RIAA is getting smarter

-TonyBradley

Quote:

---

I may be wrong but I disagree. I have the right to what is beamed on the airwaves in my house.

---

That is an interesting point. So you are calling the airwaves public doamin then, correct? If this holds true to your comment. Then technicaly, If my neighbor "beams" their wireless info into my house. Me obtaining their info isn't wrong? Me using the logins and passwords that they sent into my house are mine to use as I please. So me "login into" their wireless network isn't wrong. I am just using something I "found in the air". You can sit in front of dillions listening to the radio and wardrive, you'd be surprised how many unencrypted transactions are done. For clarification purposes, IMO you can't say that one airwave is okay to intercept but then turn around and say another isn't acceptable. Not accusing you of this, but it seems as if there is alot of contridiction here.

The RIAA wants to stir up all kinds of ****, yet they still haven't even attempted to offer an alternate to these p2p. Something like itunes for example.

2 cents

Quote:

---

If this holds true to your comment. Then technicaly, If my neighbor "beams" their wireless info into my house. Me obtaining their info isn't wrong?

---

Actually, I am no lawyer, but what little I know about case law precedent in this area might support that theory. If someone challenged it in court it may work.

I am sure that it is against the spirit, if not the letter of the law, but frankly I think if my neighbor is ignorant enough to be beaming unencrypted, insecure wireless network traffic into my house that I *AM* entitled to it.

Its one thing for me to crack his password and actively try to gain access to his network, but if my neighbor basically delivers the network to me and I am just passively receiving airwaves in my house that would seem to be my business.

America is a litigious society. I don't favor frivilous lawsuits- or even very many of the "legitimate" lawsuits- but you might be able to additionally argue that the neighbor is infringing on you somehow by polluting your home with his radio waves.

Quote:

---

part of the reason you can legally record airwave radio (AM/FM) is because the radio wave technology was developed by the US gov't using taxpayers dollars. Then the rights to those frequencies were given to the US public making radio "free" for us to use... it's also the reason your local television is "free" too and they can't charge you for access to just those channels.

---

This is interesting. I will have to try and dig deeper into this. It makes some sense I suppose and would support the other stuff I think I've heard / read somewhere. It would also explain why its illegal for me to rent Terminator and copy it, but its OK for me to record it when its the ABC movie of the week.

Ok, does someone want to try and explain how this dinky little gadfly organisation known as the RIAA is going to "develop" this cosmonaught .MP3 file thats going to traverse your harddrive and start deleting files under the extension .mp3?

Are these guys smoking crack from a Pepsi can? It's like saying that you're going to develop this killer .jpg thats gonna wipe out all of your kiddie porn. Nice try, but it ain't gonna happen.

I'm telling you right now that it would be a global security night of the living dead if you can execute code under the guise of known registered extensions such as .mp3, .txt etc ...

Any programmer out there will laugh at this feeble attempt to scare people. "Oh my GOD, I might get wiped out from downloading Van Halen" ... pure fiction. The client P2P software will be the culprit if anything gets deleted, fooling the end user into thinking it's just a .mp3, end of story. The word will get out overnight as to which software deletes and which ones do not, and that will be the end of them.

Bottom line? Internet users are more aware and saavy than these RIAA dreamers, and will evade any and all measures to stop us.

-Tonybradley

Quote:

---

Its one thing for me to crack his password and actively try to gain access to his network, but if my neighbor basically delivers the network to me and I am just passively receiving airwaves in my house that would seem to be my business.

---

Interesting point, but. Now let's look at it this way. You record something from the radio station. Then make the effort to start up a program that will change it over to an *.mp3. Then you load it up onto your iPod. How is that any different than loading up a "cracker" and running it against the logins. Haven't you just taken something from the air, and used it to create something else. Both pieces of information are out there for whom ever knows how to access them. The only difference. One gives me admin rights, the other a cd.

So are they totally different or are they the same? I am still undecided on this topic. But ever curious of others views. Your opinions may not change mine. But are very valid for discussion.

I agree with tonybradley and disagree with dopey dude. If there is an encrypted connection then me cracking it is wrong but if they send it without any wep or any attempt to block it then it is ok for me to grab the signal. I put in an open AP for peole to get on it if they want to. So I think it is legal. If I didn't want people on it I would try to make it harder to get on it and if they did I would look at my logs. No worries you have a right to your opinion but in my opinion your opinion is wrong.

-gamernewbie

Point taken. I maybe wrong. But in this battle against the RIAA, I maybe wrong only because my pockets aren't as deep as theirs' are. The wireless example was only that, an example. I am starting to believe that people should be required to complete a class to own and operate a pc. Similar to that of gun saftey perhaps. Both require some common sense.

wouldnt connecting to an ip accross an state boundary be a federal crime even if riaa destibuted trojans wouldnt they open themselves to being able to be sued. and if you got get kazaa lite it blocks companys associated with the Riaa and Mpaa and so fourth with that p2p guardian and it updates the ip ranges and removes ip's from .dat files i thought the riaa was olny going after people who are hosting files not downloading them .......... well thats my 2 centz even tho it's probly wrong

Send it over to the 9th Circut here in California, they will not only allow the RIAA to release a virus-type file deleter, they will prob hire a couple script-kiddies to help write the batch process to install it, and then scan the computer(s).

*sigh*, when will it ever end............

right on about the court in cali.. they will pass anything..even if they did this they would have to make a law not letting us defend our computers.. they would be pissed if we killed it..
soom skript kiddie would probably chang it to attack all files then what.....


big mess uh

tech moves so fast that when the RIAA manages too shut down P2P downloaders will have some other way of stealing music. I don't agree with theft but at the same time I don't agree with the tactics used by the RIAA. mabey we all need to step back and look at the issue from both sides....so relax have a beer and see what comes next.

Since the topic is back up, heres my £0.02

A list of songs that the RIAA sues for can be obtained over here
- Thats just a mirror, if that one is down, the real site is over here

Theres a tut @ antionline (for those of you who werent here when this was posted) that teaches on avoiding RIAA. You can access it over here .

Theres a message board on the RIAA and stuff about there plans and avoiding them. It can be accessed over here .
I got the list of songs that the RIAA sues for over there.

i like the idea of anit RIAA t shirts lmao, ill have to talk to my friends about makin some of those