would be pretty easy to track down the networks they are using and then just have a little button in your P2P client that blocked their networks. There are programs to do this, but they seem to not work 100% of the time. If it also blocked known .gov, .mil, etc address it would be useful too.
  • indeed! (Score:5, Funny)

    by jjeffries (17675) on Sunday May 11, 2003 @01:42PM (#5931457)
    WTF are you doing trying to download Madonna?
  • by volkerdi (9854) on Sunday May 11, 2003 @02:58PM (#5931856)
    Contact the John Cage estate and tell them the RIAA is distributing copies of Cage's copyrighted silence (4'33", exactly 4 minutes and 33 seconds of silence). They've won cases against people infringing against their silence in the past. If they're distributing any substantial chunk of silence as "music", it's probably a copyright violation.
  • by sllim (95682) <achanceNO@SPAMearthlink.net> on Sunday May 11, 2003 @03:33PM (#5932033)
    I am reading through all these comments and no one seems to have nailed it.
    The way I see it there are several reasons the RIAA is in trouble.
    (in no particular order)
    1. Todays music sucks donkey ass through a crazy straw. This is the oldest reason, and the reason why the RIAA loosing money predates Napster. On the surface it sounds like I am blaming the musicians, after all they are making the music. Wrong. Many years ago the RIAA realized that POP music is where all the money is. They have been ignoring decent artists for a while now in favor for people whom they consider low risk. It is those risky folks that put out great music.

    2. Failure to acknowledge and take advantage of a changing marketplace. If the RIAA had been on the forefront of digital downloads this would be an entirely different, and I suspect legal marketplace. Instead they screamed and kicked like a 4 year old. No amount of wishing and suing will make the digital domain go away. For whatever reason that I cannot understand the RIAA refuses to even consider to adapt. My best guess is it is a poorly chosen use of 'pride'.

    3. Abuse of there most loyal customers. I used to buy a lot of music. Something along the lines of 2 to 3 albums a month with the occasional splurge of a 5 album or a box set purchase. Then I began learning about my computer. Then I bought a CDRW drive. What I did next was to back up my investment. I am tired of scratching overpriced CD's and making them useless. I am tired of having them stolen. I am tired of having to track them down when I have misplace them. I am tired of having to decide what gets kept at work and what not. A PC and a CDRW drive (legally too I might ad) resolves all those problems. Now whenever I buy a CD I feel like a scmuck. I feel like I am being treated so badly by these people I must be out of my mind to spend money on the overpriced product.
    That is no way for an industry to act. I should feel good buying there product.

    The RIAA is dying and it is a death that cannot come soon enough.
    Sooner or later a talented and smart musician will utilize the web and digital downloads to reach superstardom and cut the RIAA trappings out of the equation.
    That day will be the axe to the neck of the RIAA and it cannot come too soon for the industry.

  • by Analysis Paralysis (175834) on Sunday May 11, 2003 @03:41PM (#5932079)
    There is an application called PeerGuardian [xs.tech.nu] that can block communications with untrustworthy hosts (using an IP list like the P2P Enemies [methlab.tech.nu] list). Shareaza [shareaza.com] users should check the forums [anenga.com] - especially the Security and Privacy [anenga.com] one for the Shareaza Security Update, that does a similar thing.

    Users of the Agnitum Outpost [agnitum.com] firewall can download the Blockpost [outpostfirewall.com] plugin which blocks access to sites at the IP level (i.e. you would not even be able to ping such restricted sites). A Blockpost filter list based on the P2P Enemies list can be found in this thread [outpostfirewall.com].

  • by Newer Guy (520108) on Sunday May 11, 2003 @04:52PM (#5932415)
    Two wrongs don't make a right....and when the RIAA pulls this crap, all they do is hurt their cause. This is why ultimately they will lose. This is a desperate act, much like someone who has nothing to lose would do. Their problem is, the RIAA has already lost. They just don't realize it yet. They had a two year window to embrace the new technology; instead they tried to squash it. Problem is, though you can kill a server room full of computers, you can never kill an idea. Every time they win a court battle and out one p2p program offline, three replace it. In fact, the tide is beginning to turn and they're now losing battles in court. Their response now is to break the law themselves, killing any credibility or moal high ground that they ever had. As I said, a true act of desperation on their part.
  • by sudog (101964) on Sunday May 11, 2003 @07:12PM (#5933035) Homepage
    So.. if the whole premise is that the RIAA's and Madonna's actions "are deceptive" and "affect commerce," and it's a given that they're being deceptive, how is it again that P2P inteference is "affecting commerce"?

    So says the article:

    'The actions of RIAA and MPAA in placing files on p2p networks to deceive users of those networks into thinking they're actual music or video files, to waste their time, resources, energy and bandwidth (not to mention hard drive space and CPU cycles) quite likely is "deceptive" and undoubtedly "affects commerce."' ... but then completely neglects to explain how the RIAA's actions actually "affect" commerce while going on at lengths to describe how the actions are deceptive.

    Oh, so he thinks that wasting someone's free time and a few fractions of a cent worth of hard drive storage somehow qualifies as "affecting commerce"?

    Does he think that the commerce in this case is the transaction of the consumer and their ISP? Who says there's a guarantee that the customer must have clean connectivity and that disconnects, packet loss, and other forms of network problems aren't part of this nebulous "commerce"?

    And who says that inserting machines onto a P2P network that say, "Yea, I have that song. Here!" and then send chunks of garbage to the requester is illegal to begin with? Does that mean that anyone who causes a song or movie to be corrupted to the receiver (for example, by deliberately jiggling the network cable) is similarly liable? Is corruption defined as missing pieces, too?

    This is all such fucking bullshit. The answer is superior technology and networking that is robust to interference, not lawyers and legislation.

    The only people fucking whining about Madonna inserting those samples are the ones who are too stupid to use a network that enforces file integrity with MD5 or rsync-like rolling hashes. Let the whiners whine. Madonna and people like her aren't going away. The solution is to deal with it with a better P2P network, not to sue Madonna into the dirt. As soon as we do that, we're no better than them.

    Sheesh. Haven't we learned anything yet?

A meeting is an event at which the minutes are kept and the hours are lost.

Working...