Printable View
I seem to be writing a lot lately... I figure if a lot of people ask about something, it's worth writing about. Here's an awareness article on P2P and the RIAA. It doesn't really take a pro/con approach towards the IP argument but instead looks at what's currently possible (and being done). Interesting for me, since it quickly touches honeypot theory (just a lil' ;))
Anatomy of a RIAA Investigation
Question for you Soda....
How effective then is:Peerguardian
it used to be Methlabs at one time (now phoenixlabs )Quote:
PeerGuardian for Windows 2000/XP/2003 v2.0 Beta 6b
PeerGuardian is a tiny IP blocker program especially designed for P2P software users, but also to anyone who is concerned about the investigations that corporations and authorities perform on the internet. PeerGurdian blocks connections for the configured IP ranges and logs the blocked connections. It uses blocklists for the blocking, but IP ranges can also be configured manually. Pre-cofigured for blocking are RIAA, MPAA and many others.
Is it a reliable blocker for protection from those that use P2P to search out allegedly pirated material....I have used it out of curiousity ;) and when I check the logs, the majority of those it blocked are Universities and college's as well as a lot of National Defence sites and of course RIAA and Sony....
Reading that article, ive realized that only dumb people can be caught by RIAA... Who nowadays (with at least IQ 50) leave the option to anyone browse his shared files?
I thought that RIAA has more sofisticated tools to browse p2p networks....
All the RIAA needs to do is get some Comcast bandwidth.Quote:
It uses blocklists for the blocking, but IP ranges can also be configured manually. Pre-cofigured for blocking are RIAA, MPAA and many others.
I'm sure they've had some third party build them clients to make things a little easier, perhaps to automate the process a bit... but they're still following protocol and the official clients will do the job without being fancy.Quote:
I thought that RIAA has more sofisticated tools to browse p2p networks....
If this occured could you not argue that by putting the music on a file sharing network the RIAA were authorising you to download it as they are the body who seems to have authority to do that?Quote:
The RIAA can host music as well. It is entirely possible to download a song from a RIAA agent in a P2P network.
I liked the read, Soda. I always wondered what happened with an RIAA investigation. One question, is the BSA and MPAA similar?Quote:
Originally posted here by Soda_Popinsky
I seem to be writing a lot lately... I figure if a lot of people ask about something, it's worth writing about. Here's an awareness article on P2P and the RIAA. It doesn't really take a pro/con approach towards the IP argument but instead looks at what's currently possible (and being done). Interesting for me, since it quickly touches honeypot theory (just a lil' ;))
Anatomy of a RIAA Investigation
A little bit off topic,
http://www.channelregister.co.uk/200...botnet_attack/
The register has this to contribute today. Now we all have our green light to download Disney movies and Mr. Bean. Just download and keep the trojan around, if the MPAA comes knockin at your door, just infect yourself with the virus and blame the Middle east!
Qwertyman brings up a good point as well. I never understood thier whole honeypot idea, if they are participating then they are approving of it. I can't sell someone drugs to have them arrested for it. The police can (which I don't agree with) but as non government employees thats a big no no.
But arin.net doesn't give any personal information, it gives information about the owner of the IP (your ISP) not the user of it. Like your address for example tells you were you live not who's living in it. Would the RIAA call the ISP and ask them for information about the user and will it be legal to give out such information so easily because if that's the case, someone can easily social engineer an ISP worker to give them the users address.
Apparently so....Quote:
Originally posted here by Raion
But arin.net doesn't give any personal information, it gives information about the owner of the IP (your ISP) not the user of it. Like your address for example tells you were you live not who's living in it. Would the RIAA call the ISP and ask them for information about the user and will it be legal to give out such information so easily because if that's the case, someone can easily social engineer an ISP worker to give them the users address.
SourceQuote:
Should Your ISP Be Forced to Reveal Your Name and Address to Anyone?
The Issue: The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) has a provision for providing "expedited subpoenas" to force ISPs to provide sensitive private information about their users, without a judge's signature.
History: When a user "surfs" the internet, they do so from a computer which is assigned an IP address. That IP address is used by other computers when transferring data to and from the user's computers. Each IP address is unique, though an ISP can "dynamically" assign IP addresses, so that the same IP addresses may be used by different users at different times.
An IP address can be used to determine where a specific internet server is located, by searching the records of an ISP to see what users they assigned a particular IP address to at any specific point in time.
ISPs, however, generally keep their user lists private, so such information is generally not publicly available.
It's also useful to note that in many cases it's easy for non-registered users to access intranets that have internet access, and use someone else's IP address without their knowledge. This is made very easy by insecure "WiFi" networks.
In 1998, Congress passed the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which among other things allowed for an "expedited subpoena process" which can compel an ISP to divulge private information regarding users without a judge's signature (as would be required in a normal search warrant). In 2003, a U.S. Appeals court upheld the subpoena process and the RIAA has been aggressively using this process to force ISPs to reveal sensitive private information regarding it's users.
The Case In Favor of Privacy Invasions: The main proponent to the subpoenas is the RIAA, who claims that P2P networks such as Napster deprive them of revenue, and that therefore they should have free access to search and seize records relating to users without a warrant.
The Case Against Privacy Invasions: Privacy advocates point out that the access to personal user records is now far too easy, and will lead to abuse.
ISPs oppose the subpoena process as it has now placed an enormous burden on them for maintaining and providing records of when such and such a user was logged on a particular IP address.
Further, email addresses and IP addresses are the main way the RIAA is attempting to identify users - since email and IP addresses are easily forged and/or use without the owner's knowledge (particularly though WiFi networks), there is a very serious potential for innocent users to be slammed by these RIAA privacy invasions.
Current Status: The Digital Millennium Copyright Act passed into law in October of 1998. A recent appeals court upheld a portion that allows private corporations (such as the RIAA) to obtain subpoenas that require Internet Service Providers with the names of their users. These subpoenas do not require the signature of a judge. As of this writing (Sept. 2003) the RIAA has targeted roughly 1,600 people with these subpoenas.
The RIAA is now attempting to get users to admit guilt in their "amnesty" program, however such an admission of guilt will likely open people up for civil and possibly criminal liability to entities other than the RIAA.
ISP PacBell/SBDC has refused to honor subpoenas. Verizon is suing to stop the subpoena process, though they have been complying along with several other ISPs, resulting in over 261 lawsuits against users, including a 12 year old girl.
For the Defence:
SourceQuote:
Defending The Constitutional Rights of Internet Users and ISPs
This site is a resource for individuals seeking information on how to defend themselves if their identity has been subpoenaed by a private third party seeking to enforce their copyrights on the Internet. It includes resources for those who have been sued or have received threat letters from the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and other copyright holders.
The piracy of copyrighted material is illegal and should not be condoned. But the desire to protect copyrighted works must be balanced with the need to protect the constitutional rights of consumers, both in terms of protecting their privacy and personal safety and by invoking due process under the law.
A federal appeals court has overturned a lower court ruling that required Verizon Online to reveal the identities of subscribers suspected of illegally exchanging copyrighted songs over the Internet. The RIAA appealed that decision to the US Supreme Court, which elected to let the lower court ruling stand.
The appeals court ruling, made Dec. 19 of 2003, means that instead of serving "form" subpoenas on Internet service providers (ISPs), the recording industry must now seek identities by filing civil lawsuits against "John Doe" defendants, based on their Internet addresses, then work under the supervision of a court to learn their names.
The recording industry had been using an unusual subpoena to force ISPs to identify subscribers: a one-page form filed with a court clerk with no judicial oversight. The recording industry claimed the form subpoena was allowed under the federal Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia said under provisions of the copyright law, only materials hosted by an ISP (such as information stored on Verizon Online's servers) can be subpoenaed using the form subpoena process. The court said the provision does not apply to instances in which the ISP merely acts as a conduit for peer-to-peer exchanges, such as e-mail and instant messages.
The appeals court said its decision did not reflect disregard for the rights of copyright holders, but that "it is not the province of the courts . . . to rewrite [copyright law] in order to make it fit a new and unforeseen Internet architecture."
The court's ruling did not address the legality of hundreds of lawsuits already filed by RIAA against individuals accused of exchanging copyrighted songs over the Internet.
The RIAA appealed that decision to the US Supreme Court in 2004, but the high court elected to let the lower court ruling stand.
In October of 2004, the RIAA asked a Pennsylvania district court to issue subpoenas to ISPs for the names and addresses of people they suspect of infringement. The court ruled that the ISPs must first send their customers detailed notices about the subpoenas, including information about how the accused suspects can contest the subpoenas.
The process by which the customers can contest the subpoenas is called a "motion to quash," and the Electronic Frontier Foundation has created a special web page for attorneys in these cases with information on how to file a motion to quash.
Report any abuse or misuse!
If someone is seeking your name without a reasonable claim of copyright infringement, that's an abuse: For example, if someone is using the subpoena to harass or defraud; if they've matched filenames, but not their content; if you weren't using the IP address listed (because of a typo or other error, such as because someone else was using a wireless network). Even if you did have copyrighted material on your computer, you might have a lawful right of fair use.
All the recording industries efforts are automated, using third party contractors. Look up Bay TSP, there are others.