|
RIAA / MPAA go after xMule
xMule is a clone of the eMule client for the eDonkey filesharing network. It supports Linux/Unix/BSD platforms, and MacOS and Windows versions are under development.
"eMule is a well known P2P client, since it's web based," says Expose. "You click a ed2k link in a web forum, the download starts in the client and this way, you know what you're getting."
It can be used to download just about anything, including movies and music, and therein lies the problem.
Naturally, if you're seriously into p2p, you'll want to check it out, but when you reach the web page you'll see, "Slashdot shut down the site far faster and more effectively than any gov'ment agency because the last 5 companies i have contacted have said xmule is a 'high risk server' and the backup servers i was planning to implement literally within MINUTES of being slashdotted have since canceled the accounts and refunded my money."
Un-Thesis is talking about the Slashdot titbit which ran, "Two bits of news in the ongoing battle between the RIAA/MPAA and the rest of the internet: One P2P company, apparently based in Palestine, has thrown down the gauntlet to the movie industry. Meanwhile, a developer of another P2P tool who unwisely chose to live in the USA has been shut down (mirror) by the RIAA."
Not to worry. "I was personally kicked in the nuts by the Feds, but have since regained my posture and am already coding the next version (1.6.0 of xmule) and plotting my legal moves," he states. "I am now *completely* free of all obligations and interruptions (no email, work, social life, games, etc :-) and am currently totally dedicated to making sure that a near-future version will work seemlessly on MacOS, Win32, and UNIX minus gov'ment and corporate spying.
"Keep it real and please support the real client and not the various imitations that have cropped up in recent weeks ..."
To download xmule, go here, and for temporary forums hosted by Simon Moon, go here.
In the meanwhile, "I've been personally shut down," said Un-Thesis here .
"Apparently I have been subpoenad, personally, on 8-17-2003 by an as-yet unknown entity under the DMCA clause, because of xmule, when it went on to gov'ment radar w/ the e-matters.de alert :P The subpoena lasts, suposedly, until Dec 6, when i must stand infrotn of a federal appellet court
"100% of My job is online
"100% of My school is online
"100% of My friends are online
"100% of My hobbies are online
"and if i can't use a comptuer at all, they might as well put me in a federal prison taht allows me to read and purchase any book i want...
"As of 7:43AM MST (-7 UTC) my personal internet connection was shut down due to 'unacceptable use'. It took me 6 hours to finally contact my ISP customer support, a local cable modem provider, because they were swamped with MSBLASTER calls.
"I was redirected to a 1800 number who redirected me to some other number, etc, until i finally reached a federal clerk's office in Washington, D.C. who informed me that it *seems* as though I have been personally subpaened by the USA Gov'ment on behalf of the RIAA. They told me that they were limited in their search for information due to the late hour (8PM EDT (-4 UTC)), but that the prosecuting body that issued under hte auspicies of the DMCA and NOT in the same category as the other 8,000+ copyright violation affidavits issued by the RIAA in recent months.
"Additional bad news: xmule.org has reached 90% of its allocated monthly bandwidth. It is the 19th. I am very incapable of rectifying this decision w/out knowledgeable outside assistance in the United States (due to telephone communication required). If you can help me set up the other webserver, please contact me at 520-296-3408.
"Unless DRASTIC action is taken within the next 48 hours, or my internet connection is restored, xmule.org forums will be permanently shut down until the bandwidth issue can be resolved.
"Supposedly, the subpaena was filed on 8-17-2003. For those that know, the e-matters.de published xmule ni its security bulletin, thus, probably, raising us to teh level of teh RIAA's notice for the first time. Since I am the only american developer, and since i am really the only main developer, it seems they struck at the source.
"I have not received written or otherwise announcement of the subpaena, and i still do not know the ramifications of my injunction. I may be able to use dialup or even DSL, cable is certainly out, or I may be completely barred form teh internet (this message might be illegal)
"At this point i *know* i will need to hire a civil rights attorney, and if I am not liable to a prison sentence, then I might be able to leave the United States to either Mexico or Canada, at which point i will also need money to relocate...So any donations are greatly appreciated. PLEASE use the Amazon donation box, since it requires no online access by me, while paypal erquires a connectino.
"I wont' know what my options are until some time tomorrow or later. Development of xMule seems to be the most likely target of me, since I have downloaded very little copyrighted material over the last, o, 6 months. I figured that before i found out i was banned completely from the internet i would send this mesasge...
"Keep it real...weclome to the Fourth Reich of Amerika.
"Un-Thesis"
And Oh Yeh - EarthStation 5? It's a glitzed up, second class app that's using its location (Palestine), its contrived public defiance of the MPAA and the gullibility of the mainstream media to promote something that would otherwise receive very little attention.
User Comments
(These do not necessarily reflect the beliefs of this site)
|
bulkeraser
|
Date: August 23, 2003 @ 1:49 PM
"Keep it real...weclome to the Fourth Reich of Amerika"
SEZ IT ALL!
-bulk |
|
Soulwax
|
Date: August 23, 2003 @ 2:54 PM
You'll be more then welcome in Mexico.
Everything is very cheap except for broadband connections.
They want $120 dollars a month for a 512kb connection. They're rippin' people off! |
|
goldenpi
|
Date: August 23, 2003 @ 3:22 PM
Still waiting for the MPAA to go after sharereactor. They are behind schedual.
xMule is in trouble. Time to start the mirroring. Unfortunatly I am not familiar with the legal basis of personal subpoenas and im not even sure who issued this one. Would probably be a good idea to get the forums offline before the bandwidth usage goes too high.
The information on ES5 is accurate. |
|
SonOfLiberty
|
Date: August 23, 2003 @ 3:25 PM
It looks like the new wave P2P app will look like Earthstation 5 or Freenet. I can't find hardcore info on earthstation 5. Anybody have any links to information? I tried google, but to no avail. |
|
IJustLoveMusic
|
Date: August 23, 2003 @ 3:26 PM
I was wondering if some one can help me?
Although I read the articles here atleast twice a day, this is the first time I have ever posted. I need help! I have been using Kazaa lite, and I all I seem to find are corrupted files. At first they were just on some of the newer files that were coming out, but now it's on alot of older music too. Like Eric Clapton & Annie Lennox. I was wondering if there is who (RIAA I am guess.) is doing this, how are they doing this? Is there anyway I can fix these files, once I already downloaded them? And, Is there anyway I can tell the files is corrupted. If anyone can help me, thank you! |
|
IJustLoveMusic
|
Date: August 23, 2003 @ 3:29 PM
Earth Station 5 I hope this helps son! |
|
IJustLoveMusic
|
Date: August 23, 2003 @ 3:30 PM
http://www.earthstation5.com |
|
SonOfLiberty
|
Date: August 23, 2003 @ 3:34 PM
Something very immature that the RIAA and the MPAA is doing is hiring "outside" sources to do their dirty work. What these outside sources do is create blanks and distribute them via the fast track network (kazaa, morpheus, imesh). They also create copies where the first 20 seconds is true audio, right from the song. Then followed by an intense shrill. If your speakers are turned up, it could damage them. There is nothing you can do to fix the files because those are the "original false" copies. They were made that way. They only thing I suggest is to look at the User Rating of each song you download. Chances are if the song has a User Rating of "excellent" than it is the actual song. Another suggestion is to check out tower records or cdnow. They will provide the exact length of the song. Then using kazaa, you can find the song that matches the song length on the cd. Those are the only 2 options I can suggest. |
|
SonOfLiberty
|
Date: August 23, 2003 @ 3:36 PM
Thanks for the post. |
|
CodeWarrior
|
Date: August 23, 2003 @ 5:12 PM
After reading the following two articles, I am even MORE entrenched in boycotting the RIAA than ever. And anyone who is in California and votes for Berman, must not believe in freedom!
http://www.zeropaid.com/news/articles/auto/0822003g.php
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/music/3056015.stm |
|
Soulwax
|
Date: August 23, 2003 @ 5:26 PM
There's a way to avoid completely fake files. And is very easy:
When you search for a song click in "more search options", and check "quality"
choose "at least" and next choose "160 kbps"
this works because i find that every fake files located in RIAA servers are -128 kbps-
I stopped finding fake files since i ust download HIGH QUALITY MP3 FILES.Tell me if that works for you. |
|
IFeelFree
|
Date: August 23, 2003 @ 5:46 PM
In CodeWarriors 2nd link, you gotta love the way the recording industry portrays the piracy problem as being due to the lack of cooperation from the electronics industry. It's not the recording industry's problem for not embracing file sharing technology and offering a reasonable download service...Oooooh Nooooooo! Blame the other guy. It's the electronic industry. Yeah, right. The electronic industry knows what the recording industry doesn't: Make the customer happy and you will prosper. |
|
isp-privacy
|
Date: August 23, 2003 @ 5:53 PM
Berman is quite a guy! Nothing like being fair & balanced! Would'nt it be great to be in a position of power like that? |
|
Rightoshare
|
Date: August 23, 2003 @ 5:59 PM
isp-addict
Fancy seeing you here! |
|
isp-privacy
|
Date: August 23, 2003 @ 6:09 PM
Hey! COPYRIGHTNOSHARE Hows it going man? |
|
surfside6
|
Date: August 23, 2003 @ 6:13 PM
Somebody help me, I just looked at the RIAA hit list (on techtv.com) and I found Kazaa, fileshare, MP2P, and Grokster. I saw nothing that says Emule or xmule. What is this guy's handle.
Is there some kind of prank going on here? or am I all wet? |
|
Rightoshare
|
Date: August 23, 2003 @ 6:21 PM
HA...........HA isp! |
|
Rightoshare
|
Date: August 23, 2003 @ 6:38 PM
surfside6 :
I haven't seen any reference to this peer network being issued with a subpoena either. Strange that the site the letter is posted on asks the ? at the bottom of wether it's real or not. |
|
Rightoshare
|
Date: August 23, 2003 @ 6:43 PM
On the other hand...it makes you wonder if the RIAA is indirectly involved in any 'underground' or covert info gathering activities. Wouldn't put it past them. You know damn well every case the have in court, they will have a heap of garbage on . |
|
Rightoshare
|
Date: August 23, 2003 @ 6:45 PM
"CONSPIRACY THEORY II" staring..The RIAA ! |
|
azburner
|
Date: August 23, 2003 @ 7:27 PM
I have a question,if they were to subpoena you for file sharing , why don't they have a warrant to search the house and confiscate the computer for evidence.It seems to me it would be a weak case with out this. Just because they say it happened at the IP address so what."I don't know what you are talking about, I DON'T RECALL" Politician's use this phrase all the time .Just a thought,what do you think? |
|
Rightoshare
|
Date: August 23, 2003 @ 8:12 PM
All they have to do is create a real good story(mostly ficticious) swing the influence of the court (jury) to their side , and then proceed in to bogus claims of lost income due to little Johny downloading the theme song from Sponge Bob Square Pants.............. We want $150,000 to compensate for our losses ! The artists we swindled , I mean represent, are starving and living on the streets. |
|
Soulwax
|
Date: August 23, 2003 @ 8:13 PM
Well, They say if you share files you are opening your computer and all the information there is no longer is private.
And you have no right to privacy.
Wich means:
"If you leave the front door of your house wide open we (RIAA) have the right to get in and look into your stuff without an order" |
|
Spica
|
Date: August 23, 2003 @ 8:18 PM
The RIAA will use any means to get at our money without giving us anything in return.
They will flow into any legal opening or loophole.
they are like ... diarrhea.
Yes, in fact, they have all the properties of it. |
|
Rightoshare
|
Date: August 23, 2003 @ 8:19 PM
NOW I KNOW WHY THE ARTISTS AREN'T TALKING ABOUT THE ISSUE .
They're embarrassed about being taken as suckers by the Big 5
"BARNUM AND BAILEY'S RECORDS"
..There's a sucker born every minute.. |
|
isp-privacy
|
Date: August 23, 2003 @ 8:30 PM
Can anybody prove that they are hiring geeks to destroy Kazza music files. And if so would that be an abuse of someones rights? |
|
Rightoshare
|
Date: August 23, 2003 @ 8:32 PM
Hey ! ip-privately ! Long time no post huh? |
|
Rightoshare
|
Date: August 23, 2003 @ 8:32 PM
LMAO ! |
|
isp-privacy
|
Date: August 23, 2003 @ 8:35 PM
RIGHTOSHARE did you read the article that CODE posted on Mr. Bermans letter?
read it and see what u think |
|
RyanS
|
Date: August 23, 2003 @ 8:47 PM
Righttoshare: "We want $150,000 to compensate for our losses ! The artists we swindled , I mean represent, are starving and living on the streets."
But the sad part is that the artist won't see a penny from all this money. |
|
Rightoshare
|
Date: August 23, 2003 @ 8:47 PM
This dumb ass, crack smoking, idiot contradicts himself concerning trying to establish a working relationship with the electronic industry.--
"We would have been a lot further along than we are today if we had had a level of co-operation with the electronics industry," said Mr Berman.
The record industry has been criticised for not embracing developments such as file-sharing or dealing with the CD piracy threat.
But Mr Bowen said: "We are not Apple and we are not Microsoft."
Absolute , prime grade nasal burning, BULL SH*T !
|
|
Rightoshare
|
Date: August 23, 2003 @ 8:51 PM
RyanS :
You are correct, and that's exactly why they should be speaking out to.
I mean really, what do they have to lose, except loyal fans if they side with the RIAA's actions. |
|
Rightoshare
|
Date: August 23, 2003 @ 8:53 PM
Now the excuses are going to start waxing thin. HAHAHA!
Waahhhh.. They wouldn't talk to us. |
|
Rightoshare
|
Date: August 23, 2003 @ 8:56 PM
If you are on a ship that is sinking,(Bow 45 degrees down), do you just look around at everyone or jump ship?
It's kind of like the Titanic. They don't really believe it's going down. |
|
OldSchoolHipHop
|
Date: August 23, 2003 @ 9:03 PM
can someone post how much cd sales dropped since the first RIAA subpoenas |
|
Rightoshare
|
Date: August 23, 2003 @ 9:11 PM
I don't know about recorded CD sales, but the blank CD market is doing great. LOL. |
|
CodeWarrior
|
Date: August 23, 2003 @ 9:23 PM
hey folks...first we had "KingAuthor" this morning saying we are all thiefs, now on the MIT thread, we've got another shill for the RIAA calling us thiefs again...the RIAA is really getting desperate now..two trolls in one day...LOL!!!!
check it out! |
|
isp-privacy
|
Date: August 23, 2003 @ 9:25 PM
This may sound stupid, but im getting real confused on what the RIAA really wants to sue for. "I have some questions I want to ausk you"?
"Who's your Daddy and what does he do"?
lol....ok here they are!
1. Am I allowed to have mp3 copy right song files on my computer? and do I have to have a receipt to prove them?
2. Am I allowed to loan anybody my copy righted cd's? other than P2P? like a neighbor?
3. Can I copy a cd that I already own on my cd burner...that is copy right?
4. Can I copy a song from the radio and transfer it over to a cd?
5. Can I sell my copy right cd's at a lower price (MUCH LOWER) in a garage sale?
6. Can I give them away after I burn a copy ?
7. Why were'nt the copy rightlaws inforced all along since the cassette days? IM GETTING REAL CONFUSED ANY MORE BECAUSE THE LAWS SEEM TO BE CHANGING DAILY! |
|
isp-privacy
|
Date: August 23, 2003 @ 9:37 PM
Just think of how many of those poor people on the hit list that won't have a clue of whats up or down with copy right laws!!! |
|
Soulwax
|
Date: August 23, 2003 @ 10:06 PM
I'm not an expert but here it comes.
answers:
1.-You have the right to store anything you want in your pc. But it's illegal to share copyright content (according to RIAA).
2.-I think it's illegal to distribute material even loans.
3.- You can copy cd's for back up pourposes only.
4.- Yes you can record songs from the radio only for personal use, is illegal if you try to sell it.
5.- You have the right to sell your property, but you have to specify that the cd's are used.
6.-i don't know.
7.-When cassettes first apearedd the music industry also was scared of people been able to have their own songs but nothing happened.
When i was trying to answer number 6 i realized how stupid copyright laws are.
I think what they want is to put a slot machine in every hose so every time yu want to hear your own songs you have to insert .99 cents per song. |
|
OldSchoolHipHop
|
Date: August 23, 2003 @ 10:40 PM
if they would just make a kazaa and others like morpheus legal and make people pay like a dollar a month, they would get like 65,000,000 dollars a month not counting what they would get from other countries. in the U.S alone they would get 780,000,000 dollars a year. comon there are millions of ways to solve this other than suing everything that walks. we all love music... ooo wait we love music ur just there for the money i forgot, thats why ur suing people for thousands of dollars thats money in ur pocket not the artists |
|
gdZiemann
|
Date: August 23, 2003 @ 11:06 PM
isp-privacy -- In answer to one of your questions, Hilary Rosen (outgoing head bitch of the RIAA) told a gathering of t-shirt merchants that the RIAA is actively involved in distributing corrupted files, files with just noise, and other sorts of garbage to pollute the P2P net.
This was when she was accepting the Award for Humanitarian of the Year from NARM (National Association of Retail Merchants).
To answer another question, the RIAA tried to implement the same draconian restrictions during the cassette days, which is why there is a Home Recording Act specifically allowing home taping, recording, etc. Part of the problem back then was the radio, which used to broadcast new albums in their entirety.
With the Home Recording Act, Congress shut down this silliness. We need the same thing to happen again. Someone simply has to convince Congress the truth, as opposed to the lies they have been fed by the RIAA. |
|
IFeelFree
|
Date: August 23, 2003 @ 11:22 PM
Once again our strength is the internet. Our elected officials may be bought off and mislead by RIAA lobbyists, the mainstream media may be ignoring us, but people are finding out the truth through websites such as this one and many others. The recording industry won't be able to hand the American public a snow job because there are too many websites that are telling the public what is really going on. |
|
r0dr0ddy
|
Date: August 24, 2003 @ 12:00 AM
isp- You are allowed to loan a CD to someone to listen to, but not copy. How can this be enforced? By creating CDs that can't be played back in CD-ROM drives.
As for the casette deal, I recall a group at my high school (wayyyy back in the day) who were part of the "K.I.N.D. Taper Network", a national club I believe, who encouraged the taping of concerts and indie bands to trade with others worldwide. I think that organization is now defunct.
Needless to say, even back in grade school, I used to borrow tapes from my friends and make copies for me, and they would borrow mine to copy for themselves.
Thanks to gdZiemann for tripping my memory about the home recording act and the RIAA's moronic attempts to shut home recording down. And recall the RIAA sued and almost got the first MP3 stand-alone player taken off the shelves back in 1998.
Goes to show you can't stand in the way of technology. |
|
Expose
|
Date: August 24, 2003 @ 3:02 AM
Thanks jon! You have a way of taking an article and making it... make sense. :)) :nod:
|
|
goldenpi
|
Date: August 24, 2003 @ 3:56 AM
Answers to questions earlier in thread:
Yes, the attempt to stop MP3 players was RIAA v. Diamond Multimedia Systems, Inc. They also attempted to ban consumer DAT, but had so much trouble then compromised with the AHRA which allowed DAT but severly crippled it and added the assumed infringement fee.
Althrough the AHRA allows home tapeing, with the RIAA attempting to switch to copy protected CDs, two groups researching watermarks suitable for FM or DAB radio and the edventual switch to DVD-audio actually exerciseing the home tapeing right under the RIAA could get quite difficult.
Loaning a physical CD to others is perfectly legal. Copyright law only makes it illegal to copy information, you can still do anything you want with the CD.
When casettes were introduced the industry paniced, but they did try a few things. For a time, some record labels had "home tapeing is killing music" printed on them. Also, one UK label (I cant remember which) sued Amstrad consumer electronics when they produced the first consumer dual casette deck.
You can sell your CDs at any price you want. First sale doctriene says that once the CD has been sold retail once, the copyright holder has no control over what you do with it. If you tried to sell thousands of them you might attract the price fixing division through :-)
As far as I can tell, the RIAAs sue 'em all campaign does not over the ed2k/emule network. However, the bots used by some other groups such as the BSA are monitoring. Those bots through only send an automated warning to the ISP, they will not result in an attempt to identify the user. |
|
surfside6
|
Date: August 24, 2003 @ 9:10 AM
Everyone gets do uptight when an RIAA spokesman says they are winning. Don't forget, they are paid to say this. Which means they will say or do anything to make a paycheck. Get over it!!!
As far as downloading files that are white noise, how about the person who does this, write down the ISP address and post it as a RIAA download site on one of the many boards discussing this issue. Information is the Key |
|
isp-privacy
|
Date: August 24, 2003 @ 9:11 AM
Top of the morning to you all! and thanks for the feedback on my questions. As I see it, A lot of the people on the hit list (that now realized they have been choosen for execution) may be rambling through questions like these! Mainly parents of teens or grand parents of kids. So through the years, at home copying has never been a problem until now with the internet? Not knowing that my own son was on Napster 2 years ago copying music, I would have been clueless recieving a letter in the mail that I was being subponeaed for a law suit. This is due to the FACT that I have not purchased a single music cd for the last 5 years. And I have not been keeping up with the news on this stuff. Please forgive me some of you, But I think most of the music today sucks for us seniors. Like I say I'm an old Beetles fan out of the 60's
I'm interested in attaining 40's 50's and 60's music. a lot of the musicians I liked are long gone ,but I guess the families & RIAA are still making royalities, Is that correst? So I would be STEALING money from people that have already made money on this music time and time again (AS the TROLLS that were here yesterday would say).
Another question, what about foreign music? If I copy Russian mp3's am I still under the same hit list from the RIAA? |
|
seraphielx
|
Date: August 24, 2003 @ 11:40 AM
hey you notice there are no trolls on this part of the page?
kinda odd eh? |
|
NCdude
|
Date: August 24, 2003 @ 12:39 PM
isp-privacy: The RIAA is only after infringment of music of their members. If you infringe copyrighted material of other labels or other type of media, they don't care. By doing that they hope to achieve two things. First, make their members happy. Second, shift the "illigal" activity to other non-RIAA members and make them sorry for not being an RIAA member.
I want to add a question to the experts here. I have wireless internet at home. Someone can ride on my internet connection for free without me even knowing it. This someone doesn't have to be phisically at my home (or even near it if this someone has a good antenna which you can be baought for $100). This someone can download and share like crazy and I will be subponeaed for a law suit. I know that if I had a clue I could maybe do something to prevent free ryding on my connection. But I don't have a clue. I'm not an expert. I just bought this wireless router and installed it with the default setup options provided by the manufacturer. So it wasn't me (check my hard-drive if you don't believe me). Will an argument like that hold water in court? Does it make sense technology wise?
NCdude. |
|
isp-privacy
|
Date: August 24, 2003 @ 12:55 PM
My son has a friend that found out recently someone piggybacked him like that with over 60,000 files. It had been going on for some time, before he realized it.
I asked the same question on a post earlier. I think it could be an argument but you would have to be able to prove this to the lynch mob of attorneys on their side. You are innocent until proven guilty or until you run out of cash for legal fees. But if it is on your IP you are tattoed! |
|
gilbd
|
Date: August 24, 2003 @ 1:15 PM
Read this one:
Excess Profits Breed Ruinous Competition: CDs and the Scarcity Principle
http://www.mp3newswire.net/stories/2003/scarce.html
They are talking about the diamond cartel controlled by DeBeers. Then they go to CD's and how they cost to much. And about what P2P has done for music. |
|
gilbd
|
Date: August 24, 2003 @ 1:28 PM
Take the brackets and br off end of address and it will work |
|
isp-privacy
|
Date: August 24, 2003 @ 1:31 PM
Very good article gilbd it should be posted up top!
This is what I have been saying all along! Every thing else has been changed and opened up, why not the music industry? well guess what? IT WILL BE! Congress didn't have any problem with stuffing NAFTA down our throats loosing millions of jobs over seas ,why are the protecting a dying Impire like this? Simple, its people on the take!
These senators and congressmen like Berman, Conyers want to now pass a bill to put you behaind bars if you download one MP3! HAHAHA! If the Americam people bow to this kind of crap from these leaders and continue to vote them in, then they deserve what they get? And they don't care about their freedoms either! |
|
goldenpi
|
Date: August 24, 2003 @ 2:02 PM
I remember an artical I read once somewhere about the latest artificial diamonds. Apparently DeBeers is getting scared of them now, worried about a big price drop, but is confident that artificial diamonds, even the most attractive, will not make it into the high-end jawlery market, because its diamonds price that makes it such a good status symbol. A lump of carbon from an industrial pressure cooker just wont impress people :-)
The idea of wireless network taps being used for downloading makes a great defence...for the downloader hideing nearby with a laptop. The person who owns the network is very much responsible. The ISP contract makes it clear that anything illegal done on the users connection is the users responsibility. Most also say the user musn't allow unknown third parties to use their connection. |
|
isp-privacy
|
Date: August 24, 2003 @ 2:12 PM
This old "Dracula" Copy right law.....lol get it? blood sucking!
I think will finaly die off and blow away, because technology (not bought off congressmen) won't allow this old law to stand! This is just a jaw-flapp.....but you know how they say that sound waves stay in the air for quite some time ? What would the music industry do if someone came up with a way to capture sounds produced 50 years ago and found a way to copy them to an MP3 file......patented the machine and sold it to the public? Would they try to induce their copy right law from free sound waves?.....Well mabey that would be a good question for Mr. F Freeloader or King Aurthur. But one thing is for sure change will come and very soon |
|
r0dr0ddy
|
Date: August 24, 2003 @ 2:36 PM
NCdude, isp, goldenpi, etc., as the current law stands (and there is no pending legislation to change it thankfully), anyone with a wireless router who has someone piggyback off of it without permission (or knowledge) and infringes copyright, the owner of the wireless router may not be held liable. Why? From my understanding it's a legal defense allowable in court that someone may have "inadvertent" ISP status. As long as the owner of the wireless router testifies he had no knowledge that infringement was going on (and especially since it wasn't happening with his/her own computer on his/her own property), he falls under the incidental ISP law, and is not liable for the actions of whoever uses his bandwidth.
Is this a green light to buy wireless routers and networks cards to use public (or private) wireless networks to download music? Sure. Only if the tunes you're downloading aren't RIAA material: we have a boycott going on, remember. :) |
|
isp-privacy
|
Date: August 24, 2003 @ 2:53 PM
Yes thank-you rOdrOddy...I think he wanted to know if he would be targeted, in which case you would if the share file with RIAA music. They are just dragneting everybody right now with open share files I think.... |
|
RingdemBells
|
Date: August 24, 2003 @ 2:57 PM
I also seem to remember that back in the middle to late 80's blank tapes came with an insert which read something to the effect that the music industry was trying to enforce a law which would add a dollar surcharge to each blank tape, and that one should contact their congressman. Really weird that there were actually companies back then who supported one's right to record their own purchased music...what's even more weird is that the blank tapes I bought back then were almost exclusively Sony!!!!
So the RIAA didn't blink an eye in asking that you give them a dollar for sending a voice message to grandma, recording your prof's lecture at school, or recording stuff your band did in your garage...pure, unmitigated, unabashed, unadulterated....GREED! |
|
AlfonsoD
|
Date: August 24, 2003 @ 3:18 PM
I am glad that Our Soldiers who have died on foreign soil fighting for our freedoms can't see the communism invading us from within. What's next, If you stay with friends or family while traveling, Can the local motels sue you for lost income? |
|
isp-privacy
|
Date: August 24, 2003 @ 3:27 PM
LOL....good point Alfonsod!
Can anyone tell if you send a single mp3 through email? Does anyone track that? I have a friend who wanted to know.
He sends his mother oldies every now & then through email |
|
NCdude
|
Date: August 24, 2003 @ 3:37 PM
Last week our babysitter showed up with her laptop and a wireless card. The baby was asleep and we didn't care if she watch TV or surf the web. she might have shared and downloaded files on our wireless connection. And again one doesn't have to be physically in your house to free ride your wireless connection. |
|
gilbd
|
Date: August 24, 2003 @ 3:51 PM
This is something for the ones that understand the law. I think it's the RIAA claims on Kazaa & the others it's a new post on that page. You may want to read it.
KaZaA Network Outline of Proof
PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL/ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT
http://www.dotcomscoop.com/article.php?sid=39 |
|
iostreamh
|
Date: August 24, 2003 @ 4:04 PM
Here are some thoughts.. the RIAA's main defense is that P2P nets cause them to loose money when ppl download music from them. This is based on the rationale that if a person downloads a track, they will not buy the CD. Why has no one in any respectable court pointed out the logical flaw in this reasoning. Here's the reality. CD's SUCK. Period. Most would agree that for a $17.99 CD, averaging 12 tracks, that about 2 or 3 tracks are actually good. They are grossly overpriced. Being optimistic, that means theat the consumer pays 25% for what they actually want, and 75% for garbage that is BUNDLED with what they want. Since the rise of the mp3 revolution, ppl have been able to obtain that 25% off of networks, for free, thereby saving 100% of their money from the garbage. Has anyone in the RIAA analyzed that fact? Furthermore, the RIAA's business model says that the consumer will pay that 75% becuase there is a 25% chance that they like the music on the disc. So rather than create a better product, the RIAA creates the (albiet unproven, fallous and inaccurate) claim that downloaders are doing something illegal and use the copyright vlioation wildcard to recoup their lost profits from the 75%. Who has noticed that at large CD retailers, they have kiosks that scan the barcode of the CD's and enable you to sample each track before you buy. How many times has a person put a CD BACK on the shelf after hearing 75% garbage? Doesn't anyone in the RIAA think that THAT has more to do with a loss in CD sales than downloaders. Not everyone downloads music. So the average non-downloading shmuck will go to say, Amazon.com or Fye.com, or to a kiosk, sample the CD and realize that it's garbage. They simply won't buy it. This sampling technology came about roughly the same time of the Mp3 boom. So it's no coincidence that because of the prominince of mp3 distribution, the RIAA, already with a failed business model, goes directly after their CUSTOMOERS, sueing them at nauseating amounts, in an attempt to recoup their lost profits due to the technology that enbles the consumer to make a wiser decison whether or not to purchase a CD. When it boils down to, is that the RIAA has been hussling each and every one of us for years under the idea that we purchased a CD at random, only with the marketing of the artist's name. Now since we can see what's in the box before we buy it, the RIAA gets the nuts to go after the consumer.
A few other ideas:
1. If the RIAA is REALLY concerned about copyright protection, don't you think they'd do more to nip the bud of the mp3 creation software industries. Come now, it shouldn't be THAT difficult to enable some sort of copy protection when you rip a CD. After all, Mp3's have to be created somewhere don't they? Why not go after the root of the tree, rather than the leaves? Are leaves more profitable than the roots?
2. How can one correlate any mp3 to being ripped from a CD. I could very well hook my stereo up to my pc, record the wave with a very good degree of quality, and then encode from there. If I distribute that track I got from the raido to say, everyone in the listening range of the station, am I doing something illegal. If so, then wouldn't the radio station be just as guilty as I am in distributing the track?
3. What about XM Satellite radio?
4. Has the RIAA acknowledged the fact that mp3 distribution gives an airtist greater publiciy and exposure, and that if they're good, would actually HELP their CD sales rather than hinder it. Besides, didn't 50-Cent start his career bootlegging his own music?
It's come to the point where law and capitalism has been meshed into a hodgepodge of litigation and mafia-like cartels.
I suggest that not only we take action to boycott the RIAA, but we completely shut them down. Let the artists speak for themselves. THis uproar exists because we actually LIKE their music..so the RIAA, knowing this should have taken advantage of filesharing nets when they had a chance and made some respectable profit from them. But instead, if you can't beat em, sue 'em.
If I ever get sued, I swear I will start a movement that will bankrupt the RIAA, and expose them for the cartel that they are. And then I will offer the court proceedings in mpeg format for distribution to 5 million users.
Power to the people.
|
|
iostreamh
|
Date: August 24, 2003 @ 4:08 PM
Message to the RIAA. Adapt or Die. Such is life. |
|
mtekk
|
Date: August 24, 2003 @ 4:19 PM
I'm not sure that they can take him to court for developing xmule, for that is a violation of free speech which is in the bill of rights, as long as he is a leagle us citizen.
RIAA: The time is drawing near where I will personally bring about you total distruction, with the help of over six million freinds in the United States alone, not to mention the rest of the world. Nothing you do will stop me, g^2 and g^3 will bring about your distruction. |
|
CodeWarrior
|
Date: August 24, 2003 @ 4:20 PM
This is OT, but since we have some great musicians on board, thought I would get some input. Was looking at a couple of elec. guitars, a BC Rich black, Bronze series (perhaps a Warlock) and an Ibanez RG 220 B (also black)...any thoughts on which one is better. I played both, and they are fairly close in sound.
Any input appreciated.
~code
Can get either one for about 200 |
|
Expose
|
Date: August 24, 2003 @ 4:34 PM
Gnutella? Um, I think BitTorrent will. The Matrix Reloaded released for fast download was on BT first. :nod: |
|
SonOfLiberty
|
Date: August 24, 2003 @ 4:46 PM
code... Responded in other post in re: to guitar ??. It was in the MIT post. |
|
nyer82
|
Date: August 24, 2003 @ 4:47 PM
Buymusic.com should be called, SublicenseMusic.com
You can't actually BUY music from most of these legal services.
Huh?? That doesn't make sense, you say. Actually although you pay 1.20 or 79 cents for each track, you aren't BUYING that track. Most services will only SUB-License that track to you. What does that mean? Well that means with Digital Rights Management (ie "The consumer has no rights" ) you can burn the music on CD maximum of 3 times, and if the Service decides to revoke your license, it can do so at ANY TIME, meaning if you stop service you probably lose your music.
Also, don't even think about transfering that song to a new PC. Why not?! BECAUSE IT WON'T WORK usually. The licenses they give out only work for 1 computer. Now lets see, how many songs are on a CD lets say 14. 14x $1.00 (this is probably the average you pay for a track), this comes out to 14 dollars. BUT YOU DIDN"T EVEN BUY THAT ALBUM. You are basically sub-leasing it. Each track is compressed so the quality is not even as good as a CD, and you don't have any artwork, liner sheets, or an authentic physical medium. What if your computer breaks, can you get back all your music you purchased? ABSOLUTELY NOT. And ya can't transfer it at all.
There is ONE notable exception to this. The I-tunes music store, even with a paltry selection and not so good prices, has NO digital rights management and lets you actually BUY your music.
PS....If you don't believe any of this, I'd like to point you to the LEGAL page on buymusic.com's website.
http://www.buymusic.com/support/legal.aspx
Use of Content Must Be Limited. Our artists work hard to create original music for you. Once a song is transformed into a digital format, it can easily be distributed across the Internet or other digital media. To ensure that music owners receive fair payment for their creations, and to keep prices low, BuyMusic must limit uses of Content to what is reasonably necessary for personal enjoyment. Read carefully the “Content Use Rules” immediately below to learn the specific uses of downloadable music (“Digital Downloads”) that are permitted.
Content Use Rules. All downloaded music, images, video, artwork, text, software and other copyrightable materials (“Content”) are sublicensed to End Users and not sold, notwithstanding use of the terms “sell,” “purchase,” “order,” or “buy” on the Site or this Agreement. Your Digital Download sublicense is nonexclusive, nontransferable, nonsublicensable, limited and for use only within the United States. End Users may play the Digital Downloads an unlimited number of times on the same registered personal computer (“Primary Computer”) to which the music is downloaded. Different Record Label Companies Permit Different Added Uses Of Their Digital Downloads. Information on the Site will state all of the following permitted additional uses, if any, of the Digital Downloads pertaining to a particular music song, partial album or album (“the Works”): (i) the number of allowable transfers from your Primary Computer to your other registered computers (“Secondary Computers”)(but without rights to further transfer or copy from those Secondary Computers), (ii) the number of transfers only from the Primary Computer to Portable Devices, (iii) the number of Compact Discs that may be “burned” only from the Primary Computer to make permanent copies in an uncompressed form conforming to the industry “Red Book” technical specifications to either “write once” blank recordable CD-R compact discs conforming to the industry standard “Orange Book Part II” technical specifications and/or blank “re-writable” CD-RW compact discs (collectively, “Metadata Information”). End User may only download, transfer, copy and use the Digital Downloads as stated in the particular song, partial album or album’s Metadata Information, which is hereby incorporated by reference. No other downloads, transfers, copies or uses of Digital Downloads are permitted. All other rights are reserved.
Metadata Information is displayed next to each song, partial album or album offered. To learn how many transfers to registered personal computers or Approved Electronic Devices are permitted, click on the computer or headset icons. To determine how many copies, or “CD-burns,” are permitted, click on the icon representing a CD-ROM. As a condition of purchasing a Digital Download, you represent to BuyMusic that you understand the limited uses associated with a particular song, partial album or album’s Metadata Information.
Prohibited Uses of Digital Downloads. You may not reverse engineer, decompile, dissassemble, modify or disable any copy protection or use limitation systems associated with the Works. You have a nontransferable, nonexclusive, nonsublicensable license to only use the Digital Downloads for personal use as specified in the above Content Use Rules. You may not play and then redigitize any Works, or upload those Works to the Internet. You may not create any “derivative works” by altering any of the Content. You may not use the Works in conjunction with any other third-party content (e.g, to provide sound for a film). You may not purchase more than one hundred (100) Digital Downloads from a particular label at one time. You may not exploit any such Content or for commercial purposes (including the sale of bundled Digital Downloads transferred onto Approved Electronic Devices). You may not transfer or distribute Digital Downloads except as stated in the Content Use Rules and as limited according to the individual works’ MetaData Information. Except as expressly stated as an authorized use under the Content Use Rules, no other uses are permitted. You further agree to indemnify and hold harmless BuyMusic for your failure to comply with this section. |
|
isp-privacy
|
Date: August 24, 2003 @ 5:02 PM
In other words you are buy nothing, but paying the same! |
|
IFeelFree
|
Date: August 24, 2003 @ 5:08 PM
Who the hell are these people who actually use these services? Are they total idiots? Why would anyone pay for something like that? You might as well go out and buy the CD. At least you could rip it, make backups, play it on different players, loan it to your friends, etc. And the cost is about the same. |
|
spooky1
|
Date: August 24, 2003 @ 5:13 PM
Here's an interesting article I stumbled across http://www.janisian.com/article-internet_debacle.html |
|
Justin42980
|
Date: August 24, 2003 @ 5:38 PM
probably off topic but i was watching mtv cribs and i must say i feel really sorry for these multi-millionaire artists.. gosh, i feel guilty downloading a few songs.... |
|
gilbd
|
Date: August 24, 2003 @ 5:43 PM
Here is a good one:
Movie companies blame instant messaging for box office flops
http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/7773
Remember if it doesn't come up take the brackets & br off the end of the address and then it will work. |
|
gilbd
|
Date: August 24, 2003 @ 5:46 PM
I say this is what P2P does for music. This way you don't waste your hard earned money on the RIAA junk. |
|
Justin42980
|
Date: August 24, 2003 @ 5:49 PM
FUCK THA RIAA....... FUCK YOU ROSEN... OLD FAT BITCH! |
|
napstersghost
|
Date: August 24, 2003 @ 5:50 PM
Does anyone know if Slugtone records is a RIAA member? |
|
iostreamh
|
Date: August 24, 2003 @ 6:09 PM
I wonder how much music the RIAA downloads for themselves?
All animals are created equal, but some animals are more equal than others. |
|
CodeWarrior
|
Date: August 24, 2003 @ 6:14 PM
SonOfLiberty
Thanks, I posted here in case no one went to the older thread. I really appreciated your input and heffie's, left a longer response there.
You're the greatest! :)
~code |
|
CodeWarrior
|
Date: August 24, 2003 @ 6:19 PM
nyer82 VERY GOOD POST! and really explains it well.
I have to agree (as usual :0) ) with IFeelFree...who spends their hard earned money on that? I miss the rowdy pre-DRM days when you bought an actual tape, and could do whatever you wanted with it...lol..wish I had a dollar for every minute I spent fishing miles of 8-track audio tape out of my car tape player..I think I could buy the RIAA with that money!
:)
~code |
|
OldSchoolHipHop
|
Date: August 24, 2003 @ 6:41 PM
if i ever meet somebody that agrees with the riaa and is happy they are suing innocent music fans i dont know what i would do to them, but it wont be pretty |
|
r0dr0ddy
|
Date: August 24, 2003 @ 11:41 PM
napstersghost- check the "who to boycott" link above this article, it has a list of RIAA labels.
When in doubt, go to www.magnetbox.com/riaa/ |
|
Urethra901
|
Date: August 25, 2003 @ 12:44 AM
Janis Ian's article (thanks spooky1!) is simply brilliant. Very well written and very uncompromising. She is speaking for basically 95% of all artists. Sen. Coleman needs to read it!!! |
|
independentm...
|
Date: August 25, 2003 @ 10:10 AM
Hello walls...
Crap, by the time I get done reading all the posts on each of these threads, everyone has already said what I was gonna say!
...hmm, that tells me something!
(We are groWING & GROWING!)
Let's KEEP IT UP!
Support Local and Independent Music!
(If you want a copy of my band's CD, just S.A.S.E. with a blank CD-R and e-mail me for the snail mail & info!)
Shmoo, of Electric Gypsy |
|
|
Navigation
