http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/04/16/033220

Posted minutes ago.

4/16/2007 8:04:14 AM

good to see somebody taking a stand

4/16/2007 8:44:50 AM

riaa can suck my nuts

4/16/2007 12:01:47 PM

for all the noise the RIAA makes, and for all their mob-like behavior, i seriously think their time is limited...as mentioned, NCSU is one of the larger universities targeted, so if we stand up to them like this, i really think others will follow suit

that said, the RIAA can suck my nuts

4/16/2007 12:08:44 PM

big homie

4/16/2007 12:10:05 PM

just saw this on /. and came here to see the thread

4/16/2007 12:14:36 PM

haha badass

4/16/2007 1:06:23 PM

you know.... if it was more artists and less record companies... i bet people wouldn't hate them SOOOOOOOOOO much.... cause at least that way the money is going to the talent not the pimp

4/16/2007 1:07:04 PM

this is interesting... the RIAA has a perceived habit of backing down once the courts actually get involved, especially with larger groups... i wonder if they might not try to buck that trend sometime soon...

4/16/2007 1:26:52 PM

that's b/c they know you can give away what you have purchased freely, you just can't make money off of it...

their shit won't hold water in court

4/16/2007 1:34:16 PM

The funny thing is more and more artists are not signing with the RIAA and several big name artist like ICP (Insane Clown Possie) make their own labels and help produce other groups.

Between producing and distribution becoming easier and cheaper you just don't need a middleman anymore. If I was the RIAA I would be fighting tooth and nail to preserve their world too. If it continues the way it is, the RIAA won't be needed anymore at all.

4/16/2007 1:35:31 PM

i agree to be honest the only people that will need them are the factory produced groups.
any true band can make, record and distribute their own music for just a couple grand....
and to be honest... as long as itunes and similar services are around... the record industry is going down... its just a matter of time...

4/16/2007 1:39:27 PM

Don't pirate music and you won't have a problem. I understand people hate the RIAA for their tactics and old fashioned ways but at the same time these people ARE doing something illegal.

Quote :

"that's b/c they know you can give away what you have purchased freely, you just can't make money off of it... their shit won't hold water in court"

no.

4/16/2007 2:09:30 PM

Quote :

"Don't pirate music and you won't have a problem. I understand people hate the RIAA for their tactics and old fashioned ways but at the same time these people ARE doing something illegal."

I don't think anyone is trying to justify the legality of downloading music. NC State and the rest of the world are starting to call bullshit on the evidence the RIAA is using to extort money from the "alleged" file sharers.

[Edited on April 16, 2007 at 2:33 PM. Reason : re-word]

[Edited on April 16, 2007 at 2:35 PM. Reason : .]

4/16/2007 2:29:51 PM

yeah cue 98year old lady.

another problem i have with it is that their sales haven't even gone down.
i think alot of people downloading songs is like radio.. test drive a couple songs then purchase the entire cd.



[Edited on April 16, 2007 at 2:35 PM. Reason : .]

4/16/2007 2:34:03 PM

I don't think most people are trying to justify downloading music but it appeared Arab13 was so I was responding to that.

Also anyone with basic knowledge of the internet can understand that the evidence the RIAA is using is credible for most situations. The law states that they should be awarded $750/song that the users share. They aren't extorting money they sueing for damages the law clearly entitles them to (I would argue the $750 figure is rediculous and needs to be overturned soon for somethign much less).

Now there are some cases where the RIAA has gone overboard but for the vast majority of cases the people who are getting sued knowingly illegally shared music. They can find your IP and from the ISP via a subpena or the ISP caving in beforehand get who was using that IP at the time. Now you can make up stories of grandmothers and people computers infected with trojans and whatnot but what is that maybe 1% of the time? If I had a method to catch people that was 99% correct I'd use the hell out of it.

Also one could argue that if you have an internet connection and allow someone to use it (in the grandmothers case whos kids or whatever used it) you are responsible for their actions if you aren't willing to incriminate them.

Anyway the RIAA is fading away and judges are starting to favor them less so I can see this being less of an issue in the near future. I guess my main point is that everyone tries to make out these people being sued as the victim when in almost all of the cases they are just being prosecuted for their illegal actions and people are sympothetic because they are involved in the same illegal practices.

4/16/2007 3:15:45 PM

Your post is correct except for one small detail. The majority of RIAA evidence was not gathered by subpoena. I'm not an expert and haven't read every single article about RIAA cases but their gathering of evidence begins with:

1) Download a song using P2P software and record IP address
2) Find out what ISP the IP address belongs to
3) Send some menacing letter full of legal wording and subtle threats to ISP/University to get personal information
4) Send letter to "alleged" file sharer and ask that they pay up or face the RIAA wrath

In a perfect world/legal system the ISP/University would respond:
<RIAA> Give me your IP's
<NCSU> Show me a subpoena
<RIAA> We are the RIAA and they are cutting into our profits
<NCSU> Show me a subpoena
<RIAA> Comply or we will make empty threats and hope we can outlast you in court
<NCSU> Don't you see my Red Pimp Suit. Go ahead and...Fuck You.

[Edited on April 16, 2007 at 3:35 PM. Reason : removed blanket generalizations]

4/16/2007 3:33:58 PM

price of CD's hasn't changed in almost 2 DECADES.... fuck, ill just record my shit off the air if i have to,
OH NOES THEY'S GONNA SUE ME FOR STEALING THEIR MUSIC THAT I WOULD NOT HAVE PURCHASED ANYWAYS!!!!

gimme a fucking break....

the RIAA has not 'lost' any money from me. i would not have spent it anyways.

[Edited on April 16, 2007 at 3:35 PM. Reason : $$$ = mine]

4/16/2007 3:34:30 PM

Noone, who has a good arguement, is argueing that the illegal file downloaders aren't out there. The problem is their tactics. Forget the 80 year old lady or the 2 year old.

Just read this (http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/#How) It's short but you'll understand why there is a reaction. You'll also wonder why no judge has shot this crap down fast.

That website is great to read the current status of the RIAA beatdown. Every single major case is being decided against the RIAA's favor.

4/16/2007 3:37:12 PM

^ negate the short read. They added a shitton to the explanation including cases that have affected it. It's long as hell now.

4/16/2007 3:41:38 PM

not that I'm currently downloading lots of music, but get real, if and only if I did not purchase something b/c I downloaded it do they 'lose' money.... when it comes down to it I could get a radio, a big fucking antenna, and a nice recording device and give a big middle finger to the RIAA....

4/16/2007 4:08:08 PM

^^ Yeah I used to read that quite frequently to keep up with what was happening. And I wouldn't say every single major case is being decided against them. That website just highlights the successes against the RIAA. I myself hate the RIAA and how they do things. But you can't really argue that their method won't almost always correctly target illegal downloaders/sharers.

Quote :

"price of CD's hasn't changed in almost 2 DECADES.... fuck, ill just record my shit off the air if i have to, OH NOES THEY'S GONNA SUE ME FOR STEALING THEIR MUSIC THAT I WOULD NOT HAVE PURCHASED ANYWAYS!!!!"

Prices technically should be going up because of inflation so you should be happy. Their profit margin is what you should be complaining about going up. I don't care if you steal music just don't try to justify it to me.

Quote :

"<RIAA> Give me your IP's <NCSU> Show me a subpoena <RIAA> We are the RIAA and they are cutting into our profits <NCSU> Show me a subpoena"

From what I understand it is easy for them to get subpoena's for this stuff. They just have to go through a Judge. But it is easier for them to just ask for the names that correlate with the IP's and the ISP's cave it to the inevitable. I haven't read a single time where I judge has rejected one of these subpeona requests.

[Edited on April 16, 2007 at 4:16 PM. Reason : ^^]

4/16/2007 4:15:42 PM

Quote :

"Prices technically should be going up because of inflation so you should be happy."

you do know inflation over the last 20 years is the lowest it's ever been right?

cost to produce, publicize, and market a cd is substantially less than $20 / disc

I admit, it has gone down some but not very much.

besides has RIAA 'crackdown' really stopped music trading? hell actual pirating is more of a problem (the sale of the media).....

not saying it's "right"

just that there is not much they can really do about it, and if i had obscene amounts of money i'd try to get "caught" then take it to court.

next the EPA will be trying to tax you for breathing.... OH NOES CO2!!!

4/16/2007 4:43:23 PM

Its not as simple as just IP to user matching. There are several other issues that could make this process hard...

-What method / application is the RIAA using to track these illegal downloads from complicated file sharing applications? Are they tracking full downloads, just searches, partial downloads, etc? I doubt their method is 100% accurate.

-How sure is the ISP that the address in question was in fact in use at that particular moment by that particular user? I know this is relatively simple with logs, but mistakes happen, especially in large environments like that.

-There is no way to tell if someones computer was corrupted, infected, compromised, etc.

-There is no way to tell if someone had an open wireless access point.

4/16/2007 4:43:37 PM

Quote :

"you do know inflation over the last 20 years is the lowest it's ever been right? "

Do you even know what inflation is? It doesn't matter that it was the lowest it's been we still had inflation and prices should be rising.

Quote :

"cost to produce, publicize, and market a cd is substantially less than $20 / disc"

$profit

Quote :

"-What method / application is the RIAA using to track these illegal downloads from complicated file sharing applications? Are they tracking full downloads, just searches, partial downloads, etc? I doubt their method is 100% accurate."

This is a good point. I've read of some different ways that they do it but generally they attempt to download the file from you and if it does come through they'll sue you. I remember reading that at one point they were doing it by filename and I agree that wouldn't be enough. They need to actually get the data from you to verify it is copyrighted material.

Quote :

"-How sure is the ISP that the address in question was in fact in use at that particular moment by that particular user? I know this is relatively simple with logs, but mistakes happen, especially in large environments like that. -There is no way to tell if someones computer was corrupted, infected, compromised, etc. -There is no way to tell if someone had an open wireless access point."

The first one is a nonissue. They have logs and are accurate. For the last two, since the RIAA "proved" their case that your internet access was illegally sharing files it would be your responsibility to defend yourself and show that one of these actually happened.

[Edited on April 16, 2007 at 4:56 PM. Reason : .]

4/16/2007 4:55:53 PM

Also no way to prove it was actually you at your computer doing the downloading and said time

4/16/2007 5:00:12 PM

http://tinyurl.com/22shtu

http://tinyurl.com/25huvv

4/16/2007 5:14:30 PM

nm

[Edited on April 16, 2007 at 5:32 PM. Reason : .]

4/16/2007 5:31:06 PM

I imagine they track users on older style p2p networks by what they have shared. The RIAA downloads a song you have, they verify its one they own, they do a whois on your isp, and send out a letter.

And I imagine they fucking love bit torrent. All they need to do is scrape the tracker and anyone who has part of the file is guilty. The hash generally guarantees anyone connected is sharing the same file. And the tracker litterally hands them the list of ips so they dont need to do shit.

4/16/2007 5:51:10 PM

^but where is the guarantee anyone has shared the full file?

For copyright infringement, don't you have to redistribute the whole thing in tact? I mean, so what if you distributed bits 1024-2048. Thats just random data / noise.

4/16/2007 5:56:28 PM

RIAA is screaming their little heads off. They wouldn't be in this situation if they accepted the digital revolution and change. They could have kept their money monger ways if they had spent all of the money that they spent on lawsuits on actually building a virtual infrastructure such as itunes.

In all honestly, I actually think that, while its wrong, it actually increases the popularity of the artists. The more they like it the more obsessed they can get and the more they maybe willing to spend money on the artist, go to their concerts, or buy cheap crappy t-shirts or what not. There's no real study done that proves this and I could tell you that a good 20-30% of illegal downloads actually lead to legitimate sales, perhaps even higher.

Personally, I mostly listen to techno/trance music. I would tune into online radio stations and what ever artists I like, I would search and download a few tracks. The more I listened, the more I liked their style and usually it ends up me trying to find their whole albums to download. More than once, it ends up of me just buying the CD to have a high quality source. Although, techno/trance artists aren't really signed up with RIAA so I guess I don't have that problem.

4/16/2007 6:32:19 PM

^^ With a network like kazaa they'd probably have to download the entire file from you to verify it.

With bit torrent, everyone is almost 100% guaranteed to be hosting the same file. And if its an illegal file, hosting bits 1024-2048 is still probably enough to get you nailed. You're participating in the act of distributing someone elses stuff.

4/16/2007 7:28:47 PM

Quote :

"price of CD's hasn't changed in almost 2 DECADES.... fuck, ill just record my shit off the air if i have to, OH NOES THEY'S GONNA SUE ME FOR STEALING THEIR MUSIC THAT I WOULD NOT HAVE PURCHASED ANYWAYS!!!! gimme a fucking break.... the RIAA has not 'lost' any money from me. i would not have spent it anyways. "

hit it right on the head. cd prices havn't changed even though prduction has gotten ridculously cheaper even with inflation. another thing is that cds are about the only non consumable item that doens' get cheaper as it ages. hell even dvds go > 17.99>15.99>9.99 and within a year or 2 they are in a 7.99 bin at target. how much is a tupac cd from 97?still 20 mutha fuckin dollas.
and i agree it has alot to do with the artist. i'd much rather download the album and spend that 20$ on a t-shirt at the artists' concert, that way the artist actually gets paid.

4/16/2007 7:49:53 PM

hellz yea

4/16/2007 8:05:21 PM

^^tupac aint gettin' paid, that's for sure. . . .









































OR IS HE?!?!?

4/16/2007 8:30:40 PM

you are stealing shit and you know it, quit trying to justify it. What the hell would you do without music. Without the RIAA you would be listening to shit local bands all the time and be pissed off because they suck so much ass. They invest alot of money in these bands and some of them they make a shitload off of, and some they lose their ass on. The more shit you steal, the less likely they are going to take a chance on a less mainstream band, and all you are going to get to hear is furgalicious and that fucking fag off american idol that everyone votes for.

4/16/2007 9:36:35 PM

sometimes, some artists don't deserve that kind of money. I mean you always hear re-re-mixes of the same damn song in a different tempo and they expect you to pay the same amount? just a little rant.

4/16/2007 9:41:46 PM

Quote :

"you are stealing shit and you know it, quit trying to justify it. What the hell would you do without music. Without the RIAA you would be listening to shit local bands all the time and be pissed off because they suck so much ass."

i'd say probably half the music i listen to, the artists are not in the RIAA (and that's probably fairly conservative)

[Edited on April 16, 2007 at 10:07 PM. Reason : and lots of them are local and not shitty]

4/16/2007 10:07:05 PM

The problem the RIAA will run into is when they sue someone for downloading a song they already own. As a purchaser of a CD, I'm within every one of my legal rights to rip said CD and make back up copies of the music. Likewise, if I already own a CD and it is scratched, I'm with in my legal right to download a copy of the music I already own.

The RIAA likes to forget these things (DRM on CDs that attacked the root level) and suing downloaders who already own the music.

4/16/2007 11:16:26 PM

Quote :

"hit it right on the head. cd prices havn't changed even though prduction has gotten ridculously cheaper even with inflation. another thing is that cds are about the only non consumable item that doens' get cheaper as it ages. hell even dvds go > 17.99>15.99>9.99 and within a year or 2 they are in a 7.99 bin at target. how much is a tupac cd from 97?still 20 mutha fuckin dollas. and i agree it has alot to do with the artist. i'd much rather download the album and spend that 20$ on a t-shirt at the artists' concert, that way the artist actually gets paid."

what the hell are you smoking. I'd argue that CD prices haven't changed because the reduced production costs have offset inflation

retail dvds also have a very big competitor from rentals which mean that their prices need to stay competitive, you don't see many rental CD places.

4/17/2007 12:19:48 AM

^ no competition... something rhymes with "monopoly" here

his point was that dang near anything loses value pretty quickly, computers, tvs, dvds, etc etc... why not cd's ? what makes them so flipping special? nothing except the recording industry overpricing the crap out of them

4/17/2007 1:39:24 AM

musicians act like they do a lot of work

people write them music

they sing it

they get paid millions

they have awesome lives, and complain about having to work so hard on their album (i mean photoshoots, parties, social events are so tiresome and painful)


the best part is when they call themselves "artists"

4/17/2007 1:42:29 AM

I don't mind paying for

- An artists time, work and talent

I do mind paying 3x what the artist makes to

- A Money grubbing corporate entity that has no respect for my rights
- A souless entity that has no respect for the intent of the law
- A group that has no interest in promoting artists only making money.

That's why I don't buy RIAA produced or marketed music. It's kind of funny now that many labels are now promoting the fact that they are NOT associated with the RIAA. Imagine that being a selling technique.

4/17/2007 7:20:32 AM

Quote :

"Without the RIAA you would be listening to shit local bands all the time and be pissed off because they suck so much ass."

nah, i think the actual record labels have more to do with it rather than a hegemony created between them just to focus their collective masses....

4/17/2007 8:58:03 AM

Quote :

"The problem the RIAA will run into is when they sue someone for downloading a song they already own. As a purchaser of a CD, I'm within every one of my legal rights to rip said CD and make back up copies of the music. Likewise, if I already own a CD and it is scratched, I'm with in my legal right to download a copy of the music I already own."

Actually I don't see this being a major problem. The RIAA doesn't sue anyone who is downloading as they can't figure out who is (I guess you could with bittorrent). They are sueing the people who are sharing. Even if you own the song it's a copyright violation to make copies of it and give it to other people (essentially what is happening with file sharing). The $750/song comes from some rediculous idea that if you share a song it will be downloaded on average by X people I think.

4/17/2007 11:19:56 AM

If they are going to cry "intellectual property" then I think once you buy the right to listen to that intellectual property it should be available to you know matter the format. Also, you should be free to buy your digital song, burn it to CD, put it on a cassette tape (if you want to go old school), and listen to it on your iPod, computer, Zune, phone, etc. They can't have it both ways.

4/17/2007 11:41:07 AM

Where all the true pirates at? Don't try to justify stealing, just fight and keep stealing. Arrgh mateys.

4/17/2007 12:31:01 PM