By Joe Cotellese

The RIAA is in the beginning stages of a campaign to stamp out music piracy by bringing civil lawsuits against consumers. While many question the advantages of suing your customers, I'd like to point out how this policy could potentially devastate innocent users.

Filesharing Primer
To discuss how this policy could damage consumers, it's necessary to discuss briefly how the RIAA can find out who is sharing files. This is over-simplified, but should get the basics across.

Consider P2PCorp a company of 10 people. There's one phone number into the building and 10 extensions. For P2PCorp employees to call each other, they can dial an extension number. If they wish to order a pizza, they dial the pizza shop's phone number. The person at the pizza shop has caller ID. They see the call is coming from P2PCorp. However they have no way of knowing which extension inside P2PCorp the call is coming from. All they know is someone from P2PCorp initiated a call. If the call was disconnected, the only thing they could do is call P2PCorp and ask who ordered the pizza.

PCs connected to the Internet work in a similar fashion. Every PC connected to the Internet has an IP address, this IP address is like a phone number that allows you to communicate to other computers on the Internet, and them with you. If you have multiple PCs in your house plugged into a hub then each PC has its own internal IP address. This is analogous to a phone extension. People on the outside have no way of knowing which PC on the inside it's talking to.

When a program like Kazaa runs, it makes a list of files on your PC, and through your IP address tells other Kazaa users that they can look at your files. When someone requests a file on Kazaa, the Kazaa network software looks for other Kazaa connected PCs and checks their list of shared files. When it finds a match, it tells the person initiating the request who can then download the file.

The RIAA
Remember all PCs connected to the Internet have a unique address. The RIAA tries to find violators by requesting files, just like any other user of Kazaa. Using special tools, they can then look at the address of the person with the files and once they find the address, can track down the Internet Service Provider who owns the address who in turn can track which customer is using the address.

Because of some really dumb provisions of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, the ISP is legally compelled to release the name of their customer - who the RIAA then sues.

Problems with this approach - are the files really illegitimate?
When the RIAA snoops the list of files on your PC, that's all it's getting: a list. While in many cases, the list of files may point to illegitimate files, in other cases it doesn't. The sheer volume of files on the Kazaa network makes it extremely difficult and expensive to look at each and every file.

I'd imagine the RIAA is using some software to attempt to identify songs by title, and we all know how smart software can be - not to mention that you can't copyright a song title. An artist looking to gain exposure could seed his music onto the Kazaa or other P2P networks using the same song names as artists similar to him.

My mother is not a sysadmin
The cost of PCs has enabled many people to own multiple computers. However, not much has been done to make PCs easier to maintain. Add the complexity of two or more computers sharing a single internet connection and you're now forced to become a system administrator.

And if you don't do it correctly, the RIAA can get you.

The Wi-Fi problem
Wi-Fi (wireless) networking is touted as the next "big thing" in the PC industry. The claim is that you can connect all the PCs in your house with wireless adapters, making life easier. While this may be true, Wi-Fi networking has the potential to cause serious nightmares because of the RIAAs lawsuits.

I recently read some statistics that indicated that 70% of all Wi-Fi hubs are un-encrypted. And further, 27% off all hubs still use the default password. This means someone with a little PC savvy and knowledge of a search engine can find a way to connect to the internet using your internet connection.

Remember what I said in the above primer - the RIAA will have no way of knowing if the files shared are coming from you or your neighbor who is stealing your internet connection.

The P2P virus
I read an article the other day about a virus that uses your PC to relay porn through the internet. My first thought was relaying music is next. So if your PC becomes infected with a hypothetical virus, you, too, can be targeted by the RIAA.

Software Installitus
I'm sure you're as guilty of this as I am - downloading and installing so much software on your PC that you forget what you have installed.

I can easily forsee a scenario where you've installed Kazaa or Limewire: the software itself isn't illegal, so forget about it. A few months later you decide to use your PC as a home jukebox and rip all of your CDs onto your PC - also not illegal. Now the music you copied to your PC for personal listening is shared across the internet because you forgot to uninstall Limewire or Kazaa.

Guilty until proven innocent
I've pointed out some flaws in the RIAA's methods of pursuing pirates. If you fall prey to one of the aforementioned scenarios you might think you're in the clear because you're not file swapping yourself.

But you'd be wrong.

The RIAA is pursuing their case in civil court. This means jurisprudence goes out the window. If they think you've shared files, you're guilty. Because of the controversial Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA), if a person or entity claims a copyright is violated, a civil supoena is issued to obtain the claimed offenders personal information.

The potential for abuse is staggering. With no more then a list of files, the RIAA can bring you to court. Even if you're innocent, you're going to either have to hire an attorney and/or settle out of court. And just to give you an idea of what a settlement could cost you, there is a case of a college kid who ran a search engine similar to Google who had to "settle" for $12,000.

Conclusion
The RIAA's means of tracking users is so fundamentally flawed that their dragnet can potentially damage the lives of innocent people.

Because of the DMCA it is easy to issue supoenas and initiate lawsuits against consumers.

It's up to all of us to call and write to our respective leaders and join organizations that fight for consumer rights.

true that, i wonder if the riaa execs use a p2p to get some "illegal" files.

Anyone happen to know the RIAA headquarter's address? I noticed that they don't give out on their web site. Just wondering.

Feiser,
Just call them. they will give it to you.

Representatives caused all this to begin with, the DMCA problem that is, not sure what contacting them would do. They just don't care.

They better not give it to me. But I'll try anyway.

Hmm, wonder if any of these RIAA assholes or RIAA supporters download images or copyrighted material ie written words? How come it's ok to do that and not ok to download music?????

I'm waiting for them to sue the wrong person like someone with the time and money to fight them in a court of law. The RIAA only likes to target kids, the ones who can't afford it. And, why isn't there a nationwide boycott going on like it should be??? Time to put the RIAA out of business and stop buying from them period and mean it.

Perhaps if the RIAA attempts to sue enough innocent people it will help put a stop to this lawsuit business much sooner. It's a shame that this will happen but it will. Of course, what we really need is to reverse the DMCA. The best thing would be if the RIAA tried to sue the family member of a Senator or high government official. That'd put a stop to it fast.

The thing that people do not focus on is that our whole country, indeed, the whole world, breaks copyright laws daily, and more copyright infringement occurs through use of the lowly copying machine, than any P2P network.
Technically, if I write the words "goron, leeble, dubai times two" on a piece of paper, and you find it, and make a xerox copy, or even write it down on a separate piece of paper, you have violated copyright law, because any original work, AT THE POINT OF CREATION, in the USA, is copyrighted even without formal registration. Let's say that you get a handwritten receipt for paying for a meal at a restaurant. Since it was created by someone, and was not a copy of something done before, and you copied it without getting the express written permission of the one who created it...you've broken the law. Ever copied an article from a magazine on a copier? Yup, you're a copyright infringer. Now, do you think these arseholes at the RIAA get written, express permission for everything they lay face down on a copier? Not on your tin type. Think their lawyers get express permission to make xerox copies of every document they copy?
NOOOOOOO...so now you are getting the drift. The DMCA was created to enable a certain class of people claimed copyright, to sue the sh!t out of people for money and for the reason of intimidation, plain and simple.

Wanna beat these arseholes? Don't buy the CDs they hawk, and let the artists they represent, know you are not buying their CDs nor listening to them on the radio.

The money dries up, and so does their power and influence..,.follow the money!

BOYCOTT THE BASTARDS!

I see the last step in protecting people aginst these lawsuits is the IP address. What I don't get is why the ISP's that refuse to hand out user information don't just cycle IP addresses and then erase records at the end of the day. It's probably a lot more complicated than that but it would sure ease alot of fears that many people have with "always on" connections. It would be like rotating the phone numbers in your P2P corp.

Hail Mp3!!!

i stumbled across this page doing research for an essay on file sharing...

so did anyone of u stop to realize that if u stop buying cds and the riaa goes to shit, so will musicians who will stop making cds which means no more music to share illegaly? think about it, musicians work their asses off to put out music that u will listen to, and then u rip them off buy spreading it all over the net. yes there is tons of copyright infringement going on everyday but obviously magazines dont care enough to take legal action against those who copy their articles... its like u go to work say in a factory, u make car parts all day. well then your boss comes up to you and says, oh you only get half your paycheck this week because we gave your parts away for free....i dont think you would like that too much. music is a product sold for a living by musicians, just like everyone else they need to get payed too...

oh i forgot, also, the riaa plans to actually download the copyrighted material, which will give them proof that the material is actually the copyrighted material, not some file with a faulty title...

Well, if they plan to download it I can add some fun to it. A) scan some cd-titles DB B) prepare a robot that would return a file of approximately right length with the name and .mp3 extension filled with crap (and actually saying that it is a fake in comments) C) Sharing the whole thing D) if some idiot keeps downloading it - add it to peerguardian database
What do you guys think?

2 glycerine - I checked and of my ~800 CDs less than 10% are from RIAA labels. I can easily live without these 10%. And I don't care about thouse RIAA musicians at all. For me they plainly sucks.

We can always Wardrive. Saddle up the old wireless laptop and drive around the cities, just downloading off the corporations that have no sense to secure their wireless networks.

glycerine:

Your argument is flawed, and you fail to see the big picture.

Few artists nowadays make money from music sales, and the ones that do often don't make the amount they deserve. They often can make much more touring.

An artist often makes < $0.50 off a CD, and that's before external costs such as paying managers, etc.

Furthermore, there are possible benefits to having music sold for free. First, it gets music exposed to more people at a lower cost. (If the record companies were smart, they would spend money flooding P2P services with actual high-quality songs. Say what you will, a server and some carefully named files -- i.e. "sounds like Metallica" at the end of the file name -- costs MUCH less than spending boatloads of money on getting your artist played on MTV.) It allows customers to decide on their own if an album is good before they spend $20 on it. Finally, it helps create a better creative environment for the artist, because they're not making music to get played on the radio, but music to get downloaded by smart consumers who know what they want, basically making the record industry null and void.

You really need to do better research, because your opinion is very very flawed.

glycerine2085:

As StickFig states, musicians make most of their money from performing, not CD sales. It's record companies that get most of the profit from CD sales. Besides, unlike the factory worker you mention, artists don't create simply for material gain. They make music for the joy of it. A musician won't stop creating music just because he/she can't get a record deal. I write software and I'm paid to do so but I don't get paid "royalties" when people use my software. Likewise, musicians should be paid for performing, not royalties. The draconian copyright laws need to be repealed.

Is anybody here in a band? Make their own music?

Put it online to share, give it an RIAA title. Sue them when when they download it.

"so did anyone of u stop to realize that if u stop buying cds and the riaa goes to shit, so will musicians who will stop making cds which means no more music to share illegaly?"

Did you know that music has been around long before the RIAA or any recording device existed? Let alone any copyright laws, for that matter. There is no need for them anymore, unless they change thier buisness model, as well as listen to thier consumers.

"think about it, musicians work their asses off to put out music that u will listen to"

I work MY ass off every day, but at least I get a bigger %, than they do for it. I've been playing guitar for 23 years now, and I'ld hardly call getting paid for something that I love to do, as "working my ass off". It is a chore to produce your own original music, but when it becomes a job to you, you should no longer even be doing it. They should not care how, where, or when, I hear thier music, as long as I hear it, and go see thier shows. I'ld hardly call doing my favorate thing "Working my ass off". If you truely love making music, then when you do it, it should never be work, it should be pleasure.


"music is a product sold for a living by musicians"

NO!!!!!! Music is created buy "musicians", and "sold" buy a bunch of corporate drones, who were hired by "THE" company, who ownes the label(which also ownes many other sources of media)to listen to a bunch of analist's(sp), who don't know shit about music, opinion's. Oh! Lets not forget the publishers and lawyers either. Again?!! Who IS selling the music for a living?

"just like everyone else they need to get payed too..."

This is one of the many points of this entire site!!!! There is more to this battle, than just the freedom of P2P file shareing!! We care about the bands we listen to, or we wouldn't be here!!!

"oh i forgot, also, the riaa plans to actually download the copyrighted material, which will give them proof that the material is actually the copyrighted material, not some file with a faulty title..."

Can we see a link to your source, or can you give us some direction to find it?

glycerine2085-

No disrespect-but your argument is idiotic. Artists no longer need the obsolute RIAA and big labels to make a living with their music. This is why the RIAA is so terrified right now-because they realize they're facing their extinction. The big labels' main functions are high-quality recording and promotion-as well as distribution. In the past, artists had to depend on labels to do all of these functions for them because they wern't able to do these functions on their own as well. Today, artists don't need them to do these functions anymore; all they need is a little brainpower to make the new technologies work for them to make money. In recording contracts, artists are advanced money upfront to record. What many artists don't realize (until it's too late) is that they have to pay for their own recording, promotion, distribution and other "expenses" with that advanced money. Recording contracts are basically loans. The expenses that any given artist has are so great that even when they get royalty money (which is little-the labels hog the majority), they must use their royalties to pay the labels back. Labels are like big, rip-off loan companies. This is why artists must rely on other avenues for income (concerts, clothing lines, etc.) - to survive and to pay off their debts to their labels. Now the greedy labels want a piece of the artists' concert earnings too.

The RIAA fears that with P2P and other new technologies-future artists will realize that they don't need them to have successful music careers and won't sign with them. Add to this the losses in profits because the masses are not buying their CDs. The labels' entire system will fall apart. So they can sue as many people as they want, but all of the lawsuits and dollars in the world won't stop the winds of change....

If glycerine really gives a rat's ass about the artists, I suggest supporting them directly at www.musiclink.com. Al Kooper is part of this and its mission to is to pay the artists directly without the vultures who have claimed "ownership" of their copyrights getting a dime.

Go see a live concert -- except the ones run by Clear Channel. Buy independent CDs. More and more artists have become independent lately.

And I'm hiring them for my new night club. Steve Luongo (John Entwhistle's drummer), Brian Stoltz (Neville Brothers, Linda Ronstadt, Edie Brickell, Double Trouble), Marty Balin, Joey Mollen (Badfinger), Country Joe McDonald... They're all coming to Iowa this summer to help kick off OzRocks.

I think the best way to support the artists is to pay them directly. That's my plan.

"so did anyone of u stop to realize that if u stop buying cds and the riaa goes to shit, so will musicians who will stop making cds which means no more music to share illegaly? "

Go check out Epitaph and Fat Wreck. Two great record companies that come RIAA-Free and also produce great music. Go to your local cd store and check out some punk compilation cd's and you'll see that they come with fixed prices on the label. It's usually around 5 bucks.

musicfreedom, Thanks for the info, I didn't know those lables broke free. Now I will have to go and get my punk "fix"

glycerine2085 - There are many bands making good money without the labels and the RIAA. Here is and example of why the RIAA are not really needed. If you go to buy a car. If given the option to buy directly from the company (artist), vs buying through a dealer (Labels under the RIAA). Who do you think will give you the better deal.

I bet my money the artist would. But the artist by contract is stripped of the rights to do this in doing business with the RIAA. Doesn't seem right does it. I rest my case.

"TheSherminator
Date: July 16, 2003 @ 9:45 PM
Is anybody here in a band? Make their own music?

Put it online to share, give it an RIAA title. Sue them when when they download it."

--way ahead of ya Sherminator

Shmoo, of Electric Gypsy

The info on registration of riaa.com is as follows:
Recording Industry Association Of America (RIAA-DOM)
1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Suite 300
Washington, DC 20036
US

Domain Name: RIAA.COM

Administrative Contact:
Karaganis, Jerome (35559870P) jkaraganis@riaa.com
Recording Industry Association Of America
1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Suite 300
Washington, DC 20036
US
202-775-0101 fax: 202-775-7253
Technical Contact:
GNMC (VXGTRUVDOO) rm-hostmaster@ems.att.com
3324 Hollenberg
Bridgeton, MO 63044
US
314-264-9672 fax: 281-664-9975

Record expires on 26-Oct-2005.
Record created on 03-Oct-2002.
Database last updated on 17-Jul-2003 08:21:50 EDT.

Domain servers in listed order:

NS.TST-US.COM 67.94.110.235
NS1.TST-US.COM 68.163.90.235
NS2.TST-US.COM 146.82.174.235

and for riaa.org, it's:
Recording Industry Association Of America (RIAA2-DOM)
1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Suite 300
Washington, DC 20036
US

Domain Name: RIAA.ORG

Administrative Contact:
Karaganis, Jerome (35559870P) jkaraganis@riaa.com
Recording Industry Association Of America
1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Suite 300
Washington, DC 20036
US
202-775-0101 fax: 202-775-7253
Technical Contact:
GNMC (VXGTRUVDOO) rm-hostmaster@ems.att.com
3324 Hollenberg
Bridgeton, MO 63044
US
314-264-9672 fax: 281-664-9975

Record expires on 09-Jan-2006.
Record created on 03-Oct-2002.
Database last updated on 17-Jul-2003 08:40:21 EDT.

Domain servers in listed order:

NS.TST-US.COM 67.94.110.235
NS1.TST-US.COM 68.163.90.235
NS2.TST-US.COM 146.82.174.235

independentm has a good idea since song title's are NOT copyrightable.
Give em a taste of their own medicine!

Great thinking independentm !

Here's an interesting link:
http://www.musicindustrylaw.com/copyright.htm
Below is quoted from the site pursuant to the Fair Use Doctrine:
"Who owns the copyright in a song?
US copyright law states that the author or creator of a work owns the copyright in the work. As we discussed earlier, a song can have two separate copyrightable components – the music composition and the sound recording. The songwriter owns the copyright in the music composition. The sound recording is typically owned by whoever pays for the studio recording time, although it is our opinion that the ownership of sound recordings is not quite as straightforward as that. This issue is a bit esoteric so if anyone is really interested in finding out what we think about it, email us, and perhaps we’ll add an explanation to the MusicIndustryLaw.com site.

At any rate, the statutory rule on ownership of the work can be varied by contract - such as with a work made for hire (under this doctrine, a person or business that employs or commissions an artist to create certain kinds of works owns the work once it is created) or when the author sells or assigns the copyright to another person or a corporation. There is a significant difference between these two situations. With a work made for hire, the artist never legally owned the copyright whereas with a sale or assignment of copyright, the artist did own the copyright and therefore has a possibility of retrieving ownership of the copyright under some provisions of the US Copyright Act."

There are many facets to this. First, what about all the money being made from the sale of MP3 players? I mean, these things would not sell real well had it not been for people downloading music. Second, I think it is interesting that a company like AOL/TimeWarner can freely put out MP3 players like Winamp and then complain through it's record labels about MP3 downloads.

I personally think this whole thing is a ruse just to get more money. KaZaa is focused on more (I think) because it does not fall under the jurisdiction of american comunications industries; just like Napster----individually owned. Madonna and Metallica both own a peice of the recording industry----that's why they complain.

The only way for the RIAA to get what they claim to want is to set computers back to the day when they could not record sound.....and that is not going to happen.

File sharing is technically at the very heart of the internet. What these people are doing really does threaten the net.

MUSICIANS AND THE BOXING BUSINESS MODELS HAVE A LOT IN COMMON...ONE PERSON OR GROUP PERFORMS OR PROVIDES A SERVICE AND GETS PAID FOR THAT SERVICE....BY THE TIME MONEY IS DIVIDED AMONG MANAGERS,AGENTS,AND EXPENSE COST THE PERFORMER/BOXER IS LEFT WITH LITTE(UNLESS YOU ARE A BIG BAND OR TOP BOXER)IT IS PROBABLY PREFERABLE TO BE A BOXER BECAUSE AT LEAST SOMEONE CAN KNOCK THE CRAP OUT OF
YOU AND THEN YOU CAN COME TO THE REALIZATION YOU DONT WANT TO DO THIS ANYMORE

prndll: Consider that when the first MP3 player went on the market the RIAA (or was it another lobbying group? I think it was the RIAA.) immediately attempted to ban it, claiming it violated the AHRA because it was a digital music player which didn't obey SCMS copyright protection codes. The fact that SCMS only covers S/PDIF protocol ports and the player had none didn't seem to bother them. They lost, fortunately.

The RIAA, via soundexchange, gets a fairly large cut of the profits from all audio media and digital recorders, includeing minidiscs and their players. I dont know if MP3 players are included through.

RIAASUX..good analogy..i guess that means Cary Sherman's hair will be shooting straight up and turning grey any day now . Seriously though, it is proper analogy.

Ya know, I don't really care about much concerning the RIAA except that they go out of business. The quickest way to put a business under is to dry up their working capital. Where does the RIAA get its money? The record company members. Where do they get THEIR money? Us! Sooooo- let's make some news boyz and girlz. Let's really do this boycott right and see how low we can take their numbers. If they have anyone who's taken statistics 101, they will see a one to one correlation between their draconian efforts to harass and intimidate P2P users and the record sales hitting the basement. Let's do it boyz and girlz..
BOYCOTT THE BASTARDS!

The main reason of all that big shit about p2p is just one: Money. Some ass lickers in music business do not get anymore on the fast and easy way big money. So they try get money with the help of the law. But this law is made by corrupt people (as in every country) who also have just one in mind: Money. It is a big mess on this planet. Money RULES the world. So what the hell is the right solution?

The RIAA are committing online terror, plain and simple. If KaZaa and the rest declare their services off limits to the RIAA and the copyright bots,
they can invoke USC TITLE 18,Part 1, Chapter 121, Sec. 2701, since the RIAA would be accessing the network of users without permission and this is a violation, to access stored electonic communications without authorization.

BOYCOTT THE BASTARDS! BAN THE BASTARDS!

Section 2701. Unlawful access to stored communications

(a) Offense. - Except as provided in subsection (c) of this
section whoever -
(1) intentionally accesses without authorization a facility
through which an electronic communication service is provided; or
(2) intentionally exceeds an authorization to access that
facility;
and thereby obtains, alters, or prevents authorized access to a
wire or electronic communication while it is in electronic storage
in such system shall be punished as provided in subsection (b) of
this section.
(b) Punishment. - The punishment for an offense under subsection
(a) of this section is -
(1) if the offense is committed for purposes of commercial
advantage, malicious destruction or damage, or private commercial
gain -
(A) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than
one year, or both, in the case of a first offense under this
subparagraph; and
(B) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than
two years, or both, for any subsequent offense under this
subparagraph; and
(2) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than
six months, or both, in any other case.
(c) Exceptions. - Subsection (a) of this section does not apply
with respect to conduct authorized -
(1) by the person or entity providing a wire or electronic
communications service;
(2) by a user of that service with respect to a communication
of or intended for that user; or
(3) in section 2703, 2704 or 2518 of this title.

hrosen@riaa.com, sdonofrio@riaa.com, fcreighton@riaa.com, jbetts@riaa.com, sfabrizio@riaa.com, jflatow@riaa.com, dincorvaia@riaa.com, jbendall@riaa.com, clawhorn@riaa.com, jhenkel@riaa.com, lpelliccia@riaa.com, jberman@riaa.com, csherman@riaa.com, nashby@riaa.com, lbocchi@riaa.com, pbrooks@riaa.com, jegas@riaa.com, jfleming@riaa.com, jganoe@riaa.com, hkim@riaa.com, smarks@riaa.com, hmccaffrey@riaa.com, jmilbauer@riaa.com, rmorgan@riaa.com, moppenheim@riaa.com, mpetersen@riaa.com, brobinson@riaa.com, lsalet@riaa.com, msimcik@riaa.com, tsites@riaa.com, dstebbings@riaa.com, btenor@riaa.com, nturkewitz@riaa.com, dvaldez@riaa.com, awalsh@riaa.com, fwalters@riaa.com, jwhitehead@riaa.com, wyascur@riaa.com

Or send to:
Recording Industry Association Of America
1330 Connecticut Ave. NW
Suite 300
Washington DC 20036


RIAA fax: 202 775-7233
RIAA phone: 202-775- 0101


Let the f**kers know how you feel!!
BOYCOTT THE BASTARDS! BAN THE BASTARDS!

Check this out!

Next they will be trying to sue Google!
They might as well try and sue Microsoft too, but then again, Microsoft would probably kick their ass!

http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/archives/000 360.html