If you've been over to George Ziemann's site recently, you'll see he's had a gut-full and plans to chuck it in.

"To put it simply, I have run out of money and, along with it, I have run out of friends and supporters," he says.

Not true George. You may have run out of money, but not friends.

George says below, "I've been asked to write one last article." That's not so either. Whatever George decides to do, we hope we'll still see him around here.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

RIAA Explanation Just Another Lie

By George Ziemann

Having become totally disgusted with the music business, I'm about to go offline forever and pursue a more noble career, like flipping burgers at McDonalds or becoming a mental patient in a padded cell. But I've been asked to write one last article.

I've seen the ridiculous explanation the national media has bought into hook, line and sinker describing the RIAA's "ingenious" and "surprisingly technical" approach to identifying how to tell the difference between mp3 files which were obtained from legally purchased CDs and those which came from "pirated" sources.

The RIAA's explanation of how they've made their technical deduction is exactly the same sort of misdirection that's apparently fooled the entire country.

I've watched on the pages of even Boycott-riaa, which I thought comprised humans with a speck of intelligence, as they ponder the technical wherewithal and mystery surrounding the RIAA's brilliant masterpiece, which allows them to trace the origin of a file back to the time of Napster, using this as their "evidence" of wrongdoing.

To put it bluntly: How stupid are you all?

The fact there's post after post of concern and worry over this magical technological marvel, concocted by one of the world's most technologically inept organizations, led only in their ignorance by the US Congress and the US Copyright Office, makes me certain that the RIAA will win this battle because no one has asked the incredibly obvious question.

In all the news articles, television reports, comments and posts, not one of you has asked this magic question. You have all bought into this misdirection like trout going for bait. You have given the word of known liars more credence than you would give a streetcorner magician.

Let me run the important phrase of a previous story past you - "By comparing the fingerprints of music files on a person's computer against its library, the RIAA believes it can determine in some cases whether someone recorded a song from a legally purchased CD or downloaded it from someone else over the Internet."

Although this lie has already propagated to such lengths that it will now be impossible to convince anyone of the truth, allow me to explain how everyone has been baffled by this bullshit.

Since a digital copy of an mp3 is not a perfect copy of a CD track, as the industry has led so many to believe, once it's been created and placed on the Internet, each recurring copy of this file WILL be an exact duplicate of the original mp3. If this were not true, the RIAA's statement would fall apart at this point in the logic. If it were altered in any way, this entire wild theory about hashes and digital fingerprints would be quickly proven false.

While you've blindly accepted this theory, no one has raised the issue of where that original mp3 came from.

I don't want to be overly technical here, but ask yourself this: If the mp3 was not created from a legally purchased CD, where the hell DID it come from?

What can the origin of an mp3 file be if no one possessed the physical CD? Magic? It just appeared on their computer one day? They hacked into the recording studio's computer? Broke into the studio in the dead of night and stole the master recordings?

If an mp3 was not created from a legally purchased CD, then there's only one other possible source - the record label itself, if not the artist.

Oh wait, there's another possibility.

If the song is out of print, and NOT available on CD, it may have come from a legally purchased vinyl album. With more thought, myriad possibilities come to mind, none of which point to the consumer as the guilty party. Were they recorded off the radio? If so, the Home Recording Act comes into play.

Do the $4 billion a year in free promotional copies have different digital fingerprints that the legal CDs? Can you tell a shoplifted CD from one which was legally purchased?

Unless the recording industry itself is responsible for creating mp3s from the master recordings and distributing them over the Internet, ALL mp3s MUST, by definition have come from purchased CDs. To entertain any other definition is blind ignorance. There is no magic. Just more lies and deceit.

And everyone fell for it - again.

You've been arguing everything over the past week since this announcement except the obvious.

Has the lowest common denominator really fallen faster that the recording industry's sales?

It would appear so.

George, this is why you need to stay around.

I also hope you got the E-mails that I've sent to you the past couple days.

Hi George. Well, duh, of course we all know that mp3s come from the original CD source, but this being such an obvious observation always gets looked over in discussions. We all assume we all know this.We're more concerned with how they are looking into our computers, and as to what kind of arguments they are going to present to the courts, and how to override their arguments in front of the judges who aren't necessarily tech savy either.

George - We need you. You followed your dream. Most people never do and for better or worse lay on their death bed with regrets.

Martin Luther King had a dream. He died for his dream. And yet his dream has still not been fully realized.

Change tack, change course if that is what is right for you now, but always be PROUD that you followed your dream.

Where do mp3's come from? How about
from this site:

http://www.rollingstone.com/dds/default.asp

Now does this mean songs obtained legally from Rolling Stone cannot be shared on P2P? Anybody know?

If the person isn't authorized to do so, yes.

That's the whole point, most people on p2p don't have the authorization/proper license to do so.

GEORGE I AM WITH YOU I UNDERSTAND YOUR PAIN AS I AM AN INDEPENDENT ARTIST WHO GOT SCREWED BY THIS BULLSHIT SYSTEM THAT REFUSES TO WAKE UP TO THE REALITY OF THE FACT MUSIC IS CHANGING.

Don't give up. There are better days coming. Just wait and see. They will run out of money one day, they can't kill us all & there are more of us than them anyways.

Many kids I know don't even think of buying cds. CD's are not really a viable money making format as they were before. It's just a fact. But there are many other means of distribution and more are coming.

Just because you have another job or what not doesnt mean you can't still be a professional musician.

Things are and will change, but giving up should not be an option. Would you give up if you knew your civil rights and American Liberties were on the line?

Well that's what's going on here. This fight is much bigger than just mp3's.. It's about the intellectual properties these people insist using to abuse people.

I was raped by the music industry for 7 YEARS, george.. they'd love it for me to want to give up or shoot myself or what not.

Once I realized that these people were actually part of undermining the foundation of this nation I got active. I cannot see this country fall into the hands of a few criminal lords and backwards thinking "business" people. They are so old and they don't even have computers on thier desks!!! I know!!

So please don't give up. They don't have the resources to lock everyone up and throw away the key.

The reality is THEY NEED TO CHANGE THE WAY THEY DO BUSINESS NOW.. or become obsolete. That means finding a real talent base and supporting it. not threatening and sabotaging them like they did to me. It's really unfair because the things they did to me were outright criminal and evil at that.

Keep writing letters and don't support the system you see and we all see as extremely flawed if not downright criminal.

People cannot be owned. Yet they are the biggest bunch of slavemasters around today.

It's a shame. Sometimes I wonder if they would like to see everyone put into prison work camps for working outside of thier flawed system.

Progress takes revolution in the hearts and minds of people. This nation's economy, the WORLD depends on this. Progress. the more people who wake up to the fact things aren't "working" the way they used to the more we can guarantee the progress of society and this nation!

Remember, most of these organizations are foreign owned. You think they give a hoot about your rights as an American?

No they don't even give a hoot about intelligent progress. To me they are in a death cycle... Stick around you will see what happens to structures that are so corrupted they implode.

One additional question. There are live broadcasts over the Internet. If the Home Recording Act applies to those, then all my MP3 could come from it. And yours too, you just happened to record it from the same live stream as I did using the same software and therefore the tags and hushes and whatever was put into the stupid MP3 are all the same. No?

This is something I've been wondering and sorry if I missed this in early news posts.... if they're going after people for sharing copyrighted material, what the hell difference does it make if they get it from a leagally purchased cd or from napster 4 years ago? They are still sharing it. Is there a tougher penalty one way or another? Oh well either way I hope this method is costing them lots of money, so they go bankrupt quicker.

George, don't go.

I may be a new user, but I've been looking at this site for some time.

When I look at this site, I see people who have the courage and will to stand up for what they know is right, to stand up against an organisation who have no respect for the people who make their corrupt existence possible.

I've seen these people destroy every arguement that the RIAA have, and throw off the harassment of every RIAA supporter that came across this site.

I've seen the claims, lies and half-truths of RIAA fall apart here. But who disputes their lies most of the time? You.

You are one of the most important people in this community. To leave at this point, which may well be the turning point, would be to allow RIAA and their acolytes to steal freedom from everyone.

Yes, it looks bleak now, but things can change when we all stick together.

A good analogy would be that of the pendulum: When it swings in favour of evil, it will eventually swing in favour of good.

And it Will.

(Sorry if this doesn't make any sense, but it's 1:29 AM here. )

It's a shame when a man of intelligence and integrity has to fight alone against people who do not know morality or honor. Unfortunately, it happens a lot. Especially when there's money to be made and power up for grabs. The riaa does not know truth or fair play. They know only that they can get their way by whining and paying the right people and choking out anyone who doesn't want to play their game their way.

I don't know George Ziemann personally and probably won't ever but I can honestly say that I believe in him. George, if you feel you have had enough then that is your decision and no one elses and I will respect that. You have fought hard for something you felt was right and just. That is enough to earn my respect and appreciation and those are not things which I give easily. I cannot be so selfish as to ask you to give more to a cause which you have already given all. I wish you good fortune in whatever you do and I hope you realize that there are people who support you. We may be outgunned (for now) but they can't hide from the truth forever.

peace

Is Rolling Stone, et.al., responsible for millions of file-sharing "criminals?"

Can they be held liable? Can consumers sue them the same way McDonald's was sued for the "hot coffee" incident, or people suing the tobacco companies, or bars held responsible for drunk drivers?

They allow people to freely download music from their site. They provide only minimal instructions and no instructions on the subsequent use of your download, i.e., Is it copyrighted? Can it be further shared?

Remember, minors - children, are downloading from this site. Are they supposed to be knowledgeable and versed in copyright law?

ROLLING STONE DOWNLOADING INSTRUCTIONS

Is it free to download music?

There is no charge to register at Rolling.com to download music, and there is a lot of free music available on the site.


How do I download music?

You can search for music in the Artist Search, or discover new favorites by searching for MP3 artists who list your favorite artists as influences. Once you've found an artist whose music you want to download, click on the appropriate link and you’re set!

Why can't I find digital music from my favorite band?

We post only legal, licensed digital music tracks with the permission of the artist or record label. If you don't find your favorite artist, it's because we have not received permission to post any of his/her/their music.

George , you have exposed the soft underbelly of their "evidence", and as usual, helped the cause. I understand you are disillusioned and disgusted and rightfully so. If you need to regroup and take a couple weeks off, that's cool, BUT DON'T LET THE PEOPLE YOU HAVE FOUGHT FOR 30 YEARS WIN! This movement needs you, and ultimately, you need to do this for yourself once you have gotten the finances back up and all. If you have to pass on the torch and are really serious, then we all will understand. It's so hard to find someone of your caliber, and you know the ropes, and can see through their lies. We are ALL praying for you, and all want you to stay if possible.
-bulkeraser
"Making Blanks Out of Ones and Zeros"

George : Great post, and I imagine that you should be in demand as an expert witness in these cases to point out the shell game. You are one of the real pioneers George, and whatever you decide, I am with you. Please drop me an e-mail if you can.
May Peace and Prosperity find you well and happy.
Your friend...
~code

I sincerely hope you're reading this, George.

First, understand that I know your position.. utterly.

I campaigned for years, and years, and years, and years.... to force attention on the Catholic Church and the problem of abuse within - usually alone, since few people will stick with an obviously "hopeless" cause... people are only human, they have their weaknesses, as I well know.
Uncountable times I've been shouted down, laughed off, betrayed, insulted, and have had at times to dodge outright prosecution by overzealous defenders of the law with a really confused idea of what the hell was going on.

Do you see anyone NOW denying that abuse did and does happen within the Church, or that it was often covered up ? - looks one holy HELL (forgive the pun) of a lot different from this end now than it did 5-10 years ago.
Not my doing, and not the doing of any single person - but the doing of hundreds, thousands of single persons willing to bang their head into a brick wall till it collapsed.

In 1993 the idea of predators using the internet was considered a pipe dream, and even now trying to shut them down or run them in carries severe risk of the accuser being persecuted, but at least now people accept that the problem exists.

Sooner or later folks will start making the connection between those two things (Robert Orr, for example?), but for now it is enough that SOME housecleaning has started.

I defy you to name any public figure who, back in 1991-1996 took it seriously.

It seemed so damned hopeless that every ally I ever had sold out, quit, offed themselves or outright turned on me - it burned them out, burned them up, and so after a while I just waited (quite prepared against it, by this time) for it to happen to the folks who all too rarely showed up to help.

That's what happens when you take on a "hopeless" fight against something so large that most people can't even fathom resistance to it - the emotional cost is extremely high, and the efforts seem so futile, the progress so slow, the setbacks so tremendous.

Thing is, if you just give in, you admit that it *IS* hopeless, and by doing that you help MAKE it hopeless, you see.

People who can get the message out and across without having to offend, insult, and outright ram it down someones throat are unique people, a voice of reason that eventually WILL BE HEARD, even if folks disagree - and once you have em talking, you have half the battle right there... even if they don't really wanna talk about it.

We need folks like you to give people who really care about music the thing they most require - a voice.

Don't give up on us, George, for damned sure we haven't given up on you.

-user

I'm not necessarily concerned with where the mp3 came from. Who created the mp3 is pretty pointless. Having the illegal mp3 is the crime, not who ripped it. Once it's been shared the origin of the mp3 is moot.

I will not put it past the RIAA to introduce more than just looped songs on the net for transfer. Why wouldn't you put in additional data to make it easier to prove your case against file sharers? And the idea of hashes etc. is not so hard to believe for those of us who are not computer experts. If they can pull data off of your harddrive after you delete it and run a swipe program then believing they can detect some hashes in an mp3 is not that hard to believe. Especially if you put those hashes there in the first place.

My other concern is this "library" that the RIAA has. We have no records of what is in their library or when it was put there. What will keep them from searching a harddrive and adding those files to their library? Suddenly they have the "proof" that the files were created illegally. We already know that they are willing to take advantage of consumers and artists as well as breaking price fixing laws. Why would manufacturing evidence be out of their scope?

You can call me stupid if you'd like. If it makes you feel better. Personally I'd rather have you stick around and help educate instead of insult. Or would you rather be called a quiter?

alcoholicskunk I think what the riaa is doing when they are trying to trace stuff back to Napster, is that they feel the importance of that to them, as to their case, is that they got Napster shut down as an ilegal file sharing site. Rather than a file coming from one of the applications that slipped out of their hands, such as Grokster. Just more leverage for their arguments. Doesn't have to make sense. They just have to confuse the judge enough to get the win they want. pepe

I wish I had seen that announcement when it first went public. Then I would have had a much longer laugh before I realized people were actually believing it. It's a bold-faced lie. Hash marks? Digital Fingerprints? You might as well try to tell me a digital fairy is embedded in every song and will start hiding your car keys and remote controls if you obtain it illegally. It's complete and total bull. The only info on a file (and I'm not sure if it's actually on the file or just in the GUI database) is date created, date last modified, and date last accessed, and those don't prove a damn thing.

Most people are innocent until proven guilty, but due to the RIAA's track record, let's just assume that anything they say is a bold-faced, blatant, undeniable lie until we find evidence otherwise.

Stay George. You sound like you have plenty more good stuff to pass along, and I, for one, would like to hear it.

That we must all struggle on in this battle, goes without saying. (Even though I just said it.)

But in terms of Mr. Ziemann's position, I am reminded in some ways of Jonathan Swift, the author of "Gulliver's Travels," in which at one point miniature Liliputians tied down Gulliver to the point where he couldn't move a muscle (similar to what we're seeing as manifested in the behavior of the fascistic, autocratic Radical Imperial Copyright Junta - RICJ - that's comprised of the RIAA, MPAA and other pertinent alphabet-soup lobbies for the multinational entertainment-media complex). I heard from a certain radio talk show that Mr. Swift ended up in a mental institution, having in the end been driven crazy by all the events going on in the world during his time on Earth. G-d forbid that we should lose Mr. Ziemann in such a fashion.

Yet at the same time, I second the motions of those who say that to give up this fight would serve to further embolden those modern-day Goliaths who seek to crush and annihilate us by any and all means necessary.

"Ingenious and surprisingly technical" -- sounds suspiciously similar to what I've read from the state-run media in China pertaining to that country's crackdowns on online political dissent. Yet if the same RIAA-slanted media were to cover the China situation, they'd sanctimoniously (and hypocritically) get on their high horse and say "this is yet another example of the People's Republic violating the rights of its people" or something like that.

Ever since I seen this md5 story Ive found it completely flawed.

spike@spikes:/home/music/alanis_morissette> md5sum Alanis\ Morissette\ -\ Sfij\ -\ Baba.mp3
4d0ebcd708534f372a125483e41a3e9f Alanis Morissette - Sfij - Baba.mp3
spike@spikes:/home/music/alanis_morissette> md5sum Alanis\ Morissette\ -\ Supposed\ Former\ Infatuation\ Junkie\ -\ 02\ -\ Baba.mp3
4e3affaa0ff756d6ffd861c365524835 Alanis Morissette - Supposed Former Infatuation Junkie - 02 - Baba.mp3

spike@spikes:/home/music/alanis_morissette> ls -l Alanis\ Morissette\ -\ Sfij\ -\ Baba.mp3
-rw-r--r-- 1 spike users 6453376 Feb 18 2003 Alanis Morissette - Sfij - Baba.mp3
spike@spikes:/home/music/alanis_morissette> ls -l Alanis\ Morissette\ -\ Supposed\ Former\ Infatuation\ Junkie\ -\ 02\ -\ Baba.mp3
-rw-r--r-- 1 spike users 6379895 Aug 7 21:53 Alanis Morissette - Supposed Former Infatuation Junkie - 02 - Baba.mp3

Same bitrate, same tags, different encode method used, one is Stereo, other is Joint-stereo. Other encoders will make a different hash too.

Both made from a friends cd.

George.. I hear ya, bro..a club that I played in for over five years had to move all of a sudden because the landlord sold the building. So they thought they had another place lined up, but because of political hassles with the government, it has been a year since they have been closed. This was a good live music venue and the clubowners want to reopen. They will reopen, I believe, because they had an excellent clientele..so take a moment to breathe, George, and reload..If your heart is right, I have to believe that you will prevail Meanwhile, Keep your head to the sky and your computer pointed to this site, where you do have friends and support. Peace.

George,
If you need to, take some time off, i will do what i can to keep fairforshare.com alive for i believe in it. From the sound of your emails, you will need some time to rest, we'll still be here waiting for you and your past articles contain information i will never forget. The RIAA will become unnoticable, and i would like to see you here for that.

Hi,

Am new to this site and this forum. Has it never ocurred to the RIAA that users do not have to pirate most music on the Internet? If you PLAY a high fi song file --from MP3 for example-- it is snagged by the MS O/S and stuck in the temp file. From that point on, you have a 126K copy of the MP3 of the track.

If you want to go to the trouble of burning it to a CD, reencoding it at a higher bit rate, then you get a good quality CD recording of that Alanis Morrisette song that was the only good track on the latest album, or whoever!

The RIAA is an assinine organization that steals from the artists - not the labels who also steal from the artists. The only artists who are treated worse than musicians are writers. RIAA doesn't have the technical understanding about how the mp3 files are handled by the MS O/S, and I suspect the Apple O/S as well. They should be going after Bill Gates instead of young women in Brooklyn!!!!

Makes me really annoyed, but also somewhat amused by the degree of idiocy.

be well,

Antiggytoo

George,

George, do not leave. Times are harsh, and the road is long, but the end will come. One just needs to hold fast against the wind.

I just wanted to let u know also, that kazaa users are back up, the RIAA scare tactics are not working, and even NEW ppl here enjoy what you have to say. I will await your return, even if it is not till next year.

I just don't see how ANY mp3 could be illegal. From the very first time I heard "sharing" termed as "stealing" I could not see how anyone could think of it like that. I can't count the number of times I have asked some stubborn-ass, "where do you think the file came from in the first place?" To get them to understand that it had to of come from a CD (or old record?) that someone BOUGHT, and are now sharing, can be almost impossible! How can something SO SIMPLE to understand and figure out, be SO DIFFICULT for some people? No one will EVER get me to even begin to believe that sharing is stealing, and I will do my best to properly educate those who do!

I will NEVER pay for music as I did before. I would GLADLY donate to the artists I like though, or maybe even buy directly from them! Does anyone know where to find out which artists are opposed to the RIAA? I know where to find the ones that "support" them, but what about any that voice out against them?

I guess I'm missing something. It's my understanding that if 2 or more files of the same length have the same hash then the files, with high probability, are completely identical. If these files reside on the computers of different individuals then it constitutes evidence that these individuals shared this file. On that, the RIAA is correct, except for one thing. If the same CD track was ripped using the same software by different individuals, it seems it is quite possible that they would end up with the same file with the same hash function, no? However, any information can be put into an ID3 tag. If the person who rips it chooses to put their name and the date they ripped it, that would constitute additional evidence of the files origin. Therefore, in the restricted case where 2 or more individuals have files with identical hashes and the same ID3 tag identifying who ripped the file, the RIAA may have convincing evidence of file sharing. (Remember that with civil trials it's only "preponderance of the evidence".) So, I'm afraid I cannot disagree with the statement:

"By comparing the fingerprints of music files on a person's computer against its library, the RIAA believes it can determine in some cases whether someone recorded a song from a legally purchased CD or downloaded it from someone else over the Internet."

Am I missing something?

IFeelFree ,
The point George is trying to make is that the Music came from a cd that was BOUGHT, and the RIAA paints a false picture saying that the person pirated it.

...and George, you are very wanted and needed here, we need posts like yours, everywhere! I TRULY hope you stay!

They are trying to paing a picture that if you get a file from P2P networks, it was pirated and stolen from them using evidence in the MP3 file, which is absurd because all music on P2P was originally on a CD. That is what George is trying to say.

Plus one thing that really frustrates me is that the RIAA paints a picture that all P2P is pirating, this is absurd because if i have bought a Cd already and just want to DL the songs from kazaa, what is illegal about that? Nada, just the RIAA nonsense that ppl are pirates. There industry is not adapting to technology, that is there greatest downfall.

directive...

You and George are 1000% right.

It's my understanding that it's not illegal just to have MP3 files on your computer. It's the offering of files on a public network that the RIAA is suing over. They often incorrectly refer to it as "distribution" or "pirating" when it is actually copyright infringement. In any case, I thought that was the point of "fingerprinting" - so that they could march into court with credible evidence that the file was shared with others on a public network. In particular, it sounds like they're going to use this type of evidence in suing the "Jane Doe" person who's fighting them.

The tracking of files with identical hash functions and/or ID3 tags is apparently also the way they are following the flow of these files through P2P networks. Exactly, why this is of such interest to them, I'm not sure. Unless, their just building up a database for use in future lawsuits.

I think what has been missed alot has just been brought up: WHERE did the MP3 format come from? The media, obviously.

We're losing track of an IMPORTANT point here, folks, apologies for the caps.

The RIAA is an independent, COMMERCIAL, entity, NOT the LAW. They are not the government, nor do they enforce the laws on the streets as cops do. They don't hold seats on the Supreme Court. They are NOT government officials, and as such, can be sued, couter-sued, and eventually put out of business. We as consumers and musicians DON'T need them, as much as they'd like to bluster that we do. I can understand if George wants to give it a rest, it's a tough job to be the rallying point for such a huge movement, and even tougher when one is a musician. In one regard, you're representing the consumer, but in the same hand you're potentially limiting your career as an artist. I don't think that's the case, but it is a tough call.

Regardless, CodeWarrior, myself, and a few others are busy working on a draft of a possible consumer protection law, and I know I hope for continued input. It's not gonna be an easy job, I've already spent a few days on it, just to erase most of what I've come up with.

One thing to keep in mind........our country depends almost totally on technological developments these days. The MP3 has been a final form for quite a few years now, and as evidenced by the sheer amount of available players, rippers, and software, a welcome advancement to the public. The door was opened, and cannot be shut, not by lawsuits, not by the RIAA, not by anybody.

Case to think about, is those who download movies. I've gotten a few, and sent a few out. I bought the DVD, or recieved one from someone I know paid. On the other hand, you have folks somehow getting the DVD screener destined for advertisers, ripping it, and sharing it in advance......The Hulk, for example. THAT is theft, in the extent that the person responsible for starting the sharing loop stole the product from an authorized source.

Rally on, folks. Despite what you may hear or conclude, the cards are NOT stacked against us, nor do we have to bow down, and relent under the onslaught of a proven illegal, unethica, and just plain stupid attempt at an old school business.

The implications of that are just too huge. CD burners will become illegal, or useless to the point of being obsolete. DVD burners the same, the multimedia market, so heavily dependent on the ability to record media, will dry up.....watch your development of HDTV dry up in a heartbeat. LCD or plasma tv's? Yeah, baby.....they'd be gone too. No more I-Pod, no more Windows Media player, Winamp........scary thought.

Then again, if that were to happen, the media would own everything again, and we see where the media is going, with deregulation, and relaxing of ownership laws.

When it comes right down to it, the RIAA isn't any bigger or more powerful than the phone company, and look what happened to Ma Bell............we, as the buying public, and dictate this. We have before, we will again, and we will NOW.

Good enough for ya? I know I won't give up my burner, or my 5.1 surround system, to appease an overbloated, overpaid, and un-needed industry like the RIAA........read again, INDUSTRY. I'm an artist, I became one to get AWAY from the industry, not BECOME it.

And always remember, VOTE. Right now, we may have a few government officials against technology. Come time for elections for your senator, put one in the government that agrees with you.

Maybe we lose track of a fact......we've won before, we'll win again. And, if you look at the record, it's Consumer and Public in the lead. Has been since the time of the Boston Tea Party.

directive:

It seems evident that SOMEONE originally purchased the CD and legally ripped the tracks. However, once that person shares the files on a public network and 10 other people download the files, it could be said that those 10 people obtained them illegally, according to DMCA. Then, if those 10 people in turn share the files, they could be said to be "pirated" sources. I think that's what the RIAA means.

Please understand that I think that all of this is ridiculous and the DMCA is an abomination. I'm just trying to understand the RIAA's strategy. I think the RIAA are evil but, unlike some people here, I don't think they are stupid.

Yeah, George, I don't buy into what the RIAA says, either. Hell, I think the labels themselves are releasing the albums early, though I'm not exactly sure of the true reason. I mean, why else am I able to get some of my albums near two months early?

But, Ifeelfree, Again, they say it's not the downloading thats illegal, so how could the 10 who download it be in trouble? (unless they allow their copy for uploading) Only the one who put the original one in the first place and shared it. So, we stop buying the cds. We stop sharing the cds. They may win the battle, but they will ultimately lose the whole war.

God damn this is ignorant. Obviously coming from someone equally as technologically inept as the RIAA. Obviously MP3's come from cd's...Everyone with half a brain knows this, but I think for the most part people accept that what the RIAA means by legally purchased cd, they mean that the owner of the mp3 file legally purchased the cd making for a non indexed hash in their database. However in an earlier post when this story first hit this website, I clearly explained how a hash can not fingerprint the source of a file, but rather the file itself, and that it would be ignorant to assume that 2 identical mp3's couldn't be made if the same variables were present in each instance (although not in all cases). You also refered to cd's as DIGITAL having a digital hash. Proving further more your ineptitude, CD's are read on the fly, analog. Burned groves into a disc that represent sound are read to recreate sound. Like records with more fidelity, they are not files, not digital. Since they are not digital, there is the possibility that a hash from one file to another mp3 wouldn't differ even if the same ripper and encoder were used, but it is totally possible that they could. We all know what the RIAA means when they say shit like that now, at least the majority. We're used to lies and beating around the meat of the truth to spin things in their direction, but this is just article is nothing of intelligence or anything to learn from nor does it refute anything the RIAA has claimed through logic and reason. It's just pushing around words to suit your opinion of things...Same thing the RIAA does.

Here's a challange, you want to write an article on this subject, how about you learn what you're talking about, then write an article based upon the fact that what the RIAA is saying is not technologically substantial. Rather than running your mouth off in a shameless attempt to twist their words around to fit your arguement. You did nothing to help anyone's opinion of this, and I just wasted time reading this. Thank you

Pfffft, I dont even know why one would pay for a crappy cd anyways.

44100 samples per second is pathetic. To get sound near a turntable, your gonna need 192000 samples per second or higher, that would be where DVD audio comes in.

Till thats mainstream, you wont beat a turntable.

Holy Shit. George man you need to stay around. That was an awesome post. I actually never thought of this that way but he's right.

Good article. In all the comments I saw posted about the supposed "digital fingerprint" the RIAA was using I was surprised to see no one really caught the line in which they mentioned they used a ID3 tag which referenced a warez website as their "proof" the files were in fact illegal themselves. They made it seem that an ID3 tag was super hard to alter and hidden from view, when in fact if you have Win 2K, XP or OS X then it will be shown in the OS when viewing file properties.

That brings up another question, is it illegal to download a song from P2P that someone else ripped if you already own the CD of? Do I have to do convert a CDA to MP3 myself to be considered legal or ok?

negatyve,

Not quite sure who you are flaming here. Are you a riaa mole? is it late there? are you possessed? what? I've read a lot of George Ziemann's writings and I thing the man is remarkably intelligent and articulate and I didn't have any trouble with this article. Perhaps I have misunderstood what you are saying.

George is just fed up with all of this RIAA bullshit, but hes a really good guy.

In fact, I would think that this site gets so many visitors now then before because of his powerful statements.

Stick around George, we need you!

George we can't give up now and keel over! We have joined and allience with Webcaster and must see this this thing through! You can't let your allied forces down in the middle of the heat!
This site has generated an army of people ready to fight and serve! Look what the CODE is doing! he's even working on a bill! and it would not have happened if it was not for this site that inspired him! You have inspired many and the WAR HAS JUST BEGUN!!!!!!!! BRO!!!!!

I'm gonna have to go to the dark side on this one and swim against the stream here. I fail to see any point in this article other than the out an out put down of the people here. I don't know who George is and as first impressions go I'm not really in any hurry to be. In my experience putting down your own peers is a good way to loose them. If this is an standard occurrence I'm not surprised he "Ran out of friends". By the massive show of support I would imagine he must have bestowed much wonderfulness on the people here in the past so I can judge to harshly. I sill am surprised that being called stupid hasn't ruffled at least a few peep's feathers though.

Not having not had any real time to investigate this hashing fingerprinting thing I don't have any really opinion on it's validity one way or another. Where as I do feel that the RIAA are nothing but crooks and evil doers I fail to see any real evedance of wrong doing here. Where as I wouldn't be shocked in the least that is all a lie and a sham I fail to see any prof as to what the truth is. I felt this article was someone saying he didn't buy it because it sounded stupid and the worlds stupid for not thinking like me. I gladly welcome any technical breakdown of what the hashing is and why its a load of crap. I'm not finding it here.

ConsumersAbyss- George has spent 30 years fighting these RIAA types. He has testified in front of the government on these issues. He has given up all his money trying to fight for the little guy. People are cutting George slack on what appears to be an attack on the members for the above reasons, and well, George is just not himself right now due to stress.

IFeelFree: Yes you are right and this is exactly the point. About what George said I would just say DUH. Of course originally it came from a 'legal' CD as we all came from Adam and Eve and I'm a distant relative of Britney Speers and so are you. But this is out of the point. The events, after someone legally ripped it, matter. And, unfortunately, the RIAA has something there. Something that needs the attention of the developers of the next version of Kazaa or other p2p programs.

And George, come on, give us a break OK? We are actually trying to share some useful information rather than saying the obvious.

Remember the scene in Saving Ryan's Private Parts? on the beach trying to get past the fortified German bunker? Thats what it must feel like to a lot of people like George! When you look at the huge bunker from where we sit it sometimes seems hopeless! It is an up hill battle, but not impossible! If we stay together and not get our feathers ruffled.........and I'm not speaking about just George, because I have seen a lot of PEEPS with ruffled feathers here!

Let me repost what i said earlier:
They are trying to paing a picture that if you get a file from P2P networks, it was pirated and stolen from them using evidence in the MP3 file, which is absurd because all music on P2P was originally on a CD. That is what George is trying to say.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

directive
Date: September 1, 2003 @ 2:10 AM
Plus one thing that really frustrates me is that the RIAA paints a picture that all P2P is pirating, this is absurd because if i have bought a Cd already and just want to DL the songs from kazaa, what is illegal about that? Nada, just the RIAA nonsense that ppl are pirates. There industry is not adapting to technology, that is there greatest downfall.

George is frustrated right now, as i would be if i was in debt in the thousands, i hope he will come back soon, and also, we need to do better in this movement, so calling me stupid is not going to get to me.

directive:

I think that's an interesting gray area - you own the CD but choose to download the tracks rather than rip them yourself. I'm sure the RIAA would claim it's illegal but, logically, it doesn't make sense. What's the difference between downloading and ripping myself? The end result is the same. I don't think that would stand up in court.

The only other question is it legal according to the DMCA to rip tracks from a CD that I own. I've heard it alleged that Fair Use rights apply to analog media but not to digital media. That would imply that you're not allowed by the DMCA to even make backup copies of CDs you legally own for private use. That seems extreme to me but some excerpts from the DMCA I've read would seem to support that view. Have I been misled about this?

Malchus Wrote:
"The only info on a file (and I'm not sure if it's actually on the file or just in the GUI database) is date created, date last modified, and date last accessed, and those don't prove a damn thing"

That's not true. Mp3's do support what's known as ID3tagging. We use them for mp3 identification; track listing, track name, and the group which ripped it. Other modded formats even allow for lyrics and a photo to be included. The information is ascii text located towards the end of the mp3; With the case of v1.0/v1.1 tags (which is what we use), it's 128bytes long from the end of the mp3. If your using winamp, pressing ALT-3 will show you the id3tag information for the tune your listening too.

Those tags are not exactly a unique fingerprint however; They're primary purpose is to make sorting/catalogging the said mp3s easier.

As a side note, I hope you don't leave George; I enjoy reading your posts. I forward them to users on our servers.

Well, thanks for hearing me. Good luck.

IFeelFree- the legality of ripping your CDs which you own to an MP3 format has not been decided (no stare decisis on this one). A strict interpretation of the DMCA would, really tend to say it is not legal, since copyright holder is given exclusive permission as to what copying of the copyrighted material is permitted legally. But, there are differing positions.
At the EFF, they have the following comments which I reproduce a portion of under Fair Use for using their material:
"Is Taping and Ripping CDs legal?

The legality of taping and ripping CDs involves interpretation of a number of overlapping statutes and court decisions. As a result, sometimes there aren't clear answers and lawyers disagree about what's legal, based on differing interpretations of the law. This is a brief explanation of the issues and arguments.

Surprisingly, the legal status of "ripping" (making a MP3 format copy of a CD you own), and burning (making a CD-R copy of a CD you own), is not clear-cut. However, many lawyers believe these activities are legal if done for personal, non-commercial uses under the copyright doctrine of "fair use".

First, they argue that Congress intended that it would be legal for consumers to make personal noncommercial home recordings of pre-recorded music and music broadcasts, when it passed amendments to the Copyright Act. They point to comments made by Congress in 1971 which specifically addressed the home taping issue.

Second, many lawyers believe that making a CD-R back-up copy of a CD you already own for your personal use is "fair use". They also believe that conversion of music on CD to MP3 format or "space-shifting", for personal, noncommercial use, is analogous to "time-shifting'", (using a VCR to record copyrighted tv programs for later viewing). The Supreme Court stated that time-shifting was fair use, when done for private noncommercial purposes, in the 1984 Sony Betamax decision ( Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios et al, 464 US 417, 455). A 1999 California Court of Appeals decision in a case brought by the Recording Industry Association of America against Diamond Multimedia, the maker of the Rio MP3 player, supports this view of space shifting. ( R.I.A.A. v. Diamond Multimedia Systems, Inc., 180 F. 3d 1072 at 1079 (9th Circ US Court of Appeals).

There is a category of devices (including mini-disc players, stand-alone audio CD recorders and DAT recorders) and media (including the more expensive "audio" CD-Rs) for which different rules may apply. These items fall within the definitions of "digital recording devices" and "digital recording mediums" under the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992. The AHRA allows you to make analog or digital copies of a CD you own for noncommercial use on devices and mediums that comply with AHRA, without fear of legal action (see section 1008 of AHRA). These rules are quite complex, and most importantly, do not cover personal computers (so don't apply to burning and ripping done on personal computer)."

CodeWarrior:

That's what I was afraid of. The legality of just making backups of CDs you legally own is tenuous. Yet, sales of blank CDs and CD burners are allowed. How is the consumer supposed to make sense of this? These laws have to be changed.

Kazaa users are now up to 4.3 million, a new high that i havn't seen in over 2 months. The RIAA's campaign isn't working on the masses.

With the whole hash mark thing...I wish I had the money to back up my mouth and tell the RIAA just one thing.

Prove It !!!

I don't believe you. Lets see some undeniable proof. Lets see undeniable proof of anything you say.

I may be a copyright infringer, Not thief or pirate. And not to many people outside of this site know what the "big words" mean. But everybody on the planet knows what Liar is.

Too bad we all don't have the money to make them "Prove It".

Sometimes you must spank your children to prevent them from making a larger mistake. It's why we all go through a point in life hating our own parents until we realize what the lesson really was.

George, well said.

I think we are missing the point here. George is correct, but the RIAA will sue you right or wrong until you have no money left for court action. Currently lawyers run between $120 and 200/hour, this makes it easy to plow through any nest egg you may have. The EFF doesen't have any money and the ACLU is mute on this issue. So we must depend on a few who have the resources to challenge the RIAA's position.

surfside, today i saw about 4.3 million users on kazaa at noontime. Though i do not advocate filesahring of RIAA files, filesharing is still on the rise and your chances of getting hit by the riaa are still about 50,000 to 1 on a basis of 60 million file sharers in the USA only and having sapeaned only 1500 or so. The numbers are so incredibly low that the RIAA only has scare tactics left.

sorry, 60 million / 1500 is 40,000 to 1

Then don't forget that ppl will fight the supeanas and that slims your chances of being sued to around 50-100 thousand in one. Plus they havn't sued but a few ppl anyway, the RIAA isn't doing much of anything in my eyes, aside from walking all over the constitution.

The RIAA is loosing about 3 billion in total control every year, and it looks like by about 2010 they will not be worth more than a couple billion. That will be a great day as independent artists and the consumers will finished the fight.

Hope all that does not sound cocky.

George
I as an independent artist use p2p, p2p has got to be the best thing for independent artist to ever come. It is great tech and with out it independent artist would have no other real outlet.
MP3.com started as a great idea, where else could you go to listen to indie artist from all over the world. The cause is there, I went to a club this weekend and ran into another indie artist that I know. The topic of conversation was around how hard it is to find indie artist on the net any more. I remember a time when I could go to MP3.com and choose a city, a state or a country and the Genre that I WANTED, and listen to what other bands were doing. There are other sites out there, but nothing like MP3 was in it's prime, it is now corporte owned and the little guy as my self is left standing in the cold. We need you to lead this fight, I know we get off track, but I will speak for myself in saying that I feel vulnerable to a corporation that has deep pockets that I can not even start to fathom. When I came to this site I was downloading music, hard to find stuff and no where else to find it, and even found music that was not released I.E. perfect circle's cover of diary of a mad man in the manner of the cure, great cover. I have been talking to any one who will listen about this matter, and in reality I have found that a lot of people have heard some about this, but don't know the whole story. and in reality would like to know more, and it is as simply as this, have articles printed out, links ifthey have email and the most important that has worked for me is to let them know not to belive me but to research it own there own, for this isthe only way that they will understand (you have to look at both sides of the story) so hang in there, WE NEED YOU, we need everyone who is scared, angry, concerned, and wooried that they may be the next person on the RIAA's hit list to join our cause.
Get out and vote!!!!!!
Register, make your voice heard, it is your God given right and your right as a citizen of this country, use it

Surfside6 wrote that ACLU is mute on the issue of file sharing. Wow, say it isn't so!
I hadn't thought about that until now. If the ACLU -- notable champions of individual freedoms and personal rights to privacy -- is being inconsistent with their inexplicable silence here, then they need to be confronted with appropriate letters and emails to force them to explain why. How about us cranking up to do that?

In most other instances, they are prominently active in noble causes of preserving civil liberties. Well, let's see them have to say why they can't put their money where their usual mouth is, on this issue!

At the very least, (from their standpoint) they would be "safe" in affirming to uphold the right of file sharing itself (pro bono), not necessarily in the sharing of copyrighted material, but the concept of sharing in general would certainly be aided by their vocal if not legal support. After all, even though temporarily derailed from being able to use the judicial system for the purpose at the moment, the RIAA desires with all their black hearts to have P2P be banned -- and you can just bet they haven't abandoned their oppressive goal to try again in a different way on a different day to do just that!

Code, what do you think? Aren't I on to something here?

grumpygeezer : I think you ARE on to something, and to be honest, I hadn't looked at the ACLU to see their position yet (something I normally do).
With the Patriot Act and other things going on, my feeling is that their resources are few and far betweem , however; I will try to frame a short letter to them regarding the RIAA issue and abuses of the RIAA, and will make it available in my forum (go to FORUMS--->boycott-riaa===>CodeWarriors forum. I will try to get an e-mail address for the ACLU that those want to send the letter to them can use.

Good thinking grumpygeezer!

~code

George,
You've been an integral part of my experience here. I've read all your articles, quoted from many and spent not a small amount of time in thought over the rest. I've enjoyed your hard hitting no-holds-barred approach, and only wish I could be as well versed and spoken on this issue as you are.
I'll not say don't go, that's trite. I'll say stay if you want, it won't be the same w/o you. I hope that in whatever you do, you use the same zeal and vigor that has put so many of us back on the "right track". Good Luck to you, God Bless, and I hope you'll at least come back from time to time, if for no other reason than to "put boots to glutes".
Thanks again George.

Does CodeWarrior rule, or what?
Like JazzMary2U (sp?) has said, You da bomb!
Hats off to you, sir, for going the extra mile on behalf of all of us to address and help deal with the most pressing issues of our times! We really can't thank you enough.
Also, your "bill" is awesome, too!

{P.S., Remye, I'll be a ditto-head for what you've so eloquently expressed about George.)

[exiting for my work day . . . ]

Concerning the ACLU:

It's quite possible the ACLU doesn't consider the plight of a relative handful of citizens to be important enough to jump up and down about. Forget conspiracy theories for a moment.

In the grand scheme of things, music and file sharing aren't big enough for them to worry about.

Of course, this will be unfortunate, because we all know the slippery slope of lost privacy rights the RIAA is leading this to.

George, I offer you my moral support as well, but I understand how life can be a bear at times. My thoughts are with you, bro. Come back to us when you can.