Can you get around the RIAA

The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) has now filed suets against 261 people, including a 12 year old girl, for P2P file sharing. Is there anyway to use sites like BearShare, Win MX, eMule, etc..., without fear of repercussions? Since I am a novice at all this, I see no way to log onto these type of sites without revealing your IP address. However, I'm sure there are people out there, all over that have already figured it out.

Another question I have is, how can they regulate the sharing of files that are done from another country, when the DEA can't even crack down on drug sales from out of US pharmacies?

I would appreciate any thoughts on the matter.
Thanks

http://www.kazaalite.tk/ Kazaalite has a list of RIAA (and other organizations that are out to get you) IP addresses which it blocks them from downloading from you. There was also a discussion about Earthstation 5 (http://www.earthstation5.com/chronicles.html) and how it was pretty good at blocking attempts to trace it.

Edit: It was talked about here: http://www.antionline.com/showthread...thstation+five

Oh good! So they wont have to sell off one of their houses and a BMW or two so they can live the same? Damned money grubbing bastards.

This is a site that is anti-RIAA, and gives you a way to see if you are on the list of people who have been subpeonaed and the best ways to avoid being subpeonaed. May not be fool-proof, but it's a good place to start.

Hello,

Nice link deb
How u know its anti-RIAA tho.i mean they could want u to go to that site put in yr Ip address and wow bamm.lol have the RIAA knockin at your door.anyhow im new to this site so just wondered how u know that site aint set up by the RIAA or whoever ??

Just let me point out that although music shareres don't consider themselves guilty (and in my opinion they aren't guilty of any crime), they have had an adverse effect on the Music Industry. Many labels are dropping their albums' list prices, some down from $20 to $12. It's a hefty drop, but it's supposed to regain control of sales, which if you're wondering have dropped 10 percent because of file sharing (http://news.com.com/2100-1027_3-996205.html)
so yeah.

Later,
Joe

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by LoZond
Hello,

Nice link deb
How u know its anti-RIAA tho.i mean they could want u to go to that site put in yr Ip address and wow bamm.lol have the RIAA knockin at your door.anyhow im new to this site so just wondered how u know that site aint set up by the RIAA or whoever ??

---

LoZond: The site she posted was the Electronic Frontier Foundation which is dedicated to "Defending Freedom in a Digital World" they are not RIAA owned.

They defend privacy and your rights in this digital world we live in...

oh ok
Sorry im new and didnt know what Electronic Frontier Foundation was..

Thanks CXG

I wonder if the RIAA has any concept that what their doing doesn't matter. Laws are made by people. Eventually the issue of file sharing is going to end up in the supreme court and the majority of justices are going to agree that they liked downloading their favorite country song. They will determine file sharing is legal, and then the RIAA is realy screwed. No matter what happens, file sharing will never stop, wether it is ethical or not.

And also, why would the RIAA be knocking on your door if you join an organization that was against it? Nothing illegal about that, you know.

Regards,
Joe

how to avoid the RIAA is easy just get dollars v1.0 and then connect to RECsTore - as long as you have high enough version of dollars you can get any albumn you please without fear of the RIAA :D

heh just messin round :P

v_Ln

OK......................just a few personal observations, as the "leagle eagles" would say:

WITHOUT PREJUDICE :p

I was once laid off/made redundant because of the downturn in the music industry due to piracy (there was NO internet in those days!) a very long time ago.

This piracy has continued ever since, and is no different from people borrowing vinyl and cassettes, (guess some folks will have to run a google search to find out what those are :D ) and copying them, as they did in my day?

Things haven't really changed. The marketplace and technology have and the entertainment industry has not?..........a lack of humility and too many supercharged egos in the same place? In a a way they have brought the problem on themselves IMHO.

That is why they are picking on 12 year old girls whose parents will probably not bother to fight it. This will cost the RIAA very little and create a legal precedent.

It would not be permitted in this country, as the girl is not of the "age of legal responsibility" over here, and probably not in many other European Community countries. The real problem is that the entertainment industry will not come to terms with the internet until it is forced to.

I would say that If I set up a server in a country that does not subscribe to US & Allied patent legislation (not political.......commercial alliances here), and people used an anymous proxy server to contact it and download; you might well have to re-write bits of the Constitution to allow the RIAA to continue in business (as in RIAA = R.I.P?) to the best of my knowledge, no legislation has preserved a single dinosaur?

Please do not misunderstand me, I am not condoning theft.............but the USA also has anti-trust legislation, and this stinks of monopolistic behaviour to me? A very few people in the entertainment industry make big money, most just make a living, if that.

I would warn that the persecution of 12 year old girls is not smiled upon in Europe.......it might be an idea NOT to open Pandora's box............this is not Iraq again?

Just a few personal observations

Cheers

File sharing may never stop, but no matter what you want to think, it is illegal. Noone here has the right to download copyrighted material no matter what excuse you give.

I wish more people would not use arguments such as the music industry are money grubbing bastards. That may be the case, but that doesnt make the downloaders/sharers right too.

MSN has a pretty good story about how the RIAA and how they pick people to sue.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/963684.asp?0dm=L25BT

Interesting point there Grinler.......................

Is the illegal bit DOWNLOADING or the UPLOADING...............over here I would say that it is the uploader who would get hammered?

Cheers

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by Deaflamb
IEventually the issue of file sharing is going to end up in the supreme court and the majority of justices are going to agree that they liked downloading their favorite country song.

---

lol nice man, I agree with you, it will eventualy go to the supreme court and you know that atleast one of them has a burned cd in there office or they will be listining to some nice classical stuff while they diliberate. Hopefully something will happen son and this **** will end. I for one am not going to stop downloading music just becuase some greedy ******* wants 47 million instead of just 46 mil for his lattest hit.

can u just spoof ur IP and then download and have it be a bogus IP?

at this time...the riaa is not interested in those who only download files. its those that share them so others can get them that there suing. so if you want to fire up kazaa you'll be safe from the riaa as long as your not sharning them. Of course this stratagy will not keep you safw from viruses and trojans so keep you AV up to date

Yes, but how is a P2P network going to work if no one is sharing files? :confused: The RIAA still wins that way. Which would probably be why they are going after people who share, not those who dl, if you stop the sharing out of fear, you stop the dl'ing too.

+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
Is there anyway to use sites like BearShare, Win MX, eMule, etc..., without fear of repercussions?
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=

his question was is how can he be safe. right now thats the only way. i dont want to go on about the riaa, the record ind. in general and file sharing. ive written volumes on it already on this site and i would quess most people are sick of hearing it by now. but to recap... the riaa is a monster, the recording industry as it is should die and most kazaa users are no better than script kiddies in that they couldn't get what they wanted without an easy to use gui interface and their giving the government all the more reason to put troops on the internet to police us all. because of p2p the riaa has obtained the right to monitor news groups, irc and ftp sites and yet nobody will stop buying the lastest ****ing music to hit them where it hurts which tells them they can do anything they want...so they do!

everyone should boycott buying music cds untill they stop harassing p2p file sharing, I buy cds also but still dl the same songs I just bought so I know if I like them, and it makes it easier to put them on my mp3 plaer and burn cds, but I still have a decent sized cd collection. EVERYONE BAND TOGETHER AND BOYCOTT BUYINGS CDS

Quote:

---

everyone should boycott buying music cds untill they stop harassing p2p file sharing

---

Well, one major CD producer has opted to lower CD prices to lure back people who use the web for MP3's. I think it's a good call, when I goto the mall some of the CD's for bands that I like are $26 sometimes.

Here's a link to that by the way...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2003Sep3.html

Hope you like the read.

--Peace :cool:

// Hey I just realized that I'm an official AO Member now. Heh, it's taken me a little over a year to get to there. Just wanted to thank everyone on the boards for making this a great experiance for me and continue to do so! :)

w00t :D

Can I get around the RIAA? Yeah.. well, first off, this 12 year old girl had 1,000 + music downloads on her computer. About 65% of the other people who had lawsuit's filed against them had even more than that. Now, I'm a music fan, but christ. My tip to avoid being called to court: Don't have as much music. Delete **** you don't listen to anymore, and try to keep your download rate to a minimum. More than likely, if you maintain low and keep low, in awhile this **** will blow over anyways.

I dont understand how they can sue a 12yr old girl. Sure the girl might be sharing and downloading but isnt there some protection for kids from being sued for $. They should have just warned the girl and informed the parents. Kids shouldnt be treated like adults yet. If it happens agiain after the warning, the maybe they are justified to sue the parents but not the kids. Whats the US becoming when a big corporation can sue a little kid for trying to enjoy music.

This really sucks. I hope that someone does something about it. Me, I'm gonna stop buying Cds and will try to convince everyone I know to stop too. I dont need to download mp3s, when there are so much more better things to do.

FYI XTC46 just to show you how successful something like this can be.there's been a boycott going on for at least a year and a half now. And although i doubt you'll ever hear it from the riaa im sure this has at least a little to do with their loss in profits.

Yeah Tedob, thas really true :-/ Anyways, what's up man? Long time no chat ;)

Here's my two cents. If you don't want to get in trouble, download what you want, burn the cd's, then delete the songs. If you want to put mp3s on a player, download off your cds, then delete them out of your computer after you make your list for the player. It takes more time, but were is the evidence if you deleted?

Freddy

I have 200 hous of music on my computer,some downloaded some that I copied to my computer my self because I treat my cd's wrong..........so I can have a back up..........How can these M*****F*****S tell what is what.........not to mention the fact that media player reformats all my music to windows format.....there's no way these lawsuits could possibly get anywhere.

Quote:

---

...some that I copied to my computer my self because I treat my cd's wrong...

---

Look on your CD/CD Case. See that fine print which merely mutters:
"No part of this work may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical... etc. etc." (may differ, but you get my point).

You just became an outlaw, me-thinks.

you are correct, unlike the majority of computer sofware you are not allowed to to make "back-ups" of your music. So unless you pay a legit site to dowload mp3s from you have broken copy right laws. god this law suit **** is soo much crap.

Nihil,

I agree its the uploaders who are going to get slammed the most here, but that doesnt make it legal to download. We are talking about copyrighted material here. Just like downloading commercial software or books is illegal, so is downloading music.

The uploaders will definitely be the ones they go after as they are spreading the material, while the downloaders generally just keep it on their machines. The RIAA is trying to stem the tide of the propogation of the copyrighted music.

In reference to the other posts,

As for the 12 year old girl and whether or not she has protection? Of course she does. She cant go to jail, she wont go to juvie for this, but her parents will get screwed. Trust me this is very smart of the RIAA. They go after a 12 year old kid, knowing that the parents will have to pay the fine and not the girl. Now all the parents around the world will come down on their kids for using P2P software for fear of them getting fined as well.

Trust me the RIAA is not stupid and has a strategy towards all of this.

It just drives me crazy how people,, including the EFF, are actually stating what the RIAA is doing is wrong. Cmon people, we all know downloading and sharing the music is illegal, lets start thinking about this a little more logically.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by Grinler
They go after a 12 year old kid, knowing that the parents will have to pay the fine and not the girl.

---

It appears a group has come to the rescue:

Quote:

---

P2P United, a peer-to-peer industry trade group that includes Grokster, StreamCast Networks, Limewire and other file-trading software companies, said Wednesday it had offered to reimburse Brianna Lahara and her mother's payment to the Recording Industry Association of America. Lahara's mother agreed Tuesday to settle copyright infringement charges on behalf of her daughter.

---

Now, while the group has offered to help in this case, (which IMHO is great) I don't think everyone should think this is going to happen.

Full story here.

Cheers:

there just being stupid and trying to get pub;icity a spot in the history books or osmething

Thanks Grinler,

Interesting to see the difference in our legal systems. We obviously have the same kind of attitude regarding copyright/intellectual property; but if you tried to sue the purchaser of pirated material when the vendor is in full view, you would get absolutely nowhere over here; you would have to go to the sites where this trading goes on............I presume that the 12 year old was not running her machine as a server.

The really interesting difference, though, is that the parents are NOT responsible for the actions of the child over here. If you own a dog, cattle, horses, sheep, goats etc. YOU ARE,
but cats and small children enjoy the full protection of our laws :D not only that, they have the equivalent of "diplomatic immunity"

This is just an example of what I consider to be a major problem on the internet, it crosses countries with very different laws ( or worse, very similar laws but quite different interpretations on how to apply them). I am pleased to see that the FBI and British police forces have had some good results in the area of child pornography, but success stories are unfortunately few and far between.

I do not condone piracy/theft or whatever you like to call it. We have a fundamental tenet of British commercial law "caveat emptor" which is Latin for "let the buyer beware".........so if you don't like the price, boycott the product (don't steal it)

Anyway, thanks for clearing that up :) I keep getting asked the question being that I am in IT, and our laws are so different regarding the actions of minors ( the news is just "breaking" over here). I now have a reasonable explanation.


Once again, many thanks

Well, we could all just buy punk rock records. :)

Most of them have there own labels, or they sign to other punk rock labels, the ones who have no part in this *cough* Misfits records *cough* I buy alot of punk rock albums, and you dont see people on these labels riding around in a BMW or something, driving home to a 30 million dollar house bitching about how they are losing money.

They are just lucky MY band isnt ready yet, this music industry is going to be destroyed and rebuilt.

Download the song "Dinosaurs will die" by NOFX. :)

that is a kick ass song by NOFX

Unfortunately many "indy" labels have been bought out and are actually owned by RIAA members, Epitaph/Hellcat being one of them(NOFX,Bad Religion,Pennywise,Rancid,etc http://www.totse.com/en/ego/can_you_...it/163460.html). Ironic isnt it? And downloading music is not stealing and it never has been. By the letter of the law its actually an "infringement" of a copyright, and is not considered criminal or theft. The record industry was originally established to distribute music which used to be a rather difficult task for a musician, today however it is not. Truly they are a dinosaur and are not really neccessary in a free market, if they arent distributing the music then what ARE they doing? Doing what everyone else does when trying to pass laws to protect a dying industry, they lobby and sue. Copyright laws were NEVER intended to be used this way, they were not made to subsidize private industry but to protect the AUTHORS and INDIVIDUALS. The orginal Article 17 was established to make sure that artists and other creators of copyrighted content were assured credit for their work (and to ensure someone else did not profit or plagarise their work which p2p is not doing) and to make sure libraries had the ability to distrubute,copy,and loan copyrighted works in the intrest of raising the common level of literacy(This has also been changed and now libraries cannot loan e-books without paying out the ass.). So I dont buy anyones bullshit about it being wrong. It may be illegal but the two are not always related. Just because the RIAA has twisted what was once a great idea into a monopolistic vortex and is now collapsing does not bother me in the slightest. As far as I'm concerned they can go **** themselves and if you had any sense you would too, because its your rightful access to information,books,music that are being taken away. So say hello to the RIAA and remember Big Brother is watching you.

-Maestr0

PS. I dont use any p2p and dont own any .mp3's, wake up everyone you're being screwed.

Oh yeah, Brett Guerowitz(sp?) of Epitaph owns about 40 ****ing cars he put them on the last track of Recipe for Hate reving the engines in some wierd ass track. Not that he didnt earn his money just thought you might find in humorous in light of the BMW post.

EDIT: I have found conflicting information as to whether Epitaph IS or IS NOT associated with RIAA, if anyone could find a definitive answer I'd be interested to know. Seeing as I do not purchase RIAA albums.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by [WebCarnage]


Look on your CD/CD Case. See that fine print which merely mutters:
"No part of this work may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical... etc. etc." (may differ, but you get my point).

You just became an outlaw, me-thinks.

---

Depends on how you interpret that. Under UK & EU law it is legal to take a copy of a music CD etc. that you own, as long as it is for your personal use. Otherwise WTF would be the point of portable MP3 players ??

Doesn't matter what it says on the case, as if the 'small print' is illegal, then it is invalid anyway. I get really pissed off by these 'copy protected' music CDs - I am legally allowed to copy it or play it on my PC, so if it doesn't work I can return it as being 'unfit for the purpose for which it was sold'.

All completely pointless anyway, as if I want to copy it I just connect up my hifi system to my sound card (analogue input), and rip it to MP3 format. There is no significant loss of quality, as MP3 is not up to the original CD quality.

Doesn't take a genius to work out that you can buy a copy protected CD, rip it, return it & get your money back. Not that I would condone that, of course.

OMG the RIAA should sue sony and phillips for making stand alone cdburners that are made specificly to create your own cd from other that you have, atleast then they would be picking on someone there own size.

Darkes has a good point, in Europe, and probably a lot of other countries, it IS legal to make a copy for your own use, so manufacturers of the equipment that does this are immune?

I feel that the RIAA "sabre rattling" will probably drive the activity "offshore" so to speak?

I am not quite sure as to the RIAA's actual stance here. In England, copyright infringement is "illegal" (a civil action), but copying and selling CDs (or anything else for that matter) is "unlawful" (a criminal action) I do not know what the position is regarding the swapping of music files between private individuals, where no money changes hands?

I think the basic distinction is that if you do it to make money out of it, it is unlawful, because that money should have gone to the owner of the patent or copyright; and the production of the product is actually "counterfeiting".

I think that in England we have the added complication of the "Performing Rights Society" which licences the playing of music in public places (juke boxes and the like). In the "small print" over here, it usually says "not for public performance"

I wonder if it would be "legal" to set up an MP3 site if one had a performing rights licence?

Just a few thoughts