1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

RIAA wins battle to ID Kazaa user

Discussion in 'Issues Around the World' started by Cariad, Jan 21, 2003.

  1. Cariad

    Cariad cymru am byth

    Story found here http://news.com.com/2100-1023-981449.html?tag=lh

    Can't say I'm surprised, the RIAA have been very persistent in their quest to shut down Peer to peer users.

    It pisses me off that users are constantly downloading stuff (including software) just because they can. There's no need to leave any peer to peer software open 24/7. If you need something, start it, download it, close it.
    I truly feel it's going to cause the ISPs to start limiting how much bandwidth we can use each month. They already do it in Australia, and have started to implement it in the UK.

    Applause to Verizon though, it seems they have been fighting this all the way.
  2. tke711

    tke711 Oink Oink Staff Member

    I disagree that there is no reason to leave a p2p program on 24/7. If people didn't leave there program on to allow sharing, there wouldn't be many files for others to grab. Therefore, p2p wouldn't really work very well.
  3. midranger4

    midranger4 Banned

    IP spoofing will become mainstream for P2P users in this ongoing battle between the RIAA and the P2P networks. Then what boys?

    The RIAA are a bunch of morons who instead of capitalizing on the technology keep attacking it with every possible resource they can get their grubby little hands on.

    They deserve to go down in a ball of fire.
  4. Misu

    Misu Hey, I saw that.

    After hearing the news that people who purchased CD's are only entitled to 20 bucks each, I really really dislike the RIAA. They can screw us all they want, but then we can't screw them back? Pfft.

    Someone's going to come up with a version of Kazaa or Blubster or Imesh or any other p2p that masks the ip, and then RIAA is going to be sitting there with their thumbs up their asses.
  5. Domh

    Domh Full Member


  6. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    Great to see you starting a topic, Cariad. :)

    I tend to agree with everything you said, and I am sure we will both be burned at the cross.

    Wanna hold hands? ;)

    I have Verizon as well, btw, and never thought I'd love their service (DSL) but I seriously do.
  7. Robert Harris

    Robert Harris Passed Away Aug. 19, 2006

    Excuse me, Ethics, but I think you get burned at the stake, not the cross. The cross you just get nailed to.
  8. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    As if the people doing the burning know the difference?
  9. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    The decision by U.S. District Judge John D. Bates upheld the recording industry's powers under a 1998 law to compel Verizon Communications Inc. to identify one of its Internet subscribers who was suspected of illegally trading music or movies online. The music industry knew only a numerical Internet address this person was using.

    The ruling means that consumers using dozens of popular Internet file-sharing programs can more easily be identified and tracked down by entertainment companies trying to prevent the illegal trading of movies and music. For consumers, even those hiding behind Internet aliases, that could result in warning letters, civil lawsuits or criminal prosecution.

    "Just because you can doesn't mean it's legal to become a digital Johnny Appleseed," warned Michael McGuire, an industry analyst for Gartner Inc., a research firm in Stamford, Conn.

    Verizon promised Tuesday to appeal and said it would not immediately provide its customer's identity. The ruling had "troubling ramifications" for future growth of the Internet, said Verizon's associate general counsel, Sarah B. Deutsch.

    "The case clearly allows anyone who claims to be a copyright holder to make an allegation of copyright infringement to gain complete access to private subscriber information without protections afforded by the courts," she said.

    This just plain sucks.

    I am not a pirate, nor endorse it, but this is pathetic.
  10. Cariad

    Cariad cymru am byth

    I'd rather run like hell and take my chances that the people chasing me are slow. The fire would ruin my hair :cool:
  11. HaYwIrE

    HaYwIrE Banned

    I want! I want! I want, God damnit! Gimme! GIMME! GIMME!!! I DESERVE EVERYTHING FOR FREE!!! IT'S MY RIGHT!!! DAMN CAPITALISM TO HELL!!! :rolleyes:
  12. yazdzik

    yazdzik Veteran Member

    Dear Friends,

    Clearly, no one supports theft of intellectual property; this is a fourth amendment issue, pure and simple.

    I remember saying at the onset of the DMCA days that being able to obtain identification without a warrant was the end of the fourth amendment. Everybody laughed, and the number of posts, back in the heydey of DSLR,saying that thieves should get what they deserve was astonishing.

    It occurs to few that the idea that ones communication may be seen without a warrant signed by a judge, or that one's id may be submitted to the police or courts without probable cause warrant is a kind of accession to rule by right. The attitude seems to be prevalent that we need right and wrong, rather than legal and illegal, because people are afraid.

    Freedom requires courage and a commitment to liberty rather than comfort. Who are our heroes? Greenspan and Gates? Are these people serving the republic or pandering to peoples' love of money.

    We have decided that it is easier to live in the comfort of morality rather than the stress of law, and the price will be the tyranny that is consuming our land in its insatiable maw.

    How many police officers of the younger generation seem to feel they are on the side of "right?" Last time I read the oath, NYPD officers worked to support law and the constitution, not "right."

    The internet will either be the basis for a new learning, where everyone can download Aeschylus for free, subsidised, I guess, by shareholders and advertisers, it's true, but a world of civilised learning, or another means for the strong and greedy to injure the weak and poor.

    We have bought ourselves a congress, president, fed chairman, FCC chair, and other officials who respond to our real wants - to live in a dictatorship, where, like in the soviet of old, knowledge was a danger to its possessor.
    The reason the DMCA exists, and the telco act has been castrated is simple: anyone knowing the most rudimentary law or sociology would see what criminals the current gang is.

    Deeper analysis still brings me back to my old saw, which I have so often posted, like some energiser bunny Ken, that I seldom write anymore: we hate sex in this country, and are willing to have AOL control our lives to make sure the bairns do not learn to like fucking.

    This is so insane as to bear no comment, but ask yourself, in all honesty, what kind of a person needs parental controls? Of what are we afraid? If my daughter say to me, "Dad, your thesis is full of holes," and she be right, must I assert my authority of size, or create an authority of reason, in which I must answer, "Shit, you're right?"

    Look at the sex in marriage thread, and look at the DMCA, and see the parallel. We have become so afraid of material want, of losing the mommying of the corporations feeding us at their will, that we, as good trained seals, bark for our fish. Yes, RIAA, we want Madonna, the material girl, please, please, let us learn to love things. Oh, the Bill of Rights has to go, well, that's okay, we can buy another at the Mall, if Bill "me-too" Gates and Bill "2-inch" Clinton, and Al "the brave" Gore, and Al "the humanitarian" Greenspan allow it. Else, well, maybe the pink toilet seat, with the soft cushiony stuff is more important than whatever Madison said, anyway. We all know, he was a deist, and his wife or sister, or whatever she was, was a hooker. Or was it the other way around.....

    Who would ever have thought that two bills and two als could do so much harm?

    And the texan prince of wales? Insult his Daddy, and wait until he gets back to you. And we thought Sarajevo was just a page in history books.

    How can this happen? We chose to allow the campaign funding system to create the Medusa whose face now turns our living law to stone. To allow Sherman to fall, pissing on Roosevelts grave, to make sure that GUIS-are-a-micro$oft-invention Gates could be the last major thief, making sure that no teen in Indonesia loads a hacked XP, or no one can really use linux if he works on wall street, is what we want. Why? Because cheap gas is more important than expensive freedom. I think if nothing else, Bartlebys and the Cornell legal information site, the other site with all the Marshall decisions, my beloved latin sites, and all the rest are worth letting the shareholders of ma bell pay for. Worth fighting for. Worth dying for.

    Most Americans? As long as they are sure that Suzy will never have sex, viz marriage thread, particularly sex that makes babies that do not contribute to our material betterment, or god forbid, sex with someone from another race, or the same gender, or, just sex, because, it might mean we are too old for ultra-bright and tight jeans, since, with the right mouthwash, face lift and hair plugs, we do not get older, because we....

    Forget Socrates, where are the books about the Athenian elders? Google hypocritical bastards.

    We are willing to allow the police into our homes without a warrant to save ourselves from the inconvenience of having to think or feel. Shiny is only partly right, our campaign system may be a disgrace, but it is a disgrace which we deeply love, since we buy our way out of real responsibility for making political decisions, just like those who claim to be bigots to get out of jury duty.
    Of course, duty is a four lettre word, and as much as you all hate to see me say fuck, the real puritans are far more offended by duty. Duty means we have to work to be free. That, of course, is too much to ask. So, in order to realise that teen girls on the web are not technically paedophilia, but just plain old teen girls, we would have to click at least three times to find the DSM. That would be work.

    So let King George have his wars, his taxes, his free ride for those who are not in need, and punish those awful folks who produce theatre, opera, and english literature class for their sedition, and make sure that those who promote his values, aurum omnia vincit since the RIAA artists need the cash to sell the gospel of Money can buy me love are well protected. Apparently, whoring is only bad if we can see it as such, so, it is better to blind the folk.

    Change the DMCA? Not until young folks elect the congress and president, and we have made sure that they do not vote, by failing to tell them that it is the most important obligation in their lives. Yes, it is more important to vote than make a living. Sorry, Al. You are an ass, and your productivity gains, if not met with deeper social commitment are a pile of shit, reeking to heaven of the selfish short-sightedness of Judas. He was the hero, right? Thirty pieces of silver, and no revolution. Productivity at its best: one man should die for the nation. Forgot about Masada? Try a google search for Josephus, if he is still not protected by copyright. If he is, we are saved from realising what kind of world we really have when the republic becomes an empire.

    Me? I think the girl with the pony is kind of cute.

  13. Techie2000

    Techie2000 The crowd would sing:

    "Human knowledge belongs to the world" - Teddy Chin; AntiTrust

    That my friends, is the foundation upon which open source is based. The same foundation, on which the internet was based. A foundation on which people would share. When the internet started we had BBSes, FTP, IRC, E-Mail, and Telnet. Things were shared openly, people had no fear of legal reprucussion. Then the internet started to advance. The World Wide Web was developed. A new excellent way to deliver content to the masses. All you had to do was pay for your ISP account and you could have almost free reign. As the internet grew in popularity more and more companies got their own .com. Soon selling things online was legal, and you didn't have to pay taxes to boot. It was practically the epitome of capitalism. Then early 1999, a college student Shawn Fanning left college to work on a new software program. In just 6 months he came out with it. The name? Napster. A revolutionary new content delivery system that users could use to share their MP3 files with each other. Now people no longer had to copy their CDs to tape. They get a digital version and could share and get music from around the world. It was in fact the goal of the internet put into a single program. Free sharing of information, and data. Of course there were people that didn't like Napster. The RIAA (a relatively unknown organization to the general public at the time) decided that napster was bad for music sales. They sued. From there everything went downhill. I remeber when the first MP3 player came out. The Rio 300 held a whopping 32MB of music, and was $300. They sued to try to prevent the sale of it. Today MP3 players are commonplace. However the RIAA keeps trying to shut down these P2P programs. They first shut down napster. Then everyone just moved on to the next thing. Every time they shut one down 2 new ones would pop-up in its place. They realized that it would no longer work to target the networks. They instituted what I call a "Reign of Terror" and started targeting individual P2P users with the hope of scaring people away from using P2P. That still hasn't been too effective. They start putting fake files up and try to sabotage the usability of the networks. However people fight back by developing methods for verifying the files. They got people's information using the DMCA.

    They haven't been launching an attack on just P2P networks, but the values on which the internet was built on. With more and more restrictions being placed on what we are allowed to do on the internet, the usefulness of it is decreasing. We my friends, cannot and should not let this happen. The internet is dying. I was afraid to admit it, but the internet is dying. It is under attack by organizations, and companies, while our government is standing idle and doing nothing to stop it. The internet was designed to be a free organism controlled only by its users. However it seems that there are a few intent on caging it.
  14. Steve

    Steve Is that it, then?

    That is perhaps the most eloquent defense of theft I've ever read.

    How nicely you segue from the legal sharing of freely offered intellectual property into the blatant theft of such property protected by copyright law.

    That which anyone creates, is theirs; it does not "belong to the world", in spite of Mr. Chin's nice-sounding but incredibly naive sentiment. And, if in the course of creating something, a person enters into a contract with another entity, that contract is a matter between the creator and the second party.

    Neither you, nor I, nor anyone else has any legal or moral to unilaterally declare the terms of that contract invalid and, therefore, the creations become the property of "the world".

    What utter hogwash.
  15. jfcjrus

    jfcjrus Veteran Member

    Way to go, Yaz.
    You illustrate the danger of feel-good laws!

    Corporations involving our government to guarantee their capitol expenditure. What baloney.

    I want thank you for posting to help me understand and appreciate the broader ramifications of these day-to-day issues.
    Sometimes, I lose sight of how these events will effect the freedoms I cherish.

    (Now that I've got my brand new 2003 dictionary, I think I can really keep up with you now. ;) )

    Well said, sir.
  16. ShinyTop

    ShinyTop I know what is right or wrong!

    Extending information sharing to include sharing copyrighted material is precisely why we have laws like the DMCA. The users of the net grew giddy with the possibilities and decided to violate other's rights to own what they produce. So what had great promise is being used to steal and now we will have the usual overkill of law that goes too far the other way. Not meant pesonally Techie, but when all the people who have passed along stolen software, music, and movies over the net are wanting to know who is responsible for these draconian laws, they should look in the mirror.
  17. HaYwIrE

    HaYwIrE Banned

    Just thought that needed to be repeated. Well said, stevent. Isn't it amazing how a group of people can get together... condone that which is no more than blantant theft of intellectual property... and make <b>themselves</b> sound like the poor and helpless victims.

    Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups. :rolleyes:
  18. Techie2000

    Techie2000 The crowd would sing:

    Stevent, may I ask what constitutes stealing? If the person doesn't lose anything, is it really stealing?

    Anyways just to clarify if anyone wonders I don't use P2P myself...
  19. Steve

    Steve Is that it, then?

    You're not serious?!

    Let me just offer that theft is defined by the laws of the land. If you don't like them, change them. If you choose to flaunt them, be prepared to spend some time in prison.

    The real precedent set in this case has nothing to do with the RIAA or, even, the DMCA.

    The true precedent is the court's over-ruling of Verizon's defense that they're just a "carrier". It is clear to me that the way has been paved to hold ISP's accountable for the traffic on their network.

    You can bet that faced with the threat of a lawsuit, the ISP's will be falling all over themselves, terminating accounts of people illegally using p2p services.

    Once again, due to the inability of a relative few to differentiate between right and wrong, between legal and illegal, the rest of us will pay with coin of reduced freedom and privacy.
  20. HaYwIrE

    HaYwIrE Banned

    Techie... You seem like an intelligent kid. I think you know very well the answer to that question dude. But, if you don't already know the answer to that question...

    First of all, one must understand the definition of "Intellectual Property".

    "<i>A product of the intellect that has commercial value, including copyrighted property such as literary or artistic works, and ideational property, such as patents, appellations of origin, business methods, and industrial processes.</i>"

    Whether it is something you can hold in your hands... feel or touch is irrelevant. For instance... if you were to have worked your ass off on a 200 page essay for school and someone got a hold of it before you presented it to your teacher... copied it... and turned it in before you did...

    Would you not be pissed off because that person <b>STOLE</b> your work and used it for their own benefit without your prior consent? Is it really theft? Did you lose anything? You still have your essay. Someone else just copied it and profited from it before you had a chance to. No harm done. Right?

    Stealing software... I'm sorry... "<i>sharing</i>" software, copyrighted music and the like is a direct cause of prices shooting so high. Not the only reason... granted there are greedy execs up there... but it is still theft and whoever gets caught should get no less a punishment than someone who steals... ohhhh... say... a car, computer or money from your wallet.

    Do not get me wrong. I <b>HAVE</b> MP3s. I <b>HAVE</b> used kazaa to get them as well. But I do not throw a whiny little fit and try tro condone the theft by whining about high prices or claiming that, "<i>It really isn't theft if nothing physical was stolen.</i>" That's just a bunch of liberal twisting of words to get something else for free and attempting to somehow condone it. I have no right to use kazaa to get files that I didn't pay for and they have every right to protect their intellectual property, which is no less their own property than their car, house or homework.

Share This Page