RIAA is getting smarter

I read somewhere online that the RIAA is currently trying to get approval from the court system to release a program diguised as popular songs that will search your computer for mp3 files and delete them, I am trying to find the link again but am not succeeding, a friend showed me the artical. So when you download music becareful and look at the file sizes and pay closer attention to extensions of files. for some reason I have a feeling that they may have already released something liek this. Just a warrning. Im pretty sure they wont get approval because this is just as bad as a virus, but be careful.

Hmm, simply look at the file extension, and also, any program needs to be executed before it can do anything like delete files. Also, it would be silly for the RIAA to have the power to release a potential trojan/virus/worm to delete MP3 files. Then again, they sued a 12 year old kid and plan to use more, so they can care less.

silly indeed, just letting eople know to take precausion if they dont already, because tis one probably wont be detected by an antivirus if scanned.

Probably not. However, I would not be surprised for somebody to release something to detect it and delete the file. In fact, it would not be too tough to make something to detect and remove the file(s). However, it might not be such a bad idea NOT to share when the skillet is so damn hot.

I don't see how that can be true, mainly because not all mp3 files on a computer are "stolen" songs and of course they'd be in serious trouble when it deletes a legitimate mp3. I would like to see this article however, throw it at me if you find it :)

Quote:

---

that the RIAA is currently trying to get approval from the court system

---

if the court system approves this ..then the system is really fuc*d up and we have morons as heads of our system ....

Its possible, but not likely. The RIAA can not release such a piece of software officially, because it would surely be inviolation of the anti-hacking laws. Most likely (and this is just speculation) they would hire a 3rd party (most likely without any direct ties) to create and release the file suggested.

Aphorix: youve got a really good point, I'm sure independent bands would be jumping at the bit to sue the RIAA if the program killed off files on there server that were being shared up to help get a fan base established over the internet.

Drunk On Duvel: it is pretty rediculous that they sued a 12 yr old girl, and I'm sure its hurt their image in the public eye. I'm sure alot of people have the 'do not share my files with other users' box checked in kazaa lite and arent about to change it anytime soon.

quick thought; doesnt 'smarter' indicate they had smarts to begin with? :)

I agree totally I heard about the kid being sues. It's now up to the parents but the kid is like I didn't know this is illegal, what is illegal? I don't know. LOL. This whole thing is becoming a joke. I am with Charlie Daniels on this one. I watched a special on TechTv If you want to read an overview on it it is here. http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/030825/lam095_1.html. It is a sign of a new era when people are stupid and if they are not they make stupid decisions. By people I mean the people in power now.

Has anybody thought of starting a fund to fight these guys? I mean couldn't we sell an item, then pay these said fines. Like the two grand they settled with that 12 year old girl. Kind of like selling to Peter to pay Paul. An ultimate screw you.

How about anti-RIAA shirts?

Just a thought.

/edit fuxed tipoz

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by MemorY


if the court system approves this ..then the system is really fuc*d up and we have morons as heads of our system ....

---

I thought the heads of our legal system are morons, that is why they sue adolescents who really don't know any better. That will just make our young people grow up to hate society, and the system, eventually leading this country into civil unrest, and possibly a revolutionary/vigilantic order that the system will never be able to control.

They need to pull their heads out of their ass's and look towards our future, not line their pockets with childrens allowence money. This is just my personal opinion that I am sure they don't give a rats ass about.

Hi Guys & Gals,

Now I know that this is going to shock a lot of you, but apart from being a boring old fart, I also happen to be a very talented and sensitive artistic type, who writes music for a living.

I have about 1000 original creations ( all my own work) on my PC in MP3 format, but because I know absolutely nothing about PCs and security..........I have not backed them up.........but I have a great number of friends who know about them..........Government Ministers, Church Leaders, prominent lawers and the like.

Then these scum unleash something that wipes off all this work because my nine year old happens to surf the wrong place.

Hello RIAA............that is FIVE BILLION £GBP.................and I want all your executives fired NOW. :D So that they can serve their time.

I am as paranoid as most.............I think that the RIAA are cunning...............not stupid?

I love a good conspiracy theory like we all do :) This one does not really hold up. Anyway, they are trying to entrap, rather than eliminate at this stage?

Just a few thoughts..............get composing folks

Cheers

Here's an old article on exactly what you're talking about. This was of May though. I wonder what (if anything), the RIAA has planned for the future.

Quote:

---

A more malicious program, dubbed "freeze," locks up a computer system for a certain duration — minutes or possibly even hours — risking the loss of data that was unsaved if the computer is restarted. It also displays a warning about downloading pirated music. Another program under development, called "silence," scans a computer's hard drive for pirated music files and attempts to delete them. One of the executives briefed on the silence program said that it did not work properly and was being reworked because it was deleting legitimate music files, too

---

Full Article Here

http://www.eff.org/

An excellent way to see if you've made the RIAA future suit list. Make sure all user names are submitted. Also a very informative site.

Quote:

---

Has anybody thought of starting a fund to fight these guys? I mean couldn't we sell an item, then pay these said fines. Like the two grand they settled with that 12 year old girl. Kind of like selling to Peter to pay Paul. An ultimate screw you.

---

Great idea- but the peer-to-peer industry beat you to it. P2P United, composed of Grokster, Morpheus' parent company and others stepped in to pay the $2000 fine for the girl.

She claimed to believe that it was legal because she paid for the Kazaa Plus client or something like that if I understand correctly. In other words, she knew it was illegal in and of itself, but was somehow under the impression that because she paid money it made it legal.

There is a blog entry on my site with links to the article about the 12-year old girl as well as the article about the P2P industry paying the fine. There is also some stuff about how the RIAA is playing the child porn trump card. Basically, they can't get congress or the people to agree that P2P is evil for sharing MP3's, so they have started pushing information about how P2P is a major source of child porn to try and play on sympathies and anger about that to get people on their side against the P2P world. Here is a link to the blog entry: RIAA Using Every Trick Possible

I hate to sound like a pesimist, but can the p2p community actually win agianst the RIAA? I mean yes there are some companies backing the movement, but are they enough when compared financially to the RIAA? It doesnt appear that much of anything has managed to slow down, or even stop the RIAA in their pursuit of filesharers and p2p in general. As someone I was talking to on IRC said, its the great filesharing war of 2003, and it looks like both sides have dug themselves in for a long haul.

Does anyone here have some good sources of financial info about the P2P United group and the RIAA for a comparison of them?

Quote:

---

if the court system approves this ..then the system is really fuc*d up and we have morons as heads of our system ....

---

i thought this was a given but someone , in another thread, please give them credit for it if you remember it , said we need to take them (riaa) and the way to do that is to stop buying music that supports them, let their funds dry up and let them fade way AND LETS HAVE A SYSTEM THAT REWARDS THE MUSICIANS WE LISTEN TO. until then there is p2p but we need to do everything we can to encourage musicians to produce, not the parasites that feed off them

I owuld recommend ROXIO GoBACK, if you double click on a song and it does nothing, then you notice that your music is gone, i would just do a goback to before the execution of that song.

I have done this already. There are some CD's I want because I love the songs- but I refuse to buy them. I also refuse to stoop to obtaining them illegally through P2P. That is not how I choose to make my statement.

As much as I don't support the RIAA or their tactics, it doesn't make illegal file sharing legal and I don't want to go there.

You can record songs off the radio if you want a copy to play over and over. There is also a way to capture streaming audio (i.e. "Internet radio") and save it as MP3 as well. So, there are alternative means to buying the CD AND to "stealing" the songs using P2P.

Quote:

---

How about anti-RIAA shirts?

---

Already got them

http://www.boycott-riaa.com/membership.php
:cool:

http://www.cafeshops.com/cp/store.aspx?s=boycottriaa

rcgreen - Thanks alot, was just curious. But are these sites actually using the proceeds to fight them, or are they going to line their pockets? I looked around, couldn't determine this for myself. Perhaps somebody else knows.

Thanks again

dopeydadwarf > im not sure about the boycott the riaa sales, but im pretty sure donating to the EFF goes to help out against the RIAA, or at least some good cause. If thats the route you want to take for contributing, hit up https://secure.eff.org for more info.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by tonybradley
You can record songs off the radio if you want a copy to play over and over. There is also a way to capture streaming audio (i.e. "Internet radio") and save it as MP3 as well. So, there are alternative means to buying the CD AND to "stealing" the songs using P2P.

---

So instead of "stealing" the song using P2P, you steal it from the radio (internet or otherwise). Newsflash, regardless of how you are obtaining it, you are stealing a song that you don't have legal permission to possess. There's absolutely no difference, other than the way in which you obtain the illegal copy. It's like people I know who tell me I shouldn't download movies, and then they go and rent the movie and make a copy of it. It's still illegal and to the same degree.

Quote:

---

So instead of "stealing" the song using P2P, you steal it from the radio (internet or otherwise). Newsflash, regardless of how you are obtaining it, you are stealing a song that you don't have legal permission to possess

---

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

Law enforcement tried to argue that radar detectors should be illegal and lost based on the fact that if you beam radar waves into my car they are in "air space" and I have a right to detect them if I so choose.

I would be curious to see an actual court case or legal precedent stating that its illegal to tape or record what you hear on the radio.

I do completely agree that both downloading movies and copying rentals are equally illegal- just as downloading songs or copying the CD from a friend are both illegal. But, I believe it is legal for me to record radio broadcasts.

<EDIT>

I did some research and found this:

Quote:

---

In 1998, Congress answered "Yes." A webcaster owes both. How much is owed to the record companies? Whatever they want to charge, if they want to allow the webcast at all. Unless, of course, a webcaster qualifies for a compulsory license by—and this is in the law—transmitting during any given three-hour period no more than any of (1) three different selections of sound recordings from any one CD, if no more than two such selections are transmitted consecutively, and (2) four different selections of sound recordings by the same featured recording artist or from any set or compilation of CDs distributed together, if no more than three such selections are transmitted consecutively. Got that? Oh, and the webcaster must take care not to preannounce what songs are about to be played. Hew to all these rules, and you still pay—it's just that the rate, rather than being set by the record company, is set under the law by a three-judge arbitration panel after taking weeks of testimony, as long as the panel is not overruled (as really happened) by a subsequent act of Congress setting entirely different rates.

Source: The Copyright Cage

---

I remember some of this. It seems to me based on this that the webcaster or streaming audio provider is already paying the artist and / or record company for the right to broadcast. I don't have to pay the artist and / or record company in additions- the song was already paid for.

At least that is how I interpret this and the other research I can find regarding recording broadcast music / movies.

</EDIT>

Just a note about the radar detectors; they arent illegal federally, but they ARE illegal according to some state laws depending on which state you are in. Alot of truckers get caught with them because they pass through states so often that they cant keep up with the individual state's laws.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by tonybradley


I remember some of this. It seems to me based on this that the webcaster or streaming audio provider is already paying the artist and / or record company for the right to broadcast. I don't have to pay the artist and / or record company in additions- the song was already paid for.

At least that is how I interpret this and the other research I can find regarding recording broadcast music / movies.

---

By that reasoning, the CD that was originally ripped was paid for, so someone has paid for the rights to that music, and they're just broadcasting it to other people. The song was paid for once. The broadcasting company (whoever they may be) is paying for the right to broadcast the signal, no one is paying for the right for you to steal the signal. Having a Pirated Satelite dish is still theft, you are stealing a signal that is being sent to your home. Same difference. I'm not saying I'm against any of this, i'm just saying it's the same thing, regardless of how you obtain the stuff, you are obtaining an item that it is illegal for you to possess. If recording off a streaming webcast is legal, then so is downloading the music. Show me a difference between the two. Data comes into your computer, the data is assembled into an audio file. Same concept in either instance.

Quote:

---

regardless of how you are obtaining it, you are stealing a song that you don't have legal permission to possess.

---

If they sing out loud, and it comes in to my ears, they can no longer
take it back, unless they remove my brain.

If they don't want people to make recordings of their songs, they should
STFU and get a real job.
:cool:

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by rcgreen


If they sing out loud, and it comes in to my ears, they can no longer
take it back, unless they remove my brain.

If they don't want people to make recordings of their songs, they should
STFU and get a real job.
:cool:

---

I agree 100%. I'm just playing Devil's Advocate on this because I can :) My Mp3/Movie collection is prolly 10x bigger than anyone they've arrested so far, and i'll keep sharing. To hell with them. Ahh the joys of not being American :) heh.

Quote:

---

If recording off a streaming webcast is legal, then so is downloading the music. Show me a difference between the two.

---

I don't know that I CAN show you the difference, but it doesn't matter if there is a difference TECHNICALLY. It matters if there is a difference LEGALLY.

If I, or anyone else, can find something saying that it is illegal for me to possess a copy of a song that I recorded off of the radio- I will stop doing it. Regardless of the semantics, I honestly believe that it is not against any law on the books to record a song off the radio.

Again, I may be wrong and I am doing my homework to prove it one way or the other. I am certainly open to being corrected if someone can point me to a reference or case law precedent stating otherwise.

I don't know the background behind this but this is on the Legal Notice @ http://dcmusic.iwarp.com/legalnotice.html

Quote:

---

It is NOT legal to record any part of this webcast. Doing so violates the broadcaster's rights, the artists rights, and quite possibly may be an issue with live365.com. As for content not realated to music, such as live talk shows later on, I do not care if they are copied. I would request that if they are played or stored elsewhere, that proper credit in the form of a plug or link be given.

---

Cant speak for American radio, but at least one radio show, (Steve Wrights on radio 2) States quite clearly at the end of each show. "are material is copywright"

I believe that it is technicaly elligal to tape radio copy cds etc. Its just nearly impossible to enforce the law in these situations.

really whos going to catch you ripping an internet radio station? even if you are listening to it you still have to download it to hear it, just dont share it and you will be fine. IMHO

Just leave it to the RIAA to do something like this. I swear they have it all wrong. They should endorse file sharing by all means. Artists dont make money by cd sales they make more money by shows. Being an avid music fan and having attended many many shows in my lifespan, which isnt that long to begin with, I support the artists by being at the show and having a great freakin time. If they forget about profits for half a second and think at what music is supposed to be doing, bringing people together, then they might actually be something good.

Alright take it ease

I have often made the Radio argument in defence to P2P. But if you think about it, just copying the music via radio (in my case digital cable) isn't really the issue. If you rebroadcast it or burn a cd and give it to someone else, you can argue that you are breaking the law. Even if you give it away for free. Unfortunately, as people are arrested and punished, less music will be available to sample on P2P until another means to distribute it come available. The RIAA will lose because someone will always be motivated to circumvent their efforts and negative PR on the organization is continuing to gain a foot hold. OMG, I can't even imagine how much they are spending on this campaign. Just the term RIAA makes me angry because I see them as a threat to continued privacy on the internet.

Oh BTW, a VCR tape makes an excellent audio tool. Even on SLP the audio is GREAT. 6-8 hours of audio for pennies. Even on low grade media. They make great party tapes.

Quote:

---

Oh BTW, a VCR tape makes an excellent audio tool. Even on SLP the audio is GREAT. 6-8 hours of audio for pennies. Even on low grade media. They make great party tapes.

---

That's funny. I haven't done that in awhile now that I have 80Gb hard drives, CD and DVD recorders and such- but I used to use video tapes to record audio only for that reason.

I also used them to record non-music audio tapes like Zig Ziglar or Jim Rohn. I would buy these audio cassette series that had like 10 or 12 tapes in them. Rather than having to flip the tape or remove and replace the tape constantly I would copy the whole series to a video tape so I could play it straight through.

There is a related paper on secfocus about this type of work by the riaa. I'll see if I can find the link and post it up.

Found it - http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/160

ok I'm going to have to go do some research on this, but I vaugely remember 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.

Anyway, part of the Fair Use Act covers radio waves (if I am remembering correctly) which lays it out that it is completely legal for us to record off of a radio wave. Now that may be changing a bit with the advent of IBOC and "digital" radio as they are no longer broadcasting on the AM/FM waves that are owned by the public.

I think I would kill someone if I just downloaded a few hundred songs at $0.99 a peice, downloaded one song for free and had that one song delete all of the others.

What i'm worried about is what if it doesn't stop here, what if they try to stop everything going on on the internet that they don't want. Call me stupid, but i think you should be able to do whatever you want on the internet(except for like stealing credit card numbers and stalking an such).

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by a_person
Call me stupid, but i think you should be able to do whatever you want on the internet(except for like stealing credit card numbers and stalking an such).

---

I shall be the first to call you stupid. My own opinion against you. I think that is the worse most ignorant way to go about things. except for cc #'s and stalking huh? What about kiddie porn, hacking into something that isn't yours, I mean there is a big list of not only unethical things that you can do but also illegal. Yes something should be done what the RIAA is doing might be extreme but you can't say that everything on the internet is ok. Well you can say it but it holds no water.